This case study provides a look across the border, into Canada. The authors examine the trust in a community-agency relationship between an agency of the Canadian government (CFIA), and the community around a fresh infestations of EAB in Ontario, Canada. The agency provide a rapid response to the pest by cutting down all ash trees within a barrier zone 10km wide and 30km long (seen as the checkered pattern in Figure 1. below). Most of the removed trees resided on private property.
Image from "Particpation Under Time Constraints: Landowner Perceptions of Rapid Response to Emerald Ash Borer," published in Society & Natural Resources, page 1015.
In cases like these, three things prevent participation from communities: The speed at which the government needs to react to prevent the spread (the "rapid response"), the lack of knowledge about the particular bug, and the length of time it takes to plan and create community-oriented participation programming.
The authors write that the government should proceed with the participation of the public as much as possible. They state the following: "Generally speaking, citizens should be direct participants, as equals in face-to-face discussions with decision makers throughout the process and in advance of any actions" (1014). Some may disagree with this claim because they value the response of the agency over the participation of the group. They write the case study to "contribute insights that will reduce the social impact of future rapid response programs" (1014).
The study begins with a review of social articles on trust. This shows how a form of government might better gain the trust of the communities. They can do so by getting people
to participate (1013). Then the background of EAB is given.
The authors explain how many citizens thought the government acted too slowly. They formed a coalition and pleaded for the government to cut down trees immediately. But when the government started removing trees, private landowners got ticked (1016). Crews were held up, equipment was damaged, and there was a strong landowner vs. government struggle.
The study consists of interviews with people in the barrier zone. The authors took a snowball sampling of people they found interviewed in the newspapers. They conducted 17 face-to-face interviews lasting one hour each. The interviews were transcribed and recorded, then coded.
In this article the authors cite from government sources, such as the Canadian government website and the USDA; newspapers, such as the London Free Press and Guelph Mercury; science journals, such as Journal of Forestry and Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics. I'm glad they did, because I kept thinking I could never cite all technical writing journals for my research. But I kept wondering, would it make sense for me to cite all these different genres in my thesis?
The case study revealed many unhappy homeowners. Some cited a lack of institutional trust (1017), some cited doubts about the science behind the barrier zone (1017), and some citied concerns about the public consultation process (1018). To conclude, the authors provide some quick active response protocols for public engagement.
I'm very happy to have found this article. While it's short length prevents too much context for the problem, the idea of challenging the
This is my breakthrough article. I can do something like this!
No comments:
Post a Comment