Community Trust in Natural Resource Agencies: Case Studies from Illinois

Introduction Reports of declining trust in the government are a growing concern. Two longitudinal studies have found that the American public’s overall trust in government started to decline almost 40 years ago (Hart & Teeter, 1999; Putnam, 2000). Hart and Teeter’s (1999) nationwide public opinion survey for the Council for Excellence in Government found that 75 percent of the American public in 1964 trusted the government “just about always or most of the time. ” By 1999, this percentage had plummeted to a mere 29 percent. In Bowling Alone, Putnam (2000) detailed a multitude of evidence – from declining bowling league participation to voting trends – to show that connections between people and levels of trust have declined from historical levels. Rahn and Rudolph (2002) listed numerous governmental benefits associated with having high levels of public trust such as the ability to implement flexible policies, compliance with government demands (tax paying, military service, etc.), and encouragement of positive beliefs about government activities. They also speculated that trust in government may be related to an individual’s amount of interpersonal trust and quality of life. There are an equal number of indications that trust is becoming a major issue in the natural resource management field. Researchers have concluded, with much support, that, “Many citizens do not trust natural resource agencies and therefore do not support their decisions or the way those decisions are made” (Shindler, Brunson, & Stankey, 2002, p.16). For example, Bengston and Fan (1999) conducted a content analysis of media accounts of the U. S. Forest Service in major newspapers and found that 40 percent of media reports had negative assessments of the U.S. Forest Service’s stewardship and ethics. They concluded that trust in the Forest Service showed opportunities for improvement. Another national survey of public opinion found that only 57 percent of respondents expressed confidence in the Forest Service to contribute to good forest management decisions (Hammond, 1994). White (2001) reported that critics referred to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as, “Damn Near Russia,” in reference to centralized, inflexible decisions and decision-making processes. Some experts believe that the current condition of trust in natural resource agencies is an “outgrowth” of public opinion toward federal government in general (Wondelleck & Yaffee, 2000). Public distrust, especially local community distrust, can have severe implications for the quality and durability of natural resource policy decisions. The public has many options for influencing policy outcomes beyond using traditional public involvement processes. Agencies are mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to use public scoping sessions and meetings as part of developing environmental impact assessments. The alternative options available to citizens include filing lawsuits, lobbying politicians, using the media, or using ballot initiative processes available in some states (Shindler, Brunson, & Stankey, 2002). It is extremely difficult to plan and implement management policies with opposition from the public. Understanding the role of trust, including how to develop trusting relationships, is critical to the successful management of natural resources.