Rethinking Public Participation in Forest Policies: A Literature Review of Participatory Techniques

Abstract

Recently, the concept of participatory democracy developed in the early 1970s has come back into fashion to revitalize the public involvement in political decision-making processes. Public participation in forest policy has been fully conceptualized by the scientific community in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but in many contexts, the practical application remains unfulfilled. The aim of this study is to identify and analyse the participatory techniques used in the literature to increase knowledge and facilitate its transferability into forest policies and strategies. A literature review was carried out to offer an overview of the participatory techniques adopted in the decision-making process. At the end of the literature review, 24 participatory techniques were identified based on over 2000 publications. Afterwards, the participatory techniques were assessed using seven indicators (degree of participation, type and number of participants, type of selection, time scale, cost, and potential influence on policy). The results showed that the type of actors involved in the participatory technique is a key variable for the complexity and usefulness of the process, while the number of participants influences how information is disseminated. The Correspondence Analysis highlighted that the participatory techniques can be divided into four groups: the first group includes those techniques with a high degree of participation (i.e., collaborate) and a contextual high potential influence on policies (e.g., citizens’ juries and wisdom council); the second one includes techniques with a low degree of participation (inform) and influence on policies (e.g., social media, adverting, surveys, and polls); while the third and fourth groups consist of those with a medium–high degree of participation (consult or involve), but a variable type of selection and number of participants, and consequently of time and costs.

1. Introduction

In the early 1970s, the concept of participatory democracy spread in the Western world as an alternative to representative (or elitist) democracy in order to involve citizens in the political decision-making process [1]. Participatory democracy can be defined as a form of representative democracy, wherein citizens are actively participating in decision-making processes to define the agenda-setting together with policy makers [2]. The conceptualization of the participatory democracy has identified citizens as key actors in the political process and participation as modus operandi [3]. However, participatory democracy has often been implemented through a top-down approach to include citizen input into policy decisions from a practical point of view [4]. This approach allows policy makers to decide the level of involvement of citizens and other stakeholders controlling the decision-making process. Alternatively, self-mobilization through social movements or citizens’ committees follows a bottom-up approach closer to the ideal of participatory democracy in which power is in the hands of citizens [5]. Between these two extremes, different forms and levels of citizen involvement in political decision-making processes have emerged in the international literature from the 1970s of the last century to today. The first publication on participatory democracy in the forest sector—published in 1990—discussed the reasons behind participatory democracy and outlines the criteria for evaluating public participation in forest management in United States [6]. Afterwards, a proper line of research was developed on public participation in forest planning, management, and policy to define the key principles to support policy makers [7,8,9,10]. In the forest sector, the first impulse to public participation in decision-making processes occurred in many National Forest Programmes (NFPs) thanks to the principles established during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 [11,12]. The UNCED encouraged a broad-based bottom-up approach in the management of natural resources, thus placing public participation fully on the global political agenda [13]. In this sense, the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), taking up the UNCED principles, recommended to develop NFPs through a participatory process [14]. From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, many NFPs have been developed based on key principles such as partnership and participatory mechanisms to involve interested parties; the empowerment of regional and local government structures; and recognition and respect for customary and traditional rights of indigenous people and local communities [15,16]. These key principles refer to those of participatory democracy applied to the forestry sector. Similarly, the Ministerial Conferences on Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) asserted that… “develop the conditions for the participation of relevant stakeholders in the development of forest policies and programmes” (Lisbon Resolution L1, MCPFE 1998) [17]. Additionally, in 1998, the first EU Forest Strategy stressed the importance of an active participation in all forest-related international processes and the need to improve coordination, communication and cooperation in all policy areas of relevance to the forest sector [18]. Recently, the new EU Forest Strategy for 2030 encouraged forest and forestry stakeholders to establish a skills partnership under the Pact for Skills to work together to increase the number of upskilling and reskilling opportunities in forestry [19]. The Pact for Skills is aimed to mobilize and incentivize private and public stakeholders to take concrete actions such as education and training for foresters to the challenges and needs of today’s realities [20]. Since 2020, the concept of public participation in forest discourse has slowed down due to the difficulty in translating theoretical principles of participation into practice. The reduction of public participation in political decision-making processes has occurred in all areas, including, as mentioned, forest discourse. Therefore, currently, it is important to rethink public participation in decision-making processes to ensure that citizens are transformed from passive citizens to responsible and expert citizens [21]. As emphasized by Tikkanen (2018) [22], forest discourse is in the era of participatory downturn; therefore, it is fundamental to “find new solutions” oriented towards innovations and creative thinking about the future. Starting from these considerations, the concept of public participation in the forest sector must be rethought and revitalized to keep up with the times. The aim of the present study is to identify and analyse the participatory techniques of involving citizens and stakeholders in decision-making processes used in political, social, planning, and environmental sciences to evaluate their suitability for the forest-based sector. The participatory techniques and processes have been identified through a literature review and analysed considering a set of criteria to evaluate their applicability to the forest policies and strategies. To achieve the aforementioned objective, the research questions are the following: (R1) How can the participatory techniques used in participatory democracy be applied to forest policies and strategies? (R2) What participatory techniques can be efficiently adopted to implement forest policies and strategies at different levels (national, regional, and local)?

2. Materials and Methods

The study was structured in three steps in order to identify and analyse the participatory techniques used in different disciplinary sectors and evaluate their suitability in the forest-related decision-making process. The structure of the study is described in Scheme 1.

2.1. Data Collection

A literature review was carried out to offer an overview of the participatory processes used to involve citizens and/or stakeholders in the decision-making process across different scientific fields. The review was designed following the guidelines proposed by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) protocol [23]. First of all, the peer-reviewed publications were retrieved from Scopus database (https://www.scopus.com, accessed on 30 April 2024) using the following search query:

(“PUBLIC” OR “STAKEHOLDER*” OR “CITIZEN*”) AND (“PARTICIPATION” OR “INVOLVEMENT” OR “ENGAGEMENT”) AND (“TECHNIQUE*” OR “METHOD*”) AND (“SUMMARY” OR “REVIEW*”).

The search, conducted without setting a timeframe, returned a total of 11,791 documents. Afterwards, further filtering was applied based on the timeframe (from 2000 to 2024 to consider the most recent publications) and subject area (restricted to “Environmental Science”, “Business, Management and Accounting”, “Multidisciplinary”, and “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, to ensure relevance to the contexts being analysed). This refinement reduced the number of documents to 2275. In addition, 20 documents from other sources—e.g., Ph.D. and Master theses, manuals, and guides—were included to consider also technical reports and informative publications. Therefore, a total of 2295 documents were considered and analysed in this literature review.

2.2. Data Analysis

The participatory techniques identified through the literature review were assessed by considering seven individual criteria [24,25,26,27]: degree of participation, type of participants, number of participants, selection of participants, time scale, cost, and potential influence on final policy (described below). All these criteria were successively used to evaluate the participatory techniques through the Correspondence Analysis (CA) method. The CA method is an analysis procedure for nominal categorical data that allows researchers to study the association between two or more variables, synthesizing the set of data (e.g., participation indicators) in a two-dimensional graphical form [28].

In this study, the CA method was applied by considering the following variables and the related attributions: degree of participation (from inform to empower); number of participants (less than 25 people, between 25 and 10, and more than 100); time scale (includes a duration from minutes to days and periodicity); type of participants (citizens, stakeholders, and experts, but more than one category can be involved, depending on the context); type of selection (no selection, self-selection, or random or targeted selection; also in this case, the type of selection applied may include more than one); cost (from low to high); and influence on policy (from low to high).

For the analysis, the complete disjunctive matrix was subjected to the CA algorithm; all statistical tests were performed using the XLStat 2020 software.

2.3. Criteria to Assess Participatory Techniques

2.3.1. Degree of Participation

To classify participatory techniques based on the level of citizen involvement, the model developed in [24] by Arnstein (1969) has been used as subsequently simplified by the International Association for Public Participation (Figure 1). Therefore, the following five degrees of participation were considered in this study [29]:

• Informing—providing balanced and objective information about new programs or services, and about the reasons for choosing them; providing updates during implementation;
• Consulting—inviting feedback and suggestions on alternatives, analyses, and decisions related to new programs or services; possibly adjusting and decisions according to their feedback;
• Involving—working directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered; letting people know how their involvement has influenced decisions;
• Collaborating—enabling community members to participate in every aspect of planning and decision making for new programs or services, which means sharing responsibilities with citizens, working together, and making decisions collaboratively;
• Empowering—delegating of decision-making and giving the full managerial power over project development and implementation to the stakeholders/public.

The five degrees of participation of the International Association for Public Participation were considered in this study rather than a continuum of degrees of participation in order to better distinguish and analyse the identified participatory technologies.

2.3.2. Type of Participants

This indicator refers to the nature of individuals engaged in the participatory process, differentiating between the types of participants and the staff members who enable the process to occur [30]. There are several main categories of actors that can be included in the process, as follows [26,27]:

• Citizens—members of the community or public directly impacted by the decisions or issues being addressed. Their involvement can range from providing input and feedback to actively co-designing solutions.
• Stakeholders—individuals or groups who have an interest, involvement, or “stake” in a particular project, organization, or issue. Stakeholders can include local businesses, advocacy groups, government agencies, and non-profit organizations [31].
• Experts—professionals or subject matter experts who contribute specialized knowledge and insights to inform decision-making [32]. Experts may provide technical guidance, analysis, or recommendations based on their expertise.
• Policy-Makers—individuals or entities responsible for making final decisions based on the inputs and recommendations gathered through the participatory process. These could include elected officials, policy-makers, or project managers [33].
• Supporting Figures—individuals who oversee and guide the participatory process to ensure that it runs properly and remains inclusive, transparent and productive (e.g., facilitators help manage discussions, encourage participation, and maintain a respectful environment).

The composition of participants can vary depending on the specific context and objectives of the participatory method; engaging a diverse range of participants ensures that multiple perspectives are considered.

2.3.3. Number of Participants

This criterion refers to the number of individuals who are actively involved in the participatory process. It can impact the dynamics, effectiveness, and outcomes of the participatory approach [34]. Larger groups may require more structured facilitation to ensure everyone’s voices are heard, while smaller groups may enable more intimate and in-depth conversations [27].

Processes in presence can be divided into processes for small groups (up to 25 participants), for medium-sized groups (from 25 to 100 participants), and for large groups (100 and more participants) [26]. There are also flexible types, which are suitable for groups of participants of different sizes (‘variable’), and open processes, for which there is an indication of the number of participants involved but it is not binding [35].

2.3.4. Selection of Participants

The selection of participants can be influenced by the objectives, context, and nature of the project or initiative. The process may be more or less stringent based on the number and characteristics of participants involved. The main selection methods can be summarized as follows [25]:

• Self-Selection—processes are open to all stakeholders; those who participate have decided to do so consciously and by their own choice;
• Random sampling—recruitment can achieve a broad representativeness of participants through random sampling and thus reduce the prevalence of specific interests, and one approach to ensure a better representativeness is to select a random stratified sample of the affected population [27];
• Targeted selection—this form of selection is generally open to all stakeholders; however, to achieve a higher degree of representativeness among participants, individuals or representatives from various demographic groups are specifically invited to participate based on factors such as age, gender, education, or professional criteria [36].

2.3.5. Time Scale

The duration of the method varies depending on the project’s complexity, potential deadlines, and the desired level of engagement, encompassing both the number of participants and the depth of topics explored. Certain participatory activities—e.g., interviews, focus groups, workshops, or community meetings—can be completed within a short span, ranging from a few hours to several days, while others may extend over months or even years [25].

The present study offers an attempt to provide the average time required by individual participants to take part in the single technique. Due to the absence of standardized durations, this time is often represented as a range. Additionally, since participatory methods frequently involve iterative processes evolving over time, including multiple cycles of consultation and feedback, indications are given as to whether the technique is periodic or ends in a single event.

2.3.6. Cost

The processes should be cost-effective: cost is a significant concern for those organizing a participation exercise, and achieving value for money is a key motivation. For instance, a large public hearing might not be justified for a relatively minor policy decision. Prior to conducting a participation exercise, it is prudent to assess the potential costs of alternative methods in terms of time, human resources, and money, and to evaluate how well they meet other criteria. Although monetary costs are objectively measurable, most discussions on participation methods in the literature do not delve deeply into costs [27]. Moreover, due to the wide range of ways each method can be implemented, establishing a precise classification of the “costliness” of procedures is challenging and typically results in only an estimate or deduction [37]; in this case, the classification of costs has developed for classes such as variable, low, moderate, and potentially high. These indicators were selected based on the literature, prioritizing those frequently mentioned in summary reviews and those most aligned with our objectives. In the same way, the values of the parameters/indicators were assigned to each technique mainly through the data obtained from the literature by considering the information obtained for each technique.

2.3.7. Potential Influence on Final Policy

When implemented effectively, participatory methods contribute to more informed, equitable, and sustainable policy development and implementation. It is important to evidence that one major criticism of participation methods is their perceived ineffectiveness. In fact, these methods sometimes are considered as tools used primarily to justify decisions or create the appearance of consultation without genuine intent to act on recommendations [27]. The impact of participatory techniques on final policy outcomes relies on the quality of engagement, inclusivity of participants, and the extent to which stakeholder input is integrated into decision-making processes. The degree of influence on policy is indicative because it depends on many factors (including technology). It has been classified as low, moderate, and (potentially) high [27].

2.4. Application into Forest Policies

In the last step, the diffusion of the previously identified participatory techniques in forest policies and strategies was analysed with a further literature review. The data were obtained from the Scopus database using the following queries (either by applying the processes individually or in groups): (“FOREST POLIC*” OR “FOREST STRATEG*” OR “FOREST GOVERNANC*”) AND technique name.

The data collected with this further literature review allow us to outline which participatory techniques have been used more and less in forest policies and the trend of practical applications of participatory techniques in forest sector.

3. Results

3.1. Results of the Literature Review

A total of 24 participatory techniques, along with the tools required for their implementation, were gathered from the literature review. In

Table 1. Description of the participatory techniques identified in the literature.

Participatory Technique	Description	Tools for Application
Advertising, Media Coverage	Channels used to inform audiences, mainly visually.	Radio, newspapers, TV, websites, infographics, displays, exhibits
Citizen Committees	Group of representatives from a particular community or a set of interests who are appointed to provide advice on an issue. The members meet regularly to provide ongoing input and advice throughout a project.	In presence or virtual meeting platforms
Citizen Juries/Panel	Deliberative process where a representative group of citizens is randomly selected to consider specific issues or policy questions. Participants engage in informed discussions guided by facilitators, review relevant information and work towards reaching a consensus or majority decision. The outcomes can inform policymakers and contribute to decision-making.	Round table, in presence groups, virtual meeting tools
Idea Collection	Gathering or soliciting ideas or suggestions from individuals or groups for the purpose of generating solutions, innovation, or community engagement.	Online platforms, community meetings and forums, social media, blogs, or formal submission processes
Delphi Method	A forecasting process and structured communication framework based on the results of multiple rounds of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts. After each round of questionnaires, an aggregated summary of the last round is presented to the experts, allowing them to adjust their answers according to the group response.	Online survey platforms, collaborative decision-making tools, video conferencing, and webinar tools
Education Events	Organized activities like workshops, seminars, or conferences to share knowledge and facilitate learning among participants. The key aspect is active interaction, where participants are encouraged to participate in discussions and apply the knowledge gained to their own contexts.	Workshops, seminars, or conferences in presence; it can be associated with virtual meeting and webinar platforms
Field Trip	Visits to physical locations relevant to a project, issue, or study that are organized with the purpose of engaging participants directly in the context of the subject matter.	Opening up a project venue for the public to visit; tour associated with a conference or workshop
Fishbowl	Meeting where a small number of participants sit in a circle or central area and engage in a structured conversation while others observe from outside by listening and taking notes.	In presence eventually with audience engagement tools, digital collaboration platform
Focus Group	Collection of data through group interaction. The group comprises a small number of carefully selected people who discuss a given topic. Focus groups are used to identify and explore how people think and behave, and they shed light on why, what, and how questions.	Face to face, virtual tools
Forum	Structured event where citizens and experts come together to discuss, exchange ideas, and engage in dialogue on specific topics of interest to facilitate information-sharing, collaboration, and collective problem-solving, promoting community engagement. When the focus is on a complex societal issue and the goal is to achieve a consensus or shared understanding, they are called ‘Consensus Conferences’.	Town hall meetings, conferences, online platforms, open forums including presentations and panel discussions; mixed forms online and in presence
Inquiry	Conducting investigations or research activities where participants are actively involved in defining research questions, gathering and analysing data, interpreting findings, and co-creating knowledge.	Face to face, using virtual tools
Interview	Structured conversations between an interviewer and one/more participants with the goal of gathering insights, knowledge, opinions, or perspectives on a specific topic or issue that contributes to the process of research, decision-making, or problem-solving.	Depending on the format (one-on-one, group interviews, or focus group); face to face or with virtual tools
Most Significant Change	Stories of significant change are collected, systematically selected, and then reviewed and analysed to identify key themes, trends, and impacts. Insights into the outcomes and effectiveness of the program from the perspective of those directly affected are provided.	Interviews recorded as audio or video or note-taking, reporting forms; selecting the stories by voting or scoring
Poll	Quick collection and immediate responses from a sample of people on a specific question or topic. Closed-ended questions are used with predefined choices to collect quantitative data and gauge public opinion/preferences efficiently.	Physical polling booths, interactive displays, postal vote, SMS, email, online vote, social media, community engagement platforms
Public Hearing	Formal presentation open to the general public and conducted by an agency, regular authority, or organizers regarding plans. The public may voice opinions but have no direct impact on recommendations.	Town hall meeting, panel roundtable, virtual meeting platforms, presentation followed by questions
Referendum	Direct vote by the electorate on a particular proposal, law, or constitutional amendment. Referenda are used to seek public approval or rejection of a specific decision or policy, allowing citizens to directly influence outcomes.	In presence
Role Game	Participants assume specific roles or characters to engage in simulated scenarios, and it is often used for educational or problem-solving purposes to explore decision-making and interactions in a realistic and interactive setting.	In presence, virtual tools
Science Shop	Offers citizens groups free or very low-cost access to scientific and technological knowledge to help them achieve social and environmental improvement. These organizations mediate between citizen groups and research institutions, and conduct their own research projects based on requests received from citizen groups.	In presence or virtual tools, e-mail
Social Media	Platforms possibly used to actively inform and engage communities, and aim towards more interactive and user-driven experiences.	Social media platforms
Survey	Data collection method aimed at building knowledge on a specific group and topic, with data collected through a population sample targeted by the intervention. Surveys often use a combination of closed-ended and open-ended questions.	Paper survey, telephone, postal survey, SMS, email, online survey, social media, mobile survey app
Wisdom Council	A small group with a mix of all hierarchical levels, departments, and activities. The group has the task of identifying and working on urgent issues for the organization. In a few days, they develop theses and recommendations for the urgent issues.	In presence or virtual meeting platforms
Working Group, Expert Panel	Stakeholders/experts are engaged to collaborate to address specific tasks, projects, or issues by developing strategies, making decisions (working group), or debating and discussing various courses of action, making recommendations on projects, policies, or research questions based on their expertise to inform decision-making and problem-solving processes (expert panel).	Round tables, virtual meeting tools, open innovation digital platforms as collaborative editing tools and file sharing, video conferencing
Workshops	A structured session where participants actively engage in discussions, exercises, and hands-on activities related to a specific topic or objective with the help of a facilitator. Workshops encourage participation, interaction, and group dynamics to achieve learning outcomes, generate ideas, maps (mind mapping), explore solutions, or develop skills.	Face to face, virtual tools
World Café	Hosting structured conversations in a café-like setting to facilitate dialogue and idea-sharing among participants. This method encourages informal, open discussions in small groups, with participants moving between tables to exchange perspectives on a common topic.	Face to face with material available for annotation

Sources: [27,38,39,40,41,42,43].

, the techniques are described and supported by examples of tools used for their implementation.

The participatory techniques listed cover a wide range of approaches from traditional and well-known methods (e.g., public hearings and surveys) to more innovative and lesser-known approaches (e.g., citizen juries and role-playing games). The description of each technique outlines the modalities of development and the context of the participation process. This description permits us to understand the differences, evidencing the importance of tailoring engagement strategies to specific contexts and purposes.

Observing Table 1, the possible tools useful for the application of the technique indicated are shown and emerge such that they can be applied in most cases in both physical and virtual settings. This adaptability underscores the growing importance of online platforms for public participation, especially considering recent global events.

The choice of the tool certainly has a great impact on many criteria such as costs, number of partners, and time scale. On one hand, this is an advantage in terms of the flexibility of the technique according to the available resources, but on the other hand, this flexibility makes the comparability between techniques more difficult.

3.2. Assessment of Participatory Techniques

The participatory techniques are listed in

Table 2. Assessment of participatory techniques based on seven criteria (degree of participation, type and number of participants, selection of participants, time scale, cost, and potential influence on policy).

	Degree of Participation	Persons Involved		Number of Participants	Selection of Participants	Time Scale		Cost	Potential Influence on Policy
		Type of Participants	Support Staff			Duration	Periodicity
Advertising, Media Coverage	INFORM	citizens	-	large groups (>100)	no selection	variable	single event	moderate	low
Social Media	INFORM/ CONSULT	citizens	-	large groups (>100)	no selection/ self-selection	variable	single event	low	moderate, liable to be indirect
Public Hearing	INFORM /CONSULT	citizens	supporting figure, policy-maker	large groups (>100)	self-selection	no longer than 2 h	single event (sometimes periodic)	low/moderate	low/moderate
Role Game	INFORM /CONSULT	citizens, stakeholders	tools’ dependents	variable depending on the chosen tool, also large groups (>100)	self-selection/ targeted	a few hours, variable (also depends on the tool)	single event	potentially high	low, not guaranteed
Survey	CONSULT	citizens, stakeholders	tools’ dependents	large groups (>100)	random/targeted	several minutes	single event (sometimes repeated)	potentially high	indirect and difficult to determine
Idea Collection	CONSULT	citizens	tools’ dependents	variable, large groups (>100)	self-selected	variable	periodic	low	variable but not guaranteed
Inquiry	CONSULT	experts	supporting figure	small group (<25)	targeted	approximately one hour	single event	moderate	moderate, liable to be indirect
Interview	CONSULT	experts	supporting figure	small group (<25)	targeted	approximately one hour	single event	low/moderate	low/moderate
Most Significant Change	CONSULT	stakeholders	supporting figures	medium-sized groups (25 to 100)	targeted	around 2 days a month for a session; more months	periodic	potentially high (time consuming)	low/moderate
Science Shop	CONSULT	citizens, experts	expert	large groups (>100), variable	self-selection	variable	periodic	moderate	variable but not guaranteed
Forum	CONSULT /INVOLVE	citizens, stakeholders	decision-maker, expert, supporting figure	medium-sized groups (25 to 100)	self-selection	1–5 days, weeks (preparatory meetings)	single event (sometimes periodic)	moderate to high	moderate, variable but not guaranteed
Field Trip	CONSULT/ INVOLVE	stakeholders, experts	expert	medium-sized groups (25 to 100), variable	self-selection/ targeted	2–4 h	single event (sometimes periodic)	low	moderate, not guaranteed
Education Events	CONSULT/ INVOLVE	citizens	expert	large groups (>100)	self-selection	1 day or multi-days event	single event	potentially high, variable	moderate
Focus Group	CONSULT/ INVOLVE	stakeholders	supporting figure	small group (<25)	targeted	usually up to 2 h	single event	potentially high	moderate but liable to be indirect
Fishbowl	INFORM/CONSULT/ INVOLVE	citizens, stakeholders, experts, policy-makers	supporting figure	medium-sized groups (25 to 100)	self-selection/ targeted	15–20 min each thread, total 1–2 h	single event	low/moderate	moderate
World Cafe	CONSULT/ INVOLVE	citizens, stakeholders	supporting figure, expert	medium-sized groups (25 to 100), variable (also hundreds)	self-selection/targeted	20–30 min for talks; one day (1–4 h) or a series of events	single event	low to high, variable (number of participants involved)	low, variable but not guaranteed
Poll	INVOLVE	citizens, stakeholders	-	large groups (>100)	random	a few minutes	single event, sometimes periodic (weeks for deliberative polling)	potentially high	low/moderate, indirect and difficult to determine
Working Groups, Expert Panels	INVOLVE	experts	supporting figure	small group (<25)	targeted	from a few hours to events on several days	periodic (3–18 months)	moderate to high	moderate, variable but not guaranteed
Workshops	INVOLVE, COLLABORATE	citizens/stakeholders	expert, supporting figure	medium-sized groups (25 to 100), variable	targeted	from half a day to 5 days	single event	moderate to high, variable	variable but not guaranteed
Citizen Committees	INVOLVE/ COLLABORATE	citizens	-	small group (<25)	random/targeted	1–2 days	periodic	variable	variable but not guaranteed
Delphi Method	COLLABORATE	experts	supporting figure	medium-sized groups (25 to 100)	targeted	approximately one hour	periodic, more rounds (weeks/month)	moderate to high (expert and material)	liable to be indirect, but potentially high
Wisdom Council	COLLABORATE	citizens	supporting figure	small group (<25)	random	1–2 days	periodic	moderate	variable but not guaranteed
Citizen Juries/Panel	EMPOWER	citizens, (recruited experts)	supporting figure	small group (<25)	random	4–7 days	single event	moderate to high	high, variable but not guaranteed
Referendum	EMPOWER	citizens	-	large groups (>100)	self-selection	minutes	single event	variable/low	high

based on the degree of participation (from inform to empower) and are identified by considering the descriptive criteria.

In several cases, different grades/intervals are reported. This variability arises from the function assigned and the process implementation (e.g., virtual or face-to-face tools) that are at the origin of the several variants found during the document analysis.

The data evidence that processes with a low degree of participation (e.g., informing) can involve many people (more than 100), usually unselected citizens, who are required to participate for a short time on average (a few minutes); this is typical of social media and advertising.

Usually, higher levels of involvement (e.g., empowering) correspond to participatory techniques involving smaller groups, often consisting mainly of selected stakeholders or experts, and the time required for participants is generally longer (hours or periodic events). In this category, it is possible to find examples such as working groups and expert panels.

Exceptions include participatory techniques like a referendum, which have a high level of participation while involving the general population and requiring little time, and interviews, which despite having a low level of participation, typically involve relatively small groups.

As noted, higher levels of involvement (i.e., empower and collaborate) have a greater influence on policy and this significant relationship is also represented by the CA method; this correlation is easily deduced but is not always verified. Advertising and the media, which have an informative purpose, can indirectly influence policies more than other processes; understanding the potential influence helps in setting realistic expectations and assessing the effectiveness of the engagement process in achieving policy objectives.

Potential stronger influences on policies usually translate into higher costs. It is important to recognize that these costs are not only monetary but also include the need for human resources and time to develop and complete the participatory techniques. In many cases, this parameter has been deduced by considering the possible variability of the tools (e.g., implementing a role in person versus online can have significant differences), the scope of the area of interest (corporate, local, or national), and the cases found during the search.

Some processes, such as role-playing games and educational events, do not follow this connection; in fact, although they have limited effects on policies, they can involve significant organizational costs. It is important to calibrate the use of resources with the purposes, especially if resources are limited.

The dataset used for the Correspondence Analysis is composed of 24 techniques and seven nominal variables, as shown in the

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (active qualitative variables).

Variables	Mode	Count	Frequency	%
Degree of participation	Collaborate	3	3	12.500
	Consult	10	10	41.667
	Empower	2	2	8.333
	Inform	1	1	4.167
	Involve	8	8	33.333
Participants	25–100	7	7	29.167
	<25	7	7	29.167
	>100	10	10	41.667
Time	<1 h, periodic	3	3	12.500
	<1 h	6	6	25.000
	days	1	1	4.167
	days, periodic	2	2	8.333
	hours	10	10	41.667
	hours, periodic	2	2	8.333
Cost	high	9	9	37.500
	low	1	1	4.167
	moderate	14	14	58.333
Influence on policy	high	6	6	25.000
	low	4	4	16.667
	moderate	14	14	58.333
Type of participants	citizens	9	9	37.500
	experts	4	4	16.667
	multiple type	9	9	37.500
	stakeholders	2	2	8.333
Type of selection	variable	7	7	29.167
	no selection	1	1	4.167
	random	3	3	12.500
	self-selection	6	6	25.000
	target	7	7	29.167

.

The total inertia, which is a function of the number of active variables and modes and is proportional to χ² (evaluates the dispersion of the profiles), amounts to 3143; this value is explained for 28.39% by the eigenvalues F1 and F2 and for more than 57% by the eigenvalues F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5 (

Table 4. The eigenvalues, the percentages of variability of inertia, the percentages of adjusted inertia, and the cumulative percentage; only the most significant eigenvalues are reported.

	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	F8	F9	F10	F11	F12	F13	F14	F15	F16	F17	F18	F19	F20	F21
Eigenvalues	0.51	0.39	0.35	0.29	0.27	0.24	0.21	0.18	0.15	0.13	0.10	0.08	0.07	0.06	0.05	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.00
Variability (%)	16.08	12.31	11.10	9.31	8.61	7.61	6.55	5.69	4.85	4.20	3.26	2.54	2.34	1.83	1.45	1.09	0.62	0.24	0.20	0.11	0.04
% Cumulative	16.08	28.39	39.49	48.80	57.41	65.02	71.57	77.25	82.10	86.30	89.56	92.09	94.43	96.26	97.71	98.79	99.41	99.66	99.85	99.96	100.00

). The inertia explained by the first factors is not very high because of the large number of modes and, consequently, the variability present in the data matrix.

The results of the Burt matrix show that (see Figure A1) the variable high influence on policies is related to a medium–high degree of participation (i.e., collaborate and empower), a low number of participants (less than 25), and higher timescales and costs. Conversely, the variable low influence on policies is related to a low degree of participation (i.e., consult) and moderate costs and time, but a high number of participants (more than 100).

The results of the Correspondence Analysis (CA) based on various indicators associated with different modes of public participation are shown in Figure 2.

The results evidence that the 24 participatory techniques can be grouped according to four dimensions. A first group (upper left quadrant—Figure 2) includes those processes with a high degree of participation (collaborate) and a contextual high potential influence on policies, but long times and a low number of participants (less than 25). This group includes participatory techniques such as citizen juries, citizen committees, and wisdom councils. The second group (upper right quadrant—Figure 2) includes participatory techniques with a low time (less than one hour) and costs in terms of resources, but a low degree of participation (information) and influence on policies, such as social media, adverting, surveys, and polls. This group includes participatory techniques addressed to citizens without a selection of them (information shower). The third group (lower left quadrant—Figure 2) consists of those techniques with a medium–high degree of participation (involve) and medium–high time and costs in terms of resources, with a number of participants (mainly stakeholders) between 25 and 100. This group of participatory techniques—e.g., forums, workshops, and field trips—has a medium–low influence on policies. The fourth group (lower right quadrant—Figure 2) includes participatory techniques characterized by a medium degree of participation (consult) with a variable number of participants (from 25–100 to more than 100) identified through self-selection, such as education events, role games, science shops, and world cafés. Based on the number of participants, the participatory techniques included in the fourth group can be developed over different periods of time ranging from one day for a single event or less than an hour but on a periodic basis.

Observing the two axes, the results show for the first axis (F1) a contrast between the self-section of the participants (with positive values) and the target selection (with negative values). Self-selection is suitable for involving many participants (more than 100) in participatory techniques that do not require a specific target of participants (e.g., social media, surveys, and polls). Conversely, target selection is suitable for those participatory techniques that do not require a high number of participants, but the choice of participants is key to the success of the participatory process (e.g., Delphi method and focus group). For the second axis (F2), a contrast between the degree of participation “empower” (with positive values) and “involve” (with negative value) is highlighted. Empower the participants is a degree of involvement more typical of participatory techniques such as wisdom councils, while involve the participants is commonly used for participatory techniques such as world cafés and role games.

3.3. Transfer to Forest Policies

The first publication on participatory processes in forest policy in the Scopus database dates back to 1976.

Table 5. Participatory techniques adopted in forest policy.

Participatory Method	Number of Results	Year of the First Publication	Year of the Last Publication
Interviews	452	1976	2024
Surveys	365	1988	2024
Forums	78	1982	2023
Workshops	74	1990	2024
Focus Groups	69	1998	2024
Inquiry	24	1993	2024
Advertising, Media Coverage	20	2001	2021
Working Groups/Expert Panels	10	1999	2021
Public Hearings	8	1999	2024
Field Trips	8	2005	2021
Social Media	7	2019	2022
Delphi Method	6	2001	2021
Referendum	6	2004	2020
Most Significant Change	5	1998	2023
Polls	5	1976	2019
Role Games	2	2018	2023
Citizen Commitees	1	2012	2012
Citizen Juries/Panels	0	-	-
Education Events	0	-	-
Fishbowls	0	-	-
Idea Collection	0	-	-
Science Shops	0	-	-
Wisdom Councils	0	-	-
World Cafes	0	-	-

shows the number of publications per technique (arranged in descending order) and the years of the first and last publications.

Interviews and surveys are the two most common participatory techniques used in forestry policies and strategies, followed by forums, workshops, and focus groups. These three techniques—although widespread—currently account for about 15%–20% of the first two, which are currently the most significant in the context of forest policies. The Delphi method, referendums, field trips, working and public groups, focus groups, and advertising are techniques that were widespread in the forest policy sector in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As shown in Table 3, techniques like social media, role games, and citizen committees have grown, especially in recent years, emphasizing the increasing complexity and diversification of research approaches.

Figure 3 shows that the overall number of publications has significantly increased over the years, especially after 2000. The trend of total publications shows a sharp rise peaking around 2020, followed by a decline in the last four years.

4. Discussion

The participatory democracy is based on active and creative participation in policy-making in which stakeholders and citizens have the possibility to participate in the political sphere and public life [44]. The application of the participatory democracy principles to forest policies and strategies presupposes that all the actors—from public authorities to citizens—are actively involved in decision-making processes at all the different levels (from national to municipal), but not necessarily in the same way. In the reason for this, the choice of the most suitable participatory technique to adopt in a decision process is linked to several variables which are listed as follows:

• The objective of the participatory process;
• The spatial scale of the process;
• The kind of information needed to develop the process;
• The kind and number of actors who should be involved more or less actively.

The objective of the actors’ involvement and the type of contribution desired from participants are the first aspects to consider before structuring a participatory process [39]. In fact, the results of the present study highlighted that some participatory techniques are designed to inform participants about a topic (e.g., advertising, social media, and public hearings), while others are aimed at collecting opinions to gather public feedback on policy alternatives and suggestions that could potentially influence decision-making (e.g., surveys, inquiries, interviews, and science shops). In other cases, the decision-making process actively involves citizens and/or experts in shaping final policies to achieve more effective and efficient outcomes through collaboration (e.g., wisdom councils and citizen juries). In the international literature, several authors have emphasized how a clear and well-defined participatory objective is fundamental to legitimize the process itself [9,45]. In some cases, the main participatory objectives can be to (i) improve and facilitate the decision-making process by increasing the level of trust among participants [44,46] or reduce the conflicts between opposing interest groups [47]; (ii) include marginalized categories of social actors in the process and choices [48]; and (iii) create a sense of community in the management of common goods/natural resources [49]. If the priority objective is to increase the level of mutual trust between participants, it is necessary to adopt techniques based on dialogue and mutual discussion in periodic meetings supported by a facilitator, such as working groups. Conversely, if the priority objective is to include the opinions and point of views of the marginalized social actors in the final choices, single events supported by a facilitator may also be appropriate.

The results of the literature review showed that the kind and number of actors involved in the participatory process are two key variables to take into consideration. The actors to be involved depend primarily on the spatial context or scale (national, regional, or local) and on the kind of information/data to be collected [50]. Regarding the spatial scale, the issues dealt with in the participatory process may be of interest to local, national, and transnational policies [26,27]. The spatial scale where the participatory policy process is applied influences not only the technique but also the tools, the number of stakeholders/citizens, the participants’ selection modalities, and the time. In fact, the definition of a national forest policy should engage multiple stakeholders but with a medium–low degree of participation (i.e., consultation or involvement). Instead, a regional forest program or a landscape forest planning should engage only those who have a “stake” related to the territory but with a high degree of participation (i.e., collaboration or empowerment).

Regarding the kind of information, if specialized—e.g., technical or scientific—information is needed for the policy process, only experts are involved. On the other hand, if the objective is to inform or to implement a comparison, it is necessary to involve experts, stakeholders, and citizens. In addition, the data collected can be either quantitative (the data are numbered, numerable, or measurable), qualitative (the data are interpretative, descriptive, and language-related) or both [25]. Additionally, different tools can be used, depending on the level of detail of the information requested. In general, techniques can be developed in presence (face-to-face), via online tools, or in hybrid mode [42,51].

The results of this study showed that some participatory techniques involve multiple types of actors (experts and citizens in science shops; experts, citizens and policy makers in fishbowls), while others focus only on one type of actors (citizens in wisdom councils and experts in the Delphi method and expert panels). In the literature, some authors have highlighted that the engagement of different types of actors could be more efficient when the topics are complex [36,52]. In fact, experts can play a role in translating stakeholder/citizen discourses into policy options [36] and improving knowledge transfer through cross-scientific collaboration and coalitions with stakeholders [53]. Furthermore, the results highlighted that increasing the types of actors involved in the process increases the complexity but can also increase the usefulness of the data for policy implementation such as citizen juries/panels and fishbowls. Conversely, the number of participants is a good indicator when the participatory process aims to collect or disseminate information (e.g., citizens or stakeholders’ needs, expectations, and knowledge), while it can be counterproductive when such information must be included in policies (information overload). In fact, adverting and social media are the two techniques with the highest number of participants but with a low level of influence on policies. As emphasized by Słupińska et al. (2022) [54], social media are a new tool for communicating and promoting sustainable forest management towards society.

The results of the CA highlight the direct relationship between the degree of participation and the potential impact of participatory power on policies. The greater the involvement of different actors, the greater the corrective power of the participation process that emerges. When multiple actors are involved and degree of participation is high, participatory processes have great force in correcting the societal power imbalance. In fact, when actors that have different power positions in the society are engaged in the process, this imbalance is in part addressed and levelled [55]. Furthermore, a low level of participation (inform or consult) is related to a possibly high number of unselected participants with low time and costs for the implementation of the participatory process.

The participatory techniques and processes identified in the forest policies and strategies framework confirmed that participatory processes have increased their spread in the forestry sector in the wake of the Rio Conference and the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. However, it is important to highlight the low and repetitive number of participatory techniques adopted in forest policies. This fact is related to a low level of social science knowledge adopted and the static nature of the forest sector. The static nature of the forest sector has been emphasized by Notaro et al. [56], who have observed that innovations struggle to be introduced by forest actors. Our results showed that some participatory techniques have been widely used in different fields and contexts (i.e., focus groups and surveys), while others are still almost unknown to the forestry scientific and policy community. The preference for certain techniques is due on the one hand to their ease of application and on the other to the fact that they are now common knowledge in the forest sector.

It is important to remark that the choice of the most appropriate participatory technique to implement in a decision process is fundamental. In fact, the adoption of techniques that are inappropriate for the participatory method chosen or for the specific phase of the process, or unsuitable for the social and cultural context of the forest policies application can translate to the failure of the process. Furthermore, the implementation of a participatory technique that does not have a strong link with technical aspects of policies at stake is another cause of failure. In fact, those responsible for participation need to have in-depth knowledge of issues dealing with forest policies and strategies and to maintain continuous and close contact with the context where forest policies are implemented throughout the entire process. Otherwise, participatory processes and policy implementation proceed along two separate tracks.

Finally, another common mistake—that it is easy to fall into either accidentally or intentionally—is linked to the kind and number of actors who should be involved in the process. When some of the actors are neglected, the result is that opinions, points of view, and requests are not considered and the process loses transparency and openness.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Recommendations to Take Home

The comprehensive overview of various participatory techniques of public participation offered in the present study has the advantage of considering critical factors related to the various techniques. In reason of this, the overview can better support decision-makers and practitioners involved in public engagement initiatives. In fact, it helps to select the most appropriate method based on the desired level of participation, available resources, and policy objectives, enabling informed decision-making and maximizing the impact of public participation efforts.

It is important to remark that the adoption of participatory techniques represents an opportunity for the implementation of forest policies and strategies, provided that the strengths and limitations are assessed and evaluated in the specific context of application and remembering that there exist, at a methodological level, appropriate and applicable recipes for each situation.

The present study has also shown the complexity of participatory processes, where diverse variables must run together with harmony to obtain the desired results. This complexity must be taken in consideration while maintaining a high degree of analytical and methodological openness during the development of the participatory processes. In this way, the constantly existing contingencies and contradictions that emerge during the process can be considered and addressed.

The wish is that this kind of research may be a useful instrument in the hands of forest managers and decision-makers when choosing tools to take into consideration the evolution of society’s demands, a crucial aspect during periods of rapid and important change, such the ones we are facing today. Most of all, the actual challenge will be to encourage the spread of collaborative practice—like the participatory processes—to support the actual belief that forests ultimately belong to the community and are a common good to be protected and managed collectively.

5.2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study

From a methodological point of view, the main strength of the study is to have clearly identified 24 participatory techniques by grouping together similar ones but known in the literature with different names. However, this inevitably led to the identification of a different number of studies for each participatory technique, highlighting the terminological synonyms used. Conversely, the main weakness is having considered the Scopus-indexed publications, which are almost exclusively in English, while those in other languages have not been included. A further weakness of the study concerns the results of the Correspondence Analysis, which should be considered purely descriptive of the key characteristics of the 24 participatory techniques considered. In fact, the inertia value of the CA was found to be 28.39% (F1 of 16.08% and F2 of 12.31%), probably due to the large variability present in the data matrix, and therefore our conclusions can only be limited.