[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT Final Report U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA; COASTAL SERVICES CENTER on 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE Workshops Held inCHARLESTON Sc 29405-24 13 Long Beach, Mississippi (April 21, 1977) and Mobile, Alabama (July 22, 1977) Conducted by Barry R. Lawson, Ph.�. Harvard, Massachusetts 61451 Sponsored by: The Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Conmmerce Contract No. 7-35164 In cooperation with: The Mississippi Marine Resources Council The Alabama Coastal Area Board % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r - R-op~ztlz of CS rAA-nry D-4 toP~ p^ttm , b--'Ur I BARRY R. LAWSON, Ph. D. PINNACLE ROAD - HARVARD, MASSACHUSETTS 01451 . 617/456.8353 *t ~ ASSOCIATE HARWELL ASSOCIATES BOX 95 CONVENT STATION, N. J. 07961 August 25, 1977 Ann Berger Office of Coastal Zone Management N. 0. A. A. U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20235 Dear Ann-: Enclosed please find the Final Report on the Project entitled "The Exchange of Ideas and Techniques on Public Participation Programs in Coastal Zone Manage- ment." This Project consisted of the development and presen- tation of a series of two workshops held in the States of Mississippi and Alabama in April and July of this year. This Report provides a brief back- ground to the workshops as well as a description of the programs themselves. It concludes with an evaluation of each workshop derived from written evaluations from the participants. I appreciate the cooperation of your Office and those. of the two' state coordinators, the Mississippi Marine Resources Council and the Alabama Uoastal Area Board. cerely Barry Lawson, Ph.D. ProJec tDirector and Workshop Designer NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS - URBAN/REGIONAL PLANNIG GAMING/SIMULATON DESIGN NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS - URBAN/REGIONAL PLANNING -GAMING/SIMULATION DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. 2 II. The Use of Gaming in Environmental Programs . .. 4 III. The Gaming Model.. . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. The Program Sponsors, Organizers, and Workshop Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 V. The Workshop Program...... . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 VI. Evaluation A. Mississippi Workshop.. . . . . . . . . . 16 B. Alabama Workshop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C. General Conclusions...... . . . . . . . . .21 Appendices A. Workshop Evaluation Forms B. Coastal Zone Workshop, Long Beach, Mississippi C. Coastal Zone Workshop, Mobile, Alabama In Seperate D. List of Participants, Alabama Workshop Volume E. Workshop Handouts, No. i Through: No. 16 F. Instructions for Coastal Zone Mrnagement Game (A Modification of NEW TOWN Planners' Set) I. INTRODUCTION Recent years, particularly those since the late 1960's, have witnessed a surge in the awareness of and interest in environmental issues throughout the nation, indeed the world. This movement has focused public attention on the relationship between economic develop- ment and its consequences and is perhaps best exemplified by the passage in 1970 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Wide in scope and controversial in its far-reaching effect, NEPA symbolizes a nation's concern for conscious assessment of the effects of present actions on man's future environment. Practically every subsequent piece of federal and state natural resource legislation has shared this concern for impact assessment plus another significant ingredient--more direct public involvement in decisions affecting the future environment. Greater awareness by a concerned public has led, logically, to a desire for greater monitoring of public policy and investments, and for an increased say in the decisions made by local, state and federal governments. While to some this has become a wasteful exercise designed to frustrate economic pro- gress, to others it has meant an opportunity to participate more directly in the democratic process and to bring a greater degree of equity into the activities and deliberations of public agencies. The interaction between economic development and its environmen- tal consequences, while often portrayed as conflicting in nature, has been shown to be considerably more complex. On one hand, without -2- economic development, many opportunities for improved environmental quality simply would not surface. On the other hand, increased public investment in many environmental control programs, e.g., water pollu- tion control facilities, has often been showih to be a stimulus to the economy as well as to represent a positive effort toward achieving an improved environment. The water quality program is only one area in which this dochotomy has been noted and in which the public has become increasingly involved. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program is another. This program, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, directs national attention to the coastal areas of the nation, and particularly to the areas most sensitive to the complex interaction between economic development and many of the nation's most valuable natural resources. The Coastal Zone Management Act*which created the Coastal Zone Management Program can best be considered a law designed to balance economic and environmental force3 in the populated coastal areas of the nation. It provides a major role for coastal states in determining the future course of developmenv within their own boundaries. Each state coastal zone management program has become a focus for promoting greater public awareness of coastal development issues. It became, in fact, the rationale behind the Office of Coastal Zone Management's sponsorship of two workshops invthe States of Alabama and Mississippi to promote greater public awareness of coastal area develop- ment issues and to provide a vehicle for exchanging ideas on these issues. '16 U.S.C. 1451 It was also a purpose of the sponsor to utilize an interactive gamning format for the workshop program in order to engage all workshop participants in a simulated role-playing exercise. II. THE USE OF GAMING IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM4S During the past ten years, interactive gaming and role-playing models have evolved to the point where sophisticated simulations of economic, political and even social systems' have been developed and used successfully in the training of graduate students in urban and en- vironmental fields. Most recently, several of these models have gone beyond the classroom and found application in the training of public officials in transportation, environmental control, land use and a 0 ~~~variety of other subject areas of public and community interest. Gaming simulations have evolved to the point now where they represent and are accepted as respected educational techniques featuring several advantages over many other alternative techniques. Among these advantages Is that gamning, in combination, with a simulation model, can provide an excellent method for portra-ying a complex system and its many interrelated elements. In addition, Tole playing can provide a low-risk opportunity roughly comparable to on-the-job experience, and can involve substantial enjoyment if competitive gamnes can be tastefully combined witb the benefits of cooperative behavior. -4- III. THE GAMING MODEL The inspiration for the two Gulf workshops was a two-day program on public participation held in June, 1976 in Beverly, Massachusetts for state coastal zone managers.* The actual model utilized in the Gulf program, however, is related to the NEW TOWN Planners' Set, a commercially available land use game. Both the Beverly program and NEW TOWN were designed by the workshop program director, Barry R. Lawson. NEW TOWN is a game concerned with the urban land development process and pits a number of land development teams in competition for the highest rate of return to their development schemes and the greatest number of "environmental points." In addition, a group of public planners provides recommendations to all game players an an appropriate set of public investments and policies to guide and serve the private development constructed in the hypothetical NEW TOWN community. A city council, or comparable public body, serves as the final decision-making body representing elected or appointed officials. The hypothetical region in the basic model also incorporates several geogrcaphical and physical characteristics which are important variables influencing the eventual pattern of development and the types and scope of public issues which come before game participants. A probabilistic model of development is utilized to generate the type of industrial, commercial and residential development which occurs in the comimmity and also is used to generate external events, notably floods and other natural events. *Sponsored by the Water Resources Center, University of Massachusetts. This NEW TOWN model, which is only sketchily described here, was modified and enchanced for use in the Alabama and Mississippi work- shops.* The principal adaptation was to increase the range and number of roles which were included in play. Adjustments to the basic playing board were also made to simulate more representative Gulf coastal characteristics, and additional external events introduced to simulate coastal-related public issues. Several public policy deliberations such as coastal zone program development and state legislative package development and debate were attached to the basic model. All of these modifications were intended to make the gaming model more suitable for meeting the objectives of the coastal state agencies in Alabama and Mississippi who coordinated the development of the model by the consul- tants and served as hosts for the workshops themselves. IV. THE PROGRAM ORGANIZERS, SPONSORS AND WORKSHOP LEADERS Both workshops were designed as one-day exercises including game description, play and verbal evaluation. The Mississippi workshop was held on April 21, 1977 in Long Beach, i.n facilities arranged by the state sponsor, the Mississippi Marine Resources Council. The 26 participants were selected and invited by the Council. The Alabama workshop was held on July 22, 1977 in Mobile. The 32 participants, many of whom were able to participate throughoutthe entire day's program, *A complete description of the model utilized in the workshop series is provided in Appendix F. were invited by the Alabama Coastal Area Board. Written evaluations were conducted by mail for the Mississippi workshop, but were undertaken at the conclusion of the day's program in Alabama. Local arrangements in Mississippi were coordinated by Sylvia Minor of the Council's staff with the support of Jay Thomas, director of the Council. Local arrangements in Alabama were coordinated by Tim Savage of the Board's new staff, with the support of the Board's direc- tor Dr. Bruce Trickey and Alabama Planning Office Director Luther W. Hyde. Their hospitality and support throughout the program greatly facilitated the consultant's development of the workshop programs. The Contracting Officer's (NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment) Technical Representative for the workshop contract was Linda Sadler (until March, 1977), and Ann Berger, Assistant Regional Coordina- tor for the Gulf States (April through August, 1977). Dr. Barry R. Lawson was the workshop program designer and leader. He has been involved in the design and use of gaming and simulation techniques for nearly ten years, and has developed several games both for educational and commercial distribution, including NEW TOWN. As a consultant to citizen groups, government agencies and educational or- ganizations, he has applied gaming materials to a variety of workshop themes including environmental impact assessment, library administration, public participation and coastal zone management. He is President of the North American Simulation and Learning Association for 1977. Brandon Wilson has been involved in the design and organization of gaming workshops over the past two years. She has worked with Dr. -7- Lawson on a number of projects including a one-year environmental edu- cation/impact statement project, and several workshops on public parti- cipation, onshore impacts of offshore oil development and issues of coastal zone mnanagement. Dr. Lawson and MsjWilson were the workshop leaders for the Mississippi program. They were joined by Mr. William Nothdurft and Mr. Branden Johnson for the Alabama program. Mr. Nothdurft has spent several years in environmental planning with a special emphasis in public involvement and technology transfer. He established environmental information and' extension services for the state of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and helped draft water and land resource plans for Puerto Rico, the Long Island Sound region and southeastern New England. For the last two years he has been Chief of Communications and Technology for the most comprehen- sive study of onshore impacts of offshore oil and gas development yet conducted. Mr. Johnson has done extensive research in coastal zone manage- ment for Massachusetts and Hawaii. He is currently at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts completing his graduate studies in environ- mental affairs. V. THE WORKSHOP PROGRAM The two workshop programs were basically similar (see Appendices B and C). After an introduction to the gaming model and the general purposes of the workshop, all participants engaged in a role development exercise to focus their attention on the various roles in the coastal development process. In challenging them to imagine and create ficti- tious characters such as industrialists, environmentalists, developers, regional planners and a governor, this exercise was designed to heighten participants' sensitivity to the values and objectives of these various roles. In this exercise, each participant was given a role development sheet and instructions which outlined general characteristics for all game players and asked for additional background information on the work and personal characteristics of individual roles. In most cases, a table of two to three persons developed a role description as a group. The session served to provide "local flavor" to the gaming activities and ensured that the role descriptions reflected the 'real world' work settings of the participants rather than of the game designers. It also served as a short lice breaker' activity that encouraged cooperative exchanges among participants and prepared an atmosphere conductive to game playing. Following the random assignment of the roles which they them- selves had created, the participants spent-the balance of the day's program playing the coastal area game. In addition to purchasing land and locating private development in the hypothetical two-county region, the players discussed and debated the appropriate type, number, and location of public facilities to serve thet-area. In the Mississippi workshop, for example, attention was focused primarily on these facili- ties, and the region's airport, in particular. Participants in both workshops listened to and reacted to occasional news releases from the outside world as well as many generated from within their own 'commun- ity.' They also debated and voted on the attributes of the proposed legislative package of the state's governor. This legislative package, incidentally, was developed by the governor in each workshop and was directed toward providing the legislative basis for a coastal zone management program subsequently submitted to the "feds" for approval. - In the Alabama workshop, the governor proposed and saw passed all five of her bills. They included one bill to designate port development zones in industrial areas, one to establish priorities for coastal area development, a bond issue to fund the purchase by the state of natural -resource areas, and two bills to protect marine fisheries and coastal aquifers. Her success and popularity was demonstrated by her re-election (unopposed) at the conclusion of the program. A few additional activities were also included in the Alabama program. For instance, at the beginning of play, each workshop parti- cipant "voted" on the particular characteristics of the region he or she would include in a "quality-of-life"l (QOL) index. Game administra- tors then kept an account of the QOL index at stages during the game to provide additional feedback to the participants on the desirability of the communities they were developing. In addition, the Alabama participants were kept infonned of their progress, or "success," in carrying out their respective roles. Finally, the Alabama program was concluded with a discussion of public participation in planning efforts led by William Nothdurft, a -10- At the Mississippi Workshop . . . What are these folks looking at? A developer makes g o ~ ~ ~ his point "It should be located here." location is in this tidal marsh."- -11- The Planner explains her rationale The Governor listens . and speaks. The Governor listens ... ... and speaks. A developer protests . -12- The Alabama Workshop . . . The Counties' Board of Supervisor Chairpeople explain (i.e., justify) the politically expedient. dn~~~~~B~~~~~ ~A region grows -13- The Workshop Leader listens with sympathy to a planner's frustration The Governor speaks . . . . . . and media listens. "Boy, did we pull a fast one on them!" I ~' Post-game explanations -14- communications specialist of the workshop program staff. Tracing the general historical experience with public involvement in natural re- source planning programs, Nothd,-,rft outlined the results of an evalua- tion of the effectiveness of various involvement techniques. This discussion led naturally into an evaluation of the players' success in the gamning exercise, the effectiveness of the workshop program, and a discussion of its applicability to the coastal Alabama scene. Administratively several changes we-ce also made in the Alabama workshop with respect to both the form and content of the gaming materials. Several of these were in response to the Mississippi evaluation and the expressed need for more structure in the gaming session. For example, each participant was provided with a role description sheet outlining precisely what his responsibilities and resources were, and how his final performance would be measured at the end of the day. The schedule included in the participants' package of materials was expanded to give everyone a better sense of each role's responsibilities and how it might interact'in the overall coastal de- velopment process. The amount of time devoted to explaining the gaming procedures was lengthened, more financial responsibilities and account- ing aids were assigned to several roles, and, as mentioned, two more faculty members were added to provide techinical assistance to the players. The amount of time devoted to developing the role descriptions was -reduced by simplifying the exercise. 'Spveral new forms were de- vised to more formally structure the elections, the governor's legisla- tive package, and the lobbying activities of different interest groups. Minor role changes were also made. The opportunity to apply for federal funds was added (based upon current realistic programs) and fact sheets were distributed to the planners and county members to highlight the environmental and economic conditions/policies inherent in the game, as well as to facilitate fulfillment of their responsibilities. The number and range of bills available to the governor in devising his/her legislative package was increased and news events and public facility issues were revised to reflect the current or future needs of the Alabama coastal zone. Finally, each role was assigned a color and the handouts were matched to this coding system to minimize confusion at distribution time. VI. EVALUATION A. Mississippi Of the 26 people participating in the Mississippi coastal area development workshop, 12 responded to the formal evaluation sent out by the State CZM Coordinator following the workshop. Range and Achievement of Objectives The responses indicated that a majority of the participants found that the workshop successfully satisfied their objectives to increase their understanding of coastal area planning and to improve their proficiency in dealing with coastal conflicts. One half attended to find out more about the state's CZM program activities, while an equal number of others (five for each) hoped to express their concerns about coastal area development, to meet others interested in coastal area management, and to satisfy their curiosity about how a role-playing session could be related to coastal zone management. In all, attendees felt that the workshop had met 60% of the objectives either "very well" or "better than expected." Level of4 Awareness and Experience Most participants came to the workshop considering themselves to have a high level of awareness in dealing with coastal development activities. After participating in the gaming session, one half of the respondents felt that their awareness had increased substantially. These im~provements were noted by participants regardless of their level of prior experience. The most valuable aspect(s) of the workshop to attendees in terms of work needs was nearly evenly divided among the following four: * Gaining a different perspective on the development process; a Seeing how complex land-use decisions can be related to overall development patterns; * Making development decisions and having to work with their implications; and * Participating in a coastal area adevelopment process. The majority of the respondents did not feel any changes should be made in most of the workshop activities. Of the changes that we-re suggested, only one activity, creating role descriptions, was cited (by 25% of the respondents) as worthy of less time. All the other recommendations were to allow considerably more time for (1) seeing how complex land ' use decisions can be related to overall development patterns; (2) making development decisions and having to work with their implications; (3) working out group strategies for handling public facility needs; and (4) participating in the evaluation session. Suggested Changes to Workshop Three quarters of the respondents said they would recommend participation in the gaming workshop to colleagues and friends. Every- one, however, had at least one suggestion to make about how to improve the workshop to meet their personal needs. These included: the area map should start with more development . . . need better display (e.g., a wall mount) . . . have all partici- pants be sure to stay for the entire day . . . give some 'pre-workshop' instruction on how the game is played ... involve more of actual decision-makers instead of staff.. spend more time explaining rules for buying, selling, etc... include the financial aspects . . . provide more time for evaluation of exercise . . .keep tVie gaming players settled down and better organized. All of these comments were fully considered and used to make revisions in the next workshop, held three months later in Mobile, Alabama. B. Alabama Thirty-two people participated in tile Alabama Coastal Area Development Workshop. Several people left during the late morning due to pressing work commitments and two nrew people joined the group at lunch time. Sixteen attendees filled out an evaluation form passed out following the debriefing session at the end of the day. Range and Achievement of Objectives_ Similar to their Mississippi counterparts, at least 50% of the respondents came to the workshop to increase their understanding of coastal area planning issues and to improve their proficiency in dealing wi'th coastal resource and land use conflicts. An equal number of respondents also attended because they wanted to meet others interested in coastal area management and identify areas of mutual concern, and to satisfy their curiosity about how a role-playing session can be related to coastal zone management. The respondents felt that the workshop fulfilled at least 75% of their objectives "very well" or, at least, "better than expected." The objectives particularly well realized were seeing how role-playing can be related to CZM, expressing one's own coastal area concerns, and increassing one's proficiency in dealing with coastal conflicts. Level of Awareness and Experience As was true at the Mississippi workshop most people considered themselves to have a high level of awareness in dealing with coastal development activities prior to the session. More than half believed that they substantially improved this already considerable awareness by participating in the gaming session. - Value of Workshop Questioned about what were the most valuable aspects Cs) of the workshop in terms of work needs the majority responded: o Gaining a different perspective on the development process; * Seeing how complex land use decisions determine overall development patterns; __ * Participating in a coastal area development process; * Making development decisions and working with their impli- cations; * Learning about public involvement techniques/issues. Allocation of Time In respect to time allocated to each activity, the Alabama group had far fewer changes to recommend. One quarter of the respondents pointed out that much more time could be devoted to seeing how land * ~~use decisions determine overall development patterns and learning about public involvement techniques. Another three players would spend much less time actively participating in the coastal development process. Suggested Changes to Workshop Overall, there were fewer specific suggestions offered. This is undoubtedly due to the revisions made following the Mississippi workshop.. Comments received from the participants were: use street names for major highways . . . use less time, difficult to commit a full day . . . less repetition ... possibly slow the action to permit better thought being given to decisions and actions . . . a more detailed exploration of what CZM is before starting the game might be helpful ... a little more time and a little less'tonfusion about what is to be expected from the groups . . . it was an interesting experience and enjoyable, personally I would like greater sub- stantive involvement in coastal activities, but can't suggest how that could be incorporated in such a format . . . get more -20- planning aspects and techniques into game . . . give planning board more time in advance . . .allow participants to play only one role as it's hard to play two roles and be in two places at one time . . . more prominent signs to show location of the different groups in the gaming exercise . . . and no suggestion- - excellent workshop! In addition to the changes mentioned earlier, there we-re two other notable differences between the Mississippi and Alabama workshops. First, there were more half-day participants in attendance at the Alabama session. This necessitated more role doubling du-ring the after- noon session and led to less continuity and follow-through application of morning lessons for some participants. Second, a heavier emphasis was placed upon public involvement activities in Alabama. This was accomplished by including specific requirements for public participation into several of the day's events and by concluding the workshop with a brief presentation by a faculty member (William Nothdurft) well versed in different public involvement techniques andissues. Based upon the participants' evaluation comments, this second change was very favorably received, since more than one half ranked it one of the most valuable aspects of the workshop, and several recommended that much more time be devoted to this activity in future workshops. C. Geners.1 Conclusions Several conclusions may be drawn from comments received from both the Mississippi and Alabama workshops. First, most people's initial obj ectives iii attending such a workshop is to increase their understanding of and proficiency in dealing with coastal area planning issues. The workshop program used has value to people regardless of the level of experience they may have prior to participating, especially with respect to gaining a different perspective on the development process, making development decisions and working with their implica- tions, and having an opportunity to participate in simulated coastal area development. The major recommendation for future workshops would be that participants should be prepared to spend a full day at the session in order to grapple more thoroughly with the wide range of issues and deci- sions presented during the game. Overall, it would seem that the majority of the responding attendees felt that their participation was worthwhile and they would recommend it to their colleagues and friends. -2;z APPENDIX A WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORMS I BARRY R. LAWSON, Ph. D. PINNACLE ROAD - HARVARD, MASSACHUSETTS 01451 . 617/456-8353 ASSOCIATE HARWELL ASSOCIATES BOX 95 - CONVENT STATION, N. J. 07961 PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF COAST-AL AREA DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP 1. Your primary objective(s) for coming to the workshop was to: (Check as many as appropriate) a) increase your understanding of coastal area planning issues b) __ find out more about your state's CZM Program activities �) __ increase proficiency in dealing with coastal resource and land use conflicts d) __ express concerns about coastal area development from your particular vantage point e) meet others interested in coastal area management and identify areas of mutual concern f) satisfy curiosity about how a role-playing session can related to coastal zone management g) __ enjoy a beautiful day away from the office h) __ other (please specify): 2. The workshop met those objectives: (if you had more than one objective place above letter very well symbols beside opinion below) better than expected WJ __satisfactorily not so well not at all 3. You would consider your level of awareness and experince in dealing with coastal development activities prio:'to the workshop as: (Circle one in each column) Awareness Experience Very High 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 ! Very Low 0 0 4. As a result of participating in the gaming session would you say that your level of awareness and experience in dealing with coastal development activities is: (Circle one in each column) Awareness Experience Improved Greatly 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1. Remained the Same 0 0 NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS - URBAN/REGIONAL PLANNING - GAMING/SIMULATION DESIGN PARTWCIPANT EVALUATION OF COASTAL AREA DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP (CON'T) 5. What did you find to be the most valuable aspect(s) of the workshop in terms of your work needs? a) gaining a different perspective on the development process by assuming a role different than your present one b) __ seeing how complex and wide ranging land use decisions can be related to overall development patterns c) __making both short and long range development decisions and then having to work with their implications d) __ having an opportunity to actively participate in a coastal area development process e) working out a strategy for maximizing your role's objectives f) working out group strategies for handling public facility needs g) creating role descriptions h) __participating in evaluation session i) other (please specify): 6. Relative to the time spent in each of these activities, how would you recommend a similar workshop be organized in terms of time allocated to each activity? (Place an X at appropriate place on line for each activity) Use above activity categories Much less time About the Same Much more time a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) 1) 7. What role did you play in the gaming session? Governor's Office Board cf Supervisors Regional Planner Radio Station Developer Industry Chamber of Commerce Environmental Coalition 8. Please make two suggestions on how the workshop or game could be im- proved from your own standpoint and needs. a) b) 9. Now that all is said and done, would you recommend participation in the gaming workshop to your colleagues and friends? "BARRY R. LAWSON, Ph. D. PINNACLE ROAD -HARVARD, MASSACHUSETTS 01451 � 617/456-8353 ASSOCIATE HARWELL ASSOCIATES BOX 95 CONVENT STATION, N. J. 07961 July 1977 PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF COASTAL AREA DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP - ALABAMA 1. Your primary objective(s) for coming to the workshop was to: (check as many as appropriate) a. Increase your understanding of coastal area planning issues. b. Find out more about your state's CZM program activities. c. Increase proficiency in dealing with coastal resource and land use conflicts. d, ___ Express concerns about coastal area development from your particular vantage point. e. Meet others interested in coastal area management and identify areas of mutual concern. f. Satisfy curiosity about how a role-playing session can relate to coastal zone management. g. _ Enjoy a beautiful day away from the office. h. Other (please specify): 2. The workshop met those objectives: (If you had more than one objective, place above letter symbols beside opinion below) very well better than expected satisfactorily not so well not at all 3. You would consider your level of awareness and experience in dealing with coastal development activities prior to the workshop as: (Circle one in each column) Awareness Experience very high 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 very low 0 0 4. As a result of participating in the gaming session would you say that your level of awareness and experience in dealing with coastal develop- ment activities has: (Circle one in each column) Awareness Experience improved greatly 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 remained the same 0 0 NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS - URBAN/REGIONAL PLANNING - GAMING/SIMULATION DESIGN PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF COASTAL AREA DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP (continued) S. What did you find to be the most valuable aspect(s) of the workshop in terms of your work needs? a. __Gaining a different perspective on the development process by assuming a role different than your present one. b. __Seeing how complex, wide-ranging and individual land use decisions determine overall development patterns. c. _Making both short and long range development decisions and then having to work with their implications. d. Hving an opportunity to actively participate in a coastal area development process. 0. __Learning more about public involvement techniques/issues. f. __Working out a strategy for maximizing your -role's objectives. g.__ Working out group strategies for handling public facility needs. h. __Developing role descriptions. i. Participating in evaluation siession. j. Other (please specify): 6. Relative to the time spent in each of these activities, how would you recommend a similar workshop be organized in terms of time allocated to each activity? (Place an X at appropriate place on line for each activity) Use above activity categories. Much less time About the same Much more time a. b. C. d. h. 7. What role did you play in the gaming session? __Governor's Office Board of Supervisors Baycoast Planner T.V. Station Developer Environmental Coalition __Chamber of Commerce S. Please make two suggestions on how the workshop or game could be improved from your own standpoint and needs. 9. Now that all is said and done, would you recommend participation in the gaming workshop to your colleagues and friends?