Several factors can cause people's lack of participation in watershed management projects. The current research aims to identify, classify, and prioritize the Bushkan watershed in Bushehr province from the point of view of watershed residents and experts. For this purpose, these factors were identified and classified first. Then, paired comparison and Likert questionnaires were prepared as measurement tools, and the validity of the questionnaires was confirmed based on experts' opinions. After completing the questionnaires, hierarchical analysis was used by 34 expert experts to prioritize the indicators, using the fuzzy hierarchical analysis process. In order to prioritize indicators and sub-indices affecting the lack of sustainable participation of people in watershed projects from the perspective of the watershed residents, a questionnaire with a Likert scale was used as a measurement tool. After measuring the validity and reliability of the survey questionnaire It came to fruition. The sample unit is a rural household, and Cochran's formula was used to calculate the sample size. Based on the number of households in this district (678 households), 245 heads of households completed the questionnaire. The results showed that in the Bushkan watershed, there is a difference between the views of experts and people regarding the indicators of people's non-participation, in such a way that the experts give the design-implementation indicator the first priority, while the people living in the watershed give the education and promotion indicator the best priority. People know about non-participation. The ranking results of the sub-indicators showed that both groups of experts and local communities believe that "the lack of education of the watershed residents regarding the relevant plans and objectives" is the main reason for the lack of participation of local people in watershed management projects. From the point of view of experts, "non-use of local force in the implementation of projects (employment)" and from the point of view of people, "non-use of local promoter group" is in second place.