This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]On: 01 May 2014, At: 14:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and ManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Evaluating the Effectivenessof Deliberative Processes:Waste Management Case-studiesJudith PettsPublished online: 02 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Judith Petts (2001) Evaluating the Effectivenessof Deliberative Processes: Waste Management Case-studies, Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 44:2, 207-226

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560120033713

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207–226, 2001

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes:Waste Management Case-studies

JUDITH PETTS

Centre for Environmental Research and Training, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

(Received March 2000; revised June 2000)

ABSTRACT Public participation in decision making through the use of deliberativeprocesses is now widely promoted as the means of enhancing institutional legitimacy,citizen in�uence and social responsibility and learning. Different methods are being triedbut key questions remain about what works best and how practice could be improved.This paper discusses four examples of the application of community advisory committeesand citizens’ juries to waste strategy development by English local authorities. Itevaluates the processes using criteria based on the concept of the fair and competentprocess, and identi�es lessons for the optimum process.

Introduction

The beginning of the 21st century sees political commitment to citizen partici-pation. Participative democracy is needed to support representative democracy,which can no longer account for the diverse interests of citizens, the increasinglycomplex and uncertain threats to society, and the need to develop informedpublic preferences, knowledge and commitment to societal good. Public partici-pation in environmental decision making has become a required means of givingpeople more say in government (Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions (DETR), 1998).

In democratic societies the individual has the right to be informed, to beconsulted and to express his or her own views on matters which affect thempersonally (Sewell & Coppock, 1977). Public involvement in a decision process,not merely consultation upon a preferred decision, supports both institutionallegitimacy (e.g. Smith, 1987), and the ‘bottom-up’ approach to decision making(Arnstein, 1969), and allows those with a weak voice to exert in�uence onoutcomes (Healey, 1997). It is something to be valued in its own right, sociallearning, responsibility and environmental awareness being signi�cant outcomes(Sewell & Coppock, 1977; Webler et al., 1995; Daniels & Walker, 1996; AarhusConvention, 1998).

New methods of working with the public present signi�cant challenges toelected of�cials who believe it is their duty to represent public views, to thosewhose professional training taught them to separate themselves from those towhom they provide services (Barnes, 1999a), and in decision contexts wheretraditionally passive consultation has been seen as offering participation, the

0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 On line/01/010207-20 Ó 2001 University of Newcastle upon TyneDOI: 10.1080/09640560120033713

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

208 J. Petts

‘yes, but …’ mode of thinking re�ecting the dif�culty of compromising uponcommitments to policies, plans and proposals (Young, 1996).

This is certainly the case in relation to waste management. Public oppositionto new facilities represents a complex interplay of strategic as well as localconcerns (Armour, 1991; Portney, 1991; Petts, 1992, 1995). Current pressuresupon developing waste strategies and plans ensure controversy. Public consen-sus about, and acceptance of, appropriate local strategies, combined with thebuilding of con�dence amongst politicians to take dif�cult decisions, are essen-tial.

Whilst it may be attractive to aspire to the concept of citizen in�uence(Arnstein, 1969), it is quite another thing to give real effect to the multiplicity ofcon�icting emphases, ideas and values present amongst the public (Kuper,1997). A decision process which is inclusive of the range of different interestsand concerns and allows for deliberation (i.e. “the discussion of reasons for andagainst” (Concise Oxford Dictionary)) can, but will not de�nitely, lead to moreenvironmentally and socially acceptable decisions. Authorities display an in-creasing desire to know ‘how to do it’ and ‘what works best’. However, we alsoneed to understand ‘why it works or how it could work better’ (Creighton,1983).

De�ning and Evaluating Effectiveness

This paper examines and evaluates the use of community (citizens’) advisorycommittees (CACs) and citizens’ juries in waste management strategic planningin the UK. Public participation methods can be de�ned in terms of their multipleand divergent objectives; that is: information provision (e.g. lea�ets, advertising,videos and unstaffed exhibitions); information collection and feedback (e.g.surveys and interviews); consultation (e.g. public meetings and small groupmeetings); and involvement (e.g. CACs, citizens’ juries and consensus confer-ences). Each has advantages and disadvantages (Petts et al., 1996; EnvironmentAgency, 1998; Petts, 1999; Institute of Environmental Management and Assess-ment, 2000). Such a taxonomy suggests that it is possible to match method topurpose, with a shift of power providing the underlying conceptual difference,although the empowering ability of different methods is very dif�cult toestimate (Webler, 1999). It is the methods which seek to extend consultation intoinvolvement so as to combine technical expertise and rational decision makingwith public preferences (Stern, 1991) which are receiving the greatest attention.

The rather limited outcome criterion of decision legitimation usually repre-sents the main spur to the adoption of participatory process. However, philo-sophical constructs of ‘discursive’ and ‘deliberative’ democracy, founded inHabermas’s (1984) ideal of ‘no force but the force of the better argument’,demand a broader set of criteria concerned with the process itself. The focusshifts to a working de�nition of effectiveness which, rather than hoping thateveryone will be happy with the outcome (unrealistic), concentrates on gettingthe ‘right science’ and the ‘right participation’ (Stern & Fineberg, 1996).

Fairness and competency criteria (Webler, 1995) have underpinned manyevaluations. Fairness relates to the terms of access to the discourse—providingopportunities for participants to shape the agenda and choose the moderatorand the rules of deliberation—and the provision of an equal chance to everyparticipant to put forward their views. Competence relates to the ability of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 209

process to provide participants with (1) access to knowledge, explanations ofterms and access to interpretations of understanding, and (2) the best proceduresfor resolving disputes about knowledge and interpretations and for checking theauthenticity and sincerity of claims.

Combining principles of publicity and accountability (Gutman & Thompson,1996; Barnes, 1999a) with those of fairness and competence produces 10 evalu-ation questions in terms of whether the process:

(1) ensures that the participants are representative of the full range of peoplepotentially affected and that barriers which may bias representation areminimized;

(2) allows participants to contribute to the agenda and agree and in�uence theprocedures and moderation method;

(3) enables participants to engage in dialogue, and promote mutual under-standing of values and concerns;

(4) ensures that dissent and differences are engaged and understood;(5) ensures that ‘experts’ are challenged and that participants have access to

the information and knowledge to enable them to do this critically;(6) reduces misunderstanding and ensures that the authenticity of claims is

discussed and examined;(7) makes a difference to participants, e.g. allows for development of ideas,

learning and new ways of looking at a problem;(8) enables consensus about recommendations and/or preferred decisions to

be achieved;(9) makes a difference to decisions and provides outcomes which are of public

bene�t;(10) ensures that the process is transparent and open to those not directly

involved but potentially affected.

The evaluation here does not aim to identify a generic model which is inherentlybetter or which is likely to work better. Performance is dif�cult to predict, giventhe power of context (Aranoff & Gunter, 1994; Stern & Fineberg, 1996). Broadcriteria could go against the view that evaluation questions should be framed ina way that enables exploration of characteristics which are particular to themethod being used (Barnes, 1999b). Certainly, the evaluation should be based oncriteria that the participants themselves input, as in an evaluation of juriesrelating to health service provision (Barnes, 1999b). Nevertheless, if we arerigorously to design and implement participation processes it is essential thatthe relative characteristics of different processes are understood so that they canbe selected and adapted to �t the immediate context and objectives.

The next two sections provide background to the speci�c processes of involve-ment and their application in relation to waste strategy development.

CACs and Citizens’ Juries

Variants of the CAC have been used in government in the USA for over 100years, and in environmental decision contexts have been used widely in relationto regional, state and local issues (Armour, 1991; Lynn & Busenberg, 1995; Lynn& Kartez, 1995; Vari, 1995). Citizens’ juries developed from the early 1970s inboth the USA and Germany (Crosby et al., 1986; Crosby, 1995). In the UK, theyreceived increasing attention during the 1990s, although environmental issues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

210 J. Petts

probably represent the smallest percentage of decision contexts in which theyhave been used. In 1997 some 110 local authorities reported using juries, agovernance response to concern that existing structures were failing to deal withsigni�cant public issues (DETR, 1998).

The purpose of these processes is to provide both for participation in decisionmaking by small groups of citizens where public interests and values need to bemade explicit, and for different claims and arguments to be put forward, notonly to inform and in�uence the decision but also to contribute to laterdecisions. People are asked to take part in a ‘serious civic task’, encouraged tothink of societal rather than sectoral interests (Barnes, 1999a).

The direct outcome of each is a non-binding recommendation which may ormay not be adopted. There is no transference of power to the public. However,legitimacy would be severely tested if views were ignored or overlooked in theformal decision.

The nature of interest representation and the rules of discourse differentiatethe two processes. CAC participants are often chosen from interest positions thatthe decision maker considers to be relevant. By contrast, citizens’ juries areusually randomly selected through a quota system which aims to make them amicrocosm of their communities.

CACs usually run over weeks or months, citizens’ juries over a few days. TheCAC adopts a ‘reconciliatory’ approach using a variety of meeting and infor-mation provision formats so that different concerns and problem representationsare reconciled through group support. By contrast, the citizen jury adopts a‘confrontational’ approach which, whilst aiming to produce a creative andconsensual outcome, does this through direct confrontation of different opinions(Vari, 1995). The divergence of format but apparent commonality of purpose areconfusing for those choosing an appropriate participation process. The costdifferences can be in�uential—CAC-based processes can be up to �ve times asexpensive as juries.

Renn et al. (1995) analysed various environmental applications of participatorymodels against criteria of fairness and competence. They marginally scoredCACs higher than citizen juries, particularly in terms of fairness of process. NoUK examples were included in their analysis.

Application of the Methods in England

Waste Strategy Development

Local authorities are having to respond to the signi�cant challenges of increasingquantities of waste, developing national waste recycling and recovery targets(DETR, 2000), European pressures to move away from land�ll disposal (Councilof Europe, 1999) and policy pressures for integration of strategies at the regionallevel (DETR, 2000). Authorities have concluded increasingly that the traditionalpassive consultation approach to strategic planning is unlikely to provide thedegree of public support for the required waste management strategies. Thenon-statutory nature of the strategies drawn up by waste disposal authoritieshas provided them with a degree of freedom to experiment with new modes ofpublic participation (compared with the more formalized processes linked to theprovision and location of waste facilities through the waste local plans drawn upby planning authorities).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 211

The development of an appropriate local waste strategy which will providefor 20 1 years of effective management involves complex technical, economic,environmental and social judgements. Optimization of recycling and recoveryand environmentally acceptable management of the residual waste are mostlikely to be achieved by a strategy which integrates various management optionsso that environmental impacts as well as the costs are minimized—the bestpracticable environmental strategy. Integrated strategies must be relevant to: thewaste generated and the local collection and transport systems; the availabilityof recycling, treatment and disposal facilities and of new sites where suchfacilities could be sited; the costs of management; and the impacts, consideringthe local environmental conditions. The adoption of a local waste strategy is notonly one of the most costly decisions which a local authority may have to make,but also one of the most complex issues which is likely to come before localpeople in a participation forum. This complexity is enhanced by inherenteconomic, technical and environmental impact uncertainties.

CACs: Hampshire and Essex

Hampshire (1994–95), Essex (1996–97) and West Sussex (1997–98) county coun-cils have all used forms of CAC as part of the process of developing wastemanagement strategies. The focus of the discussion here is experience in Hamp-shire and Essex.

The communications programmes were devised to (1) raise awareness ofwaste management issues, (2) increase understanding of the management op-tions available and gain support for an appropriate solution for each county and(3) provide a sounding-board for the councils’ draft proposals. In each countythree groups (16–20 people in each) were formed, re�ecting speci�c areas interms of urban and rural characteristics. A mix of people with different inter-ests—community, environmental, business, health, conservation and edu-cation—were recruited, following a community analysis and appraisal exercise.

The Essex process ran over 9 months, including �ve meetings, visits to wastemanagement facilities and a seminar with expert input. A �nal seminar allowedfor the CAC members to communicate their conclusion to councillors, keymembers of the community and the media. The Hampshire process involved sixmeetings over 6 months, site visits to waste management facilities and a 1-dayseminar on the waste management options. The programme of meetings ispresented in Table 1.

Hampshire extended its process by forming a core forum after the CACs hadcompleted their work, which had the objective of providing feedback andassistance to the County Council during the period when the waste managementcontract was to be let. The core forum met four times over 10 months. A seminaron the health risks of dioxins was attended by over 180 people. In addition,focus groups were arranged with members of the public to try to broaden thesocio-demographic characteristics of those involved in the debate and to engagethe traditionally ‘silent majority’.

Citizens’ Juries: Hertfordshire and Lancashire

Hertfordshire ran a jury in 1995 as part of the series of experimental juriessponsored by the Local Government Management Board. The jury addressed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

212 J. Petts

Table 1. Hampshire CAC programme

Meeting Purpose

November 1993 Introduction to process and to objectives.

2 December 1993 Overview of challenge for waste management, and brie�ng on county anddistrict work on assessing waste �ows and needs. Discussion of how CACswanted to be informed.

3 January 1994 To seek views and understanding of CAC members of the opportunities forand barriers to reduction, reuse and recycling. To consider the advantages anddisadvantages to resource recovery and the other disposal options. To gain anunderstanding of county waste arisings and �ows.

4 February 1994 To discuss possible strategy implementation at regional level. To reviewongoing activities to inform and involve the wider public.

5 February 1994 Joint CAC seminar: presentations from experts from UK and overseas onwaste management strategies and options.

6 March 1994 To get feedback from the seminar and identify any outstanding questions. Toprovide information on the waste contract tender process. To summarizeCACs views and recommendations.

7 April 1994 Joint meeting of three CACs to reach cross-county consensus and to presenttheir �ndings to the authorities.

how, and to what extent, the County Council could become self-suf�cient in theprovision of waste management facilities. Lancashire ran a jury in 1999, itsobjective being to provide views and recommendations to the County Councilon the future of waste management. In both cases, 16 people were recruited tobe representative of the population in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, occupationand residential location. The juries were facilitated by an independent modera-tor.

Each jury was preceded by a preliminary meeting at which jurors had anopportunity to meet and to have the process and objectives explained. Theprogramme of the Lancashire jury is outlined in Table 2. Both juries involved sitevisits, expert witness presentations, questioning and discussion, with time forre�ection and deliberation in small groups. The moderator drafted a reportbased on the opinions expressed and then redrafted this in the light of jurydiscussions and comments. In both cases the jury conclusions were reported tocouncil committees responsible for waste management decisions.

Integration with Decision Making

The processes were designed to provide decision makers with an indication ofpublic views and priorities, rather than to produce detailed recommendations,which were then carried through to the siting stage for the required facilities.The difference is best illustrated by reference to the citizens’ panels on wastestrategy development in the Northern Black Forest Region (Renn et al., 1993;Schneider et al., 1998). Here, decision making and participation were fullyintegrated into a three-phase process that involved consensus conferences with16 stakeholder groups which developed agreement on the need to solve theproblems, prognosis of the amount of waste to be treated and recommend-ations on the technical options to achieve this. The latter used value-tree andmulti-attribute decision analysis (Keeney et al., 1987) for structuring the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 213

Table 2. Lancashire jury programme

Day Content

1 · General introduction to issues before the jury.· Introduction to waste management problem in the county: County Council

presentation.· Waste management and risk assessment: options for waste management;

choice of appropriate option; concept of the best practicable environmentaloption (waste management academic presentation).

· Site visit: energy-from-waste incinerator.

2 · Waste minimization: local recycling group view.· Recycling: national recycling campaign view.· Composting: composting industry view.· Site visits: recycling centre and also land�ll and composting.

3 · Anaerobic digestion: working group of the waste industry.· Energy-from-waste incineration: industry view.· County Council issues.· District councils’ perspective.· Environment Agency: function and role.

4 · Friends of the Earth: national views.· Local interest groups’ views.· Industry view.· Development agency presentation on potential for community jobs and

businesses.

5 Whole day: jury discussion and agreement on recommendations.

decision process. Following the political decision to proceed with the optionsselected, citizens’ panels (involving 200 people) were used to rank a list ofpossible sites for the facilities it had been agreed were required.

The UK experience re�ects institutional and political barriers presented by theseparation of waste disposal from waste planning functions. More importantly,it re�ects a continuing view that the use of deliberative processes is a means toextend consultation as opposed to a means of making decisions.

How Effective?

Representativeness

It is important to draw a distinction between ‘representing interests’ and ‘beingrepresentative of interests’. Deliberative processes should seek as a minimum toachieve the latter if the purpose is to understand the range of views that mayexist and if the community is to in�uence the decision.

The CAC processes made considerable efforts to select individuals who mightbe representative of a wide range of interests in the community, rather thanpeople who represented speci�c groups, the latter being a source of considerablecriticism of CACs in the past (Houghton, 1988; Kathlene & Martin, 1991;Creighton, 1993). Recruitment focused on personal activities that might indicatean interest. For example, a person who worked in a college was selected assomeone with an interest in education and young people, and a person who wasa parish councillor and involved in local youth club work as someone with aninterest in community issues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

214 J. Petts

Essex included elected councillors as members of the groups. This had littleadverse or bene�cial effect on the process from the viewpoint of the participants.Fears that councillors might try to dominate debate proved unfounded, not leastbecause of an effective facilitation process. Including councillors might be seento extend representation; on the other hand it could be viewed as giving a directvoice to people who already have one at the expense of others who traditionallyhave a weak voice.

The participants in both processes were largely middle-aged and middle-class.It proved more dif�cult to recruit young people ( , 25 years). Participants inboth noted that there were too few business-related interests, and that ‘theordinary man in the street’ was missing. The knowledge and interest levelsrelating to waste amongst the Essex CACs were much higher than amongst thegeneral public. However, it is certain that the CACs were broadly representativeof that component of the public who are likely to take an interest.

To obtain the level of support for and commitment to an extended processsuch as a CAC this type of bias seems partly inevitable. For someone whoattended all of the meetings, seminars and site visits and who put in the averagenumber of additional hours for preparation and reading reported by the CACparticipants, some 80–100 hours of time may have been required. Despite thelong period requiring commitment, drop-out was very low, with the few peoplein each process who had to leave doing so only for personal reasons.

The Hertfordshire jury was recruited from a questionnaire sent to a randomsample of 3000 people on the electoral register. A signi�cant proportion (61%) ofthose mailed expressed an interest (Kuper, 1997). From these responses arepresentative jury was constructed using criteria of age, gender, social class,ethnicity and geographical location. The Lancashire jury recruitment processused these same criteria, although in this case a professional recruiter wasbriefed to select jurors from each of 16 geographical areas in the county,constructed to be representative of the urban–rural division. The Lancashire juryincluded an 18-year-old school leaver, a 23-year-old shelf �ller, a 63-year-oldretired university lecturer, someone who had just been made redundant andsomeone who was long-term unemployed.

The participants in the jury had to devote a smaller amount of their time—about 30 hours—than those in the CAC process. However, people had to takewhole days of their time, including leave or holiday from work. For the latterreason, and as is common in juries, people were paid a fee for their participation.

While both of the juries achieved a good mix of people largely representativeof the socio-demographic characteristics of the two counties, the sample of viewsobtained was small (16 in each county, compared with 48 in Hampshire and 60in Essex). Furthermore, the juries worked in isolation from a more general publicconsultation process, compared with the CAC processes.

In Hampshire and Essex the views of a wide range and large number ofpeople were gathered through traditional consultation methods conducted inparallel to the CAC process. In Essex, for example, these included: an infor-mation booklet about waste management; ongoing proactive liaison with themedia; a Waste Awareness Week involving a series of features on local radio; a‘Waste Buster’ educational bus; a Buy Recycled Campaign in partnership withretailers; interviews with the media by CAC members; and feedback by some totheir local community organizations, churches or associations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 215

This integration of methods, optimizing information receipt and the oppor-tunity to comment, is the primary means to dispel complaints from outsidergroups that the process is elitist or biased in the decision authority’s favour. Themore people that are involved, the more likely that the outcomes will beaccepted (Fiorino, 1990). The greater the potential for inclusiveness, the greaterthe diversity of experience represented (Barnes, 1999a).

Procedural Fairness

Organizer in�uence over process procedures and agenda is an attractive featurefor decision makers and one likely to encourage the use of the new processes.However, strategic agenda selection (Vari, 1995) is a potential source of disquietamongst participants. The complexity and breadth of waste management issuesrequire decision makers to craft the opening agenda. Government guidance andpolicy objectives have to provide a discussion framework, as do the characteris-tics of the waste arisings of the local area. None of this, however, should barparticipants from adding to the agenda during the process as they begin toidentify issues of concern and linkages with other issues.

The CACs did provide the opportunity for participant in�uence over theagenda, e.g. in the issues to be addressed in the 1-day expert seminar. InHampshire, the CACs identi�ed hazardous household waste as an additionalmanagement issue and had an in�uence on the setting up of a waste minimiza-tion initiative by the County Council.

The CAC processes were facilitated by consultants with waste managementknowledge, the emphasis being on ensuring a comprehensive consideration ofthe options for managing waste. In Hampshire, the CACs were chaired by amember of the public; in Essex, by the facilitators. In both, the facilitatorsworked with of�cers to develop the programme of meetings, the independentchairmen in Hampshire providing a degree of direct public input to this process.This description might suggest that the CACs were managed processes. How-ever, it was only a minority of the participants who regarded this as a problem.

The juries provided no opportunity for juror input to the agenda, not least asthe scope of the debate had to be de�ned in advance so that relevant expertwitnesses could be made available. The programmes were drawn up by theindependent moderator in discussion with the County Councils and academics.Once the juries commenced, the moderator’s role was to ensure that all jurorswere given an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, rather than ensuringthat speci�c waste management issues were addressed.

A better way to draw up the agenda, used in other, non-environmental, juryprocesses, is to hold stakeholder meetings to agree a programme in advance.This inevitably adds to the process time-scale. It must be noted that in neitherof the juries discussed here did participants complain that issues important tothem had not been discussed (Richard Kuper (moderator of the juries), personalcommunication).

Deliberation

The CAC processes used multiple methods (presentations, seminars, site visits,group discussion, videos, information packs and a library of information avail-able for individuals to take home) which optimized opportunities for individuals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

216 J. Petts

to learn progressively and respond to learning mode preferences. Participantswere provided with any information they requested from the authorities, as faras possible. This diversity of information sources served to reinforce somemessages and to enable the identi�cation of differences in expert views, provid-ing an important basis for discussion. The size and complexity of the wastemanagement problem became increasingly evident to participants, which un-doubtedly led to the residual view that they had not been able to deal with allof the issues.

Despite the lengthy CAC programmes, participants commented that they hadhad inadequate time to acquaint themselves with relevant information. Theyrequested more discussion time during each meeting (at the expense of presen-tations) rather than a longer process per se. To the observer of the CAC meetingsthere was a clear formal style with information ‘managed’ in terms of itspresentation and with discussion often moved quickly through key bullet points(Petts, 1994).

The public hearing format of the jury inevitably limits dialogue (Armour,1995). While there was evident learning it was clear that the time was in-suf�cient for all questions to be dealt with and for an iterative process ofdiscussion to take place. The process was focused on a task—which was toquestion the immediate witness. This inevitably constrained the lines of dis-cussion at any point in time. Although the jurors bene�ted from site visits, likethe CAC participants, they did not have access to other literature apart from thatpresented by the experts. Learning to promote deliberation was therefore limitedto the period of witness presentations and questioning. Only on the �nal daywere the juries able to pull together the various themes which had emerged andto confront their own con�icting viewpoints, although they did split into smallgroups to collate their questions for speci�c witnesses during the process.Responses to a questionnaire following the Hertfordshire jury showed themajority felt that the time for discussion was too limited (Kuper, 1996, 1997), butalso revealed concern that some of them would not have been able to participateover a longer period.

Although over the few days of a jury it appeared to be possible for jurors todevelop a mutual understanding, there was less opportunity for understandingto develop between jurors and witnesses and between jurors and elected of�cialsand of�cers who would take the decisions. This was an important differencebetween the two processes.

Engagement of Dissent

The greater the potential for inclusiveness, the greater the diversity of experiencewhich will be represented, an absence of minority dissent from group views notnecessarily being a positive indicator (Barnes, 1999a). Waste management isknown to produce a divergence of views, particularly in relation to the optimumbalance between treatment/disposal and recycling, and in relation to thesigni�cance of environmental and health impacts. National environmentalgroups have led anti-incineration and anti-land�ll campaigns.

The CAC processes recruited people known to have strong anti-incinerationviews. This minority view within the CACs was recognized, openly dealt withand recorded throughout. It is interesting that in both CAC processes partici-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 217

pants felt that this dissent and disagreement had been productive, indeed vitalto the debate.

The minority in both processes who could not agree with the consensus viewon the need for energy-from-waste incineration reported that they had gained anunderstanding of the views of the majority. However, the Essex participantsproduced more concern that ‘vociferous’ voices had been a problem, possiblybecause participants were more knowledgeable about waste issues when theystarted compared with the Hampshire participants, resulting in developedopinions appearing sometimes to dominate discussion.

Expert disagreement was aired directly through the seminars, but otherwiseCAC participants were required to understand this through the literatureprovided. However, in Hampshire 63% of participants surveyed stressed thatthey had gained information through direct communication rather than fromreading (Petts, 1997). In both processes there was concern that information andpresentations which put both the ‘for’ and the ‘against’ views must be provided,a panel debate being the preferred method for achieving this as opposed to theindividual witness confrontation encouraged by a jury.

The juries did not aim to recruit people known to have particular views. InLancashire people employed in the waste industry and members of local groupswith a particular interest in waste were excluded. Therefore, any pre-existinganti-incineration views were only present by chance. Dissent within the jury wasmanaged by changing membership of the small discussion groups to avoid anysubgroups consolidating around particular issues. The selected mix of witnesses(e.g. an anti-incineration view from a health researcher during the Hertfordshireprocess) ensured that the jurors were made aware of expert disagreements.However, confrontation of these was limited, as each witness was isolated fromothers.

Expert Challenge and Claims Checking

The challenging of dominant expert assumptions and approaches to assessmentand control lies at the heart of improving the accountability of decision making.This requires a fundamental shift in the relationship between experts and thepublic. Public involvement is not a process of experts educating the ‘ignorant’public. Recognizing expertise as a collective learning process (Limoges, 1993)provides a more relevant de�nition of what needs to happen at the interfacebetween experts and the public in the current climate of distrust. It also aptlydescribes what the public demand of experts in discussion, i.e. they want to testwhat is known, what is not and knowledge certainty; they want to examineassumptions, and to gather information from different parties so as to testcredibility and independence (Petts, 1997).

The CAC processes were weak in providing for the direct testing of credibilityin that, the seminars apart, the dominant presenters of information were localauthority of�cers, who were not necessarily expert in all of the technical issues,such as the health risks of dioxins. The stated preference for debate by a panelof experts re�ected the inherent understanding that vested interest and uncer-tain science underpin expert disagreement. People want to make up their ownminds having listened to all views.

The CAC discourse was based on free availability of information backed by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

218 J. Petts

the information individuals gained during the expert seminar and from thelibrary of information available to them and the site visits. The CACs did facecomplex issues dogged by information de�ciencies, e.g. the relative costs andhealth impacts of different management options. However, the nature of theCAC process allowed for the revisiting of issues if these were important, and thenon-adversarial style allowed individuals to assimilate information in their owntime.

Although some literature was available to jury members (including sum-maries of each witness’s presentation), and they also went on site visits, therewas a belief that many would not be used to reading of�cial and formal reports,articles or technical evaluations and might �nd it dif�cult to assimilate thematerial (Richard Kuper, personal communication). Therefore, the jurors werelargely reliant on the verbal evidence provided and had to �nd ways to retainthis and to determine its validity. It is interesting, for example, that in Hertford-shire the issue of dioxins and health was raised not by the jurors but by theanti-incineration witness. By contrast, in the CACs, access to material, and thepresence of known anti-incineration views, ensured that dioxins and healthbecame a major CAC-generated issue.

While jurors remained positive about their task, the signi�cant amountof information they received, and the short time they had to collate theirthoughts and to question the experts, meant that they tended to drift off thesubject being discussed at a particular point and/or to lag behind sothat expert witnesses were confronted with questions better suited to thosewho had presented evidence at an earlier stage. There were numerousquestions which went unanswered. As a witness on the �rst day of theLancashire jury it was evident that jurors could readily raise some of the keycomplex issues, such as the costs of recycling, but that these would easilybecome blurred unless the process provided means to retain and order dis-cussion points.

The time restrictions in the juries meant that, compared with the CACs,individuals had dif�culties learning progressively (although there is no doubtthat people did gain knowledge). They had to respond immediately to the topicbeing presented to them, regardless of understanding and of whether they hadgained the con�dence to raise appropriate questions. None of the processes usedstructuring techniques (such as value-tree analysis) to identify, retain and orderthe relevant values, issues, interests and views.

There was initial scepticism by councillors and some of�cers of the ability ofthe public to get to grips with such a complex issue. In all four processes thisproved unfounded. The underpinning knowledge based in personal experiencethat people brought to the processes was signi�cant in relation to issues such asrecycling or the local nuisance impacts of land�ll. What it revealed, however,was the clear tension between modes of expression, members of the public usinganecdotal and personal evidence whilst experts used systematic and generalizedevidence based on abstract knowledge (Dietz et al., 1989). The two modes do nothave to remain in different corners of the debating ring, but this requires thedeliberative process to allow discussion time, opportunity and resources (e.g. ofinterpretation and mediation) for the hidden rationalities in the arguments ofany party to be explored. It is doubtful whether any of the processes discussedhere achieved this.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 219

Making a Difference to Participants

If people are to be persuaded to take part in deliberative processes and to beprevented from suffering participation overload they must derive personalvalue: learning, self-esteem, social contact and friendships; even fun. Decisionmakers similarly have to gain not just in organizational learning and improvedpublic con�dence, but also in personal enjoyment of engagement with localpeople and a renewed sense of commitment to their work (Barnes, 1999a).

Each of the processes had a fundamental and favourable impact on theparticipants. In the Essex CAC the majority of those surveyed post-processreported that their own knowledge had ‘improved considerably’. In Hampshiremany CAC members obtained an understanding of waste management issuesthat was better than that of some of those who would have to make decisions.People reported “enjoying” the processes.

Of�cers and, to a degree, elected members in Hampshire and Essex reportedthat the process was “encouraging”, “opened up discussion” and allowed forpeople to “let off steam” and for themselves “to understand better” the concernsof different people. Pre-event they had placed greater stress on the potential tochange opinions. There is no doubt that the standing of individual of�cers withwhom people had regular contact rose considerably.

The juries provided less opportunity for such credibility raising, althoughparticipants were appreciative that the County Councils had organized theprocesses. The post-jury questionnaires revealed that people had enjoyed takingpart and approved of the way that the processes had been run. In Hertfordshire,15 of the 16 jurors felt that the money spent on the jury ‘was money well spent’(Kuper, 1996). A wide range of suggestions were made for issues for futurejuries, such as education provision, council spending and traf�c management,and 11 of the 16 said that they would de�nitely serve if called again (Kuper,1996)—a sense of citizenship being evident.

The pre- and post-jury questionnaires also revealed the increased personalunderstanding and knowledge gained from the process. For example, there wasan increase in the perceived importance of waste reduction and composting asa result of deliberation (Kuper, 1996).

Ensuring a Consensus

The process of seeking a consensus on recommendations to be made to decisionmakers is fundamental to both juries and CACs. It ensures their continuedfunctioning in terms of willing participant engagement, as well as the ultimatelegitimacy of the process. Raising trust between participants through the deliber-ative process is important, as the aim is to achieve outcomes upon which peoplecan agree, based on respect for different values within the group. Consensusoutcomes require people to be willing to accept the alternative view as legit-imate, but not necessarily to change their own position.

The structure of CACs promotes consensual decision making, i.e. face-to-facecommunication over relatively long time-periods with nothing prohibiting par-ticipants from raising factual issues or personal beliefs and weighing up differ-ent kinds of knowledge, except information resources and time during sessions(Renn et al., 1995). As has already been noted, the CACs here both reported sometime and information de�ciencies. The managed processes were directed to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

220 J. Petts

closure after a de�ned period. However, each CAC group prepared its ownconclusions and a list of the main issues and recommendations from eachprocess was agreed by all of the groups. Majority and minority views wereincluded.

This �nal process of consensus building was able to capitalize upon agreementof outcomes during the process: for example, the minutes of every CAC meeting,drafted by the facilitators, were open to agreement and recording of minorityviews and became public documents. In both processes there was a majorityview that a form of consensus had been achieved, related to the need for anintegrated waste management strategy. In Hamphire, a few who had concernsat the beginning that this was merely a public relations exercise by the CountyCouncil felt that the �nal outcome was inevitable because discussion andcomments had been led to it (Petts, 1994). Some people noted that the CAC’s�nal report was quite basic and that they would have liked to have been able tohave produced a more detailed document on speci�c solutions.

Citizens’ juries often do not make use of the best methods to arrive at sharedpreferences (Renn et al., 1995), opportunities for group discussion being rela-tively limited except on the �nal day of deliberations. In the Hertfordshire andLancashire juries the draft �nal report was produced by the moderator ratherthan the jurors, drawing upon notes of views expressed and provisional posi-tions taken during the previous days. It was then discussed during the �nal daysession, redrafted by the moderator and considered again by the jury. Thismoderator-driven closure mechanism can be seen as important when time isshort, but could have the potential for failure unless the person concerned hasbeen able to generate trust within the jury. The moderator of the Hertfordshirejury concluded that “generally jurors did not feel pressurised to agree with themajority. Where they modi�ed their views it was the result of a process ofinformed deliberation” (Kuper, 1996, p. 28). Only one person in Hertfordshirereported feeling under pressure to agree with the majority view. Comparisonbetween the jurors’ ‘before’ and ‘after’ questionnaires in Hertfordshire suggesteda convergence of views in the jury, with shared approaches being strengthenedby discussion without differences being suppressed (Kuper, 1997).

Making a Difference to Decisions

The conclusions reached differed in complexity of view but not in overall focus.The CAC processes produced a view that there was a need for an integratedwaste strategy, whereas the jury processes seemed to produce a slightly moreanti-incineration view with greater emphasis on recycling, although it would bewrong to draw too �rm a conclusion in this regard. In Lancashire there wasagreement that any decision by the County Council which might favour energy-from-waste incineration should be deferred for a period of 3–5 years, althoughthis was not to prevent the County Council from investigating the legal andcontractual issues as well as possible sites (Lancashire Citizen Jury, 2000). InHertfordshire the jurors set a target of no more that one-third of current arisingsgoing to incineration with recycling and reuse to be maximized (Kuper, 1996),although it is not clear how they arrived at this �gure, gut feeling possibly beingmost likely. In all four counties land�ll was seen as the least acceptable option;waste minimization and recycling were given greatest support.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 221

The processes resulted in the recognition that there are no easy solutions towaste management and that uni�ed commitment to waste reduction and therecycling of resources is required. In Hampshire and Essex the conclusions weremore detailed in terms of speci�c types of facilities which might be appropriatewithin an integrated strategy. In Hampshire the conclusions impacted directlyand immediately on the waste management contract let (e.g. in terms of thecapacity of the energy-from-waste incinerators).

It would be wrong to conclude that the slightly different outcomes re�ectedonly the different deliberative processes. The differing waste management,social, economic and decision contexts of the four counties have to be con-sidered. For example, in Hampshire the options available to be considered werein practice fewer, as land�ll void is exhausted. In Hampshire and Essex thedecision processes for letting new waste contracts were more imminent andpressing. This might have produced a greater emphasis on the need to producean implementable conclusion, i.e. greater pragmatism.

No process can operate in isolation from existing views and tensions in anauthority. In Hertfordshire a draft waste local plan supportive of incinerationhad generated a petition of over 1000 anti-incineration signatures. In Essex adraft waste local plan had already identi�ed a site for an incinerator in the southof the county. In Hampshire the immediate background was a failed applicationfor an incinerator in Portsmouth (Petts, 1994). There is little doubt that theconclusions of both the CACs and juries were strongly in�uenced by mistrust ofregulatory, institutional and corporate mechanisms and priorities. For example,the demands by the Hampshire and Essex CACs for small-capacity energy-from-waste plant re�ected concerns that long-term recycling rates would be adverselyaffected by large-capacity plant. In Hertfordshire the 40% incineration limit wasseen by some jurors as a way of not letting the County Council ‘off the hook’ interms of raising recycling limits (Richard Kuper, personal communication).

Nevertheless, there was some evidence in the jury outcomes of a ‘wish list’(Armour, 1995), the time for witnesses to make expressive claims and to discussauthenticity being relatively limited. On the other hand, the CAC processescould be considered to be managed to arrive at a consensus view about the needfor an integrated strategy.

The reports of the CACs and juries were of�cially received by the relevantdecision-making committees and formal responses were given. The Hertford-shire County Council Waste Planning Policy Panel:

… welcomed the report of the jury as a constructive contribution to thedevelopment of the County Council’s strategy for waste management.In particular the advice of the jury has provided a useful insight topublic perceptions of those initiatives that are likely to succeed, and pro-mote sustainable waste management practices (Kuper, 1996, pp. E1-E2).

This conclusion hints at a fundamental issue in any consideration of ‘making adifference to decisions’, i.e. are we concerned only with immediate outcomesand decisions or should we also be interested in the impact on the broader,perhaps longer-term, culture of decision making? Deliberative processes shouldmake a signi�cant contribution to changing the culture in which decisions aremade. The traditional paternalistic nature of decision making by local authoritiesshould be undermined by deliberative processes. There is no doubt that decisionmakers in each of the authorities concerned have embarked on a new relation-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

222 J. Petts

ship with the local public through these processes. There is recognition thatdecisions can be better informed. The con�dence of decision makers to takedif�cult and complex decisions has been raised.

Transparency and Openness

The juries were self-focused and discrete, i.e. not part of a major publicinformation and consultation exercise. The juries were open to observation in thewitness sessions, but not in their own small-group deliberations. Permittingobservation in the latter might be counter-productive as, in the very short time(often only 20–30 minutes) available in these sessions, opportunities to buildjurors’ con�dence and ability to participate are paramount. Attendance byobservers at the juries was very low.

All of the CAC meetings were open to the public, the industry and otherinterested parties as observers only. People identi�ed themselves at the begin-ning of each meeting. Whilst not allowed to comment during the CAC’sdeliberations, they could ask questions at the end of each meeting. However,attendance was again low, there being usually no more than a dozen additionalpeople in the room, with the majority of these often being of�cers from thedistrict authorities. It was clear that the CAC process did not capture the publicimagination; indeed, it is actually extremely dif�cult to see how this could beachieved. Even the media had dif�culty in maintaining an ongoing story. Wastemanagement lacks media ‘sex appeal’ until speci�c proposals and sites areidenti�ed.

The most important difference between the CAC and jury processes was thatthe former were run in parallel with major, mixed, information provision andconsultation activities (including questionnaires, focus groups and public meet-ings).

The Optimum Process?

Table 3 attempts to summarize the performance of the processes in the fourcounties against the 10 evaluation criteria. It is important to emphasize that thetwo processes have not been evaluated against local effectiveness criteria offeredby the participants themselves. As indicated earlier, the objective is not tosuggest one process as being better than the other. Indeed, Table 3 suggests thatthere is no optimum process. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

To date, UK applications of deliberative processes to waste managementdecisions have been largely application ‘by the book’. This is not meant as acriticism, as it is evident that the application has been valuable to both partici-pants and decision makers, and the increase in the number of county councilsand waste disposal authorities considering the methods is testimony to theevidence of their overall impact. Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, forexample, used a consensus panel to aid the development of its waste strategyduring 2000. However, the immense complexity of waste management as adecision problem suggests that there is a need to adapt the processes if anoptimum is to be achieved.

The experience and evaluation in Table 3 suggest that the optimum processfor strategic waste planning is one which:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 223

Table 3. Summary evaluation of the performance of the processes

Citizens’ juries:CACs: Hampshire and Hertfordshire and

Criterion Essex Lancashire

Representativeness *(*)a ***Procedural fairness ** *Deliberation *** *Engagement of within-group *** **

dissentExpert challenge * **Claims testing ** **Making a difference to *** ***

participantsPromotion of consensus *** ***Making a difference to *** **(*)b

decisionsTransparency/Openness *** **

a If parallel public consultation exercise is taken into account.b Decisions in Hertfordshire and Lancashire on waste strategies still to be taken:therefore it is not possible to gauge full impact.Note: *, **, *** Increasing success in meeting criteria.

(1) combines the confrontational style of the jury with the learning style of theCAC;

(2) opens the agenda and operation of the process to participant in�uence andto adaptation in the light of participants’ requirements;

(3) allows ample discussion time;(4) is �exible so that additional time and information resources can be allocated

to deal with participant-generated issues;(5) is part of a broader public consultation and information process;(6) integrates public involvement with the assessment and decision-making

process;(7) uses a recruitment process which ensures that both a spread of interests and

socio-demographically representative views are included.

Almost certainly it means a tiered or phased process which combines differentforms of deliberative process. The German experience (Renn et al., 1993) mightbe dif�cult to replicate in the UK because of the compartmentalized nature ofdecision making, which separates the waste strategy from the siting processitself. However, mixing methods to match purpose and the use of structuredassessment processes such as multi-criteria analysis and site ranking techniquesare worthy of consideration. This would require a further culture shift amongstdecision makers and experts to allow an interactive assessment process wherepeople representative of community interests and characteristics debate anddirectly in�uence the choice of scenarios, assumptions and acceptability criteriawhich underpin the technical assessment of the best practicable environmentalstrategy. Such culture and practice development has signi�cant implications forresources and skills, over and above the additional costs that the processesreported here result in.

There are two remaining major issues which, as yet, have generated onlyluke-warm acceptance: the need to de�ne publicly acceptable evaluation criteria;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

224 J. Petts

and the formal and independent evaluation of the process based on the partici-pants’, the non-participating public’s and the decision makers’ criteria. Theevaluation process has to adopt participatory techniques (Barnes, 1999a, b) if thelearning objective which should underpin evaluation is to be optimized.

Conclusion

Four English county councils have experimented with novel approaches togaining the input of public views and values into strategies for the long-termmanagement of municipal waste. Considering theoretical criteria relevant to thefair and competent process, the forms of CACs used seem to have been moreeffective in enhancing deliberation, in engaging dissent and in being transparentthan have the citizens’ juries, but less effective in terms of the extent to whichthey were representative of the views of the general public and direct expertchallenge.

The application of deliberative processes to such complex problems as wastemanagement, whether at the national, regional or local levels, requires anadaptive approach to the application of methods. The ideal would seem to be anapproach which combines the advantages of both CACs and juries integratedwith broader public consultation so that the key criticism of representation istackled. Integration of methods combined with more structured means toinvolve the public in the assessment process itself will be essential.

There is little doubt that evidence of ‘what works’ can only be gained by anevaluation process which is independent of the actual deliberative process. Theevaluation of participation should stress a learning rather than a judgementalprocess.

Acknowledgements

For the opportunity to observe the juries, the author thanks Hertfordshire andLancashire waste disposal authorities. For the opportunity to evaluate formallythe CACs, the author thanks Hampshire and Essex waste disposal authorities.The author bene�ted greatly from discussions with Pat Delbridge of PDAInternational Ltd, organizer of the Hampshire and Essex CACs, and RichardKuper, the moderator of the juries. The author thanks Richard Kuper for hisvaluable comments on a draft of this paper. The author would also like to thankMarian Barnes of the Department of Social Policy at the University of Birming-ham for discussing her experience of juries in other decision areas, and SimonGerrard of the Centre for Environmental Risk Management at the University ofEast Anglia for his observations on the Hertfordshire process. All errors of factsand interpretation are entirely the author’s.

References

Aarhus Convention (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-makingand Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 25 June 1998, Aarhus, Denmark (Geneva, UNECE).

Aranoff, M. & Gunter, V. (1994) A pound of cure: facilitating participatory processes in technologicalhazard disputes, Society and Natural Resources, 7, pp. 235–252.

Armour, A. (1991) The siting of locally unwanted land uses, Progress in Planning, 35, pp. 1–74.Armour, A. (1995) The citizens’ jury model of public participation, in: O. Renn, T. Webler & P.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes 225

Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmen-tal Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,35(4), pp. 216–244.

Barnes, M. (1999a) Researching public participation, Local Government Studies, 25, pp. 60–75.Barnes, M. (1999b) Building a Deliberative Democracy: An Evaluation of Two Citizens’ Juries (London,

Institute of Public Policy Research).Council of Europe (1999) Directive on the land�ll of waste, 99/31/EC, Of�cial Journal of the European

Communities, L182/1/99.Creighton, J. (1983) The use of values: public participation in the planning process, in: G. A. Daneke,

M. W. Garcia & J. D. Priscoli (Eds) Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment (Boulder, CO,Westview Press).

Creighton, J. (1993) Guidelines for Establishing Citizens’ Advisory Groups (Washington, DC, US Depart-ment of Energy).

Crosby, N. (1995) Citizens’ juries: one solution for dif�cult environmental questions, in: O. Renn, T.Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models forEnvironmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Crosby, N., Kelly, J.M. & Schaefer, P. (1986) Citizens’ panels: a new approach to citizen participation,Public Administration Review, 46, pp. 170–178.

Daniels, S.E. & Walker, G.B. (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosys-tem-based management, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, pp. 71–102.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998) Enhancing Public Partici-pation in Local Government (London, HMSO).

DETR (2000) Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales (London, DETR).Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. & Rycroft, R.W. (1989) De�nition of con�ict and the legitimation of resources:

the case of environmental risk, Sociological Forum, 4, pp. 47–69.Environment Agency (1998) Consensus-building for Sustainable Development, SD12 (London, Environ-

ment Agency).Fiorino, D.J. (1990) Public participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mecha-

nisms, Science, Technology and Human Values, 152, pp. 226–243.Gutman, A. & Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA, Harvard Univer-

sity Press).Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalisation of Society, vol. 1

(Cambridge, Polity Press).Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London, Macmillan).Houghton, D. (1988) Citizen advisory boards: autonomy and effectiveness, American Review of Public

Administration, 18, pp. 283–296.Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2000) Guidelines for Public Participation in

Environmental Decision-making (http://www.greenchannel.com/iea/consulta.htm).Kathlene, L. & Martin, J. (1991) Enhancing citizen participation: panel designs, perspectives and

policy formation, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, pp. 46–63.Keeney, R.L., Renn, O. & Winterfeldt, D. von (1987) Structuring West Germany’s energy objectives,

Energy Policy, 15, pp. 352–362.Kuper, R. (1996) Citizens Juries: The Hertfordshire Experience, Politics Paper No. 3 (Hertford, University

of Hertfordshire).Kuper, R. (1997) Deliberating waste: the Hertfordshire Citizens’ Jury, Local Environment, 2(2),

pp. 139–153.Lancashire Citizen Jury (2000) Recommendations to the Waste Management Steering Group, January 2000

(Lancashire, Lancashire County Council).Limoges, C. (1993) Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts, Public Under-

standing of Science, 2, pp. 417–426.Lynn, F.M. & Busenberg, G.J. (1995) Citizen advisory committees and environmental policy: what we

know, what’s left to discover, Risk Analysis, 15(2), pp. 147–162.Lynn, F.M. & Kartez, J. (1995) The redemption of citizen advisory committees: a perspective from

critical theory, in: O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in CitizenParticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Petts, J. (1992) Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: experience in the UK improving riskcommunication, Waste Management and Research, 10, pp. 169–182.

Petts, J. (1994) Hampshire County Council Integrated Waste Strategy Community Consultation andInvolvement, ETSU B/EW/00389/73/REP (Harwell, Energy Technology Support Unit).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014

226 J. Petts

Petts, J. (1995) Waste management strategy development: a case study of community involvementand consensus-building in Hampshire, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(4),pp. 519–536.

Petts, J. (1997) The public–expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibilityand process, Public Understanding of Science, 6(4), pp. 359–382.

Petts, J. (1999) Public participation in EIA, in: J. Petts (Ed) Handbook of Environmental ImpactAssessment, vol. 1 (Oxford, Blackwell Science).

Petts, J., Gerrard, S., Delbridge, P., Murrell, L. & Eduljee, G. (1996) Perceptions and CommunicationIssues for Waste Management, Research Report CWM 151/96 (London, Environment Agency).

Portney, K.E. (1991) Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities (New York, Auburn House).Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. & Johnson, B. (1993) Public participation in decision

making: a three step procedure, Policy Sciences, 26, pp. 191–214.Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (Eds) (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation:

Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).Schneider, E., Oppermann, B. & Renn, O. (1998) Experiences from Germany: application of a

structured model of public participation in waste management planning, International Journal ofPublic Participation, 4(1), pp. 63–72.

Sewell, W.R.D. & Coppock, J.T. (1977) A perspective on public participation in planning, in: W. R.D. Sewell & J. T. Coppock (Eds) Public Participation in Planning (London, Wiley).

Smith, L.G. (1987) The evolution of public participation in Canada: implications for participatorypractice, British Journal of Canadian Studies, 2(2), pp. 213–235.

Stern, P.C. (1991) Learning through con�ict: a realistic strategy for risk communication, PolicySciences, 24, pp. 99–119.

Stern, P.C. & Fineberg, H.V. (Eds) (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a DemocraticSociety (Washington, DC, National Academy Press).

Vari, A. (1995) Citizens’ advisory committee as a model for public participation: a multiple-criteriaevaluation, in: O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in CitizenParticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Webler, T. (1995) ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick, in: O. Renn, T.Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models forEnvironmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Webler, T. (1999) The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process, Journal of RiskResearch, 2(1), pp. 55–72.

Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. & Renn, O. (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a sociallearning perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, pp. 443–463.

Young, S.C. (1996) Promoting Participation and Community-based Partnerships in the Context of LocalAgenda 21: A Report for Practitioners (Manchester, University of Manchester, Department ofGovernment).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

14:

31 0

1 M

ay 2

014