Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Makin

8/3/2019 Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Makin

1/25

1

Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making Rhetoric to Reality?

Rosemary F James1

and Russell K Blamey2

Paper presented at the

1999 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management

Brisbane, Australia

7 - 10 July 1999

Introduction

There are many methods of and opportunities for public participation3

in environmental

decision-making in Australia. The emphasis in this paper is on methods of publicparticipation in environmental decision-making which lie outside the normalrepresentative political process, having stronger foundations in participatory democracy.

In particular, the potential of discursive and deliberative forms of participatory

democracy to provide alternative approaches to public participation in environmentalmanagement is discussed. One particular method, the citizens' jury, is considered in

some detail and key methodological issues concerned with the application of the methodare discussed.

The paper is structured as follows. The role of public participation in environmental

management is considered in the next section, including a brief overview of the notion ofparticipatory democracy. Typologies of participation are considered in the next section,

along with the nature of public participation in national park planning in New SouthWales. Deliberative forms of public participation are then introduced, and some of the

key methodological issues pertaining to the conduct of citizens' juries are identified, anddiscussed at length. Some brief conclusions are drawn.

The role of public participation in environmental management

The history of participation in development projects is perhaps longer and more diverse

than that of participation in conservation and environmental matters, and may thus beinformative to consider. Participatory approaches were first discussed in the

1

Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University and CRC for Weed

Management Systems. Email: [email protected]

Urban and Environmental Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University3

In the context of this paper, public participation is used to mean "...active involvement of people in

making decisions about the implementation of processes, programmes and projects which affect them."

(Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer 1995, p3).


2/25

2

development literature in the late 1950s; failures of development projects were in many

cases attributed to inadequacies of project design and implementation, as a consequenceof insufficient involvement by local populations (Rahnema, 1992). This view is

expressed in much of the development and conservation literature, and relies in the mainon the premises that the quality of the project design and/or stakeholder support for the

project will be reduced if effective participation has not occurred (see, for example,Davis-Case, 1989). The more recent involvement of communities in conservation-related

projects in less developed countries, dating from the mid-1980s, including those focusingon sustainable development, derives from a similar basis - the emerging realisation that

conservation projects operating in a manner, or with objectives, unacceptable orunimportant to local people will have reduced chances of success (see, for example,

Pimbert and Pretty, 1997).

More recently, inclusion of the views of those potentially affected by developmentprojects has been seen not merely as a task to be undertaken in order to reduce project

failure, but as a necessity on ethical grounds. There is an emerging trend to recognise

the need for empowerment of communities so they may participate in decisions whichaffect them (Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer, 1995).

Hence it appears that two bases are commonly used in justifying public participation indevelopment and conservation projects in less developed countries. Firstly, that the

project will fail or at the least meet with reduced success, if all the relevant stakeholdersdo not participate effectively. Secondly, that the stakeholders have a right to be involved.

As Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer (1995, p. 11) note, "central to these approaches is thebelief that ordinary people are capable of critical reflection and analysis and that their

knowledge is relevant and necessary."

The emergence of interest in public participation in decision-making in developedcountries has been well-documented by Webler and Renn (1995). The authors note the

surge of public interest in environmental matters in the 1970s, and the subsequent legalprovision of various means of public access to government decision-making.

Theoretical basis

The theoretical basis for public participation lies largely with participatory democracy,

which, in simple literal terms, means 'rule by the people'. Chekki (1979, xiii) refers toparticipatory democracy as "all acts of citizens that are intended to influence the

behaviour of those empowered to make the decisions". Participatory democracy thusinvolves decentralised or dispersed forms of decision-making and the direct involvement

of amateurs in the making of decisions (Cook and Morgan, 1971). Associated with thedispersion of power is the notion of community empowerment. Empowerment involves

self-perceptions of competence associated with an active engagement in one's communityand an understanding of one's sociopolitical environment. Rather than taking the external

environment as a given, empowered individuals learn how to exert greater control over it4

4

Empowerment implies involvement of members of the community in the development, implementation

and evaluation of interventions. Professionals tend to work with members of the community as 'coequal


3/25

3

(Zimmerman, 1995). Community development is a classic example of an empowering

form of participatory democracy.

A common distinction in participatory democracy is between co-determination modelsand self-determination models. The former refers to mutual cooperation between non-

expert citizens and trained experts and a form of joint decision-making. The latter refersto the complete autonomy of citizens in decision-making (Chekki 1979).

Under the tenets of participatory democratic theory, as noted by Webler and Renn (1995),

participation of the public is functionally and morally central to democracy. Publicparticipation is seen as essential to advise decision-makers adequately of community

needs and preferences. Some of the foundations which have been used to supportparticipatory democratic theory and hence public participation in government decision-

making are summarized in Table 1.

The application of public participation methods will not necessarily satisfy principles of

participatory democracy, as described by some of the authors cited in Table 1, however.In particular, the development, definition and communication of the public will requires,at the least, information, time and means for deliberation, and a method by which to

reliably transmit the results of that deliberation to decision-makers.

Typologies of participationAs noted earlier, there is an extensive literature on the effective use of public

participation in development and conservation projects in less developed countries. Thisliterature addresses issues such as the purposes to which participation may be put, the

stages of the project life cycle at which it should be employed, the level of power withregard to the decision-making process which should be afforded to the participants and

the methods which may be appropriate under different circumstances. For example,Pimbert and Pretty (1997) list some 30 participatory methods and approaches. By

contrast, there is relatively little published material available regarding methods of publicparticipation in environmental decision-making in Australia and evaluations of the

effectiveness of such participation. Many agencies involved in natural resourcemanagement, however, include public participation of various types in their decision-

making processes.

Various typologies of public participation have been published in recent years. Gujit(1996) cited a number, including those presented by Biggs (1989); Hart (1992); Stiefel

and Wolfe (1994); and Cornwall (1996). One which is of particular relevance in thiscontext is that presented by Pimbert and Pretty (1997) , in their examination of

participation in conservation projects in less developed countries. The key features ofthe classification, which is of relevance to developed countries also, are detailed in Table

2. It is noteworthy that only the use of methods falling into the last three categories ofthe typology would potentially lead to participatory democracy. The necessary

partners' (Zimmerman, 1995). Their role is one of facilitation and support. Community dependence on

these professionals is reduced by providing opportunities for members of the community to develop the

skills necessary to carry out tasks.


4/25

4

conditions information, time and means for deliberation, and a method to communicate

the results of the deliberation to decision-makers are potentially associated only withfunctional and interactive participation and self-mobilisation, as the terms are employed

in the typology. The participation classification developed by Pimbert and Pretty inrelation to conservation projects corresponds with that documented by Arnstein (1969),

and subsequently much-cited, which was based primarily on urban development andwelfare programs in the United States. The points of equivalence are summarized in

Table 3.

Both typologies are arranged on the basis of the level of power accorded to theparticipants, a common basis for such classifications. Alternative classifications can be

envisaged based on the participatory methodologies employed, on the stage of the projectcycle at which participation occurs, and on the extent of legislative support for

participation. For example, Taberner, Brunton et al. (1996) provided a brief classificationof public participation in environmental protection and planning law in Australia based

on the form of participation employed. Ramsay and Rowe (1995) noted that public

participation in environmental decision-making in Australia could occur at a number ofstages, including:. formulation of policy and law;

. rights of notification or access to information;

. rights to seek review of decisions;

. rights to force a Government agency to take action; and

. the ability to bring court proceedings to prevent contravention of the rights to

participation.

The typology developed by Pimbert and Pretty encompasses the types of publicparticipation most commonly used in Australia. Some examples of these are shown in

Table 4. The examples provided serve to illustrate the lack of opportunity for the publicdeliberation on the environmental issues under consideration. In key areas of

environmental management, such as management planning for national parks, publicparticipation is limited to the capacity to provide comments on a draft plan. Even this

capacity, as is noted in the accompanying text box, is subject to stringent constraints.

It is clear that this approach to public participation in park management planning is onlyone of several modes available. The presumed advantages and disadvantages of the

approach are considered briefly in Table 5. Clearly, there are a number of potentialshortcomings associated with the method used to seek public participation in the

formulation of national park management plans in the case examined. Perhaps the mostsignificant failings of this approach to public participation are that those with vested

interests are more likely to become involved, participants are often ill-informed, and itfails to provide any means by which conflicting views on the allocation of the park's

physical resources and/or the most appropriate modes of management can be resolved. Itis here that some of the more deliberative and representative forms of public participation

may have something to offer.


5/25

5

..

...Public participation in national park management planning in New South Wales

The state of New South Wales contains some 103 national parks, covering an area of 3.8 m ha. This

represents approximately 4.7 % of the area of the state (New South Wales National Parks and WildlifeService 1998). These areas fall under the responsibility of the New South Wales National Parks and

Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS). Under the provisions of theNational Parks and Wildlife Act(1974),

a plan of management is required to be prepared for each national park. As at 30 June 1998, plans ofmanagement were in force for 72 of the state's 103 national parks.

The plan of management is a legally binding document, which details the future management of thearea concerned.

The planning process is briefly as follows:

. the Director-General (the senior civil servant) of the NSW NPWS gives notice that a draftplan of management has been prepared;

. the plan is made available for public comment, for at least one month;

. the draft plan and copies of all representations received from the public are referred to theNational Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council for consideration. (This body comprises 15

representatives of various community groups and interests and the Director-General);

. the Council prepares recommendations regarding the draft plan, which are then submitted bythe Director-General to the responsible Minister for consideration. The Minister may either

adopt the plan or refer it back to the Director-General and the Council for further

consideration.

(New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1998)

The public, then, has the opportunity for participation by two means by submission when the plan is

made available for comment, and through the community representatives on the Advisory Council.There are explicit limitations placed on the former mode of participation, however. Instructions

accompanying a plan recently available for comment include the following:. ' the draft plan of management will not be amended if your submission:

. makes points ... that were considered during plan preparation;...

. contributes options that are not feasible (for example, not consistent with existing

legislation or Government policy).....'

(New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service 1999)


6/25

6

The deliberative alternative

Whilst it is generally acknowledged that participatory democracy will often stimulate

information acquisition and various degrees of deliberation, this tends not to be theemphasis. The past couple of decades have seen renewed interest in deliberative forms of

participatory democracy. In simple terms, deliberative, or discursive, democracy isparticipatory democracy in which reason, argument and deliberation have primacy over

intuition5.

Deliberative democracy can be defined as "the idea that legitimate lawmaking issuesfrom the public deliberation of citizens" (Bohnian and Rehg, 1997). According to

Bohman (1997, p321), "deliberation is democratic, to the extent that it is based on aprocess of reaching reasoned agreement among free and equal citizens". The four ideals

of deliberative democracy are thus that it is free, reasoned, equal and consensual. What is

meant by each of these principles, and the extent that they can be expected to be satisfiedin practice, has been the subject of much discussion. For example, whilst discursivedemocracy strives for consensus, reasoned disagreement is considered more realistic

(Dryzek, 1990). Deliberative democracy clearly requires that citizens are psychologicallywilling and able to construct and publicly express their own reasons, and consider those

expressed by others (Bohman, 1997). Structural requirements, pertaining to thecircumstances in which society is organised and the nature of the participatory

mechanism, are additional.

Deliberative democracy can be contrasted with other forms of democracy such as elitetheory in political sociology and the economic theory of democracy. Schumpeter (1943,

p251) in his seminal work on elite theory argued that consensual outcomes reflecting thecommon good cannot be reached due to "irreducible differences of ultimate values which

compromise could only maim and degrade". According to elite theory, citizens inmodern democracies are politically uninformed, apathetic and manipulable (Bohnian and

Rehg, 1997). Governance is hence best left to leadership elites with the scope ofdemocracy restricted to the election of these leaders. Whilst a more rational notion of the

citizen is advanced by Down's (1957) economic theory of democracy, the theory hascommonalities with elite theory in so far as voting is seen as the primary form of

democratic control and the political process is characterised by conflict, bargaining andexchange, rather than public reasoning. Deliberative democracy views the political

process as involving more than rational self-interested competition governed bybargaining and social choice mechanisms (Bohnian and Rehg, 1997). Individuals are seen

to be capable of acting as citizens rather than consumers.

According to Christiano (1997), there are three ways that public deliberation can be seento be of value. First, it may produce valuable outcomes, in terms of a) direct moral or

5

Whilst deliberative and discursive democracy are similar and tend to be used interchangeably, Dryzek's

(1990) discursive theory has stronger roots in Habermasian critical theory (Dryzek pers comm; Blaug,

1999).


7/25

7

non-moral consequences of decisions; b) greater legitimacy resulting from greater

understanding and consensus; and c) the creation of a more socially aware and virtuouscitizenry. Second, the process of deliberation may have intrinsic value to the extent that

it promotes self-esteem, mutual respect and so on, independently of the issues underdeliberation. Participation in public deliberation may thus represent part of the 'good

life'. Finally, public deliberation may facilitate political justification in the sense that itcan be argued that such processes are more defensible than some others.

In the next section, a form of participatory democracy that emphasises deliberative

processes is outlined.

The citizen's juryIn developed countries, over the last 30 years there has been growing interest in a group

of public participation methods grounded in deliberative democracy. The methodsinclude citizens' juries, consensus conferences, planning cells and deliberative polls. The

foundations common to all are concerns regarding the failure of representative

democracy to provide adequate consideration of the views of the public, and the need forparticipatory approaches that are deliberative and empowering.

The method which is of immediate interest in this work is the citizens' jury. Almostsimultaneously, and certainly independently, Peter Dienel in Germany and Ned Crosby in

the United States developed similar techniques for deliberative decision-making bymembers of the public on matters of public policy significance. The planungszelle, or

planning cell, method, was developed in Germany in 1969 and the citizens' jury methodwas developed in 1971 (Crosby, 1996) ). The citizens' jury method has since been used

in many parts of the world and in many different types of application. Some recentapplications are summarised in Table 6.

The principal features of the method, as detailed in Crosby (1991, 1996) are briefly as

follow:. the topic should be one which serves the general public interest and not sectional

interests;. the jury is given a specific charge to examine;

. the charge should be clear and concise;

. the process is facilitated;

. the panel is selected either randomly or by use of stratified random sampling;

. selection bases may be demographic, attitudinal or both;

. the panel members are paid;

. the panel members are allowed time to consider the matter adequately;

. information is presented to the panel by witnesses who represent divergentviewpoints;

. the panel members have sufficient time to deliberate on and review all theirfindings and recommendations;

. thus the panel meets most usually for 2-4 days; and

. the final report of the jury includes an evaluation of the process by the jurors.


8/25

8

Consideration of this method in comparison with that currently employed in, for

example, the finalisation of management plans for national parks in New South Wales,leads to identification of a number of advantages. The perceived advantages of this

method include the following:. participants are able to reflect as citizens on the issue;

. participants have time and opportunity to consider the issue adequately;. participants are given access to all information they require in order to consider

the issue; and. participants deliberate in a group and thus the approach mimics the usual

processes of societal learning and decision-making.

The method will shortly be trialled on a matter concerning national park management inNew South Wales, and in the process of finalisation of the application a number of

methodological issues have been identified. These are discussed in the following section.

Methodological issues

Whilst the technique has been in use since the early 1970s, such use has been limited andindividual applications have not been conducted under conditions to which statisticalanalysis can be applied. In addition, applications of the technique have been conducted

in widely disparate social and cultural settings, on a diversity of topics. Hence therefinement of the technique has been largely driven by experiences and events at each of

the applications, rather than by a strategically planned and incremental research agenda.

Nonetheless, a number of key methodological issues can be identified from the literature.These, and some comments on them, follow.

Jury selection

There are two aspects of jury selection: the identification of the population from whichthe sample will be drawn, and the method of selection of the sample.

Identification of the relevant populationIt is clear that the population to be sampled should relate closely to the issue to be

considered, and that the population selected will, as noted by Smith and Wales (1999a),be determined by the nature and scale of the problem. In spite of the potential impact of

this aspect of the process on the outcomes from citizens' juries, the matter has receivedlittle attention in the literature to date. This may be in part be due to the dynamic nature

of the sphere of interest for particular issues. For example, use of the Internet and otherforms of media in environmental campaigns in recent years has served to broaden the

constituency of the environmental activists rapidly and effectively. Global campaigns arenow waged against unsustainable harvesting of tropical timbers and tuna fisheries which

are not considered 'dolphin-safe'. Hence the constituency relevant to a particular citizens' jury charge may alter rapidly, if the topic is of sufficient interest. In general, however,

the population to be sampled can be defined as that which would be subject to clearimpact by the decision on the charge.


9/25

9

Sample selectionThe dominant focus in the literature has been on the method of selection of the jury from

the target population. The basis for jury selection has varied in the applications

examined. This is one of the central issues of the process, and the basis for the choice ofselection method lies in the logical underpinning of the technique. If one is assuming that

the panel is to represent the entire community, then stratified random sampling on somebasis is required. Crosby (1991) considers that the jury members should be a microcosm

of the society from which they come, and should therefore be selected not only on thebasis of demographic criteria but also on the basis of attitude to the issue on which the

panel will deliberate. The jury is, in Crosby's model, proportionally representative of thecommunity as a whole. Examples of this approach are provided in Jefferson Center

(1989), Crosby (1991), and Aldred and Jacobs (1997).

This issue of representativeness is a key concern in the selection of the panel. A decisionmust be made whether to use a random sample or a stratified random sample. Dienel, in

the conduct of planning cells in Germany, is reported by Smith and Wales to use the

former approach. However, a degree of representativeness can be expected to result fromthe fact that the planning cells are replicated simultaneously and/or in series. In additionto the increased inclusiveness resulting from replication (up to 20 replications have beenreported), the cells each contain 25 members (Smith and Wales, 1999a).

Given the lower number of participants in citizens' juries and the usual practice of

running only a single jury on a topic, the use of stratified random sampling appearsessential.

Smith and Wales (1999a) raise some interesting points in relation to the use of stratified

random sampling, however, given the low numbers involved in citizens' juries, and

propose the use of the term 'inclusiveness' instead of 'representativeness'. As the basis forthe citizens' jury process lies in deliberative democracy, and participants are encouragedto consider the issue at hand from a societal rather than a sectional viewpoint, the use of

demographic data in selection of the strata may be unnecessary. It could be taken toimply that representatives of sectional groups are unable to deliberate as citizens and are

instead expected to act as representatives of those sectional groups6.

The idea of artificial constituencies also arises. For example, as Smith and Wales(1999a) ask, are all elderly jurors expected to represent all other elderly citizens? These

authors also raise the practical difficulty that no small sample can adequately represent allthe societal dimensions. The authors posit that there is a conflict between representation

and democratic deliberation. This need not be so, however, at the practical level of anindividual citizens' jury, if the participants are clearly advised that they are to deliberate

as citizens with collective interests rather than as representatives for particular sectionalinterests.

6

On the other hand, different demographic groups may simply have different ways of conceptualising

issues.


10/25

10

In spite of these difficulties, there would appear to be no better basis for jury selection

than the use of stratified random sampling. This is based not on the grounds of statisticalvalidity, as the low sample size and lack of replication of the process exclude the use of

inferential statistics, but on the basis of what Coote and Lenaghan (1997) refer to assymbolic representation, in contrast to proportional representation.

Whilst there may questions regarding the assumptions underlying the design of the strata,

the absence of an explicit basis for jury selection would be even more troubling andwould leave the results of the process open to question by groups and individuals

concerned with the outcome, regarding the inclusiveness of the process.

Nature of the topic and wording of the chargeThe nature of the topic and the wording of the specific charge placed before the jury are

key matters in determining the effectiveness of the process and the capacity of the panelto reach a decision . The charge should be 'short, direct and clear..' (Crosby, 1991). The

charge generally consists of a statement of the central issue and several derived questions

which the jurors should address (Crosby, 1995). Coote and Lenaghan (1997) provideguidance on appropriate wording of the charge, based on their experience in running twojuries on the same topic, but with different approaches to the wording of the charge. Both

open-ended and more specific charges were used, with the latter proving more effective.

In addition, it is clear that the topic must be sufficiently complex and interesting toengage all the panel throughout the jury process. In focus groups run recently by the

authors to examine the proposed citizens' jury on weed control on a particular nationalpark, it was made clear that a jury would not be sufficiently absorbed by the topic to

consider it over the two day period envisaged.

Duration of the processCrosby (1991) suggested that the process could run from 10 hours to 10 days. Reports in

the literature suggest durations of 4 days in general (see, for example, Crosby 1996;Aldred and Jacobs, 1997). Clearly the duration should reflect the complexity of the

charge and the volume and complexity of material to be presented to the panel.

Sequencing of activitiesThe key task of the panel is to reach a considered verdict regarding the charge. In order

to accomplish this, there appear to be a number of essential elements in the jury process.These include aspects related directly to the task and those related to the development of

a suitable set of relationships and of a mode of interacting between the panel membersthemselves and the panel and the facilitator and witnesses.

From assessment of published reports of citizens' juries, principally those provided by

Crosby (1991, 1996) and Aldred and Jacobs (1997), and from development of the processto be followed in a forthcoming citizens' jury, the following appear to be essential

elements for successful operation for a jury.


11/25

11

Group dynamics and jury operation

. explicit development of a set of operating rules for the jury, to govern thebehaviour of members towards each other (Smith and Wales (1999a) use

the term 'rules of conduct');. sufficient time for informal development of operating relationships within

the group;. clarification of procedural issues regarding the process; and

. evaluation of the process.

Jury process. familiarisation with the charge;

. development of jury questions regarding the charge;

. presentations by the witnesses;

. consideration of written and oral material presented by witnesses;

. development of questions for specific witnesses; and

. preparation of the response to the charge.

These activities may occur either in plenary sessions or in smaller groups which report

back to the larger group. It should be noted that the sequence of these elements and thefrequency and duration of each can be expected to vary widely across juries.

Accordingly, two of the most critical features in the design and operation of a citizens' jury would appear to be the design of a schedule which can permit variation during the

process of the jury, and the selection of a facilitator who is similarly able to respond toemerging group requirements.

Size of the jury

Jury sizes reported in the literature range from 12 (Crosby, 1991), 16 (Aldred andJacobs,1997) to 24 (Jefferson Centre, 1989). In determination of the panel size,

consideration needs to be given to the need to maximise inclusiveness on demographicand attitudinal grounds, whilst at the same time being cognisant of the difficulties posed

by management of large groups with a single facilitator. Smith and Wales (1999a) notethat the small size of the jury appears to facilitate the deliberative process, by increasing

the opportunity for all panel members to participate. The panel size should be smallenough to ensure adequate opportunity for participation.

Selection of the witnesses

The selection of appropriate witnesses is a potential source of conflict in juries where thetopic is contentious. Crosby (1991) advises that witnesses should be selected to represent

differing viewpoints. Imbalances in the number of witnesses presented from each side ofthe issue, or unequal allocations of time for presentation by the witnesses may result in

allegations of bias.

Smith and Wales (1999a) refer to the need to ensure that the informed decision-makinganticipated from a citizens' jury does not become manipulated decision-making. To this

point one could add that the jury should be able to be certain that it has had access to all


12/25

12

required witnesses. One would anticipate strong reactions and limited deliberation on the

charge from a jury which suspected that the witnesses provided had been selected tofavour a particular viewpoint and the addition of a provision for the panel to summon

witnesses would to some extent allay those concerns.

Crosby (1991), Coote and Lenaghan (1997) and Smith and Wales (1999a) advocate theallocation of free time towards the end of the jury schedule in order to allow the panel to

call any additional witnesses it may require. Whilst this may provide some organisationaldifficulties, and witnesses may not always be available, the benefits may be significant in

terms of both jury faith in the integrity of the process and of enhanced deliberativecapacity.

Accuracy of information provided by the witnesses

One of the criticisms which has been levelled regarding the recently-conducted consensusconference in Australia

7is that there was no mechanism for correction of factual errors in

the material presented by witnesses. This applied both to written and oral material. This

is noted as a potential issue by Smith and Wales (1999b), amongst other authors. It isclear that there needs to be some type of mechanism which allows for correction offactual inaccuracies in material presented by the witnesses.

Crosby (1995) discussed this issue at some length and concluded a discovery process (as

employed in the legal system) might be used for written material, and a neutral expertcould be present during the jury process to provide clarification and advice to the panel

on technical matters.

FacilitationAs noted earlier, the choice of facilitator is considered a critical element in the successful

conduct of a citizens' jury. In addition, the facilitator should be sufficiently empoweredby the commissioning agency that she/he can assume a clear position of authority in the

minds of the jurors in relation to jury procedural matters.

There is little discussion in the literature on the characteristics of effective facilitators forcitizens' juries, but a number of key characteristics are identified in the literature on focus

groups. These include the following.The facilitator should :

. be a good listener;

. have a demonstrated capacity to manage groups;

. be a good communicator;

. have a basic knowledge of the topic (Krueger 1989).

7

A consensus conference is in effect an extended citizens' jury, lasting in this case 3 days plus two prior

weekends. One of the key differences between the two techniques is the far greater role of the panel in

developing the key question or charge in a consensus conference. Information on the technique can be

found in Grundahl (1995). This particular consensus conference was conducted from March 10-12, 1999,

under the auspices of the Australian Consumers' Association, on the topic of Gene Technology in the Food

Chain.


13/25

13

To these characteristics should be added that of possession of an understanding of the

philosophical basis of citizens' juries and an intention and capacity to comply with theprotocol for the jury as determined by the commissioning agency.

Facilitators with prior experience in running focus groups should be made aware of the

differences between focus groups and citizens' juries. It should be stressed to them thatthe purposes of the two methods are quite different. In the former, the intention is to

extract information on the views of the participants, whereas in the second the intention isto assist the participants in deliberating an issue (Coote and Lenaghan, 1997).

The decision rule

The general expectation is that the jury will reach a consensual agreement. Smith andWales (1999b) noted the need for the panel to be allowed space to work through

disagreements regarding the decision on the charge, and the need to guard againstfacilitators who seek to push for consensus in advance of the group resolving differences

of opinion. However, consensus, whilst desirable, is not essential to the process (Coote

and Lenaghan, 1997).

BiasIt is critical to the success of the individual citizens' jury itself, to the adoption of the

results and to the further development of the technique that a citizens' jury should be asfree from bias as possible. Bias in this sense is used to indicate imbalance of some type

in the process of the citizens' jury, such that a particular outcome is rendered more likelyas a consequence of structural features of the citizens' jury application, rather than being

determined solely by the panel's considered views regarding the issue. Sources of bias inthis sense may originate from the following. (The references cited are some of those in

which the presence of this source of bias was either explored or identified.). panel selection (Smith and Wales, 1999a);

. framing of the charge (Armour, 1995; Smith and Wales, 1999b);

. background material presented to the panel (Aldred and Jacobs, 1997);

. witness selection (Armour, 1995; Smith and Wales, 1999b);

. unequal access by witnesses to the panel (Jefferson Center, 1989);

. greater or lesser presentation skills on the parts of the witnesses;

. differences in the complexity of arguments used by the witnesses;

. behaviour of the facilitator; and

. behaviour of the associated staff (Jefferson Center, 1989);

Many of these sources of bias can be controlled through the design of the process of the

individual citizens' jury.

Adoption of the resultIndications from the focus groups conducted recently in order to structure the proposed

citizens' jury on weed control in national parks were that few people would participateunless they were certain that the results of the citizens' jury would be used by the relevant


14/25

14

agencies. This concern was also expressed by the citizen panel in the recent Australian

consensus conference.

Hence it is considered essential that the relationship between those conducting the paneland the commissioning agency (where there is one) be close, and that the charge be

structured so as to ensure that adoption of the outcome is possible. To that end, thecharge should, in general, be worded so as to exclude the possibility of outcomes which

are outside the current legal framework and would therefore not be implemented.However, there may be circumstances in which the commissioning agency is willing to

consider extra-legal outcomes, and the charge may be worded to reflect that, with theaddition of a proviso that all efforts will be made to modify the law. This approach

would be of particular benefit in situations where the current law is consideredinapplicable to the prevailing social circumstances and attitudes, and where the jury is

charged to recommend amendments.

Smith and Wales (1999a) advocate the signing of a pre-jury contract between the

commissioning agency, the facilitating agency and the jurors. One of the clauses of thecontract would require the commissioning agency to either adopt the results of the jury orto explain why it has decided not to do so. Clearly this approach will not be appropriate

to all citizens' juries; for example, those reported by the Jefferson Center (1989) andCrosby (1991) were concerned with assessment of candidates for political office.

However, in cases where the charge concerns some issue of allocation of public resourcesor determination of public policy, such an approach would ensure jurors of the value

which would be placed on the results of their endeavours.

As has been mentioned earlier, a citizens' jury will be run shortly in New South Wales onthe issue of investment in protected area management, with particular reference to the

management of environmental weeds. At this stage it is intended that the methodologicalissues raised above will be handled as shown in Table 7.

Conclusion

Citizens' juries offer an alternative to the more commonly applied means of publicparticipation in environmental management in Australia. Decisions on such matters are

frequently complex and involve trade-offs which may not be readily apparent. Althoughgaining in popularity, the technique is one which has not been widely applied. Hence

there are major methodological issues to be explored. The technique is soon to be appliedby the authors in an attempt to assess the environmental values associated with an

environmental management issue within coastal national parks in an Australian state.


15/25

15

References

Aldred, J. and M. Jacobs (1997). Citizens and wetlands. Lancaster, UK, Centre for theStudy of Environmental Change, Lancaster University: 40.

Armour, A. (1995). The citizens' jury model of public participation: a critical evaluation.

Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for EnvironmentalDiscourse. O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer

Academic Publishers. 10: 175 - 187.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Instituteof Planning 35(4): 216-224.

Biggs, S. (1989). Resource- Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of

Experience from Nine Agricultural Research Systems. The Hague, The Netherlands,

ISNAR, OCFOR Project Study.

Blaug, R. (1999). Democracy, Real and Ideal: Discourse Ethics and Radical Politics,

Albany, State University of New York Press.

Bohman, J. (1997). Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities,Resources and Opportunities, in Bohman and Rehg (eds) pp321-348.

Bohman, J. and W. Rehg. (1997). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and

Politics, Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.

Carson, L. (1996). How do decision makers in local government respond to public

participation? Faculty of Education, Work and Training. Lismore, Southern CrossUniversity: 278 + app.

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last., IT Publications .

Chekki, D.A. (1979). Participatory Democracy in Action: International Profiles of

Community Development, Bombay, Vikas Publishing House.

Christiano, T. (1997). The significance of public deliberation, in Bohman and Rehg (eds)pp243-278.

Cook, T.E. and P.M. Morgan. (1971) Participatory Democracy, San Francisco, Canfield

Press.

Coote, A. and J. Lenaghan (1997). Citizens' Juries: Theory into Practice, Institute forPublic Policy Research (IPPR): 113.


16/25

16

Cornwall, A. (1996). Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA)

and participatory process. Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences. K. d.Koning and M. Martin. London, UK, Zed Books: 94-103.

Crosby, N. (1991). Citizens' juries as a basic democratic reform. Minneapolis, MN, USA,

Jefferson Center: 43.

Crosby, N. (1996). Creating an authentic voice of the people. Deliberation on DemocraticTheory and Practice, Chicago, ILL, USA, Midwest Political Science Association.

Daneke, G. A., M. W. Garcia, et al. (1983). Public Involvement and Social Impact

Assessment. Boulder, CO, USA, Westview Press.

Davis-Case, D. (1989). Community Forestry - Participatory Assessment, Monitoring andEvaluation. Rome, Italy, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Dienel, P. C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports ontechnological projects. Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. C. Vlekand G. Cvetkovich. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic.

Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row.

Dryzek, J.S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Gujit, I. (1996). Participation in natural resource management: blemished past andhopeful future. Making Forest Policy Work: the Oxford Summer Course Programme,

Oxford University.

Hart, R. (1992). Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence, Italy,UNICEF / International Child Development Centre.

Jefferson Center (1989). Report on findings and results : Electoral jury on the St Paul

Mayoral election. Minneapolis, MN, USA, Jefferson Center: 51.

Krueger, R. A. (1989). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. NewburyPark, California, USA, Sage Publications Inc.

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998). Annual Report 1997-

1998. Sydney, Australia: 144.

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). Eurobodalla NationalPark. Draft Plan of Management. Sydney, Australia: 65.

Pimbert, M. P. and J. N. Pretty (1997). Parks, People and professionals: putting

'participation' into protected area management. Social Change and Conservation


17/25

17

Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. K. B.

Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert. London, UK, Earthscan Publications Limited: 297-330.

Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. The Development Dictionary. W. Sachs. London,UK, Zed Books Ltd: 116-131.

Ramsay, R. and G. C. Rowe (1995). Environmental Law and Policy in Australia: Text

and Materials. Sydney, Australia, Butterworths.

Rosenbaum, N. (1978). Citizen participation and democratic theory. Citizen participationin America. S. Langton. Lexington, KY, USA, Lexington Books: 43-54.

Rosenbaum, W. (1979). Elitism and social participation. Citizen Participation

Perspectives: National Conference on Citizen Participation, Washington DC, USA, TuftsUniversity Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Rousseau, J. (1968). The Social Contract. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin.

Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London, Unwin.

Slocum, R. and B. Thomas-Slatyer (1995). Participation, empowerment and sustainable

development. Power, Process and Participation - Tools for Change. R. Slocum, L.Wichhart, D. Rocheleau and B. Thomas-Slatyer. London, UK, Intermediate Technology

Publications Ltd: 3-8.

Smith, G. and C. Wales (1999a). Towards deliberative institutions: lessons from citizens'juries. ECPR Workshop, Innovation in Democratic Theory.

Smith, G. and C. Wales (1999b). The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Policy and

Politics In press.

Stiefel, M. and M. Wolfe (1994). A Voice for the Excluded. Popular Participation inDevelopment: Utopia or Necessity? Geneva, Switzerland; London, UK, UNRISD/Zed

Books.

Taberner, J., N. Brunton, et al. (1996). The development of public participation inenvironmental protection and planning law in Australia. Environmental and Planning

Law Journal 13: 260-268.

Van Valey, T. L. and J. C. Petersen (1987). Public service centers: the Michiganexperience. Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. J. DeSario and S. Langton.

Westport, USA, Greenwood Press.

Webler, T. and O. Renn (1995). A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice.Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental


18/25

18

Discourse. O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer

Academic Publishers. 10: 17 - 33.

Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations,American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5) pp581-599.


19/25

19

Table 1

Participatory democratic theory

Author

Rosenbaum (1978) Public participation is necessary for democraticfunctionality through its role in ensuring

political equality and popular sovereignty.

Rousseau (1968) Public participation is required to ensure thatthe public will becomes clear .

Van Valey and Petersen (1987) Public participation is required to ensure that

all citizens have equal opportunity to influenceoutcomes.

Rosenbaum (1978) Citizens need to be able to participate in orderto protect their interests.

Dienel (1989) Participation is necessary in order to define the

collective will.

Daneke, Garcia et al. (1983) Participation serves to enhance personal

development.

Rosenbaum (1979) Participation serves to enhance socialdevelopment.

Modified from Webler and Renn (1995)


20/25

20

Table 2

A Typology of Participation

Description Components of each type

Passive participation . unilateral announcement by authorities;

. no room for response by others;

. people are told what will happen or has happened

Participation in

information- giving

. information extracted from participants through

surveys or questionnaires;. participants cannot influence outcomes, as results of

information collection are not shared

Participation byconsultation

. participants are consulted;

. views are noted;

. problem definition and solutions may be modified;

. no obligation to accept participants' views

Participation for

material incentives

. participants provide resources e.g. labour;

. participants have no stake in continued involvement

once the project ends

Functional

participation

. participants form groups to meet pre-determined

project objectives

. groups often dependent on external initiators

Interactiveparticipation

. people participate in joint analysis of options;

. formation or strengthening of local groups occurs;

. groups may continue after project ends

Self-mobilisation . participants initiate action independently of theproject.

Increasingcommunity

empowerment

Adapted from Pimbert and Pretty (1997).


21/25

21

Table 3

Comparison of two typologies

Pimbert and Pretty (1997) Arnstein (1969)

Passive participation Manipulation / Therapy / Informing

Participation in information- giving Consultation

Participation by consultation Placation

Participation for material incentives

Functional participation

Interactive participation Partnership / Delegated power

Self-mobilisation Citizen control


22/25

22

Table 4

Public participation in environmental management in Australia

Description Components Australian Environmental

Example

Passive participation . unilateral announcement by

authorities;

. no room for response by others;

. people are told what will happen

or has happened

. declaration of new national

parks

Participation ininformation- giving

. information extracted fromparticipants through surveys or

questionnaires;

. participants cannot influenceoutcomes, as results of information

collection are not shared

. visitor surveys conducted innational parks

Participation byconsultation

. participants are consulted;

. views are noted;

. problem definition and solutions

may be modified;

. no obligation to accept participants'views

. national park and state forestplanning in Victoria* .

national park planning in New

South Wales

Participation formaterial incentives

. participants provide resources e.g.labour- in exchange for payment;

. participants have no stake in

continued involvement once theproject ends

. hiring of local residents asseasonal labour involved in

national park or forest

management

Functional

participation

. participants form groups to meet

pre-determined project objectives. groups often dependent on external

initiators

. Friends of the Parks groups

Interactiveparticipation

. people participate in joint analysisof options;

. formation or strengthening of local

groups occurs;

. groups may continue after projectends

. planning for the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park

. CYPLUS (Cape York

Planning and Land Use Study)

Self-mobilisation . participants initiate actionindependently of the project.

. Landcare groups

* New South Wales and Victoria are two of the Australian states.


23/25

23

Table 5

Participation in park management planning

From the Perspective of the Park Management Agency

Advantages of the current method Disadvantages of the current method

Seeking responses is low cost. May produce conflicting responses.

All literate members of the community are

given the chance to comment.

May attract dissent rather than develop accord.

The process is tightly controlled and thereforeeasily managed, with strict rules governing

timing and type of input.

Analysis of responses may be high cost,depending on volume and complexity.

The process is readily understood by thecommunity.

Respondents may be ill-informed andresponses may be technically incorrect or

legally infeasible.

The process is consistent from plan to plan, and

therefore interest groups can develop a modus

operandi which will cover responses tomultiple plans. This may result in higher

quality submissions, with more attention to

detail and less to process.

May not represent the views of the community,

but rather those of vocal, interested minorities.

The process is consistent from plan to plan, and

therefore staff of the agency can develop amodus operandi which will cover responses tomultiple plans.

Illiterate members of the community, or those

for whom English is a second language, havelimited access to the process.

Responses may be limited to those with time

available to devote to the matter. Significantsectors may therefore be omitted from the

process.

From the Perspective of the Community

Anyone can potentially participate access to

the process does not need to be granted.

Participation requires time, and access to

information.

The process is readily understood by the

community.

Participants' views may not be accepted.

Participation involves low direct costs. The mechanism for resolution of conflictsbetween submissions, and between individual

submissions and the plan, is not known.

The process is consistent from plan to plan, andtherefore interest groups can develop a modus

Similarly, the details of such resolution are notmade public.


24/25

24

operandi which will cover responses tomultiple plans.

Illiterate members of the community, or those

for whom English is a second language, do nothave access to the process.

Comments which are considered to disagreewith Government policy are not considered.

The approach does not provide an avenue for

debate on more fundamental issues such as thelegislation underpinning park management in

the state.


25/25

Table 6

Applications of the Citizens' Jury Method

Year Topic Location

Author

1997 Wetland creation Ely, UK

Aldred and Jacobs (1997)

1996 Allocation and management of

health services

UK

Coote and Lenaghan (1997)

1993 School management Australia

Carson (1996)

1993 US Federal budget US

Crosby (1996)

1990 Gubernatorial election Minnesota, USACrosby (1991)

Table 7

Citizens' jury on protected area management

Issue Design Approach

Jury selection Population: New South WalesSample method: stratified random sampling.

Framing of the charge The charge has been expanded to encompass management ofall coastal New South Wales national parks.

Duration of the process One night and two days.

Size of the jury Maximum of 16.

Accuracy of information fromwitnesses Written material will be exchanged amongst witnesses inadvance of the jury hearings.A neutral expert will be on hand to assist the jury.

Documents

Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Makin