Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions

8/12/2019 Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions

1/29

Beietle: UsingSodalGoalstoEvaluatePublicPartidpationUSING SOCIALGOALS TO

EVALUATE PUBLICPARTICIPATION IN

ENVIRONMENTALDECISIONS

75

Thomas C. BeierleCenterfor Risk ManagementResources for the FutureWashingtonDC


2/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWinter 1999 16314ABSTRACTThe need to increase public participation in environm ental decision-makingis receiving renewed attention at all levels of government. How ever thereare fe w approaches to evaluating these processes that address the question:What are we getting @om public participation? This article proposes oneway to answer this question using apa m ew or k that evaluates the outcomesof participatory processes using a set of social goals. These socialgoals are: I educating th e pu blic; 2 incorporating p ublic valuesassumptions and preferences into decision making ; 3) increasing thesubstantive quality of decisions; 4 fostering trust in institutions; 5reducing conflict; and 6 making decisions cost-effectively. A lthough thesegoals apply to public participation writ large there are a limited numberof formalized mechanisms available to public agencies fo r involving thepub lic. The article matches these s ix social goals to the participatorymechanisms by which they might be achieved. It concludes with areas fo rfdrther research suggested by the framew ork.INTRODUCTION

ublic managers are continually faced with the challenge of76 P making high quality decisions while remaining responsiveto the citizens those decisions affect. Meeting the challenge in theenvironmental policy arena poses particular problems because

issues are often technically complex and value-laden, and multipleinterests operate in what is frequently an atmosphere of conflictand mistrust. A legacy of gridlock has widely discredited thedecide, announce, defend approach to environmental decision-making, inwhich agencies confiont the public only after determininga course of action. At the same time, experience with publicparticipation fails to support the position that it is an unmitigatedgood and that more of it is always better. Rather, publicparticipation must be balanced and integrated with other importantaspects of the environmental decision-making process, such asscientific evaluations, the environmental conditions of the systemof interest, and the regulatory context. Federal, state, and localgovernments are increasingly seeking better ways to bring theseaspectsofenvironmental decision-making together-to fulfill theirregulatory mandates and maintain scientific rigor whileconstructively engaging the public. This article presents a


3/29

Beierk UsingSodalGoals o EvaluatePublicPartiapationframework for evaluating the success of the public participationcomponents of environmental decision-making processes and forcomparing the performance of a variety of different participatorymechanisms.

While public participation is a desirable component ofpublic policymaking in many arenas, it is particularly importantin decision-making about environmental issues. Three reasonsstand out. First is the changing nature of pressing environmentalpriorities as the national focus shifts from large point sources ofpollution to more diffuse and widely distributed sources, such asurban and agricultural run-off. Because of their complexity, manyof the new priority problems are not conducive to centralizedhierarchical decision-making Dryzek, 1997). Rather, they oftenrequire the knowledge, commitment, and action of multiple levelsof government, special interests, and the general public over longperiods of time.

77Second, there is an emerging realization that lay peopleand experts bring valid but very different perspectives to decision-making about risks. Gridlock over issues of chemical and nuclearrisks have shown that experts and the lay public view risksdifferently Krimsky and Golding, 1992). Recent high-profilestudies have noted how even the most technical tools ofenvironmental decision-making-risk assessment and cost-benefitanalysis-require significant subjective udgements that are mostappropriately made with explicit attention to public values NRC,1996;PCRARM, 1997).

Third, the public has demonstrated that it can be veryeffective in holding up projects with environmental impacts ifsuch projects exclude a legitimate public voice in the decision-making process. Public participation may be one of the mosteffective ways to find alternatives to the not in may back yard(NIMBY) syndrome Rabe, 1994). Often, public opposition is asymptom of the publics legitimate mistrust of the willingness orability of government and industry to manage risks appropriately.


4/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWiiter 1999 163/4In a study of trust and nuclear power plant management, Slovic1993) found that active public involvement may be one of thefew ways to start resolving these issues of mistrust.

For all three of these reasons, the National ResearchCouncil, in its 1996 report understandingRisk argued that publicparticipation is critical to ensure that all relevant information isincluded, that it is synthesized in a way that addresses partiesconcerns, and that those who may be affected by a risk decisionare sufficiently well informed and involved to participatemeaninghlly in the decision NRC, 996: 30).Recent efforts at many levels of government show somecommitment to enhancing public participation in environmentaldecision-making. The Environmental Protection Agency EPA),Department of Energy DOE), and Department of Defense @OD)have initiated over 200 citizen advisory groups at contaminatedsites around the country FFERDC, 1996); a number of stateshave incorporated public involvement into comparative risk efforts

Perhac, 1998; WCED, 1997); and public advisory groups havebecome important components of EPAs environmental justiceactivities, place-based decision-making efforts, and reinventionprograms Mlay, 1996;NEJAC, 1996;NAPA, 1997). Despite theresurgence of interest in public participation, however, noconsistent method has emerged for evaluating the success ofindividual processes or the desirability of the many participatorymethods. The evaluation of public participation still resemblesone researchers 1983 description: The participation concept iscomplex and value laden; there are no widely held criteria forjudging success and failure; there are no agreed-upon evaluationmethods; and there are few reliable measurement tools Rosener,1983: 45).

78

The framework described in this q ic l e is one responseto the need for evaluations of public participation programs. Itfocuses on the evaluation of participatory mechanisms intentionallyinstituted by government to involve the lay public, or their


5/29

Bderle: UsingSodalGoahtoEvaluatePublicPactidpationrepresentatives, in administrative decision-making onenvironmental issues. The framework is designed with threeobjectives in mind: 1)to identify the strengths and weaknesses ofa number of different participatory mechanisms, 2) to beobjective in the sense of not taking the perspective of any oneparty to a decision, and 3) to measure-to the extent feasible-tangible outcomes. Such a framework is useful for determiningwhether participatory programs are working, how they can beimproved, which mechanisms work best for particular needs, and,ultimately, whether and when participatory programs justify thecommitment of public and private resources.

These three objectives, however, preclude the use of twoapproaches common to the evaluation of public participationefforts. The first are process-oriented evaluations, which comparehow actual participatory processes compare to a participatoryideal: Were participants representative? Was the membershipbalanced? Did participation occur early in the process? Werethere face-to-face discussions between the public and agencyrepresentatives? Was the agency committed to the participatoryprocess and responsive to public input? In an evaluation of publicparticipation in U.S. Forest Service land management activities,for example, Blahna and Yonts-Shepard (1989)evaluated programsusing these five questions. Crosby, et. al. (1986) used a similarapproach to evaluate a citizens panel on agriculture and waterquality in Minnesota. While these process-oriented evaluationscan be objective-by measuring the quality of participation foreveryone involved-they do less well in meeting the two otherobjectives. By design, they measure processes rather thanoutcomes, and there is little empirical support in the literature fortying one to the other. Because they tend to identify a preferredprocess apriori hey are also less useful for comparing thestrengths and weaknesses of a wide range of participatorymechanisms, each of which may utilize a different process.

79

The second common type of evaluations are those whichare interest-oriented. These measure the extent to which different


6/29

Policy Studies Review, FalUWiitw 1999 16314parties (suchas a public agency or a community group) achievedtheir own specific goals. In a survey of 22 evaluations of publicparticipation programs, for example, Sewell 1 979) reported thatthose performed by agency personnel tended to measure successin terms of the degree of public acceptance of agency programsand improved agency image. While public acceptance and animproved image may be an agencys primary goals, otherparticipants in the process are likely to have very different-andoften conflicting-goals (English, 1991 Rosener, 1983). Indeed,the Sewell article shows that evaluations performed by citizengroups, independent observers, and consultants contained a muchbroader set of criteria, including measures such as degree ofequity and diversity of views heard. While interest-orientedevaluations do measure outcomes and can be applied to a numberof different types ofmechanisms, because they take the perspectiveof one (or a subset) of the many interests to a decision, they cannot be regarded as objective.80 In order to arrive at evaluative criteria that do meet thethree objectives, it is necessary to return to the core tasks ofprogram evaluation-identifying the problems public participationefforts are meant to help remedy and developing a setof goals thatthese programs are intended to achieve. I start with the premisethat the environmental regulatory system has systemic ailmentstowhich public participation may provide at least a partial cure. Anumber of recent analyses have highlighted some of the problems:the public lacks basic knowledge about many environmental issues;policymakers inadequately consider public values and preferencesin making regulatory decisions; opportunities to correct mistakesor find innovative solutions go unexplored; the public mistrustsagencies resolve to protect health and the environment, and aculture of conflict prevails (Davies and Mazurek, 1998;Esty andChertow, 1997;John, 1994;NAPA, 1997;NEETF, 1997;NRC,1996,Ruckleshaus, 1996).


7/29

Bderle: UsingSocialGoalstoBvaluatePublicPartidpationFive social goals emerge from this problem assessmentand form the basis of this articles evaluative framework. Thegoals are:

Reducing conflict.

Educating and informing the public,Incorporating public values into decision-making,Improving the substantive qualityof decisions,Increasing trust in institutions, and

To these five goals can be added a sixth goal of cost-effectiveness,that is, choosing the least resource-intensive decision-makingprocess needed to achieve the goals of interest.

These goals can be used to measure the outcomes ofparticipatory processes, but they take a broader view of outcomesthan is typical. Normally, the outcome of a decision-makingprocess refers to its substantive decisions, conclusions, orrecommendations-such aswhether an incinerator shouldbe built,what environmental problems should receive priority attention,or what emergency response system should be established at anindustrial facility. But narrowly interpreting outcome to referonly to these substantive decisions misses some of the mostimportant results of participatory processes-and indeed thosewhich justify opening up decision processes to the public in thefirst place. Social goals are those goals which transcend theimmediate interestsofparties involved in a decision. The benefitsof achieving them spill over from the participants themselves tothe regulatory system as a whole. How well they are achievedoften dependsasmuch on how participants feel about the decision-making process as by the substantive decisions made during it.

81

These social goals may apply to a number of areas ofpolicy. They are, however, critically important to the arena ofenvironmental policy. The next section highlights their role inenvironmental decision-making and describes the social goalsframework in greater detail. The article goes on to describe how


8/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWmter 1999 16:3/4the framework applies to the limited number of formalizedparticipatory mechanisms available. It concludes with a summaryof the evaluative framework and identifies areas for krtherresearch.

82

SOCIAL GOALSGoal 1 : Inform and Educate the Public.

Public education is increasingly important to a well-functioning environmental regulatory system. Knowledge aboutenvironmental issues allows the public to carry out the roleenvisioned in major environmental legislation of identifyingviolations, applying community pressure, enforcing laws, andcontributing to permitting and rulemaking. It is also critical forensuring that the technical complexity of issues does not hamperthe publics ability to participate in decision-making.

Although a large cadre of citizens well-informed aboutpertinent environmental issues might fulfill a Jeffersonian ideal ofpublic participation, such a vision is clearly not realistic. Instead,we can differentiate between what the actively involved publicand the wider affected public might reasonably be expected toknow. Ideally, the active public would gain sufficient knowledgeto enable them to deliberate issues and formulate alternatives withgovernment representatives and experts. Education would extendbeyond the scientific foundations of the particular issue to thedecision-making process itself, an understanding of the tradeoffsinvolved in various outcomes, and knowledge about the interestsof the various stakeholders. It would facilitate what Dryzek 1 997:198) argues is one of the key elements of a successful approach toenvironmental decision-making: the capacity to facilitate andengage in social learning in an ecological context.

The knowledge requirements for the active public areclearly too ambitious for more than a handful of citizens in mostcases. But the wider public ought to know enough about relevantissues so that, if called on to decide an issue or offer an opinion,


9/29

Bderk UsingSocia oalstoEvaluatePublicParticipationthey would have a realistic understanding of the consequences oftheir choice. Evidence suggests that even this moderaterequirement is ambitious. InRopers most recent National ReportCard n environmental attitudes and knowledge, nearly two-thirdsof Americans received a failing grade on basic questions aboutthe environment NEETF, 1997). This lack of information clearlyaffects how well the public controls its own contribution toenvironmental damage and hampers the publics ability to applypressure to other polluters.Goal 2: Incorporate Public Values Assumptions andPxefexences into Decision-making.

While the first goal focused on educating the public, thisgoal and the next focus on educating public agencies. The riskperception and communication literature contains numerousexamples of the differences between public and expert perceptionof risk Krimsky and Golding, 1992). Differences over values,assumptions and preferences need to be discussed in a processthat fosters mutual education and, ideally, results in analyses anddecisions reflecting the public perspective. Such a perspective isobviously not monolithic-various interests within the publiccan have widely differing views about how a particularenvironmental issue should be resolved Bauer and Randolph,1998). In order to give the widest range to discussions aboutvalues, assumptions, and preferences, all of the affectedstakeholders should be involved in the process on a level playingfield.

One model for explicitly incorporating the publicperspective into decision-making involves the use of comparativerisk assessments, which have been conducted at many levels ofgovernment throughout the United States over the last decade.These efforts often bring together a multi-stakeholder committee-representing public values, assumptions, and preferences-withtechnical experts in a discussion-based format that seeks to meldscience and values in risk management decision-making Perhac,1998).

83


10/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWinter 1999 16W4Arguing that participatory processes should facilitate the

incorporation of public values into decision-making does notpresuppose what those values should be. Indeed, it is a basictenet of pluralist democracy that there is no objective commongood, but that a relative common good arises out of the freedeliberation and negotiation among all relevant interests, fairlyrepresented (Williams and Matheney, 1995). There is noguarantee, then, that public values will be the same as, or evensupport, ecological values. While this may be a hdamentalweakness of participatory decision-making in the environmentalarena, some authors have suggested reasons to be optimistic-atleast for the more deliberative forms of public participation.Dryzek 1 997), for example, notes that democratic deliberationtends to generate interests oriented toward community values ratherthan more selfish individual values. It is these community interests,he argues, which are most likely to include ecological concerns.Goal 3: Increase the Substantive Quality o f Decisions.8

Not only is the public a source of values, assumptions,and preferences, but it is a source of facts and innovativealternatives. This goal relies less on the normative argument ofGoal 2 and more on the substantive argument that public input canmake decisions more technically rigorous and satisfling to a widerrange of interests. In some cases, the contribution of participatoryefforts to the substantive quality of decisions may be explicit.The Department of Energy, for example, credits the communityadvisory board at its Fernald, Ohio facility with a cleanup solutionthat will save taxpayers 2 billion over the life of the project(Applegate, 1998). In other cases, evidence of substantiveimprovement is contextual. Bingham 1 986) suggests that reachingan agreement among parties engaged in mediation is sufficientevidence that the mediation process substantively improvedoutcomes for all parties. If not, the parties who would be worseoff would refuse to agree to the mediated solution.

Cases in which substantive quality can be measured,however, may be rare. For many participatory efforts, it is very


11/29

Beierle UsingSocialGoals to EvaluatePublicParticipationdifficult to calculate costs and benefits relative to some baseline,figure out whether participants have expanded the pie, or comeup with a decision about who ought to get what. Instead, anevaluation has to settle for evidence that the public participationprocess added useful substantive knowledge or ideas that wouldnot have been available otherwise. These might include:identifying relevant factual information, discovering mistakes, orgenerating alternatives that satisfy a wider range of interests.Goal 4: Foster must in Institutions.

The percentage of Americans reporting that they trust thegovernment has dropped by roughly half fiom the time of theKennedy Administration to today PRC, 1998). Parallel declinesinparty identification, voter turnout, and confidence in institutionalleadership signal what has been described as a decline ofdeference to societys authoritative institutions Laird, 1989).The precipitous drop in trust and deference may represent a healthypublic skepticism in the wake of scandals and mismanagement bythese same authoritative institutions. However, it is alsosymptomatic of what some claim to be a general decline in thenorms of civil society (putnam, 1995). As trust in the institutionsresponsible for solving complex environmental problemsdecreases, the ability to resolve those same problems is seriouslycircumscribed.

Three characteristics of many environmental issues-thelong time horizon to realize benefits and costs, the absence ofclear feedback on the success of management efforts, and thediffuse nature of benefits-make agency trustworthinessparticularly important DOE, 1993). A number of analyses ofpublic trust suggest that it is far easier to lose than to regain.However, one of the most effective ways to regain public trustmay be to involve and empower the public in decision makingSlovic, 1993; Schneider, et. al., 1997). This is not to say thatrebuilding trust is an easy task for participatory decision-making.In a recent survey of DOES Site Specific Advisory Boards

85


12/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWintm 1999 16314SSABs)--made up of representatives of communities surroundingeach of DOES major cleanup sites-the agency asked participantsexplicitly about the impact of the SSAB process on their trust inthe agency. The answers were not particularly reassuring-less

than half of the respondents felt that the advisory board processhad contributed to trust and confidence in DOE DOE, 1997).

86

Goal 5: Reduce ConflictAmong Stakeholders.The environmental regulatory system in the U.S. was bornof conflict between environmental and industrial interests. It is

not surprising that conflict has persisted as he system has matured.Yet many have recognized that substantial amountsofmoney andenergy have been consumed by court battles and other kinds ofconflict while environmental problems remain unresolved. Goal5 arises from the view that public participation can be a processfor identifying shared norms and values and can build thefoundation for cooperative rather than confrontational decision-making. Even if parties cannot resolve a particular issue, the processought to help participants understand the goals and perspective ofothers by fostering communication and building relationships.Ideally, relationships and decisions, if made) would remain stableover time, reflecting an ongoing absence of conflict or agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving emergent differences Susskindand Cruikshank 1987).

Resolving conflict is often regarded as one of the majorachievements of those participatory processes which bringstakeholders together for face-to-face deliberation-such asmediations and negotiations. The literature is full of successfulcases, suchas he Applegate Partnership inOregon which broughtti m er and environmental interests together over forest managementissues or the Negrito Project in New Mexico which balanced theenvironmental, economic, and grazing interestswthinthe NegritoRiver watershed Bauer and Randolph, 1998). Conflict reduction,however, is by no means guaranteed. Ina study of regulatorynegotiations, for example, Coglianese (1997) found that these


13/29

Beietk UsingSodal odstoEvaluatePublicParticipationcollaborative efforts did not in fact result in less litigation thannon-collaborative rulemaking.Goal 6: Cost effective decision-making.

The goal of cost-effectiveness addresses the appropriateuse and scope of public participation mechanisms. Certainly, notevery environmental decision justifies an active publicparticipation program. Few can support as extensive a processasmany observers would like. The goal of cost-effectiveness canbe considered the goal which constrains the achievement of thefirst five goals: was the public participation mechanism the mostcost-effective way in terms of money, time, risk, and opportunitycost) of achieving the benefits in terms of Goals 1 though 5 )relative to other mechanisms which reasonably could have beenexpected to achieve the same results? The goal argues that publicparticipation programs must earn their keep by producing resultswhich justirjr the added effort.LINKING PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMSAND GOALS

87The six social goals outlined earlier apply to public involvementwrit large. In practice, participation occurs through only a limitednumber of mechanisms. Each can be anticipated to be relativelybetter at achieving some of public participations goals and worseat others. Thissection suggests which goals each mechanism maybe expected to achieve. The discussion covers one-way flows ofinformation suchas surveys, focus groups, and public education;traditional participatory mechanisms, such as public hearings,public comments, and advisory committees; mechanismsassociated with collaborative decision-making and conflictresolution, such as mediation and regulatory negotiations; andinnovative forms of public deliberation, such as citizen uries andconsensus conferences.

These various mechanisms differ along four importantdimensions: 1)the direction of information flows, 2) the degree


14/29

Policy Studies Review, P W i n t e r 1999 163/4

Public Nolice

Publi c Education

88

Figure 1 Unct ionof I n fom ut ion RomOne-wayPu blic to G o v e m n l TY OIM-Way:Government o Public

Low

FocusGroupPuMic Commentm g m ofInt nctionAmongPotentially Medium0Ppo.hI n t m S t S

Huh

BConsensusConferenu

Citizen Juryl Panel

Advisory CornrnineesR e g ~ l a t ~ r yegotiationMediation

Figure 2 Type of R pnHntltionSen-mpresen Miwn Public Reprsaentsf ive lnl ems l Gmups/Expar s

No w s i o n Right-to-Know Pu Mi Education PuMic Notiar t+Making Role survey Focus Gro up Pu

b e i s i o nMaking Rolaof Public

Advisory

M s i o n a l

of interaction among potentially opposing interests, 3) the type ofrepresentation, and 4) the decision-making role of the public (seeFigures 1 and 2). A consideration of the relationships betweeneach of these dimensions and the social goals outlined above cansuggest which social goals different mechanisms may be expectedto achieve. The proposed relationships are based on the publicparticipation literature and common sense, not on any empiricalevidence. Testing the hypothesized relationships is an importantarea for M h e r study.


15/29

Beierle UsingSocialGoalstoEvaluatePublic Pdapat ionInformation flows can be one-way, with information

flowing either from the public to the government (e.g., surveys orfocus groups) or from government to the public (e.g. right-to-knowinformation or public notices). The former will be mainly usefulfor providing decision-makers with public values, assumptions,and preferences (Goal 2) and substantive information to improvedecisions (Goal 3). The latter will be mainly useful for increasingpublic knowledge (Goal 1). To the extent that these mechanismsincrease transparency, they may also lead to greater trust ininstitutions (Goal 4). Information flows can also be two-way,offering varying degrees of opportunity for deliberation amongparticipants (e.g., advisory committees or mediations).Mechanisms which allow for two-way flows ought to be expectedto achieve all of these first four goals.

The degree of interaction among potentially opposinginterests can range fiom none, as in the case of a survey, to high,as in the case of a multi-party mediation. By allowing opposinginterests to identifj shared interests and develop relationshipsamong themselves, face-to-face interaction is a key element ofdispute resolution (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987). Thosemechanisms which bring together more (and ideally all) potentiallyopposing interests therefore ought to present more opportunitiesfor reducing conflict among stakeholders (Goal 5).

Thetypeof representation ranges fiom citizens representingthemselves at a public hearing, to representative members of anadvisory committee, to professional public interest orenvironmental group representatives engaged in a regulatorynegotiation. All else equal, mechanisms in which the publicrepresents itself (through direct participation) ought to be betterat achieving the goals of education (Goal 1) and trust formation(Goal 4) than those where the general public is represented byrepresentative members or professionals (such as lobbyists).

89

The decision-making role of the public can range fiomnone, in the case of a focus group, to a direct decisional role in


16/29

Policy Studies Review, FalllWiite 1999 16:3/4ratifying an agreement arrived at through mediation. All else equal,mechanisms which give the public a direct decision-making roleare likely to be better at achieving the goal of trust formation(Goal 4) than those which do not (Slovic, 1993; Schneider, et. al.,1997).

90

Bringing together, for the various mechanisms, theserelationships between characteristics and goals leads to someinsights about how different mechanisms might be expected toperform on the six social goals. While the discussion whichfollows suggests the ideal performance of each mechanism, howsuccessful each mechanism actually is in practice will depend onthe decision-making context as well as the process by which thevarious mechanisms are carried out (Landre and Knuth, 1993;Peele, et. al., 1996). The following subsections discuss in moredetail the different participatory mechanisms and their relationshipsto the goals of interest.Surveys, Focus Groups and Public Comments.

As a group, these mechanisms provide one-way flows ofinformation from the public to the government. They includestatutory procedures for soliciting public input through commentson proposed rules or environmental impact statements. They alsoinclude non-statutory mechanisms, such as surveys and focusgroups, that help public managers incorporate information fromthe public into decision making. For example, RopersEnvironmental Report Card, mentioned earlier, could be usedby EPA to guide an education campaign. Likewise, polls may beused to help decide between policy options.

In general, little to no deliberation among differentstakeholders akes place with these mechanisms, and input is rarelybinding on decision-makers. The source of public input differs,however, among mechanisms: while surveys collect the views ofindividual citizens, focus groups use representative citizens asa proxy for public opinion, and public comments are usuallyundertaken by professionals hired to represent public opinion.


17/29

Beictle: Using S M d oEvaluatePublicPartidpationThe primary goals against which surveys, focus groups,and public comments may be judged include the degree to whichthey facilitate the incorporation of public values into decisionmaking Goal 2) and foster the generation of policy alternatives

Goal 3). An interesting research question is how the achievementof these goals changesas he consulted public changes from manycitizens surveys) to representative citizens focus groups) tocitizen representatives public comments).Information Provision Public Notice and Public Education.

At the other end of the information spectrum are one-wayflows of information from the government to the public in formssuch as public education campaigns, the provision of right-to-know information, and public notices. The accessibility ofchemical emissions and transfer data through the Toxics ReleaseInventory TRI) may be the best known example. Although thesemechanisms are relatively passive, the intent is often to inspiremore active participation. For example, Advanced Notices ofProposed Rulemaking-which alert the public through a FederalRegister notice of upcoming opportunities to comment on rules-are intended to encourage public input into the rulemaking process.For some of these mechanisms, such as the dissemination of TRIdata, the media or community groups play important roles inidentifling and disseminating information to a wider public.

91

These mechanisms may be expected primarily to informand educate the public Goal 1). Whether information provisioninforms a large number of people or educates a small number willdepend on the mechanism and how it is used. For example, on-line access to Superfund databases has the potential to reach alarge number of people with summary data on listed sites, whilepublic education campaigns may reach a targeted audience within-depth information. To the extent that these mechanisms makegovernment and the regulated community more accountable andtransparent to citizens, they may also increase trust Goal 4). Aswith education, the type and quality of government informationprovided to citizens will determine its actual impact on trust. If


18/29

Policy Studies Review, PaWWinter 1999 16314these mechanisms bring disparate groups together, as may be thecase with public education workshops, there is at least someopportunity for establishing the kind or relationships or jointlearning that can reduce conflict (Goal 5).

92

Public Hearings.Public hearings remain the most common form of face-to-face public involvem ent in spite of nearly universal criticism oftheir ability to provide meaningful participation. EPA conveneshundreds of hearings per year (Fiorino, 1990). Most are used to

defend agency decisions rather than to involve the public in thedecision-making process itself. Agencies often hold hearings latein the process, present technical information beyond theunderstanding of the lay public, and seek to do little more thanfulfill adm inistrative requirements (F iorino, 1990).The two-way flow of information would suggest that publichearings should be able to achieve the first four goals: increasing

public knowledge (Goal l ) , providing decision-makerswth publicvalues, assumptions, and preferences (Goal 2), providingsubstantive information to improve decisions (Goal 3), and, to theextent that hearings increase transparency, increase trust ininstitutions (Goal 4). Because they often bring together potentiallyopposing interests, public hearings also may be expected to reduceconflict (Goal 5). However, the lack of real deliberation amongstakeholders and between stakeholders and government might leadone to predict a priori that most public hearings will do a poorjob of achieving most of these goals.Citizen Advisory Committees.

Citizen advisory comm ittees (CAC s) encompass a widevariety of organizations which represent a relatively small groupof citizens who are called together to represent ideas and attitudesof various groups and/or communities (Rosener, 1978:188). Theyshould be distinguished from expert advisory committees, which


19/29

Bderk Using Socia l GoahtoEvaluatePublicParticipationagencies use extensively to bring outside scientific, economic,and other technical information into government decision-makingprocesses Jasanoff, 1990).

The forms and functions of CACs vary widely. Federallyendorsed committees established under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act FACA) follow strict requirements regardingbalanced membership, transparency, and government involvement.The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration DialogueCommittee FFERDC), for example, was established under FACAin 1992 to seek consensus among a variety of stakeholders onissues related to the cleanup of contaminated federal facilities.The committee produced an influential report in 1996, which,among other things, recommended the formation of communityadvisory committees at all federal facilities undergoing cleanupFFERDC, 1996).

93ACs may alsobe quite informal, including groups whichwere established without government involvement but that havecome to represent public views in policy making. For example,the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Advisory Committee was formed bylocal leaders and residents to represent the communitys interestsin the Anaconda, Montana Superfund site clean-up processWMREI, 991).

Advisory committee members are intended to serve as hevoice of the larger public, although in practice this has beeninterpreted to include elected officials and other elites as well astypical members of the ~ommunity.~ven in the latter case, anumber of studies have shown that participants are often notrepresentative of the wider community in terms of income andeducation Lynn and Kartez, 1995). CACs often present memberswith the opportunity to engage in discussions with a number ofother interests, either internally in committees with balancedrepresentation or externallywith other organized interest groups.They typically play only an advisory role, but ideally their inputis explicitly incorporated into the decision-making process. Where


20/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWimter 1999 16314committees are balanced, the CAC can act like a voluntarynegotiating body where each participant represents broadconstituent interests Lynn and Kartez, 1995).

9

The deliberative and representative nature of advisorycommittees suggests that they ought to achieve the first four goals:increasing public knowledge Goal l ) , providing decision-makerswith public values, assumptions, and preferences Goal 2),providing substantive information to improve decisions Goal 3),and, increasing trust in institutions Goal4). To the extent that thecommittees are balanced they ought to provide opportunitiesfor conflict reduction Goal 5) between the stakeholdersrepresented.A1terna ive Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.

Collaborative methods of dispute resolution and problemsolving have arisen in the environmental policy arena largely asan alternative to long and expensive legal battles Bauer andRandolph, 1998;Dryzek, 1997). The primary alternative disputeresolution mechanisms in environmental decision making areregulatory negotiations and stakeholder mediations. Regulatorynegotiations provide a formal process for stakeholders to negotiatethe content of federal regulations. They were initiated by EPAeighteen times between 1983 and 1986, and, in twelve cases duringthis period, resulted in at least one final rule on the topic undernegotiation Coglianese, 1997). Stakeholder mediation describesa far more diverse, and often non-governmental, setofapproachesfor bringing together opposing interests to settle divisive issues.Some of the most successful mediations have been over resourceissues in the western United States. For example, a grass rootseffort to seek consensus on water management issues inMontanasClark Fork River Basin brought miners, ranchers, municipalofficials, and environmentalists together after decades ofacrimonious conflict to successfidly resolve disputes over wateruse NAPA, 1997).


21/29

B d a k Using Sodal GoalstoEvaluatePublicPactidpationRegulatory negotiations and stakeholder mediations offersubstantial opportunity for two-way communication among avariety of opposing interests. Their explicit purpose is to reduceconflict and reach consensus, often in cases where other forms of

agreement or dispute settlement have failed. If parties reach adecision, they are typically bound by it, at least informally. Thisaccountability to outcomes may be a critical aspect of successfulnegotiations and mediations Bingham, 1986). Participants areoften professional representatives rather than members of the laypublic. In fact, one of the principal criticisms of regulatorynegotiations is that they only involve the usual suspects oflobbyists, NGOs, and government officials Applegate, 1998).

The deliberative nature of alternative dispute resolutionmechanisms would suggest that they would be likely to achievethe first four goals. However, to the extent that participants aretheusual suspects, this limits opportunities for public educationoutside of a small groupof professionals. In spite of this trait, themechanisms are still likely to be excellent fora for interest groupsto provide decision-makers with public values, assumptions, andpreferences Goal 2) and substantive information to improvedecisions Goal 3). The binding nature of many agreements wouldsuggest opportunities for trust formation Goal 4). However, ifthese agreements are mostly among lobbyists and otherprofessionals, trust formation is unlikely to filter out to the publicat large. The explicit attention to consensus building and conflictresolution among a wide range of stakeholders suggests thatnegotiations and mediations provide ample opportunities to reduceconflict among stakeholders Goal 5 ) . As previously noted,however, research on regulatory negotiations by Coglianese (1997)suggest that these mechanisms promise of conflict reduction maybe more encouraging than their actual performance.

95

Citizen Deliberations.Mechanisms for citizen deliberation include citizen uriesor the related citizen panels) and consensus conferences. Many


22/29

Policy Studies Review, PatyWinter 1999 16314of the examples of these mechanisms in the U.S. have been non-governmental experiments in participatory policy analysis oncomplex issues such as education policy, energy planning, andpublic spending priorities. Some states have used thesemechanisms to inform decisions about risk prioritization, waterquality planning, and sludge disposal (Jefferson Center, 1997;Crosby et. al., 1986; Renn et. al., 1991). Although the formatvaries across different mechanisms, their purpose is to help non-expert citizens, acting as value consultants, analyze technicallycomplex subjects. Organizers provide a group of selected citizenswith access to expert information and sufficient time to engage indeliberative analysis with experts and among themselves. Theyare expected to combine the technical facts with public valuesinto a set of conclusions and recommendations.

96These mechanisms are explicitly designed to allow two-

way communication between experts and the public, and sometimesgovernment. However, experts and the government are mainlyinformation resources, and most of the actual deliberation takesplace among the citizen members of the group. Participants arenot interest group representatives. Rather, they are regarded asrepresentative of the public. In some citizen juries, they mayeven be selected through random sampling (Fiorino, 1990). Allof these factors would suggest that deliberative fora ought to beparticularly good at educating participants (Goal 1 , providingdecision-makers with public values, assumptions, and preferences(Goal 2), and generating substantive information to improvedecisions (Goal 3). In the past, many of these mechanisms havehad public or media outreach programs which extends educationalopportunities beyond those who actually participate.

Citizen deliberations offer only limited opportunities forinteraction between potentially opposing interests (other than theextent to which participants identify themselves with variousinterests in their daily lives). Opportunities to reduce conflict(Goal 5 are therefore limited. Trust formation (Goal4) is unlikelyas the results of the efforts are purely advisory, and many have


23/29

Bderle: UsingSocialGoals to EvaluatePublic Partiapationhad no formal tie to government decision making processes. Infact, in his evaluation of a citizens panel on Telecommunicationsand the Future of Democracy held in 1997 near Boston, Guston1998) found no actual impact on the substance, agenda,vocabularies or problem framing of telecommunications policyas a result of the effort.

CONCLUSIONSThis article has presented a framework for evaluating the successof public participation efforts as measured by social goals. Theframework meets the objectives set out in the Introduction. It isobjective in the sense that it does not explicitly take theperspective of any one party to a particular decision, and it seeksto measure tangible outcomes fiom participation although it takesa wider view of outcomes than normal). By linking social goalsto the characteristics of a number of participatory mechanisms, italso suggests some hypotheses about what goals differentparticipatory mechanisms may be expected to achieve see Table1 for a summary . These suggested relationships, especially if

Table 1: Goals and Mechanisms

=not ikely to schicvcto godB -may bc sxpe ted to achieve goal- ught to achieve goal

97


24/29

Policy Studies Review, FaWWintm 1999 16:3/4confirmed by further research, shouldbe useful for the practitionerand evaluator in knowing which mechanisms ought to be usefulfor different policy objectives and how mechanisms might becombined to achieve a range of goals.

The evaluative framework also highlights some areas forfurther research. An impact model which describes how anintervention (the participatory process) affects an outcome (thesocial goals) does not exist in the literature. Further research onhow various procedural factors affect the outcomes of interestwill be important for designing and evaluating participatoryprograms in the future. The second research need was impliedearlier. Many of the relationships between the characteristics ofvarious mechanisms and the goals which they might accomplishare merely hypothesized. Further research could address whether,for example, bringing more stakeholders to a decision actuallydoes lead to more opportunities for conflict resolution or whethergiving the public a decision-making (rather than advisory) roleaffects trust formation. Finally, further research should addresshow the analysisof mechanisms and goals changes when dealingwith different environmental issues and other contextual issues.How does participation in a controversial facility siting decisiondiffer from that of a relatively non-controversial comparative riskassessment? What goals are important? Which mechanisms aremost effective?

98

A starting point for addressing these research needs wouldbe the application of the evaluative framework described here tomultiple case studies where different participatory mechanismswere used to address a variety of environmental issues. Suchresearch may allow us to get beyond seeking ways to simplyincrease public involvement, and help us tackle unansweredquestions of when, how, and why the public should be involved.


25/29

Beiede UsingSodalGoalsto EvaluatePublicPartidpationENDNOTES1. The defmition explicitly excludes important conven tional and regulatedmethods of participation such asvoting and lobbyingaswell asunconventionaland extralegal methods such as striking, picketing, and violence. It alsoexcludes public input through referenda, initiatives, and citizen suits althoughthe analysis could be ex tended to include these mechanisms.2. These and many other criteria for what constitute good processes havebeen derived from theory (Webler, 1995; Fiorino, 1990: 229-230) or rulesof thumb which practitioners and researchers have found to be consistentlysuccessful over tim e (Ashford, 1984:79; Crosby, 1986: 171; Blahna andYonts-Shepard, 1989:211-213; Peelle, 1996). Additional criteria on whicha rough consensus has emerged include: clarity of goals and roles ofparticipants; sufficient resources, including financial support, time, andinformation; recognition of the legitimacy of public input equal to that ofofficials and technical experts; procedural independence of public to makedecisions, set the agenda, and acquire technical information; and, the presenceof a strong chairperson or facilitator.3. Organ izers of CACs, such as agency officials, often have cons iderablepower in picking comm ittee members (Lynn and Kartez 1995). For the varietythis discret ion fosters, see Perhac (1998) on public involvement incomparative risk assessments.

99REFERENCESApplegate, John S. 1998. Beyond the Usual Suspects: The Use of CitizensAdvisory B oards in Administrative Decisionmaking, Indiana Law Journal73:903Ashford, Nicholas A. 1984. Advisory Committees in OSHAand EPA: TheirUse in Regulatory Decisionmaking, Science Technology and HumanValues 9(1) Winter: 72-82.Bauer, Michael R. and John Randolph. 1998. Improving Environm entalDecision-making through Collaborative Methods, Paper prepared for theNational Conference on Environmental Decision Making, Knoxville,Tennessee (May 4-6).Bingham, Gail. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade ofExperience Washington, DC: the Conservation Foundation.


26/29

Policy Studies Review, F M i t e r 1999 16314Blahna, Dale J. and Susan Yonts-Shepard. 1989. Public Involvement inResource Planning: Toward Bridging the G ap Between Policy andImplementation, Society and Natural Resources 2 3): 209-227.

100

Coglianese, Cary. 1997. Assessing Consensus: Th e Promise andPerformance of Negotiated Rulemaking, Duke Law Journal 46 6).Crosby, Ned; Janet M. Kelly; Paul Schaefer. 1986. Citizen Panels: A NewApproach to Citizen Participation, Public Management Forum March/April 1986:170-178.Davies, J. Clarence and Jan M azurek. 1998. Pollution Control in the UnitedStates: Evaluating the System, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Department of Energy (DOE). 1997. Site-Specijlc Advisory Board Initiative,1997 EvaluationSurvey Results: VolumeI Summary Report, Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Energy (September).Department of Energy (DO E). 1993. Earning Public Trust and Confidence:Requisites for Managing Radioactive Wastes, Final Report of the S ecretaryof Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management,W ashington, DC: Department of Energy.Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: EnvironmentalDiscourses, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.English, Mary R. 1991. Stakeholder Views of Superfund Sites, TheSuperfund Process: Site-Level Experience Waste Management Researchand E ducation Institute: Knoxv ille, TN.Esty , Daniel C. and Marian R. Chertow. 1997. Thinking Ecologically: AnIntroduction, in Marian R. Chertow and Daniel C. Esty eds., ThinkingEcologically: The Next Generation of Environmental Policy, New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.Federal Faci l i t ies Environmental Restorat ion Dialogue Commit tee(FFERDC). 1996. Consensus Principles and Recommendations forImproving Federal Facilities Cleanup, W ashington, DC: EnvironmentalProtection Agency (April).Fiorino, Daniel J. 1990. Citizen Participation and Environm ental Risk: ASurvey of Institutional Mechanisms, Science, Technologv and HumanValues 15 2): 226-243.


27/29

Beie le Using SocialGoalstoEvaluatePublicPartiapation

Guston, David H. 1998. Evaluating he Impact of the First U.S. Citizens Panelon Telecommunicationsand the Fu ture of Democracy, Prepared for deliveryat the 1998 Meeting of the Am erican Political Science Association, Boston,Massachusetts (September 3-6).Jasanoff , Shei la . 1990. The Fif th Branch: Scie nce Ad viso rs asPolicymakers Cambridge, MA: Harvard U niversity Press.Jefferson Center. 1997. Citizen Jury on Comparing Environmental Risks,http://www.usinternet.com/users/jcenter/jcsumart.htmlJohn, Dewitt. 1994. Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulationin States and Communities Washington, DC: Congressional QuarterlyPress.Krimsky, Sheldon and Dominic Golding, eds. 1992. Social Theories ofRisk Westport, CT: Praeger.Laird, Frank N. 1989. The Decline of Deference: The Political Context ofRisk Communication, Risk Analysis 9 4):543-550.Landre, Betsy Kiernan and Barbara Knuth. 1993. The Role of Agency Goalsand Local Context in Great Lakes Water Resources Public InvolvementPrograms, Environmental Management 17 2): 153-165.

101

Lynn, Frances and Jack D. Kartez. 1995. The Redemption of CitizenAdvisory Commi t t ees , in Fairness and Competence in C i t i zenParticipation: Evaluating Models fo r Environmental Discourse OrtwinRenn; Thom as Webler, and Peter Wiedemann, eds., Kluwer Academ icPublishers: Dordrecht, Germany.Mlay, Marian. 1996. Principles for Sponsors of Community-BasedE nv i r onm e n t a l P r o t e c t i ~ n ,~ ~resented at the Annual Conference of theAm erican Society of Public Adm inistration, Atlanta, Georgia (July 1).National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). 1997. Resolving theParadox of Environmental Protection Washington, DC: National Academ yof Public Administration.National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF). 1997.The National Report Card on Environmental Know ledge Attitudes andBehaviors Washington, DC: NEETF.


28/29

Policy Studies Review, Fall/Wiiter1999 16:3/4

102

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). 1996. The ModelPlan f o r Public Participation Washington, DC: Environmental ProtectionAgency.National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Understanding Risk: InformingDecisions in a Democratic Society Washington, DC: National Academ yPress.Peelle, Elizabeth; Martin Schweitzer, John Munro, Sam Cam es, Amy Wolfe.1996. Factors Favorable to Public Participation Success, Proceedings:National Association of E nvironmental Professionals, Houston, TX, June 2-5, 1996, ak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Perhac, Ralph M. 1997. Com parative Risk Assessm ent: Where Does thePublic Fit In?, Science Technology and Human Values 23 2):22 1-241 .Pew Research Center (PRC). 1998. Deconstructing Trust: How AmericansView Government http://www.people-press.org/trustrpt.html.Presidential CongressionalCommission on Risk Assessment and RiskManagement (PCRARM). 1997. Framework f o r Environmental HealthRisk Management Final Report Volume 1, Washington, DC: PCRA RM.Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling Alone: Am ericas Declining SocialCapital, Journal of Democracy 6:l Jan 1995: 65-78.Rabe, Barry. 1994. Beyond NIMBY Washington, DC: The BrookingsInstitution.Renn, Ortwin; Thomas Webler; and Branden B. Johnson. 1991 . PublicParticipation in Hazard Management: The Use of Citizen Panels in the U.S.,Risk-Issues in Health and Safety 197 (summer).Rosener, Judith. 1978. Matching Method to Purpose: The Challenge ofPlanning Citizen Participation Activities, in Stuart Langton (ed.), CitizenParticipation in America Lexington Books: Lexington, MARosener, Judy B. 1983. User-Oriented Evaluation: A New Way to ViewCitizen Participation, in Gregory A. Daneke, Margot W. Garcia, and Jerom eDelli Priscoli, eds., Public Involvement and Social Impact AssessmentWestview Press: Boulder, CO. pp. 45-60.Ruckleshaus, William D. 1996. Trust in Government: A Prescription forRestoration, Webb Lecture, National Academy of Public Adm inistration,Washington, DC, November 15.


29/29

Bderle: UsingSocialGoalstoEvaluatePublicParticipation

Schneider, Mark, Paul Teske and Melissa Marschall. 1997. InstitutionalArrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public SchoolChoice, American Political Science Review9 1 1): 82-93.Sewell, W .R Derrick and Susan D. Phillips. 1979. Models for the Evaluationof Public Participation Programs, Natural Resources Journal 19:337-58.Slovic, Paul. 1993. Perce ived Risk, Trust, and Democrilc . Kish ) i t i / \ x i s13 6): 675-682,Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshiiih 1987. Brwking the tnpusse:Consensual Approaches to Resolving Pirl~lrt r v p u ~ c ~ s .ew York: BasicBooksWaste Management Research and Education Institute WMIUZI 1 )9 TlwSuperfund Process: Site-Level Experience, Hazardous W;rs~c hilediationProject. University of Tennessee: Knoxville, TNWebler, Thomas. 1995. Right Discourse in Citi/.cn Ianicipetion: A nEvaluative Yardstick, in Ortwin Renn; Thomas Webler.and Ielcr Wicdcinann. 103eds., Fairness and Competence in Citizen PartiL.ipurio,i: 1;vciliiiitingModels for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer A c a d r m ic Iublishrrs:Dordrecht, Germany.Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making. W C l : b 1 Y07.Public Involvement in Comparative Risk Projects: I r i i c i p l~ - .v id BcwPractices. Boulder, CO: Western Cen ter for Environiiiental Lkcision-Making.Williams, Bruce A. and Albert R. M atheney. 1995. / k n i t i n i c ; i * , l ) ihg i t~ , .and Environmental Disputes: The Contested 1.uJigiiugc.x 1Socic i lRegulation, Yale University Press: New H aven, CT.ABOUT THE AUTHORThomas C. Beierle is a Research Associate with r h c t v i i t - r fo r RiskManagement at Resources for the Future in Wachirigrrni. lX* . O~ I Cf h isprimary research areas is the role of public involwnicvil in l i~ i~~ir~i t i i? i~~~i i~ ldecision-making. His recent work includes an exminutioti of rhc FederulAdvisory Committee Act and a meta-analJ*sis 1cusc sttidies 011participatory decision-making using the l r t i n i~workdiscussed in th i sarticle.

Documents

Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions