National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 7 Context: The Issue
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"8 Context: The People." National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12434.
×
Page 222

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 Context: The People T his chapter reviews evidence on how the human aspects of the con- text in which an environmental decision is made—including attri- butes of the sponsoring agency, as well as its legal and organizational environment; characteristics of the other participants in an assessment or decision; and the dynamics that can occur as people interact—affect the results of public participation. Like Chapter 7, this chapter describes these relationships and provides examples of practices that attempt to overcome difficulties that can emerge from or be exacerbated by the contextual fac- tors. The first section considers the convening and implementing agencies and organizations; the next sections consider the characteristics of the participants and the dynamics of the process. CONVENING AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES The agencies or other organizations that convene a public participa- tion process and the ones responsible for an environmental assessment or decision are often, but not always, the same.1 Several diagnostic questions relating to the agency’s internal and external context point to challenges for public participation. Participatory processes may need different emphases depending on the answers to these diagnostic questions. 1. Where is the decision-making authority? Who would implement any agreements reached? Are there multiple forums in which the issues are being or could be debated and decided? 187

188 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Decision-making authority may lie with the agency that convenes the public participation process, in another agency, or be dispersed among several organizations. Generally, the authority to make public decisions lies with governmental agencies, although private entities also convene par- ticipatory processes to generate recommendations. Often, given that more than one environmental law or regulation may be applicable to the issue at hand, that stakeholders view other issues as related, or that an issue may be sufficiently controversial that stakeholders raise it in multiple forums, relevant discussions may be taking place in more than one administrative, legislative, or judicial setting. This complexity certainly poses challenges of coordination. Furthermore, because different settings may be advantageous to different parties, it can be difficult to achieve agreement about which forum should be the principal focus of public involvement. The choice of a setting may therefore affect the extent to which certain parties participate or decide instead to be heard in other venues. Evidence varies about whether public participation is more successfully led by agencies at one level of government or another. A study of health agencies’ public participation efforts with contaminated communities found that in some cases, local agencies may provide better, more effective leader- ship than federal agencies (Henry S. Cole Associates, 1996). Drawing on more cases involving a broader range of issues, Beierle and Cayford (2002) found that outcomes were affected little by whether the convening agency was local, state, or federal but noted that the engagement of multiple agen- cies does complicate the participation process. Such a complication may be particularly acute when different parties or different parties’ incentives to negotiate vary on the basis of the forum in which the dispute is addressed (Bingham, 2003). Agencies sometimes coordinate their public participation efforts. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved both “in- tegrated” and “alternative” licensing processes for hydroelectric facilities that clarify and coordinate stakeholder involvement with reviews by various agencies with regulatory responsibilities (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/ hydropower/gen-info/licensing/licen-pro.asp).2 Ashford and Rest (1999) suggest that better interagency coordination not only can save time and money, but also can result in greater agency commitment to public participation. They further suggest that agencies’ commitment to increased public involvement is particularly important when interagency coordination presents challenges. Ad hoc efforts to coordinate have not overcome all the difficulties, however, even when different agencies have similar protocols for public participation (Ashford and Rest, 1999). Coordination sometimes is attempted through formal interagency working groups (e.g., 13 federal agencies collaborate in the Federal Work- ing Group for the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 189 process; http://missouririver.ecr.gov/?link=411). Issues worthy of examina- tion in these efforts include the extent to which resources can be combined, how much of those resources support the public participation process and how much support coordination, and the effectiveness of coordination in terms of the durability of decisions reached. Other practices used to clarify and coordinate stakeholder participation include formal memoranda of understanding between agencies (e.g., to establish cooperating agency status under the National Environmental Policy Act) or written terms of reference (often called protocols) for the public participation process. 2. What are the legal or regulatory mandates or constraints on the convening agency? What laws or policies need to be considered, both in how the process is structured and in defining the scope of the issues that can be addressed? Applicable laws and regulations or the domain of other agencies affect what can and cannot be done in the participatory process and how agen- cies with authority to act may use the results of the process. Statutes and regulations shape both the framing of issues and how agencies conduct their work, including the ways they engage in public participation. None of them, however, reduce the complexity that often arises in addressing environmental problems “on the ground.” Open meeting laws, administrative procedure laws, executive direc- tives, judicial rulings, and the procedures and requirements set by senior officials of the agencies are part of the framework for participation. Since the framework varies across agencies, this context must be taken into ac- count, and, in particular, the requirements and limitations under which an agency is operating should be made clear to the participants. Legislative mandates may either require or constrain public participa- tion. For example, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires that the U.S.D.A. Forest Service “hold public meetings or comparable processes . . . that foster public participation” in the “development, review, and revision of forest plans” (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992). The Forest Service may have the most explicit public involvement mandate of all U.S. agencies (Daniels and Walker, 1997). Other laws help shape public participation practices at the federal level. These include the National Environmental Policy Act (and related guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality concerning involving the public in scoping the issues included in an environmental assessment), the Admin- istrative Procedure Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Negoti- ated Rulemaking Act, and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. State and local governments often have varying versions of open meeting laws,

190 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION often referred to as “sunshine” laws, which require announcement of public meetings (see Chapter 2 for a review of the most important statutes). Even where public participation is encouraged, a mismatch between the interests or concerns of the public and what the convening agency has the authority to do can create misunderstandings and dissatisfaction. Practi- tioners generally advocate a “situation assessment” prior to convening any significant public participation, to identify whether such differences exist, and explicit discussions with stakeholders about the scope of the process, to establish a clear and agreed-on purpose for the process. The effect of legislative mandates can depend greatly on how the af- fected agencies deal with them. For example, the Superfund program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has considerable resources devoted to public participation in part because it is required by law. Some- times, however, significant environmental problems and community con- cerns may fall outside an agency’s legislative mandate, potentially impeding its ability to creatively solve problems and implement solutions. As Ashford and Rest (1999, Part Four, VII-3) conclude, on the basis of seven case stud- ies of hazardous waste sites: Agencies may have legal, political, and economic constraints that impede their ability to give the community what it wants—even if the agencies would like to do so. To the extent that the community gets very little of what it wants, it is unlikely to be satisfied with the outcome of a public participation process. This is not to say that governmental agencies should not strive to give the communities what they can. If they have faith- fully acted in a trusteeship role for the community, the agencies can feel satisfied—even in the face of articulated dissatisfaction and apparent lack of appreciation—knowing they have done more than resolve a dispute or follow an easy pathway most in line with their narrow mission. In one case involving environmental justice issues, EPA resisted cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites because the Superfund legislation did not cover petroleum. This seriously damaged trust with the segments of the community advocating cleanup (Ashford and Rest, 1999). EPA’s lack of jurisdiction over certain nuclear issues affected the functioning of boards of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) (Branch and Bradbury, 2006). Although agencies cannot change their legislative mandates in the short term, they can make matters worse with policies that unnecessarily con- strain the topics that public participation addresses by treating as a rigid constraint what could be treated as an issue for discussion—how to cope with the limitations of mandates. For example, significant conflict was cre- ated between military co-chairs and Restoration Advisory Boards dealing with DOD’s nuclear weapons production sites because of the DOD guidance that deliberation be limited to remediation issues funded under the Installa-

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 191 tion Restoration Program (Bradbury, 2005). In addition, DOD policies did not permit discussion of the reuse of land after the closing of installations. Thus, the participatory process could not address the critical issue of how future use of the lands might affect cleanup decisions (Bradbury, 2005). In some cases, inflexible interpretation made it nearly impossible for commu- nity participants to consider the full range of remediation issues (Branch and Bradbury, 2006). In some situations, practitioners try to address such problems by expanding the range of participants to include public or pri- vate entities that may have the authority to address issues outside the scope of an agency’s authority that are of concern to stakeholders. One of the complicating factors that comes from having many agencies involved is that there are often substantial differences in the legal mandates and organizational cultures that shape participation practices and in the willingness and ability of agencies to cede influence to public participation. These in turn can have an important influence on the success of the partici- patory processes. In sum, although legislative mandates may either require or constrain public participation, the effect of these mandates can depend greatly on how the affected agencies deal with them. Agencies should con- sider them explicitly, communicate them openly to stakeholders, consult with stakeholders about the significance of their constraints, and make ef- forts to address constraints that could place bounds on public participation that could affect its quality or legitimacy. 3. What factors in the convening agency influence its willingness or ability to implement principles of public participation? Considerations internal to the convening agency can influence its abil- ity to work effectively with its stakeholders. Many of these internal con- textual factors relate to the principles of good management generally (see Chapter 4), including clarity of purpose, commitment to use the results of the participation process, and adequate resources. It is important to know whether agency leadership has made, or would be willing to make, specific statements about how the results of the public participation process will be used. Confidence that investing time in the process will have a consequence increases participants’ motivation to participate. Agency leadership commitment is not the only factor relevant to assess- ing the degree of an agency’s commitment. The views of staff about how to use the results of a public participation process also are important. It can be very useful to elicit staff members’ views to understand the potential for internal conflicts that may create difficulties in sustaining an agency’s commitment to public participation. Limited staff time is a related internal factor, particularly in an era of tight budgets. So it can be important to ask what other responsibilities the staff have and what the implications are for

192 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION how much time they have to devote to the process. Other internal factors also have an impact on agency commitment, including the level of authority of the individual(s) representing the agency in the process. Another factor is the degree of clarity about how actively engaged the agency will be in the process and whether it will engage directly as a participant in the process, provide technical assistance, or simply receive the results. Other key questions include: How open are staff and leadership to consulting stakeholders in the design of the process? Is there a clear dead- line for a decision and if so, is it functioning as an impetus for action or as a reason to preclude some forms of public participation? What resources does the agency have to invest in the public participation process? Are there personnel available who have training and experience in organizing public participation? The objective in asking these questions is to be realistic, not critical. As stated elsewhere in this report, when circumstances include ei- ther internal or external constraints, a more limited process done well may be more effective than trying to do more than can be sustained. The most critical imperative in meeting the challenges posed by the agency’s context is to make clear to participants from the outset what pro- cesses and decisions are and are not possible. Yet the extent to which certain factors are within or outside an agency’s control can be unclear. Public participation processes can be undermined when an agency uses claims about contextual constraints as cover for internal challenges or resistance to public participation. WHO PARTICIPATES Several attributes of participants and potential participants—that is, of the set of interested and affected parties to an assessment or decision—can create challenges for those convening public participation processes. We cannot overstate the importance of finding out from the start who may be affected by an environmental decision, who is interested in the issue, what their positions and interests are, how many perspectives there are, whether the participants are organized, how diverse they are culturally, whether they have worked together successfully or unsuccessfully in the past, the degree of mutual trust, and whether coalitions or oppositional groups have formed, among other factors. As noted in Chapter 3, inadequate represen- tation of interested and affected parties is one of the leading criticisms of public participation processes. Achieving full participation by interested and affected parties can require substantial diligence. Effective communica- tion once participants are engaged also can be affected by characteristics of the participants and their relationships with one another. Chapter 5 describes two basic approaches to determining who can par- ticipate. One is through processes that are bounded, in the sense that repre-

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 193 sentation is based on identified organized parties or on specific stakeholder interests represented by particular individuals. Generally, policy dialogues, advisory committees, and negotiations are bounded processes. These are commonly used in situations in which the type of decision process is formal (e.g., regulatory negotiation) and the outcome is often a joint report or set of recommendations concerning a specific issue or action, such as a set of rules or an adjudication. Other processes are unbounded, in the sense that they are open to any interested individual and constrained only by who has the interest and the resources to participate. Under certain conditions, such as when an envi- ronmental issue has been recently identified and organized groups have not formed or when there may be affected groups that are unorganized, unbounded and open participatory processes are especially appropriate. Unbounded processes are useful for coordinating deliberation to define an issue for assessment or policy, to determine the information needed for action, and to identify the ways in which various parties are affected by or interested in the outcome. Unbounded processes may be formal, as in public hearings, surveys, or public comment processes, or informal, as in study circles, open houses, or other forms of workshops. As participants become self-identified and the needed information and expertise clarified, the process may become more formalized as it coalesces around the need to assess a particular issue or define a policy or program. As this distinction suggests, participatory processes can be tailored to the number of parties, the degree of their organization, the objectives of the process, and time and resource constraints. The injunction to identify and represent “the spectrum of interested and affected parties” (National Research Council, 1996:3) remains a useful guide. Characteristics of the participants can obviously affect the results of public participation processes. We have identified six diagnostic questions related to the characteristics of the participants, the answers to which should affect the design and conduct of participatory processes; see Box 8-1. They are addressed in turn in the next six sections. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION The question of adequate representation, which is often a matter of access, has several dimensions, each of which can affect the likelihood that all parties will be meaningfully represented. The dimensions relate to the scale of the environmental issue; the characteristics of individuals that may reduce their likelihood of participation; difficulties the parties may have in organizing collectively for representation; and disparities among groups in their ability to get to the table.

194 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BOX 8-1 Diagnostic Questions Pertaining to Participants 1. Are there interested and affected parties who may have difficulty being adequately represented? a. What does the scale of the issue, especially the geographic scale, imply for the range of affected parties? b. Are there disparities in the attributes of individual potential participants that may affect the likelihood of participation? c. Are there diffuse, unorganized, or difficult-to-reach interests? d. Are there disparities across groups of participants in their financial, technical, or other resources that may influence participation? 2. What are the significant differences in values, interests, cultural views, and perspectives among the parties? 3. Are the participants polarized on the issue? 4. Are there substantial disparities across participant groups in their power to influence the process? 5. To what degree can the individuals at the table act for the parties they are assumed to represent? 6. To what degree are there problems of trust among the agency, the scientists, and the interested and affected parties? Specifically, a. Are there indications that some participants are likely to proceed insin- cerely or to breach the rules of the process? b. Are some participants concerned that the convening agency will pro- ceed in bad faith? c. Do some participants view the scientists as partisan advocates and so mistrust them? Scale of the Issue As noted in Chapter 7, the scale of an environmental issue may create particular challenges for participation. Many large-scale issues, such as na- tional environmental standards, climate change, regional air quality, water resources, and some transportation issues, make participation difficult for some parties. First, the geographic boundaries of the issue may be unclear, making it difficult to determine who is affected. When an issue extends across political and institutional boundaries, there can be a large number of affected parties. In addition, some local or regional environmental resources

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 195 (e.g., the Grand Canyon, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) have national or global significance because of the value of the resource, its cultural mean- ing, or the possibility that it will set a precedent. Many public participation processes rely on repeated face-to-face in- teraction. For policies with national or global impact, repeated face-to-face interaction is much more expensive, time consuming, and complicated than it is for geographically contained decisions. There are mechanisms to cope with the problem of scale, but their complexities and costs must be taken into account. For example, the cost and time involved in setting up national advisory processes is substantial. Furthermore, federal agencies may invoke the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in ways that are foreign or unpalatable to participants accustomed to informal local participatory processes. Some agencies treat members of FACA-regulated committees as temporary employees and as a result require that committee members be fingerprinted. Some potential members see this procedure as burdensome and intrusive, and some have refused to participate as a result. In addition, the time and expense of traveling substantial distances for a national deci- sion process favors well-funded organized groups over other parties, so it may be important to hold multiple meetings in diverse locations to allow engagement of those who cannot travel to a national meeting. Such strate- gies increase costs and the duration of the process. Online participation reduces travel costs, but its effects on who participates and on the quality of deliberation are only beginning to be studied (see Chapter 5). Determining the relative role of local and national interests can pose significant practical challenges to public involvement regardless of scale. In final decisions, authorities give explicit or implicit weights to national and local interests, but this issue also needs consideration in the design of participatory processes. The logistics problem (“How do we get them to the table?”) and the value weighting problem (“How many local versus national interest representatives should we have?”) interact. It can be hard for local groups to participate in national processes and for all but the best-funded national groups to participate in local processes far from their offices. At a relatively local scale, participation can be based on social relation- ships that extend beyond the responsible organizations and directly involve those affected by a project or policy (Wilbanks, 2003). At larger scales, participation often relies on the involvement of organizations, such as trade or environmental groups, which are presumed to represent interested or af- fected constituencies. In such circumstances, there is always a concern with the degree to which the representatives share views with their constituen- cies. For example, there has long been a concern that the major U.S. envi- ronmental groups and the foundations that support them do not adequately

196 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION reflect the concerns of disadvantaged communities (Brulle, 2000; Taylor, 2000; but see Delfin and Tang, 2005, for contrary evidence). There are other ways to get adequate representation for large-scale assessments or decisions, but data are very limited on their effectiveness compared with the constituency-based approach. As noted in Chapter 7, it is possible to engage representative samples of people in direct deliberation on policy issues. In one example in Texas, such “deliberative polls” led to an increased commitment to renewable energy policy compared with a poll taken without deliberation (Ackerman and Fishkin, 2004). While this approach involves very high costs, other experiments suggest that standard surveys and face-to-face participation can be hybridized effectively (e.g., Pidgeon et al., 2005). Another approach, tried in the U.S. National Assess- ment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change that was completed in 2001, pursues participation at different scales—in this in- stance, at the national level and in various regions and sectors. Results were summarized both regionally and nationally (Moser, 2005). Such processes are quite expensive and have not been used often. As already noted, there is also the possibility of Internet-based participation (Beierle, 2002), an ap- proach that is only beginning to be explored and studied (see Chapter 7). Participants’ Disparities Some claim that the potential of public participation to improve deci- sions is limited because nonspecialists lack the capacity to understand and engage with complex and uncertain scientific information, obscure laws and regulations, and complex value trade-offs (Dietz, Stern, and Rycroft, 1989; Sweeney, 2004). This view attributes failures of public participation to insufficient levels of education, time, or other aspects of “human capi- tal” on the part of the public. Research on public involvement in political decision making across the spectrum of public policy issues presents a more complex picture. A substantial body of research on processes of deliberation and deci- sion making on public issues of all kinds has shown that individual re- sources, such as formal education, occupation, social status, and available time and money, condition the likelihood that individuals will participate and participate influentially (e.g., Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1994). There are two reasons for this. First, these resources facilitate personal involvement and influence directly. For example, indi- viduals who know more of the arguments about a particular issue tend to be more influential regardless of the quality of their arguments (Kameda, Ohtsubo, and Takezawa, 1997). Those with higher occupational status and educational attainment tend to speak more and are more influential, even if their information is not more accurate than other group members’ (Hastie,

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 197 Penrod, and Pessington, 1983). Individuals who focus on the merits of an issue tend to have more influence in a group, even though they are also less willing to change their views based on meritorious arguments (Cacioppo et al., 1996). Second, persons who possess these resources are much more likely to be recruited to participate than are their less advantaged peers (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1994; Goldstein, 1999; Schier, 2000). These inequalities contribute to a sense of disconnection and powerless- ness among many in the United States, particularly those at the lower end of the socioeconomic continuum. And it is increasingly the case for those in the middle, many of whom have also concluded that government is not much concerned with their interests and aspirations and that the public sphere is open to citizens “by invitation only” (Schier, 2000). In a 1996 national survey, for example, 69 percent of Americans with less than a high school education, 62 percent of high school graduates, and 57 percent of Ameri- cans in the bottom two-thirds of household income distribution agreed with the proposition, “People like me don’t have a say in what the govern- ment does” (Markus, 2002). By way of comparison, only 4 in 10 college graduates or upper-income survey respondents agreed with the statement. Related to, but distinct from, a sense of political inefficacy among many Americans is a judgment by many of them that government is incompetent or untrustworthy (Nye, Zelikow, and King, 1997; Hetherington, 2004). By way of example, a CBS/New York Times national survey conducted in July 2007 found that only 24 percent of Americans “trust the government in Washington to do what is right” “just about always” or “most of the time” (http://www.pollingreport.com/institut.htm#Federal). The levels of trust in government among Americans has been low, with only transitory excep- tions, for some three decades now. Such chronic levels of disconnection and mistrust may present formidable barriers to participatory processes. Highly educated, financially comfortable people are much more likely to be active in public affairs than are less educated, lower income people, not because they are more concerned about public matters or more willing to make the effort, but rather because of differences in the control of po- litically valuable resources (cognitive skills, money, and a sense of political efficacy), embeddedness in social networks that include influential people, and the targeted efforts of political organizations to activate the citizens who control those resources (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1994; Putnam, 2000). Data from re- cent American National Election Studies surveys reveal that college gradu- ates are roughly twice as likely as high school dropouts to be contacted in an election year by party activists urging them to vote. The same odds of being contacted during a campaign distinguish people residing in house- holds in the top one-third of the income distribution from people in the

198 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION bottom one-third (Markus, 2002). These statistics suggest that efforts to activate political participation in the United States tend to amplify rather than mitigate the effects of resource inequalities among citizens (Powell, 1986; Lijphart, 1994). The situation of socially disadvantaged groups or- ganizing effectively for political change is the exception rather than the rule in American society. An examination of nearly 1,700 comments filed in the period 1988- 1990 as part of EPA’s rule-making process regarding 28 “significant” haz- ardous waste regulations revealed that individual members of the public filed fewer than 6 percent of the comments, whereas corporations and industry groups submitted about 60 percent of the comments, and local, state, and federal government officials submitted approximately 25 percent (Coglianese, 1996). Comment on EPA rule-making is, of course, only one way in which citizens may participate in environmental decision making. The consensus conclusion of research on other common environmental participatory processes (such as public hearings and citizen advisory com- mittees) and on public participation in governance more generally is that the vast majority of the public is uninvolved in, or even unaware of, partici- patory options that are, in principle at least, available to them (Verba and Nie, 1972; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1994; Schier, 2000). These findings imply that unless public participation in environmental assessment and decision making explicitly compensates for these tendencies, the politically disadvantaged and disconnected will be underrepresented among the participants, and the outcomes of such participation are likely to be skewed against their interests (e.g., Bullard, 1990). For example, a review of 30 cases of public participation in the Great Lakes area found that advisory committees were frequently unrepresentative from a socioeco- nomic perspective (Beierle and Konisky, 1999). There are notable exceptions to these overall patterns. Numerous cases have been documented in which low-income or minority communities have mobilized very effectively when they see their vital interests as threatened. They have mastered daunting technical analyses, and overcome bureau- cratic resistance to have their voices heard in environmental policy pro- cesses (Brown and Mikkelsen, 1990; Bullard and Johnson, 2000; Brown et al., 2002, 2003; Pellow, 2002; McCormick, 2006). Numerous studies also show that marginalized people can build on existing local institutions, such as religious congregations, neighborhood associations, schools, and labor unions, to affect issues that concern them, including environmental issues (Piven and Cloward, 1971; Boyte, 1980; Levine, 1982; Evans and Boyte, 1992; Shutkin, 2000; Sirianni and Friedland, 2001; Warren, 2001; Osterman, 2002). But those designing a participation process cannot rely on this to happen spontaneously. Special efforts will usually be required to

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 199 engage those who are not connected to the policy process and less likely to participate, especially when they do not see their vital interests at stake. As noted above, when a large consequence is shared by large numbers of people, it amounts to a small consequence for each one, reducing their motivation to get involved. Many practices are used to involve people who are otherwise not likely to participate. They include inviting members of particular groups to par- ticipate on a process steering committee; providing resources to existing organizations to send out mailings, organize participation, or host meetings in an affected community; and including members of the community or group on a convening or facilitation team. Missing Interests For many environmental issues, well-organized interests, including in- dustries, local political and economic coalitions, and environmental groups, are well prepared to engage in participatory processes. But as already noted, many individuals who may feel substantial effects from a decision may not be organized in a way that facilitates their easy engagement. Those who can expect to receive only modest benefits from a decision may be even less organized. Therefore, if participatory processes are to take public concerns into account equitably, care must be taken to include the voices of those who are not well represented. In some cases, preliminary fieldwork will reveal that communities pre- sumed to be disorganized are in fact endowed with an array of local orga- nizations and institutions that may be open to collaborating in an effort to foster inclusion of underrepresented interests (Fisher, 1994; Rivera and Erlich, 1998; Boyte, 2004). When such organized groups have few mem- bers or are reluctant to participate, some research suggests that the very act of inviting their members into the policy process helps to organize a new constituency, as those groups now have a focus for their organizing efforts (Morone and Kilbreth, 2003). Some research also suggests that certain participatory procedures may be particularly well suited for encouraging involvement of underrepresented or marginalized groups, such as citizen ac- tion committees, citizen forums, citizen juries, planning cells, and consensus conferencing (for reviews, see Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Renn, 2004). Groups’ Disparities As with individuals, groups and organizations differ in the resources that affect their ability to participate meaningfully on behalf of their con- stituencies. Government agencies and private corporations are generally represented by paid staff or consultants, but citizen groups tend to have

200 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION fewer financial and technical resources and to rely on representation by unpaid volunteers. Studies focused on public participation in Forest Service processes indicate the importance of community resources in shaping the likelihood of a successful process. External support of the process by the community (Schuett, Selin, and Carr, 2001) and public interest and pres- sure to move the process along can also increase the likelihood of success (Yaffee, Wondolleck, and Lippman, 1997). A clear assessment of the re- sources available to all parties can help avoid designing a process in which some do not have an effective voice. As we have noted, the “general public” is not one amorphous mass but rather many distinct publics, particularly when it comes to environmental matters. The public most concerned about issues related to hazardous waste contamination in urbanized areas may be quite different in many ways from the public most concerned about endangered species and wilderness conser- vation. However, numerous studies of environmental values and concerns among representative samples have found that concern with the well-being of other humans is strongly positively correlated with concern with other species and the environment itself (Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom, 2005). The concept of “social capital” is useful for thinking about how to address problems of access to public participation processes. The central idea is that repeated interactions among individuals can give rise to social networks, norms of trust, reciprocity, and empathy, which together increase the possibilities for cooperation (Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1988, 1990; Putnam, 1993; Newton, 1997; Lin, 2001). These linkages are referred to as “social capital.” By fostering cooperation, social capital renders possible solutions to classic problems of collective action that arise in the provi- sion and maintenance of public goods, such as clean air and ocean fisher- ies (Ostrom, 1990; Taylor and Singleton, 1993; Boix and Posner, 1998; National Research Council, 2002a). In the absence of sufficient social capi- tal, powerful incentives exist for individuals to shirk contributing money, time, or other scarce resources, since each individual can benefit from such activities even without contributing (Olson, 1965). Social capital is relevant to environmental public participation for two reasons. First, participatory processes are themselves a form of collective action: individuals can enjoy whatever environmental benefits accrue from participatory processes without taking part themselves (Lubell, 2002). The extent of social capital among potential participants therefore can be an important influence on the breadth of involvement and the quality of col- laboration that a participatory process will have (Warren, 2001; Larsen et al., 2004). Second, public participation changes social capital. Depending on the manner in which it is conducted, public involvement can enhance social capital among participants, thereby increasing the likelihood that future involvement in such processes will be successful—and more generally

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 201 enriching the group’s or community’s capacity to cooperate on public mat- ters. Research has documented the ways in which some government pro- grams and policies have nurtured—or in some cases “unraveled” (Skocpol, 1996)—social capital in civil society (see also Berry, Portney, and Thomson, 1993). Social capital can engender sufficient cooperation to overcome obstacles to collective action (Marwell and Oliver, 1993; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997; Putnam, 2000; Passy, 2003). Indeed, theory and evidence sug- gest that social capital is implicated in “making democracy work” (Putnam, 1993) by promoting responsive, effective, and efficient government (Boix and Posner, 1998; Putnam, 2000:Chapter 21; Knack, 2002). And research supports the assertion that community-wide social capital, competence, and civic engagement can influence the likelihood of a successful public par- ticipation process (Doppelt, Shinn, and John, 2002). Groups that develop social capital can increase their influence relative to less well-organized groups, a result that may be viewed as beneficial or not, depending on one’s perspective. Social capital and the networks that underpin it are usually thought of as having two basic forms: bridging, which involves communications among people from different backgrounds, and bonding, which involves communications among people who share common characteristics, such as social class, nationality, or ethnicity (Putnam, 2000). A potential exists for participatory processes to build “bridging” social capital by facilitating productive relationships among interested and affected parties, includ- ing nongovernmental organizations, private business and industry, and governmental entities at the local, state, and national levels. This is an important objective in terms of building capacity for future participatory decision making. It can counter the tendency of policy networks to empha- size connections among those with shared core beliefs and values (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993), a network structure that can make compromise and consensus difficult when parties outside the policy network must be involved. Some research indicates that heterogeneous groups tend to be more flexible and innovative. Homogeneous groups often have more posi- tive internal dynamics but poorer performance (Jackson, 1992) and tend to search for information that confirms their beliefs (Schultz-Hardt et al., 2000). Bridging capital can be particularly important for economically and politically marginalized communities because it can help provide the resources they need to achieve effective solutions to the problems they face (Bryant, 1995; Saegert, Thompson, and Warren, 2002). Research, experience, and common sense suggest that care should be taken to address various other factors that may impede equitable participa- tion, such as time and location of meetings, physical access, availability of public transportation, language diversity, need for child care on site, and

202 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION participants’ varying familiarity with technical information. In some situ- ations, agencies have provided or helped identify resources for community or public interest groups to obtain technical assistance. This approach is obviously subject to resource constraints. DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES Policy decisions and the public participation process may be divisive when the effects of an environmental problem and the costs and benefits of potential policy responses affect different groups in different ways. Dif- ferences in values, perspectives, and cultural world views can be sources of division among the participants. Such diversity is also a potential source of the strength of participatory processes. Diversity in experiences, knowledge, values, and perspectives is impor- tant for interrogating knowledge claims, assessing the adequacy of problem definitions, and evaluating options for solutions. This process of interroga- tion is the core characteristic of analytic-deliberative processes (see Chapter 6). The key idea is that the quality and public accountability of a decision are best ensured by engaging a wide variety of participants with diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences to deliberate together to reach a shared understanding of the problem and options for addressing it. Significant research in communication, problem solving, decision mak- ing, and negotiation suggest that good-faith communication, in which par- ties explain the reasons for their positions in terms of underlying principles or interests, is more likely than other approaches to produce creative solu- tions. Such research goes back nearly 100 years to the early work of Mary Parker Follett (1918, 1924). It includes, in particular, concepts of “prin- cipled” or “integrative” negotiation (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1981; Lewicki and Litterer, 1985), understanding of how people engage in escalating and deescalating communication and behavior (Pruitt and Rubin, 1986), and applications of game theory and decision science (Raiffa, 2005, 2007). Many specific concepts and practices (which can be found in the literature) elaborate this basic notion of collaborative problem solving. Although environmental decision making can benefit substantially from efforts to incorporate and consider a variety of perspectives, it is also the case that differences in values and interests can constitute serious barriers to a productive public participation process. Differences defined by interests are well recognized: there are winners and losers in most policy choices. However, participation in public processes is also connected to people’s sense of identity, values, and understandings of norms of appropriate be- havior (e.g., Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1994; March and Olsen, 1995; Stern et al., 1999; Monroe, 2001; Markus, 2002). Other important differences are basically cultural and can lead to dif-

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 203 ferences in reasoning and judgments during disputes (Kamenstein, 1996; Triandis, 2000). In many cases involving Native American tribes, difficulties have arisen because of the differences between biocentric values expressed by tribal representatives and the conflicting values of other stakeholders in the process (Lubell and Leach, 2005). In addition, lack of awareness about the importance of sovereignty to tribes or issues associated with a tribe’s le- gal status and lack of understanding of the institutional and cultural norms with which tribes govern themselves may make negotiations between tribal and nonnative stakeholders challenging when nonnative stakeholders do not know the proper tribal etiquette or understand with whom they should negotiate (Jostad, McAvoy, and McDonald, 1996). These cases highlight the ways in which differences in deep core beliefs among participants can shape the likelihood of consensus-based policy agreements (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Even within a small geographic area, social classes and racial/ethnic groups may partake of very different cultures that involve different values and assumptions about what are appropriate decisions and what are ap- propriate processes for reaching decisions. There are also consistent gender differences in risk perceptions and environmental values (Davidson and Freudenburg, 1996; Slovic, 1999; Kalof et al., 2002). In fact, evaluations of the process and even ideas of what success means can vary among such parties as state and federal agency officials, local agencies, resource users, environmentalists, and facilitators (Leach, 2002). It is important that processes represent and engage the full spectrum of perspectives in planning how a public participation process is conducted so that decision processes are sensitive to them. However, the wider the range of values and norms, the more difficult it may be to come to shared understandings and the more effort may be required to do so. One com- mon strategy is to focus on relationships so that participants get to know one another before considering the issues or even establishing the ground rules for a process. Practices that have been used for this purpose include field trips, social hours at the start of meetings, rotation of meeting loca- tions so that different parties serve as host, story telling, and more formal, shared training on process (Adler and Birkhoff, 2002). The literature on cross-cultural communications also includes concepts and strategies that may be useful. A large literature and much accumulated experience in using analytical methods from economics and the decision sciences is relevant to addressing issues of value in considering the consequences of possible environmen- tal decisions. Recent reports from the National Research Council (2004, 2005a) and the Millennium Assessment (Reid et al., 2005) provide a useful introduction. Cost-benefit analysis is one such method. It has been used by many

204 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION federal agencies to assess and compare different kinds of consequences, such as environmental benefits from ecosystem management and human health benefits from control of environmental toxicants. Its key feature, the comparison of consequences by representing them all in monetary units, is both its strongest advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is that it provides a straightforward method for making difficult comparisons. The disadvantage is it is accomplished by two approaches that are not problem free: (1) transforming all effects into common monetary units (e.g., from lives or species lost to dollars, or from future dollars to present dollars) and (2) making assumptions about social value (e.g., “that social value is nothing more or less than the sum of values individuals express in markets or market-like contexts,” National Research Council, 2005a:35), some of which are controversial (Jaeger et al., 2001). These value judgments may be difficult for participants to disentangle from the analytical method. And when they are distentangled, participants may dispute or reject them. These difficulties suggest that any use of these methods should follow the principles outlined in Chapter 6. Cost-benefit analysis is most likely to be useful for addressing value is- sues when the consequences to be compared are readily valued in monetary terms (e.g., board feet of timber harvested, cost of emission controls). It is often quite controversial when monetary values are not obvious (e.g., the value of continued viability of an endangered species or of increased vis- ibility with reduced levels of particulate matter in the atmosphere). Such “nonmarket” values are sometimes estimated subjectively (e.g., by eliciting expressions of people’s willingness to pay), but that approach is itself a matter of controversy among specialists. There are other analytical tools for addressing value differences with- out assuming that they can be measured by a common index. They include multiattribute trade-off analysis and “value-focused thinking” (Keeney, 1992), an analytic hierarchy process (Saaty, 1990), and other methods that focus attention on options and preferred end states without making formal estimates of value or utility (for more detail, see Gregory and McDaniels, 2005). These methods explicitly seek to identify participants’ values, goals, or preferred states and, rather than combining and comparing them in a formal analytical framework, structure deliberations to ensure that all such concerns are addressed directly as part of the assessment or decision process. Value differences among participants sometimes do not affect decisions, either because there are clear legal requirements that specify which values can and cannot be considered (e.g., the Endangered Species Act) or because agreement can be reached on the choice of decision alternatives despite differences among the participants in the values ascribed to environmental consequences. However, disagreements on values are often a sensitive and

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 205 divisive issue in public participation processes. It is important to diagnose the extent of such disagreement at the outset of the process, to select prac- tices to address them, and to reconsider value issues as the process nears completion. Such practices can reveal paths toward finding common ground among parties with different values as they consider alternatives. POLARIZATION The degree of polarization among participants is an important diagnos- tic factor for determining the need for using specific techniques to help par- ties deal with different perspectives or conflicting interests as they attempt to achieve the principle of good-faith communication. Some participatory processes begin with participants not being particularly vested in certain desired outcomes, either because positions have not yet formed or because existing positions are relatively flexible and participants acknowledge the need for trade-offs and compromise. However, it is quite common for participation processes to begin with many groups already having strongly held and strongly opposed views. In some cases, participants may be in litigation or engaged in active dispute in other ways. This may not preclude participation, but it does affect it. Clearly, policy decisions and the public participation process may be divisive when the effects of an environmental problem and the costs and benefits of potential policy responses affect different groups in different ways. A special and critically important challenge arises when some parties believe that they have interests that cannot be met if the interests of another party are served. Sometimes this is the case, but the perception of mutually exclusive interests on the part of some participants may be incorrect. The diagnostic task can be difficult because sometimes the question is initially posed as a choice between mutually exclusive positions. For example, a panel member pointed out that in the first mediated environmental dispute, some participants disagreed in absolute terms about whether to support a specific flood control dam in Washington State. However, the question could have been restated in terms of reconciling opposing groups’ interests, that is, as how to reduce flooding while still preserving the whitewater recreational values of that particular reach of river. Thus, initial statements that indicate diametrically opposed interests should not be interpreted as an insurmountable challenge. Mediators or facilitators often speak to stakeholders in confidence to learn more about the issues of concern and the interests that underlie the positions being articulated, particularly in circumstances in which trust is a barrier but also when parties are not particularly skilled at collaborative problem solving. Other practices for generating solutions when positions appear polarized include brainstorming (also described as “separating in-

206 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION venting from deciding”), tools for applying criteria systematically (includ- ing developing models), and adding dimensions such as time or new issues to the scope of the conversation to find solutions that can benefit those involved. Many of these techniques have their roots in game theory or decision science. Yet, sometimes, interests are truly irreconcilable. For example, in a case in the Rockies, there was no acceptable way to discuss the terms of a permit to mine uranium with parties that were opposed to the use of the uranium for nuclear energy or weapons production. In these cases of irreconcil- able interests, particularly when the stakeholders have been consulted and concur in the design of the participatory process, public participation may not reach a consensus but can still be a valuable tool to clarify the roots of disagreement (participants can agree on the points of disagreement), on how to describe the arguments of each side, on how to document the dif- ferent preferences, or on the forum in which decisions will be made. If the participants believe that the organizers of the process have made all efforts to reach a common understanding of all positions and interests and to document them with openness and transparency, the chances improve for the perceived legitimacy of the process, even if the actions of the authorized decision maker are appealed by those who disagree with the outcome. Polarization may be seen to present a dilemma for a convening organi- zation: if the participatory process is unlikely to generate consensus, there may be concern that it will make the conflict more intense by giving oppo- nents a platform for debate, increasing the intensity of political opposition and making a decision impossible. As noted in Chapter 3, some observers of public participation (e.g., Sunstein, 2003) argue that it tends to create polarization, although others (e.g., Hamlett and Cobb, 2006) disagree. Increased polarization, some fear, will politicize debate to the detriment of scientific evidence and good judgment in the decision-making process. These outcomes are possible but, in our judgment, do not provide good justification for curtailing public participation. Agency decisions are inher- ently exercises of political authority. If political consensus is lacking, the responsible agency should acknowledge this fact, make decisions despite dissent if required, and develop processes whereby public debate and dia- logue appropriate to the nature of the situation can take place. As noted in Chapter 3, there is also the opposite fear, that public par- ticipation may be used to co-opt, exhaust, or mislead the public, thereby obstructing the proper role of the public in shaping policy in a democracy and reinforcing existing powerful interests. Although both of these concerns find support in experience, neither outcome is inevitable. The evidence indi- cates that appropriately structured public participation can serve to reduce both the abuse of science and the dilution of public influence on policy. The design for the process and the expectations for it should take ac-

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 207 count of the degree and character of polarization that exists at the outset. In a polarized environment, simply bringing opposing groups together in a forum designed to clarify the points of contention may constitute a constructive first step, one that will be more likely to succeed than some- thing more ambitious yet one that also can provide the basis for additional progress in the future. Such forums can clarify the scientific and political issues and establish useful processes to support good decision making. As noted in Chapter 6, when scientific disagreements are part of what is at is- sue, an agency can convene a public forum in which scientists with diverse perspectives present their data and conclusions and defend them. In this way, a public agency can create a public forum for decision-focused debate and discussion as well as making the required decisions. In situations characterized by extreme polarization, which sometimes result from a long history of conflict, extended efforts at trust building also may be necessary to make accommodation possible, even on matters of process. Research and experience in resolution of identity-based conflicts can offer useful insights for such situations (e.g., Saunders, 1999). However, trust-building efforts require time and money, either of which may be in short supply. POWER DISPARITIES Disparities that affect influence can play a significant role in who is consulted in the design of a process, who is included as a participant, and, in some cases, in the transparency of the process and the achievement of good-faith communication. In many cases, those with power and influence are also advantaged in terms of other resources related to having an effec- tive voice in a process (time, funding, scientific staff). As noted above, some parties already participate in environmental decision making very well and effectively. Those parties include large cor- porations and some professional associations (e.g., Heclo, 1978; Schlozman and Tierney, 1986; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Sweeney, 2004). Other parties are much less involved and effective, such as nonunionized workers and their families, the poor, members of racial and ethnic minority groups, and recent immigrants. A small number of prominent national environ- mental nongovernmental organizations do represent the distinctive interests of noncorporate and nonprofessional constituencies to national agencies, and most of the more populous states have comparable state-level nongov- ernmental organizations; however, many types of interested and affected parties to environmental decisions are neither involved directly in agency decisions nor represented there by nongovernmental organizations. A major rationale for public participation is to level the playing field in the sense that everyone should have equal voice in the process, even if

208 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION outside the process there are vast differentials in resources, power, and influence. This is at the heart of many concepts of legitimacy and capacity building. However, differences in power and influence always exist and those with more power are more likely to have more influence, directly or indirectly, on the choices made about the framing of issues, the nature of participation (e.g., a bounded versus unbounded process), the logistics of meetings, and how the results will be used, mirroring the balance of power in the external playing field. In other words, unless explicitly addressed, collaborative design of a process can be more difficult to achieve the greater the imbalance of power in a situation. This, in turn, can affect the inclusive- ness of participation and the transparency of the process, even if all who do participate have the same opportunity to express their views. Intentional diagnosis and sensitive discussion of the relative power or influence of different groups can promote the principle of collaborative design in a meaningful and realistic way by providing the basis for an in- formed decision by both organizers and participants as to whether they can convene a process that provides sufficient incentives for inclusive partici- pation. Such understandings are often recorded in ground rules or “terms of reference” for a process. Discussion of relative influence during the diagnostic stage also can enhance a realistic understanding, and sometimes acceptance, of the possibility that some of the parties will seek other forums if they can achieve more of their objectives in that way and, thus promote realistic understandings of the limits of a public participation effort. Generally, public participation is structured so that a few voices do not dominate the discussion. In some cases, inclusiveness may require subsidies to those with limited resources to compensate for travel costs and time lost from other responsibilities. It may also require providing them with improved access to expertise. By recognizing existing inequalities and designing and implementing participatory processes so as to minimize their effects, agencies can enhance the quality of input for environmental decision making. The process can be structured to ensure that all stakeholders are motivated to participate and that all parties’ voices are given serious consideration in the process. It is also important to be realistic that those involved will be comparing how participation in a process compares with other process alternatives. Those who do not feel they have sufficient influence in the process may seek to increase their power through other strategies, such as community organiz- ing, media outreach, referendums and initiatives, lobbying, and litigation; and those with influence will assess what their influence can accomplish through similar means. Thus, the burden is on the convener to understand the balance of power and influence in a situation and to design a process that motivates participants to work within the process. (Good faith on the

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 209 part of participants—e.g., in being transparent when they feel they must abandon a process for external politics—is discussed below.) ROLE OF REPRESENTATIVES Environmental assessment and decision-making processes typically in- volve a mix of individuals speaking for themselves and representatives of organizations or groups, among them government agencies, private corpo- rations, trade associations, environmental nongovernmental organizations, and grassroots citizen groups. This means that some participants must get the concurrence of individuals who are not participating directly and there- fore who have not experienced the mutual learning that can occur in a good participatory process. The values, internal structures, and dynamics of the organizations that participate in public decision making vary widely and must be recognized in designing a process that successfully accommodates different internal decision-making processes, organizational cultures, con- versational styles, potentials for leadership or other organizational change, and the degree to which representatives have access to relevant information, can speak for their organizations or constituencies, make proposals, and support proposed decisions (Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993; O’Conner, 1994). A convening agency’s efficacy in creating a good participation process de- pends on the agency’s understanding the parties and the intraorganizational dynamics of their groups and organizations. This is a challenge because of the complexity of environmental issues and the wide variety of ways in which affected parties organize themselves. An important concern in this regard is whether the individuals at the table are willing and able to make durable agreements. The Forest Service studies point to the importance of the participants’ committing to the pro- cess, particularly if it is extended in time (Selin and Chavez, 1994; Shindler and Neburka, 1997; Yaffee, Wondolleck, and Lippman, 1997; U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 2000). An agency that engages in a lengthy and formal participatory process may ask participants to agree to continue until the process is completed and to signify by their participation that they accept that the process is fair and that the decisions made as a result of the process will be acceptable to them. However, as experienced negotiators know, par- ticipants in a negotiation may choose to cease their participation, or they may assert that a conclusion or choice of decision alternative by the group is unacceptable to them. Participating organizations may have internal disagreements about which forum should be the principal focus of public involvement. Since participation is voluntary, it is important to consider how the parties’ incen- tives to participate may depend on the forum: What motivates people to give their time and energy to working in a particular forum? These issues

210 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION also can change over time, as interested and affected parties seek to create new forums in which they can achieve their objectives. Several practices are commonly used in “bounded” or representative processes to deal with concerns about whether the participants can act for their organizations or constituencies. They include selecting representatives with decision-making authority or strong social networks, being explicit about what authority each representative has and with whom they must consult, planning the time between meetings to allow for consultation, requesting reports about such consultation at meetings, and organizing formal work groups within constituencies. In the Total Coliform Rule advisory committee process, several of the participants established formal working groups of members of the organizations or constituencies they represented. The amount of time available in any particular context is a related factor in determining what is possible to do. If deadlines are very short, a format that does not depend on representatives consulting with constituencies may be considered. And as noted in Chapter 6, processes based on peer review may help in aligning representatives with their constituencies. The critical ele­ ment is that onvening agencies need to develop understanding of the parties at the table, in terms of what kinds of commitments they can make on behalf of those they purport to represent. On the basis of such an assessment, they may want to revise the process or their expectations for it. TRUST Participants in environmental decisions typically have histories with each other and with the agencies responsible for convening the process and making environmental decisions. These histories form part of the context for decision making and can result in a reservoir of trust or distrust between the agency and the participants, as well as among the participants. For example, research suggests that Native Americans, given their long history of mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government, may be especially reluctant to participate in watershed partnerships and that partnerships involving Native American tribes may be less successful at achieving policy agreements (Lubell et al., 2002). It is reasonable to expect that a lack of trust would erode the chances that a participatory process will be successful. In fact, many studies indi- cate that mistrust among the parties, and between parties and government agencies, has often been a problem for environmental decision making. The strong influence of trust on risk perception is well documented (Siegrist, Earle, and Gutscher, 2007). For example, a major study of risk communica- tion (National Research Council, 1989) identified and presented examples of several sources of mistrust in agencies or their scientists: real or perceived

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 211 advocacy of unjustified positions; a reputation for deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion; self-serving framing of messages; contradictions between mes- sages from the same source or contradictory messages from other sources; and perceptions of incompetence or impropriety. Contrary to vivid documented examples, however, Beierle and Cayford (2002) found little correlation between measures of trust and of success in their multicase study (the measures concerned participants’ trust in agencies and other participants). They suggest that this is in part because an intense process can overcome initial lack of trust and that such intense processes are more likely to be used when there is a lack of trust. We suggest that what is likely to matter in these more intense processes is how well they implement the principles of good public participation, especially those ad- dressed in Chapters 5 and 6, and how well they address specific difficulties in implementing those principles that arise from issues of trust. Trust can affect the behavior of organized interests that relate strategi- cally to public participation processes. Depending on their level of trust in the convening agency, they may seek or oppose broad public participation or choose to pursue their ends outside the process, perhaps by litigation, politics, or separate avenues of influence on the responsible agency. The extent of scientific uncertainty affects the extent to which indi- viduals accept new information or cling to prior beliefs. There is evidence, largely from experimental research, that under conditions of perceived un- certainty, trust and procedural fairness considerations become particularly important to the decision-making process (Van den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos and Lind, 2002) and individuals display a heightened interest in evaluating the credibility of information sources (Halfacre, Matheny, and Rosenbaum, 2000; Brashers, 2001; Van den Bos, 2001). They are more likely to chal- lenge the reliability and adequacy of risk estimates and be less accepting of reassurances (Rich et al., 1995; Couch and Kroll-Smith, 1997). They also tend to become more rigid about beliefs and policy preferences and then to end prematurely the search for facts (e.g., Janis and Mann, 1977; Klein, 1996; Covello et al., 2001). To the extent these findings apply to environmental public participation in real-world settings, they suggest that attention to procedural fairness is especially important for processes that face problems of scientific uncertainty and mistrust (see Chapter 6). Research on policy networks shows what is termed “biased assimilation”—participants are more likely to accept information that is consistent with prior and deeply held beliefs (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier and Weible, 2007). While the degree of uncertainty varies across types of environmental issues, it also varies substantially across specific instances of a single type of environmental problem. For example, hazardous waste sites vary considerably in the degree to which the toxic- ity of the contaminants is understood and in the dynamics of contaminant

212 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION movement through air, soil, and water. Problems related to uncertainty are nearly ubiquitous in environmental policy, although the degree of uncer- tainty varies greatly. This may be one reason that variation in the kind of environmental problem matters relatively little to ultimate outcomes—there is always sufficient uncertainty to entrain the mechanisms described above. As a result, initial levels of trust and the way the participation process deals with trust become critical factors to be considered in process design. Trust or its absence seems likely to be particularly important in cases in which scientific disagreement is an issue or in which adverse effects may be visited on identifiable social groups (Dietz, 2001). Indications of Lack of Trust Some parties may use participatory processes to obstruct decisions or may make end runs around the process. Others may simply not be moti- vated to work toward making the process a success even if they are not actively obstructing it. These challenges may or may not be easy to antici- pate in an initial diagnostic assessment, but it is crucial to take a careful and nonjudgmental look at whether the process offers sufficient incentives for good-faith participation. Beierle and Cayford (2002) found a moderate positive correlation be- tween the motivation of the participants and success of public participation processes. They noted that participant motivation is correlated with several process features and that more intensive processes, which are associated with greater success, require higher levels of motivation. These data do not demonstrate that initial motivation of participants is a causal factor in success. They are also consistent with the proposition that initial success increases participants’ motives to stay involved, so that motivation and success reinforce each other. Motivation and initial success are likely to be related to individuals’ levels of resources for engaging effectively in participation. As already noted, those who have financial resources, technical know-how, connec- tions to influential people, and so forth are more likely to be motivated to engage or need less inducement to do so. Public apathy and alienation may simultaneously be a consequence of and a justification for limited mean- ingful participation (Bowles and Gintis, 1986). Lack of motivation among some parties is a challenge to government agencies that want to draw on the public’s experience, insights, and aspirations in crafting and implementing solutions to problems (Schneider and Ingram, 1997). It is important to note that insincerity is often in the eyes of the be- holder. Efforts to achieve objectives through litigation, lobbying, or media attention outside a participatory process that is not meeting a party’s needs may be seen from an agency perspective as insincerity. However, those

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 213 are legitimate political activities and quite different from misrepresenting interests and intentions within a particular process. Excluding participants because of a concern about “insincerity” often backfires because it provides these groups the ammunition for external mobilization. Excluding partici- pants that have repeatedly violated reasonable rules of fairness and joint decision making that have been accepted by all from the beginning of the process seems more likely to be accepted as a legitimate action. Bad Faith by an Agency Some writers have claimed that public participation takes place in a climate of greatly diminished public trust in government, particularly in re- gard to environmental matters (e.g., Nye, Zelikow, and King, 1997; Schier, 2000), and of diminished trust in government among the scientific com- munity (Revkin, 2004). Government agencies with low public credibility and trust are unlikely to enjoy the level of confidence among interested and affected parties that is required to initiate and sustain effective voluntary public participation in agency-sponsored initiatives (Woolcock, 1998). Beirele and Cayford (2002) consider five indicators of preexisting trust in government agencies: the reputation of the agency with the public, the reputation of the agency with participants, a history of withheld informa- tion, a history of unacceptable management, and a history of ignoring management problems. As this list implies, trust in agencies can be built or destroyed. The manner in which participatory processes are conducted can nurture positive relationships among participants (including representatives of government agencies) or erode them. For example, the formal structure of meetings, the forms of discourse in which they are conducted, the timing and location of meetings, and numerous other details of participatory pro- cesses can convey messages, intentionally or not, about the relative power and status of participants: whose life circumstances are priorities in setting the agenda and whose facts and knowledge carry the greatest weight in deliberations (Chambers, 1997; Briggs, 1998; Estrella and Gaventa, 1998). If government agencies engage people but that engagement turns out to be ineffectual, it is likely to lead to distrust and cynicism and has the potential to diminish possibilities of future engagement (Halpern, 1995). Explicit discussions with the convening agency’s decision makers dur- ing the planning phase of a process can uncover or prevent unanticipated difficulties before expectations are set. In one example in a panel member’s experience, plans were being formed to invite the public to discuss alterna- tive ways to expand a city’s drinking water supply—a policy choice that had become controversial. When it became clear in individual conversa- tions that the majority of the city council had concluded they had no choice other than to use a new source for drinking water regardless of

214 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION the opposition, plans for a dialogue about other options were set aside as counterproductive. Negative Views of Scientists Some parties may not trust scientists, or agency-sponsored scientists, to produce work that is neutral and nonpartisan. Yet effective public partici- pation processes depend on building a working level of trust in the available issue-relevant information, including an understanding of its limitations. Scientists produce much of this information by applying scientific methods and subjecting their work to scientific peer review. As a result, they may assume that their evidence is neutral or value free, not fully appreciating that world views and assumptions that may be widely shared in their dis- ciplines or fields may be questioned legitimately by outsiders, particularly when analysis is brought into a public policy context in which issues out- side their field are central. Thus, we suggest in Chapter 6 that special care must be taken to build trust in science that informs public decisions. As we discuss in that chapter, in most cases the procedures that build trust also improve the science. In designing environmental public participation processes, it is help- ful to make explicit that all scientific analyses have their strengths and limitations and to design deliberative processes to reveal and examine the assumptions that underpin various scientific analyses, clarify where parties differ with regard to assumptions and assessments of facts, highlight why different approaches may lead to different conclusions, and so forth. These efforts become more important the more mistrust or controversy there is about the science (see Chapter 6). CONCLUSIONS Certain people-related aspects of the context can pose difficulties in achieving the goals of effective public participation. The evidence supports the following specific conclusions: • Participatory processes are often constrained by agencies’ contexts: their external mandates and internal processes that affect their ability and willingness to use the results of the participatory process. The most criti- cal imperative in meeting such challenges is for conveners to make clear to participants at the outset which outcomes are and are not possible from the process. However, public participation processes can be undermined when an agency uses claims about contextual constraints as cover for resistance to participation.

CONTEXT: THE PEOPLE 215 • Meaningful representation of the public is a major challenge, es- pecially when some parties lack the money, technical expertise, or orga- nization needed for full participation or when there are questions about whether participants can act for the parties they are assumed to represent. Differences among the parties in resources and social influence are not easily addressed in the short run, but special efforts to ensure meaningful access by all the parties are likely to yield benefits in terms of competence and legitimacy. • Differences among the parties in values and interests, as well as polarization of positions and problems of trust, can pose major challenges in implementing principles of participation in the form of conflicts among the parties or between parties and the responsible agency. • The above challenges can create significant difficulties for public participation. However, choices can be made in the design of a public par- ticipation process to compensate for these difficulties. These choices include the selection of techniques and tools for addressing these difficulties and processes for closing such techniques. Table 8-1 provides a diagnostic guide to many of the people-related difficulties in public participation and to some ways that have been used to try to address them. Like Table 7-1, it identifies particular contextual factors that can make it difficult to implement particular principles of good participation, describes the difficulties, and identifies practices that have been used to address them. We do not endorse any of these practices; however, we believe the guide can be useful in anticipating difficulties and considering possible responses. We emphasize that best practice in public participation is a matter of adopting a process for selecting the best techniques and tools for the situ- ation, rather than one of using a preselected set of tools and techniques. There are four main reasons we think it inappropriate to treat certain techniques as “best practices” for overcoming common difficulties in pub- lic participation. First, the evidence base is very weak for concluding that any one technique is better than the others, even for a particular context or for addressing a particular difficulty of public participation. Second, the research evidence and practical experience strongly suggest that the best technique is likely to be situation-dependent, so that it is unlikely that any practice will be the best across situations. Third, during the process of an environmental assessment or decision, change often occurs in the state of knowledge, the concerns of participants, or the pressures on the convening agency, such that techniques that had seemed satisfactory at the outset may seem less so later on. And finally, we observe that “best practice” tech- niques, when adopted in bureaucratic agencies, tend to become standard operating procedures that are implemented formulaically, without monitor-

216 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ing or evaluating their effectiveness, and without providing opportunities to make modifications if they are not working well. We therefore conclude that best practice should not be seen as a matter of adopting particular techniques that have performed well in the past and making them standard operating procedures. Rather, it involves implementing a process that selects techniques for the situation at hand in ways that are informed by evidence, that the participants consider legitimate, and that are open to modification for cause. Selecting “best practice” techniques and implementing them without involving the participants can undermine the legitimacy of public participation processes.  In Chapter 9, we recommend such a process. Notes 1As elsewhere, we use the term agency broadly to refer to any entity or group of entities, governmental or not, that convene public participation processes or that may use their results. 2An evaluation of the results can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/ industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/ilp/eff-eva.asp.

TABLE 8-1  Diagnostic Guide to Difficulties Related to the People in Public Participation Principles That Become More Illustrative Practices for Addressing Contextual Factor Difficult to Achieve Difficulties Difficultiesa Agency Factors Multiple agencies with decision- Clarity of purpose Different agencies may have Interagency work groups for making authority Commitment to use the process different views about the coordinating the decision- to inform their actions purpose of the process making process Appropriate timing in relation to or different degrees of Memorandums of understanding decisions commitment to using results between agencies Agencies may have different Written terms of reference deadlines for decision making (protocols) for the participation Participants may choose to process participate in one forum and not others, making the focus unclear Substantive mandates or limits Inclusiveness of participation Stakeholders may have concerns Situation assessments to agency decision-making Openness of the design that are not within the Openness about external constraints authority authority of the convening Expand scope of participants to agency, which may reduce include entities that may be able motivation to participate to implement solutions Insufficient support or conflict All management principles Inform participants of limited within agency possibilities Invite participants to contribute resources 217 Continued

TABLE 8-1  Continued 218 Principles That Become More Illustrative Practices for Addressing Contextual Factor Difficult to Achieve Difficulties Difficultiesa Participant Factors Broad geographic spread Inclusiveness of participation Distance can make it difficult Deliberative polls for some stakeholders to Workshops in multiple locations participate Internet participation Larger numbers of interested Study circles participants can make some Blue-Ribbon commissions formats less inclusive or practical Differences in formal education, Inclusiveness of participation People with fewer resources are Enlist help of organizations to occupation, social status, and less likely to trust that their which these members of the available time and money participation will make a public belong in convening difference and, thus, less likely public participation processes to participate than those with Integrate opportunities for greater resources participation into events of existing local organizations Provide grants to existing local organizations to send mailings or host meetings Stakeholders who are diffuse, Inclusiveness of participation Interests of those who are less Citizen action committees unorganized, or difficult to well organized may not be Citizen forums reach equitably represented Citizen juries Disparities in financial, technical, Inclusiveness of participation Interests of those who have Timing and location of meetings or other resources? insufficient time or resources Child care to participate may not be Technical assistance grants equitably represented

Differences in values, interests, Collaborative problem Differences in cultural norms Focus on relationships first (e.g., culture and perspectives, and formulation and process may result in disagreements through field trips, social the degree to which parties design about what constitutes opportunities, story telling) are polarized Good-faith communication good-faith communication Structured deliberation methods and/or what constitutes from decision science an appropriate process for Confidential conversations with a making a decision mediator to identify interests Conflicting values can lead to Generating multiple options frustration, stalemate, and Systematic application of criteria, mistrust of analyses including through models Polarization can make it more Adding issues to the scope of the difficult to understand the process to add potential value to interests that underlie disputes the solutions or may have its origins in mutually exclusive interests Disparities of power Inclusiveness of participation Creating a forum that is Involve participants during Collaborative design attractive both to those with diagnosis and design phase in Transparency of the process greater and lesser power, creating an agreement on the Good-faith communication compared with pursuing scope and objectives objectives elsewhere Draft a written scope and invite public comment on it Draft ground rules in which participants agree to inform one another if they intend to pursue their interests in other forums Continued 219

220 TABLE 8-1  Continued Principles That Become More Illustrative Practices for Addressing Contextual Factor Difficult to Achieve Difficulties Difficultiesa Limitations on ability of Good-faith communication Misperceptions by some Select participants with authority representatives to act on participants of other to represent their constituency behalf of their constituency participants’ authority to act Draft ground rules in which Internal decision making by participants are specific about some parties may require their authority and with whom more time than the process they must consult allows Allow sufficient time for consultation with decision makers who are not at the table Draft summaries of meetings that are circulated to decision makers and interested others Organize formal working groups within constituencies Arrange briefings for decision makers or broader constituencies being represented

Significant problems of trust Good-faith communication Reduced agency motivation to Use situation assessment to identify convene a process the nature of the problem Reduced motivation of the Seek formal agreements parties to participate Provide for independent review of scientific analyses Iterates between analysis and deliberation Encourage participants to consider possibility of misunderstanding prior to assuming bad faith Provide incentives for good- faith action and disincentives for acting inconsistently with agreements on either process or substance (e.g., phased processes, phased implementation, contingent agreements) aEvidence is inadequate to recommend any of these practices as effective, or as preferable to practices that are not listed. They are listed to suggest some of the practices that might be considered for addressing particular difficulties. 221

Next: 9 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations »
Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $80.00 Buy Ebook | $64.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Federal agencies have taken steps to include the public in a wide range of environmental decisions. Although some form of public participation is often required by law, agencies usually have broad discretion about the extent of that involvement. Approaches vary widely, from holding public information-gathering meetings to forming advisory groups to actively including citizens in making and implementing decisions.

Proponents of public participation argue that those who must live with the outcome of an environmental decision should have some influence on it. Critics maintain that public participation slows decision making and can lower its quality by including people unfamiliar with the science involved.

This book concludes that, when done correctly, public participation improves the quality of federal agencies' decisions about the environment. Well-managed public involvement also increases the legitimacy of decisions in the eyes of those affected by them, which makes it more likely that the decisions will be implemented effectively. This book recommends that agencies recognize public participation as valuable to their objectives, not just as a formality required by the law. It details principles and approaches agencies can use to successfully involve the public.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!