Improving Public Participation in Solving Environmental Health Problems.

Abstract

The question of "what works" to encourage public participation in environmental health is increasingly important because the involvement of "outsiders" in government decision making is no longer unusual, While instincts about how to involve the public can be useful, social science research is better, In particular, a seminal report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on risks suggests a need to integrate scientific analysis with "deliberation," a process for collectively considering issues. This paper reviews recent research in public participation and raises issues practitioners need to appreciate if they are to heed the NAS call about the importance of "getting the right participation" and "getting the participation right." Issues covered include setting goals, selecting approaches, adapting participation, and appreciating the context for participation.

Introduction

Environmental health professionals who heed the call to involve "the public" or stakeholders in environmental problem solving often are guided by hunches about how to do so. While instincts are useful, research is better. When environmental health professionals are conducting scientific studies, developing policies, or monitoring potential environmental problems, they don't rely exclusively on hunches. Instead, they turn to research. Why shouldn't the same be true of efforts to promote public participation?

Social science research shows that assumptions about the effects of communication can be wrong. Even basic informational materials may fail to communicate--and may fail in unpredictable ways. One study found, for example, that respondents who had read a carefully designed government brochure about radon could answer factual questions on the subject, but that more than 50 percent could not answer the critical question of how to reduce radon levels in home. This question--like others that required respondents to make inferences about mitigation and detection-was answered more satisfactorily by respondents who had read brochures designed according to research on how people perceive radon risks. Morgan et al. conclude that on the topic of communication, "'conventional wisdom' withers when subjected to empirical examination" [1]. Because participatory processes involve more complex communication than the reading of a brochure, assumptions about those processes that are based on "conventional wisdom" arguably are even more likely to be wrong.

Turning to research about "what works" in public participation also is increasingly important because it is no longer unusual to involve "outsiders" in government decision making. Even the Department of Defense has more than 300 citizen advisory boards involved in various aspects of base cleanup and closure, The Department of Energy (DOE), another agency that has traditionally wrapped itself in secrecy, has required advisory boards at 12 major facilities that are undergoing remediation for contamination by nuclear and hazardous waste. In addition, major national reports, including several from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), have called for increased participation by those outside of government agencies [2,3].

In particular, a seminal NAS report on risk suggests that when agency managers are considering risk, there is a need to integrate "analysis"--that is, what is generally thought of as science--and "deliberation," which the report defines as "any formal or informal process ... for collectively considering issues" [3]. The report uses the term deliberation rather than the term public participation, in part to emphasize the need for substantive involvement by a range of "interested and affected parties"--as opposed to a "decide-announce-defend" strategy for the undefined "public."

Although some situations may call for lengthier deliberation than others, or more in-depth involvement of those outside the agency, managers should assume that deliberation is needed, according to NAS [3]. They should place the burden of proof on any claim that participatory processes are not necessary, rather than expect those who argue for participation to demonstrate why it is needed.

The key to successful deliberation, says NAS, is "getting the right participation" and "getting the participation right." In other words, participation must involve the appropriate people in appropriate ways. This article provides guidance based on the NAS report and on research into public participation. (A good deal of the recent literature is in the form of government reports, which are at least equal in quality to much of the earlier peer-reviewed literature.) The research, however, does not provide an instant recipe for success, although it does raise issues to be considered.

Getting the Right Participation

Right participation means "sufficiently broad participation to ensure that the important, decision-relevant information enters the process, that important perspectives are considered and that the parties' legitimate concerns about inclusiveness and openness are met," according to NAS [3]. The concept of the stakeholder may need to be broadened beyond the usual meaning of interest groups to include people from diverse geographic areas, various ethnic groups, and organizations such as local governments and businesses. Agencies can select participants, hire a neutral facilitator to do so, or select a panel of people who, in turn, can recommend participants. Also, participants may volunteer, organizations may be asked for nominations, or a random process may select people from the population. Participants may be concerned as individuals, may represent groups, or may be disinterested parties--people with a commitment to the common good but no particular stake in the issue under discussion [4]. An example of the latter type of participant might be a member of an organization such as the League of Women Voters.

As yet, little research has been done on which approach to selecting participants is best in specific situations. Current research does, however, offer some interesting insights. A recent study has indicated that the Noah's Ark approach to diversity--including representatives of each interest group without sufficient regard to achieving a balance that weights those most affected--can perpetuate existing inequities. An analysis of seven cases of participatory processes in communities concerned about environmental justice shows that on advisory committees, the concerns of those representing powerful interests swamped the voices of residents who lived near Superfund sites [5]. According to the authors of that study, government should give the greatest number of seats at the table to those traditionally without a voice and those most affected by inequities [5].

Another review of 30 cases of public participation in the Great Lakes area also found that advisory committees were not representative from a socioeconomic perspective and omitted important interests, including those whose positions were oppositional [6]. Similarly, a recent study of DOE'S advisory boards at nine major sites found that the absence of "particular viewpoints affects both the operation of the board and the credibility of board recommendations to DOE, the regulators, and the public" [7].

One way to overcome the limitations of any single approach to representation is to take a hybrid approach that uses community reconnaissance to understand social structure, leadership, and other aspects of a geographic area [8]. Thus, dealing with the complex issues of representation may, under some circumstances, require research, just as other aspects of environmental management do.

In some instances, a combination of approaches may be appropriate. For example, as part of a transportation planning effort in Boulder, Colorado, a technical advisory committee with "balanced representation" was complemented by a randomly selected panel of 147 citizens who provided input through a variety of channels, such as phone interviews and mail surveys [9].

Although different consultants may advocate their favorite approaches for selecting participants, far more research is needed to demonstrate whether consistent effects can be attributed to various selection processes or whether finding consistent patterns will be impossible.

Getting the Participation Right

"Getting the participation right," according to NAS, means satisfying decision makers and those potentially affected that the "process has been responsive to their needs, that their information and viewpoints have been taken into account, and that participation has affected the way problems are defined and understood" [3]. Several key issues should be considered.

Goals of Participation

Although the NAS definition implies that satisfaction of participants is the hallmark of successful participation, there may be only a fragile consensus about the goals of participation. For some, successful public participation is defined by a successful outcome--the results of a participatory effort, Desired outcomes may include diverse--and potentially irreconcilable--agendas, such as reaching consensus, gaining approval for agency decisions, and blocking agency plans. For others, improving agency decisions or improvement in environmental quality are paramount.

Success also can be based on an assessment of participatory processes--that is, the manner in which participation occurs. (Examples of process issues are quality of interaction, access to information, articulation of all perspectives, and the power of participants to influence agendas) [10]. Or, goals may include both process and outcome goals, as is the case for DOE'S site-specific advisory boards, which have been evaluated according to the fairness of the process in its various aspects and the extent to which the agency is responsive to the advisory boards [11].

Nevertheless, some empirical research suggests that lack of clarity about goals for participation may result in a failure to meet expectations. The study that reviewed 30 cases in the Great Lakes area found an important factor in success was "undertaking tasks consistent with capabilities and expectations of the public and government agency" [6]. When there is a mismatch, problems may result. In another area, for example, local governments wanted to focus on local water issues when federal agencies had other mandates to meet, and the result was frustration on all sides [12]. Thus, at a minimum, explicit discussions about the goals and limitations of public participation may be critical.

Selection of Participatory Forms

There have been attempts to characterize forms of participation (e.g., public meetings, citizen advisory councils, citizen juries, surveys) in ways that specify when they should be used. NAS, however, has concluded that "there is no rigorously or generally accepted classification scheme" that can predict which participatory form will work in any given situation [3]. In other words, selection of the "correct" form of participation may not be the factor that most shapes the outcome of a given participatory effort.

Process or outcome results may be as much due to how an agency uses the form of participation as to the forms themselves [13]. For example, public meetings take less agency time than do citizen advisory committees (CACs) that usually meet on a routine basis. Agencies that care little for public input are likely to take the fastest approach--often public meetings--and then, not surprisingly, fail to find the forum useful. In addition, some practitioners describe public meetings as promoting posturing and increasing conflict. Research studies, however, suggest that a factor may be the timing of public meetings--often after the "decide and announce" phase of agency problem solving--rather than an inherent flaw in the form itself.

Conversely, CACs are seen, in general, as allowing for more interaction, information exchange, and growth of mutual understanding. This may be so, in part, because agencies invest more effort in CACs and may be more apt to convene CACs before decisions are made. The usefulness of a CAC may, however, vary. A review of 14 studies of CACs points to examples "where broadly based CACs, with well-defined charges, adequate resources, and neutrally facilitated processes had significant policy impacts" [14]. The authors of the study caution, however, that the CACs' influence was "highly contingent" on the agencies' intentions. When the goal of an agency was merely to gain support or to mollify critics, CACs were less likely to have an impact. When agencies truly wanted input, CACS were more effective.

In short, the various forms of public participation are tools; their success may depend as much on how they are used as on whether they are the right tools for the job.

Modifying Participatory Forms

Instead of characterizing a participatory process as appropriate for some situations and not for others, an agency might create more options by modifying the form of the process [13]. Public meetings, for example, could be held earlier in the deliberative process, or meeting agendas could be developed with input from those who are likely to participate. Agencies also have experimented with meetings that break into small groups for discussion, and the use of neutral facilitators is becoming more popular.

The form of participation also may change over time. In one case involving flood plain management, the Army Corps of Engineers selected a core group of 35 advisers. The Corps also called a public meeting during the problem identification stage. The usual approach would have been for members of the public to meet as a large group, but following a brief opening session, trained Corps personnel facilitated small groups in which people offered ideas and expressed concerns. A panel, whose members met to rate options for solving the problem and add others, then developed plans. This meeting was followed by a round of surveys in which panel members were provided with additional information on each option (such as information on costs) and then asked to rate the options. Two workshops involved the public in further discussions. This approach made different levels of involvement possible--allowing for participation from people with varying degrees of interest [15].

New modes of communication also are facilitating different approaches to public participation. The Alaska Department of Transportation set up a dynamic public meeting by soliciting input via telephone and sorting responses with a consensor, a handheld electronic device that was hooked to a computer and that tallied responses to questions in three to four seconds. Although the 4,000 participants were not demographically representative of the seven urban areas in which this experiment took place, more than 50 percent of the 95,000 people who watched the program were observing a public meeting for the first time [16].

Timing of Participation

Studies lend support to the practitioner's rule of thumb that public participation is often more successful when it occurs early in the decision-making process. Waiting until an issue has become highly contentious may be a problematic approach.

The NAS report emphasized that participation can be especially important during problem formulation. In the case of risks tied to hazardous waste sites, there are "many possible harms that could be analyzed, and it is not at all obvious which ones should be chosen. Consequently, the problems selected for analysis--hazardous substances or processes, undesirable effects, and options for action--need to be determined in consultation with the decision makers and interested and affected parties" [3].

Organizational Factors

Organizational factors may play a role in the overall success of a participatory effort. The review of efforts in the Great Lakes area found that the commitment of sufficient government funds and staff can be key [6].

Structures and procedures internal to government agencies also may play a role. Although the research is limited, some evidence suggests that the internal functions of an agency may influence its ability to engage with outsiders. One study of leading risk-communication practitioners identified resistance by managers and staff as a key barrier to effective risk communication [17]. Another study, of corporate risk communication with participatory elements, found that the linking of risk management and risk communication functions may be associated with how responsive the company is to stakeholders. Companies in which communication and environmental-management functions are linked by procedures, shared personnel, or policies may be more responsive to the concerns of those outside the organization [18].

The Context for Participation

While different forms of participation may have different strengths and limitations, these characteristics may not determine either process or outcome. The NAS report suggests that the context in which participation takes place may be just as important. The history of the issue, the level of conflict involved, the nature of the scientific data, and existing power dynamics all may influence outcome as much as the choice of method [3]. A recent study of the advisory committees involved with DOE restoration sites found that "communities that have a history of active citizen engagement in environmental, economic, and community development issues appear to be at an advantage in establishing and operating" an advisory board [7].

The Need for Adaptive Participation

Obviously, the research on public participation is far from definitive. In part, this circumstance is due to the lack of funding for research on the "people side" of environmental problems. Environmental health specialists can, however, increase the likelihood of success by monitoring participatory processes. As with science, improvement of deliberative processes may depend on explicit experimentation and adjustment. Soliciting feedback from those involved in participatory efforts, including agency participants, may be important in determining if the process is on track or needs to be modified. Because deliberative processes often are problem-solving efforts, participants need to be involved in assessing whether progress is, in fact, being made. On the basis of this feedback, adjustments can be implemented.

For example, the author and her colleagues are monitoring a collaborative watershed management effort. Evaluation forms are distributed at the end of each meeting, whether it is a meeting of the executive committee or a larger forum. On the basis of the feedback, changes have been made in the approach to characterizing the watershed, as well as in the structure, frequency, and facilitation of meetings.

Participation also may have to be adapted to meet changing conditions. While any problem-solving effort requires a plan, the plan should remain open to modification as progress is made. Otherwise, committees--and other forms of public participation--may be doomed to create camels when horses might be more appropriate.

REFERENCES

(1.) Morgan, M.G., C.J. Atman, A. Bostrom, B. Fischhoff, and L. Lave (1992), "Communicating Risk to the Public: First, Learn What People Know and Believe," Environmental Science and Technology, 26(11):2048-2056.

(2.) National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (1999), New Strategies for America's Watersheds, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

(3.) National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (1996), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, P.C. Stern and H.V. Fineberg, eds., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

(4.) English, M. (1993), Stakeholders: Whose Interests? At What Sacrifice? Working Papers and Publications, University of Tennessee Energy, Environment and Resources Center.

(5.) Ashford, N.A., and K.M. Rest (1999), Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Technology Policy and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

(6.) Beirele, T.C., and D.M. Kennedy (1999), Public Participation in Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes Region, [less than]www.rff.org/disc_papers/1999.htm[greater than].

(7.) Bradbury, J.A., and K.M. Branch (1999), An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Site-Specific Advisory Boards for the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Programs, Overview Report, Washington, D.C.: [less than]www.rff.org/disc_papers/1999.htm[greater than].

(8.) Finnegan, J., Jr., and K. Sexton (1999), "Community-Based Environmental Decisions: Analyzing Power and Leadership," In Better Environmental Decisions, K. Sexton, T. Burkhardt, K.W. Easter, and A. Marcus, eds., Washington D.C.: Island Press, pp. 331-351.

(9.) Kathlene, L., and J.A. Martin (1991), "Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1):46-63.

(10.) Tuler, S., and T. Webler (1995), "A Process Evaluation Methodology," Human Ecology Review, 2(Winter/Spring):62-71.

(11.) U.S. Department of Energy (1997), Site-Specific Advisory Board Initiative 1997 Evaluation Survey Results, Washington, D.C.: Office of Environmental Management.

(12.) Plumlee, J.P., K.W. Kramer, and J.D. Starling (1985), "Citizen Participation in Water Quality Planning: A Case Study of Perceived Failure," Administration and Society, 16(4):455-473.

(13.) Chess, C., and K. Purcell (1999), "Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?" Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16):2685-2692.

(14.) Lynn, F., and G.J. Busenberg (1995), "Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover," Risk Analysis, 15(2): 159.

(15.) Astrack, R., N. Baumann, and G. Reynolds (1984), "Managing a Public Involvement Program," Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management, 153-166.

(16.) Slaton, C.D. (1992), Televote: Expanding Citizen Participation in the Quantum Age, New York: Praeger.

(17.) Chess, C., B.J. Hance, and K.L. Salomone (1995), "Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities," Risk Analysis, 15(2):127-135.

(18.) Chess, C. (1999), "A Model of Organizational Responsiveness to Stakeholders," Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 10(3):257-267.