Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
8 Context: The People
8 Context: The People
Pages 187-222
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 187... ...
Participatory processes may need different emphases depending on the answers to these diagnostic questions.
|
From page 188... ...
found that outcomes were affected little by whether the convening agency was local, state, or federal but noted that the engagement of multiple agencies 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)
|
From page 189... ...
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 Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act.
|
From page 190... ...
Practitioners 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 affected agencies deal with them.
|
From page 191... ...
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 participatory processes.
|
From page 192... ...
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.
|
From page 193... ...
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.
|
From page 194... ...
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 national environmental standards, climate change, regional air quality, water resources, and some transportation issues, make participation difficult for some parties.
|
From page 195... ...
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.
|
From page 196... ...
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 decision making on public issues of all kinds has shown that individual resources, 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)
|
From page 197... ...
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 politically valuable resources (cognitive skills, money, and a sense of political efficacy)
|
From page 198... ...
The consensus conclusion of research on other common environmental participatory processes (such as public hearings and citizen advisory committees) and on public participation in governance more generally is that the vast majority of the public is uninvolved in, or even unaware of, participatory 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)
|
From page 199... ...
Missing Interests For many environmental issues, well-organized interests, including industries, 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.
|
From page 200... ...
. The concept of "social capital" is useful for thinking about how to address problems of access to public participation processes.
|
From page 201... ...
. A potential exists for participatory processes to build "bridging" social capital by facilitating productive relationships among interested and affected parties, including nongovernmental organizations, private business and industry, and governmental entities at the local, state, and national levels.
|
From page 202... ...
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.
|
From page 203... ...
. 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.
|
From page 204... ...
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.
|
From page 205... ...
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.
|
From page 206... ...
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 dialogue appropriate to the nature of the situation can take place. As noted in Chapter 3, there is also the opposite fear, that public participation 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.
|
From page 207... ...
A small number of prominent national environmental 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 nongovernmental 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
|
From page 208... ...
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.
|
From page 209... ...
. A convening agency's efficacy in creating a good participation process depends on the agency's understanding the parties and the intraorganizational dynamics of their groups and organizations.
|
From page 210... ...
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)
|
From page 211... ...
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 addressed 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 strategically to public participation processes.
|
From page 212... ...
Beierle and Cayford (2002) found a moderate positive correlation between the motivation of the participants and success of public participation processes.
|
From page 213... ...
The manner in which participatory processes are conducted can nurture positive relationships among participants (including representatives of government agencies) or erode them.
|
From page 214... ...
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 helpful 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.
|
From page 215... ...
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.
|
From page 216... ...
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.
|
From page 217... ...
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
|
From page 218... ...
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
|
From page 219... ...
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
|
From page 220... ...
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
|
From page 221... ...
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.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.