Understanding Risk Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
B COMMON APPROACHES TO DELIBERATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
B COMMON APPROACHES TO DELIBERATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Pages 199-206
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 199... ...
Some of the techniques contain common elements, and practices that fall under the same general heading can vary greatly in implementation. The following listing identifies several major types of techniques of deliberation and public participation.
|
From page 200... ...
In some instances organizations have overcome these problems by drafting agendas for public meetings in consultation with interested and affected parties, by using neutral facilitators to encourage dialogue, and by using public hearings as merely one element of a larger deliberative process. Public hearings are best for presenting alternative views, information, and concerns; they are less useful for dealing with power imbalances, creating trust, or promoting dialogue.
|
From page 201... ...
If a citizens advisory committee or task force is provided with the information that members want, access to appropriate agency personnel, or an independent technical adviser as needed, it may be extremely productive. However, unempowered groups (e.g., low income populations)
|
From page 202... ...
has frequently used regulatory negotiation to draft complex and highly technical rules, especially when there is a clear need for a rule but insufficient data to support the customary EPA rule-making process. The purpose of regulatory negotiation is to reduce legal challenges to new rules by involving would-be adversaries directly in the rule-making process and by producing a draft rule that meets legal requirements and is acceptable to a wide array of interested and affected parties.
|
From page 203... ...
Citizens' juries do not usually structure values in any formal way, make impact assessment profiles on the value dimensions, or evaluate the consistency of the outcome with established norms and laws. These more structured techniques could, however, be combined with the citizen jury approach (e.g., Renn et al., 1991, 1993~; for more information, see Crosby, Kelly, and Shaeffer (1986)
|
From page 204... ...
Surveys elicit public comment, but not deliberation among the participants. Surveys can help organizations understand perceptions, knowledge, and demographic variations in people's views, and they can provide public input about options.
|
From page 205... ...
Combinations of Deliberative Methods Public participation programs may use different deliberative methods at different stages of the process or with different audiences. For example, to develop water quality regulations, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection promoted a multifaceted deliberative process, solicited input on process as well as substance, developed a task force of interest groups, held informal meetings with various stakeholder groups, distributed a survey to 500 people for consideration of various thorny issues, and ultimately held mandated public hearings on the proposed regulations (Chess, 1989~.
|
From page 206... ...
Finally, a citizen panel (usually selected at random) develops a report and a set of recommendations for action, based on a deliberative process in which it considers the results of the Delphi process, presentations by experts, further fact finding, and the views of the panel members.
|
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.