Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions : the Promise and Limits of Participatory Processes for the Quality of Environmentally Related Decision-making

__Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions__ is about a specific ‘promise’ that participation holds for environmental decision-making. Many of the arguments for public participation in (inter)national environmental policy documents are functional, that is to say they see public participation as a means to an end. Sound solutions to environmental problems require participation beyond experts and political elites. Neglecting information from the public leads to legitimacy questions and potential conflicts. There is a discourse in the literature and in policy practice as to whether decision-making improves in quality as additional relevant information by the public is considered. The promise that public participation holds has to be weighed against the limitations of public participation in terms of costs and interest conflicts. The question that __Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions__ seeks to answer for academics, planners and civil servants in all environmental relevant policy fields is: What restricts and what enables information to hold the ‘promise’ that public participation lead to better environmental decision-making and better outcomes? Cover 1 Half Title 2 Title 3 Copyright 4 Contents 6 Contributors 8 Chapter 1 10 1.1 Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making 10 1.2 The Quality of Decisions 12 1.3 The Instrumental Functions of Public Participation 15 1.4 Institutional Arrangements and Participation Rules 17 1.4.1 Participation Rules 17 1.4.2 Limitations in Institutional Arrangementsand Effective Decision-Making 19 1.5 Participation Methods: Purposeand Organisational Set-up 21 1.6 The Contours of the Volume 24 References 25 Chapter 2 29 2.1 Introduction 29 2.2 The Need for Methods to Enhance Administrativeand Representative Democracy Decision-Making 31 2.3 The Integrated Assessment (IA) Focus Group Method 32 2.3.1 Origin, Principles and Basic Assumptions 32 2.3.2 Developing and Applying the Methodin the ULYSSES Project 34 2.3.3 Results of the ULYSSES Project 35 2.4 How Can the IA Focus Group MethodBe Further Developed? 36 2.4.1 Use in Other Policy Areas, and in ImprovingEnvironmental Management 36 2.4.2 Better Use of Ordinary Knowledgein Decision-Making 37 2.4.3 Enhancing the Work of Parliaments 38 References 40 Chapter 3 43 3.1 Introduction 43 3.2 Local Residents and Environmental Risk Perceptions 44 3.3 Minority Risk Perception: Theory and General Findings 45 3.4 The Consortium for Environmental Risk Evaluation(CERE) Study 47 3.4.1 Methodology 49 3.4.2 Analysing Ethnic and Racial Risk Concernsat the DOE Sites 49 3.4.2.1 ‘I Do Not Know’: Uncertainty About Environmental Risk 52 3.4.2.2 ‘I Am Not Worried’: Lack of ConcernAbout Environmental Risk 52 3.4.2.3 ‘I Am Somewhat Worried’: Limited ConcernAbout Environmental Risk 53 3.4.2.4 ‘I Am Worried’: General Concern About Environmental Risk 54 3.4.2.5 ‘I Am Worried for My Family’: Personal ConcernAbout Environmental Risk 56 3.4.2.6 ‘I Was So Worried, I Moved’: Taking Action Becauseof Environmental Risk 57 3.5 Conclusion: Ethnicity and the Perceptionof Environmental Threat 58 3.5.1 Ethnicity and Risk Perception 59 3.5.2 Risk, Ethnicity and Policy 60 References 62 Chapter 4 64 4.1 Introduction 64 4.2 Citizen Juries: Origins and Background 64 4.3 Argument 66 4.4 The Track-Record of Citizen Juries in EnvironmentalPolicy: Some Comparative Evidence 68 4.5 Case Study: The Galway ‘Pilot’ CitizenJury on Waste Policy 71 4.6 Discussion: Policy Learning Through Deliberation? 75 4.7 Conclusion 77 References 77 Chapter 5 79 5.1 Introduction 79 5.2 The Future Search Conference Method 79 5.2.1 A New Generation of Systemic ParticipationMethods on the Rise 79 5.2.2 Origin, Principles and Basic Assumptions 80 5.2.3 Expected Results 80 5.3 Future Search as a Tool for StakeholderInvolvement for Local Agenda 21 81 5.4 The Normative Ideal of ‘CollaborativePlanning’ as Measuring Stick for the Evaluation 82 5.4.1 The Research Question and Methodology 82 5.4.2 Collaborative Planning as Evaluation Framework 82 5.5 The Future Search Conference Method in Practice 84 5.5.1 Introducing the Case Study Areas 84 5.5.2 Process Criteria 85 5.5.2.1 Fairness 85 5.5.2.2 Competence 87 5.5.3 Capacity Building Criteria 87 5.5.3.1 New Contacts and Partnerships 87 5.5.3.2 Learning 88 5.5.3.3 Building Trust, Community Spirit and Reviving Local Democracy 88 5.5.4 Outcome 89 5.5.4.1 A Consensus Followed by Action 89 5.6 The Future Search Conference in the Contextof Power Relations 90 5.6.1 Explaining the Failure to Deliver 90 5.6.2 Implications for the Use of FutureSearch Conferences 91 References 92 Chapter 6 95 6.1 Introduction 95 6.2 Motives for Participatory Decision-Makingin Sustainable Consumption Policies 97 6.3 Limitations of Participatory Decision-Makingin Sustainable Consumption Policies 98 6.4 Case Study Examples 99 6.4.1 Citizen Participation in Urban Transport Planning 100 6.4.1.1 Discussion 101 6.4.2 Generating Local Community Initiativesin Sustainable Consumption: Local Agenda 21and Sustainable Communities 103 6.4.2.1 Discussion 105 6.4.3 Consumer Involvement in National Policy-Making 106 6.4.3.1 Discussion 108 6.4.4 Users Input to a Water Supply Strategy 109 6.4.4.1 Discussion 111 6.5 Conclusions 111 6.5.1 Does Public Participation in SustainableConsumer-Oriented Policies Enhancethe Quality of Decision-Making? 112 6.5.2 What Institutional Arrangements and ParticipationLimitations Affect Effective Decision-MakingDuring Public Participation in SustainableConsumer-Oriented Policies? 112 References 115 Chapter 7 117 7.1 Participatory Decision-Making and Decision Quality 117 7.1.1 Locally-Unwanted Land Uses: Acceptanceand Decision Quality 117 7.1.2 Some Concepts of Decision Quality 118 7.1.3 The Importance of Formal Rules,and the Connection Between Procedure and Outcome 119 7.1.4 A Scale of Participation 120 7.1.5 Practical Approach: Two Cases 120 7.2 Decision-Making in Newport, Wales (UK) 122 7.2.1 The Start of the Affair: Failed Communications 122 7.2.2 Official Procedures Begin, and Decisions Are Made 122 7.2.3 Appeal and Inquiry 124 7.2.4 Inspector’s Report and the SoS’s Decision 125 7.2.5 Was the Decision Process Over? 126 7.2.6 Current Operations 126 7.2.7 The Extent of Citizen Participation 127 7.2.8 An Assessment of Decision Quality 128 7.3 Participatory Siting: Swan Hills, Alberta, Canada 129 7.3.1 Introduction: Emergence of a Problem 129 7.3.2 Hearings and Further Study 129 7.3.3 Implementation of a New Approach, but Which One? 130 7.3.4 Community Responses and Cabinet Decision 132 7.3.5 Developments After Facility Construction 133 7.3.6 The Rules That Applied in This Case 134 7.3.7 The Quality of the Decision 135 7.4 Victims and Volunteers: Analysis and Conclusions 136 7.4.1 Differing Assumptions 136 7.4.2 Different Qualities 137 References 138 Chapter 8 140 8.1 Introduction 140 8.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Public Participationin the Planning Process 142 8.3 Public Participation in Regional Planning:The Case of ‘a Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy for South East England’ 145 8.3.1 Phase 1: The Use of Fora 146 8.3.2 Phase 2: Public Consultation 148 8.3.3 Phase 3: Public Examination 151 8.4 Conclusions 154 References 156 Chapter 9 158 9.1 Introduction 158 9.2 Dutch Infrastructure Planning 159 9.3 A Matter of Quality 161 9.4 Pragmatic Conceptions 162 9.5 Conceptions by Planning Professionals 164 9.6 Conclusion 167 References 167 Chapter 10 169 10.1 Introduction 169 10.2 Defining a LA21 170 10.3 The Ambitions of LA21 Participation 171 10.4 The Shape of LA21-Participationand Decision-Making 172 10.4.1 LA21 Participation and Policy-Making 173 10.4.2 The Participants Involved 175 10.4.3 Information Exchange 176 10.4.4 LA21 and Decision-Making 177 10.4.5 The Impact of LA21 on the Qualityof Decision-Making 178 10.5 Explaining the Limited Impact of LA21on Decision-Making 179 10.5.1 Tradition and Experiences 179 10.5.2 National LA21 Implementation 180 10.5.3 Constitutional and Institutional Positionof Local Authorities 180 10.5.4 Constraints on Stakeholder Involvement 181 10.6 Conclusions 182 References 183 Chapter 11 187 11.1 The Promises of Participation 187 11.2 Better Substantive Decisions 188 11.3 Quality of Assessment 195 11.4 Better Decision Implementation 197 11.5 Limitations of the Instrumental Functionof Participation 198 11.6 Limitations in Using Participants Information 201 11.6.1 Getting the Right Information 201 11.6.2 The Information in Decision-Making 204 11.7 Limitations of Participation to Addto the Quality of Assessment 206 11.7.1 Resources 206 11.7.2 Types of Decisions 208 11.7.3 Create the Right Environment for the Assessment 209 11.8 Limitations in Improving ImplementationThrough Public Participation 210 References 211 9781402093241

Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions is about a specific ‘promise’ that participation holds for environmental decision-making. Many of the arguments for public participation in (inter)national environmental policy documents are functional, that is to say they see public participation as a means to an end. Sound solutions to environmental problems require participation beyond experts and political elites. Neglecting information from the public leads to legitimacy questions and potential conflicts.

There is a discourse in the literature and in policy practice as to whether decision-making improves in quality as additional relevant information by the public is considered. The promise that public participation holds has to be weighed against the limitations of public participation in terms of costs and interest conflicts. The question that Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions seeks to answer for academics, planners and civil servants in all environmental relevant policy fields is: What restricts and what enables information to hold the ‘promise’ that public participation lead to better environmental decision-making and better outcomes?

A work about a specific 'promise' that participation holds for environmental decision-making. It seeks answer to the question: What restricts and what enables information to hold the 'promise' that public participation lead to better environmental decision-making and better outcomes?