Critiques of Public Participation Processes
The most commonly used approaches to public involvement in disputes over environmental policy are public hearings and consensus-based processes. Despite their low outcome acceptance and process satisfaction ratings, public hearings remain the most frequently used approach to public involvement in environmental policy formation (McComas, Trumbo, & Besley, 2007).
We use the terms public hearing and public meeting interchangeably in this chapter to describe a formal gathering of regulatory agency officials and members of the public to address an environmental policy concern. Consensus-based processes have emerged in response to negative reactions to public hearings. While not so ubiquitous as public hearings, consensus-based processes are enjoying a wave of popularity among both natural resource management agencies and ADR practitioners. In this section, we review critiques of public hearings and consensus processes from the perspectives of communication functions, conflict dynamics, and (social and ecological) effectiveness.Table 19.1
Most Frequently Used Venues for Environmental Public Participation
| Venue | Relations Between Technical Experts and Laypersons | Communication Characteristics | Dimensions of Involvement | Purpose |
| Written public comment period | Experts share facts and information; public shares opinions and values | Citizen stakeholders write comments and submit individually; comments aggregated by decision makers | Access, standing | Document citizen access to information about proposed action |
| Public hearings | Experts share facts and information; public shares opinions and values | Decision makers and citizens attend formal meeting and orally present formal statements | Access, standing | Document citizen access to information about proposed action |
| Negotiated rule making | Experts and public share facts, information, opinions, and values | Structured setting where facts and information from all participants become part of final decision | Access, standing, influence | Determine minimal acceptable standards for policy |
| Consensus based | Experts and public share facts, information, opinions, and values | Structured setting where all participants engage in free and open dialogue regarding proposed action | Access, standing, influence | Agreement among all participants |
More on the topic Critiques of Public Participation Processes:
-
Conflictology -
Ecology -
Economy -
Finance -
History -
Law -
Medicine -
Philosophy -
Religious studies -