Public participation is well known for its practitioner insights and wealth of case reports. This knowledge is essential and has been well employed. Likewise, the theoretical literature on public participation is growing rapidly. The need for better conceptual and theoretical understandings of public participation has become clear. Public participation theories have not received great attention, and few have been proposed or tested. Yet theory offers much to practitioners of various interventions. The authors summarize work toward developing a public participation theory and propose a way to conceptualize its skeletal components. The authors recognize that any theory must acknowledge that different people have different beliefs about what public participation should accomplish. Further, contextual variables affect a process’s character and outcomes. The authors begin with a discussion of theory’s importance to scholars, practitioners, and participants and provide an overview of existing approaches. The authors present findings from two empirical case studies used to further develop their theory of fair and competent public participation. They conclude with some observations about challenges and ways forward.
Beierli, T.
, & Cayford, J. (2001). Public participation in environmental decisions: Lessons from the case study record (Review Draft of Final Report). Washington. DC: Resources for the Future.
2.
Benefits of increased public participation [Editorial]
. (2000). Nature, 405, 259-259.
3.
Bradbury, J.
, & Branch, K. (1999). An evaluation of the effectiveness of local site-specific advisory boards for U.S. Department of Energy environmental restoration programs (Report PNNL-12139). Washington, DC: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
4.
Bradbury, J.
, Branch, K., Heerwagen, J., & Liebow, E. (1994). Community viewpoints of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Washington, DC: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
5.
Bradbury, J., Branch, K., & Malone, E. (2001). Description of the conceptual model. Unpublished manuscript.
6.
Brockner, J.
, & Siegel, P. (1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 390-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Brown, S. R.
(1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
Chess, C.
, Dietz, T., & Shannon, M. (1998). Who should deliberate when?Human Ecology Review, 5(1), 45-48.
9.
Chess, C.
, & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works?Environmental Science & Technology, 33(16), 2685-2692.
10.
Coenen, F. H.
, Huitema, D., & O’Toole, L. J. (Eds.). (1998). Participation and the quality of environmental decision making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
11.
Daniels, G. A.
, & Walker, G. B. (1996). Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environment Impact Assessment Review, 16, 71-102.
12.
Daniels, S. E.
, Lawrence, R. L., & Alig, R. J. (1996). Decisionmaking and ecosystem-based management: Applying the Vroom-Yetton model to public participating strategy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 13-30.
13.
Daniels, S. E.
, & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through enviornmental conflict: The Collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
14.
Dienel, P.
& Renn, O. (1995). Planning cells: A gate to “fractal” mediation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and completence in public participation: Evaluating models for environmental discoarse (pp. 117-140). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
15.
Dietz, T.
(1987). Theory and method in social impact assessment. Sociological Inquiry, 77, 54-69.
16.
English, M.
, Gibson, A., Feldman, D., & Tonn, B. (1995). Stake-holder involvement: Open processes for reaching decisions about the future uses of contaminated sites (Final Report to the U.S. Department of Energy). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute.
17.
Environmental Resources Management
. (1995). Manual on public participation for investors in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (Final Report to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). London: Author.
18.
Fiorino, D.
(1990). Public participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 226-243.
19.
Fischer, F.
(1985). Critical evaluation of public policy: A methodological case study. In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life (pp. 231-257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Forester, J.
(Ed.). (1985). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Forester, J.
(1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
22.
Forester, J.
(2000). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processesCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Guglielmo, A. T. (1998). Nuclear waste, democracy, and risk: A procedural evaluation of the Columbia River comprehensive impact assessment. Masters thesis, University of Washington, Spokane. Available: http://www.sma.washington.edu/students/aguglielmo/thesis/index.html
24.
Habermas, J.
(1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
25.
Habermas, J.
(1984). Theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
26.
Habermas, J.
(1987). Theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. System and lifeworld (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
27.
Hartley, T. (1998). Participant competencies in deliberative discourse: Cases of collaborative decision-making in the Superfund Program. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
28.
Innes, J.
(1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52-63.
29.
Keeney, R.
(1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision-making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Kemp, R.
(1985). Planning, public hearings, and the politics of discourse. In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life (pp. 177-201). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
Laird, F.
(1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18, 341-361.
32.
Lauber, B.
, & Knuth, B. (1997). Fairness in moose management decision making: The citizen’s perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(4), 776-797.
33.
Lauber, B.
, & Knuth, B. (1999). Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 19-37.
34.
Leventhal, G. S.
, Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions, from psychological research (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
35.
Lind, E. A.
, & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
36.
McDaniels, T.
, Gregory, R., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 497-510.
37.
National Research Council
. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38.
National Research Council
. (1999a). New strategies for America’s watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
National Research Council
. (1999b). Perspectives on biodiversity: Valuing its role in an everchanging world. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
. (1997). Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision-making (Final Report). Washington, DC: Author.
41.
Raiffa, H.1968. Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
42.
Renn, O.
(1992). Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465-519.
43.
Renn, O.
, Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995a). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
44.
Renn, O.
, Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995b). The pursuit of fair and competent citizen participation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in public participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 339-367). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
45.
Rosenbaum, N.
(1978). Public participation and democratic theory. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America: Essays on the state of the art (pp. 43-54). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
46.
Rosener, J.
(1978). Matching method to purpose: The challenges of planning citizen-participation activities. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America: Essays on the state of the art (pp. 109-121). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
47.
Rowe, G.
, & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25, 3-29.
48.
Smith, P.
, & McDonough, M. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 239-249.
49.
Stern, P. C.
, & Druckman, D. (2000). Evaluating interventions in history: The case of international conflict resolution. International Studies Review, 2, 33-63.
50.
Thibaut, J.
, & Walker, L. (1978). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York: John Wiley.
51.
Thomas, J.
(1990). Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a borrowed theory. Public Administration Review, 50, 435-445.
52.
Thomas, J.
(1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53.
Tuler, S.
(2000). Forms of talk in policy dialogue: Distinguishing between adversarial and collaborative discourse. Journal of Risk Research, 3(1), 1-17.
54.
Tuler, S.
, & Webler, T. (1995). Process evaluation for discursive decision-making in environmental and risk policy. Human Ecology Review, 2, 62-71.
55.
Tuler, S.
, & Webler, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: Participants and planners evaluate a public policy making process. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 437-453.
56.
von Winterfeldt, D.
, & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Vroom, V.
, & Jago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 151-162.
58.
Vroom, V.
, & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
59.
Webler, T.
(1995). “Right” discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 35-86). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
60.
Webler, T.
, & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration and Society, 32(5), 566-595.
61.
Webler, T.
, & Tuler, S. (2001). Public participation in watershed management planning: Views on process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review, 8(2), 29-39.
62.
Webler, T.
, Tuler, S., & Krueger, J. R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435-450.
