the craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process

1 Introduction

In recent years interest in public participation in risk decision making has growntremendously among the community of practitioners and academics in the risk sciencesThis waxing publicity is nothing new Public participation has known many ups anddowns in its fty-or-so-year lifetime What makes the present upsurge captivating is thepotential it offers for taking the eld beyond its current shortcomings

A t present the eld of public participation is characterized by an interesting juxta-position of a rich experiential knowledge and a growing but scattered theoreticalliterature Whether it is the written literature the verbal discourse1 or the actual prac-tice of getting publics to participate in risk policy making the focus is almost exclusivelyon lsquowhat worksrsquo and not lsquowhy it worksrsquo or how it could work better (Creighton 1983)A nd while the craft of public participation has bene ted greatly from its re ective prac-titioners the eld is haunted by a need for integrated conceptual thinking as a recentreport by the US National R esearch Council points out (1996)

This article is an attempt to spell out the promise that is within reach of the eld ofpublic participation That promise is a chance to capitalize on the strong experientialknowledge base and to coordinate further research in order to build a sound theory ofpublic participation that is better able to inform practice Establishing an effective

Journal of Risk Research 2 (1) 55ndash71 (1999)

The craft and theory of public participation a dialectical processTH O MA S WE B LE R 1

Faculty of the D epartm ent of Environm ental Studies A ntioch New England G raduate School 40 A von Street Keene NH 03431 USA

Project Director at the Social and Environm ental Research Institute PO Box 253 L everett M A 01054 USA

Abstract

This article proposes the craftndashtheory dialectic as a novel way to conceptualize advance-ment in the eld of public participation In this perspective the eld is characterizedby a rich base of experiential knowledge and a scattered but growing literature ontheory The chief challenge is to coordinate these two ways of knowing in an iterativeintegrative fashion that enables practice to learn from theory and theory to learn frompractice Promoting the development of the craftndashtheory dialectic should be a centralfocus for the eld Toward this end this article identi es several key research topicsthat need attention explicates these with vignettes from the literature and discussesthe challenges associated with addressing them

1366-9877 copy 1999 E amp FN Spon

1At conferences such as the International Association of Public Participat ion Practitioners

dialectical process between the practice and the theory of public participation shouldbe a central aim Successfully doing so would enhance and improve not only opportu-nities for publics of cials and scientists embroiled in participatory decision making toparticipate meaningfully in shaping public policies it would also improve the policiesthemselves

2 A brief overview of the literature

21 CA SE STU D IES

Most individualsrsquo rst encounter with the eld takes place amidst the montage of indi-vidual case studies that make up a vast portion of the public participation literatureSome of the classics in the eld are Philip Selznickrsquos study TVA and the G rass Roots(1966) Adeline Levinersquos (1982) case study of the Love Canal con ict and JaneMansbridgersquos Beyond A dversary D emocracy (1980) case studies of a Vermont townmeeting and a crisis intervention centre called lsquoHelplinersquo

These cases among others remain recommended readings because they succeed atbuilding explanations that have validity beyond the immediate contexts of which theywrite For example the events Levine described in the Love Canal con ict have beenrepeated in virtual identity in Superfund con icts across the country (Edelstein 1988)Mansbridgersquos descriptions of a cooperative workplace have been echoed by other studies(G astil 1993) Case studies such as these are extremely important to the developmentof theory For example Edelstein has produced a theory of environmental stigma basedin part on case studies (Edelstein 1987) Levinersquos analysis of the Love Canal con ictled to a theory of how activist organizations form (Stone and Levine 1985) andManbridgersquos work has been used to develop a theory of participatory democracy(Barber 1984)

Other researchers have made systematic comparisons of several case studies to extractimportant theoretical concepts as well as pragmatic lessons for public participation O neapplication of this approach is the work of A ronoff and G unter (1994) They drew onthe secondary literature from seven case studies and succeeded in identifying situa-tional factors that in uenced the performance of public participation

22 H ANDBOOKS FOR OR GANIZING CITIZEN PA RTICIPA TION

O ne of the most important segments of the literature on public participation are thehandbooks manuals and the guidebooks that instruct planners how to craft citizenparticipation programmes2 Few in number and often not as readily available as manyother publications these handbooks offer a wealth of knowledge to the eld (Bleikerand Bleiker 1995 Connor 1994 Creighton 1985 1991 1993 E nvironmental ResourcesManagement 1995 English et al 1993 U S Environmental Protection Agency 1983Farhar and Babiuch 1993 H owell O lsen and Olsen 1987 Thomas 1995 for a reviewof handbooks see Webler 1997) Many of these have not been peer-reviewed but were

56 Webler

2Many fewer in number are the handbooks that attempt to instruct citizens on how to participate effectively (Maynesand the Ontario Environment al Network 1989)

written as reports or manuals Handbooks are of course valuable for providing prac-tical lsquohow-torsquo advice to new practitioners But because they try to capitalize onexperiential knowledge they also give a special insight into the state of developmentof the eld A s such they are on the front line of generating knowledge and theoryabout public participation In addition there are articles that attempt to summarizeexperiential knowledge into basic principles for example Kasperson (1986) Langton(1978) and Shindler and Nebruka (1997)

H andbooks attempt to give advice to would-be practitioners They approach this taskwith logic and consistency The formula is straightforward It is typical to begin withobservations about the practice of public participation (lsquoIf the public feels that a deci-sion was made in an inappropriate way they will not accept itrsquo) They then recitefundamental lessons principles objectives or criteria of lsquogoodrsquo citizen participation(lsquoAvoid confrontations between high-level of cials of opposing interests until the staffhas worked out a compromisersquo) These lessons may also be phrased in the form of crit-ical questions that planners should ask (lsquoIs the proposed process compatible with legalobligationsrsquo) With criteria in hand the authors next turn to a repertoire of techniquesndash sometimes called models techniques or approaches They describe the techniquesand may sort them into categories A s a grand nale some handbooks evaluate eachtechnique on the criteria or objectives producing a kind of Consum er Reports stylesummary A few go on to guide the planner through the process of putting together acitizen participation process that is right for the job

23 SU RVEY RESE ARCH

Surveys are a popular research tool to use for the purpose of gathering data from partic-ipants of public decision making processes in order to test a hypothesis A recentexample is the study by Lehman et al (1995) on gender differences in public partici-pation in political campaigns They asked whether the widespread claim that womenuse a lsquodifferent voicersquo from men when they participate in political discourse wassupported A nother intriguing study is that by Kunreuther et al who explored thesigni cance of the facility siting credo principles on siting outcomes (1993) Drawingon data from a survey of parties customarily involved in siting disputes they rankedthe importance of credo principles nding lsquoestablishing trustrsquo lsquodemonstrated needrsquo andlsquopublic participationrsquo to be the most important principles A nal example of surveyresearch in public participation is Joanne Viningrsquos and A ngela Ebreorsquos comparison ofthree groupsrsquo (public environmentalists and forest managers) emotional responses toa hypothetical forest policy dispute (1992) and their attitudes toward different manage-ment goals associated with the same hypothetical case (Vining 1992)

24 THEORY

Theories give meaning to what might be perceived as unrelated phenomena Within thepublic participation literature much recent theoretical work focuses on discrete phenom-ena These works may be useful in a limited context but for the moment they remainsomewhat scattered Theory in the eld of public participation has also bene ted and beenintertwined with theoretical work from other elds Other strands await further develop-ment and synthesis Early theoretical work in public participation came from scholars of

Craft and theory of public participation 57

Marxism They sought to elaborate on Marxrsquos views on public involvement (Evans 1972)and also to de ne a revisionary perspective on the role of public participation in govern-ment (Kasperson and Breitbart 1974) Planners have attempted to grapple with the the-oretical issues of power and participation (A rnstein 1969 Forester 1982 Kemp 1985)practical issues associated with the role of planners (Syme et al 1989) and to equip plan-ning theory with a normative principle for participation (Forester 1993 D eSario andLangton 1987) Work by political theorists on the theme of participatory democracy isalso tightly linked to the eld of public participation for example the participatorydemocrats Carole Pateman (1970) and Benjamin Barber (1984) In addition a large liter-ature on siting and risk communication addresses issues of fair process (Renn 1992G regory et al 1991 Jasanoff 1986) the lsquoNot In My Backyard Syndromersquo (Morell andMagorian 1982 Mazmanian and Morell 1990 Heiman 1990) and trust in regulatory gov-ernment (Kasperson and Stallen 1991 Renn and Levine 1991) In the eld of socialimpact assessment numerous people have worked to understand how public involvementcould be realized within the NEPA process (Daneke et al 1983 Burdge 1994Finsterbusch 1984 1985) William Freudenberg has re ected on some of the metatheo-retical issues in this area (1983 1986 se e also Freudenberg and O lsen 1983)

In addition there are attempts to outline more holistic theories of public participa-tion By this I mean efforts to integrate a number of key conceptual themes such aspower access information discourse and process O ne branch aims to match methodswith purposes through the application of the VroomndashYetton model which originatedin managerial theory and is based on observations of how managers make effectivedecisions (Vroom and Yetton 1973 Vroom and Jago 1978) John Clayton Thomas hassuggested that this model could be applied to prescribe how an of cial charged withorganizing a public participation programme could choose among a variety of partic-ipatory strategies (Thomas 1990 1995) To summarize brie y the decision problem isexamined for the presence of certain attributes For Thomas this can be accomplishedby asking a sequence of seven questions (eg lsquoDoes the relevant public share agencygoalsrsquo) Based on the responses to these seven questions one is led to one of vepossible diagnoses (eg segmented public consultation (C1) ndash which means that theagency consults different segments of the public separately then makes a decision)Recently the VroomndashYetton model has been applied to public participation in naturalresource decision making (Daniels et al 1996)

A different approach with a similar goal draws upon political theories of democracyto identify fundamental principles for public participation This is represented by anearlier conceptual piece by Nelson R osenbaum (1978) as well as the more recent workof Frank Laird (1993) and D aniel Fiorino (1990) both of whom derived criteria fromdemocratic theory and used these to evaluate generic techniques of participationFiorino based his principles on a conception of participatory democracy while Lairdadded a parallel analysis based on liberal democratic theory

Another important contribution to theory in the eld of public participation beginswith a theory of communication in this instance Juumlrgen Habermasrsquos theory of universalpragmatics (1979) and his theory of communicative action (1984 1987) The work ofO rtwin Renn (1992) Thomas Dietz (1987) Judith Innes (1998) John Forester (19851993) Ray Kemp (1985) Frank Fisher (1985 1990) and Thomas Webler (1995) wouldfall into this category Thomas D ietz published an intriguing interpretation of howJuumlrgen H abermasrsquos theory of universal pragmatics could form the basis for structuring

58 Webler

participation processes (1987) Webler has proposed a normative theory of public partic-ipation based on two central criteria ndash fairness and competence which are derived fromHabermasrsquos concepts of the ideal speech situation and communicative competenceRecently twenty practitioners and theorists within the eld took part in a project toevaluate eight generic models for public participation using criteria derived fromHabermasrsquos concept of an ideal speech situation (Renn et al 1995a)3

O ne of the newest additions to theory of public participation is the book by KennethGould Allan Schnaiberg and A dam Weinstein called L ocal Environmental StrugglesUsing a metaphor they call the lsquotreadmill of productionrsquo (which might be equated withthe concept of late capitalism) they present a theory of international capitalist devel-opment and use this to interpret three cases studies of public participation in localenvironmental con icts (1996) The theory provides the conceptual basis to interpretevents in public decision making processes4

25 THE lsquoUNDERSTA NDING RISKrsquo REPORT

A lthough not a thorough synopsis of the theoretical literature associated with the eldthese examples do illustrate how the theoretical public participation literature is scat-tered but promising O ne need not be committed to the goal of a single theory of publicparticipation to appreciate the need for better synthesis between theory and practice

Recently the United Statesrsquo National Research Council produced its rst report that dealtin depth with the issue of public participation in risk decision making processes (US NationalResearch Council 1996) While they did not explicitly summarize the literature the com-mittee did discuss the literature and its recommendations carry an interesting message aboutthe state of the eld The report Understanding R isk Informing Decisions in a DemocraticSociety clearly makes the case for more effective and meaningful public participation Atthe same time however it recognizes that there are many unresolved questions Much ofthe language concerning the promise of participation is undeniably conditionalUnderstanding R isk is cautious about making claims or recommendations that cannot bebacked up with evidence5 As the following quotation indicates the committee made a pow-erful case for the need to better develop a theory and craft of public participation

[T]here is little systematic knowledge about what works in public participation delibera-tion and the coordination of deliberation and analysis [ ] We encourage organizationsresponsible for [risk decision making] to explore the possibilities for improving delibera-tion and to make a commitment to learn from experience (1996 p 76ndash77)


3Very recently a learning-base d approach to understanding public participation seems to be emerging Webler et al (1995) built upon the work of Frank Laird (1993) to develop a model of social learning Daniels and Walker(1996) recently reported on their lsquoCollaborat ive Learningrsquo model which seems of a like approach4Other scholars who have re ected on metatheoretical issues have been James Creighton (1983) Judy R osener(1978b) Barry Checkoway and Jon Van Til (1978) Thomas Dietz (1995a) Jack DeSario and Stuar t Langton (1987)and Renn et al (1995b)5Consider the following examples (pp 80ndash82 emphasis added)

Broadly based deliberation can help determine appropriate uses for potentially controver sial analytical techniquesDeliberation can clarify the nature and extent of agreements and disagreements among participantsDeliberation can also prom ote mutual exchange of information and increase understanding among interested andaffected par tiesDeliberation also has the potential to yield more widely accepted choicesBroadly based deliberation can also increase acceptance of the substantive decisions

3 Promoting the craftndashtheory dialectic of public participation

The US National Research Council committee did not nd the evidence they were look-ing for to make more pointed recommendations about how public participation ought tobe carried out Part of the reason may be that the panel was searching for evidence thatmet positivist or post-positivist research criteria while the study of participation does notlend itself readily to such analyses There is an important lesson to be gleaned from thisIf the eld of public participation is to develop it needs to nd a way to build on its tremen-dous strength in practice and craft and to feed this experiential knowledge and re ectioninto a dialectical process with theoretical re ection The result will be better theory andbetter prescriptions for practice In the interest of promoting healthy interplay betweenthe craft and theory of participation I next outline some major research themes that the eld must address if it is to advance explicate these with vignettes from the literature dis-cuss the challenges associated with addressing them and where relevant relate the U SNational R esearch Council committeersquos insights on these themes

31 MATCH METHO D TO PURPOSE

The idea that there are participation lsquomethodsrsquo that need to be matched to lsquopurposesrsquoappeared early in the literature (Rosener 1978a) R ecently this endeavour has beenrevisited (Bleiker and Bleiker 1995 Renn et al 1995c) However others including thecommittee from the U S National Research Council have questioned the feasibility ofsucceeding at this (English et al 1993 National R esearch Council 1996) Two speci cchallenges have been raised (1) devising a taxonomy of models (2) the question ofcontext and generalizibility

311 D evising a taxonomy of models for doing participation

Is it meaningful to typify speci c participation techniques Clearly there are differenttechniques but grouping them supposes they have common features that are somehowrelevant What is the basis for establishing relevance Often techniques are groupedaccording to their structural characteristics (ie the citizen jury the citizen panel regu-latory negotiation) or an operational characteristic (survey-type models advisorycommittee models mediation models) But where lie the boundaries that distinguishone from another That is do all the processes that rely on some form of advisorycommittee have enough characteristics in common to warrant treating them as a class(Lynn and Kartez 1995) Bleiker and Bleiker (1995) identi ed ten different types ofadvisory committees differentiating them according to purpose Compare just two ofthem the Blue-R ibbon Panel-type advisory committee and the advisory committeedesigned to serve as Watch D ogs over their advisees Their roles are so vastly differentthat one wonders what is gained from grouping them together as forms of advisorycommittees A nd yet without the concept of a model how are we to convey messagesto practitioners about what to do

One of the best known articles in the eld is Sherry A rnsteinrsquos lsquoLadder of partici-pationrsquo article from the Journal of the A m erican Planning A ssociation in 1969 A rnsteinrsquospoint was that it was important to distinguish between different formats of citizen partic-ipation according to the degree to which the publics were empowered in the processA t the low end publics were not empowered but were merely manipulated by the

60 Webler

decision making body H alfway up the ladder the publics are being taken seriouslybut still play a purely advisory role A t the top of the ladder the public is fully empow-ered because they have now become the decision makers O n the basis of this principleA rnstein placed different forms of participation into a taxonomy

Since Arnstein typologies based on some principle of empowerment typology crop uprepeatedly Creighton (1985 Chapter 2) distinguished between goals such as lsquoinformingthe publicrsquo and lsquodeveloping a consensusrsquo (see Table III) English et al (1993 p 17) iden-tify purposes such as lsquoobtain data about publicsrsquo valuesrsquo lsquosolicit advice from publicsrsquo andlsquolet publics make the nal decisionrsquo A manual published by Environmental ManagementResources (1995 p 3) also distinguishes between lsquoinforming the publicrsquo lsquolistening to thepublicrsquo and lsquoinvolving the public in decision makingrsquo6 Each of these handbooks thenattempted to associate techniques with the achievement of these goals

A lthough popular even this typology is not universally accepted First of all reasonable people still disagree about the appropr iateness of empowering a group of citizens that are not legal representatives to make public choices Second the conceptof power in this application has not been adequately worked-out None of the abovesources Arnstein included developed a detailed theory of power that would allow a precise characterization of participatory techniques Third it is not resolved that the empowering ability of different participation techniques can be reliably esti-mated

The National A cademy report summed it up

Practitioners have developed a great variety of techniques that can be used in the deliberationsthat contribute to informing risk decisions These are described in an extensive literature However there is no rigorous or generally accepted classi cation scheme

(U S National Research Council 1996 p 96)

312 The question of context and generaliz ibility

Next there is the question of whether we are ever going to be able to identify theimportant contextual variables which will signify which model is most appropriate forthat context Some critics (Nothdurft 1995 English et al 1993) argue that because thespeci cs of the application determine performance more than does the characteristicsof the technique itself it is senseless to make generic statements about which model ismore likely to work well in any given instance This point was echoed in theUnderstanding R isk report

it is not possible to predict which deliberative method will work most effectively inany given situation Deliberative methods are merely tools Results will depend less on thetool and more on its users and the setting in which it is used [ ] The history of an issuelevel of con ict scienti c data and existing power dynamics may also in uence outcomeas much as the method

(US National R esearch Council 1996 p 96)

O ne cannot argue that there is a great deal of judgment and exibility involved inimplementing a public participation programme And yet all techniques are not equally


6 This same manual grouped techniques into the following categories printed materials using existing media formalpublic information sessions informal public information sessions surveys small meetings large meetings advisorygroups problem solving techniques consensus building techniques and others

suited to any given task It remains a very reasonable possibility that our inability topredict performance would be enhanced by further study of contextual historical andother factors (A ronoff and G unter 1994 p 241) 7 More systematic research into thesefactors is needed Some of the initial work on this can be found in Shannon (1990 pp 234ndash235) and Aronoff and G unter (1994)

32 EMBRACE INTE RDISCIPLINARINESS

Many scholars who work in the eld of public participation have their intellectual homein some other discipline This is both a blessing and a curse On the one hand the eldenjoys the attention and insights of people of vastly different perspectives and exper-tise On the other hand these people may end up talking past each other since theirapproaches (and the literature they draw on) are so vastly different Paying attentionto the interdisciplinary communication and knowledge transfer problems is key to thefurther development of the eld

For example although a great deal is known about why people participate in socialmovements (and that is comparable in many senses to taking part in citizen participa-tion) this literature is rarely cited in the context of citizen participation Consider forexample this lsquoprinciplersquo for public participation which is asserted in a handbook butnot suppor ted with evidence or argument Most lay citizens will not participate unlessthere are tangible issues they consider the issues signi cant or they feel their participa-tion will mak e a difference8 This is reminiscent of some of the kinds of factors thatmay in uence an individualrsquos decision to participate in social movements In socialmovement theory this discussion revolves around the free rider problem (O lson 1965) O lson surmised that a rational individual would choose not to participate if his or herparticipation was not essential to success of the process and if the costs of participatingoutweighed the bene ts (see also O berschall 1973) The only way organizers couldconvince people to participate said O lson is to offer incentives that tip the riskndashbene tratio in the opposite direction He speci cally mentioned that incentives could be posi-tive (such as free food social status) or negative (such as sanctions) Building on thisMitchell (1979) suggested that dangers such as threats of radioactive release and otherforms of pollution could motivate people to participate9 D rawing upon other segmentsof the scholarly literature to support statements about what in uences decisions bypublics to participate not only adds credibility to those principles it also links the eldof public participation to an established theoretical and empirical literature

Linking our work in public participation to existing academic literature can alsoprovide interesting new insights To continue with the social movement exampleG amson and Fireman (1979) proposed that group solidarity ndash a sense of belonging andcooperation ndash could overcome the tendency for people to free ride In other words

62 Webler

7Simply acknowledging that we need to better understand how contextual factors in uence the performance of partic-ipation techniques does not imply an allegiance to a cookbook approach R ather it is a question of the degree towhich uncertainty can be reduced not the elimination of uncertainty and exibility An alternat ive approach takenby Bleiker and Bleiker (1995) is to make generic evaluations of techniques but to call these evaluations lsquoprelimi-naryrsquo Final evaluations need to be made by the participation organizer who has become familiar with the nuancesof the speci c context and history as well as the natur e of the techniques8Bleiker and Bleiker (1995) 9This may be what the Bleiker s mean by lsquotangible issuesrsquo

they asserted that it was not merely incentives such as status or free food appeals tocivic duty or the threat of public bads that shaped an individualrsquos decision to partici-pate in a social movement Sometimes people participated because they liked the feelingof belonging to a group of being accepted by others A pplied to the issue of publicparticipation this idea opens some very interesting questions D o different participa-tion techniques rely more or less on different kinds of incentives If so what strategiesare effective at capitalizing on solidarity incentives10 What implications do the differentforms of incentives have for the legitimacy of the process and the acceptance of thedecision outcome A re some motivations stronger ie able to maintain individualparticipation over a much more demanding process Questions such as these add sophis-tication to overly simplistic assertions about public participation needing to make limiteddemands on participants

To take a second example the manual by English et al (1993) asserts the impor-tance of the criterion of inclusiveness Essentially they posit the claim that the morepeople involved the better the chance that the outcomes will be accepted The authorscould have strengthened this assertion by pointing to the recent work of D aniel Fiorinowho drew upon participatory theory of democracy to arrive at a set of basic criteriafor evaluating citizen participation models (Fiorino 1990) Fiorino also asserted thelsquomore people is betterrsquo criterion but built his case on three arguments His instrumentalargument mimics that made by English et al but Fiorino grounded his claim in partic-ipatory democratic theory and evidence from case studies (Fiorino 1990endnote 1)His second argument was substantive He claimed that lay people have valid judgmentsthat can supplement understandings of experts This was supported with a citation ofa case where members of the public identi ed a problem that experts missed (Fiorino1990 p 227) Finally he used a norm ative argument based on the tradition of partici-patory democratic theory to assert that the populace ought to control policy indemocracy In this excellent paper D aniel Fiorino has shown how to build a solid casefor asserting criteria of good citizen participation11

33 JUSTIFY PRESCR IPTIONS

Prescriptions about how to best engage in the craft of public participation are commonUnfortunately it is also common to nd these prescriptions based on questionable state-ments of fact or shoddy reasoning12

Frequently factual claims are unsupported Ideological beliefs may in fact be theorigin of such claims but they may also emerge out of careless re ection Some asser-tions have been repeated for so long no one recalls the original source of data At othertimes factual claims rely on casual observations ndash which are better than unsupportedassertions but not as good as systematically collected evidence Both unsupported asser-tions and casual observations have been made by well known authorities in the eld


10For a discussion of solidarity in par ticipation see Webler et al (1995)11E specially applicable to the English et al manual on stakeholde r participation is the argument that Frank Lairdbuilt upon Daniel Fiorinorsquos work Laird pointed out that the cr iterion of broad participatio n adapted to the partic-ipation of interest groups (rather than individuals) was also suppor ted by pluralist theories of democracy (Laird1993 p 346ndash 47)12The robust enthusiasm for the potentially empowering roles of the new information technologies to revitalizedemocracy (electronic town meeting etc) are often advanced without adequate analysis of the likely impacts ofthese new technologies

whose reputation extends credibility to the statements The trouble is that this credibilitymay be unfounded A s long as remarks such as these remain outside of the scrutiny of apeer community they will remain suspect

Consider for instance this common prescription lsquoEarly public participation [in newfacility siting processes] decreases the overall planning timersquo (Environmental ResourcesManagement 1995 p 79) We need to ask the question What level of scrutiny has thisstatement received Is it based on careful repeatable observations Is it based on anextremely well respected ethnographic study What data or observations exist to supportthis assertion U nder what nuances is it true to a greater or lesser extent Does itmatter which kind of facility is being sited In which community In what social polit-ical historical economic context To be sure we would expect that all these factorswould matter a great deal in whether or not early involvement decreased overall plan-ning time We need to collect and assess the data that is available to support and qualifyprescriptions such as these

One of the most commonly cited reasons for why there should be citizen participa-tion is that it improves decisions If suppor ted with evidence this assertion could go along way towards convincing responsible organizations to embrace a commitment topublic participation But answering this question requires that we de ne what anlsquoimprovedrsquo decision is Much of the siting literature equated lsquogoodrsquo decisions withsuccessful sitings (Kunreuther et al 1993 Carnes et al 1996) O thers have criticizedthis for narrowly adopting a conservative (or sociological functionalist) perspective(Webler et al 1992)

An excellent example of how one can use positive science to build a case for aprescription ndash that public trust is valuable to a facility siting authority ndash is the work byH oward Kunreuther Kevin Fitzgerald and Thomas A arts (1993) They investigated theimportance of the prescriptions of the Facility Siting Credo (Kunreuther et al 1993 p 303ndash306) The Credo was developed during a national workshop on facility siting asan attempt to advise agencies how to do a better job of siting noxious facilitiesKunreutherrsquos team used a questionnaire to measure how well a siting process adheredto the Credorsquos principles They mailed the questionnaire to 281 individuals identi edas being active in 29 different siting cases Questions asked the respondent to quantifyindependent variables associated with the siting process such as lsquothe trust thesurrounding neighbourhood had in the siting processrsquo The dependent variable waswhether or not the facility was sited One of the key results of this study supports theconclusion that trust between the public and the developer is an important factor insuccessful siting

Prescriptions for the craft of public participation can never be only driven by factualevidence they also take moral stances For instance the claim that lsquopublic participationshould give participants a meaningful opportunity to in uence the decisionrsquo begs justi -cation and elaboration What are the possible reasons for asserting that participantsshould have in uence over the outcome Is it to ensure the legitimacy of the process Isit to ensure cooperation with the policy outcome Is it to empower a local population toshape their own communities Notice that such a claim may be inconsistent with otherdemocratic norms for example why should participants have more say than people whochose not to participate but who may be affected by the decision Once we begin toengage these kinds of issues we enter into moral discourse I suggest that such discoursewould be productive and helpful for the eld of public participation

64 Webler

Moral argumentation on public participation must be transparent and where possiblesupported with statements of fact Facts can assist moral discussion in several waysJust knowing the likely consequences of a decision path for example is valuable topeople discussing the appropriateness of a policy choice Scholars practitioners activistsand organizers all bene t from a clear and open discussion of the moral issues associ-ated with the craft and theory of public participation Here again craft and theory needto come together in a dialectical way such that they build upon each other O ne waythis can begin to happen is when our discussions about the eld clearly address theissues of moral argumentation and factual validity together

Many scholars in the eld now advocate for more dialogue discourse and deliber-ation in public participation (U S National Research Council 1996 D ietz 1995a bDryzek 1990 Majone 1989) Researchers and practitioners should collaborate to inves-tigate whether dialogue has a positive effect on either the participants (making themmore able to work together better in the long run) on the decision (making it morecompetent) or on the implementibility of the decision13

Prescriptions for how to practise public participation ndash whether intended for thepublics the scientists or the organizers ndash need to be justi ed with the highest stan-dards of fact and reasoning While the above illustration exempli es positive researchwe need also to recognize the importance of being open to methodological pluralismand innovation Public participation presents a number of limitations to positiveresearch Non-positivist research paradigms have a great deal to contribute to promotingthe craftndashtheory dialectic of public participation

34 DEVELOP A RESEA RCH AG ENDA FOR THE FIELD

Finally there is a need to orchestrate future research into public participation Thetasks are daunting and the resources are slim With no obvious funding sources noprofessional society to explicitly draw scholars and practitioners of public participationtogether and no single journal in which to communicate our results the academic eldof public participation suffers paradoxically from ineffective discourse

O n a positive note this could potentially change as the eld waxes in popularityonce again Themes of environmental policy making and risk decision making offerpublic participation something to sink its teeth into This thematic unity could providea basis for better communication within the eld

What is needed is a concise research agenda for the eld Pulling together the multi-tude of strands that presently make up the eld and weaving them into patterns orfabrics of understandings will demand cooperation and collaboration by both scholarsand practitioners In this effor t we will have to rely on a wide variety of methods andstudy designs Case studies if done well can help identify concepts and construct theo-ries and hypotheses to be tested in correlation studies or experiments Experientialknowledge that emerges from practice or craft needs to be re ectively considered(Schoumln 1983) and integrated in more systematic manners than has typically been doneParticipatory research can help inform studies with the insights of those taking part in


13Bruce Stiftle did publish a preliminary study on this topic (1983) A more recent and sophisticated effort is SethTulerrsquos doctoral dissertation Tuler drew on the eld of semiotics especially the works of Bahktin Vygotski andWertsch to analyse how individuals in a discourse seize upon cues and adjust their demeanour in the conversationfrom an adversar ial to a collaborative stances (Tuler 1996)

these processes A research agenda should focus on coordinating all different kinds ofwork while also identifying priority research questions A scertaining competence mayrequire setting some guidelines or suggestions for methodological approaches Even aserious review article which would identify the key literature in the eld would go along way towards helping to avoid reinventing the wheel or repeating past mistakes

Towards this end the U S National Research Councilrsquos report Understanding R isk is so important because it rmly establishes the need to develop a more rigorous under-standing of how to design implement and evaluate public participation processes Indoing so it spells out not only the numerous challenges but also the tremendous oppor-tunity for intriguing interdisciplinary research U niting theory and practice is key to thesuccess of this eld By any measure this is important work for it is through partici-pation that autonomous agents act on their beliefs and understandings of whatcitizenship in a democratic society means R esearch into public participation is in thevanguard as one of the places our democracy constantly reinvents itself Society facesincredibly serious challenges in the 21st century and our ability to cope will dependnot only on our technical prowess but also on our ability to nd new and effectiveways to resolve the age-old problem of how to make social choices

4 Conclusion

Should stakeholders and lay people be involved in risk decision making A nd if sohow should public participation be organized and situated in the decision makingprocess These two questions ndash the lsquowhyrsquo and the lsquohowrsquo questions of public participa-tion ndash grossly summarize the challenges facing those interested in advancing the eld

In answering both these questions we need to draw upon the experiential knowl-edge as well as existing theories in order to construct more meaningful understandingsand explanations Perhaps the most pressing problems are that case studies are oftennot composed with consideration of the important theoretical questions and theoryoften does not translate to concrete recommendations that will improve the craft ofpublic participation Those writing and practising public participation should considerbuilding tighter links between case study descriptions and theoretical reasoning Forexample theorists might help specify guidelines for doing case study research in amanner that enables cross case comparisons to be made

Invoking a dialectical reasoning process that brings together knowledge and experi-ence about the craft and the theory of public participation also promotes learningre ection and integrative thinking For this to happen well there needs to be muchricher communication between those who practice and do research in the eld In thisarticle I have laid out a preliminary agenda for those discussions and touched uponsome of the more prevalent obstacles Such dialogue and interchange will produceresults that not only improve the experiences of participants in these processes butalso have positive effects via the policies and decisions that emerge directly or indi-rectly from public participation processes

Acknowledgements

In writing this article I bene ted from conversations with and comments from CaronChess Thomas Dietz Jimmy Karlan H ans Kastenholz A lesia Maltz Ty Minton Ortwin

66 Webler

Renn Dick Sclove Paul Slovic Paul Stern Don Straus Mitchell Thomashow and SethTuler as well as meetings of the Risk Characterization Committee at the NationalA cademy of Sciences

This material is in part based on work supported by the National Science Foundationunder grant number SBR 95-11840 A ny opinions ndings and conclusions or recom-mendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarilyre ect those of the National Science Foundation

References

Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of public participation Journal of the A merican Institute of PlannersJuly 216ndash24

Aronoff M and Gunter V (1994) A pound of cure facilitating participatory processes in tech-nological hazard disputes Society and N ational Resources 7 235ndash52

Barber B (1984) Strong Democracy Participatory Politics for a New A ge Berkeley Universityof California Press

Bleiker A and Bleiker H (1995) Public Participation Handbook for Of cials and OtherProfessionals Serving the Public ninth edition Monterey CA Institute for ParticipatoryManagement and Planning

Burdge R (1994) A Conceptual A pproach to Social Impact A ssessment Collection of Writingsby Rabel Burdge and Colleagues Middleton WI Social Ecology Press

Carnes S A Schweitzer M Peele E Wolfe A K and Munro J F (1996) PerformanceMeasures for Evaluating Public Participation A ctivities in DO Ersquos Of ce of EnvironmentalManagem ent O ak Ridge TN Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Checkoway B and Van Til J (1978) What do we know about citizen participation A selec-tive review of research In Citizen Participation in A merica edited by S Langton LexingtonMA Lexington Books

Connor D (1994) Constructive Public Participation fth edition Victoria BC ConnorDevelopment Services Ltd

Creighton J (1993) Involving Citizens in Decision Mak ing Washington DC Program forCommunity Problem Solving

Creighton J (1983) The use of values public participation in the planning process In PublicInvolvement and Social Impact A ssessment edited by G A Daneke M W G arcia and J D Priscoli pp 143ndash60 Boulder CO Westview Press

Creighton J (1985) BPA Public Involvement G uide Washington DC US Department of EnergyBonneville Power Administration

Creighton J (1991) A comparison of successful and unsuccessful public involvement a practi-tionerrsquos viewpoint In Risk A nalysis Prospects and Opportunities edited by C Zervos pp 135ndash41 New York Plenum Press

Daneke G A Garcia M W and Priscoli J D (eds) (1983) Public Involvement and SocialImpact A ssessment Boulder CO Westview Press

Daniels G A and Walker G B (1996) Collaborative learning Improving public deliberationin ecosystem-based management Environmental Impact A ssessment Review 16 71ndash102

Daniels S E Lawrence R L and Alig R J (1996) Decision-making and ecosystem-basedmanagement Applying the VroomndashYetton model to public participation strategyEnvironm ental Impact A ssessment Review 16 13ndash30

DeSario J and Langton S (eds) (1987) Citizen Participation in Public Decision Mak ing WestportCT Greenwood Press

Dietz T (1987) Theory and method in social impact assessment Sociological Inquiry 77 54ndash69Dietz T (1995a) What should we do Human ecology and collective decision making Human

Ecology Review 1 301ndash9


Dietz T (1995b) D emocracy in science In Fairness and Com petence in Public ParticipationEvaluating Models for Environmental Discourse edited by O Renn T Webler and PWiedemann ppxviindashxix Boston Kluwer Academic Press

Dryzek J S (1990) Discursive Dem ocracy Politics Policy and Political Science New YorkCambridge University Press

Edelstein M (1988) Contam inated Com munities The Social and Psychological Impacts ofResidential Toxic Exposure Boulder Westview

Edelstein M (1987) Toward a theory of environmental stigma In Public Environments editedby J Harvey and D Henning pp 127ndash39 Ottawa Environmental D esign ResearchAssociation

English M A Gibson A Feldman D and Tonn B (1993) Stak eholder Involvement OpenProcesses for Reaching Decisions A bout the Future Uses of Contam inated Sites Final Reportto the US D epartment of Energy University of Tennessee Knoxville Waste ManagementResearch and Education Institute

Environmental Resources Management (1995) Manual on Public Participation for Investors inCentral and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union Final Report to the European Bankfor Reconstruction and Development London Environmental Resources Management

Evans M (1972) Karl Marx and the concept of political participation In Participation in Politicsedited by G Parry pp 127ndash50 Manchester Manchester U niversity Press

Farhar B and Babiuch W (1993) Stakeholder A nalysis Methodologies Resource Book ReviewDraft NRELTP-461-5857 Golden CO National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Fiorino D (1990) Public participation and environmental risk a survey of institutional mecha-nisms Science Technology amp H um an Values 152 226ndash43

Finsterbusch K (1984) Social impact assessment as a policy science methodology ImpactA ssessment Bulletin 3 37ndash43

Finsterbusch K (1985) State of the art in social impact assessment Environm ent and Behavior17 193ndash221

Fischer F (1985) Critical evaluation of public policy a methodological case study In CriticalTheory and Public L ife edited by J Forester pp 231ndash57 Cambridge MA MIT Press

Fischer F (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise Newbury Park CA SageForester J (1982) Planning in the face of power Journal of the A merican Planning A ssociation

Winter 67ndash80Forester J (ed) (1985) Critical Theory and Public L ife Cambridge MA MIT PressForester J (1993) Critical Theory Public Policy and Planning Practice A lbany SU NY PressFreudenberg W R (1983) The promise and the peril of public participation in social impact

assessment In Public Involvement and Social Impact A ssessment edited by GA Danese MW Garcia and JD Priscoli pp 227ndash34 Boulder CO Westview Press

Freudenberg W R (1986) Social impact assessment A nnual Review of Sociology 12 451ndash78Freudenberg W R and Olsen D (1983) Public interest and political abuse Public participa-

tion in social impact assessment Journal of the Com munity Development Society 14 67ndash82Gamson W H and Fireman B (1979) Utilitarian logic in the resource mobilization perspec-

tive In The Dynam ics of Social Movements edited by M N Zald and J M McCarthy 8ndash45Cambridge MA Winthrop

Gastil J (1993) Democracy in small groups Philadelphia New SocietyGould K Schnaiberg A and Weinberg A (1996) L ocal Environmental Struggles Citizen

A ctivism in the Treadmill of Production NY CambridgeGregory R Kunreuther H Eaterling D and Richards K (1991) Incentives policies to site

hazardous waste facilities Risk A nalysis 11 667ndash75Habermas J (1979) Com munication and the Evolution of Society Boston Beacon PressHabermas J (1984) The Theory of Com municative A ction Reason and the Rationaliz ation of

Society Volume I Boston Beacon Press

68 Webler

Habermas J (1987) The Theory of Com m unicative A ction System and L ifeworld Volume IIBoston Beacon Press

Heiman M (1990) From lsquoNot in My Backyardrsquo to lsquoNot in Anybodyrsquos Backyardrsquo Journal ofthe A m erican Planning A ssociation 56 359ndash62

Howell R Olsen M and Olsen D (1987) Designing a Citizen Involvement Program AGuidebook for Involving Citizens in the Resolution of Environmental Issues Corvallis ORWestern Rural Development Center

Innes J (1998) Information on communicative planning A PA Journal 64 52ndash63Jasanoff S (1986) Risk Managem ent and Political Culture New York Russell Sage FoundationKasperson R (1986) Six propositions for public participation and their relevance for risk commu-

nication Risk A nalysis 6 275ndash81Kasperson R and Breitbart M (1974) Participation Decentralization and A dvocacy Planning

Resource Paper 25 Washington D C Association of American GeographersKasperson R and Stallen P J (eds) (1991) Com municating R isk to the Public Boston Kluwer

AcademicKemp R (1985) Planning public hearings and the politics of discourse In Critical Theory and

Public L ife edited by J Forester pp 177ndash201 Cambridge MA MIT PressKunreuther H Fitzgerald K and A arts T D (1993) Siting noxious facilities A test of the

facility siting credo Risk A nalysis 13 301ndash15Laird F (1993) Participatory analysis democracy and technological decision making Science

Technology and Human Values 183 341ndash61Langton S (ed) (1978) Citizen Participation in A merica Lexington MA Lexington BooksLehman K Burns N Verba S and Donahue J (1995) G ender and citizen participation Is

there a different voice A merican Journal of Political Science 39 267ndash93Levine A G (1982) L ove Canal Science Politics and People Lexington MA Lexington BooksLynn F and Kartez J (1995) The redemption of citizen advisory committees A perspective

from critical theory In Fairness and Com petence in Public Participation Evaluating Modelsfor Environmental Discourse edited by O Renn T Webler and P Wiedemann pp 87ndash115Boston Kluwer Academic Press

Majone G (1989) Evidence Persuasion and A rgum ent in Policy Mak ing New York CambridgeUniversity Press

Mansbridge J (1980) Beyond A dversarial Democracy Chicago University of Chicago PressMaynes C and the O ntario Environmental Network (1989) Public Consultation A Citizens

Handbook Toronto Ontario Environmental NetworkMazmanian D and Morell D (1990) The NIMBY syndrome facility siting and the failure of

democratic discourse In Environmental Policy in the 1990s Toward a New A genda edited byN J Vig and M E Kraft Washington DC CQ Press

Mitchell R C (1979) National environmental lobbies and the apparent illogic of collective actionIn Collective Decision Mak ing A pplications from Public Choice Theory Edited by Clifford SRussell pp 87ndash121 Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press

Morell D and Magorian C (1982) Siting Haz ardous Waste Facilities L ocal Opposition and theMyth of Preemption Cambridge MA Ballinger

Nothdurft W (1995) Environmental mediation insights into the microcosm and outlooks for political implications In Fairness and Com petence in Public Participation EvaluatingModels for Environmental Discourse edited by O Renn T Webler and P Wiedemann pp 267ndash82 Boston Kluwer Academic Press

Oberschall A (1973) Social Con ict and Social Movements Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice-H allOlson M (1965) The L ogic of Collective A ction Cambridge MA Harvard University PressPateman C (1970) Participation and Dem ocratic Theory New York Cambridge University PressRenn O (1992) R isk communication towards a rational discourse with the public Journal of

Haz ardous Materials 29 465ndash519


Renn O and Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication In Com municatingrisk to the public edited by R Kasperson and P Stallen pp 175ndash218 Boston KluwerAcademic Press

Renn O Webler T and Wiedemann P (eds) (1995a) Fairness and Com petence in PublicParticipation Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse Boston Kluwer AcademicPress

Renn O Webler T and Wiedemann P (eds)(1995b) The need for discourse on citizen partic-ipation Objectives and structure of the book In Fairness and Com petence in PublicParticipation Evaluating Models for Environmental D iscourse edited by O Renn T Weblerand P Wiedemann pp 1ndash16 Boston Kluwer Academic Press

Renn O Webler T and Wiedemann P (1995c) The pursuit of fair and competent citizen partic-ipation In Fairness and Com petence in Public Participation Evaluating Models forEnvironmental Discourse edited by O Renn T Webler and P Wiedemann pp 339ndash66Boston Kluwer Academic Press

Rosenbaum N (1978) Public participation and democratic theory In Public Participation inA merica edited by S Langton pp 43ndash54 Lexington MA Lexington Books

Rosener J (1978a) Matching method to purpose The challenges of planning citizen-participa-tion activities In Citizen Participation in A merica edited by S Langton pp 109ndash21 LexingtonMA Lexington Books

Rosener J (1978b) Citizen participation Can we measure its effectiveness Public A dministrationReview 38 457ndash63

Schoumln D (1983) The Re ective Practitioner New York Basic BooksSelznick P (1966) TVA and the Grass Roots New York H arper and RowShannon M A (1990) Building trust the formation of a social contract In Com munity and

Forestry Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources edited by R G Lee D R Fieldand WR Burch pp 229ndash41 Boulder CO Westview Press

Shindler B and Nebruka J (1997) Public participation in forest planning 8 attributes of successJournal of Forestry 95 17ndash19

Smith-Korfmacher K (1996) Evaluating the National Estuary Program A Case Study of the A lbemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Doctoral Dissertation Durham NC Duke University

Stiftel B (1983) Dialogue does it increase participant knowledgeability and attitude con-gruence In Public Involvement and Social Impact A ssessment edited by GA Daneke MW Garcia and JD Priscoli Boulder CO Westview Press

Stone R and Levine A (1985) Reactions to collective stress Correlates of active citizen parti-cipation at Love Canal In Beyond the Individual Environmental A pproaches and Preventionpp 153ndash78 edited by A Wandersman and R H ess New York Haworth

Syme G J Seligman G and MacPherson D K (1989) Environmental planning and manage-ment A n introduction Journal of Social Issues 45 1ndash15

Thomas J C (1995) Public Participation in Public D ecisions San Francisco Jossey-BassThomas J C (1990) Public involvement in public management adapting and testing a borrowed

theory Public A dministration Review 50 435ndash45Tuler S (1996) Meanings Understandings and Interpersonal Relationships in Environmental

Policy Discourse Doctoral dissertation Worcester MA Environmental Science and PolicyProgram at Clark U niversity

US Environmental Protection A gency (1983) Com munity Relations in Superfund A Handbook Washington D C Of ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

US National Research Council (1996) Understanding R isk Informing Decisions in a DemocraticSociety Washington DC National A cademy Press

Vining J (1992) Environmental emotions and decisions A comparison of the responses andexpectations of forest managers an envorinmental group and the public Environment andBehavior 24 3ndash34

70 Webler

Vining J and Ebreo A (1992) A re you thinking what I think you are A study of actual andestimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers environmentalistsand the public Society and Natural Resources 4 177ndash96

Vroom V and Yetton P (1973) L eadership and Decisionmak ing Pittsburgh PA University ofPittsburgh Press

Vroom V and Jago A G (1978) On the validity of the VroomndashYetton model Journal of A ppliedPsychology 63 151ndash62

Webler T (1995) lsquoR ightrsquo discourse in public participation an evaluative yardstick In Fairnessand Com petence in Public Participation Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourseedited by O Renn T Webler and P Wiedermann pp 36ndash86 Boston Kluwer AcademicPress

Webler T (1997) Organizing public participation a critical review of three handbooks HumanEcology Review 3 245ndash54

Webler T Kastenholz H and Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment asocial learning perspective Environmental Impact A ssessment Review 15 443ndash63

Webler T Rakel H and Ross R JS (1992) A critical theoretic look at technical risk analysisIndustrial Crisis Quarterly 6 23ndash38


dialectical process between the practice and the theory of public participation shouldbe a central aim Successfully doing so would enhance and improve not only opportu-nities for publics of cials and scientists embroiled in participatory decision making toparticipate meaningfully in shaping public policies it would also improve the policiesthemselves

2 A brief overview of the literature

21 CA SE STU D IES

Most individualsrsquo rst encounter with the eld takes place amidst the montage of indi-vidual case studies that make up a vast portion of the public participation literatureSome of the classics in the eld are Philip Selznickrsquos study TVA and the G rass Roots(1966) Adeline Levinersquos (1982) case study of the Love Canal con ict and JaneMansbridgersquos Beyond A dversary D emocracy (1980) case studies of a Vermont townmeeting and a crisis intervention centre called lsquoHelplinersquo

These cases among others remain recommended readings because they succeed atbuilding explanations that have validity beyond the immediate contexts of which theywrite For example the events Levine described in the Love Canal con ict have beenrepeated in virtual identity in Superfund con icts across the country (Edelstein 1988)Mansbridgersquos descriptions of a cooperative workplace have been echoed by other studies(G astil 1993) Case studies such as these are extremely important to the developmentof theory For example Edelstein has produced a theory of environmental stigma basedin part on case studies (Edelstein 1987) Levinersquos analysis of the Love Canal con ictled to a theory of how activist organizations form (Stone and Levine 1985) andManbridgersquos work has been used to develop a theory of participatory democracy(Barber 1984)

Other researchers have made systematic comparisons of several case studies to extractimportant theoretical concepts as well as pragmatic lessons for public participation O neapplication of this approach is the work of A ronoff and G unter (1994) They drew onthe secondary literature from seven case studies and succeeded in identifying situa-tional factors that in uenced the performance of public participation

22 H ANDBOOKS FOR OR GANIZING CITIZEN PA RTICIPA TION

O ne of the most important segments of the literature on public participation are thehandbooks manuals and the guidebooks that instruct planners how to craft citizenparticipation programmes2 Few in number and often not as readily available as manyother publications these handbooks offer a wealth of knowledge to the eld (Bleikerand Bleiker 1995 Connor 1994 Creighton 1985 1991 1993 E nvironmental ResourcesManagement 1995 English et al 1993 U S Environmental Protection Agency 1983Farhar and Babiuch 1993 H owell O lsen and Olsen 1987 Thomas 1995 for a reviewof handbooks see Webler 1997) Many of these have not been peer-reviewed but were

56 Webler

2Many fewer in number are the handbooks that attempt to instruct citizens on how to participate effectively (Maynesand the Ontario Environment al Network 1989)





24 THEORY







58 Webler

















60 Webler



















62 Webler














64 Webler












4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler













24 THEORY







58 Webler

















60 Webler



















62 Webler














64 Webler












4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler













58 Webler

















60 Webler



















62 Webler














64 Webler












4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler

























60 Webler



















62 Webler














64 Webler












4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler



























62 Webler














64 Webler












4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler





















64 Webler












4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler




















4 Conclusion




Acknowledgements


66 Webler



References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler











References










































68 Webler











































70 Webler































68 Webler











































70 Webler



















































70 Webler









the craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process

Documents