Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover

Abstract

Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) are being used in increasing numbers to provide public input into environmental policy and management decisions. While there is a large body of literature consisting of guidelines for establishing and running CACs, the body of literature of empirical evaluations of CACs is markedly smaller. Fourteen empirical studies of CACs involved in environmental policy decisions (spanning the period from 1976 to 1994) are reviewed here, including case studies, large‐scale surveys, and consultant reports. For each study consideration is given to the methods of study, the issues considered by the CACs, the organizations advised, the definitions of success used in the study, and the suggested factors contributing to the success, or lack of success, experienced by the CACs. The review shows that the influence of CACs on policy outcomes have varied from case to case, with some accomplishing little and others having significant policy impacts. The increased use of CACs by government and industry presents an excellent opportunity for academics and practitioners to strengthen their understanding of the internal processes and capabilities of CACs through comparative evaluation research.

Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting

“…A citizen advisory panel, comprised of community members respected by and credible to their peers, can be an effective mechanism for gaining constructive public participation and dialogue about possible high-concern situations. 40 The intensity of emotions evoked by a bioterrorist event would predictably result in extreme levels of mental noise. In an unprepared context, communication could be virtually shut down.…”

On the state of the art: risk communication to the public

“…Also, the wide variety of approaches taken to stakeholder participation makes it difficult to identify which differences are responsible for an observed difference in outcomes. For example, Lynn and Busenbert (1995) review 14 empirical studies of CACs, but note that the wide diversity in the designs of CACs and the limited number of empirical studies to date make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. They recommend further research about "membership selection processes, the role of facilitators, the methods by which agendas are set..., the role of independent experts, methods by which a CAC can be held accountable to the public, methods of feedback from sponsor to CAC, and the purpose of CACs."…”

Achieving Millennium Development Goals for health: Building understanding, trust and capacity to respond

“…Participation by those at risk in health research projects has tended to be limited to the provision of solicited information about exposure to risk and health effects [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. However, the tide is turning towards more collaborative methods; a special issue of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) journal Environmental Health Perspectives dedicated to the future of environmental health research featured three articles on active collaborations between scientists and communities at risk that resonate with elements of our proposed process [43,44,45].…”