Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation

Abstract

There is a growing call for greater public involvement in establishing science and technology policy, in line with democratic ideals. A variety of public participation procedures exist that aim to consult and involve the public, ranging from the public hearing to the consensus conference. Unfortunately, a general lack of empirical consideration of the quality of these methods arises from confusion as to the appropriate benchmarks for evaluation. Given that the quality of the output of any participation exercise is difficult to determine, the authors suggest the need to consider which aspects of the process are desirable and then to measure the presence or quality of these process aspects. To this end, a number of theoretical evaluation criteria that are essential for effective public participation are specified. These comprise two types: acceptance criteria, which concern features of a method that make it acceptable to the wider public, and process criteria, which concern features of the process that are liable to ensure that it takes place in an effective manner. Future research needs to develop instruments to measure these criteria more precisely and identify the contextual and environmental factors that will mediate the effectiveness of the different participation methods.

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

“…Despite the increasing application of participatory approaches in many areas of environmental research and practice, it is often argued that there is little evidence of their expected benefits, particularly regarding social learning, adoption, and empowerment (Cleaver, 1999;Rowe and Frewer, 2000;Newig and Fritsch, 2009). This criticism points to the need for incorporating evaluation mechanisms in the participatory protocols (Armah et al, 2009;Von Korff et al, 2012).…”

“…Frameworks have been developed to evaluate public participation processes (e.g., Rowe and Frewer, 2000), participatory integrated assessment (e.g., Salter et al, 2010), and the application of participatory research processes (e.g., Blackstock et al, 2007), which provide insight into the essential elements of a participatory environmental assessment. Accordingly, a variety of participatory methods and tools have been developed over the last decades (see for example van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002) and have been increasingly incorporated into decision-making and integrated assessment in land and water management programs (e.g., Mostert, 2003;Salter et al, 2010).…”

“…For example, while stakeholder engagement and empowerment are often cited attributes of participatory processes, there is little evidence of the effectiveness of participation regarding empowerment, little acknowledgement of the many barriers to effective engagement, and very rare evaluation of engagement protocols (Carter, 2010;Cleaver, 1999). Similarly, while the main expected outcome from participation is mutual learning, which in turn is expected to lead to better informed decisions and better acceptance of decisions (von Korff et al, 2012), the learning-approach that underpins the participatory process is often poorly conceptualized, and the efficacy of participatory protocols with respect to learning is rarely evaluated (Huitema et al, 2010;Newig and Fritsch, 2009;Rowe and Frewer, 2000). There is therefore a need for participatory protocols that clearly define the pathway that leads to effective stakeholder engagement and mutual learning, and provide the mechanisms that allow the evaluation of the participatory process and outcomes.…”

A roadmap for gene drives: using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context

“…Other groups have since made this point: that participants within the action arena should include members of the communities in and surrounding gene drive deployment, not just outside parties such as government, academic, or industry representatives that are releasing organisms with gene drives (NASEM 2016). Public involvement and engagement can come in many forms, including education campaigns, direct voting, public comment periods, town hall meetings, focus groups, consensus conferences, and widespread national dialogues (Rowe and Frewer 2000). Goals include educating the public, incorporating local knowledge into expert decisionmaking, increasing legitimacy and trust, respecting procedural ethics in line with a democratic decision-making, building capacity for future engagement in science and technology, and improving the quality of decisions (NASEM 2016).…”

Public participation for bulk water charge: Paraíba River Basin Committee (Brazil) and Alentejo Hydrographic Region Council (Portugal) cases study

“…The different types of participation have been developed to understand the differences between the approaches and the associated methods and to understand the contexts in which they are more appropriate. Among the types of participation, the literature contains: Typology based on different degrees of participation (ARNSTEIN 1969;GOETZ;GAVENTA, 2001;LAWRENCE, 2006); Typology presented as a wheel of participation (DAVIDSON, 1998;FREWER, 2000); Typology based on a theoretical framework: rules and/or pragmatic participation (THOMAS, 1993;BEIERLE, 2002) and Typology based on the objectives for which participation is used (TIPPETT; HANDLEY; RAVETZ, 2007). Reed (2008) points out that these types can be used a priori to choose the type of desired participation or can be used post-hoc, to categorize the type of participation that occurred.…”