butterfly


A project of the EPA, Information Renaissance and the Environmental Law Institute

Libraries as a Community Resource for Environmental Information




 

Welcome


About this Event


Briefing Book


Join the Dialogue


Search the Site


Footnotes

 

  1. See GSA TWENTY-FIFTH ANN. REP. OF THE PRESIDENT ON FED. ADVISORY COMMITTEES at 1 (1997); see also Stephanie Smith, Federal Advisory Committees: Establishment and Cooperation, CRS Report for Congress, February 19, 1997; Michael Cardozo, The Federal Advisory Committee Act in Operation, 33 ADMIN. L. REV. 4 (1981); Michelle Nuskiewicz, Twenty Years of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: It's Time for Some Changes, 65 S. CAL. L. REV. 957 (1992).
  2. See Marcus E. Ethridge, Procedures for Citizen Involvement in Environmental Policy: An Assessment of Policy Effects, in CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING 115, 116 (Frank DeSario & Stuart Langton eds.,1987).
  3. See Daniel J. Fiorino, Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: A Critical Review, 14 COLUM. J. ENV. L. 501, 504 (1989).
  4. See id. at 524-25; see also ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 8 (1991).
  5. See generally Daniel J. Fiorino, Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: A Critical Review, 14 COLUM. J. ENV. L. 501, 504 (1989) (detailing a history of federal Agency public participation efforts).
  6. See, e.g., CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ' 9617(a).
  7. See JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 1-8 (1995); see also Marion Cox, Integrating Public Input into Environmental Decisions: How Far Have We Come?, 2 INTERACT: THE J. OF PUB. PARTICIPATION 35, 36 (1996).
  8. See Marion Cox, Integrating Public Input into Environmental Decisions: How Far Have We Come?, 2 INTERACT: THE J. OF PUB. PARTICIPATION 35, 36 (1996).
  9. See Dale J. Blahna & Susan Yonts-Shepard, Public Involvement in Resource Planning: Toward Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Implementation, 22 PUB. INVOLVEMENT IN RESOURCE PLAN 209, 211 (1989).
  10. See generally STUART LANGTON, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA (1978).
  11. See Paul Slovic, Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy, 13 RISK ANALYSIS 675, 680 (1993).
  12. Jack DeSario and Stuart Langton, Citizen Participation and Technocracy, in CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING 3, 11-13 (Jack DeSario & Stuart Langton eds., 1987).
  13. Various theories of democracy detail the public participation evolution. For example, the traditional approach to Agency decision-making has been described as a "politics-administration" dichotomy, whereby policies reflecting the will of the people are established by a governing body and agencies administer or implement these policies. In the past, public will has centered on influencing the political side of this dichotomy B leaving federal administrators to determine solely how to implement resulting policies. Similar to the politics-administration dichotomy, a pluralist approach to democracy has been described that involves groups or organizations representing and advocating member interests and who have some influence over policymakers. Direct participation theory, on the other hand, shifts the focus away from groups to the individual and advocates Agency policymaking that involves citizens or so-called "stakeholders." See Daniel J. Fiorino Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms, 15 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 226 (1990); see also Frank N. Laird, Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision-Making, 18 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 341, 352 (1993); Barbara Knuth, Weighting Stakes: Implications from the Citizen Task Force Approach; see also JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 16-18 (1995).
  14. Failures of poorly implemented stakeholder processes recognized in the literature include: inadequate representation of the surrounding demographic community; stakeholders that are essentially elite decision-makers; poorly informed participants; unbalanced representation; and inadequate technical and financial resources to participate effectively. See, e.g., JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 25-26 (1995). Researchers also recognize, however, the promises of well-run public involvement processes based on direct involvement, and that processes such as citizen advisory panels allow citizens to ask questions of Agency officials, challenge experts, explore and learn about issues in depth, and share values and concerns. See, e.g., Daniel J. Fiorino, Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms, 15 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 226, 228 (1990).
  15. See, e.g., Daniel J. Fiorino, Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms, 15 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 226, 228; see also Frank Laird, Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision-Making, 18 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 341, 351-53 (1993); Jeffrey M. Berry et al., Public Involvement in Administration: The Structural Determinants of Effective Citizen Participation,13 J. OF VOLUNTARY ACTION RES. 7, 17 (1984); Sherry R. Arnstein, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, 35 J. OF THE AM. INST. OF PLANNERS 216, 218-24 (1969).
  16. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740 (January 19, 1981).
  17. EPA's recent Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan includes initiatives intended Ato enhance stakeholder involvement activities across the Agency.@ EPA Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan at 3 (1998).
  18. People, Places, and Partnerships: A Progress Report on Community-Based Environmental Protection, EPA-100-R-97-003 (1997).
  19. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, REPORT OF THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE COUNCIL'S STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT WORK GROUP (1998); U.S. EPA, COMMUNITY CULTURAL PROFILING: UNDERSTANDING A COMMUNITY'S SENSE OF PLACE (Draft, 1998); SUZANNE GHAID ET AL., CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT RESOURCE GUIDE (1998) (pre-publication draft); U.S. EPA, BETTER DECISIONS THROUGH CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION: A MANUAL ON CONSULTATIVE PROCESSES AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT (1998) (pre-publication draft); Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes, Final Report, EPA-100-R-98-009 (September 1998).
  20. For example, the REPORT OF THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE COUNCIL'S STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT WORK GROUP at 17 (1998) concluded: AFurther guidance is needed on EPA's role and applicable techniques as a partner in decision-making and as capacity builder@; Id.at 79 ( AThe >capacity building' role is sufficiently new to EPA (except in the technical assistance area) that it may be helpful to provide additional information on capacity-building skills.@).
  21. See generally Paul Slovic, Perception of Risk, 236 SCIENCE 28 (1987); Harold Mendelsohn, Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Succeed, 14 PUB. OPINION Q. 50 (1973); NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, UNDERSTANDING RISK: INFORMING DECISIONS IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (1996).
  22. See Rosenbaum, Citizen Participation and Democratic Theory, in CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA 45 (Stuart Langton ed., 1978); see also Thomas A. Heberlein, Some Observations on Alternative Mechanisms for Public Involvement: The Hearing, Public Opinion, The Workshop, and The Quasi-Experiment, 16 NAT. RESOURCES J. 197, 198 (1976).
  23. See NATIONAL COMMISSION ON SUPERFUND, FINAL COMMISSION REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON SUPERFUND (1993).
  24. See UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CENTER, AN EPA/USDA PARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY-BASED EDUCATION, EPA 910-R-98-008 (1998).
  25. See NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, IMPROVING RISK COMMUNICATION 68-71 (1989).
  26. See JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 154-56 (1995) (discussing the importance of the role that ombudspersons can play in resolving citizens' concerns).
  27. See generally Marcus E. Ethridge, Procedures for Citizen Involvement in Environmental Policy: An Assessment of Policy Effects, in CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING 115, 116 (Frank DeSario & Stuart Langton eds.,1987); see generally MARY GRISEZ KWEIT & ROBERT W. KWEIT, IMPLEMENTING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN A BUREAUCRATIC SOCIETY(1981).
  28. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740, 5742 (1981) (recognizing hotlines as an important technique to aid dialogue between citizens and the Agency).
  29. See J.L. CREIGHTON, INVOLVING CITIZENS IN COMMUNITY DECISION-MAKING: A GUIDEBOOK 122-123 (1992) (discussing the benefits of hotlines and the various ways they can be set up).
  30. For example: the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791); the Acid Rain Hotline (202-564-9620); and the Asbestos Hotline (202-260-0490).
  31. CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. '9617(e).
  32. See 40 C.F.R. Part 35 (1998).
  33. See THE LOKA INSTITUTE, The Loka Institute (last modified June 2, 1999) <http://www.loka.org/>.
  34. See JOHN THOMAS CLAYTON, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 149-50 (1995) (noting that technical assistance grants, although many times helpful to citizens, do not solve the more systemic problems in public involvement); see also Clifford W. Scherer, Strategies for Communicating Risks to the Public, 45 FOOD TECHNOLOGY110, 113-114 (1991) (implying that when citizens are brought in late in the process and decisions have already been made, their understanding of the technical issues may not serve as a benefit).
  35. See generally MARY GRISEZ KWEIT & ROBERT W. KWEIT, IMPLEMENTING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN A BUREAUCRATIC SOCIETY (1981).
  36. Interviewees were quick to point out, however, that there is little point in receiving training for, or participating in, such processes unless communities are on equal footing with other stakeholders and have the potential to affect the outcome of the pending action. This concern is consistent with the capacity building impediment discussed below in section IV regarding stakeholders' lack of confidence that they can actually affect the substantive result.
  37. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740, 5742 (1981) (recognizing that workshops are an important technique for discussing the consequences of various alternative decisions or negotiating differences among diverse parties).
  38. See Thomas A. Heberlein, Some Observations on Alternative Mechanisms for Public Involvement: The Hearing, Public Opinion, The Workshop, and The Quasi-Experiment, 16 NAT. RESOURCES J. 197, 206-209 (1976).
  39. EPA's Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan (December 1998) recognizes the importance of the Agency creating project and program-specific guidance materials for citizens that will be broadly distributed.
  40. Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes, Final Report, EPA 100-R-98-009 at 4 (1998).
  41. See Marion Cox, Integrating Public Input Into Environmental Decisions: How Far Have We Come?, 2 INTERACT 46 (1995).
  42. See generally JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS (1995) (providing an overview of the history of public participation, challenges facing government agencies in involving citizens, and new mechanisms for citizen input).
  43. One approach, taken by EPA in the CBEP program, is to involve communities in creating long-term, overarching goals that determine the environmental health of their neighborhoods without requiring them to participate in every technical decision made on the path to achieving the established goals. This approach may allow community involvement in environmental decision-making without requiring that involvement to be tremendously time- and resource-intensive.
  44. See generally STEWART LANGTON, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA (1978).
  45. See, e.g., STEPHEN KELLERT & JOYCE BERRY, KNOWLEDGE, AFFECTATION, AND BASIC ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS IN SOCIETY 7 (1980) (merely providing information is inadequate to ensure informed input, and information must be tailored to address knowledge levels of specific audiences or segments of the public).
  46. See, e.g., Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes, EPA 100-R-98-009 at 4 (1998) (Anational environmental group staff often have the substantive expertise that citizen environmentalists lack . . . . pairing national and local environmental group direct participants also can improve technical resources available to local groups.@).
  47. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740, 5744 (1981) (stating that EPA's 1981 policy allows for outside organizations and individuals to receive funds for public participation activities which the Agency deems appropriate).
  48. See id. at 5741 (outlining the importance of providing policy, program, and technical information at places easily accessible to interested and affected persons and organizations).
  49. See 40 C.F.R. 124.10(c)(ix) (1997) (public notice of water permit actions).
  50. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740, 5741 (1981) (noting the importance of developing lists of persons and organizations that express interest or are affected by an Agency activity that can be used to send announcements of participation opportunities, notices of meetings, hearings, field trips and other events and notices of available reports and documents).
  51. Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permits, 40 CFR '124.10(c)(1)(ix); Federal Operating Permit Programs under the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR '71.11(d)(3)(i)(E).
  52. See, e.g., 40 CFR '124.10(c)(1)(ix).
  53. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740 (1981) (stating that the purpose of EPA's 1981 policy on public participation is to create a strong Agency policy and consistent procedures to make it easier for the public to become involved and affect the outcome of the Agency's decisions).
  54. See Dale J. Blahna & Susan Yonts-Shepard, Public Involvement in Resource Planning: Toward Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Implementation, 22 PUB. INVOLVEMENT IN RESOURCE PLAN. 209, 211 (1989).
  55. This view is consistent with the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council's (NEJAC) Model Plan for Public Participation which recognizes that citizens should be assured that their contribution will influence an Agency's decision and that they will be informed regarding how their input was, or was not, used. Plan at 5.
  56. See Jeffrey M. Berry et al., Public Involvement in Administration: The Structural Determinants of Effective Citizen Participation, 13 J. OF VOLUNTARY ACTION RESEARCH 7, 9 (1984).
  57. See generally Cheryl S. King et al., The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration, 58 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 317 (1998) (discussing the deficiencies of conventional participation mechanisms); T.F. YOSIE and T.D. HERBST, USING STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING: AN EVALUATION OF LESSONS LEARNED, KEY ISSUES, AND FUTURE CHALLENGES 10-15 (1998).
  58. EPA has recognized this problem in its Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan: Athere is not always an understanding of the type of stakeholder involvement that is most appropriate in a particular situation . . . .@ Plan at 1.
  59. The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council's Model Plan for Public Participation states that citizens should be involved in defining their role in the process of public participation. Model Plan for Public Participation at 5.
  60. See JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 93-136 (1995) (discussing the importance of determining the degree to which the public is involved in decision-making and the selection of techniques by which to pursue that involvement).
  61. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the CSI STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT WORKING GROUP REPORT (at 9) and the EVALUATION OF PROJECT XL STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES (at 2-3), EPA 100-R-98-009 (1998).
  62. EPA has recognized in its Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan that it is difficult to recruit stakeholders for some activities because of the large time and resource commitment necessary for effective participation in these activities. Plan at 1. see also Evaluation of Project XL Stakeholder Processes, EPA 100-R-98-009 (1998).
  63. See JULIET B. SCHOR, THE OVERWORKED AMERICAN 28-32 (1991) (stating that work hours increased 163 hours per year, or the equivalent of an extra month a year, between 1969-1987).
  64. See Cheryl S. King et al., The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration, 58 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 317, 322 (1998); see generally T.F. YOSIE and T.D. HERBST, USING STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING: AN EVALUATION OF LESSONS LEARNED, KEY ISSUES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES (1998).
  65. This observation is consistent with other research findings that Acitizens usually want to be involved only when they have strong feelings on an issue or when a decision will affect them directly.@ JOHN CLAYTON THOMAS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC DECISIONS: NEW SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGERS 56 (1995).
  66. See 5 U.S.C. ''553b-553c; see also Susan Casey-Lefkowitz et. al., Country Report on Public Participation, 4th PAN-EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTERS CONFERENCE (1998).
  67. See generally Cheryl S. King et al., The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration, 58 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 317 (1998); see generally T.F.YOSIE & T.D. HERBST, USING STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING: AN EVALUATION OF LESSONS LEARNED, KEY ISSUES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES 17-34 (1998) (discussing methods to engender effective participation processes).
  68. See Final EPA Policy on Public Participation, 46 Fed. Reg. 5740, 5745 (1981) (specifying that Regional Administrators should annually evaluate public participation activities of the states and localities and work with them to improve their processes as necessary).
  69. See U.S. EPA, REPORT OF THE COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE COUNCIL'S STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT WORK GROUP at 9 (1998).
  70. EPA Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan at 1 (1998).
  71. EPA's Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan recognizes that although there is no Aone-size-fits-all@ approach to stakeholder involvement, Agency-wide principles can provide useful guidance to those planning stakeholder involvement activities. Plan at 3.
  72. EPA's CBEP Program is a step toward establishing a strategic, Agency-wide approach to capacity building, in that it is intended to apply to all Agency programs and help communities develop the tools and capacity to be stewards of their resources.
  73. EPA's CBEP Program recognizes the important role that EPA Regional offices play in working with communities. As explained in the CBEP Framework document, the Regional offices may provide hands-on, substantial assistance to stakeholders within designated priority locations, including placing Agency employees within a community, or providing funding, technical assistance, and/or data and information.
  74. EPA could consider expanding its current efforts to employ community profiling techniques (which have been adopted through the CBEP program) to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the social dynamics involved in capacity building. This technique can be used to determine such things as local knowledge about particular issues, key subgroups within the community that influence these issues, historical trends in natural resources use, and other social factors. Also, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council has emphasized the importance of regionalizing materials to ensure cultural sensitivity and relevance. Model Plan for Public Participation at 7.
Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Overview III. Approaches
IV. Impediments V. Observations VI. Next Steps Appendix

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Search the Site