This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Rosemary F James1 and Russell K Blamey2
Paper presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management Brisbane, Australia 7 - 10 July 1999
Introduction There are many methods of and opportunities for public participation3 in environmental decision-making in Australia. The emphasis in this paper is on methods of public participation in environmental decision-making which lie outside the normal representative political process, having stronger foundations in participatory democracy. In particular, the potential of discursive and deliberative forms of participatory democracy to provide alternative approaches to public participation in environmental management is discussed. One particular method, the citizens' jury, is considered in some detail and key methodological issues concerned with the application of the method are discussed. The paper is structured as follows. The role of public participation in environmental management is considered in the next section, including a brief overview of the notion of participatory democracy. Typologies of participation are considered in the next section, along with the nature of public participation in national park planning in New South Wales. Deliberative forms of public participation are then introduced, and some of the key methodological issues pertaining to the conduct of citizens' juries are identified, and discussed at length. Some brief conclusions are drawn.
The role of public participation in environmental management The history of participation in development projects is perhaps longer and more diverse than that of participation in conservation and environmental matters, and may thus be informative to consider. Participatory approaches were first discussed in the
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University and CRC for Weed Management Systems. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 2 Urban and Environmental Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University 3 In the context of this paper, public participation is used to mean "...active involvement of people in making decisions about the implementation of processes, programmes and projects which affect them." (Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer 1995, p3).
development literature in the late 1950s; failures of development projects were in many cases attributed to inadequacies of project design and implementation, as a consequence of insufficient involvement by local populations (Rahnema, 1992). This view is expressed in much of the development and conservation literature, and relies in the main on the premises that the quality of the project design and/or stakeholder support for the project will be reduced if effective participation has not occurred (see, for example, Davis-Case, 1989). The more recent involvement of communities in conservation-related projects in less developed countries, dating from the mid-1980s, including those focusing on sustainable development, derives from a similar basis - the emerging realisation that conservation projects operating in a manner, or with objectives, unacceptable or unimportant to local people will have reduced chances of success (see, for example, Pimbert and Pretty, 1997). More recently, inclusion of the views of those potentially affected by development projects has been seen not merely as a task to be undertaken in order to reduce project failure, but as a necessity on ethical grounds. There is an emerging trend to recognise the need for empowerment of communities so they may participate in decisions which affect them (Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer, 1995). Hence it appears that two bases are commonly used in justifying public participation in development and conservation projects in less developed countries. Firstly, that the project will fail or at the least meet with reduced success, if all the relevant stakeholders do not participate effectively. Secondly, that the stakeholders have a right to be involved. As Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer (1995, p. 11) note, "central to these approaches is the belief that ordinary people are capable of critical reflection and analysis and that their knowledge is relevant and necessary." The emergence of interest in public participation in decision-making in developed countries has been well-documented by Webler and Renn (1995). The authors note the surge of public interest in environmental matters in the 1970s, and the subsequent legal provision of various means of public access to government decision-making. Theoretical basis The theoretical basis for public participation lies largely with participatory democracy, which, in simple literal terms, means 'rule by the people'. Chekki (1979, xiii) refers to participatory democracy as "all acts of citizens that are intended to influence the behaviour of those empowered to make the decisions". Participatory democracy thus involves decentralised or dispersed forms of decision-making and the direct involvement of amateurs in the making of decisions (Cook and Morgan, 1971). Associated with the dispersion of power is the notion of community empowerment. Empowerment involves self-perceptions of competence associated with an active engagement in one's community and an understanding of one's sociopolitical environment. Rather than taking the external environment as a given, empowered individuals learn how to exert greater control over it4
Empowerment implies involvement of members of the community in the development, implementation and evaluation of interventions. Professionals tend to work with members of the community as 'coequal
It is noteworthy that only the use of methods falling into the last three categories of the typology would potentially lead to participatory democracy. The former refers to mutual cooperation between nonexpert citizens and trained experts and a form of joint decision-making. participation of the public is functionally and morally central to democracy. Community dependence on these professionals is reduced by providing opportunities for members of the community to develop the skills necessary to carry out tasks. time and means for deliberation. By contrast. information. Typologies of participation As noted earlier. the stages of the project life cycle at which it should be employed. For example. 1995). Various typologies of public participation have been published in recent years. however. and Cornwall (1996). and a method by which to reliably transmit the results of that deliberation to decision-makers.(Zimmerman. including those presented by Biggs (1989). there is relatively little published material available regarding methods of public participation in environmental decision-making in Australia and evaluations of the effectiveness of such participation. which is of relevance to developed countries also. the level of power with regard to the decision-making process which should be afforded to the participants and the methods which may be appropriate under different circumstances. 3 . 1995). definition and communication of the public will requires. Many agencies involved in natural resource management. the development. The key features of the classification. Under the tenets of participatory democratic theory. In particular. A common distinction in participatory democracy is between co-determination models and self-determination models. in their examination of participation in conservation projects in less developed countries. The application of public participation methods will not necessarily satisfy principles of participatory democracy. are detailed in Table 2. as noted by Webler and Renn (1995). Gujit (1996) cited a number. One which is of particular relevance in this context is that presented by Pimbert and Pretty (1997) . Their role is one of facilitation and support. Hart (1992). include public participation of various types in their decisionmaking processes. Some of the foundations which have been used to support participatory democratic theory and hence public participation in government decisionmaking are summarized in Table 1. This literature addresses issues such as the purposes to which participation may be put. The necessary partners' (Zimmerman. Stiefel and Wolfe (1994). at the least. The latter refers to the complete autonomy of citizens in decision-making (Chekki 1979). there is an extensive literature on the effective use of public participation in development and conservation projects in less developed countries. Pimbert and Pretty (1997) list some 30 participatory methods and approaches. as described by some of the authors cited in Table 1. Public participation is seen as essential to advise decision-makers adequately of community needs and preferences. however. Community development is a classic example of an empowering form of participatory democracy.
and . . such as management planning for national parks. public participation is limited to the capacity to provide comments on a draft plan. and on the extent of legislative support for participation. . formulation of policy and law. Both typologies are arranged on the basis of the level of power accorded to the participants. Brunton et al.conditions – information. as the terms are employed in the typology. rights to force a Government agency to take action. including: . rights to seek review of decisions. The examples provided serve to illustrate the lack of opportunity for the public deliberation on the environmental issues under consideration. Some examples of these are shown in Table 4. on the stage of the project cycle at which participation occurs. The participation classification developed by Pimbert and Pretty in relation to conservation projects corresponds with that documented by Arnstein (1969). (1996) provided a brief classification of public participation in environmental protection and planning law in Australia based on the form of participation employed. a common basis for such classifications. Perhaps the most significant failings of this approach to public participation are that those with vested interests are more likely to become involved. Even this capacity. 4 . Taberner. is subject to stringent constraints. It is here that some of the more deliberative and representative forms of public participation may have something to offer. the ability to bring court proceedings to prevent contravention of the rights to participation. The presumed advantages and disadvantages of the approach are considered briefly in Table 5. . and it fails to provide any means by which conflicting views on the allocation of the park's physical resources and/or the most appropriate modes of management can be resolved. participants are often ill-informed. In key areas of environmental management. there are a number of potential shortcomings associated with the method used to seek public participation in the formulation of national park management plans in the case examined. rights of notification or access to information. The typology developed by Pimbert and Pretty encompasses the types of public participation most commonly used in Australia. Ramsay and Rowe (1995) noted that public participation in environmental decision-making in Australia could occur at a number of stages. Clearly. time and means for deliberation. and subsequently much-cited. The points of equivalence are summarized in Table 3. as is noted in the accompanying text box. For example. It is clear that this approach to public participation in park management planning is only one of several modes available. which was based primarily on urban development and welfare programs in the United States. Alternative classifications can be envisaged based on the participatory methodologies employed. and a method to communicate the results of the deliberation to decision-makers – are potentially associated only with functional and interactive participation and self-mobilisation.
. (This body comprises 15 representatives of various community groups and interests and the Director-General). for at least one month. makes points . (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service... then. Instructions accompanying a plan recently available for comment include the following: . which are then submitted by the Director-General to the responsible Minister for consideration. . .7 % of the area of the state (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service 1998).. Under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974).. that were considered during plan preparation.. a plan of management is required to be prepared for each national park.. ' the draft plan of management will not be amended if your submission: .' (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service 1999) 5 .. the Council prepares recommendations regarding the draft plan. the Director-General (the senior civil servant) of the NSW NPWS gives notice that a draft plan of management has been prepared. . which details the future management of the area concerned.. the plan is made available for public comment. ...8 m ha. covering an area of 3. The plan of management is a legally binding document. These areas fall under the responsibility of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS). The planning process is briefly as follows: . not consistent with existing legislation or Government policy). 1998) The public. This represents approximately 4. The Minister may either adopt the plan or refer it back to the Director-General and the Council for further consideration.. As at 30 June 1998. contributes options that are not feasible (for example. the draft plan and copies of all representations received from the public are referred to the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council for consideration. and through the community representatives on the Advisory Council. plans of management were in force for 72 of the state's 103 national parks. has the opportunity for participation by two means – by submission when the plan is made available for comment. however. Public participation in national park management planning in New South Wales The state of New South Wales contains some 103 national parks. .. There are explicit limitations placed on the former mode of participation.
Dryzek's (1990) discursive theory has stronger roots in Habermasian critical theory (Dryzek pers comm. Deliberative democracy can be defined as "the idea that legitimate lawmaking issues from the public deliberation of citizens" (Bohnian and Rehg. 6 . 1997). deliberative. According to Christiano (1997). 1997). According to Bohman (1997. and the extent that they can be expected to be satisfied in practice. In simple terms. apathetic and manipulable (Bohnian and Rehg. equal and consensual. in terms of a) direct moral or 5 Whilst deliberative and discursive democracy are similar and tend to be used interchangeably. democracy is participatory democracy in which reason. Deliberative democracy views the political process as involving more than rational self-interested competition governed by bargaining and social choice mechanisms (Bohnian and Rehg. The four ideals of deliberative democracy are thus that it is free. reasoned disagreement is considered more realistic (Dryzek. Schumpeter (1943. argument and deliberation have primacy over intuition5.The deliberative alternative Whilst it is generally acknowledged that participatory democracy will often stimulate information acquisition and various degrees of deliberation. What is meant by each of these principles. Deliberative democracy can be contrasted with other forms of democracy such as elite theory in political sociology and the economic theory of democracy. 1999). there are three ways that public deliberation can be seen to be of value. Blaug. 1997). Structural requirements. bargaining and exchange. the theory has commonalities with elite theory in so far as voting is seen as the primary form of democratic control and the political process is characterised by conflict. "deliberation is democratic. pertaining to the circumstances in which society is organised and the nature of the participatory mechanism. has been the subject of much discussion. First. to the extent that it is based on a process of reaching reasoned agreement among free and equal citizens". or discursive. this tends not to be the emphasis. Individuals are seen to be capable of acting as citizens rather than consumers. For example. whilst discursive democracy strives for consensus. p321). The past couple of decades have seen renewed interest in deliberative forms of participatory democracy. citizens in modern democracies are politically uninformed. 1990). it may produce valuable outcomes. reasoned. Governance is hence best left to leadership elites with the scope of democracy restricted to the election of these leaders. rather than public reasoning. Deliberative democracy clearly requires that citizens are psychologically willing and able to construct and publicly express their own reasons. and consider those expressed by others (Bohman. According to elite theory. 1997). are additional. p251) in his seminal work on elite theory argued that consensual outcomes reflecting the common good cannot be reached due to "irreducible differences of ultimate values which compromise could only maim and degrade". Whilst a more rational notion of the citizen is advanced by Down's (1957) economic theory of democracy.
Almost simultaneously. the final report of the jury includes an evaluation of the process by the jurors. Participation in public deliberation may thus represent part of the 'good life'. a form of participatory democracy that emphasises deliberative processes is outlined. thus the panel meets most usually for 2-4 days. planning cells and deliberative polls. Finally. information is presented to the panel by witnesses who represent divergent viewpoints. . . . consensus conferences. b) greater legitimacy resulting from greater understanding and consensus. . . the panel members are allowed time to consider the matter adequately. the panel members are paid. . independently of the issues under deliberation. Some recent applications are summarised in Table 6. . The citizens' jury method has since been used in many parts of the world and in many different types of application. the charge should be clear and concise. and the need for participatory approaches that are deliberative and empowering. . The methods include citizens' juries. the process of deliberation may have intrinsic value to the extent that it promotes self-esteem. and certainly independently. and . The principal features of the method. Second. The foundations common to all are concerns regarding the failure of representative democracy to provide adequate consideration of the views of the public. Peter Dienel in Germany and Ned Crosby in the United States developed similar techniques for deliberative decision-making by members of the public on matters of public policy significance. method. 7 . . or planning cell. public deliberation may facilitate political justification in the sense that it can be argued that such processes are more defensible than some others. mutual respect and so on. . the jury is given a specific charge to examine.non-moral consequences of decisions. 1996) are briefly as follow: . and c) the creation of a more socially aware and virtuous citizenry. The planungszelle. The method which is of immediate interest in this work is the citizens' jury. The citizen's jury In developed countries. In the next section. selection bases may be demographic. the process is facilitated. attitudinal or both. as detailed in Crosby (1991. 1996) ). was developed in Germany in 1969 and the citizens' jury method was developed in 1971 (Crosby. the panel is selected either randomly or by use of stratified random sampling. the panel members have sufficient time to deliberate on and review all their findings and recommendations. over the last 30 years there has been growing interest in a group of public participation methods grounded in deliberative democracy. the topic should be one which serves the general public interest and not sectional interests.
In addition. Global campaigns are now waged against unsustainable harvesting of tropical timbers and tuna fisheries which are not considered 'dolphin-safe'. The method will shortly be trialled on a matter concerning national park management in New South Wales. For example. Nonetheless. for example. . Jury selection There are two aspects of jury selection: the identification of the population from which the sample will be drawn.Consideration of this method in comparison with that currently employed in. Methodological issues Whilst the technique has been in use since the early 1970s. In spite of the potential impact of this aspect of the process on the outcomes from citizens' juries. however. Hence the constituency relevant to a particular citizens' jury charge may alter rapidly. the finalisation of management plans for national parks in New South Wales. participants are given access to all information they require in order to consider the issue. 8 . participants deliberate in a group and thus the approach mimics the usual processes of societal learning and decision-making. rather than by a strategically planned and incremental research agenda. Hence the refinement of the technique has been largely driven by experiences and events at each of the applications. leads to identification of a number of advantages. a number of key methodological issues can be identified from the literature. participants are able to reflect as citizens on the issue. and some comments on them. as noted by Smith and Wales (1999a). follow. and that the population selected will. and the method of selection of the sample. on a diversity of topics. the population to be sampled can be defined as that which would be subject to clear impact by the decision on the charge. and in the process of finalisation of the application a number of methodological issues have been identified. This may be in part be due to the dynamic nature of the sphere of interest for particular issues. if the topic is of sufficient interest. These are discussed in the following section. such use has been limited and individual applications have not been conducted under conditions to which statistical analysis can be applied. the matter has received little attention in the literature to date. be determined by the nature and scale of the problem. . The perceived advantages of this method include the following: . These. applications of the technique have been conducted in widely disparate social and cultural settings. • Identification of the relevant population It is clear that the population to be sampled should relate closely to the issue to be considered. use of the Internet and other forms of media in environmental campaigns in recent years has served to broaden the constituency of the environmental activists rapidly and effectively. participants have time and opportunity to consider the issue adequately. and . In general.
This issue of representativeness is a key concern in the selection of the panel. if the participants are clearly advised that they are to deliberate as citizens with collective interests rather than as representatives for particular sectional interests. and participants are encouraged to consider the issue at hand from a societal rather than a sectional viewpoint. and should therefore be selected not only on the basis of demographic criteria but also on the basis of attitude to the issue on which the panel will deliberate. and propose the use of the term 'inclusiveness' instead of 'representativeness'. Crosby (1991) considers that the jury members should be a microcosm of the society from which they come. the cells each contain 25 members (Smith and Wales. The idea of artificial constituencies also arises. The jury is. and Aldred and Jacobs (1997). as Smith and Wales (1999a) ask. For example. the use of stratified random sampling appears essential. in Crosby's model. and the basis for the choice of selection method lies in the logical underpinning of the technique. however. A decision must be made whether to use a random sample or a stratified random sample. 9 . given the low numbers involved in citizens' juries. If one is assuming that the panel is to represent the entire community. In addition to the increased inclusiveness resulting from replication (up to 20 replications have been reported). This is one of the central issues of the process. It could be taken to imply that representatives of sectional groups are unable to deliberate as citizens and are instead expected to act as representatives of those sectional groups6. is reported by Smith and Wales to use the former approach.• Sample selection The dominant focus in the literature has been on the method of selection of the jury from the target population. The authors posit that there is a conflict between representation and democratic deliberation. As the basis for the citizens' jury process lies in deliberative democracy. Dienel. 6 On the other hand. However. at the practical level of an individual citizens' jury. however. the use of demographic data in selection of the strata may be unnecessary. a degree of representativeness can be expected to result from the fact that the planning cells are replicated simultaneously and/or in series. This need not be so. then stratified random sampling on some basis is required. proportionally representative of the community as a whole. Crosby (1991). Smith and Wales (1999a) raise some interesting points in relation to the use of stratified random sampling. Examples of this approach are provided in Jefferson Center (1989). Given the lower number of participants in citizens' juries and the usual practice of running only a single jury on a topic. in the conduct of planning cells in Germany. are all elderly jurors expected to represent all other elderly citizens? These authors also raise the practical difficulty that no small sample can adequately represent all the societal dimensions. 1999a). different demographic groups may simply have different ways of conceptualising issues. The basis for jury selection has varied in the applications examined.
Both open-ended and more specific charges were used. Nature of the topic and wording of the charge The nature of the topic and the wording of the specific charge placed before the jury are key matters in determining the effectiveness of the process and the capacity of the panel to reach a decision . the absence of an explicit basis for jury selection would be even more troubling and would leave the results of the process open to question by groups and individuals concerned with the outcome. Aldred and Jacobs. 1991). This is based not on the grounds of statistical validity. Sequencing of activities The key task of the panel is to reach a considered verdict regarding the charge. Clearly the duration should reflect the complexity of the charge and the volume and complexity of material to be presented to the panel. Crosby 1996. for example. principally those provided by Crosby (1991. based on their experience in running two juries on the same topic.' (Crosby. Whilst there may questions regarding the assumptions underlying the design of the strata. The charge should be 'short. From assessment of published reports of citizens' juries. it is clear that the topic must be sufficiently complex and interesting to engage all the panel throughout the jury process. the following appear to be essential elements for successful operation for a jury. Reports in the literature suggest durations of 4 days in general (see. These include aspects related directly to the task and those related to the development of a suitable set of relationships and of a mode of interacting between the panel members themselves and the panel and the facilitator and witnesses. 1995). but with different approaches to the wording of the charge. The charge generally consists of a statement of the central issue and several derived questions which the jurors should address (Crosby. with the latter proving more effective. 1996) and Aldred and Jacobs (1997). in contrast to proportional representation. there appear to be a number of essential elements in the jury process. it was made clear that a jury would not be sufficiently absorbed by the topic to consider it over the two day period envisaged. as the low sample size and lack of replication of the process exclude the use of inferential statistics. In focus groups run recently by the authors to examine the proposed citizens' jury on weed control on a particular national park. but on the basis of what Coote and Lenaghan (1997) refer to as symbolic representation. regarding the inclusiveness of the process.In spite of these difficulties.. Coote and Lenaghan (1997) provide guidance on appropriate wording of the charge. 1997). there would appear to be no better basis for jury selection than the use of stratified random sampling. In addition. In order to accomplish this. direct and clear. Duration of the process Crosby (1991) suggested that the process could run from 10 hours to 10 days. and from development of the process to be followed in a forthcoming citizens' jury. 10 .
sufficient time for informal development of operating relationships within the group. and . and . 16 (Aldred and Jacobs. or unequal allocations of time for presentation by the witnesses may result in allegations of bias. clarification of procedural issues regarding the process.Group dynamics and jury operation . Crosby (1991) advises that witnesses should be selected to represent differing viewpoints. development of questions for specific witnesses. It should be noted that the sequence of these elements and the frequency and duration of each can be expected to vary widely across juries. development of jury questions regarding the charge. to govern the behaviour of members towards each other (Smith and Wales (1999a) use the term 'rules of conduct'). consideration of written and oral material presented by witnesses. 1991). presentations by the witnesses. 1989). Smith and Wales (1999a) refer to the need to ensure that the informed decision-making anticipated from a citizens' jury does not become manipulated decision-making.1997) to 24 (Jefferson Centre. whilst at the same time being cognisant of the difficulties posed by management of large groups with a single facilitator. To this point one could add that the jury should be able to be certain that it has had access to all 11 . . explicit development of a set of operating rules for the jury. by increasing the opportunity for all panel members to participate. Selection of the witnesses The selection of appropriate witnesses is a potential source of conflict in juries where the topic is contentious. Smith and Wales (1999a) note that the small size of the jury appears to facilitate the deliberative process. . evaluation of the process. familiarisation with the charge. . two of the most critical features in the design and operation of a citizens' jury would appear to be the design of a schedule which can permit variation during the process of the jury. Size of the jury Jury sizes reported in the literature range from 12 (Crosby. and the selection of a facilitator who is similarly able to respond to emerging group requirements. These activities may occur either in plenary sessions or in smaller groups which report back to the larger group. Jury process . In determination of the panel size. Imbalances in the number of witnesses presented from each side of the issue. Accordingly. The panel size should be small enough to ensure adequate opportunity for participation. . preparation of the response to the charge. consideration needs to be given to the need to maximise inclusiveness on demographic and attitudinal grounds. . .
One would anticipate strong reactions and limited deliberation on the charge from a jury which suspected that the witnesses provided had been selected to favour a particular viewpoint and the addition of a provision for the panel to summon witnesses would to some extent allay those concerns. 7 A consensus conference is in effect an extended citizens' jury. and a neutral expert could be present during the jury process to provide clarification and advice to the panel on technical matters. . under the auspices of the Australian Consumers' Association. Crosby (1991). .required witnesses. Crosby (1995) discussed this issue at some length and concluded a discovery process (as employed in the legal system) might be used for written material. be a good listener. Coote and Lenaghan (1997) and Smith and Wales (1999a) advocate the allocation of free time towards the end of the jury schedule in order to allow the panel to call any additional witnesses it may require. One of the key differences between the two techniques is the far greater role of the panel in developing the key question or charge in a consensus conference. 1999. . These include the following. the benefits may be significant in terms of both jury faith in the integrity of the process and of enhanced deliberative capacity. but a number of key characteristics are identified in the literature on focus groups. In addition. have a demonstrated capacity to manage groups. Whilst this may provide some organisational difficulties. There is little discussion in the literature on the characteristics of effective facilitators for citizens' juries. Facilitation As noted earlier. lasting in this case 3 days plus two prior weekends. 12 . This particular consensus conference was conducted from March 10-12. The facilitator should : . and witnesses may not always be available. have a basic knowledge of the topic (Krueger 1989). Accuracy of information provided by the witnesses One of the criticisms which has been levelled regarding the recently-conducted consensus conference in Australia7 is that there was no mechanism for correction of factual errors in the material presented by witnesses. It is clear that there needs to be some type of mechanism which allows for correction of factual inaccuracies in material presented by the witnesses. the choice of facilitator is considered a critical element in the successful conduct of a citizens' jury. the facilitator should be sufficiently empowered by the commissioning agency that she/he can assume a clear position of authority in the minds of the jurors in relation to jury procedural matters. on the topic of Gene Technology in the Food Chain. be a good communicator. amongst other authors. This applied both to written and oral material. Information on the technique can be found in Grundahl (1995). This is noted as a potential issue by Smith and Wales (1999b).
and . Bias It is critical to the success of the individual citizens' jury itself. 1989). 1995. 1997). The decision rule The general expectation is that the jury will reach a consensual agreement. . greater or lesser presentation skills on the parts of the witnesses. 1999b). In the former.) . Smith and Wales. behaviour of the associated staff (Jefferson Center. framing of the charge (Armour. differences in the complexity of arguments used by the witnesses. consensus. Facilitators with prior experience in running focus groups should be made aware of the differences between focus groups and citizens' juries. 1997). . 1995. 1999b). Bias in this sense is used to indicate imbalance of some type in the process of the citizens' jury. (The references cited are some of those in which the presence of this source of bias was either explored or identified. Adoption of the result Indications from the focus groups conducted recently in order to structure the proposed citizens' jury on weed control in national parks were that few people would participate unless they were certain that the results of the citizens' jury would be used by the relevant 13 . whilst desirable. such that a particular outcome is rendered more likely as a consequence of structural features of the citizens' jury application. However. witness selection (Armour. 1989). Sources of bias in this sense may originate from the following. Many of these sources of bias can be controlled through the design of the process of the individual citizens' jury. rather than being determined solely by the panel's considered views regarding the issue. It should be stressed to them that the purposes of the two methods are quite different. background material presented to the panel (Aldred and Jacobs. unequal access by witnesses to the panel (Jefferson Center. Smith and Wales (1999b) noted the need for the panel to be allowed space to work through disagreements regarding the decision on the charge. . behaviour of the facilitator. . . Smith and Wales. panel selection (Smith and Wales. 1999a). the intention is to extract information on the views of the participants. and the need to guard against facilitators who seek to push for consensus in advance of the group resolving differences of opinion. . 1997).To these characteristics should be added that of possession of an understanding of the philosophical basis of citizens' juries and an intention and capacity to comply with the protocol for the jury as determined by the commissioning agency. . whereas in the second the intention is to assist the participants in deliberating an issue (Coote and Lenaghan. to the adoption of the results and to the further development of the technique that a citizens' jury should be as free from bias as possible. is not essential to the process (Coote and Lenaghan.
and that the charge be structured so as to ensure that adoption of the outcome is possible. Hence it is considered essential that the relationship between those conducting the panel and the commissioning agency (where there is one) be close. in cases where the charge concerns some issue of allocation of public resources or determination of public policy. for example. those reported by the Jefferson Center (1989) and Crosby (1991) were concerned with assessment of candidates for political office. with particular reference to the management of environmental weeds. Conclusion Citizens' juries offer an alternative to the more commonly applied means of public participation in environmental management in Australia. and the charge may be worded to reflect that. Although gaining in popularity. there may be circumstances in which the commissioning agency is willing to consider extra-legal outcomes. Decisions on such matters are frequently complex and involve trade-offs which may not be readily apparent. One of the clauses of the contract would require the commissioning agency to either adopt the results of the jury or to explain why it has decided not to do so. the technique is one which has not been widely applied. with the addition of a proviso that all efforts will be made to modify the law. 14 . such an approach would ensure jurors of the value which would be placed on the results of their endeavours. The technique is soon to be applied by the authors in an attempt to assess the environmental values associated with an environmental management issue within coastal national parks in an Australian state. the charge should. a citizens' jury will be run shortly in New South Wales on the issue of investment in protected area management. This approach would be of particular benefit in situations where the current law is considered inapplicable to the prevailing social circumstances and attitudes. Clearly this approach will not be appropriate to all citizens' juries. and where the jury is charged to recommend amendments. in general. To that end. Smith and Wales (1999a) advocate the signing of a pre-jury contract between the commissioning agency. be worded so as to exclude the possibility of outcomes which are outside the current legal framework and would therefore not be implemented. As has been mentioned earlier. This concern was also expressed by the citizen panel in the recent Australian consensus conference. the facilitating agency and the jurors. At this stage it is intended that the methodological issues raised above will be handled as shown in Table 7. However. However.agencies. Hence there are major methodological issues to be explored.
R. (1995). Albany. A. (1996).E. 15 . The citizens' jury model of public participation: a critical evaluation. ISNAR. Bombay. Lenaghan (1997).187. (1989). Armour. R. Resource. Lancaster. Kluwer Academic Publishers. “A ladder of citizen participation. (1999). Christiano. The significance of public deliberation. Blaug. Vikas Publishing House. Participatory Democracy in Action: International Profiles of Community Development.References Aldred. Bohman. T. Jacobs (1997).M. The Netherlands. IT Publications . Lancaster University: 40. Cambridge Massachusetts. (1997). Lismore. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR): 113. MIT Press. Biggs. S. Wiedemann. Southern Cross University: 278 + app. T. State University of New York Press. and J. Rehg. in Bohman and Rehg (eds) pp243-278. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Carson. (1971) Participatory Democracy.Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experience from Nine Agricultural Research Systems. (1979). Resources and Opportunities. Arnstein. and W. The Hague. L. Chambers. Citizens' Juries: Theory into Practice. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change. Webler and P. Bohman. Coote. Chekki. D. San Francisco. Cook. OCFOR Project Study. Citizens and wetlands. Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities. Democracy. Real and Ideal: Discourse Ethics and Radical Politics. (1997). How do decision makers in local government respond to public participation? Faculty of Education.. and P. J. Dordrecht. (1997). O. T. Renn. J. Work and Training. Canfield Press. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. UK. The Netherlands. S. Morgan. in Bohman and Rehg (eds) pp321-348. A. and M. 10: 175 . (1969). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse.” Journal of the American Institute of Planning 35(4): 216-224. J.A.
d. USA. (1989). Downs. R. Parks. Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. N. USA. Davis-Case.S. Creating an authentic voice of the people. Krueger. USA. UK. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). A. Italy. Minneapolis. Cvetkovich. Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences. California. Jefferson Center (1989). Jefferson Center: 43. (1996).Participatory Assessment. (1990). Westview Press. Vlek and G. A. Kluwer Academic. M. MN. Report on findings and results : Electoral jury on the St Paul Mayoral election. Cambridge. Harper and Row. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998). Midwest Political Science Association. Koning and M. A. J. Chicago. R. Minneapolis. Jefferson Center: 51. D. Martin. Dienel. (1983). Eurobodalla National Park. C. P. (1991). Community Forestry . Policy and Political Science. C.Cornwall. Daneke. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. M. (1992). Oxford University. Crosby. ILL. Monitoring and Evaluation. Deliberation on Democratic Theory and Practice. Rome. N. Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and participatory process. CO. Australia: 65. I. Pimbert. Social Change and Conservation 16 . Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Cambridge University Press. N. Discursive Democracy: Politics. New York. UNICEF / International Child Development Centre. Sage Publications Inc. and J. (1996). Gujit. K. Annual Report 19971998. Pretty (1997). Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. G. Draft Plan of Management. Participation in natural resource management: blemished past and hopeful future. Dryzek. People and professionals: putting 'participation' into protected area management. Crosby. Zed Books: 94-103. Italy. Newbury Park. Citizens' juries as a basic democratic reform. Garcia. Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technological projects. An Economic Theory of Democracy. et al. USA. Florence.. Hart. USA. A. The Netherlands. Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment. (1989). Sydney. Australia: 144. London. Dordrecht. Making Forest Policy Work: the Oxford Summer Course Programme. MN. Boulder. (1989). Sydney. P. (1996). W. (1957).
J. Unwin. K. T. and B. G. Slocum. Rocheleau and B. Langton. Towards deliberative institutions: lessons from citizens' juries. The development of public participation in environmental protection and planning law in Australia. empowerment and sustainable development. USA. Brunton. Participation. Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. (1943). (1992). C. N. (1996). Van Valey. Innovation in Democratic Theory. London. Washington DC. The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Slocum. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd: 3-8. (1968). L. Wales (1999a). Environmental and Planning Law Journal 13: 260-268. The Social Contract. Greenwood Press. Thomas-Slatyer (1995). Rahnema. R. (1979). The Development Dictionary. Rosenbaum. UK. KY. W. Earthscan Publications Limited: 297-330. W. UNRISD/Zed Books. T. Langton. Lexington Books: 43-54. Socialism and Democracy. and O. Lexington. London. Rowe (1995). USA. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental 17 . Taberner. J. M. Policy and Politics In press. UK. P. Renn (1995). S. B. Ghimire and M. L. London. Environmental Law and Policy in Australia: Text and Materials. Webler. USA. Butterworths. and J.. A Voice for the Excluded. Citizen participation and democratic theory. C. Pimbert. and M. ECPR Workshop.Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. Elitism and social participation.Tools for Change. Wichhart. J. Tufts University Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs. G. Wales (1999b). Sydney. J. et al. Capitalism. Ramsay. and C. Rousseau. Schumpeter. A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. M. UK. Public service centers: the Michigan experience. and C. Participation. Stiefel. Smith. and G. Rosenbaum. Penguin. Citizen Participation Perspectives: National Conference on Citizen Participation. London. Harmondsworth. Switzerland. R. UK. D. UK. Petersen (1987). DeSario and S. R. Smith. N. Zed Books Ltd: 116-131. Australia. Citizen participation in America. (1978). Process and Participation . Thomas-Slatyer. Sachs. Popular Participation in Development: Utopia or Necessity? Geneva. London. Power. Westport. Wolfe (1994).
Wiedemann. Dordrecht. Zimmerman. American Journal of Community Psychology. (1995). M. The Netherlands. Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations.Discourse.33. Kluwer Academic Publishers. O. 23(5) pp581-599. Webler and P. Renn. T. 10: 17 . 18 .A.
Participation serves to enhance social development. (1983) Rosenbaum (1979) Modified from Webler and Renn (1995) 19 . Citizens need to be able to participate in order to protect their interests. Participation is necessary in order to define the collective will. Participation serves to enhance personal development. Rousseau (1968) Van Valey and Petersen (1987) Rosenbaum (1978) Dienel (1989) Daneke. Public participation is required to ensure that the public will becomes clear . Public participation is required to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity to influence outcomes.Table 1 Participatory democratic theory Author Rosenbaum (1978) Public participation is necessary for democratic functionality through its role in ensuring political equality and popular sovereignty. Garcia et al.
. no room for response by others. participants initiate action independently of the project. . as results of information collection are not shared . .g. . information extracted from participants through surveys or questionnaires.Table 2 A Typology of Participation Description Passive participation Components of each type . views are noted. . Self-mobilisation Adapted from Pimbert and Pretty (1997). participants provide resources – e. participants are consulted. problem definition and solutions may be modified. . . labour. no obligation to accept participants' views Increasing community empowerment Participation in information. people are told what will happen or has happened . groups may continue after project ends . participants form groups to meet pre-determined project objectives .giving Participation by consultation Participation for material incentives . groups often dependent on external initiators Functional participation Interactive participation . participants cannot influence outcomes. formation or strengthening of local groups occurs. people participate in joint analysis of options. unilateral announcement by authorities. . 20 . . participants have no stake in continued involvement once the project ends .
Table 3 Comparison of two typologies Pimbert and Pretty (1997) Passive participation Participation in information.giving Participation by consultation Participation for material incentives Functional participation Interactive participation Self-mobilisation Partnership / Delegated power Citizen control Arnstein (1969) Manipulation / Therapy / Informing Consultation Placation 21 .
information extracted from participants through surveys or questionnaires.Table 4 Public participation in environmental management in Australia Description Components Australian Environmental Example . Friends of the Parks groups Interactive participation . hiring of local residents as seasonal labour involved in national park or forest management Functional participation . participants cannot influence outcomes. participants initiate action independently of the project.giving . Participation in information. views are noted. . declaration of new national parks Passive participation . labour. . .in exchange for payment. . groups may continue after project ends .g. formation or strengthening of local groups occurs. people are told what will happen or has happened . participants form groups to meet pre-determined project objectives . national park and state forest planning in Victoria* . unilateral announcement by authorities. . visitor surveys conducted in national parks Participation by consultation . Landcare groups * New South Wales and Victoria are two of the Australian states. no room for response by others. participants provide resources – e. participants have no stake in continued involvement once the project ends . . as results of information collection are not shared . problem definition and solutions may be modified. CYPLUS (Cape York Planning and Land Use Study) Self-mobilisation . no obligation to accept participants' views . planning for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park . people participate in joint analysis of options. 22 . participants are consulted. groups often dependent on external initiators . national park planning in New South Wales Participation for material incentives . . . .
The process is readily understood by the community. All literate members of the community are given the chance to comment. The process is consistent from plan to plan. and between individual submissions and the plan. The mechanism for resolution of conflicts between submissions. interested minorities. Disadvantages of the current method May produce conflicting responses. is not known. Analysis of responses may be high cost. May not represent the views of the community. Respondents may be ill-informed and responses may be technically incorrect or legally infeasible. May attract dissent rather than develop accord. The process is readily understood by the community. and therefore staff of the agency can develop a modus operandi which will cover responses to multiple plans. Participation involves low direct costs. Illiterate members of the community. with more attention to detail and less to process. and access to information. Participation requires time. the details of such resolution are not made public. have limited access to the process. The process is tightly controlled and therefore easily managed. but rather those of vocal. and therefore interest groups can develop a modus 23 . The process is consistent from plan to plan. The process is consistent from plan to plan. From the Perspective of the Community Anyone can potentially participate –access to the process does not need to be granted.Table 5 Participation in park management planning From the Perspective of the Park Management Agency Advantages of the current method Seeking responses is low cost. and therefore interest groups can develop a modus operandi which will cover responses to multiple plans. Responses may be limited to those with time available to devote to the matter. or those for whom English is a second language. Participants' views may not be accepted. Similarly. depending on volume and complexity. with strict rules governing timing and type of input. Significant sectors may therefore be omitted from the process. This may result in higher quality submissions.
operandi which will cover responses to multiple plans. Illiterate members of the community. Comments which are considered to disagree with Government policy are not considered. do not have access to the process. 24 . The approach does not provide an avenue for debate on more fundamental issues such as the legislation underpinning park management in the state. or those for whom English is a second language.
Written material will be exchanged amongst witnesses in advance of the jury hearings. A neutral expert will be on hand to assist the jury. The charge has been expanded to encompass management of all coastal New South Wales national parks. Maximum of 16. USA Crosby (1991) 1997 Wetland creation 1996 Allocation and management of health services School management 1993 1993 US Federal budget 1990 Gubernatorial election Table 7 Citizens' jury on protected area management Issue Jury selection Design Approach Population: New South Wales Sample method: stratified random sampling.Table 6 Applications of the Citizens' Jury Method Year Topic Location Author Ely. Framing of the charge Duration of the process Size of the jury Accuracy of information from witnesses 25 . UK Aldred and Jacobs (1997) UK Coote and Lenaghan (1997) Australia Carson (1996) US Crosby (1996) Minnesota. One night and two days.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.