Social and Environmental Research Institute

Over the past four decades, the promise of public participation to improve decisions, obtain legitimacy, and build capacity for risk decision making and management has had a mixed record. In this article, we offer a narrative of how public participation has evolved in the United States and we examine prospects for its future. We trace three forces that have had significant impact on practice: an emergent emphasis on democratic deliberation, a transition from dichotomous thinking about science versus politics to an integrated perspective, and the recognition that different parties to the decision-making process bring valid epistemological contributions. The promise of public participation in risk decision making is challenged by loss of trust in institutions and individuals and by broad socio-political dynamics that are weakening democratic values and processes. These include the scarcity of attitudes and aptitudes supportive of public participation among both individuals and institutions; an anti-democratic political atmosphere that promotes disrespect; pursuit of private interests over the common good; failure to appreciate the limitations of dialogue and learning; underutilization of existing knowledge; and insufficient knowledge of how context matters. We end by offering several suggestions for focusing further research and improving practice.

Public participation can benefit from formative evaluation to learn from experience and recommend improvements to the participation process as it is happening. Q method is a promising tool for conducting formative evaluations. It specifies the different perspectives held by participants about the process and clarifies the sources of their agreement and disagreement. Further advantages are that the technique relies on a minimal number of research participants and can be very efficient. Shortcomings are that Q method does not permit generalization to a population and requires considerable expertise to carry out. Results can also be sensitive to the particular individuals selected to participate.

An intensification of interest in environmental assessment during the last 2 decades has driven corporate efforts to better document environmental goals, improve environmental management systems, and increase awareness of the environmental and ecological effects of business operations. This trend has been motivated partly by regulatory requirements (such as the Toxics Release Inventory in the United States) and partly by the inclination of some large manufacturing firms to embrace a broader social and environmental mission characterized as "sustainability" or "ecoefficiency." Moreover, the importance of measurable objectives in the US government has been recognized at least since the Government Performance Results Act of 1993, which was intended to both improve the efficiency of government and the confidence of the American public in government managers. However, in management of environmental crises - such as catastrophic oil or chemical spills - development of measurable performance standards has lagged. Consequently, government spill managers are unable to define success in terms that are easily communicated to public and other stakeholder groups, and they could be disadvantaged in their efforts to deploy response resources with maximum efficiency. In this paper, we present a typological review of environmental assessment measures and summarize some of the current practices and strategic goals among federal agencies with regard to oil and chemical spills. A general approach to organizing metrics for oil spill response, restoration, and recovery is also presented. The results could improve planning efforts and communication among different federal, state, and local agencies and public or stakeholder groups involved in spill management.