IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v16y1999i3-4p75-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas C. Beierle

Abstract

The need to increase public participation in environmental decision‐making is receiving renewed attention at all levels of government. However, there are few approaches to evaluating these processes that address the question: What are we getting from public participation? This article proposes one way to answer this question using a framework that evaluates the outcomes of participatory processes using a set of “social” goals. These social goals are: 1) educating the public; 2) incorporating public values, assumptions, and preferences into decision making; 3) increasing the substantive quality of decisions; 4) fostering trust in institutions; 5) reducing conflict; and 6) making decisions cost‐effectively. Although these goals apply to public participation writ large, there are a limited number of formalized mechanisms available to public agencies for involving the public. The article matches these six social goals to the participatory mechanisms by which they might be achieved. It concludes with areas for further research suggested by the framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas C. Beierle, 1999. "Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 75-103, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:16:y:1999:i:3-4:p:75-103
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00879.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00879.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00879.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:16:y:1999:i:3-4:p:75-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.