Clarifying relationships between participatory approaches, issues, processes, and results, through crosscutting case analysis in Japan’s environmental, energy, and food policy areas

Participatory public engagement approaches such as Consensus Conferences, Deliberative Polling®, and Planning Cells have been used to try and resolve environmental disputes in Japan; however, the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches have not been analyzed adequately or comprehensively. This paper evaluates practical applications of each of the above participatory approaches and conducts a crosscutting analysis of these applications to evaluate how effectively each approach provides scientific information to participants and to consider how the quality of deliberations that occur during these processes affect their outputs. Based on existing classification of participatory processes, and methodology for public involvement in US environmental decision-making, this study compares and contrasts the processes and outcomes of 25 participatory planning case studies in Japan. After compiling a case inventory of participatory approaches, the features of one approach are documented using qualitative analysis, and the aspects of four other approaches are confirmed using crosscutting analysis. In so doing, the likely strengths and weaknesses of each approach are suggested as follows. When discussions require an understanding of scientific knowledge, the Consensus Conference tends to be more suitable than the DP approach. If the consensus of participants is expected, the Consensus Conference is also thought to be suitable. But through a DP process or Simplified Planning Cells approach, we can know the quantitative portion of each opinion through results of ballots. In sum, new participatory approach that incorporates strengths of the Consensus Conference and the Simplified Planning Cells into Local Environmental Planning is needed. Thus, the quality of consensus building could be improved.