IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-01-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Beierle, Thomas
  • Cayford, Jerrell

Abstract

Public participation has become an integral part of environmental policymaking. Dispute resolution—with its focus on deliberation, problem solving, and consensus seeking among a small group of people—is one of the alternatives decisionmakers increasingly turn to for involving the public. This paper evaluates dispute resolution as a form of public participation by measuring its success against five “social goals”: incorporating public values into decisions, increasing the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict, building trust, and educating the public. The data for the analysis come from a “case survey,” in which researchers read and coded information on more than 100 attributes of 239 published case studies of public involvement in environmental decisionmaking. These cases describe a variety of planning, management, and implementation activities carried out by environmental and natural resource agencies at many levels of government. The paper demonstrates that dispute resolution processes typically do much better than other forms of public participation in achieving social goals, but only among the small group of actual participants. The dispute resolution cases do far worse in extending the benefits of participation to the wider public. Many dispute resolution cases lack significant outreach, either to inform the wider public or to draw the wider public’s values into decisionmaking. The benefits of conflict resolution or trust formation also often do not extend beyond a small group of participants. The findings have normative implications for the desirability of dispute resolution in certain types of environmental decisions. They also have practical implications because the exclusion of the wider public from decisionmaking can come back to haunt project proponents in the implementation stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Beierle, Thomas & Cayford, Jerrell, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-40, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-01-40.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Mark & Teske, Paul & Marschall, Melissa & Mintrom, Michael & Roch, Christine, 1997. "Institutional Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public School Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 82-93, March.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jia Shi & Xuesong Guo & Xiangnan Hu, 2019. "Engaging Stakeholders in Urban Traffic Restriction Policy Assessment Using System Dynamics: The Case Study of Xi’an City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    3. Connie P. Ozawa & Deborah F. Shmueli & Sanda Kaufman, 2017. "Process design decisions in community-based collaboration: implications for implementation and collateral social benefits," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 407-427, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beierle, Thomas C. & Cayford, Jerry, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," Discussion Papers 10899, Resources for the Future.
    2. Fischer, Justina A.V., 2012. "Globalization and social networks," MPRA Paper 40404, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    4. Lauren M. McLaren & Vanessa A. Baird, 2006. "Of Time and Causality: A Simple Test of the Requirement of Social Capital in Making Democracy Work in Italy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(4), pages 889-897, December.
    5. Jung-Sook Kim & Yeo-Jung Hwang, 2014. "The Effects of School Choice on Parental School Participation and School Satisfaction in Korea," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 363-385, January.
    6. Narisong Huhe & Daniel Naurin & Robert Thomson, 2018. "The evolution of political networks: Evidence from the Council of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 25-51, March.
    7. Krishna, Anirudh, 2001. "Moving from the Stock of Social Capital to the Flow of Benefits: The Role of Agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 925-943, June.
    8. Beierle, Thomas, 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-06, Resources for the Future.
    9. Griewald, Yuliana & Clemens, Gerhard & Kamp, Johannes & Gladun, Elena & Hölzel, Norbert & von Dressler, Hubertus, 2017. "Developing land use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 264-276.
    10. Joana Setzer & Rachel Biderman, 2013. "Increasing Participation in Climate Policy Implementation: A Case for Engaging SMEs from the Transport Sector in the City of São Paulo," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(5), pages 806-821, October.
    11. Thomas C. Beierle, 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 739-749, August.
    12. Bohnet, Iris & Frey, Bruno S. & Huck, Steffen, 2001. "More Order with Less Law: On Contract Enforcement, Trust, and Crowding," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 131-144, March.
    13. Newton, Kenneth, 2005. "Support for democracy: Social capital, civil society and political performance," Discussion Papers, Research Group Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe SP IV 2005-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Namatama, Nathan, 2020. "An assessment of stakeholders’ participation in land use planning process of Luapula Province Planning Authority," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Justin Beaumont, 2008. "Faith Action on Urban Social Issues," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(10), pages 2019-2034, September.
    17. Bjrnskov, Christian, 2009. "Social trust and the growth of schooling," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 249-257, April.
    18. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    19. David A. Freedman, 2009. "Limits of Econometrics," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 1(1), pages 5-17, April.
    20. Krishna, Anirudh, 2003. "Understanding, measuring and utilizing social capital: clarifying concepts and presenting a field application from India," CAPRi working papers 28, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-01-40. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.