This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]

On: 01 May 2014, At: 14:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Evaluating the Effectiveness

of Deliberative Processes:
Waste Management Casestudies
Judith Petts
Published online: 02 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Judith Petts (2001) Evaluating the Effectiveness

of Deliberative Processes: Waste Management Case-studies, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 44:2, 207-226
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560120033713

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207226, 2001

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes:

Waste Management Case-studies

JUDITH PETTS

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Centre for Environmental Research and Training, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,

Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
(Received March 2000; revised June 2000)

ABSTRACT Public participation in decision making through the use of deliberative

processes is now widely promoted as the means of enhancing institutional legitimacy,
citizen inuence and social responsibility and learning. Different methods are being tried
but key questions remain about what works best and how practice could be improved.
This paper discusses four examples of the application of community advisory committees
and citizens juries to waste strategy development by English local authorities. It
evaluates the processes using criteria based on the concept of the fair and competent
process, and identies lessons for the optimum process.
Introduction
The beginning of the 21st century sees political commitment to citizen participation. Participative democracy is needed to support representative democracy,
which can no longer account for the diverse interests of citizens, the increasingly
complex and uncertain threats to society, and the need to develop informed
public preferences, knowledge and commitment to societal good. Public participation in environmental decision making has become a required means of giving
people more say in government (Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions (DETR), 1998).
In democratic societies the individual has the right to be informed, to be
consulted and to express his or her own views on matters which affect them
personally (Sewell & Coppock, 1977). Public involvement in a decision process,
not merely consultation upon a preferred decision, supports both institutional
legitimacy (e.g. Smith, 1987), and the bottom-up approach to decision making
(Arnstein, 1969), and allows those with a weak voice to exert inuence on
outcomes (Healey, 1997). It is something to be valued in its own right, social
learning, responsibility and environmental awareness being signicant outcomes
(Sewell & Coppock, 1977; Webler et al., 1995; Daniels & Walker, 1996; Aarhus
Convention, 1998).
New methods of working with the public present signicant challenges to
elected ofcials who believe it is their duty to represent public views, to those
whose professional training taught them to separate themselves from those to
whom they provide services (Barnes, 1999a), and in decision contexts where
traditionally passive consultation has been seen as offering participation, the
0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 On line/01/010207-20
DOI: 10.1080/ 09640560120033713

2001 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

208 J. Petts
yes, but mode of thinking reecting the difculty of compromising upon
commitments to policies, plans and proposals (Young, 1996).
This is certainly the case in relation to waste management. Public opposition
to new facilities represents a complex interplay of strategic as well as local
concerns (Armour, 1991; Portney, 1991; Petts, 1992, 1995). Current pressures
upon developing waste strategies and plans ensure controversy. Public consensus about, and acceptance of, appropriate local strategies, combined with the
building of condence amongst politicians to take difcult decisions, are essential.
Whilst it may be attractive to aspire to the concept of citizen inuence
(Arnstein, 1969), it is quite another thing to give real effect to the multiplicity of
conicting emphases, ideas and values present amongst the public (Kuper,
1997). A decision process which is inclusive of the range of different interests
and concerns and allows for deliberation (i.e. the discussion of reasons for and
against (Concise Oxford Dictionary)) can, but will not denitely, lead to more
environmentally and socially acceptable decisions. Authorities display an increasing desire to know how to do it and what works best. However, we also
need to understand why it works or how it could work better (Creighton,
1983).
Dening and Evaluating Effectiveness
This paper examines and evaluates the use of community (citizens) advisory
committees (CACs) and citizens juries in waste management strategic planning
in the UK. Public participation methods can be dened in terms of their multiple
and divergent objectives; that is: information provision (e.g. leaets, advertising,
videos and unstaffed exhibitions); information collection and feedback (e.g.
surveys and interviews); consultation (e.g. public meetings and small group
meetings); and involvement (e.g. CACs, citizens juries and consensus conferences). Each has advantages and disadvantages (Petts et al., 1996; Environment
Agency, 1998; Petts, 1999; Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2000). Such a taxonomy suggests that it is possible to match method to
purpose, with a shift of power providing the underlying conceptual difference,
although the empowering ability of different methods is very difcult to
estimate (Webler, 1999). It is the methods which seek to extend consultation into
involvement so as to combine technical expertise and rational decision making
with public preferences (Stern, 1991) which are receiving the greatest attention.
The rather limited outcome criterion of decision legitimation usually represents the main spur to the adoption of participatory process. However, philosophical constructs of discursive and deliberative democracy, founded in
Habermass (1984) ideal of no force but the force of the better argument,
demand a broader set of criteria concerned with the process itself. The focus
shifts to a working denition of effectiveness which, rather than hoping that
everyone will be happy with the outcome (unrealistic), concentrates on getting
the right science and the right participation (Stern & Fineberg, 1996).
Fairness and competency criteria (Webler, 1995) have underpinned many
evaluations. Fairness relates to the terms of access to the discourseproviding
opportunities for participants to shape the agenda and choose the moderator
and the rules of deliberationand the provision of an equal chance to every
participant to put forward their views. Competence relates to the ability of the

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

209

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

process to provide participants with (1) access to knowledge, explanations of

terms and access to interpretations of understanding, and (2) the best procedures
for resolving disputes about knowledge and interpretations and for checking the
authenticity and sincerity of claims.
Combining principles of publicity and accountability (Gutman & Thompson,
1996; Barnes, 1999a) with those of fairness and competence produces 10 evaluation questions in terms of whether the process:
(1) ensures that the participants are representative of the full range of people
potentially affected and that barriers which may bias representation are
minimized;
(2) allows participants to contribute to the agenda and agree and inuence the
procedures and moderation method;
(3) enables participants to engage in dialogue, and promote mutual understanding of values and concerns;
(4) ensures that dissent and differences are engaged and understood;
(5) ensures that experts are challenged and that participants have access to
the information and knowledge to enable them to do this critically;
(6) reduces misunderstanding and ensures that the authenticity of claims is
discussed and examined;
(7) makes a difference to participants, e.g. allows for development of ideas,
learning and new ways of looking at a problem;
(8) enables consensus about recommendations and/or preferred decisions to
be achieved;
(9) makes a difference to decisions and provides outcomes which are of public
benet;
(10) ensures that the process is transparent and open to those not directly
involved but potentially affected.
The evaluation here does not aim to identify a generic model which is inherently
better or which is likely to work better. Performance is difcult to predict, given
the power of context (Aranoff & Gunter, 1994; Stern & Fineberg, 1996). Broad
criteria could go against the view that evaluation questions should be framed in
a way that enables exploration of characteristics which are particular to the
method being used (Barnes, 1999b). Certainly, the evaluation should be based on
criteria that the participants themselves input, as in an evaluation of juries
relating to health service provision (Barnes, 1999b). Nevertheless, if we are
rigorously to design and implement participation processes it is essential that
the relative characteristics of different processes are understood so that they can
be selected and adapted to t the immediate context and objectives.
The next two sections provide background to the specic processes of involvement and their application in relation to waste strategy development.
CACs and Citizens Juries
Variants of the CAC have been used in government in the USA for over 100
years, and in environmental decision contexts have been used widely in relation
to regional, state and local issues (Armour, 1991; Lynn & Busenberg, 1995; Lynn
& Kartez, 1995; Vari, 1995). Citizens juries developed from the early 1970s in
both the USA and Germany (Crosby et al., 1986; Crosby, 1995). In the UK, they
received increasing attention during the 1990s, although environmental issues

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

210 J. Petts
probably represent the smallest percentage of decision contexts in which they
have been used. In 1997 some 110 local authorities reported using juries, a
governance response to concern that existing structures were failing to deal with
signicant public issues (DETR, 1998).
The purpose of these processes is to provide both for participation in decision
making by small groups of citizens where public interests and values need to be
made explicit, and for different claims and arguments to be put forward, not
only to inform and inuence the decision but also to contribute to later
decisions. People are asked to take part in a serious civic task, encouraged to
think of societal rather than sectoral interests (Barnes, 1999a).
The direct outcome of each is a non-binding recommendation which may or
may not be adopted. There is no transference of power to the public. However,
legitimacy would be severely tested if views were ignored or overlooked in the
formal decision.
The nature of interest representation and the rules of discourse differentiate
the two processes. CAC participants are often chosen from interest positions that
the decision maker considers to be relevant. By contrast, citizens juries are
usually randomly selected through a quota system which aims to make them a
microcosm of their communities.
CACs usually run over weeks or months, citizens juries over a few days. The
CAC adopts a reconciliatory approach using a variety of meeting and information provision formats so that different concerns and problem representations
are reconciled through group support. By contrast, the citizen jury adopts a
confrontational approach which, whilst aiming to produce a creative and
consensual outcome, does this through direct confrontation of different opinions
(Vari, 1995). The divergence of format but apparent commonality of purpose are
confusing for those choosing an appropriate participation process. The cost
differences can be inuentialCAC-based processes can be up to ve times as
expensive as juries.
Renn et al. (1995) analysed various environmental applications of participatory
models against criteria of fairness and competence. They marginally scored
CACs higher than citizen juries, particularly in terms of fairness of process. No
UK examples were included in their analysis.

Application of the Methods in England

Waste Strategy Development
Local authorities are having to respond to the signicant challenges of increasing
quantities of waste, developing national waste recycling and recovery targets
(DETR, 2000), European pressures to move away from landll disposal (Council
of Europe, 1999) and policy pressures for integration of strategies at the regional
level (DETR, 2000). Authorities have concluded increasingly that the traditional
passive consultation approach to strategic planning is unlikely to provide the
degree of public support for the required waste management strategies. The
non-statutory nature of the strategies drawn up by waste disposal authorities
has provided them with a degree of freedom to experiment with new modes of
public participation (compared with the more formalized processes linked to the
provision and location of waste facilities through the waste local plans drawn up
by planning authorities).

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

211

The development of an appropriate local waste strategy which will provide

for 20 1 years of effective management involves complex technical, economic,
environmental and social judgements. Optimization of recycling and recovery
and environmentally acceptable management of the residual waste are most
likely to be achieved by a strategy which integrates various management options
so that environmental impacts as well as the costs are minimizedthe best
practicable environmental strategy. Integrated strategies must be relevant to: the
waste generated and the local collection and transport systems; the availability
of recycling, treatment and disposal facilities and of new sites where such
facilities could be sited; the costs of management; and the impacts, considering
the local environmental conditions. The adoption of a local waste strategy is not
only one of the most costly decisions which a local authority may have to make,
but also one of the most complex issues which is likely to come before local
people in a participation forum. This complexity is enhanced by inherent
economic, technical and environmental impact uncertainties.
CACs: Hampshire and Essex
Hampshire (199495), Essex (199697) and West Sussex (199798) county councils have all used forms of CAC as part of the process of developing waste
management strategies. The focus of the discussion here is experience in Hampshire and Essex.
The communications programmes were devised to (1) raise awareness of
waste management issues, (2) increase understanding of the management options available and gain support for an appropriate solution for each county and
(3) provide a sounding-board for the councils draft proposals. In each county
three groups (1620 people in each) were formed, reecting specic areas in
terms of urban and rural characteristics. A mix of people with different interestscommunity, environmental, business, health, conservation and educationwere recruited, following a community analysis and appraisal exercise.
The Essex process ran over 9 months, including ve meetings, visits to waste
management facilities and a seminar with expert input. A nal seminar allowed
for the CAC members to communicate their conclusion to councillors, key
members of the community and the media. The Hampshire process involved six
meetings over 6 months, site visits to waste management facilities and a 1-day
seminar on the waste management options. The programme of meetings is
presented in Table 1.
Hampshire extended its process by forming a core forum after the CACs had
completed their work, which had the objective of providing feedback and
assistance to the County Council during the period when the waste management
contract was to be let. The core forum met four times over 10 months. A seminar
on the health risks of dioxins was attended by over 180 people. In addition,
focus groups were arranged with members of the public to try to broaden the
socio-demographic characteristics of those involved in the debate and to engage
the traditionally silent majority.
Citizens Juries: Hertfordshire and Lancashire
Hertfordshire ran a jury in 1995 as part of the series of experimental juries
sponsored by the Local Government Management Board. The jury addressed

212 J. Petts

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Table 1. Hampshire CAC programme

Meeting

Purpose

November 1993

Introduction to process and to objectives.

2 December 1993

Overview of challenge for waste management, and brieng on county and

district work on assessing waste ows and needs. Discussion of how CACs
wanted to be informed.

3 January 1994

To seek views and understanding of CAC members of the opportunities for

and barriers to reduction, reuse and recycling. To consider the advantages and
disadvantages to resource recovery and the other disposal options. To gain an
understanding of county waste arisings and ows.

4 February 1994

To discuss possible strategy implementation at regional level. To review

ongoing activities to inform and involve the wider public.

5 February 1994

Joint CAC seminar: presentations from experts from UK and overseas on

waste management strategies and options.

6 March 1994

To get feedback from the seminar and identify any outstanding questions. To
provide information on the waste contract tender process. To summarize
CACs views and recommendations.

7 April 1994

Joint meeting of three CACs to reach cross-county consensus and to present

their ndings to the authorities.

how, and to what extent, the County Council could become self-sufcient in the
provision of waste management facilities. Lancashire ran a jury in 1999, its
objective being to provide views and recommendations to the County Council
on the future of waste management. In both cases, 16 people were recruited to
be representative of the population in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, occupation
and residential location. The juries were facilitated by an independent moderator.
Each jury was preceded by a preliminary meeting at which jurors had an
opportunity to meet and to have the process and objectives explained. The
programme of the Lancashire jury is outlined in Table 2. Both juries involved site
visits, expert witness presentations, questioning and discussion, with time for
reection and deliberation in small groups. The moderator drafted a report
based on the opinions expressed and then redrafted this in the light of jury
discussions and comments. In both cases the jury conclusions were reported to
council committees responsible for waste management decisions.
Integration with Decision Making
The processes were designed to provide decision makers with an indication of
public views and priorities, rather than to produce detailed recommendations,
which were then carried through to the siting stage for the required facilities.
The difference is best illustrated by reference to the citizens panels on waste
strategy development in the Northern Black Forest Region (Renn et al., 1993;
Schneider et al., 1998). Here, decision making and participation were fully
integrated into a three-phase process that involved consensus conferences with
16 stakeholder groups which developed agreement on the need to solve the
problems, prognosis of the amount of waste to be treated and recommendations on the technical options to achieve this. The latter used value-tree and
multi-attribute decision analysis (Keeney et al., 1987) for structuring the

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

213

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Table 2. Lancashire jury programme

Day

Content

General introduction to issues before the jury.

Introduction to waste management problem in the county: County Council
presentation.
Waste management and risk assessment: options for waste management;
choice of appropriate option; concept of the best practicable environmental
option (waste management academic presentation).
Site visit: energy-from-waste incinerator.

Waste minimization: local recycling group view.

Recycling: national recycling campaign view.
Composting: composting industry view.
Site visits: recycling centre and also landll and composting.

Anaerobic digestion: working group of the waste industry.

Energy-from-waste incineration: industry view.
County Council issues.
District councils perspective.
Environment Agency: function and role.

Friends of the Earth: national views.

Local interest groups views.
Industry view.
Development agency presentation on potential for community jobs and
businesses.

Whole day: jury discussion and agreement on recommendations.

decision process. Following the political decision to proceed with the options
selected, citizens panels (involving 200 people) were used to rank a list of
possible sites for the facilities it had been agreed were required.
The UK experience reects institutional and political barriers presented by the
separation of waste disposal from waste planning functions. More importantly,
it reects a continuing view that the use of deliberative processes is a means to
extend consultation as opposed to a means of making decisions.
How Effective?
Representativeness
It is important to draw a distinction between representing interests and being
representative of interests. Deliberative processes should seek as a minimum to
achieve the latter if the purpose is to understand the range of views that may
exist and if the community is to inuence the decision.
The CAC processes made considerable efforts to select individuals who might
be representative of a wide range of interests in the community, rather than
people who represented specic groups, the latter being a source of considerable
criticism of CACs in the past (Houghton, 1988; Kathlene & Martin, 1991;
Creighton, 1993). Recruitment focused on personal activities that might indicate
an interest. For example, a person who worked in a college was selected as
someone with an interest in education and young people, and a person who was
a parish councillor and involved in local youth club work as someone with an
interest in community issues.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

214 J. Petts
Essex included elected councillors as members of the groups. This had little
adverse or benecial effect on the process from the viewpoint of the participants.
Fears that councillors might try to dominate debate proved unfounded, not least
because of an effective facilitation process. Including councillors might be seen
to extend representation; on the other hand it could be viewed as giving a direct
voice to people who already have one at the expense of others who traditionally
have a weak voice.
The participants in both processes were largely middle-aged and middle-class.
It proved more difcult to recruit young people ( , 25 years). Participants in
both noted that there were too few business-related interests, and that the
ordinary man in the street was missing. The knowledge and interest levels
relating to waste amongst the Essex CACs were much higher than amongst the
general public. However, it is certain that the CACs were broadly representative
of that component of the public who are likely to take an interest.
To obtain the level of support for and commitment to an extended process
such as a CAC this type of bias seems partly inevitable. For someone who
attended all of the meetings, seminars and site visits and who put in the average
number of additional hours for preparation and reading reported by the CAC
participants, some 80100 hours of time may have been required. Despite the
long period requiring commitment, drop-out was very low, with the few people
in each process who had to leave doing so only for personal reasons.
The Hertfordshire jury was recruited from a questionnaire sent to a random
sample of 3000 people on the electoral register. A signicant proportion (61%) of
those mailed expressed an interest (Kuper, 1997). From these responses a
representative jury was constructed using criteria of age, gender, social class,
ethnicity and geographical location. The Lancashire jury recruitment process
used these same criteria, although in this case a professional recruiter was
briefed to select jurors from each of 16 geographical areas in the county,
constructed to be representative of the urbanrural division. The Lancashire jury
included an 18-year-old school leaver, a 23-year-old shelf ller, a 63-year-old
retired university lecturer, someone who had just been made redundant and
someone who was long-term unemployed.
The participants in the jury had to devote a smaller amount of their time
about 30 hoursthan those in the CAC process. However, people had to take
whole days of their time, including leave or holiday from work. For the latter
reason, and as is common in juries, people were paid a fee for their participation.
While both of the juries achieved a good mix of people largely representative
of the socio-demographic characteristics of the two counties, the sample of views
obtained was small (16 in each county, compared with 48 in Hampshire and 60
in Essex). Furthermore, the juries worked in isolation from a more general public
consultation process, compared with the CAC processes.
In Hampshire and Essex the views of a wide range and large number of
people were gathered through traditional consultation methods conducted in
parallel to the CAC process. In Essex, for example, these included: an information booklet about waste management; ongoing proactive liaison with the
media; a Waste Awareness Week involving a series of features on local radio; a
Waste Buster educational bus; a Buy Recycled Campaign in partnership with
retailers; interviews with the media by CAC members; and feedback by some to
their local community organizations, churches or associations.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

215

This integration of methods, optimizing information receipt and the opportunity to comment, is the primary means to dispel complaints from outsider
groups that the process is elitist or biased in the decision authoritys favour. The
more people that are involved, the more likely that the outcomes will be
accepted (Fiorino, 1990). The greater the potential for inclusiveness, the greater
the diversity of experience represented (Barnes, 1999a).

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Procedural Fairness
Organizer inuence over process procedures and agenda is an attractive feature
for decision makers and one likely to encourage the use of the new processes.
However, strategic agenda selection (Vari, 1995) is a potential source of disquiet
amongst participants. The complexity and breadth of waste management issues
require decision makers to craft the opening agenda. Government guidance and
policy objectives have to provide a discussion framework, as do the characteristics of the waste arisings of the local area. None of this, however, should bar
participants from adding to the agenda during the process as they begin to
identify issues of concern and linkages with other issues.
The CACs did provide the opportunity for participant inuence over the
agenda, e.g. in the issues to be addressed in the 1-day expert seminar. In
Hampshire, the CACs identied hazardous household waste as an additional
management issue and had an inuence on the setting up of a waste minimization initiative by the County Council.
The CAC processes were facilitated by consultants with waste management
knowledge, the emphasis being on ensuring a comprehensive consideration of
the options for managing waste. In Hampshire, the CACs were chaired by a
member of the public; in Essex, by the facilitators. In both, the facilitators
worked with ofcers to develop the programme of meetings, the independent
chairmen in Hampshire providing a degree of direct public input to this process.
This description might suggest that the CACs were managed processes. However, it was only a minority of the participants who regarded this as a problem.
The juries provided no opportunity for juror input to the agenda, not least as
the scope of the debate had to be dened in advance so that relevant expert
witnesses could be made available. The programmes were drawn up by the
independent moderator in discussion with the County Councils and academics.
Once the juries commenced, the moderators role was to ensure that all jurors
were given an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, rather than ensuring
that specic waste management issues were addressed.
A better way to draw up the agenda, used in other, non-environmental, jury
processes, is to hold stakeholder meetings to agree a programme in advance.
This inevitably adds to the process time-scale. It must be noted that in neither
of the juries discussed here did participants complain that issues important to
them had not been discussed (Richard Kuper (moderator of the juries), personal
communication).
Deliberation
The CAC processes used multiple methods (presentations, seminars, site visits,
group discussion, videos, information packs and a library of information available for individuals to take home) which optimized opportunities for individuals

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

216 J. Petts
to learn progressively and respond to learning mode preferences. Participants
were provided with any information they requested from the authorities, as far
as possible. This diversity of information sources served to reinforce some
messages and to enable the identication of differences in expert views, providing an important basis for discussion. The size and complexity of the waste
management problem became increasingly evident to participants, which undoubtedly led to the residual view that they had not been able to deal with all
of the issues.
Despite the lengthy CAC programmes, participants commented that they had
had inadequate time to acquaint themselves with relevant information. They
requested more discussion time during each meeting (at the expense of presentations) rather than a longer process per se. To the observer of the CAC meetings
there was a clear formal style with information managed in terms of its
presentation and with discussion often moved quickly through key bullet points
(Petts, 1994).
The public hearing format of the jury inevitably limits dialogue (Armour,
1995). While there was evident learning it was clear that the time was insufcient for all questions to be dealt with and for an iterative process of
discussion to take place. The process was focused on a taskwhich was to
question the immediate witness. This inevitably constrained the lines of discussion at any point in time. Although the jurors beneted from site visits, like
the CAC participants, they did not have access to other literature apart from that
presented by the experts. Learning to promote deliberation was therefore limited
to the period of witness presentations and questioning. Only on the nal day
were the juries able to pull together the various themes which had emerged and
to confront their own conicting viewpoints, although they did split into small
groups to collate their questions for specic witnesses during the process.
Responses to a questionnaire following the Hertfordshire jury showed the
majority felt that the time for discussion was too limited (Kuper, 1996, 1997), but
also revealed concern that some of them would not have been able to participate
over a longer period.
Although over the few days of a jury it appeared to be possible for jurors to
develop a mutual understanding, there was less opportunity for understanding
to develop between jurors and witnesses and between jurors and elected ofcials
and ofcers who would take the decisions. This was an important difference
between the two processes.

Engagement of Dissent
The greater the potential for inclusiveness, the greater the diversity of experience
which will be represented, an absence of minority dissent from group views not
necessarily being a positive indicator (Barnes, 1999a). Waste management is
known to produce a divergence of views, particularly in relation to the optimum
balance between treatment/disposal and recycling, and in relation to the
signicance of environmental and health impacts. National environmental
groups have led anti-incineration and anti-landll campaigns.
The CAC processes recruited people known to have strong anti-incineration
views. This minority view within the CACs was recognized, openly dealt with
and recorded throughout. It is interesting that in both CAC processes partici-

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

217

pants felt that this dissent and disagreement had been productive, indeed vital
to the debate.
The minority in both processes who could not agree with the consensus view
on the need for energy-from-waste incineration reported that they had gained an
understanding of the views of the majority. However, the Essex participants
produced more concern that vociferous voices had been a problem, possibly
because participants were more knowledgeable about waste issues when they
started compared with the Hampshire participants, resulting in developed
opinions appearing sometimes to dominate discussion.
Expert disagreement was aired directly through the seminars, but otherwise
CAC participants were required to understand this through the literature
provided. However, in Hampshire 63% of participants surveyed stressed that
they had gained information through direct communication rather than from
reading (Petts, 1997). In both processes there was concern that information and
presentations which put both the for and the against views must be provided,
a panel debate being the preferred method for achieving this as opposed to the
individual witness confrontation encouraged by a jury.
The juries did not aim to recruit people known to have particular views. In
Lancashire people employed in the waste industry and members of local groups
with a particular interest in waste were excluded. Therefore, any pre-existing
anti-incineration views were only present by chance. Dissent within the jury was
managed by changing membership of the small discussion groups to avoid any
subgroups consolidating around particular issues. The selected mix of witnesses
(e.g. an anti-incineration view from a health researcher during the Hertfordshire
process) ensured that the jurors were made aware of expert disagreements.
However, confrontation of these was limited, as each witness was isolated from
others.

Expert Challenge and Claims Checking

The challenging of dominant expert assumptions and approaches to assessment
and control lies at the heart of improving the accountability of decision making.
This requires a fundamental shift in the relationship between experts and the
public. Public involvement is not a process of experts educating the ignorant
public. Recognizing expertise as a collective learning process (Limoges, 1993)
provides a more relevant denition of what needs to happen at the interface
between experts and the public in the current climate of distrust. It also aptly
describes what the public demand of experts in discussion, i.e. they want to test
what is known, what is not and knowledge certainty; they want to examine
assumptions, and to gather information from different parties so as to test
credibility and independence (Petts, 1997).
The CAC processes were weak in providing for the direct testing of credibility
in that, the seminars apart, the dominant presenters of information were local
authority ofcers, who were not necessarily expert in all of the technical issues,
such as the health risks of dioxins. The stated preference for debate by a panel
of experts reected the inherent understanding that vested interest and uncertain science underpin expert disagreement. People want to make up their own
minds having listened to all views.
The CAC discourse was based on free availability of information backed by

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

218 J. Petts
the information individuals gained during the expert seminar and from the
library of information available to them and the site visits. The CACs did face
complex issues dogged by information deciencies, e.g. the relative costs and
health impacts of different management options. However, the nature of the
CAC process allowed for the revisiting of issues if these were important, and the
non-adversarial style allowed individuals to assimilate information in their own
time.
Although some literature was available to jury members (including summaries of each witnesss presentation), and they also went on site visits, there
was a belief that many would not be used to reading ofcial and formal reports,
articles or technical evaluations and might nd it difcult to assimilate the
material (Richard Kuper, personal communication). Therefore, the jurors were
largely reliant on the verbal evidence provided and had to nd ways to retain
this and to determine its validity. It is interesting, for example, that in Hertfordshire the issue of dioxins and health was raised not by the jurors but by the
anti-incineration witness. By contrast, in the CACs, access to material, and the
presence of known anti-incineration views, ensured that dioxins and health
became a major CAC-generated issue.
While jurors remained positive about their task, the signicant amount
of information they received, and the short time they had to collate their
thoughts and to question the experts, meant that they tended to drift off the
subject being discussed at a particular point and/or to lag behind so
that expert witnesses were confronted with questions better suited to those
who had presented evidence at an earlier stage. There were numerous
questions which went unanswered. As a witness on the rst day of the
Lancashire jury it was evident that jurors could readily raise some of the key
complex issues, such as the costs of recycling, but that these would easily
become blurred unless the process provided means to retain and order discussion points.
The time restrictions in the juries meant that, compared with the CACs,
individuals had difculties learning progressively (although there is no doubt
that people did gain knowledge). They had to respond immediately to the topic
being presented to them, regardless of understanding and of whether they had
gained the condence to raise appropriate questions. None of the processes used
structuring techniques (such as value-tree analysis) to identify, retain and order
the relevant values, issues, interests and views.
There was initial scepticism by councillors and some ofcers of the ability of
the public to get to grips with such a complex issue. In all four processes this
proved unfounded. The underpinning knowledge based in personal experience
that people brought to the processes was signicant in relation to issues such as
recycling or the local nuisance impacts of landll. What it revealed, however,
was the clear tension between modes of expression, members of the public using
anecdotal and personal evidence whilst experts used systematic and generalized
evidence based on abstract knowledge (Dietz et al., 1989). The two modes do not
have to remain in different corners of the debating ring, but this requires the
deliberative process to allow discussion time, opportunity and resources (e.g. of
interpretation and mediation) for the hidden rationalities in the arguments of
any party to be explored. It is doubtful whether any of the processes discussed
here achieved this.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

219

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Making a Difference to Participants

If people are to be persuaded to take part in deliberative processes and to be
prevented from suffering participation overload they must derive personal
value: learning, self-esteem, social contact and friendships; even fun. Decision
makers similarly have to gain not just in organizational learning and improved
public condence, but also in personal enjoyment of engagement with local
people and a renewed sense of commitment to their work (Barnes, 1999a).
Each of the processes had a fundamental and favourable impact on the
participants. In the Essex CAC the majority of those surveyed post-process
reported that their own knowledge had improved considerably. In Hampshire
many CAC members obtained an understanding of waste management issues
that was better than that of some of those who would have to make decisions.
People reported enjoying the processes.
Ofcers and, to a degree, elected members in Hampshire and Essex reported
that the process was encouraging, opened up discussion and allowed for
people to let off steam and for themselves to understand better the concerns
of different people. Pre-event they had placed greater stress on the potential to
change opinions. There is no doubt that the standing of individual ofcers with
whom people had regular contact rose considerably.
The juries provided less opportunity for such credibility raising, although
participants were appreciative that the County Councils had organized the
processes. The post-jury questionnaires revealed that people had enjoyed taking
part and approved of the way that the processes had been run. In Hertfordshire,
15 of the 16 jurors felt that the money spent on the jury was money well spent
(Kuper, 1996). A wide range of suggestions were made for issues for future
juries, such as education provision, council spending and trafc management,
and 11 of the 16 said that they would denitely serve if called again (Kuper,
1996)a sense of citizenship being evident.
The pre- and post-jury questionnaires also revealed the increased personal
understanding and knowledge gained from the process. For example, there was
an increase in the perceived importance of waste reduction and composting as
a result of deliberation (Kuper, 1996).

Ensuring a Consensus
The process of seeking a consensus on recommendations to be made to decision
makers is fundamental to both juries and CACs. It ensures their continued
functioning in terms of willing participant engagement, as well as the ultimate
legitimacy of the process. Raising trust between participants through the deliberative process is important, as the aim is to achieve outcomes upon which people
can agree, based on respect for different values within the group. Consensus
outcomes require people to be willing to accept the alternative view as legitimate, but not necessarily to change their own position.
The structure of CACs promotes consensual decision making, i.e. face-to-face
communication over relatively long time-periods with nothing prohibiting participants from raising factual issues or personal beliefs and weighing up different kinds of knowledge, except information resources and time during sessions
(Renn et al., 1995). As has already been noted, the CACs here both reported some
time and information deciencies. The managed processes were directed to

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

220 J. Petts
closure after a dened period. However, each CAC group prepared its own
conclusions and a list of the main issues and recommendations from each
process was agreed by all of the groups. Majority and minority views were
included.
This nal process of consensus building was able to capitalize upon agreement
of outcomes during the process: for example, the minutes of every CAC meeting,
drafted by the facilitators, were open to agreement and recording of minority
views and became public documents. In both processes there was a majority
view that a form of consensus had been achieved, related to the need for an
integrated waste management strategy. In Hamphire, a few who had concerns
at the beginning that this was merely a public relations exercise by the County
Council felt that the nal outcome was inevitable because discussion and
comments had been led to it (Petts, 1994). Some people noted that the CACs
nal report was quite basic and that they would have liked to have been able to
have produced a more detailed document on specic solutions.
Citizens juries often do not make use of the best methods to arrive at shared
preferences (Renn et al., 1995), opportunities for group discussion being relatively limited except on the nal day of deliberations. In the Hertfordshire and
Lancashire juries the draft nal report was produced by the moderator rather
than the jurors, drawing upon notes of views expressed and provisional positions taken during the previous days. It was then discussed during the nal day
session, redrafted by the moderator and considered again by the jury. This
moderator-driven closure mechanism can be seen as important when time is
short, but could have the potential for failure unless the person concerned has
been able to generate trust within the jury. The moderator of the Hertfordshire
jury concluded that generally jurors did not feel pressurised to agree with the
majority. Where they modied their views it was the result of a process of
informed deliberation (Kuper, 1996, p. 28). Only one person in Hertfordshire
reported feeling under pressure to agree with the majority view. Comparison
between the jurors before and after questionnaires in Hertfordshire suggested
a convergence of views in the jury, with shared approaches being strengthened
by discussion without differences being suppressed (Kuper, 1997).

Making a Difference to Decisions

The conclusions reached differed in complexity of view but not in overall focus.
The CAC processes produced a view that there was a need for an integrated
waste strategy, whereas the jury processes seemed to produce a slightly more
anti-incineration view with greater emphasis on recycling, although it would be
wrong to draw too rm a conclusion in this regard. In Lancashire there was
agreement that any decision by the County Council which might favour energyfrom-waste incineration should be deferred for a period of 35 years, although
this was not to prevent the County Council from investigating the legal and
contractual issues as well as possible sites (Lancashire Citizen Jury, 2000). In
Hertfordshire the jurors set a target of no more that one-third of current arisings
going to incineration with recycling and reuse to be maximized (Kuper, 1996),
although it is not clear how they arrived at this gure, gut feeling possibly being
most likely. In all four counties landll was seen as the least acceptable option;
waste minimization and recycling were given greatest support.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

221

The processes resulted in the recognition that there are no easy solutions to
waste management and that unied commitment to waste reduction and the
recycling of resources is required. In Hampshire and Essex the conclusions were
more detailed in terms of specic types of facilities which might be appropriate
within an integrated strategy. In Hampshire the conclusions impacted directly
and immediately on the waste management contract let (e.g. in terms of the
capacity of the energy-from-waste incinerators).
It would be wrong to conclude that the slightly different outcomes reected
only the different deliberative processes. The differing waste management,
social, economic and decision contexts of the four counties have to be considered. For example, in Hampshire the options available to be considered were
in practice fewer, as landll void is exhausted. In Hampshire and Essex the
decision processes for letting new waste contracts were more imminent and
pressing. This might have produced a greater emphasis on the need to produce
an implementable conclusion, i.e. greater pragmatism.
No process can operate in isolation from existing views and tensions in an
authority. In Hertfordshire a draft waste local plan supportive of incineration
had generated a petition of over 1000 anti-incineration signatures. In Essex a
draft waste local plan had already identied a site for an incinerator in the south
of the county. In Hampshire the immediate background was a failed application
for an incinerator in Portsmouth (Petts, 1994). There is little doubt that the
conclusions of both the CACs and juries were strongly inuenced by mistrust of
regulatory, institutional and corporate mechanisms and priorities. For example,
the demands by the Hampshire and Essex CACs for small-capacity energy-fromwaste plant reected concerns that long-term recycling rates would be adversely
affected by large-capacity plant. In Hertfordshire the 40% incineration limit was
seen by some jurors as a way of not letting the County Council off the hook in
terms of raising recycling limits (Richard Kuper, personal communication).
Nevertheless, there was some evidence in the jury outcomes of a wish list
(Armour, 1995), the time for witnesses to make expressive claims and to discuss
authenticity being relatively limited. On the other hand, the CAC processes
could be considered to be managed to arrive at a consensus view about the need
for an integrated strategy.
The reports of the CACs and juries were ofcially received by the relevant
decision-making committees and formal responses were given. The Hertfordshire County Council Waste Planning Policy Panel:
welcomed the report of the jury as a constructive contribution to the
development of the County Councils strategy for waste management.
In particular the advice of the jury has provided a useful insight to
public perceptions of those initiatives that are likely to succeed, and promote sustainable waste management practices (Kuper, 1996, pp. E1-E2).
This conclusion hints at a fundamental issue in any consideration of making a
difference to decisions, i.e. are we concerned only with immediate outcomes
and decisions or should we also be interested in the impact on the broader,
perhaps longer-term, culture of decision making? Deliberative processes should
make a signicant contribution to changing the culture in which decisions are
made. The traditional paternalistic nature of decision making by local authorities
should be undermined by deliberative processes. There is no doubt that decision
makers in each of the authorities concerned have embarked on a new relation-

222 J. Petts
ship with the local public through these processes. There is recognition that
decisions can be better informed. The condence of decision makers to take
difcult and complex decisions has been raised.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Transparency and Openness

The juries were self-focused and discrete, i.e. not part of a major public
information and consultation exercise. The juries were open to observation in the
witness sessions, but not in their own small-group deliberations. Permitting
observation in the latter might be counter-productive as, in the very short time
(often only 2030 minutes) available in these sessions, opportunities to build
jurors condence and ability to participate are paramount. Attendance by
observers at the juries was very low.
All of the CAC meetings were open to the public, the industry and other
interested parties as observers only. People identied themselves at the beginning of each meeting. Whilst not allowed to comment during the CACs
deliberations, they could ask questions at the end of each meeting. However,
attendance was again low, there being usually no more than a dozen additional
people in the room, with the majority of these often being ofcers from the
district authorities. It was clear that the CAC process did not capture the public
imagination; indeed, it is actually extremely difcult to see how this could be
achieved. Even the media had difculty in maintaining an ongoing story. Waste
management lacks media sex appeal until specic proposals and sites are
identied.
The most important difference between the CAC and jury processes was that
the former were run in parallel with major, mixed, information provision and
consultation activities (including questionnaires, focus groups and public meetings).

The Optimum Process?

Table 3 attempts to summarize the performance of the processes in the four
counties against the 10 evaluation criteria. It is important to emphasize that the
two processes have not been evaluated against local effectiveness criteria offered
by the participants themselves. As indicated earlier, the objective is not to
suggest one process as being better than the other. Indeed, Table 3 suggests that
there is no optimum process. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
To date, UK applications of deliberative processes to waste management
decisions have been largely application by the book. This is not meant as a
criticism, as it is evident that the application has been valuable to both participants and decision makers, and the increase in the number of county councils
and waste disposal authorities considering the methods is testimony to the
evidence of their overall impact. Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, for
example, used a consensus panel to aid the development of its waste strategy
during 2000. However, the immense complexity of waste management as a
decision problem suggests that there is a need to adapt the processes if an
optimum is to be achieved.
The experience and evaluation in Table 3 suggest that the optimum process
for strategic waste planning is one which:

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

223

Table 3. Summary evaluation of the performance of the processes

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Criterion
Representativeness
Procedural fairness
Deliberation
Engagement of within-group
dissent
Expert challenge
Claims testing
Making a difference to
participants
Promotion of consensus
Making a difference to
decisions
Transparency/Openness

CACs: Hampshire and

Essex

Citizens juries:
Hertfordshire and
Lancashire

*(*)a
**
***
***

***
*
*
**

*
**
***

**
**
***

***
***

***
**(*) b

***

**

If parallel public consultation exercise is taken into account.

Decisions in Hertfordshire and Lancashire on waste strategies still to be taken:
therefore it is not possible to gauge full impact.
Note: *, **, *** Increasing success in meeting criteria.
b

(1) combines the confrontational style of the jury with the learning style of the
CAC;
(2) opens the agenda and operation of the process to participant inuence and
to adaptation in the light of participants requirements;
(3) allows ample discussion time;
(4) is exible so that additional time and information resources can be allocated
to deal with participant-generated issues;
(5) is part of a broader public consultation and information process;
(6) integrates public involvement with the assessment and decision-making
process;
(7) uses a recruitment process which ensures that both a spread of interests and
socio-demographically representative views are included.
Almost certainly it means a tiered or phased process which combines different
forms of deliberative process. The German experience (Renn et al., 1993) might
be difcult to replicate in the UK because of the compartmentalized nature of
decision making, which separates the waste strategy from the siting process
itself. However, mixing methods to match purpose and the use of structured
assessment processes such as multi-criteria analysis and site ranking techniques
are worthy of consideration. This would require a further culture shift amongst
decision makers and experts to allow an interactive assessment process where
people representative of community interests and characteristics debate and
directly inuence the choice of scenarios, assumptions and acceptability criteria
which underpin the technical assessment of the best practicable environmental
strategy. Such culture and practice development has signicant implications for
resources and skills, over and above the additional costs that the processes
reported here result in.
There are two remaining major issues which, as yet, have generated only
luke-warm acceptance: the need to dene publicly acceptable evaluation criteria;

224 J. Petts
and the formal and independent evaluation of the process based on the participants, the non-participating publics and the decision makers criteria. The
evaluation process has to adopt participatory techniques (Barnes, 1999a, b) if the
learning objective which should underpin evaluation is to be optimized.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Conclusion
Four English county councils have experimented with novel approaches to
gaining the input of public views and values into strategies for the long-term
management of municipal waste. Considering theoretical criteria relevant to the
fair and competent process, the forms of CACs used seem to have been more
effective in enhancing deliberation, in engaging dissent and in being transparent
than have the citizens juries, but less effective in terms of the extent to which
they were representative of the views of the general public and direct expert
challenge.
The application of deliberative processes to such complex problems as waste
management, whether at the national, regional or local levels, requires an
adaptive approach to the application of methods. The ideal would seem to be an
approach which combines the advantages of both CACs and juries integrated
with broader public consultation so that the key criticism of representation is
tackled. Integration of methods combined with more structured means to
involve the public in the assessment process itself will be essential.
There is little doubt that evidence of what works can only be gained by an
evaluation process which is independent of the actual deliberative process. The
evaluation of participation should stress a learning rather than a judgemental
process.

Acknowledgements
For the opportunity to observe the juries, the author thanks Hertfordshire and
Lancashire waste disposal authorities. For the opportunity to evaluate formally
the CACs, the author thanks Hampshire and Essex waste disposal authorities.
The author beneted greatly from discussions with Pat Delbridge of PDA
International Ltd, organizer of the Hampshire and Essex CACs, and Richard
Kuper, the moderator of the juries. The author thanks Richard Kuper for his
valuable comments on a draft of this paper. The author would also like to thank
Marian Barnes of the Department of Social Policy at the University of Birmingham for discussing her experience of juries in other decision areas, and Simon
Gerrard of the Centre for Environmental Risk Management at the University of
East Anglia for his observations on the Hertfordshire process. All errors of facts
and interpretation are entirely the authors.
References
Aarhus Convention (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 25 June 1998, Aarhus, Denmark (Geneva, UNECE).
Aranoff, M. & Gunter, V. (1994) A pound of cure: facilitating participatory processes in technological
hazard disputes, Society and Natural Resources, 7, pp. 235252.
Armour, A. (1991) The siting of locally unwanted land uses, Progress in Planning, 35, pp. 174.
Armour, A. (1995) The citizens jury model of public participation, in: O. Renn, T. Webler & P.

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes

225

Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
35(4), pp. 216244.
Barnes, M. (1999a) Researching public participation, Local Government Studies, 25, pp. 6075.
Barnes, M. (1999b) Building a Deliberative Democracy: An Evaluation of Two Citizens Juries (London,
Institute of Public Policy Research).
Council of Europe (1999) Directive on the landll of waste, 99/31/EC, Ofcial Journal of the European
Communities, L182/1/99.
Creighton, J. (1983) The use of values: public participation in the planning process, in: G. A. Daneke,
M. W. Garcia & J. D. Priscoli (Eds) Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment (Boulder, CO,
Westview Press).
Creighton, J. (1993) Guidelines for Establishing Citizens Advisory Groups (Washington, DC, US Department of Energy).
Crosby, N. (1995) Citizens juries: one solution for difcult environmental questions, in: O. Renn, T.
Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for
Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Crosby, N., Kelly, J.M. & Schaefer, P. (1986) Citizens panels: a new approach to citizen participation,
Public Administration Review, 46, pp. 170178.
Daniels, S.E. & Walker, G.B. (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, pp. 71102.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998) Enhancing Public Participation in Local Government (London, HMSO).
DETR (2000) Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales (London, DETR).
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. & Rycroft, R.W. (1989) Denition of conict and the legitimation of resources:
the case of environmental risk, Sociological Forum, 4, pp. 4769.
Environment Agency (1998) Consensus-building for Sustainable Development, SD12 (London, Environment Agency).
Fiorino, D.J. (1990) Public participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms, Science, Technology and Human Values, 152, pp. 226243.
Gutman, A. & Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalisation of Society, vol. 1
(Cambridge, Polity Press).
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London, Macmillan).
Houghton, D. (1988) Citizen advisory boards: autonomy and effectiveness, American Review of Public
Administration, 18, pp. 283296.
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2000) Guidelines for Public Participation in
Environmental Decision-making (http://www.greenchannel.com/iea/consulta.htm).
Kathlene, L. & Martin, J. (1991) Enhancing citizen participation: panel designs, perspectives and
policy formation, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, pp. 4663.
Keeney, R.L., Renn, O. & Winterfeldt, D. von (1987) Structuring West Germanys energy objectives,
Energy Policy, 15, pp. 352362.
Kuper, R. (1996) Citizens Juries: The Hertfordshire Experience, Politics Paper No. 3 (Hertford, University
of Hertfordshire).
Kuper, R. (1997) Deliberating waste: the Hertfordshire Citizens Jury, Local Environment, 2(2),
pp. 139153.
Lancashire Citizen Jury (2000) Recommendations to the Waste Management Steering Group, January 2000
(Lancashire, Lancashire County Council).
Limoges, C. (1993) Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts, Public Understanding of Science, 2, pp. 417426.
Lynn, F.M. & Busenberg, G.J. (1995) Citizen advisory committees and environmental policy: what we
know, whats left to discover, Risk Analysis, 15(2), pp. 147162.
Lynn, F.M. & Kartez, J. (1995) The redemption of citizen advisory committees: a perspective from
critical theory, in: O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Petts, J. (1992) Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: experience in the UK improving risk
communication, Waste Management and Research, 10, pp. 169182.
Petts, J. (1994) Hampshire County Council Integrated Waste Strategy Community Consultation and
Involvement, ETSU B/EW/00389/73/REP (Harwell, Energy Technology Support Unit).

Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 14:31 01 May 2014

226 J. Petts
Petts, J. (1995) Waste management strategy development: a case study of community involvement
and consensus-building in Hampshire, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(4),
pp. 519536.
Petts, J. (1997) The publicexpert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility
and process, Public Understanding of Science, 6(4), pp. 359382.
Petts, J. (1999) Public participation in EIA, in: J. Petts (Ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact
Assessment, vol. 1 (Oxford, Blackwell Science).
Petts, J., Gerrard, S., Delbridge, P., Murrell, L. & Eduljee, G. (1996) Perceptions and Communication
Issues for Waste Management, Research Report CWM 151/96 (London, Environment Agency).
Portney, K.E. (1991) Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities (New York, Auburn House).
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. & Johnson, B. (1993) Public participation in decision
making: a three step procedure, Policy Sciences, 26, pp. 191214.
Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (Eds) (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation:
Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Schneider, E., Oppermann, B. & Renn, O. (1998) Experiences from Germany: application of a
structured model of public participation in waste management planning, International Journal of
Public Participation, 4(1), pp. 6372.
Sewell, W.R.D. & Coppock, J.T. (1977) A perspective on public participation in planning, in: W. R.
D. Sewell & J. T. Coppock (Eds) Public Participation in Planning (London, Wiley).
Smith, L.G. (1987) The evolution of public participation in Canada: implications for participatory
practice, British Journal of Canadian Studies, 2(2), pp. 213235.
Stern, P.C. (1991) Learning through conict: a realistic strategy for risk communication, Policy
Sciences, 24, pp. 99119.
Stern, P.C. & Fineberg, H.V. (Eds) (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic
Society (Washington, DC, National Academy Press).
Vari, A. (1995) Citizens advisory committee as a model for public participation: a multiple-criteria
evaluation, in: O. Renn, T. Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Webler, T. (1995) Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick, in: O. Renn, T.
Webler & P. Wiedemann (Eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for
Environmental Discourse (Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Webler, T. (1999) The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process, Journal of Risk
Research, 2(1), pp. 5572.
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. & Renn, O. (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social
learning perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, pp. 443463.
Young, S.C. (1996) Promoting Participation and Community-based Partnerships in the Context of Local
Agenda 21: A Report for Practitioners (Manchester, University of Manchester, Department of
Government).