Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective

ELSEVIER

M A N A G I N G T H E E I A P R O C E S S

Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective

Thomas Webler Wendell, Massachusetts

Hans Kastenholz Institute for Behavioral Science, Ziirich, Switzerland

Ortwin Renn Center o f Technology Assessment in Baden-Wiirttemberg, Stuttgart, Germany

This paper is a contribution to the development o f normative criteria for evaluating models o f the participation process. The concept o f social learning is described and an effort to show how communities o f people with both diverse and common interests can reach agreement on collective action to solve a shared problem. The authors have developed the idea o f "cooperative discourse" as a method to achieve consensus. The authors utilize the case study o f the siting o f a municipal waste disposal facility in the eastern region o f the Canton o f Aargau in Switzerland, to demonstrate the applicability o f'cooperative discourse". They argue that successful public participation must yield not only fair and competent decisions, but also uncover common needs and understandings that transcend egoistic aims, and contribute to the development o f democracy.

Introduction

There are three main reasons why environmental and social impact assessments include opportunities for public participation. First, the competence of the final decision is higher when local knowledge is included and when ex-

Address requests for reprints to: Thomas Webler, 132 Farley Road, Wendell, MA. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the Society for Human Ecology 7th

Meeting, East Lansing, MI, USA April 22, 1994.

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1995;15:443-463 © 1995 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0195-9255/95/$9.50 SSDI 0195-9255(95)00043-E

444 THOMAS WEBLER, HANS KASTENHOLZ, AND ORTWIN RENN

pert knowledge is publicly examined. Second, the legitimacy of the final outcome is higher when potentially affected parties can state their own case before their peers and have equal chances to influence the outcome (i.e., the process was fair). Third, public participation is identified with proper conduct of democratic government in public decision making activities.

There is an additional reason why public participation should continue to play a role in impact assessment, but this is rarely a motivation for project sponsors who are responsible for implementing public participation programs.l

When citizens become involved in working out a mutually acceptable solution to a project or problem that affects their community and their personal lives, they mature into responsible democratic citizens and reaffirm democracy (Barber 1984). One way of describing this phenomenon on a societal level is to use the term social learning.

This paper builds on earlier research by Daniel Fiorino (1990) and Frank Laird (1993) to develop normative criteria for process evaluation. Using political theories of democracy, they deduced normative criteria and applied these to evaluating a variety of citizen participation models. These papers are significant because they recognize the limitations of evaluative approaches that focus solely on empowerment, degree of influence, or subjective satisfaction with the results. Both Fiorino and Laird emphasize that one thing citizen participation should enhance is learning (Laird calls it "group learning"). But, because they are working from theories of democracy, the criteria they develop for learning are not able to capture important attributes of the communication process. Employing a social-psychological approach to group interaction overcomes these limitations and presents a refreshing, new, and more precise perspective of citizen participation.

Until now our research has centered on two main criteria for good public decision making processes: fairness and competence (Webler 1995; Renn and Webler 1992). In this paper we supplement these criteria with measures of social learning. Taken together, we believe that these three criteria (fairness, competence, and social learning) can provide a firm basis for evaluating public participation processes. We approach the present task by concentrating on how public participation can enhance social learning processes and we illustrate how the evaluative criteria can be applied using one recent case study on impact assessment from Switzerland.

Social Learning

The concept of social learning has a long varied history of use. On a psychological and pedagogical level, Bandura (1971, 1986, 1991), following Lewin, investigated how the learning process in individuals is dependent on social interaction. He called this social learning and it i n c l u d e d - b u t clearly went

~This is the core of Jean Jacques Rousseau's concept of democracy (Rousseau 196811762]). In the USA during the early 1960s this was an oft-cited amd highly visible argument behind government mandates for participation in housing, education, and urban development (Moynihan, 1969).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AS SOCIAL LEARNING 445

beyond- imi ta t ion . Some have sought to explain the biological roots of Ban- dura's social learning (Boyd and Richerson 1988; Zentall and Galeff 1988). Others have moved away from the psychological level to investigate how social organizations learn (Argyris 1993; Sims and Lorenzi 1992; Pedler, Bur- goyne, and BoydeU 1991; Clarke 1989, Perrow 1984). Another sociological approach that has recently gained widespread attention (e.g., Wynne 1992a,b; Kastenholz and Erdmann 1992; Ternyik 1989; Pulliam 1982), but has long been central to the German tradition of critical theory (Habermas 1979), explains social change as a process of social learning. The implication made here is that human societies can learn to change so as to moderate problems to health and environment. 2 In this perspective, social change is a process of coordinated learning with cognitive and normative dimensions.

We employ the term in an approach that uses psychological and sociological aspects. Our interdisciplinary approach focuses on how structures and activities of group communication processes can influence the development of individuals in a positive and coordinated manner. To us, social learning means more than merely individuals learning in a social situation. We envision a community of people with diverse personal interests, but also common interests, who must come together to reach agreement on collective action to solve a mutual problem. Social learning refers to the process by which changes in the social condition occur--particularly changes in popular awareness and changes in how individuals see their private interests linked with the shared interests of their fellow citizens. This is a product of individuals learning how to solve their shared problems in a manner that is responsible to both factual correct- ness and normative consent (meaning legal and social responsibilities).

We distinguish between learning that happens immediately within the participation process and learning that happens outside of the process. Both aspects are important to social learning, since every member of the community affected by the problem cannot be expected to participate. People within the process have a very intense interactive learning and working experience. But the success of a policy choice at being implemented also depends on its legitimacy in the eyes of people outside the process. The outside (non- participating) population can learn about what happened inside the process through press coverage or directly from the participants (in informal or formal settings). In this paper we restrict our attention to the learning process inside the process.

Components o f Social Learning

We recognize two general components to social learning: cognitive enhancement and moral development. Cognitive enhancement means much more than gaining technical competence (Schwebel, Maher, and Fagley 1990). Although

2By this we refer to problems associated with social reproduction and socialization.


that is one aspect, it is equally important to learn about collective values and preferences, and the subjective impressions and feelings of others.

Cognitive enhancement is l ea rn ing- the acquisition of knowledge. Here we include:

• learning about the state of the problem (information and knowledge); • learning about the possible solutions and the accompanying consequences

(cause-effect relations, predictions); • learning about other peoples' and groups' interests and values (informa-

tion, explanation); • learning about one's own personal interests (reflection); • learning about methods, tools, and strategies to communicate well and

reach agreement (rhetoric, decision theory, small group interaction); and • practicing holistic or integrative thinking.

Moral development is a term that highlights how individuals come to be able to make judgments about right and wrong (Kurtines and Gewirtz 1987). When they act morally, people set aside their egoistic demands and act for the good of all. In public participation this would include: 3

• developing a sense of self-respect and responsibility to oneself and others, regardless of how these may impact on one's own personal interests or values, and acting accordingly;

• being able to take on the perspective of others; • developing skills for moral reasoning and problem solving that enables

one to solve conflicts as they arise; • developing a sense of solidarity with the group (adoption of collective

interests as one's own); • learning how to integrate new cognitive knowledge into one's opinion of

which choice is preferred; and • learning how to cooperate with others in solving collective problems. In the next section we illustrate how these criteria can be applied to evaluate

a public participation process.

The Case Study

The Model for Cooperative Discourse

Our model for public participation is a citizen panel type model augmented with stakeholder group participation in designing decision options, expert witnesses, and an expert group Delphi. The model has been described in detail elsewhere (Renn et al. 1993; Renn and Webler 1992; Webler 1993); only a short summary will be given here.

Our approach is to establish discourses where social learning processes can

3Thomas Likona has proposed a process model for moral education with four components: building self- esteem, cooperative learning, participatory decision making, and moral reflection (1991). See Likona 1991.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . ~ . ` . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i::i::::iiii:: ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ~::~!~!~::~::~::~ ' i~::i:/:~:: ~ :: :::::: i~Sta ke h aide r~ :: i :: :: i i i i i il Elicit [: i :: i i i i il Suggest Options, li !:i ! !i::i::i ! Serve as lilili::!iii ~!!ii!iii}| Groups /!i!}!i!i!i!iiii}!}i}! V a l u e Trees li!i!iii!i!iii!il Suggest Experts |iiiiiiii}::i::i::| Witnesses to i::i::!::i::ii I : : : : :~ ":':':':':':':':':': :':':':':':':': :':':':':':':" Citizen Pones ':-:-:-::

::::::::::: ======================= ::::::::::::::: !i!i?iii?i!ii: ::i:i:i:i G e n e r a t e °,o,,0o.,0.,: :::::::::::4 E ucate F:4

|iiiiiiiii~Scientists |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii| OPt ons liiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Judgments e n |iiiiiiiiiiiii!| and Defend |!iiiiiiii| |::i:::::::::::& :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: op.o., :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Judgments I::::::::::::::::::1 [~i~i~ii~iii~i~i~i~i~i{i~i~i~i~i~i{i~i~:~ii~i~'i{!~i~!{!~!{!{!{i{i~!~i~!~!~!~!~!~!~!!!~!~!~!~!{i~i~i~i~i~!{!~i{i~!{!{!~!~i~!~!~!~!{!~!~!{!~!{!~!~!~!i!~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~i~~{~ I ..~..:.:~:.~...................~...~.~::::.::::::~:::::::::.:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:~:.:.:~:~:.:~:.:.~.:.:.:.:::::::i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.i:i:i:i:i:i:i.::::::::::::::::::::::::

Import Expert Opt ion

!'::::t Citizens I .................... ! Concern List: n I ............... I Judgments nt° ! .............. ! Reco. 1:::::::::1 !iii} iiiiiii}ii Add to or Modify iiiiii}i iii}}~i E v a l u a t l o n a n d i!iiiiii i i::i::i::i::i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: g !::!::!ii::!i!i!i! Groups Utilities ii!i!i!::i::!::!:: menda~n !i::i::i::i:: ,:,:,:,:,~ ~:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,::! I,:,?,:,4 1,:,?,:,4 I:,:,:, 1 .i:i:i:!:i'" ":i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i: :i:i:i:i:i:i:i: . :!:i:i:i:i:i:i !?iii!!!i l!iiiiiii~ ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Generate liiiiiiiiiiiiiiil iCs~t ~turitb ut e i liiiiiiiiiiiiiil Serve as liiiiiiiiil ~:i:i:i:!| Sponsor |:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i| C~nt ~n~ li:i:i:i:i:i:i:il o a |i:i:i:i:i:i:i:| witnesses to l:i:i:i:i:l I~iiiiiii& Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil . . . . liiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Knowledge liiiiiiiiiiiiill Citizen Panels Iiiiiiiiill

!:!i::::::i~Research~iiii:ii:i::::i:i::::i;] Concerns,nto [:i:i::i::iilJ Judgments l:iii:i;i;;:;iiiii:i] ..Compile Ii;:ii::::::ii: iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iii T ansfo m iiiiiiiiiiiiiii Verify Expert iiiiiiiiiiiiii , iiiiiiiii

.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e0o, !;iiiiiiii

! il ~ ....................... !!i!~ !! f::!::ii!::! i::i::iiiii~ JointV,lue "~iii::i::i::i::i::i::i~PeRormance~i::iii::iii::iiii~ Or~tlo,sa,d ~llliiiiiii:: ::::::::: """:::::::::: T ree ::::::::::::::: Score fo~ Each :::::::::::::: ~" :::::::::

.ii::iii::i~lllll~--~iiiiii::i::i::iii!.~ ======================= I~ .~i::i::i::ii!i!iii~i~_ mendof lon$ ~i::i!i::::::::

FIGURE 1. Depiction of the Cooperative Discourse Model for Public Decision Making.

take place. We call these types of discourse cooperative discourse, and they are inspired by the theories of Jurgen Habermas (Habermas 1984, 1987, 1991, 1992) and the theoretical and empirical work of Burns and Ueberhorst (1988); Dietz (1987); Dienel (1978, 1989); Kemp (1985). Focusing on social learning and cooperation draws us away from the pure egoistic approach of rational choice theories toward an approach which highlights the interaction of individuals and puts emphasis on understanding the values, beliefs, and intentions of oneself and others.


As Figure 1 illustrates, we recognize five actor types, each with specific interests, competencies, roles, and ambitions. The sponsor and the research team are primarily oriented toward facilitating and organizing discourses. The research team and the sponsor are ideally not interested in producing a specific decision outcome. Their task is to fulfill the conditions that make meaningful discourse possible. This includes inviting people to the first informational meeting, organizing the group Delphi, identifying stakeholders and doing value tree analysis with them, organizing the citizen panels so that terms are defined clearly and value disagreements about definitions are bracketed.

Experts are familiar with the scientific, technical, or social dimensions of the problem and the decision options. Their participation occurs chiefly at the group Delphi. This is a one-day workshop in which the extent of consensus and dissent among the expert community on impact assessments is clarified. Based on the principles of the Delphi exercise, a questionnaire is used to guide the discourse of 7 to 15 experts who participate in small group discussions rotated with plenary meetings. The small groups are encouraged to find consensus, and disagreements among the groups are worked out in the plenary (Webler et al. 1991). Experts may also appear as witnesses at the citizen panel. This way, cognitive uncertainties are not misrepresented, glossed over, or ignored by the citizens in making their final decision.

Stakeholders are political actors who have an interest in the problem. We try to include all organized and ad-hoc groups that feel impacted by the problem. The main responsibility of stakeholders is to represent value positions and indicate how the problem or the various decision options impact upon their interests or concerns. Stakeholders have roles to play in providing the political support that legitimates the discourse and suggesting experts for the group Delphi, but their primary activities are to serve on the oversight committee and be available as witnesses to the citizen panels.

Citizens play their major role in the organized panels. Discourse in the citizen panel is aimed primarily toward the sincere preferences of the discussants. For meaningful and productive discourse, the number of participants is limited to about 25. These people are chosen to be representative of the affected populat ion-- preferably through random selection. Because citizen panels de- mand a substantial commitment of time, it is best when they can be paid a nominal fee for their efforts.

Discourse proceeds in citizen panels with the research team as discussion leaders who guide the group through structured sessions of education, personal self-reflection, and consensus building. The research team cannot force the citizens to follow this protocol, but instead tries to enlist their support by describing the purpose of the process and inviting them to become co- designers of the discourse agenda and format. Citizens have their primary role in expressing a preference for a given decision option. They are also able to re-define the options, invite experts, and shape the process itself. At the informational meetings, citizens should ask questions and identify problems


with term definitions. Citizens should also contribute cognitive knowledge- anecdotal or sc ient i f ic- to the experts' reports, and examine them with critical eyes. Finally, they should reflect upon the stakeholders' value trees and use these as structuring aids in their own personal assessments of value.

Background of the Case

The topic for this application was public participation in a decision making process about siting a municipal waste disposal facility (landfill) in the eastern region of the Canton of Aargau. The Building Department (Baudeparte- ment) is the cantonal agency in Aargau charged with the responsibility to design the canton's solid waste disposal plan, but it is the municipalities who are responsible for implementing the plan. 4

In fact, however, the communities have neither the resources nor the incli- nation to initiate or implement such planning. Instead, they officially ask the canton to assume the responsibility of design and siting. This was the case in Aargau.

The waste disposal plan for Aargau was designed to promote risk sharing, but it did not involve citizens. The Building Department recommended that a new waste disposal facility in each of the three regions of the Canton (see Figure 2). 5

Although it has been vested with the authority to site waste disposal facilities, the Department has been unable to avoid or overcome local public opposition. Following strong citizen opposition in the northern and western regions after traditional "Decide, Announce, Defend" approaches to siting, the Building Department decided to experiment with the Cooperative Discourse model and an expanded role for public participation in the eastern region.

The Building Department's plan for the eastern region included the siting of at least one, but perhaps as many as three new landfills. They proposed, and the Cantonal Government approved the plan to construct a 1,000,000 cu- bic meter landfill, occupying a site of 10 to 20 hectares and remaining in operation for about 40 years. Before our involvement in the project, the Building Department characterized the need for new disposal facilities and chose potential sites through a mapping-elimination process (see Figure 3). Federal and cantonal laws restrict siting landfills in parks, wetlands, inhabited areas, geo- logically unsound areas, and so on. These areas were removed from the map, leaving 32 potential sites. To narrow the list to 13 sites, the Department developed a set of "preference criteria," and rated each site. Six categories of criteria

"Aargau has an official policy to incinerate 100% of its solid municipal waste. This is accompanied by man- datory recycling of compostablc waste, batteries, appliances, and metal; and voluntary recycling of newspaper (curbside pickup by volunteers), glass, tin cans, and PET plastic containers (at local self-service bins located near to residential areas, usually quite accessible even wi thout a car).

SAargau was composed out of three political districts: Fricktal, (Northern), Bernese Aargau (Western), and the Reusstal (Southeast). These divisions are no longer politically distinguished, but the distinction lives on in how regional level planning is done.


Switzerland

// //

/ Canton Aargau / /

I /-/ ~ -.'-----~ F u l l ~ e r ~ , J t" X / / / / / /

~ f - " Seckenberg B=irengraben : / " --] o ~

1 Q Jakobsbef Rotacker jo./exO L~dorf ~

~-~ ' " " Oberholz

Eastern Canton Aargau

E r i w i ~

Uetzwil • 0

• AUW

Dietwil

I I 15 miles

X incinerator © landfill: in operation

[] landfill: in licensing phase • landfill: under construction

O/• 11 sites that meet minimal standards

• the five "winning" sites

FIGURE 2. Location of existing waste disposal facilities in Canton Aargau (bottom left) and the eleven potential sites for a new landfill in the eastern part of Canton Aargau (bottom right).

P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N A S S O C I A L L E A R N I N G 451

Year

t 9 9 i / 9 2

1992/93

: i 994~95

199698

999i2000 i i ii!ii !if! !ii ii!

Phase I Negative mapping based

on exclusion criteria

Phase II Citizen participation, geologic and

hydrogeologic field studies

Phase III Detailed site evaluations

Phase IV i Legal proceedings begin, [

environmental impact assessment I

Phase V I Building licensing process

g

I : : o

o .o

O.

No. Sites < 3 0

13

5 ̧

max, 3

open

FIGURE 3. Overview of the Canton's Siting Process. The Cooperative Discourse Model was used in Phase II.

were used: geology, hydrogeology, utility requirements, settlement-recreation, land and nature protection, and existing use value of land. These steps were done without consultation with the communities. We entered the process just as the results of the mapping elimination process were made public.

To illustrate their commitment to citizen participation in the siting process, the member of the State Cabinet who backed this process gave his personal guarantee that the Canton would definitely n o t site a landfill in any community where it was not wanted. Furthermore, any communi ty could drop out of the process at anytime and not receive the landfill. Although there was some

452 T H O M A S W E B L E R , H A N S K A S T E N H O L Z , A N D O R T W I N R E N N

CrIT-EN PANEL ~ Finalize Issue WORKSHOP ] L R~commendation Rc¢ommendation

OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The Aargau citizen panel process (Q = Questionaire)

FIGURE 4. Schematic diagram of the Cooperative Discourse Model application in Canton Aargau.

public opposition in many towns, and one town decided not to participate, there was broad support for the idea that at least one new landfill is needed.

Application of Cooperative Discourse in Switzerland Each of the potential host communities was asked to send eight people to participate. Four panels were formed, each consisting of two representatives from each community. The tasks of the commissions were to:

• review the past mapping--elimination process; • review and interpret the technical feasibility analyses that were being un-

dertaken by engineering companies; • consider social, political, ecological, and economic impacts and equity

issues including benefit sharing packages; • develop criteria for evaluating sites; and • make suggestion(s) for the final site(s).

Figure 4 is a schematic of the cooperative discourse process in Aargau. Citi- zen panel meetings involved educating people about the problem and proposed solutions, and the development of impact assessment criteria. Mem- bers of the research team moderated the meetings. In June, a group Delphi with scientific experts on landfills was held to interpret and critique the existing technical analyses of the potential sites. The results were used in a two-day workshop, during which the participants rated each site using their group- defined criteria and issued a consensual recommendation. The four panels differed in their recommendations, but all agreed on the first priority site. A


"superpaner ' consisting of five elected members of each panel was convened to break the deadlock and reach a final verdict. The results of the superpanel were widely accepted by the participants of the original four panels.

Evaluating the Cooperative Discourse Application

Competence and Fairness

Recommendations of the citizens would only be accepted by the canton if they were technically competent. To ensure competence, three levels of oversight were included. First, the process was constantly under review by the staff member f rom the Building Department . Second, the group Delphi provided an external check of the panels' competence. Third, the project oversight committee reviewed the educational materials and the procedural steps. Several steps were taken to ensure that the impact assessments made by the citizens were informed with the best available technical knowledge. First, a detailed brochure on landfill design and risks in question-and-answer format was prepared by a neutral party. The manuscript was reviewed for technical competence and absence of political ideology. This was distributed to all participants at the very start of the process. Second, we identified experts who could contribute their knowledge to the citizen panels. Citizens were encouraged to al- ter the list to have specific people invited. Each evening, one expert made a short presentation and then took questions. Finally, the group Delphi provided the citizen panels with assessments of impacts on those dimensions that refer to cause-effect relations. I f questions arose about the results o f the group Del- phi, experts who participated in the Delphi process were on hand to give ex- planations.

Fairness was the subject of a formal evaluation by project staff (Schild and Wilhelm 1993). Data were gathered using questionnaires ~ (see Figure 4), participant observation techniques, and in-depth interviews with two members of each panel at three different times in the process. Results pointed to a high personal satisfaction among the participants for the fairness and openness of the process, but also concluded that the process of selection should have been more systematic.

To explore the citizens' subjective assessments of aspects of the process which were associated with the goals o f fairness and competence, we asked the participants about their opportunities to bring their values, interests, and concerns into the discourse. At the end of the process, people widely agreed that experts were available for questioning, everyone had an equal chance to participate in the discourse, they could put their individual concerns on the agenda, and their concerns were handled fairly. In addition, more than two-thirds of

6 Written questionaires were given to all participants at the beginning of the process (QI), at the end of the process (Q3), and six months later (Q4). A short questionnaire pertaining to fairness was distributed shortly before the final evaluations were made (Q2). The response rate was more than 70% for Q1, Q2, and Q3, slightly more than 50% the last questionnaire.

454 THOMAS WEBLER, HANS KASTENHOLZ, AND ORTWlN RENN

Impact to humans

-Odor

Noise to construction and operation of the tacility

-Traffic p o l l u t i o n , - accidents, no~ce, poOr

--Recreation

~ Effects on w a t e r - -

L.,toration,o,a°° .

~ Nearness to settlement. town image

--AtlracUveness of Social Impacts the settiement

Distribution of risk burbens

V=luS-Tree of cNizefl panel 1

-Drinking water Probability of an incident

• 1 emissions I Exp°siti°n /Ga s Distance to settlement TopographiCaP bamers Emissionsmax per pollutant i-Quantity emitted

r-Distance to landfdl Effects EC°ncentrati°n in the Settlement

Land fit1 exposition Potential for harm (number of winP exposure days)

Distance Exposi~on (number el wind-exposure Pays)

E Topographical barners

RaP/Street Distance E Exp°sit~on ~Number of passed

Nature I~Otection area, importance through vpl~lges Walking-hiking

E Hunting area

Stal~lit~ ~SIil~qng

f Oua,,,le~ o,,oi, ~Slo~ F, . . . . . . Surface water in direction of flow (Distance) Pe~miability Depth of groundwater below tandfit~ Wells in the direction of flow (Dislance)

Quality of foresttands

i Atlected foresUands EArea affected Subjective evaluation of landscape Existing nature protection areas Rare plants and animals

F Closing the landfill W~ening streets ~Average numbers of accidents

Distance I--Topographical barriers

Social dependenCy on =and ~ ~ina~lo~ff~*~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

to the size of the community

i Superhignways InCinerators Nuclear power plants Large indusPy Nearby Suparfund sites

FIGURE 5. Value tree produced by citizen panel group number one.

the people agreed that there was enough time available, the scope of the discourse was open, and that the information received was adequate. When we asked the citizen participants a series of questions about their experiences with the panel work at the end of the process, 87% agreed that, "The panel con- tributed to finding a competent solution to the siting problem."

Evaluation on the Criteria for Social Learning

c o c r ~ m w ~r~aAr~cm~mNr. It is not surprising that, after participating in over 40 hours of lectures and discussion, the citizens learned a lot about waste stream composition, incineration technology, landfill technology, geology, and hydrogeology. In every interview, the citizens mentioned that they enjoyed learning. They especially pointed to the didactic value of site visits and the combina- tion of the various expert perspectives that were introduced in the panel meetings. Question and answer formats for learning from experts were extremely popular. The official from the Building Department was impressed with the contributions and arguments of the citizens, and felt that he benefited from understanding their perspectives on the landfill design, the potential sites, and siting.

Each panel of citizens had the central task to design a value tree with mea- surable indicators and evaluate each potential site on each indicator. The indicators in the resulting trees were objective and.subjective (See Figure 5). For example, one indicator was permeability of the subsurface geology, another was subjective impression of the beauty of the site. This task was quite a substantial undertaking. One panel's tree contained 50 indicators. Each of the

PUBLIC PA RTI CI PA T ION AS SOCIAL LEARNING 455

nine potential sites were evaluated on each indicator, making for as many as 450 evaluations.

Integrative thinking was a key goal of our discourse. Not only was interdisciplinary technical work on landfills brought into the process and encouraged, but we also tried to further the social rationality of citizens. This was reflected in the complexity, creativity, and consistency of the value trees. Citizens con- tributed local knowledge about the sites in their towns by providing assessments of recreational value of the land, assessments of the satisfaction of the area to hunters, information about wind direction, water use, and traffic flow. They also provided information about the impacts a landfill might have on the communi ty itself (one town is known for its wines) and insights into the acceptability of the facility (in one town some politicians hinted that the in- come would be attractive). One formal way of thinking that had to be integrated was the probabilistic thinking of the risk analysts. People learned that risk cannot be zero, but still can be acceptable under the right circumstances (which we asked them to specify). This topic was especially predominant when the expert f rom the insurance company described his company's approach to assessing the risk and determining the cost of the insurance. An important result was people's understanding that policy making is a complex process of trading off many different value dimensions. The people saw public involvement as key to this process.

The citizens in Aargau were critical of science and technology, but not on ideological grounds. For example, they were critical o f our research team (we were accused of only wanting at first to write a new book on public participation), but they also distrusted the promises that new landfill technology would protect them from the kinds of problems that arose at older landfills. In general, however, people were in favor of innovative technologies and showed a deep commitment to the role of science in society.

In summary, cognitive enhancement was promoted in our cooperative discourse model by:

• giving detailed, but accessible information on the very first day, • offering citizens chances to co-design the education process, • combining "classroom" learning with field trips, • giving participants chances to discuss what they learned in small groups, • encouraging them to put their new knowledge to work in impact assess-

ment activities.

MORAL DEVELOPMENT. Based on observations, interviews, questionnaires, and results o f our process, we conclude that moral development was encouraged or facilitated by our process by offering people opportunities to work together with their peers to solve a com m on problem. We can only speculate about the long-term benefits o f this single experience, but it is reasonable to expect similar future experiences based on the learning that began here.

S T R U C T U R E . Several aspects o f the structure of the process facilitated moral


development. Meetings were held in different communities. Each time a different town hosted the meeting. Often we met in a small restaurant or pub, where food and drinks were available. Being in a familiar atmosphere relaxed the people and promoted a sense of collegiality that would not be forthcoming in a traditional "bat t leground" such as the town hall. At one meeting place the communi ty members provided coffee and schnapps, which was warmly received.

The regularity of the meetings (every 2 weeks for nearly 6 months) also con- tributed to a feeling of solidarity. Seeing the same faces week after week builds a sense of confidence and also makes it more difficult to view the others as opponents. The repeated contact encourages mutual respect for positions, honesty, and gives one the time needed to understand others' perspectives. This change in attitude was described by one citizen in the following way:

When I first came here I saw the other people as opponents. But over time I began to feel more like we were a unified panel, rather than enemies.

People were committed to the project. Not a single one of the 96 citizens dropped out. Attendance rates were over 80°70 for almost all of the meetings, despite the fact that they were held from 7:30 PM to 10:30 PM on weekday nights, that the panels decided to schedule more meetings than originally planned, and that the distances some people had to travel were long (up to a 45 minute drive each way). People also took the time to do their homework. They prepared notes ahead of time and read preparatory materials. This may have been helped by the fact that the people scheduled where and when the meetings would be, invitations were mailed early, and meeting places were often rotated throughout the region.

RULE S A N D F A C I L I T A T I O N . The rules for discourse were spelled out and con- sensually agreed to at the very first meeting. These encouraged listening and created a space in which everyone could have their say without fear of being put down. The facilitators made sure that people said what they meant and that others heard what was said.

Individual interviews with participants revealed that they felt positive about the panel atmosphere: that it was non-hierarchical and cooperative. One person mentioned the beneficial effects of the setting:

I really enjoyed coming to these meetings. Although it was a lot of work, I found it refreshing to work in a non-hierarchical atmosphere, which is open and fair. This is so different from my workplace.

Other anecdotal evidence suggested that a group identity did emerge over the 6 month period. For example, during the site visits, a local official com- mented that he assumed the local citizen representative on the panel would vote against the site. She responded coldly that this was objective work of the panel and she was not there to merely keep the landfill out of her town. It is difficult to verify that she authentically was of that opinion, but it is


significant that she thought it important enough to portray herself of that mind before the other panel members.

Three of the panels arranged parties after their final meeting. One group gave the discussion leader a T-shirt emblemmed with "K4" (Kommission 4) and signed by each member of the panel.

ACTIVITIES. Site visits were by far the most compelling feature of the process for people to adopt others' perspectives and to try and understand how the participants from each town thought and felt about each proposed site. At- tendance was nearly 100°70 even though it took two complete Saturdays to complete all site visits. In the interviews, people remarked that seeing the actual site was the most powerful force shaping their perception about the potential impacts. At each site, the local town council was offered a chance to make a presentation about the potential impacts of the landfill. At some sites people sympathized with the local villagers about the unacceptable impacts. At others, people received the impression that the town was not totally opposed to the idea. One person expressed it this way:

The site visi ts real ly enab led me to connect al l t ha t mater ia l we discussed on paper wi th reality.

Visiting the sites required people riding in mini-buses together. As they drove from site to site the people shared stories about the region or their communities. They educated each other about nearby nature protection areas, existing and potential rail lines, adequacy of highways, ongoing development, loca- tions of schools, local pollution problems, and so on. This kind of learning experience could not have been recreated in the classroom. It encouraged people to empathize with each other, as they pointed out to their colleagues how certain areas would be impacted. Riding in the bus and eating lunch together also provided an informal setting in which people had the chance to get ac- quainted at a level that went beyond the panel work.

Small working groups was another activity that promoted a moral attitude. During the evening meetings, small working groups were often used to frame questions for experts, to list potential concerns, to estimate the importance of different values, and so on. It is known that working in groups of five or six promotes communication and participation. People who do not speak in the plenary often participate in small group settings. Settings such as these also offer people an opportunity to explain in more detail their positions and opinions. During the first meeting we organized working groups to come up with a list of questions for the cantonal representative. The discussions in these groups were intense with every member participating.

The main activity pursued during the process was to design a value tree with criteria for measuring impacts and weigh the different branches of this tree so that a holistic assessment of each site could be made. This activity promoted honesty and introspection, because each suggestion had to be sup- ported by argumentation. Transparency of the decision making process is built


into the value tree. People also had to find ways to "make room for" other people's values by redesigning branches of the tree and compromising on weighting that represented no single position, but the collective interest of the group. The formation of this collective interest was only made possible late in the process after the group had a chance to develop a collective identity.

Each panel recommended sites for further consideration. I f they perceived the selection process in a strictly egocentric s e n s e - as a zero-sum g a m e - then these sites and their representatives should have been perceived as "losers." Thus we might expect to find a high rate of discontent for the process. But when we asked the people about the fairness of the process, only one person said it was unfair.

In the beginning, I was skeptical about the procedure, but now I am convinced that it is a sensible process.

Perhaps the best indication of change is that noticed by the people them- selves. Several people mentioned that they benefited personally from the experience. Besides learning about the technology of landfills, many learned some- thing about what it meant to be a citizen. This was expressed most concisely by a participant at the last meeting,

My participation in the panels has made me feel more integrated in my community.

TRUST. Trust was a reoccurring theme in the citizen panel discussions. It is also a central need for cooperation. Data we collected focused on trust that citizens held for various parties, but there were also indications that, at least at the start of the process, some people in government and some experts did not fully trust the citizens. There was never strong support for this participation process within the Building Department due to the skepticism about giving citizens a powerful role to play in a siting process. One man was able to push through this project with the political support of a member of the cantonal cabinet.

Citizens' views on trust changed slightly throughout the process. At first, they held a high degree of mistrust for the official f rom the Building Depart- ment, the political institutions, such as the Building Department and "the Can- ton" in general. Trust toward the official f rom the department improved for one-third of the citizens, although our interviews revealed that this was because the citizens got to know him on a personal level. Trust for the political institutions was not improved during the process.

Trust for the facilitators improved substantially. We hypothesize that this result was not so much movement of mistrust to trust, but rather the removal of suspicion, as the people became familiar with the individual facilitators. Personal interviews confirmed that many people felt a strong trust for the facilitators and believed that they had good intentions.

Citizens retained high trust for outside experts who testified at the citizen panels. Since the citizens did not suspect experts would play political games


with scientific knowledge, they saw no reason to review expert reports or even to define indicators to measure scientific criteria. This is fairly characteristic of Swiss society. Facilitators repeatedly had to push the people to delve into expert arguments, data, and reports.

An important result was a decline in trust for the experts who participated in the group Delphi. This was apparently due to two factors. First there were serious organizational problems in this phase of the project. It was extremely difficult to find independent experts in Switzerland or Germany. Most of the experts knew each other and many had worked for the Canton at one time or another. Furthermore, timing was extremely tight and citizens received the results of the group Delphi only 2 days before the workshops, leaving them inadequate t ime to review the results. Second, citizens had a difficulty inter- preting disagreement among the expert evaluations. Because there was insufficient time, .the group Delphi did not resolve as much of the dissensus as we originally hoped it would, although we do not expect a group Delphi to resolve all disagreement. Citizens interpreted expert disagreement as lack of competence. They often laughed and made fun of the experts as Fachidi-

oten (a German word which implies one-track expert competence, but igno- rance for the big picture). One interviewee mentioned:

This kind of decision making process is good, because it produces higher public acceptance and it reveals the idiocy of experts, they are too absorbed in technical details, and miss the social context.

OBSTACLES TO SOCIAL LEARNING. Perhaps the main obstacle we had to overcome was that the participants did not at first believe that their input would make a difference. Learning is difficult if people do not believe the effort will be of any use. At the start o f the process, 31070 of the participants thought that the process was only a game and that it would have no impact on the decision making. Forty-two percent thought that the process was meant only to pacify the public, presumably by excluding them from any real decision making role. A common sentence heard over and over during the meetings was,

This is a complete waste of time. It doesn't matter what we do here, because the Canton is going to do what it wants to anyway.

We were discouraged by this attitude, but we also realized that even in voic- ing these concerns, people were expressing a normative idea about how democracy ought to function, i.e., citizens should have more influence. It took several weeks of persistence to convince them that this process offered them an opportuni ty to have authentic influence. Our interviews indicated that two factors seemed to make most of the difference: the repeated visits of the cantonal cabinet officer along with his commitment to accept the citizens' man- date, and the repeated assurances by the discussion leaders.

Another obstacle was the perception among the citizen participants that they were not capable of making environmental and social impact assessments.


Learning requires a certain amount of self confidence. Building this confidence in the citizens was a major effort. Discussion leaders repeatedly had to build up the egos of the participants by pointing out that they could learn about geology, hydrology, and landfill technology, and that they did have valuable knowledge and experience to contribute to the process.

Conclusions

I f public participation is to be successful, it has to do more than offer people a fair and competent decision making process. It has to effectively cope with the tendency for people to want to pursue egoistic aims before collective ones, and it has to be responsible for contributing in a positive way to the democratic quality of our societies. Social learning is a concept that can enlighten aspects of how public participation can meet these ends.

Public participation can initiate social learning processes which translate uncoordinated individual actions into collective actions that support and reflect collective needs and understandings. The crystallization point of participation is when the group transforms from a collection of individuals pursuing their private interests to a collectivity which defines and is oriented toward shared interests. Achieving this moment should be a major objective of public participation.

While one case study cannot validate the long-term effects of participation on citizens or institutions, it does illustrate how a social learning perspective can be used to contribute to a complete evaluation of a public participation program. Such an evaluation could be done before or after the actual application. Our evaluation showed that several aspects of the process were instrumen- tal in promoting social learning. These were:

• Site visits, • Face-to-face small group work, • An egalitarian atmosphere, • Repeated meetings over several months, • Unrestricted opportunities to influence the process, • Political support for the process, • Direct links to formal decision making machinery, • Expert support during the process, • Responsibility to design and implement the impact assessment tool.

In addition, we paid close attention to fulfilling the criteria for fairness and competence in the design and application of our model of cooperative discourse. This included:

• Giving everyone in the affected population a chance to participate. • Building an atmosphere that encouraged people to discuss anything that

came to their minds and criticize or challenge anything that anyone else said.

• Agreeing on a means to resolve disagreements before they arose,


• Giving the people the right to ask for new discussion leaders or experts and to set the agenda.

• Organizing a group Delphi to clarify expert certainty and uncertainty. • Providing expert witnesses to educate the participants. • Providing pre-reviewed informational material. • Visiting the potential sites.

If public participation practitioners orient processes to promote social learning, perhaps by integrating these elements into their applications, then public participation will likely become more effective at strengthening democracy and overcoming the tendency of people to be rational egoists. We believe that a focus on achieving the criteria for social learning combined with the criteria for fairness and competence will result in public participation experiences that are widely viewed as successful.

To illustrate the value these kind of evaluative criteria hold out for the field of public participation and impact assessment, consider the case for electronic tools. There is rising interest and enthusiasm about the possibility to improve public participation in impact assessment through using teleconferencing, real- time computer models, geographic information systems, email, electronic bulle- tin boards, and other technologies. Public participation is in need of improve- ment, and these tools do appear to offer some solution to logistic problems and conceptual limitations. But is this speculation justification enough for jumping on the electronic bandwagon?

We do not want to single out electronic technology. We merely want to emphasize that proponents of new participation techniques and technologies should assume the responsibility to demonstrate that these innovations will enhance the ability of public participation to achieve its aims. Embracing new technologies and procedures without first assessing the possible impacts is a mistake made often enough in our history. It makes sense to ask ourselves whether new forms of participation are likely to be fair and competent, and whether they will likely strengthen democracy. Advocates of innovation have argued that the means for making these assessments do not exist. This is an excuse that we have tried to defuse with this paper. The criteria for social learning developed in this research and applied to this case study offer a realistic opportunity to assess the ability of participation strategies to strengthen democracy.

The authors would like to recognize the contributions of Urs Dahinden and Renzo Simoni, who served as discussion leaders in this project, and Marc Sch~irli, Patrick Schild, and Urs Wilhelm, who assisted. We also benefited from discussions on social learning with Robert Brulle, Thomas Dietz, Eugene Rosa, Ingrid Shockey, and Paul Stern. This work was funded in part by the Inter- disciplinary Project on Risk and Safety, an independent research project of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and in part by the Building Department of Canton Aargau. Views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of these organizations.

462 THOMAS WEBLER, HANS KASTENHOLZ, AND ORTWlN RENN

References

Argyle, Michael. 1991. Cooperation: The Basis for Sociability (London: goutledge). Argyris, C. 1993. On Organizational Learning, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business. Bandura, A. 1971. Social Learning Theory. Motivational Trends in Society. Morristown

N.Y.: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thoughts and Action: A Social Cognitive

Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. 1991. "Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action." In Hand-

book of Moral Behavior and Development, Volume Theory, pp. 45-104, William M. Kurtines and Jacob L. Gewirtz (eds). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum Associates Pub- lishers.

Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berke- ley: University of California Press.

Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J. 1988. An evolutionary model of social learning: the effects of spacial and temporal variation. In Social Learning Psychological and Biological Perspectives, pp. 29-48, T. R. Zentall, B. G. Galef, Jr. (eds). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Burns, Tom R., and Oberhorst, Reinhard. 1988. Creative Democracy: Systemic Conflict Resolution and Policymaking in a World of High Science and Technology, New York: Praeger.

Clarke, Lee. 1989. Acceptable Risk? Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment. Berke- ley: University of California Press.

Dickson, Nancy M. 1992. "Social Learning in the Management of Global Environ- mental Risks. Progress Report." January 1, 1991 through August 30, 1992. Boston, MA: Harvard University, John E Kennedy School of Government, Center for Science and International Affairs.

Dienel, Peter C. 1978. Die Planungszelle. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Dienel, Peter C. 1989. "Contributing to social decision methodology: Citizen reports

on technological projects," In Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects, pp. 133-151, Charles Vlek and George Cvetkovich (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Dietz, Thomas. 1987. "Theory and Method in Social Impact Assessment," Sociologi- cal Inquiry 77:54-69.

Fiorino, Daniel. 1990. "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms," Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2):226-243.

Habermas, Jfirgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Bea- con Press.

Habermas, Jfirgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1 Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, Jfirgen. 1987. The Theory o f Communicative Action: Volume 2, System and Lifeworld Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, Jfirgen. 1991. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, JiJrgen. 1992. Autonomy and Soidarity. New York: Verso. Kastenholz, H., Erdmann, K. 1992. "Positive Social Behavior and the Environmental

Crisis," The Environmentalist, 12(3):181-186. Kemp, Ray. 1985. "Planning, public hearings, and the politics of discourse." In Criti-

cal Theory and Public Life, pp. 177-201, John Forester (ed). Cambridge: MIT Press. Kurtines, William M. and Gewirtz, Jacob L. (eds). 1987. MoralDevelopment Through

Social Interaction New York: John Wiley and Sons.


Laird, Frank. 1993. Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(3):341-361.

Likona, Thomas. 1991. "Moral development in the elementary school classroom." In Handbook for ~loral Behavior and Development. Volume 3: Applications, pp. 143-162, William Kurtines and Jacob Gewirtz (eds). (Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates, Inc.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., and Bordell, T. 1991. The Learning Company." A Strategy for Sustainable Development. London: McGraw-Hill.

Perrow, Charles. 1984. Normal Accidents New York: Basic Books. Pulliam, H.R. 1982. "A Social Learning model on Conflict and Cooperation in Hu-

man Societies." Human Ecology. An International Journal 10(3):353-364. Renn, Ortwin and Webler, Thomas. 1992. "Anticipating Conflicts: Public Participa-

tion in Managing the Solid Waste Crisis." GALA: EcologicalPerspectives in Science, Humanities, and Economics 1(2):84-94.

Renn, Ortwin, Webler, Thomas, Rakel, Horst, Dienel, Peter, and Johnson, Branden. 1993. "A Three Step Procedure for Decision Making." Policy Sciences 26:189-214.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 196811762]. The Social Contract. Maurice Cranston (transla- tor). Harmondsworth UK: Penguin.

Schild, Patrick and Wilhelm, Urs. 1983. Kriterien der Fairness in partizipativer Ent- schidungsfindung am Beispiel einer Deponieplanung im Kanton Aargau. Technical Report. August 18, 1993. Zurich, Switzerland: Polyproject Risk and Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Schwebel, Milton, Maher, Charles A., and Fagley, Nancy S. (eds). 1990 Promoting Cognitive Growth Over the Life Span. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Sims, H. P., Lorenzi, P. 1992. The new leadership paradigm. Social learning and cog- nition in organizations. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Ternyik, S. 1989. Social Learning Processes: Systematic Contributions to the Methodo- logical and Theoretical Integration of Long-Term and Short-Term Social Processes. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

Webler, Thomas. 1995."'Right' Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yard- stick." In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for EnvironmentalDiscourse, O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Webler, Thomas. 1993. "Habermas put into practice: a democratic discourse for environmental problem solving," In Crossing Boundaries. New Directions in Human Ecology Salt Lake City, Utah: Society for Human Ecology.

Webler, Thomas, Levine, Debra, Rakel, Horst, and Renn, Ortwin. 1991. The Group Delphi: A Novel Attempt at Reducing Uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39:253-263.

Wynne, Brian. 1992a. "Risk and social learning: reification to engagement." In Social Theories o fRisk, pp. 275-297, Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding (eds). West- port, CT: Praeger.

Wynne, Brian. 1992b. "Uncertainty and Environmental Learning." Global Environ- mental Change June:Ill-127.

Zentall, T.R. and Galeff, B.G. 1988. Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Per- spectives. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Documents

Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective