IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v15y1995i2p147-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover

Author

Listed:
  • Frances M. Lynn
  • George J. Busenberg

Abstract

Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) are being used in increasing numbers to provide public input into environmental policy and management decisions. While there is a large body of literature consisting of guidelines for establishing and running CACs, the body of literature of empirical evaluations of CACs is markedly smaller. Fourteen empirical studies of CACs involved in environmental policy decisions (spanning the period from 1976 to 1994) are reviewed here, including case studies, large‐scale surveys, and consultant reports. For each study consideration is given to the methods of study, the issues considered by the CACs, the organizations advised, the definitions of success used in the study, and the suggested factors contributing to the success, or lack of success, experienced by the CACs. The review shows that the influence of CACs on policy outcomes have varied from case to case, with some accomplishing little and others having significant policy impacts. The increased use of CACs by government and industry presents an excellent opportunity for academics and practitioners to strengthen their understanding of the internal processes and capabilities of CACs through comparative evaluation research.

Suggested Citation

  • Frances M. Lynn & George J. Busenberg, 1995. "Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 147-162, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:2:p:147-162
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00309.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00309.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00309.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lyn Kathlene & John A. Martin, 1991. "Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 46-63.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mary Dengler, 2008. "Finding the Political ‘Sweet Spot’: Sectional Interests, Consensus Power, and the Everglades Restudy (1992–2000)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(4), pages 766-784, April.
    2. Lucie Laurian, 2005. "Public Input in Toxic Site Cleanup Decisions: The Strengths and Limitations of Community Advisory Boards," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(3), pages 445-467, June.
    3. Beierle, Thomas C., 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," Discussion Papers 10497, Resources for the Future.
    4. Simon Pek, 2019. "Rekindling Union Democracy Through the Use of Sortition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1033-1051, April.
    5. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    6. David Tàbara & David Saurí & Rufí Cerdan, 2003. "Forest Fire Risk Management and Public Participation in Changing Socioenvironmental Conditions: A Case Study in a Mediterranean Region," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 249-260, April.
    7. Shackley, Simon & Mander, Sarah & Reiche, Alexander, 2006. "Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3423-3433, December.
    8. Aimee Guglielmo Kinney & Thomas M. Leschine, 2002. "A Procedural Evaluation of an Analytic‐Deliberative Process: The Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 83-100, February.
    9. Branden B. Johnson & Caron Chess, 2003. "Communicating Worst‐Case Scenarios: Neighbors' Views of Industrial Accident Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 829-840, August.
    10. Beierle, Thomas, 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-06, Resources for the Future.
    11. Kristen Tappenden, 2014. "The district of North Vancouver’s landslide management strategy: role of public involvement for determining tolerable risk and increasing community resilience," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 72(2), pages 481-501, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bente Florina, 2013. "The Public Servants Perceptions Regarding Communication Within Local Public Administration," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 1713-1722, July.
    2. Youngmin Oh & Seong-ho Jeong & Heontae Shin, 2019. "A Strategy for a Sustainable Local Government: Are Participatory Governments More Efficient, Effective, and Equitable in the Budget Process?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Thomas Webler & Horst Rakel & Ortwin Renn & Branden Johnson, 1995. "Eliciting and Classifying Concerns: A Methodological Critique," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 421-436, June.
    4. Chen, Wendy Y. & Hua, Junyi, 2017. "Heterogeneity in resident perceptions of a bio-cultural heritage in Hong Kong: A latent class factor analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 170-179.
    5. Frances M. Lynn & Caron Chess, 1994. "Community advisory panels within the chemical industry: Antecedents and issues," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 92-99.
    6. Hardev Kaur Latchimanan Singh, 2017. "Evaluating Public Participation Mechanisms in LA21 Programs in Malaysia," GATR Journals gjbssr482, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    7. Ruixia Song & Shuzhuo Li & Marcus W. Feldman, 2021. "Public Participation and Governance Performance in Gender-Imbalanced Central Rural China: The Roles of Trust and Risk Perception," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Dan Durning & Laurence E. Lynn, 1999. "Debating technologies: A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 339-343.
    9. Wang, Hua, 2011. "Stakeholder dialogue as an institutional strategy for sustainable development in China : the case of community environmental roundtables," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5759, The World Bank.
    10. Tobias Wekhof & Sébastien Houde, 2023. "Using narratives to infer preferences in understanding the energy efficiency gap," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 8(9), pages 965-977, September.
    11. Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John & McLeod, Christopher B. & Collins, Patricia & McMullan, Colin & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier, 2003. "Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 95-106, October.
    12. Ortwin Renn & Birgit Blättel‐Mink & Hans Kastenholz, 1997. "Discursive methods in environmental decision making," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 218-231, September.
    13. Thomas I Miller & Michelle A. Miller, 1992. "Assessing excellence poorly: The bottom line in local government," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 612-623.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:2:p:147-162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

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

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