Evaluation criteria for democratic participation models(relying on his normative grounds):
1. the first criterion is to allow for participation of amateurs rather than professionals/experts alone.(Direct amateurs?)
2.the second criterion is by assessing the extent of collaboration between citizens and governments in decision making.(Share Authority?)
3.the third criterion is by assessing the degree of vis-à-vis discussion through approaches during the certain period.(Discussion?)
4.Final criterion is whether it can address the unequal position between politicians, experts and citizens.(Basis of Equality?)
Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14, 501-547.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
“””If 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 democraticquality of our societies. Social learning is a concept that can enlighten aspect sof 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 participationis 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.”””
(Webler 1995; Renn andWebler 1992):”two main criteria for good publicdecision making processes: fairness and competence”
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995):” Taken together, we believe that these three criteria (fairness,competence, and social learning) can provide a firm basis for evaluating publicparticipation processes.”
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(5), 443-463.
Also given that to measure the quality/effectiveness of the output is difficult to date, most theorists do the evaluation work from the process aspects of public participation, two types of theoretical evaluation criteria made by Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000), it still merits corresponding instruments coming out to examine the extent, scope and quality of criteria so as to fit in evaluative study on the effectiveness of wide range of methods of public participation.
1.Criterion of representativeness: The public participants should comprise a broadly representative sample of the population of the affected public.
2. Criterion of independence: The participation process should be conducted in an independent, unbiased way.
A possible objectiont o this criterioni s thati ts implementationm ightd rasticallyreduce the control and influence of the sponsoring organization. Forexample, it has been suggested that agency representatives should beincluded as collaborative participants throughout the negotiation process(e.g., Crowfoot and Wondolleck 1990; Aronoff and Gunter 1994).In a sense,however, a willingness to accept independent participants and facilitators might serve to differentiate true efforts at gaining public input from those instances in which a sponsor simply seeks legitimization of a decisionalready made.
3.Criterion of early involvement: The public should be involved as early aspossible in the process as soon as value judgments become salient.
BUT risk assessment is different, this criteria depends on the specific context of environmental issues and the degree of technical/professional content in these issues.
TOO early? TOO late? examples——–
For example, it may not be sensible to have public participation in making decisions about highly technical issues, such as in the scientific assessment of risk. But at the stage when value judgments become important, it is necessary to consider psychologicaland sociological understandings of risk, and the public should be consulted(e.g., Swallow, Opaluch, andWeaver 1992; Chakraborty and Stratton 1993;Renn et al. 1993; Moffet 1996).
An instance in which involvement might be seen as too late is when participation is used to choose among possible sitesfor a hazardous facility, with the public having been denied the opportunity toconsider whether the facility is needed in the first place (e.g., Lake and Disch1992). Public debate should thus be allowed on underlying assumptions andagenda setting and not just on narrow, predefined problems (Crosby, Kelly,and Schaefer 1986; Moffet 1996). This criterion is important if the credibilityof the sponsors is to result from the process.
TOO much？HIGH LEVEL？？examples——
Caution needs to be exercised in the application of this criterion. Chakraborty and Stratton (1993) suggest that too much involvement of all standpoints (i.e., technical, economic, social, political, ethical, and public) might result in confusion over aims and judgments, hinder decision making, make clarification of issues impossible, and only produce defensive arguments of one standpoint against another. Thus, at each stage in the control of risks, there isan appropriate participation level thatmaynot involve all standpoints equally.
4.Criterion of influence: The output of the procedure should have a genuineimpact on policy.
5.Criterion of transparency: The process should be transparent so that thepublic can see what is going on and how decisions are being made.
For some issues that are not suitable to early involve public or avoid public involvement due to confidentiality or security, it is also need to be unveiled to public by informing the reason and nature rather than run a risk of leading to public suspicions or further “adverse reaction”.
If any information needs to be withheld from the public, forreasons of sensitivity or security, itwould seem important to admit the natureof what is being withheld and why, rather than risking the discovery of suchsecrecy, with subsequent adverse reactions.
6.Criterion of resource accessibility: Public participants should have access to the appropriate resources to enable them to successfully fulfill their brief.
Possible difficulties revolve around the issue of cost (see the criterion ofcost-effectiveness). It will always be possible to summon more witnesses orexperts to take part in a procedure or to supply more time and materials. Atrade-off is clearly required. This is also true with respect to the amount ofinformation presented to participants: information overload is possible,which is liable to lead to stress and confusion. To avoid this, concise summariesof information, free of jargon, would seem apt.
7.Criterion of task definition: The nature and scope of the participation task should be clearly defined.
The main objection to this criterion is that an overly prescriptive set of definitions and rules might reduce flexibility in the face of new informationor disputes. This might be overcome if the terms under which an exercisetook place allowed for changes in terms of reference in the face of importantnew information.
8.Criterion of structured decision making: The participation exerciseshould use/provide appropriate mechanisms for structuring and displayingthe decision-making process.
(decision-aiding tools：decision analysis，decision trees，multiattribute utility theory, and the Delphi technique and also a group facilitator or an independent decision analyst will assist and assure the quality and efficiency of decision process in groups.)
9.Criterion of cost-effectiveness: The procedure should in some sense be cost-effective. ( in terms of time and money, there is just a belief and empirical assumption that pp is more likely to be costly but no alternative methods and few detailed or clear studies is now available on the cost issues in procedures of pp.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.