Skip to main content

Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure

Policy Sciences volume 26, pages 189–214 (1993)Cite this article

Abstract

This article introduces a novel model of public particpation in political decisions. Structured in three consecutive steps, the model is based on the view that stakeholders, experts, and citizens should each contribute to the planning effort their particular expertise and experience. Stakeholders are valuable resources for eliciting concerns and developing evaluative criteria since their interests are at stake and they have already made attempts to structure and approach the issue. Experts are necessary to provide the data base and the functional relationships between options and impacts. Citizens are the potential victims and benefactors of proposed planning measures; they are the best judges to evaluate the different options available on the basis of the concerns and impacts revealed through the other two groups. The three-step model has been developed and frequently applied as a planning tool in West Germany. We compare this experience with the model's first application in the United States, and conclude that the three-step procedure offers a limited, but promising future for democratizing policy making in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba (1961).The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, Benjamin R. (1984).Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann Gotthard and Friedrich Gloede (1986). ‘Sozialverträglichkeit — eine neue Strategie der Verwissenschaftlichung von Politik?’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen, HTV Edition ‘Technik and Sozialer Wandel:’ Munich, pp. 36–51.

  • Bongardt, Heinz, Peter Dienel, and Heiner Henning (1985).Bürger planen das Rathausviertel, Planungszellen erarbeiten Ausgangsdaten für den städtebaulichen Wettbewerb. Rathaus/Gürzenich Köln' Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bownes, Hugh H. (1990). ‘Should trial by jury be eliminated in complex cases?’Risk-Issues in Health and Safety 1 (1): 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, Harvey (1984). ‘The resolution of technically intensive public policy disputes,’Science, Technology, and Human Values 9: 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, Tom R. and Reinhard Ueberhorst (1988).Creative Democracy: Systematic Conflict Resolution and Policymaking in a World of High Science and Technology. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Kan and J. C. Mathes (1989). ‘Value oriented social decision analysis: A communication tool for public decision making on technological projects,’ in Charles Vlek and George Cvetkovich, eds.Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, Ned, Janet M. Kelly, and Paul Schaefer (1986). ‘Citizen panels: A new approach to citizen participation,’Public Administration Review 46: 170–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, Ned (1986).Implementing Citizen Panels: A Ten Year Program of Political Reform. Manuscript. Minneapolis: Center for New Democratic Processes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Ronald A. (1970).After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, Peter C. (1978).Die Planungszelle. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, Peter C. (1980).New Options for Participatory Democracy. Werkstattpapier No. 1 of the University of Wuppertal. Wuppertal: University of Wuppertal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, Peter C. (1986).Bürgergutachten: Regelung sozialer Folgen neuer Informationstechnologien. Leverkusen: IGEBP Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, Peter C. (1989). ‘Contributing to social decision merthodology: Citizen reports on technological projects,’ in: Charles Vlek and George Cvetkovich, eds..Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 133–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, Peter C. (1991).Bürgergutachten: ISDN. Wuppertal: Bergische Universität Wuppertal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, Peter C. and Detlef Garbe (1985).Zukünftige Energiepolitik. Ein Bürgergutachten. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, Daniel J. (1989). ‘Technical and democratic values in risk analysis,’Risk Analysis 9 (3): 293–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, Daniel J. (1990). ‘Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms,’Science, Technology, and Human Values 15 (2): 226–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, Thomas and Detlef Garbe (1983).Bürgergutachten Energieversorgung Jüchen-Nord. Wuppertal: Bergische Universität Wuppertal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, Bruno (1986). Ambivalenzen im gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit technischem Fortschritt,’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.,Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik and Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garbe, Detlef and Anja Grothe (1985).Bürgergutachten Testkriterien und Testplanung. Wuppertal: Bergische Universität Wuppertal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, Kenneth R., Jeryl Mumpower, Robin L. Dennis, S. Fitch, and W. Crumpacker (1983). ‘Fundamental obstacles to the use of scientific information in public policy making,’Technological Forecasting and Social Change 24: 287–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Patrick (1977), ‘Application of multi-attribute utility theory,’ in Helmut Jungermann and D. de Zeeuw, eds..Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs. Dordrecht: Reidelecht, pp. 165–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, Helmut (1986), ‘Die öffentliche Diskussion technologischer Mega-Themen: Eine Herausforderung für Experten und Bürger,’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, Helmut, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds. (1986).Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, Lyn and John A. Martin (1991). ‘Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation,’Policy Analysis and Management 10: 46–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L. and Howard Raiffa (1976).Decisions with Multiple Objectives and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L., Ortwin Renn, and Detlof von Winterfeldt (1987). ‘Structuring West Germany's energy objectives,’Energy Policy 15 (4): 352–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L., Ortwin Renn, Detlof von Winterfeldt and Ulrich Kotte (1984).Die Wertbaumanalyse, Entscheidungshilfe für die Politik. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, Michael E. (1988). ‘Evaluating technology through public participation: The nuclear waste disposal controversy,’ in Michael E. Kraft and N. J. Vig, eds.Technology and Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, Hans (1986). ‘Eingabedaten, Verfahrensaspekte und Schlussfolgerungen der KFA-Studien,’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, Dorothy and Michael Pollak (1979). ‘Public participation in technology decisions,’Technology Review 81: 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur E. (1982).Participatory Pluralism. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, Michael (1985). ‘Public participation,’ in Harry Otway and Malcolm Peltu, eds.Regulating Industrial Risk. London: Butterworths, pp. 76–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quade, E. S. (1975).Analysis for Public Decisions. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, Howard (1970).Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, Steven and Robyn Cantor (1987). ‘How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice,’Risk Analysis 7: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1991). ‘Premises of risk communication: Results of two participatory experiments,’ in Roger E. Kasperson and Peter J. Stallen, eds.Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 457–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1986). ‘Decision analytic tools for resolving uncertainty in the energy debate,’Nuclear Engineering and Design 93 (2–3): 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin, Rob Goble, Debra Levine, Horst Rakel, and Thomas Webler (1989).Citizen Participation for Sludge Management. Final Report to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Worcester, MA: CENTED, Clark University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin, Gabriele Albrecht, Ulrich Kotte, Hans Peter Peters, and Hans Ulrich Stegelmann (1985).Sozialverträgliche Energiepolitik. Ein Gutachten für die Bundesregierung. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel.’

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin, Hans Ulrich Stegelmann, Gabriele Albrecht, Ulrich Kotte, and Hans Peter Peters (1984). ‘An empirical investigation of citizens' preferences among four energy scenarios,’Technological Forecasting and Social Change 26 (1): 11–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin and Ulrich Kotte (1984). ‘Umfassende Bewertung der vier Pfade der Enquete-Kommission auf der Basis eines Indikatorkatalogs,’ in Gabriele Albrecht and Hans Ulrich Stegelmann, eds.Energie im Brennpunkt. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 190–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosener, Judy R. (1978). ‘Matching method to purpose: The challenges of planning citizen participation activities,’ in Stuart Langton, ed.Citizen Participation in America. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, Günther F. (1986). ‘Die Planungszelle als Sozialwissenschaftliches Messinstrument,’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 75–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, Peter J. (1982). ‘The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence, and limitations,’Journal of Economic Literature 30: 529–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader-Frechette, Kristin (1985).Risk Analysis and Scientific Method: Methodological and Ethical Issues with Evaluating Societal Risks. Amsterdam and New York: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, Fumiko and Masatoshi Sakawa (1988).Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in Regional Planning: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein (1982). ‘Why study risk perception?Risk Analysis 2 (2): 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, Paul C. (1991). ‘Learning through conflict: A realistic strategy for risk communication,’Policy Sciences 24: 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Thomas R., Robin L. Dennis, and Daniel W. Ely (1984). ‘Citizen participation and judgment in policy analysis: A case study of urban air quality policy,’Policy Sciences 17: 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, Lawrence, Lawrence Bacow, and Michael Wheeler (1983).Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes. Cambridge: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Alemann, Ulrich (1986). ‘Partizapation oder Akzeptanz. Bemerkungen zur Verträglichkeit von Demokratie und Technologie,’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, Detlof (1987). ‘Value tree analysis: An introduction and an application to offshore oil driling,’ in P. R. Kleindorfer and Howard C. Kunreuther, eds.Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond. Berlin: Springer, pp. 439–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, Detlof and Edwards, Ward (1984). ‘Patterns of conflict about risky technologies,’Risk Analysis 4 (1): 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, Detlof and Edwards, Ward (1986).Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. R. (1982). ‘Multiattribute utility theory for measuring safety,’European Journal of Operational Research 10: 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler, Thomas, Debra Levine, Horst Rakel, and Ortwin Renn (1991). ‘The group delphi: A novel attempt at reducing uncertainty,’Technological Forecasting and Social Change 39: 253–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiswede, Günter (1986). ‘Über die angemessene und unanemessene Art, Komplexität zu reduzieren,’ in Helmut Jungermann, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, Günther F. Schäfer, and Wolfgang Wild, eds.Die Analyse der Sozialverträglichkeit für Technologiepolitik — Perspektiven und Interpretationen. Munich: HTV Edition ‘Technik und Sozialer Wandel,’ pp. 128–134.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Technology Assessment, Nobelstr. 15, D-70569, Stuttgart, Germany

    Ortwin Renn

  2. Project on Risk and Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Herzogstr 7, CH-8044, Zürich, Switzerland

    Thomas Webler

  3. Essen, Germany

    Horst Rakel

  4. Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

    Peter Dienel

  5. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Science and Research, Risk Communication Unit, 08057, Trenton, NJ, U.S.A.

    Branden Johnson

Authors
  1. Ortwin Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Webler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Horst Rakel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Dienel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Branden Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H. et al. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sci 26, 189–214 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999716

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999716

Keywords

  • Decision Making
  • Policy Making
  • Data Base
  • Economic Policy
  • Functional Relationship