Effective dialogue: enhanced public engagement as a legitimising tool for municipal waste management decision-making.

The complexity of municipal waste management decision-making has increased in recent years, accompanied by growing scrutiny from stakeholders, including local communities. This complexity reflects a socio-technical framing of the risks and social impacts associated with selecting technologies and sites for waste treatment and disposal facilities. Consequently there is growing pressure on local authorities for stakeholders (including communities) to be given an early opportunity to shape local waste policy in order to encourage swift planning, development and acceptance of the technologies needed to meet statutory targets to divert waste from landfill. This paper presents findings from a research project that explored the use of analytical-deliberative processes as a legitimising tool for waste management decision-making. Adopting a mixed methods approach, the study revealed that communicating the practical benefits of more inclusive forms of engagement is proving difficult even though planning and policy delays are hindering development and implementation of waste management infrastructure. Adopting analytical-deliberative processes at a more strategic level will require local authorities and practitioners to demonstrate how expert-citizen deliberations may foster progress in resolving controversial issues, through change in individuals, communities and institutions. The findings suggest that a significant shift in culture will be necessary for local authorities to realise the potential of more inclusive decision processes. This calls for political actors and civic society to collaborate in institutionalising public involvement in both strategic and local planning structures.

[1]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Making electricity networks “visible”: Industry actor representations of “publics” and public engagement in infrastructure planning , 2012 .

[2]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions , 1999 .

[3]  Judith Petts,et al.  Public engagement to build trust: false hopes? , 2008 .

[4]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[5]  U. Kelle.  Sociological Explanations between Micro and Macro and the Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods , 2001 .

[6]  Jason Chilvers.  Critical studies of public engagement in science and the environment: Workshop report , 2009 .

[7]  J. Parks,et al.  Public engagement with information on renewable energy developments: The case of single, semi-urban wind turbines , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[8]  Sue Oreszczyn,et al.  Recycling organic waste resources to land – communicating the issues , 2009 .

[9]  Richard Bull,et al.  Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the impossible? , 2008 .

[10]  Keith Parry,et al.  Localism Bill: Local government and community empowerment [Bill No 126 of 2010-11] , 2011 .

[11]  Judith Petts,et al.  Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management , 2004 .

[12]  Paul Stephen Benneworth,et al.  The challenges for 21st century science : a review of the evidence base surrounding the value of public engagement by scientists , 2009 .

[13]  Andrew Flynn,et al.  Networks, protest and regulatory systems: the case of energy from waste , 2014 .

[14]  K. Backstrand.  Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance , 2004 .

[15]  Ortwin Renn.  A Model for an Analytic−Deliberative Process in Risk Management , 1999 .

[16]  J. Creighton.  The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement , 2005 .

[17]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective , 1999 .

[18]  Oliver Escobar,et al.  Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK , 2013 .

[19]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Learning For Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology, and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students , 2007 .

[20]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry , 1999 .

[21]  R. Perhac,et al.  Comparative Risk Assessment: Where Does the Public Fit In? , 1998 .

[22]  Karin Bäckstrand,et al.  Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance , 2003 .

[23]  Michael Jacobs,et al.  Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens’ jury , 2000 .

[24]  Maria Chiara Zanetti,et al.  Participatory approach, acceptability and transparency of waste management LCAs: case studies of Torino and Cuneo. , 2012, Waste management.

[25]  Christopher Snary,et al.  Risk Communication and the Waste-to-energy Incinerator Environmental Impact Assessment Process: A UK Case Study of Public Involvement , 2002 .

[26]  S. Healy,et al.  A ‘post‐foundational’ interpretation of risk: risk as ‘performance’ , 2004 .

[27]  R Gourlay,et al.  Learning in action. , 1986, The Health service journal.

[28]  George E. Apostolakis,et al.  Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders , 1998 .

[29]  T. Webler,et al.  Public Participation in Impact Assess-ment: A Social Learning Perspective , 1995 .

[30]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions , 2007 .

[31]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance , 2008 .

[32]  Seth Tuler,et al.  Integrating Technical Analysis With Deliberation in Regional Watershed Management Planning: Applying the National Research Council Approach , 1999 .

[33]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[34]  James Daniel Downe,et al.  Innovation in public engagement and co-production of services , 2008 .

[35]  Stephen Hall,et al.  Devolved Approaches to Local Governance: Policy and Practice in Neighbourhood Management , 2001 .

[36]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[37]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity , 1993 .

[38]  J. Schnoor,et al.  Citizen Science , 2017 .

[39]  A. Irwin.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[40]  Kirsten Gram-Hanssen.  Implementing LA21 in Europe. New initiatives for sustainable communities. William M. Lafferty (editor), ProSus, Oslo, 1999. NoK 198. ISBN 82-7480-072-9. 261 pp. , 2001 .

[41]  Ian D. Williams,et al.  Manchester recycling for all: increasing participation in recycling by offering choice and alternatives to low recycling communities , 2009 .

[42]  J. Parkinson.  Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy , 2003 .

[43]  Thomas C. Beierle.  USING SOCIAL GOALS TO EVALUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS , 2005 .

[44]  Ian D. Williams,et al.  Public participation and recycling performance in England: A comparison of tools for behaviour change , 2008 .

[45]  Julia M. Wondolleck,et al.  Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement In Conflict Resolution , 1990 .

[46]  Timothy L. McDaniels,et al.  Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions , 1999 .

[47]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[48]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Towards Analytic‐deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste , 2007 .

[49]  Robert Fish,et al.  Employing the citizens' jury technique to elicit reasoned public judgments about environmental risk: insights from an inquiry into the governance of microbial water pollution , 2014 .

[50]  Luigi Pellizzoni,et al.  Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy , 2003, Environmental Values.

[51]  J. Dryzek,et al.  Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy , 2001 .

[52]  Richard Bull,et al.  The importance of context for effective public engagement: learning from the governance of waste , 2010 .

[53]  Ellen Tove Christiansen.  Dialogue in Design , 1998 .

[54]  Matthew Cotton,et al.  Shale Gas—Community Relations: NIMBY or Not? Integrating Social Factors Into Shale Gas Community Engagements , 2013 .

[55]  Simon Joss,et al.  Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives , 2002 .

[56]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[57]  G. Rowe,et al.  Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda , 2004 .

[58]  Felix Rauschmayer,et al.  Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts , 2006 .

[59]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1990 .

[60]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Systems Thinking, Systems Practice , 1981 .

[61]  Lawrence Pratchett,et al.  Renewing Local Democracy? : The Modernisation Agenda in British Local Government , 2000 .

[62]  Jennifer Caroline Greene,et al.  Data Analysis Strategies for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs , 1993 .

[63]  J. Eyles,et al.  Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[64]  Judith Petts,et al.  Managing Public Engagement to Optimize Learning: Reflections from Urban River Restoration , 2006 .

[65]  M. Alario.  Science, democracy, and the politics of urban ecosystem management : Ecosystem restoration as green urbanizing policy , 2000 .

[66]  Maggie Alario.  Global environmental risks: between political hazards and policy decisions , 1998 .

[67]  Sabino De Gisi,et al.  Using an innovative criteria weighting tool for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites with the AHP. , 2010, Waste management.