The precautionary principle is increasingly discussed in debates about threats to health and the environment, particularly when government actions might inhibit free trade. It is gaining recognition as an overarching principle of decision-making, one that underlies efforts for sustainable development. Pronouncements about the precautionary principle have focused generally on the responsibility of government to act in the face of uncertainty and the shifting of burdens onto proponents. This assumes that government will have the resources, knowledge, expertise, and will to act. The role of the public—those who may be affected by environmental degradation or their representatives—is mostly missing from the discussions. This article outlines a rationale for why participation is critical and explores the theory of citizen participation. The article also describes participatory models used around the world, primarily examples of citizen participation though various models also exist for workers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, Brussels, February 2, 2000, COM 2000 (1).
2.
RaffenspergerC. and TicknerJ. (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
3.
WeblerT. and RennO., A Brief Primer on Participation: Philosophy and Practice, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 17–34, 1995.
4.
SternP. and FinebergH. (eds.), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996.
5.
ScloveR. and ScammellM., Practicing the Principle, in Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, RaffenspergerC. and TicknerJ. (eds.), Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 252–265, 1999.
6.
FiorinoD., Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms, Science, Technology & Human Values, 15:2, pp. 226–244, 1990.
7.
LairdF., Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision-Making, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18:3, pp. 341–362, 1993.
8.
BurroughsR., When Stakeholders Choose: Process, Knowledge, and Motivation in Water Quality Decisions, Society & Natural Resources, 12:8, pp. 797–810, 1999.
9.
FuntowiczS. and RavetzJ., Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science, in Social Theories of Risk, KrimskyS. and GoldingD. (eds.), Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 251–274, 1992.
10.
FixdalJ., Consensus Conferences as “Extended Peer Groups,”Science and Public Policy, 24:6, pp. 366–376, 1997.
11.
RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, 1995.
12.
AshfordN. and RestK., Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, March 1999.
13.
DietzT., Democracy and Science, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. xxvii–xix, 1995.
14.
WeblerT., “Right” Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 35–86, 1995.
15.
ArnsteinS., A Ladder of Citizen Participation, American Insitute of Planners Journal, pp. 216–224, July 1969.
16.
ScloveR., Democratic Politics of Technology: The Missing Half—Using Democratic Criteria in Participatory Technology Decisions, The Loka Institute, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 1999.
17.
ScloveR., Democracy and Technology, The Guilford Press, New York, 1995.
18.
TicknerJ., Precaution in Practice: A Framework for Implementing the Precautionary Principle, dissertation, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2000.
19.
LewisS. and HenkelsD., Good Neighbor Agreements: A Tool for Environmental and Social Justice, Social Justice, 23:4, 1996.
20.
RaloffJ., Democratizing Science: Science Shops are Tackling Research For and With Communities, Science News, 154, pp. 298–300, 1998.
21.
LynnF. and KaretzJ., The Redemption of Citizen Advisory Committees: A Perspective from Critical Theory, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 87–102, 1995.
22.
VariA., Citizens' Advisory Committee as a Model for Public Participation: A Multiple-Criteria Evaluation, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 103–116, 1995.
23.
CrosbyN., Citizen Juries: One Solution for Difficult Environmental Questions, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 157–174, 1995.
24.
ArmourA., The Citizens' Jury Model of Public Participation: A Critical Evaluation, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 175–188, 1995.
25.
DenielP. and RennO., Planning Cells: A Gate for “Fractal” Mediation, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 141–156, 1995.
26.
JossS. and DurantJ., Consensus Conferences: A Review of the Danish, Dutch and UK Approaches to this Special Form of Technology Assessment, and an Assessment of the Options for a Proposed Swiss Consensus Conference, The Science Museum Library, London, April 1994.
27.
KluverL., Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology, in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, JossS. and DurantJ. (eds.), The Science Museum, London, pp. 41–52, 1996.
28.
FixdalJ., The Danish Scenario Workshops, unpublished manuscript, Centre for Technology and Culture (TMV), University of Oslo, Oslo, 1996.
29.
BilderbeekR. and AndersonI., Involving Citizens in Sustainable Development: Experiences from European Scenario Workshops on Urban Ecology, Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen, 1994.
30.
FiorinoD., Regulatory Negotiation as a Form of Public Participation, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, RennO.WeblerT., and WiedemannP. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 223–238, 1995.
31.
CaldartC. and AshfordN., Negotiation as a Means of Developing and Implementing Occupational Health and Safety Policy, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 23:1, pp. 141–202, 1999.
32.
AurelaL., The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Its Failure to Work Effectively in the Environmental Context, Boston College Environmental Law Review, 23:1, pp. 87–120, 1995.
33.
StirlingA., On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit-SPRU, University of Sussex, Sussex United Kingdom. Available at www.jrc.es, 1999.
