Success criteria

List of success criteria

Public participation literature often presents three rationales for public participation:

• Democratic rationale, i.e. the idea that the public as a citizenry has a right to be involved in decision-making that will affect them
• Instrumental rationale, i.e. participation will contribute to an efficient and effective policy process
• Social learning rationale, i.e. participation will help participants to reflect on their views, learn from others and build trust and working relationships

Following Susskind and Cruickshank (1987) a good participation process can be defined as one which is fair, wise and efficient and leads to stable solutions. Accordingly, following criteria can be set for a good participation process (Susskind and Cruickshank 1987, Innes 2004):

Fairness

• The process is open to public scrutiny
• All people and groups who want to participate in the process are given a change to do so
• Information (including information concerning alternatives and their consequences) is accessible and fully shared among participants
• All participants have an equal opportunity to be heard and express their views
• Participants are accountable for their constituencies they represent (i.e. they represent the views of their background organizations and not just their own views)
• The offer to participate comes at a timely juncture (that is, before the central decisions were made)
• The process allows for constructive dialogue

Efficiency

• The process does not consume disproportionate amount of time and resources
• Participation will speed up planning process and reduce complaints and protests

Wisdom

• The process makes use of all relevant information, including local knowledge
• The process accounts for competing knowledge claims and interpretation of facts
• The process generates innovative solutions
• The process increases awareness and acceptance of other worldviews

Stability

• The process helps settling conflicts
• The process produces solutions which can be implemented
• The process builds more trust between the actors

Empirical research has shown, however, that participants have different hopes and aspirations for participation; some expect that participatory processes will foster implementation and compliance with decisions while others hope that they will gain more influence on decision-making (Webler et al 2001, Kangas et al 2010) . Furthermore, some participation goals can be conflicting, e.g. a constructive dialogue might be difficult to arrange in a process which include a very wide range of stakeholders.

References

Innes, J. 2004. Consensus Building: Clarification for the Critics, Planning Theory 3(1), 5–20.

Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J.. 2010. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 12:213-222.

Susskind, L. & Cruikshank, J. 1987. Breaking the Impasse. Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books.

Webler, T., Tuler, S. & Krueger, R. 2001. What is good participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27(3), 435-450.