Participation, presentation and review - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 170

ideally lead to solutions of these conflicts, and to agreement on future courses of action
that reflect the joint objectives of all parties (Petts 1999, 2003).
Public participation is likely to be greatest where public comments are most likely to
influence decisions. Arnstein (1971) identified “eight rungs on a ladder of citizen
participation”, ranging from non-participation (manipulation, therapy), through tokenism
(informing, consultation, placation), to citizen power (partnership, delegated
Table 6.1 Advantages and disadvantages of levels
of increasing public influence

Approaches Extent of

public power
in decision-
making

Advantages Disadvantages

Information feedback
Slide or film
presentation,
information kit,
newspaper account,
notices, etc.

Nil Informative, quick No feedback; presentation

subject to bias

Consultation
Public hearing,
ombudsperson or
representative, etc.

Low Allows two-way

information transfer;
allows limited discussion

Does not permit ongoing
communication; somewhat
time-consuming

Joint planning

Advisory committee,
structured workshop,
etc.

Moderate Permits continuing input

and feedback; increases
education and involvement
of citizens

Very time-consuming;
dependent on what
information is provided by
planners

Delegated authority
Citizens' review board,
citizens' planning
commission, etc.

High Permits better access to

relevant information;
permits greater control
over options and timing of
decision

Long-term time
commitment; difficult to
include wide
representation on small
board

( Source: Westman 1985.)

power, citizen control). Similarly, Westman (1985) has identified four levels of
increasing public power in participation methods: information-feedback approaches,
consultation, joint planning and delegated authority. Table 6.1 lists advantages and
disadvantages of these levels.
There are many different forms of public participation. A few are listed in Table 6.2,
along with an indication of how well they provide information, cater for special interests,
encourage dialogue and affect decision-making. Box 6.1 gives an example from Canada,