This literature review of studies on public meetings, workshops, and community advisory committees discusses public participation based on empirical evidence. Public participation "success" is defined by researchers' criteria that are divided into two categories: (1) those that evaluate the success of the participatory process and (2) those that evaluate the success of the outcome of the process. We find the form of participationspublic meetings, workshops, or citizen advisory committeessdoes not determine process or outcome success. Therefore, attempts to develop a typology of public participation efforts may be problematic. However, we find some empirical support for practitioners' other widely accepted "rules of thumb"."The common practice of eliciting comments only after most of the work of reaching a decision has been done is cause for resentment of risk decisions.... Many decisions can be better informed and their information base can be more credible if the interested and affected parties are appropriately and effectively involved..." (1)."Experience increasingly shows that risk management decisions that are made in collaboration with stakeholders are more effective and more durable." (2).Two major national reports have called for more involvement of outside stakeholders in agency decision making about risk (1, 2). Despite fears of some scientists that participatory processes can swamp good science, these reports encourage agencies to take collaborative approaches to environmental problem solving. The following review of public participation studies seeks to ground discussions of implementation of public participation in empirical evidence, dating back to the 1970s when seminal research was spurred by the enactment of federal environmental statutes that mandated public participation.

Increasingly, environmental agencies are engaged in public participation activities. Unfortunately, the limited evaluation of public participation programmes also makes improvement of such programmes more difficult. To encourage further thinking about the evaluation of environmental public participation programmes, this article discusses some of the basic issues raised by evaluators of social programmes (e.g. unemployment and housing, etc.) that have served as methodological proving grounds for evaluation. These issues include why evaluate and what and how to evaluate, as well as questions concerning the role of evaluators. To illustrate ways in which evaluators of environmental public participation programmes have grappled with these issues, examples of different methodological approaches are included. Finally, based on this review, recommendations are made to improve evaluations of environmental public participation programmes, such as increasing evaluation aimed at making mid-course corrections, which includes involving participants in evaluation and assessing a variety of participatory goals.

The role of risk communication and public participation in environmental and public policy decision making has significantly increased over the last 15 years and remains an important social policy issue. In spite of this emphasis, government officials and participants in the process continue to struggle with what makes for "good" public participation. This study used two frameworks--one theoretical and one participant-based-to evaluate two U.S Army Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). The theoretical framework explores the extent to which the RABs facilitate Habermas's idealized conditions of speech as related to fairness. Not surprisingly, we found that the two RABs do not consistently foster the idealized aspects of fairness suggested by Habermas. The participant-based criteria were elicited through interviews with participants from the various stakeholder groups represented on the RAB, direct observation of RAB meetings, and a review of RAB-related documents. We found that participants' value outcomes (the results of participatory processes) and not just the process itself, which is the focus of the theoretical framework. We also found that participants in the various stakeholder groups had different perceptions of the goals of the participatory process, which were closely related to their notions of success. Our results illustrate both the complexity and importance of using multiple frameworks for evaluating participatory efforts and the need for more systematic evaluation.

The evolution of risk communication has been described as a series of communication strategies. This article suggests that organizational theory provides another dimension to understanding the evolution of risk communication, and that risk communication can be seen as an organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressure. Following the tragedy in Bhopal the chemical manufacturing sector's loss of legitimacy led to destabilization of its authority and to increased uncertainty in its external environment. Risk communication was one means to increase legitimacy, thereby decreasing uncertainty and potential impact on resources. However, although risk communication may evolve from crises of legitimacy, the concept of "isomorphism"--conformance to norms within a corporate sector--predicts this need not be the case.