2006
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102207
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Process Evaluation for Community Participation

Abstract: ■ Abstract This review provides a synthesis of published public health and social science literature to determine how process evaluation has been used to examine community participation and its intermediary role in health and social change outcomes. Community participation is defined, and its relationship to other communitydevelopment principles and evaluation and research methods is described. Then, case studies and research initiatives help answer questions such as who participates and why? What are the bene… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
141
0
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 170 publications
(145 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
(168 reference statements)
2
141
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…These include the following: public influence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Petts 2001;Rowe and Frewer 2000;Butterfoss 2006), consensus (Bass et al 1995;Innes 2004), increased understanding (Petts 1995;Laurian 2009), improved quality of decision (Laurian 2009;Brown and Wei Chin 2013) and increased trust (Wang and Wan Wart 2007;Laurian 2009). Other effectiveness criteria are also identified in the literature, such as representativeness (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), complete information exchange (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), independence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Rowe and Frewer 2000), transparency (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Drew et al 2004) and cost-effectiveness (Rowe and Frewer 2000;Involve 2005).…”
Section: The Concept Of Public Participation Effectivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These include the following: public influence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Petts 2001;Rowe and Frewer 2000;Butterfoss 2006), consensus (Bass et al 1995;Innes 2004), increased understanding (Petts 1995;Laurian 2009), improved quality of decision (Laurian 2009;Brown and Wei Chin 2013) and increased trust (Wang and Wan Wart 2007;Laurian 2009). Other effectiveness criteria are also identified in the literature, such as representativeness (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), complete information exchange (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), independence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Rowe and Frewer 2000), transparency (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Drew et al 2004) and cost-effectiveness (Rowe and Frewer 2000;Involve 2005).…”
Section: The Concept Of Public Participation Effectivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, stakeholder involvement is assumed to enhance local ownership and increase local sense of responsibility (Butterfoss, 2006;Lachapelle and McCool, 2005). There is, however, very little empirical evidence that documents the degree to which participatory processes can raise participants' motivation to engage in risk preparedness or even their sense of responsibility for risk prevention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, scholars also caution against "tokenism" in community participation processes whereby communities are given opportunities to express their opinions, perhaps making the project look more credible in the process, while the "expert" ultimately makes the decisions about project design and management (Buchan, 2003;Butterfoss, 2006). While we found similar concerns, the urban farmers in our study who were committed to community involvement reported creating specific and transparent opportunities for residents to influence decision-making.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%