Deliberative Planning through Citizen Advisory Boards

Abstract

Federal agencies are responsible for the cleanup of thousands of toxic sites in the United States and increasingly rely on Community Advisory Boards (CABs) to provide public participation in cleanup decisions. CABs, designed to function as collaborative and deliberative participatory mechanisms, have the potential to enhance democratic decision making. This study seeks to identify whether they successfully provide for two-way communication between agencies and the public, and to explore potential differences between CABs sponsored by military and civilian agencies. The analysis is based on a general model of information and feedback flows and consists of five comparative case studies of CABs sponsored by the EPA, DOD, and DOE. It focuses on communicative processes recorded in meeting minutes, interviews with participants, and surveys of nonparticipants. The study shows that CABs do not necessarily provide effective deliberative mechanisms: participation is limited by the lack of public awareness of participatory opportunities, CABs emphasize one-way agency-to-CAB communication, and public input does not significantly influence agency decisions. The military culture of secrecy appears to hinder participation at some sites, although the case-study approach and differences between boards do not allow broad generalizations about interagency differences.