Skip to main content

The Redemption of Citizen Advisory Committees: A Perspective from Critical Theory

  • Chapter
Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation

Part of the book series: Technology, Risk, and Society ((RISKGOSO,volume 10))

Abstract

Without doubt, the citizen advisory committee (CAC) has been the longest-used participatory technique among those covered in this volume. This durable and, in the United States, ubiquitous approach, even with its serious deficiencies in terms of fair and competent discourse, offers important lessons. This is because the validity of the CAC approach is periodically redeemed through changes in the way the bodies are organized and used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, Richard, “Public Participation in Hazardous Waste Facility Location Decisions,” Journal of Planning Literature 1(2):145–161 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, Sherry, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35:216:224 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacow, Lawrence, and Wheeler, Michael, Environmental Dispute Resolution. (Plenum Press: New York, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • BASF Corporation, Community Advisory Panel Handbook. (BASF Public Affairs: Parsippany, NJ, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Edmund, “Citizen Participation Strategies,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35:287–294 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chess, Caron, Saville, Alex, Greenberg, Michael, and Tamuz, Michel, From Crisis to Credibility: Behind the Scenes of the Risk Communication Program of Sybron Chemicals, Inc. (Environmental Risk Communication Research Program, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ, 1991a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chess, Caron, “Opening Factory Gates Measure Worth Taking,” Sunday Star-Ledger (Newark, N.J., Section 3, page 4, June 16, 1991b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemical Manufacturers Association, Listening and Responding Through Community Advisory Panels (Chemical Manufacturers Association: Washington, D.C., 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Creighton, James, Public Involvement Manual: Involving the Public in Water and Power Resources Decisions (Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducsik, Dennis, “Power Plants and People: A Profile of Electric Utility Initiatives in Cooperative Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association 50(2):162–174 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein, Michael, Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure, (Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Electric Power Research Institute, Risk Communication Manual for Electric Utilities 3 vols. (EPRI EN-7314), (Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, John, “Critical Theory and Planning Practice,” Journal of the American Planning Association 46:275–286 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, John, “Planning in the Face of Power,” Journal of the American Planning Association 48:67–80 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen, “Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence,” Inquiry 13:363–372(1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen, Communication and the Evolution of Society (Beacon Press: Boston 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadden, Susan, A Citizen’s Right-to-Know: Risk Communication and Public Policy (Westview Press: Boulder, Co., 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter, Cities of Tomorrow (Basil Blackwell, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, Robert, Marvin Olsen, and Darryl Olsen, Designing a Citizen Involvment Program: A Guidebook for Involving Citizens in the Resolution of Environmental Disputes (Western Rural Development Center, Oregon State University: Corvallis, Or, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, Robert, and Darryl Olsen, Citizen Participation in the Socio-Economic Analysis of Nuclear Waste Repository Siting. Report to the Western Rural Development Center, (USDA-DOE Interagency Agreement DE-IA-97 80/ET46623, Washington State University: Pullman, WA, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutcheson, John, “Citizen Representation in Neighborhood Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association 50(2): 183–193 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, Ray, “Planning, Public Hearings and the Politics of Discourse,” in: John Forrester (ed.), Critical Theory and Public Life (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1985), pp. 177–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapp, Merrie, “Challenges from Smart Publics,” The Environmental Professional 1989,189–197 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Land Conservation and Development Commission, State Wide Planning Goals and Guidelines, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, (Department of Land Conservation and Development, State of Oregon: Salem, OR, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Sanford, The Good Neighbor Handbook: A Grassroots Strategy for Clean Technologies and Job Security for America’s Neighborhoods Draft Document (The Good Neighbor Project: Acton, MA, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, Frances, “Citizen Involvement in Hazardous Waste Sites: Two North Carolina Success Stories,” Environmental Impact Assessment 7:347–361 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matheny, Albert, and Bruce Williams, “Rethinking participation: assessing Florida’s strategy for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities.” In: C. Davis and J. Lester (eds.), Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Politics and Policy, (Greenwood Press: New York 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Thomas, The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, Christopher J., Comparative Risk Assessment and the States: Science, Values and Public Participation in Siting Regulatory Priorities (Unpublished dissertation proposal, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, John, and H. Doerksen, “Citizen Advisory Committees: the Impact of Recruitment on Representation and Responsiveness,” in: Pierce and Doerksen (eds.), Water Politics and Public Involvement (Science Publishers: Ann Arbor, MI, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Praxis, Public Involvement, (Praxis: Calgary, Alberta, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., T. Webler, and Brandon Johnson, “Public Participation in Hazard Management: The Use of Citizen Panels in the U.S.,” Risk-Issues in Health and Safety 2:197–226(1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., and T. Webler, “Anticipating Conflicts: Public Participation in Managing the Solid Waste Crisis,” GALA 1(2): 84–94 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, Nelson, Citizen Involvement in Land Use Governance (The Urban Institute: Washington, D.C., 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosener, Judith, “Matching Method to Purpose: The Challenge of Planning Citizen Participation Activites.” in Stuart Langton (ed.), Citizen Participation in America (Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Martin, Frances Lynn, and Richard Andrews, “Economic Impacts of Hazardous Waste Facilities” Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials 3(2) 195–204 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solnitt, Albert, The Job of the Planning Commissioner, 3rd ed. (Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, Lawrence, and Alan Weinstein, “Toward a Theory of Environmental Dispute Resolutions,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 9(2):311:357 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruishank, Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes (Basic Books: New York 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Richard, and Michael Heiman, “Quiet Revolution for Whom?” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 71(1): 67–83 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lynn, F.M., Kartez, J.D. (1995). The Redemption of Citizen Advisory Committees: A Perspective from Critical Theory. In: Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Technology, Risk, and Society, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-3518-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0131-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics