Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T13:49:35.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Sometimes Less Is Better: Ethics of Public Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2012

Carie Fox*
MS, JD, Daylight Decisions, Portland, Oregon
Philip Murphy
PhD, Daylight Decisions, Seattle, Washington
Carie Fox, 3414 NE Clackamas Street, Portland, OR 97232; (phone) 503-231-6557; (e-mail)
Get access


Most discussions of ethics in public participation emphasize the agency's obligation to engage in more public participation. Yet, ethically speaking, sometimes less is better. If the increased public participation lacks forethought and proper support, it may do serious harm. We analyze three types of ethical breach that may occur when an agency engages in robust public participation: uncomplicated lying or manipulation, failing to provide a fair exchange, and asking for wisdom but failing to support it. As we discuss the need for clear ethics, we look at three constituencies that might be impacted: public participants, the general public, and the resource. Because convening agencies tend to have disproportionate power in a public participation process, we argue that convening agencies (and, through them, their consultants) ought to develop ethical standards addressing the three categories with respect to all three constituencies. Finally, based on our analysis, we suggest that sometimes less public participation is better.

Environmental Practice 14:212–219 (2012)

Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


American Medical Association (AMA). 1957, rev. 2001. Principles of Medical Ethics. AMA, Chicago. Available at Scholar
Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carton, R.J, and Hirzy, J.W.. 1998. Applying the NAEP Code of Ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fluoride in Drinking Water Standard. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, San Diego, CA, June 20–24. National Association of Environmental Professionals, Collingswood, NJ, GEN51–61. Available at Scholar
Dietz, T., and Stern, P.C., eds. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 322 pp.Google Scholar
Germain, R.H., Floyd, D.W., and Stehman, S.V.. 2001. Public Perceptions of the USDA Forest Service Public Participation Process. Forest Policy and Economics 3(3-4):113124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hippocrates. 2002. The Hippocratic Oath (late 5th century BC), M. North, trans. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC, 1 p. Available at Scholar
Innes, J.E., and Booher, D.E.. 2004. Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory & Practice 5(4):419436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution. 2004, rev. 2005. Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership, Report, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, Tucson, AZ, 101 pp. Available at Scholar
International Association of Public Practitioners (IAP2). N.d., a. IAP2 Code of Ethics for Public Participation Practitioners. IAP2, Thornton, CO. Scholar
International Association of Public Practitioners (IAP2). N.d., b. Practitioner Tools. IAP2, Thornton, CO. Scholar
Irvin, R.A., and Stansbury, J.. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review 64(1):5565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. 1994. Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics. HarperCollins, New York, 236 pp.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. 2012. Groupthink: The Brainstorming Myth. New Yorker, January 30.Google Scholar
Moore, M.H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 402 pp.Google Scholar
National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). N.d. Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice for Environmental Professionals. NAEP, Collingswood, NJ. Available at Scholar
Rittel, H., and Webber, M.. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4(2):155169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon, J. 2008. Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: The Failure of the Reform Regime … and a Manifesto for a Better Way. Triarchy Press, Axminster, England, 224 pp.Google Scholar
Stich, B., and Eagle, K.. 2005. Planning to Include the Public: Transportation Policy Implementation with Effective Citizen Involvement. Public Works Management & Policy 9(4):319340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sui, D.Z., Elwood, S., and Goodchild, M.F., eds. 2012. Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Springer, Berlin, 408 pp.Google Scholar
Tuler, S., and Webler, T.. 1999. Voices from the Forest: What Participants Expect of a Public Participation Process. Society & Natural Resources 12(5):437453.Google Scholar
US Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act: 83 Stat. 852-42 USC Sec. 4321, Pub. L. 91-190, Sec. 2, January 1. US Congress, Washington, DC. Available at Scholar
US Congress. 1972. Federal Advisory Committee Act: P.L. 92-463, approved October 6 (86 Stat. 770). US Congress, Washington, DC. Available at Scholar
US Congress. 1980. Paperwork Reduction Act: 44 USC 3501 et seq. US Congress, Washington, DC. Available at Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2000. Code of Scientific Ethics. USDA Forest Service Research & Development, Washington, DC, 20 pp. Available at Scholar