RFF Report Says Innovative EPA On-Line Dialogue Shows Internet Aids Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making 2/6/2002
From: Melinda Wittstock of Resources for the Future, 202-328-5019 WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- President Bush should encourage all federal government agencies to pilot on-line public dialogues in conjunction with traditional public participation processes for policymaking, according to a new report from Resources for the Future (RFF). The recommendation from RFF Fellow Tom Beierle comes as part of his analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency's unique two-week electronic dialogue, which involved more than a thousand citizens from across the country. Held in July 2001, it was the first time EPA -- or any federal agency -- has succeeded in engaging the public in on-line discussion as part of its decision-making process. "By most criteria, it was a great success," says Beierle. "Most people (76 percent) were satisfied by the process and 87 percent thought similar on-line dialogues should be conducted in the future. EPA accomplished its goal of garnering broader input about what it does right and wrong. It also opened up new lines of communication with the public and generated some good will." EPA has incorporated the much broader on-line public input -- designed to complement the agency's formal notice-and-comment process for its draft Public Involvement Policy (PIP) -- as it goes about implementing the new policy. "This was not just a normal public participation process put on-line -- it's a new process altogether," says Beierle. "The number of participants, their locations throughout the country, the variety of times they posted messages, and their varied ways of hearing about the dialogue all speak to the Internet's ability to reach a much larger and broader cross-section of the public than traditional participation processes." The report, 'Democracy On-Line: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA Decisions' (http://www.rff.org/reports/PDF_files/democracyonline.pdf) found that more than half the participants (59 percent) thought their involvement would influence EPA policy. Some 43 percent reported feeling "more positive" about the agency after the dialogue (only 6 percent reported feeling "more negative") and even many of those who came to the process critical of EPA said they had an "improved image" of the agency when it ended. Beierle found that on-line communication was rich, respectful, and well informed. Both participants and EPA staff said they learned a great deal. To build on EPA's success, Beierle has called on President Bush to establish a stakeholder task force on electronic democracy to review all new initiatives and develop guiding principles for future on-line public involvement dialogues. The President should also sign an executive order encouraging all federal agencies to pilot on-line discussions as part of their policymaking efforts. Beierle also calls on Congress to make funding available for a broad research program to evaluate electronic agency dialogues, develop information technology tools, research administrative law issues relating to on-line public involvement, and train agency staff. Congress, he says, should also fund expanded computer access in poor and minority communities to overcome the "digital divide" and assure equal access to electronic democracy processes. Such an effort would involve purchase of hardware and software, as well as grants for encouraging libraries, community centers, businesses, and other institutions to make better use of existing electronic resources. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must also clarify how on-line dialogues relate to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, and other relevant legislation. Beierle also calls on OMB to develop a process by which future electronic government expenditures related to rulemaking, permitting, and other policymaking activities are reviewed for consistency with the principles of electronic democracy and for compatibility with future on-line dialogues. "We are only in the infancy of exploring the role the Internet can play in developing citizenship and encouraging participation in the democratic process," says Beierle. "We shouldn't allow security considerations in the wake of September 11th and proposed budget cutbacks as an excuse to roll-back the public's involvement in environmental decisionmaking. If public safety and national security are the duties of all citizens at the local level, they need the tools -- information and the right mechanisms -- to participate meaningfully." Some 1,166 people from all over the United States, many of them "ordinary citizens" as well as interest group and government agency representatives, took part in EPA's dialogue. A total of 1,261 messages were posted by 320 people, and on average, participants read 70 messages for each message posted. After an initial burst of introductions and discussion in the first three days, participation leveled off to about 40 to 60 people posting 90 to 130 messages a day. New voices kept emerging: 29 posted their first message on the last two days. The amount of time participants devoted to the dialogue differed considerably. And while a relatively small group of people (representing a diverse array of interests) provided a large percentage of the total messages, this "inner circle" with its high degree of experience in public participation at EPA and other agencies, didn't necessarily dominate the discussion: Topics were usually initiated by those who participated less. Beierle also found the quality of communication was good, though some problems did emerge -- most notably people's difficulty in keeping up with the flood of messages and the large number of conversations going on at any one time. Many people did not have time to read all the messages, and relied heavily on daily summaries. ------- The report was produced in cooperation with Information Renaissance and EPA, and funded by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It was developed as part of RFF's ongoing research program on public involvement in environmental decision-making. RFF is an independent, nonprofit research institute dedicated to improving environmental policy and natural resource management. For more information: Tom Beierle, 202-328-5015 or beierle@rff.org Melinda Wittstock, 202-328-5019 or 202-251-5730, or wittstock@rff.org For the full report, go to: http://www.rff.org/reports/PDF_files/democracyonline.pdf For the executive summary: http://www.rff.org/reports/summaries/DemOnlineExecSum.pdf For Tom Beierle's biography: http://www.rff.org/about_rff/web_bios/beierle.htm For Archive of the EPA Dialogue: http://www.network-democracy.org/epa-pip/ For EPA Draft Recommendations: http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/implanpublic.htm |