S o c i a l S c i e n c e T o o l s f o r C o a st a l P r o g r a m s

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o

Stakeholder

Participation
Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs

Introduction to Stakeholder Participation

About This Publication

Some of the most challenging decisions in coastal management stem from 

the relationship between people and the environment. The National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Services Center provides technical 

assistance to coastal management professionals addressing complex human-based 

problems. “Introduction to Stakeholder Participation” is the second in a series 

of publications developed to bring information to this audience about the use 

of social science tools in their field of work. For additional information about 

social science tools and applications, please visit www.csc.noaa.gov/cms/human_

dimensions/focus_socialsci.html.

About the NOAA Coastal Services Center

The Coastal Services Center, an office within the federal government’s National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), works with state and local 

programs devoted to the wise management of our nation’s coastal resources. The 

NOAA Coastal Services Center provides these programs with tools, training, and 

expertise that might otherwise be unavailable. To learn more about the products 

and services available from this agency, visit www.csc.noaa.gov.
Table of Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................1

When Is Stakeholder Participation Needed? ....................................................................2

Identifying Stakeholders..................................................................................................3

Stakeholder Analysis .......................................................................................................5

Key Features and Process Elements of Stakeholder Participation.....................................6

Stakeholder Participation in Practice...............................................................................9

The Continuum of Stakeholder Influence...............................................................9

Stakeholder Participation Methods........................................................................10

Evaluation of Stakeholder Participation...........................................................................12

Summary ........................................................................................................................13

Works Cited ....................................................................................................................13

Appendix A: Guide to Common Stakeholder Participation Techniques ..........................14



Introduction

The public’s attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge can have a profound effect on the success of 

coastal resource management. While science can serve as a rational foundation for management, in many 

cases it is those groups impacted by resource management decisions that decide how acceptable a decision 

is and influence how effective management will be. Peoples’ experiences and culture, understanding of 

an issue, and support of an agency can each shape their support for and compliance with coastal resource 

management decisions and policies.

Over the past several decades, traditional top-down, agency-driven decision-making in natural resource 

management has generally moved toward processes that involve stakeholders (those who have an interest 

in or are affected by a decision) and acknowledge the importance of public attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, 

and knowledge. Stakeholder participation has become a fundamental component of many state and local 

agencies’ operations, and federal legislation such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

mandates public participation in some form. Although there is no universally effective way to incorporate 

stakeholders, researchers and practitioners generally agree that stakeholder participation is important and 

has many benefits. Specifically, involving stakeholders in natural resource management decisions can 

accomplish the following:

• Produce better outcomes or decisions

• Garner public support for agencies and their decisions

• Bring to light important local knowledge about natural resources

• Increase public understanding of natural resource issues or management decisions

• Reduce or resolve conflicts between stakeholders

• Ensure implementation of new programs or policies

• Increase compliance with natural resource laws and regulations

• Help agencies understand flaws in existing management strategies

• Create new relationships among stakeholders

Of course, stakeholder participation can also pose challenges. Involving stakeholders can be costly, timeconsuming, labor-intensive, and confrontational, and can ultimately delay decision-making. Additionally, 

if improperly managed, stakeholder participation can create new conflicts or escalate existing ones.

This document briefly examines several important aspects of stakeholder participation. While little 

consensus exists on stakeholder participation methods and procedures, and there is no “one-size-fitsall” approach, this guide presents a set of procedural elements common to many effective stakeholder 

participation projects and programs. Additionally, the document provides guidance on identifying 

coastal management stakeholders, describes some of the most commonly used techniques for stakeholder 

participation, and discusses evaluation of stakeholder participation.


When Is Stakeholder Participation Needed?

It isn’t always clear when stakeholders should be brought into a decision-making process 

because every case is different. Obviously, minor decisions and emergency situations are 

generally not appropriate for stakeholder participation. Complex situations with far-reaching 

impacts, however, generally warrant stakeholder involvement and are the focus of this 

document. Also, stakeholder participation done proactively, rather than in response to a 

problem, can help to avoid problems in the future.

Consider collaborating with stakeholders when

• Proactive engagement can help to avoid problems

• A problem has been clearly identified

• The best course of action is complex or not apparent

• Support of stakeholders is necessary for the decision to be successful

• Many parties are affected by the decision

• No single agency has clear or complete jurisdiction

• No single agency has the resources or expertise to make and implement a decision

• Issues and solutions are negotiable

• Parties are willing to collaborate

(Adapted from NOAA Coastal Services Center 2003)

Other authors (Meffe and others 2002) propose four criteria for deciding when stakeholder 

participation is needed. They suggest that public participation be supported for management 

actions that are

• Special, rather than routine—for example, development of a new statewide coastal 

conservation plan would require involvement, but maintenance of existing conserved 

sites would not.

• Major, rather than incremental—for example, significant revisions to coastal dock 

permitting standards would call for involvement, but a gradual shift from paper-based 

dock applications to an electronic application system would not.

• Required of the public, rather than voluntary—for example, development of 

regulations on wetland and shorefront buffers would call for participation, 

but development and distribution of educational guides on effective buffer 

vegetation would not.

• Controversial, rather than unanimous—for example, development of new regulations 

on beach stabilization structures would require extensive involvement, but raising fines 

for beach littering would not.


Conversely, the time and resources needed for stakeholder participation mean that these 

methods may not be feasible, effective, or beneficial for all situations. A judgment on whether 

to employ stakeholder participation may be necessary when

• Critical information on this issue is not available

• Quick action is required, given a mandated deadline or timeline

• Basic values or principles are the focus of the problem

• Legal clarification is needed

• Extreme polarization prohibits face-to-face discussion

• There is no stakeholder concern over the issue

(Adapted from NOAA Coastal Services Center 2003)

Characteristics of the issue at hand and the stakeholders involved will ultimately determine 

whether participation is needed. If you determine that stakeholders will need to be a part 

of the decision-making, the following section will help you to identify and understand the 

stakeholders in your coastal issue.

Identifying Stakeholders

Practitioners of stakeholder participation will jokingly define a stakeholder as “anybody 

who wants to be.” There is much truth to this broad definition. Stakeholders are generally 

those who have an interest in or are affected by a decision. Stakeholders are also those who 

have influence or power in a situation. Stakeholders’ interests in an issue can be monetary, 

professional, personal, or cultural, or can arise from a host of other motivations.

But knowing what a stakeholder is doesn’t always help you to identify the stakeholders for a 

given issue or resource. For example, broadly identifying stakeholders in the health of the 

nation’s coasts is particularly formidable because of the seemingly endless list of people who 

use coastal resources, either directly or indirectly. The resident surfer who visits the beach 

every morning, the family who vacations at the beach every year, the workers at a bustling 

port, and the millions of Americans who eat seafood each have their own unique interests in 

how the coasts are managed.

Identifying stakeholders is sometimes described as the first step in a stakeholder analysis, 

discussed in the next section. The following table is one of many tools available to help 

brainstorm stakeholders for natural resource issues. The table describes five categories into 

which most stakeholders will fit and provides examples of each.

Practitioners 

of stakeholder 

participation will 

jokingly define 

a stakeholder 

as “anybody who 

wants to be.”


Table 1: Categories of Stakeholders

Stakeholder 

Category Description Examples

People who live, work, 

play, or worship at or 

near a resource 

Those whose everyday lives and well-being 

are directly connected to a resource or issue. 

This group is essentially made up of the 

“neighbors” of the issue, and they should be 

invited to participate because their everyday 

lives may be impacted.

Residents, resource users, 

businesses, community/civic 

organizations, interest groups and 

nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs), government, Native 

American tribes, and the media

People interested in the 

resource, its users, its 

use, or its non-use

Those who assign values to a resource and 

are concerned about the way that resources 

are used. This group includes those who 

extract value from resources, as well as those 

more interested in conserving or protecting 

resources. This group should be invited to 

participate because of the sheer interest in the 

resource or issue.

Businesses, resource users, interest 

groups and NGOs, community/

civic organizations, government, 

and Native American tribes

People interested in the 

processes used to make 

decisions

Those deeply interested in the legal and 

procedural aspects of an issue. This group 

includes those who want to ensure that 

all relevant policies and procedures are 

observed in reaching a decision. They should 

be involved because of their attention to 

procedural detail and their ability to derail a 

process or litigate final decisions.

Interest groups and NGOs, 

government, the media, residents, 

and Native American tribes

People who pay 

the bills

Those whose money is directly or indirectly 

used to fund resource management through 

taxes, fees, and other means. This group 

wants to ensure that money is spent wisely 

and should be invited to participate because 

the government is accountable for how it 

spends public dollars.

Residents, resource users, businesses, 

and government

People who represent 

citizens or are legally 

responsible for 

public resources

Those who have the legal authority and 

obligation to manage natural resources. 

Members of this group want to ensure the 

best final decision is reached and should be 

invited to participate because it is their duty.

Government

(Source: Meffe and others 2002)


Stakeholder Analysis

Most stakeholders fall into more than one of the categories described in the previous 

section, so it is important to avoid stereotyping them. Stereotyping stakeholders risks 

associating them with groups or viewpoints with which they are not comfortable, and 

potentially alienating them from the process. A cursory stakeholder analysis can be 

invaluable to help better understand those participating in the process. Additionally, 

stakeholder analysis can help to answer some of the finer questions surrounding your 

participatory process, such as what meeting methods should I use, what time and day of 

the week should I schedule a meeting, and are there stakeholders who cannot interact well 

with one another? The following list is a sample of questions that can be important in a 

basic stakeholder analysis:

• What are the basic characteristics of the stakeholder (name, contact information, 

affiliation, position, scope of influence, likely degree of involvement)?

• Is the stakeholder representing any organized groups? If so, what are the 

characteristics of those groups (mission, membership, key contacts, history, 

authority, scope of influence, likely degree of involvement)?

• What is the stakeholder’s position on the issue (e.g., in favor of permit issuance 

or opposed to permit issuance)?

• What are the stakeholder’s interests in the issue (e.g., improving water quality, 

preserving aesthetics, increasing property value)?

There are many ways to collect data for a stakeholder analysis. Secondary information 

sources such as Web sites, newspapers, public records, organizational publications, reports 

of other decision-making processes, and a host of other written materials can provide a 

great deal of information about groups and individuals. Additionally, individuals who 

are thoroughly familiar with local social and political landscapes may be able to provide 

information on stakeholders. Of course direct communication with stakeholders through 

interviews, surveys, attendance of stakeholder functions, or other data collection methods 

may yield the most accurate and in-depth stakeholder analysis.

A cursory stakeholder 

analysis can be 

invaluable to help 

better understand 

those participating 

in the process.


Key Features and Process Elements of Stakeholder Participation

As stressed earlier in this guide, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to involving 

stakeholders in natural resource management. The issue at hand, the stakeholders, 

geography, schedules and time frames, and agency capabilities are just some of the factors 

that determine whether, how, and when stakeholder participation should be solicited. 

Nonetheless, after the appropriate stakeholders have been identified and invited to 

participate, there are multiple process elements that if recognized and addressed can help 

ensure a successful process. 

There are many frameworks available that propose process elements important to 

successful stakeholder participation. The following framework first appeared in a 2005 

academic journal as the result of an extensive literature review on natural resource 

management processes in the U.S. The framework was originally proposed in the context 

of planning of U.S. marine protected areas (MPAs) but has since been applied to broader 

coastal and marine resource management scenarios.

Table 2: Features and Process Elements of Successful Participatory Processes

Features Process Elements

Active participant involvement • Opportunity for involvement

• Early involvement

• Motivated participants

• Influence over the final decision

Decisions based on complete information • Best available information exchange

• Constructive dialogue

• Adequate analysis

Fair decision-making • Transparency

• Representative participation

Efficient administration • Cost-effective

• Accessible

• Limited influence of sponsor

Positive participant interaction • Positive social conditions

• Constructive personal behavior

• Social learning

(Source: Dalton 2005)


Active participant involvement—when stakeholders are merely consulted in a process or 

are simply informed of a decision, there is a much greater chance of stakeholder discontent 

with the process and outcome. Stakeholders should be actively and meaningfully involved 

in a deliberation; their input should inform final decisions, and in some cases they can 

help design and guide the decision-making process itself and can help to implement final 

decisions. Four specific elements of active participant involvement warrant special attention:

• Opportunity for input—give stakeholders ample opportunity to voice their 

knowledge, experience, perceptions, and ideas.

• Early involvement—bring stakeholders into the process at the earliest feasible 

stage, which may be during the design of the process itself.

• Motivated participants—enthusiastic and interested participants will contribute 

the most to a process, so try to identify those motivated individuals in your 

stakeholder groups.

• Influence over the final decision—ensure that stakeholder input truly has a 

bearing on final decisions and process outcomes.

Decisions based on complete information—although some stakeholders will 

undoubtedly come to the table with a deep understanding of specific facets of an issue, it 

is unlikely that anyone will have complete information on the overall issue and about the 

other stakeholders in the room. Sponsors of participation should ensure that all critical 

issues and stakeholder concerns are brought to light and addressed through the process. 

Three elements of this are particularly important:

• Best available information exchange—make the best available information on 

the issue and on other stakeholders available to all participants. The information 

should be accurate, relevant, and well organized.

• Constructive dialogue—design the process so that exchange of best available 

information is multidirectional. Rather than having process sponsors or 

facilitators only present the information, allow for dialogue, discussion, and 

personal interaction among participants.

• Adequate analysis—recognizing that individuals communicate and interpret 

things in different ways, allow participants the opportunity to analyze 

information and form opinions as they engage with others in the group.


Fair decision-making—fairness is a critical component of stakeholder participation. 

When participants believe that a decision has been fairly deliberated and that all 

stakeholders have been given an equal voice, they’re more likely to support the outcome of 

the process even if they had hoped for a different outcome. Two elements of fair decisionmaking are especially influential in the success of participatory processes:

• Transparency—clearly explain the structure of the participatory process, how 

stakeholder input will be used, and the degree to which stakeholder input will 

influence final decisions. Transparent processes can alleviate participant suspicions 

about government agencies and other stakeholders, and alleviating these 

suspicions can be especially helpful in contentious situations.

• Representative participation—ensure that all the diverse stakeholder groups and 

viewpoints in a community are given the opportunity to participate. Stakeholder 

groups that are omitted from a participant list can derail a process after much 

time and work have been invested. It’s also important to choose representatives or 

spokespeople who truly represent the stakeholder groups to which they belong.

Efficient administration—running an effective stakeholder participation process can be 

difficult, time-consuming, and costly. Efficient administration by the sponsoring agency 

or organization is necessary to ensure that the process is successful and sustainable. Three 

elements of efficient administration are especially relevant:

• Cost effectiveness—consider both cost and desired outcome when designing a 

participatory process. Remember that a cheaper design will not always yield the 

results you want, but an overly costly process may not be necessary, sustainable, or 

politically acceptable.

• Accessible—recognize that those participating are likely sacrificing time away 

from their home or work. Host the process at a central and accessible site, and 

provide all the necessary materials and support to avoid wasting participants’ 

time. Remember that different participation methods, times, and scales may be 

necessary, depending on stakeholders’ characteristics and preferences.

• Limited influence of sponsoring agency—aside from administering and 

supporting the process, minimize the influence of the process sponsor. By taking 

a “back seat,” sponsors can demonstrate that participants truly are guiding the 

decision-making and that the process is not biased.

Positive participant interaction—managing the way that participants interact with 

one another can be critical because for some stakeholders, a single bad experience can 

alienate them from the process. Coastal management can often be a contentious or 


confrontational realm, but if anticipated and controlled, this tension can be transformed 

into positive interactions and can foster progress. In contentious situations, it can be 

extremely helpful to have participants focus on their interests rather than their positions. 

Interests are stakeholders’ underlying needs or concerns on an issue, for example, 

maintaining water quality or preserving scenic views. Positions are ways that stakeholders 

choose to protect their interests, for example, opposing issuance of a permit, or supporting 

increased regulation of a resource. Stakeholders’ positions are not always the best or the 

only way to protect their interests. Trained facilitators can be critical to fostering the 

following key components of positive participant interactions and can help participants 

focus more on their interests than their positions.

• Positive social conditions—design the process so that participants can build 

new relationships and maintain or repair existing ones. This can influence the 

success of current as well as future participatory processes because stakeholders 

who have a good experience are more likely to participate in additional decisionmaking processes.

• Constructive personal behavior—request that all participants exhibit constructive 

personal behaviors or follow ground rules (which the participants themselves can 

be asked to develop). Respect, honesty, openness, dedication to the process goal, 

team spirit, and trust among participants will help to build relationships and 

foster better outcomes. 

• Social learning—foster social learning, in which participants come to a greater 

understanding of the issue and other participants’ viewpoints in a group setting. 

This type of learning is achieved through group problem-solving, and it may help 

participants focus less on their individual positions.

Stakeholder Participation in Practice

The Continuum of Stakeholder Influence

For decades, experts have envisioned the many methods for stakeholder participation 

on a continuum, where the level of stakeholder power or influence varies. On one end 

of the continuum, stakeholders are not meaningfully involved and are merely informed 

of an agency decision or action. On the other end of the continuum, stakeholders 

are the primary decision-makers and play a role in implementing their own decisions. 

In between these two situations lie many of the more complex and commonplace 

participatory designs used by agencies today. Real-world situations call for a great variety 

of participatory process designs, but the following figure offers a simplified description of 

the continuum of stakeholder influence.

For decades, experts 

have envisioned 

the many methods 

for stakeholder 

participation 

on a continuum, 

where the level of 

stakeholder power or 

influence varies.
10

No matter where your process may fall on the continuum, managing stakeholder 

expectations of the process can be critical. When conducting a participatory process, the 

sponsoring agency must clearly explain from the outset how much influence participants 

have and exactly how participant input will be used in decision-making. Differing 

perceptions between participants and sponsoring agencies on participant control of the 

outcome can lead to poor public acceptance of the outcome and loss of public support 

for the agency.

Stakeholder Participation Methods

There are many methods and techniques for gathering stakeholder input on a topic, 

bringing stakeholders together for dialogue, and helping stakeholder groups make 

decisions. The Institute for Participatory Management and Planning actually identifies 

over 70 community participation techniques! But again, choosing the appropriate method 

depends largely on the issue and the stakeholders.

One key aspect of involving stakeholders in coastal resource management is disseminating 

information to those groups. Public notices, fact sheets, newsletters, and especially Web 

sites have become standard practice for distributing information to stakeholders. Though 

disseminating information is an important part of the participation equation, it is not 

the focus of this document. This document focuses on gathering input from stakeholders 

and fostering exchange of information among managers and stakeholders. The following 

table describes some of the most commonly used techniques for gathering and exchanging 

information. It’s critical to note that many of the most successful participatory programs 

use a combination of techniques to meet stakeholders’ needs and to ensure an inclusive 

and accessible process.

Table 3: Simplified Continuum of Stakeholder Influence

Agency-controlled Stakeholder-controlled

1

Agency has authority, 

makes the decision, 

and then informs 

stakeholders.

2

Agency gathers input 

from stakeholders 

before deciding.

3

Stakeholders decide and 

recommend actions for 

agency to take.

4

Stakeholders decide 

to act and then 

implement.

(Adapted from Bens 2005)

The Institute for 

Participatory 

Management and 

Planning actually 

identifies over 

70 community 

participation 

techniques!
11

Table 4: Common Stakeholder Participation Techniques

Method Description

Advisory group/

task force

Small group of people representing various interests that is set up to advise an agency on 

programs or actions. Advisory groups can be multi-year or indefinite arrangements, while task 

forces usually complete a single task and then disband.

Charrette Intense, multi-day effort to design something or solve a problem. There are multiple versions of the 

charrette, most of which include a design team that attempts to translate public input into a form 

that could be implemented, for example, a new policy, zoning regulations, or building design.

Field trip Trip to specific location organized so that participants can match their mental images to real, onthe-ground conditions. Participants may be asked to express their reactions verbally or in writing.

Focus group Small discussion group led by a facilitator who draws out in-depth stakeholder input on specific 

questions. Normally, several focus groups are held, and participants can be chosen randomly or 

to approximate a subset of the community.

Hotline Widely advertised telephone number that directs callers to someone in an agency who can 

answer caller questions and collect input.

Internet Dialogue between agencies and stakeholders using Internet technology such as chatrooms, online bulletin boards, e-mail, and Web conferencing.

Interview Face-to-face or telephone interaction with stakeholders conducted by the agency or by a thirdparty representative.

Large group/small 

group meeting

After an opening presentation, the group is broken into smaller groups to discuss an issue or 

complete a specific task. Summaries of small group discussions and an open comment period 

may follow.

Open house Event in which the public is invited to drop in at any time during an announced period. Event 

includes staffed booths or stations on specific topics and may precede a public meeting.

Poll or survey Written or oral lists of questions to solicit community impressions about issues at a specific 

moment in time. Polls and surveys can be administered in person, or via the telephone or Internet.

Public hearing Formal, single meeting where stakeholders present official statements and positions, and those 

ideas are recorded into a formal record for delivery to the agency.

Public meeting A large public comment meeting where the participants stay together throughout the meeting 

and make comments to the entire audience. Public meetings are less formal than a public 

hearing. Public meeting may also be used as a blanket term to describe many of the meetings 

described in this table.

Referendum A direct vote by the whole electorate on its support of specific proposals or courses of action. 

Referendums should be preceded by public participation so that the options before voters are credible.

Retreat A concentrated yet informal meeting away from the typical work setting that emphasizes social 

interaction as well as discussion of issues.

Town meeting A less formal public hearing where all stakeholders have the opportunity to speak and may vote 

on an issue.

Workshop Small stakeholder gathering, typically fewer than 25 people, designed to complete a specific 

assignment in a short time period.

(Adapted from Creighton 2005)
12

There are many additional innovative techniques for stakeholder participation. For 

especially complex or contentious situations, it may be wise to consult a professional with 

great experience in participatory processes and meeting design. And as mentioned earlier 

in this guide, having a professional facilitator present at participatory events can be critical 

to maintaining a positive social atmosphere and keeping participants on task.

Evaluation of Stakeholder Participation

Evaluation of stakeholder participation is perhaps even less clearly prescribed than 

participation itself. Because of the widely varying goals of stakeholder participation 

projects, desires of process participants, and potential outcomes of the process, there 

is no single consensus approach to evaluating the success of stakeholder participation. 

Nonetheless, researchers and practitioners have offered many sets of criteria to evaluate 

participatory processes. These criteria generally fall into two categories:

• Process criteria, which relate to the strength of process elements in a 

stakeholder participation process

• Outcome criteria, which relate to the outcomes or results of 

stakeholder participation

Process criteria are useful for identifying procedural components that may be weak, 

missing, or absolutely critical in a process. Process criteria can be devised from whatever 

set of process elements or best practices you’ll refer to in your effort. For example, the 

process elements described in Table 2 of this document could be used in evaluation. 

Evaluation using process criteria can be conducted during the process to make mid-course 

adjustments or can be conducted when the process is over to improve on future projects 

and glean important lessons. In many cases, it may be useful to involve the participants 

in this type of evaluation. Participants may have special insight on how well a process 

element was addressed or how important that element was to the outcome of the process.

Evaluation of stakeholder participation using outcome criteria can help determine whether 

a process has achieved the desired short- and long-term outcomes. Of course, using 

outcome criteria depends completely on identifying the process goals and objectives early 

on, as you are designing the process. Processes can be evaluated on whether they have 

achieved short-term objectives, such as clearly defining the options in a coastal resource 

issue, reaching stakeholder consensus on a contentious issue, or developing an action plan 

or other tangible product. Processes can also be evaluated on achievement of longer-term 

Evaluation of 

stakeholder 

participation is 

perhaps even less 

clearly prescribed than 

participation itself.
13

objectives and goals, such as improving the condition of a resource, increasing compliance with 

rules and regulations, and garnering public support for government agencies. As with evaluation 

using process criteria, consultation with stakeholders may be helpful in outcome-based evaluation 

of stakeholder participation.

Summary

Ultimately, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach for gathering stakeholder input and 

incorporating that information into the decision-making process. Additionally, one must assess 

the situation, the stakeholders, and one’s own capabilities to determine whether, how, and when 

stakeholder participation should be undertaken. There are clearly cases when stakeholder input 

is absolutely necessary, and there are times when conducting stakeholder participation requires 

a judgment call. For situations where stakeholder participation is the right route, bear in mind 

the key process elements outlined in this document. Additionally, examine the great variety of 

techniques available for public participation and choose those that will be most effective and 

efficient in reaching your goals.

Works Cited

Bens, Ingrid. 2005. Facilitating with Ease! Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

Creighton, James L. 2005. The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions through 

Citizen Involvement. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

Dalton, Tracey Morin. 2005. “Beyond Biogeography: A Framework for Involving the Public in 

Planning of U.S. Marine Protected Areas.” Conservation Biology. Volume 19, Number 5. 

Pages 1392 to 1401.

Meffe, Gary K., Larry A. Nielsen, Richard L. Knight, and Dennis A. Schenborn. 2002. Ecosystem 

Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Services Center. 2003. 

“Navigating in Rough Seas: Public Issues and Conflict Management.” Training manual. NOAA 

Coastal Services Center. Charleston, South Carolina.
14

Appendix A: Guide to Common Stakeholder Participation Techniques

Method Advantages Limitations

Advisory group/

task force

•	Provides for interaction between 

agency and full spectrum of 

community opinion

•	Creates forum for interaction 

between groups themselves

•	Good forum for creating consensus

•	Group members become 

knowledgeable and make informed 

recommendations

•	Selections for group members must be 

 credible to public

•	Group activity must be linked to real decisions

•	Requires much staff time and support

•	Public doesn’t automatically accept group 

recommendations as representative of larger public

•	Disputes over group’s mandate can develop

Charrette •	Solves problem or creates product 

within specific time frame

•	Public typically has visual alternatives 

on which to provide input

•	Repetitive exercises during course 

of charrette help to build consensus

•	Requires a great deal of planning

•	Requires a highly skilled and unbiased design team

•	Time commitment calls for highly motivated and 

interested participants

Field trip •	Often allows for personal 

interaction and team-building

•	Helps participants gain better 

understanding of resources and issues

•	Size of participant group is typically limited

•	May be difficult to systematically collect 

participant input

Focus group •	Helpful in assessing emotional and 

other qualitative factors

•	Cheaper and yields greater depth 

data than surveys

•	No claims can be made about statistical accuracy

•	Public may have false perceptions about how focus 

group data are used

•	Cannot substitute for more visible forms 

 of participation

Hotline •	Ensures that callers reach a 

knowledgeable person and get 

 good information

•	Can be used for coordination 

purposes

•	Effectiveness depends on person answering phone

•	Staff must be thoroughly prepared to provide 

information quickly

Internet •	Allows widespread access to 

resources on issues

•	Allows for participation from 

geographically broad audience

•	Not everyone has access to the Internet

•	Training may be required to use some technologies

•	Technology may be unreliable

•	Technology is still developing

Interview •	Can provide more in-depth 

information than any other method

•	People provide more information in 

private than they will in public

•	Time-consuming

•	The number of interviews possible is usually 

limited by time

•	Skilled interviewers are required

•	Interview responses are not visible to the rest 

 of the public

Large group/

small group meeting

•	Provides great interaction despite 

large group size

•	Participants can solve problems or 

complete tasks

•	Produces greater enthusiasm than 

other large meetings

•	Group may resist breaking into smaller groups

•	Logistics of smaller break-out groups can be 

cumbersome

•	Organized groups may dominate some 

 small groups
15

Method Advantages Limitations

Open house •	Allows one-on-one interaction 

between stakeholders and agency

•	Can be designed so that 

participants can provide 

 written comments

•	Event design is highly flexible and 

can be made formal or informal

•	Participants may not hear the views and 

 opinions of others

•	May be difficult to systematically collect 

participant input

•	Does not give stakeholder groups an 

 audience to address

Poll or survey •	Helps to assess opinions of 

 broader public

•	Results can be described and 

presented quantitatively

•	Requires trained staff to conduct process

•	Faulty methods can yield misleading results

•	Only provides results for a particular moment in 

time—results may change in near future

•	Potentially high costs

Public hearing •	All participants can have their 

comments recorded verbatim

•	Highly transparent; all participants 

can hear what others say

•	May result in speeches rather than 

 discussion of issues

•	Does not provide for interaction

•	Can be manipulated or controlled by 

 organized groups

Public meeting •	Can be less formal than a 

 public hearing

•	Participants can have their 

comments recorded 

 (usually not verbatim)

•	Typically more interactive than 

public hearing

•	Highly transparent; all participants 

can hear what others say

•	May result in speeches rather than 

 discussion of issues

•	May contribute to polarization of parties

•	Can be manipulated or controlled by 

 organized groups

Referendum •	Widely accepted as legitimate 

expression of public sentiment

•	Allows for inclusion of 

 all stakeholders

•	Voters may be swayed by emotional appeals

•	May not be legally binding in some communities 

until changes in law are made

Retreat •	Useful in building relationships 

between individuals

•	Could help break impasse

•	Effective for consensus-building

•	Potentially expensive

•	Participants must have significant time to commit

•	Public may criticize use of taxpayer funds for 

 a retreat

Town meeting •	Greater interaction and less 

formality than public hearing

•	Provides for much interaction

•	May contribute to exaggerated or fixed positions

•	May not provide venue for problem solving

Workshop •	Effective for problem solving or 

completing a task

•	Highly interactive

•	Useful for producing agreement

•	Limits number of participants that can be involved

•	Those with fixed positions may resent 

 workshop process

(Adapted from Creighton 2005)
2234 South Hobson Avenue

Charleston, SC 29405-2413

www.csc.noaa.gov

2007