Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record

By Thomas Beierle

Abstract

The increased use of stakeholder processes in environmental decisionmaking has raised concerns that the inherently “political” nature of such processes may sacrifice substantive quality for political expediency. In particular, there is concern that good science will not be used adequately in stakeholder processes nor be reflected in their decision outcomes. This paper looks to the case study record to examine the quality of the outcomes of stakeholder efforts and the scientific and technical resources stakeholders use. The data for the analysis come from a “case survey,” in which researchers coded information on over 100 attributes of 239 published case studies of stakeholder involvement in environmental decisionmaking. These cases reflect a diversity of planning, management, and implementation activities carried out by environmental and natural resource agencies at many levels of government. Overall, the case study record suggests that there should be little concern that stakeholder processes are resulting in low quality decisions. The majority of cases contained evidence of stakeholders improving decisions over the status quo; adding new information, ideas, and analysis; and having adequate access to technical and scientific resources. Processes that stressed consensus scored higher on substantive quality measures than those that did not. Indeed, the data suggested interesting relationships between the more “political” aspects of stakeholder decisionmaking, such as consensus building, and the quality of decisions.

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2000). A new vanguard for the environment: Grass-roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement.
  2. (1996). Analysis of Lower Green Bay and Fox River, Collingwood Harbour, Spanish Harbour, and the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process.
  3. (1997). Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking.
  4. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: the use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decisionmaking,
  5. (1993). Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies.
  6. (1995). Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. North Carolina:
  7. (1998). Comparative Risk Assessment: Where Does the Public Fit In?
  8. (1996). Defining risk: Normative considerations.
  9. (2000). Democratic science: Enhancing the role of science in stakeholder-based risk management decision-making. Washington, DC: Health Risk Strategies.
  10. (1991). Designing evaluations.
  11. (1993). Ecology and community in the Great Lakes basin: the role of stakeholders and advisory committees in the environmental planning process. Doctoral dissertation,
  12. (1980). Environmental mediation: Defining the process through experience.
  13. (1997). for Environmental Decision-Making (WCED)
  14. (1997). Land Use and Remedy Selection: Experience from the Field—The Fort Ord Site, RFF Discussion Paper 97-28, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  15. (1997). Lessons from Fernald: Reversing NIMBYism through Democratic Decision-Making, Risk Policy Report (February 21).Resources for the Future Beierle Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC).
  16. (1986). Open power plant siting: The pioneering (and successful) experience of Northern States Power public involvement.
  17. (1998). Participant Competencies in Deliberative Discourse: Cases of Collaborative Decision-Making
  18. (1996). Persuasion in a Toxic Community: Rhetorical Aspects of Public Meetings.
  19. (1985). Public administration and public deliberation: an interpretive essay.
  20. (1986). Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
  21. (1999). Science Advisory Board commentary on the role of science in “new approaches” to environmental decisionmaking that focus on stakeholder involvement. Letter to Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
  22. (1999). Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  23. (1994). Superfund: EPA’s Community Relations Efforts Could Be More Effective,
  24. (1987). The case meta-analysis method for OD.
  25. (1974). The case survey method: aggregating case experience (Rand Report No.
  26. (1992). The Causes of Conflict and Methods of Resolution in a Citizen Participation Program: A Case Study of the Lipari Landfill Superfund Site,
  27. (1997). The ecology of hope: Communities collaborate for sustainability. East Haven, CT:
  28. (1975). The reformation of American administrative law,
  29. (1998). Using stakeholder processes in environmental decisionmaking: an evaluation of lessons learned, key issues, and future challenges.
  30. (2000). Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions.
  31. (1975). Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies.
  32. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning,
  33. (1999). Versatility, Patience & Non-Defensiveness: Helping Participants Cope in Collaborative Environmental Decision-Making, draft manuscript submitted to Negotiation Journal

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.