Designing an Analytic Deliberative Process for Environmental Health Policy Making in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex

Using a National Research Council Report as a centerpiece, Drs. Tuler and Webler evaluate the effectiveness of a conceptual approach to risk policy-making

Organizing Public Participation: A Critical Review of Three Handbooks

Handbooks and guidebooks give advice to would-be practitioners on how to do public participation well. They offer a cookbook solution to the troubled official who is pressed to implement a state-of-the-art program, but is inexperienced in doing so. Although I have reservations about taking a cookbook approach too far, I also believe it does have a place in the field at the moment. In this review I attempt to build awareness about the availability of these handbooks and manuals. Doing so is an important step in promoting learning and the betterment of public participation. Better public participation can lead to a better state of public affairs. If we trust in the reasonableness of the publics--and I assert that the vast majority of us in this field do--then we also trust that better public participation also moves us closer to realizing the principles of sustainability and balance

Public Participation in Hazard Management: The Use of Citizen Panels in the U.S.

After discussing the need for citizen participation in Risk management and a method of facilitating such participation as developed in Germany, the authors discuss and analyze its subsequent modification and use in a sewage sludge management project in New Jersey

Beyond Science: Deliberation and Analysis in Public Decision Making

I agree very much with most of Carolyn Raffensperger’s argument. Understanding Risk does stand out for its willingness to admit that we need to rethink our assumptions about the privileged role that scientists and “experts” play in public decision making on topics of risk and environment. Involving publics in meaningful ways with scientists can make better science, but only if the scientists allow this to happen. I agree with Carolyn when she writes that this might require scientists engaging in inductive reasoning — some- thing many of them have been trained not to do! Surely the scientific method is powerful. Deductive reasoning is powerful. We do not need to abandon it in order to recognize that building a definition of the problem “from the ground up” might be a competent and politically expedient way to proceed. Still, I disagree that this is the main message to take from the report. The debate about why to involve lay people in public decision making may have matured, in a sense, via the status a National Research Council committee has, but Understanding Risk does not provide anything new to that debate

How To Do Environmental Decision Making: Varying Perspectives on the U.S. National Research Council’s Understanding Risk Report

There are two reasons why public participation in decision making about risk and environmental management persists as an important, timely issue. First, people still disagree about whether lay people should be involved in these decisions at all. This is the question of “why?” Second, there is uncertainty about how to best involve, meaningfully, diverse lay people and scientists in an efficient, effective decision making process. This is the question of “how?

Public Participation: Relevance and Application in the National Park Service

Government agencies are under increased pressure to conduct policy planning and decision-making activities in more transparent and inclusive ways. The clear trend is toward broader and more frequent public involvement and collaboration. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service organizes deliberation among stakeholders for endangered species recovery planning (Clark et al. 1994, Clark and Wallace 1998). The Army Corps of Engineers has experimented with a variety of collaborative problem solving and public participation techniques (Creighton et al. 1998). The U.S. Forest Service continues implementation of a variety of approaches to public participation, including “collaborative learning” and adaptive management planning (Gericke et al. 1992, Sarvis 1994, Shindler and Creek 1997). At its nuclear weapons production sites where cleanup is the major issue, the Department of Energy has set up site-specific advisory boards (Bradbury and Branch 1999). Throughout many parts of the federal government, and within state governments as well, involvement of stakeholders and citizens is becoming a priority issue

Science Communication and Vernal Pool Conservation: A Study of local decision maker attitudes in a knowledge-action system

designing and implementing boundary management strategies, and highlights the complexities of direct engagement between scientists and policymakers and the implications of that engagement for scientists and their academic institutions. We draw from a case study conducted in Maine to argue that there are contexts in which the need arises for scientists to manage and span the science-policy boundary. The complexities involved in preparing scientists to engage more thoroughly in policy activities and the challenges in garnering institutional support for advancing the participation of scientists in boundary spanning activities are explored

PromotingClimate Change Awareness and Adaptive Planning in Atlantic Fisheries Communities using Dialogue-based Participatory Vulnerability Analysis, Mapping, and Collaborative Systems Dynamic Modeling

The goals for the proposed project are twofold: • First, the project will improve understandings of how a changing climate will affect fishing communities’ abilities to maintain marine fisheries and the local economies historically dependent upon them. • Second, the project will investigate the role of a structured dialogue and participatory modeling process to support decision makers in fishing communities addressing consequences, vulnerabilities, and adaptive strategies in a context of climate stressors

Public Participation in Watershed Management Planning: Views on Process from People in the Field

Watershed planning is an important focus of environmental protection efforts in many states. Still, how to involve the public in watershed planning remains controversial. This paper reports on research that used Q methodology to study how experienced watershed management planners and activists perceive the proper way to involve the public in decision-making. Four perspectives about how best to involve the public in watershed planning emerged. One emphasizes that a good process is credible and legitimate and that it maintains popular acceptance for outcomes. A second sees a good process as one that produces technically competent outcomes. A third focuses on the fairness of the process. A fourth perspective pays attention to educating people and promoting constructive discourse. Differences among these views suggest an important challenge for those responsible for designing and carrying out public participation processes. Conflicts may emerge about process designs because people disagree about what is appropriate in specific contexts

Konfliktbewältigung durch Kooperation in der Umweltpolitik : theoretische Grundlagen und Handlungsvorschläge

Es geht hier um die Frage, wie man kompetent und fair zu kollektiv verbindlichen Normen der Umweltnutzung und Umwelterhaltung gelangt. Da Umweltqualität ein genuin öffentliches Gut darstellt, von dem niemand ausgeschlossen werden kann und auf das alle existentiell angewiesen sind, bedarf es auch öffentlicher Entscheidungsprozesse, um zu einer nachhaltigen, d.h. umwelterhaltenden und gerechten Verteilung der Umweltgüter zu gelangen. Solche öffentliche Entscheidungsprozesse können durch Expertengremien, durch politische Instanzen, durch Verwaltungen oder durch andere Körperschaften getroffen werden. Wir schlagen jedoch ein anderes Verfahren vor, das wir in Anlehnung an die Terminologie von JürgenHabermas mit dem Schlagwort "Kooperativer Diskurs" belegen. Die Hauptthese dieses Artikels heißt deshalb: Erst wenn wir einen kooperativen Diskurs mit den durch Umweltplanungen betroffenen Menschen ins Leben rufen, wird es uns möglich sein, beide Ziele einer vorausschauenden Umweltpolitik, nämlich kompetente Problemlösung und gerechte Verteilung der Lasten und Pflichten, gleichzeitig zu erzielen