Competing Perspectives on a Process for Making Remediation and Stewardship Decisions at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Tuler, Seth; Webler, Thomas

doi:10.1016/s0196-1152(06)13002-1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By inquiring from people with unique points of view, Q researchers can reveal patterns on how elements of perspectives are related. Case analyses of specific processes have revealed that several different perspectives about how assessment and decision‐making processes utilizing public participation should be designed can exist among participants involved with the same process (Tuler et al., 2005; Tuler and Webler, Forthcoming; Webler et al., 2001; Webler et al., 2004).…”

Section: Q Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But there is little tested guidance about how to actually do this or what it even means and there may be tension among goals or proposed designs. In previous work we have found that while people often agree in the abstract about particular goals of design features, such as fairness, access, and competence, they may also emphasize them differently (Tuler, Webler, & Finson, 2005; Tuler & Webler, in press; Webler, Tuler, & Krueger, 2001; Webler, Tuler, & Tanguay, 2004). Furthermore, much of the guidance is too general to provide the more nuanced advice necessary for specific cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies

Webler

Tuler

2006

Policy Studies Journal

Self Cite

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing how people think about public participation processes and knowing what people want from these processes is essential to crafting a legitimate and effective process and delivering a program that is widely viewed as meaningful and successful. This article reports on research to investigate the nature of diversity among participants' perceptions of what is the most appropriate public participation process for environmental assessment and decision making in 10 different cases. Results show that there are clearly distinct perspectives on what an appropriate public participation process should be. We identified four perspectives: Science‐Centered Stakeholder Consultation, Egalitarian Deliberation, Efficient Cooperation, and Informed Collaboration. The literature on public participation tends to presume that there are clear and universal criteria on how to “do” public participation correctly or that context is the critical factor. This study has revealed that even within a specific assessment or decision‐making effort, there may be different perspectives about what is viewed as appropriate, which poses a challenge for both theorists and practitioners. Among the active participants in these 10 case studies, we found limited agreement and strong differences of opinions for what is a good process. Points of consensus across these cases are that good processes reach out to all stakeholders, share information openly and readily, engage people in meaningful interaction, and attempt to satisfy multiple interest positions. Differences appeared about how strongly to emphasize science and information, how much leadership and direction the process needs, what is the proper behavior of participants, how to tackle issues of power and trust, and what are the outcome‐related goals of the process. These results challenge researchers and practitioners to consider the diversity of participant needs in addition to the broad context when conceptualizing or carrying out participatory processes.

show abstract

Section: Q Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies

Webler

Tuler

2006

Policy Studies Journal

Self Cite

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How Preferences for Public Participation are Linked to Perceptions of the Context, Preferences for Outcomes, and Individual Characteristics

Tuler

Webler

2010

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners and stakeholders involved in environmental and risk assessment and decision-making efforts have access to a growing list of policies and guidance for implementing good process. The advice is often general. There is little understanding of how situation specific features are relevant in new circumstances. In a series of ten case studies we investigated how people's (a) perceptions of the context, (b) preferences for outcomes, and (c) affiliations, experiences and motivations are related to their preferences for process features in a particular situation. The cases are in three policy areas: watershed management, forestry management, and clean-up and public health management of radioactively contaminated sites. We conclude this paper with a discussion of how the results can inform process design. Process design should be based on a diagnostic approach that specifically assesses relevant situational characteristics.

show abstract

Stakeholder Perspectives about Marine Oil Spill Response Objectives: A Comparative Q Study of Four Regions

Tuler¹,

Webler²

2009

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine oil spills can cause major social, economic, and ecological disruptions. Spill response managers must weigh different options and objectives when deciding what to do. We investigated the ways in which preferences for spill response objectives vary among those who are responsible for oil spill contingency planning and response in Buzzards Bay, Delaware Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Washington State regions. We begin this paper with a discussion of the research method used in the study: the Q method. In Buzzards Bay, Delaware Bay, and San Francisco Bay three perspectives were identified in each case. In Washington State, two perspectives were identified. An analysis of the 11 case-specific perspectives reveals that they can be described by four 'composite' perspectives that describe how different stakeholders prioritize spill response objectives. These four perspectives are compared on several themes, including the emphasis they placed on mitigating economic impacts, protecting health and safety, mitigating ecological impacts, implementing a coordinated and timely response, addressing the needs and concerns of the affected public/communities, gaining public support for the response, mitigating cultural impacts, and mitigating social nuisance impacts. The implications for spill response planning and spill response evaluation are discussed.

show abstract

Competing Perspectives on a Process for Making Remediation and Stewardship Decisions at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies

Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies

How Preferences for Public Participation are Linked to Perceptions of the Context, Preferences for Outcomes, and Individual Characteristics

Stakeholder Perspectives about Marine Oil Spill Response Objectives: A Comparative Q Study of Four Regions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About