Involving the public: When are surveys and stakeholder interviews effective?

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 581-593

  Darnall, Nicole ^a   Jolley, G Jason ^a,b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Orange County Econ Devt Commission   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PLANNING METHOD; STAKEHOLDER; SURVEY;

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3242875700     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00095.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1961). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Armoun A. M. (1993). Risk assessment in environmental policymaking. Policy Studies Review, 12(3/4), 178-196.
3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224.
4. Beierle, T. J. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Journal, 3(4), 75-103.
5. Beierle, T. J., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 587-602.
6. Davies, J. C. (Ed.). (1996). Comparing environmental risks. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
7. Davies, J. C., & Darnall, N. (1996). Environmental priorities for the District of Columbia: A report to the Summit Fund. Discussion Paper 97-04. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
8. District of Columbia. (1996). Ambient air quality monitoring network description: A brief overview of ambient air quality in DC, 1980-1993. Washington, DC: District of Columbia, Air Resources Management Division.
9. District of Columbia. (1994). The District of Columbia water quality assessment. Washington, DC: District of Columbia, Environmental Regulatory Administration, 1994 Report to the USEPA and the US Congress, pursuant to section 305(b) Clean Water Act (P.L. No. 97-117).
10. Feldman, D. L., Hanahan, R. A., & Perhac, R. (1996). Environmental priority-setting in U.S. states and communities: A comparative analysis. Knoxville: Waste Management Research and Education Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
11. Feldman, D. L., Hanahan R. A., & Perhac, R. (1999). Environmental priority-setting through comparative risk assessment. Environmental Management, 23(4), 483-493.
12. Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 9(3), 293-299.
13. Fiorino, D. J. (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
14. Graham, J. D. (1994). Hammers don't cut wood: Why we need pollution prevention and comparative risk assessment. In A. M. Finkel & D. Goldring (Eds.). Worst things first? The debate over risk-based national environmental priorities (pp. 229-236). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
15. Gray, P. C. R., Wiedemann, P. M., Schulz, H., Hallman, W. K., Feldman, D., & Turner, R. (1996). The nature and challenges of environmental decision making: Case studies for policy improvement. Knoxville, TN: National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research, NCEDR/96-03.
16. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB). (1993). ICPRB study assesses Anacostia sediment pollution, Potomac Basin Reporter, 49(1).
17. Isaacson, P. (1986). Pollution regulation and public sensibility. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 6, 229-232.
18. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
19. Lash, J. (1994). Integrating science, values, and democracy through comparative risk assessment. In A. M. Finkel & D. Goldring (Eds.). Worst things first? The debate over risk-based national environmental priorities (pp. 69-86). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
20. La Porte, T. R., & Metlay, D. S. (1996). Hazards and institutional trustworthiness: Facing a deficit of trust. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 341-347.
21. MacLean, D. (1986). Values at risk. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
22. MacRae, D., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
23. Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk: Why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Milbrath, L. W. (1981). Citizen surveys as citizen participation mechanisms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 117, 478-496.
25. Minard, Jr., R. A. (1996). Comparative risk assessment and the states: History, politics, and results. In J. C. Davies (Ed.). Comparing environmental risks (pp. 23-61). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
26. Minard Jr., R. A. (1997). Introduction. In Public involvement in comparative risk projects: Principles and best practices. Boulder, CO: Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making.
27. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L., & Fischbeck, P. (1995). A proposal for ranking risk within federal agencies. In J. C. Davies (Ed.). Comparing environmental risks (pp. 111-147). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
28. Morgenstern, R. D., Shih, J. S., & Sessions, S. L. (2000). Comparative risk assessment: An international comparison of methodologies and results. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 78, 19-39.
29. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding risks: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. Olson, E. D. (1995). The troubled DC drinking water supply: A preliminary review of problem. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council.
31. Perhac, Jr., R. M. (1998). Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in? Science, Technology, and Human Values, 23(2), 221-233.
32. Pollak, M. (1985). Public participation. In H. Otway & M. Peltu (Eds.). Regulating industrial risk (pp. 76-94). London: Butterworths.
33. Renn, O., Stegelmann, H. U., Albrecht, G., Kotte, U., & Peters, H. P. (1984). An empirical investigation of citizens' preferences among four emergency scenarios. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 26(1), 11-46.
34. Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189-214.
35. th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
36. Rosener, J. R. (1978). Matching method to purpose: The challenges of planning citizen participation activities. In S. Langton (Ed.). Citizen participation in America (pp. 109-121). Lexington: Lexington Books.
37. Schaeffer, N. C. (1990). Principles of justice in judgments about child support. Social Forces, 69(1), 157-179.
38. Schrader-Frechette, K. S. (1985). Risk analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical problems with evaluation societal risks. Boston: D. Reidel.
39. U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (1994). Assessment of inadequately filtered public drinking water-Washington, DC, December 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, 43(36), 661-663, 669.
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996a). A scientific foundation for setting an environmental agenda, an environmental characterization of the District of Columbia. Philadelphia: Author, Region 3.
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b). Water Quality Hotline, August 6.
42. Velinsky, D. J., & Cummins, J. D. (1994). Distribution of chemical contaminants in wild fish species in the Washington DC Area. Washington, DC: District of Columbia, Final Report for District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Water Quality Control Branch, Report No. 94-1.
43. th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference, October 22-25, Albuquerque, New Mexico.