The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions

The increased use of stakeholder processes in environmental decision making has raised concerns about the quality of decisions these processes produce. Some claim that stakeholders make inadequate use of scientific information and analysis and are all too ready to sacrifice technical quality for political expediency. This article looks to the case study record to examine the quality of the decisions from stakeholder-based processes. The data for the analysis come from a "case survey," in which researchers coded information from 239 published case studies of stakeholder involvement in environmental decision making. 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 contain evidence of stakeholders improving decisions over the status quo; adding new information, ideas, and analysis; and having adequate access to technical and scientific resources. Indeed, data suggest that it is the more intensive stakeholder processes--precisely those that have aroused recent concern--that are more likely to result in higher-quality decisions.

[1]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Using Stakeholder Values to Make Smarter Environmental Decisions , 2000 .

[2]  J. C. Thomas.  Public Involvement and Governmental Effectiveness , 1993 .

[3]  Gail Bingham,et al.  Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience , 1986 .

[4]  John S. Applegate,et al.  Beyond the Usual Suspects: The Use of Citizens Advisory Boards in Environmental Decisionmaking , 1998 .

[5]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Who Should Deliberate When , 1998 .

[6]  Persuasion in a Toxic Community: Rhetorical Aspects of Public Meetings , 1996 .

[7]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure , 1993, Policy Sciences.

[8]  R. Yin,et al.  Using the Case Survey Method To Analyze Policy Studies. , 1975 .

[9]  R. Perhac,et al.  Defining risk: Normative considerations , 1996 .

[10]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[11]  M. Brinig,et al.  Joint Custody: Bonding and Monitoring Theories , 1998 .

[12]  Daniel J. Fiorino.  Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms , 1990 .

[13]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[14]  S. Breyer.  Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation , 1993 .

[15]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk , 1982 .

[16]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 2000 .

[17]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[19]  R. Larsson.  Case Survey Methodology: Quantitative Analysis of Patterns Across Case Studies , 1993 .

[20]  Thomas Webler,et al.  The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process , 1999 .

[21]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  How costly is “clean”? An analysis of the benefits and costs of Superfund site remediations , 1999 .

[22]  R. Perhac,et al.  Comparative Risk Assessment: Where Does the Public Fit In? , 1998 .

[23]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[24]  D. Mazmanian,et al.  Can organizations change?: Environmental protection, citizen participation, and the Corps of Engineers , 1979 .

[25]  Ned Crosby,et al.  Citizen Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. , 1986 .

[26]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions , 1999 .

[27]  Kristen Purcell,et al.  Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? , 1999 .