IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v16y1999i3-4p168-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Environmental Decision‐Making Through Collaborative Methods

Author

Listed:
  • John Randolph
  • Michael Bauer

Abstract

In the past, government agencies with environmental missions rarely allowed public oversight over final decisions. However, faced with loss of control as policy and planning are increasingly carried out by Congress or the courts, some agencies, supported by businesses, communities, and environmental groups, are using collaborative methods in the decisionmaking process. This emerging paradigm for environmental decisionmaking is driven by practical necessity rather than by abstract theory. This article will demonstrate that collaborative management is a process that broadens the influence of all entities concerned with an environmental decision, and is more likely to: (1) include the needs and opinions of affected parties; (2) bring a dialogue on normative values into the deliberative process; and (3) result in decisions that enhance environmental protection.

Suggested Citation

  • John Randolph & Michael Bauer, 1999. "Improving Environmental Decision‐Making Through Collaborative Methods," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 168-191, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:16:y:1999:i:3-4:p:168-191
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00882.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00882.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00882.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heuninckx, Shary & Boveldt, Geert te & Macharis, Cathy & Coosemans, Thierry, 2022. "Stakeholder objectives for joining an energy community: Flemish case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Nathaniel S. Wright & Tony G. Reames, 2020. "Unraveling the Links between Organizational Factors and Perceptions of Community Sustainability Performance: An Empirical Investigation of Community-Based Nongovernmental Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Kamila Turečková & Jan Nevima & Jaroslav Škrabal & Stanislav Martinát, 2018. "Uncovering Patterns of Location of Brownfields to Facilitate Their Regeneration: Some Remarks from the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Bruce Mitchell, 2005. "Participatory Partnerships: Engaging and Empowering to Enhance Environmental Management and Quality of Life?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 123-144, March.
    5. Kristan Cockerill & Lacy Daniel & Leonard Malczynski & Vincent Tidwell, 2009. "A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 211-225, August.
    6. Tyler Andrew Scott & Nicola Ulibarri & Omar Perez Figueroa, 2020. "NEPA and National Trends in Federal Infrastructure Siting in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(5), pages 605-633, September.
    7. Simon Fink & Eva Ruffing & Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow, 2023. "Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 469-497, September.
    8. Walter, Alexander I. & Helgenberger, Sebastian & Wiek, Arnim & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 325-338, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:16:y:1999:i:3-4:p:168-191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.