IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v32y2005i3p445-467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Input in Toxic Site Cleanup Decisions: The Strengths and Limitations of Community Advisory Boards

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie Laurian

    (Urban and Regional Planning, The University of Iowa, 345 Jessup Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242-1316, USA)

Abstract

Toxic sites worldwide expose millions to environmental and health risks. In response, public agencies in Western Europe and the United States have begun to identify and remediate contaminated sites. Public participation in cleanup decisions is a critical part of this process. US agencies increasingly rely on Community Advisory Boards (CABs) to facilitate long-term participation. CABs are intended to inform and consult the public and integrate citizens' input in cleanup decisions. Recent research, however, finds that participatory processes often fall short of their objectives. This paper examines the performance of CABs in involving the public in toxic sites cleanup decisions in the United States. The research (1) develops a conceptual framework and a quantitative methodology to assess CABs; and (2) uses this methodology to assess whether CABs achieve successful participation. The analysis targets CABs at five toxic sites in Tucson, Arizona, and builds on the content analysis of eighty-one CAB meeting minutes, twenty-seven interviews with CAB members, and a survey of eighty residents around three of the sites. The key findings are that, although CABs successfully diffuse information from agencies to CAB members and (to a lesser degree) gather feedback from CAB members, they fail to inform the general public and provide community feedback to the agency.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie Laurian, 2005. "Public Input in Toxic Site Cleanup Decisions: The Strengths and Limitations of Community Advisory Boards," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(3), pages 445-467, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:32:y:2005:i:3:p:445-467
    DOI: 10.1068/b31046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b31046
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b31046?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verba, Sidney & Schlozman, Kay Lehman & Brady, Henry & Nie, Norman H., 1993. "Race, Ethnicity and Political Resources: Participation in the United States," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 453-497, October.
    2. Susan L. Santos & Caron Chess, 2003. "Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant‐Based Criteria and Practical Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 269-279, April.
    3. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    4. Frances M. Lynn & George J. Busenberg, 1995. "Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 147-162, April.
    5. Beierle, Thomas C., 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," Discussion Papers 10497, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    2. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    3. Catherine A Cunningham & John P Tiefenbacher, 2008. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Public Participation Efforts by Environmental Agencies: Repermitting a Smelter in El Paso, Texas, USA," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(4), pages 841-856, August.
    4. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    5. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    6. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    8. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    10. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    11. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    12. repec:lib:000cis:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:26-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kim Quaile Hill & Tetsuya Matsubayashi, 2008. "Church Engagement, Religious Values, and Mass‐Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in Local Communities," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 570-584, July.
    14. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    15. David Brain, 2005. "From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the Social Agenda of the New Urbanism," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 217-238, April.
    16. Beierle, Thomas, 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-06, Resources for the Future.
    17. Mickey Lauria & Mellone Long, 2017. "Planning Experience and Planners’ Ethics," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(2), pages 202-220, April.
    18. Kenneth M. Reardon, 2005. "Empowerment planning in East St. Louis, Illinois," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 85-100, April.
    19. Malene Freudendal-Pedersen & Sven Kesselring, 2016. "Mobilities, Futures & the City: repositioning discourses – changing perspectives – rethinking policies," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 575-586, August.
    20. Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    21. J. Wouters & A. Marx & N. Hachez, 2012. "Public and Private Food Safety Standards and International Trade Law. How to Build a Balanced Relationship," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:sae:envirb:v:32:y:2005:i:3:p:445-467. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.