IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v7y2004i1p33-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency of environmental decision making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area

Author

Listed:
  • Christina H. Drew
  • Timothy L. Nyerges

Abstract

Environmental decisions in a democracy should be transparent. Transparency allows all those who are interested in a decision to understand what is being decided and why. Transparency is especially critical for decisions that are intended to protect public health and safety, and that have long-term consequences. Decisions are recorded through publicly available documents (such as Records of Decision), collectively known as the public record. In this paper the transparency of the public record is examined for a specific decision at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford site. To do this, the concept of transparency is unpacked into seven objectives: clarity, accessibility, integration, logic/rationale, truth/accuracy, openness, and accountability; and a framework for measuring decision transparency is developed. Then a Record of Decision is evaluated based on four of the seven objectives. Throughout, the importance of understanding decision processes and expected outcomes, and the broad values underpinning activities and choices are emphasized. It is found that, while many aspects of the process are transparent, it is difficult to discern and connect the values, objectives, subobjectives and criteria used as the basis of the decision. Several information structuring improvements (value trees, decision paths, and simple graphics and tables) that could make the public record more transparent are suggested. Such improvements are necessary for long-term stewardship because future decision makers are likely to rely on the public record as the primary source of decision information. If information is not transparent, future decisions may be compromised.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina H. Drew & Timothy L. Nyerges, 2004. "Transparency of environmental decision making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 33-71, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:1:p:33-71
    DOI: 10.1080/1366987042000151197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1366987042000151197
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1366987042000151197?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:elg:eechap:15325_21 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Steve Jacob & Nathalie Schiffino, 2015. "Risk Policies in the United States: Definition and Characteristics Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 849-858, May.
    3. Tahani Alsaedi & Nada Sherief & Keith Phalp & Raian Ali, 2022. "Online social transparency in enterprise information systems: a risk assessment method," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 95-124, June.
    4. Christina H. Drew & Timothy L. Nyerges & Thomas M. Leschine, 2004. "Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1641-1664, December.
    5. Timothy Malloy & Ann Blake & Igor Linkov & Peter Sinsheimer, 2015. "Decisions, Science, and Values: Crafting Regulatory Alternatives Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2137-2151, December.
    6. Armenia ANDRONICEANU, 2012. "transparency of the decision-making process at the urban level – case of bucharest sectors," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2012(8), pages 294-301, June.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:1:p:33-71. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.