IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v7y2004i2p115-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Petts

Abstract

Despite increased support for extended public engagement in risk decision-making, significant questions remain over the best means to integrated deliberative processes with conventional ‘scientific’ or technical elements. This paper analyses the barriers to analytic--deliberative processes as a means by which the public can influence risk decisions, including the generation of data and the derivation of acceptable policy options. Using evidence from waste management decision processes in Britain, the discussion identifies technical, institutional and cultural barriers to effective process. The barriers are seen to limit systematic analysis appropriate to the problems as framed by the public. The principle that the nature of the risks and the assessment required needs to be determined through discussion with the public not in advance of discussion with them is challenged by proceduralization cultures within decision authorities and ingrained technical cultural perspectives. It is evident also that fundamental barriers lie in fragmentary decision processes and weak regulation. The paper discusses the requirements for a decision-support framework for multicriteria decision-making with full public participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Petts, 2004. "Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-133, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:7:y:2004:i:2:p:115-133
    DOI: 10.1080/1366987042000158695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1366987042000158695
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1366987042000158695?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. Lejla Dervisevic & Leigh Raymond & Linda J. Pfeiffer & Jessica V. Merzdorf, 2021. "Trade-offs versus reassurance: framing competing risks in the 2016 Zika outbreak," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 729-747, December.
    2. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    3. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    4. Caitlin P. Youngquist & Jessica R. Goldberger & John Doyle & Stephen S. Jones, 2015. "Public involvement in waste management research and decision-making: A case study," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 141-161, August.
    5. Nicky Gregson & Mike Crang, 2010. "Materiality and Waste: Inorganic Vitality in a Networked World," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(5), pages 1026-1032, May.
    6. Maarten Wolsink, 2004. "Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(13), pages 2669-2690, December.
    7. Anna Wesselink & Jouni Paavola & Oliver Fritsch & Ortwin Renn, 2011. "Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2688-2704, November.
    8. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Vandermoere, Frédéric, 2008. "Psychosocial health of residents exposed to soil pollution in a Flemish neighbourhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1646-1657, April.
    10. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    11. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    12. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    13. Anthony J. Culyer, 2012. "Hic Sunt Dracones," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 25-32, January.
    14. Fangkun Xin & Xingyue Wan, 2023. "A sustainable solution to promote interest-based municipal solid waste management," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Kristen Tappenden, 2014. "The district of North Vancouver’s landslide management strategy: role of public involvement for determining tolerable risk and increasing community resilience," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 72(2), pages 481-501, 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:2:p:115-133. 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.