IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v22y2002i4p739-749.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas C. Beierle

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas C. Beierle, 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 739-749, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:4:p:739-749
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.00065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.00065?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. James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 1999. "How costly is “clean”? An analysis of the benefits and costs of Superfund site remediations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 2-27.
    2. Thomas Webler, 1999. "The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 55-71, January.
    3. Thomas C. Beierle, 1999. "Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 75-103, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    2. Wang, Jue & Aenis, Thomas & Hofmann-Souki, Susanne, 2018. "Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 364-371.
    3. Margaret H. Kurth & Sabrina Larkin & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis: use in government agencies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 134-143, June.
    4. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin O. Kazakçi & Raffaele Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 341-375, April.
    5. Céline Bérard, 2013. "Les démarches participatives en matière de politiques publiques : le cas de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00987945, HAL.
    6. Saes, Beatriz Macchione & Muradian, Roldan, 2021. "What misguides environmental risk perceptions in corporations? Explaining the failure of Vale to prevent the two largest mining disasters in Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    7. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2007. "Does Concern‐Driven Risk Management Provide a Viable Alternative to QRA?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 27-43, February.
    8. Xiaoyu Liu & Jahan Ara Peerally & Claudia De Fuentes & David Ince & Harrie Vredenburg, 2022. "Who Makes or Breaks Energy Policymaking in the Caribbean Small Island Jurisdictions? A Study of Stakeholders’ Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Ortiz-Riomalo, Juan Felipe & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Engel, Stefanie, 2022. "Fostering co-operation through participation in natural resource management. An integrative review," EconStor Preprints 253261, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    10. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    11. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Lukas C. Brun & G. Jason Jolley, 2011. "Increasing Stakeholder Participation in Industry Cluster Identification," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 25(3), pages 211-220, August.
    14. Everingham, Jo-Anne & Rolfe, John & Lechner, Alex Mark & Kinnear, Susan & Akbar, Delwar, 2018. "A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning post-mining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 397-406.
    15. Christopher W. Karvetski & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 483-493, December.
    16. Jeffrey J. Whicker & David R. Janecky & Ted B. Doerr, 2008. "Adaptive Management: A Paradigm for Remediation of Public Facilities Following a Terrorist Attack," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1445-1456, October.
    17. Di Lucia, Lorenzo & Usai, Domenico & Woods, Jeremy, 2018. "Designing landscapes for sustainable outcomes – The case of advanced biofuels," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 434-446.
    18. Florian Kretschmer & Georg Neugebauer & Gernot Stoeglehner & Thomas Ertl, 2018. "Participation as a Key Aspect for Establishing Wastewater as a Source of Renewable Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    19. Worden, Sandy & Svobodova, Kamila & Côte, Claire & Bolz, Pascal, 2024. "Regional post-mining land use assessment: An interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    2. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    3. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    4. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    5. Natalie A Jones & Pascal Perez & Thomas G Measham & Gail J Kelly & Patrick D’Aquino & Katherine Daniell & Anne Dray & Nils Ferrand, 2008. "Evaluating Participatory Modeling: Developing a Framework for Cross-case Analysis," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    6. Schwartz, Amy Ellen & Ellen, Ingrid Gould & Voicu, Ioan & Schill, Michael H., 2006. "The external effects of place-based subsidized housing," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 679-707, November.
    7. Sandra Alker & Adrian McDonald, 2003. "Incorporating sustainable development into redevelopment," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 171-182.
    8. Beierle, Thomas & Cayford, Jerrell, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-40, Resources for the Future.
    9. Roel Plant & Spike Boydell & Jason Prior & Joanne Chong & Aleta Lederwasch, 2017. "From liability to opportunity: An institutional approach towards value-based land remediation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 197-220, March.
    10. Griewald, Yuliana & Clemens, Gerhard & Kamp, Johannes & Gladun, Elena & Hölzel, Norbert & von Dressler, Hubertus, 2017. "Developing land use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 264-276.
    11. Joana Setzer & Rachel Biderman, 2013. "Increasing Participation in Climate Policy Implementation: A Case for Engaging SMEs from the Transport Sector in the City of São Paulo," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(5), pages 806-821, October.
    12. Namatama, Nathan, 2020. "An assessment of stakeholders’ participation in land use planning process of Luapula Province Planning Authority," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    14. Beierle, Thomas C. & Cayford, Jerry, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," Discussion Papers 10899, Resources for the Future.
    15. Sigman, Hilary, 2001. "The Pace of Progress at Superfund Sites: Policy Goals and Interest Group Influence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 315-344, April.
    16. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    17. Gui, Emi Minghui & Diesendorf, Mark & MacGill, Iain, 2017. "Distributed energy infrastructure paradigm: Community microgrids in a new institutional economics context," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1355-1365.
    18. 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.
    19. Jacob LaRiviere & Matthew McMahon & Justin Roush, 2019. "Second-Best Prioritization of Environmental Cleanups," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1225-1249, April.
    20. 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:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:4:p:739-749. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.