IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-00-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record

Author

Listed:
  • Beierle, Thomas

Abstract

The increased use of stakeholder processes in environmental decisionmaking has raised concerns that the inherently “political” nature of such processes may sacrifice substantive quality for political expediency. In particular, there is concern that good science will not be used adequately in stakeholder processes nor be reflected in their decision outcomes. This paper looks to the case study record to examine the quality of the outcomes of stakeholder efforts and the scientific and technical resources stakeholders use. The data for the analysis come from a “case survey,” in which researchers coded information on over 100 attributes of 239 published case studies of stakeholder involvement in environmental decisionmaking. 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 contained evidence of stakeholders improving decisions over the status quo; adding new information, ideas, and analysis; and having adequate access to technical and scientific resources. Processes that stressed consensus scored higher on substantive quality measures than those that did not. Indeed, the data suggested interesting relationships between the more “political” aspects of stakeholder decisionmaking, such as consensus building, and the quality of decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Beierle, Thomas, 2000. "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-56, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-00-56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-00-56.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wernstedt, Kris & Hersh, Robert, 1997. "Land Use and Remedy Selection: Experience from the Field - The Fort Ord Site," Discussion Papers 10847, Resources for the Future.
    2. Mazurek, Janice V. & Hersh, Robert, 1997. "Land Use and Remedy Selection: Experience from the Field - The Abex Site," Discussion Papers 10468, Resources for the Future.
    3. Wernstedt, Kris & Hersh, Robert, 1997. "Land Use and Remedy Selection: Experience from the Field — The Fort Ord Site," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-28, Resources for the Future.
    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. Jessica Reisert & Clare M. Ryan & Johann Köppel, 2015. "Stakeholder Participation in Collaborative Watershed Planning in Washington State," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 1-23.
    2. Juliette Mcdonald & Martin Hession & Anna Rickard & Mark Nieuwenhuijsen & Michaela Kendall, 2002. "Air Quality Management in UK Local Authorities: Public Understanding and Participation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(4), pages 571-590.
    3. Sami Mahroum & Simon Bell & Yasser Al-Saleh & Nasser Yassin, 2016. "Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 335-353, August.
    4. James Korku Agbodzakey, 2017. "Ryan White CARE Act and Collaborative Governance Re-Examined: the South Florida Experience," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-314, June.
    5. Christopher Bruce & Jeremy Clark, 2015. "Collaborative environmental negotiation with private non-verifiable information: an experimental test," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 82-104, March.
    6. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2003. "Communication des risques industriels au public - Les expériences aux États-Unis et en France," CIRANO Project Reports 2003rp-02, CIRANO.
    7. James Agbodzakey, 2012. "Collaborative Governance of HIV Health Services Planning Councils in Broward and Palm Beach Counties of South Florida," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 107-126, June.
    8. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Beierle, Thomas C., 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," Discussion Papers 10497, Resources for the Future.
    3. Beierle, Thomas C., 2000. "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record," Discussion Papers 10686, Resources for the Future.

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-00-56. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.