Two Views of Public Participation Page: 1 of 8
8 pagesView a full description of this article.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
WM'02 Conference, February 24-28, 2002, Tucson, AZ
TWO VIEWS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Harold S. Blackman and Jerry L. Harbour
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83415
ABSTRACT
Risk perception has been studied extensively over the past several decades. This research has
defined the differences that exist between and among various groups as defined by their
education, interests, geographic distribution, and beliefs. It has also been repeatedly
demonstrated that various public groups can and do have a tremendous impact on decisions made
in the public and private sectors. Involved citizens for example, have caused international
corporations as well as the Department of Energy to change or even reverse a chosen course of
action. A frequent cause of such reversals is attributed to a lack of involvement of the public and
other key decision players directly in the decision process itself. Through our research and case
studies, we have developed both an "as is" and a "participatory" model of decision-making
process. The latter decision model allows the direct involvement of important player groups.
The paper presents and discusses these models in theoretical and practical terms taken from case
studies of the Brent Spar disposal in the North Atlantic, and the use of incineration as a method
of waste treatment at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Results from the case studies
are used to demonstrate why the "as is" model accurately describes the current situation, and
how the "participatory model" will allow decisions to be made that are publicly supported and
can be implemented. The use of such a model will provide users a framework from which to
successfully make progress in a wide range of environmental endeavors cooperatively with the
public, rather than in spite of the public.
THE STATUS QUO
In the past, industry as well as DOE has engaged in a variety of technical analyses to support
decision-making activities. These analyses have included risk assessments, economic analyses,
and a variety of other initiatives to identify needed research and technology development.
Unfortunately, involvement of the public in this process has been limited and at best, may be
characterized as simply seeking approval of decisions already framed and in many instances,
already made. The laws surrounding public involvement do require public meetings for
comment and input but fall well short of establishing meaningful dialogue. Much of what may
be discussed in public meetings revolves around the technical analyses supporting the decisions
and/or a description of the planned activities. Such discussions essentially reduce the role of the
public to one of approving a decision that has already been made. Upon presentation of such a
decision, coupled with the lack of involvement, the public often objects to the decision and takes
action, legal or otherwise, to stop its implementation. Figure 1 below is a simple linear model of
that "as is" process.1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Blackman, H. S. & Harbour, J. L. Two Views of Public Participation, article, February 28, 2002; Tucson, Arizona. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc779213/m1/1/: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.