Policy Analysis A Model for an Analytic-Deliberative Process in Risk Management ORTWIN RENN* Center of Technology Assessment, Industriestrasse 5, D-70565 Stuttgart, Germany
How can and should risk managers collect public preferences, integrate public input into the management process, and assign the appropriate roles to technical experts, stakeholders, and members of the public? Which concerns are legitimate for being used in decisions that may determine the life or death of many people? There are no simple answers to these questions. This paper discusses the potential and requirements for an analytic-deliberative decision making process in the field of risk management. It articulates the requirements for integrating analytic reasoning with deliberation and interpretation. As a result of these requirements a model of participation is developed that attempts to meet two major objectives: first, to enhance the competence in the decision making process and, second, to assign a fair share of the responsibility of managing risks to those who are or will be affected by the potential consequences. The model, named cooperative discourse, consists of three major steps: elicitation of values and criteria (stakeholder groups); provision of performance profiles for each policy option (experts); and evaluation and design of policies by randomly selected citizens. The paper provides some empirical evidence about the application of this method from experiences in three different countries. The case studies show that analytical thinking and deliberative exchange of arguments cannot be separated but should be'integrated in the decision making process. At the same time, the sequential involvement of stakeholders, experts, and the general public proved to be a productive way of ensuring competence, fairness, and efficiency.
1. Introduction Inviting the public to be part of the decision making process in risk analysis and management has been a major objective in European and American risk policy arenas. The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences encourages risk professionals to foster citizen participation and public involvement in risk management (1). The report emphasizes the need for a combination of assessment and dialogue which the authors have termed the “analytic-deliberative” approach. Unfortunately, early public involvement of the public in deliberative processes may compromise, however, the objective of efficient and effective risk reduction or violate the principle of fairness (2). Another problem is that the public consists of many groups with different value structures and * Phone: +49-711-9063-160; fax: +49-711-9063-175; e-mail: renn@ afta-bw.de. 10.1021/es981283m CCC: $18.00 Published on Web 07/29/1999
1999 American Chemical Society
preferences. Without a systematic procedure to reach consensus on values and preferences, the public’s position often appears to be unclear (3). Participatory processes are thus needed that combine technical expertise, rational decision making, and public values and preferences. The new keywords are trust-building, community development, and co-determination (4). The popularity associated with the concepts of two-way communication, trust-building, and citizen participation, however, obscures the challenge of how to put these noble goals into practice and how to ensure that risk management reflects competence, efficiency, and fair burden sharing. Fairness is key to producing a forum where equality and popular sovereignty can emerge and personal competence can develop. When participation is fair, everyone takes part on an equal footing. Political equality and popular sovereignty also make an argument for efficiency and competence. Procedures of public involvement can be called efficient if the costs in terms of money and time are proportional to the outcome of the process. Nobody likes to waste time on endless discussions without a serious product at the end. To ensure efficient deliberation, the persons in a deliberative process need to be competent. Namely, all participants should be capable of protecting their own interests while also being capable of contributing to the definition of the collective will (5). Competence, in this sense, relates to the use of the best available knowledge and listening and communication skills, as well as the ability to articulate, evaluate, and refute arguments about an issue. When the purpose of public participation is to produce a collective decision, competent understandings about terms, concepts, definitions, and language use; the objectified world of outer nature (nature and society); the social-cultural world of norms and values; and the subjective worlds of individuals are all essential. This is accomplished through the use of established procedures. How can these procedures be developed? How can risk managers collect public preferences, integrate public input into the management process, and assign the appropriate roles to technical experts, stakeholders (i.e., socially organized groups that are or perceive themselves as being affected by the decision), and members of the public? Who represents the public? The elected politicians, administrators, stakeholders, or all persons who will be affected by the risk? There is a large amount of individual variance when lay persons are asked to give their best risk estimate (6, 7). Which estimate should be used for risk management? Which concerns are legitimate for being used in decisions that may determine the life or death of many people? This paper discusses the need, potential, and requirements for an analytic-deliberative decision making process in the field of risk management. The following section takes a close look at the specific requirements for analytic-deliberative processes before the third section introduces and describes a structured model of cooperative discourse. This model of participation attempts to meet two major objectives: first, to enhance the competence in the decision making process and, second, to assign a fair share of the responsibility of managing risks to those who are or will be affected by the potential consequences. The fourth section provides some empirical evidence about the application of this method from experiences in three different countries. The last section summarizes the major findings of this paper and draws some more general conclusions. VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
3049
2. Requirements for an Analytic-Deliberative Process Risk managers are faced with a difficult dilemma: On the one hand, technical expertise is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making prudent decisions on risk. On the other hand, public perceptions are at least partially driven by biases, anecdotal evidence, false assumptions about dose-effect relationships, and sensation (2). There is an additional complication: Neither the experts nor the various groups of the public are monolithic blocks, either. Risk managers are faced with a multitude of competing cognitive claims, values, and interpretations from experts and public groups alike (3). We live in a pluralist society with different value systems and worldviews. Who can legitimately claim the right to select the values or preferences that should guide collective decision making, in particular when the health and lives of humans are at stake? On the basis of the analyses from theorists of human knowledge and science (see brief reviews in refs 8-12), one can draw the following inferences on the required process characteristics that need to be met when making complex risk choices: (a) Regardless of whether one prefers a constructivist or realist perspective on human knowledge about risks (cf. refs 13 and 14), scientific rationality as defined by methodological consensus among risk researchers is insufficient in making unambiguous and uncontested claims about the characteristics and severity of the specific risk under investigation (15). (b) In analyzing risk potentials, one needs to include systematic and anecdotal sources of knowledge (16). Systematic knowledge is necessary to build upon the collected experiences of the past; anecdotal knowledge, to take account of the idiosyncratic features surrounding the specific decision problem. (c) When contemplating the acceptability of a risk, one needs to be informed about the likely consequences of each decision option and to be cognizant of the potential violations of interests and values connected with each decision option (17). Although both steps, predicting the likely impacts and evaluating the desirability of each of these consequences, can be separated analytically, it is counterproductive to separate the two tasks and assign them to different constituents, since the answers of the first task co-determines the answers to the second task and vice versa (12, 12). What is needed is a procedure that integrates both tasks without sacrificing the necessary precision and quality of factual and value judgments that are inherent in both steps. (d) Integrating values into risk analysis and risk management requires the input of those people whose interests and values are affected by the decision options (19). In many instances, these interests and values are so obvious that agencies can act on their behalf without major reassurance that their action is in accordance with the needs and concerns of those whom they serve (20). In many risk decisions, however, it is less obvious what is in the best interest of the people, and plural value input is needed to produce a fair and balanced decision (21). If only interests need to be reconciled, involvement of stakeholders may suffice; if broad value judgments or issues of social justice are addressed, representatives of the affected public ought to be involved. In both cases such an input requires direct participation efforts beyond the scope of normal decision making procedures based either on agency rules or majority votes by a representational branch of government (20, 22). (e) Participation is not only a normative goal of democracy, it is also a requirement for rational decision making in situations in which evaluating uncertainty is part of the management effort (23). If all society would care about is to reduce the amount of physical harm done to its members, 3050
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999
technical expertise and some form of economic balancing would suffice for effective risk management. However, society is not only concerned about risk minimization (24). People are willing to suffer harm if they feel it is justified or if it serves other goals. At the same time, they may reject even the slightest chance of being hurt if they feel the risk is imposed on them or violates their other attitudes and values (25, 26). Context matters. So does procedure of decision making independent of outcome. “Real” consequences are always mediated through social interpretation and linked with group values and interests. Responsive risk management needs to incorporate public values into the decision making process.
3. Model of Cooperative Discourse How can and should risk managers collect public preferences, integrate public input into the management process, and assign the appropriate roles to technical experts, stakeholders, and members of the public? A dialogue among experts, stakeholders, regulators, and the public at large can be organized in many different forms. Practical experiences have been made with advisory committees, citizen panels, public forums, consensus conferences, formal hearings, and others (27-33: see reviews in refs 29 and 32). Some of these models rely heavily on deliberative forms of communication with little input from experts, while others emphasize deliberative processes among experts with little input from citizens and stakeholders. This is not the place to discuss these models in detail (see the review in ref 34). In this article, I would like to focus on one hybrid model of citizen participation that Thomas Webler and I have termed “cooperative discourse” (Figure 1). With several modifications, we have applied this model to studies on energy policies and waste disposal issues in Germany, for waste disposal facilities in Switzerland, and to sludge disposal strategies in the United States (32, 35-40). The model entails three consecutive steps: (a) Identification and Selection of Concerns and Evaluative Criteria. The identification of concerns and objectives is best accomplished by asking all relevant stakeholder groups to reveal their values and'criteria for judging different options. It is crucial that all relevant value groups be represented and that the value clusters be comprehensive and include economic, political, social, cultural, and religious values. To elicit the values and criteria for such a list, the technique of value-tree analysis has proven appropriate (41, 42). The resulting output of such a value-tree process is a list of hierarchically structured values that represent the concerns of all affected parties. (b) Identification and Measurement of Impacts and Consequences Related to Different Policy Options. The evaluative criteria derived from the value tree are operationalized and transformed into indicators by the research team or an external expert group. These operational definitions and indicators are reviewed by the participating stakeholder groups. Once approved by all parties, these indicators serve as measurement rules for evaluating the performance of each policy option on all value dimensions. Experts from varying academic disciplines and with diverse perspectives on the topic of the discourse are asked to judge the performance of each option on each indicator. For this purpose, a modification of the Delphi method has been developed and applied (43). This method is similar to the original Delphi format (44), but based on group interactions instead of written responses. The objective is to reconcile conflicts about factual evidence and reach an expert consensus via direct confrontation among a heterogeneous sample of experts. The desired outcome is a specification of the range of scientifically plausible and defensible expert judgments and a distribution of these opinions among the expert community with verbal justifications for opinions that
FIGURE 1. Basic concept of the cooperative discourse model. deviate from the median viewpoint. (c) Conducting a Discourse with Randomly Selected Citizens as Jurors and Representation of Interest Groups as Witnesses. The last step is the evaluation of potential solutions by one group or several groups of randomly selected citizens (45, 46). These panels are given the opportunity to evaluate and design policy options based on the knowledge of the likely consequences and their own values and preferences. Why do we recommend random selection? First, random selection provides legitimacy to the process since all potentially affected persons have an equal chance to be drawn into the sample. Second, it provides an opportunity for those people who are normally underrepresented in either conventional or activist procedures of collective decision making such as unemployed workers, retired persons, or women with small children. Third, the random selection process attracts many persons who have not made up their mind on the issue under consideration and are thus willing
to engage in a mutual learning process. Last, but not least, the presence of people with nonpolarized views provides a communicative atmosphere that facilitates mutual understanding and consensus seeking. One should note, however, that only a fraction of those selected by random sampling agree to participate. The acceptance rate ranges from 5 to 40% depending on the issue in question. The idea of random sampling is not to obtain a true representative image of the population but to provide an equal opportunity to all people affected and have them decide whether they want to take advantage of this opportunity or not. The organizers try to assist, however, all those persons who like to participate but have problems doing so (due to working hours, children’s care, family restrictions, etc.). In most of our cases we paid employers for letting people attend the meetings, provided day care for children, or offered special family services. Once selected the participants are informed about the options, the evaluative criteria, and the performance profiles. VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
3051
The representatives of interest groups and the experts take part in the process as witnesses; they provide their arguments and evidence to the panels who ultimately decide on the various options. This deliberation process takes time: citizen panels are conducted as seminars over 3-5 consecutive days if the topic is not too complex, or over a longer period of up to 6 months depending on the importance and complexity of the topic discussed. All participants are exposed to a standardized program of information, including hearings, lectures, panel discussions, videotapes, and field tours. The main deliberation process takes place in small groups of up to five persons who reflect the information input, discuss the value implications of the material, design new options, and evaluate the potential impacts of each option. After these intensive group discussions, all groups reconvene in plenary sessions, exchange their findings, insights, and proposals, and work together on a joint solution. The process is similar to a jury trial with experts and stakeholders as witnesses and advisers on procedure as “professional” judges (cf. ref 30). Once people have accepted their role as “value consultant” and gotten used to the deliberation process, they demonstrate a high degree of commitment. On average, less than 1% of the participants drop out because of loosing interest or disenchantment with the process (47).
4. Experiences with the Cooperative Discourse Model Applications'of the cooperative discourse model in Germany, Switzerland, and the United States emerged from the early experiences with citizen panels in urban planning in different German cities and communities (48). From the 1970s to today approximately 26 cities or communities used citizen panels as a method of local planning. More than 2600 adults were involved in these panels for an average of 3-5 days each. On the basis of these experiences, the author and several of his colleagues experimented with the cooperative discourse method, first in Germany and later in other countries. The following paragraphs describe several full run large-scale applications in three countries: (a) The most comprehensive study dealt with the evaluation of national energy policies in Germany. In August 1982, the German Ministry of Research and Technology initiated a large research project to investigate the preferences of the German population with respect to four energy policy options developed by a parliamentary commission in 1979 (35, 49, 50). The Government was interested in eliciting reliable information on which the energy scenario was most appealing to the population and on what basis citizens would evaluate the policy options laid out in each scenario. A research team directed by the author conducted a 3 year study to collect data on public preferences and to analyze the motivations and underlying reasons for the judgment process of evaluating the predefined energy scenarios. The study operated with 24 citizen panels (each including approximately 25 participants) drawn from seven communities in different parts of Germany. The panels unanimously rejected a high-energy supply scenario and opted for an energy policy that emphasized energy conservation and efficient use of energy. Nuclear energy was perceived as non desirable but-at least for an intermediate time period-as a necessary energy source. The panelists recommended stricter environmental regulation for fossil fuels, even if this meant higher energy prices. They developed a priority list for policies and drafted recommendations for implementing high-priority policies (49). (b) A regional study was conducted from 1994-1996 in the northern part of the black forest (Southern Germany). The objective was to have stockholders and citizens take part in planning a waste management program (39, 40). A round table with 16 major stakeholder groups was organized in 1994 to develop waste reduction policies and to assess the 3052
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999
potential recycling potential of the area (using the method of value trees). The same group also was asked to find the most suitable technical solution for waste processing before final disposal. After these decisions were made, 200 randomly selected citizens from potential host communities were asked to find the most appropriate site for the types of facilities that had been previously chosen by the representatives of the round table. The most outstanding result was that panelists were even willing to approve a siting decision that would affect their own community. All ten citizen panels reached a unanimous decision which involved the recommendation to construct a small state-of-the-art incinerator in the center of the most populated town within the region. The reason for this surprising recommendation was that citizens wanted to present a visual reminder to their fellow citizens not to forget the need to reduce waste, to burden those who contribute most to the problem, and to put the incinerator near the political power center as a “clever” means, to assure compliance with the environmental standards. (“Since the mayor resides right next door to the facility, he will make sure that nothing harmful will happen”). The decision was given to the regional planning Board which approved the recommendations with some minor modifications. The responsible county parliaments and the city council of the largest city within the region, however, have been reluctant to accept the recommendation as of now. (c) In 1992, The Building Department (Baudepartement) of the canton Aargau (Northern part of Switzerland) asked the author (at that time affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) to organize a cooperative discourse for siting one or several landfills in the eastern part of the canton. The mandate of the research team was to organize a cooperative discourse with four citizen panels. These panels were asked first to develop criteria for comparing the different sites; second, to evaluate the geological data that were collected during that period; third, to eliminate the sites that should not be further considered; and fourth, to prioritize the remaining sites with respect to suitability to host a landfill (38, 51). Four citizen panels were formed, each consisting of two representatives from each potential site community. With the exception of one community, every town sent eight people to the panels. Not a single one of these people dropped out during the process. Between January and June 1993 the panels met 7-9 times before they attended a workshop of 2 days to come up with the final decision. All participants rated each site on the basis of their self-selected evaluative criteria, their personal impressions, the written and oral information, and the results of consultations with experts on the basis of a Group Delphi. All four panels composed a list of prioritized sites for the landfill. The most remarkable outcome was that each panel reached a unanimous decision. In December of 1993, the result of the participation process was made public. The canton government approved the results and entered the next phase of the licensing procedure. As of today, the selected site is still considered but the erection of a landfill has been postponed as the amount of waste has sharply decreased over the past few years. (d) There has been one major attempt to implement the original version of the cooperative discourse in the United States. [Using randomly selected citizens for policy making and evaluation is not alien to the United States. The Jefferson Center in Minneapolis has conducted 14 projects with citizen panels similar to the planning cells (30, 57). Several community planners have experimented with citizen panels which were composed to reflect a representative sample of the population (cf. ref 63).] In July 1988 the Department of Environmental Protection of New Jersey asked a research team of Clark University directed by the author to apply the model to sewage sludge management problems (36). The objective of the project was to give citizens of Hunterdon
County, NJ, the opportunity to design the regulatory provisions for an experimental sludge application project on a Rutgers University research farm located in Franklin Township (NJ). Although much smaller in scale, the project provided many new insights and experiences that partially confirmed the European observations and partially documented the need for adjustments to the U.S. political-culture. The citizen panels were conducted on two consecutive weekends. The desired goal was to elicit recommendations for regulatory provisions that should be included in the permit for the land application of sewage sludge on the site in question. The factual issues were discussed in a Group Delphi with eight sludge experts (43). The results of the Delphi were fed into the deliberation process of the panels. The envisioned program for the citizens panel was radically altered after the participants, in particular the land owners abutting the site, made it clear that they rejected the project of land application and that they felt more comfortable conducting their own meetings without assistance of a third party. The citizens met several times without the assistance of a facilitator and formulated recommendations that were forwarded to the sponsor (NJ Department of Environmental Protection). In addition to the policy recommendation to reject the proposal of land application, the process provided valuable information about citizen concerns and values. Whereas most of our consulted experts were convinced that citizen concerns focused on issues such as odor, traffic, and contamination of ground water, the value tree analysis of the citizens revealed that their major concerns were the expected change of community image from an agricultural community to a “waste dump” and the long-term effects of pollutants on farmland (52). In summary, the applications of the cooperative discourse method provided some evidence and reconfirmation that the theoretical expectations linked to this method can be met on the local, regional, and also the national level. It is a valid instrument to elicit preferences and educated responses of citizens in a rather short time period. Evaluation studies by independent scholars confirmed that the objectives of fairness and competence were met in the Swiss as well as German case studies; i.e., the main interests and value groups were adequately represented, and the outcomes of the process were judged as reasonable suggestions by technical experts (53-55). The U.S. experience has shown that it is necessary to have participants design the agenda and the focus of the sessions before the actual meetings take place. While participants in Germany and Switzerland were almost grateful and pleasantly surprised that someone made the effort to preplan and structure a procedure for their participation, U.S. citizens distrust prefabricated participation models and suspect hidden agendas with such an approach (56). The success of public involvement in the United States will depend on securing approval of the process by the affected constituencies. The social climate of distrust, of government agencies and their contractors is partly expressed as skepticism toward new procedures. Crosby (57) has therefore suggested holding a meeting with the participants at least 2 weeks before the citizen panels are convened to discuss the process, agenda, and informational material and to give the citizens a chance to alter the time frame or agenda.
5. Discussion The objective of this paper was to address and discuss the need and potential for integrating analysis and deliberation and to introduce a model of participation that claims to offer a possible solution to meet this requirement. Organizing and structuring discourses on risk go beyond the good intention to have the public involved in risk decision making. The mere desire to initiate a two-way-communication process and the willingness to listen to public concerns are not sufficient.
Discursive processes need a structure that assures the integration of technical expertise, regulatory requirements, and public values. These different inputs should be combined in such a fashion that they contribute to the deliberation process the type of expertise and knowledge that can claim legitimacy within a rational decision making procedure (58). It does not make sense to replace technical expertise with vague public perceptions nor is it justified to have the experts insert their own value judgments into what ought to be a democratic process. The much cherished solution of the past has been to have expert panels feed in the facts and have democratically elected representatives to reflect these facts on the basis of public values and make informed decisions (22, 59). This so called decisionistic model of communication has several major flaws: The selection of facts relies largely on the choice of concerns, and the value preferences of the elected representatives are at least partially dependent on the knowledge about the likely consequences of each decision option. Separating facts from values by division of labor leads to a vicious cycle. In addition, uncertainty about consequences, ambiguity of the knowledge base, and dissent among experts make it necessary that decision makers interact directly with experts and get an impression of the present state of the art. At the same time, those groups and individuals who are exposed to the risk demand that their values and preferences are taken into account directly by risk managers without the detour of activating the often only remotely affected political representatives (60). These arguments have motivated the recent U.S. Panel on Risk Characterization to advocate an analytic-deliberative approach (1). Organizing a common platform for mutual exchange of ideas, arguments, and concerns does not suffice, however, in order to assure fair and competent results. Mixing all these knowledge and value sources into one implies the danger that each group trespasses its legitimate boundary of expertise. If perceptions replace assessments and the rhetoric of powerful agents replace value input by those who have to bear the risks, the discourse goes into the wrong direction. An organizational model is needed that assigns specific roles to each contributor but makes sure, at the same time, that each contribution is embedded in a dialogue setting that guarantees mutual exchange of arguments and information, provides all participants with opportunities to insert and challenge claims, and creates active understanding among all participants (5). The model of cooperative discourse is one among other candidates that has been designed to meet that challenge. The philosophy behind this model is that citizens, experts, and stakeholders can resolve this dilemma through their respective expertise. Stakeholders are valuable sources for concerns and criteria to evaluate options, since their interests are at stake. Experts are needed to provide technical data and point out relations between options and impacts. Citizens must live with the consequences and are therefore the best judges to evaluate the decision options. Citizen panels are intended to bring these three perspectives together in a productive fashion. Based on our experiences in Europe and the United States, it appears that some conditions for using the model of cooperative discourse are demanded (37, 38). Variability of Options: The issue must have several feasible options, each with advantages and disadvantages. Equity of Exposure: There should be a roughly equal exposure to the disadvantages of these options among the local population. Personal Experience: Citizens should have enough experience with the issue that they feel confident about learning and discussing decision options. Openness of Sponsor: The sponsor must be willing to seriously consider the recommendations of the panel. VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
3053
Provision of a Supervisory Board Consisting of Major Stakeholders and Decision Makers: Such an advisory or supervisory board facilitates the identification of decision makers with the process, ensures a fair selection of educational and informational material, assists the organizers in communicating the results to a wider public, and helps to bridge the gap between the citizens and the policy making bodies. Our experiments with citizen panels taught us that the process of public involvement is as much an issue of controversy for Americans as is the subject matter itself. The American case study reported above did not entirely resolve conflicts about values, institutional competence, or scientific facts. However, under difficult conditions, the process did successfully foster a degree of interactive understanding between government officials, stakeholders, citizens, and technical experts. This is uncharacteristic of most siting efforts (61, 62). Citizens did receive the educational component and interviewed scientific experts and public officials; they did discuss and express their personal concerns, values, and preferences; and some decision options were evaluated. Additional case studies are necessary to test the validity of the cooperative discourse in different cultural settings and to further contribute to the design and implementation of new participatory techniques. Far from being an established planning tool, the method of cooperative discourse has proven its viability and feasibility in different contexts and constitutes at least a serious alternative to other forms of public involvement.
Literature Cited (1) Stern, P.C.; Fineberg, V. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society; National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1996. (2) Okrent, D. Risk Perception and Risk Management: On Knowledge, Resource Allocation and Equity. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1998, 59, 17-25. (3) Cross, F. B. Facts and Values in Risk Assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1998, 59, 27-45. (4) Renn, O. The Role of Risk Communication and Public Dialogue for Improving Risk Management. Risk Decis. Policy 1998, 3 (1), 5-30. (5) Webler, Th. “Right” Discourse in Citizen Participation. An Evaluative Yardstick. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse; Renn, O., Webler, Th., Wiedemann, P., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, and Boston, 1995; pp 35-86. (6) Dake, K. Orienting Dispositions-in the Perceptions of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1991, 22, 61-82. (7) Drottz-Sjo¨berg, B.-M. Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions, and Definitions; Center for Risk Research: Stockholm, 1991. (8) Dietz, T.; Stern, P. C.; Rycroft, R. W. Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk. Sociol. Forum 1989, 4, 47-69. (9) Evers, A.; Nowotny, H. U ¨ ber den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Die Entdeckung der Gestaltbarkeit von Gesellschaft; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 1987. (10) Jasonoff, S. The Political Science of Risk Perception. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1998, 59, 91-99. (11) Jasanoff, S. Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis. Risk Anal. 1993, 13 (2), 123-129. (12) Renn, O. Style of Using Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Framework. Sci. Public Policy 1995, 22 (Jun), 147-156. (13) Bradbury, J. A. The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk. Sci., Technol., Hum. Values 1989, 14 (4), 380-399. (14) Horlick-Jones, T. Meaning and Contextualization in Risk Assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1998, 59, 79-89. (15) Margolis, H. Dealing with Risk. Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1996. (16) Wynne, B. Sheepfarming after Chernobyl. Environment 1989, 31, 11-15, 33-39. 3054
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999
(17) McDaniels, T. The Structured Value Referendum: Eliciting Preferences for Environmental Policy Alternatives. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 1996, 15 (2), 227-251. (18) Primack, J.; von Hippel, F. Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena; Basic Books: New York, 1974. (19) Kunreuther, H.; Slovic, P. Science, Values, and Risk. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; Special Issue. Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management; Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, 1996; pp 116-125. (20) Chess, C.; Dietz, Th.; Shannon, M. Who Should Deliberate When? Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1998, 5 (1, Summer), 45-48. (21) Creighton, J. L. The Use of Values: Public Participation in the Planning Process. In Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment; Daneke, G. A., Garcia, M. W., Delli Priscoli, J., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1983; pp 143-160. (22) Webler, Th.; Renn, O. A Brief Primer on Participation: Philosophy and Practice. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse; Renn, O., Webler, Th., Wiedemann, P., Eds,; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, and Boston, 1995; pp 17-34. (23) Pidgeon, N. F. The Limits to Safety? Culture, Politics, Learning and Manmade Disasters. J. Contingencies Crisis Manage. 1997, 5 (1), 1-14. (24) Douglas, M.; Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture; University of California Press: Berkeley, 1982. (25) Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Fitzgerald, K. B. Conflicting Views on Fair Siting Proceeses: Evidence from Austria and the U.S. Risk: Health, Saf. Environ. 1996, 7 (2), 119-134. (26) MacLean, D. Social Values and the Distribution of Risk. In Values at Risk; MacLean, D., Ed.; Rowman and Allanheld: Totowa, NJ, 1986; pp 75-93. (27) Bacow, L. S.; Wheeler, M. Environmental Dispute Resolution; Plenum: New York, 1984. (28) Burns, T. R.; U ¨ berhorst, R. Creative Democracy: Systematic Conflict Resolution and Policymaking in a World of High Science and Technology; Praeger: New York, 1988. (29) Creighton, J. L., Dunning, C. M., Delli Priscoli, J., Eds. Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution: A Reader on the Second Decade of Experience at the Institute of Water Resources. Institute of Water Resources. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Fort Belvoir, VA, 1998. (30) Crosby, N.; Kelly, J. M.; Schaefer, P. Citizen Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. Public Administration Rev. 1986, 46, 170-178. (31) Langton, S. Citizen Participation in America: Current Reflections on State of the Art. In Langton, S., Ed.; Citizen Participation in America; Lexington Books: Lexington, KY, 1978; pp 1-12. (32) Renn, O., Webler, Th., Wiedemann, P., Eds. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995. (33) Susskind, L. E.; Fields, P. Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes; The Free Press: New York, 1996. (34) Renn, O.; Webler Th.; Wiedemann, P. The Pursuit of Fair and Competent Citizen Participation. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse; Renn, O.; Webler, Th., Wiedemann, P., Eds.; Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; pp 339-368. (35) Renn, O.; Albrecht, G.; Kotte, U.; Peters, H. P.; Stegelmann, H. U. Sozialvertrdgliche Energiepolitik. Ein Gutachten fir die Bundesregierung; HTV Editon Technik und Sozialer Wandel: Munich, 1985. (36) Renn, O.; Goble, R.; Levine, D.; Rakel, H.; Webler, Th. Citizen Participation for Sludge Management; Final Report to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; CENTED, Clark University: Worcester, 1989. (37) Renn, O.; Webler, Th.; Rakel, H.; Dienel, P. C.; Johnson, B. Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step Procedure. Policy Sci. 1993, 26, 189-214. (38) Renn, O.; Webler, Th. Der kooperative Diskurs-Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Mo¨glichkeiten. In Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Bu ¨ irgerbeteiligung bei der Standortsuche fu ¨ r eine Deponie im Kanton Aargau; Renn, O., Kastenholz, H., Schild, P., Wilhelm, U., Eds.; Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH: Zu ¨ rich, 1998; pp 3-103. (39) Schneider, E.; Oppermann, B.; Renn, O. Experiences from Germany: Application of a Structured Model of Public Participation in Waste Management Planning. Interact. J. Public Participation July 1998, 4 (1, Jul), 63-72. (40) Renn, O.; Schrimpf, M.; Bu ¨ ttner, Th.; Carius, R.; Ko¨berle, S.; Oppermann, B.; Schneider, E.; Zo¨ller, K. Abfallwirtschaft 2005.
(41) (42)
(43) (44) (45)
(46)
(47) (48) (49) (50) (51)
(52)
Bu ¨ rger planen ein regionales Abfallkonzept; Nomos: BadenBaden, Germany, 1999. Keeney, R. L.; Renn, O.; von Winterfeldt, D. Structuring West Germany’s Energy Objectives. Energy Policy 1987, 15 (4, Aug), 352-362. von Winterfeldt, D. Value Tree Analysis: An Introduction and an Application to Offshore Oil Drilling. Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond; Kleindorfer, P. R., Kunreuther, H. C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 1987; pp 439-377. Webler, Th.; Levine, D.;' Rakel, H.; Renn, O. The Group Delphi: A Novel Attempt at Reducing Uncertainty; Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change 1991, 39 (3), 253-263. Turoff, M. The Design of a Policy Delphi. Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change 1970, 2 (2), 84-98. Dienel, P. C. Contributing to Social Decision Methodology: Citizen Reports on Technological Projects. In Social Decision Methodology for Technologial Projects; Vlek, C., Cvetkovich, G., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1989; pp 133-150. Dienel, P. C.; Renn, O. Planning Cells: A Gate to Fractal Mediation. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse; Renn, O., Webler, Th., Wiedemann, P., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; pp 117-140. Renn, O.; Webler, Th.; Kastenholz, H. Procedural and Substantive Fairness in Landfill Siting; Risk-Health, Saf. Environ.; Spring 1996, 7 (2, Spring), 145-168. Dienel, P. C. Die Planungszelle; Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen, Germany, 1978. Dienel, P. C.; Garbe, D. Zuku ¨ nftige Energiepolitik. Ein Burgergutachten; HTV Edition Technik und Sozialer Wandel: Munich 1985. Renn, O. Decision Analytic Tools for Resolving Uncertainty in the Energy Debate. Nucl. Eng. Des. 1986, 93 (2;3), 167-180. Webler, Th. Experimenting with a New Democratic Instrument in Switzerland: Siting a Landfill in the Eastern Part of Canton Aargau; Working Paper; Polyproject: Safety of Technological Systems; Swiss Institute of Technology: Zu ¨ rich, 1994. Webler; Th.; Rakel. H.; Renn, O.;'Johnson, B. Eliciting and Classifying Concerns: A Methodological Critique; Risk Anal. June 1995, 15 (3, Jun), 421-436.
(53) Buser, M. Die Wertbaumanalyse im Projekt Aargau: eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme; Swiss Institute of Technology: Zu¨rich, 1995. (54) Roch, I. Evaluation der 3. Phase des Bu ¨ rgerbeteiligungsverfahrens in der Region Nordschwarzwald; Research Report No. 71; Akademie fu ¨ r Technikfolgenabscha¨tzung: Stuttgart, Germany, 1997. (55) Vorwerk, V.; Ka¨mper, E. Evaluation der 3. Phase des Bu ¨ rgerbeteiligungsverfahrens in der Region Nordschwarzwald. Research Report No. 70; Akademie fu ¨ r Technikfolgenabscha¨tzung: Stuttgart, Germany, 1997. (56) Lynn, F. M. The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessing and Regulating Environmental Risks; Sci., Technol. Human Values; Spring 1986, 11 (2, Spring), 40-50. (57) Final Report of the Citizens Panel on Agriculture and Water Quality; Center for New Democratic Processes: Minneapolis, 1985. (58) von Schomberg, R. The Erosion of the Valuespheres. The Ways in Which Society Copes with Scientific, Moral and Ethical Uncertainty. In Contested Technology. Ethics, Risk and Public Debate; von Schomberg, R., Ed.; International Centre for Human and Public Affairs: Tilburg, The Netherlands, 1995; pp 13-28. (59) Dryzek J. S. Discursive Democracy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1990. (60) Webler, Th. Beyond Science: Deliberation and Analysis in Public Decision Making; Hum. Ecol. Rev. Summer 1998, 5 (1, Summer), 61-63. (61) Dunlap, R. E., Kraft, M. E., Rosa, E. A., Eds.; Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste. Citizen’s View of Repository Siting; Dake University Press: Durham NC, 1993. (62) Rosa, E. A. NAMBY PAMBY and NIMBY PIMBY: Public Issues in the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities. Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 1988, 3, 114-123. (63) Kathlene, L.; Martin, J. Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation; Policy Anal. Manage. 1991, 10 (1), 46-63.
Received for review May 6, 1999. Accepted May 10, 1999. ES981283M
VOL. 33, NO. 18, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
3055
