Introduction: Stakeholders and Science

Chapter

Abstract

It has become fashionable to include stakeholders in environmental ­decisions, yet this inclusion often takes the form of one-way communication that involves imparting information or assessing concerns and perceptions. While risk communication and perception analysis is important to the process, a consensus can be reached in many contentious situations by the wide inclusion of stakeholders in a process whereby they actually participate in problem formulation, data acquisition and analysis, and in the final decision making. This chapter provides an introduction to stakeholder involvement, defines stakeholders, provides a template for the different­ types of stakeholder involvement, and suggests approaches to improve stakeholder participation in environmental and energy-related issues. Stakeholder participation includes Community-based participatory research, another method or description of collaboration between researchers and communites.

Keywords

Uranium Radionuclide Assure Stake 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I particularly thank Michael Gochfeld, Charles W. Powers, David S. Kosson, and James Clarke for valuable discussions about science, stakeholders, and environmental health problems. I also thank Caron Chess, Michael Greenberg, and Lisa Bliss for helpful discussions about science over the years, Mary English for insightful comments on the nature of stakeholder involvement, and Sheila Shukla, Chris. Jeitner and Taryn Pittfield for technical support. This research was funded mainly by the Consortium for Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) through a grant from the Department of Energy (DE-FC01-06EW07053) to Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University, as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 38-07-502M02), NIEHS (P30ES005022), and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The conclusions and interpretations reported herein are the sole responsibility of the author, and should not in any way be interpreted as representing the views of the funding agencies.

References

  1. Accorsi R, Apostolakis G, Zio E (1999) Prioritizing stakeholder concerns in environmental risk management. J Risk Res 2:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberts DJ (2007) Stakeholders or subject matter experts, who should be consulted? Energy Pol 35:2336–2346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anastasi C (1998) Nuclear power needs to be part of the sustainability debate. Electric. J 11:82–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson FR, Edens GE (2009) Alternative energy and the rebirth of NEPA. Nat Res Environ 23:22–24Google Scholar
  5. Apostolakis GE, Pickett SE (1998) Deliberation: integrating analytical results into environmental decisions involving multiple stakeholders. Risk Anal 18:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal 13:425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Applic 10:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boiko PE, Morrill RL, Flynn J, Faustman EM, van Belle G, Omen GS (1996) Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons sites. Risk Anal 16:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brody SD (2009) Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on principles of collaborative ecosystem management. J Plan Ed Res 22:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brookshire DS, Eubanks LS, Randall A (1983) Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Econ 59:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burger J (1997) Oil spills. Rutgers University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  14. Burger J (2002) Incorporating ecology and ecological risk into long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. Remediation 18:107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burger J (2004) Recreational rates and future land-use preferences for four Department of Energy sites: consistency despite demographic and geographical differences. Environ Res 95:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burger J (2007) A Model for Selecting Bioindicators to Monitor Radionuclide Concentrations Using Amchitka Island in the Aleutians as a Case Study. Environ Res 105:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burger J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in indicator selection: case studies and levels of participation. Environ Bioindicat 4:170–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burger J (2011) Stakeholders, Risk from Mercury, and the Savannah River Site: Iterative and Inclusive Solutions to Deal with Risk from Fish Consumption. In: J Burger (ed) Stakeholders and scientists. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Kosson DS, Powers CW, Friedlander B, Eichelberger J, Barnes D, Duffy LK, Jewett SC, Volz CD (2005a) Science, policy, and stakeholders: developing a consensus science plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska. Environ Manage 35:557–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burger J, Stern S, Gochfeld M (2005b) Mercury in Commercial Fish: Optimizing Individual Choices to Reduce Risk. Environ Health Persp 113:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burger J, Gochfeld M (2006) A framework and information needs for the management of the risks from consumption of self-caught fish. Environ Res 101:275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burger J, Gochfeld M (2009) Changes in Aleut concerns following the stakeholder-driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment. Risk Anal 29:1156–1169Google Scholar
  23. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Powers CW (2007a) Integrating long-term stewardship goals into the remediation process: Natural resource damages and the Department of Energy. J Environ Manage 82:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Powers CW, Kosson DS, Halverson J, Siekaniec G, Morkill A, Patrick R, Duffy LK, Barnes L (2007b) Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. J Environ Manage 85:232–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K, Snigaroff R, Snigaroff D, Stamm T (2008a) Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation: ecological goods and services vs. subsistence and tribal values. Risk Anal 28:1261–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Greenberg M (2008b) Natural resource protection of buffer lands: integrating resource evaluation and economics. Environ Monit Assess 142:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K (2009) Collaboration versus communication: the Department of Energy’s Amchitka Island and the Aleut community. Environ Res 109:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cairns J Jr (1994) Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems. CRC Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  29. Charnley S, Engelbert B (2005) Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA’s superfund community involvement program. J Environ Manage 77:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chess C (2000) Evaluating environmental public participatory methodological questions. J Environ Plan Manage 43:769–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 16:2685–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Crass W, Greenbaum A (2002) Reasoning about responsibilities: mining company managers on what stekholders are owed. J Business Ethics 39:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Crowley KD, Ahearne JF (2002) Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. nuclear-weapons production. Am Sci 90:514–523Google Scholar
  34. Creighton JL (1994) How to design a public participation program. Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Department of Energy (DOE- EM-22)Google Scholar
  35. Department of Energy (DOE) (1997) Linking legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes To Their Environmental Consequences. Washington: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy http://www.em.doe.gov/Publications/­linklegacy.aspx. Accessed February 3, 2010
  36. Department of Energy (DOE) (2008) Environmental justice: five-year implementation plan. Washington (DOE/LM-1462)Google Scholar
  37. Department of Energy (DOE) (2009) Environmental justice at the U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.1m.doe.gov/spotlight/ej3.htm. Accessed 18 Jan 2011
  38. Elliott MR, Wang Y, Lowe RA, Kleindorfer PR (2009) Environmental justice: frequency and severity of US chemical industry accidents and socioeconomic status surrounding communities. J Epidemiol. Comm Health 58:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) National Environmental Justice Advisory Council: fish consumption and environmental justice http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/­publications/ej/fish_consump_report_1102.pdf Accessed Dec 2009
  40. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2003) Public involvement policy. http://www.epa.gov/policy2003/policy2003.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2005
  41. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006a) Integrated Risk Information System data base for methylmercury. http://www.epa.gov/iris/. Accessed Jan 2010
  42. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006b) A manager’s guide to indicator selection. Washington, EPA Office of Research and Development (EPA/600/R-90/001a)Google Scholar
  43. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Environmental justice: compliance and environment. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. Accessed Nov 2009
  44. Federal Register (2008) Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the Unites States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register 73:18553–18557Google Scholar
  45. Fischer GW, Morgan MG, Fischoff B, Nair I, Lave LB (1991) What risks are people concerned about? Risk Anal 11:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz, C (1994) Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository. Risk Anal 6:643–648Google Scholar
  48. Fox G (1994) Bioindicators as a measure of success for virtual elimination of persistence toxic substances. International Joint Commission, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. General Accounting Office (GAO) (2004) 9/11 commission Report: reorganization, transformation, and information sharing. GAO-04–1033T, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Glicken J (2000) Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environ Sci Pol 3:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gochfeld M (2011) Energy Diversity: Options and Stakeholders. In: J Burger (ed) Stakeholders and scientists. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Green AO, Hunton-Clarke L (2003) A typology of stakeholder participation for company environmental decision-making. Bus Strategy Environ 12:292–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Greenberg M, Lowrie K (2001) A proposed model for community participation and risk communication for a DOE-led stewardship program. Fed Fac Environ 12:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Greenberg M, Schneider D, Parry J (1995) Brown fields, a regional incinerator and resident perceptions of neighborhood quality. Risk: Health Safety Environ 6:241–259Google Scholar
  55. Gregory R, Fischhoff B, Thorne S, Butte G (2003) A multi-channel stakeholder consultation process for transmission deregulation. Energy Pol 31:1291–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Grumbine RE (1997) Reflections on “What is ecosystem management?” Conserv Biol 11:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Harper BL, Harris SG (2008) A possible approach for setting a mercury risk-based action level based on tribal fish ingestion rates. Environ Res 107:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Harris SG, Harper BL (2000) Using eco-cultural dependency webs in risk assessment and characterization of risks to tribal health and cultures. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2:91–100Google Scholar
  60. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Publ Admin Rev 64:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jardine CG, Hrudey SE (1997) Mixed messages in risk communication. Risk Anal 17:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jardine CG, Predy G, Mackenzie A (2007) Stakeholder participation in investigating the health impacts from coal-fired power generating stations in Alberta, Canada. J Risk Res 10:693–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Johansson-Stenman O (1998) The importance of ethics in environmental economics with a focus on existence values. Environ Res Econ 11:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kraus N, Malmfore T, Slovic P (1992) Instuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kunreuther H, Easterling D, Desvousges W, Slovic P (1990) Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal 10:469–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Larson DM (1993) On measuring existence value. Land Econ 69:177–188Google Scholar
  67. Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3:3–18Google Scholar
  68. Leopold AS (1949) Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Lynn PM (1987) Citizen involvement in hazardous waste sites: two North Carolina success stories. Environ Imp Assess Rev 7:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lynn PM, Busenberg JJ (1995) Citizen advisory committees and environmental policy: what we know, what’s left to discover. Risk Anal 15:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McCauley, DJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 442:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Marttunen M, Suomalainen M (2004) Participatory and multiobjective development of water course regulation – creation of regulation alternatives from stakeholders’ preferences. J Multi-Criteria Dec Anal 13:29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mccool SF, Guthrie K (2001) Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Soc Nat Res 14:309–323Google Scholar
  74. Mitchell, J (1992) Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites. Risk Anal 1:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. National Research Council (NRC) (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academic Press. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  76. National Research Council (NRC) (1986) Ecological knowledge and environmental problem-solving. National Academic Press. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  77. National Research Council (NRC) (1993) Issues in risk assessment. National Academic Press. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  78. National Research Council (NRC) (1994) Building consensus through risk assessment and management of the Department of Energy’s Environmental Remediation program. National Academic Press. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  79. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academic Press. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  80. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Long-term institutional management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy waste management. National Academic Press. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  81. National Research Council (NRC) (2008a) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  82. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2008b) Expected new nuclear power plant applications (updated August 2008). http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new.licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf. Accessed December 2009
  83. Nez Perce Tribe (2003) Treaties: Nez Perce perspectives. US DOE and Confluence Press, RichlandGoogle Scholar
  84. O’Connor RE, Anderson PJ, Fisher A, Bord RJ (2000) Stakeholder involvement in climate assessment: bridging the gap between scientific research and the public. Climate Res 14:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. O’Fallon LR, Dearry A (2002) Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health science. Envir Health Perspect 110:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. O’Leary HR (1997) DOE nurtures openness to mend past miscues. Forum Appl Res Publ Policy 12:102–102Google Scholar
  87. Poncelet EC (2001) Personal transformation in multistakeholder environmental partnerships. Policy Sci 34:273–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. President’s Commission (PCCRAM) (1997) Presidential/Congressional Commission on risk assessment and management. U.S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  89. Pretyy JN (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Develop 23:1247–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (PSNP) (2008) Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership: ­stakeholder involvement strategy. http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/program_documents/stakeholder_strategies_dec08.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2009
  91. Randolf J, Bauer M (1999) Improving environmental decision-making through collaborative methods. Pol Studies Rev 16:168–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rasmussen S, Mangalagiu D, Ziock H, Bollen J, Keating G. (2007) Collective intelligence for decision support in very large stakeholder networks: the future of US energy system. Paper presented at Law Soc Assoc, Berlin Germany http://www.allacademi.com/meta/p182321_index.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2011
  93. Reddy S, Painuly JP (2004) Diffusion of renewable energy technologies – barriers and stakeholders’ perspectives. Renewable Energy 29:1431–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Reynolds B, Seeger MW (2005) Crisis and emergency risk communication as an iterative model. J Health Comm 10:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ruckelshaus WD (1983) Science, risk, and public policy. Science 221:1026–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sink CH, Frank CW (1996) DOE forges partnerships for environmental cleanup. Forum 11:65–69Google Scholar
  97. Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manage Rev 22:887–910Google Scholar
  98. Seymour EH, Murray L, Fernandes R (2008) Key challenges to the introduction of hydrogen – European stakeholder views. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33:3015–3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Singh S (2009) World Bank-directed development? Negotiating participation in the Nam Theun 2 hydropower project in Laos. Develop Change 40:487–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Slovic P (1993) Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy, Risk Anal 13:675–682Google Scholar
  102. Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn J (1991) Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment 3:7–11, 28–30Google Scholar
  103. Smutko LS, Klimek SH, Perrin CA, Danielson LE (2002) Involving watershed stakeholders: an issue attribute approach to determine willingness and need. J Am Water Res Assoc 38:995–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stave KA (2002) Using system dynamics to improve participation in environmental decisions. System Dynamic Rev 18:139–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stumpff LM (2006) Reweaving the Earth: an indigenous perspective on restoration planning and the National Environmental Policy Act. Environ Pract 8:93–103Google Scholar
  106. Supriyasilp T, Pongput K, Boonyasirikul T (2009) Hydropower development priority using MCDM method. Energy Pol 37:1866–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Suter GW II (2001) Applicability of indicator monitoring to ecological risk assessment. Ecol Indicators 1:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. US Census Bureau (2009) Resident population of the United States.http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/usdec_1790_00.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2009
  109. Waller LA, Louis TA, Carlin BP (1999) Environmental justice and statistical summaries of differences in exposure distributions. J Expos Anal Environ Epedimiol 9:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wallerstein NB, Duran B (2006) Using community-based participatory research to address disparities. Health Promot Pract 7:312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Walker JS (2000) A short history of nuclear regulation, 1946–1999. NRC. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  112. Walters CT, Hilborn R (1978) Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 9:157–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. White PCL, Gregory KN, Lindley PJ, Richards G (1997) Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case of the Otter Lutra lutra and the Water Vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol Conserv 82:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wies TM, Ilinca A, Pinard J-P (2008) Stakeholders’ perspectives on barriers to remote wind-diesel power plants in Canada. Energy Pol 36:1611–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Williams BL, Brown S, Greenberg M, Kahn MA (1999) Risk perception in context: the Savannah River Site stakeholder study. Risk Anal 19:1019–1035Google Scholar
  116. Wustenhagen R, Olsink M, Burer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Pol 35:2683–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), and Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations