Advertisement

Science and Stakeholders: A Synthesis

  • Joanna BurgerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Stakeholders are all the interested and affected parties, and include (but are not limited to) Tribal nations, U.S. governmental agencies (federal, state, local), nongovernmental groups (conservation groups, recreational groups, hunting and fishing groups, citizens’ groups), industry and their representative organizations, the media and information organizations, and the public. Governmental agencies include not only regulators, but human and ecological health groups. There are several levels of stakeholder involvement, including informational, acquisitional, dialogue, intragovernmental, stakeholder involvement stakeholder-driven, and stakeholder collaborative. In all cases, however, a range of stakeholders is involved in different phases of decision making. I suggest combining stakeholder models of involvement and collaboration during all phases from problem formulation to solutions and decision making, with an adaptive management approach. This would involve an adaptive management approach of a structured, iterative process of optimal decision making, with stakeholder involvement at all phases.

Keywords

Wind Power Adaptive Management Governmental Agency Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I particularly thank Michael Gochfeld, Charles W. Powers, Caron Chess, Michael Greenberg, David S. Kosson, James Clarke, Lisa Bliss, Larry Niles, and Mandy Dey for valuable discussions about science, stakeholders, and environmental health problems. I also thank 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 Rutgers University. 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. Baletto JH, Teal JM (2011) PSEG’s Estuary Enhancement Program: An Innovative Solution to an Industry Problem. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett G (2011) Joint Fact-finding and Stakeholder Consensus Building at the Altamont Wind Resource Area in California. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving imple­mentable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohnee G, Matthews J, Pinkham J et al (2011) Nez Perce Involvement with Solving Environmental Problems: History, Perspectives, Treaty Rights and Obligations. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environ­mental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Boiko PE, Morrill RL, Flynn J et al (1996) Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons sites. Risk Anal 16:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Burger J (2009). Stakeholder involvement in indicator selection: case studies and levels of participation. Environ Bioindicat 4:170–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger J (2011a) Introduction: Stakeholders and Sciences. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stake-holders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burger J (2011b) Stakeholders, Risk from Mercury, and the Savannah River Site: Iterative and Inclusive Solutions to Deal with Risk from Fish Consumption. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burger J (2011c) Science and Stakeholders: A Synthesis. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger J (in press) Protecting human health and the environment around nuclear facilities: Native Americans, stakeholders, and environmental justice. NovaScience Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K (2009) Collaboration versus communication: the epartment of Energy’s Amchitka Island and the Aleut community. Environ Res 109:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K et al (2008) Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation: ecological goods and services vs subsistence and Tribal values. Risk Anal 28:1261–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Powers CW et al (2011) Amchitka Island: Melding Science and Stakeholders to Achieve Solutions at a Former Department of Energy Nuclear Site. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Chambers C, Whitehead J (2003) A contingent valuation estimate of the value of wolves in Minnesota. Environ Res Econ 9:225–238Google Scholar
  15. Clarke J, Burger J, Powers CW et al (2011) Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities and Stakeholder Concerns In: J Burger (ed) Science and Stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Costanza R, d’Arge R, deGroot RS et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260Google Scholar
  17. Department of Energy (DOE) (1994) How to design a public participation program. Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs (James L. Creighton for EM-22)Google Scholar
  18. Department of Energy (DOE) (1997) Linking legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes To Their Environmental Consequences. Washington DC: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy http://www.em.doe.gov/Publications/linklegacy.aspx. Accessed 3 Aug 2010
  19. Diamond P, Hausman J (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econom Perspect 8:45–64Google Scholar
  20. Durr T, Bach L (2004) Bat deaths and wind turbines – a review of current knowledge, and the information available in the database for Germany. Brem Beirage Naturkunde Naturschutz 7:743–744Google Scholar
  21. Efroymson RA, Peterson MJ, Welsh CJ et al (2008) Investigating habitat value to inform contaminant remediation options: approach. J Environ Manage 88:1436–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. English MR (2011) Wind Energy in Vermont: The Benefits and Limitations of Stakeholder Involvement. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Fremeth AR, Marcus AA (2011) Institutional Void and Stakeholder Leadership: Implementing Renewable Energy Standards in Minnesota. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gochfeld M (2011) Energy Diversity: Options and Stakeholders. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenberg M, Babcock-Dunning L (2011) Communication between the Public and Experts: Predictable Differences and Opportunities to Narrow Them. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Jansson E (2005) The stakeholder model: the influence of ownership and governance structures. J Business Ethics 56:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson J (2011) Minority Participants in Environmental and Energy Decision Making Process. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3(2):3Google Scholar
  30. Lowrie K, Greenberg M, Kennedy A et al (2011) Media, Local Stakeholders, and Alternatives for Nuclear Waste and Energy Facilities. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan K (2011) How Clean is Clean? Stakeholders and Consensus-Building the Fernald Uranium Plant. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Munoz R, Fox MD (2011) Research impacting social contexts: the moral import of community-based participatory research. American Bioethics 11:37–38Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Nat Acad Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. National Institute of Environmental Health Research (NIEHS) (2011) Environmental justice and community-based research. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/programs/justice/. Accessed 5 May 2011
  35. Nez Perce Tribe (2003) Treaties: Nez Perce perspectives. US DOE and Confluence PressGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Fallon LR, Dearry A (2002) Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health science. Envir Health Perspect 110:155–159Google Scholar
  37. Opperman JJ, Apse C, Ayer F et al (2011) Hydropower, Salmon, and the Penobscot River (Maine, USA): Pursuing Improved Environmental and Energy Outcomes through Participatory Decision-making and Basinscale Decision Context In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. President’s Commission (PCCRAM) (1997) Presidential/Congressional Commission on risk assessment and management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallerstein NB, Duran B (2006) Using community-based participatory research to address disparities. Health Promot Pract 7:312–323Google Scholar
  40. Waugh J, Glenn EP, Carroll MK et al (2011). Helping Mother Earth Heal: Dine’ College Collaboration on Enhanced Attenuation Pilot Studies at U.S. Department of Energy Uranium Processing Sites on Navajo Land. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Zillioux Z, Newman JR, Lampman GG et al (2011) Using Stakeholder Input to Develop a Comparative Risk Assessment for Wildlife from the Life Cycles of Six Electrical General Fuels. In: J Burger (ed) Science and stakeholders: Achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer: New YorkGoogle 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