To be seen but not to be heard: scientific rationality versus democratic rationality in the decision-making process on dangerous waste management in Portugal
AbstractThe decision-making process concerning the co-incineration of industrial dangerous waste in Portugal has most certainly been transformed into a conflict centered on the unequal distribution of risks to the environment and to public health, opposing local population to the government. It is also a good example of the conflict between scientific and democratic rationalities as the government?s decision is supposed to receive its legitimacy by science whereas those most affected by government decisions, local people, are impelled by democratic rationality. Based on a case study, the paper concludes that, despite a long period of public involvement there was no real public participation in the decision making process.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Évora, Department of Economics (Portugal) in its series Economics Working Papers with number 11_2006.
Length: 11 pages
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Participation; Environmental Equity; Sustainable Development; Risk Management; Democracy; Dangerous Waste;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
- Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
- Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Maria Aurora Murcho Galego).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.