IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v4y2014i2p142-155.html

The Hanford Advisory Board: participatory democracy, technology, and representation

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Sager

  • Alex Zakaras

Abstract

The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) is a broadly representative, deliberative body that provides formal policy advice on Department of Energy (DOE) proposals and decisions at the Hanford nuclear cleanup site near Richland, Washington. Despite considerable skepticism about the effectiveness of citizen advisory boards, we contend that the HAB offers promising institutional innovations. Drawing on our analysis of the HAB’s formal advice as well as our interviews with board members and agency officials, we explore the HAB’s unique design, outline a normative framework for evaluating participatory institutions, and assess the HAB’s effectiveness in rendering the DOE accountable to the local public. Copyright AESS 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Sager & Alex Zakaras, 2014. "The Hanford Advisory Board: participatory democracy, technology, and representation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(2), pages 142-155, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:4:y:2014:i:2:p:142-155
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-013-0160-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-013-0160-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-013-0160-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan L. Santos & Caron Chess, 2003. "Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant‐Based Criteria and Practical Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 269-279, April.
    2. Genevieve Johnson, 2007. "The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(2), pages 79-99, June.
    3. Dave Huitema & Marleen Kerkhof & Udo Pesch, 2007. "The nature of the beast: are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(4), pages 287-311, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    2. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    4. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    5. Ryane Straus, 2011. "Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(1), pages 13-34, March.
    6. Nguyen, Sun V. & Langston, Nancy & Wellstead, Adam & Howlett, Michael, 2020. "Mining the evidence: Public comments and evidence-based policymaking in the controversial Minnesota PolyMet mining project," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    7. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    8. Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.
    9. Pesch, Udo & Correljé, Aad & Cuppen, Eefje & Taebi, Behnam, 2017. "Energy justice and controversies: Formal and informal assessment in energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 825-834.
    10. Lia T. Vasconcelos & Flávia Z. Silva & Filipa G. Ferreira & Graça Martinho & Ana Pires & José Carlos Ferreira, 2022. "Collaborative process design for waste management: co-constructing strategies with stakeholders," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9243-9259, July.
    11. Jeffrey R. Masuda & Theresa Garvin, 2006. "Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 437-454, April.
    12. Jason Chilvers & Jacquelin Burgess, 2008. "Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(8), pages 1881-1900, August.
    13. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2006. "Myths of the Psychometric Paradigm and how they can misinform risk communication," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2006:10, Stockholm School of Economics.
    14. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    15. Subhajyoti Samaddar & Norio Okada & Junho Choi & Hirokazu Tatano, 2017. "What constitutes successful participatory disaster risk management? Insights from post-earthquake reconstruction work in rural Gujarat, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 85(1), pages 111-138, January.
    16. Lucie Laurian, 2005. "Public Input in Toxic Site Cleanup Decisions: The Strengths and Limitations of Community Advisory Boards," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(3), pages 445-467, June.
    17. Delphine Labbé & Yochai Eisenberg & Devon Snyder & Judy Shanley & Joy M. Hammel & Jon E. Froehlich, 2023. "Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Adam Thorn, 2018. "Issue definition and conflict expansion: the role of risk to human health as an issue definition strategy in an environmental conflict," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 59-76, March.
    19. Hattam, Caroline & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne & Börger, Tobias & Burdon, Daryl & Hadjimichael, Maria & Delaney, Alyne & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Garrard, Samantha & Austen, Melanie C., 2015. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 126-138.
    20. Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:4:y:2014:i:2:p:142-155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.