IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v26y2007i2p349-368.html

Citizen groups and scientific decisionmaking: Does public participation influence environmental outcomes?

Author

Listed:
  • Dorothy M. Daley

    (Department of Political Science and the Environmental Studies Program, University of Kansas)

Abstract

This paper explores the influence of local community groups on agency decisionmaking at hazardous waste sites nationwide. The central purpose of this research is to examine the relative influence of two forms of public participation at Superfund sites: Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) and Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs). When citizens mobilize and become involved in the decisionmaking process via CAGs and TAGs, are outcomes systematically different when compared to hazardous waste sites where citizen groups are not active? I utilize a treatment effects regression analysis to isolate the impact of these groups on remedy selection at Superfund sites while adjusting for the non-random formation of local interest groups. The results suggest that even when controlling for other factors that may guide agency decisionmaking, such as site characteristics, the Environmental Protection Agency is more likely to choose health protective clean-up approaches when CAGs and TAGs have formed at Superfund sites. © 2007 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

Suggested Citation

  • Dorothy M. Daley, 2007. "Citizen groups and scientific decisionmaking: Does public participation influence environmental outcomes?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 349-368.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:26:y:2007:i:2:p:349-368
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.20251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/pam.20251
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.20251?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kohlhase, Janet E., 1991. "The impact of toxic waste sites on housing values," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Matthew Potoski & Aseem Prakash, 2005. "Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities' environmental performance," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 745-769.
    3. James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 1999. "Calculating Risks?: The Spatial and Political Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262082780, December.
    4. Evan J. Ringquist, 2005. "Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2), pages 223-247.
    5. Mark Schneider & John Scholz & Mark Lubell & Denisa Mindruta & Matthew Edwardsen, 2003. "Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 143-158, January.
    6. Sigman, Hilary, 2001. "The Pace of Progress at Superfund Sites: Policy Goals and Interest Group Influence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 315-344, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Manuel Palma‐Oliveira & Benjamin D. Trump & Matthew D. Wood & Igor Linkov, 2018. "Community‐Driven Hypothesis Testing: A Solution for the Tragedy of the Anticommons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 620-634, March.
    2. Keith Naughton & Celeste Schmid & Susan Webb Yackee & Xueyong Zhan, 2009. "Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 258-277.
    3. Jill Johnston & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2015. "Indoor Air Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites: Improving the Evidence Base for Decision-Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Shannon M. Cruz, 2019. "Themes Across New Directions in Community Engagement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Edwina Barvosa, 2015. "Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 497-507, December.
    6. Xiangning Chen & Yahua Wang, 2024. "Pioneer advantage or late-mover advantage? An examination of the interplay between policy diffusion sequence and policy outcomes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(4), pages 851-873, December.
    7. Taedong Lee, 2017. "The effect of clean energy regulations and incentives on green jobs: panel analysis of the United States, 1998–2007," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(3), pages 145-155, August.
    8. Edwards, Eric C. & Cristi, Oscar & Edwards, Gonzalo & Libecap, Gary D., 2018. "An illiquid market in the desert: estimating the cost of water trade restrictions in northern Chile," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(6), pages 615-634, December.

    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. Michael Greenstone & Justin Gallagher, 2008. "Does Hazardous Waste Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 951-1003.
    2. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2011. "The Political Economy of Environmental Justice," MPRA Paper 101191, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Burda, Martin & Harding, Matthew, 2014. "Environmental Justice: Evidence from Superfund cleanup durations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 380-401.
    4. Parry, Ian W.H. & Sigman, Hilary & Walls, Margaret & Williams, Roberton C., III, 2005. "The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies," Discussion Papers 10651, Resources for the Future.
    5. Kim, GwanSeon & Schieffer, Jack & Mark, Tyler, 2020. "Do superfund sites affect local property values? Evidence from a spatial hedonic approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 15-28.
    6. Ted Gayer & James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 2002. "The Market Value of Reducing Cancer Risk: Hedonic Housing Prices with Changing Information," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 266-289, October.
    7. Kim, GwanSeon & Schieffer, Jack & Mark, Tyler, 2016. "Do Superfund Sites Affect Local Property Values? Evidence from a Spatial Hedonic Approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235835, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Dolan, Paul & Metcalf, Robert, 2008. "Comparing willingness-to-pay and subjective well-being in the context of non-market goods," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28504, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Spyros Niavis & George Petrakos & Kleoniki-Natalia Petrou & Yiannis Saratsis, 2025. "Assessing the Impact of Smart and Green Transition Policies on Spatial and National Income Inequalities in EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-27, August.
    10. Linda T. M. Bui & Christopher J. Mayer, 2003. "Regulation and Capitalization of Environmental Amenities: Evidence from the Toxic Release Inventory in Massachusetts," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(3), pages 693-708, August.
    11. David M. Brasington & Diane Hite, 2005. "Demand for Environmental Quality: A Spatial Hedonic Approach," Departmental Working Papers 2005-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    12. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani & Aline Chiabai, 2007. "Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 155-178, April.
    13. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    14. Toshiaki Sasao, 2004. "Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 147-175, June.
    15. Francesca Nocca & Martina Bosone & Manuel Orabona, 2024. "Multicriteria Evaluation Framework for Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse: The Role of the ‘Intrinsic Value’," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-26, August.
    16. Kelly B. Maguire & Glenn Sheriff, 2011. "Quantifying the Distribution of Environmental Outcomes for Regulatory Environmental Justice Analysis," NCEE Working Paper Series 201102, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Apr 2011.
    17. Darnall, Nicole & Henriques, Irene & Sadorsky, Perry, 2008. "Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting?," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 364-376, December.
    18. Blackman, Allen & Guerrero, Santiago, 2012. "What drives voluntary eco-certification in Mexico?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 256-268.
    19. Scott Farrow & W. Kip Viscusi, 2013. "Towards principles and standards for the benefit–cost analysis of safety," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 5, pages 172-193, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. A. Myrick Freeman III, 2002. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Have We Gained?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-146, Winter.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:26:y:2007:i:2:p:349-368. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.