|
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN CONTAMINATED COMMUNITIES
Abstract
Executive Summary
Table of Contents with PDFs of each chapter
Nicholas
A. Ashford
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Principal Investigator, and
Kathleen M. Rest
University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
Co-Principal Investigator
with contributions
from Lupita Chapa, Brian McLaughlin, Andrew Weaver, and Christian Willauer,
Project Manager for Field Studies
Center
for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
March 1999
Support
The research underlying this
report was jointly supported by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) through a cooperative agreement between MIT and
EPA (Grant No CR819-086-01). The views expressed in the report do not necessarily
represent those of ATSDR, DOE, EPA, or MIT.
Copyright 1999 Nicholas
A. Ashford
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Dr.
Barry Johnson and Dr. Max Lum of ATSDR; Dr. Ted Meinhardt of NIOSH; Don
Clay, Dr. Walter Kovalick, and Dr. Carolyn Offutt of EPA; and Cynthia Kelly,
Dr. Carole Henry, and Tom Grumbly of DOE for encouraging and supporting
this research. We are especially grateful to David Ouderkirk, Diana Hammer,
and Jan Shubert of EPA, Dr. Ralph O'Connor of ATSDR, and Kitti Taimi, Don
Beck, and Ted Eliopoulos of DOE who guided us in their capacities as project
monitors and intellectual partners in the project. Our advisory committee,
external reviewers, and final workshop participants challenged us, stimulated
us, and provided us with valuable assistance throughout the project. We
are also indebted to Chris Mascara for his patience and dedication to detail
during the field work and for his invaluable assistance in organizing the
project workshop and in the preparation of the final report.
But most of all, we are indebted
to the individuals in each of the study communities who so graciously gave
us their time and energy during the field investigation phase of the project.
They answered our questions, shared their experiences and views, provided
or directed us to other resources, stimulated our thinking, and contributed
invaluable insights to our work. Although the findings and perspectives
found in this final report are our own, we could not have done this work
without our colleagues in the communities. We are sincerely grateful to
each and every one.
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN CONTAMINATED COMMUNITIES
Abstract
The study examines seven current,
ongoing cases of public participation across a broad spectrum of contaminated
communities in which the experiences were considered relatively successful
by both government agencies and the communities. The study sought to better
understand the determinants of successful public involvement in communities
where: (1) site characterization, cleanup options, and economic redevelopment
were issues of concern and, in some cases, of conflict; (2) more than one
federal agency was involved; (3) state and local agencies were also involved;
and (4) environmental justice was often an issue.
The purposes of the study were
to: (1) identify those factors most important to, and essential for, successful
community involvement, (2) evaluate or suggest initiatives to further enhance
successful public participation, and (3) identify options for more successful
interaction and coordination of federal, state, and local agencies in their
efforts to promote environmental and public health goals in contaminated
communities. The study focused on initiatives which (1) provide for more,
or more predictable, and better communication (2) build skills and capability
in the community, (3) provide for increased community participation in,
and access to, government decisions. Special attention was paid to public
participation problems in low-income and minority communities with disproportionate
environmental burdens (i.e., Aenvironmental justice@ communities), special
attention was paid to mechanisms for improving interagency coordination
at all levels of government.
|
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN CONTAMINATED COMMUNITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY (PDF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART ONE--BACKGROUND
|
|
|
I.
INTRODUCTION (PDF)
|
I-1
|
A. Government
Investigation and Cleanup of Contaminated Communities, and Community
Responses
|
I-1
|
B. The Importance
of Public Participation in Contaminated Communities
|
I-2
|
C. Multi-level
Interagency Interactions and Problems of Coordination
|
I-7
|
D. Origins, Purposes,
and Scope of the Study
|
I-7
|
|
|
|
|
II.
DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
(PDF)
|
II-1
|
A. Conceptual
Framework of the Study
|
II-1
|
1. Iterative
Stages of Activities in a Contaminated Community
|
II-1
|
2. Vehicles
for Public Participation
|
II-2
|
3. Important
Elements for Characterizing or Evaluating Public Participation Mechanisms
|
II-2
|
4. Focus
of Our Analysis: Important Definitions and Distinctions
|
II-3
|
B. Case History
Investigation
|
II-6
|
1. Criteria
for Selection of the Cases
|
II-6
|
2. Activities
Undertaken and Interviews Conducted at the Sites
|
II-7
|
3. The
Case Histories
|
II-7
|
4. Feedback
on Initial Drafts of the Case Histories from Government and Community
Members
|
II-7
|
C. Analytic Methodology
Used in the Case Histories
|
II-8
|
1. Satisfaction
of the Community with the Outcomes
|
II-8
|
2. Satisfaction
of the Community with the Process and Conflict Resolution
|
II-8
|
3. Our
Criteria for Evaluation of Public Participation Mechanisms
|
II-9
|
|
|
|
|
III.
PRIOR SCHOLARLY WORK ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (PDF)
|
III-1
|
A. Rationale
|
III-1
|
B. What is Public
Participation?
|
III-3
|
C. What is Successful
Public Participation?
|
III-5
|
D. What Accounts
for Success?
|
III-7
|
E. Mechanisms
for Public Participation
|
III-8
|
F. Issues and
Analysis
|
III-10
|
|
|
|
|
PART TWO -- CASE HISTORIES
|
|
|
IV.
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS/DIGESTS OF THE CASE HISTORIES (PDF)
|
IV-1
|
Bartlesville
|
IV-1
|
Saltville
|
IV-8
|
Chattanooga
|
IV-13
|
South Valley (Albuquerque)
|
IV-21
|
Sandia (Albuquerque)
|
IV-27
|
Rocky Flats
|
IV-33
|
St. Louis
|
IV-46
|
|
|
|
|
PART THREE -- LESSONS
LEARNED
|
|
|
V.
EVALUATION OF MECHANISMS AND VEHICLES (PDF)
|
V-1
|
A. Providing for
Broad-Based Outreach to, Communication with, and Education of the
Community
|
V-2
|
B. Building Skills
and Capability in the Community
|
V-6
|
C. Provide for
Increased Community Participation in and Access to Government Decisions
|
V-10
|
1. Mechanisms
for Sustained and Ongoing Public Participation
|
V-11
|
2. Mechanisms
Designed for Intense, One-time or Short-duration Participation
|
V-13
|
|
|
|
|
VI.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION (PDF)
|
VI-1
|
|
|
|
|
PART FOUR
|
|
|
VII.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY (PDF)
|
VII-1
|
A. A Word of Caution
About Stakeholder Processes
|
VII-1
|
B. Who Speaks
for the Community?
|
VII-2
|
C. Reflections
on Community Satisfaction and the Role of Government at Contaminated
Sites
|
VII-3
|
D. What Contributes
to Success?
|
VII-5
|
1. Effective
Public Participation Processes
|
VII-5
|
2. Government
and Community/Stakeholder Roles
|
VII-10
|
E. Possible Relevance
of the Research to the Brownfields Initiatives
|
VII-18
|
F. Final Reflections
and Commentary
|
VII-20
|
|
|
|
|
References
(PDF)
|
R-1
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDICES
|
|
Appendix
A: Site Worksheet (PDF)
|
|
Appendix
B: Questions to guide unstructured Interviews (PDF)
|
|
Appendix
C: Members of the project advisory committee, external reviewers,
and final workshop participants (PDF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN CONTAMINATED COMMUNITIES
|
|
|
Case Histories (available
as a separate volume; contact Professor
Nicholas Ashford for more information).
|
|
Bartlesville
|
|
Saltville
|
|
Chattanooga
|
|
South Valley (Albuquerque)
|
|
Sandia (Albuquerque)
|
|
Rocky Flats
|
|
St. Louis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Ashford's home
page and CV.
Program Links: CMP
| Ford-MIT
| IMVP | LAI
| LARA | LSI
| MSL | MITIQ
| T&L
|
