Comparison of DOE and Army Advisory Boards

Application of a Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Public Participation in Environmental Risk Decision Making

Bibliographic Data

ID6328276
AuthorsKristi Branch (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), Kristi M Branch, Judith A Bradbury, Judith Bradbury (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)
Year2006
Volume34
Issue4
Pages723-754
Publication date2006-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolicy Studies Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0190-292X • E-ISSN: 1541-0072
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00199.x
OpenAlexW2036640307
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited51

This article is part of a growing body of literature evaluating public participation approaches and implementation efforts. It compares the characteristics and performance of citizen advisory boards established by the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program (DOE/EM) and by the U.S. Department of Defense's Army (DoD/Army) as a major part of the public participation programs that were undertaken to help the agencies plan and implement the cleanup of their contaminated installations. We first present the elements of the Acceptability Diamond, an evaluative framework developed by the authors through extensive fieldwork on public‐federal agency interactions that identify five objectives of agency–public interactions and public participation programs, and link them to existing literature. We then use the Acceptability Diamond as a basis for comparing the performance of the DOE/EM and DoD/Army advisory boards. In the early 1990s, both DOE and DoD participated in the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (known as the FFER Dialogue Committee) and were influenced by the Committee's recommendations on public participation. However, the Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs) subsequently established by DOE/EM and the Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) subsequently established by DoD and the Army were governed by significantly different policies and management. We describe some of these key differences and compare the performance of the SSABs and RABs. The article draws on a series of research studies conducted by the authors on the DOE/EM public participation program from its inception in the early 1990s through its transition to accelerated cleanup in 2002 and also on a recently completed study of seven Army RABs

Advisory committee · Agency (philosophy · Business · Plan (archaeology · Political science · Public involvement · Public participation · Public relations · Sociology · Engineering · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Environmental Justice and Health Disparities · Public Administration · Risk Perception and Management

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub