Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions

Abstract

This paper discusses a successful public involvement effort that addressed and resolved several highly controversial water management issues involving environmental and flood risks associated with an electrical generation facility in British Columbia. It begins with a discussion of concepts for designing public involvement, summarizing research that indicates why individuals and groups may find it difficult to make complex choices. Reasons for public involvement, and the range of current practices are discussed. Next, four principles for designing group decision process are outlined, emphasizing decision-aiding concepts that include “value-focused thinking” and “adaptive management.” The next sections discuss the Alouette River Stakeholder Committee process in terms of objectives, participation, process, methods for structuring values and creating alternatives, information sources, and results. Discussion and conclusions complete the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

REFERENCES

  1. S.R. Arnstein (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 35216–224.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Brams and P. Fishburn (1983). Approval Voting. Boston: Birk-hauser.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Canadian National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1993). Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future. Ottawa.

  4. J. D. Creighton, J. Priscoli, and C. M. Dunning (1982). Public Involvement Techniques: AReader of Ten Years of Experience at the Institute for Water Resources. IWR Research Report 82-R1, Institute for Water Resources, Ft Belvoir, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. J. Fiorino, “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,” Science, Technology, & Human Values. 15(2), 226–243(1990).

    Google Scholar 

  6. F. Fisher and J. Forester (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durhan: Duke U. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Gregory, S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic (1993). Valuing Environ-mental Resources: A Constructive Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 7177–197.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Gregory, and R. Keeney, (1994). Creating Policy Alternatives with Stakeholder Values. Management Science. 401035–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Hobbs and G. Horn (1997). “Building Confidence in Energy Planning: AMultimethod MCDMApproach to Demand-Side Planning at BC Gas” Energy Policy 25(3), 357–375.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. S. Holling, (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  11. I. Janis and L. Mann (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Keeney (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Kelman (1981). “Cost- Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique.” Regulation5(1), 33–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. D. Magleby (1984). Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Proposi-tions in the United States. Johns Hopkins University.

  16. G. Majone (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Pol-icy Process. New Haven: Yale.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. March (1978). Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engi-neering of Choice. Bell Journal of Economics587–608.

  18. D. Matheson and J. Matheson (1998). The “Smart” Organization: Creating Value Through Strategic R & Dpublisher.

  19. T. McDaniels (1996). The Structured Value Referendum: Eliciting Preferences for Environmental Policy Alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15227–251.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. McDaniels, M. Healey, and R. Paisley (1994). “Cooperative Fisheries Management Involving First Nations in British Co-lumbia: An Adaptive Approach to Strategy Design.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 51(9), 2115–2125.

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Mitchell and R. Carson (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. A. Moore (1996). “Defining ‘successful’ Environmental Dispute Resolution: Case Studies from Public Land Planning in the United States and Australia.” Environmental Impact Assess-ment Review 10151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Research Council (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. Payne, J. Bettman, and E. Johnson (1992). Behavioural Decision Research: AConstructive Processing Perspective. Annual Re-view of Psychology 4387–132.

    Google Scholar 

  25. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence in Public Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Presidential/ ongressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (1997). Framework for environmental health risk management, Final Report, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.

  27. H. Simon (1990). “Invariants of Human Behaviour.” Annual Re-view of Psychology 411–19.

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein (1977). “Behavioural Decision Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 281–39.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral ResearchCambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

    Google Scholar 

  30. C. Walters (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Re-sources. Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McDaniels, T.L., Gregory, R.S. & Fields, D. Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions. Risk Anal 19, 497–510 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007060931193

Download citation

Keywords

  • Risk Management
  • Information Source
  • Management Decision
  • Flood Risk
  • Group Decision