首页> 外文期刊>Journal of planning education and research >Deliberative Planning through Citizen Advisory Boards: Five Case Studies from Military and Civilian Environmental Cleanups
【24h】

Deliberative Planning through Citizen Advisory Boards: Five Case Studies from Military and Civilian Environmental Cleanups

机译:通过公民咨询委员会进行审议性计划:军事和平民环境清理的五个案例研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Federal agencies are responsible for the cleanup of thousands of toxic sites in the United States and increasingly rely on Community Advisory Boards (CABs) to provide public participation in cleanup decisions. CABs, designed to function as collaborative and deliberative participatory mechanisms, have the potential to enhance democratic decision making. This study seeks to identify whether they successfully provide for two-way communication between agencies and the public, and to explore potential differences between CABs sponsored by military and civilian agencies. The analysis is based on a general model of information and feedback flows and consists of five comparative case studies of CABs sponsored by the EPA, DOD, and DOE. It focuses on communicative processes recorded in meeting minutes, interviews with participants, and surveys of nonparticipants. The study shows that CABs do not necessarily provide effective deliberative mechanisms: participation is limited by the lack of public awareness of participatory opportunities, CABs emphasize one-way agency-to-CAB communication, and public input does not significantly influence agency decisions. The military culture of secrecy appears to hinder participation at some sites, although the case-study approach and differences between boards do not allow broad generalizations about interagency differences.
机译:联邦机构负责清理美国成千上万个有毒场所,并越来越依靠社区顾问委员会(CAB)来让公众参与清理决定。旨在充当协作性和协商性参与机制的CAB具有增强民主决策的潜力。本研究旨在确定它们是否成功提供了机构与公众之间的双向通信,并探讨了由军事和民用机构赞助的CAB之间的潜在差异。该分析基于信息和反馈流的一般模型,并由EPA,DOD和DOE赞助的CAB的五个比较案例研究。它着重于会议记录,与参与者的访谈以及对非参与者的调查中记录的沟通过程。该研究表明,CAB不一定提供有效的审议机制:由于公众缺乏参与机会的意识而限制了参与,CAB强调了代理到CAB的单向沟通,公共投入并没有显着影响代理决策。军事上的保密文化似乎阻碍了某些地点的参与,尽管案例研究方法和委员会之间的分歧不允许对机构间分歧进行广泛的概括。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号