Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Planning Education and Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Laurian, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Deliberative Planning through Citizen Advisory Boards

Five Case Studies from Military and Civilian Environmental Cleanups

Lucie Laurian

University of Iowa

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.

Key Words: participation • advisory boards • military and civilian agencies

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, 415-434 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X06298819
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
A. P. Russo, L. van den Berg, and M. Lavanga
Toward a Sustainable Relationship between City and University: A Stakeholdership Approach
Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2007; 27(2): 199 - 216.
[Abstract] [PDF]