Environmental Policy Analysis and Practice

Chapter 8: Decision-Making and Communication Tools

Introduction Every environmental policy maker has his or her own decision-making style. Some want only a small amount of information from the six policy criteria; others require every bit of data and then come back for more. Some make irreversible decisions; others make tentative choices. Some announce policies personally; others try to avoid any publicity. This chapter summarizes the decision-making and communication tools available to policy makers. Decision-Making Tools People who believe that relying on nuclear power is an evil bargain with the technology devil, that dredging the local river is an immoral attack on aquatic ecosystems , and that creating genetically modified organisms is wrong make their decisions based on values. If, however, decisions are driven by information or at least can be influenced by scientific/technological information, then people will likely want to see checklists, weighted variables, and the results of optimization, cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses, and simulations. This section reviews these tools. Checklists Checklists are compilations of decision-making factors, typically written as simple declarative statements or questions. I have prepared checklists ranging from  items to over . In the late s, I prepared a checklist for use in mediating disputes about proposed industrial facilities. The goal was to focus the disputants on a range of issues that are normally associated with such facilities (Greenberg, ). This checklist had  preliminary questions and  follow-up ones. If the answer to the preliminary question was yes, then the second question needed to be answered. 224 8 Decision-Making and Communication Tools DECISION-MAKING AND COMMUNICATION TOOLS 225 The questions were divided into simple categories: air quality, solid waste management, water resources, and land quality. For example, one preliminary question focused on noise: Will construction of the facility, its operation, and/or attendant transportation activities produce a noise level above the ambient? If the answer was yes, then the two following questions would be answered: Will the sound level exceed  decibels outdoors or  decibels inside a residential development , school, hospital, library, or recreation area? Will this level exceed  decibels during the night and/or  decibels during the day? If the answer to either question was yes, then the proponent of the project could expect serious public protest and should figure out how to reduce the noise level. In , some colleagues and I prepared a checklist of  questions for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is charged with the long-term protection of major nuclear weapons sites (Greenberg et al., ). The  questions were divided into six major categories: () the toxicity and amount of the hazardous substance present; () containment of the substance; () potential dispersal, if containment is breached; () human and ecological populations exposed; () dose to and response of the public and ecosystems; and () authorities’ response to the immediate event and the long-term threat. Here are the first seven questions from the “Toxicity and Amount of Hazardous Substance Present” part of the checklist: 1.1. What information is available about known hazards, about multiple chemical hazards, and about potential exposure pathways (direct contact, soil, surface and groundwater, air) to on-site hazards? When were the data last updated? How is the information processed, stored, and made available? Is it in electronic forms? Is it on maps and/or in CSMs [conceptual site models , which are diagrams that show sources of contamination, paths over which contamination can spread, and barriers to the spread of contamination ]? How often [are] the information and equipment updated? 1.2. Who is responsible for the data? Whom do they report to? What is their academic background? How much training to do they have and how often do they go for additional training? 1.3. What are the contaminants of greatest concern on the site? What kinds of human and/or ecological biomarkers are available for assessing and monitoring human and ecological exposure and risk associated with these contaminants ? How does the site keep track of legal and administrative changes that affect the legal classification of these contaminants? 1.4. How does the site keep track of the amount of hazardous material that is added and lost because of chemical, physical and biological changes and destruction? How often is this done? 1.5. How does the site assess how changes in the amount and type of hazardous material affect the sustainability of the end state? How is new scientific information relative to the toxicity of site contaminants re-evaluated in [3.149.255.162] Project MUSE (2024-04-26...