2008
DOI: 10.1504/ijgenvi.2008.017259
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Building and breaking a bridge of trust in a Superfund site remediation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example people may be more likely to attend public meetings if their friends or spouses attend, or may be inhibited from attending if they feel unwelcome. Social trust can have a significant effect, for example Danielson et al (2008) discovered that a close relationship between a stakeholder and project sponsor caused a third stakeholder to distrust the process and withdraw. Social factors can be significant, but the power model, the information flow, and the deliberative model fail to acknowledge them.…”
Section: Social Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example people may be more likely to attend public meetings if their friends or spouses attend, or may be inhibited from attending if they feel unwelcome. Social trust can have a significant effect, for example Danielson et al (2008) discovered that a close relationship between a stakeholder and project sponsor caused a third stakeholder to distrust the process and withdraw. Social factors can be significant, but the power model, the information flow, and the deliberative model fail to acknowledge them.…”
Section: Social Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The only way to improve understanding of the unique contexts that Superfund sites create is to devote more energy to studying and reflecting on community engagement at these sites, particularly on the experiences of CEC teams. Although there is some work specific to Superfund [9,24,30,31,32,33], the body of research on community engagement processes specific to these sites is more limited, and analyses of the work of SRP CECs is more limited still. Published work on CECs tends to report on efforts of a specific team [6,11,34] without drawing connections between the work of different CECs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%