Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project

Abstract

Nuclear waste cleanup is a challenging and complex problem that requires both scientific analysis and dialogue among a variety of stakeholders. This article describes an effort to develop an online information system that supports this analytic-deliberative dialogue by integrating cleanup information for the Hanford Site, and making it more "transparent." A framework for understanding and evaluating transparency guided system development. Working directly with stakeholders, we identified information needs and developed new ways to organize and present the information so that it would be more transparent to interested parties, with the ultimate aim of fostering greater participation in decision dialogues and processes. The complexity of the information needed for dialogue suggested that several types of communication devices ("information structures") were warranted. Five information structures were developed for the pilot Decision Mapping System (http://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms). Decision maps hyperlinked decision information to maps of Hanford. Background Information provided context in a narrative format. Decision Paths organized decision process information on a timeline and provided direct hyperlinks to online documentation. The Geographic Library hyperlinked decision documents to maps. Finally, a Discussion Forum allowed users to make comments and view remarks from others. Early lessons from this work suggest that transparency is integral to long-term management, a participatory design process contributed greatly to its perceived success, and better data integration to support decision making is needed. This work has broad implications for risk communicators and risk managers because it speaks to the design of information systems to support "analytic-deliberative" decision processes (i.e., those that rely upon both risk science and public dialogue).

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

“…These include the following: public influence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Petts 2001;Rowe and Frewer 2000;Butterfoss 2006), consensus (Bass et al 1995;Innes 2004), increased understanding (Petts 1995;Laurian 2009), improved quality of decision (Laurian 2009;Brown and Wei Chin 2013) and increased trust (Wang and Wan Wart 2007;Laurian 2009). Other effectiveness criteria are also identified in the literature, such as representativeness (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), complete information exchange (Crosby et al 1986;Rowe and Frewer 2000), independence (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Rowe and Frewer 2000), transparency (Lauber and Knuth 1999;Drew et al 2004) and cost-effectiveness (Rowe and Frewer 2000;Involve 2005). The other effectiveness criteria, however, could be considered as processes to achieve effectiveness.…”

Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations

“…The identification of stakeholders is the first stage of introducing them into the management process. If it brings more transparency, it is possible that the organisation acquires as a stakeholder a committed partner, who will contribute to greater success [45]. The paper thus includes the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1 (H1).…”

“…Researchers stress that in a transparent organisation, the decisions will be more effective, leading to more conscious decisions, allowing for assessment, and strengthening institutional credibility [45][46][47]. In consequence, this also leads to long-term savings related to a more efficient division of resources [48].…”

Framing Scientific Analyses for Risk Management of Environmental Hazards by Communities: Case Studies with Seafood Safety Issues

“…Moreover, individuals may participate as members of more than one group, depending on training, experience, and their role in the decision process. Little attention has been paid to the information needs inherent to the analytic–deliberative process (Drew et al 2004). Generally, more attention has been given to the informing aspects than to the framing aspects, and more tools have been developed to support the analytic aspects of the processes than the deliberative aspects.…”

“…Reasons for this can include a lack of communication among community groups, technical specialists, and decision makers, leading to nontransparent decision processes (Drew et al 2004, in press). In other words, how do researchers and decision makers select a research agenda or a decision process after environmental hazards or issues are recognized?…”