As the use of collaborative, consensus-based decisionmaking procedures increases, so, too, do the obstacles to using these processes. For example, many managers and decision makers are now encountering limits on the participation in such processes by key stakeholder groups. Indeed, perhaps one of the most difficult challenges an agency faces in undertaking a consensus process is in securing participation by appropriate stakeholders. In order to more effectively sponsor and manage collaborative decisionmaking processes, an understanding of the incentives for stakeholder participation is critical. A recent study of negotiated rulemaking at the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) assessed participants' incentives for participation, which revolve around four major themes: (1) resources required for participation, (2) input into final decision and response to comments, (3) use of technical data, and (4) representation and communication issues. Keeping these incentives in mind when initiating a collaborative regulatory process may assist managers and sponsors in ensuring inclusion and participation by key participants.

In recognition of the limitations of strict, objective, instrumental decision making, government agencies, businesses, communities, and environmental groups are beginning to use concepts of participatory democracy and social learning in planning and decision-making processes. Information and power are shared among affected interests so that decisions can be reached that are supported by all parties to the process. This collaboration engages parties in mutual planning and decision making. Providing a forum for discussion that permits diverse points of view to be aired leads to joint problem solving. An open dialogue can demonstrate that opposing parties may actually share certain interests. In an effort to determine some characteristics and common threads in collaborative planning and decision making, this study examined 76 cases of environmental management described as involving overlapping or competing interests. Many of the reviewed case studies offered evidence that the following basic elements of collaboration were included: the establishment of a formal organization, the sharing of information among all participants, the open discussion of all matters by all participants, and the sharing of power among all participants. Organization formation (86% of the cases) and information sharing (80%) appear to be fundamental to collaborative planning and decision making. However, power sharing (65%) and open discussions (54%) were indicated in fewer cases and are likely to be more difficult to achieve.

Habitat conservation planning has become the primary conservation tool for private landowners and developers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Habitat conservation plans are newly evolving mechanisms and are challenged with addressing the conflicts and paradoxes inherent in integrating conservation and economic decision making. Research results of a 31-case analysis of habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are discussed to provide an objective understanding of the process through which HCPs are developed. A central finding is the significant variation in the ways HCPs have been developed, including who was involved, how decisions were negotiated, and how decision-making roles were designed and executed. The results also indicate that little attention has been given to HCP process design and management, and addressing this deficiency should be rewarding and challenging. Increased attention should be given to the roles of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other organizations and individuals. These roles relate to stakeholder contribution, rules of engagement and participation, process efficiency, and the management of technical information. The practitioners surveyed indicated that HCP processes have often been sluggish and/or problematic; nevertheless, they generally characterized HCPs in positive ways. This suggests a positive base from which to improve HCP processes.

Ecosystem restoration planning poses many challenges in deciding what the objectives of restoration will be and how to achieve them. Multiattribute utility choice analysis was used in this study to identify public preferences in Florida for restoration of the Everglades/South Florida ecosystem. The analysis utilized both structural (species populations) and functional (water levels and timing) attributes to represent states of the ecosystem in conjunction with other attributes to represent social tradeoffs in restoration planning. Statistical results on the relative weighting of different attributes indicated strong preferences for Everglades restoration were tempered by concern for the consequences of restoration decisions on municipal water users and agricultural landowners. Multiattribute choice approaches provide a framework to integrate the work of natural and social scientists in adaptive management of ecosystem restoration planning and to provide better information for resource managers about public preferences for different types and levels of restoration.

The purpose of this article is to help environmental practitioners deal with uncertainty. A simple model is presented that distinguishes between uncertainties about fact—past, present, and future—and indecision about what to do. To help environmental practitioners deal with these two problems, four tools or conceptual aides are presented. First presented is the “source of uncertainty” analysis method, which can help environmental practitioners understand the sources of uncertainty about facts. Second, a conceptual discussion of imprecise probability is presented to provide environmental practitioners with a method for understanding how to represent uncertainty quantitatively. The third tool presented is known as comprehensive life cycle analysis, which is a methodology to help environmental practitioners assess the full impacts of potential environmental decisions over multiple criteria and time. Fourth, a decision process framework is presented to help environmental practitioners understand when and how uncertainty and indecision can be attacked. The paper includes a discussion about how these four tools can be used by environmental practitioners to overcome seven common everyday problems they may face when confronted with the need to make environmental decisions under uncertainty. The paper also applies the four tools and relates the seven problems to the example of tropospheric ozone.

In 1993, in an attempt to avoid the traditional lengthy, costly, and often controversial process of relicensing hydropower projects, Avista Corporation initiated a novel collaborative approach that brought together a number of disparate actors to craft a consensus relicensing application. The company's interest in a cooperative settlement was driven by continuing changes in the economic, political, and regulatory environment of relicensing. Over the last three decades various regulatory actors have placed a greater emphasis on environmental protection, increased competition in the electricity industry, and opened the relicensing process to new participants. There were three primary issues in the settlement discussions: the level of funding Avista would commit to environmental mitigation, species protection and habitat restoration, and the future operation of hydropower projects. The negotiated settlement provides the company with a degree of cost and regulatory certainty, while environmental organizations and government wildlife agencies gain an accelerated time-frame for mitigation and protection activities and a secure funding commitment. The Clark Fork settlement is evidence that negotiated compromises to relicensing applications may in certain circumstances become an effective means to balance economic and environmental values.