Hostname: page-component-5db6c4db9b-s6gjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-25T05:05:13.568Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Three Tools for Evaluating Participation: Focus Groups, Q Method, and Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2012

Stentor Danielson ,
Seth P. Tuler ,
Susan L. Santos ,
Thomas Webler  and
Caron Chess
Stentor Danielson*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Geology, and the Environment, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
Seth P. Tuler
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, Massachusetts
Susan L. Santos
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Health Education and Behavioral Science, School of Public Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey
Thomas Webler
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, Massachusetts
Caron Chess
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
*
Stentor Danielson, Department of Geography, Geology, and the Environment, 1 Morrow Way, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057; (phone) 724-738-2564; (fax) 724-738-4217; (e-mail) stentor.danielson@sru.edu
Get access

Abstract

To enable successful public participation in environmental decision making, practitioners need to know what works, but evaluation of proposed and existing processes is often lacking. We tested three tools for evaluation—focus groups, Q method, and surveys—at two contaminated sites with extensive public participation. Each tool is evaluated based on its requirements for implementation, the information it produces, and its acceptability to stakeholders. Which tool is most appropriate depends heavily on the available resources, what is happening at the site, and the evaluator's goals.

Environmental Practice 14:101–109 (2012)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bishop, G.F. 2005. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 248 pp.Google Scholar
Brown, S.R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 369 pp.Google Scholar
Charnley, S., and Engelbert, B.. 2005. Evaluating Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: EPA's Superfund Community Involvement Program. Journal of Environmental Management 77(3):165–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chess, C. 2000. Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(6):769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connelly, N.A., Brown, T.L., and Decker, D.J.. 2003. Factors Affecting Response Rates to Natural Resource–Focused Mail Surveys: Empirical Evidence of Declining Rates over Time. Society & Natural Resources 16(6):541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, S. 2007. Discourses about Wildfire in New Jersey and New South Wales (unpublished PhD dissertation). Clark University, Worcester, MA, 328 pp. Available at http://debitage.net/academic/DissFull.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010).Google Scholar
Dietz, T., and Stern, P.C.. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 322 pp.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York, 480 pp.Google Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. 1989. Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 9(3):293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, R.A. 1988. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 197 pp.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P., eds. 2006. The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 808 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, B., and Thomas, D.. 1988. Q Methodology. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 83 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D.L., and Kruger, R.L. 1998. The Focus Group Guidebook, volume 1: The Focus Group Kit. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 103 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 2001. A Risk Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 452 pp.Google Scholar
Presser, S., Rothgeb, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., and Martin, J., eds. 2004. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 624 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn, O., Webler, T., and Wiedemann, P.M.. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 381 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.. 2005. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30(2):251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, S.L., Danielson, S., and Chess, C.. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Focus Groups for Evaluation of Public Involvement Programs at Contaminated Sites. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, MA, 40 pp. Available at http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/FGGuidanceSuperfund.pdf (accessed April 9, 2012).Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons Learned, Barriers, & Innovative Approaches. USEPA, Washington, DC, 31 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/pdf/sipp.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010).Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA, Washington, DC, 33 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/policy2003.pdf (accessed June 8, 2010).Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009a. Ciba-Geigy Superfund Site Remediation. USEPA, Washington, DC. http://www.cibageigysuperfund.org/ (accessed June 8, 2010).Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009b. Waukegan Harbor River Area of Concern. USEPA, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/waukegan.html (accessed June 8, 2010).Google Scholar
Webler, T., Danielson, S., and Tuler, S.P.. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Q Method for Evaluation of Public Involvement Programs at Contaminated Sites. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, MA, 43 pp.http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/QMethodGuidanceSuperfund.pdf (accessed April 9, 2012).Google Scholar
Webler, T., and Tuler, S.P.. 2006. Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies. Policy Studies Journal 34(4):699–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawislak, M. 2007. County Holds Off on Harbor Cleanup Funds. Chicago Daily Herald, June 27, p. 4.Google Scholar