弃地项目:公众参与决策的考察

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Review of Policy Research Pub Date : 2023-08-10 DOI:10.1111/ropr.12569
Karsyn Kendrick, Younsung Kim
{"title":"弃地项目:公众参与决策的考察","authors":"Karsyn Kendrick, Younsung Kim","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For centuries, coal extraction and production provided low‐cost energy that powered the American economy. Currently, an estimated 5.5 million people in the Appalachian region live within one mile of an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) site. The site remediation has been funded and promoted by the AML program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977, and public engagement has been required. However, little is known about the AML program and the public engagement requirement for site remediation decision‐making. Relying on State and Tribal Reclamation Plans and community surveys, we investigate how AML states and tribes engage the public and which barriers limit successful participation in the AML program. We found that AML states and tribes rely heavily on traditional methods of public engagement, such as public meetings, hearings, and comment periods, rather than nontraditional methods that could include more diverse stakeholders. We also found (1) lack of information on public participation opportunities and (2) unclear project selection and awards processes as key barriers limiting public engagement. Three recommendations specific to AML program are suggested.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abandoned mine land program: Examining public participation in decision‐making\",\"authors\":\"Karsyn Kendrick, Younsung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ropr.12569\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For centuries, coal extraction and production provided low‐cost energy that powered the American economy. Currently, an estimated 5.5 million people in the Appalachian region live within one mile of an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) site. The site remediation has been funded and promoted by the AML program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977, and public engagement has been required. However, little is known about the AML program and the public engagement requirement for site remediation decision‐making. Relying on State and Tribal Reclamation Plans and community surveys, we investigate how AML states and tribes engage the public and which barriers limit successful participation in the AML program. We found that AML states and tribes rely heavily on traditional methods of public engagement, such as public meetings, hearings, and comment periods, rather than nontraditional methods that could include more diverse stakeholders. We also found (1) lack of information on public participation opportunities and (2) unclear project selection and awards processes as key barriers limiting public engagement. Three recommendations specific to AML program are suggested.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12569\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12569","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几个世纪以来,煤炭开采和生产为美国经济提供了低成本能源。目前,阿巴拉契亚地区估计有550万人居住在废弃矿区(AML)一英里范围内。根据1977年《露天采矿控制和复垦法》(SMCRA),AML计划资助并推动了现场修复,并要求公众参与。然而,人们对AML计划和现场补救决策的公众参与要求知之甚少。根据州和部落开垦计划以及社区调查,我们调查了AML州和部落如何与公众接触,以及哪些障碍限制了AML计划的成功参与。我们发现,反洗钱州和部落严重依赖传统的公众参与方法,如公开会议、听证会和评论期,而不是可能包括更多不同利益相关者的非传统方法。我们还发现(1)缺乏关于公众参与机会的信息,(2)项目选择和奖励流程不明确,是限制公众参与的主要障碍。针对反洗钱计划提出了三项建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Abandoned mine land program: Examining public participation in decision‐making
For centuries, coal extraction and production provided low‐cost energy that powered the American economy. Currently, an estimated 5.5 million people in the Appalachian region live within one mile of an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) site. The site remediation has been funded and promoted by the AML program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977, and public engagement has been required. However, little is known about the AML program and the public engagement requirement for site remediation decision‐making. Relying on State and Tribal Reclamation Plans and community surveys, we investigate how AML states and tribes engage the public and which barriers limit successful participation in the AML program. We found that AML states and tribes rely heavily on traditional methods of public engagement, such as public meetings, hearings, and comment periods, rather than nontraditional methods that could include more diverse stakeholders. We also found (1) lack of information on public participation opportunities and (2) unclear project selection and awards processes as key barriers limiting public engagement. Three recommendations specific to AML program are suggested.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
23.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Review of Policy Research (RPR) is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the publication of research and analysis examining the politics and policy of science and technology. These may include issues of science policy, environment, resource management, information networks, cultural industries, biotechnology, security and surveillance, privacy, globalization, education, research and innovation, development, intellectual property, health and demographics. The journal encompasses research and analysis on politics and the outcomes and consequences of policy change in domestic and comparative contexts.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships Information and expertise in public policy Embracing the politics of transformation: Policy action as “battle‐settlement events” Reputation management in turmoil—An analysis of the clashing narratives in the introduction of a “salmon tax” in Norway The narrative policy framework and institutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1