1. For a summary of public opinion polls from the 1970s through the 1990s, see Dunlap, R. E., 1995, “Public Opinion and Environmental Policy,” in Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, Lester, J. P., ed., 2nd edition, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 63–114Google Scholar. Also see Brechin, S. and Kempton, W., 1994, “Global Environmentalism: A Challenge to the Postmaterialism Thesis,” Social Science Quarterly 75(2): 245–269.Google Scholar

2. This research was conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research (NCEDR). NCEDR was established in Oct. 1995 by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, and the Tennessee Valley Authority through a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation and matching funds from the three host institutions. See http://www.ncedr.org for more information.

3. Rosenbaum, W. A., 1991, Environmental Politics and Policy, 2nd edition. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, DC p. 6Google Scholar. Rosenbaum notes that environmental policy making in the 1990s is at the intersection of “two learning curves.” One curve supports increasing use of environmental information, while the other “seems to chart a plummeting confidence in existing institutional and legal capacities to deal with environmental problems.”

4. Fiorino, D. J., 1990, “Can Problems Shape Priorities? The Case of Riskbased Environmental Planning,” Public Administration Review 50(1):82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fiorino summarizes how EPA is using risk-based data to set priorities.

5. Chechile, R. A. and Carlisle, S., eds., 1991, Environmental Decision Making: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 296 pp.Google Scholar

6. Costain, W. D. and Lester, J. P., 1995, “The Evolution of Environmentalism,” in Environmental Politics & Policy: Theories and Evidence, 2nd edition, ed. Lester, J. P., Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 15–38Google Scholar; Henning, D. H. and Mangun, W. R., 1989, Managing the Environmental Crisis: Incorporating Competing Values in Natural Resource Administration, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 377 ppGoogle Scholar; Plein, L C., Green, K. E., and Williams, D. G., 1989, “Organic Planning: A New Approach to Public Participation in Local Governance,” Social Science Journal 35 (4):5O9–523Google Scholar; and Fiorino, D. J., 1995, Making Environmental Policy, University of California Press, Berkeley, 269 pp.Google Scholar

7. Some researchers have identified institutional issues related to environmental policy during the 1990s and the next decade. For example, Fiorino identifies five institutional challenges in environmental policy making: (1) setting the policy agenda, (2) maintaining democratic values, (3) using social resources efficiently, (4) adapting institutions, and (5) measuring and evaluating progress. Vig and Kraft suggested that the “need to institutionalize policy coordination” with interagency communication and coordination as a pressing issue. In a similar vein, Thomas posits four tenets of a “vision” to future environmental problem solving and decision making: (1) change current value system, (2) decentralization, (3) empower individuals, and (4) accept that technology is not “inherently destructive.” Fiorino, , Making Environmental PolicyGoogle Scholar; Vig, N. J. and Kraft, M. E., 1997. “The New Environmental Agenda,” in Environmental Policy in the 1990s, Kraft, Vig, eds., 3rd edition, Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, DC, 365–389Google Scholar; and Thomas, G. B., 1995, “The Politics of Hope: An Electric Vision of the Future,” in Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, Lester, J. P., ed. 2nd edition, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 347–366.Google Scholar

8. Butler, H. N. and Macey, J. R., 1996, Using Federalism to Improve Environmental Policy, The AEI (American Enterprise Institute) Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar. Butler and Macey examine institutional settings for environmental policies. However, their focus is how to reallocate regulatory authority among federal and state decision makers.

9. For example, recognizing that environmental decision making occurs through fragmented institutions, Kraft explores institutional fragmentation in congressional responsibility in environmental decision making, notes the significant changes that have occurred since the 1970s, and concludes that “new institutional mechanisms that facilitate comprehensive and integrative decision making are especially desirable.” Kraft, M. E., 1995, in Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, J. P., Lester, ed. 168–205Google Scholar. Although Ingram and Ullery acknowledge that fragmentation occurs, they argue that it does not necessarily hinder policy innovation. See Ingram, H. M. and Ullery, S. J., 1980, “Policy Innovation and Institutional Fragmentation,” Policy Studies Journal, 5(5):664–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fiorino has identified the major themes on analysis of institutional settings for environmental policy as: (1) fragmentation, (2) conflict, and (3) demands placed on institutions. See Fiorino, , Making Environmental Policy.Google Scholar

10. Tonn, B., English, M., and Travis, C., 1998, “Frameworks for Understanding and Improving Environmental Decision Making,” ORNL/NCEDR-07, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, February, 48 pp.Google Scholar

11. NCEDR's research on this topic is described by Travis, C., Moore, D., and Tonn, B., 1997Google Scholar, “Building a Tool for Environmental Decision Making,” Society for Judgment and Decision Making Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November.

12. Tonn, B., English, M., and Travis, C., “Frameworks for Understanding.”Google Scholar

13. Rosenbaum, W. A., 1995, “The Bureaucracy and Environmental Policy,”Google Scholar in Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, J. P. Lester, ed.

14. Tonn, B., English, M., and Travis, C., “Frameworks for Understanding.”Google Scholar

15. This study is summarized in Tonn, B. and Peretz, J., 1997, “Field Notes on Using Risk in Environmental Decision Making: Lack of Credibility All Around,” Inside EPA: Risk Policy Report 4(6)34–36.Google Scholar

16. Dale, V. and English, M., eds., 1998, Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar

17. The workshop held in April 1997 is summarized in Dobson, J., Urban, R., and Kelly, J., 1998, “EnvironAid: A Proposed Conceptual Design for a National Environmental Decision-making Information Infrastructure,” NCEDR/98–05, National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 75 PP.Google Scholar

18. Tonn, B., Turner, R., Mechling, J., Fletcher, T., and Barg, S., 1999, “Environmental Decision Making and Information Technology: Issues Assessment,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 15 pp.Google Scholar

19. Wolfe, A. and Schweitzer, M., 1997, “Working Group Summary Report: Making Decisions to Remediate Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes, March 13, 1997,” NCEDR/97–06, National Center for Environmental Decisionmaking Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 10 pp.Google Scholar

20. Gray, P., Weidemann, P., Schutz, H., Hallman, W., Feldman, D., and Turner, R., 1996, “The Nature and Challenges of Environmental Decision Making: Case Studies for Policy Improvement. Background Paper for Planning Workshop, 17–19 October 1996,” NCEDR/96–03, National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 20 pp.Google Scholar

21. See http://www.ncedr.org for information on the 1998 national conference and the other workshops.

22. The user-needs study is summarized in Schexnayder, S., 1998, “Introduction to User Needs,” National Center for Environmental Decisionmaking Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 15 pp.Google Scholar

23. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

24. Wolfe, A., 1997, “Environmental Decision Making Related to Waste Area Grouping 6 on the Oak Ridge Reservation: Workshop Summary,” NCEDR/97–05, National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 8 pp.Google Scholar

25. Schweitzer, M., 1997, “Decision Making Related to the Clean-up of Mercury Contamination at Lower East Fork Poplar Creek: Workshop Summary Report,” NCEDR/97–02, National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 12 pp.Google Scholar

26. The Atlanta ozone case study is described by N. Nicholas and D. Feldman on NCEDR's website at http://www.ncedr.org.

27. The surveys did not necessarily identify institutional problems as those observed in the other research methods conducted by NCEDR. However, in those surveys one institutional problem was identified: adequate budgets for recycling programs. For more information, see http:// www.jiee.org/recycling.htm. Kraft and Vig have observed budget shortfalls as a constraint in environmental policy making; see Kraft, M. E. and Vig, N. J., 1997, “Environmental Policy from the 1970s to the 1990s: An Overview,” in Environmental Policy in the 1990s, Vig, and Kraft, , eds., 3rd edition, Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

28. Schweitzer, , “Decision Making Related to the Clean-up.”Google Scholar

29. Farquhar, K., 1991, “Leadership in Limbo: Organization Dynamics During Interim Administrations,” Public Administration Review (51)2:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One study of salary disparity between federal and private sector employees found that even when considering benefits, federal employees tend to be underpaid when compared to their private-sector counterparts. See Lewis, G. B., 1991, “Turnover and the Quiet Crisis in the Federal Civil Service,” Public Administration Review 51(2):145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Tonn, B. and Petrich, C., 1997, “Environmental Citizenship: Problems and Prospects,” ORNL/NCEDR-01, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, December, 141 pp.Google Scholar

31. Coles, R., 1993. The Call of Service: A Witness to Idealism, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.Google Scholar

32. Kettl, D. E., 1988, Government by Proxy: (Mist)Managing Federal Programs, Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, DC, 170 pp.Google Scholar, for a discussion on the demands placed upon participants engaging in extensive negotiation of policy.

33. Golembiewski, R. T., Boudrau, R. A., Sun, B.-C., and Luo, H., 1998, “Estimate of Burnout in Public Agencies,” Public Administration Review, 58(1):59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Flyvbjerg, B., 1998, Rationality & Power: Democracy in Practice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 290 pp.Google Scholar

35. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

36. Comment made by a private sector member of NCEDR's External Advisory Board on Jan. 16,1998 to the author. See also Lewis, , “Turnover and the Quiet Crisis,” where he finds empirical evidence that “federal workers were more likely to leave the civil service in the late 1980s than were comparable workers in the late 1970s, with the increase concentrated among employees in the prime of their careers” (p. 145)Google Scholar. It should be noted that Lewis did not find the increase dramatic, but the finding that those departing were in the “prime of their careers” supports the notion that the best public sector employees may be the ones to depart.

37. Schexnayder, , “Introduction to User Needs.”Google Scholar

38. See, for example, Romzek, B. S., 1990, “Employment Investment and Commitment: The Ties that Bind,” Public Administration Review, 50(3):374–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, , “Turnover and the Quiet Crisis.”Google Scholar

39. Schweitzer, , “Decision Making Related to the Clean-up.”Google Scholar

40. Tonn, and Petrich, , “Environmental Citizenship.”Google Scholar

41. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

42. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

43. Tobin, R. J., 1990, The Expendable Future: U.S. Politics and the Protection of Biological Diversity, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 325 pp.Google Scholar

44. Schweitzer, , “Decision Making Related to the Clean-up.”Google Scholar

45. See note 26 above.

46. Wolfe, and Schweitzer, , “Working Group Summary Report”Google Scholar; See also LaPorte, T. R. and Metlay, D. S., 1996, “Hazards and Institutional Trustworthiness: Facing a Deficit of Trust,” Public Administration Review 56(4):341–347.Google Scholar

47. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

48. See Chapter 1, “Identifying Environmental Values,” in Dale, and English, , Tools to Aid Environmental Decision MakingGoogle Scholar; Rago, W. V., 1996, “Struggles in Transformation: A Study in TQM, Leadership, and Organizational Culture in a Government Agency” Public Administration Review, 56(3):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Behn, R. D., 1998, “What Right Do Public Managers Have to Lead?” Public Administration Review 58(3):209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Heifetz, R., 1994, Leadership without Easy Answers, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 348 pp.Google Scholar

49. Yates, D., 1982, Bureaucratic Democracy: The Search for Democracy and Efficiency in American Government, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 224 pp.Google Scholar

50. For example, see Thomas, J., 1995, Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 211 pp.Google Scholar

51. Peelle, E., Schweitzer, M., Munro, J., Carnes, S., and Wolfe, A., 1996, “Factors Favorable to Public Participation Success,” Proceedings of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, Houston, June 2–5, 601–610.Google Scholar

52. Tonn, and Petrich, , “Environmental Citizenship.”Google Scholar

53. Another concern is that the public participation may be one of “tokenism,” where informing, consultation, or placation occurs. These efforts fall short of partnership, which may be necessary in environmental decision making. See Arnstein, S. R., 1969, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Wolfe, A., Schexnayder, S., Fly, M., and Furtsch, C., 1997, “Summary Report Developing a Users' Needs Survey Focusing on Informational and Analytical Environmental Decision-aiding Tools,” NCEDR/97–01, National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research, 600 Henley Street, Knoxville, TN, 10 pp.Google Scholar

55. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

56. Gray, et al. , “Nature and Challenges of Environmental Decision Making.”Google Scholar

57. One example of state innovative policy is New Jersey's use of integrated permitting. See Rabe, B. G., 1995, “Integrated Environmental Permitting: Experience and Innovation at the State Level,” State and Local Government Review 27(3):209–220.Google Scholar

58. Schweitzer, , “Workshop Summary Report.”Google Scholar

59. Gray, et al. , “Nature and Challenges of Environmental Decision Making.”Google Scholar

60. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar This is analogous to the argument in support of middle-level managers. See Morgan, D., Bacon, K. G., Bunch, R., Cameron, C. D., and Deis, R., 1996 “What Middle Managers Do in Local Government: Stewardship of the Public Trust and the Limits of Reinventing Government,” Public Administration Review 56(4):359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Tonn, and Peretz, , “Field Notes.”Google Scholar

62. Gray, et al. , “Nature and Challenges of Environmental Decision Making.”Google Scholar

63. This issue has been identified by other scholars. See Rabe, , “Integrated Environmental Permitting.”Google Scholar

64. See Caldwell, L. K., 1993, “Environmental Policy as a Political Problem,” Policy Studies Review 12(3/4):104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. Gray, et al. , “Nature and Challenges of Environmental Decision Making.”Google Scholar

66. Schweitzer, , “Workshop Summary Report,”Google Scholar and Schexnayder, , “Introduction to User Needs.”Google Scholar Rosenbaum also has complained that missing or lacking environmental data hinders evaluations of policy. Rosenbaum, , Environmental Politics.Google Scholar

67. Kerrigan, J. and Hinton, D., 1980, “Knowledge and Skills Needs for Tomorrow's Public Administrators,” Public Administration Review 40(5):469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Behn, Robert D., 1998, “What Right do Public Managers Have to Lead?” Public Administration Review 58(3):209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McClelland, D. C., 1973, “Testing for Competence Rather than for ‘Intelligence,’” American Psychologist 28(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, C R., 1997, “The Bluebirds' Secret: Mentoring with Bravery and Balance,” Training & Development 51:31–33Google Scholar; Geiger-DuMond, A. H. and Boyle, S. K., 1995, “Mentoring: A Practitioner's Guide,” Training & Development 49:51–54.Google Scholar

68. See Schall, E., 1997, “Public-Sector Succession: A Strategic Approach to Sustaining Innovation,” Public Administration Review 57(1):4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. A similar idea was proposed for the electric power industry. See Tonn, B. and Schweitzer, M., 1997, “Institutional and Programmatic Suggestions for Satisfying Public Policy Responsibilities in a Retail Competitive Electric Industry,” Energy Policy 25(1):29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. Okafor, G. O. and Landry, R. Jr., 1997, “The Use of Basic Analytic Techniques in Local Government: A Survey of Counties and Cities in Georgia,” Southeastern Political Review 25(4):781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. Others have commented on the importance of and need for environmental evaluations. See Rosenbaum, , Environmental PoliticsGoogle Scholar. Peretz, J. H., Bohm, R. A., and Jasienczyk, P. D., 1997 “Environmental Policy and the Reduction of Hazardous Waste,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (16)4:556–5743.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartlett, R. V., 1994, “Evaluating Environmental Policy Success and Failure,” in Vig, N. J. and Kraft, M. E., eds., 1994, Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda, 2nd edition, Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC, 167–188.Google Scholar