Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ideal and reality of multi-stakeholder collaboration on sustainability problems: a case study on a large-scale industrial contamination in Phoenix, Arizona

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-stakeholder collaboration among industry, government, the public, and researchers is widely acknowledged as a critical success factor for resolving sustainability problems. Proponents argue that pooling capacities and resources is necessary to cope with such wicked problems. Despite good intentions and attempts to follow best practices, the reality of multi-stakeholder collaboration is often flawed. We demonstrate this mismatch between the ideal and reality with a case study of a multi-stakeholder collaboration centered on a large urban area affected by industrial contamination (superfund site) in Phoenix, Arizona. The study indicates deficits in the collaborative process due to the lack of trust, power asymmetry, and other factors. Efforts have recently been undertaken to enhance the multi-stakeholder collaboration through novel engagement approaches. The study uses insights from stakeholder engagement approaches to demonstrate how the quality of multi-stakeholder collaboration on sustainability problems could be appraised and how common obstacles to such collaboration could be overcome, while reflecting on the role of transdisciplinary research in this process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ADEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), EPA, URS Corporation (2011). 2011 Site-wide 5-year review report: Motorola 52nd Street superfund site phoenix, Arizona. Task assignment no. EV10-0074. URS Job No. 24096945. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ

  • Brusseau ML, Guo Z (2014) Assessing contaminant-removal conditions and plume persistence through analysis of data from long-term pump-and-treat operations. J Contam Hydrol 164:16–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burnell DK, Mercer JW, Oort MV, Suriano TR, Bartlett RD (2011) Stochastic model to estimate travel times from the 52nd street facility in phoenix, AZ. J Earth Sci Eng 2:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Castanenda M (2009) Community partnerships address tough issues: GIS maps provide shared context for problem solving. Presentation at the Annual National Conference of the Community College National Center for Community Engagement, Tempe, AZ, May 16–17, 2009

  • CDC (Centers for Disease Control) (2013) Summary data for 2013 priority list of hazardous substances. Agency for toxic substances and disease registry, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Science, Washington, DC

  • Chang PR, Pantaleoni AD, Shenk DJ (2010) Jet-assisted Injection of Nano-scale, Zero-valent Iron to Treat TCE in a Deep Alluvial Aquifer. URS, Scottsdale, AZ

  • Charnley S, Engelbert B (2005) Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA’s superfund community involvement program. J Environ Manage 77:165–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MC, Wiek A, Kay B, Harlow J (2015) Aligning public participation to stakeholders’ sustainability literacy—a case study on sustainable urban development in Phoenix. Arizona. Sustain 7(7):8709–8728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock D, Fox R (1993) Participatory research as critical theory: The North Bonneville, USA, experience. In: Park P, Brydon-Miller M, Hall B, Jackson T (1993) Voices of change: participatory research in the United States and Canada. Bergin & Garvey, Wesport, Conn. pp 103–124

  • Eiser JR, Stafford T, Henneberry J, Catney P (2007) Risk perception and trust in the context of urban brownfields. Environ Hazards Risk Commun 7:150–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2011) Motorola 52nd St. superfund site—5-year review. Environmental protection agency, San Francisco, CA

  • EPA (2014) April 2013 CIG meeting minutes. Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f88257426007417a2/840a925854191e0a88257c98006cd3c3/$FILE/April%202013_CIG_Minutes.pdf

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2001) Early and meaningful community involvement. Memorandum OSWER 9230.0-99. Environmental protection agency, Washington, DC

  • Firestone DB, Reed FC (1993) Environmental law for non-lawyers. SoRo Press, South Royalton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (1993) Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26:165–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (2006) Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment—the cultural politics of discursive space. Am Rev Public Adm 36(1):19–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley RW, Wiek A, Kay B (2015) Nanotechnology development as if people and places matter. In: Guston DH (ed) Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume IV: Nanotechnology and Democracy. Springer, Berlin (in press)

  • Iwaniec D, Wiek A (2014) Advancing sustainability visioning practice in planning—the general plan update in phoenix, Arizona. Plan Pract Res 29(5):543–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalinowski T (2013) Technical, economical and social aspects of moving treatability studies for in situ bioremediation of contaminated aquifers from the laboratory to the field. PhD Thesis, Arizona State University

  • Karl HA, Susskind LE, Wallace KH (2007) A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 49(1):20–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society—an effective way for managing complexity. Birkhauser Publishers, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Krütli P, Flüeler T, Stauffacher M, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2010) Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealised project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland). J Integr Environ Sci 7(3):229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks J, Susskind LE (1988) Negotiating better superfund settlements: recommendations for the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev 8(2):113–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore M (2008) Stakeholders’ experiences and recommendations from phoenix, AZ. Presentation at EPA/AEHS National Stakeholders’ Forum on Vapor Intrusion, San Diego, CA, March 12, 2008

  • Moore M, Rushforth R (2012) Stakeholders’ experiences and recommendations from phoenix, AZ. presentation at EPA/AEHS National Stakeholders’ Forum on Vapor Intrusion, San Diego, CA, March 19, 2012

  • Park P, Brydon-Miller M, Hall B, Jackson T (1993) Voices of change: participatory research in the United States and Canada. Bergin and Garvey, Wesport, Conn.

  • Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hirsche Hadorn G, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ (2014) Environmental research translation—enhancing interactions with communities at contaminated sites. Sci Total Environ 497:651–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rist R, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiessman U, Zimmermann A (2007) Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources—the role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sale T, Newell C, Stroo H, Hinchee R, Johnson P (2008) Frequently asked questions regarding management of chlorinated solvents in solids and groundwater. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Department of Defense, Washington, DC

  • Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part 1—theoretical foundations. Sustain Sci 10(4):527–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015b) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part 2—what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain Sci 10(4):653–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott SL (2012) What difference did it make? The appalachian land ownership study 25 years later. In: McSpirit S, Faltraco L, Bailey C (eds) Academics and activists: confronting ecological and community crisis in Appalachia. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw A, Sheppard S, Burch S, Flanders D, Wiek A, Carmichael J, Robinson J, Cohen S (2009) Making local futures tangible—synthesizing, downsizing, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Glob Environ Change 19(4):447–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind LE, Cruikshank JL (2006) Breaking roberts rules: the new way to run your meeting, build consensus, and get results. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind LE, McKearnen S, Thomas-Lamar J (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2012) Global chemical outlook: towards sound management of chemicals. Synthesis report for decision-makers. GPS Publishing, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012a) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Foley RW, Guston DH (2012b) Nanotechnology for sustainability—what does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? J Nanopart Res 14(9):1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Harlow J, Melnick R, van der Leeuw S, Fukushi K, Takeuchi K, Farioli F, Yamba F, Blake A, Geiger C, Kutter R (2015) Sustainability science in action—a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustain Sci 10(1):17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Brusseau ML (1999) Nonideal transport of reactive solutes in heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour Res 35(10):2921–2935

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zint M, Wolske K (2014) From information provision to participatory deliberation—engaging residents in the transition toward sustainable cities. In: Mazmanian D, Blanco H (eds) The elgar companion to sustainable cities: strategies, methods and outlook. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, p 188

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering and Society, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA

    Rider W. Foley

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Rider W. Foley & Arnim Wiek

  3. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Arnim Wiek & Braden Kay

  4. School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Richard Rushforth

Authors
  1. Rider W. Foley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnim Wiek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Braden Kay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Rushforth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnim Wiek.

Additional information

Handled by Osamu Saito, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Japan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foley, R.W., Wiek, A., Kay, B. et al. Ideal and reality of multi-stakeholder collaboration on sustainability problems: a case study on a large-scale industrial contamination in Phoenix, Arizona. Sustain Sci 12, 123–136 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0393-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0393-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation