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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Fischer F (1993) Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sci 26:165–187
Fischer F (2006) Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment—the cultural politics of discursive space. Am Rev Public Adm 36(1):19–40
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
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
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
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
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
Marks J, Susskind LE (1988) Negotiating better superfund settlements: recommendations for the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev 8(2):113–132
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580
Susskind LE, Cruikshank JL (2006) Breaking roberts rules: the new way to run your meeting, build consensus, and get results. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Susskind LE, McKearnen S, Thomas-Lamar J (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2012) Global chemical outlook: towards sound management of chemicals. Synthesis report for decision-makers. GPS Publishing, Washington, DC
Van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17
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
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
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
Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496
Zhang Z, Brusseau ML (1999) Nonideal transport of reactive solutes in heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour Res 35(10):2921–2935
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0393-1