Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 335
PART IV
CONCLUSION
OCR for page 336
OCR for page 337
~ 1
New Tools for Environmental Protection:
What We Know and Need to Know
Thomas J. Wilbanks and Paul C. Stern
A [though the potentials of the tools discussed in the earlier chapters in
this volume are intriguing, the main conclusions are a bit paradoxical.
On the one hand, full information is one of the foundations of responsi-
ble citizenship, and voluntary action is increasingly important as a way to ensure
environmental stewardship in the United States, in partnership with government-
mandated rules and regulations (and often in preference to them). But in the
case of information, it seems clear that many people possess far less than they
need to have in order to determine what is responsible voluntary action. This
suggests a powerful rationale for communication and diffusion instruments that
emphasize education and information to support voluntary action. Yet in many
cases, perhaps most, the effects of federal government information and educa-
tion programs appear so far to have been rather modest (see Lutzenhiser, this
volume, Chapter 3; Schultz, this volume, Chapter 4; Th0gersen, this volume,
Chapter 5; Stern, this volume, Chapter 12~.
Voluntary measures for firms and industries also have great potential in
principle. They allow for a decentralization of decision making to actors who
are in the best position to evaluate what works for them, thus potentially increas-
ing efficiency as well as democratic control. But as with education and informa-
tion, the effects of voluntary measures appear so far to have been rather modest.
They are documented in only a few industries, and even there, much of the
claimed effect cannot be attributed unequivocally to the programs (see Mazurek,
this volume, Chapter 13; Nash, this volume, Chapter 14; Harrison, this volume,
Chapter 16~.
In exploring this paradox, this volume considers three central issues:
337
OCR for page 338
338
NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
.
Why (or why not) increase government support for education and infor-
mation programs for individuals and households and for voluntary pro-
grams for firms and industries in support of environmental management?
· How can such programs be as effective as possible?
· What do we need to know in order to do better that we do not already
know?
This chapter is one reading of "bottom line" answers to these questions,
based on the chapters of this volume and the discussion at the workshop on
which the volume is based.
EXPLORING THE RATIONALE FOR EDUCATION,
INFORMATION, AND VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
The growing attention to this topic, not only in scholarship but in policy-
making, reflects the fact that the world of government is changing. While
democratization has been spreading globally, for two decades in the United States
we have been moving in the direction of less government, cheaper government, a
devolution of government roles, and a tendency to question whether government
regulation is the most appropriate and most effective way to reach social goals.
This trend suggests that voluntary decision making will become ever more im-
portant for the foreseeable future and perhaps that the rationale for programs to
support voluntary decision making will become more compelling for govern-
ment than for the research community, which would be a reversal of the patterns
of the past.
At the same time, while the context of voluntary decision making is chang-
ing, so are the problems to which decisions need to be applied and the tools that
are available to assist (Rejeski and Salzman, this volume, Chapter 2~. This
suggests that education, information, and voluntary programs are best designed
to be adaptive, so they can respond flexibly to shifting requirements. Given this
framework for thought, there are a number of reasons for government to support
education, information, and voluntary programs, but there are also several rea-
sons to be cautious.
The Central Reasons in Favor
Government agencies often consider education, information, and voluntary
programs for at least three reasons. First, education and information are intend-
ed to inform responsible citizenship: to help close a gap between what people
know or are able to know on their own and what they need to know in order to
make well-informed voluntary decisions. In this connection, programs may be
intended to:
OCR for page 339
THOMAS J. WILBANKS AND PAUL C. STERN
.
339
Ensure information quality and reliability, especially if other sources are
suspected by many citizens of being biased;
Encourage broader citizen involvement;
· Catalyze and support voluntary actions, including correcting erroneous
perceptions;
· Improve capacities to act effectively; or
Encourage the establishment of voluntary partnerships and linkages
across boundaries, for example, between national and local governments
or between the public and private sectors.
Second, some of these programs respond to the citizen's right to know by
ensuring that information to which the citizen has a legal and/or moral right is
made available by:
.
· Requiring public notification: determining what information must be
made available by whom, when, and how, as with the Toxics Release
Inventory (see Herb et al., this volume, Chapter 15~; and
Removing constraints on access: for example, providing information
labels when the citizen otherwise would have to exert a great deal of
effort to find information that should be considered in making a decision
(see, e.g., Th0gersen, this volume, Chapter 5~.
Generally, the idea underlying education and information programs is that
government should not shape the values of citizens, but that it has a duty to
citizens to provide information that can reinforce values and relate them to ac-
tions, if that information is not likely to be made available otherwise in forms
that would be considered credible and/or affordable. The intent is to have
programs that empower, not coerce. Information and education programs such
as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Green Lights program
respond to this public need by not only ensuring citizen awareness, but also by
accelerating it and by helping to close gaps between awareness and appropriate
action (see Valente and Schuster, this volume, Chapter 6~.
Third, education, information, and voluntary programs are believed to in-
crease the efficiency of consumers' and producers' responses to economic and
other signals of the need to change behavior to reduce environmental costs.
Both households and firms are in a much better position than the federal govern-
ment to find the best ways to economize in their own situations, so informed,
decentralized decision making is more efficient theoretically than central regula-
tion. This improved efficiency, however, depends on the decentralized actors'
access to accurate information about the nature and costs of their decision
options. Education and information can, in principle, provide this information
for consumers; the kinds of dialogue among firms and government involved in
OCR for page 340
340
NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
organizing and maintaining voluntary programs can, in principle, provide this
information for producers.
Some Reasons to Be Cautious
As good as all this sounds, there are reasons to think carefully before invest-
ing in education, information, and voluntary programs. First, in our society, we
tend to believe that government roles in shaping human behavior should be quite
limited. Any indication of social engineering by government, for example, by
"experimentally manipulating social norms" (Schultz, this volume, Chapter 4),
is likely to be considered a threat to true democracy. This general philosophy, of
course, is less of a limitation in some fields than others; for example, govern-
ment invests in advertising campaigns to discourage smoking and to influence
people in some other matters of public health or disaster preparation (see Valente
and Schuster, this volume, Chapter 6; Mileti and Peek, this volume, Chapter 7~.
One possible reason is that most people consider government advocacy more
appropriate where there is an obvious and pressing public benefit, or where
policies already have been determined through democratic processes, than they
do where policy objectives are still undecided.)
Second, there are serious questions about the cost-effectiveness of govern-
ment education and information programs, for at least two reasons (see Rosenzweig,
this volume, Chapter 8~. The impact of such programs may be relatively modest
compared with the costs, and education and information programs may not be
more cost-effective than other policies for reaching the same goal. A relevant
issue in both of these connections is that more information and knowledge may
affect actions in some situations and contexts, but not others (Stern, this volume,
Chapter 12~.
There are also serious questions about the effectiveness of government sup-
port of voluntary programs for firms and industries. Here, effectiveness must be
weighed not against cost in tax dollars, but in relation to the relaxation of regula-
tory oversight that is often part of the package of government support of these
programs. Voluntary programs decentralize decision making, which has poten-
tial benefits, but they also put the decisions in the hands of actors whose objec-
tives differ from the regulator' s goal of providing public goods like environmen-
tal quality (see Prakash, this volume, Chapter 18~. Randall (this volume, Chapter
19) concludes that voluntary programs "make a nice frosting on the regulatory
cake. But the cake must be there."
Finally, education, information, and voluntary programs (and research on
them) can be ways to avoid timely action, in essence passing the buck to citizens
to deal with a policy problem that would be dealt with more appropriately by
government itself. This problem sometimes has been noted in policy analyses
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, 2001~.
OCR for page 341
THOMAS J. WILBANKS AND PAUL C. STERN
CONSIDERING HOW TO CARRY OUT EFFECTIVE EDUCATION
AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS
341
Where it makes sense to invest in education and information programs, the
next question is how to assure that they yield environmental benefits and are as
cost-effective as possible. "Information programs" can cover a wide spectrum
of government actions, including regulatory initiatives and financial incentives
that "send signals" for particular actions and thus have an information function,
but the focus of this volume is on information and education as communication
and diffusion instruments that are distinct from regulatory actions or financial
inducements. In this more limited connection, the central predicament is that a
particular government information program becomes one of a great many tiny
tributaries feeding a virtual flood of information engulfing those citizens who are
the intended audiences, like adding just one more ingredient to a complex "infor-
mation soup" (Mileti and Peek, this volume, Chapter 7~. The challenge is to
navigate through this complexity in ways that get the desired messages across.
The contributors to this book identify five elements of effective education
and information programs, beyond the imperative of pretesting any proposed
approach before implementing it (see especially Valente and Schuster, this vol-
ume, Chapter 6; Mileti and Peek, this volume, Chapter 7, and Stern, this volume,
Chapterl2~:
.
Targeting selected parts of a diverse audience and addressing their par-
ticular concerns. The objective should be either to reach a large part of
the population or, if different audiences need different information, to
focus on key groups by addressing the main questions on their minds:
"Do I have to worry about this or not?" and if so, "What are the most
important things to do about it?" Directing information to people who
already have it or who do not need it is seldom a good use of resources.
One aspect of determining the appropriate target is to assess whether the
main voluntary actors are likely to be individuals or institutions and,
again, focusing on the relevant concerns of the relevant target.
· Personalizing the process. The more individualized, less impersonal the
communication, the more likely it is that the information will be trans-
ferred. This suggests several strategies, including: ensuring an ongoing
communication process rather than single information provision acts or
events; paying close attention to the levels of credibility and trust associ-
ated by the target audiences with different information sources; utilizing
the most effective channels (which often are anchored in existing social
networks); and inviting information exchange, not just information pro-
vision in other words, incorporating interactive and experiential stake-
holder involvement, perhaps after an initial awareness-raising stage.
OCR for page 342
342
NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
.
.
.
Assuring multiple information sources/mechanisms. Education and in-
formation programs are likely to be more effective if they incorporate an
assortment of approaches: repeating and reinforcing the flow of informa-
tion and telling people where they can get additional information; linking
with other information and education efforts; paying attention to forces
that might encourage partnerships; and in some cases, considering differ-
ent mechanisms for different stages in the education and information
process. For example, mass media approaches may be more effective in
early stages, and interpersonal communication in later stages (Valente
and Schuster, this volume, Chapter 6~.
Being prepared for "windows of opportunity." Given that the attention
level of many citizens is related to crises of the moment, information
programs can prepackage strategies and information to be brought out if
and as events raise questions that are answered by the packages (Mileti
and Peek, this volume, Chapter 7~. For example, the response to the
California energy crisis of 2001 was assisted by information packages
that were on hand, advising people on ways to gain thermal comfort and
other energy services with less electricity, to shift demand away from
peak hours, and so forth.
Making the right choices and picking the right combinations of policy
tools. Designers of programs may have a larger menu of possible mech-
anisms at their disposal than they are aware. Identifying the full range,
considering all the options, and making the right selections for the case at
hand can make a difference in the effectiveness of a program. The chap-
ters of this volume mention such possibilities as the following:
1. Partnerships. Partnerships involve government information (and/or
public recognition) working directly in collaboration with nongovern-
mental voluntary action and education. One example is the Motor Chal-
lenge program of the Department of Energy (DOE), in which DOE in-
vites private-sector firms to join in a partnership where the firm makes a
commitment to use state-of-the-art, energy-efficient electric motors and
drives where cost-effective; in turn, DOE provides full information about
technology options, along with technical assistance and considerable pub-
lic recognition for the partners.
2. Scorecards and benchmarks. Government provides ways to measure
performance (scorecards) and to publicize the results of measurements,
often associated with levels of performance that are among the best being
achieved under current market and regulatory conditions (benchmarks)
(Furger, this volume, Chapter 17~.
3. Labeling. Government or another third party attaches a label or logo
to consumer items to inform voluntary decisions about what to buy (e.g.,
appliance or automobile fuel efficiency labels, recycling symbols). The
presumption is that voluntary actions will be different if consumers are
OCR for page 343
THOMAS J. WILBANKS AND PAUL C. STERN
343
aware of their environmental implications (Th0gersen, this volume, Chap-
ter 5~.
4. Government purchasing. The federal government can use its enor-
mous purchasing power to shape supplier characteristics. An example is
the EPA's Energy Star computer program, which led to a government
decision to buy only personal computers meeting energy-efficiency stan-
dards, making it unattractive for equipment suppliers to invest in producing
equipment not meeting those standards. Large corporations also can use
this strategy (see Rejeski and Salzman, this volume, Chapter 2~.
5. State-of-the-art communication modes. Information providers can
follow the example of the private sector in using the power of different
communication modes for particular purposes, such as use of the grow-
ing arsenal of graphics tools emerging from the information technology
revolution.
Sorting through all these choices is clearly a complicated business. It involves
considering a variety of kinds of information that government program designers
may not have at hand. It requires complicated operational decisions involving
financial and human resources. It calls for cost-benefit estimation that only may
be possible qualitatively. It also raises more fundamental issues. For example, in
designing a public information program, who should decide what information is
needed? Who decides what information is true? What if either or both of the
decisions are wrong? Who is accountable? As an information program proceeds,
how can it be determined when the information provided is enough? How does an
information program handle uncertainties and possible surprises, especially if it is
providing information about the future as well as the past and the present?
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. But, at the same time, thoughtful
applications of a rule of reason often can reduce the complications to a number
where more careful program design is feasible. The problem is that in many
cases, the detailed design stage is undermined by limitations on what even the
nation's top experts know.
CONSIDERING HOW TO CARRY OUT EFFECTIVE VOLUNTARY
PROGRAMS FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
The central policy question about voluntary measures is whether environ-
mental objectives can be achieved more effectively or more cost-effectively if
direct regulation is reduced in favor of policy instruments that enhance the pow-
er of market pressure, investor influence, public concern, reputation, and the like
to press firms toward better environmental performance. The proper distinction
is not between coerced and voluntary behavior. It is between direct regulation
(regulatory demands to meet emission goals or adopt different technologies) and
other instruments that may be perceived as less coercive (e.g., Andrews, 1998~.
OCR for page 344
344
NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
So-called self-regulation is perhaps the most obvious of the available possi-
bilities. The preceding chapters suggest that this approach may be valuable
under some conditions and in some industries where adequate incentives exist
for firms to establish and maintain institutions that ratchet up environmental
performance. Although more experimentation with this approach is warranted,
the evidence strongly suggests that government should proceed very cautiously
in the direction of relaxing regulations in the hope that self-regulation will take
their place. It is not certain how much of the reported successes of industry self-
regulation is real (Mazurek, this volume, Chapter 13; Nash, this volume, Chapter
14; Harrison, this volume, Chapter 16) or how much of the real improvement is
attributable to the credible threat of regulation (Randall, this volume, Chapter
19) the desire for a less painful way to meet current or potential regulatory
demands.
The evidence indicates that successful self-regulation is most likely to occur
in industries where three conditions exist: strong public concern about environ-
mental damage from that industry; limited identification of this damage with
specific firms; and industry leaders that are sufficiently large or well known that
they have incentives to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of creating self-
regulatory institutions (Nash, this volume, Chapter 14~. An advantageous com-
munication structure within the industry also may be necessary (Furger, this
volume, Chapter 17~. Even under these advantageous conditions, the industry's
incentive is to produce a reputation for environmental stewardship, and this may
be gained at lower cost by promoting a "green" image than by changing corpo-
rate environmental behavior. For this reason, the effectiveness of voluntary
measures may be increased greatly by government-funded or-mandated programs
that monitor actual environmental progress so that reputation can be tied to valid
environmental indicators. The Toxics Release Inventory in the United States has
this function, though it is vulnerable because its indicators are taken from firms'
self-reports.
Little is known about how to make self-governance work in other kinds of
industries. These include industries in which consumer products are tightly
linked to brands so that the incentives fall on single firms rather than industries
(e.g., pharmaceuticals), in which there are no industry leaders (e.g., dry clean-
ing), or in which environmental damage is not easily traceable to particular firms
(e.g., trucking). It is reasonable to expect that industrywide self-governance is
more difficult to achieve under these conditions, even though some individual
firms may take voluntary action.
"Voluntary" strategies other than industry self-governance may have signif-
icant potential. Although there is little or no systematic knowledge about how
to make them work, they are worthy of further attention. We mention three
interesting mechanisms involving voluntary action as illustrative. One is the
notion that information about the environmental performance of publicly traded
firms may change their behavior through the influence of "green" investors (Herb
OCR for page 345
THOMAS J. WILBANKS AND PAUL C. STERN
345
et al., this volume, Chapter 15~. A second mechanism is the use of consumer
boycotts and other collective action to exert pressure on firms independent of
regulation. An example was the consumer boycott and demonstrations directed
at McDonalds restaurants that led to an agreement to end Styrofoam packaging in
1991 (for an account, see Gardner and Stern, 1996~. A third interesting mecha-
nism of voluntary action involves arrangements between industries and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) to support improved environmental perfor-
mance. For example, some coffee marketers have been willing to pay extra for
imported coffee they could certify as shade-grown if an NGO was willing to
inspect the coffee plantations to provide legitimacy for the claim.
The knowledge base on voluntary measures is not as well developed as that
for education and information, so it is early to draw conclusions about how to
make these measures work best. Some insights about education and information
may prove relevant to voluntary measures, though. In particular, targeting, the
use of multiple mechanisms, preparation for windows of opportunity, and mak-
ing the right choices of instruments all are likely to be important. Further in-
sights probably can be gained from relevant theories in areas such as organiza-
tional behavior and collective action (e.g., Furger, this volume, Chapter 17;
Prakash, this volume, Chapter 18~. But much more knowledge is needed for
voluntary measures to become a tool that can be used with precision, rather than
. · · · 1
Just a promising Plea.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO DO BETTER?
From the perspectives of the experts, including those represented in this
volume, government program designers and decision makers are asking a num-
ber of critically important questions that cannot be answered with confidence
from the existing knowledge base. The experts themselves need to know a lot
more in order to be as helpful as the government needs, given the imperative of
using taxpayers' money and government regulatory authority effectively and
responsibly to aid voluntary decision making.
Most of what still needs to be learned, however, is not specific to govern-
mental environmental education and information programs. It concerns broader
issues for both government program effectiveness and the social and behavioral
sciences at large. Based on the contributions to this volume, the highest priority
questions to address for improving the knowledge base to support education and
information program design are the following:
· When and how do people and organizations demand and use informa-
tion? More needs to be known about information demand as well as supply,
given the diversity of audiences and the need to target particular audiences. The
challenges include understanding how information feeds into the voluntary deci-
sion making processes of organizations and individuals, how information de-
OCR for page 346
346
NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
mend varies across cultures, how organizations and individuals adapt to changes
in information, and how organizations and individuals can become more adapt-
able in a changing, uncertain world (National Research Council, 1999~.
.
How can success be measured and documented? In an era of reengi-
neered government, there is an urgent need to improve the capacity to evaluate
all kinds of government-supported programs. The challenges include evaluat-
ing the success of efforts to transmit information and learning in stimulating
voluntary actions and evaluating the impacts of the voluntary actions, both of
which in many cases require establishing baselines against which to compare
program-related outcomes. When effects are substantially lagged in time, the
challenge is even greater. In these regards, there appear to be abundant opportu-
nities to apply insights from evaluation research (Harrison, this volume, Chapter
16; Weiss, 1998) and learn from industry experience (Nash, this volume, Chap-
ter 14~.
When and how does information lead to action? As indicated, we know
far too little about how information relates to knowledge and how knowledge
relates to action. We need to learn more about how different information pro-
cesses may relate to underlying common issues, how a particular information
program may reinforce or contradict other information processes, and how a
variety of information programs may have cumulative impacts that add up to
more than the sum of the parts (e.g., encouraging a stronger "environmental
ethic". In many cases, unraveling these questions calls for types of longitudinal
studies, followup studies, and cumulative impact studies for which funding is
exceedingly difficult to find.
.
.
How can information infrastructures and programs be designed so they
are more adaptive? Unless education and information programs are constructed
so they can change as their contexts change, they are likely to become outdated
quickly. The Toxics Release Inventory is an example (see Herb et al., this
volume, Chapter 15~. The challenge is to build adaptability into the structure
from the beginning in the language and implementation of statutes and in rela-
tion to ongoing evaluation processes. This calls for communication between the
executive and legislative branches and with the parties to which they listen.
· How can effects of the information technology revolution be harnessed
in support of government education and information programs? Clearly, the
world is being transformed rapidly through the tools available to facilitate com-
munication. Electronic mail was uncommon a decade ago, use of the Internet is
mushrooming, and graphics capabilities such as geographic information systems
and hypermedia packages are growing rapidly. Such capabilities may make
possible dramatic advances in instrumentation and measurement that can allow
quick feedback about the effects of actions on environmental indicators. The
ability to assess the potential and limitations of such new developments for
information dissemination and for interaction between providers and receivers is
still in its infancy.
OCR for page 347
THOMAS J. WILBANKS AND PAUL C. STERN
347
THE BOTTOM LINE
Even though education and information programs are not the answer to
every environmental policy need, they are fundamentally important in support-
ing responsible citizenship in a democracy. Voluntary programs in the private
sector are also highly attractive from a governance perspective. The impact of
these tools, however, often seems to have been modest at best. This record
seems to call for increased attention to ways to make such programs more effec-
tive, which in turn calls for more attention to strengthening the knowledge base
on which program planning and design is based.
The evidence strongly suggests that it is past time to move beyond debates
about which tool is best for environmental protection whether regulation or
market-based approaches are better, whether it is good to increase voluntarism
and decrease regulation, and so forth. Each tool has its place, not only because
of the variety of policy targets, but also because each tool performs particular
functions. The best policy normally uses a combination of tools, each serving its
proper function (Stern, 2000; Stern, this volume, Chapter 12~. For example,
authors in this volume argue that voluntary measures in industries work best
under the threat of regulation; that they depend on good information in the form
of monitoring data on environmental performance; that they benefit from market
forces that favor "green" performance; and that their success depends on wheth-
er an industry has agents (such as trade associations) to diffuse best practices.
Thus, command and control, communication and diffusion, and market instru-
ments all may help voluntary programs be more effective.
Much can be gained by developing better understanding of the functions
performed by each type of policy tool so that policies can be designed to employ
the tools in appropriate combinations. The need for new combinations as well
as for the new tools is likely to increase as the nature of environmental prob-
lems and the identity of pollution sources changes (Rejeski and Salzman, this
volume, Chapter 2~.
NOTE
1 One should not presume that good information necessarily will reduce social and political
conflict or differences of opinion about what kinds of voluntary actions make sense. Experience has
taught that more information, far from generating agreement, can in fact strengthen the views of
different constituencies in opposition to each other. The same body of information can be used by
different parties to make opposing arguments and to justify opposing actions. "Information is pow-
er"; thus its contents and mechanisms are (or can be) politically sensitive. As one consequence,
when education and information programs touch on controversial issues, some constituencies may
oppose the programs because of the prospect that their content might be used effectively to support
. .
Opposmg views.
OCR for page 348
348
NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REFERENCES
Andrews, R.N.L.
1998 Environmental regulation and business "self-regulation." Policy Sciences 31:177-197.
Gardner, G.T., and P.C. Stern.
1996 Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Nee&am Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
National Research Council
1999 Our Common Journey: The Transition to Sustainability. Board on Sustainable Devel-
opment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stern, P.C.
2000 Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social
Issues 56(3):407-424.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board
2001 Improved Science-Based Environmental Stakeholder Processes. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Weiss, C.H.
1998 Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
information programs
