tively appropriate in that it provides a broader range of expertise than would be available if decisions were made with input only from scientists and managers. The perspectives of scientists and managers are essential, but other interested parties can offer additional information needed for good decisions, particularly about values. Finally, analytic deliberation processes are instrumentally appropriate in that such a process can help to build trust and understanding and, even when disagreement persists, clarifies the basis of disagreement.
Bagley CB 1916. History of Seattle from earliest settlement to the present time. Chicago IL: SJ Clarke.
Chess C, Dietz T, Shannon M. 1998. Who should deliberate when? Hum Ecol Rev 5:45–8.
Chess C, Hance BJ. 1994. Communicating with the public: ten questions environmental managers should ask. New Brunswick NJ: Center for Environmental Communication, Rutgers University.
Chess C, Purcell K. 1997. Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? New Brunswick NJ: The Center for Environmental Communication, Rutgers Univ.
Cvetkovich G, Earle TC. 1994. The construction of justice: a case study of public participation in land management. J Social Iss 50:161–78.
Dietz T. 1987. Theory and method in social impact assessment. Sociolog Inq 57:54–69.
Dietz T, Frey RS, and others. 1993. Risk, technology and society? In: Dunlap RE, Michelson W. Handbook of environmental sociology. Westport CT: Greenwood Pr.
Dietz T, Pfund A. 1988. An impact identification method for development program evaluation. Policy Stud Rev 8:137–45.
Dietz T, Stern PC. 1995. Toward realistic models of individual choice. J Socio-Econ 24:261–79.
Dietz T, Stern PC. 1998. Science, values and biodiversity. BioScience 48:441–4.
Dizard JE. 1994. Going wild. Amherst MA: Univ Massachusetts Pr. 182 p.
Edmonson T. 1991. The uses of ecology: Lake Washington and beyond. Seattle WA: Univ of Washington Pr.
Edmonson T. 1997. Aphaizomenon in Lake Washington. Arch Hydrobiol Suppl 107:449–46.
Fiorino D. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Tech Hum Val 15:226–243.
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein. S. 1980. Knowing what you want: measuring labile values. In: Wallsten T (ed). Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Fischhoff B. 1991. Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Amer Psych 46:835–47.
Hairston NG Jr, Kearns CM, Ellner SP. 1996. Phenotypic variation in a zooplankton egg bank. Ecology 77:2382–92.
Norton B, Costanza R, Bishop RC. 1998. The evolution of preferences: Why sovereign preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecol Econ 24:193–211.
NRC [National Research Council]. 1996. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Stern PC, Fineberg H (eds). Washington DC: National Acad Pr.
Platt RH. 1995. The 2020 water supply study for Metropolitan Boston. J Amer Plan Asso 61(2):185–97.
Proctor JD. 1998. Environmental values and popular conflict over environmental management: comparative analysis of public comments on the Clinton forest plan. Envir Mgmt 22:347–58.
Renn O, Webler T, and others. 1993. A three-step procedure for public participation in decision-making. Policy Sciences 26:189–214.
Shannon MA. 1991. Building public decisions: learning through planning. Washington DC: OTA.