Many of my publications over the years have been published in government reports and publications, trade magazines, etc. As a result, many have had a very limited readership.
So I am beginning to post them here, in case there are readers who would be interested. There are still more to come, as they become available in digital form.
Here are the publications, with a few comments about each.
NOT QUITE READY FOR PRIME TIME
These are publications that have left my desk but are now undergoing the sometimes lengthy review process before they are released to the public by the sponsoring agency, the Army Corps of Engineers. Their descriptions are put here as placeholders and they will be added to the list of free downloads as soon as they are available to the public.
How to Conduct a Shared Vision Planning Process, June 2009, US Army Institute for Water Resources.
Many times government agencies utilize computer models to evaluate alternatives that are not credible to the public because there was no transparency during their development. People fear that these models are based on assumptions that favor the orientations of the agencies. In Shared Vision Planning, interested public stakeholders are invited to collaborate in the development of computer models that are then used to evaluate alternatives. It is one of several approaches known as computer-aided dispute resolution (CADRe). This is a "process guide" I developed for the Institute for Water Resources, which is a proponent for Shared Vision Planning. It describes how to engage the public, and decision makers, in developing and using collaborative models. Currently undergoing review.
Developing an Improved Framework and Methods to Encourage Public Involvement in Flood Risk Management Decision Making, April 2009, US Army Institute for Water Resources.
Post-Katrina, the Corps of Engineers is developing new approaches to communicating with the public about flood risk and engaging the public in decisions about tolerable levels of residual risk. In 2008-2009 I headed a consultant team that prepared this report on a new framework for public involvement in the Corps. The team included Eva Opitz, Caron Chess, Susan Cutter, Mark Dunning, John Rosenthall, Ericka Wintergreen, and Charles Yoe. This is the Phase 1 report. Phase 2 will be ongoing during 2009-2010. Currently undergoing review.
Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative Planning, US Army Institute for Water Resources, January 2008.
During interviews conducted while developing the case studies in the "Collaborative Planning in Action" study (see below), I frequently heard that collaborative planning studies were being completed in spite of, not because of, Corps procedures and policies. So this report identified institutional barriers reported by Corps planners. It also looked at barriers as seen by local planners who had worked with the Corps as part of collaborative planning process. Many of the barriers identified by local planners identified barriers related to the corps regulatory program. Currently undergoing review.
Collaborative Planning in Action: Case Studies of Collaborative Planning in the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Institute for Water Resources, July 2007.
The days when the Corps of Engineers would study a problem, make a unilateral decision, and then proceed to implementation are rapidly vanishing. Increasingly Corps plans are developed in teams made up of multiple agencies, often representing several levels of government. The Corps leads the process, but decision making is shared. This study documents this new style of planning with a series of case studies of collaborative planning. This report was begun by Steve Pugh, a Corps of Engineers planner. But when Steve left the Corps (to go into the ministry) I was asked to complete the report, including adding a number of additional cases. Currently undergoing review.
Public Agency Public Participation/Collaborative Planning Policies, US Army Institute for Water Resources, January 2006.
In 2005 the Corps of Engineers published a new collaborative planning policy. There was also some discussion about whether the Corps needed to issue a new public participation policy. The Corps asked me to make a review of recently issued public participation and collaborative planning policies of public agencies with resource planning responsibilities. As it turns out, most of the policies described in the report were issued during the Bush Administration years. The report also discusses the characteristics of each of the policies, and defines basic elements that could go in a Corps policy. Currently undergoing review.
FREE DOWNLOADS
Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution Readers
The Institute for Water Resources is a policy think tank for the US Army Corps of Engineers. Over the years it has championed public involvement and alternative dispute resolution within the Corps. A number of well-known figures in those fields have contributed to papers, reports and training materials that had not been officially published. About 1990 IWR asked me to edit a reader of these previously unpublished papers, primarily on public involvement. During the 1990s the Corps had one of the leading alternative dispute resolution programs in the US federal government. So after another decade there was another collection of papers that needed publication. IWR staff who assisted with the editing included Jerome Delli Priscoli and C. Mark Dunning. Donna Ayres did a major re-edit of Reader 2.
-
First Decade Reader
- The first reader contains articles on public involvement by Creighton, and others such as Jerome Delli Priscoli, Stuart Langton, Leonard Ortolano, Lorenz Aggens, Merle Lefkoff, and Judy Rosener. First Decade Reader.
Second Decade Reader
- The Second Decade Reader contains articles on public involvement and dispute resolution by Creighton, Jerome Delli Priscoli, Mark Dunning, Lawrence Susskind, Christopher Moore, Lester Edelman, and others. Second Decade Reader.
Corps of Engineers Alternative Dispute Resolution Series
For over a decade I headed the consultant team that provided assistance to the Corps' Hammer Award-winning Alternative Dispute Resolution. In that role I wrote or edited a series of booklets describing a wide range of dispute resolution techniques. Here are some of the booklets in that series:
Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution
This particular booklet, co-authored with Jerome Delli Priscoli, gives an overview of the underlying principles of the alternative dispute resolution field. It then provides an overview of the major techniques used in the field. Overview of ADR.
The Mini-Trial
This booklet, co-written with Lester Edelman and Frank Carr, describes the mini-trial. The mini-trial is an ADR technique is which, in an effort to resolve a dispute, each party designates a senior official with authority to negotiate. There is a 1-2 day presentation made to the senior officials. Following this presentation, instead of trying to determine who is "right," the senior officials attempt to negotiate a settlement. Mini-Trial.
Non-Binding Arbitration
US federal agencies cannot utilize binding arbitration, but they can use non-binding arbitration. In non-binding arbitration each side presents its case in front of a neutral third party. The "neutral" then renders a judgment as to what would constitute a fair settlement. This judgment is advisory. It's often influential, but the parties are not bound by it. This paper was co-written with Lester Edelman, Frank Carr and Charles Lancaster. Non-Binding Arbitration.
Partnering Guide for DoD Environmental Mission
One of the most successful techniques used in the Corps ADR program was a technique called "partnering." Partnering is a "preventative" approach, rather than a technique to resolve an existing dispute. In partnering, at the beginning of a project the Corps and other parties, such as its contractors, go through a front-end team building session during which they reach agreements on how to manage the project. Then the parties co-manage the project, holding periodic "maintenance" sessions to discuss how the relationship is working. The technique was so successful for the Corps that the Department of Defense then asked IWR to develop a guide for use by the environmental missions in all the military services. My co-author was Jerome Delli Priscoli. We worked with a committee representing each of the military services during development of this guide. DoD Partnering Guide.
Partnering Guide for Civil Missions
After completing the DoD Partnering Guide (above) I was asked to develop a similar guide for the Corps' Civil Works (non-military) Program -- building levees, dams, restoring wetlands, etc. There's quite a bit of overlap with the DoD guide, although this guide is somewhat more complete. CW Partnering Guide.
Sustaining the Partnership
This was originally written to be part of the Civil Works Partnering Guide (above). It was my effort to provide a synopsis of what was worthwhile from the literature about managing effective teams. But it got dropped at the end and has never been published. The ideas come from others, but the synopsis may have value. Sustaining the Partnership.
Use of Mediation to Resolve Discrimination Cases
This was a case study examining the Corps' use of mediation to resolve discrimination claims. Frank Carr, the Corps Chief Trial Attorney, oversaw the program. Mediation training was conducted by CDR Associates. Use of Mediation to Resolve Discrimination Cases.
Public Involvement and Teaming in Planning - Training Course, Corps of Engineers
In the early 2000s the Corps concluded that it needed to substantially increase the training that its planners received in a number of fields. This course was one of several "core" courses that planners are supposed to complete during their first five years in the Corps. The course was designed to teach the basics of public participation, and also equip planners to work more effectively in collaborative teams. This document is the "reader" provided to all participants. Public Involvement and Teaming in Planning.
How to Design a Public Participation Program, US Department of Energy
This was one of several guides written for the Department of Energy. This particular guide has been posted on the DOE site for a number of years, and has been linked to by a number of other web pages. The guide provides a "thought process" that can be used for designing virtually all public participation programs. How to Design a Public Participation Program.
Working with Indian Tribal Nations, US Department of Energy
This is another guide written for the Department of Energy. Many DOE installations are on or adjoin lands that belong/belonged to Indian Tribal Nations, and DOE staff were having difficulties working effectively with Tribal Nations. One of the problems was that DOE staff thought of Tribal Nations as similar to other local governmental entities. In fact, tribal nations are sovereign nations and there must be a government-to-government relationship. This guide laid out the history of the relationship between the US government and tribal nations, major court cases, and principles for working effectively with tribes. Working With Indian Tribal Nations.
Report of the Common Sense Initiative's Stakeholder Involvement Work Group, US Environmental Protection Agency
This is a report that I wrote at the direction of a working group that was assessing EPA's agency-wide public participation and dispute resolution activities, which are quite extensive. The Work Group believed that the programs were not well-integrated and that there was considerable confusion in terminology and approach. The report attempted to clarify the different approaches. Report of the Common Sense Initiative.
Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement, US Environmental Protection Agency
This guide was written for EPA's Office of Solid Waste. They wanted to provide guidance on how to get past the Not In My Backyard attitude that was preventing siting of solid waste facilities. William Desvouges, then with Research Triangle Institute, took the lead, writing the chapters related to the siting process. I wrote the chapters related to public involvement and risk communication. Sites for Our Solid Waste.
The Utility as Civic Partner, Utility Fortnightly
During the 1990s the electric utility industry began to use public participation as an approach to siting of electric transmission lines. Then there was a period during which here was very little construction (and no public participation) while the industry figured out what deregulation meant. In the early 2000s there began to be a renewed interest in the field, and I wrote this to encourage the industry to renew its interest in public participation. The Utility as Civic Partner.
Communicating With Customers About Electric and Magnetic Fields: Volume 2 - Risk Communication, Tennessee Valley Public Power Association.
During the 1990s virtually all electric powerline siting projects were controversial due to questions about whether there were health effects due to exposure to electric and magnetic fields. (The current prevailing scientific opinion is that there are not, but it was very unclear at the time) The Tennessee Valley Public Power Association asked me to develop two guides. The first volume provided a summary of the available science at the time (I haven't provided it here because it is largely out of date). The second volume, provided here, discusses the challenge of communicating with the public about this controversial issue. Communicating With Customers.
How to Use Public Values in Tank Waste Remediation System Decision Making, unpublished paper prepared for Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
There have been a number of efforts to utilize "multi-attribute utility analysis" in governmental decision making. The fundamental premise is that experts are uniquely qualified to evaluate the effectiveness of alternatives within any single values attribute (e.g. cost, impact on endangered species, etc.), but that the public needs to be engaged in providing the weights - the relative importance - of these attributes. During the 1990s I worked some with Detlof Von Winterfeldt and staff of Battelle PNL to apply the approach to decisions about remediation of tanks used to store high-level nuclear waste. The guide I was working on never reached fruition (I vaguely remember that the project ran out of money), but here's an early draft that may be of interest. How to Use Public Values.
Using Group Process Techniques to Improve Meeting Effectiveness, EffectiveMeetings.Com
My friends at SMART Technologies Inc. are the creators of the SMART Board digital whiteboard. Their boards are used all over the world for a number of meeting applications, so they began a web page called Effective Meetings www.EffectiveMeetings.com. This is an article I wrote for them on group process techniques you can use to make your meetings more effective.
Using a Combined Team Building/Alternative Future Planning Process to Develop Shared Vision
Back in the 1970s I became very interested in alternative futures planning. My interest grew out of an observation that one of the problems my clients had with listening to the public is that they had such a strong commitment to their agency's version of what the future was going to be like that they were unable to hear alternative versions of the future. So I began experimenting with scenario building techniques (See Mystic Mountain, below). In the 1990s, Jerry Delli Priscoli and I began using these same scenario-building techniques in team building sessions as a one to develop a shared vision in a team. Here's a description of the techniques. Using a Combined Team.
Mystic Mountain: An Educational Alternatives Future Wildlife Planning Game, US Forest Service, 1978.
In the mid-1970s the Bureau of Reclamation allowed me to experiment with alternative futures scenario building on a major California water study. I published a report on this (which is still available on NTIS, but which I hope to get posted here soon). The US Forest Service became interested in this approach as a way to teach forest land management planners to develop a long-term perspective. Ed Thor, who worked for the Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station of the US Forest Service, and I developed a futures planning game to be used in training sessions. The game is designed so that if planners do not account for all the future scenarios, they are likely to find that 80-100 years out they won't be able to meet social expectations for outputs on Forest Service land. This is very much a pencil-and-paper game, but the basic logic is still valid. Mystic Mountain.
Main Case Studies Page
|
