{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0222972972972973, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013513513513513514, 'mean_word_length': 5.302127659574468, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public Input in Toxic Site Cleanup Decisions: The Strengths and Limitations of Community Advisory Boards

Toxic sites worldwide expose millions to environmental and health risks. In response, public agencies in Western Europe and the United States have begun to identify and remediate contaminated sites. Public participation in cleanup decisions is a critical part of this process. US agencies increasingly rely on Community Advisory Boards (CABs) to facilitate long-term participation. CABs are intended to inform and consult the public and integrate citizens' input in cleanup decisions. Recent research, however, finds that participatory processes often fall short of their objectives. This paper examines the performance of CABs in involving the public in toxic sites cleanup decisions in the United States. The research (1) develops a conceptual framework and a quantitative methodology to assess CABs; and (2) uses this methodology to assess whether CABs achieve successful participation. The analysis targets CABs at five toxic sites in Tucson, Arizona, and builds on the content analysis of eighty-one CAB meeting minutes, twenty-seven interviews with CAB members, and a survey of eighty residents around three of the sites. The key findings are that, although CABs successfully diffuse information from agencies to CAB members and (to a lesser degree) gather feedback from CAB members, they fail to inform the general public and provide community feedback to the agency.