Citation

Kartez JD. Ind. Crisis Q. 1989; 3(1): 61-75.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1989, Industrial Crisis Institute - Bucknell University)

DOI

10.1177/108602668900300104

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) mandates a nationwide local government effort to plan for industrial risk and crisis response. Title III planning is primarily defined by its requirements for public participation, but the law is somewhat vague on that criterion as well as on expected planning outcomes. Title III is misconstrued in some quarters as risk communication, yet that is only one part of planning. An evaluative frame work is presented in this paper for analyzing the performance of this planning mandate, drawing on both planning theory in general and lessons from disaster planning research in particular.