Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- List of abbreviations
- Foreword by Jonathon Porritt CBE
- Preface
- Part I Overview and Context
- Part II Governance and Government
- Part III Governance and Civil Society
- 6 Citizens, citizenship and governance for sustainability
- 7 The governance of science for sustainability
- 8 Practitioner evaluations of participatory processes in environmental decision making
- Part IV Governance and Decision Making
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
8 - Practitioner evaluations of participatory processes in environmental decision making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- List of abbreviations
- Foreword by Jonathon Porritt CBE
- Preface
- Part I Overview and Context
- Part II Governance and Government
- Part III Governance and Civil Society
- 6 Citizens, citizenship and governance for sustainability
- 7 The governance of science for sustainability
- 8 Practitioner evaluations of participatory processes in environmental decision making
- Part IV Governance and Decision Making
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
One striking feature of sustainability debates has been the opening up of decision making to wider ranges of voices and values. Public participation was enshrined in the Rio Declaration of the 1992 Earth Summit and the Johannesburg Declaration of the 2002 World Summit as a vital mechanism to ensure greater equity and legitimacy in the governance of sustainable development. European legislation has actively promoted participation through environmental laws such as the EU Water Framework Directive in 2000, which requires the ‘active involvement’ of interested parties in developing water resource and environment management plans (Article 14). The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) led the development of the Aarhus Convention (1998), which has public participation in environmental decision making as one of its three pillars.
In the UK, public and stakeholder participation is, rhetorically at least, a part of the culture of national government, local authorities and regulatory agencies, and an ‘essential’ part of the sustainable development strategy (DETR 1999, para. 7.87) (see Owens, 2000; Munton, 2003). Strong claims are made for the benefits of participation. Rowe and Frewer (2000: 24), for example, argue that ‘public participation in policy making … is necessary to reflect and acknowledge democratic ideals and enhance trust in regulators and transparency in regulatory systems’. Others, such as Rayner (2003) and Pellizzoni (2003), question whether current participatory practices are achieving the democratic goals claimed for them.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Governing Sustainability , pp. 159 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, , , , and 2003. ‘Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes’, Social Science and Medicine 57: 239–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1999. ‘Researching public participation’, Local Government Studies 25(4): 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2001. ‘What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 515–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2001. ‘Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance?’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 501–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and 2006. ‘Upping the ante: a conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments’, Science and Public Policy 33: 713–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and 2000. ‘An analytical and descriptive model of sustainable development for the Environment Agency’, R & D Report W1–12. (J.). Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.
, , , , , and 2007. ‘Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions’, Public Understanding of Science 16: 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. ‘Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological questions’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43: 769–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006. ‘Organizational learning about public participation: “Tiggers” and “Eeyores”’, Human Ecology Review 13: 182–92.Google Scholar
and 1999. ‘Public participation and the environment: do we know what works?’ Environmental Science and Technology 33: 2685–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2001. Local Outreach: The Development of Criteria for the Evaluation of Close and Responsive Relationships at the Local Level. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report SWCON 204. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.
, and (eds.) 1998. Participation and the Quality of Environmental Decision Making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRef
and 2003. ‘Evaluating collaborative natural resource management’, Society and Natural Resources 16: 371–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1998. ‘Linking stakeholder participation and environmental decision making: assessing decision quality for interstate river basin management’, in , and (eds.) Participation and the Quality of Environmental Decision Making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 61–70.
, , , , , and 2003. Deliberative Mapping: Appraising Options for Closing ‘The Kidney Gap’. Final Report to the Wellcome Trust. URL: www.deliberative-mapping.org.uk.Google Scholar
1999. Local Evaluation for Regeneration Partnerships: Good Practice Guide. London: DETR. URL: www.detr.gov.uk/regeneration/info/gp/erp/.Google Scholar
1996. Introductory Guidance on the Agency's Contribution to Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Series No. 1. Environmental Strategy Directorate. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
1990. ‘Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values 15: 226–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1998. ‘“Hired hands” or “local voice”: understandings and experience of local participation in conservation’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23: 481–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1984. Theory of Communicative Action – Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
2005. ‘Setting the stage: a dramaturgy of policy deliberation’, Administration and Society 36: 624–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2007a. ‘Citizen engagement processes and information systems: the role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality’, Public Understanding of Science 16: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and 2007b. The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
2001. ‘Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences’, Public Understanding of Science 10: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, London.Google Scholar
and 1998. ‘Social learning in policy networks’, Policy and Politics 26: 343–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1994. ‘Qualitative multi-criteria evaluation for environmental management’, Ecological Economics 10: 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. ‘Deliberative democracy and environmental decision making’, in , and (eds.) Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar, pp. 109–36.Google Scholar
1996. ‘Discursive ethics in ecosystem valuation and environmental policy’, Ecological Economics 16: 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. ‘Representing people, representing nature, representing the world’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. ‘Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy’, Environment and Planning A 32: 1141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. ‘The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason’, British Journal of Sociology 52: 59–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2003. ‘Uncertainty and participatory democracy’, Environmental Values 12: 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004. ‘Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management’, Journal of Risk Research 7: 115–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006. ‘Managing public engagement to optimise learning: reflections from urban river restoration’, Human Ecology Review 13: 172–81.Google Scholar
and 2000. Evaluating Methods for Public Participation: Literature Review. Environment Agency R & D Technical Report E135. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
, Homan, J. and Pollard, S. 2004. Participatory Risk Assessment: Involving Lay Audiences in Environmental Decisions on Risk. Environment Agency R & D Technical Report E2–043/TR/01. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
and Armitage, D. 2007. ‘A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world’, Ecological Economics 61: 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. ‘Democracy in an age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public sector decision making’, Science and Public Policy 30: 163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.) 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRef
and 2007. ‘Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry’, Public Understanding of Science 16: 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. ‘Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation’, Science, Technology and Human Values 25: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2004. ‘Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda’, Science Technology and Human Values 29: 512–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2004. ‘Evaluation of a deliberative conference’, Science, Technology and Human Values 29: 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. ‘Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital’, Local Environment 5: 153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2003. ‘Evaluating citizen advisory boards: the importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications’, Risk Analysis 23: 269–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and 2000. ‘Progressive regimes, partnerships and the involvement of local communities: a framework for evaluation’, Public Administration 78: 855–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
1997. ‘Multi-criteria mapping: mitigating the problems of environmental valuation’, in (ed.) Valuing Nature. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
2005. ‘Opening up or closing down: analysis, participation and power in social appraisals of technology’, in , and (eds.) Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
and 1999. Rethinking Risk: A Pilot Multi-Criteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK. Report for the UK Roundtable on Genetic Modification, SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
and 2001. ‘A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multi-criteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 529–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1998. ‘Governance as theory: five propositions’, International Social Science Journal 50(1): 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006. ‘Introduction: recent research in public participation, a focus on learning’, Human Ecology Review 13: 148–9.Google Scholar
and 2000. Public Involvement in Agency Activities. Report No. 22. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). Geneva: UN Economic Commission for Europe. URL: www.unece.org/env/ppAarhus.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1998. Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future. London, UK: Earthscan.
1995. ‘ “Right” discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick’, in , and (eds.) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 35–86.
, and 2001. ‘What is a good participation process? Five perspectives from the public’, Environmental Management 27: 435–50.Google Scholar
2001. ‘Mapping and interpreting societal responses to genetically modified crops and food’, Social Studies of Science 31: 151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by