Advertisement

Participatory Processes

  • Peter J. BalintEmail author
  • Ronald E. Stewart
  • Anand Desai
  • Lawrence C. Walters
Chapter
  • 2.4k Downloads

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to both review the best practices of participatory processes and outline an approach that provides sufficient and appropriate participation within the context of wicked environmental problems. It is now part of the received wisdom that public participation is essential in managing complex environmental problems. Such participation is both intended to elicit (at least implicitly) broadly held public values relevant to the management decision at hand, and to incorporate those values into the final decision. However, because typical participatory processes generally fall victim to shortcomings that limit their utility in dealing with wicked problems, decision makers are often frustrated with, and question, the ultimate benefits of public participation.

Keywords

Decision Maker Public Participation Public Engagement Decision Alternative Participatory Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arstein, S. R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of American Institute of Planners (35): 216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beierle, Thomas C. 2002. “The Quality of Stakeholder-based Decisions.” Risk Analysis 22 (4): 739–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beierle, Thomas C., and Jerry Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  4. Beierle, Thomas C., and David M. Konisky. 1999. “Public Participation in Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes Region.” In Discussion Paper 99-50. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  5. Brams, Steven J., and M. Remzi Sanver. 2009. “Voting Systems That Combine Approval and Preference.” In The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order, edited by S. J. Brams, W. V. Gehrlein, and F. S. Roberts. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, K. F., and T. M. Koontz. 2005. “Theory into Practice: Implementing Ecosystem Management Objectives in the USDA Forest Service.” Environmental Management 35 (2): 138–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chilvers, Jason. 2008. “Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 155–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  10. DeLeon, Peter. 1995. “Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 886–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. Stern. 2003. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons.” Science 302 (5652): 1907–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dryzek, John S., and Christian List. 2003. “Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation.” British Journal of Political Science 33 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durning, Dan. 1993. “Participatory Policy Analysis in a Social-Service Agency: A Case-Study.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12 (2): 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, Frank. 1993. “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases.” Policy Sciences 26 (3): 165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gericke, Kevin L., Jay Sullivan, and J. Douglas Wellman. 1992. “Public-Participation in National Forest Planning: Perspectives, Procedures, and Costs.” Journal of Forestry 90 (2): 35–38.Google Scholar
  16. Gray, B. 1985. “Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration.” Human Relations 38 (10): 911–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Haight, D., and C. Ginger. 2000. “Trust and Understanding in Participatory Policy Analysis: The Case of the Vermont Forest Resources Advisory Council.” Policy Studies Journal 28 (4): 739–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, Renee J., and Michael J. Scicchitano. 2000. “Uncertainty, Risk, Trust, and Information: Public Perceptions of Environmental Issues and Willingness to Take Action.” Policy Studies Journal 28 (3): 633–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Junker, B., M. Buchecker, and U. Muller-Boker. 2007. “Objectives of Public Participation: Which Actors Should Be Involved in the Decision Making for River Restorations?” Water Resources Research 43: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight, Jack, and James Johnson. 1994. “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy.” Political Theory 22 (2): 277–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krimsky, S., and D. Golding, eds. 1992. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Mascarenhas, Michael, and Rik Scarce. 2004. “‘The Intention was Good’: Legitimacy, Consensus-based Decision Making, and the Case of Forest Planning in British Columbia, Canada.” Society & Natural Resources 17 (1): 17–38.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, George A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.” Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell-Banks, Paul. 2006. “Participatory Process as a Tool to Resolve Conflict.” Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen 157 (10): 471–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Research Council. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. NEJAC. 2000. The Model Plan for Public Participation. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Justice, US EPA. http://www.edf.org/documents/2814_modelbk.pdf.Google Scholar
  28. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2003. “Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy.” Environmental Values 12 (2): 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petts, Judith, and Catherine Brooks. 2006. “Expert onceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: Challenges for Deliberative Democracy.” Environment and Planning A 38 (6): 1045–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reed, Mark S. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation 141 (10): 2417–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Renn, O. 2006. “Participatory Processes for Designing Environmental Policies.” Land Use Policy 23 (1): 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  35. Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sample, V. A. 1993. “A Framework for Public-Participation in Natural-Resource Decision-making.” Journal of Forestry 91 (7): 22.Google Scholar
  37. Selin, S., and D. Chavez. 1995. “Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management.” Environmental Management 19 (2): 189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Selin, S. W., M. A. Schuett, and D. S. Carr. 1997. “Has Collaborative Planning Taken Root in the National Forests?” Journal of Forestry 95 (5): 25–28.Google Scholar
  39. Selin, S. W., M. A. Schuett, and D. S. Carr. 2000. “Modeling Stakeholder Perceptions of Collaborative Initiative Effectiveness.” Society & Natural Resources 13: 735–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  41. Shindler, Bruce A., Mark Brunson, and George H. Stankey. 2002. Social Acceptabilityof Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis. PNWGTR-537. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr537.pdf.Google Scholar
  42. Shindler, B., and K. A. Cheek. 1999. “Integrating Citizens in Adaptive Management: A Propositional Analysis.” Conservation Ecology 3 (1): 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/art9/.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Models of Bounded Rationality. Vol. 3: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Slovic, P. 2000. The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Steelman, T. A. 2001. “Elite and Participatory Policymaking: Finding Balance in a Case of National Forest Planning.” Policy Studies Journal 29 (1): 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stirling, A. 2008. “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’—Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science Technology & Human Values 33 (2): 262–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stirling, A. Stubbs, M., and M. Lemon. 2001. “Learning to Network and Networking to Learn: Facilitating the Process of Adaptive Management in a Local Response to the UK’s National Air Quality Strategy.” Environmental Management 27 (3): 321–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas, John Clayton. 1995. Public Participation in Public Decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Tippett, Joanne, John F. Handley, and Joe Ravetz. 2007. “Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development—A Conceptual Appraisal of a New Methodology for Participatory Ecological Planning.” Progress in Planning 67 (1): 9–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Integrating Science and Decision Making: Guidelines for Collaboration among Managers and Researchers in the Forest Service. FS-608. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  52. USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement. Sacramento: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  53. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Management Review and Recommendations. Sacramento: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/review/review-report/index.html.Google Scholar
  54. Webler, Thomas. 1995. “‘Right’ Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick.” In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models of Environmental Discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P282iedemann. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2006. “Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies.” Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 699–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wondolleck, J. M. 1988. Public Lands Conflict and Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Island Press 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Balint
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald E. Stewart
    • 2
  • Anand Desai
    • 3
  • Lawrence C. Walters
    • 4
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations