IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v6y1997i4p218-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discursive methods in environmental decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Ortwin Renn
  • Birgit Blättel‐Mink
  • Hans Kastenholz

Abstract

Sustainable practices can be initiated or encouraged by governmental regulation and economic incentives. A major element to promote sustainability will be, however, the exploration and organization of discursive processes between and among different actors. Many analysts agree that sustainability will remain a highly desirable, but unrealistic option for development, if people do not feel a degree of ownership and identity with the goal of sustainability for their own life and a preference for its policy implications. Inviting the public to be part of the decision‐making process from the beginning improves the likelihood that the resulting decision will be accepted. Participatory processes are needed that combine technical expertise, rational decision making, and public values and preferences. To accomplish such an integration, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are potential solutions. Many different procedures and forms of mediation have been proposed and some tested. One major attempt of the authors has been the organization of round‐table discourses among a wide variety of stakeholders to develop environmental policy goals or to design local and regional waste management plans. These discourses are based on the assumption that each participant can contribute to the common good if the setting of the discourse encourages the generation of shared values and discourages strategic reasoning. The emphasis of the paper will be on the model of cooperative discourse and first applications in Germany, Switzerland and the United States. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ortwin Renn & Birgit Blättel‐Mink & Hans Kastenholz, 1997. "Discursive methods in environmental decision making," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 218-231, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:6:y:1997:i:4:p:218-231
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199709)6:43.0.CO;2-G
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199709)6:43.0.CO;2-G
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199709)6:43.0.CO;2-G?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson, 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 275-281, September.
    2. Lyn Kathlene & John A. Martin, 1991. "Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 46-63.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1986. "Improving Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 417-424, December.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Felix Oberholzer-Gee, 1996. "Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 353-376.
    5. Keeney, Ralph L. & Renn, Ortwin & von Winterfeldt, Detlof, 1987. "Structuring West Germany's energy objectives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 352-362, August.
    6. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    7. Cansier, Dieter, 1995. "Nachhaltige Umweltnutzung als neues Leitbild der Umweltpolitik," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 41, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    8. Steve Rayner & Robin Cantor, 1987. "How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 3-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susumu Ohnuma & Miki Yokoyama & Shogo Mizutori, 2022. "Procedural Fairness and Expected Outcome Evaluations in the Public Acceptance of Sustainability Policymaking: A Case Study of Multiple Stepwise Participatory Programs to Develop an Environmental Maste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Jean D. Kabongo, 2020. "The intellectual structure of the journal Business Strategy and the Environment: A 25‐year author cocitation analysis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 170-179, January.
    3. Robin Holt, 2001. "Creating whole life value proxemics in construction projects," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 148-160, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    2. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    3. Ilyas Baker & Thawatchai Boonchote, 1998. "Sensitizing technical experts to public concerns about industrial hazards using theory, guided imaging and focused group discussion," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 39-45, March.
    4. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    5. Simon Dietz & Alec Morton, 2011. "Strategic Appraisal of Environmental Risks: A Contrast Between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 129-142, January.
    6. Franz, Reiner & Enneking, U., 2005. "Bestimmungsgründe der Verbraucherverunsicherung im Bereich der Lebensmittelsicherheit," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    7. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    8. Jennifer Duffield Hamilton, 2003. "Exploring Technical and Cultural Appeals in Strategic Risk Communication: The Fernald Radium Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 291-302, April.
    9. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    10. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    12. Johanna Catherine Maclean & John Buckell & Joachim Marti, 2019. "Information Source and Cigarettes: Experimental Evidence on the Messenger Effect," NBER Working Papers 25632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    14. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    15. Youngmin Oh & Seong-ho Jeong & Heontae Shin, 2019. "A Strategy for a Sustainable Local Government: Are Participatory Governments More Efficient, Effective, and Equitable in the Budget Process?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller, 2006. "A Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis for Terrorism Protection: Potassium Iodide Distribution in Nuclear Incidents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 76-93, June.
    17. William N. Caballero & Ethan Gharst & David Banks & Jeffery D. Weir, 2023. "Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 16-39, March.
    18. Aimee Guglielmo Kinney & Thomas M. Leschine, 2002. "A Procedural Evaluation of an Analytic‐Deliberative Process: The Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 83-100, February.
    19. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    20. Ian Wills, 2001. "Community Participation in Pollution Control," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 8(3), pages 209-222.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:6:y:1997:i:4:p:218-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.