IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v43y2011i11p2688-2704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Wesselink
  • Jouni Paavola
  • Oliver Fritsch

    (University of Aarhus, National Environmental Research Institute, Kalø, Grenåvej 14, 8410 Rønde, Denmark)

  • Ortwin Renn

    (Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Abteilung für Technik- und Umweltsoziologie, Seidenstrasse 36, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

Participation has become a mantra in environmental governance. However, there are signs that the participatory agenda has started to lose its momentum and justification because of disappointments about actual achievements. Rather than focusing on improving participatory processes or articulating best practices, in this paper we seek to understand the more fundamental reasons why difficulties are encountered. In our interviews with professionals involved in participation in environmental governance we found varying and potentially conflicting rationales for participation, with instrumental and legalistic rationales dominating. We contend that the institutional and political context in which this participation takes place is an important explanation of this prevalence. This includes the provisions for participation in EU directives, failing policy integration, institutional and political barriers, and failing political uptake of results from participation. We conclude there is a need for more reflexive awareness of the different ways in which participation is defined and practised in contemporary environmental policy making and for a more realistic assessment of possibilities for changes towards more participatory and deliberative decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Wesselink & Jouni Paavola & Oliver Fritsch & Ortwin Renn, 2011. "Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2688-2704, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:43:y:2011:i:11:p:2688-2704
    DOI: 10.1068/a44161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a44161
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a44161?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. Judith Petts & Catherine Brooks, 2006. "Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: challenges for Deliberative Democracy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1045-1059, June.
    2. Rauschmayer, Felix & Wittmer, Heidi & Paavola, Jouni, 2007. "Multi-level governance of natural resources: tools and processes for water and biodiversity governance in Europe - a European research and training network," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2007, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    3. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2001. "Participatory Local Governance and Transport Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(3), pages 431-451, March.
    4. Judith Petts, 2004. "Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-133, March.
    5. Wesselink, Anna, 2008. "WP1: Analysing multilevel water and biodiversity governance in their context. Analysis and synthesis of consultations," UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    6. Wesselink, Anna & Paavola, Jouni, 2008. "WP1: Analysing multilevel water and biodiversity governance in their context. Report," UFZ Discussion Papers 5/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    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. Ball, Chris & Burt, George & De Vries, Frans & MacEachern, Erik, 2018. "How environmental protection agencies can promote eco-innovation: The prospect of voluntary reciprocal legitimacy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 242-253.
    2. Zorica Srdjevic & Naoyuki Funamizu & Bojan Srdjevic & Ratko Bajčetić, 2018. "Public Participation in Water Management of Krivaja River, Serbia: Understanding the Problem through Grounded Theory Methodology," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 5081-5092, December.
    3. Jin Guo & Junhong Bai, 2019. "The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Pecurul-Botines, Mireia & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni, 2019. "Multi-level processes and the institutionalization of forest conservation discourses: Insights from Natura 2000," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 136-145.
    5. Hugo F. Alrøe & Marion Sautier & Katharine Legun & Jay Whitehead & Egon Noe & Henrik Moller & Jon Manhire, 2017. "Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-31, February.
    6. Jennifer Garard & Larissa Koch & Martin Kowarsch, 2018. "Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Lerche, Nils & Wilkens, Ines & Schmehl, Meike & Eigner-Thiel, Swantje & Geldermann, Jutta, 2019. "Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    8. Evelien de Hoop & Saurabh Arora, 2017. "Policy Democracy? Social and Material Participation in Biodiesel Policy-Making Processes in India," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Lindstad, Berit H, 2018. "‘What's in it for me?’ — Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 80-86.
    10. Carmen Arguedas & Dietrich Earnhart & Sandra Rousseau, 2017. "Non-uniform implementation of uniform standards," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 159-183, April.
    11. Sander Van den Burg & Marian Stuiver & Jenny Norrman & Rita Garção & Tore Söderqvist & Christine Röckmann & Jan-Joost Schouten & Ole Petersen & Raul Guanche García & Pedro Diaz-Simal & Mark De Bel & L, 2016. "Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina Marí, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    13. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.

    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. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    2. Franco, Daniel & LoFazio, Aurelio, 2012. "Da governo a governance: il possibile ruolo della partecipazione [From government to governance: the possible role of participation]," MPRA Paper 52114, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2012.
    3. Gal-Tzur, Ayelet & Grant-Muller, Susan M. & Kuflik, Tsvi & Minkov, Einat & Nocera, Silvio & Shoor, Itay, 2014. "The potential of social media in delivering transport policy goals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 115-123.
    4. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2002. "Risk, Responsibility, and Blame: An Analysis of Vocabularies of Motive in Air-Pollution(ing) Discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(12), pages 2175-2192, December.
    6. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Alexander Walter & Roland Scholz, 2007. "Critical success conditions of collaborative methods: a comparative evaluation of transport planning projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-212, March.
    8. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    9. Elizabeth Tait & Richard Laing & David Gray, 2014. "Governance and policy challenges of implementing urban low-carbon transport initiatives," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 29(1-2), pages 129-140, February.
    10. Emma Soane & Iljana Schubert & Simon Pollard & Sophie Rocks & Edgar Black, 2016. "Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1090-1107, June.
    11. HaeRan Shin, 2016. "Re-making a place-of-memory: The competition between representativeness and place-making knowledge in Gwangju, South Korea," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(16), pages 3566-3583, December.
    12. Kristen Tappenden, 2014. "The district of North Vancouver’s landslide management strategy: role of public involvement for determining tolerable risk and increasing community resilience," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 72(2), pages 481-501, June.
    13. Harriet Bulkeley & Tim Rayner, 2003. "New Realism and Local Realities: Local Transport Planning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(1), pages 35-55, January.
    14. McAndrews, Carolyn & Marcus, Justine, 2015. "The politics of collective public participation in transportation decision-making," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 537-550.
    15. Maria Morfoulaki & Glykeria Myrovali & Maria Chatziathanasiou, 2022. "Exploiting Marketing Methods for Increasing Participation and Engagement in Sustainable Mobility Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Chidambaram, Bhuvanachithra & Janssen, Marco A. & Rommel, Jens & Zikos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Commuters’ mode choice as a coordination problem: A framed field experiment on traffic policy in Hyderabad, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-22.
    17. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    18. Ashish K. Rathore & Arpan K. Kar & P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan, 2017. "Social Media Analytics: Literature Review and Directions for Future Research," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 229-249, December.
    19. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    20. Nicky Gregson & Mike Crang, 2010. "Materiality and Waste: Inorganic Vitality in a Networked World," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(5), pages 1026-1032, May.

    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:sae:envira:v:43:y:2011:i:11:p:2688-2704. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.