Advertisement

The Power of Visioning: The Contribution of Future Search Conferences to Decision-Making in Local Agenda 21 Processes

  • Angela OelsEmail author

The Future Search Conference is one of the most innovative methods for stakeholder involvement employed in Local Agenda 21 processes. This chapter seeks to evaluate the contribution of the Future Search Conference method to enhancing the quality of local decision-making in the context of Local Agenda 21. The chapter provides empirical evidence from a German and an English case study and reviews it from the normative perspective of collaborative planning theory. It concludes by proposing guidance for the successful employment of the Future Search Conference method.

Keywords

Stakeholder Group Public Participation Stakeholder Involvement Citizen Participation Case Study Area 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blaug, R. (1996). New developments in deliberative democracy. Politics, 16(2), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunker, B. B.&Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durant, J. (1995). An experiment in democracy. In S. Joss&J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.Google Scholar
  6. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology&Human Values (15), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from Atlanta's Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building. A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In S. Joss&J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London:Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.Google Scholar
  15. Kuper, R. (1997). Deliberating waste: The Hertfordshire citizens' jury. Local Environment, 2(2),139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levett, R. (1997). Tools, techniques and processes for municipal management. Local Environment,2(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S.&Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation. no.30. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J.,&Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth.London: Earth Island.Google Scholar
  19. New economics foundation (1998). Participation works! 21 techniques of community participation for the 21st century. London: New economics foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Oels, A. (2000). ‘Let's get together and feel alright!’ Eine kritische Untersuchung von ‘;Agenda 21’-Prozessen in England und Deutschland. In H. Heinelt&E. Mühlich (Hrsg.), Lokale ‘Agenda 21’-Prozesse Opladen: Leske und Budrich.Google Scholar
  21. Oels, A. (2002). Investigating the emotional roller-coaster ride: A case-study-based assessment of the future search conference design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19: 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oels, A. (2003). Evaluating stakeholder participation in the transition to sustainable development.Methodology, case studies, policy implications. Münster, Germany: LITVerlag.Google Scholar
  23. Oels, A. (2006). Evaluating stakeholder dialogues. In S. Stoll-Kleemann&M. Welp (Eds.),Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Theory and practice. Berlin: Springer.Oppermann, B.&Langer, K. (2002). Die Qualität partizipativer und kooperativer Projekte in der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Arbeitsbericht der Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung Nr. 226, Dezember 2002. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg.Google Scholar
  24. O'Riordan, T.&Voisey, H. (Eds.) (1998). The transition to sustainability. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  25. Polanyi, M. F. D. (2002). Communicative action in practice: Future Search and the pursuit of an open, critical and non-coercive large group process. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 19(4), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rossi, J. (1997). Participation run amok: The costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking. Northwestern University Law Review, 92(1), 173–249.Google Scholar
  27. Rowe, G.&Frewer, J. L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology&Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Selle, K. (Ed.) (1996). Planung und Kommunikation. Gestaltung von Planungsprozessen in Quartier, Stadt und Landschaft. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxiserfahrungen. Wiesbaden,Germany/Wien: Bauverlag.Google Scholar
  29. Senge, P. M. (1998). The fifth discipline. The art&practice of the learning organization (reprint of the 1993 edition). London: Century Business.Google Scholar
  30. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin&Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Street, P. (1997). Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to sustainable urban living? Futures, 29(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tewdwr-Jones, M.&Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1975–1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tewdwr-Jones, M.&Thomas, H. (1998). Collaborative action in local plan-making: Planners'perceptions of ‘planning through debate’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,25, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21. New York: UN publication.Google Scholar
  35. Voβ, J-P., Bauknecht, D.,&Kemp, R. (Eds.) (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  36. Webler, T. (1995). ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn,Webler, T.,&Wiedemann, P. (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  37. Weisbord, M. R.&Janoff, S. (1995). Future search. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  38. Weisbord, M. R.&Janoff, S. (1996). Future search: Finding common ground in organizations and communities. Systems Practice, 9(1), 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  40. Wilcox, D. (1994). The guide to effective participation. Brighton, UK: Delta.Google Scholar
  41. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Politische WissenschaftUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations