Evaluating Stakeholder Dialogues

Agnew, C., Burgess, J., Collins, K., Dando, N., Harrison, C., Hobson, K., Munton, R., Murlis, J. (1999). An analytical and descriptive model of sustainable development. A report prepared for the Environment Agency as part of the national Research and Development Programme, 1998–1999. ESRU/UCL, LondonGoogle Scholar

Averbeck, C. (2006). Incorporating Local People through Economic Incentives at Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda — Africa works! In: Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M. (eds). Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Barber, B.R. (1984). Strong democracy. University of California Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Baughman, M. (1995). Mediation. In: Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (eds). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 253–265Google Scholar

Burgess, J. (1995). Growing in confidence: understanding people’s perceptions of urban fringe woodlands. Countryside Commission Technical Report CCP 457. Countryside Commission, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar

Burgess, J. (1996). Focusing on fear: the use of focus groups in a project for the Community Forest Unit. Countryside Commission Area 28(2), 130–135Google Scholar

Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., Limb, M. (1988c). People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies 25, 455–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, S.L., Kennedy, W.J.D. (1991). Managing public disputes: a practical guide to handling conflict and reaching agreements. Jossey-Bass Management Series. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar

Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(6), 769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durant, J. (1995). An experiment in democracy. In: Joss, S., Durant, J. (eds). Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII, London, 75–80Google Scholar

Eijndhoven, J.v., Wynne, B. et al. (2001). Evaluation in the Mangement of Global Environmental Risks. In: The Social Learning Group: Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks Vol. 2. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar

Feindt, P. (2001). Regierung durch Diskussion? Diskurs-und Verhandlungsverfahren im Kontext von Demokratietheorie und Steuerungsdiskussion. Peter Lang Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar

Fetterman, D.M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: an introduction to theory and practice. In: Fetterman, D.M., Kafterian, S.J., Wandersman, A. (eds). Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-assessment and Responsibility. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Fiorino, D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and enviornmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values (15), 226–243Google Scholar

Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences 26, 165–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, F., Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: democracy in practice. University of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar

Forester, J. (1996a). The rationality of listening, emotional sensitivity, and moral vision. In: Mandelbaum, S.J., Mazza, L., Burchell, R.W. (eds). Explorations in planning theory. Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, 204–224Google Scholar

Forester, J. (1996b). Argument, power, and passion in planning practice. In: Mandelbaum, S.J., Mazza, L., Burchell, R.W. (eds). Explorations in planning theory. Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, 241–262Google Scholar

Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., Wynne, B. (1997). Uncertain world. Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, LancasterGoogle Scholar

Guba, E., Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar

Harrison, C.M., Burgess, J. (1994). Social constructions of nature: a case study of the conflicts over Rainham Marshes SSSI. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers (19), 291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan Press, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar

Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from Atlanta’s Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association 64(3), 335–349Google Scholar

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar

Hoggett, P. (1995). Does local government want local democracy? Town and Country Planning April 1995, 107–109Google Scholar

Hoy, D.C. (1986). Power, repression, progress: Foucault, Lukes, and the Frankfurt School. In: Hoy, D.C. (ed). Foucault: a critical reader. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 123–148Google Scholar

Innes, J.E. (1996a). Planning through consensus building. A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(4), 460–472Google Scholar

Innes, J.E. (1996b). Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. In: Mandelbaum, S.J., Mazza, L., Burchell, R.W. (eds). Explorations in planning theory. Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, 164–187Google Scholar

Innes, J.E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64(1), 52–63Google Scholar

Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(1), 9–26Google Scholar

Innes, J.E., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., Thompson, R. (1994). Coordination growth and environmental management through consensus building. CPS Brief 6(4). California Policy Seminar, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar

Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In: Joss, S., Durant, J. (eds). Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII, London, 89–108Google Scholar

Kearns, A. (1995). Active citizenship and local governance: Political and geographical dimensions. Political Geography 14(2), 155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuper, R. (1997). Deliberating waste: The Hertfordshire citizens’ jury. Local Environment 2(2), 139–153Google Scholar

Lauber, T.B., Knuth, B.A. (1997). Fairness in moose mangement decision-making: the citizens’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(4), 776–787Google Scholar

Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In: Williams, D.D. (ed). Naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation No. 30. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 73–84Google Scholar

Macnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Jacobs, M., Wynne, B. (1995). Public perceptions and sustainability: indicators, institutions, participation. Lancashire County Planning Department, PrestonGoogle Scholar

Moore, C. (1987). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. 1st edition. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Mumpower, J.L. (2001). Selecting and evaluating tools and methods for public participation. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 1(1), 66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nothdurft, W. (1995). Environmental mediation: insights into the microcosm and outlooks for political implications. In: Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (eds). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 267–282Google Scholar

Oakeshott, M. (1962). Rationalism in politics. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Oels, A. (2000). ‘Let’s get together and feel alright!’ Eine kritische Untersuchung von ‘Agenda 21’-Prozessen in England und Deutschland. In: Heinelt, H., Mühlich, E. (eds). Lokale ‚Agenda 21’-Prozesse. Leske und Budrich, Opladen, 182–200Google Scholar

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. Special Issue: Participatory Planning and Designing. John Wiley & Sons LtdGoogle Scholar

Oels, A. (2003). Evaluating stakeholder participation in the transition to sustainable development. Methodology, case studies, policy implications. LIT-Verlag, MünsterGoogle Scholar

Oppermann, B., Langer, K. (2002). Die Qualität partizipativer und kooperativer Projekte in der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Arbeitsbericht der Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung Nr. 226, Dezember 2002. Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg, StuttgartGoogle Scholar

O’Riordan, T., Voisey, H.D. (1998a). The political economy of the sustainability transition. In: O’Riordan, T., Voisey, H.D. (eds). The transition to sustainability. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. Earthscan, London, 3–30Google Scholar

Petts, J. (1997). The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: Expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding of Science 6, 359–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 Behavioral Science 19(4), 357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., Watson, L.M. (2003). How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar

Pretty, J. (2002). People, livelihoods and collective action in biodiversity management. In: O’Riordan, T., Stoll-Kleemann, S. (eds). Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities. Protecting beyond the Protected. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Pretty, J., Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development 29(2), 209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Rocha, E.M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, 31–44Google Scholar

Rossi, J. (1997). Participation run amok: The costs of mass particiation for deliberative agency decisionmaking. Northwestern University Law Review 92(1), 173–249Google Scholar

Rowe, G., Frewer, J.L. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1), 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schattschneider, E.E. (1960). The semisovereign people. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Selle, K. (1996). Planung und Kommunikation. Gestaltung von Planungsprozessen in Quartier, Stadt und Landschaft. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxiserfahrungen. Bauverlag, Wiesbaden, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Steelman, T.A., Ascher, W. (1997). Public involvement methods in natural resource policy making: advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs. Policy Sciences 30, 71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Street, P. (1997). Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to sustainable urban living? Futures 29(2), 139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Susskind, L., Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Susskind, L., McKearnen, S., Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Weber, S.M. (2005). Rituale der Transformation. Großgruppenverfahren als pädagogisches Wissen am Markt. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar

Webler, T. (1995). ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In: Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (eds). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 35–86Google Scholar

Welp, M., Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C. C. (in press). Citizens’ voices in environmental policy: The contribution of integrated assessment focus groups to accountable decision-making. In: Coenen, F.H.J.M., Paterson, R. (eds). The Promise and Limits of Participatory Processes for the Quality of Environmentally Related Decision Making. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Wilcox, D. (1994). The guide to effective participation. Delta Press, BrightonGoogle Scholar

Zadek, S. (1994). Trading ethics: Auditing the market. Journal of Economic Issues 28(2), 631–645Google Scholar

Zadek, S., Evans, R. (1993). Auditing the market: A practical approach to social auditing. Traidcraft/New Economics Foundation, GatesheadGoogle Scholar

Zadek, S., Raynard, P. (1995). Accounting works: A comparative review of contemporary approaches to social and ethical accounting. Accounting Forum 19(2/3), 164–175Google Scholar

Zadek, S., Pruznan, P., Evans, R. (1997). Building corporate accountability: Emerging practices in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar

Zilleßen, H. (ed.) (1998). Mediation, Kooperatives Konfliktmanagement in der Umweltpolitik. Westdeutscher Verlag, OpladenGoogle Scholar