Advertisement

This volume is on the effectiveness of public participation in environmental decision- making. Participation practices are used in many different contexts, and this book relates participation to the context of environmental decision-making. We have interpreted environmental decision-making quite broadly. All types of decisions that have serious environmental implications and that tend to be facilitated by environmental law, or are perceived by citizens as mainly revolving around environmental issues, are included in this volume.

Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration 1992 articulates participation in environmental decision-making as one of the key principles of environmental governance.1 This principle is developed in the Aarhus Convention (1998) that includes improving public participation in decisions relating to the environment as one of its three key pillars.2 The importance of public participation for environmental decision-making and sustainable development is recognised by many international organisations (e.g. OAS, 2001; OECD, 2001; EU, 2002a, b; UN, 20023) and national, regional, and local authorities.

Keywords

Public Participation Citizen Participation Participation Process Competent Decision Instrumental Perspective 
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. Aarhus convention (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (http://www.mem.dk/aarhus-conference/ issues/publicparticipation/ppartikler.htm). Copenhagen, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Denmark, 21 April 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2001). Deliberations about deliberation: Issues in the design and evaluation of public consultation processes. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01–04, June 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 451–482. Alexander, E. R. (1996). After rationality: Towards a contingency theory of planning. In S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, & R. W. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in planning theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, E. R. (1996). After rationality: Towards a contingency theory of planning. In S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, & R. W. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in planning theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.Google Scholar
  5. Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.Google Scholar
  7. Beierle, T. C. (1998). Public participation in environmental decisions: An evaluation framework using social goals. Resources for the Future. RFF Discussion Paper 99–06.Google Scholar
  8. Beierle, T. C. (2000). Quality of stakeholder-based decisions: Lessons from the case study record. Resources for the Future. RFF Discussion Paper 00–56.Google Scholar
  9. Beierle, T. C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 739–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beierle, T. C. & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  11. Brager, G. & Specht, H. (1973). Community organizing. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chess, C. & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), 2685–2691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coenen, F., Huitema, D., & Hofman, P. S. (1998). Green participation? Paper prepared for the IIAS-conference ‘The Citizen and the State’, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. Coenen, F., Huitema, D., & O'Toole, L. (1998). Participation and the quality of environmental decision-making. In F. Coenen, D. Huitema, & L. O'Toole (Eds.), Participation and the quality of environmental decision making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Coenen, F., van de Peppel, R. & Woltjer, J. (2001). De evolutie van inspraak in de Nederlandse planning. Beleidswetenschap, 14(4), 313–332.Google Scholar
  17. Coenen, F. H. J. M., Denters, S. A. H., & Klok, P-J. (2006). Netherlands: Case study. In H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, & P. Getimis (Eds.), Legitimacy and urban governance, a cross-national comparative study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Creighton, J. L., Priscoli, J. D., & Dunning, C. M. (1998). Public involvement techniques: A reader of ten years experience at the institute for water resources. IWR Research Report 82-R1, Alexandria, VA : The Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denters, S. A. H. & Klok, P-J. (2006). Measuring institutional performance in achieving urban sustainability. In H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, & P. Getimis (Eds.), Legitimacy and urban governance, a cross-national comparative study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Dietz, T. (2003). What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 33–39.Google Scholar
  22. Dror, Y. (1964). Muddling through. Science or inertia. Public Administration Review, 24, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning. A ‘third’ approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review, 27, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Union (EU) (2002a). Environment 2010: OurFuture, our choice. Decision No 1600/ 2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme published in OJ L 242 of 10/9/2002.Google Scholar
  25. EU (2002b). Guidance on public participation in relation to the water framework directive. Active Involvement, Consultation, and Public Access to Information, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  26. Faludi, A. (1986). Critical rationalism and planning methodology. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  27. Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  28. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk. A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2) (spring 1990), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldberg, M. A. (1985). The irrationality of ‘rational’ planning: exploring broader bases for planning and public decision making. In M. Breheny & A. Hooper (Eds.), Rationality in planning. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  30. Huitema, D. (1998). Hazardous decisions. The siting of hazardous waste facilities in Canada and the United States. In F. Coenen, D. Huitema, & L. O'Toole (Eds.), Participation and the quality of Environmental decision making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Huitema, D. (2002). Hazardous waste facility siting in the UK, the Netherlands and Canada. Institutions and discourses. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. International Association for Public Participation (IAP) (2003). Public participation toolbox. www.iap2.org
  33. Klok, P-J. & Denters, B. (2004). Urban leadership and community involvement: An institutional analysis. In M. Haus, H. Heinelt, & M. Stewart (Eds.), Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Klok, P-J., Coenen, F. H. J. M., & Denters, S.A.H. (2006). Institutional conditions for complementarities between urban leadership and community involvement. In H. Heinelt, D. Sweeting, & P. Getimis (Eds.), Legitimacy and urban governance, a cross-national comparative study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Laird, F. N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18(3), 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics? Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001). Governance for sustainable development: Five OECD case studies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. Organization of American States (OAS) (2001). Participation in decision-making for sustainable development, inter-American strategy for the promotion of public participation. Washington, DC: Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment.Google Scholar
  40. Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development. Infrastructure policies in perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  43. Pound, B., Snapp, S., McDougall, C., & Braun, A. (Eds.) (2003). Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting science and participation. London/Sterling, VA : Earthscan.Google Scholar
  44. Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision-making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Rothstein, B. (1996). Political institutions: An overview. In R. E. Goodin & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), A new handbook of political science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  50. Sewell, W. R. D. & Coppock, J. T. (Eds.) (1977). Public participation in planning. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behaviour. 2nd ed., New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. United Nations (UN) (2002). Report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002.Google Scholar
  53. Webler, Th. (1995). ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation. An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, Th. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, B. A. & Matheny, A. R. (1995). Democracy, dialogue, and environmental disputes. The contested languages of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Woltjer, J. (2000). Consensus planning, the relevance of communicative planning theory in Dutch infrastructure development. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  56. World Health Organization (WHO) (1999). Community participation in local health and sustainable development: A working document on approaches and techniques. European Sustainable Development and Health Series: 4, EUR/ICP/POLC 06 03 05D.Google Scholar
  57. Yosie, T. F. & Herbst, T. D. (1998). Using stakeholder processes in environmental decisionmak-ing: An evaluation of lessons learned, key issues, and future challenges. Washington, DC: Ruder Finn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteMB/CSTMAE EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations