Advertisement

Participatory Decision-Making for Sustainable Consumption

  • Frans CoenenEmail author
  • Dave Huitema
  • Johan Woltjer

This chapter concerns the impact of public involvement in public decision-making processes as related to household consumption patterns, and the impact on consumer behaviour of active participation.1 The call for participatory decision-making is common in the field of sustainable consumption (Murphy & Cohen, 2001). Implicit in many of these calls is the assumption that increasing the awareness and engagement of the public in decision-making processes for environmental protection will, ultimately, strengthen that protection. A second assumption is that public participation may also result in behavioural change by consumers. At a minimum there is the hope that an engagement of consumers will mean a greater awareness by consumers of the environmental impact of their purchases and behaviour (Barry, 2006). From a functional perspective there is the idea that the active participation of the consumer/citizen in public decision-making processes, as one of several ‘stakeholders’ or ‘partners’, could lead to alternative developments in sustainable consumption patterns.

Keywords

Public Participation Organic Food Public Involvement Social Dilemma Sustainable Consumption 
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. ACT Electricity & Water (1994). ACT future water supply strategy, our water our future. Canberra.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, J. (2006). Resistance is fertile: From environmental to sustainability citizenship. In A. Dobson & D. Bell (Eds.), Environmental citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Batheram, M., Hardin, J., & Whitfield, S. (2005). Successful participation methods for local transport planning. Municipal Engineer, 158 March 2005 Issue ME1, 9–16.Google Scholar
  4. Beierle, T. C. (2003). Discussing the rules: Electronic rulemaking and democratic deliberation. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 03–22.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley, M. (2004). Tracking progress: Implementing sustainable consumption policies. A global review of implementation of the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection (Section G: Promotion of Sustainable Consumption) UNEP and Consumers International, 2nd ed. 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., & Walker, G. (2002). Transport planning and participation: The rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography, 10, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coenen, F. H. J. M., Huitema, D., & Woltjer, J. (2002). Participatory decision-making for sustainable consumption. OECD, ENV/EPOC/WPNEP (2001)117, Paris.Google Scholar
  8. de Loë, R. C., Moraru, L., Kreutzwiser, R. D., Schaefer, K., & Mills, B. (2001). Demand side management of water in Ontario municipalities: Status, progress and opportunities. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(1), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frewer, L. & Shepherd, R. (1998). Consumer perceptions of modern food biotechnology. In S. Roller & S. Harlander (Eds.), Genetic engineering for the food industry: A strategy for food quality improvement. New York: Blackie Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Hille, J. (1995). Sustainable Norway. Probing the limits and equity of environmental space. Oslo: The Project for an Alternative Future.Google Scholar
  11. Holm, J. & Mabui, M. (2001). The participatory and consensus-seeking approach of the Danish LA21. In W. M. Lafferty (Ed.), Sustainable communities in Europe. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  12. Lafferty, W. M. (Ed.) (2001). Sustainable communities in Europe. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  13. Morkid, A. J. (2001). Consensus conferences on genetically modified food in Norway. In Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  14. Morrison, K. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in water management: Necessity or luxury? Water Science and Technology, 47(6), 43–51.Google Scholar
  15. Murphy, J. & Cohen, M. (Eds.) (2001). Exploring sustainable consumption: Environmental policy and the social sciences. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  16. Norland, I. T., BjØrnæs, T., & Coenen, F. (2003). Local Agenda 21 in the Nordic Countries - national strategies and local status. Report 1/03. Oslo: ProSus.Google Scholar
  17. Norwegian Ministry of Environment (1994). Sustainable consumption symposium report. Oslo.Google Scholar
  18. OECD (2002). Towards sustainable household consumption? Trends and policies in OECD countries. Paris.Google Scholar
  19. OECD (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy. Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Paf, R. (1997). Roept u maar! Een onderzoek naar de meningen van deelnemers over een open-planproces in Groningen. Master thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK “GM Nation?” public debate. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlosberg, D., Shulman, S. W., & Zavestoski, S. (2006). Virtual environmental citizenship: Web-based public participation in rulemaking in the United States. In A. Dobson & D. Bell (Eds.), Environmental citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Seip, M. & van Vliet, R. (1998). Urban transport planning: A case of participative planning in the city of Groningen. Paper 12th Aesop Congres July 22–25, Aveiro.Google Scholar
  24. Shulman, S. W. (2000). Citizen agenda-setting, digital government and the national organic program. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31–September 3.Google Scholar
  25. Shulman, S. W. (2003). An experiment in digital government at the United States National Organic Program. Agriculture and Human Values, 20(3), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shulman, S. W., Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Courard-Hauri, D. (2003). Electronic rulemak-ing: A public participation research agenda for the social science. .Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) (1992). Agenda 21 New York.Google Scholar
  28. UN Commission on Sustainable Development (1998). Consumer protection, guidelines for sustainable consumption. New York.Google Scholar
  29. WCED (World Commission on Economy and Development) (1987). Our common future. Oslo.Google Scholar
  30. Welles, H. (1997). Kwaliteit van het planproces Groningen. Concept-tekst t.b.v brochure Platform Duurzaam Stadsverkeer, Ede.Google Scholar
  31. Woltjer, J. (1998). Interactieve Planvorming, inventarisatie en evaluatie van praktijk- initiatieven;{Interactive plan-making: An inventory and evaluation of practical initiatives}. Report P99–004 of the Dutch Organisation of Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteSchool of Management and Governance, Center for Clean Technology and Environmental PolicyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)Vrije UniversiteitHV AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Rijksuniversiteit GroningenFaculteit Ruimtelijke wetenschappenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations