Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Explorative Nature of Negotiation in Participatory Decision Making for Sustainability

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Land use planning and policy making for environmental systems involve uncertainty, long time scales, and complex socio-natural systems and processes; most decisions are often characterized by conflict and tension and give rise to disagreements which are widely considered and managed as disagreement about socio-environmental values. Although the growing acceptance of participatory models in environmental planning and policy making is forcing the public authorities to implement participatory mechanisms, participation practices are not showing much effectiveness in reducing conflict and tension. This paper argues that negotiation approaches in participatory decision making often pose the attention on disputing actors and their related values (in the field of environmental planning, on socio-environmental values) thus amplifying the risk for conflict to sharpen. Participation practices, in fact, often use Decision and Conflict Analysis models as means to disclose structures of parties’ values and preferences to parties themselves, thus risking to enhance sources for conflict and tension. In this article, participation is conceptualized as an exploration process looking for decision ‘opportunities’ which allow transforming participatory decision making into operational collaboration. To illustrate the discussion we present a case of participatory decision making process in the Torre Guaceto wetland, a Natural Reserve in Southern Italy. The process refers to the formulation of the land use plan and is analysed by the application of a cognitive model. The analysis shows how the negotiation process evolves from a conflict to collaboration and becomes centred on the content of the decision rather than the social and environmental values involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amin A, Roberts J (2008) Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice. Res Policy 37: 353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbanente A, Borri D, Pace F (1994) Microproblemi e Microdecisioni nella Pianificazione con Ragionatori Artificiali. In: Maciocco G (eds) La Città, la Mente, il Piano. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 207–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellantuono N, Pontrandolfo P, Scozzi B (2006) Knowledge networks within supply chain to foster innovation. In: Proceedings of the 14th international working seminar on production economics, 20–24 February, Innsbruck

  • Borri D, Celino A, Concilio G (2005) Open content system: prospettive nella pianificazione ambientale. In: Cecchini A, Plaisant A (eds) Analisi e Modelli per la Pianificazione. Teoria e Pratica: lo Stato dell’Arte. FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan K (2007) Citizen participation: models and methods. Int J Public Adm 30(11): 1179–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celino A, Concilio G (2008) Can an ‘Observatory in action’ approach help in rethinking planning practices? In: Proceedings of the fourth joint congress ACSP-AESOP 2008, 6–11 July, Chicago

  • Concilio G (2000) Le valutazioni multicriteri. Strumenti per l’Apprendimento nei Processi Decisionali. Urbanistica 113: 137–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Cundill G, Fabricius C (2009) Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning based approach. J Environ Manage 90: 3205–3211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bernardi A (2008) Immobilismo decisionale o innovazione politica? La linea ferroviaria Torino-Lione e la Valsusa. Territorio 46: 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher F, Forester J (1993) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. UCL Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J (2009) Dealing with differences: dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for post-normal age. Futures 25: 739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey P (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formations. Environ Plann B Plann Des 23(2): 217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas J, Store R (2003) Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resources management. Landsc Urban Plan 62: 89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten G (1997) Support for group decisions and negotiations: an overview. In: Climaco J (eds) Multicriteria analysis. Springer, Heilderberg, pp 332–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Konisky D, Beierle T (2001) Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: examples from the great lakes region. Soc Nat Resour 14(9): 815–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostert E (2003) The challenge for public participation. Water Policy 5: 179–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2007) The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environ Model Softw 22: 561–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellizoni L (2003) Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environ Values 12: 195–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector BI (1993) Decision analysis for practical negotiation application. Theory Decis 34: 183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind L, Field P (1996) Dealing with an angry public. The mutual gains approach to resolving public disputes. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tress B, Tress G (2003) Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—A study from Denmark. Landsc Urban Plan 64: 161–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the begotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23: 10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart LR, Tepper DA, Prietula MJ (2005) An exploration-exploitation model of negotiation. Working Paper, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University. http://gbspapers.library.emory.edu/archive/00000135. Accessed 3 July, 2009

  • Zeleny M (1989) Editorial. Cognitive equilibrium: a new paradigm of decision making. Human Syst Manage 8: 185–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1998) Multiple criteria decision making: eight concepts of optimality. Human Syst Manage 17: 97–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (2009) On the essential multidimensionality of an economic problem. AUCO Czech Econ Rev 2: 154–175

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grazia Concilio.

Additional information

The present article is the result of a collaborative work between the authors; their names are listed alphabetically.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Celino, A., Concilio, G. Explorative Nature of Negotiation in Participatory Decision Making for Sustainability. Group Decis Negot 20, 255–270 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9197-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9197-3

Keywords

Navigation