Participation has become a mantra in environmental governance. However, there are signs that the participatory agenda has started to lose its momentum and justification because of disappointments about actual achievements. Rather than focusing on improving participatory processes or articulating best practices, in this paper we seek to understand the more fundamental reasons why difficulties are encountered. In our interviews with professionals involved in participation in environmental governance we found varying and potentially conflicting rationales for participation, with instrumental and legalistic rationales dominating. We contend that the institutional and political context in which this participation takes place is an important explanation of this prevalence. This includes the provisions for participation in EU directives, failing policy integration, institutional and political barriers, and failing political uptake of results from participation. We conclude there is a need for more reflexive awareness of the different ways in which participation is defined and practised in contemporary environmental policy making and for a more realistic assessment of possibilities for changes towards more participatory and deliberative decision making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelsonJGauvinF-P, 2006, “Assessing the impacts of public participation: Concepts, evidence and policy implications”, RR P|06, Canadian Policy Research Networks.
2.
AdgerW NBrownKFairbrassJJordanAPaavolaJRosendoSSeyfangG, 2003, “Towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisions”Environment and Planning A351095–1110.
3.
ArnsteinS R, 1969, “A ladder of citizen participation”Journal of the American Institute of Planners35215–224.
4.
BeierleT C, 2002, “The quality of stakeholder-based decisions”Risk Analysis22739–749.
5.
BeierleT CKoniskyD M, 2000, “Values, conflict and trust in participatory environmental planning”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management19587–602.
6.
BeunenRVan der KnaapWGMBiesbroekG R, 2009, “Implementation and integration of EU environmental directives. Experiences from the Netherlands”Environmental Policy and Governance1957–69.
7.
BishopPDavisG, 2002, “Mapping public participation in policy choices”Australian Journal of Public Administration6114–29.
8.
BickerstaffKWalkerG, 2001, “Participatory local governance and transport planning”Environment and Planning A33431–451.
9.
BlackstockK LRichardsC, 2007, “Evaluating stakeholder involvement in river basin planning: A Scottish case study”Water Policy9493–512.
10.
BohmanJ, 1997, “Deliberative democracy and effective social freedom: Capabilities, resources, and opportunities”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics Eds BohmanJRehgW (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 321–348.
11.
BrunnerR D, 2007, “The policy scientist of democracy revisited”Policy Sciences413–19.
12.
BurgessJClarkJ, 2006, “Evaluating public and stakeholder engagement strategies in environmental governance”, in Interfaces Between Science and Society Eds PereiraA GVazS GTognettiS (Greenleaf Press, Sheffield, Yorks) pp 225–252.
13.
ChilversJ, 2008, “Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community”Environment and Planning A402990–3008.
14.
CoglianeseC, 2003, “Is satisfaction success? Evaluating public participation in regulatory policymaking”, in The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution Eds O'LearyRBinghamL (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC) pp 69–89.
15.
Dalal-ClaytonBBassS, 2002Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book (Earthscan, London).
16.
EdelenbosJMonnikhofRVan RietO, 2003, “A double helix approach: A proposal to forge a better integration of analysis and process in policy development”International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management31–21.
17.
EdelenbosJvan SchieNGerritsL, 2008, “Democratic anchorage of interactive governance: Developing institutional interfaces in water governance”, in Proceedings of 2008 Conference of the Political Science Associationhttp://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/cps.asp.
18.
EC, 2002Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive Guidance document No. 8, Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (European Commission, Brussels).
19.
FiorinoD J, 1990, “Citizen participation and environmental risk—a survey of institutional mechanisms”Science, Technology, and Human Values15226–243.
20.
FischerF, 1993, “Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases”Policy Sciences26165–187.
21.
GlaserB, 1992Basics of Grounded Theory (Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA).
22.
GoodinR EDryzekJ S, 2006, “Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics”Politics and Society34219–244.
23.
HoppeR, 2008, “Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers' and policymakers' discourses on boundary work”Poiesis and Praxis online, doi:10.1007/s10202-008-0053-3.
24.
HoppeR, 2010, “Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making”Policy and Politics online, doi:10.1332/030557310X519650.
25.
IngramH, 2008, “Beyond universal remedies for good water governance: A political and contextual approach”, Rosenberg Forum for Water Policy, Zaragoza, Spain, 25–26 June; http://rosenberg.ucanr.org/documents/V%20lngram.pdf.
26.
IrvinR AStansburyJ, 2004, “Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?”Public Administration Review6455–65.
27.
Kluvánková-OravskáTChobotováVBanaszakISlavikovaLTrifunovovaS, 2009, “From government to governance for biodiversity: The perspective of Central and Eastern European transition countries”Environmental Policy and Governance19186–196.
28.
LaffertyWMeadowcroftJ, 1996, “Democracy and the environment: Prospects for greater congruence”, in Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects Eds LaffertyWMeadowcroftJ (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 256–272.
29.
MedemaWMcIntoshB SJeffreyP J, 2008, “From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector”Ecology and Society13(2) 29 (online), http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art29/.
30.
National Research Council, 2008Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
31.
NeefA, 2008, “Lost in translation: The participatory imperative and local water governance in North Thailand and Southwest Germany”Water Alternatives1 (1) 89–110.
32.
NewigJFritschO, 2009, “Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level—and effective?”Environmental Policy and Governance19197–214.
33.
Pahl-WostlCDowningTKabatPMagnuszewskiPMeighJSchlueterMSendzimirJWernersS, 2005, “Transition to adaptive water management: The NeWater project”, NeWater WP X, University of Osnabrück, http://www.newater.info/index.php?pid=1020.
34.
PapadopoulosYWarinP, 2007. “Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?”European Journal of Political Research46445–472.
35.
PatemanC, 1970Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
36.
PelletierDKraakVMcCullumCUusitaloURichR, 1999, “The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York's North Country”Policy Sciences32103–131.
37.
PettsJ, 2004, “Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: Evidence from waste management”Journal of Risk Research7115–133.
38.
PettsJBrooksC, 2006, Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: Challenges for deliberative democracy”Environment and Planning A381045–1059.
39.
RauschmayerFWittmerHPaavolaJ, 2007, “Multi-level governance of natural resources: Tools and processes for water and biodiversity governance in Europe—a European research and training network”, UFZ DP GoverNat 3/2007, http://www.governat.eu/library/.
40.
RennOSchweizerP, 2009, “Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making”Environmental Policy and Governance19174–185.
41.
RidderDMostertEWoltersH A, 2006Learning Together to Manage Together—Improving Participation in Water ManagementInstitute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück.
42.
SelfaTEndter-WadaJ, 2008, “The politics of community-based conservation in natural resource management: A focus for international comparative analysis”Environment and Planning A40948–965.
43.
StirlingA, 2006, “Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis”Land Use Policy2395–107.
44.
StirlingA, 2008, “Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology”Science, Technology, and Human Values33262–294.
45.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP, 1998, “Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning”Environment and Planning A301975–1989.
46.
TulerSWeblerT, 2010, How preferences for public participation are linked to perceptions of the context, preferences for outcomes, and individual characteristicsEnvironmental Management46(4) 254–267.
47.
TulerSWeblerTShockeyISternP, 2002, “Factors influencing the participation of local governmental officials in the National Estuary Program”Coastal Management30101–120.
48.
TulerSWeblerTFinsonR, 2005, “Competing perspectives on public involvement: Planning for risk characterization and risk communication about radiological contamination from a national laboratory”Health, Risk and Society7247–266.
49.
Van WaardenF, 1995, “Persistence of national policy styles: A study of their institutional foundations”, in Convergence or Diversity: Internationalization and Economic Policy Response Eds UngerBvan WaardenF (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) pp 333–372.
50.
WarnerJ F, 2006, “More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management”Internatonal Journal of Water Resources Development2215–35.
51.
WatsonNDeemingHTreffnyR, 2009, “Beyond bureaucracy? Assessing institutional change in the governance of water in England”Water Alternatives2448–460.
52.
WeblerTRennO, 1995, “A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice”, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse Eds RennOWeblerTWiedemannP (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht) pp 17–33.
53.
WeblerTTulerS, 2006, “Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies”The Policy Studies Journal34699–722.
54.
WeblerTTulerSKruegerR, 2001, “What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public”Environmental Management27435–450.
55.
WeblerTTulerSShockeyISternPBeattieR, 2003, “Participation by local governmental officials in watershed management planning”Society and Natural Resources16105–121.
WesselinkA JHoppeR, 2010, “If post-normal science is the solution, what is the problem? Why knowledge is not always power”Science, Technology, and Human Values36389–412.
58.
WoodhouseE JCollingridgeD, 1993, “Incrementalism, intelligent trial-and-error, and political decision theory”, in An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Science, Politics and Policy in the Work of Charles E Lindblom Ed. RednerH (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 131–154.
