Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability

Blackstock, Kirsty; Kelly, Gail; Horsey, Bronwyn L

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014

Cited by 358 publications

(337 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

318

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, cost of participatory exercises has been discussed in the wider literature concerning both its monetary value and what it costs participants and organisers in time, effort and preparation (Blackstock et al, 2007;Conley et al, 2003). Given Rowe and Frewer (2004) suggest evaluation is necessary 'to ensure the proper use of public or institutional money', and the financial penalties mentioned in Mouat et al's (2013) failed project, charrette cost became an important component on the conceptual framework.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework For Analysing Charrette Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Projects in the empirical cases also varied, for example Brownill & Carpenter's (2007) study looked into the redesign of a two-mile stretch of road, whilst other participatory initiatives considered growth management for an entire region (Blackstock et al, 2007). Nevertheless the former's smaller study boundary could still be considered complex as it was characterised by its diverse demographic.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework For Analysing Charrette Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second variation observed was participatory project length. As some initiatives assessed continued for several years (Blackstock et al, 2007), others were short-lived targeted exercises delivered in charrette-like fashion (Bond et al, 2007;Hopkins, 2010). Although the charrette format is somewhat predetermined (Walters, 2007), Sanoff (2000), in wider participation literature, describes its variations when adapted to meet different project objectives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As some initiatives assessed continued for several years (Blackstock et al, 2007), others were short-lived targeted exercises delivered in charrette-like fashion (Bond et al, 2007;Hopkins, 2010). Although the charrette format is somewhat predetermined (Walters, 2007), Sanoff (2000), in wider participation literature, describes its variations when adapted to meet different project objectives.Third, cost of participatory exercises has been discussed in the wider literature concerning both its monetary value and what it costs participants and organisers in time, effort and preparation (Blackstock et al, 2007;Conley et al, 2003). Given Rowe and Frewer (2004) suggest evaluation is necessary 'to ensure the proper use of public or institutional money', and the financial penalties mentioned in Mouat et al's (2013) failed project, charrette cost became an important component on the conceptual framework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

Kennedy¹

2017

ArchNet-IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONInvolving multiple stakeholders in spatial and community planning has become a salient concept with decades of legislative support in the United Kingdom (Jenkins, 2002). Many public services now lay claim to having been longstanding supporters of this participatory turn (Bishop, 2015); of which, planning is one. The 1969 Skeffington Report is often evidenced as one of the earliest national level documents to consider public involvement strategies (Baker et al., 2007;Damer et al., 1971). Since then, a plethora of techniques have come to the fore (Sanoff, 2000), and the Scottish Government in recent years endorsed the 'charrette' as an effective participatory design tool to generate strategies for community development (Scottish Government, 2010a, 2011b. The term 'charrette' derives from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, in which architecture students would hurriedly work until the 'little cart' came to collect their drawings for the examiners. The term has since been used to connote a sense of urgency, which frames the format of a typical charrette as it is approached today (Walters, 2007). The tool is a participatory 'model' yet malleable enough in the sense that its process constitutes a series of other participatory mechanisms, which can be matched to suit different scenarios (Sanoff, 2000).The model that was introduced to Scotland in 2010 was developed by New Urbanism's cofounder, Andres Duany as part of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) & Company. The charrette is often their go-to approach to community participation (Grant, 2006), which typically lasts between four to seven days and involves a multidisciplinary team establishing a temporary design studio within the study area. The team will work collaboratively with community members and key stakeholders in a series of interactive workshops, often producing a masterplan that has been developed through a series of short feedback loops (Sanoff, 2000;Walters, 2007). The compressed format has been lauded over other communicative approaches that may last weeks or months. Proponents argue these feedback loops condense the time between input and design to just hours, so not only do participants exercise more influence they can watch a transparent process unfold, thus fostering greater trust (Lennertz, 2003;Walters, 2007). Benefits of this approach therefore do not centre only on the physical; there is a commitment to social goals embedded in New Urbanism (Talen, 2002), and communicative processes more generally.Jurgen Habermas, who many communicative theorists are indebted to, also advocated collaborative discursive approaches to challenge the shortcomings observed in representative democracy (Bond, 2011). These approaches challenged modernist thinking that valued expert epistemologies, and instead believed knowledge to be something coconstructed; not a collation of ideas but rather that communication has the power to build shared meanings through reasoning and deliberative exchange (Brand et al., 2007;Innes et al., 1999). Equally, the charrette's consensus-seeking na...

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Framework For Analysing Charrette Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptual Framework For Analysing Charrette Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

Kennedy¹

2017

ArchNet-IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frameworks have been developed to evaluate public participation processes (e.g., Rowe and Frewer, 2000), participatory integrated assessment (e.g., Salter et al, 2010), and the application of participatory research processes (e.g., Blackstock et al, 2007), which provide insight into the essential elements of a participatory environmental assessment. Accordingly, a variety of participatory methods and tools have been developed over the last decades (see for example van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002) and have been increasingly incorporated into decision-making and integrated assessment in land and water management programs (e.g., Mostert, 2003;Salter et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

Bautista

Campanyà

Ocampo‐Melgar

et al. 2017

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe adoption of sustainable land management strategies and practices that respond to current climate and human pressures requires both assessment tools that can lead to better informed decision-making and effective knowledge-exchange mechanisms that facilitate new learning and behavior change. We propose a learning-centered participatory approach that links land management assessment and knowledge exchange and integrates science-based data and stakeholder perspectives on both biophysical and socio-economic attributes. We outline a structured procedure for a transparent assessment of land management alternatives, tailored to dryland management, that is based on (1) principles of constructivism and social learning, (2) the participation of stakeholders throughout the whole assessment process, from design to implementation, and (3) the combination of site-specific indicators, identified by local stakeholders as relevant to their particular objectives and context conditions, and science-based indicators that represent ecosystem services of drylands worldwide. The proposed procedure follows a pattern of eliciting, challenging, and self-reviewing stakeholder perspectives that aims to facilitate learning. The difference between the initial baseline perspectives and the final self-reviewed stakeholder perspectives is used as a proxy of learning. We illustrate the potential of this methodology by its application to the assessment of land uses in a Mediterranean fire-prone area in East Spain. The approach may be applied to a variety of socio-ecological systems and decision-making and governance scales.

show abstract

How to embrace uncertainty in participatory climate change risk management—A roadmap

Döll

Romero‐Lankao

2017

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Earth's future depends on how we manage the manifold risks of climate change (CC). It is state-of-the-art to assume that risk reduction requires participatory management involving a broad range of stakeholders and scientists. However, there is still little knowledge about the optimal design of participatory climate change risk management processes (PRMPs), in particular with respect to considering the multitude of substantial uncertainties that are relevant for PRMPs. To support the many local to regional PRMPs that are necessary for a successful global-scale reduction of CC risks, we present a roadmap for designing such transdisciplinary knowledge integration processes. The roadmap suggests ways in which uncertainties can be comprehensively addressed within a PRMP. We discuss the concept of CC risks and their management and propose an uncertainty framework that distinguishes epistemic, ontological, and linguistic uncertainty as well as ambiguity. Uncertainties relevant for CC risk management are identified. Communicative and modeling methods that support social learning as well as the development of risk management strategies are proposed for each of six phases of a PRMP. Finally, we recommend how to evaluate PRMPs as such evaluations and their publication are paramount for achieving a reduction of CC risks.

show abstract

Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability

Cited by 358 publications

References 45 publications

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

How to embrace uncertainty in participatory climate change risk management—A roadmap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About