Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives

Abstract

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.

The feasibility of offshore aquaculture and its potential for multi-use in the North Sea

“…The participatory turn reflects the movement from top-down planning to participation in planning and design and is associated with a number of benefits, such as more democratic decision-making, increased support for the policies design and better design (Wesselink et al 2011). The key to such an approach is that stakeholders from governments, the private sector, research institutes and civil society organizations are involved from the early stages of project development (Van Slobbe 2010;van Slobbe and Lulofs 2011;van den Hoek et al 2012).…”

Cross-cultural values and management preferences in protected areas of Norway and Poland

“…The main aim of the program is to reconcile environmental protection with reasonable use of natural resources consistent with sustainable development principles (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent, 2011;Grodzińska-Jurczak et al, 2012). Natura 2000 network governance presents a novel challenge for both state and non-state actors in both participation and decision-making processes (Wesselink et al, 2011). Natura 2000 sites are managed at two levels: national and regional.…”

Participation in protected areas: a social network case study in Catalonia, Spain

“…Participation has been defined by Wesselink et al (2011) as any type of inclusion of nonstate actors, both members of the public or organized stakeholders, in any stage of governmental policy making. Several studies have emphasized the need for participation in governmental decisions (Fiorino 1990, Fischer 1993, Blackstock and Richards 2007, Reed 2008, Wesselink et al 2011.…”

“…Participation has been defined by Wesselink et al (2011) as any type of inclusion of nonstate actors, both members of the public or organized stakeholders, in any stage of governmental policy making. Several studies have emphasized the need for participation in governmental decisions (Fiorino 1990, Fischer 1993, Blackstock and Richards 2007, Reed 2008, Wesselink et al 2011. Various reasons for these have been identified: participation assures more legitimate decisions, thus enhancing public credibility in governments; it reduces potential conflicts between different stakeholders; it increases the variety of information that contributes to better decisions; and it counters the power of incumbent interests by allowing all those affected by a decision to influence the associated decision process.…”