Diverging views on participation

It can be concluded from the previous sections that different views on participation exist, which include different opinions on how participation can contribute to the quality of decision-making, quality of science, legitimacy of democracy et cetera. Table 1 summarises these differences in terms of arguments in favour of, and arguments against stakeholder participation. It should be noted that in the field of participatory integrated assessment – rather than a plea for stakeholder participation as a blue print for a successful assessment – the arguments in favour are regarded as conditions that can improve its effectiveness. The arguments against stakeholder participation – rather than categorically rejecting stakeholder participation –are considered pitfalls that may prevent participation from working.

Table 2: Overview of different views on participation

References and Bibliography:

Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs. Case studies on the climate and biodiversity conventions. (thesis) Drukkerij Haasbeek. Utrecht. The Netherlands.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London. UK.

Berk, M., L. Hordijk, M. Hisschemöller, M.T.J. Kok, D. Liefferink, R.J. Swart and W. Tuinstra (1999). Climate OptiOns for the Long term. Interim phase report. NOP report 410200028. Bilthoven. The Netherlands.

Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation. Pluralism, complexity and democracy. The MIT Press. Cambridge. USA.

Bohman, J. and W. Rehg (eds.) (1997).Deliberative democracy. Essays on reason and politics.MIT Press. Cambridge. USA.

Burke, E. (1968). Citizen participation strategies. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. 35. 287-294.

Carlson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Penguin Books. London. UK.

Coates, J. (1976). The role of formal models in TA. In: Technological forecasting and social change. Vol. 9.

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds.) (2001). Participation. The new tyranny? Zed Books. London. UK.

Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky (1983). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press. Berkeley. USA.

Durant, J. (1999). Public understanding. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. In: Science and Public Policy. Vol. 26 (5). 313-319.

Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press. New York. USA.

Dunn, W.N. (1988). Public policy analysis. An introduction. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. USA.

Ezrahi, Y. (1980). Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice. In: Minerva. A review of science, learning and policy. Vol. 18 (1). 111-131.

Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment. The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press. Durham and London.

Fung , A. and E.O. Wright (2001). Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance. In: Politics and society. Vol. 29 (1). 5-41.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.). Social theory of risk. Praeger Publishers. London. UK. 251 – 275.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. In: Futures, September 1993. 739 – 755.

Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1994). The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. In: Ecological economics. Vol. 10. 197 – 207.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics if science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications, London, United Kingdom.

Gibbons, M. and H. Nowotny (2001). The potential of transdisciplinarity. In: Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (eds.). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switserland. 67 – 80.

Gieryn, T.F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.). Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications. California. USA. 393-443.

Grin, J., H. van de Graaf and R. Hoppe (1997). Interactieve Technology Assessment. Een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil (in Dutch). Rathenau Institute. The Hague. W57.

Guston, D. (2001). Towards a “Best practice” of constructing “Serviceable truths”. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 97-120.

Häberli, R., A. Bill, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, J. Thompson Klein, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (2000). Synthesis. In: Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (eds.). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switserland. 6 – 22.

Held, D. (1987). Models of democracy. Polity Press. UK.

Hisschemöller, M. (1993). The democracy of problems. The relationship between content of policy problems and methods of political decision (in Dutch). VU Uitgeverij. Amsterdam. The Netherlands.

Hisschemöller, M. and R. Hoppe (1996). Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Knowledge and Policy: the international journal of knowledge transfer and utilisation. Vol. 8 (4). 40-60.

Hisschemöller, M., R.S.J. Tol and P. Vellinga (2001). The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. In: Integrated Assessment. Vol. 2. 57-72.

Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.) (2001). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA.

Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science, a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London. UK.

Jaeger, C.C., T. Barker, O. Edenhofer, S. Faucheux, J.C. Hourcade, B. Kasemir, M. O’Connor, M. Parry, I. Peters, J. Ravetz and J. Rotmans (1997). Procedural leadership in climate policy: a European task. In: Global environmental change. Vol. 7.

Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, USA.

Joss, S. and J. Durant (1995). Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum. London. UK.

Kickert, W.J.M., E.H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan (eds.) (1997). Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector. SAGE. London. UK.

Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public choices. Harper Collins Publishers. USA.

Laird, F.N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. In: Science, technology & human values. Vol. 18 (3). 341-361.

Lasswell, H.D. (1951). The policy orientation. In: Lerner, D. and H.D. Lasswell (eds.). The policy sciences. Stanford University Press, California, USA. 3-15.

Liberatore, A. (2001). From Arrhenius to the Kyoto Protocol: Climate change and the interplay between science and policy. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 175-197.

Linstone H.A. and M. Turoff (eds.) (1975). The Delphi Method. Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. USA.

Linstone, H.A. (1984). Multiple perspectives for decision making. Bridging the gap between analysis and action. Elsevier Science Publishing. New York. USA.

Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg University Press. Tilburg. The Netherlands.

Mayer, I. and J. Geurts (1998). De instrumentele mogelijkheden van de argumentatieve beleidsanalyse: participatieve methoden. In: Hoppe, R. and A. Peterse (eds.). Bouwstenen voor argumentatieve beleidsanalyse. Elsevier Bedrijfsinformatie B.V. The Hague. The Netherlands.

Meadows, D.H. (eds.) (1972). The limits to growth. Report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe books, New York, USA.

Mitroff, I.I., R.O. Mason and V.P. Barabba (1983). The 1980 census: policymaking amid turbulence. D.C. Heath. Lexington. USA.

Moore, C.M. (1987). Group techniques for idea building. Sage publications Inc. California. USA.

Parson, E.A. (1996). Three dilemmas in the integrated assessment of climate change. In: Climate change. No. 34. 315-326.

Price, D.K. (1965). The scientific estate. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. USA.

Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis. Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Addison-Wesley. Massachusetts. USA.

Ravetz, J.R. (1997). Integrated environmental assessment forum: developing guidelines for good practice. ULYSSES WP-97-1. Darmstadt. Germany.

Ravetz, J.R. (1999). What is post-normal science. In: Futures, vol. 31(7). 647 – 653.

Redclift and Benton (1994)

Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands.

Rosa, E.A. (1988). NAMBY PAMBY and NIMBY PIMBY : Public issues in the siting of hazardous waste facilities. In: Forum for applied research and public policy. Vol. 3. 114-123.

Rotmans, J. and H. Dowlatabadi (1998). Integrated Assessment of climate change: evaluation of methods and strategies. In: Rayner, S. and E. Malone (eds.). Human choice and climate change: an international social science assessment. Battle press. Washington. USA.

Rotmans, J. (1998). Methods for IA: The challenges and opportunities ahead. In: Environmental modelling and assessment. Vol. 3 (3). 155-179.

Seley, J.F. (1983). The politics of public facility planning. Lexington books. Lexington. USA.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Row. New York. USA.

Smits, R. and J. Leyten (1991). Technology Assessment. Waakhond of speurhond? Naar een integraal technologiebeleid. Kerckebosch B.V. Zeist. The Netherlands.

Sors, A., A. Liberatoire, S. Funtowicz, J.C. Hourcade and J.L. Fellous (eds.) (1997). Preceedings of the International Symposium – Prospects for Integrated Assessment: Lessons learnt from the case of climate change. European Commission DG XII. Toulouse. France.

Thompson Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz and M. Welti (eds.) (2001). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag. Basel. Switzerland.

Tol, R.S.J. and P. Vellinga (1998). The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. In: Environmental modelling and assessment. Vol. 3 (3). 181-191.

Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2000). Perspectives on uncertainty and risk. The PRIMA approach to decision support (thesis). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands.

Van de Graaf, H. and R. Hoppe (1996). Beleid en politiek. Een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde. Coutinho Uitgeverij. The Netherlands.

Van de Kerkhof, M. (1999). Wetenschapsbeoefening in het NOP: verschuivend naar post-normaal?. Een onderzoek naar kenmerken van een nieuwe wetenschapsbeoefening in het Nederlandse klimaatonderzoek. Nijmegen. The Netherlands.

Van der Sluijs, J.P. (1997). Anchoring amid uncertainty. On the management of uncertainties in risk assessment of anthropogenic climate change. Utrecht University. The Netherlands.

Van der Sluijs, J.P. (2001). Integrated assessment modeling and the participatory challenge: the case of climate change. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 12. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. 317-347.

Van Thijn, E. (1997). Politiek en bureaucratie: Baas boven baas. Van Gennep. Amsterdam. The Netherlands.

Webler, T. and O. Renn (1995). A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice. In: Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedeman. Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands. 17-33.

WCED / World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. Oxford. UK.

Weinberg, A.M. (1972). Science and Trans-science. In: Minverva. Vol. 10. 209-222.

Weynant, J., O. Davidson, H. Dowlatabadi, J. Edmonds, M. Grubb, E.A. Parson, R. Richels, J. Rotmans, P. Shukla, R.S.J. Tol, W. Cline and S. Fankhauser (1996). Integrated Assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results. In: Bruce, J.P., H. Lee and E.F. Haites (eds.). Economic and social dimensions of climate change. IPCC Cambridge University Press. USA.

Woodhouse, E.J. and D.A. Nieusma (2001). Democratic expertise: integrating knowledge, power, an participation. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn and J.R. Ravetz (eds.). Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick. USA. 73-96.

Wynne, B. (1994). Scientific knowledge and the global environment. In: Redclift, M. and T. Benton (eds.). Social theory and the global environment. London, UK.

Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S., B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne. Risk, environment and modernity. Towards a new ecology. London. UK.

Yearley, S. (1992). The green case. A sociology of environmental issues, arguments and politics.Routledge. New York. USA.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 611