Evaluation of stakeholder participation in monitoring regional sustainable development

This paper presents a theoretical framework that can be used to discuss the question of how context, time and different participatory process designs influence the results of participatory monitoring projects in terms of concrete outputs (such as sustainability indicators) and the more intangible social outcomes (such as learning and stakeholder relations). We will discuss and compare four different cases of participatory monitoring of provincial sustainable development in the Netherlands. The results show sustainability issues selected by the stakeholders reflect the socio-economic and ecological structural characteristics of their region. In a different context, stakeholders not only assign different weights to the same set of issues, but more importantly they select a completely different set of regional aims altogether. Since these regional structural characteristics only change slowly over time, the influence of time on stakeholder preferences is shown to be only of minor importance. However, the dissipation of learning effects is shown to be a fundamental challenge for the cyclical nature of participatory monitoring, especially when its goal is shared agenda building. Another important conclusion is that, in the design of participatory processes, more attention should be devoted to providing stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on an ‘intermediate’ product.

[1]  William C. Clark,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science: Frontmatter , 2003 .

[2]  Leon M. Hermans,et al.  Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Ismail Serageldin,et al.  Sustainability and the wealth of nations : first steps in an ongoing journey , 1996 .

[4]  Frans Hermans,et al.  A PRINCIPLE-BASED APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT , 2006 .

[5]  Irene Guijt,et al.  Seeking surprise : rethinking monitoring for collective learning in rural resource management , 2008 .

[6]  M. Kerkhof,et al.  Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations , 2005 .

[7]  C. Prell,et al.  Unpacking “Participation” in the Adaptive Management of Social–ecological Systems: a Critical Review , 2006 .

[8]  Peter Guthrie,et al.  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT: WHY ARE THEY NEEDED AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? , 2006 .

[9]  Mark Reed,et al.  An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities , 2006 .

[10]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Integrated sustainability assessment: what is it, why do it and how? , 2006 .

[11]  T. Söderqvist,et al.  Building a catchment-based environmental programme: a stakeholder analysis of wetland creation in Scania, Sweden , 2004 .

[12]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  Tony Hodge,et al.  TOWARD A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY , 1997 .

[14]  G. Rowe,et al.  A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms , 2005 .

[15]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1990 .

[16]  Nicole Rijkens-Klomp,et al.  A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective , 2002 .

[17]  Jerome K. Vanclay,et al.  Stakeholder engagement in social learning to resolve controversies over land-use change to plantation forestry , 2011 .

[18]  Derek R. Armitage,et al.  Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning , 2008 .

[19]  Christo Fabricius,et al.  Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[20]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Social Learning in Water Resources Management Social Learning in European River-Basin Management: Barriers and Fostering Mechanisms from 10 River Basins , 2007 .

[21]  Ines Omann,et al.  Participatory scenario development for integrated sustainability assessment , 2009 .

[22]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social Learning and Water Resources Management , 2007 .

[23]  Nicole Kranz,et al.  Cultural Factors as Co-Determinants of Participation in River Basin Management , 2007 .

[24]  J. Innes,et al.  Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century , 2004 .

[25]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  The Scene Model: Getting A Grip On Sustainable Development In Policy Making , 2005 .

[26]  Hartmut Bossel,et al.  Deriving indicators of sustainable development , 1996 .

[27]  Carlo Jaeger,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science. , 2003 .

[28]  Andrés Rodríguez-Pose,et al.  What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom? , 2007 .

[29]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Participatory Integrated Assessment in local level planning , 2005 .

[30]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments , 2006 .

[31]  Cary Coglianese,et al.  The Limits of Consensus: The Environmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future , 1999 .

[32]  Jon Fjeldså,et al.  Local Participation in Natural Resource Monitoring: a Characterization of Approaches , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[33]  I. Scoones.  Livelihoods perspectives and rural development , 2009 .

[34]  Robert D. Putnam,et al.  Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community , 2000, CSCW '00.

[35]  Igor S. Mayer,et al.  Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis , 1997 .