What makes stakeholder participation in environmental management work? <br />Preliminary findings from the Involved projec...
Plan<br />Introduction<br />What can published literature tell us?<br />Preliminary findings from new research<br />
1. Introduction<br />
Participation: frustrating...<br />... yet alluring<br />
	How can we design participatory processes that effectively engage stakeholders in environmental decisions?<br />How can w...
2. What can published literature tell us?<br />
1. Start talking to people as soon as you can<br />From concept to completion<br />Early involvement leads to higher quali...
2. Make sure you’re talking to the right people<br /><ul><li>The nature and legitimacy of outcomes is significantly affect...
Lots of methods available now for “stakeholder analysis” </li></li></ul><li><ul><li>Design the process to the goals
Identify goals with stakeholders
Be prepared to negotiate and compromise
Partnerships, ownership and active engagement in the process is more likely</li></ul>3. Make sure you know what people wan...
<ul><li>Communicate </li></ul>	e.g. information dissemination via leaflets or the mass media, hotlines and public meetings...
Manage power</li></ul>4. Be flexible: base level of participation & methods on your context & objectives<br />
<ul><li>The outcome of a participatory process is more sensitive to the manner in which it is conducted than the tools tha...
Don’t underestimate the power of investing in a good facilitator to bring people together and deliver high quality outcome...
6. Put local and scientific knowledge on an equal footing<br /><ul><li>Science can help people make more informed decisions
Local knowledge can question assumptions, and perhaps lead to more rigorous science</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>Decisions ba...
Twinned projects<br />Environmental Consequences of Participatory Governance (ECOPAG): a comparative meta-analysis of case...
Goal<br />To help people design participatory processes that are more likely to deliver the outcomes people want, by under...
Questions<br />Does participatory environmental governance – as opposed to more hierarchical, top-down approaches: <br />I...
Involved<br />Semi-structured interview & questionnaire (adapted sub-set of Ecopag items) analysing:<br />Different partic...
Emerging lessons<br />Low levels of participation may lead to simple solutions: easily implemented and accepted but perhap...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Involved project preliminary findings - what makes stakeholder participation in environmental management work?

1,509 views

Published on

Presentation of preliminary findings from the British Academy funded Involved project, showing links to parallel and previous work about what makes stakeholder participation in environmental management lead to beneficial environmental outcomes

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,509
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
391
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Involved project preliminary findings - what makes stakeholder participation in environmental management work?

  1. 1. What makes stakeholder participation in environmental management work? <br />Preliminary findings from the Involved project<br />Mark Reed, Joris de Vente, Lindsay Stringer & Jens Newig<br />
  2. 2. Plan<br />Introduction<br />What can published literature tell us?<br />Preliminary findings from new research<br />
  3. 3. 1. Introduction<br />
  4. 4. Participation: frustrating...<br />... yet alluring<br />
  5. 5. How can we design participatory processes that effectively engage stakeholders in environmental decisions?<br />How can we harness participation to achieve social and environmental benefits, but avoid the pitfalls? <br />
  6. 6. 2. What can published literature tell us?<br />
  7. 7. 1. Start talking to people as soon as you can<br />From concept to completion<br />Early involvement leads to higher quality and more durable decisions<br />Avoid raising false expectations: make sure there’s something to negotiate<br />
  8. 8. 2. Make sure you’re talking to the right people<br /><ul><li>The nature and legitimacy of outcomes is significantly affected by participant mix
  9. 9. Lots of methods available now for “stakeholder analysis” </li></li></ul><li><ul><li>Design the process to the goals
  10. 10. Identify goals with stakeholders
  11. 11. Be prepared to negotiate and compromise
  12. 12. Partnerships, ownership and active engagement in the process is more likely</li></ul>3. Make sure you know what people want to talk about<br />
  13. 13. <ul><li>Communicate </li></ul> e.g. information dissemination via leaflets or the mass media, hotlines and public meetings<br /><ul><li>Consult</li></ul>e.g. consultation documents, opinion polls and referendums, focus groups and surveys<br /><ul><li>Participate </li></ul>e.g. citizen’s juries, consensus conferences, task-forces and public meetings with voting<br /><ul><li>Tailor your methods to context
  14. 14. Manage power</li></ul>4. Be flexible: base level of participation & methods on your context & objectives<br />
  15. 15. <ul><li>The outcome of a participatory process is more sensitive to the manner in which it is conducted than the tools that are used
  16. 16. Don’t underestimate the power of investing in a good facilitator to bring people together and deliver high quality outcomes</li></ul>5. Get a facilitator<br />
  17. 17. 6. Put local and scientific knowledge on an equal footing<br /><ul><li>Science can help people make more informed decisions
  18. 18. Local knowledge can question assumptions, and perhaps lead to more rigorous science</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>Decisions based on a combination of local and scientific knowledge may by more robust due to more comprehensive information inputs</li></li></ul><li>3. New research…<br />
  19. 19. Twinned projects<br />Environmental Consequences of Participatory Governance (ECOPAG): a comparative meta-analysis of case studies in environmental decision-making (led by Jens Newig)<br />Involved: in-depth interviews with those who led and participated in environmental management projects/programmes in Spain & Portugal<br />
  20. 20. Goal<br />To help people design participatory processes that are more likely to deliver the outcomes people want, by understanding why different approaches work in different contexts<br />
  21. 21. Questions<br />Does participatory environmental governance – as opposed to more hierarchical, top-down approaches: <br />Improve the quality of decisions or policies, facilitate their implementation and thus achieve environmental goals more swiftly and effectively?<br />Benefit participants in other ways linked to the process e.g. learning, trust etc., and achieve their stated goals (whether related to the environment or not)?<br />Which conditions and which modes of participation affect the outcomes of participatory processes?<br />
  22. 22. Involved<br />Semi-structured interview & questionnaire (adapted sub-set of Ecopag items) analysing:<br />Different participatory processes in comparable socio-economic and biophysical contexts<br />5 each in Spain/Portugal<br />Comparable participatory processes in different contexts<br />DESIRE/DesertLinks in Spain/Portugal and DESIRE in 12 countries<br />
  23. 23. Emerging lessons<br />Low levels of participation may lead to simple solutions: easily implemented and accepted but perhaps ineffective<br />High levels of participation may lead to deeper understanding, learning and more complex solutions: more effective but harder to apply<br />Policy makers with actual decision-making power, need to be included in the process for short-termimpact <br />In some cases, their presence created a power imbalance that limited active participation & generation of new ideas<br />But if decision-makers not part of process, immediate implementation of findings is less likely<br />
  24. 24. Emerging lessons<br />If land managers are well represented, outcomes are generally economically and practically feasible, and there are more social benefits (social learning, better functioning social networks, increased trust)<br />Involvement of this group increases likelihood that process outcomes are implemented in longer term<br />To get participation of land managers, the process needs to be brought to their local context and communication tailored appropriately<br />
  25. 25. Ecopag<br />Sample of c.300 existing, published case studies<br />Precise coding according to theoretically informed scheme transforms qualitative into quantitative data for statistical analysis<br />All cases coded by 3 coders<br />
  26. 26. Preliminary findings of a 47-case-comparison<br />High inter-coder reliability<br />No confirmation of the hypothesis that participation improves environmental standards of decisions<br />Weak evidence that participation improves implementation of environmental decisions<br />Single most important factor to explain outputs/outcomes: preferences of involved actors (r = 0.85 with, p < 0.001)<br />Context variables influence correlations between process and outputs/outcomes<br />(Newig/Fritsch 2008; Fritsch/Newig in review)<br />
  27. 27. More information<br />http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~lecmsr/involved<br />

×