Stakeholder participation in knowledge production regarding complex environmental problems

Dr. Jeroen van der Sluijs

Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation

Utrecht University

“Knowledge used for policy-making and public debate should not only be excellent from a scientific point of view; it also needs to be ‘socially robust’, responding to policy, social, economic needs or concerns. This involves expertise beyond traditional and professional ‘peer’ community to include those with practical or other knowledge about the issue at hand.”

EU White Paper on Governance, Liberatore, A. rapporteur, 2001.

MNP Guidance on Stakeholder Particpation

• Why do you want participation? • What should the participation be about? • Who do you want to involve? • How much participation do you want? • What form are you choosing?

Incentives for participatory risk assessment

• Instrumental– decrease conflict/increase acceptance of or trust in the science

• Normative– process should be legitimate/ democracy

• Substantive– relevant wisdom is not limited to scientific specialists and public

officials– Bounded rationality– Increase quality

(Stern & Fineberg, Understanding Risk, Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, 1996)

A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Arnstein, 1969

http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

1 Manipulation and 2 Therapy. non participative, cure or educate the participants. achieve public support by PR.3 Informing. one way flow of information4 Consultation. attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries. Window dressing ritual5 Placation. Allows citizens to advise but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.6 Partnership. Power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Shared decision-making responsibilities.7 Delegated power to make decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability.8 Citizen Control. Participants handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programme.

Level ofambitioni

Direction ofcommunication

Co-decide

Co-produce

In

terac

tief

Take advice /

Consult

Listen

Study

Inform

Nie

t in

tera

ctie

f

No participation

*SH = stakeholders

SH

SH MNP

MNP

MNP & SH*

SH

SH

MNP

MNP

SH MNP

SH MNP

Different functions in the process of environmental risk management and the position of IA within this broader context.

Stakeholders can agree or disagree on different levels:

Ideological view. This is the deepest level of disagreement and can lead to very different views of whether there is a problem or what it is. One can hold the view that a radically different ideological starting point is required. Ideological argumentation focuses typically on ideology and alternative societal orders.

Problem setting and goal searching. Groups may agree on the existence of a problem, but not on identifying precisely what the problem is, how to formulate it, and what the end goal or solution point should be.

Problem solving. Groups may agree on the existence of a problem and further agree on policy goals but disagree on the strategies and instruments required to reach the goal. Problem solving argumentation typically focus on effectiveness, side effects, and efficiency of methods.

Outcomes and fairness. Groups often care about the fairness of solutions to problems, but can hold different views on what constitutes fair outcomes. For example, one can hold the view that the policy at hand does not serve the public interest or public wellbeing. Fairness argumentation focuses typically on public interest, unexpected societal side effects, and distributive justice.

Value mapping and Argumentative Analysis

Stake-holder 1

Stake-holder 2

Stake-holder n

Agreement Dis-agreement

Ideological view

Problem setting

and goal searching

Problem solving

Outcomes and

fairness

Group of tools Tools

Knowledge elicitation techniques

Interview

Protocol analysis

Card sorting / hexagon method

Mental mapping / frames analysis

Brainstorming tools Delphi techniques

Brainbox / electronic meeting

Spatial Visualisation tools

GIS (Web-GIS)

Maps / 3D scale models

Framing tools Reframing workshop / Round table conference

Role playing games

Source: Tom Raadgever, draft report for NeWater project, 2005

Group of tools Tools

Participatory Modelling

Conceptual modelling

System Dynamics Modelling

Decision Support Systems

Agent Based Simulation

Future-oriented tools

Visioning workshop

Backward mapping / back-casting

Scenario workshop / development / analysis

Uncertainty analysis and KQA tools

Numerical Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP) system

QAAT

Source: Tom Raadgever, draft report for NeWater project, 2005

Group of tools Tools

Design tools Creative competition

Design studio

Carrousel

Evaluation tools Multiattribute Utility Analysis

Social Multi Criteria Evaluation

Deliberative Monetary Valuation

Decision tools Group Decision Room

Citizens’ jury

Source: Tom Raadgever, draft report for NeWater project, 2005

local knowledge / Indigenous knowledge–

• Knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society. IK contrasts with the international knowledge system generated by universities, research institutions and private firms. It is the basis for local-level decision making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural-resource management, and a host of other activities in rural communities. (Warren, 1991)

• Indigenous knowledge is used synonymously with ‘traditional’ and ‘local’ knowledge to differentiate the knowledge developed by a community from the international knowledge systems sometimes called ‘’Western’ system, generated through universities, government research centres and private industry. IK refers to the knowledge of indigenous peoples as well as any other defined community. (Warren, 1992)

Local knowledge

• knowledge of local conditions, which may determine which data are strong and relevant,

• anecdotes• informal surveys• official information published by unofficial means• investigative journalism• can help to diffuse the policy problems

• It may be argued that stakeholders lack theoretical knowledge and are biased by self-interest, but, as we have seen, it can equally well be argued that the experts lack practical knowledge and have their own unselfconscious forms of bias.

(source: Jerry Ravetz)

boundary work (Thomas Gieryn, 1983)The processes in the science-policy-society interfaces by which parts of a debate are depoliticized by defining them as belonging to the scientific domain.

By drawing boundaries between science and policy, scientists post “keep out” signs to prevent nonscientists from challenging or reinterpreting claims labeled as “science”.

Models of participatory policy-making (Pellizzoni, 2001)

Participation and deliberation

Traditional forms of involvement:

[information dissemination; public consultation; public participation]

New forms of deliberation

[face-to-face communication; argumentation; use of ‘local’ and ‘expert’ knowledges to reach practical judgements about what to do].

Positive benefits of deliberation

• increase range of valid knowledges

• increase the range of voices heard

• Increase reflexivity and capacity to learn

• increase legitimacy of policy decisions

• increase robustness of policy responses

• Increase public trust in democratic institutions

Potential Problems

• open to capture by sectional interests

• inefficient use of resources – time, people, money

• induces bureaucratic inaction

• stakeholder fatigue

• fuels public apathy and cynicism

• leads to forced /false consensus

Conclusions

• Participation in knowledge production (as opposed to participation in decision making) is increasingly important

• The step from one-way towards two-way communication between science and society meets a lot of resistance in the scientific community -> boundary work

• Methods for systematic harvesting and structuring of local knowledge are in its infancy: huge challenges here