Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:52:11.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The Politics of Participatory Sustainability Assessments: An Analysis of Power

from Part I - Theoretical Background

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2020

By
Livia Fritz  and
Franziska Meinherz
Edited by
Claudia R. Binder ,
Romano Wyss  and
Emanuele Massaro
Claudia R. Binder
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Romano Wyss
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Emanuele Massaro
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Get access

Summary

The participation of societal actors has been advanced as the gold standard of sustainability assessment processes and is thought essential to dealing with the plurality of normative claims surrounding sustainability and the need to take decisions in a context of trade-offs. However, participation per se does not guarantee these outcomes. In this chapter, we put the spotlight on the politics of participatory sustainability assessments and look at the entanglements of knowledge and power in such processes. First, we introduce different conceptualisations of participation and show that participation is a contested concept that goes beyond methodological questions. Second, to equip ourselves for a discussion of the politics of participatory sustainability assessments, we present an analytical framework for studying diverse facets of power (‘power over’, ‘power to’, and ‘power with’) throughout participatory sustainability assessment processes. By means of a literature analysis, we illustrate how, depending on the design of the process and the socio-political context in which it takes place, different power relations pervade and shape participation processes and their outcomes. The analytical framework presented can support reflexivity in tackling power dynamics in participatory sustainability assessments.

Keywords

participationpower relationscoproductiongovernance
Type
Chapter
Information
Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 87 - 122
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelle, C., & Weiland, S. (2015). Sustainability assessment at the policy level. In Handbook of Sustainability Assessment. Cheltenham & Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 103–124.Google Scholar
Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking power. Hypatia, 13(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01350.x.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1970). On Violence. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt Brace jovanovich.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.Google Scholar
Avelino, F. (2017). Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 505–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947–995.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24–41.Google Scholar
Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S., Morse, S., & Shah, R. A. (2012). Understanding stakeholder participation in research as part of sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Management, 101, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1371919.Google Scholar
Binder, C. R., Baldi, M. G., Gex, B., & Massaro, E. (2020b). The sustainability solution space. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, (pp. 181–208).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, C. R., Feola, G., & Steinberger, J. K. (2010). Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2), 71–81.Google Scholar
Blok, A. (2007). Experts on public trial: On democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 163–182.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C., & Munton, R. (1998). Deliberative and inclusionary processes: Their contributions to environmental governance. ESRC DIPs in Environmental Decision-Making, 17.Google Scholar
Brand, U. (2016). “Transformation” as a new critical orthodoxy: The strategic use of the term “transformation” does not prevent multiple crises. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(1), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, B., & Rowell, A. (2002). British American tobacco’s socially responsible smoke screen. PR Watch, 9(4), 6–12.Google Scholar
Button, M., & Mattson, K. (1999). Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity, 31(4), 609–637.Google Scholar
Cashmore, M., & Richardson, T. (2013). Power and environmental assessment: Introduction to the special issue. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP).Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. (2015). Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. Abington and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Claudel, M., Massaro, E., Santi, P., Murray, F., & Ratti, C. (2017). An exploration of collaborative scientific production at MIT through spatial organization and institutional affiliation. PloS one, 12(6), e0179334.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, B. R., Kesby, M., Fazey, I., & Spray, C. (2013). The persistence of “normal” catchment management despite the participatory turn: Exploring the power effects of competing frames of reference. Social Studies of Science, 43(5), 754–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713478670.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A. (2004). Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development. In Hickey, S & Mohan, G (eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 75–91.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A., & Coelho, V. S. (2007). Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas, vol. 4. Zed Books.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.Google Scholar
Digeser, P. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics, 54(4), 977–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In Fischer, F & Forester, J (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J., & Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131, 353–360.Google Scholar
Eyben, R., Harris, C., & Pettit, J. (2006). Introduction: exploring power for change. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 1–10.Google Scholar
Farrell, K. N. (2011). Snow White and the wicked problems of the west: A look at the lines between empirical description and normative prescription. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(3), 334–361.Google Scholar
Felt, U. (2009). Knowing and living in academic research: Convergences and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14, 501.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Frame, B., & Brown, J. (2008). Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, L. (2018). (De-)constructing participation in transdisciplinary sustainability research: A critical review of key concepts. In Engelschalt, J, Maibaum, A, Engels, F, & Odenwald, J (eds.), Schafft Wissen–Gemeinsames und geteiltes Wissen in Wissenschaft und Technik (SSOAR). München: SSOAR, pp. 106–124.Google Scholar
Fritz, L., & Binder, C. R. (2018). Participation as relational space: A critical approach to analysing participation in sustainability research. Sustainability, 10(8), 2853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). The emergence of post-normal science. In Von Schomberg, R (ed.), Science, Politics and Morality. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 85–123.Google Scholar
Garmendia, E., & Stagl, S. (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1712–1722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33.Google Scholar
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2001). Power and knowledge. In Reason, P & Bradbury, H (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Edition. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 72–81.Google Scholar
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and knowledge. In Reason, P & Bradbury, H (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd edition. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 172–189.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Gibson, B., Hassan, S., & Tansey, J. (2013 ). Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Glass, J. H., Scott, A. J., & Price, M. F. (2013). The power of the process: Co-producing a sustainability assessment toolkit for upland estate management in Scotland. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.024.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. H. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hage, M., Leroy, P., & Petersen, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures, 42(3), 254–264.Google Scholar
Halla, P. & Binder, C. R. (2020). Sustainability Assessment: Introduction and Framework. In Binder, C.R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, (pp. 7–29).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2006). Some dare call it power. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C, Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 754–775.Google Scholar
Hartz-Karp, J., Pope, J., & Petrova, S. (2015). A deliberative collaborative governance approach to sustainability assessment. In Morrison-Saunders, A, Pope, J, & Bond, A (eds.), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 375–402.Google Scholar
Haugaard, M. (2002). Power: A Reader. Manchester Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Haugaard, M. (2003). Reflections on seven ways of creating power. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(1), 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugaard, M. (2012). Rethinking the four dimensions of power: Domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power, 5(1), 33–54.Google Scholar
Hayward, C. R. (2000). De-facing Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegger, D., & Dieperink, C. (2015). Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: What is in it for science? Ecology and Society, 20(4). www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss4/art1/.Google Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.002.Google Scholar
Holmes, T. (2001). A participatory approach in practice: Understanding fieldworkers’ use of participatory rural appraisal in ActionAid The Gambia. IDS Working Papers, 123.Google Scholar
Holmes, T., & Scoones, I. (2000). Participatory environmental policy processes: Experiences from North and South. IDS Working Paper, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Brighton.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From “speaking truth to power” to “making sense together.” Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782482.Google Scholar
Igelsböck, J. (2016). Designing “integration machines.” In Krings, B-J, Rodríguez, H, & Schleisiek, A (eds.), Scientific Knowledge and the Transgression of Boundaries. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.133–160.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. (1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. Valuing Nature, 211–231.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kallis, G., Hatzilacou, D., Mexa, A., Coccossis, H., & Svoronou, E. (2009). Beyond the manual: Practicing deliberative visioning in a Greek island. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 979–989.Google Scholar
Kallis, G., Videira, N., Antunes, P., et al. (2006). Participatory methods for water resources planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(2), 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasemir, B. (2003). Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: How to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 3(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
Klenk, N., & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental Science & Policy, 54(Supplement C), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017.Google Scholar
Klenk, N., Reed, M. G., Lidestav, G., & Carlsson, J. (2013). Models of representation and participation in model forests: Dilemmas and implications for networked forms of environmental governance involving indigenous people. Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(3), 161–176.Google Scholar
Kothari, U., & Cooke, B. (Eds.) (2001). Participatory development: Power, knowledge and social control. In Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books, pp. 139–152.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2013). Participatory knowledge production and power. In Phillips, L, Kristiansen, M, Vehviläinen, M, & Gunnarsson, E (eds.), Knowledge and Power in Collaborative Research: A Reflexive Approach. Taylor & Francis, pp. 193–212.Google Scholar
Kropp, C. (2013). Demokratische Planung der Klimaanpassung? Über die Fallstricke partizipativer Verfahren im expertokratischen Staat. In Knierim, A, Baasch, S, & Gottschick, M (eds.), Partizipation und Klimawandel–Ansprüche, Konzepte und Umsetzung München: Oekonom, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. P. (2013). Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems and Contemporary Challenges. Wiley Online Library. DOI 10.1002/9781118678381.Google Scholar
Leeuwis, C. (2000). Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: Towards a negotiation approach. Development and Change, 31(5), 931–959.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, E., & Stripple, J. (2013). Bringing governmentality to the study of global climate governance. In Stripple, J & Bulkeley, H (eds.), Governing the Climate: New Approaches to Rationality, Power and Politics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–41.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26(3), 277–286.Google Scholar
McCool, S. F., & Stankey, G. H. (2004). Indicators of sustainability: Challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environmental Management, 33(3), 294–305.Google Scholar
McCullum, C., Pelletier, D., Barr, D., Wilkins, J., & Habicht, J.-P. (2004). Mechanisms of power within a community-based food security planning process. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 206–222.Google Scholar
Meinherz, F., Fritz, L., & Schneider, F. (2020). How Values Play into Sustainability Assessments: Challenges and a Possible Way Forward. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, (pp. 65–86).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merino-Saum, A. (2020). Assessing sustainability through participatory multi-criteria approaches (PMCAs): An updated comparative analysis. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, (pp. X–X).Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mielke, J., Vermassen, H., Ellenbeck, S., Milan, B. F., & Jaeger, C. (2016). Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science: A critical view. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 71–81.Google Scholar
Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Bond, A., & Retief, F. (2014). Towards sustainability assessment follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Munda, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.012.Google Scholar
Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344.Google Scholar
O’Brien, F., & Meadows, M. (2001). How to develop visions: A literature review, and a revised CHOICES approach for an uncertain world. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14(4), 495–515.Google Scholar
Partzsch, L. (2015). Kein Wandel ohne Macht: Nachhaltigkeitsforschung braucht ein mehrdimensionales Machtverständnis. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24(1), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellizzoni, L. (2003). Uncertainty and participatory democracy. Environmental Values, 12(2), 195–224. https://doi.org/0.3197/096327103129341298.Google Scholar
Pellow, D. N. (1999). Negotiation and confrontation: Environmental policymaking through consensus. Society & Natural Resources, 12(3), 189–203.Google Scholar
Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D. A., Munda, G., & Vreeker, R. (2006). Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources, Part B, 1(2), 181–193.Google Scholar
Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raik, D. B., Wilson, A. L., & Decker, D. J. (2008). Power in natural resources management: An application of theory. Society and Natural Resources, 21(8), 729–739.Google Scholar
Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator development: Science or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S., & Koetz, T. (2009). Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(1), 42–58.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949.Google Scholar
Renn, O., & Schweizer, P.-J. (2009). Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.507.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384.Google Scholar
Rosendahl, J., Zanella, M. A., Rist, S., & Weigelt, J. (2015). Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011.Google Scholar
Rubio, F. D., & Baert, P. (2012). The politics of knowledge: An introduction. In Rubio, F.D. & Baert, P (eds.), The Politics of Knowledge. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 119, 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.015.Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (1999). Participation and democratic renewal: from ‘instrumental’ to ‘communicative rationality’? Policy & Politics, 27(3), 325–341.Google Scholar
Santos, R., Antunes, P., Baptista, G., Mateus, P., & Madruga, L. (2006). Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 100–110.Google Scholar
Schikowitz, A. (2016). Choreographies of togetherness: Re-ordering collectivity and individuality in transdisciplinary sustainability research in Austria (Doctoral thesis). Wien.Google Scholar
Schilling, T., Mühlemeier, S., Wyss, R., & Binder, C.R. (2020). A Concept for Sustainability Transition Assessment (STA): A Dynamic Systems Perspective Informed by Resilience Thinking. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–138.Google Scholar
Schneider, F. (2020). A mixed-method, dialogue based approach to sustainability assessments: Fostering learning towards sustainable development. In Binder, C. R., Massaro, E, & Wyss, R (eds.), Sustainability Assessment in Urban Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–160.Google Scholar
Schneider, F., Bonriposi, M., Graefe, O., et al. (2015). Assessing the sustainability of water governance systems: The sustainability wheel. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(9), 1577–1600.Google Scholar
Schneider, F., & Buser, T. (2018). Promising degrees of stakeholder interaction in research for sustainable development. Sustainability Science, 13(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0507-4.Google Scholar
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 73–87.Google Scholar
Siew, T. F., Aenis, T., Spangenberg, J. H., et al. (2016). Transdisciplinary research in support of land and water management in China and Southeast Asia: Evaluation of four research projects. Sustainability Science, 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0378-0.Google Scholar
Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A. P., Vespa, M., Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., & Bond, A. (2015). Public participation in sustainability assessment: Essential elements, practical challenges and emerging directions. In Morrison-Saunders, A, Pope, J, & Bond, A (eds.), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment. Camberley: Edward Elgar, pp. 349–375.Google Scholar
Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) in Theory. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Spash, C. L., & Vatn, A. (2006). Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 379–388.Google Scholar
Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Krütli, P., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: A transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6), 409–422.Google Scholar
Stave, K. A. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 139–167.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.Google Scholar
Stirling, A., & Mayer, S. (1999). Rethinking Risk: A Pilot Multicriteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK. Brighton: Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Thomas, H. (1998). Collaborative action in local plan-making: Planners’ perceptions of “planning through debate.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(1), 127–144.Google Scholar
Turnhout, E. (2009). The effectiveness of boundary objects: The case of ecological indicators. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 403–412.Google Scholar
van Asselt Marjolein, B. A., & Rijkens-Klomp, N. (2002). A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12(3), 167–184.Google Scholar
van den Hove, S. (2006). Between consensus and compromise: Acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.09.001.Google Scholar
Vatn, A. (2005). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 55(2), 203–217.Google Scholar
Vennix, J. A. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester and New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Lobo, G. (2006). Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: A critical review of project evaluation processes. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Lopes, R. (2010). A participatory modelling approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(4), 446–460.Google Scholar
Videira, N., Lopes, R., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Casanova, J. L. (2012). Mapping maritime sustainability issues with stakeholder groups. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(6), 596–619.Google Scholar
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Block, T., Wright, T., Benitez-Capistros, F., & Verbruggen, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustainability, 6(9), 5512–5534.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1972). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. 5. rev. edition. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, L., Swartling, A. G., & Jäger, J. (2009). Participation of experts and non-experts in a sustainability assessment of mobility. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(4), 232–250.Google Scholar
Wiek, A., & Binder, C. (2005). Solution spaces for decision-making: A sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(6), 589–608.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 99–110.Google Scholar
Wynne, B., & Felt, U. (2007). Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Zurek, M. B., & Henrichs, T. (2007). Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1282–1295.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×