Difference between revisions of "Participatory processes"
(→The reasons for participation) |
(→The levels of participation) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Germain et al. (2001) divide the process to six levels: | Germain et al. (2001) divide the process to six levels: | ||
1. Informing | 1. Informing | ||
| + | |||
2. Manipulation | 2. Manipulation | ||
| + | |||
3. Consultation | 3. Consultation | ||
| + | |||
4. Collaborative decision making | 4. Collaborative decision making | ||
| + | |||
5. Delegated power | 5. Delegated power | ||
| + | |||
6. Total control of participants | 6. Total control of participants | ||
Revision as of 18:35, 12 September 2011
Contents
What is public participation?
Public participation means that citizens are involved in the environmental or natural resource decision-making that has an effect on them. Public participation is also seen as part of sustainable development, and it may enhance social learning. It can be assumed that the final decisions are made with more competence, when local knowledge is included and expert knowledge is scrutinized by the public (Webler et al. 1995). Furthermore, the legitimacy of the final decision may be better, when the different stakeholders are involved in the decision making.
The reasons for participation
In relation to forestry, ILO (2000) has identified seven purposes: 1. Increase awareness of forestry issues and mutual recognition of interests
2. Gather information and enhance knowledge on forests and their use
3. Improve provision of multiple forest goods and services
4. Stimulate involvement in decision-making and/or implementation process
5. Enhance acceptance of forest policies, plans and operations
6. Increase transparency and accountability of decision making
7. Identify and manage conflicts and problems together, in a fair and equitable way.
The levels of participation
Germain et al. (2001) divide the process to six levels: 1. Informing
2. Manipulation
3. Consultation
4. Collaborative decision making
5. Delegated power
6. Total control of participants
Organization of participation
The participation can be organized in many ways. In case of active participation, the stakeholders may work in working groups or citizen juries, for instance. When the participation is less active, the opinions of the stakeholders may be elicited through interviews, surveys, questionnaires and public meetings.
The phases of public participation
Each public participation case may include slightly different phases, and each phase may include one or more tasks ( see also Participatory planning case template).
4. Monitoring and evaluation of the process
5. Monitoring and evaluation of the outcome
The methods, models and tools
In each phase, different kinds of tools are available.
Organization
The tools used for organizing the process include, for instance,
- citizen jurys
- IT based tools
- public meetings
- working groups
Intelligence
The tools used for collecting the intelligence concerning public preferences include, for instance,
- surveys
- interviews
- cognitive mapping
Design
The tools used for designing the alternatives include, for instance,
- brainstorming
- group work
- problem structuring methods
- forest simulator and optimization tools
Choice
The tools used for selecting the best option include, for instance,
- optimization tools
- multi-criteria decision support tools
- voting methods
- bargaining methods
Monitoring
The success of public participation process
The success of the participation process may depend both on the outcome of the process and the process itself.
In several studies, lists of success criteria have been defined
List of Cases of participatory planning in forestry
References
International Labour Office 2000. Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Joint Committee Team of Specialists on participation in Forestry. International Labour Office, Geneva.
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. & Renn, O. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact assessment Review 15:443-463.
