Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies

IF 8.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Global Environmental Change Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102705
Jens Newig , Nicolas W. Jager , Edward Challies , Elisa Kochskämper
{"title":"Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies","authors":"Jens Newig ,&nbsp;Nicolas W. Jager ,&nbsp;Edward Challies ,&nbsp;Elisa Kochskämper","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Participation and collaboration of citizens and organized stakeholders in public decision-making is widely believed to improve environmental governance outputs. However, empirical evidence on the benefits of participatory governance is largely scattered across small-N case studies. To synthesize the available case-based evidence, we conducted a broad case-based meta-analysis across 22 Western democracies, including 305 individual cases of public environmental decision-making. We asked: How do ‘more’ participatory decision-making processes compare against ‘less’ participatory ones in fostering – or hindering – strong environmental governance outputs, (i.e. environmental provisions in plans, agreements or permits)? Which design features make a difference? What role does the decision-making context play? How do results change if we control for the intentions of the leading governmental agency? To capture the central design features of decision-making processes, we distinguish three dimensions of participation: the intensity of communication among participants and process organizers; the extent to which participants can shape decisions (“power delegation”); and the extent to which different stakeholder groups are represented. Our regression analysis yields robust evidence that these three design features of participation impact upon the environmental standard of governance outputs, even when controlling for the goals of governmental agencies. Power delegation is shown to be the most stable predictor of strong environmental outputs. However, communication intensity only predicts the conservation-related standard of outputs, but not the environmental health-related standard of outputs. Participants’ environmental stance was another strong predictor, with considerable variation across different contexts. While our results remain broadly stable across a wide range of contexts, certain contextual conditions stood out in shaping the relation between participation and environmental outputs. Overall, our findings can inform the design of participatory processes that deliver governance outputs of a high environmental standard.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 102705"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023000717","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Participation and collaboration of citizens and organized stakeholders in public decision-making is widely believed to improve environmental governance outputs. However, empirical evidence on the benefits of participatory governance is largely scattered across small-N case studies. To synthesize the available case-based evidence, we conducted a broad case-based meta-analysis across 22 Western democracies, including 305 individual cases of public environmental decision-making. We asked: How do ‘more’ participatory decision-making processes compare against ‘less’ participatory ones in fostering – or hindering – strong environmental governance outputs, (i.e. environmental provisions in plans, agreements or permits)? Which design features make a difference? What role does the decision-making context play? How do results change if we control for the intentions of the leading governmental agency? To capture the central design features of decision-making processes, we distinguish three dimensions of participation: the intensity of communication among participants and process organizers; the extent to which participants can shape decisions (“power delegation”); and the extent to which different stakeholder groups are represented. Our regression analysis yields robust evidence that these three design features of participation impact upon the environmental standard of governance outputs, even when controlling for the goals of governmental agencies. Power delegation is shown to be the most stable predictor of strong environmental outputs. However, communication intensity only predicts the conservation-related standard of outputs, but not the environmental health-related standard of outputs. Participants’ environmental stance was another strong predictor, with considerable variation across different contexts. While our results remain broadly stable across a wide range of contexts, certain contextual conditions stood out in shaping the relation between participation and environmental outputs. Overall, our findings can inform the design of participatory processes that deliver governance outputs of a high environmental standard.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利益相关者参与是否能改善环境治理?证据来自305个案例的荟萃分析
人们普遍认为,公民和有组织的利益相关者在公共决策中的参与与合作可以改善环境治理的产出。然而,关于参与式治理益处的经验证据主要分散在小n个案例研究中。为了综合现有的基于案例的证据,我们对22个西方民主国家进行了广泛的基于案例的荟萃分析,包括305个公共环境决策的个案。我们的问题是:在促进或阻碍强有力的环境治理产出(即计划、协议或许可证中的环境条款)方面,“更多”参与性的决策过程与“更少”参与性的决策过程相比如何?哪些设计特征会产生影响?决策环境起什么作用?如果我们控制了主要政府机构的意图,结果会如何变化?为了捕捉决策过程的核心设计特征,我们区分了参与的三个维度:参与者和过程组织者之间的沟通强度;参与者能够影响决策的程度(“权力授权”);以及不同利益相关者群体被代表的程度。我们的回归分析得出了强有力的证据,表明即使在控制政府机构的目标时,参与的这三个设计特征也会影响治理产出的环境标准。权力授权被证明是强有力的环境产出的最稳定的预测指标。然而,通信强度只能预测与环保相关的产出标准,而不能预测与环境健康相关的产出标准。参与者的环境立场是另一个强有力的预测因素,在不同的背景下有相当大的差异。虽然我们的结果在广泛的背景下保持大致稳定,但某些背景条件在塑造参与与环境产出之间的关系方面表现突出。总体而言,我们的研究结果可以为参与式流程的设计提供信息,从而提供高环境标准的治理产出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Environmental Change
Global Environmental Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
18.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
146
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales. In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change. Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.
期刊最新文献
The curve: An ethnography of projecting sea level rise under uncertainty Between theory and action: Assessing the transformative character of climate change adaptation in 51 cases in the Netherlands Air pollution under formal institutions: The role of distrust environment A globally just and inclusive transition? Questioning policy representations of the European Green Deal “Scale and access to the Green climate Fund: Big challenges for small island developing States”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1