Contested climate policies and the four Ds of public participation: From normative standards to what people want

IF 9.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change Pub Date : 2021-11-16 DOI:10.1002/wcc.749
G. Perlaviciute
{"title":"Contested climate policies and the four Ds of public participation: From normative standards to what people want","authors":"G. Perlaviciute","doi":"10.1002/wcc.749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stimulating public participation in decision making is heralded as a way to get climate policies accepted by the public. Yet, little is known about whether and when public participation can increase policy acceptability. This is true in particular of practices organized by responsible parties to engage the public in decision making. Based on a vast body of interdisciplinary literature, four types of normative standards for effective public participation can be distilled, which I call the four Ds: dialogue, decision‐making power, diversity, and deliberation. However, normative standards may not be enough for reaching socially acceptable climate policies, if people do not want to participate, or want to participate too late in decision making, and are not open to different perspectives. The result can be fake participation, exclusion, and polarization—all which may reduce, rather than increase, public acceptability of climate policies. Understanding public preferences for participation is therefore critical for the implementation of the four Ds and for reaching socially acceptable climate policies. This Perspective article is relevant for scientists, policy makers, NGO's, businesses, interest groups, and other parties wanting to understand how to engage the public in climate decision making.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.749","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Stimulating public participation in decision making is heralded as a way to get climate policies accepted by the public. Yet, little is known about whether and when public participation can increase policy acceptability. This is true in particular of practices organized by responsible parties to engage the public in decision making. Based on a vast body of interdisciplinary literature, four types of normative standards for effective public participation can be distilled, which I call the four Ds: dialogue, decision‐making power, diversity, and deliberation. However, normative standards may not be enough for reaching socially acceptable climate policies, if people do not want to participate, or want to participate too late in decision making, and are not open to different perspectives. The result can be fake participation, exclusion, and polarization—all which may reduce, rather than increase, public acceptability of climate policies. Understanding public preferences for participation is therefore critical for the implementation of the four Ds and for reaching socially acceptable climate policies. This Perspective article is relevant for scientists, policy makers, NGO's, businesses, interest groups, and other parties wanting to understand how to engage the public in climate decision making.
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
有争议的气候政策和公众参与的四个D:从规范标准到人们想要什么
刺激公众参与决策被认为是让公众接受气候政策的一种方式。然而,对于公众参与是否以及何时能够提高政策的可接受性,人们知之甚少。责任方组织的让公众参与决策的做法尤其如此。基于大量跨学科文献,可以提炼出四种有效公众参与的规范性标准,我称之为四种D:对话、决策权、多样性和审议。然而,如果人们不想参与决策,或者想参与决策太迟,并且不愿意接受不同的观点,那么规范性标准可能不足以实现社会可接受的气候政策。其结果可能是虚假的参与、排斥和两极分化——所有这些都可能降低而不是增加公众对气候政策的接受度。因此,了解公众对参与的偏好对于实施四个D和达成社会可接受的气候政策至关重要。这篇透视文章与科学家、政策制定者、非政府组织、企业、利益集团和其他希望了解如何让公众参与气候决策的各方有关。
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
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
20.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: WIREs Climate Change serves as a distinctive platform for delving into current and emerging knowledge across various disciplines contributing to the understanding of climate change. This includes environmental history, humanities, physical and life sciences, social sciences, engineering, and economics. Developed in association with the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) in the UK, this publication acts as an encyclopedic reference for climate change scholarship and research, offering a forum to explore diverse perspectives on how climate change is comprehended, analyzed, and contested globally.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A “greenhouse gas balance” for aviation in line with the Paris Agreement Distributive justice and the global emissions budget Histories of habitability from the oikoumene to the Anthropocene Multilevel intergroup conflict at the core of climate (in)justice: Psychological challenges and ways forward
×
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