{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Contested climate policies and the four Ds of public participation: From normative standards to what people want
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.
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.