A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?

Abstract

This article differentiates between descriptive and explanatory factors to develop a typology and a theory of stakeholder and public engagement. The typology describes different types of public and stakeholder engagement, and the theory comprises four factors that explain much of the variation in outcomes (for the natural environment and/or for participants) between different types of engagement. First, we use a narrative literature search to develop a new typology of stakeholder and public engagement based on agency (who initiates and leads engagement) and mode of engagement (from communication to coproduction). We then propose a theory to explain the variation in outcomes from different types of engagement: (1) a number of socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional contextual factors influence the outcomes of engagement; (2) there are a number of process design factors that can increase the likelihood that engagement leads to desired outcomes, across a wide range of sociocultural, political, economic, and biophysical contexts; (3) the effectiveness of engagement is significantly influenced by power dynamics, the values of participants, and their epistemologies, that is, the way they construct knowledge and which types of knowledge they consider valid; and (4) engagement processes work differently and can lead to different outcomes when they operate over different spatial and temporal scales. We use the theoretical framework to provide practical guidance for those designing engagement processes, arguing that a theoretically informed approach to stakeholder and public engagement has the potential to markedly improve the outcomes of environmental decision-making processes.

Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning

“…The insufficient management of power dynamics is one of the major reasons that participatory processes fail [36] and, rather than ushering in a new era of democratised marine governance [34,35,37], MSP may merely re-parcel existing power relations in empty rhetoric about participatory governance [2,22]. There is a need, therefore, to evaluate the democratic legitimacy and inclusivity of MSP in practice.…”

A framework for scaling sustainable land management options

“…Other companies measure CSR outcomes in the number of “lives changed” and may be more interested in SLM options that provide measurable social and economic sustainability outcomes; and derisking investments remains a concern for the private sector no matter what their objectives are (Cornell et al, ). Strategies to reducing risk for investors requires working with finance experts, for example, by combining both private and public funding (e.g., the sort of place‐based scheme proposed by Reed et al, ).…”

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

“…Social aspects have been addressed less or overlooked (O'Rourke ). However, there is a growing interest in the social side of restoration (Petursdottir et al , ; Reed et al ). This can be seen as a form of recognition that what, for one person or group, is “restoration” may be seen as a “destruction” by others (Sayer ).…”

“…Lack of clarity about what values different stakeholders adhere to, or which values to act upon in situations of value diversity, may give rise to uncertainty. This may in turn cause disagreements between contending parties (Reed et al ). Such uncertainty or disagreement, with its normative aspects, has received less attention (Reed et al ; Palmer et al ; Petursdottir et al ).…”