Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches

Hove, Sybille van den

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.09.001

Cited by 173 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a concept, ACM is particularly concerned with governance through shared authority and decision-making, learning, and hence the ability to adapt to changing conditions (Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2004, 2006, Plummer and Armitage 2007, Plummer 2009). Various attempts have been made at organizing the complexities of the ACM process into conceptual frameworks to link together groups of variables that can be reliably assessed (e.g., Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2004, 2006, Plummer 2009).…”

Section: Background and Theoretical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various attempts have been made at organizing the complexities of the ACM process into conceptual frameworks to link together groups of variables that can be reliably assessed (e.g., Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2004, 2006, Plummer 2009). For example, the ACM process has been characterized as involving a number of phases, such as preparing the system for change by engaging actors and building networks, seizing windows of opportunity to affect change, and working to build the resilience of the governance system by continuous learning, negotiation, and experimentation (Olsson et al 2004, Plummer 2009).…”

Section: Background and Theoretical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes

Stöhr¹,

Lundholm²,

Crona³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Background and Theoretical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Theoretical Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes

Stöhr¹,

Lundholm²,

Crona³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Participatory processes, they hold, if grounded on consensus-building, can and should lead to a transformation of citizens' preferences. This is accomplished, the argument continues, by persuasion, rather than by coercion, manipulation or deception (Dryzek 2001;van den Hove 2006). "Yes", reply the proponents of compromise, "but only if the problem is an uncontested one (in which case it would move towards singularity of its own accord, anyway)".…”

Section: The Case For Compromise (And For Contested Terrains and Clummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rescher 1995;De Marchi 2003;Stirling 2006;van den Hove 2006) to argue that consensus-seeking is neither desirable nor sustainable for reaching a policy recommendation. Now, with these two paradigms clarified, together with the making explicit of the crucial distinction between contested and uncontested terrains, we can turn to the normative reasoning that has been developed from the consensus paradigm, and to the difficulties that it has run into.…”

Section: The Case For Compromise (And For Contested Terrains and Clummentioning

confidence: 99%

Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the escalating costs of landslides, the challenge for local authorities is to develop institutional arrangements for landslide risk management that are viewed as efficient, feasible and fair by those affected. For this purpose, the participation of stakeholders in the decision making process is mandated by the European Union as a way of improving its perceived legitimacy and transparency. This paper reports on an analytical-deliberative process for selecting landslide risk mitigation measures in the town of Nocera Inferiore in southern Italy. The process was structured as a series of meetings with a group of selected residents and several parallel activities open to the public. The preparatory work included a literature/media review, semi-structured interviews carried out with key local stakeholders and a survey eliciting residents' views on landslide risk management. The main point of departure in the design of this process was the explicit elicitation and structuring of multiple worldviews (or perspectives) among the participants with respect to the nature of the problem and its solution. Rather than eliciting preferences using decision analytical methods (e.g. utility theory or multi-criteria evaluation), this process built on a body of research -based on the theory of plural rationality -that has teased out the limited number of contending and socially constructed definitions of problem-andsolution that are able to achieve viability. This framing proved effective in structuring participants' views and arriving at a compromise recommendation (not, as is often aimed for, a consensus) on measures for reducing landslide risk. Experts played a unique role in this process by providing a range of policy options that corresponded to the different perspectives held by the participants.

show abstract

“…Stakeholder participation has also been acclaimed to boost the critical examination of scientific and technical information, strengthen the search for locally adapted and accepted solutions, and help implement political decisions (Eisenhauer and Nicholson 2005;Blomqvist 2004;Jonsson 2005;Pahl-Wostl 2002;Andersson et al 2008). Yet participatory methods have also met criticism because although they may be desirable in practice, they are sometimes only idealistic conceptions that do not acknowledge and address the plurality of standpoints, uneven power dynamics, conflicting stakes and distributive inequalities (Cleaver, 1999;van den Hove, 2006;Singleton 2009). Yet it remains important to create forums where different stakeholders can interact, share knowledge and develop effective working relations e.g.…”

Section: A Participatory Wpimentioning

confidence: 99%

From Water Poverty to Water Prosperity—A More Participatory Approach to Studying Local Water Resources Management

Wilk

Jönsson

2013

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Water Poverty Index (WPI), a tool designed for integrated analysis of water issues, was set-up in a community in Madhya Pradesh, India through a transparent and participatory process. Though the aim of the WPI is to primarily use existing statistical data, quantitative information from census and local records was combined with qualitative data from community interviews and participatory exercises. The inclusion of community chosen indicators and the adjustment of values so that higher numbers represent water prosperity rather than water poverty, led to the Water Prosperity Index (WPI + ). The WPI + score was contrasted with the WPI at community level. It was also calculated for two community areas with different caste and socioeconomic characteristics and weighted separately according to water issues prioritized by men and women. The WPI + revealed a great difference in water access between the two areas and in prioritized issues between men and women illustrated in the importance of appropriate spatial representation and gender sensitive assessment for revealing important disparities. Results also showed that highly aggregated data hide these differences making it more difficult to target the most vulnerable groups when planning measures to increase equitable water allocation. While quantitative data revealed an important perspective of the water situation, qualitative data about adequacy of resources, services or institutions, improved understanding of which issues to prioritize. A valid and useful community water index must be based on representative participation, transparency and local influence on the methodology and subsequent results.2

show abstract

Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches

Cited by 173 publications

References 16 publications

Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes

Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes

Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation

From Water Poverty to Water Prosperity—A More Participatory Approach to Studying Local Water Resources Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About