Deliberation, Consensus, and Stakeholder Satisfaction

Robertson, Peter J.; Choi, Taehyon

doi:10.1080/14719037.2011.589619

Cited by 66 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The modus operandi of collaborative policy-making is to involve relevant and affected actors in a collaborative endeavor to define and pursue a joint purpose (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Consensus-oriented collaboration functions as a legitimating point of reference and organizing principle for formulating policies and for distributing influence between actors (Booher, 2004;Robertson & Choi, 2012). Moreover, collaboration in public policy demands mutual adjustment and a commitment to solving collective problems (ref?).…”

Section: Boundary Spanning and Politiciansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political boundary spanning: politicians at the interface between collaborative governance and representative democracy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research finds that productive interfaces between collaborative and bureaucratic forms of governance hinges on the extent to which public managers act as competent boundary spanners who process information, accommodate communication and align and coordinate behavior, and it seems likely that politicians have an equally important role to play in aligning processes and arenas of collaborative governance with representative democracy. The empirical forms that political boundary making takes are examined in a study of 28 cases of local, regional or national level policy-making in nine Western countries. This study indicates that there is considerable variation in the way politicians perform political boundary spanning particularly with respect to their degree of engagement in collaborative policymaking arenas and the focus of their boundary-spanning activities. Furthermore, the study shows that collaborative governance tends to go best in tandem with representative democracy in those cases where politicians perform both hands off and hands on boundary-spanning activities.

show abstract

Section: Boundary Spanning and Politiciansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political boundary spanning: politicians at the interface between collaborative governance and representative democracy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If there is a clear initiator group, this group will probably dominate the practices and rules of the co-creation process. If the group of initiators wants to open up the procedure to a broader group, to share ownership, more deliberation is needed along the way to create consensus on how co-creation will be practiced [73,74]. This requires additional co-creative steps in which it is discussed how each and every one envisions the co-creation, as well as more time for aligning the views of the different participants.…”

Section: The Concept Of Co-creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizens and urban policy makers are experimenting with collaborative ways to tackle wicked urban issues, such as today's sustainability challenges. In this article, we consider one particular way of collaboration in an experimental setting: Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs are understood as spatially embedded sites for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions by conducting local experiments. As such, ULLs are supposed to offer an arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments, where new practices of self-organization and novel (infra-) structures can be tested within their real-world context. Yet, it remains understudied how the co-creation of knowledge and practices actually takes place within ULLs, and how co-creation unfolds their impacts. Hence, this paper focuses on co-creation dynamics in urban living labs, its associated learning and knowledge generation, and how these possibly contribute to urban sustainability transitions. We analyzed empirical data from a series of in-depth interviews and were actively involved with ULLs in the Rotterdam-The Hague region in the Netherlands. Our findings show five distinct types of co-creation elements that relate to specific dynamics of participation, facilitation, and organization. We conclude with a discussion on the ambivalent role of contextualized knowledge and the implications for sustainability transitions.

show abstract

“…We concluded that a majority-based system of decision-making is more effective when technical, engineering based solutions are required [11]. Others recommend caution with this type of approach [76], demonstrating that although majoritybased systems are a good starting point for deliberation, this may hinder active discussion among stakeholders, negatively affecting consensus formation when stakeholders aim to improve their satisfaction through a collaborative process. The authors state that:…”

Section: Rowe and Frewer (2005) [50]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions

Whitton

Parry

Akiyoshi

et al. 2015

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe concept of social sustainability is discussed in a wide range of literatures, from urban planning to international development. Authors agree a notion of social sustainability is difficult to define, comprising numerous component parts (criteria), such as community cohesion, human wellbeing, effective dialogue and the access that citizens have to those that make important decisions on their behalf. The definition and measurement of these criteria and the role of social sustainability in energy decision making is a contentious issue. We argue that a community led, asset based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. We propose a conceptual framework based on a process of community group prioritization and visioning. Our earlier research on public participation and the role of dialogue for nuclear energy development in the UK, US and Japan is used to demonstrate barriers to be overcome if our systemic model of social sustainability is to become a reality. We highlight the importance of fairness and justice, place based approaches and socio-energy systems, concluding that these are necessary to promote a community and institutional awareness of social sustainability for large energy developments.

show abstract

Deliberation, Consensus, and Stakeholder Satisfaction

Cited by 66 publications

References 35 publications

Political boundary spanning: politicians at the interface between collaborative governance and representative democracy

Political boundary spanning: politicians at the interface between collaborative governance and representative democracy

Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs

Conceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About