The role of deliberative collaborative governance in achieving sustainable cities

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 2343-2366

  Gollagher, Margaret ^a   Hartz Karp, Janette ^a  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Deliberative collaborative governance; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TYPOLOGY;

AUSTRALIA; WESTERN AUSTRALIA;

EID: 84883003251     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su5062343     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Weak and strong sustainability differ in their approaches to the interchangeability of natural and human-made capital. Proponents of weak sustainability argue that human-made capital can be substituted for natural capital, whereas supporters of the strong version insist that 'natural' capital stock is irreplaceable. See for example Davison, A. Technology and the Contested Meanings of Sustainability; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 2001.
2. Conklin, J. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
3. Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor. 2007, 18, 543-571.
4. Emerson, K.; Nabatchi, T.; Balogh, S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor. 2011, 22, 1-29.
5. Boulding, C.; Wampler, B. Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect of participatory democracy on well-being. World Dev. 2010, 38, 125-135.
6. O'Flynn, J., Wanna, J., Eds. Collaborative Governance: A New Era of Public Policy in Australia? Australian National University E-Press: Canberra, Australia, 2008.
7. Verweij, M., Thompson, M., Eds. Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions; Palgrave: Basingstoke, UK, 2007.
8. O'Riordan, T. Reflections on the pathways to sustainability. In Governing Sustainability; Adger, N., Jordan, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 307-328.
9. Rittel, H.; Webber, M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155-169.
10. Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C., Gardner, M., Eds. Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
11. Stoll-Kleeman, S.; O'Riordan, T.; Burns, T. Linking the citizen to governance for sustainable climate futures. In Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook; Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C., Gardner, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 239-249.
12. Booth, M. Public engagement and practical wisdom. In Communities Voices: Creating Sustainable Spaces; Paulin, S., Ed.; University of Western Australia Press: Perth, Austrlia, 2006; pp. 12-26.
13. Garmendia, E.; Stagl, S. Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and learnings from three case studies in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1712-1722.
14. United Nations. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Annex 1, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
15. OECD. Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services; OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2009.
16. Hunold, C.; Dryzek, J. Green political theory and the state: Context is everything. Global Environ. Polit. 2002, 2, 17-39.
17. Hartz-Karp, J. How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and brings wisdom to governance. J. Public Deliberation 2007, 3, 1-9.
18. See for example Pateman, C. Participatory democracy revisited. Perspective Polit. 2012, 10, 7-19. Pateman argues that some deliberative democrats have been too focussed on the process of deliberation itself, without due consideration of the need to reform institutions of democracy.
19. Stakeholders may include governments, non-government organisations, businesses, industry bodies, civil society groups, and labour organisations.
20. Pateman, C. Participatory democracy revisited. Perspective Polit. 2012, 10, 7-19.
21. Avritzer, L. New public spheres in Brazil: Local democracy and deliberative politics. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2006, 30, 623-637.
22. Donahue, J.; Zeckhauser, R. Private Roles for Public Goals; Princeton University Press: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2011.
23. Rasche, A. Collaborative Governance 2.0. Corp. Gov. 2010, 10, 500-511.
24. Sirianni, C. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
25. Innes, J.; Booher, D. Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Plann. Theory Pract. 2004, 5, 419-436.
26. Bicking, M.; Wimmer, M. Future Internet for Collaborative Governance: Closing Gaps in ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, Delft, the Netherlands, 11-13 April 2011.
27. Lee, C. Five assumptions academics make about public deliberation, and why they deserve rethinking. J. Public Deliberation 2011, 7, Article 7.
28. Bryson, J.; Crosby, B.; Stone, M. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 44-55.
29. Page, S. Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: Civic engagement in Seattle. Leadersh Q. 2010, 21, 246-263.
30. Ralston, S. Intelligently designing deliberative health care forums: Dewey's metaphysics, cognitive science aand a Brazilian example. (Dupont Summit 2008). Rev. Policy Res. 2008, 25, 619-630.
31. Ashford, N.; Rest, K. Executive Summary. In Public Participation in Contaminated Communities 1999. Available online: http://web.mit.edu/ctpid/www/tl/PPCCexsum.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2011).
32. Kemmis, D.; McKinney, M. Collaboration as an emerging form of democracy. Natl. Civ. Rev. 2011, 100, 2-12.
33. Gastil, J. Political Communication and Deliberation; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008.
34. With regard to criterion (1), DCG should strive to ensure that persons participating on behalf of the public be demographically representative of the relevant population as whole. In addition, it should display a clear intent on the part of government to share decision-making authority with non-government actors, including ordinary citizens. It should transparently reveal the connection between the results of deliberation and the policy or policies that are formed subsequently. And it should be treated not as a single, 'one-off' event, but as precedent for and precursor to a standing process of deliberative collaborative decision-making.
35. This definition is likely to evolve with suggestions from collaborators during the next phase of our work, in which we plan to use crowd-sourcing to link collaborative researchers and practitioners in an online deliberative space.
36. This subcategory has been included in the DCG typology, since it can be deliberative and collaborative. However it tends to involve stakeholder groups and not citizens, which on the surface does not fit well with our assertion that citizen participation is essential to DCG. Nonetheless, this sort of collaboration has the potential to incorporate citizen participation to a greater extent, and can also link to broader processes that are more orientated towards citizen involvement, making an important contribution in the process. Therefore it has been included in the typology at this point.
37. The deliberative process was designed and facilitated by one of this paper's authors (Hartz-Karp).
38. Carson, L.; Hartz-Karp, J. Adapting and Combining Deliberative Designs. In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century; Gastil, J., Levine, P., Eds.; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 120-138.
39. A deliberative survey involves 'pre-and-post-test' research in which the effects of deliberation are identified by comparison of the 'post' data to the baseline 'pre' data. In a deliberative survey, a random sample of the relevant broad population is surveyed to reveal 'top-of-mind' community perspectives. Then a demographically representative group of community members is invited to take part in a deliberative process. These participants undertake the same survey again just prior to the commencement of deliberations, in order to check whether the group of people participating in the deliberations is actually representative of the broader community. Statistical adjustments can be made in the final analysis of the deliberative survey if they differ. Once the deliberative process is complete, participants complete the survey again. Two types of results emerge from a deliberative survey-the absolute results; and the change in results, both of which can be useful in policy development.
40. MacTiernan, A. Harmonising Divergent Voices: Sharing the Challenge of Decision-Making, Keynote address, IPAA, NSW State Conference, Sydney, Australia, May 2004. Available online: http://www.21stcenturydialogue.com/index.php?package=Papers&action=Index&static=1 (accessed on 5 July 2012).
41. Many of the proposals are ambitious: planting one million trees in the next few years, becoming the bicycle capital of the west, and empowering local youth and the Indigenous population.
42. Hartz-Karp, J.; Tillman, C. Geraldton 2029 and beyond: Developing civic deliberation and collaborative governance to co-create a sustainable future. In Vitalizing Democracy through Participation: Reinhard Mohn Prize 2011; Ward, J., Ed.; Bertelsmann Stiftung: Bielefeld, Germany, 2011; pp. 69-89.
43. In this Citizens' Panel a demographically and attitudinally representative sample of 56 people were invited by the City to make recommendations on an energy transition plan to Administration and Council. The citizens met for 42 hours spread over six Saturdays between October 13 and December 1, 2012, and deliberated about the goals proposed in Edmonton's Energy Transition Discussion Paper, which had been developed by the City Administration, a Clean Energy NGO, and a consulting firm and released in June 2012, as part of the process of achieving the goals of the City's environmental strategic plan: The Way We Green.
44. Centre for Public Involvement, Alberta Climate Dialogue, the City of Edmonton, and University of Alberta. Citizens' Panel on Edmonton's Energy and Climate Challenges. Centre for Public Involvement, Alberta Climate Dialogue, the City of Edmonton, and University of Alberta: Alberta, Canada, 2013. Available online: http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/documents/CitizensPanel-EnergyClimateChallenge.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2013).
45. Maley, T. Alternative budgeting and the radical imagination: In Europe but not in Canada? Affinities J. Radic. Theory Cult. Action 2010, 4, 107-140.
46. PB in Porto Alegre permits citizens to budget funds for public works [5,17].
47. In Australia, PB is in use in Canada Bay, NSW and in Melville and Greater Geraldton, WA. The PB in the City of Greater Geraldton will adopt a similar process to that implemented in Canada Bay, and will take learning from the implementation of the Canada Bay PB into account.
48. Hartz-Karp, J. Laying the Groundwork for Participatory Budgeting-Developing a Deliberative Community and Collaborative Governance: Greater Geraldton, Western Australia. J. Public Deliberation 2012, 8. Article 6.
49. The decision as to whether the recommendation will be unanimously accepted by the elected Council is currently under consideration at the time of writing this paper.
50. Chester, C.; Moomaw, W. A taxonomy of collaborative governance: A Guide to understanding the diversity of international and domestic conservation accords. Environ. Agreements 2008, 8, 187-206.
51. Dryzek, J. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011.
52. Reidy, C.; Herriman, J. Collaborative mini-publics and the global deliberative system: Insights from an evaluation of worldwide views on global warming in Australia. Portal J. Multidis. Int. Stud. 2011, 8, 1-29.
53. In 2012, WWV convened another world-wide deliberation on biodiversity, with the aim of influencing COP11, held in India. The extent to which this aim was achieved is as yet unclear.
54. The Wetlands are part of the Toiyabe National Forest in western Nevada near the border with California.
55. Hendriks, C.; Dryzek, J.; Hunold, C. Turning up the heat: Partisanship in deliberative innovation. Polit. Stud. 2007, 55, 362-383.
56. Kim, S. Collaborative governance in South Korea: Citizen participation in policy making and welfare service provision. Asian Perspect. 2010, 34, 165-190.
57. Lukensmeyer, C. Learning from the past, committing to the future: A practitioner's view of our democracy. Public Adm. Rev. 2009, 70, S273-S283.