The power of visioning: The contribution of future search conferences to decision-making in local agenda 21 processes

Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions: The Promise and Limits of Participatory Processes for the Quality of Environmentally Related Decision-making

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 73-88

  Oels, Angela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892106830     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9325-8_5     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. London: University of California Press.
2. Blaug, R. (1996). New developments in deliberative democracy. Politics, 16(2), 71-78.
3. Bunker, B. B. & Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769-784.
5. Durant, J. (1995). An experiment in democracy. In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.
6. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values (15), 226-243.
7. Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26, 165-187.
8. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. London: University of Chicago Press.
10. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
11. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
12. Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from Atlanta's Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 335-349.
13. Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building. A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472.
14. Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.
15. Kuper, R. (1997). Deliberating waste: The Hertfordshire citizens' jury. Local Environment, 2(2), 139-153.
16. Levett, R. (1997). Tools, techniques and processes for municipal management. Local Environment, 2(2), 189-202.
17. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation. no. 30. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth. London: Earth Island.
19. st century. London: New economics foundation.
20. Oels, A. (2000). 'Let's get together and feel alright!' Eine kritische Untersuchung von 'Agenda 21'-Prozessen in England und Deutschland. In H. Heinelt & E. Mühlich (Hrsg.), Lokale 'Agenda 21'-Prozesse. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
21. Oels, A. (2002). Investigating the emotional roller-coaster ride: A case-study-based assessment of the future search conference design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19:347-355.
22. Oels, A. (2003). Evaluating stakeholder participation in the transition to sustainable development. Methodology, case studies, policy implications. Münster, Germany: LITVerlag.
23. Oels, A. (2006). Evaluating stakeholder dialogues. In S. Stoll-Kleemann & M. Welp (Eds.), Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Theory and practice. Berlin: Springer.
24. Oppermann, B. & Langer, K. (2002). Die Qualität partizipativer und kooperativer Projekte in der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Arbeitsbericht der Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung Nr. 226, Dezember 2002. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg.
25. O'Riordan, T. & Voisey, H. (Eds.) (1998). The transition to sustainability. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan.
26. Polanyi, M. F. D. (2002). Communicative action in practice: Future Search and the pursuit of an open, critical and non-coercive large group process. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 19(4), 357-366.
27. Rossi, J. (1997). Participation run amok: The costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking. Northwestern University Law Review, 92(1), 173-249.
28. Rowe, G. & Frewer, J. L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
29. Selle, K. (Ed.) (1996). Planung und Kommunikation. Gestaltung von Planungsprozessen in Quartier, Stadt und Landschaft. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxiserfahrungen. Wiesbaden, Germany/Wien: Bauverlag.
30. Senge, P. M. (1998). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization (reprint of the 1993 edition). London: Century Business.
31. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
32. Street, P. (1997). Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to sustainable urban living? Futures, 29(2), 139-158.
33. Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1975-1989.
34. Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Thomas, H. (1998). Collaborative action in local plan-making: Planners' perceptions of 'planning through debate'. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 127-144.
35. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21. New York: UN publication.
36. Voß, J-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.) (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
37. Webler, T. (1995). 'Right' discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
38. Weisbord, M. R. & Janoff, S. (1995). Future search. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
39. Weisbord, M. R. & Janoff, S. (1996). Future search: Finding common ground in organizations and communities. Systems Practice, 9(1), 71-84.
40. Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
41. Wilcox, D. (1994). The guide to effective participation. Brighton, UK: Delta.
42. nd ed. London: Sage.