M. Hisschemoller

The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment

Integrated environmental assessment is a booming field. Its intellectual challenges, its relevance for real life problems, and its generous financial support have attracted many researchers who either assess the environment in an integrated manner, or purport or pretend to do so. This has led to a wide and diverse range of research and policy activities, all sharing the nominator of integrated environmental assessment. This paper has a twofold objective. Firstly, it discusses the main approaches to Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA). IEA is meant to deliver usable (scientific) knowledge to environmental policy making. In order to achieve its goal, IEA frequently uses an integrated assessment modelling approach, but it may also use a participatory approach. Modelling and participatory approaches are sometimes considered irreconcilable, since they are different in scope, use different kinds of methods and may even be based on conflicting epistemologies. However, as this paper will argue, they are increasingly recognised as mutual reinforcing approaches. They need each other in order to improve decision making on complex environmental issues by identifying, using and integrating a broad body of knowledge available from different sources. Therefore, the second objective of this paper is to show the mutual interdependence of participatory and modelling approaches in assisting policy-making. It thereby gives special attention to the various goals and functions of IEA. The contributions of IEA to science are beyond the scope of this paper. Section 2 defines the concept of integrated assessment and explores its possible goals and functions in assisting environmental policy-making. Sections 3 and 4 succinctly provide an overview of approaches to integrated assessment. The authors, working in both fields of IEA, have tried not to hide the mutual differences. Especially the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in assisting environmental policy-making are assessed. Section 3 introduces and explains integrated assessment modelling, while section 4 focuses on participatory integrated assessment. Section 5 takes a different angle in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of modelling and participatory approaches. It discusses three examples of what may go wrong if either one of the approaches stands alone. Section 6 presents conclusions as regards possibilities for combining modelling and participation in IEA.

Improving the usability of research on the public perception of science and technology for policy-making

Studies on public reactions to science and technology may help policy makers who seek to involve the public in decision making on issues related to technological or scientific complexity. The paper seeks to understand how research on public reactions to science and technology can be used, addressing the following questions: What is good quality research? Which research offers data that are most useful for decision makers? An evaluation of the approaches used both in research on public reactions and in policy decisions shows that the general public can be considered in different roles; specific dimensions of those roles include the passive vs. active citizen-consumer, and the non-attentive vs. participative citizen. The paper presents a typology which links the research and policy approaches. It concludes that, in order to increase the usability of research on public reactions, the research and policy approaches should match. Equally important, researchers and policy makers should question their assumptions on the publics role rather than take their own assumptions for granted.

A boundary organization and its changing environment: the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the MNP

In this paper we address the way boundary organizations can accommodate tensions in the science – politics interface. Literature on boundary organizations suggests that this type of organization can provide stability in science – politics interaction, but how these organizations function over a longer period of time is not a point of theoretical or empirical attention. We study a boundary organization, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), by analyzing the ideas that guided the foundation of the MNP and by analyzing two cases in which the MNP advised Dutch policy makers. In both cases the MNP had to adjust its boundary orientation because of changes in its institutional context. These findings show that the dynamics involved in boundary organizations should be included in academic research. We conclude by discussing two conceptual frameworks that may help to capture these dynamics: the notion of ‘learning organizations’ and a typology of roles of experts in politics.

The Role of Views of Nature in Dutch Nature Conservation: The Case of the Creation of a Drift Sand Area in the Hoge Veluwe National Park

Nature conservation requires choices about what sort of nature should be protected in what areas and includes value judgments on what nature is and/or should be. This paper studies the role of differing views of nature in nature conservation. A case study on the creation of a drift sand area in the Netherlands illustrates how nature conservation disputes can be understood as a conflict in views of nature.

Local energy initiatives cannot make a difference, unless ….

Across Europe and abroad, local energy initiatives multiply in numbers and attention. They are widely received with sympathy and encouraged in national and European programs. There appears to be a shared belief that local, community-based energy initiatives are important, if only because they express a public sentiment that global environmental concerns deserve more serious political attention. Not surprisingly, social scientists embrace local energy initiatives as a relevant topic for global environmental change research agendas. Why do people organize to produce their own energy in a renewable manner? Which barriers do they face in the context of a fossil-based energy regime that is unlikely to give up its hegemonic position? How can they cope with these barriers and increase their effectiveness? Who are their allies and adversaries? What about the role of government in supporting local initiatives? And, the overriding question, can local energy initiatives make a difference for the energy transition? To put it bluntly, can ordinary citizens, creating new institutions for cooperation at local level, make a significant contribution to addressing the global environmental issues of our era, where the most powerful actors and institutions including (inter)national governments, the international scientific community, business and the environmental lobby have been unable to deliver? The obvious answer to the ultimate question is: No, and in the very best case: No, unless... Below, I will explore under which conditions local initiatives can make a difference indeed, unfolding the world of difference that stands between the No and the Unless. Below, I will first clarify the topic of investigation.

Bias in the exchange of arguments: the case of scientists’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food

Most perspectives on public participation share the notion that dialogues should be open, allowing participants to articulate and evaluate different views and knowledge claims. We hypothesize that participants’ evaluation of claims may be biased because participants have a preference for a particular type or source of a claim. This would hamper an open dialogue. We tested the effect of three variables on scientists’ evaluation of claims of the general public about GM food: the claim’s favorability towards GM food, the phrasing, and the source of the claim. Results are based on a survey-experiment among 73 biotechnology-scientists. Biased processing occurred when scientists evaluated claims. Claims that were corresponding with the attitude of the scientists and that were phrased in a cognitive way were evaluated more positively than claims that were contrasting the attitude of the scientists and that were phrased in an affective way. Contrary to our expectation, scientists evaluated claims of the public more positively than claims of experts.

Participatory assessment: tools for empowering, learning and legitimating?

Since the 1960s, a large number of participatory assessment tools and methods have been developed for use in a wide variety of policy venues and fields. There are many opinions on what participatory tools are about. As will be explained, these relate in large part to ongoing debates about the goals of participation. Hence, there is no shared authoritative definition of participatory tools and this chapter has no intention of developing one. Rather pragmatically, it distinguishes between participatory methods, which refer to procedures, and participatory tools, which relate to steps in a procedure. Just as an authoritative definition of participatory assessment tools and methods is lacking, so too is consensus over the outcome they aim at. What they have in common and what makes them distinct from other (social) science methods and tools is that they assist in bringing people together at a specific location (which could include the Internet) and facilitate some sort of joint assessment (Hisschemöller 2005). Hence, the distinctive features of participatory methods and tools are that they facilitate dialogue as a way to come to grips with complex (unstructured) decision problems that cannot be addressed by scientific expertise alone. Given this definition, participatory tools overlap with some of the other policy formulation tools that also employ stakeholder involvement (for example, participatory modelling or participatory multi-criteria analysis (MCA)). Participatory assessment needs to be distinguished from legal procedures for political participation that are mandatory in many countries and sometimes also prescribed by international law. Its use is broadly recommended and facilitated by international organizations, for example the World Bank (1996), UNHCR (2006) and the World Food Programme (2001). Participatory assessment tools and methods are used to assist mandatory

The scale of transition: an integrated study of the performance of CHP biomass plants in the Netherlands

Combined heat and power (CHP) plants using biomass are considered important to substantially increase the share of renewables in the total energy supply and meet ambitious climate targets. The analysis focuses on the links between the size of bio-fuelled CHP plants and their techno-economic and environmental performance, as well as social acceptance. In an exploratory way, this paper compares the performance of six bioenergy plants in the Netherlands in these three key areas, thereby focusing on the link between the size of biomass plants and overall performance in an integrated multi-dimensional manner. The findings show that economic and environmental performance does not necessarily improve with scale and, in effect, several large-scale biomass plants score low in several environmental indicators. In addition, we find that there is often limited data availability on economic, environmental and social characteristics of biomass plants in the Netherlands, despite the fact that their operations are largely supported by public funds.