Ortiz-Riomalo Juan Felipe, Koessler Ann-Kathrin, Engel Stefanie
Department of Environmental Economics, School of Business Administration and Economics and Institute of Environmental Systems Research (IUSF Research Centre), Osnabrück University, Germany.
Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany.
J Environ Manage. 2023 Apr 1;331:117184. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117184. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
Solving humanity's social-environmental challenges calls for collective action by relevant actors. Hence, involving these actors in the policy process has been deemed both necessary and promising. But how and to what extent can participatory policy interventions (PIs) foster collective action for sustainable environmental and natural resource management? Lab and lab-in-the-field experiments on co-operation in the context of collective action challenges (i.e. social dilemmas) and case study research on participatory processes both offer insights into this question but have hitherto mainly remained unconnected. This article reviews insights from these two streams of literature in tandem, synthesising and analysing them using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework in combination with the network of action situations (NAS) framework and the social-ecological systems (SES) framework. We thus perform an integrative and interpretative narrative review to draw a richer and more nuanced picture of PIs: their potential impacts, their (institutional and behavioural) mechanisms and challenges, and caveats and recommendations for their design and implementation. Our review shows that PIs can indeed foster collective action by (a) helping the relevant actors craft suitable and legitimate institutional arrangements and (b) addressing and/or influencing actors' attributes of relevance to collective action, namely their individual and shared understandings, beliefs and preferences. To fulfil this potential, the organisers and sponsors of PIs must address and link to the broader context through soundly designed and implemented processes. Complementary follow-up, enforcement and conflict resolution mechanisms are necessary to nurture, reassure and sustain understandings, beliefs and preferences that undergird trust-building and collective action. The conceptual framework developed for the review can help researchers and practitioners further assess these insights, disentangle PIs' mechanisms and impacts, and integrate the research and practice of participatory governance and collective action.
解决人类的社会环境挑战需要相关行为体采取集体行动。因此，让这些行为体参与政策制定过程被认为既必要又具有前景。但是，参与式政策干预（PI）如何以及在多大程度上能够促进可持续环境和自然资源管理的集体行动呢？关于集体行动挑战（即社会困境）背景下合作的实验室和实地实验，以及关于参与式过程的案例研究，都为这个问题提供了见解，但迄今为止，它们主要仍未建立联系。本文同时回顾了这两类文献的见解，使用制度分析与发展（IAD）框架，并结合行动情境网络（NAS）框架和社会生态系统（SES）框架对其进行综合和分析。因此，我们进行了一次综合和解释性的叙述性综述，以更全面、细致地描绘参与式政策干预：其潜在影响、（制度和行为）机制与挑战，以及其设计和实施的注意事项与建议。我们的综述表明，参与式政策干预确实可以通过以下方式促进集体行动：（a）帮助相关行为体制定合适且合法的制度安排；（b）处理和/或影响与集体行动相关的行为体属性，即他们的个人和共同理解、信念及偏好。为了实现这一潜力，参与式政策干预的组织者和发起者必须通过精心设计和实施的过程来应对并与更广泛的背景相联系。互补的后续跟进、执行和冲突解决机制对于培育、巩固和维持支撑信任建设与集体行动的理解、信念及偏好是必要的。为此次综述所构建的概念框架能够帮助研究人员和实践者进一步评估这些见解，理清参与式政策干预的机制和影响，并整合参与式治理与集体行动的研究及实践。
