Newig Jens, Jager Nicolas W, Challies Edward, Kochskämper Elisa
Leuphana University Lüneburg, Institute of Sustainability Governance, Lüneburg, Germany.
University of Bremen, SOCIUM - Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, Bremen, Germany.
Glob Environ Change. 2023 Sep;82:102705. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102705.
Participation and collaboration of citizens and organized stakeholders in public decision-making is widely believed to improve environmental governance outputs. However, empirical evidence on the benefits of participatory governance is largely scattered across small-N case studies. To synthesize the available case-based evidence, we conducted a broad case-based meta-analysis across 22 Western democracies, including 305 individual cases of public environmental decision-making. We asked: How do 'more' participatory decision-making processes compare against 'less' participatory ones in fostering - or hindering - strong environmental governance outputs, (i.e. environmental provisions in plans, agreements or permits)? Which design features make a difference? What role does the decision-making context play? How do results change if we control for the intentions of the leading governmental agency? To capture the central design features of decision-making processes, we distinguish three dimensions of participation: the intensity of communication among participants and process organizers; the extent to which participants can shape decisions ("power delegation"); and the extent to which different stakeholder groups are represented. Our regression analysis yields robust evidence that these three design features of participation impact upon the environmental standard of governance outputs, even when controlling for the goals of governmental agencies. Power delegation is shown to be the most stable predictor of strong environmental outputs. However, communication intensity only predicts the conservation-related standard of outputs, but not the environmental health-related standard of outputs. Participants' environmental stance was another strong predictor, with considerable variation across different contexts. While our results remain broadly stable across a wide range of contexts, certain contextual conditions stood out in shaping the relation between participation and environmental outputs. Overall, our findings can inform the design of participatory processes that deliver governance outputs of a high environmental standard.
人们普遍认为，公民和有组织的利益相关者参与公共决策并进行合作，能够改善环境治理成果。然而，关于参与式治理益处的实证证据大多分散在小样本案例研究中。为了综合现有的基于案例的证据，我们对22个西方民主国家进行了广泛的基于案例的元分析，其中包括305个公共环境决策的个体案例。我们提出了以下问题：在促进（或阻碍）强有力的环境治理成果（即计划、协议或许可中的环境条款）方面，“更多”参与式决策过程与“较少”参与式决策过程相比如何？哪些设计特征会产生影响？决策背景起到了什么作用？如果我们控制主要政府机构的意图，结果会如何变化？为了捕捉决策过程的核心设计特征，我们区分了参与的三个维度：参与者与过程组织者之间的沟通强度；参与者能够影响决策的程度（“权力下放”）；以及不同利益相关者群体的代表性程度。我们的回归分析得出了有力的证据，表明即使在控制政府机构目标的情况下，参与的这三个设计特征也会对治理成果的环境标准产生影响。权力下放被证明是强有力的环境成果最稳定的预测因素。然而，沟通强度仅能预测与保护相关的成果标准，而不能预测与环境健康相关的成果标准。参与者的环境立场是另一个强有力的预测因素，在不同背景下存在相当大的差异。虽然我们的结果在广泛的背景下大致保持稳定，但某些背景条件在塑造参与和环境成果之间的关系方面尤为突出。总体而言，我们的研究结果可为设计能够产生高环境标准治理成果的参与式过程提供参考。
