Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
has prompted something of a critical backlash. An increasing number of authors
are arguing that participation can also disempower, exclude, oppress, be manipu-
lated by powerful interests, and act as a smokescreen behind which decision-making
institutions conduct business as usual (e.g., Cooke and Kothari 2001). This decid-
edly 'janus-faced' nature of new participatory governance (Swyngedouw, 2005)
fuels polarised disputes between proponents and critics, which remain unresolved
for the time being.
The contested and wide-ranging terrain of participatory environmental geogra-
phy presents obvious challenges for mapping out the current and future state of the
fi eld. Any such review would be incomplete if it ignored related work across the
social sciences by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, planners, political
scientists and others. Indeed, a key characteristic of most geographers working in
these very public and participatory worlds is the solidarities they have forged within
a wider 'epistemic community' of researchers, practitioners, policymakers and activ-
ists (see Chilvers, 2007). And while social scientists have undoubtedly led the way,
this wider community increasingly includes physical geographers and other natural
scientists.
In surveying this multidisciplinary fi eld the chapter argues that empirical research
within it has developed in three main streams, which precede each other to some
extent, sometimes running in parallel and sometimes converging. The fi rst stream
is committed to developing participatory practices and innovative deliberative meth-
odologies in research and policy contexts. The second stream, which centres on
evaluating the quality of participatory processes and outcomes, has shadowed evolv-
ing practices but received relatively less attention. The third stream encompasses
emerging critical studies of participation, which offer more wide-ranging and refl ex-
ive accounts of its construction, performance, and discourse. Before charting these
streams in turn, it is important fi rst to map out the theoretical and conceptual
landscape within which they are situated, which in itself represents a contested and
continually evolving body of work.
Deliberating Environmental Participation: Concepts,
Rationales and Critiques
Participation is a highly contested term that means different things to different
people. To add to the confusion, participation is often called (or equated to) many
different things, such as 'engagement', 'empowerment', 'involvement', 'consulta-
tion', 'deliberation', 'dialogue', 'partnership', 'outreach', 'mediation', 'consensus
building' and 'civic science'. The list goes on. The most popular means of clarifying
this situation remains Shelly Arnstein's (1969) ladder of participation, which defi nes
eight steps of increasing devolution of power
from
decision makers
to
citizens,
moving through 'non-participation' (including information provision), 'degrees of
tokenism' (including consultation), to 'degrees of citizen control' in infl uencing
proposals and decisions. It is the latter category that most commentators take to
mean participation proper, where participants often engage in deliberation over
extended periods of interaction, discussion and debate.
The conceptual origins of deliberation lie in theories of deliberative democracy
developed by critical and political theorists tapping roots that stretch back to the
polis
of ancient Greece (Dryzek, 2002). Deliberative theorists view democracy as
an inclusive forum where reasoned debate transforms judgements in the face of
