Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
CONTEXT
Institutional, political, cultural, environmental
ENGAGEMENT SITUATION
Purpose, objectives, inputs
PARTICIPATORY
PROCESS
Who
Resources
How
OUTCOMES
Material (e.g. physical
environmental) / social /
behavioural / institutional
learning and change
OUTPUTS
Reports, social / co-produced
knowledges, assessments,
policy recommendations,
decisions
Figure 24.1
A contextual model of participatory process design and evaluation
(adapted from Burgess and Chilvers, 2006).
These discussions emphasise the fundamental importance of context in participa-
tory processes. As a rule of thumb, the more contentious and uncertain an issue is
the greater the need for inclusive and interactive public deliberation (Funtowicz and
Ravetz, 1993; Stern and Fineberg, 1996). In reality the range of deliberative
approaches endlessly multiplies as established methods (in table 24.1) are tailored
to specifi c decision situations, linked with other participatory methods, and inte-
grated with forms of information provision on which they depend. This refl ects an
increasing realisation that participatory process design (the who, what, and how of
participation) should be 'fi t-for-purpose' (Burgess and Chilvers, 2006) vis-à-vis the
immediate engagement situation and wider institutional, political, cultural, and
environmental contexts, as illustrated in fi gure 24.1. A participatory process leads
to a series of outputs and outcomes, which are infl uenced by, and in turn infl uence,
aspects of context (as depicted by the two-way dashed arrows in fi gure 24.1).
Evaluating Deliberation and Participation
Questions about the effectiveness of these participatory processes and outcomes are
the focus for a second stream of participatory inquiry in environmental geography.
As participatory practices develop and become more widespread, systematic 'inde-
pendent' evaluation becomes more important to deepen understanding of different
