1. Stakeholder participation in knowledge production regarding complex environmental problems
Dr. Jeroen van der Sluijs
Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation
Utrecht University

2. EU White Paper on Governance, Liberatore, A. rapporteur, 2001.
“Knowledge used for policy-making and public debate should not only be excellent from a scientific point of view; it also needs to be ‘socially robust’, responding to policy, social, economic needs or concerns. This involves expertise beyond traditional and professional ‘peer’ community to include those with practical or other knowledge about the issue at hand.”
EU White Paper on Governance, Liberatore, A. rapporteur, 2001.

3. MNP Guidance on Stakeholder Particpation
Why do you want participation?
What should the participation be about?
Who do you want to involve?
How much participation do you want?
What form are you choosing?

4. Incentives for participatory risk assessment
Instrumental
decrease conflict/increase acceptance of or trust in the science
Normative
process should be legitimate/ democracy
Substantive
relevant wisdom is not limited to scientific specialists and public officials
Bounded rationality
Increase quality
(Stern & Fineberg, Understanding Risk, Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, 1996)

6. A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Arnstein, 1969
1 Manipulation and 2 Therapy. non participative, cure or educate the participants. achieve public support by PR. 3 Informing. one way flow of information 4 Consultation. attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries. Window dressing ritual 5 Placation. Allows citizens to advise but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice. 6 Partnership. Power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Shared decision-making responsibilities. 7 Delegated power to make decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability. 8 Citizen Control. Participants handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programme.

7. Level of ambition i Direction of communication Co-decide Co - produce
ractief
Take advice /
Consult
Listen
Study
Inform
MNP & SH*
MNP SH
MNP SH
MNP SH
MNP SH
MNP SH
Niet interactief
No participation
MNP SH
*SH = stakeholders

8. Different functions in the process of environmental risk management and the position of IA within this broader context.

9. Stakeholders can agree or disagree on different levels:
Ideological view. This is the deepest level of disagreement and can lead to very different views of whether there is a problem or what it is. One can hold the view that a radically different ideological starting point is required. Ideological argumentation focuses typically on ideology and alternative societal orders.
Problem setting and goal searching. Groups may agree on the existence of a problem, but not on identifying precisely what the problem is, how to formulate it, and what the end goal or solution point should be.
Problem solving. Groups may agree on the existence of a problem and further agree on policy goals but disagree on the strategies and instruments required to reach the goal. Problem solving argumentation typically focus on effectiveness, side effects, and efficiency of methods.
Outcomes and fairness. Groups often care about the fairness of solutions to problems, but can hold different views on what constitutes fair outcomes. For example, one can hold the view that the policy at hand does not serve the public interest or public wellbeing. Fairness argumentation focuses typically on public interest, unexpected societal side effects, and distributive justice.

10. Value mapping and Argumentative Analysis
Stake-holder 1
Stake-holder 2
Stake-holder n
Agreement
Dis-agreement
Ideological view
Problem setting
and goal searching
Problem solving
Outcomes and
fairness

11. Knowledge elicitation techniques Interview Protocol analysis
Group of tools
Tools
Knowledge elicitation techniques
Interview
Protocol analysis
Card sorting / hexagon method
Mental mapping / frames analysis
Brainstorming tools
Delphi techniques
Brainbox / electronic meeting
Spatial Visualisation tools
GIS (Web-GIS)
Maps / 3D scale models
Framing tools
Reframing workshop / Round table conference
Role playing games
Source: Tom Raadgever, draft report for NeWater project, 2005

12. Participatory Modelling Conceptual modelling System Dynamics Modelling
Group of tools
Tools
Participatory Modelling
Conceptual modelling
System Dynamics Modelling
Decision Support Systems
Agent Based Simulation
Future-oriented tools
Visioning workshop
Backward mapping / back-casting
Scenario workshop / development / analysis
Uncertainty analysis and KQA tools
Numerical Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP) system
QAAT
Source: Tom Raadgever, draft report for NeWater project, 2005

13. Multiattribute Utility Analysis Social Multi Criteria Evaluation
Group of tools
Tools
Design tools
Creative competition
Design studio
Carrousel
Evaluation tools
Multiattribute Utility Analysis
Social Multi Criteria Evaluation
Deliberative Monetary Valuation
Decision tools
Group Decision Room
Citizens’ jury
Source: Tom Raadgever, draft report for NeWater project, 2005

14. local knowledge / Indigenous knowledge–
Knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society. IK contrasts with the international knowledge system generated by universities, research institutions and private firms. It is the basis for local-level decision making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural-resource management, and a host of other activities in rural communities. (Warren, 1991)
Indigenous knowledge is used synonymously with ‘traditional’ and ‘local’ knowledge to differentiate the knowledge developed by a community from the international knowledge systems sometimes called ‘’Western’ system, generated through universities, government research centres and private industry. IK refers to the knowledge of indigenous peoples as well as any other defined community. (Warren, 1992)

15. Local knowledge
knowledge of local conditions, which may determine which data are strong and relevant,
anecdotes
informal surveys
official information published by unofficial means
investigative journalism
can help to diffuse the policy problems

16. It may be argued that stakeholders lack theoretical knowledge and are biased by self-interest, but, as we have seen, it can equally well be argued that the experts lack practical knowledge and have their own unselfconscious forms of bias.
(source: Jerry Ravetz)

17. boundary work (Thomas Gieryn, 1983)
The processes in the science-policy-society interfaces by which
parts of a debate are depoliticized by defining them as belonging
to the scientific domain.
By drawing boundaries between science and policy, scientists
post “keep out” signs to prevent nonscientists from challenging
or reinterpreting claims labeled as “science”.

18. Models of participatory policy-making (Pellizzoni, 2001)

19. Participation and deliberation
Traditional forms of involvement:
[information dissemination; public consultation; public participation]
New forms of deliberation
[face-to-face communication; argumentation; use of ‘local’ and ‘expert’ knowledges to reach practical judgements about what to do].

20. Positive benefits of deliberation
increase range of valid knowledges
increase the range of voices heard
Increase reflexivity and capacity to learn
increase legitimacy of policy decisions
increase robustness of policy responses
Increase public trust in democratic institutions

21. Potential Problems open to capture by sectional interests
inefficient use of resources – time, people, money
induces bureaucratic inaction
stakeholder fatigue
fuels public apathy and cynicism
leads to forced /false consensus

22. Conclusions
Participation in knowledge production (as opposed to participation in decision making) is increasingly important
The step from one-way towards two-way communication between science and society meets a lot of resistance in the scientific community -> boundary work
Methods for systematic harvesting and structuring of local knowledge are in its infancy: huge challenges here