The Experts below are selected from a list of 306 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David M Konisky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what are we gaining from stakeholder involvement observations from Environmental Planning in the great lakes
Environment and Planning C-government and Policy, 2001Co-Authors: Thomas C Beierle, David M KoniskyAbstract:Attention to the need for greater stakeholder involvement in Environmental decisionmaking has been increasing in recent years. The authors draw on a number of cases of Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes Region in an attempt to understand the possible benefits stakeholder processes can bring to Environmental decisionmaking. They outline benefits in four areas: (1) the quality of decisions, (2) the relationships among important players in the decisionmaking process, (3) the capacity for managing Environmental problems, and (4) improvements in Environmental quality. Although the research suggests that in a number of the cases studied there was a good outcome in the first three areas, there did not appear to be an obvious link between good participation and improvements in Environmental quality through implementation of cleanup and restoration activities.
-
values conflict and trust in participatory Environmental Planning
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2000Co-Authors: Thomas C Beierle, David M KoniskyAbstract:The need for greater public involvement in Environmental decisionmaking has been highlighted in recent high-profile research reports and emphasized by leaders at all levels of government. In some cases, Environmental agencies have opened the door to greater participation in their programs. However, there is relatively little information on what can be gained from greater public involvement and what makes some programs work while others fail. This article presents an evaluation of public participation in several cases of Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes region, focusing on how effectively these efforts introduced public values into government decisionmaking, resolved conflict among stakeholders, and built trust in Environmental agencies. Data for the analysis came from a “case survey” method in which the authors systematically coded information from previously written case studies. The research findings support an optimistic view of public participation-although not without important caveats-and emphasize the importance of communication and commitment in the participatory process. © 2000 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Jens Newig - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
public participation and local Environmental Planning testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from germany
Land Use Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Anna Drazkiewicz, Edward Challies, Jens NewigAbstract:Public and stakeholder participation in Environmental Planning is often assumed to enhance effectiveness through improving the Environmental quality of decisions and enhancing implementation. We draw on the literature on participatory Environmental governance in order to derive key participation-related factors that are hypothesized to impact on decision quality and implementation. We then outline four cases of decision-making processes in local Environmental Planning in Germany, representing a variety of forms of public participation, and what we suggest can be seen as four different pathways to ‘success’ in participatory Planning. The case studies, recounted on the basis of stakeholder interviews and secondary research, are subjected to a cross-case analysis in order to examine the influence of participation in each case. We consider how key participation-related factors played out across the cases, and assess both decision quality and implementation against counterfactual non-participatory, or less-participatory, scenarios. In moving beyond accounts of ‘what happened’, and considering how participation changed the order of things relative to ‘what would have happened’ under different scenarios, the research highlights how very different pathways may lead to ‘success’ in participatory Environmental Planning from the viewpoint of process organizers and planners sympathetic to Environmental issues. We conclude that, given the significance of context and surprises, planners and process organizers must be open to different pathways to the successful conclusion of participatory Planning processes.
Thomas C Beierle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what are we gaining from stakeholder involvement observations from Environmental Planning in the great lakes
Environment and Planning C-government and Policy, 2001Co-Authors: Thomas C Beierle, David M KoniskyAbstract:Attention to the need for greater stakeholder involvement in Environmental decisionmaking has been increasing in recent years. The authors draw on a number of cases of Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes Region in an attempt to understand the possible benefits stakeholder processes can bring to Environmental decisionmaking. They outline benefits in four areas: (1) the quality of decisions, (2) the relationships among important players in the decisionmaking process, (3) the capacity for managing Environmental problems, and (4) improvements in Environmental quality. Although the research suggests that in a number of the cases studied there was a good outcome in the first three areas, there did not appear to be an obvious link between good participation and improvements in Environmental quality through implementation of cleanup and restoration activities.
-
values conflict and trust in participatory Environmental Planning
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2000Co-Authors: Thomas C Beierle, David M KoniskyAbstract:The need for greater public involvement in Environmental decisionmaking has been highlighted in recent high-profile research reports and emphasized by leaders at all levels of government. In some cases, Environmental agencies have opened the door to greater participation in their programs. However, there is relatively little information on what can be gained from greater public involvement and what makes some programs work while others fail. This article presents an evaluation of public participation in several cases of Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes region, focusing on how effectively these efforts introduced public values into government decisionmaking, resolved conflict among stakeholders, and built trust in Environmental agencies. Data for the analysis came from a “case survey” method in which the authors systematically coded information from previously written case studies. The research findings support an optimistic view of public participation-although not without important caveats-and emphasize the importance of communication and commitment in the participatory process. © 2000 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Anna Drazkiewicz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
public participation and local Environmental Planning testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from germany
Land Use Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Anna Drazkiewicz, Edward Challies, Jens NewigAbstract:Public and stakeholder participation in Environmental Planning is often assumed to enhance effectiveness through improving the Environmental quality of decisions and enhancing implementation. We draw on the literature on participatory Environmental governance in order to derive key participation-related factors that are hypothesized to impact on decision quality and implementation. We then outline four cases of decision-making processes in local Environmental Planning in Germany, representing a variety of forms of public participation, and what we suggest can be seen as four different pathways to ‘success’ in participatory Planning. The case studies, recounted on the basis of stakeholder interviews and secondary research, are subjected to a cross-case analysis in order to examine the influence of participation in each case. We consider how key participation-related factors played out across the cases, and assess both decision quality and implementation against counterfactual non-participatory, or less-participatory, scenarios. In moving beyond accounts of ‘what happened’, and considering how participation changed the order of things relative to ‘what would have happened’ under different scenarios, the research highlights how very different pathways may lead to ‘success’ in participatory Environmental Planning from the viewpoint of process organizers and planners sympathetic to Environmental issues. We conclude that, given the significance of context and surprises, planners and process organizers must be open to different pathways to the successful conclusion of participatory Planning processes.
Lynn Mandarano - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluating collaborative Environmental Planning outputs and outcomes restoring and protecting habitat and the new york new jersey harbor estuary program
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2008Co-Authors: Lynn MandaranoAbstract:Research documenting the social and organizational benefits of collaborative Planning has afforded collaborative Planning an increasingly broader role in Environmental policy and management. However, the bias toward evaluating the process and its social outcomes has resulted in a gap in knowledge of the impact collaborative Environmental Planning and management has on changing Environmental conditions. This article attempts to reduce this gap by presenting a new performance evaluation framework that assesses collaborative Environmental Planning outputs and outcomes: both social and Environmental. The case study of the Habitat Workgroup of the New York—New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program highlights the utility of this evaluation framework in assessing the quality of key outputs; the presence of outcomes (i.e., changes in social and Environmental conditions); and observed relationships between process, outputs, and outcomes.