1. Linking modes of governance and social-ecological outcomes in environmental evaluation Outline of an evidence-based approach Edward Challies, Nicolas Jager, Jens Newig, Ana Adzersen

2. Outline  Introduction: Participatory environmental governance  Hypotheses: Participation in environmental policy-making  Methodology: Meta-analysis  Key Contributions 2

3. Participatory environmental governance  Rise of participatory governance, 1970s →  State failure, ‘inclusive government’ and ‘good governance’  Instrumental and democratic/emancipatory value of participation  Tensions in citizen participation  Participatory environmental governance  From social side-effects to social-ecological synergies? 3

4. Hypotheses: Participation in environmental policy-making  Hypothesised causal links between:  participation and policy effectiveness (implementation, compliance)  participation and environmental standards of the output 4

5. Conceptualising goals of participation 5 instrumentalemancipatory quality of the decision itself quality of implmentation pre-emptive legal protection Procedural- Justice-effect balancing of interests addressing conflicts incorporation of local knowledge knowledge of stakeholder positions acceptance and identification transparency and accountability education and capacity building building trust democratic policy formulation

6. Participation  policy effectiveness 6 +/- Implementation & Compliance (outcomes) - Institutional fit/ compatibility - Knowledge for implementation - Conflict resolution - Representation of diverse interests (incl. veto players) - ‘Win-win’ scenarios - Discursive fairness - Procedural justice - Education of policy addressees - Network creation - Waking sleeping dogs - Demand-institutional misfit

7. Participation  environmental standards of output 7 +/- Environmental standards of the policy/decision (output) - Representation of environmental actors - Environmentally relevant knowledge - ‘Common good’ - ‘Positive sum game’ solutions - Innovative/creative solutions - Disadvantaging environmental actors - Co-optation of environmental interests - Increased likelihood of veto

8. Example: Procedural justice effects 8 Participatory process Perceived legitimacy & fairness Increased acceptance of the output Improved implementation and compliance

9. Example: Negotiation effects 9 Participatory process Communication & bargaining Optimal allocations & positive sum solutions Higher environmental standards of the output

10. Methodology  Meta-analysis - case survey  Systematic aggregation of single small-N case study data  Precise coding according to theoretically informed scheme  transforms qualitative into quantitative data  combines richness of case material with scientific rigour of large-N comparative analysis - seldom applied  Screening of 2,871 texts for possible cases  Population of 572 cases  Random sample of 200 cases 10

11. Conceptual framework for cross-case analysis 11

12. Case-survey analysis – variable coding  Description of the case material through semi-quantitative variables  Coding done by three coders  Resulting data set allows for statistical analysis, QCA, etc. 12

13. Counterfactual reasoning 13 Factor 1 ↑ Factor 2 ↓ - causal relationship Factor 1 ↓ Factor 2 ↑ current state counterfactual situation with lower intensity of factor 1 Factor 2 counterfactual situation with higher intensity of factor 1 Factor 1 ↑ Factor 2 ↑ + causal relationship Factor 1 ↓ Factor 2 ↓

14. Key contributions  Conceptual: Exploring mechanisms by which, and circumstances under which, participation can improve decision/policy-making effectiveness and environmental standard of policies.  Policy: Evidence-based insights to support decision/policy-makers to achieve environmental policy goals in a socially and environmentally sustainable way. Aid decision-makers in characterising policy contexts (e.g. environmental issue, stakeholder field, etc.) and selecting suitable modes of participation given specific goals.  Methodological: Large N meta-analysis; investigation of causality via hypotheses and counterfactual reasoning.  Proposition: Environmental policy evaluation should take stock of the role of public participation in securing both environmental and social outcomes, and not see the latter as mere side-effects. 14

15. EDGE Project Evaluating the Delivery of Environmental Governance using an Evidence-based Research Design (EDGE) Project team: Prof. Dr Jens Newig, Dr Edward Challies Nicolas Jager M.A. Research Group on Governance, Participation and Sustainability Leuphana University Scharnhorststraße 1 21335 Lüneburg Germany Project timeframe: 2011-2016 http://www.leuphana.de/institute/infu/forschung/governance-nachhaltige-entwicklung.html 15

16. References  Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. P. J. (2003). Participation and Environmental Governance: Consensus, Ambivalence and Debate. Environmental Values, 12(2), 143-154  Cooke, B. (2001). The Social Psychological Limits of Participation? In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: the new tyranny? (pp. 102-121). London, New York: Zed Books.  Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.  Fritsch, O., & Newig, J. (2009). Participatory governance and sustainability: Early findings of a meta-analysis of stakeholder involvement in environmental decision-making. In E. Brousseau, T. Dedeurwaerdere & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Reflexive governance for global public goods. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.  Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66 (Special Issue), 66-75.  Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.  Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, London.  Mitchell, R. B. (2008). Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Institutions: What to Evaluate and How to Evaluate it? In O. R. Young, L. A. King & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change. Principal Findings, Applications and Research Frontiers (pp. 79-114). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.  Newig, J. (2007). Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality? Towards an analytical framework. Communication, Cooperation, Participation (International Journal of Sustainability Communication), 1(1), 51-71.  Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.  Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991-2006.  Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Administration & Society, 32(5), 566-595. 16