Suchergebnisse

In modern societies dealing with environmental issues has become a part of everyday life. Making decisions on waste- or water-related issues is part of the public discourse in Hungary as well. The Hungarian literature on public participation discusses different participatory tools applied in particular policy fields. Public participation seems to have greater significance in environmental decisions than any other kind of democratic decision making processes. These experiences raise the question of 'why should the public participate in making environmental decisions?' In this paper we are looking for the answers to this question analysing the literature on public participation and exploring the relevant theoretical approaches. Arguments based on democracy theories, communication theory, sustainability, environmental democracy, risk research and behavioural economics will be summarized. The paper presents an analysis of how these different theoretical approaches treat public participation in environmental decision making and what arguments they present for its justification.

AbstractAs deliberative and participatory practices play a greater role in political decision-making of democratic political systems in many parts of the world, political parties must adapt to demands of an increasingly more cognitively mobilized citizenry. While there is a growing body of literature about the functioning of such procedures in different social and political contexts, little is known about politicians' reasons behind introducing them. Based on qualitative data collected among Hungarian politicians, this paper brings evidence to empirically assess why local politicians introduced Participatory Budgeting in Budapest, Hungary. Our findings suggest that politicians accept theoretical arguments for promoting citizens' participation, newly elected local politicians expect to increase their party's local embeddedness by creating new contact opportunities and emphasize that the introduction of Participatory Budgeting is a ground for experimentation. The article ends with a discussion about arguments that are put forth in the literature on European Participatory Budgeting but missing from the views of politicians, and concludes by highlighting the risks of institutionalizing Participatory Budgeting.

The complexity of sustainability issues prompts both science and policy‐making to broaden their methodologies in finding solutions to problems of environmental, social and economic sustainability. In the realms of post‐normal science, quests to find adequate answers to everyday challenges happen in an issue‐driven, policy‐oriented manner where the issue of involving the widest possible range of stakeholders is of utmost importance. Participatory systems mapping is a new type of participatory technique, which has emerged in the last few years. In such a process, participants jointly devise diagrams on a topical issue and develop policy recommendations. The paper discusses an experiment applying this method concerning the issue of sustainable consumption. The authors point out that systems mapping has many significant features that can enrich participatory methodologies. However, the participatory potential of systems mapping might be limited because it can be demanding for groups with lower levels of knowledge capital. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners' perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning.