Deliberative and Participatory Approaches in Environmental Geography
Deliberative and Participatory Approaches in Environmental Geography
复制标题
环境地理学中的协商和参与方法
DOI：
10.1002/9781444305722.ch24
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Chilvers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Chilvers
在环境领域，现在做“参与”是非常时髦的，或者至少是谈论“参与”。当然，以前从来没有这种情况。传统上，环境政策是由科学家和其他政策精英在排他性的技术官僚程序中决定的。事实上，如果这一章是在十年前写的，也不太可能出现在这本《伴侣》中。新兴的参与性做法寻求增强在科学政策进程中往往被边缘化的声音的权能。它们在环境地理学中的发展构成了整个学科更广泛的“参与性转向”的一部分，这在发展地理学（例如，Binns, 1997）、社会地理学（例如，Pain, 2004）和地理信息系统（例如，Craig等人，2002）中尤为明显。公民参与的理念是绿色政治意识形态的核心，随着可持续发展议程的兴起和里约之后实施地方21世纪议程的全球尝试，公民参与的理念变得更加突出（Macnaghten和Jacobs， 1997）。与此同时，人们也越来越意识到环境风险问题的“后常态”性质，即“事实不确定、价值有争议、利害关系高、决策紧迫”（Funtowicz和Ravetz， 1993年，第740页）。不确定性、不确定性（见本卷第6章）以及强烈的认知和伦理差异要求将更广泛的行为者、知识和价值观纳入环境政策制定（Eden, 1996），以及环境科学、评估和管理的核心专家领域（Irwin, 1995）。这种合作与与国家以外的新形式环境治理相关的伙伴关系方法重叠（见本卷第32章）。这些全球趋势覆盖了全球“北方”环境规划的参与性发展（Healey, 1997）和全球“南方”的国际发展（Chambers, 1997）。在这些领域中，对协商和参与性替代方案的探索一直受到一种共同认识的推动，即“自上而下”的技术官僚方法是有缺陷的，通常是由于它们明显与当地环境无关和不敏感。然而，随着参与的理念席卷了连续的政策领域，它
In the environmental sphere it is now very fashionable to be doing, or at least talking about,‘participation’. This never used to be the case of course. Environmental policy has traditionally been determined by scientists and other policy elites in exclusive, technocratic processes. Indeed, it is unlikely that this chapter would have featured in this Companion had it been written even a decade ago. Emerging participatory practices seek to empower voices often marginalised in science-policy processes. Their development in environmental geography forms part of a wider ‘participatory turn’across the discipline, which has been particularly visible in development geography (eg, Binns, 1997), social geography (eg, Pain, 2004) and GIS (eg, Craig et al., 2002).Ideas of citizen participation are central to green political ideology and have gained greater prominence with the rise of the sustainability agenda and global attempts to implement Local Agenda 21 post-Rio (Macnaghten and Jacobs, 1997). This has coincided with increasing realisation of the ‘post-normal’nature of environmental risk issues where ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decision urgent’(Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993, p. 740). Uncertainty, indeterminacy (see Chapter 6, this volume) and intense epistemic and ethical differences demand that an extended range of actors, knowledges and values are incorporated into environmental policymaking (Eden, 1996), as well as core expert domains of environmental science, appraisal, and management (Irwin, 1995). Such engagements overlap with partnership approaches linked to new forms of environmental governance beyond the state (see Chapter 32, this volume). These global trends overlay participatory developments in environmental planning in the global ‘north’(Healey, 1997), and international development in the global ‘south’(Chambers, 1997). Across these domains the search for deliberative and participatory alternatives has been driven by a common realisation that ‘top-down’technocratic approaches are deficient, often due to their apparent irrelevance and insensitivity to local contexts. Yet as the idea of participation has swept through successive policy arenas it