Participatory and deliberative techniques
to embed an ecosystems approach into
decision making:
An introductory guide
May 2011
PROJECT CODE - NR0124
NR0124 Project partners
Robert Fish
Michael Winter
Duncan Russel
Jacquie Burgess
Jason Chilvers
Anthony Footitt
Kerry Turner
Roy Haines-Young
Project Co-ordinator
Dr Robert Fish, Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes
Drive Exeter, Devon EX4 4RJ. [email protected]
Defra Project Manager
Giles Golshetti, Natural Environment Strategy Unit, Defra, Area 3D Nobel House, 17
Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR, [email protected]
Citation:
Fish, R., Burgess, J., Chilvers, J. Footitt, A., Haines-Young, R. Russel, D., Winter,
D.M. (2011) Participatory and Deliberative Techniques to embed an Ecosystems
Approach into Decision Making: an introductory Guide. (Defra Project Code: NR0124)
2
Acknowledgements
The project team would like to extend their thanks to members of the External
Advisory Panel who provided many valuable comments in the development and
drafting of this Guide. The panel comprised officials from: the Environment Agency;
Natural England; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the Forest Commission;
the Scottish Government; the Countryside Council for Wales; the UNESCO North
Devon Biosphere; People, Science and Policy; Government Office for London; and the
Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Responses to the general
consultation served to strengthen the original text and were gratefully received.
Additional thanks are extended to Bruce Howard of the Natural Capital Initiative,
Cheryl Willis (University of Exeter) and Marion Potschin (Fabis) for their assistance.
In Defra, the project team are grateful for the guidance of Robert Bradburne, Helen
Dunn, Giles Golshetti and Simon Maxwell.
3
Contents
Executive summary
Section 1
7
Introduction
Aims and objectives
24
Audience for this guide and how to use it
27
Structure of this guide
27
Part A
Rationales and framework
Section 2
An ecosystems approach: key arguments and challenges
for participation
Section 3
General rationales for a participatory approach
31
Barriers to uptake
34
Summary
36
Decision making, participation and an ecosystems approach:
general framework
The process of decision making
37
EsA considerations in the decision making process
39
Summary
44
Part B
Key steps in taking a participatory approach
Section 4
Linking techniques to purpose in an EsA
Step 1: Assess what level of engagement is required
47
Step 2: Understand the stakeholder landscape.
49
Categorising stakeholders
50
Case Study 1 - Stakeholder analysis for farmland bird
populations
54
Case Study 2 - Brainstorming stakeholders in forest
management
55
Step 3: Identify relevant techniques
56
Learning from stakeholders: the use of surveys
56
Deliberative techniques
60
Analytic-deliberative techniques
62
How may techniques vary depending on the stage in the
decision process?
64
Summary
69
Case Study 3 - Mapping moorland landscapes
70
Case Study 4 - Mapping marine landscapes
72
4
Section 5
Case Study 5 - Interviewing stakeholders in the
Peak District to understand the decision situation
75
Case Study 6 - A citizens’ jury for water quality
76
Case Study 7 - Competency groups in water
regulation
80
Implementation and evaluation
Step 4: Assess resource commitments
82
Step 5: Recruit and implement
84
Step 6: Evaluate the process and outcomes
89
Why evaluate?
90
A framework for evaluating participation in an EsA
90
Process evaluation
93
Outcome evaluation
93
Summary
Section 6.
Case Study 8 - Evaluating stakeholder and
community involvement processes in forest
planning
96
Case Study 9 - Environmental outcomes
resulting from stakeholder engagement in
the North American Great Lakes region
98
Conclusion
100
Further reading
101
Glossary
105
List of Boxes
Box 1
Definition of key terms used in the guide
26
Box 2
Participation, the ecosystem approach and the Convention on 32
Biological Diversity
Box 3
Screening a decision issue: indicative questions
41
Box 4.
Technical Note: Scenario building
63
Box 5.
Technical note: a place based approach?
67
Box 6
Public understanding of the concepts and language around
ecosystem services and the natural environment
88
Figure 1
The decision cycle and an EsA: indicative questions
38
Figure 2
PDTs and an EsA: illustrative pathway through dec. making
65
Figure 3
Evaluating participation in an EsA: a framework
91
List of Figures
5
List of Tables
Table 1
Ecosystem services and stakeholder mapping - water quality
and land management
54
Table 2
Overview of key survey and deliberative techniques
58
Table 3
Assessing resource commitments: key questions
83
Table 4
Good conduct in the design of participatory approaches
85
Table 5
Informing participants: key elements
86
6
Executive Summary
Key messages
i
Ecosystem services are those aspect of ecosystems that are utilised, actively
or passively, to produce benefits to human well-being. An ecosystems
approach (EsA) provides a set of principles by which the management of
these services can be addressed within decision making.
ii
Involving people and organisations in the decision making process can be a
key factor in ensuring that a policy or management plan is successful, and is a
important principle of an EsA. Bringing a broad range of stakeholder
expertise to bear upon decision making enables more informed and creative
responses to issues. This is particularly important in the context of an EsA
when it is recognised that decision making may potentially impact on
ecosystem services in complex and uncertain ways. In practical terms, a
participatory approach serves to build trust and legitimacy into decision
making, and allows conflicts between stakeholders to be better anticipated
and potentially overcome. More generally, people have a right to ‘have a say’
in processes that affect their quality of life.
iii
Stakeholders in an EsA include scientific experts, policy experts and
representatives from public, private or third sector organisations in the
decision process, as well as members of the wider public, that is, those who
do not necessarily represent any formal or informal organisation in civil
society. Many stakeholders will bring lay expertise to the process that can
complement salient information over and above official/formal expertise.
iv
Participatory and deliberative techniques (PDTs) are the tools available to
unlock stakeholder values, experiences and insights about the management
of ecosystem services across the whole decision making cycle. This includes:
helping to structure the issue being addressed; informing assessments of
service provision in particular a decision situation; as well as examining why,
and to whom, these services matter. They also provide contexts in which the
practical ‘know-how’ of stakeholders can be drawn upon to maximise crosssectoral benefits in the design of management options, as well as work within
socially and environmentally acceptable thresholds.
v
Techniques available include eliciting stakeholder insight and knowledge
through survey, such as the use of questionnaires and focus groups, but also
more elaborate techniques based on the principle of group debate and shared
learning or deliberation. At its most advanced a participatory approach
recognises stakeholders as active collaborators in a decision process.
7
Messages in detail
The case for a participatory approach
vi
Involving people and organisations in the decision making process can be a
key factor in ensuring that a policy or management plan is successful. Not
only do people have a right to be included in the discussions about changes or
initiatives that might impact upon them, but involvement can also help build
trust, understanding and endorsement amongst the wider community. It can
also ensure that the assumptions on which decisions are based are welltested and that the consequences of plans and policies are fully thought
through in advance.
vii
The importance of stakeholder involvement is now recognised in many areas
of policy making and planning. However, it is often critical when dealing with
environmental issues because of the complex ways people and nature are
linked, and the many people and groups that have a stake in what might
happen when a decision is made.
viii
The importance of stakeholder involvement has been recognised in the
context of Defra’s (2007)1 Action Plan for embedding an EsA into decision
making. An EsA provides a framework to promote the sustainable or wise
use of the living resources on which people depend. Its focus is on the way
society manages ecosystem services: those aspects of ecosystems which are
utilised, actively or passively, to produce benefits to human well-being. There
are four key groupings.

Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems such as
food, fibre and medicines.

Regulating services: the benefits derived from the way ecosystem
processes are regulated such as water purification, air quality
maintenance and climate regulation.

Cultural services: services providing non-material benefits from
ecosystems such as spiritual enrichment, cognitive development,
reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences.

Supporting services: many ecosystem services are necessary for the
production of all other ecosystem services from which society benefits,
such as soil formation and nutrient cycling.
Defra (2007) Securing a healthy natural environment: An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach.
(Defra: London)
1
8
The aim of the guide is to further understanding of why participation is
important in decision making with respect to the management of ecosystem
services and their benefits, and what tools and methods are available to help
achieve successful outcomes.
Decision making, participation and an ecosystems approach: general
framework
ix
How it is possible to begin building participation into decision making when
taking an EsA? A summary of the key considerations is presented overleaf. It
depicts a conventional – ideal - vision of decision making: a structured and
cyclical process involving a number of key stages including issue framing,
option identification and appraisal, delivery and evaluation.
x
The general value of the framework is that it sets out the type of questions
that might addressed in order for decision making to occur in ways relevant
to the needs of an EsA. However, in practice decision making is often more
complex than this ‘ideal’ cycle suggests. Stages overlap and questions may
be addressed at different parts of the cycle. In some circumstances it may be
necessary to design PDTs that can contribute over longer timescales at
different stages of the cycle.
xi
Importantly, all of these steps in decision making, and the questions
embedded in them, can in principle be addressed through a stakeholder
engagement process. At its most ‘participatory’ a stakeholder informed EsA
can assist in:

structuring and refining the question or issue being addressed by the
decision making process and clarifying where priorities lie;

embedding decision processes more effectively into existing activities and
stakeholders networks, as well as identifying and managing the
constraining factors;

helping to identify potential courses of action and develop the criteria
against which their value and acceptability can judged; and

building and providing capacities for action at the implementation and
monitoring stage.
9
The decision cycle and an EsA: indicative questions
Defining the issue
Implementing and evaluating
What issue (problem or opportunity)
provides the focus of this decision
process?
Who should be responsible for
ensuring delivery against priorities
for ecosystem services?
How are ecosystem services a
consideration in this issue? How are they
likely to be impacted by intervention in
this area?
General engagement questions
How do we monitor outcomes for
service/benefit provision andlearn
from experience?
Is a participatory approach
appropriate?
Who are your stakeholders?
What techniques are available and
relevant to the purpose?
What resources are available?
How will success be evaluated?
Developing & appraising Options
How should services and their
benefits be prioritized?
How can we maximize
synergies/opportunities for service
benefit?
How can we minimize trade-offs
and work within acceptable
thresholds?
Understanding the situation
What do we know about ecosystem
services in this context?
How and where are relevant
services generated?
Are these services being degraded,
improved or maintained?
To whom do these services matter
and why?
10
xii
Many of the general problems and issues that must be faced when designing
‘fit for purpose’ participatory processes have been well established in
research and practice. Whichever stage of decision making is being
considered, the design of participatory processes involves six key steps.
1. Assess what level of engagement is required. Participation is a way of
engaging decision makers and approaches vary. It is important to
consider distinctions between wishing to inform, learn from or
collaborate with stakeholders and to evaluate what is appropriate in
particular contexts.
2. Understand the stakeholder landscape. There is a need to identify and
categorise the types of stakeholders to be potentially involved in the
decision making process.
3. Identify appropriate techniques. A range of techniques are potentially
available to decision makers. It is important to match the right technique
to the purpose and to understand what it will deliver.
4. Assess resource commitments. What is practically achievable in a given
context is hugely dependent on available resources: money, time and
skills. Any engagement process and technique needs to be assessed
against resource commitments.
5. Recruit and implement. There are number of considerations regarding
barriers to involvement that need to be overcome as well as issues of
good conduct in the implementation of techniques.
6. Evaluate the process and its outcomes. There are different ways of
evaluating the success of a participatory process. An important
distinction exists between process success and outcome success.
xiii
The way in which these steps are ordered and addressed will vary from
context to context. In practice, many steps will be overlapping and considered
simultaneously. For example, evaluation should be considered as part of
underpinning design. Similarly, perceptions of the stakeholder landscape will
affect how types of engagement are envisaged. The steps follow an ‘ideal’
pathway in the sense that those responsible for the decision making process
start from the needs of engagement, but it may be that they begin from other
starting points, such as resource commitments.
11
Step 1. Assess what level of engagement is required
xiv
A common pitfall in decision making is to create a mismatch between
objectives for engagement and the type of technique used. An important first
step is to consider the different ways those responsible for a decision process
might interact with stakeholders. Three distinct types of engagement can be
identified.
•
Informing stakeholders: here the objective is to disseminate
information about the decision process to those who might be impacted
or have an interest in the outcome of the policy, plan or project.
•
Learning from stakeholders: here the objective is to understand and
take account of the views, interests or concerns of stakeholders so as to
develop options and evaluate potential impacts.
•
Working with stakeholders: here the aim is to develop a shared
approach to decision making among stakeholders. The process is often
deliberative in character, involving thoughtful and reflective group
assessments of an issue and potential responses.
These different levels engagement stand alongside analytic desk based
approaches, that is, approaches to decision making based on ‘in-house’
evidence gathering and research.
xv
Participative methods are understood to focus on processes that either learn
from stakeholders and/or work with stakeholders. They involve, to greater or
lesser extents, interactive forms of engagement.
xvi
In practice, just as different approaches to engagement will often be used in
conjunction with each other, so too will decision making have engagement and
non engagement components. Decision making is rarely one thing or the other.
Step 2. Understand the stakeholder landscape
xvii
There exists no accepted or standardised way of distinguishing between
potential participants in decision process. Three potential groupings are
suggested. Stakeholders may belong in more than one grouping.

First, groupings based on ideas of competency. The concern here is with
involving stakeholders based on the types of knowledge they bring to the
decision making process. There are three main groups.
o Specialists - those who are formally recognized as having
knowledge and understanding of a precise area of research and
12
practice either by way of accumulated professional experience
and/or qualifications.
o Non-professionalised or ‘lay’ expertise - that is, those with
authoritative understandings or experience about an issue even if
this is not formally recognised as such (for instance, by possessing
a qualification).
o Procedural competency - those who participate because of their
knowledge of the mechanisms that ultimately foster and impede
delivery of decision objectives.

Second, groupings may be based on power. This means working with
stakeholders according to their capacities to shape/influence the success
of a process. Again, three main types are suggested.
o Designated power - those with formal authority to act on behalf of
others.
o Resource power - those who control the resources/materials that
underpin the success of the decision process.
o Network power - those who have the capacity to ‘make things
happen’ by dint of their strategically important place in a decision
making network.

Third, groupings may be based on impacts. The concern here is with
categorising stakeholders according to the bearing a process or decision
has on them. Impacts may be direct or indirect. The geographical location
of a decision situation – such as particular locality or landscape type – is
one context to identify stakeholders who are directly impacted.
However, consideration must also be given to wider affected
beneficiaries.
xviii
In the context of an EsA, a further useful framework may be to group
stakeholders in terms of the services provided by ecosystems, such as
‘provisioning’ stakeholders, or ‘cultural’ stakeholders.
xix
Mapping the stakeholder landscape can be approached formally or
informally. Categorisations will often develop ‘in-house’ by those with
responsibility for the decision process, or in conjunction with stakeholders
themselves. This may involve ‘brain storming’ relevant stakeholders through
group based processes or interviews, as well as systematic analysis of the
types of relationships that exist between stakeholders in the context of a
particular issue or problem.
13
Step 3. Ensure techniques are relevant to the purpose
xx
An overview of key PDTs that may be employed, and the types of data they
generate is depicted in the table overleaf. There are three key distinctions.

Survey based techniques underpin the range of approaches designed to
learn from stakeholders. They can be used to gain an insight into peoples’
attitudes, values and behaviour, and to explore the way people think
about an issue. Methods include the use of structured questionnaires,
semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

Deliberative techniques are appropriate when it is the intention of
decision makers to work with stakeholders to construct and implement a
policy or management action. The essence of deliberation is that it allows
people to confer, ponder, exchange evidence, reflect on matters of mutual
interest, negotiate and attempt to persuade each other. It can involve
such methods as in-depth discussion groups, deliberative opinion polling
and citizens’ juries. In each case people’s views are encouraged or
expected to change and develop as different evidence and perspectives
are considered.

Analytic-deliberative methods are more elaborate approaches to
participation in decision making. They integrate discussion based
techniques with more formal technical tools for decision making. This
includes the use of participatory modelling, deliberative multi-criteria
analysis and deliberative monetary valuation.
xxi
A generic pathway through decision making, in the form of a series of
questions, is presented below together with the types of task involved, and an
indication of how PDTs may inform these. The pathway illustrated should be
viewed as a guide, rather than a prescriptive framework for linking the needs
of an EsA to particular PDTS.
xxii
A focus on assessing ecosystem services in the context of particular places is
important to this framework in operational terms. However, it is important to
recognise that the relationship between place, ecosystem services and
benefits to human well being is fluid. Applying an EsA to any given context is
also about examining the implications of taking a decision in one particular
locality for another and at one scale of place for another.
14
Overview of key techniques
Technique category
Key techniques
Short Descriptor
Primary data
produced
Primary contexts to application
Survey based
Structured
Questionnaires
One to one surveys that employ a consistent
approach to the content and phrasing of questions
put to respondents, often linked to coded response
scales.
Quantitative
Particularly useful for gauging
initial attitudes and priorities
across a large or geographically
extended community of interest.
Semi-structured
interviews
One to one surveys that use open-ended questions to
explore ideas. The content and phrasing of questions
will often vary between interviews.
Qualitative
Useful for deepening insight into
priorities with a smaller number
of key informants
Focus groups
Group discussions (usually 4-8 people) used to
interrogate the perceptions, thoughts and
impressions of a group of people regarding a
particular issue. Groups maybe constituted to reflect
both shared and different attitudinal positions/
circumstances. Often ‘one off.’
Qualitative
Useful for gauging general
reactions and depths of feeling
towards an issue across an
illustrative sample of
stakeholders.
Again, group discussion that is open and exploratory
in structure, and generally sustained over a number
of occasions. Participants shape the terms of the
discussion, developing themes in ways relevant to
their own needs and priorities.
Qualitative
Best used to underpin a
collaborative and continuous
process of stakeholder
involvement in decision making.
Gaining an insight
into peoples’
attitudes, values
knowledge and
behaviour
Deliberative
Developing reasoned
assessments of an
issue through group
debate and learning.
In-depth discussion
group
Overview of key techniques (Cont.)
Deliberative....
Citizens' juries
A small cross section of the general public,
(usually 10-20 people), come to a considered
judgment about a stated policy issue/problem
through detailed exposure to, and scrutiny of, the
relevant evidence base. Group responds by
providing a recommendation or ‘verdict’.
Qualitative
Deliberative
opinion polls
Technique designed to observe the evolution of
the views of a large citizen test group as they
learn more about a topic. Typically the group
votes on the issue before and after an extended
debate.
Quantitative
Primarily used in the context of
and qualitative defining an issue and
understanding a decision
situation across a
geographically extended
community of interest.
The involvement of stakeholders in the design
and content of analytical models which represent
ecosystems services and their benefits under
different spatial and temporal conditions.
Quantitative
A useful way of visualising and
and qualitative representing a situation as an
aid to problem framing, option
development and appraisal
Deliberative
monetary
valuation
Technique that use formal methods of group
deliberation to express values for environmental
change in monetary terms.
Quantitative
Primarily used in the context of
formally appraising (valuing)
options.
Deliberative multicriteria analysis
Techniques that involve groups of stakeholders
designing formal criteria against which to judge
the non monetary and (sometimes) monetary
costs and benefits of different management
options as the basis for making a decision
Quantitative
Focus is on appraisal but the
process of formulating options
can be structured through a
MCA process.
Participatory
Analytic- deliberative modelling
Informing technical
tools for decision
making through
group deliberation
Can be used explore how
people reason about a given
issue to inform priorities and
also help make decisions.
16
PDTs and an EsA: illustrative pathway through decision making
Provisional screening of decision issue against
full service typology
1. Do you know whether ES’s
may be impacted by
intervention in this area?
No
Yes
Do you have enough evidence or expertise to
make this judgment?
2. Has the decision issue been
screened for all ecosystem
services?
No
Yes
Yes
3. Have you identified:
a) significant impacts?
b) complexities of management?
c) uncertainties of
understanding?
Choice of
PDTS
Yes
Stakeholder analysis
Who are your stakeholders and how do you wish
to engage?
Learn from?
4. Do you have a good
understanding of:
a) how and where relevant
services are generated and their
current state/trends?;
No
b) to whom these services
matter and why?
Spatial analysis of service provision and demand
side beneficiaries
Survey based
approaches
Understand stakeholder priorities
No
Yes
5. Have particular options for
managing the issue been
proposed?
Reflect on priorities.
Identify cross-sectoral synergies.
Recognise limits and thresholds.
No
Formally assess the monetary costs & benefits of
change
Yes
6. Have options been formally
appraised?
No
Formally assess the non monetary costs &
benefits of change
Work with?
Deliberative
and analytic
deliberative
approaches
Step 4. Assess resource commitments
xxiii
A participatory approach to decision making should be understood as
generally resource intensive in terms of the commitment of time, money and
skill. There is, however, enormous variability in the resource commitments
associated with the use of PDTS and these may change through the process
itself. A generic set of questions that can assist in assessing the resource
implications of using techniques is provided in the table below.
Assessing resource commitments: key questions
Resourcing
Key Questions
considerations
Staff Time
Will there be paid staff time committed to preparing and
implementing this activity?
Staff Expenses
Will there be any staff expenses incurred?
[e.g Travel, overnight stays, child care etc]
External expertise
Will you be hiring external expertise to oversee the process?
Will you be hiring external expertise to train staff in the
methods used?
Will you be hiring external expertise to prepare any
materials?
Will you be hiring external expertise to summarize/
transcribe/analyse data?
Participants
Will you being paying fees to participants for their time?
Will you be reimbursing participant expenses?
[e.g. Travel, overnight stays, child care etc]
Administration
What are associated administration costs?
[e.g. telephone calls, photocopying, printing, postage,
newsletters, leaflets]
Venue hire
Will you be paying for venue hire?
Other event costs
Will you be requiring catering?
Will you need recording equipment?
Will you have AV/computing requirements?
18
Step 5. Recruit and implement
xxiv
There a number of both general and EsA specific challenges associated with
involving stakeholders in a decision process. Key general barriers to
recruiting participants include:

Practical difficulties of making a commitment. For example, the
process of being involved may simply imply too much time on the part
of the targeted participant;

Perceptions regarding influence. Potential participants may be
sceptical about the influence they may have over a decision process;

Perceptions regarding responsibility. Those targeted for
involvement in a process may not see it ‘as their job’ to immerse
themselves in an issue;

Confidence and authority. Potential participants may not regard
themselves as having expertise or insight in an issue.
xxv
There is a need to be creative and flexible in creating different kinds of
opportunities and contexts for participation – one approach will rarely suit
all.
xxvi
There are a variety of methods for recruitment. It may be achieved through
snowballing. For example, targeted consultation with a small group of key
stakeholders can serve to identify a wider community of interest in an issue
and may unlock access to this. Articles in the local print media and interviews
on local radio are potential ways of generating broad public interest though
more targeted and personalised forms of recruitment will often be necessary.
xxvii These processes should coincide with the use of basic ethical codes in the
design of participatory processes. Key considerations are presented in the
table overleaf.
xxviii In implementation care needs to be taken with the tone and approach used
by facilitators of a process:

background, status, deference, sincerity, approachability and
reputation will all be factors which are as important as the techniques
advocated.

care needs to be taken to ensure that reluctant/diffident/shy people
or those representing groups known to be lacking confidence are
given equal opportunities and reassurances that their views will be
heard.
19
xxix
A more specific practical issue may that the idea of ‘ecosystems services’ and
an ‘ecosystems approach’ will be confusing for some stakeholders. Where
they are used, terms such as ‘ecosystem services’ and an ‘ecosystems
approach’ need to be described, explained and importantly, the ‘added value’
of thinking in this way conveyed, rather than simply assumed. The use of
worked examples is one way of doing this. Language should not be a barrier
to understanding a general principle, namely: understanding the benefits
that people derive from the environment, in all their variety.
Good conduct in the design of participatory approaches
Consideration
Key issues
Potential benefits
and hazards
What risks to the subject are entailed in involvement in the
research? Are there any potential physical, psychological or
Dislosure dangers that can be anticipated? What is the possible
benefit or harm to the subject or society from their participation
or from the project as a whole? What procedures have been
established for the care and protection of subjects (e.g. Insurance,
medical Cover) and the control of any information gained from
them or about them?
Where appropriate, consent of participants must be requested and
put in terms easily comprehensible to lay persons. This should
ideally be both orally and in writing. An information sheet [setting
out factors relevant to the interests of participants in the process
must be written in like terms and handed to them in advance of
seeking consent. They must be allowed to retain this sheet.
The project should comply with the requirements of current data
protection legislation and how this is accomplished should be
disclosed to participating subjects and those monitoring the
procedure. This should include proposed data storage
arrangements, degree of security etc. and whether material facts
have been withheld (and when, or if, such facts will be disclosed).
The steps taken to safeguard the confidentiality of records and any
potential identifying information about the subject must be
revealed.
Organisational procedures for monitoring the project should be
available for inspection.
What is the anticipated use of the data, forms of publication and
dissemination of findings etc?
Informed consent
Data protection
Confidentiality and
anonymity
Monitoring of the
study
Dissemination of
findings
20
Step 6. Evaluate the outputs and outcomes.
xxx
Incorporating deliberative and participatory processes into an EsA should
involve some form of evaluation. There are three main forms an evaluation
can take:

Comprehensive evaluation that occurs before, during and after a
participatory process to evaluate the process, emergent outcomes, and
relationships between them. Comprehensive evaluation offers formative
feedback that can aid ongoing process design and adjustments, as well as
summative evidence. Such evaluations are important but rarely occur.

Real time process evaluation that occurs before and during a
participatory EsA process-based on process based criteria only.
Potentially offers both formative and summative evaluative components.

Retrospective / ex post evaluation that occurs after a participatory
process had ended. It can provide an insight into process effectiveness
through documentary evidence or personal recollections, but can more
reliably provide reliable data on outcome effectiveness. Retrospective
evaluation is purely summative.
xxxi
Most evaluations remain focused on process effectiveness. Criteria of effective
participatory processes include:

representativeness and inclusivity - being representative of all those
interested in, and affected by a decision, and remove unnecessary
barriers to participation;

fair deliberation - allowing all those involved to put forward their views
in interactive deliberation that develops mutual understanding

access to resources - providing sufficient resources (information,
expertise, time) for effective participation

transparency and accountability - being transparent about objectives,
boundaries, and the relationship of participation into decision-making;

learning -enhancing social learning for all those involved, including
participants, specialists, decision-makers and wider institutions and
networks;

independence - being conducted in an independent and unbiased way;
and

efficiency - being cost-effective and timely.
21
xxxii An often untested assumption is that participatory processes lead to better
outputs and outcomes.

Outputs are the immediate substantive products of participatory
processes such as reports, assessments, and policy recommendations.

Outcomes are emergent impacts such as material changes to the
environmental, economic and human systems through to changes in
social processes including social capital, individual/institutional learning
and behaviour change.
xxxiii A key challenge is to develop more comprehensive forms of evaluation that
explore the relationships between process and outputs/outcomes in an EsA.
Often this does not occur. For a variety of reasons proper analysis of
outcomes gets missed out of evaluations. These may include pressures from
decision-making institutions and others for evaluations to report early in
order to demonstrate process efficacy as well as methodological difficulties
associated with tracking emergent outcomes in the longer-term and detecting
cause-effect relationships to establish what difference (if any) the inclusion of
PDTs has made.
22
Participatory and deliberative techniques
to embed an ecosystems approach into
decision making
An introductory guide
23
Section 1

Introduction
Identifying and involving all relevant stakeholders in the decision and plan
making process is a key principle of an ecosystems approach (EsA).

Participatory and deliberative techniques (PDTS) are the tools available to
decision makers to address this principle. They are a way of unlocking
stakeholder values, experiences and insights about the management of
Context and aims
ecosystem services across the whole decision making cycle.

PDTS are varied in their scope and purpose. The aim of this guide is to
provide a general introduction to the types of techniques that can be used in
the context of an EsA as the basis for highlighting pitfalls and promoting
good practice.
Aims and objectives
1.1
Ecosystem services are those aspects of ecosystems which are utilised,
actively or passively, to produce benefits to human well-being. According to
the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment2 they can be grouped into four
types.

Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems such as
food, fibre and medicines.

Regulating services: the benefits derived from the way ecosystem
processes are regulated such as water purification, air quality
maintenance and climate regulation.

Cultural services: services providing non-material benefits from
ecosystems such as spiritual enrichment, cognitive development,
reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences.

Supporting services: ecosystem services that are necessary for the
production of all other ecosystem services from which society benefits,
such as soil formation and nutrient cycling.
1.2
An ecosystems approach (EsA) provides a set of principles by which the
management of ecosystem services can be addressed with decision making.
The broad aim of an EsA is to “integrate and manage the range of demands
placed on the natural environment in such a way that it can indefinitely
2
See MA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystems and Human Well-being. Synthesis Report, Island
Press, Washington DC.
24
support essential services and provide benefits for all” (Defra 2007:10)3. The
EsA principles involve:





1.3
taking a more holistic approach to policy-making and delivery, with the
focus on maintaining healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services;
ensuring that the value of ecosystem services is fully reflected in
decision-making;
ensuring environmental limits are respected in the context of sustainable
development, taking into account ecosystem functioning;
taking decisions at the appropriate spatial scale while recognising the
cumulative impacts of decisions;
applying adaptive management of the natural environment to respond to
changing pressures, including climate change.
The need to identify and involve all relevant stakeholders in the decision
making process is also recognised by Defra as an important component of
taking an EsA. The purpose of this guide is to explain why this is important
and how those responsible for decision processes can reflect it in their work.
The particular focus is on examining how stakeholder involvement can be
facilitated through the use of participatory and deliberative techniques (or
‘PDTs’). An overview of key terms informing the scope of the guide is
provided in Box 1.
1.4
Many of the problems and issues that must be faced when designing ‘fit for
purpose’ participatory processes have been well established in research and
practice, and a range of guidance originating from quite different policy areas
has emerged that can help foster approaches that are:
1.5

suited to the requirements of users, sponsors and participants;

achievable given the decision making context; and

appropriate to a particular purpose.
At the same time, the emphasis of an EsA, with its focus on the management
and valuation of ecosystems services and their benefits, also brings with its
own particular challenges for stakeholder engagement and the way PDTs are
used.
1.6
The purpose of these guidelines is to examine the nature of these general and
EsA specific issues and challenges as the basis for highlighting pitfalls and
promoting good practice. It does so by:
3
Defra (2007) Securing a healthy natural environment: An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach.
25
Box 1. Definition of key terms used in the guide
What is a stakeholder?
In this guide the term ‘stakeholder’ is interpreted broadly. It is taken to refer to any
organization, group or individual affected by, with an interest in, or influence over, a
decision making issue. In an EsA this may include scientific experts, policy experts
and representatives from public, private or third sector organisations in the decision
process, but also members of the wider public, that is, those who do not necessarily
represent any formal or informal organisation in civil society.
What is participation?
There are a variety of ways in which stakeholders can be engaged in decision
making. The focus of this guide is on a participatory approach to engagement.
Participation can be weakly or strongly conceived, but for an engagement process to
considered participatory it should involve some exchange, interaction and
reciprocity of information and ideas between stakeholders and those responsible for
the decision process.
What are participatory and deliberative techniques?
Participatory and deliberative techniques (PDTs) are understood in this guide as the
tools available to decision makers to unlock and incorporate stakeholder values,
experiences and insights about ecosystem services and their management. This may
include eliciting stakeholder insight and knowledge through survey, such as the use
of questionnaires and focus groups, but also more elaborate techniques based on the
principle of group debate and shared learning or deliberation. At its most advanced
a participatory approach recognises stakeholders as active partners in a decision
process.

explaining what is meant by participatory and deliberative decision
making in the context of an EsA and why it is important;

describing what types of techniques are available to those seeking to
embed an EsA in decision making and how to make them ‘fit for purpose’;

outlining practical considerations in the design, conduct and evaluation of
decision making processes that use participatory and deliberative
techniques; and

using relevant case studies to illustrate some of the realities of employing
these techniques in practice.
26
1.7
Integrating participatory processes into decision making is highly context
specific and can be achieved in a variety of ways. There is no single ‘off the
shelf’ procedure that can be applied to all situations. The guide is designed to
stimulate thought and experimentation in the area of an EsA rather than
develop a set of ‘rules’ for engagement. The focus is on steps leading up to
making a decision, though recognition is also given to the use of participatory
processes in the context of monitoring.
Audience for this guide and how to use it
1.8
The guide has been designed with a broad audience in mind. It is intended to
be general and explanatory in style addressing key themes and issues in the
academic and policy literature.
1.9
The materials presented should be viewed in the context of the wider Defra
work exploring different theoretical and applied dimensions of embedding an
EsA into policy and decision making4, and in particular, as a companion to
ideas developed in Defra’s :

Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services; and

Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project
Appraisal
1.10
This guide is accompanied by a supplementary guide examining the role of
PDTs in monetary and non monetary valuation of costs and benefits within
decision making. The supplementary materials consider technical and
analytical issues of valuation developed here in general terms. Cross
references to relevant materials in this guide are made where appropriate.
Structure of this guide
1.11
The structure of this guide is divided into two part. The first is more
conceptual. The second is more applied.
Part A
Rationales and framework
Section 2
An ecosystems approach: key arguments and challenges for
participation
This section explains why participation is integral to an EsA and
highlight some general barriers to the uptake of participatory
approaches
For a latest review of progress see Defra (2010) Delivering a healthy natural environment: An update
to ‘Securing a healthy natural environment:An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach’” .
4
27
Section 3
Decision making, participation and an ecosystems approach:
general framework
This section presents a framework for linking decision making to
the needs of an EsA and how involving stakeholders ‘fits’ into this.
Part B
Key steps in taking a participatory approach
Section 4
Linking techniques to purpose in an ecosystems approach
This section considers the key methodological choices for linking
decision making needs to the use of particular techniques.
Section 5
Implementation and evaluation
This section considers practical issues regarding the resourcing
of participatory process and their delivery.
Supporting case studies are provided to illustrate salient themes. A glossary
of terms and follow up references are also provided.
28
Part A
Participation & deliberation in an
Ecosystems Approach
Rationales and framework
29
Overview

The case for participation in the management of ecosystem services is based
on both ethical and practical grounds. People have the right to be involved in
decisions that impact on their well being. Transparent and inclusive decision
making processes builds trust and enhances the legitimacy of courses of action
taken.

More substantively, a participatory approach involves stakeholders
communicating and sharing their perspectives and experiences on a decision
issue and therefore enables more informed and creative responses to
management problems and opportunities.

A participatory approach may help resolve conflicts in the management of
natural resources and their services, though it is also about recognising the
contested nature of many environmental decisions.

Ecosystem services may be a primary, secondary or tangential consideration
of decision making. At an early stage there is a need to assess whether and
how the full range of ecosystem services relates to the decision issue. This
means identifying significant impacts, recognizing potential complexities of
management as well as acknowledging uncertainties of understanding.

Judgment on these issues provides the context for more detailed assessment
of a decision situation. This may include developing understanding of: how
and where relevant services are generated; to whom these services matter
and why; and how they are being degraded, maintained or enhanced.

Levels of detail about these issues will vary according to needs and may
develop over the course of a decision process. When developing and
appraising options good understanding of the decision situation helps ensure
that peoples’ priorities and needs are incorporated into considerations and
that courses of action are better placed to exploit cross-sectoral benefits,
minimize trade-offs and recognize limits and thresholds.

All of the generic stages in decision making, and the questions embedded in
them, can in principle be addressed in conjunction with stakeholders.

Section 3 considers the key arguments and challenges surrounding the
involvement of stakeholders in the management of ecosystem services

Section 4 provides a generalized framework for thinking about an EsA in the
context of decision making and how participation fits in.
30
Section 2
An ecosystems approach: key arguments and challenges
for participation

This section introduces general rationales for a participatory approach to
decision making as this relates to the concerns of an EsA. Key barriers to
uptake are also considered.
General rationales for a participatory approach
2.1
Despite its origins in debates about the conservation of biodiversity, an
ecosystems approach (EsA) is fundamentally about issues of governance:
managing the relationship between the natural environment and human
quality of life in a more holistic and sustainable way. An EsA therefore depends
upon understanding peoples’ needs and values, and the perspectives that
different groups have on the services that nature provides.
2.2
A concern to work with, and learn about, the views of stakeholders within
environmental decision making is a well established feature of agendas for
sustainable development. The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development states, for example, that:
“[e]nvironmental issues are best handled with the participation of all
concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each
individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the
environment that is held by public authorities … [ ] … and the opportunity
to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and
encourage public awareness and participation by making information
widely available”
2.3
[Principle 10]
A number of international conventions have served to reinforce and extend
these concerns, including the Aarhus Convention, and most notably in the
present context, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (See Box 2).
2.4
The CBD is important for it sets out the wider principles that have since
informed Defra’s understanding of an EsA. It stresses that the management of
ecosystems and their services is a matter of ‘societal choice’ and that
stakeholder involvement is key to the long term sustainability and equitable
management of ecosystem services.
31
Box 2. Participation, the ecosystem approach and the Convention on Biological
Diversity
Conceived as a practical tool for translating the principles of Sustainable
Development into reality, the Convention on Biological Diversity developed the
idea of the Ecosystem Approach as its primary framework for linking biodiversity
goals to the wider concerns of Agenda 21.
From its inception the Approach sought to develop a strategy that, through the idea
of ecosystem services, recognised the importance of the natural environment to
wider human well-being; one that could promote the conservation and sustainable
use of land, water and living resources in an integrated and equitable way. In total 12
principles were developed to guide its application. Participatory decision making is a
recurring theme in three, namely:
1. The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a
matter of societal choices.
Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural
and society needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land
are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both
cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach,
and management should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as
clearly as possible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the
tangible or intangible benefits for humans, in a fair and equitable way.
2. The Ecosystem Approach should consider all forms of relevant information,
including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and
practices.
Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management
strategies. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human
use is desirable. All relevant information from any concerned area should be shared
with all stakeholders and actors, taking into account, inter alia, any decision to be
taken under Article 8(j)* of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Assumptions behind
proposed management decisions should be made explicit and checked against available
knowledge and views of stakeholders.
Cont>
32
3. The Ecosystem Approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and
scientific disciplines.
Most problems of biological-diversity management are complex, with many
interactions, side-effects and implications, and therefore should involve the necessary
expertise and stakeholders at the local, national, regional and international level, as
appropriate.
These CBD’s principles are important for they informed the principles of an
Ecosystems Approach adopted by Defra in its 2007 action plan.
* Article 8(j) states that “Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as
appropriate: Subject to national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities
embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and
involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and
encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such
knowledge innovations and practices”.
2.5
In general terms, the CBD follows three mutually reinforcing arguments that
have tended to be made for involving stakeholders in environmental decision
making. Chilvers (2009)5 has summarised these general rationales as follows:

Ethical arguments: that participation is important in its own right.
Individuals and groups have a legitimate right to influence decision
making processes that have a potential bearing on them, or the groups
which they represent. Participation is therefore closely related to ideas
of empowerment, social justice and equity;

Practical arguments: that participation is a better way of achieving
particular ends. Where individual and groups have been involved in the
process and reasoning behind decisions, trust and confidence in
decisions is enhanced and corresponding conflicts surrounding
decisions reduced.

Substantive arguments: that participation leads to better ends.
Through participation outcomes and outputs for decision making
processes are more informed. Involving stakeholders not only exposes
Chilvers, J. (2009) Deliberative and Participatory Approaches in Environmental Geography. In: Castree, N.,
Demeritt, D., Liverman, D. and Rhoads, B. (Eds.) A Companion to Environmental Geography. Blackwell, Oxford,
400-417.
5
33
decision making to different values and priorities, but provides a wider
base of evidence and practical ‘know-how’ to guide decisions. For
example, many stakeholders will bring lay expertise to the process that
can complement salient information over and above official/formal
expertise.
2.6
From the practical perspective of the policy maker and analyst a
participatory approach provides information that can complement and
extend insight derived from desk-based approaches, that is, where there are
perceived gaps in available evidence or insight, or where relying on desk top
analysis appears insufficient, for instance, in decision contexts that suggest
high risks and impacts.
2.7
While a participatory approach is designed to lead to better decisions, active
and broad stakeholder involvement in decision making is not a ‘panacea’. It is
not a ‘magic wand’ that can be expected to resolve fundamental conflicts in
the management of natural resources and their services. A concern to involve
stakeholders is also about recognising that pathways to the sustainable
management of ecosystem services are rarely self-evident and uncontested,
for example:

underlying purposes of decision making are often open to different
perspectives. Potential options for management can consequently be
varied, and in many cases, contradictory;

decisions will be made in circumstances where evidence is often
highly uncertain or incomplete;

concern for the management of ecosystems services must be
compared alongside a range of other benefits driving and informing
decisions; and

management is complex, hence efforts to deal with issues in one
sectoral area often exposes difficulties for management elsewhere.
Thus, an ideal for participation is to enhance underpinning capacities to
adapt and cope with these systemic challenges of decision making, but it is
also about exposing the reasoning behind decisions to debate and scrutiny.
Barriers to uptake
2.8
Involving stakeholders may be an aspiration that few would deny in
principle, but in the ’real world’ it might not be pursued with enthusiasm for
a number of reasons.
34
2.9
The first barrier to uptake is specific to an EsA. It concerns the extent to
which participation is considered integral to an EsA’s concerns. It is
important to keep in mind that an EsA is a way of describing a process of
decision making. It is an approach. It is quite possible to attempt to secure the
desired outcomes of an EsA - in essence the sustainable and integrated
delivery of ecosystems services and human well-being – without being
participatory at all; that is, without really taking an ecosystems approach. In
other words, participation may be interpreted as an ‘optional extra’ of an EsA
rather than integral to it.
2.10
There are a number of wider reasons that may reinforce why a nonparticipatory approach may be considered the most viable course of action to
take.

Available resources: the commitment of time, money and skill. A
participatory approach to decision making is generally resource intensive.
The time available to make a decision may not match up with the time
required to initiate and run a participatory process. Even if processes are
not bound by urgency, financial commitments to participatory processes
may be perceived to be relatively high compared to alternatives.
Moreover, many are often not trained in stakeholder participation even if
requirements and mandates to do so exist. The danger is that decision
makers may attempt engagement, but processes will fall wildly short of
expectations given available resources.

Uncertainty regarding outputs: participatory approaches tend to ‘throw
up’ information that decision makers may anticipate struggling with. They
be unclear how to use these techniques alongside accepted approaches to
decision making; such as monetary valuation approaches like financial
analysis, cost analysis cost-benefit analysis. The fear may be that a
participatory may make the process unwieldy and inefficient.
Furthermore, a common perception is that participation creates does not
provide ‘objective’ evidence.

Concern over outcomes: because participatory processes expose decision
making to a diversity of views and perspectives, they may be perceived to
encourage, rather that resolve, conflicts. Expediency in decision making
may encourage organisations and institutions to proceed according to
‘prevailing wisdoms’ and ‘accepted ways of doing things’, even if a given
35
decision context implies a high degree of uncertainty about underpinning
purposes, or what constitutes an appropriate pathway to management.

Power and responsibility: while decision making in the public and third
sectors will generally carry some requirement to consult and or
collaborate about a decision process, this not the case with all sectors of
society. One of the reasons why a participatory approach may not be
taken is that responsibilities to do so may not exist. In these
circumstances, decisions may not be open to negotiation.
2.11
As a result of all these factors, decision makers may simply turn to
documented evidence to inform decisions. This is an important alternative
against which the practical costs and benefits of participation need to be
assessed, but there is a risk that comes with this approach. A failure to
involve stakeholders in decision making weakens the legitimacy and
robustness of decisions, and tends to defer, rather than avoid, conflict. In
other words, if controversy exists, sooner or later issues will need to be
addressed.
2.12
Nonetheless, a general argument is that it is misplaced to claim that
participation produces unreliable and inferior types of information in
decision making. Participation is designed to draw out insight that can be of
lasting significance and value to a particular decision context. It also carries
the virtue that the assumptions and reasoning behind decisions can be linked
back to their context in which they were produced (i.e. it is auditable).
Summary
2.13
While it is possible, in principle, to attempt to secure the desired outcomes of
an EsA – the sustainable and integrated delivery of ecosystems services and
human well-being – without being participatory at all, involving stakeholders
in decision making should not be regarded an ‘optional extra’ of an EsA, but
rather, integral to it.
2.14
On substantive grounds alone, the argument is that desired outcomes are
more likely to emerge where decision making draws in values, insights and
practical ‘know-how’ of stakeholders. There are also important ethical and
practical considerations that reinforce the case. All of these arguments are
consistent with broader agendas for natural resource management within
sustainable development.
36
Section 3 Decision making, participation and an ecosystems approach:

Stakeholders
may
participate in decision making at different stages and for
general
framework
different reasons. In order to begin understanding how participatory and
deliberative techniques can be employed to involve stakeholders in ways relevant
to an Ecosystems Approach (EsA) it is necessary to first characterise decision
making and the types of questions that would need to be addressed from the
perspective of ecosystem services and how stakeholders ‘fit in’. This section
provides a general framework for thinking about this issue.
The process of decision making
3.1
The decision making process can be characterised in a number of ways. One
common idea is that it starts with defining an issue to be addressed and then
moves on to develop options that can address it. Having identified the choices
that are available, the decision maker needs to appraise the options carefully
in terms of their implications, and then consider how the chosen option might
be implemented and its effectiveness monitored.
3.2
In reality, of course, the decision making process can be more complex than
this simple picture. It may be iterative or cyclic. For example, as more is
learnt about an issue, or as potential solutions and impacts are examined, it
may be necessary to redefine the problem and look at the world in a slightly
different way. Over longer time spans it may be that the way the decision has
been implanted is not working and it is necessary to go back to the ‘drawing
board’ and either modify plans or policies, or develop new ones.
3.3
These kinds of difficulty arise in many different areas of policy but they are
particularly common when dealing with environmental issues. People and
nature are linked in many complex ways, and as a result an EsA emphasises
the need to be holistic in thinking about the way different elements of society
and the environment are connected, and adaptive or flexible in the methods
used to develop solutions and responses.
3.4
A generic - ideal - vision of decision making is presented in Figure 1 together
with some of questions that could be addressed from the perspective of an
EsA.
37
Figure 1: The decision cycle and an EsA: indicative questions
Defining the issue
Implementing and evaluating
What issue (problem or opportunity)
provides the focus of this decision
process?
Who should be responsible for
ensuring delivery against priorities
for ecosystem services?
How are ecosystem services a
consideration in this issue? How are
they likely to be impacted by
intervention in this area?
How do we monitor outcomes for
service/benefit provision andlearn
from experience?
General engagement questions
Is a participatory approach
appropriate?
Who are your stakeholders?
What techniques are available and
relevant to the purpose?
What resources are available?
How will success be evaluated?
Developing & appraising Options
Understanding the situation
How should services and their
benefits be prioritized?
What do we know about
ecosystem services in this
context?
How can we maximize
synergies/opportunities for service
benefit?
How can we minimize trade-offs
and work within acceptable
thresholds?
3.5
How and where are relevant
services generated?
Are these services being degraded,
improved or maintained?
To whom do these services matter
and why?
All of these steps in decision making, and the questions embedded in them,
can in principle be addressed in conjunction with stakeholders. Indeed, at its
most ‘participatory’ a stakeholder informed EsA can assist in:

structuring and refining the question or problem being addressed by the
decision making process and clarifying where priorities lie;

embedding decision processes more effectively into existing activities and
stakeholders networks, as well as identifying and managing the
constraining factors;
38

helping to identify alternative potential courses of action and develop and
the criteria against which their value and acceptability can judged;

building and providing capacities for action at the implementation and
monitoring stage; and

drawing out important lessons from outcomes to promote social learning
and adaption.
EsA considerations in the decision making process
3.6
Defining the issue is about identifying a need to intervene in a particular
situation. The issue may be concerned with overcoming a particular problem
or challenge, but also, significantly, about exploiting new opportunities.
Incorporating consideration of ecosystem services into decision making is not
only about minimising damage to valued natural resources, but also ensuring
that nature’s benefits are harnessed and recognised to affect positive change.
3.7
When taking an EsA there is a basic requirement to assess whether and how
ecosystem services relate to the decision issue. It is recognized that there will
be quite different starting points.

For individuals and groups concerned directly with issues of
environmental management it may be the case that ecosystem
services are defining the issue at hand, whether or not the issue is
expressed in these terms. For instance, the concern may be to act upon
an area of declining or threatened ecosystem services (such as poor
water quality), or to exploit further opportunities for service provision
(such as enhanced opportunities for recreation).

Alternatively, ecosystem services may be an indirect or related
consideration; for instance, they may be one component of a larger
decision issue. Concern over environmental damage that may be
caused from a particular policy intervention, such impacts on air
quality through investment in transport infrastructures, would be an
example. Another would be linking environmental considerations to
wider community development initiatives, such as fostering urban
food production, or extending opportunities for voluntary
conservation work among young people.
3.8
In either of these circumstances, an EsA is concerned with ensuring
appreciation of:
39
1. which ecosystem services may be impacted by potential interventions;
2. the nature and significance of those impacts in terms of the future
provision of services;
3. the potential complexities of management arising from interventions;
4. where uncertainties/gaps in understanding may lie.
3.9
Key considerations for screening a decision issue are provided in Box 3. The
typology of ecosystem services developed by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment and embedded in Defra’s strategic work on an EsA can act as a
useful starting point for this task (Defra 20076). The way in which judgments
will be informed will vary according to context. Assessments may be based
on:

personal expertise of an issue and the context for decision making;

information derived from review of available academic evidence;

information derived from related cycles of policy intervention; and

consulting those with informal/informal expertise in the issue.
While understanding a decision issue from the perspective of ecosystem
services may be a naturally occurring feature of some contexts for decision
making it is important to emphasise that issues must be assessed against the
full range of ecosystem services. Decision making processes that focus on
ecosystem services in isolation would be contravening the principle of
holistic working: a key element of what it means to take an EsA.
3.10
Qualitative and provisional assessment of these issues underpins the case for
more detailed analysis of the decision situation. At one level consideration of
ecosystem services within the practical development and appraisal of
potential courses of action depends on inferring that the change will be
significant. This is not an exact science.

First, understanding whether a change may cross an environmental limit
is often beset with scientific uncertainties and may require more detailed
empirical study as well as analytical work to inform, for instance,
probabilistic assessments of risk.
Defra (2007) Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. See p.24 in particular for an example
of a screening framework.
6
40
Box 3. Screening a decision issue: indicative questions
1. Would interventions in this issue involve a change in the quantity or
quality of service provision?
2. What is the anticipated direction of change? For example:

Quantity - increase or decrease?

Quality - degradation or enhancement?
3. Where would change be occurring?
4. Over what time scales will the changes occur?
5. Are anticipated changes significant? For example:

Will changes be marginal/non marginal?

Will changes be permanent/irreversible?
6. Do anticipated changes imply complexities of management? For
instance:

Will management cut across a range of ecosystem services?

Will management involve working across different spatial and
temporal scale?
7. Are there uncertainties/gaps in understanding in any of the above?

Second, the significance of change reflects how values are being applied and
these will often vary depending on whether and, in what ways, individuals
and groups derive benefits from services. For example, a change in the
cultural service of recreation in particular locality may be marginal from the
perspective of the potential those who use the service for recreational
benefit, but non marginal for individuals producing that service for their
livelihood.
3.11
The case for more detailed assessment of a decision issue also grows in the
context of management complexities. This has a number of dimensions.

Decision making in a particular area may involve consideration of a
range of ecosystems services (e.g. nutritious food, clean water,
opportunities for recreation) but the precise relationship between these
variables, and therefore how they might be managed, is unclear.

Fundamental relationships between services are known, but future
management may combine and arrange benefits in a variety of ways, or
indeed, involve different trade-offs that are considered equally optimal
on different grounds of significance.
41

Priorities for management are complex because interventions may be
understood differently depending on the spatial scale at which they are
interpreted or how needs are related to particular timescales, for
example, differing priorities at the local and national level, or the
difference between priorities in the ‘here and know’ over medium and
long term (often intergenerational) concerns.
3.12
Thus, in short, in circumstances where significance and complexity is
inferred, or uncertainties in these areas prevails, there is strong case for
more detailed assessment of a decision situation. For example this may
involve:

spatially explicit analysis of how and where relevant services are
generated trends and an assessment of their condition;

understanding who the beneficiaries of these services are: how and
where these benefits are derived and why they matter.
3.13
The evidence produced by these types of analysis is valuable for three
interrelated reasons.

First, it provides information around which the decision issue can
itself be re-structured or re-defined. As more is learnt about the
situation decision makers may reassess priorities or characterise the
issue in a new way.

Second, it provides information on the kinds of management that will
be needed to protect/enhance services given decision objectives. In
other words, it serves as an input into the identification and design of
subsequent options.

Third, it provides baseline information against which changes in
service provision can be subsequently assessed and valued given the
course of actions proposed. That is, the evidence is itself an important
component of formal option appraisal.
3.14
The approach taken to these assessment tasks will vary according to needs
and may develop over the course of a decision process. Understanding may
be developed in part through desk based - analytical – research (see also
Section 4). For example, though a fully integrated and flexible data
infrastructure to underpin spatial analysis of service provision does not
presently exist, where available, analysts may interpret existing data and
documentary sources to understand how and where services are generated
42
and their corresponding states and trends. Potential sources of insights have
already been reviewed by Defra7. Equally, early assessment of how
ecosystem services are important to stakeholders may involve consideration
of pre-existing sources of social research.
3.15
However, involving stakeholders can help strengthen the validity of insights
in a number of important ways, for example:

providing access to relevant data that may not be in the public domain or
not easily assessable;

assisting in the characterization of service production and beneficiaries
and their corresponding state and trends;

offering insight about what matters and why, such as testing attitudes
and depths of feeling regarding a particular issue.
3.16
In many cases, assessment may serve as ‘rule of thumb’ insight about a
situation rather than a precise technical exercise, and indeed, there is good
reason to suggest this approach may be more expedient. In operational
terms formal typologies of services can be unwieldy to apply and rely on
precise data and insight that in practice may prove intractable. Formal
assessment is open to great variation in approach, with considerable
potential for errors of application and interpretation. Thus, proportionality
to context and purpose should be an important guiding principle when
approaching assessment.
3.17
Involving stakeholders is important in other practical ways. Understanding
the decision situation is also about understanding what is already ‘going on’.
An EsA should not be about introducing a process parallel to existing (or
anticipated) work, but about building on it and learning from previous
efforts that may have failed or been only partially successful. An EsA is
unlikely to work if it appears disconnected from/ignorant of these efforts.
Furthermore, involving stakeholders can also aid early understanding of the
wider influencing context of decision situation. This includes statutory and
procedural contexts that surround the decision, but also the locally relevant
social, cultural and political factors that may serve to foster or impede action.
3.18
The cumulative effect of incorporating these processes into decision making
is that, at the point of developing and appraising options, those responsible
7
See Defra (2005) Inventory and Assessment of Natural Resources (Project code: NR0101) and Defra (2007)
Inventory study on natural environment data 2 (Project Code: NR0106)
43
for a potential intervention are provided with a good understanding of
resource management issues in terms of:

how options should be judged in terms of peoples’ priorities and needs
for ecosystem services and the benefits they provide;

identifying where synergies/opportunities for service benefits might be
maximized;

3.19
clarifying where tradeoffs and thresholds might lie.
Yet it is recognised the decision situation may be quite different. Since the
‘environment’, still less ‘ecosystem services’, may not be what the focus of the
decision is primarily ‘about’ early engagement with the way ecosystem
services function in relation to a given decision situation is likely to be
missed. In these circumstances decision-makers must work ‘backwards’, that
is, make a retrospective assessment of the impact of options against MA-type
screening frameworks. Understanding is more likely to be based on desk
based approaches.
3.20
Whatever the ‘entry point’ for consideration of ‘ecosystem services’ the
important point to note is an EsA necessitates developing some level of
baseline information to assess and value any changes in service provision
arising from options proposed, for instance, as part of a cost-benefit analysis.
Procedures for valuing ecosystem services in this context have developed by
Defra in the Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services and Practical
Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal . The
focus of these texts is on desk based analytical processes to valuation. In
Section 4 and in the supplementary guide it is explained how participatory
and deliberative techniques can be used as a complementary approach to this
issue of valuation.
3.21
The process of making decisions gives way to a process of implementation
and monitoring, around which appropriate learning responses should be
then drawn against priorities for ecosystem services and their corresponding
benefits. If an ecosystems approach is to achieve adaptive management, then
decision makers and stakeholders have to learn from experience and then
use these new perspectives to make better choices in the future.
Summary
3.22
While there is no single, all encompassing, model for describing decision
making it is possible point to some of the common steps taken, and within
44
this, to highlight some of the generic questions that would need to be
answered for decision making processes to take account of ecosystem
services. Assessing whether a decision issue may impact on ecosystems
services and making a corresponding judgment regarding issues of
significance, complexity and uncertainty is an important first step in
embedding an EsA into decision making. These judgments provide the
context in which a range of further EsA relevant processes, coupled or
decoupled from participatory processes, may then occur.
45
Part B
Key steps in taking a participatory
approach
Overview

Many of the general problems and issues that must be faced when designing ‘fit for
purpose’ participatory processes have been well established in research and practice.

Whichever stage of decision making is being considered, the design of participatory
processes involves six key steps:
o Step 1: assess what level of engagement is required;
o Step 2: understand the stakeholder landscape;
o Step 3: identify appropriate techniques;
o Step 4: assess resource commitments;
o Step 5: recruit and implement;
o

Step 6: evaluate the outputs and outcomes.
The way in which these steps are ordered and addressed will vary from context to
context. In practice many steps will be overlapping and considered simultaneously.
For example, evaluation should be considered as part of underpinning design.
Similarly, perceptions of the stakeholder landscape will affect how engagement is
characterised. The steps follow an ‘ideal ‘path in the sense that those responsible for
the decision making process start from the needs of engagement, but it may be that
they begin from other starting points, such as resource commitments.

Steps 1-3 are considered in Section 4 which addresses the key methodological
choices for linking decision making needs to the use of particular techniques.

Steps 4-6 are considered in Section 5 which addresses practical issues regarding the
resourcing of participatory processes and their delivery.

Short case studies are used to illustrate and contextualise salient points.
46
Section 4
Linking techniques to purpose in an Ecosystems Approach
This section considers the first three steps for embedding participatory processes
into decision making.

Step 1: Assess what level of engagement is required. Participation is a way of
engaging decision makers and approaches vary. It is important to consider
distinctions between wishing to inform, learn from or collaborate with
stakeholders and to evaluate what is appropriate in particular contexts.

Step 2: Understand the stakeholder landscape. There is a need to identify and
categorise the types of stakeholders to be potentially involved in the decision
making process and to understand why they are important.

Step 3: Identify appropriate techniques. A range of techniques are potentially
available to decision makers. It is important to match the technique to the
desired level of engagement and to understand what they will deliver.
Step 1: Assess what level of engagement is required
4.1
In the definition of terms outlined for this guide (Box 1) it was emphasised
that participation is a particular way of thinking about stakeholder
engagement in environmental decision making. For an engagement process
to be considered participatory it should involve some degree of exchange,
interaction and reciprocity of information and ideas between stakeholders
and those responsible for the decision process. An important distinction
should be made between:
1. ‘Learning from’ stakeholders - where the objective is to primarily
take account of the views, interests or concerns of stakeholders. In
these circumstances, engagement is consultative: a given organisation
or group retains full control over decision making but wider
individuals and groups can seek to influence aspect of a decision
process in a structured and tightly defined way; and
2. ‘Working with’ stakeholders - where the objective is to foster shared
approaches to decision making among stakeholders. The focus here is
on collective problem framing, priority setting, option evaluation and
plan formulation. In these circumstances, the decision-making process
rests on a more iterative and deliberative programme of information
and knowledge exchange, exploring values as well as debate and
argumentation.
47
Broadly put, the distinction between ‘learning from’ and ‘working with’
stakeholders is one of weaker and stronger forms of participation. A further
important type of engagement is one of Informing stakeholders. Here, the
objective is to disseminate information about a decision process to
constituencies of stakeholder. Approaches may include the use of leaflets,
brochures, information packs, newsletters, exhibitions and electronic media.
4.2
In practice, decision making often involves a combination of approaches to
address different aspects of a decision process, and indeed, these different
forms of engagement should be considered complementary, rather than
mutually exclusive. For example:

information based engagement can be used early in decision making
as a way of recruiting stakeholders into a more consultative or
collaborative process;

a collaborative or consultative process may form the basis for a wider
programme of information dissemination. That is to say, it may
emerge out of more deliberative learning settings.
4.3
It is important to further recognise that different levels engagement stand
alongside analytic desk based approaches (See also Section 3), that is,
approaches to decision making based on in-house evidence gathering and
research. These approaches are therefore non-participatory and tend to be
used in circumstances where:

there exists very limited or no scope for participation (for example, a
non negotiable decision situation);

it is considered proportionate to rely on desk based analysis alone (for
example in areas of decision making considered to be of low impact);

4.4
timescales, expertise and money are limited.
In circumstances where analytic approaches are used, those responsible for
the decision process should consider engagement in terms of informing
stakeholders to enhance and ensure transparency.
4.5
In practice, just as different approaches to engagement will often be used in
conjunction with each other, so too will decision making have engagement
and non engagement components. The analysis below endeavours to reflect
this reality and how choices can be made.
48
Step 2: Understand the stakeholder landscape.
4.6
The general assumption behind a participatory approach is that there is a
need to ‘cast the net’ widely in terms of who is being involved in decision
making. Inclusive, legitimate and informed responses to issues of natural
resource management are likely to emerge where mechanisms are put in
place to accommodate a diversity of ‘world views’ and experiences.
4.7
In principle, identifying relevant stakeholders make is a formative concern in
decision making though it is often approached in ad hoc way. Systematic
analyses of the reasoning behind the inclusion of different groups and
individuals in a decision making process is generally rare and there exists no
accepted or standardised way of distinguishing between and grouping
participants.
4.8
Recent work within the environmental management literature has emerged
describing the types of methodologies that can be used to analyse the terms
on which stakeholders participate. In particular stakeholder analysis is
increasingly being advocated as a systemic way of identifying, differentiating
and categorizing stakeholders, and investigating the relationships between
them.
4.9
In circumstances where the decision making context is well defined,
stakeholders often seem readily identifiable, and the formal process of
stakeholder identification appears self-evident. For instance, stakeholders
may be identifiable to a participatory process because of their previous (or
ongoing) experiences of engagement with the situation. Commonly this
includes:

those with designated power to act on behalf of others (such as
statutory bodies charged with environmental mandates); and/or

individual, groups or organisations who have formal credentials or
expertise (such members of the scientific community).
These types of stakeholder are integral to decision making, though it has
often been claimed that decision making processes rely on the “usual
suspects” to engage with a problem or issue. Not only can this affect the long
term acceptability of a given decision, but it can lead to stakeholder fatigue
and the feeling among participants that ‘we have been here before’. More
fundamentally, without diversity in decision making sources of ideas,
expertise and creative inspiration may be lost that would otherwise
49
strengthen capacities to adapt to, and cope with, complex and uncertain
environmental problems.
4.10
Thus care has to be taken to therefore avoid stakeholder processes simply
reinforcing:

an accepted way of approaching an issue or problem; and

prevailing wisdoms about who are the custodians or ‘keepers’ of a
problem/issue.
The need for diversity in decision making seems particularly significant in the
context of an EsA when it is accepted that the approach is designed to think
about the full range of material and social benefits that people derive from
the natural environment and understanding how these links can best be
managed.
Categorising stakeholders
4.11
There is no one correct way of categorising participants in a participatory
process, but it is useful to think of grouping stakeholders in one of three
ways.
4.12
First, groupings based on ideas of competency. The concern here is with
categorising stakeholders based on the types of knowledge they bring to
decision making process. Three useful distinctions can be drawn.

Specialists - those who participate because of their formal credentials/
background in an issue. This may include those occupying roles of public
and private sector organisations (for example, a county ecologist, an
academic expert in forestry, a mental health worker, an agronomist) as
well as third sector voluntary groups, environmental and otherwise.

Non-professionalised expertise – those who participate because of
accumulating knowledge or experience about an issue even if this not a
formally recognised specialism. This is sometimes referred to as ‘lay’
expertise and may be of lasting significance to a decision process. Nonprofessionalised expertise can be embedded in organisations working at
the local level, (for example, a community group) but also may be invisible
to the process without active search and recruitment (for example, a
farmer).

Procedural competency - those who participate because of their
knowledge of the mechanisms that ultimately foster and impede delivery.
50
This category covers competencies in formal procedure (for instance,
procedures that guide the actions of state, commercial and third sector
actors) but it also includes an understanding of more informal and tacit
protocols – sometimes culturally and locally specific – that may
lock/unlock decision making (such as ‘how to work’ with particular
individuals, social groups or delivery partners).
4.13
Second, groupings may be based on power. This means working with
stakeholders according to their capacities to shape/influence the success of
the process. Again there are three important distinctions to consider.

Designated power - those with formal authority to acts on behalf of
other, from those working through legal and statutory powers of the state
(such as a local authority) to non professional groups acting on behalf of
others (such as a community or interest group).

Resource power - those who control the resources that underpin the
success of decision, such as the private and public land owners, water
utilities, food producers, service providers and so forth.

Network power - those who shape the capacities of things to happen by
dint of their strategically important place in a decision making network,
such as individuals who broker decisions at a local level (for example, a
land agent) or work at the interface of different stakeholder groups (for
instance, a community organisor). Network power can also rely on
charismatic authority: those who others ‘follow’.
Participation does not take place in a power vacuum. There is a need to
explore how power functions within a decision situation. One corollary of this
is consider the role of disempowered and hard to reach groups; that is those
who sit outside of, or a marginal to these conventional circuits of decision
making power. Empowerment of this kind may fundamentally change
relationships and social dynamics in a decision situation, and bring new
sources of insight to the process.
4.14
Third, groupings may be based on impacts. The concern here is with
categorising stakeholders according to the bearing a process or decision has
on them. A common approach is to bind impacts to a particular geographical
location of the decision situation – that is impacts on a named locality or
landscape type. However, geographical specificity on its own tells us little
about the nature of impacts themselves and how they vary according to
different types of stakeholder. Moreover, because geographical specificity
51
tends to gravitate a discussion of impact towards those within the locality
itself, there is a need to explore indirect and cumulative impacts on other
contexts and scales.
4.15
Finally, in the context of an EsA, a further useful framework may be to group
stakeholder in terms of the services provided by ecosystems, such as
‘provisioning’ stakeholders, or ‘cultural’ stakeholders. In other words service
categories become a context in which some of the generic categorisations
provided above (such as power, competency and impacts) are
operationalised.
4.16
An example of this latter approach is provided in Table 1 using the idea of
managing water quality across a catchment. For instance, consider a proposal
to change livestock grazing systems to reduce the risk of pathogenic
presences in watercourses. This would have knock on effect on human health,
such as incidences of Cryptosporidium in municipal drinking water supplies,
people falling ill from ingesting polluted waters in bathing areas, or in the
eating of shellfish. In this case key related services are set against
stakeholder groupings to form a simple stakeholder matrix. Two provisioning
services (fresh water and food) are used to illustrate the point, though the
matrix could be extended to include other services, such as cultural services
(e.g. recreation). Thus a picture begins to be built up of the stakeholder
landscape that could be engaged, were a proposal being developed.
4.17
A partial application of this type of approach has already been developed in
the context of a study examining farmland bird populations (see Case Study
1).
4.18
Stakeholder categorisations can then be more formally analysed, such as
characterising the relationship between stakeholders in the context of a
particular issue or problem. This is useful partly for the way it allows
stakeholders dynamics to be pre-empted and planned for in the participatory
process. Methods proposed include the use of:

Actor-linkage matrices in which stakeholders are listed in the rows and
columns of a table to create a grid so that the interrelations between them
can be described, using key words, such as whether a relationship is cooperative, complementary or in conflict; and

Social network analysis - an approach similar to the above in that it
makes use of matrices to organize data on the relations linking
stakeholders together. In this case, however, matrix cells are populated
52
Table 1. Ecosystem services and stakeholder mapping - water quality and
land management
Stakeholder
grouping
Relevant Services.....
....Fresh Water
....Food
Competency
Specialist
Microbiologists
Heath protection Agency
Lay
Procedural
Farmers and land managers
Trading standards; Environment Health Officers;
Power
Delegated
Defra
Environment
Agency/Ofwat
Food Standards Agency
Resource
Water companies
Land owners
Network
Surfers against
Sewage
National Farmers’ Union.
Land Agents
Water Consumers
Farmers
Shell fisheries
Impacts
Direct
Indirect
Tourism industries; Tax payers
with numbers to represent whether a relationship exists and its strength and
type (such as friendship; advice; conflict; trust).
4.19
The point of making this set of distinctions is less about trying to ‘pigeonhole‘ individuals and groups into one participant grouping or another, but to
recognise that different forms of representation and involvement are
potentially in play in a participatory process. It is common for categorisations
such as these to be developed ‘in-house’ by those responsible for engagement
processes see (See Case Study 2), but it is also the case that stakeholders can
themselves to be consulted for their view of the decision making landscape to
corroborate assessments.
53
Case study 1 - Stakeholder analysis for farmland bird populations
Follow up: Morris J et al. (2009) Watery Land: the management of lowland floodplains
in England. In Winter and Lobley What is land for? pp135-166 (Earthscan: London)
An applied academic study seeking to understand and predict the relationship between
farmer decision making and bird populations employed stakeholder decision analysis
methodology to identify individuals and groups with an “interest” in and “influence” over
farmland bird populations. Stakeholders were initially identified using a focus group with
researchers, with individuals and groups classified in an “interest–influence” matrix,
displaying their attributes and inter-relationships. Distinctions were drawn between:
Key players
those with a high interest and influence over the issue (such as the
RSPB and farmers)
Context setters
those with a high influence but little direct interest over the issue
(such as the local authority)
Subjects
those with high interest but little influence (such as bird watchers)
Crowd
Those with little interest or influence (such as a sections of the
general public)
A framework based on ecosystem services was used to identify and classify these
stakeholders according to their interest in the services provided by the regulating,
production, habitat, carrier, and information functions of agricultural land. At the same
time, influence was assessed by drawing distinctions between different instruments and
sources of power.
This formed the
basis of a
graphical
representation/
mapping of
stakeholders
which provided
guidance on how
stakeholders,
institutions could
be engaged to halt
and reverse the
decline of
farmland birds.
54
Case Study 2 - Brainstorming stakeholders in forest management
Follow up: Forestry Commission Toolbox for public involvement in forest and woodland
planning [See http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5xmds8]
The Forestry Commission has longstanding experience of undertaking stakeholder
engagement exercise. Stakeholder analysis is a common feature of their work. They
suggest this analysis is best undertaking by sharing knowledge by conducting
stakeholder-brainstorming sessions between different staff. It is suggested that the
construction of “mind-maps” can help reduce the time needed for these sessions and
encourage participants to think of stakeholders beyond the usual ‘local community’.
1. Stakeholders are identified and
grouped and their relationships
visually mapped
They recommend undertaking a simple public involvement planning chart to help
think which stakeholders should be involved and in what ways. The planning chart
lists the stakeholders identified in the brainstorming session against the levels of
involvement (such as information, consultation, and collaboration).
Each stakeholder group from the brainstorming session is transferred to the first
column of a ‘planning chart’. Then, for each stakeholder, appropriate techniques can
be considered for each level of involvement, starting with the best ways to get
information to that particular stakeholder. The chosen techniques are entered in the
top row.
55
Appropriate engagement techniques
are then recorded on the planning
chart against each stakeholder group
(this can be done with ‘sticky notes’ as
shown in the image) along with any
additional details.
In this example, additional notes are
added for any techniques which are
currently being used, and black ticks
added as the new techniques are
implemented, to keep a record of who
has been involved and to what level.
2. Stakeholders are grouped under desired
levels of engagement
Step 3. Identify relevant techniques
4.20
In this subsection key PDTs are characterised. The section draws makes some
analytical distinctions between types of approaches which are depicted in
Table 2. We then consider how these techniques can be used in the context
of the decision making framework provided in Section 3. In making these
distinctions it important to emphasise that differences between groupings of
techniques are not clear-cut. For example some may not choose to
distinguish so clearly between a focus group and in-depth group, as we do so
below, or wish to distinguish more clearly between extensive and intensive
techniques, that we group together under the heading of survey. The
framework should be understood as one way of describing, (rather than
prescribing), different tendencies in technique.
Learning from stakeholders: the use of surveys
4.21
Survey based techniques underpin “learning from” engagement strategies.
4.22
Surveys are typically deployed in two ways:
56

to elicit insight into peoples’ attitudes, values, behavior regarding a
particular issue; and/or

exploring underpinning reasons for why people think about an issue in a
particular way.
The first essentially focuses on ‘what’ types of questions in a survey - e.g.
‘what do you think about issue x or problem y?’ The second question, in
contrast, focuses on the ‘why’ - e.g. ‘why is it the case you view issue X in this
way, or problem Y like that?’ A general principle is that the former concern is
best explored through structured forms of survey, with predetermined
questions that can be explored in a consistent way across a sample, and
quantified. The latter require more open forms of questioning and are
designed to be exploratory and qualitative in format. However, this is not a
strict distinction. Open ended questions produce data that can subsequently
coded by the researcher leading to quantifiable data on underpinning
reasoning. Similarly results from a qualitative survey may serve to identify
the types of reasoning informing attitudes that can then be tested through
structured survey.
4.23
Survey based techniques vary considerably in their breadth and scope. Three
quite different types stand out.
Structured questionnaires - a way of collecting quantifiable information
about peoples’ views and behavior regarding a particular topic.
Questionnaires employ a consistent approach to the content and phrasing
of questions and link these to coded response scales (such as tendency to
agree/disagree). This allows standardised, and therefore highly
comparable, data to be produced. Opportunities to provide elaboration on
responses in words is common, but restricted, and therefore capacities to
understand underpinning reasoning behind answers is generally weak.
Structured questionnaires can be conducted in person or telephone. They
may be also implemented through self completion approaches. The ‘post
& return’/’drop off & pick up’ approach to self completion is being
increasingly replaced by electronic and web-based approaches.
57
Table 2: Overview of key survey and deliberative techniques
Technique category
Key techniques
Short Descriptor
Survey based
Structured
Questionnaires
One to one surveys that employ a consistent
Quantitative
approach to the content and phrasing of questions
put to respondents, often linked to coded
response scales.
Particularly useful for gauging
initial attitudes and priorities
across a large or geographically
extended community of interest.
Semi-structured
interviews
One to one surveys that use open-ended questions Qualitative
to explore ideas. The content and phrasing of
questions will often vary between interviews.
Useful for deepening insight into
priorities with a smaller number
of key informants
Focus groups
Group discussions (usually 4-8 people) used to
interrogate the perceptions, thoughts and
impressions of a group of people regarding a
particular issue. Groups maybe constituted to
reflect both shared and different attitudinal
positions/ circumstances. Often ‘one off.’
Qualitative
Useful for gauging general
reactions and depths of feeling
towards an issue across an
illustrative sample of
stakeholders.
Qualitative
Best used to underpin a
collaborative and continuous
process of stakeholder
involvement in decision making.
Gaining an insight
into peoples’
attitudes, values
knowledge and
behaviour
Deliberative
Developing
reasoned
assessments of an
issue through group
debate and learning.
In-depth discussion Again, group discussion that is open and
group
exploratory in structure, and generally sustained
over a number of occasions. Participants shape
the terms of the discussion, developing themes in
ways relevant to their own needs and priorities.
Primary data
produced
Primary contexts to application
Cont>
Table 3 (Cont.)
Deliberative....
Citizens' juries
A small cross section of the general public,
(usually 10-20 people), come to a considered
judgment about a stated policy issue/problem
through detailed exposure to, and scrutiny of, the
relevant evidence base. Group responds by
providing a recommendation or ‘verdict’.
Qualitative
Deliberative
opinion polls
Technique designed to observe the evolution of
the views of a large citizen test group as they
learn more about a topic. Typically the group
votes on the issue before and after an extended
debate.
Quantitative
Primarily used in the context of
and qualitative defining an issue and
understanding a decision
situation across a geographically
extended community of interest.
The involvement of stakeholders in the design
and content of analytical models which represent
ecosystems services and their benefits under
different spatial and temporal conditions
Quantitative
A useful way of visualising and
and qualitative representing a situation as an
aid to problem framing, option
development and appraisal
Technique that use formal methods of group
deliberation to express values for environmental
change in monetary terms.
Quantitative
Primarily used in the context of
formally appraising (valuing)
options.
Techniques that involve groups of stakeholders
designing formal criteria against which to judge
the non monetary and (sometimes) monetary
costs and benefits of different management
options as the basis for making a decision
Quantitative
Focus is on appraisal but the
process of formulating options
can be structured through a
MCA process.
Analytic- deliberative Participatory
modelling
Informing technical
tools for decision
making through
Deliberative
group deliberation
monetary
valuation
Deliberative multicriteria analysis
Can be used explore how people
reason about a given issue to
inform priorities and also help
make decisions.
59

Semi-structured interviewees - a way of collecting detailed qualitative
data about a respondent’s view experience and insights on a particular
subject. The approach generally uses open-ended questions to explore
ideas. The content and phrasing of questions will often vary between
interviews. There is scope for interviewees to develop ideas in
unanticipated ways relevant to the particular subject. Unlike structured
questionnaires an important facet of the semi-structured interview is that
respondents can explain the reasoning behind answers. The lack of a
standardized approach, and a qualitative focus, makes comparability and
aggregation of data less precise/more interpretive. Again these
techniques can be conducted in person or by telephone. Discussion is
typically audio-recorded then transcribed and analysed.
 Focus groups - a tightly-structured, intensive, face to face group
interview technique designed to elicit perceptions and thoughts regarding
a particular issue. Unlike semi-structured interviews or structured
questionnaires, the emphasis is on producing insights about a topic
through interaction. The argument is that the process stimulates
participants to develop ideas and thoughts about a topic because of the
shared and/or different attitudinal positions of the wider group and its
members. Again discussion is typically audio recorded by a facilitator and
then transcribed and analysed.
Deliberative techniques
4.24
Approaches to decision making based on deliberation can be employed to
strengthen an EsA process. Because deliberative based arrangements for
stakeholder engagement build participants more actively and explicitly into
decision making, the argument is that the overall ‘intellectual capital’ of the
process is broadened and enhanced. In other words, the proposition is that
‘working with stakeholders’ leads to more informed decision making.
4.25
Deliberation has been described as process in which:
‘people confer, ponder, exchange views, consider evidence, reflect on matters of
mutual interest, negotiate, and attempt to persuade each other. Deliberation
includes both consensual communication processes and adversarial ones’
(Stern and Fineberg 1996: 73)8
8
Stern, P and Fineberg, H.V. (2006) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National
Academy Press)
A recent non-governmental report suggests deliberation is suitable when:

policy or decision-makers are keen to listen to and take account of public
views, as a contribution to more robust decisions based on a deeper
understanding of public values and attitudes on the issues;

the decision, policy or service in question involves complex issues,
uncertainty or conflicting beliefs, values, understanding, experience and
behaviours; or where one viewpoint might otherwise dominate;

the decision will require trade-offs between differing policy options, and
participants working together can explore in detail the implications of
alternatives to result in a better-informed decision; or

the decision-maker cannot make and implement a decision alone; there
needs to be buy-in from others .
Involve (2008) 9
4.26
Common deliberative techniques include:
•
In-depth discussion groups - this technique is designed to elicit,
perceptions, and thoughts of a group regarding a particular issue in a
qualitative format. Unlike focus groups, the discussion group is more open
in structure, and generally sustained over a number of occasions.
Participants shape the terms of the discussion, developing themes in ways
relevant to their needs and priorities.
•
Deliberative opinion polling - this technique combines survey based
questionnaire methodologies with in-depth discussion. Typically a group
is surveyed on an issue before and after an extended debate. The
technique is useful for gauging what views people would hold if they had
the time and access to information to develop considered views on a
topic.
• Citizens' juries - A small cross section of the general public, (usually 1020 people), come to a considered judgment about a stated policy
issue/problem through detailed exposure to, and scrutiny of, the relevant
evidence base and expert witnesses. The group responds by providing a
recommendation/verdict. The proceedings of Citizens’ Juries are
generally not publically accessible events. Where they are, they commonly
termed consensus conferences.
9
Involve (2008) Deliberative public engagement: nine principles
61
Analytic-deliberative techniques
4.27
Whereas deliberation is based wholly on ‘talk’ based techniques (i.e.
structured discussion, debate and so forth) the emphasis of analyticdeliberative techniques is on integrating deliberative practice with more
technical forms of analysis. The group based settings for these analytical
processes have sometimes been termed ‘Competency Groups’ to convey the
way distinctions between expert and lay knowledge start breaking down as
explanations for an issue, and corresponding responses, are developed
collaboratively.
4.28
There are three types of analytic-deliberative technique relevant to an EsA:
•
Participatory modelling – sometimes termed mediated modelling. The
involvement of stakeholders in the design and content of analytical
models which represent ecosystems services and their benefits under
different spatial and temporal conditions. An example would be the
creation of Participatory Geographical Information Systems where
stakeholders actively contribute to, and learn from geo-spatial
technologies as part of a decision-making process.
•
Deliberative multi-criteria analysis – a set of techniques that involve
groups of stakeholders in designing formal criteria against which to judge
the non monetary and (sometimes) monetary costs and benefits of
different management options as the basis for making a decision.
Techniques vary according to types of stakeholders involved.
•
Deliberative monetary valuation – a set of techniques that use
deliberative process to express values for environmental change in
monetary terms. Groups settings are used to create individual or shared
‘willingness to pay’ and ‘accept’ values to inform the value of different
options of management. The outputs of these techniques can be used
within cost-benefit analysis, or as part of deliberative multi-criteria
analysis that has a monetary component to it.
4.29
An additional and important cross-cutting technique that brings some of
these deliberative techniques together in the context of an EsA is the use of
scenarios. The process involves creating and exploring the nature of
alternative plausible futures given an assessment of current trends10 . This
can be used to help inform option design (See Box 4 overleaf)
10
For wider resources that can inform an understanding of trends see Fast Futures (2005) Natural Resource
Protection Future Trends Study - Final report to Defra.
62
Box 4. Technical Note: Scenario building
An important general technique often used in the context of participatory processes
is ‘scenario building’.
‘Scenarios’ can in principle be developed in-house. For example, decision makers may
make use of sources available in public domain to explore how futures for particular
ecosystem services may unfold, distilling trend data and social commentary into an
assessment of future change. However, they are generally regarded as a method of
engaging with stakeholders. They can both help different groups explore and
understand issues, and assist them to develop responses or new policy goals in the
light of what might confront them.
Although there are many differences of approach amongst those who use scenario
tools, one unifying assumption is that they are not predictions about the future.
Rather they are a set of conceptual tools that enable people to deal with a particular
type of problem that involves high uncertainty and high complexity. In these
circumstances they can help stakeholders by:
•
structuring choices by revealing their possible long-term consequences;
•
support strategic planning and decision-making by providing a platform for
thinking through the implications of various options in the face of future
uncertainties; and,
•
facilitating participation in the strategic development process by allowing the
voicing of conflicting opinions and different world views.
In practical terms approaches to scenario construction can legitimately try to:
• Look forward - and seek to identify what kinds of future might unfold under
different assumptions about the key drivers of change; or alternatively
• Backcast - from some desired set of goals, thus allowing stakeholders to think
through the conditions that might realise these objectives.
In doing so one might also discover what kinds of values stakeholder hold about
particular environmental features or characteristics, and what kinds of change might
be acceptable.
63
How may techniques vary depending on the stage in the decision process?
4.30
It is useful to now consider how these different PDTs relate specifically to the
key tasks of an EsA discussed in Section 3. In Figure 2 a generic pathway
through decision making, in the form of a series of questions, is presented
together with the types of task involved. The pathway illustrated should be a
viewed as a guide, rather than a prescriptive framework for linking the needs
of an EsA to particular PDTS.
4.31
In the first instance provisional screening of a decision issue may enhanced in
situations where desk based analysis is considered weak or inadequate.
Consulting with those who have specialist expertise in a particular area of
service provision can assist understanding through the use of interview
and/or questionnaire survey. This is sometimes termed ‘expert elicitation’
and can encompass both qualitative assessment, but also basic numerical
scoring of screening issues.
4.32
It was explained in Section 3 that further rounds of assessment tend to arise
in circumstances where there are potentially significant impacts, where
complexities of future management are anticipated, and where gaps in
knowledge and understanding persist. Were none of these conditions to exist
then we may judge the case for more involvement of stakeholders to be of
limited relevance on substantive grounds (i.e. improving the quality of
outputs and outcomes), though it is important to recognise that ethical (i.e. it
is the right thing to do) and practical reasons for engagement (i.e. it improves
trust and legitimacy) will still be important.
4.33
Strengthening insights was explained in Section 3 as potentially involving:

spatially explicit analysis of how and where relevant services are
generated trends and an assessment of their condition;

understanding who the beneficiaries of these services are, how and
where benefits are derived, and why they matter.
Understanding in this area provides important baseline insight against which
to assess and value changes (as well as re-structure issues themselves).
Further rounds of desk top analysis were understood as potentially
informing insight into these issues, though it was recognised that involving
stakeholders could provide complementary further insight.
64
Figure 2. PDTs and an EsA: illustrative pathway through decision making
Provisional screening of decision issue against
full service typology
1. Do you know whether ES’s
may be impacted by
intervention in this area?
No
Yes
Do you have enough evidence or expertise to
make this judgment?
2. Has the decision issue been
screened for all ecosystem
services?
No
Yes
Yes
3. Have you identified:
a) significant impacts?
b) complexities of management?
c) uncertainties of
understanding?
Choice of
PDTS
Yes
Stakeholder analysis
Who are your stakeholders and how do you wish
to engage?
Learn from?
4. Do you have a good
understanding of:
a) how and where relevant
services are generated and their
current state/trends?;
No
b) to whom these services
matter and why?
Survey based
approaches
Spatial analysis of service provision and demand
side beneficiaries
Understand stakeholder priorities
No
Yes
5. Have particular options for
managing the issue been
proposed?
Reflect on priorities.
Identify cross-sectoral synergies.
Recognise limits and thresholds.
Work with?
Deliberative
and analytic
deliberative
approaches
No
Formally assess the monetary costs & benefits of
change
Yes
6. Have options been formally
appraised?
No
Formally assess the non monetary costs &
benefits of change
65
4.34
A general consideration in this context is that participatory processes may be
best deployed in the context of ‘place’ (see Box 5)
4.35
At early stages in decision making survey based methodologies may be
considered to collect data that can further understanding of aspects of service
production (e.g. how and where particular services are produced and insights
into their condition). The focus would be on stakeholders with professional
or non professionalised knowledge of these issues. This information input
could be potentially coupled with more deliberative assessments of service
provision in which understanding of a situation is refined through in-depth
group discussion. In an analytic-deliberative format, this process may result
in the creation of a participatory GIS that maps out service provision (see
Case Study 3)
4.36
At this problem framing stage, structured questionnaire surveys, interviews
and focus groups can also be used as a basic tool for learning about what
matters and why; testing attitudes and depths of feeling regarding a
particular issue or problem, and drawing out general assessments of
priorities (See Case Study 4). For instance they are potentially able to elicit
attitudes to broad ‘human well being’ topics, such as perceptions on access to
recreational benefits of nature, or the ability secure livelihoods from land, as
well perspectives on change.
4.37
More elaborate techniques to consider in the context of priority setting would
be deliberative polling or the citizens’ jury (see Case Study 5). A less resource
intensive approach would be to use an ‘open house’. These are like a ‘drop in’
public consultation/meetings. Usually running over a number of hours and
held within a local community setting, people can learn about a decision
situation by speaking with decision makers, but also impart their views.
4.38
As the decision making process evolves to one of formal option design and
appraisal the general aspiration, however, should be to use more
collaborative group based processes such as in-depth discussion group, and
group discussion processes coupled to analytical procedures, such as the
scenario building or use of participatory modelling options. An example of
one such collaborative modelling process – termed in this case a ’competency
group’ - is described in Case Study 6.
4.39
In the context of option appraisal the concern is to formally value the changes
in provision arising from a proposed action. This is an issue that is
66
Box 5. Technical note: a place based approach?
“Since decision making is often explicitly concerned with specific geographical
areas methods that encourage people to think about the relationships between
all services in an area and how they are changing are valuable. These methods
could be used to support the kind of cross-sectoral partnerships and integrated
management approaches needed to achieve the goals of sustainable
development”
(Haines-young and Potschin, 2007)11
One argument is that a place-based approach is useful in the context of an EsA for
it serves to integrate discussions of ecosystem services into contexts that matter for
people. Places are geographical entities that have ‘meaning’, and it is in context of
‘place’ that decisions are taken. There is no one correct way of linking an EsA to a
particular construction of ‘place’ from the perspective of participation. It may be
patch of woodland, a stretch of road, a neighbourhood, a catchment, a National Park,
region and so forth.
While a focus on particular places has been advocated, it is important to recognise
that the relationship between place, ecosystem services and benefits to human well
being is fluid. Applying an EsA to any given context is also about examining the
implications of taking a decision in one particular locality for another. In particular
when taking a place based approach there is a need to recognise that a place under
consideration will often be:

the provider of benefits derived elsewhere e.g. the provisioning service of a
food commodity in one area will provide benefits for distant consumers;

the beneficiary of services produced elsewhere e.g. the benefit of drinking
water for a urban population will be derived from the regulation of water
quality in rural land management.
Equally an EsA approach is also about examining the implications of taking a
decision at one scale of place for another. For example, a decision that may seem
marginal when working at a regional level may be interpreted as catastrophic for a
particularly community. Similarly a marginal change at a local level may have a
wider cumulative impact making an intervention ultimately unsustainable.
See Haines-Young and Potschin (2007) England terrestrial ecosystem services and the rationale for an
ecosystem-based approach (Defra Project Code: NR0107)
11
67
considered in detail in the supplementary guide and briefly summarised
here.
4.40
Economic analysis using the framework of Total Economic Value (TEV) is the
preferred approach to valuation within Defra’s (2007)12 approach, and this is
designed to be consistent with Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), and Green Book
guidance. The primary focus is on monetary valuation and includes
consideration of actual or potential use values, as well as non-use values.
4.41
In terms of the monetary valuation of costs and benefits of options stated
preference studies - which use surveys to determine willingness-to-pay
estimates for ecosystem services where markets do not exist - may be
necessary if valuation information (such as that used in benefits transfer
techniques) is either not available or of poor quality. These techniques may
be used to:

elicit values based on individual preferences.
The use of survey (questionnaires) is the common method for eliciting
‘individual willingness to pay/accept’ values. Focus groups may be used
in conjunction with them as a quality assurance check, such as the
improving nature and format of questioning. Alternatively surveys may
be administered in the context of a group based discussion to enhance
understanding of options for which values are then being expressed.

elicit values based on collective preferences.
It has been argued that the non-use benefit values that people associate
with ecosystem services – bequest, existence and altruistic - are closely
associated with citizen-type behaviours and motivations. The use of
group based formats to elicit an aggregate ‘social’ value of
environmental change has been advocated as way of capturing these
‘collective benefit’ values.
4.42
Methods that generate monetary values for change in group based
environments are collectively termed deliberative monetary valuation.
4.43
In terms of non monetary valuation information derived from earlier rounds
of participation, both survey and deliberative based, provide the contextual
material to the inform analysis of these wider costs and benefits, although
these techniques can again be utilised specifically in the context of option
appraisal, for instance, as part of a formal consultation process.
12
Defra (2007) Opt Cit. 6.
68
4.44
An emerging participatory technique that may be considered useful in the
context of valuation is deliberative multi-criteria analysis. This is a technique
for systematically evaluating the costs and benefits of options against a range
of non monetary and monetary criteria. Criteria are used to judge the
performance of options using a standardised - non monetary - scale of values.
Criteria are weighted to reflect stakeholder priorities. Deliberative multicriteria analysis encourages stakeholders and decision makers to examine
the full range of criteria that are important to varying degrees to a decision
situation. The technique is a way of screening and ranking options in
systematic way and should be regarded as complementary to cost-benefit
analysis.
4.45
The scope of this guide is on the use of PDTs leading up the process of when a
decision is made, however it is important to also consider that, at the
implementation end of an EsA there is an emerging tradition of
participatory monitoring that can underpin assessments of practical
change and therein inform further rounds of decision making. A useful
example in this respect is the UK Phenology Network13 which encourages a
wider public of ‘enthusiasts’ to record and view seasonal events that show
the impact of climate change on wildlife. The general point is that delivery of
an EsA could in principle draw on a wider citizenry14 to make observations.
Summary
4.46
This section has considered some of the key dimensions of the
methodological choices facing those considering the use of participatory
process in the context of an EsA. The overriding message is that techniques
must be matched to purpose. An understanding of the relevance of a
particular technique begins with assessment of what type of engagement is
fundamentally desired (there are quite different levels of engagement), and
relatedly, how these might supplement understanding from desk based
processes. A non prescriptive framework for thinking about the types of
stakeholders who may be involved and how techniques map onto the
decision process has been developed. In the next section practical
considerations in the conduct and evaluation of this processes is discussed.
13
14
See UK Phenology Network at http://www.naturescalendar.org.uk/
See for example Irwin (1995) Citizen Science (London: Routledge)
69
Case Study 3 - Mapping moorland landscapes
Follow up: Information on partnership working on can be found on the Exmoor
National Park Authority webpage [http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/
exmoor-moorland-landscape-partnership-scheme]. For the historical context to this
work see Land Use consultants (2004) Moorlands at a Crossroads: The State of the
Moorland’s of Exmoor.
Context
A stakeholder-led process of exploring and mapping priorities for Exmoor was
undertaken as part of the Exmoor ‘Moorland Mapping’ initiative. The initiative was
led by the Exmoor National Park Authority (ENPA) and its Moorland Board, after
commissioned research had informed them that: “there has been remarkably little
discussion between the different groups about the ‘big picture’ of where public
policy and private activity should be taking the moorlands.” From the perspective of
an EsA and participation the initiative was designed to develop a more integrated
vision of this landscape given different stakeholders views and priorities.
Approach
A key aspect of this work was to develop detailed assessment of, and management
proposals for areas different Moorland “Units”. In essence these units are geographic
areas of moorland with similar issues and common ownership/management.
The process of collating data for these units was initially done by combining in
house ENPA expertise with discussion/survey of issues with landowners and
managers. As part of this process targets in the National Park Management Plan and
evidence from the Exmoor Landscape Character Assessment were incorporated. A
list of threats and opportunities for each unit, under six headings – landscape,
wildlife, cultural heritage, land management, enjoyment and understanding and
natural resources – were derived from this process. These were captured on ENPA’s
GIS system and presented as 21 Unit “Survey” maps. The maps were then assessed
and edited by Natural England/ ENPA staff.
This collated information, in the form of annotated maps, was then used by the
project to engage statutory agencies in assessing the condition, value and
significance of landscapes, drivers for change as well as actions to achieve a
sustainable future for the moorland units. The intention was to develop broad
agreement between the agencies on the main issues and priorities for the moorland
unit that could then be used as the basis for future interaction with land-owners and
70
farmers. The initiative achieved this by holding a series of in-depth discussion
groups in a workshop format to discuss either a group, or groups of, units focusing
on three sectors: landscape, vegetation cover and historic environment, especially
archaeology. In advance of these meetings participants were required to discuss
each unit with colleagues to reach a consensus on the main issues and future actions
that their agency would wish to see take place.
The workshop sought to describe what the statutory agencies would like each of the
moorland units to look in 25 years time by working with the maps in a ‘hands on’
way (for instance the process involved stakeholder using felt tip pens and ‘sticky’
notes to interact with materials). Where sufficient information was available the
process worked well with a draft vision of the unit being described quite quickly.
However, where information was inadequate or controversial then the process
became much slower and often resulted in the need to return to an issue at a later
date after further information had been gathered.
The mapping workshops served to increase communication between key
stakeholders about each others’ priorities and needs and endowed each participant
with a degree of ownership of the process and objective. The process was time
consuming though, requiring the extended commitment of different agency staff, and
depended on long term planning so that all the key contributors were able to attend.
The resulting maps were tidied up: keys were added, as were photographic
descriptions of the vegetation types. Explanatory text also had to be developed for
the maps to enable interpretation and discussion with those delivering the visions
on the ground: land owners and farmers.
Key messages
1.
Mapping processes can be a useful ‘hands on’ device for encouraging
stakeholders to develop an integrated and collective vision for natural
resource management in a specific place.
2.
Map based work is essentially an iterative process combining layers of data
and qualitative interpretation over a number of stages.
3.
The process of mapping helps reveal where gaps in evidence and
understanding for management lie.
4.
Mapping processes can be used in conjunction with different types of
engagement. Analytic desk top research provides the input for a
collaborative mapping process which is then used to communicate and
discuss goals with delivery partners.
71
Case Study 4 - Mapping marine landscapes
Follow up: A general information guide has been produced by the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (2010) The Marine Conservation Project. See also the
Finding Sanctuary Project website [http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/]
Context
A Marine Conservation Zone Project has been established by Defra, Natural England
and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to identify and recommend MCZs to
Government. The Project is being delivered through four regional projects (covering
the south-west, Irish Sea, North Sea and south-east) with each project involving
work with sea users and interest groups to identify Marine Conservation Zones and
provide recommendations for sites within their regions to Government in 2011. Of
the four areas the SW MCZ project (called the Finding Sanctuary Project) and has
established its stakeholder group (called its Steering Group). The Group is made up
of 42 members representing a wide range of marine interests including nature
conservation, leisure and commercial.
Approach
The kinds of data needed to make informed choices about the potential geographical
boundaries of MCZs are not collected routinely and so much of this has needed to be
collected as part of the Finding Sanctuary Project. The evidence has included not
only the biophysical characteristics of the area, but also the intensity and patterns of
use of sea areas by different stakeholder groups. This aspect represents an
important and novel aspect of the project, and has consisted of constructing a
spatially and temporally explicit mapping of the supply, of and demand for,
ecosystem services. It has involved interviews stakeholders to obtain usage data and
the submission by individual stakeholders of information online. Uses made of the
sea by 140,000 respondents has been logged and some of this is now available as a
layered, interactive GIS. (See visualisation overleaf)
The current GIS tool allows for the identification of activity hotspots and potential
conflict zones, and hence areas where it may be contentious to site an MCZ. The
mapping also shows where there are no activities, few activities or complementary
activities taking place. The spatially-explicit database of the ecosystems and their
patterns of use and exploitation is intended to be one of the main outcomes of the
project, and it is envisaged that this will help build stronger social networks and
consensus among stakeholders.
72
Key messages
1. Participatory approaches to mapping an issue can be integrated with geospatial technologies to create a systematic and interactive picture of how a
problem is viewed and how it might be managed.
2. The data needs of mapping processes are large and complex. Ttargeted
interviews with stakeholders can unlock access to data that may not be
readily accessible in the public domain.
3. The technical process of creating visualisations can be facilitated greatly
through web-based interactions with custodians of relevant information.
Incrementally, the situation ‘picture’ grows more complex and complete as
stakeholders deposit information. In and of itself this process may cultivate
ownership and practical use of the technology.
4. On line technology can foster distant but interactive engagement with
stakeholders over a much larger group than face to face interaction alone.
73
Case Study 5 – Interviewing stakeholders in the Peak District to
understand the decision situation.
Follow up: Dougill AJ, Fraser EDG, Holden J, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS, Stagl ST,
Stringer LC (2006). Learning from doing participatory rural research: Lessons from the
Peak District National Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 259-275
Context
A recent academic study in the Peak District National Park (PDNP) was undertaken
with the aim of applying, testing and refining participatory processes for evaluating
land policy options for this landscape. The study started from the premise that
traditionally those concerned with the management of designated landscapes and
protected areas have taken a narrow view of what was required, and often
promoted or accommodated particular sectoral interests such as those relating to
the conservation of species and habitats, or the management of game. Increasingly,
however, society expects a wide range of recreational, agricultural and
environmental services to be delivered from such areas, and this, the researchers
suggest, can lead to a number of conflicts between the different interest groups. In
areas like the Peak District, they argue, a range of completing and complex demands
are being placed upon the landscape by stakeholders, and increasingly management
approaches are failing to integrate/resolve the social, economic and environmental
pressures that result.
Approach
The team began by working with a small number of stakeholders - who formally
represented different interests in the management of the PDNP - to define the
geographical and conceptual boundaries of emerging land policy challenges. This
was achieved through a series of semi-structured ‘scoping interviews’ with key
stakeholders which were used to identify where concerns and interests intersected.
A key theme to emerge across these interviews was the problem of heather burning.
The issue was that, although this is a widespread management practice designed to
maintain biodiversity and game interests, if managed poorly it can result in
reductions in the quality of waters draining from these areas, erosion of upland soils,
and increased carbon emissions. In reporting the results of these interviews the
researchers concluded that “the debate over how and when land managers should
burn heather has exposed a series of fundamental questions”.
74
The interviews were also used to identify who else might be regarded as a
‘stakeholder’: the process resulted in over 200 potential stakeholder groups and
organizations being identified (including recreation and tourism industries, water
utilities, conservation groups, land owners and so forth). The Peak District study
directed considerable effort to the classification of these stakeholders, their
positions in the debate and the relationships that existed between them. An initial
mapping of the stakeholder landscape derived from the interviews and documentary
analysis was subsequently checked and refined through a further round of semistructured interviews and structured survey, and Social Network Analysis was used
to identify marginalised groups and those who are centrally paced or more
influential in discussions or activities. The questionnaire was used to examine the
pattern and frequency of interactions between groups, whether interactions were
regarded as positive or negative, levels of trust, and perceptions about how large the
differences were between the positions of the groups. This information was then
used as part of a wider participatory process involving group-based techniques in
which options for management have been identified and appraised.
Key Messages
1. The targeted use of semi-structured interview techniques at an early stage
provides a means by which an issue can be structured and contextualised in a
way relevant to local needs and circumstances.
2. The exploratory nature of semi-structured interviews allows the relationship
between different areas of ecosystem service management to be revealed.
3. Interviews can produce extensive information on the wider stakeholder
landscape interacting with an issue as the basis for more deliberative
processes.
4. Mapping the stakeholder landscape through interview can be extended
through documentary (desk based sources). It is also helpful to validate these
representations through further rounds of interviewing to ensure
completeness and accuracy.
75
Case Study 6 - A citizens’ jury for water quality.
Follow up: Fish, R. et al (2007) Contemporary livestock farming and watercourse
pollution: a citizen’s jury perspective. Research report for Defra.
Context
An interdisciplinary research project used a Citizens’ Jury to explore public
priorities for managing water quality in Taw Catchment of North Devon. The Jury
sought to gain a better understanding of how risks arising from human exposure to
pathogenic micro-organisms by way of livestock farming are characterised and
assigned significance among the public at large, and to consider what these
judgments might therefore mean for emerging priorities in this area of science
policy.
Approach
Citizens’ juries involve a small cross section of the general public (a ‘jury’), usually
15-20 people, coming to a considered judgment (or ‘verdict’) about a policy issue
through detailed exposure to, and scrutiny of, the relevant evidence base. The
evidence base is presented to the jury in the form of oral and written testimony at a
formal ‘jury event’ (the ‘proceedings’).
In this example the jury was recruited via a ‘free find’ process across Devon. This
involved the research designing a press release in conjunction with University of
Exeter’s public relations department, which was circulated to the regional press and
radio and posted on the University’s website. This process resulted in a number of
articles on the jury process being written in regional press and live radios
interviews. It is of note that:

only written media were successful in generating interest in participating. In
total, 37 people who responded to this publicity expressed a serious interest in
participating. Of these 13 were selected to participate at the event to represent a
mix of social backgrounds and understandings of the issue.

the demographic profile of the free find recruitment process was skewed
towards a more senior age profile. A further two persons – under the age of 18 were purposively recruited by the research team from a local Further Education
College.
In total, 18 witnesses were recruited for the process. The witnesses were selected on
the basis of their specialist expertise in different areas of the jury issue (including
public health, tourism, the farming industry and microbiology).
76
The project team followed a common model in characterising the roles and
responsibilities of jurors and witnesses for this process. Jurors were responsible for:

attending a pre-jury event where they would be introduced to the process
and what expectations the convenors had of them. This took place shortly
before the main jury event. It provided jurors with witness statements and
supplementary evidence and other contextual material to facilitate their
understanding of the jury issue;

participating in a programme of debate, presentation and field visits through
which they could engage with the scientific and policy evidence base
surrounding microbial watercourse pollution and form collective judgments
about the jury issues;

returning an oral ‘verdict’ on the issues that would be communicated at the
jury event and then in a written form.
In turn, witnesses were responsible for:

providing a ‘statement’ to jurors in advance of the jury event that would
clarify to jurors their background, interests and professional investments in
the issue of microbial watercourse pollution;

supplying supplementary written/numerical/pictorial evidence in advance of
the jury event that would support or clarify the arguments they made at that
event, where it was deemed appropriate by witnesses;

making a cogent oral presentation of no more than 15 minutes at the jury
event that would outline their principal argument/case and the nature of any
supporting evidence;

clarifying issues raised by the jury in the course of giving their presentation
through response to open questioning and private cross-examination.
The project team ‘test ran’ its approach to the jury process in order gain firsthand
experience of the technique and to address any problems of design and execution
that could not be clearly anticipated in theory.
The jury event took place over two days in which juror were presented with the
testimonies of expert witnesses together with a farm visit and laboratory tour. The
process resulted in a cogent verdict to be delivered around four key issues.
Acceptability
What risks arise from the microbial pollution of water courses
and how significant are they?
Culpability
What are the origins of these microbial risks and how culpable
are livestock farming practices within them?
77
Necessity
What more could reasonably be done to mitigate the impact of
livestock farming practices on water quality?
Responsibility
Where do responsibilities begin and end when controlling these
microbial risks arising from livestock farming
On the basis of the evidence presented the majority view of the jury was that current
risks to human quality of life arising from the microbial pollution of watercourses
were relatively insignificant Nonetheless, the jury was unanimous in its view that
policy makers should take reasonable steps to reduce the probability of microbial
water course risks occurring. The jury also took the majority view that, with regards
to culpability, livestock farming currently plays a significant role in contributing to
incidents of microbial watercourse pollution compared to human and other
environmental sources. It was against this judgment of low significance, but
generally high culpability on the part of livestock farming, that the jury came to a
unanimous view regarding approaches to mitigation. The jury concluded that
measures should centre primarily on the provision of programmes of advice and
training. This information should be widely disseminated and linked to systems of
financial assistance that emphasise low cost and low technology solutions which are
in step with existing patterns of farming activity. Opportunities for cross sectoral
funding for the water quality by industry beneficiaries (such as the water utilities
and shell fisheries) was also advocated as potential way forwarded.
The process was evaluated:

Participating witnesses were supportive of the use of the citizens’ jury
technique. They considered it a novel way of encouraging active public
participation and scrutiny of the policy process, and a useful means of
understanding and influencing public priorities. Witnesses had confidence in
the process to produce a level of public engagement that was appropriate to
the complexity of the issue at hand. They also considered it a particularly
useful way of bringing together and facilitating discussion between diverse
interest groups which may not easily be achieved by more traditional
consultation processes.

The participating witnesses suggested they will read the judgments of the jury
with interest, and disseminate them widely. However, it is clear for witnesses
that wider investment in this technique may only occur if outcomes are
reflected back into the real world of decision making or produce considered
responses on the part of Jury sponsors.
78

Participating jurors all found the process enjoyable. Most considered the
technique a useful way of assisting decision makers in understanding public
priorities about policy issues and informing the public about the policy
process. However, the jurors were largely undecided about how seriously the
sponsors would take their verdict. They also felt the process could be
enhanced if additional time had been dedicated to private deliberations and
the questioning of witnesses.
Key Messages
1. Citizen Juries can produce well reasoned assessments of an issue by those
with little or no formal training in a complex area of science-policy. However,
background sessions leading up to a jury event may be necessary.
2. The technique can be useful in linking issues to their broader political, social
and economic context as well as inform practical priorities for management.
3. By working across a broad policy area with different stakeholder interests
links between sectoral areas can be envisaged through the process (for
example the process above identified, in essence, the possibility for a
‘payment for ecosystem services’15 process)
4. Citizen juries are not only about drawing out ‘lay’ expertise on an issue, they
also provide a context in which formal stakeholders in an issue (specialists,
interest groups) can interact outside of ‘conventional’ contexts for decision
making (e.g. consultation)
5. Lay participants enjoy the novel nature of the jury process but the process
should be clear about how and whether information is being/has been used.
6. The process is time intensive. Enough space should be given to ensure
deliberations can be worked through.
15
See relatedly: Defra (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: A short introduction
79
Case Study 7 - Competency groups in water regulation
Follow up:
Whatmore, S., Landström, C. and Bradley, S. (2008). ‘Democratising science’, Science and
Public Affairs , British Association for the Advancement of Science, June: 17.
Ryedale Flood Research Group (2008) Making Space For People: Involving Local
Context
Knowledge In Flood Risk Research And Management In Ryedale, Yorkshire
Context
A group of researchers have recently explored the use of ‘Competency Groups’, a
novel participatory ‘apparatus’, designed to achieve ‘a mapping of scientific
uncertainty into public knowledge’. The focus of the research was on understanding
and managing flood risks. The competency groups involved natural and social
scientists collaborating with volunteer residents in localities where flood risk
management is already a matter of public concern.
Approach
The aim of these group processes is to ‘slow down’ reasoning in order to better
understand and interrogate how local flood risk problems and solutions are framed
both by the ‘experts’ (EA) and by university and local group members. In this
research context, the competency group methodology had three goals, namely to:

trace existing flood management policies back through to the scientific
knowledge claims and practices that inform them;

enable those affected by flooding to try out alternative ways of framing and
ameliorating the local flooding problem; and

produce a collective model of local flooding and associated proposals for
action that enable the Group’s work to travel and, potentially to make a
difference, in local civic and policy networks.
Pilot competency groups were established in Ryedale and Uckfield. The meetings
involved participating stakeholders sharing experiences of flooding and how science
is perceived as a means of problem solving. Participants worked with different
materials they have brought to the process (such as maps, personal photographs and
official reports) to inform group learning regarding flood risk and management
options.
80
The meetings were supplemented by a variety of other activities that emerged as a
result of the interactions. These included field visits, video recording, interviews
with local figures and personal testimony. Each group was also supported by a
password restricted website hosting a resource depository for materials collected by
group members and a group blog. Audio and video recordings were also made of
every CG meeting and transcribed for reference/use by all group members.
The process involves developing new computer models based on collaborative
working. As the team explain:
“The natural scientists in the group contribute knowledge about the building
blocks of this technology and local residents articulate in-depth knowledge
about the river, the landscape and the built environment in the catchment we
are modelling. For example, when we were trying out the scientists’ model
making it possible to explore the effects of dams of varying heights in different
places in the catchment, one local resident knew where the soil was loose,
making the water disappear into the ground to come up in another spot, near
some properties. This local knowledge enabled us to connect the computer
model to the actual river in a way that existing scientific measurements do
not”. (Whatmore et al 2008: 17)
The process is designed to facilitate a ‘bottom up’ process of responding to local
flood risk in terms of identifying potential approaches to management that can be
develop through policy.
Key Messages

The idea of a competency group is designed to reinforce the idea that
capacities to problem solve cannot be simply equated with specialist expert
knowledge. Competency is designed to recognize that expertise comes from
diverse origins and this needs to be melded together through in-depth
discussion based work.

The emphasis on ‘slowing down’ reasoning is an important aspect of the
creative process. The competency group is designed to tackle issues of high
management complexity and this relies on giving due consideration to
different perspectives. Relatedly, working with different interpretative
materials to elicit and communicate understanding of an issue cannot be
hurried.
81
Section 5 Implementation and evaluation
This section considers the second three steps for embedding participatory processes
into decision making.

Step 4. Assess resource commitments. What is practically achievable in a given
context is hugely dependent on available resources: money, time and skills. Any
engagement process and technique needs to be assessed against resource
commitments.

Step 5: Recruit and implement. There are number of considerations regarding
barriers to involvement that need to be overcome aswell as basic good conduct
in the implementation of techniques.
Step 6. Evaluate the process and its outcomes. There are different ways of

evaluating the success of a participatory process. An important distinction
exists between process success and outcome success.
Step 4: Assess resource commitments
5.1
Engagement with stakeholders may be an aspiration that few would deny in
principle, but in the ’real world’ it might not be pursued with enthusiasm
because of available resources. A participatory approach to decision making
should be understood as generally resource intensive in terms of the
commitment of time, money and skill:

Available timescales. As a general rule, participatory and deliberative
processes are not best suited to assessment processes where timescales
are short. The more participatory a process becomes the more suited it is
to contexts where decisions are taking place over longer periods and
where issues are being revisited. The time available to make a decision
may not match up with the time required to initiate and run a
participatory process.

Available expertise. Many are often not trained in stakeholder
participation even if requirements and mandates to do so exist. Outside
facilitators may be required to lead deliberative techniques. They also
bring independence to the process. Technical ‘know-how’ is required
when making use of analytic-deliberative techniques, such as deliberative
multi-criteria analysis.
82

Available financial resources. As a general rule of thumb, the more
deliberative and analytical the engagement process becomes, the more
expensive it will be. Even if processes are not bound by urgency,
financial commitments to participatory processes may be perceived to be
relatively high compared to alternatives.
5.2
In an ideal world, the use of PDTs should be governed by the needs of
decision making, but it is clear that resource commitments will often be a
fundamental factor in how and whether techniques are deployed. There is,
however, enormous variability in the resource commitments associated with
the use of PDTS and these may change through the process. A generic set of
questions that can assist in assessing the resource implications of using
techniques is provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Assessing resources commitments: key questions16
Resourcing
considerations
Staff Time
Staff Expenses
External
expertise
Participants
Administration
Venue hire
Other event
costs
16
Key Questions
Will there be paid staff time committed to preparing and
implementing this activity?
Will there be any staff expenses incurred?
[e.g Travel, overnight stays, child care etc]
Will you be hiring external expertise to oversee the process?
Will you be hiring external expertise to train staff in the
methods used?
Will you be hiring external expertise to prepare any
materials?
Will you be hiring external expertise to summarize/
transcribe/analyse data?
Will you being paying fees to participants for their time?
Will you be reimbursing participant expenses?
[e.g. Travel, overnight stays, child care etc]
What are associated administration costs?
[e.g. telephone calls, photocopying, printing, postage,
newsletters, leaflets]
Will you be paying for venue hire?
Will you be requiring catering?
Will you need recording equipment?
Will you have AV/computing requirements?
Adapted from Involve (2005) The true costs of participation – Full technical Report
83
Step 5: Recruit and implement
5.3
There a number of both general and EsA specific challenges associated with
involving stakeholders in a decision process. Key general barriers to
recruiting participants include:
5.4

Practical difficulties of making a commitment. The process of being
involved may simply imply too much time on the part of the targeted
participant and be practically different to co-ordinate in relation to
other personal/life commitments.

Perceptions regarding influence. Potential participants may be
sceptical about the influence they may have over a decision process.

Perceptions regarding responsibility. Those targeted for
involvement in a process may not see it ‘as their job’ to immerse
themselves in an issue.

Confidence and authority. Potential participants may not regard
themselves as having expertise or insight in an issue even if they may
bring information of significance and novelty to a process. They may
not feel they have anything valuable to say or lack the confidence be
‘put themselves forward’.
The general message is that there is a need to be creative and flexible in
creating different kinds of opportunities and contexts for participation – one
approach will rarely suit all. There is a need from the outset to be realistic
about the levels of commitment implied by the approach to participation, to
reflect critically on what can be expected to work, and with whom.
5.5
The practical process of recruiting participants begins with some mapping of
the stakeholder landscape. Section 4 provided some categorisation strategies
against which the different types of stakeholder can be identified and
grouped. It was indicated that this may, in part, be led by the stakeholder
themselves. Targeted consultation with a small group of key stakeholders can
serve to identify a wider community of interest (see Case Study 5) and
unlock access to them (see 4.13 on ‘network power’). In this respect, the
process of recruitment may be achieved through snowballing. There are, of
course, a variety of methods for recruitment. There is no fixed rule. Articles
in the local print media and interviews on local radio are also potential ways
of generating broad public interest (See Case Study 6), but more targeted
forms of recruitment will often be necessary. Personalised letters followed
by phone calls and emails is a standard strategy. Wider protocols for
84
recruitment and sampling strategies are well documented in the survey
literature and suggested texts are provided in the further reading section
(below).
5.6
These processes should coincide with the use of basic ethical codes when
designing participatory processes. As the Social Research Association17 has
explained ethical considerations involve, in part, thinking about the
“consequences of one’s actions upon others and the establishment of clear
lines of accountability for the redress of grievances”. This is a complex area
although some key considerations by the SRA are presented in Table 4
below.
Table 4. Good conduct in the design of participatory approaches
Consideration
Key issues
Potential benefits and
hazards
What risks to the subject are entailed in involvement in the research?
Are there any potential physical, psychological or Dislosure dangers that
can be anticipated? What is the possible benefit or harm to the subject or
society from their participation or from the project as a whole? What
procedures have been established for the care and protection of subjects
(e.g. Insurance, medical Cover) and the control of any information gained
from them or about them?
Where appropriate, consent of participants must be requested and put in
terms easily comprehensible to lay persons. This should ideally be both
orally and in writing. An information sheet [See Table 5] setting out
factors relevant to the interests of participants in the process must be
written in like terms and handed to them in advance of seeking consent.
They must be allowed to retain this sheet.
The project should comply with the requirements of current data
protection legislation and how this is accomplished should be disclosed
to participating subjects and those monitoring the procedure. This
should include proposed data storage arrangements, degree of security
etc. and whether material facts have been withheld (and when, or if,
such facts will be disclosed).
The steps taken to safeguard the confidentiality of records and any
potential identifying information about the subject must be revealed.
Organisational procedures for monitoring the project should be
available for inspection.
What is the anticipated use of the data, forms of publication and
dissemination of findings etc?
Informed consent
Data protection
Confidentiality and
anonymity
Monitoring of the
process
Dissemination of
findings
17
Adapted from: Social Research Association (2003) Ethical Guidelines. (SRA: London)
85
5.7
General good conduct when employing participatory processes begins with
the provision of information about the ‘what, why and how’ of involvement.
There is a need to be clear about context and purpose. Table 5 provides some
indicators of what type of information should be made available. The ideal is
that this information should be supplied in writing early on in the process.
Table 5. Informing participants: key elements18
Component of
information
A title
Expected duration
Identity of field
researchers and
organisational base
Purpose of study
Sources of funding
Scientific background
Design of the process
18
Rationale
This offers a quick reference for any interested party
and indicates the broad sphere of interest.
Gives some indication of commitment required of
subjects and time given by researcher.
A list of names, positions, qualifications and functions in
the proposed research of all those holding responsible
positions and who might be in direct contact with
subjects. This offers an estimate of competence together
with a chain of responsibility and accountability.
Ai ms and objectives might indicate hypothesis testing,
policy evaluation, and any potential “value” added to the
subject group and/or society in general.
The organisation, individual or group providing the
finance for the process.
Some rationale for conducting the process should be
offered. If this investigation has been done previously,
why repeat it? What research methods are being
employed? Why and how was the subject/respondent
chosen? What broad sampling techniques have been
deployed?
Describe briefly what will be done and how the subjects
are to be expected to participate. What will be required
of them? All procedural matters should be clarified.
Time commitments and data-collection settings should
be revealed. Data analysis methods and procedures
should
also be clarified.
Social Research Association (2003) Op. Cit. 17
86
5.8
In implementation care needs to be taken with the tone and approach used
by 'consultation leaders'; their background, status, deference, sincerity,
approachability and reputation will all be factors which are as important as
the techniques advocated. It is not uncommon for 'discussion leaders' to be
patronising or condescending thus affecting the degree, content and nature of
participation.
5.9
Care also needs to be taken to ensure that reluctant/diffident/shy people or
those representing groups known to be lacking confidence are given equal
opportunities and reassurances that their views will be heard.
5.10
A more specific practical issue concerns how participants come to identify
with the issue before or during the process. This may be of particular
importance to an EsA when it is considered that the idea of ‘ecosystems
services’ and an ‘ecosystems approach’ is a novel way of speaking about
issues of natural resource management, and this may be confusing and
perplexing to some stakeholders, even if it describes processes that, in
principle, should be ‘easy to grasp’ by an interested/intelligent audience. For
example, a study conducted to explore ‘public understanding of the concepts
and language around ecosystem services and the natural environment’
emphasises the difficulty that people can have with these terminologies (Box
6).
5.11
This potential for confusion is true of groups and individuals even with
familiarity with, or roles in, environmental/natural resource management.
The danger is that these terms may be interpreted as ‘jargon’. This may
create an obstacle to involvement as well as jeopardize existing
commitments. Where they are used, terms such as ‘ecosystem services’ and
an ‘ecosystems approach’ need to be described, explained and importantly,
the ‘added value’ of thinking in this way conveyed, rather than simply
assumed. The preparation and presentation of evidence in respect of
ecosystem services therefore needs to be approached with care. The use of
worked examples is one way of making this concept ‘come alive’. More
generally, those who seek to embed these ideas into decision making
processes may need to translate terms in to alternative words and ideas that
are meaningul to the groups involved. The point is that the language should
not be a barrier to understanding a general principle, namely:
understanding the benefits that people derive from the environment, in all
their variety.
87
Box 6. Public understanding of the concepts and language around ecosystem
services and the natural environment (Defra 2007)19
A project exploring public understanding of the concepts and language around
ecosystem services and the natural environment undertook detailed group disussion
work with people from a broad demographic spectrum, and with a range of attitude
towards environmental issues. The study explored how people interpreted a range
of terms that could be used in conjunction with an EsA.
The study found that Ecosystem Services was a baffling term for many, mainly due
to the lack of awareness of the term ‘ecosystems’. The study found that the term can
be confusing, and can serve to obscure the general goals of an EsA. Within this care
must be taken in using MA style frameworks with lay audiences. Capacity for
misunderstanding is potentially high:

Provisioning Services - many disliked this word, and could not grasp what
was actually being provisioned.

Regulating Services – this term tended to be associated with restrictions,
controls and cutting things down, yet none associated it readily with nature.

Supporting Services – these services were widely taken to mean social
support, social services or something medical.

Cultural Services - many had difficulty relating the term ‘culture’ to ‘nature’.
The report argues that comprehension was certainly aided by the use of a simple
and clear descriptions. In terms of alternatives:

Biodiversity - this was a poorly understood term and its relevance to
peoples’ lives was not clear. It did not capture peoples’ imagination and
sounded ‘boring’.

Green Infrastructure - people were unfamiliar with this concept and
tended to be misinterpreted.

Environmental Services – this carried strong but inappropriate
associations for these respondents. Most assumed that these referred to
local council services (such as recycling), or to actual job roles such as park
wardens or road sweepers.
Defra (2007) Public understanding of the concepts and language around ecosystem services and the natural
environment
19
88

Nature’s services – this was instinctively understood, and carried useful,
positive associations. Although this was an unfamiliar term, it was much
more likely to be guessed and defined correctly. People related to the idea
that humans can gain or procure something from nature itself.
Equally, people could associate with, and embellish phrases such as the ‘benefits we
gain from nature’. The study also advocated using terms and phrases such as ‘basic
resources’ and ‘natural resources’. People used these terms freely and with
confidence.
Step 6 Evaluate the process and outcomes
5.12
Incorporating deliberative and participatory processes into an EsA should
involve some form of evaluation. Importantly, rather than being a mere
afterthought resigned to the end of the process, evaluation should ideally
occur before, during and after a participatory process. In this subsection a
framework for evaluating the effectiveness of participatory processes under
an EsA is outlined, and the different approaches that can be taken
Why evaluate?
5.13
There are a number of compelling reasons as to why systematic evaluation of
participation in an EsA is necessary. At the most immediate level are similar
reasons as to why any other governmental policy appraisal process is
evaluated – i.e. to establish whether predicted costs, benefits and risks were
realised or exceeded as a result of decision implementation and to assess
current performance, feedback, learn from it, and make adjustments. All of
these elements can be applied to the implementation of PDTs.
5.14
Given the relatively novel nature of many participatory and deliberative
approaches, however, evaluation is of further value in testing and deepen
understanding of these emerging approaches, establishing and promoting
‘good’ practice in the use of PDTs, enhancing transparency of their
implementation and use, and deepening understanding of the contexts in
which it is most appropriate to use different approaches. Ultimately,
evaluating PDTs is a way of testing whether underpinning ethical, practical
and substantive rationales (see Section 1) are realised in practice.
89
A framework for evaluating participation in an EsA
5.15
A way of understanding evaluation is depicted in Figure 3 below. The
effectiveness of the process in the middle of the diagram (for instance,
whether it is fair, competent, representative), the correspondence between
this and the outputs (for instance, specific actions, plans, policies,
recommendations) and outcomes (for instance, in terms of enhanced learning
or material environmental, economic and social changes) at the bottom of the
diagram, is assessed with reference to the prevailing context and decision
situation.
5.16
The concept of learning in the form of transformational changes at the level
of individuals, organisations, and wider networks has long been held as a
central goal and desired outcome of more participative and collaborative
forms of adaptively co-managing ecosystem services. It is also an important
evaluative component that links and transcends all elements and scales
within the framework presented in Figure 3. One way of defining social
learning in this context is a:
“process by which changes in the social condition occur – particularly
changes in popular awareness and changes in how individuals see
their private interests linked with the shared interests of their fellow
citizens.”
Webler et al. 199520
The emphasis under this definition is on individual learning between
individual participants, experts and policy makers within specific
participatory EsA processes.
5.17
In addition to such process-based learning, participatory processes may lead
to social learning in the form of emergent outcomes, such as transformational
changes to socio-ecological systems or behavioural change within society.
There is also the potential for participatory processes as part of an EsA to
engender multi-scalar learning at institutional and organisational levels, as
well as wider social and professional networks, which feeds back to shape the
context within which an EsA is embedded (as illustrated by the dashed
arrows in Figure 3).
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H. and Renn, O. 1995 'Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning
perspective', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15: 443-463.
20
90
Figure 3: Evaluating participation in an EsA: a framework
Context
Institutional, political, cultural, environmental
Decision Situation
Purpose, objectives, inputs
Participatory Process
Resources
Who
How
Outcomes
Outputs
Material changes (e.g.
physical environment)
social/institutional capital
and learning, behavior
change
Aspects of assessments,
decisions, actions (e.g.
plans, polices, instruments,
indicators,
recommendations
5.18
An evaluation should be initiated at the design stage of a participatory
process (i.e. before the process has started). There are a number of
considerations and decisions to make in designing and implementing an
evaluation, the main steps of which can be summarised as followed.

First, the overall evaluative framework should be situated in a detailed
understanding of the context and decision situation within which
participation occurs.

Second, the criteria of process and/or outcome effectiveness by with the
participation in an EsA will be judged should be developed. This should be
91
appropriate to the context and stated objectives/purposes of the
participatory process, and where possible draw on the views of key
stakeholders and process participants.

Third, the nature and scope of the evaluation should be defined. There are
three main forms an evaluation can take:
1. Comprehensive evaluation that occurs before, during and after a
participation to evaluate the process, emergent outcomes, and
relationships between them. Comprehensive evaluation offers
formative feedback that can aid ongoing process design and
adjustments, as well as summative evidence. Such evaluations are
important but rarely occur;
2. Real time process evaluation that occurs before and during a
participatory EsA process-based on process based criteria only.
Potentially offers both formative and summative evaluative
components;
3. Retrospective / ex post evaluation that occurs after a participatory
process had ended. It can provide an insight into process effectiveness
through documentary evidence or personal recollections, but can
more reliably provide reliable data on outcome effectiveness.
Retrospective evaluation is purely summative.

Once the overall framework and scope of the evaluation is in place the
available forms of evidence and methods of data collection should be
established. This can include:
o
Documentary evidence and secondary data relating to the context,
decision situation, participatory process, or its outputs/outcomes.
o
Questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups to capture views on
participatory processes and/or outcomes effectiveness from the
perspective of different actors involved in or excluded from the
process (e.g. process participants, sponsors, decision-makers,
facilitators, through to stakeholders that did not participate in the
process).
o
Participant observation where a member of the evaluation team
attends events within the participatory process, observes, and
records notes in relation to evaluation criteria/questions (in the
case of comprehensive and real time evaluation only).
92

Finally the use of the evaluation and how it is to be communicated should
be considered as this will have a bearing on its timing, nature and scope.
Process evaluation
5.19
Most evaluations remain focused on process effectiveness. Criteria of
effective participatory processes include:

representativeness and inclusivity - being representative of all those
interested in, and affected by a decision, and remove unnecessary
barriers to participation;

fair deliberation - allowing all those involved to put forward their views
in interactive deliberation that develops mutual understanding

access to resources - providing sufficient resources (information,
expertise, time) for effective participation

transparency and accountability - being transparent about objectives,
boundaries, and the relationship of participation into decision-making;

learning -enhancing social learning for all those involved, including
participants, specialists, decision-makers and wider institutions and
networks;

independence - being conducted in an independent and unbiased way;
and

efficiency - being cost-effective and timely.
Further illustration of participatory process evaluation in a context relevant
to an ecosystems approach is given in Case Study 8
Outcome evaluation
5.20
The assumption that participatory processes may lead to better
environmental (and other) outcomes cannot be guaranteed and is therefore a
question that needs to be systematically explored throughout the evaluation
process. This is most often not the case. For a variety of reasons proper
analysis of outcomes gets missed out of evaluations including:

pressures from decision-making institutions and others for
evaluations to report early in order to demonstrate process efficacy;

methodological difficulties associated with tracking outcomes in the
longer-term and detecting cause-effect relationships to established
what difference (if any) the inclusion of PDTs has made.
93
5.21
Figure 3 differentiates between outputs and outcomes. Outputs are defined as
the immediate substantive products of participatory processes such as
reports, assessments, and policy recommendations. Outcomes are emergent
impacts and resulting changes, such as material changes to the
environmental, economic and human systems through to changes in social
processes including social capital, individual/institutional learning and
behaviour change. There are fewer available examples of systematic outcome
evaluation in the academic and practitioner literature. An illustration of how
this can be done retrospectively using documentary evidence is given in Case
Study 9.
5.22
A key challenge in moving toward a more participatory approach is to
develop more comprehensive forms of evaluation that explore the
relationships between process and outcomes. There is a need for welldesigned longitudinal research involving retrospective and real time studies
that more effectively capture process dynamics and track emergent
outcomes. Such evidence is important if we are to resolve questions about the
value of participation and deliberation within an EsA and whether the
claimed benefits of participation are actually realised in practice.
5.23
This also applies to the possible link between the participatory components
of an EsA and social learning, which cannot be assumed to occur but needs to
be empirically verified as part of an evidence based approach. A number of
studies21 have used interviews before and after peoples’ involvement to
detect any change in understanding. Much less effort has gone into tracking
social learning outcomes that could possibly emerge from participatory
processes. It is possible to use retrospective evaluation approaches through
involving participants in interviews some time after a participatory process
has ended to establish, for instance, whether changes in environmental
behaviours and environmental citizenship have occurred, of which there is
some evidence22.
5.24
Evaluating these learning processes at the level of institutions and social
networks is more complex and challenging. One approach is to draw on
interviews and documentary evidence to assess shifts in issue framing and
institutional views on participation. Research has shown, however, that the
potential for wider forms of social learning as a result of participation can be
See for example Poncelet, E. C. (2001). Personal transformation in multistakeholder environmental
partnerships Policy Sciences 34(3-4): 273-301.
22 See for example Bull, R., Petts, J. and Evans, J. (2008) ‘Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the
impossible?’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51: 701-716.
21
94
undermined by the uneven power relations, political interests, and the
behaviour of decision institutions, including a possible unwillingness to
openly listen to and learn from stakeholder dialogues23.
5.25
This highlights a pressing need to move beyond an exclusive focus on
instrumental evaluations, and formal identification of cause-effect
relationships between participation and social learning, to also engender
critically reflective and relational forms of learning that are so often lacking
in participatory governance networks. A recent report24 reflecting on UK
public dialogue on science and technology more broadly has illustrated this
gap and outlined strategies for more reflective and interactive forms of
learning, including the building of networks and communities of practice that
encourage interactive, constructive and transdisciplinary learning between
researchers, policy-makers, participatory practitioners, and the public
Summary
5.26
This section has considered some of the practical considerations surrounding
the use of PDTs at the point of delivery. Many of these issues are not specific
to an EsA. Embedding PDTs into decision making involves making choices
about the design of techniques in the context of often limited resources,
overcoming challenges of recruitment, respecting ethical codes, and
facilitating these processes in ways that ensure full and active participation.
However, an EsA does bring with it some specific challenges in terms of
working with a new approach to natural resources management, particularly
with respect to issues of terminology. Developing procedures to evaluate
process and outcomes at an early stage is also of general importance to begin
recognising fully the value of taking a participatory approach.
See for example: Bickerstaff, K., Walker, G., 2005. Shared visions, unholy alliances: Power, governance and
deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban Studies 42, 2123-2144
24 See Chilvers, J. (2010) Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on
science and technology, Harwell: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre.
23
95
Case Study 8 – Evaluating stakeholder and community involvement
processes in forest planning.
Follow up:
CEP and Shared Practice (2007) Stakeholder Involvement in the New Forest: A
report for the Forestry Commission .
Tabbush, P. (2005) Consultation and community involvement in forest planning
Research in Cranborne Chase and North Dorset, Farnham: Forest Research
Context
In recent years public participation has become an essential feature of sustainable
forestry management and a key part of the way that the Forestry Commission
operates in the UK. In the context of an ecosystem approach, recent evaluations of
ongoing processes of stakeholder and community involvement in forest planning in
the New Forest provide highly relevant examples. They represent examples of
process evaluation conducted while participation is happening.
Approach
The most recent evaluation, conducted in 2006 by a consortium of consultants
acting as independent evaluators, assessed existing stakeholder involvement in
Forestry Commission consultation forums on land management in the New Forest. It
built on and further developed an earlier evaluation of the Forest Design Plan (FDP)
Forum and other community engagement activities, undertaken internally by the
Forestry Commission’s social research team in 2003-4. This earlier study applied
criteria of fair and competent public deliberation and used a range of qualitative
data collection methods such as documentary evidence, participant observation,
semi-structured interviews and in-depth discussion groups, with organisers, process
participants, and a selection of participants as well as non-participants.
The 2006 evaluation used similar methods, with a particular emphasis on
interviews. The initial step in the evaluation was to develop a set of evaluation
criteria, the final version of which took the following form:
1. Are the right stakeholders involved?
2. Are the roles of stakeholders fully understood by them and by
conveners?
3. What is the role of the forum in relation to other forums?
4. Are the objectives of the forum clear, transparent and acceptable to
stakeholders?
96
5. What level of involvement is expected (from information provision,
through consultation to partnership and devolved decision-making) of
the stakeholders?
6. Are the methods / techniques used in the forum meetings appropriate
to the circumstances (purpose and context)?
7. Are the stakeholder forums effective?
8. Are adequate resources available for the forums?
9. What are the lessons overall from the forums?
In order to collect data in relation to each of these questions the following methods
were used:

Telephone interviews with convenors of five different stakeholder for a,
which were later transcribed and coded in relation to the above evaluation
questions.

Five face-to-face interviews were carried out with members of the Forest
Design Plan Forum who had regular attendance at meetings.

A set of questions were also asked (via e-mail) to five FDP members with
infrequent attendance records.

Participant observation and interviews with participants at a ‘live’
engagement event.
Key Messages
Analysis of the data produced by these methods led to some critical insights about
participatory process effectiveness, which if interpreted and used properly could
lead to future learning and improvement in this area of the Forestry Commission’s
work.

The structure and process of forums was mainly limited to consultation as
opposed to higher levels of deliberation and partnership.

Representation within most fora was by invitation and therefore was limited
to stakeholders only (not members of the public).

In addition, the agenda and process for participatory events was tightly
controlled and set by a few key people.

A positive aspect, however, was the inclusion of site visits, which brought the
forestry issues to life for participants.

The lack of any real connection between many individual participatory
process relating to the Forestry Commission’s work raised the issue of
possible duplication of work between these fora and the need for a more
strategic and joined up approach to engagement across the region.
97
Case Study 8 – Environmental outcomes resulting from stakeholder
engagement in the North American Great Lakes region
Follow up: Beierle, T. C. and Konisky, D. M. (2001) What are we gaining from
stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great
Lakes. Environment and Planning C, 19(4), 515–27.
Context
A small number of applied academic studies exist that move beyond participant and
process-based evaluation to consider whether the claimed benefits of participatory
processes are 98rganize in the form of improved environmental outcomes. One such
study documents processes of stakeholder engagement in the North American Great
Lakes region. It focuses on the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process in the United
States and Canada, where 43 contaminated “Areas of Concern” (AOCs) were subject
to a series of community-based efforts to clean up the most contaminated rivers and
bays. Potential cleanup activities included sediment remediation, point-source and
nonpoint-source pollution control, nutrient management, and habitat rehabilitation.
In each RAP stakeholder advisory committees (SACs) comprised 20-30 members
drawn from stakeholder interest groups (e.g. representatives of local industries;
environmental, public interest, and/or community groups, and local government
officials) who worked together to plan and implement remediation strategies.
Approach
The study used a case survey methodology to evaluate the participatory processes in
all 43 RAP cases. The case survey technique involves the analyst asking a standard
set of questions of documentary evidence relating to case studies, such as project
reports, minutes, and other materials that offer a record of the participatory process
and outcomes.
The authors collected data in this way in relation to eight criteria linked to main
outcomes of interest (see Table overleaf). For each case the criteria were assigned a
score (low, medium, or high) along with a descriptive entry of supporting evidence
that justified the score. The overall results of the evaluation showed evidence of a
link between the participatory processes and positive outcomes in relation to the
first three sets of criteria (i.e. the quality of decisions, the relationships among
important players in the decision making process, and the capacity for managing
environmental problems). Across all of these criteria cases with scores of high or
medium outweighed cases scoring low. The evidence was less positive when it came
98
A. Outcomes of interest
B. Criteria measured
Increasing the quality of
1. Were public values incorporated into decision
decisions
making
2. Was the technical quality of decision making
improved?
Improving relationships
among important players in
the decision process
Building capacity for
managing environmental
problems
3. Was the conflict resolved among stakeholders?
4. Was trust increased between stakeholders and
government
5. Did the public become better educated and
informed
6. Were organizations established to implement
decisions
Leading to real
improvements in
environmental quality
7. Did the process influence relevant decision makers
8. How much of the plan has been implemented
to the final criterion. No obvious link was shown between effective participatory
processes and the improvements in environmental quality through implementation
of cleanup and restoration activities. However, rather than being a direct impact of
the way in which the participation was 99rganized this result was largely explained
in many instances by institutional factors where the RAP process had stalled in the
implementation phase. Overall, then, this Great Lakes case study provides broadly
positive evidence of the outcomes emerging from participatory processes.
99
Section 6
6.1
Conclusion
Embedding an ecosystems approach (EsA) into decision making is a key
element of Defra’s commitment to shape a more strategic and integrated
approach to protecting and enhancing the natural environment. An integral
part of this is to ensure that the views and expertise that stakeholders’ hold
about ecosystem services and their management are incorporated effectively
into decision making processes. The argument is that participation is not only
the right thing to do, nor only a better way of going about decision making in
terms of building trust and legitimacy. It also leads to more informed decision
making; that is, decision making that is better placed to deliver a more
strategic and integrated approach.
6.2
There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to decision making and no single ‘entry
point’ into decision making in which ecosystem services may be incorporated
into considerations. Yet the guide demonstrates the types of questions that
would need to be addressed to link generic stages in the decision making
process to the concerns of an EsA and that participatory approaches can be a
way in which these questions can be explored and addressed.
6.3
The guide has pointed to a number of techniques available to decision makers
to help embed participation into decision processes where the management
of ecosystem services is a consideration. There are both general and EsA
specific issues to address in terms of how a participatory approach is
adopted, which techniques are appropriate to underpinning purposes, as well
practical delivery issues. A generic pathway through decision making has
been presented to explore some of the key choices and options governing
how PDTs may be used in the context of an EsA. However, just as Defra’s
Action Plan suggests that an EsA is a non-prescriptive framework to guide
decision making, so too is it the case that participation is not a ‘rule governed’
process. The design and application of techniques is highly context specific.
Experimentation and adaptability is recognised as a fundamental attribute of
the process of using PDTs in order to meet the objectives of an EsA.
100
Further reading
The case for a participatory approach
There are many overviews of general arguments and challenges associated with
stakeholder participation in natural resource management. Useful recent starting
points in the academic literature are:
Reed, M (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A
literature review Biological conservation 141 (10), 2417-2431
Hage,,M Leroy, P. And Petersen, A.C (2010) Stakeholder participation in
environmental knowledge production Futures 42 (3), 254-264
For significant original contribution to these debates see:
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk - a Survey of
Institutional Mechanisms. Science Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243
Bloomfield D, Collins K, Fry C, Munton R, (2001) Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles
for increasing trust in UK public governance?" Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 19 (4) 501 – 513
Mapping the stakeholder landscape
An excellent general reference scoping out the different ways in which stakeholders
can be characterised in environmental decision making is provided in:
Reed et al. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for
natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1933-1949
Further information on the formal techniques of ‘actor-linkage matrices’ and ‘Social
network analysis’ can be found in:
Biggs. S and Matsaert, H. (1999) An actor-orientated approach for strengthening
research and development capabilities in natural resource systems, Public
Administration and Development 19. 231–262
Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed MS (2009) Social network analysis and stakeholder
analysis for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 22: 501–518
Participatory and deliberative techniques
Useful overviews of PDTS from the grey literature are:
Clark, J, Burgess, J Stirling A and Studd K., (2001). Local Outreach: the Development of
Criteria for the Evaluation of Close and Responsive Relationships at the Local Level.
101
Environment Agency R&D Technical Report SWCON 204. Bristol: Environ-ment
Agency
Petts, J, Homan J and Pollard, S. (2003). Participatory Risk Assessment: Involving Lay
audiences in Environmental Decisions on Risk. Environment Agency R&D Technical
Report E2-043/TR/01. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Stagl, S. (2007) SDRN Rapid Research and Evidence Review on Emerging Methods for
Sustainability Valuation and Appraisal (Sustainable Development Research Network)
Other helpful related materials are:
Davies, P. (2003)The Magenta Book: Guidance Notes for Policy Evaluation and
Analysis Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, London
This takes a social research perspective to policy appraisal,
Spencer et al., (2003) Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing
research evidence. Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, London.
This provides useful generic insight into quality assuring qualitative research in
evidence gathering.
A more general academic overview of qualitative research methods is:
Bryman, A. (2008) Social research methods (University Press: Oxford)
Survey techniques
General introductions to the design and use of survey techniques can be found at
Oppenheim, A. (1998) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude
measurement (Continuum Press):
Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing
(Sage Publications)
Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus Groups as qualitative research (Sage Publications)
Deliberative techniques
For a useful original introduction to the use of discussion groups see:
Burgess, J., Limb, M., Harrison, C.M., (1988) Exploring environmental values through
the medium of small-groups. 1. Theory and practice. Environment and Planning A 20
(3), 309–326.
Burgess, J., Limb, M. & Harrison, C. (1988b) Exploring Environmental Values
through the Medium of Small Groups: 2. Illustrations of a Group at Work.
Environment & Planning A 20:457-476.
102
For a further example of work on Citizens’ Juries see:
Aldred, J., Jacobs, M. (2000) Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens` jury.
Ecological Economics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 217-232
Defra (2006) Articulating public values in environmental policy development Report
on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality. (Prepared by People Science Policy) (Defra:
London)
Kenyon, W. (2005) A Critical Review of Citizens' Juries: How Useful are they in
Facilitating Public Participation in the EU Water Framework Directive?. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, Volume 48, Number 3, pp. 431-443
Analytic- deliberative techniques
Further useful example of participatory modelling in a resource management
context can be found at:
Gaddis, EBJ, Falk, H. Ginger, C Voinov. A, (2010) Effectiveness of a participatory
modeling effort to identify and advance community water resource goals in St.
Albans, Vermont Environmental Modelling & Software 25 1428–1438
Antunes, P., Santos, R and Videira, N (2006) Participatory decision making for
sustainable development—the use of mediated modelling techniques Land Use
Policy 23, 44-52
Further reading on the use of multicriteria techniques can be found in the
supplementary guide. A useful starting point is:
CLG (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual
Further reading on the Deliberative monetary valuation can be found in the
supplementary guide. A useful starting point is:
Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DVM): issue in combining
economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological
Economics, 63, 690-99.
Learning and evaluation
Useful introductions to the issue of learning and evaluation can be found at:
Bull, R., Petts, J. and Evans, J. (2008) ‘Social learning from public engagement:
dreaming the impossible?’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51:
701-716
103
Armitage, D., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the
paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions,
18(1), 86-98.
Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating
adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex
world. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 62-74.
Webler, T., Tuler, S. and Krueger, R. (2001) What is a good participation process?
Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435–50.
Taking a place based approach
The characteristics and complexities of taking a place based approach, and how it
compares to alternative approaches to ecosystem service assessment are discussed
in detail at:
Haines-Young, R. and M. Potschin (2007) England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Services
and the Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach. Full technical report to Defra
(NR0107).
Some of the implications of taking a place based approach are now emerging in the
context of regional assessment. A useful technical introduction to applied work can
found be in the context of the East of England:
Glaves, P., Egan, D., Harrison, K. and Robinson, R. (2009) Valuing Ecosystem Services
in the East of England, East of England. Environment Forum, East of England
Regional Assembly and Government Office East England.
Related place based work is also being undertaken by Natural England. Three
projects have been initiated to demonstrate how its vision for upland landscapes can
be realised in the context of the sustainable management of ecosystem services. For
further information see:
http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NE225
104
Glossary
Analytic-deliberative techniques - participatory techniques that integrate technical
forms of analysis into a deliberative process.
Citizens' juries - a deliberative technique in a which small group of the general
public come to a considered judgment about a stated policy issue/problem through
detailed exposure to, and scrutiny of, the relevant evidence base and expert
witnesses.
Competency group - an analytic-deliberative variant on the in-depth discussion
group focused on joint-problem solving between specialists and lay expertise.
Collective judgments arise out of systematically exploring the value of different
explanations for a problem, and where synergies may lie.
Deliberation - the process of making a reasoned assessment - typically through a
process of group debate and learning - about an ethical or practical uncertainty
within decision making.
Deliberative monetary valuation - an analytic-deliberative technique that employs
deliberative process to express values for environmental change in monetary terms.
Deliberative opinion polling - a technique that combines survey based
questionnaires methodologies with in-depth discussion to understanding peoples’
views about issue.
Deliberative multi-criteria analysis – a set of techniques that involve groups of
stakeholders designing formal criteria against which to judge the non monetary and
(sometimes) monetary costs and benefits of different management options as the
basis for making a decision. Techniques vary according to the types of stakeholders
involved.
Engagement - the general process of interacting with stakeholders in a decision
process including dissemination activities, consultation processes and active
collaboration.
Expert – any individual recognized as having authoritative understanding of an
issue/topic.
Ecosystem services - those aspects of ecosystems which are utilised, actively or
passively, to produce benefits to human well-being
Ecosystems approach - a set of principles for incorporating considerations of
ecosystem services into decision making.
Focus group - a semi-structured face to face interview in a group format.
105
In-depth discussion groups – a deliberative technique for eliciting the insight of
group regarding a particular issue. Unlike focus groups, the discussion group is more
open in structure, and generally sustained over a number of occasions. Participants
shape the terms of the discussion, developing themes in ways relevant to their own
needs and priorities.
Stakeholder - any organization, group or individual affected by, with an interest in,
or influence over, a decision making issue.
Participation – a way of engaging stakeholders in decision making based on the
exchange, interaction and reciprocity of information and ideas.
Participatory and deliberative techniques – the practical tools for involving
stakeholders in a decision making process either through the solicitation of views or
collaboration.
Participatory modelling - the involvement of stakeholders in the design and
content of analytical models which represent ecosystems services and their benefits
under different spatial and temporal conditions.
Scenario building- a technique for characterising and narrating alternative futures
based on different assumptions about social, economic and environmental change.
The techniques can be used to inform policy and decision making processes in the
present.
Specialists -experts who are formally recognized as having knowledge and
understanding of a precise area of research and practice either by way of
accumulated professional experience and/or qualifications.
Lay expert - individuals who have non-professionalised expertise on an issue/topic.
Representative - stakeholders who formally or informally stand in for the views of
others.
Semi-structured interview - a survey technique using open-ended questions to
collect qualitative data about stakeholder attitudes, knowledge and behaviour.
Content and phrasing of questions, as well the emphasis given to topics, may vary
over the sample.
Structured questionnaires - a survey technique for collecting quantifiable and
standardized information about peoples’ views and behaviour regarding a particular
topic
Survey - a method for learning about the attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of
stakeholders regarding a topic.
106
Valuation - the process of expressing and estimating the worth of something.
Formal approaches to valuation in policy and decision making involves
understanding the relationship between costs and benefits of a proposed change.
This may have monetary and non-monetary dimensions.
107