1

WWF: Stakeholder Engagement Literature Review (DRAFT)

2014 ● Authored by Amy Rosenthal.

Abstract: Public participation in environmental policymaking is becoming the norm, requiring

policymakers to design and carry out engagement processes more and more frequently. However,

research on this topic has been largely theoretical, piecemeal or scattered across multiple fields. By

comparing literature from several disciplines, we propose a comprehensive definition of successful

stakeholder engagement and identify a set of 16 factors that are purported to determine their success.

We then apply this framework to a case of stakeholder engagement for environmental policymaking in

Belize, contrasting processes in multiple planning regions and assessing the factors in each with multiple

methods.

Stakeholder Involvement in Environmental Decision-Making: What Drives Success?

Stakeholder involvement is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of good natural resource

management and environmental policymaking (OECD 2004; Lynam et al. 2007; Reed 2008). Building on

existing literature and case studies from the Natural Capital Project, we discuss three key pathways

through which stakeholder involvement can have significant influence.

1. Stakeholder knowledge and preferences can influence environmental policy decisions and

action;

2. Stakeholder knowledge and preferences can influence the development and use of conservation

science; and

3. Stakeholder involvement can influence stakeholder knowledge and preferences through

learning, consensus-building or conflict, and relationship-building.

2

Figure 1: Stakeholder influences

Though involving stakeholders is becoming best practice in natural resources decision-making,

engagement can take many forms and result in varying degrees of effectiveness for improving decisions

(Brody 2003; OECD 2004; Reed 2008). Existing literature maintains that although stakeholder

participation can lead to better decisions, the quality of the process design and execution are major

determinants of success (Petkova et al. 2002; van Kerkhoff 2006; Reed 2008). But what makes a

stakeholder engagement process “high quality” or successful? That is, what makes a stakeholder

engagement process more likely to influence decisions, science, and stakeholders?

Stakeholder engagement in environmental decision-making is examined in dozens of publications in

several fields, including human development, public participation, policy formulation, knowledge to

action, and participatory mapping and modeling. Among these publications, definitions of “success” and

“effectiveness” vary, but many point to multi-directional benefits, both for decision-makers and for

stakeholder participants (e.g. Chess and Purcell 1999; Parkins and Mitchell 2005). Experts tend to agree

that, in the most effective engagement processes, both the policymakers and the stakeholders benefit

from the process: policymakers gain an enhanced ability to create good policy outcomes with

participant buy-in, and stakeholders gain knowledge and strengthened social networks (Chess and

Purcell 1999; Cash et al. 2003; OECD 2004; Dalton 2005; Parkins and Mitchell 2005; Blackstock and

Richards 2007; Reed 2008; Lynam et al. 2007; Blackstock et al. 2012).

A third facet of successful stakeholder engagement lies in the potential for stakeholders to enhance

science. The influence of stakeholders on science is often overlooked in stakeholder participation

literature and omitted from common definitions of effective stakeholder processes, even in

environmental policy studies. However, sustainability science and the knowledge to action literature are

recognizing the need to involve stakeholders in developing science to achieve sustainable development,

because science used in decision-making must be perceived as legitimate, which is best achieved when

Science

Stakeholder Preferences

and Knowledge

Policy

3

stakeholders are involved in its development (Kates et al. 2001; Cash et al. 2003; Reid et al. 2009).

Moreover, given the often extensive local and traditional knowledge present in communities, scientists

are recognizing the capacity of stakeholders to enhance the credibility of science by contributing to the

design and interpretation of scientific analyses (NRC 1999; Karl et al. 2007; Lynam et al. 2007; Jankowski

2009; Reid et al. 2009). As a result, communication and engagement tools that can help scientists

engage and learn from stakeholders are gaining popularity, as evidenced by the rapidly expanding use of

participatory GIS and mapping (Lynam et al. 2007; Bots and Daalen 2008; Jankowski 2009; Voinov and

Bousquet 2010; Cutts et al. 2011).

Building on the traditional stakeholder engagement and knowledge to action literature, we broadly

define successful stakeholder involvement as a process that results in improved policy outcomes,

increased stakeholder knowledge and networks, and enhanced science. We recognize that, depending

on the decision-making context and practical constraints, practitioners may prioritize one or more of

these three measures of success.

Efforts to evaluate different types of stakeholder engagement began with Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of

participation. Early literature primarily features broad, theoretical typologies that rank levels of public

and stakeholder participation based on the direction of communication and the power afforded to

participants (Arnstein 1969; Glass 1979; Biggs 1989; Pretty 1995; Davidson 1998; Farrington 1998;

Beierle and Cayford 2002; OECD 2004; Rowe and Frewer 2005; IAP2 2006; Lawrence 2006; van Kerkhoff

2006), but offer little by way of empirical approaches to evaluate and compare engagement efforts

based on their effectiveness at achieving policy outcomes, enhanced science, and new stakeholder

networks and knowledge. These broad typologies were followed by case studies (van den Hove 2000;

Rowe et al. 2004; Flannery and Cinnéide 2008, 2011; McGee et al. 2009; Human and Davies 2010; Kithiia

and Dowling 2010; Maquire et al. 2011) that examine one stakeholder engagement process with a single

set of engagement methods in a specific decision context. These case studies provide useful, context-

specific insights, however, their evaluation frameworks often lack clear, measurable criteria and vary

widely among cases, presenting challenges for cross-case comparisons and repeatability.

In recognition of the need to compare different stakeholder engagement methods in order to develop a

clear evaluation framework, researchers are increasingly conducting cross-case comparisons of

stakeholder engagement methods and processes (e.g. Buanes et al. 2005; Dalton 2005; Webler and

Tuler 2006; Pomeroy and Douvere 2008; Blackstock et al. 2012; Fritsch and Newig 2012). A few meta-

analyses and review-based frameworks have emerged help identify clear and potentially measurable

criteria for evaluating success in participatory processes (Dalton 2005; Blackstock et al. 2007; Reed 2008;

Blackstock et al. 2012; Dalton et al. 2012). These frameworks provide some specific guidance for

achieving success in participatory environmental decision-making. Yet, more empirical research and

practical guidance for policymakers are needed to help determine which criteria to prioritize when

designing engagement processes. Additionally, more studies that compare alternative stakeholder

involvement efforts in similar cultural and policy contexts would establish a broadly recognized

framework for evaluation (Reed 2008).

4

Key Factors for Success

Building on existing literature across disciplines, with an emphasis on Dalton (2005) and Blackstock et al.

(2012), and input from policymakers, we present a checklist of 16 factors for successful stakeholder

involvement that can lead to improved policy outcomes, new stakeholder knowledge and networks, and

enhanced science (Table A). All the fields of literature reviewed – stakeholder and public participation,

policy formulation, science to action, co-production of knowledge, and participatory GIS and modeling –

identified factors like timing, frequency, resources, objectives, outcomes, and the importance of

empowering participants through fair, well-facilitated, transparent processes that build trust.

The 16 factors for success were identified and described for policymakers or practitioners that design

and execute the stakeholder engagement process, though they may also be useful for contexts outside

of an environmental policymaking process. Because we developed these factors with a policy process in

mind, we refer to the actors as policymakers. Given the multitude of constraints that policymakers face

when designing stakeholder engagement efforts, we distinguish between the success factors that are

often under the control of policymakers and those that are often beyond their control (Rowe and

Frewer 2000). By considering their control over the different factors when designing a stakeholder

engagement process, policymakers can seek to increase success by prioritizing action where low-control

factors are in place and driving resources and efforts to improve factors they have more leverage over.

While the high control/low control categorizations are intended to provide guidance about which

factors a policymaker could focus on given common constraints, there may be situations in which our

categorizations do not hold true, and therefore policymakers should tailor the framework to their

context.

The factors for successful stakeholder engagement fall into several categories: structural design

elements, cultural design elements, and outputs of the process. Structural factors noted in the literature

include setting appropriate timing and frequency of stakeholder engagement, providing sufficient

resources and time for involvement, identifying and inviting relevant stakeholders to participate, and

affording unbiased and proactive facilitation. Cultural factors address the atmosphere and conditions

cultivated in the stakeholder engagement process or for its implementation. These design elements

include the equity and empowerment of stakeholders, transparency of the process and its objectives,

trust between stakeholders and policymakers, institutionalization of stakeholder involvement and

experience in guiding participation, and a conducive history and culture of stakeholders for facilitating

these cultural factors. Additional critical cultural factors for a successful engagement are enabling two-

way learning, integrating multiple perspectives and knowledge, and bringing to bear credible science.

Last, the process’s outputs ought to include real influence by stakeholders on policy decisions through

the creation of useful results or products for policy and stakeholder education.

5

Table A: Factors for successful stakeholder involvement in order of prevalence in literature studied

High Control Low Control

Timing and Frequency Stakeholder engagement should occur as early and as frequently as possible throughout the process (Petkova et al. 2002; van Kerkhoff 2006; Mazmanian and Nienaber 1979; Stewart et al. 1984; Gariepy 1991; Chess and Purcell, 1999; Dalton 2005; Karl et al. 2007; Reed 2008).

Resources Adequate resources should be allocated to the process (OECD 2004; NIG 2004; Karl et al. 2007; Lee 2012) and used efficiently (Ostrom et al. 1999; Dalton 2005; Blackstock et al. 2012).

Equity and Empowerment Policymakers should empower stakeholders to participate in an equitable way (Richards et al. 2004; OECD 2004; NIG 2004; Rowe 2005; Dalton 2005; Karl et al. 2007; Voinov 2010).

Policymakers should be aware of, acknowledge and mitigate power and knowledge inequalities among different groups and stakeholders (Sithole 2002; Diaw and Kusumanto 2004; Bingham et al. 2005; Rauschmayer and Wittmer 2006; Stringer et al. 2006; Tippett et al. 2007; Lynam et al. 2007; Blackstock et al. 2012).

Timeline Adequate time should be allotted for stakeholder engagement (NIG 2004; Karl et al. 2007), and the process should be flexible (Chess and Purcell 1999; Stringer et al. 2006; Blackstock et al. 2007; Voinov 2010) but not perceived as too long (Dalton 2005; Blackstock et al. 2012).

Stakeholder Relevance Policymakers should systematically analyze potential stakeholders, and relevant stakeholders should be selected for involvement (Grimble and Wellard, 1997; Reed et al. 2009; Rowe and Frewer 2005; Dalton 2005; van Kerkhoff 2005; Stringer et al. 2006; Rauschmayer and Wittmer 2006; Reed et al. 2009; Lynam et al. 2007; Karl et al. 2007; Voinov 2010; Blackstock et al. 2012).

Institutionalization Stakeholder involvement should be institutionalized within the decision-making agency or organization (Richards et al. 2004; OECD 2004; NIG 2004; Bingham et al. 2005; Reed 2008).

Transparency Policymakers should ensure the participatory process is transparent and fair to build trust among participants. Policymakers should be accountable and hold stakeholders accountable for the process and outcomes (Voinov and Costanza 1999; NIG 2004; OECD 2004; Dalton 2005; Rowe and Frewer 2005; Voinov 2010).

Outcomes The engagement product or result should have useful and visible outcomes for the policy design and implementation (Bingham et al. 2005; Rauschmayer and Wittmer 2006; Karl et al. 2007; Blackstock et al. 2012; Lee 2012).

Clear Objectives Stakeholders should understand the objectives for their involvement at the beginning of the process (Chess and Purcell 1999; Johnson et al. 2004; OECD 2004; NIG 2004; Dalton 2005; Susskind and Cruikshank 2006; Lynam et al.

Historical and Cultural Experience The history and culture of the stakeholders should promote participation in decision-making (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Lynam et

6

2007; Human and Davies 2010; Voinov 2010). al. 2007).

Two-way Learning Policymakers should emphasize two-way learning between all participants, scientists, and policymakers (Susskind et al. 1999; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Chase et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2004; Dalton 2005; van Kerkhoff 2005; Stringer et al. 2006; Blackstock et al. 2007; Lynam et al. 2007; Blackstock et al. 2012; Lee 2012) and co-production of knowledge when possible (Cash et al. 2003; Karl et al. 2007; Lee 2012).

Trust Long-term relationships between the stakeholder groups and policymakers should be trusting and productive (Agrawal and Gupta 2005; Flannery and Cinnéide 2011).

Credible Science and Knowledge Integration Policymakers should provide stakeholders with the tools and knowledge, including the best available scientific information to allow them to engage effectively (Karl et al. 2007; Chess and Purcell 1999; Johnson et al. 2004; Chase et al. 2004; Webler and Tuler, 2006; Blackstock et al. 2007; Tippett et al. 2007; Dalton 2005; Blackstock et al. 2012).

Science should be credible and integrate local knowledge (Kates et al. 2001; Cash et al. 2003; Sayer and Campbell 2004; Reed et al. 2007; Reed 2008; Reid et al. 2009). And, scientists should be present throughout the process to explain technical details, obtain local input, and in some cases, produce knowledge with stakeholders and policymakers (Cash et al. 2003, Karl et al. 2007; Reid et al. 2009).

Policymakers should use tools to better understand stakeholder knowledge, preferences, and values (Kates et al. 2001; Lynam et al. 2007). These can include boundary objects (Cash et al. 2003), vision creation (van Kerkhoff 2005), and participatory mapping (Jankowski 2009), among others.

Experience Policymakers should have experience with stakeholder engagement and process design (Clarke, Pers. Comm. 2012).

Facilitation Policymakers should use highly skilled facilitation during stakeholder events (Cash et al. 2003; Chess and Purcell, 1999; Richards et al. 2004; Lynam et al. 2007; Rowe et al. 2005).

Real Influence Stakeholders should have real influence on policy decisions (Fiorino 1990; Laird 1993; Chase et al. 2004; Tippett et al. 2007).

To test whether these 16 factors make a difference in determining the success of stakeholder

engagement for environmental policy making, we applied the framework to a case study of marine

7

spatial planning in Belize. We consider the influence of stakeholder engagement on policy, science, and

stakeholders themselves, comparing the uptake of stakeholder knowledge and preferences in policy

outcomes and science across nine planning regions. To understand how these factors affected

outcomes, we used mixed methods to conduct a content analysis of meeting minutes, a stakeholders

survey, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, policy makers, and scientists involved in the

process.

Works Cited

Agrawal, A., & Gupta, K. (2005). Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool

resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33(7), 1101–1114.

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,

35(4), 216–224.

Beierle, T., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions

(p. 158). Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Biggs, S. (1989). Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine

National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper (Vol. 3, p. Volume 3). The

Hague.

Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & Leary, R. O. (2005). The new governance: practices and processes for

stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review,

65(5), 547–558.

Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate

participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60, 726–742.

Blackstock, K. L., Waylen, K. a., Dunglinson, J., & Marshall, K. M. (2012). Linking process to outcomes —

Internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning.

Ecological Economics, 77, 113–122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015

8

Bots, P. W. G., & Daalen, C. E. (2008). Participatory model construction and model use in natural

resource management: a framework for reflection. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6),

389–407. doi:10.1007/s11213-008-9108-6

Brody, S. D. (2003). Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based

on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and

Research, 22, 407. doi:10.1177/0739456X03253022

Buanes, A., Jentoft, S., Maurstad, A., Søreng, S. U., & Runar Karlsen, G. (2005). Stakeholder participation

in Norwegian coastal zone planning. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(9-10), 658–669.

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.05.005

Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., et al. (2003).

Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the United States of America, 100(14), 8086–91. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100

Chase, L. C., Decker, D. J., & Lauber, T. B. (2004). Public participation in wildlife management: What do

stakeholders want? Society & Natural Resources, 17, 629–639.

Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Policy analysis public participation and the environment: Do we know

what works? Environmental Science & Technology, (732), 2685–2692.

Clarke, C. (2012). Personal Communication. Belize City, Belize: Belize Coastal Zone Management

Authority and Institute.

Cutts, B. B., White, D. D., & Kinzig, A. P. (2011). Participatory geographic information systems for the co-

production of science and policy in an emerging boundary organization. Environmental Science &

Policy, 14(8), 977–985. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.012

Dalton, T., Forrester, G., & Pollnac, R. (2012). Participation, process quality, and performance of marine

protected areas in the wider Caribbean. Environmental Management, 1224–1237.

doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9855-0

9

Dalton, T. M. (2005). Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of U.S.

marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19(5), 1392–1401. doi:10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2005.00116.x

Davidson, S. (1998, April). Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning, 14–15.

Diaw, M. C., & Kusumanto, T. (n.d.). Scientists in social encounters: the case for an engaged practice of

science. In C. J. Colfer (Ed.), The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Resource Management.

(pp. 72–109). Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Farrington, J. (2008). Organisational roles in farmer participatory research and extension: lessons from

the last decade. Natural Resource Perspectives, 27, 1–7.

Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms.

Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.

Flannery, W., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2008). Marine spatial planning from the perspective of a small seaside

community in Ireland. Marine Policy, 32(6), 980–987. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.02.001

Flannery, W., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2011). Stakeholder participation in marine spatial planning: lessons

from the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Society & Natural Resources, (June 2012), 1–

16. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.627913

Fritsch, O., & Newig, J. (2012). Participatory governance and sustainability: findings of a meta-analysis of

stakeholder involvement in environmental decision making. Reflexive Governance for Global Public

Goods (p. 366). MIT Press.

Gariepy, M. (1991). Toward a dual-influence system: assessing the effects of public participation in

environmental Hydro-Quebec projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 11, 353–374.

Genskow, K. D. (2009). Catalyzing collaboration: Wisconsin’s agency-initiated basin partnerships.

Environmental Management, 43(3), 411–24. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9236-x

10

Glass, J. (2007). Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectives and techniques.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 37–41.

Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural

Systems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Human, B. a., & Davies, A. (2010). Stakeholder consultation during the planning phase of scientific

programs. Marine Policy, 34(3), 645–654. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.12.003

IAP2. (2006). A Spectrum of Public Participation. Retrieved from

http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/spectrum.pdf

Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based

environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 1966–71.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028

Johnson, N., Lilja, N., Ashby, J. A., & Garcia, J. A. (2004). Practice of participatory research and gender

analysis in natural resource management. Natural Resources Forum, 28, 189–200.

Karl, H. A., Susskind, L. E., & Wallace, K. H. (2007). A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of

science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment, 49(1), 20–34.

Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., et al. (2001).

Sustainability science. Science, 292, 641–642.

Kithiia, J., & Dowling, R. (2010). An integrated city-level planning process to address the impacts of

climate change in Kenya: The case of Mombasa. Cities, 27(6), 466–475.

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2010.08.001

Laird, F. N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision-making. Science,

Technology & Human Values, 18(3), 341–361.

Lawrence, A. (2006). “No personal motive?” Volunteers, biodiversity and the false dichotomies of

participation. Ethics, Place & Environment, 44(0), 1–42.

11

Lee, K. N. (2012). Science Strategy: Linking Knowledge with Action. Los Altos, CA. Retrieved from

http://www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ScienceStrategy-Linking-Knowledge-with-

Action1.pdf

Lynam, T., Jong, W. D., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., & Evans, K. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating

community knowledge, preferences , and values into decision making in natural resources

management. Ecology and Society, 12(1).

Maguire, B., Potts, J., & Fletcher, S. (2011). Who, when, and how? Marine planning stakeholder

involvement preferences--a case study of the Solent, United Kingdom. Marine Pollution Bulletin,

62(11), 2288–92. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.07.017

Mazmanian, D. A., & Nienaber, J. (1979). Can Organizations Change? Washington, D.C.: Brookings

Institution.

NRC (National Research Council). (1999). New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press. Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich//docDetail.action?docID=10041066

National Institute for Governance. (2004). Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Act Planning (pp. 1–87).

University of Canberra.

OECD. (2004). Stakeholder Involvement Techniques: Short Guide and Annotated Bibliography.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Sustainability-revisiting the

commons: local lessons. Science, 284, 278–282.

Petkova, E., Maurer, C., Henninger, N., & Irwin, F. (2002). Closing the Gap: Information, Participation,

and Justice in Decision-making for the Environment. Washington, D.C.

Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–

1263.

12

Rauschmayer, F., & Wittmer, H. (2006). Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution

of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy, 23, 108–122.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.

Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Reed, M. S., Dougill, A. J., & Taylor, M. J. (2007). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation

to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. Land Degradation & Development,

18, 249–268.

Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., et al. (2009). Who’s in

and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of

Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–49. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

Reid, R. S., Nkedianye, D., Said, M. Y., Kaelo, D., Neselle, M., Makui, O., Onetu, L., et al. (2009). Evolution

of models to support community and policy action with science: Balancing pastoral livelihoods and

wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa, 1–6.

Richards, C., Blackstock, K., Carter, C., Carter, C., & Spash, C. L. (2004). Practical Approaches to

Participation SERG Policy Brief No. 1 (pp. 1–23).

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology &

Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724

Rowe, Gene, & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A framework for evaluation. Science,

Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.

Rowe, Gene, Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science,

Technology & Human Values, 29(1), 88–121. doi:10.1177/0162243903259194

Sayer, J., & Campbell, B. (2004). The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the

Global Environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

13

Sithole, B. (2002). Where the Power Lies: Multiple Stakeholder Politics over Natural Resources: a

Participatory Methods Guide. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., & Reed, M. S. (2006). Unpacking

“participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology

and Society, 11(2), 39.

Susskind, L. E., & Cruikshank, J. L. (2006). Breaking Robert’s Rules: The new way to run your meeting,

build consensus, and get results. Oxford University Press.

Susskind, L. E., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook: A

comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. (p. 1176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tippett, J., Handley, J. F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—A

conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in

Planning, 67(1), 9–98. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2006.12.004

Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software,

25(11), 1268–1281. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007

Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2006). Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental

assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. The Policy Studies

Journal, 34(4).

van Kerkhoff, L., & Lebel, L. (2006). Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual

Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 445–477.

doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102405.170850