Learning in participatory environmental governance – its antecedents and effects. Findings from a case survey meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Theory on participatory and collaborative governance maintains that learning is essential to achieve good environmental outcomes. Empirical research has mostly produced individual case studies, and reliable evidence on both antecedents and environmental outcomes of learning remains sparse. Given conceptual ambiguities in the literature, we define governance-related learning in a threefold way: learning as deliberation; as knowledge- and capacity-building; and as informing environmental outputs. We develop nine propositions that explain learning through factors characterizing governance process and context, and three propositions explaining environmental outcomes of learning. We test these propositions drawing on the ‘SCAPE’ database of 307 published case studies of environmental decision-making, using multiple regression models. Results show that learning in all three modes is explained to some extent by a combination of process- and context-related factors. Most factors matter for learning, but with stark differences across the three modes of learning, thus demonstrating the relevance of this differentiated approach. Learning modes build on one another: Deliberation is seen to explain both capacity building and informed outputs, while informed outputs are also explained by capacity building. Contrary to our expectations, none of the learning variables was found to significantly affect environmental outcomes when considered alongside the process- and context-related variables.

KEYWORDS:

• Participatory governance
• collaborative governance
• sustainability governance
• knowledge exchange
• multiple regression
• case survey method

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Jens Newig is full professor and head of the research group on Governance and Sustainability at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany.

Nicolas W. Jager is a post doctoral researcher in the research group on Governance and Sustainability at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany.

Elisa Kochskämper is completing her PhD student in the research group on Governance and Sustainability at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany.

Edward Challies is a senior lecturer with the Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and an adjunct senior research associate with the Research Group Governance and Sustainability at Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany.

Notes

1 This was generated as part of the project ‘EDGE – Evaluating the Delivery of Participatory Environmental Governance using an Evidence-based Research Design’.

2 Outputs of participatory processes, for example, are often not legally binding, and considerable time may elapse until they are adopted by the political system, challenged in court, and become finally implemented.

3 Sources searched include: BASE; Google Books; Google Scholar; GVK+; Science Direct; SciVerse Hub; Scopus; SpringerLink; SSRN; Web of Science; Wiley Interscience.

4 Although the correlation between the two variables is relatively low (r = .29, p < .001), we decided to aggregate these variables nonetheless given their conceptual relation as part of the same mode of learning.

5 Means were calculated over the original variables.

6 See online supplementary material for more information about the model comparison.

7 Here, we cannot exclude the possibility that these factors may stem from a ‘halo effect’ whereby stakeholders in the original case studies attribute a higher degree of environmental effectiveness simply due to their positive feeling and the atmosphere of trust and cooperation in the process (Leach & Sabatier, 2005). As the data for environmental output stringency stems from very different sources, and most case study authors do not rely merely on stakeholder judgements but on their own assessment of the text of agreements, we do not deem this effect to be substantially distorting.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [grant number NE 1207/2–1 ‘ECOPAG’]; FP7 Ideas: European Research Council [grant number 263859 ‘EDGE’].