Selection of participatory formats as success factor for effective risk communication and decision-making processes. Conclusions from a systematic empirical format comparison

References

• Ahrendt, H. 2011. Vita activa: Vom tätigen Leben [Vita Activa. About the Active Life]. München: Piper.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. “Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-making.” Science and Public Policy 26 (5): 331–340.10.3152/147154399781782301
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, R. 1977. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” In Citizen Participation Certification for Community Development, edited by P. Marshall, 40–49. Washington, DC: National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
   Google Scholar
• Bales, R. F., and P. Cohen. 1982. SYMLOG. Ein System für die mehrstufige Beobachtung von Gruppen [SYMLOG. A System for the Multi-level Observation of Groups]. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. R. 1996. “Foundationalism and Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib, 248–359. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. R. 2003. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C., and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Bentele, G. 1998. “Vertrauen/Glaubwürdigkeit [Trust/Credibility].” In Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft, edited by O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, and U. Saxer, 305–311. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978-3-322-80348-1
   Google Scholar
• Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Blackstock, K. L., G. J. Kelly, and B. L. Horsey. 2007. “Developing and Applying a Framework to Evaluate Participatory Research for Sustainability.” Ecological Economics 60: 726–742.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1982. Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft [The Fine Differences. Critic on the Societal Power of Judgement]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury, J. A. 1989. “The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk.” Science, Technology and Human Values 14 (4): 380–399.10.1177/016224398901400404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpini, M. X. D., F. L. Cook, and L. R. Jacobs. 2004. “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–344.10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. 1992. “Zur Politik des Diskurses: Riskieren wir unsere Rechte? [On the Policy of the Discourse. Do We Jeopardise Our Rights?]” In Zur Anwendung der Diskursethik in Politik, Recht und Wissenschaft, edited by K.-O. Apel, and M. Kettner, 168–186. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Chess, C., and K. Purcell. 1999. “Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?” Environmental Science and Technology 33: 2685–2692.10.1021/es980500g
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., and N. J. Goldstein. 2004. “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity.” Annual Review of Psychology 55: 591–621.10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1999a. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by J. Bohman, and W. Rehg, 67–92. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1999b. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 407–437. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., E. Conlon, M. C. Wesson, and K. Y. Ng. 2001. “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 425–445.10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., J. Greenberg, and C. P. Zapata-Phelan. 2005. “What is Organisational Justice? A Historical Overview.” In Handbook of Organisational Justice, edited by J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, 3–58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Conant, J. B. 1952: “Foreword.” In General Education in Science, edited by I. B. Cohen and F. G. Watson, XIII–XV. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
   Google Scholar
• Dahrendorf, R. 1973. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, E., R. L. Lawrence, and R. J. Alig. 1996. “Decision-making and Ecosystem-based Management: Applying the Vroom–Yetton Model to Public Participation Strategy.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 13–30.10.1016/0195-9255(95)00105-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K. 2009. The Research Act. The Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz, T., and P. Stern. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dolata, U. 2011. “Radical Change as Gradual Transformation. Characteristics and Variants of Socio-technical Transitions.” SOI Discussion Paper 2011–2013. Stuttgart: University Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, J. 1999. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by J. Bohman, and W. Rehg, 3–33. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. 2001. Regierung Durch Diskussion? Diskurs- Und Verhandlungsverfahren Im Kontext Von Demokratietheorie Und Steuerungsdiskussion [Government by Discussion? Discourse and Bargaining Processes in the Context of the Democracy Theory and the Discussion on Regulation]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (2): 226–243.10.1177/016224399001500204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., and W. M. Keith. 2005. “A Nation that (Sometimes) Likes to Talk.” In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook, edited by J. Gastil, and P. Levine, 3–19. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., and O. Renn. 2006. Meeting of Minds. European Citizens Deliberation on Brain Sciences. Final Report of the External Evaluation. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart ( Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, Nr. 5).
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., O. Renn, and S. Köppel. 2008. European Citizens’ Consultations Project. Final Evaluation Report. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart (Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, Nr. 8).
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., L. Hennen, M. Knapp, C. Quendt, N. Brachatzek, and O. Renn. 2012. “Deliberating or Voting? – Results of the Process Evaluation of German WWViews.” In Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance, edited by M. Rask, R. Worthington, and M. Lammi, 89–106. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., O. Scheel, and O. Renn. 2012a. “Decision Scheme for Appropriate Format Selection [German].” [Online]. Accessed July 30 2015. http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2012/7264/pdf/AB023_Goldschmidt_et_al_2012_Beilage2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., O. Scheel, and O. Renn. 2012b. Zur Wirkung und Effektivität von Dialog- und Beteiligungsformaten [On Impact and Effectiveness of Deliberative and Participatory Formats]. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart (Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, Nr. 23.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R. 2014. Kriterien zur Evalaution von Dialog- und Beteiligungsverfahren. Konzeptuelle Ausarbeitung eines integrativen Systems aus sechs Metakriterien [Criteria for the Evaluation of Dialogue and Participation. Conceptual Development of an Integrative System of Six Meta-Criteria]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS (Springer Fachmedien).10.1007/978-3-658-06120-3
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R. 2015. “Legitimationsdruck und Akzeptanzentwicklung bei Neuen Forschungsfeldern. Das Beispiel Synthetische Biologie [Legitimation Pressure and the Development of Acceptance in Emerging Research Fields. The Example of Synthetic Biology].” In Synthetische Biologie – Leben als Konstrukt: Vol. 40 of Grenzfragen, edited by G. Rager and G. Wegner, 267–292. Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Karl Aber.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., D. Tomblin, and M. Rask. 2015. “The Role of Gender in Global Citizen Deliberation.” In Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation, edited by M. Rask and R. Worthington, 130–151. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, R., and O. Scheel. 2016. World Wide Views Initiative. Evaluation Report. International level. Stuttgart: ZIRIUS.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J., and J. A. Colquitt. 2005. “Preface.” In Handbook of Organisational Justice, edited by J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, XI–XIV. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1991. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik [Explanations on the Ethic of Discourse]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1996. “Three Normative Models of Democarcy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib, 21–30. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1998. Faktizität und Geltung – Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1999. The Inclusion of the Other. Studies of Political Theory. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R. 1998. Modernisierung und Postmodernisierung [Modernisation and Postmodernisation]. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• International Association for Public Participation. 2007: “IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.”http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joss, S. 1998. “Danish Consensus as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: An Impact Study of Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate.” Science and Public Policy 25: 2–22.
   Google Scholar
• KBF (King Baudouin Foundation), and Rathenau Institute. 2004. Connecting Brains and Society. the Present and Future of Brain Science: What is Possible, What is Desireable? Brussels: King Baudouin Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, F. 1993. “Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3): 341–361.10.1177/016224399301800305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leventhal, G. S. 1980. “What Should Be Done with the Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships.” In Social Exchange, edited by K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis, 27–55. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5
   Google Scholar
• Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., and D. B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. 1983. Legitimation durch Verfahren [Legitimation by Procedures]. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Middendorf, G., and L. Busch. 1997. “Inquiry for the Public Good: Democratic Participation in Agricultural Research.” Agriculture and Human Values 14: 45–57.10.1023/A:1007398913221
   Google Scholar
• Newig, J. 2011. “Partizipation und Kooperation zur Effektivitätssteigerung in Politik und Governance? [Participation and Cooperation for Raising the Effectiveness of Policy and Governance?]” In Nachhaltige Gesellschaft. Welche Rolle für Partizipation und Kooperation?, edited by H. Heinrichs, K. Kuhn, and J. Newig, 65–79. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Newig, J., N. W. Jager, and E. Challies. 2012. “Führt Bürgerbeteiligung in Umweltpolitischen Entscheidungsprozessen Zu Mehr Effektivität Und Legitimität? [Does Public Participation in Eco-political Decision Processes Raise the Effectiveness and Legitimacy?]” Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft 22 (4): 527–564.
   Google Scholar
• Okrent, D. 1998. “Risk Perception and Risk Management: On Knowledge, Resource Allocation and Equity.” Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 59: 17–25.10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00115-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, Y., and P. Warin. 2007. “Are Innovative Participatory and Deliberative Procedures in Policy Making Democratic and Effective?” European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 445–472.10.1111/ejpr.2007.46.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., and T. Rogers-Hayden. 2007. “Opening up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’?” Health, Risk & Society 9 (2): 191–210.10.1080/13698570701306906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rager, G., and G. Wegner, eds. 2015. Synthetische Biologie – Leben Als Konstrukt: [Synthetic Biology – Life as Construct]. Vol. 40 of Grenzfragen. Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Karl Aber.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. 2004. “The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk Management.” In Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, edited by T. McDaniels and M. J. Small, 289–366. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O. 2008. Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Renn, O., and T. Webler. 1998. “Der Kooperative Diskurs – Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Möglichkeiten [The Cooperative Discourse. – Theoretical Basis, Requirements and Opportunities].” In Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Standortsuche für eine Deponie im Kanton Aargau, edited by O. Renn, H. Kastenholz, P. Schild, and U. Wilhelm, 3–103. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 25 (1): 3–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarcinelli, U. 1998. “Legitimität [Legitimacy].” In Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft. Ein Handbuch mit Lexikonteil, edited by O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, and U. Saxer, 253–267. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978-3-322-80348-1
   Google Scholar
• Sartori, G. 1997. Demokratietheorie [Democracy Theory]. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, P. D., and M.-H. McDonough. 2001. “Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making.” Society and Natural Resources 14: 239–249.10.1080/089419201750111056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, P. C., and V. Fineberg. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization).
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. 2005. “Opening up or Closing down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” In Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, edited by M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne, 218–231. London: ZedBooks.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R., and E. A. Lind. 2001. “Procedural Justice.” In Handbook of Justice Research in Law, edited by J. Sanders and V. L. Hamilton, 65–93. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1980. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Economy and Society]. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebck).
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T. 1995. “Right’ Discourse in Citizen Participation. An Evaluative Yardstick.” In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. M. Wiedemann, 35–86, Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T. 1999. “The Craft and Theory of Public Participation: A Dialectical Process.” Journal of Risk Research 2 (1): 55–71.10.1080/136698799376989
   Google Scholar
• Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman. 2014. “Challenges and Opportunities for Building Urban Resilience.” ITU Journal of the FACULTY of Architecture 11 (1): 20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Wiederkehr, R. 2006. Fairness als Verfassungsgrundsatz [Fairness as Basic Principle of the Constitution]. Bern: Stämpfli Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Wondolleck, J. M. 1985. “The Importance of Process in Resolving Environmental Disputes.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5: 341–356.
   Google Scholar