IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p4286-d362124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Environmental Advisory Councils: How They Work and Why it Matters

Author

Listed:
  • Pau Alarcón

    (Department of Political and Social Sciences/Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08005 Barcelona, Spain)

  • José Luis Fernández-Martínez

    (Department of Social Sciences/Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain)

  • Joan Font

    (Institute of Advanced Social Studies, IESA (CSIC), 14003 Córdoba, Spain)

Abstract

In many countries, advisory councils are the most common participatory institution in which public administration interacts with civil society around environmental issues. Nevertheless, our knowledge about them is quite limited. The main goal of this article is to show the differences they present with advisory councils in other policy areas in three main aspects: who participates, how they work, and which are their outputs. These differences are especially important because they emerge again regarding their participants’ opinions and satisfaction. We adopt a quantitative perspective in order to analyze this reality in Spain, a country where advisory councils are widespread and highly institutionalized at national, regional and local levels. After developing a mapping of 2013 existing advisory councils, we selected a sample of 55 in three policy areas. The data collected included their formal rules, composition, website characteristics and a survey to 501 participants. This set of evidence shows that environmental councils are more poorly designed, and that this is consequential since it is related with more negative opinions among their members and to a larger degree of polarization in their perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Pau Alarcón & José Luis Fernández-Martínez & Joan Font, 2020. "Comparing Environmental Advisory Councils: How They Work and Why it Matters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4286-:d:362124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4286/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4286/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugh Ward & Aletta Norval & Todd Landman & Jules Pretty, 2003. "Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 282-299, June.
    2. Bert Fraussen & Jan Beyers & Tom Donas, 2015. "The Expanding Core and Varying Degrees of Insiderness: Institutionalised Interest Group Access to Advisory Councils," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(3), pages 569-588, August.
    3. Abers, Rebecca Neaera, 2007. "Organizing for Governance: Building Collaboration in Brazilian River Basins," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1450-1463, August.
    4. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Soliño, Mario & Raposo, Rosa, 2022. "Contributing to healthy forests: Social preferences for pest and disease mitigation programs in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    2. Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun & Bert Fraussen, 2023. "Explaining why public officials perceive interest groups as influential: on the role of policy capacities and policy insiderness," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 191-209, June.
    3. Francisco Assis Souza Filho & Ticiana Marinho Carvalho Studart & João Dehon Pontes Filho & Eduardo Sávio Passos Rodrigues Martins & Sérgio Rodrigues Ayrimoraes & Carlos Alberto Perdigão Pessoa & Laris, 2023. "Integrated proactive drought management in hydrosystems and cities: building a nine-step participatory planning methodology," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(3), pages 2179-2204, February.
    4. Kim Strandberg & Kim Backström & Janne Berg & Thomas Karv, 2021. "Democratically Sustainable Local Development? The Outcomes of Mixed Deliberation on a Municipal Merger on Participants’ Social Trust, Political Trust, and Political Efficacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Albareda, Adrià & Fraussen, Bert, 2023. "The representative capacity of interest groups: explaining how issue features shape membership involvement when establishing policy positions," OSF Preprints dj54y, Center for Open Science.
    7. John R. Wagner & Kasondra White, 2009. "Water and development in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 3(4), pages 378-392, October.
    8. Dube, Benjamin, 2021. "Why cross and mix disciplines and methodologies?: Multiple meanings of Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Bockstael, Erika, 2017. "Critical Capacity Development: An Action Research Approach in Coastal Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 336-345.
    10. da Silva Medina, Gabriel & Pokorny, Benno & Campbell, Bruce, 2022. "Forest governance in the Amazon: Favoring the emergence of local management systems," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    11. Michael Benson & Chad Boda & Runa R. Das & Leslie King & Chad Park, 2022. "Sustainable Development and Canada’s Transitioning Energy Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Barde, Julia Alexa, 2017. "What Determines Access to Piped Water in Rural Areas? Evidence from Small-Scale Supply Systems in Rural Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 88-110.
    13. Ivan Vargas Roncancio & Leah Temper & Joshua Sterlin & Nina L. Smolyar & Shaun Sellers & Maya Moore & Rigo Melgar-Melgar & Jolyon Larson & Catherine Horner & Jon D. Erickson & Megan Egler & Peter G. B, 2019. "From the Anthropocene to Mutual Thriving: An Agenda for Higher Education in the Ecozoic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Dolter, Brett, 2021. "Greening the Saskatchewan grid: A case study in deliberative energy modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    15. Diana Trujillo, 2018. "Multiparty Alliances and Systemic Change: The Role of Beneficiaries and Their Capacity for Collective Action," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 425-449, June.
    16. Simon Niemeyer, 2011. "The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics," Politics & Society, , vol. 39(1), pages 103-140, March.
    17. Kuzdas, Christopher & Wiek, Arnim & Warner, Benjamin & Vignola, Raffaele & Morataya, Ricardo, 2015. "Integrated and Participatory Analysis of Water Governance Regimes: The Case of the Costa Rican Dry Tropics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 254-268.
    18. Siegwart Lindenberg, 2014. "Sustainable cooperation needs tinkering with both rules and social motivation," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 71-81, April.
    19. Kish, K. & Mallery, D. & Yahya Haage, G. & Melgar-Melgar, R. & Burke, M. & Orr, C. & Smolyar, N.L. & Sanniti, S. & Larson, J., 2021. "Fostering critical pluralism with systems theory, methods, and heuristics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4286-:d:362124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.