IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v20y2011i6d10.1007_s10726-010-9212-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Evaluation: The Virtues for Public Governance, the Constraints on Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Béatrice Plottu

    (National Institute of Horticulture and Landscape)

  • Eric Plottu

    (National Agency for the Environment and Energy Management)

Abstract

Participatory evaluation relies on the principle of active participation by major stakeholders, including the least organised groups, as being fundamental to good evaluation practice. This process presents a number of advantages which can nonetheless become crippling if certain prerequisites are not fulfilled. The goal of our paper is to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of participation and to examine the conditions necessary for participatory evaluation to achieve its objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Béatrice Plottu & Eric Plottu, 2011. "Participatory Evaluation: The Virtues for Public Governance, the Constraints on Implementation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 805-824, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9212-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-010-9212-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-010-9212-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-010-9212-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Plottu, Eric & Plottu, Beatrice, 2007. "The concept of Total Economic Value of environment: A reconsideration within a hierarchical rationality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 52-61, 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. repec:ags:ijag24:344823 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-101, January.
    4. Boadu, Evans Sakyi & Ile, Isioma, 2019. "Between power and perception: Understanding youth perspectives in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) in Ghana," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Nitsch, Martina & Waldherr, Karin & Denk, Enrica & Griebler, Ursula & Marent, Benjamin & Forster, Rudolf, 2013. "Participation by different stakeholders in participatory evaluation of health promotion: A literature review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 42-54.
    6. Kiryluk-Dryjska, Ewa, 2023. "Coordination of collective action and methods of fair distribution in the public sector," Village and Agriculture (Wieś i Rolnictwo), Polish Academy of Sciences (IRWiR PAN), Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, vol. 198(1), May.

    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. Katarzyna Pactwa & Justyna Woźniak & Michał Dudek, 2020. "Sustainable Social and Environmental Evaluation of Post-Industrial Facilities in a Closed Loop Perspective in Coal-Mining Areas in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Cavalletti, B. & Di Fabio, C. & Lagomarsino, E. & Ramassa, P., 2020. "Ecosystem accounting for marine protected areas: A proposed framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Eric Plottu & Béatrice Plottu, 2008. "Aménagement durable et évaluation : l'exemple de l'évaluation du paysage," Post-Print hal-01060560, HAL.
    5. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    6. Sara Sousa & Anabela Botelho & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Marieta Valente, 2019. "How Relevant Are Non-Use Values and Perceptions in Economic Valuations? The Case of Hydropower Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    8. Perez-Verdin, Gustavo & Sanjurjo-Rivera, Enrique & Galicia, Leopoldo & Hernandez-Diaz, Jose Ciro & Hernandez-Trejo, Victor & Marquez-Linares, Marco Antonio, 2016. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 6-19.
    9. Nordström, Jonas & Hammarlund, Cecilia, 2021. "You win some, you lose some - compensating the loss of green space in cities taking heterogeneous population characteristics into consideration," AgriFood-WP 2021:3, Lund University, AgriFood Economics Centre.
    10. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Charlène Kermagoret & Jérôme Dupras, 2018. "Coupling spatial analysis and economic valuation of ecosystem services to inform the management of an UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Jeremy De Valck & John Rolfe & Darshana Rajapaksa & Megan Star, 2022. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for improved environmental standards: insights from cane sugar in the Great Barrier Reef region," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 505-531, July.
    13. Jonas Nordström & Cecilia Hammarlund, 2021. "You Win Some, You Lose Some: Compensating the Loss of Green Space in Cities Considering Heterogeneous Population Characteristics," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, October.
    14. Kristina Blennow & Erik Persson & Johannes Persson, 2021. "DeveLoP—A Rationale and Toolbox for Democratic Landscape Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, November.
    15. Christian Handke & Carolina Dalla Chiesa, 2022. "The art of crowdfunding arts and innovation: the cultural economic perspective," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 46(2), pages 249-284, June.
    16. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    17. Chin-Huang Huang & Chiung-Hsia Wang, 2015. "Estimating the Total Economic Value of Cultivated Flower Land in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Tolstoguzov, Oleg, 2021. "О Возможности Эффективного Ответа На Индустриальный Вызов В Контексте Взаимодействия Человека И Природы [On the possibility of an effective response to the industrial challenge in the context of hu," MPRA Paper 110808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Chia-Chi Lee & Liang-Chun Chen, 2011. "Who are the resident stakeholders in a flood project? A spatial analysis of resident stakeholders," 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. 59(1), pages 107-128, October.
    20. Scully-Engelmeyer, Kaegan M. & Granek, Elise F. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Brown, Greg, 2021. "Participatory GIS mapping highlights indirect use and existence values of coastal resources and marine conservation areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    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:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9212-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.