Can public engagement democratize environmental policymaking in a resource-dependent state? Comparative case studies from Alberta,Canada

What factors shape the democratic potential of public consultation in environmental policymaking? Here, the motivations, purposes, designs, and outcomes of recent public engagement on land use planning, climate change policy, and water resource management in Alberta, Canada are reviewed in order to show how the power dynamics of the political and economic context shape the democratic potential of public and stakeholder consultations, especially where dominant resource interests are at stake. At the same time, political leadership, interactions between civil society actors and key design elements are shown to be important to democratization.     

Exploring barriers to home gardening in Ohio households

Scholars have noted that race and ethnicity, socio-economic status (SES) as well as other socio-demographic factors may limit participation in local food systems based on the historic and structured patterns of inequalities that remain in communities promoting alternative agriculture and food (agrifood) activities. However, few empirical studies have examined the barriers which prevent people from participating in local food system activities. This paper uses survey data from the 2008 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Issues to consider whether barriers such as interest, time, financial resources, geography and space impact the participation of households in home gardening. Results from logistic regression show that SES, the availability of space and housing type are important factors which limit or enable household participation in home gardening. This paper contributes to our understanding of the barriers that prevent households from participating in home gardening, a form of food system localisation that, while a potentially powerful way to transform the agrifood system, has been underexamined in its own right.     

A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure

Understanding how governments orchestrate public engagement in energy infrastructure decisions has important implications for the relationship between energy transitions, democracy and justice, but existing research is deficient in focusing mainly on single case studies. In response, we conduct a multi-sectoral, comparative analysis for the first time to assess how UK governments have engaged publics, applying a novel mapping methodology that is systematic, longitudinal and cross-technology. Moreover, our focus embraces mechanisms of consultation and support measures (e.g. community benefits) and seeks to explain patterns of change using a pragmatist sociology framework. Findings indicate trends towards a reduced scope for public engagement alongside expanded encouragement of community benefits, but also important sectoral differences. On-shore wind moved towards giving local decision-makers significant control over decisions. Gas-fired power stations experienced continuity, with central government controlling consents and limited interest in community benefits. Fracking facilities received intense promotion of community benefits, alongside incremental moves to restrict local decision-making. We argue that the patterns observed reflect government beliefs about the scope for depoliticisation in concrete situations, in which the conjunction of technologies, sites and publics affects how and whether arrangements for public engagement change. These results raise challenges for how researchers seek to connect energy transitions and democracy.     

Land Community Participation: A New “Public” Participation Model

This essay presents a new “public” participation model that responds to contemporary participation problems. The author extends criticism of a false nature/culture dualism and responds to calls for pragmatic ways to expand participation to an expressive land community. The essay draws on existing scholarship that treats a range of direct to indirect forms of participation in environmental decision-making to argue for and explicate the land community participation model (LCP). The model features participation, power, and chronemics along three distinct and intersecting continua that bind and constitute participatory communication in environmental decision-making. Combining professional field experiences with rhetorical criticism, the author pilots the LCP model in a wilderness dispute resolution case study and suggests additional ways for using LCP as an interpretive guide and design tool in pursuit of environmental democracy.     

科学扩大基层民主努力构建和谐社会

本文认为,民主是一个政党健康发展的根本保证.而对"什么是民主","怎样建设和发展民主"的科学回答则是民主上述功能发挥的基本前提.民主既是对专制和独裁的否定,同时又是对建立在个人自由主义基础上的极端民主化和无政府主义的否定.我们必须在"科学发展观"这一基本理念的统领下进行包括扩大基层民主在内的民主政治建设-在扩大基层民主方面既不能徘徊不前,更不能搞"大跃进";既要整体推进,但又不能搞"一刀切";既要扩大和发展民主,又要讲求和兼顾科学与效率.只有把扩大基层民主置于"科学发展观"这一基本理念之上,才能有助于推进和谐社会建设.     

Giving a Voice to Posterity – Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future People

The aim of this paper is to consider whether some seats in a democratically elected legislative assembly ought to be reserved for representatives of future generations. In order to examine this question, I will propose a new democratic model for representing posterity. It is argued that this model has several advantages compared with a model for the democratic representation of future people previously suggested by Andrew Dobson. Nevertheless, the democratic model that I propose confronts at least two difficult problems. First, it faces insoluble problems of representative legitimacy. Second, one might question whether this model provides a reasonably effective way to represent future interests compared with existing representative democratic institutions. Despite such problems, it is argued that political representation of posterity can be defended on the basis of fundamental ideas and ideals in recent theory of deliberative democracy. The first reason for this is that in a number of cases democratic decisions cannot be regarded as normatively legitimate from the point of view of deliberative democracy, unless posterity is given a voice. The second reason is that representation of posterity can contribute to more rational and impartial deliberations and decisions in legislative assemblies.     

Virgil, Vigilance, and Voice: Agrifood Ethics in an Age of Globalization

Some 2000 years ago, Virgil wroteThe Georgics, a political tract on Romanagriculture in the form of a poem. Today, as aresult of rising global trade in food andagricultural products, growing economicconcentration, the merging of food andpharmacy, chronic obesity in the midst ofhunger, and new disease and pest vectors, weare in need of a new Georgics that addressesthe two key issues of our time: vigilance andvoice. On the one hand, vigilance must becentral to a new Georgics. Enforceablestandards for food safety, food quality,environmental protection, worker health andsafety, sanitary and phytosanitaryrequirements, animal welfare, and appellationsmust be addressed. On the other hand, a newGeorgics must increase the range of persons whohave voice in the democratic governance of anew global agrifood system. New organizationsand institutions will be needed to accomplishthis task.     

The limits of democracy in tackling climate change

Previous research has shown that democracies exhibit stronger commitments to mitigate climate change and, generally, emit less carbon dioxide than non-democratic regimes. However, there remains much unexplained variation in how democratic regimes perform in this regard. Here it is argued that the benefits of democracy for climate change mitigation are limited in the presence of widespread corruption that reduces the capacity of democratic governments to reach climate targets and reduce CO₂ emissions. Using a sample of 144 countries over 1970–2011, the previously established relationship between the amount of countries’ CO₂ emissions and their level of democracy is revisited. It is empirically tested whether this relationship is instead moderated by the levels of corruption. The results indicate that more democracy is only associated with lower CO₂ emissions in low-corruption contexts. If corruption is high, democracies do not seem to do better than authoritarian regimes.