On transition processes towards sustainability A methodological perspective on the involvement of stakeholders

Marleen van de Kerkhof and Anna Wieczorek1

Paper prepared for presentation at the Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community, 16-18 October 2003. Montreal. Canada.

Abstract It is increasingly recognised in science, policy, and society that the global environmental problems, such as climate change, ozone depletion and loss of biodiversity, are complex in nature. These problems are difficult to deal with because of being global in scope while deeply embedded in local and national economies and social cultures. Solving these complex problems requires a major transformation of the current systems of production, consumption and incentive structure. Due to the high urgency to formulate policy, systems changes became a focus of many research and policy groups. This is also the case in the Netherlands, where the government recently adopted transitions and transition management as useful concepts in its policy for sustainability. In order to effectively support the policy process, scientific efforts are needed to investigate the transition process. It is increasingly acknowledged that, due to high scientific uncertainty, diverse interests at stake, and the urgency to formulate policy, transition research may benefit from the involvement of stakeholders. In this paper, we address the need for transition research and for ‘transition dialogues’, involving stakeholders, scientists, and policy makers. In addition, we present a number of methodological key issues that need to be taken into account in the design and implementation of transition dialogues. In this way, we aim to contribute to improving the involvement of stakeholders in transition processes; eventually contributing to the inducement of the transition towards a sustainable future.

1

The authors work at the Institute for Environmental studies (IVM) at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. Contact details: Boelelaan 1087. 1081 HV Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

1

1. Environmental complexity and the need for a proactive approach The problems of global environmental change, such as loss of biodiversity, climate change, and ozone depletion, represent a class of environmental threats that can be labelled as ‘ill structured’ (Mason and Mitroff, 1981) or ‘unstructured’ (Hisschemöller and Hoppe, 2001). These problems have a number of characteristics. First of all, the causes and effects of these problems often occur at different temporal and geographical levels, and each problem is closely related to various other problems. Furthermore, the problems are characterised by major, often even insoluble , scientific uncertainties. Thirdly, a multitude of actors are involved who are characterised by different (conflicting) interests and values. Over the last few decades, scientific research through assessments, such as by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Mille nnium Assessment, has confirmed that global life-support systems such as climate, biodiversity, and water resources are significantly affected by human activities. Reduction of the burden that is put on the environment, and establishment of a sustainable future, have become challenges for science, policy and society. An important topic for discussion in this is the question as to whether reduction of economic growth is necessary to reduce its burden on the environment (De Bruijn, 1999; Vellinga, 2001; Clark and Dickson, 2003). Whereas, in the case of local environmental problems, countries sometimes manage to reduce the environmental burden while continuing the economic growth (World Bank, 1992; De Bruijn, 1999), in the case of global environmental problems, this does not seem to be the case (Vellinga, 2001). For instance, Vellinga argues that, for GHG emissions, income levels correlate with energy use. Present day energy use is coupled with CO2 emissions. Similarly, the space we use for our activities (housing, transport, recreation) grows linearly with income projections going up. This is at the expense of natural habitats. When we analyse environmental problems, and how societies and companies approached them for the last 40 to 50 years, we can see that the end-of-pipe solutions, as well as improvements of the processes and products, are not sufficient any more. In particular in the OECD countries, these approaches worked well for local and regional problems like air pollution in the cities, or even acidification in Europe. They were predominantly driven by the immediate effects that the problems had on human health. Since the problems of global environmental change are of different nature, they will test, in an unprecedented way, the capacity of the human species to manage their activities in a somewhat different manner. It is increasingly recognised by the international research programmes on global environmental

2

change 2 , but also by governments3 , that a more far-reaching approach will be required when we want to combine growing income levels with a significant reduction of the impact of human activities on global life support systems. Such an approach will have to focus on systems and systems change, a system being defined as: “a chain of production, distribution, consumption, and disposal activities, including the incentives that shape this system i.e. property, liability and fiscal laws and regulations” (Vellinga and Herb, 1999). In many literature positions, a system change is also referred to as a ‘transition’ (Rotmans et al., 2001; Geels, 2002; Clark and Dickson, 2003; Parris and Kates, 2003) or a ‘transformation’ (Vellinga and Herb, 1999). There is an agreement among scientists that a systems change denotes a gradual, continuous process of structural change within a society or culture. Such a process couples technology development with mutually reinforcing parallel economic, institutional, and cultural changes in society (Elzen, 2002). A systems change takes at least a generation or more, occurs along geographic scales that go beyond continents, and requires involvement of society as a whole (Vellinga and Herb, 1999). In this paper we argue that, in order to understand and, if possible, induce transition processes, research on transitions may benefit from the involvement of societal actors, also referred to as stakeholders. We started this paper with a short introduction on the characteristics of global environmental problems and on the need for a change in the ways human needs are satisfied (Section 1). In Section 2, we address the need for transition research, and in Section 3 we go into the issue of stakeholder involvement in transition research. In Section 4, we present a number of methodological key issues that need to be taken into account in the design and implementation of stakeholder dialogues on transition processes. The paper concludes that, if done properly, the involvement of stakeholders in transition research will generate useful insights into understanding and inducing of transition processes towards sustainability, which could not have been generated by scie ntists and policy makers only.

2

Such as: the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP); the International Geosphere-Biosphere Research Programme (IGBP); and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP).

3

The Dutch government recently adopted ‘transitions’ and ‘transition management’ as useful concepts in shaping its policy towards sustainability (VROM, 2001). It developed four different strategies, which relate to energy, agriculture, mobility, and biodiversity, respectively. 3

2. Transitions and transition management The concept of transition has been studied since long in several disciplines, such as sociology, economics, policy sciences, and innovation studies. Researchers make efforts to better understand transition processes and the actors that are involved in these processes. See, for instance, the work of the Social Ecology Group of the University of Vienna 4 . Also in the US, new initiatives have been developed in order to conduct scientific research on transitions towards sustainability (see Clark and Dickson, 2003; Parris, 2003; Parris and Kates, 2003). In the Netherlands, ever since the Dutch government decided to use ‘transitions’ as an important concept in its sustainability policy, the research on transitions has increased considerably (see Rotmans et al., 2001; Schot and Verbong, 2002, Arentsen et al., 2002; Geels, 2002; Elzen et al., 2004, forthcoming). However, when comparing the literature on transitions, it seems that the research is scattered, developed at various conceptual levels and with varying terminology. Despite many insights into understanding of the dynamics of transitions towards sustainability and opportunities for inducing them, there is still vagueness about the system boundaries, and whether it is really possible to bring about and manage such radical changes. As for now, scientists agree that transitions cannot be managed in the strict sense, which means that they cannot be planned nor controlled by a central actor (government or other) in order to realise specific objectives. By implication, stimulating a systems change is an interactive process that needs to take pla ce between a heterogeneous set of actors, each acting on the basis of their own vital interests and expectations (Elzen, 2002). It is argued that, although a transition cannot be managed in the strict sense, it may be possible to stimulate a transition and to influence the direction and the speed of a transition. According to the notion of transition management, government is designated a leading role in stimulating a transition. Not by acting as the great commander, enforcing change, but by inspiring a collective learning process and encouraging other actors to think along and partic ipate (Rotmans et al., 2001). It seems that this position is mainly based on the experience of the Dutch transition from coal for energy production to the use of natural gas 5 . The Dutch gas transition is often used as an exemplary government-driven systems change. The government indeed played an important role, but so did the private sector. Furthermore, in the context of this paper, it is important to note that the set of incentives that brought about this particular transition were 4

See: http://www.iff.ac.at/socec/forschung/forschung_trans_en.php

4

strongly market related and had less relation to global environmental problems and environmental protection. Although the environmental-friendly features of the natural gas were not marginal, they were only one of many good marketing tools for convincing consumers to adapt their appliances to a new fuel. Although we acknowledge the important role of government in transition processes, it must be noted that it seems likely that similar transitions, taking place on mainly environmental grounds, will have different characteristics, may be more costly, more difficult to implement, and, therefore, require a rather prominent role of the stakeholders.

3. The meaning of stakeholder involvement Given the complexity of global environmental problems, and given the need for a proactive approach, system changes will require the involvement of society as a whole. Although the academic literature on transitions and trans ition management acknowledges the relevance of involving stakeholders in the process, not much has been said so far about how this must be done. Stakeholders need to become engaged in ‘transition dialogues’, which aim to identify research priorities, increase the understanding of transitions, and develop strategies that are needed to induce the transition. These transition dialogues should involve not only stakeholders, but also scientists and policy makers, in order to allow for a discussion at the intersection of science, policy, and society. Before we go into the methodological aspects of designing and implementing such a dialogue, we feel that, first, the concept of ‘stakeholder’ may need some clarific ation. What is a stakeholder? In a simple wording, a stakeholder is someone who has a stake in a certain issue or decision. Many different definitions of a stakeholder circulate in the academic literature (see e.g. Renn et al., 1993; Von Winterfeldt, 1992; Mason and Mitroff, 1981; Van der Werff, 2000). When comparing these definitions, in particular three features can be distinguished that are important to better understand the meaning of a stakeholder. The first feature is that both individuals and socially-organised groups can have a stake in a specific issue or decision. The second feature is that, in the case of unstructured problems, it is not always clear what the stake(s) of each actor is (are). Different actors may have a different perception of their own and each other stakes, and the stakes may change over time. The last feature is that the rele vant group

5

In the Netherlands, the transition from coal to gas took place in the early 1960s, and implied a change of the entire infrastructure; the adjustment of the distribution network; the development of new markets; and the adaptation of legislation (see Correljé et al., 2003) .

5

of stakeholders may vary. The number of stakeholders involved in the specific issue is not necessarily fixed but may change over time. As the decision-making process develops, new stakeholders will enter the scene and others will leave (Van de Kerkhof, 2004 forthcoming). In order to be more specific about what a stakeholder is, it is useful to take the example of the transport sector. In order to induce the transition towards a ‘CO2 -neutral transport system, all the actors that play a role in this must be gathered in order to reach an understanding of what this transition entails and what strategy (or strategies) seem suitable for inducing this transition. This concerns: scientists from different disciplines, such as psychologists, technologists, and economists; policy makers from different departments, such as transport, economic affaires, environment, and spatial planning;, and different kinds of stakeholders, such as representatives from the car industry, railway, shipping, aviation, environmental and consumer NGOs. Why involving stakeholders? There are many motives for involving stakeholders in transition processes towards sustainability. In our view, the most important ones are the following (see also Van de Kerkhof, 2004 forthcoming). First of all, involving stakeholders in transition processes may increase their awareness and acceptance of the measures that need to be taken in order to induce the transition. In this way, the involvement of stakeholders may improve the effectiveness of transition policy. Secondly, stakeholders may have relevant viewpoints, interests, and ideas about the specific transition, which scientists and/or policy makers are not aware of. The involvement of stakeholders can enrich the transition process with relevant information, which, in turn, may lead to better decisions. Thirdly, stakeholder involvement can be seen as a way to increase the legitimacy of decision making. This means that the involvement of stakeholders in transition processes enables the stakeholders to engage in deliberation with policy makers and scientists about the strategy that is needed to in duce the transition. Fourthly, stakeholder involvement can be considered a way to enhance the accountability of decision making. Being engaged in deliberation on a specific transition with policy makers and scie ntists may make the stakeholders to some extent co-responsible for the actions that are needed to induce the transition. The final motive for stakeholder involvement is that it may result in ‘problem structuring’ and ‘learning’. Problem structuring involves the confrontation, evaluation and integration of as much contradictory information on the specific problem as possible (Hisschemöller and Hoppe, 2001). The stakeholders, scientists, and policy makers who are engaged in the transition dialogue learn about the multiple aspects of the transition, the different understandings of the transition, and the assumptions that underlie the different vie w6

points (cf. Mason and Mitroff, 1981). A process of problem structuring enables the involved actors to explore how to deal with conflicting views and interests, and to make an argued choice about ways to induce a specific transition. Which factors can prevent stakeholder involvement from working? In the academic literature, several critical notions on stakeholder involvement are brought up (see also Berk et al., 1999). These critical notions should not be understood as a categorical rejection of involving stakeholders in transition processes, but rather as factors that may prevent stakeholder involvement from working. We present seven of these factors. The first factor is irrationality of stakeholders, and relates to the assumption that ‘average’ citizens are not capable of a rational judgement on complex matters that go beyond the experiences of his (her) daily life (Schumpeter, 1942). Especially in matters that involve norms and values, such as politics and environmental problems, the policy preferences of citizens are merely manipulable opinions that change with the issues of the day. In this view, citizens will only be rational to a limited extent, even if their own interests are at stake. The second factor is the selfishness of stakeholders and is based on the assumption that stakeholders are most likely to defend their own short-term interests and to ‘free ride’ on collective goods (Olson, 1971). This assumption implies that, the more stakeholders involved who want to defend their own interest, the more difficult it will be to develop a strategy for inducing a specific transition. The third factor relates to the level of scientific knowledge that stakeholders have. It can be argued that, in order to participate meaningfully in a transition dialogue, stakeholders must have a reasonable level of scientific knowle dge (Webler, 1995). However, research on environmental attitudes shows that, among the many explanations of how people come to take a certain attitude towards an environmental issue, scientific knowledge turns out to be the least significant (Scholten and Midden, 1997). Another pessimistic view on the possibility of a reasonable level of scientific knowledge among stakeholders points to the observation that stakeholders have a ‘natural’ tendency to mistrust scientific experts (Berk et al., 1999). The fourth factor that may prevent stakeholder involvement from working is conflict. This relates to the assumption that interaction between stakeholders tends to aggravate conflict and can even lead to a deadlock. According to the cultural approach to environmental risk, environmental controversies represent a conflict between cultures (Douglas and Wildavski, 1983). Such conflict is highly emotional and therefore hard to handle. A pessimistic view on stakeholder involvement is that participation by a group or an individual can only be effec7

tive if it is at the expense of the participation of another individual or group. This idea may especially apply to the kind of situations where ‘win-win’ options appear to be absent. The fifth factor relates to the assumption that stakeholder involvement in transition processes threatens the legitimacy of representative democracy. According to this assumption, more participation is not intrinsically more democratic. The involvement of stakeholders may override existing legitimate decision-making processes (Cooke and Kothari, 2001) and undermine the position of parliament (Van Thijn, 1997). In relation to the previous factor, the ‘participation paradox’ can be mentioned as another factor that may prevent stakeholder involvement from working (Seley, 1983: referred to in Berk et al., 1999). This means that stakeholder involvement in transition processes can lead to decisions that reinforce the interests of the already powerful. In order to participate effectively, one needs power resources that are not equally distributed over the affected population. Power resources include inter alia access to relevant information and a voice loud enough to get heard by the decision makers. Weaker interests are in a marginal position, so participation facilities will not be of great help for them. The last factor that we would like to mention is the lack of criteria for the objective selection of stakeholders (Berk et al., 1999). The number of potential stakeholders may be infinite, so if everyone were allowed to join the process, the debate will never end and decision making will become impossible. As a result, only a selection of stakeholders can be involved, which raises questions about representativeness. As we see, there are numerous factors that may prevent participation from working. For that reason, it is important that transition dialogues are carefully designed and implemented. In the next section, we go into a number of methodological issues that can be considered particularly important in this respect.

4. Methodological key issues for a transition dialogue In our view, a transition dialogue is successful when it brings about a process of problem structuring and learning (see Section 2). In particular in the case of complex problems, like the problems of global environmental change, we believe that the transition process benefits most from a dialogue that gives a sound insight in the actors’ relevant viewpoints and arguments on the specific transition, and in the main conflicts and controversies that play a role, in order to make an argued choice for the best strategy to induce the transition. After all, innovations, creative as they may be, need to be evaluated in terms of their feasibility and public support. A recent study on stakeholder participation in integrated assessment (Van de 8

Kerkhof, 2004 forthcoming) has pointed out that there are a number of key issues that should particularly be taken into account in designing and implementing such a dialogue process. This concerns: the composition of the group; the commitment of the participants; the fairness of the process; the input of information; and the use of arguments. The focus on research design and methodology implies that we do not include strategic considerations in our analysis, such as the issue of timing (e.g. planning a dialogue close to an important scientific of polit ical event), or the link with the policy process (e.g. choosing a topic that is particularly high on the policy agenda). Neither do we go into the matter of cultural differences between the stakeholders and how to deal with these in the dialogue. The composition of the group In order to stimulate a process of problem structuring and learning, the dialogue process must involve actors from a diversity of backgrounds, representing a diversity of (conflicting) opinions, viewpoints, and interests. This concerns scientists, policy makers, and (other) stakeholders, such as business representatives, societal NGOs, and environmental NGOs. However, it must also be taken into account that too much heterogeneity may hinder a constructive dialogue. A dialogue that involves participants, who have no common ground for discussion whatsoever, is likely to fail. Therefore, specific selection criteria must be developed in order to strike a balance between homogeneity and heterogeneity among the partic ipants. The participants should be heterogeneous with regard to background, interests, sex, et cetera, but they should be homogeneous in the sense that they all agree with the objective of the dialogue, be interested in the topic under consideration; and have sufficient communic ation skills in order to participate meaningfully in the dialogue. A question that needs to be raised with regard to the composition of the group is whether individual citizens should be involved as well, or whether it will suffice to involve representative organisations in the process. From the perspective of deliberative democracy it may be preferable to involve individual citizens. From the perspective of problem structuring, though, it is sufficient to have cit izens involved through their representative NGOs. The commitment of the participants Being involved in a transition dialogue is rather demanding for stakeholders, as they need to spend time (and money) on preparing the dialogue and attending the dialogue meetings. Furthermore, they are expected to actively contribute to the discussion, to be critical, and to learn from each other. Therefore, a certain degree of commitment of the participants to the dialogue process is a necessary condition for its success. There are several ways to enhance 9

participants’ commitment by pr oject design. First of all, the participants need to be actively involved in the preparation of the dialogue. This enables the participants to express their concerns, expectations, and wishes with regard to the dialogue and to have an influence on the dialogue design. Secondly, the outcomes of the dialogue must be open and the partic ipants must be able to collectively determine the end product. This reassures them that they are taken seriously and that the dialogue does not take place in order to legitimise existing plans. Thirdly, the dialogue design must provide the participants with sufficient opportunity to learn, for instance, by putting together an interesting group of people, or by providing the groups with relevant scientific knowledge. Fourthly, the dialogue design must be kept transparent with regard to its objectives, procedure, planning, deliverables, et cetera, so that the participants know what to expect and are able to monitor the progress of the dialogue (De Bruijn et al., 1999). Lastly, participants’ commitment can be enhanced by rendering the dialogue a certain status and relevance. For instance, it is possible to have a prominent person to chair the group; to involve responsible policy makers and politicians in the dialogue; or to get a clear mandate from the policy makers. The fairness of the process Another important issue that needs to be taken into account in designing and implementing a transition dialogue is the ‘fairness’ of the process. Following Webler (1995), we distinguish four needs that the process needs to meet in order to be judged as fair. These four needs are: to ‘attend’; to ‘contribute’; to ‘discuss’; and to ‘decide’. To ‘attend’ means that the dialogue process must be open to all actors that are relevant with regard to the topic that is discussed. This may raise the question of who determines which actors are relevant and which are not. From recent experiences with this matter, it seems that the snowball method is an adequate approach to get a comprehensive insight in the relevant actors in a specific field and to select the participants (Van de Kerkhof, 2004 forthcoming) 6 . To ‘contribute’ refers to the ability of the participants to actively participate in the discussion and to say what they consider important. To ‘discuss’ refers to the need of the participants to be able to ask each other questions, and to challenge and defend the claims that are put forward in the discussion.

6

Basically, the snowball method implies that the initiator of the dialogue starts with identifying actors in the dominant network on the topic that is discussed. Subsequently, the initiator asks these actors to give the names of actors with a similar opinion on the specific topic than their own, and actors with an opposite opinion than their own. Subsequently, these actors can be asked the same questions. In this way, the snowball method helps to identify relevant actors; not only in the dominant networks, but also in other networks that seem to be relevant with regard to the topic that is discussed.

10

To ‘decide’ implies that the participants need to be able to influence the collective outcomes of the dialogue. There are several ways to enhance the fairness of a dialogue process. First of all, it must be taken into account that the group size is not too large, preferably between 8 and 12 people. Secondly, on occasion, the group can be divided into sub-groups, either to discuss different aspects of the transition at the same time, or to have the same aspects discussed by different groups of participants. A sub-group structure will enhance participants’ ability to contribute and to discuss, in particular the more silent people. Finally, the chairperson and/or the moderator of the group play an important role in enhancing fairness. They are supposed to monitor the dialogue process and to ensure that all the participants are able to have their say. They must also confront the participants with possible lacks in their argumentation, and make sure that minority viewpoints are not a priori excluded from the discussion. The input of scientific information A dialogue on transition processes may benefit from the input of scientific information. If done properly, the input of scientific information can increase participants’ understanding of the multiple aspects of the specific transition, and enable them to make an informed judgement on how to understand the transition and how to induce it. If not done properly, however, the input of scientific information can dominate the discussion, suppress specific stakeholder viewpoints, and manipulate the discussion into a certain direction. In order to fully benefit from scientific information in a transition dialogue, the information must meet certain standards. First of all, the information must have a certain scientific quality, in terms of validity and peer review. Secondly, the information that is offered must meet the demands of the participants. In other words: the participants must consider the information useful with regard to the objective of the dialogue. Thirdly, the scientific information must not reveal scientific uncertainties and controversies, but rather make these explicit. This allows the participants to consider different viewpoints on the topic. Fourthly, the information must be communicated in a well understandable and accessible way. This means that the information must be offered not only in written form, but also in oral and audio-visual presentation. Furthermore, the information should not be written in academic jargon, but in an understandable style.

11

The use of arguments The last key issue in designing and implementing a transition dialogue is the use of arguments or, more specifically, the degree of deliberation in the dialogue. Deliberation can be understood as a process in whic h the participants discuss the relative weight of each argument that is brought up in the dialogue, using a transparent procedure for balancing pros and cons (Tuler and Webler, 1999). In particular when a transition dialogue aims to be a process of problem structuring and learning, deliberation is a crucial aspect of the dialogue design, as it may help the participants to understand the multiple aspects of the transition, and the different viewpoints that the involved actors have on the transition and on possible strategies to induce the transition. This does not only concern technological aspects, but also behavioural, economic, political, ethical, legal, and institutional aspects. The key issues that were mentioned before play an important role in stimulating the use of arguments in the dialogue. A certain degree of heterogeneity in the group; a high degree of commitment; a fair process; and a diverse scientific input, are all aspects that will contribute to an increased use of arguments in the dialogue. In addition, it is possible to use specific methods in order to enhance the degree of deliberation. In particular methods that make use of ‘conflict’ seem to enhance the use of arguments considerably. Examples of such methods are the ‘dialectical approach’ (Mason and Mitroff, 1981) and the ‘policy Delphi’ (Turoff, 1975).

5. Conclusions This paper began with the premise that, in order to cope with the problems of global environmental change, a far-reaching approach is required that focuses on systems and systems change. Science, policy, and society face the major challenge to induce transition processes towards sustainability in a diversity of fields, such as energy, mobility, and agriculture. Scientific efforts are needed to investigate the transition process, and stakeholders need to be engaged in what can be referred to as ‘transition dialogues’. A transition dialogue takes place at the intersection of science, policy, and society, and should be designed as a process of problem structuring and learning. In a transition dialogue, stakeholders, scientists, and policy makers deliberate on the multiple aspects of the transition and jointly form an argued judgement on the actions that are needed to induce a specific transition. In order to fully benefit from the involvement of stakeholders in the dialogue, it is important to carefully design and implement the dialogue approach. Although in the academic literature on transitions the need to involve stakeholders in transition processes is commonly acknowledged, so far, not much has been said about how to do this. Maybe it is due to the fact that the transition re12

search is still in an early phase that the methodological issues of stakeholder involvement have not reached much attention yet. This paper aims to contribute to filling this gap by discussing five methodological key issues for designing and implementing a transition dialogue. These are: the compos ition of the group; the commitment of the participants; the fairness of the process; the input of information; and the use of arguments. We think that including these five issues in the design and implementation of the dialogue approach will improve the involvement of stakeholders in transition processes; eventually contributing to the inducement of the transition towards a sustainable future.

References Arentsen, M., R. Kemp and E. Luiten (2002). Technological change and innovation for climate protection: the governance challenge. In: Kok, M., W. Vermeulen, A. Faaij and D. de Jager (eds.). Global warming & Social innovation. The challenge of a climate-neutral society. Earthscan. London. UK. pp. 59-82. Berk, M., L. Hordijk. M. Hisschemöller, M. Kok, D. Liefferink. R. Swart and W. Tuinstra (1999). Climate OptiOns for the Long term (COOL). Interim phase report. NRP. Report nr. 410200028. Bilthoven. The Netherlands. Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds.) (2001). Participation. The new tyranny? Zed Books. London. UK. Correljé, A., C. van der Linde and T. Westerwoudt (2003). Natural gas in the Netherlands. From cooperation to comp etition? Oranje Nassau Groep B.V.. Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Clark, W.C. and N.M. Dickson (2003). Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 100 (14). pp. 8059-8061. De Bruijn, H., E. ten Heuvelhof and R. in ‘t Veld (1998). Proces management. Over procesontwerp en besluitvorming (in Dutch). Academic Service. Schoonhoven. The Netherlands. De Bruijn. S., M. (1999). Economic growth and the environment. An empirical analysis. PhD thesis. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky (1983). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press. Berkeley. USA. Elzen, B. (2001). Socio-technical scenarios (STSc) as a new foresight method. Background and approach. Paper for Technology Foresight Workshop. 4-12-2001. Denmark. Elzen, B., F. Geels, and K. Green (eds.) (2004, forthcoming). System innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham. UK. Geels, F. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions. A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. PhD thesis. Twente University Press. Enschede. The Netherlands. Hisschemöller, M. and R. Hoppe (2001). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W. Dunn and J. Ravetz. Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. USA. pp. 47-72. Mason, R. and I. Mitroff (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. Theory, cases and techniques. John Wiley & Sons. New York. USA. Olsen, M. (1971). The logic of collectice action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. USA.

13

Parris, T. M. (2003). Toward a Sustainability Transition: The International Consensus. In: Environment. Vol. 45. pp. 12-22 Parris, T.M. and R.W. Kates (2003). Characterizing a sustainability transition: Goals, targets, trends, and driving forces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 100 (14). pp. 8068-8073. Renn, O., T. Webler, H. Rakel, P. Dienel and B. Johnson (1993). Public participation in decisionmaking: A three-step procedure. In: Policy sciences. Vol. 26. pp. 189-214. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt (2001). More evaluation than revolution: Transition management in public policy. In: Foresight. The journal of futures studies, strategic thinking and policy. Vol. 3 (1). pp. 15-31. Scholten, L. and C. Midden (1997). Milieubelasting van verpakkingen: Effecten van de natuurlijkheidsbias op consumentenoordelen. In: Milieu. Vol. 12 (4). pp. 167-175. Schot, J., G. Verbong, et al. (2002). Transitions to Sustainability through System Innovations. Keynote paper for the Workshop Transitions to Sustainability through System Innovations. 4-6 July 2002. University of Twente. Enschede. The Netherlands. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper and Row. New York. USA. Seley, J. (1983). The politics of public facility planning. Lexington books. Lexington. USA. Tuler, S. and Webler, T. (1999). Designing an analytic deliberative process for environmental health policy making in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. In: Risk: Health, safety & environment. Vol. 65. pp. 65-87. Van de Kerkhof, M. (2004 forthcoming). Debating climate change. A study on stakeholder participation in an integrated assessment of long-term climate policy in the Netherlands. Lemma Publis hing. Utrecht. The Netherlands. Van Thijn, E. (1997). Politiek en bureaucratie: Baas boven baas. Van Gennep Publishers. Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Van der Werff, P. (2000). Stakeholder approach. Report nr. D00/09. Institute for Environmental Studies. Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Vellinga, P. and N. Herb (1999). Industrial Transformation Science Plan. IHDP report 12. Bonn. Germany. Vellinga, P. (2001) Industrial Transformation – Exploring Systems Change in Production and Consumption. In: Steffen W., J. Jäger , D. Carson and C. Bradshaw (eds). Challenges of a Changing Earth. Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science Conference. Amsterdam. The Netherlands. 10-13 July 2001. The IGBP Global Change Series. Springer-Verlag. He idelberg. New York. Von Winterfeldt, D. (1992). Expert knowledge and public values in risk management: the role of decision analysis. In: Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.). Social theories of risk. Praeger Publishers. London. UK. pp. 321-342. VROM (2001). Where there’s a will, there’s a world. Fourth National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP 4). The Hague. The Netherlands. Webler, T. (1995). Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In: Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands. pp. 3586. World Bank (1992) Development and the Environment: World Development Report 1992. Oxford University Press. New York. US.

14