Research Article
Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources
Felix Rauschmayer,
Augustin Berghöfer,
Ines Omann,
Dimitrios Zikos,
Corresponding Author
Felix Rauschmayer
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorAugustin Berghöfer
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorInes Omann
SERI – Sustainable Europe Research Institute, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorDimitrios Zikos
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this author
Felix Rauschmayer,
Augustin Berghöfer,
Ines Omann,
Dimitrios Zikos,
Corresponding Author
Felix Rauschmayer
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorAugustin Berghöfer
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorInes Omann
SERI – Sustainable Europe Research Institute, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorDimitrios Zikos
UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Effectively evaluating the governance of natural resources is a precondition for its improvement in contexts of change. In order to do so, one can use methods for evaluating (1) the outcome of a governance process or (2) the governance process itself. Outcome-oriented and process-oriented approaches have different strengths and weaknesses. This paper explores the challenges associated with both options when applied to European biodiversity and water governance – namely the implementation of the Habitats Directive (Natura 2000 network) and the Water Framework Directive.
Current evaluation practice, concerned with governance processes for EU policy implementation, focuses mainly on outcomes. In this paper, we examine the methodology involved and argue that, for three reasons, it makes sense to combine the two approaches: a normative reason, relating to standards of good governance; a substantive reason, relating to the complexity of the system to be governed; and a third, instrumental, reason relating to the task of policy evaluation and implementation itself. Combining outcome- and process-oriented evaluation of governance processes is not without caveats, but it appears a promising approach in the light of current problems in European governance of natural resources. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
REFERENCES
- Abelson J, Gauvin F-P. 2006. Assessing the impacts of public participation: concepts, evidence and policy implications. Canadian Policy Research Networks Research Report P/06, Ottawa.
- Abrams P, Borrini-Feyerabend G, Gardner J, Heylings P. 2003. Evaluating Governance: a Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a Protected Area. IUCN CEESP–WCPA: Durban, South Africa.
- Adger WN, Brown K, Fairbrass J, Jordan A, Paavola J, Rosendo S, Seyfang G. 2003. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A 35(6): 1095–1110.
- Alphandéry P, Fortier A. 2001. Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? The system for creating the Natura 2000 network. Sociologia Ruralis 41(3): 311–328.
- Axinn WG, Pearce LD. 2006. Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
10.1017/CBO9780511617898 Google Scholar
- Bader V, Engelen ER. 2003. Taking pluralism seriously. Arguing for an institutional turn in political philosophy. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29: 375–406.
10.1177/0191453703294002 Google Scholar
- Beierle TC, Cayford J. 2002. Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC.
- Berghöfer A, Wittmer H, Rauschmayer F. 2008. Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: a synthesis from European research projects. Marine Policy 32: 243–253.
- Berkes F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. In The Drama of the Commons, E Ostrom, T Dietz, N Dolsak, PC Stern, S Stonich (eds). Weber: Washington, DC; 293–321.
- Berkes F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3): 621–630.
- Björkell S. 2008. Resistance to top-down conservation policy and the search for new participatory models. In Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy: Case Studies in Multilevel Governance, J Keulartz, G Leistra (eds). Springer: Heidelberg; 109–126.
10.1007/978-1-4020-6510-1_8 Google Scholar
- Branch KM, Bradbury JA. 2006. Comparison of DOE and army advisory boards: application of a conceptual framework for evaluating public participation in environmental risk decision making. The Policy Studies Journal 34(4): 723–753.
- Choo EU, Schoner B, Wedley WC. 1999. Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering 37(3): 527–541.
- Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighbourhood: the Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
- Conley A, Moote MA. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Science and Natural Resources 16: 371–386.
- Cooke M. 2000. Five arguments for deliberative democracy. Political Studies 48: 947–969.
- De Stefano L. 2004. Public Participation in the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Pilot River Basin Testing Exercise and in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: an Environmental NGO Perspective. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwfparticprbwfdjun04.pdf [May 2004].
- Dietz T, Stern PC (eds). 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
- Engelen E, Keulartz J, Leistra G. 2008. European nature policy making. From substantive to procedural sources of legitimacy. In Legitimacy In European Nature Conservation Policy – Case Studies in Multilevel Governance, J Keulartz, G Leistra (eds). Springer: Heidelberg; 3–21.
- European Commission (EC). 1997. Proposal for a Water Framework Directive of 26/02/97, COM(97)49 (and amendment of 26/l l/97; COM(97)614).
- European Commission (EC). 1998. Proposal for a Water Framework Directive, Amendment of 17/02/98, COM(98)76.
- European Commission (EC). 2001. European Governance: a White Paper.
- European Commission (EC). 2002. Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive, final version after the Water Directors' meeting, EC, December 2002.
- European Commission (EC). 2007. Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Commission Staff Working Document COM(2007) 128 final (SEC(2007) 363). Brussels.
- European Communities. 2005. Natura 2000 – Conservation in Partnership. Office of Official Publications of the European Communities; 16.
- Farrell AE, Jäger J. 2005. Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: designing processes for the effective use of science in Decisionmaking. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC.
- Farrell KN. 2007. Living with living systems: the co-evaluation of values and valuation. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Economy 14: 14–26.
- Furubo JE, Rist R, Sandhal R (eds). 2002. International Atlas of Evaluation. Transaction: New Brunswick, NJ.
- Gabrielsen P, Bosch P. 2003. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting, internal working paper. European Environment Agency; 20.
- Galbiati L, Somma F, Zaldivar JM (eds). 2008. Pilot River Basin Activity Report Phase II: 2005–2006 Water Framework Directive Implementation Pilot Activities: Key Challenges and Recommendations from the Pilot River Basins. Joint Research Centre and Institute of Environment and Sustainability. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.
- Galbiati L, Zaldivar JM, Somma F, Bouraoui F, Moren-Abat MC, Bidoglio G, D'Eugenio J (eds). 2005. Pilot River Basin Outcome Report: Testing of the WFD Guidance Documents. Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission: Luxembourg.
- Giupponi C. 2007. Decision support system for implementing the European Water Framework Directive: the MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling and Software 22: 248–258.
- Görg C, Rauschmayer F. 2009. Multi-level-governance and the politics of scale – the challenge of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In Environmental Governance, Power and Knowledge in a Local–Global World, G Kütting, R Lipschutz (eds). Routledge: London; 81–99.
- Habermas J. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon: Boston, MA.
- Habermas J. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: System and Lifeworld. Beacon: Boston, MA.
- Hiedanpää J. 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 61: 113–123.
- Hirsch-Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E. 2008. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer: Berlin.
10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3 Google Scholar
- Holling CS. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystem 4: 390–405.
- Jordan A, Liefferink D (eds). 2004. Environmental Policy in Europe. The Europeanization of National Environmental Policy. Routledge: London.
10.4324/9780203449004 Google Scholar
- Kluvankova-Oravska T, Chobotova V, Banaszak I, Slavikova L, Trifunovova S. 2009. From government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of Central and East-European transition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance this issue.
- Knill C. 2004. Modes of governance and their evaluation. Trames 8: 352–371.
- Mahleras A, Kontogianni A, Skourtos M. 2007. Pinios River Basin – Greece, Status Report of the EU Funded Project ‘AquaMoney, Development and Testing of Practical Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits in the WFD’, contract No. SSPI-022723.
- Maxim L, Spangenberg JH, O'Connor M. 2009. An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics.
- Munda G. 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 158(3): 662–677.
- Newig J, Fritsch O. 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance this issue.
10.1002/eet.509 Google Scholar
- Ostrom E. 1996. Institutional rational choice: an assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, cited by Bader and Engelen (2003).
- Paavola J. 2003/2004. Protected areas governance and justice: theory and the European Union's Habitats Directive. Environmental Sciences 1(1): 59–77.
10.1076/evms.1.1.59.23763 Google Scholar
- Paavola J, Gouldson A, Kluvankova-Oravska T. 2009. The institutions, ecosystems and the interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance this issue.
10.1002/eet.505 Google Scholar
- Pilot River Basins (PRB). 2007. Pilot River Basin Activity Reportphase II: 2005–2006 Water Framework Directive Implementation Pilot Activities – Key Challenges and Recommendations from the Pilot River Basins, report prepared by PRB, European Commission, DG Environment and the Joint Research Centre, 13 June 2007.
- Pinton F, Alphandéry P, Billaud J-P, Deverre C, Fortier A. 2006. La Construction du Réseau Natura 2000 en France: une Politique Européenne de Conservation de la Biodiversité a l'Epreuve du Terrain. Dokumentation Francaise: Paris.
- Rauschmayer F, van den Hove S, Koetz T. 2009. Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning C 27(1): 42–58.
- Rauschmayer F, Wittmer H. 2006. Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 23(1): 108–122.
- Rauschmayer F, Wittmer H, Berghöfer A. 2008. Institutional challenges for resolving conflicts between fisheries and endangered species conservation. Marine Policy 32: 178–188.
- Rauschmayer F, Wittmer H, Paavola J. 2007. Multi-Level Governance of Natural Resources: Tools and Processes for Water and Biodiversity Governance in Europe – a European Research and Training Network, UFZ Discussion Papers No. 3/2007 – GoverNat 1. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research: Leipzig.
- Renn, O. 1999. A model for an analytic–deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science and Technology 33(18): 3049–3055.
- Renn O. 2008. Risk Governance. Earthscan: London.
- Renn O, Schweizer P-J. 2009. Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance this issue.
10.1002/eet.507 Google Scholar
- Rist RC, Stame N (eds). 2005. From Studies to Streams: Managing Evaluative Systems. Transaction: Piscataway, NJ.
- Scharpf FW. 2004. Legitimationskonzepte jenseits des Nationalstaats. MPI für Gesellschaftsforschung: Köln.
- Smeets E, Weterings R. 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview, European Environment Agency Technical Report 25. Copenhagen; 19.
- Steurer R. 2007. From government strategies to strategic public management: an exploratory outlook on the pursuit of cross-sectoral policy integration. European Environment 17(3): 201–214.
10.1002/eet.452 Google Scholar
- Stirling A. 2006. Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23(1): 95–107.
- Suda M, Sauer A, Luz F, Dettweiler G, Beck R. 2005. FFH – Schlüssel zur Kooperation oder Motor von Konflikten? BfN-Skripten 159. Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn.
- Sullivan H, Stewart M. 2006. Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation 12: 179–199.
- Swyngedouw E, Page B, Kaika M. 2002. Sustainability and policy innovation in a multi-level context: crosscutting issues in the water sector. In Participatory Governance in Multi-Level Context: Concepts and Experience, P Getimis, H Heinelt, G Kafkalas, R Smith, E Swyngedouw (eds). Leske & Budrich: Opladen; 107–131.
10.1007/978-3-663-11005-7_6 Google Scholar
- Taylor D, Balloch S. 2005. The politics of evaluation: an overview. In The Politics of Evaluation: Participation and Policy Implementation. Policy: Bristol; 1–17.
- United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). 2000. Resolution 2000/64.
- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). 2007. What is Good Governance?
- Weber N, Christophersen T. 2002. The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 1–12.
- Webler T. 1995. ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, O Renn, T Webler, P Wiedemann (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 35–86.
10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_3 Google Scholar
- Webler T, Renn O. 1995. A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, O Renn, T Webler, P Wiedemann (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 17–34.
10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_2 Google Scholar
- Webler T, Tuler S. 2006a. Introduction to the special edition. The Policy Studies Journal 34(4): 599–603.
- Webler T, Tuler S. 2006b. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies. The Policy Studies Journal 34(4): 699–722.
- Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27(3): 435–450.
- Wittmer H, Rauschmayer F, Klauer B. 2006. How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Land Use Policy 23(1): 1–9.
- WWF. 2003a. Summary of Water Framework Directive Results, June 2003 (updated in September 2003). http://www.panda.org
- WWF. 2003b. Results overview for the Pinios River Basin (Greece). In Water and Wetland Index-Critical Issues in Water Policy across Europe. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwipiniosgreece.pdf [November 2003].
- Young OR. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Change. MIT Press: Cambridge.
- YPEHODE. 2003. Integrated Testing of Guidance Documents in Pilot River Basin Plans: Pinios River Basin – Greece. Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works.
- YPEHODE. 2005. Pinios River Basin Pilot Project. Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works.
- Zikos D, Markantonis V, Getimis P. 2005. τνπα Koινωνικá Δíκτυα και Bιώσιμη Διαχϵíριση Yδατι;κών Πóρων. H πϵρíπτωση τoυ Bóλoυ [Supportive Role by a Non-Formal Social Network for the Implementation of Specific Targets of the Directive 2000/60/EC]. Conference Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference of the Hellenic Association of Water Resource Management, Xanthi; 465–472.
