· · · Institutional Repository

Participatory research relies on stakeholder inputs to obtain its acclaimed benefits of improved social relevance, validity, and actionability of research outcomes. We focus here on participatory research in the context of natural resource management. Participants’ acceptance of participatory research processes is key to their implementation. Our first assumption is that this positive view and acceptance of participation in research processes is a public good for the whole participatory research community. We also assume that the diversity of participatory forms of research is rarely considered by potential participants when they make their decisions about whether or not to participate in a proposed process. We specifically address how to avoid stakeholders’ reluctance to be involved in participatory research projects based on disillusion with past experiences. We argue that the disappointment experienced by stakeholders and other participants (i.e., researchers and policy makers) can be avoided by being upfront and precise about how “participation” will be implemented, and what kind of involvement is expected from participants. Such a collective effort from the research community can also clarify the variety of possible implementations for potential participants. Building on earlier efforts to characterize and categorize the diversity of participatory research approaches, we develop a conceptual analytic procedural framework to make participants’ roles explicit in the implementation of different participatory research processes. This framework consists of three facets: (1) the flows of information among participants and the control over these flows for each step in a process, i.e., who will be expected to produce information, who will use this information, and who will receive the results; (2) the timing of the involvement of participants in the different steps of the research process, and the framing power that is associated with each process step; and (3) the organization of communication among participants for each information flow, i.e., in what configuration (bilaterally or as a group, mediated or face to face) the interactions among researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers will take place. This framework can accommodate a wide variety of research methods, and highlights exactly how participants are involved in research processes. We are prescriptive in dealing with the need to be procedurally explicit when engaging in participatory research. We anticipate that using this framework will lead to more thoughtful acceptances or refusals to participate in proposed research processes. Our framework is based on various experiences with participatory research. It is intended to be used from the very beginning of a participatory research process as a conceptual guide for researchers. We suggest a protocol to transform it into more practical guidelines for communicating about upcoming participatory research processes. The leader of such processes should propose at each key stage an explicit, yet adaptive, plan for the following stages. This plan should also specify in what ways participants will be involved, and how the plan itself can be questioned and revised.

Graduation Project at studio Border Conditions. A research on the human perception towards the awareness to its surrounding. In direct combination with the informal (post-Soviet) commercial developments and Western influences of commerce. This results to a complex shopping center in Odessa, Ukraine. Creating unique spaces for informal, commercial adoptions and more 'Western' shopping principles.

In spatial planning and environmental management, maps are found very helpful in many situations, but in other situations they may also deepen conflicts or be ignored. This paper addresses the question what explains such phenomena, with particular emphasis on, and reference to, collaborative policymaking settings in the Netherlands. We have elaborated the concept of ‘frames’ and ‘framing’ to structure and analyze the function of maps in the context of deliberative policymaking. With help of discourse analysis, a method adopted from the policy sciences, we have observed ongoing multi-actor processes and focused on discussions around maps in several case-studies. From the observations of both the maps themselves and the discussions and actions with the maps, we have interpreted the meaning and frames represented ‘in’ the map images, as well as the various perspectives of actors ‘on’ the collaborative use of the map. We have conceptualized three fundamentally different perspectives or frames on the function of maps in the decision-making process. The cross-frame debate over maps is illustrated with the recollection of one particular map-making example. We conclude that the conflicts observed in a number of case studies can be adequately explained with help of the three identified frames, and provide some recommendations for the profession of mapping. NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Environmental Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (6), 2009, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.033

Stakeholder participation is advocated widely, but there is little structured, empirical research into its influence on policy development. We aim to further the insight into the characteristics of participatory policy development by comparing it to expert-based policy development for the same case. We describe the process of problem framing and analysis, as well as the knowledge base used. We apply an uncertainty perspective to reveal differences between the approaches and speculate about possible explanations. We view policy development as a continuous handling of substantive uncertainty and process uncertainty, and investigate how the methods of handling uncertainty of actors influence the policy development. Our findings suggest that the wider frame that was adopted in the participatory approach was the result of a more active handling of process uncertainty. The stakeholders handled institutional uncertainty by broadening the problem frame, and they handled strategic uncertainty by negotiating commitment and by including all important stakeholder criteria in the frame. In the expert-based approach, we observed a more passive handling of uncertainty, apparently to avoid complexity. The experts handled institutional uncertainty by reducing the scope and by anticipating windows of opportunity in other policy arenas. Strategic uncertainty was handled by assuming stakeholders’ acceptance of noncontroversial measures that balanced benefits and sacrifices. Three other observations are of interest to the scientific debate on participatory policy processes. Firstly, the participatory policy was less adaptive than the expert-based policy. The observed low tolerance for process uncertainty of participants made them opt for a rigorous “once and for all” settling of the conflict. Secondly, in the participatory approach, actors preferred procedures of traceable knowledge acquisition over controversial topics to handle substantive uncertainty. This excluded the use of expert judgment only, whereas the experts relied on their judgment in the absence of a satisfactory model. Thirdly, our study provides empirical evidence for the frequent claim that stakeholder involvement increases the quality of the knowledge base for a policy development process. Because these findings were obtained in a case that featured good process management and a guiding general policy framework from higher authorities, they may not generalize beyond such conditions.

In Transport Sciences different implementations of Utility Theory are commonly used for the description and prediction of human choice behaviour. Almost 30 years ago Kahneman and Tversky proposed an alternative behavioural-economic model of choice behaviour called Prospect Theory. In contrast to Utility Theory they assumed that preference orders depend on the choice context. The most important differences between Extended Prospect Theory and Utility Theory are: preferences for one alternative over another are not stable but may change with the circumstances; people frame alternatives as changes compared to a reference state; they adapt that reference state almost immediately once a choice is made; and they attach a much higher value to a loss of, for example, ten minutes leisure time compared to an increase of the same size. This book demonstrates that in many occasions an Extended Prospect Theory explains the choice behaviour of people better than Utility Theory for the whole range of travel choice contexts. It also proposes a mathematical model based on Extended Prospect Theory that, compared to a similar Utility Theory-model, appeared to offer a better prediction of the responses of car owners in Singapore to the introduction and changes in the road pricing fares from 1975 to 2005.

In this thesis, the practice of map-making and map use is studied among actors involved in spatial planning and water management. The socio-technical mechanisms between knowlegde production and policymaking in Dutch regional planning make up the central object of study, with map images as observable artefacts. In many instances, maps seem to be magnets for conflict. Map images and their digital version embedded in geographic information systems (GIS) are generally described as helpful instruments that serve for supporting decision-making: but in many examples where multiple actors are involved, the policy maps that are used are surrounded by a lot of discussion. Connecting the literature fields of policy analysis and theory on (GIS-) cartography, Carton develops a framework of analysis with the concepts of frames and framing as central notions. With an argumentative research approach two cases are studied in-depth, to empirically analyze the functionality and effectiveness of maps from different actor perspectives. The first case reconstructs the making of a new long-term water policy in the region of water board Delfland. In the second case, a simulation game has been played with multiple actors of the province Brabant about a regional (urban/rural) spatial strategy. From the cases, three different frames of reference are identified, each with unique dominant values and inherent logic. These frames have either: - a scientific background where the map is considered a research model (analysis frame); - an attitude as creator or innovator where the map is considered to be a language to express one's ideas (design frame); - a political or negotiation attitude with corresponding assumptions and values where the map is considered a strategic agenda for making decisions (negotiation frame). It is argued that the differences between the three generalized frames 'analysis', 'design' and 'negotiation' explain many controversies over maps in the Netherlands that cannot be explained by 'simpler' explanations such as conflicting interests or information imbalance. Carton argues that this division of frames is part of the Dutch deliberative policymaking culture (referred to as "polder model"), and difficult to change. Furthermore, five strategies are identified how actors in practice cope with emerging map conflicts. On the basis of these findings, a number of recommendations are given for map makers/policy analysts in their work to support multi-actor policymaking.