The Future Search Conference is one of the most innovative methods for stakeholder involvement employed in Local Agenda 21 processes. This chapter seeks to evaluate the contribution of the Future Search Conference method to enhancing the quality of local decision-making in the context of Local Agenda 21. The chapter provides empirical evidence from a German and an English case study and reviews it from the normative perspective of collaborative planning theory. It concludes by proposing guidance for the successful employment of the Future Search Conference method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. London: University of California Press.
Blaug, R. (1996). New developments in deliberative democracy. Politics, 16(2), 71–78.
Bunker, B. B.&Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system for rapid change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769–784.
Durant, J. (1995). An experiment in democracy. In S. Joss&J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology&Human Values (15), 226–243.
Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26, 165–187.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. London: University of Chicago Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from Atlanta's Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 335–349.
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building. A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472.
Joss, S. (1995). Evaluating consensus conferences: Necessity or luxury? In S. Joss&J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London:Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII.
Kuper, R. (1997). Deliberating waste: The Hertfordshire citizens' jury. Local Environment, 2(2),139–153.
Levett, R. (1997). Tools, techniques and processes for municipal management. Local Environment,2(2), 189–202.
Lincoln, Y. S.&Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation. no.30. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J.,&Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth.London: Earth Island.
New economics foundation (1998). Participation works! 21 techniques of community participation for the 21st century. London: New economics foundation.
Oels, A. (2000). ‘Let's get together and feel alright!’ Eine kritische Untersuchung von ‘;Agenda 21’-Prozessen in England und Deutschland. In H. Heinelt&E. Mühlich (Hrsg.), Lokale ‘Agenda 21’-Prozesse Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Oels, A. (2002). Investigating the emotional roller-coaster ride: A case-study-based assessment of the future search conference design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19: 347–355.
Oels, A. (2003). Evaluating stakeholder participation in the transition to sustainable development.Methodology, case studies, policy implications. Münster, Germany: LITVerlag.
Oels, A. (2006). Evaluating stakeholder dialogues. In S. Stoll-Kleemann&M. Welp (Eds.),Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Theory and practice. Berlin: Springer.Oppermann, B.&Langer, K. (2002). Die Qualität partizipativer und kooperativer Projekte in der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Arbeitsbericht der Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung Nr. 226, Dezember 2002. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg.
O'Riordan, T.&Voisey, H. (Eds.) (1998). The transition to sustainability. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan.
Polanyi, M. F. D. (2002). Communicative action in practice: Future Search and the pursuit of an open, critical and non-coercive large group process. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 19(4), 357–366.
Rossi, J. (1997). Participation run amok: The costs of mass participation for deliberative agency decisionmaking. Northwestern University Law Review, 92(1), 173–249.
Rowe, G.&Frewer, J. L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.Science, Technology&Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.
Selle, K. (Ed.) (1996). Planung und Kommunikation. Gestaltung von Planungsprozessen in Quartier, Stadt und Landschaft. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxiserfahrungen. Wiesbaden,Germany/Wien: Bauverlag.
Senge, P. M. (1998). The fifth discipline. The art&practice of the learning organization (reprint of the 1993 edition). London: Century Business.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin&Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Street, P. (1997). Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to sustainable urban living? Futures, 29(2), 139–158.
Tewdwr-Jones, M.&Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1975–1989.
Tewdwr-Jones, M.&Thomas, H. (1998). Collaborative action in local plan-making: Planners'perceptions of ‘planning through debate’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,25, 127–144.
United Nations (1992) Agenda 21. New York: UN publication.
Voβ, J-P., Bauknecht, D.,&Kemp, R. (Eds.) (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Webler, T. (1995). ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn,Webler, T.,&Wiedemann, P. (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Weisbord, M. R.&Janoff, S. (1995). Future search. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Weisbord, M. R.&Janoff, S. (1996). Future search: Finding common ground in organizations and communities. Systems Practice, 9(1), 71–84
Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Wilcox, D. (1994). The guide to effective participation. Brighton, UK: Delta.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oels, A. (2009). The Power of Visioning: The Contribution of Future Search Conferences to Decision-Making in Local Agenda 21 Processes. In: Coenen, F.H.J.M. (eds) Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9325-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9325-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9324-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9325-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)