at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e34

Contents lists available

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

Advancing the deliberative turn in natural resource management:An analysis of discourses on the use of local resources

Romina Rodela a,b,*

aWageningen University and Research Centre, Education and Competence Studies, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The NetherlandsbUniversity of Nova Gorica, School of Environmental Sciences, Vipavska 13, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 March 2011Received in revised form20 September 2011Accepted 23 October 2011Available online 25 November 2011

Keywords:Natural resource managementParticipatory nature protectionDeliberative turnDiscursive perspectiveGori�cko Landscape ParkSlovenia

* Wageningen University and Research Centre,Studies, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The N545 223.

E-mail address: romina.rodela@wur.nl.

0301-4797/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.013

a b s t r a c t

The natural resource management literature stresses the need for public participation and communityinvolvement in resource management and planning. Recently, some of this literature turned to thetheory on deliberative democracy and demonstrated that a deliberative perspective on participation canhelp to challenge established practices and contribute with new ideas about how to conductparticipation. The purpose of this paper is to consider the latest developments in deliberative democracyand outline the implications arising from these insights for a “deliberative turn” in resourcemanagement. A bottom-up protected area establishment, the Gori�cko Landscape Park, is examined. Theempirical case is discussed from a discursive perspective, which relied on John Dryzek’s approach todiscourse analysis here used to explore the construction of discourses on the use of local naturalresources. Two discourses are identified and the way these interfaced with the participatory parkestablishment process is considered. Findings indicate that advocates of the two discourses engageddifferently with the participatory tools used and this had important implications for the parkestablishment. The case study suggests that, in contexts where participation has been recentlyintroduced, knowledge of discourses on the use of local natural resources and of mobilization strategiesactors may pursue could usefully assist in the design and implementation of participatory processes.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Natural resource management is characterized by a web ofcompeting interests and claims, and by a degree of uncertainty. Inthe past, resource management was dominated by a controlparadigm based on technical solutions and top-down decisions.Recently this was challenged. A new awareness emerged thatresource management cannot be tackled by rigid approaches butrather it needs flexible and open decision-making processeswhich can cope with changing circumstances, diverse claims andcan integrate diverse value systems and knowledge (Reed, 2008;Pahl-Wostl, 2006; Steyaert et al., 2007). To achieve this, partici-patory approaches to decision-making processes are increasinglyused and defined as processes that engage stakeholders, i.e. thosewho are affected by, or can affect, a decision or an action, on

Education and Competenceetherlands. Tel.: þ39 (0)481

All rights reserved.

multiple levels of decision-making (Reed, 2008; Webler et al.,1995). However, participation can be understood and framed inmany ways. For instance those who have an interest in powerframe participation in terms of degrees of influence on the finaldecision (Arnstein, 1969; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000). Others,who have an interest in the transformative potential of partici-pation, focus on civic values, on collaborative relationships and onmoral sentiments (e.g. Daniels and Walker, 1996; Saarikoski,2000), as well as on learning processes (e.g. Pahl-Wostl, 2006;Steyaert et al., 2007).

Studies on what makes a good participatory process have longbeen part of the resource management literature (e.g. Beierle andCayford, 2002; Webler and Tuler, 2000). This research suggeststhat while the involvement of stakeholders has the potential toimprove the quality and durability of a decision, this is very ofteninfluenced by the quality of the very process that leads to it. Thus,when a process is fair and well managed, and when it benefitsfrom participants’ collaboration, the likelihood of reachinga quality decision seems to increase (Reed, 2008). The interest forprocesses elements is growing, researchers and practitioners arenow turning to approaches which emphasize the process and

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e34 27

give extended opportunities for an open debate, meaningfulengagement and reflective reasoning (Schusler et al., 2003). Ina recent analysis Parkins and Mitchell (2005) reflect on this. Theydraw upon the theory on deliberative democracy and suggesta deliberative democratic perspective on participation which theydistinguish from a resource management perspective on partici-pation. The analysis unfolds along three dimensions: i) outcomesvs. process, ii) representation vs. inclusion, and iii) interpersonaltrust vs. institutional trust. They suggest that a deliberativedemocratic perspective on participation would emphasize theprocess and its components, such as communication and thedevelopment of a shared understanding. It would be inclusionaryand integrate aspects of institutional trust, but most of all itwould introduce elements of public opinion formation. It is on thelater that we aim to reflect further.

To this end Elstub’s (2010) analysis of differences between thefirst, second and third generation of democratic theorists is ofinterest. Elstub (2010) argues that the third generation tends to bemore practical and interested in strategies for institutionalisingdeliberative democracy. An aspect captured in Hendriks (2006)discussion where she contends that theories on deliberativedemocracy diverge on the question of the scale and formality of‘deliberation’ and she suggests a distinction between two theo-retical approaches: a deliberative one concentrating on the idealconditions for reasoned discussion within a deliberative setting,and a discursive one interested in the less-structured debate thattakes place outside the formal decision-making procedures. Theaim of this paper is to take stock of these insights and reflect on theimplications that arise for the deliberative democratic perspective onparticipation in resource management.

To this end, in Section 2, we briefly summarize some of the latestadvances within the literature on deliberative democracy andconsider the relevance of these for resource management litera-ture. In Section 3 background information to the analytical case,a bottom-up protected area establishment is given. The aim herewas to analyze the participatory establishment by focusing on thediscourses on the use of natural resources. In this, the paper takesa discursive viewpoint and uses Dryzek’s (1997) approach todiscourse analysis. Section 4 details the methods of data collection.Section 5 focuses on the discourses on the use of local naturalresources and the way these interfaced with the participatoryprocess. Section 6 concludes the analysis.

2. Participation as deliberation

The theory on deliberative democracy developed within thepolicy literature as a critique of decision-making procedures thatare based on the aggregation of votes and the competition ofinterests (e.g. Benhabib, 1996; Bohman, 1996; Chambers, 2003).Chambers (2003) makes clear that although deliberative demo-cratic theorists vary in howcritical they are, deliberative democracyis not usually proposed as a replacement to the representativemodel. Rather, it is as an expansion of it with the citizen havinga more active role in political decisions, engaged in reasoneddiscussions side-by-side with the scientist and the bureaucrat(French and Laver, 2009; Goodin and Niemeyer, 2003). Asa normative theory, deliberative democracy seeks to bridge the gapbetween the preferences, needs and concerns of citizens and thedecisions made on their behalf by appointed representatives.Deliberative democracy is of interest to a range of ideologies. Forinstance, environmentalists see it as a promising method as itprovides the opportunity for thoughtful reflection about ourdependence on the natural environment (Elstub, 2006).

Parkins and Mitchell (2005) recognize in this theory an oppor-tunity to challenge established participatory practices within

natural resource management and examine key differencesbetween the two perspectives. Their analysis is grounded in theinsights of what Elstub (2010) identifies to be the first and secondgeneration of theorists, e.g. Jurgen Habermans, James Bohman. Theanalysis outlines the contours of what Parkins and Mitchell (2005)identify as being a deliberative turn in resource management andwhich they define as being focused on i) the process, trying tounderstand what fuels public discussion and how this influencesdecision-making; ii) the representation, looking into forms ofinternal and external exclusion; and iii) trust. In the following weextend their analysis to the insights found in the third generation ofdeliberative democratic theorists (as identified by Elstub, 2010),including Dryzek (1990, 1997), Hendriks (2006, 2007), Baber andBartlett (2005), and Fishkin (2009). Hendriks (2006) also shedslight on this body of knowledge: she contends that theories ofdeliberative democracy diverge on the question of the scale andformality of ‘deliberation’, i.e. communication centred on reasonedargument, and makes a distinction between a deliberative approachand a discursive approach. She refers to these as micro (deliberative)and macro (discursive) accounts of deliberative democracy.

Hence, a first group of research contributions (micro accounts),which she characterizes as taking a deliberative approach, arefocusing on the ideal conditions of a structured deliberative setting,have an interest in the procedural aspects of a deliberative forum(e.g. citizen juries, assemblies, consensus mapping) and in the typeof influence these settings have on those attending a session (someexamples; French and Laver, 2009; Goodin and Niemeyer, 2003;Setälä et al., 2010). In the specific, the assumption is that sessionsshould facilitate a convergence toward a shared outcome anda transformation of deliberators’ preferences. To achieve this,sessions shall involve open-minded participants willing to considerothers’ arguments and to adjust their own positions in the light ofa reasoned discussion (Elstub, 2010). Thosewho aremore interestedin pursuing specific agendas than expanding their perspective (e.g.partisan groups) might not make good deliberators (Young, 2001).Hence, research contributions within this stream seem to privilegedeliberation over participation (Elstub, 2010; Hendriks, 2006).These studies commonly use experimental designs with randomlyselected citizens. For instance, French and Laver (2009) report ona citizen jury experiment on waste incineration in Dublin (Ireland)where in a post-participation assessment they found significantcorrelations between participation and attitude formation, andlearning. Similarly, in a study of a citizen jury for a road infrastruc-ture, Goodin and Niemeyer (2003) found significant correlationsbetween participation, shifts in perspective and opinion formation.However, by focusing on the influence deliberative forums have oninternal-reflective processes this research discusses deliberativeforumsas isolatedmoments, and fails toexaminehowthese relate toand influence the wider policy context (Hendriks, 2006). Thisresearch takes the perspective fromwithin governmental agencies,donor organizations and investors looking outward toward thepublic,with little attention toopinion formationprocessesoccurringin less structured settings (Dodge, 2009). This last is a challengetaken up by the second group of research contributions.

A further group of research contributions (macro accounts),which Hendriks (2006) characterizes as taking a discursiveapproach, are interested in less structured settings, also known asthe public sphere. The public sphere is a discursive space whereordinary people meet and engage in an open discourse on issues ofshared interest, examples can include the town square, the marketbut also the Internet. The public sphere is the domain of socialmovements, activists, associations, and networks where discus-sions can occur face-to-face aswell as through themedia (Hendriks,2006). Particular ideas on issues such as environmental protectioncan be voiced within the public sphere and made politically

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e3428

relevant. Dryzek (1997, p. 8) refers to these communicativeprocesses as discourses, which he defines as “a shared way ofapprehending the world” that rest on shared ideas, judgments andcontentions about an issue, and are constructed out of basic termswhich support debate, analysis and agreement upon a given issuee.g., acid rain. Dryzek (1997) suggests a framework for the analysisof environmental discourses that includes four analytical devices: i)basic entities whose existence is recognized or constructed, ii)assumptions about natural relationships, iii) agents and theirmotives, and vi) key metaphors and their rhetorical devices. In thishe departs from earlier approaches to discourse analysis which arefocused on linguistic features of text, as he is interested in meaningand in the underlying assumptions that shape particular view-points. Differently from the previous group these studies commonlyare focused on processes that occur in a natural setting. In thespecific, these are investigating the type of mobilization activitiesundertaken by civil movements, associations and similar groups inorder to influence policy. For instance, Dodge (2009) reports ona study investigating a civil network which mobilized resources forthe pursuit of environmental and economic justice in New Mexico(USA). Montpetit et al. (2004) report on a case where a feministmovement mobilized meaning so as to influence health policy. Butalso, studies are investigating alternative mobilization strategies.Fischer (2006) reports on a movement in India, which chose tomobilizemeaning by integrating cultural and pedagogical strategiesso as to empower the local population, who then could influencelocal policy-making. Hendriks (2006) refers to this type of mobili-zation strategy as a dual orientation indicating that it can help toavoid communicative distortions within the public sphere since itallows the involvement of diverse publics who are differentlyequipped to participate in politics. Some parallels can be drawnbetween Hendriks’s (2006) discussion and Bächtiger et al. (2010)analysis of ‘deliberation’. They also suggest that current literaturediverges on how ‘deliberation’ is conceptualized and note howsome scholars see it as approximating the “ideal discourse” witha systematic weighing of rational arguments while others allow formore flexible forms of communication not centred on rationaldiscourse.

It is important to mention here that there are limitations to thetheory on deliberative democracy. Although we cannot explore thisaspect in detail a few points can bementioned. For instance scholarshighlight issues with the application of the deliberative ideal i.e. togive everyone a ‘say’ and assure that what eachmember say is takenwith equal weight (Mansbridge et al., 2010), while others point tofundamental differences across the population since some citizensare be better equipped to partake in deliberation than others(Sanders, 1997). But also, in a review of empirical literature, Carpiniet al. (2004) highlight that not all studies of real-world initiativesoffer positive evidence of the democratic benefits of publicdeliberation.

The aim of this paper is to take stock of the latest discussionswithin deliberative democracy and reflect on the implications ofHendriks’s (2006) synthesis for participation in natural resourcemanagement.

Table 1Key distinctions between a natural resource management perspective and a deliberative

Natural resource management Deliberative democracy:stream e deliberative ori

Key emphasis Decision-making and outcomes,e.g. the optimal decision

Procedural aspects and oreflective process

Representation Involvement of stakeholders,or their representatives (exclusive)

Inclusion of those affecteand reasoned deliberatio

Trust Interpersonal trust, in scientific,technical and political experts

Interpersonal trust, in sciand political experts

2.1. A deliberative turn in natural resource management: thedeliberative orientation vs. the discursive orientation

The natural resource literature has already drawn upon delib-erative democracy for the investigation of resource managementissues and suggested how a deliberative approach to participationcan benefit the resource system (e.g. Parkins and Mitchell, 2005;Webler et al., 1995). We extend this by discussing the implica-tions of the above insights for a “deliberative turn” in resourcemanagement and outline key differences between a deliberativeand a discursive approach to participation in resource manage-ment. The three dimensions as earlier suggested by Parkins andMitchell (2005) are used to this end: i) outcomes vs. process, ii)representation vs. inclusion, and iii) interpersonal trust vs. institu-tional trust (Table 1).

In terms of the first dimension, the process, research on naturalresource management that would choose to borrow insights fromthe deliberative orientation would seek to understand how to bestsupport the pursuit of the communicative ideal, the engagement ina meaningful dialogue, the exchange of positions and approxima-tion of mutual understanding. To this end of an interest are tech-niques/tools which are conductive to internal-reflective processesand which can allow learning about the issue at stake, sharing ofknowledge and giving arguments. Core to this would be groupdynamics and learning processes, and the ways these affect theindividual’s participatory experience. In contrast, research onnatural resource management that would choose to borrow fromthe discursive orientation would seek to understand opinionformation processes that take place outside the formally structured“participatory workshop”. This includes discourses which occur inthe public sphere and are about a public sharing of meanings.Concepts such as nature conservation, environmental quality, orenvironmental risk belong to socially produced viewpoints aboutthe world that surrounds us and are influenced by specific norms,values, and knowledge systems (Dryzek, 1997; Hajer, 1995). Theseviewpoints, or discourses, are socially produced understandingsthat convey deeper assumptions about the natural environmentand of an interest is the influence discourses have on resourcemanagement practices and use patterns. Yet, discourses are notabsolute and can be contested, or reconstructed, when the naturalenvironment and/or natural resources come to be seen in differentways. In this case, of an interest is how actors contribute to shapea particular discourse and participate in the contestation of estab-lished norms and values. Therefore, aspects of interest to thediscursive orientation on participationwould be the understandingof the opinion formation processes that lead to the formation, andcontestation, of discourses on the use of natural resources, and themobilization strategies that groups adopt in the pursuit of these.

There are implications for the second dimension, that of repre-sentation, too. The literature on deliberative democracy seeks tocapture a variety of values. Yet this entails certain challenges whenactors with diverse values need to get engaged in a meaningfuldebate. Drawing upon the work of Iris Marion Young, Parkins andMitchell (2005) reflect on forms of external and internal exclusion,

democratic perspective on participation (adapted from Parkins and Mitchell, 2005).

firstentation

Deliberative Democracy: secondstream e discursive orientation

n internal Opinion formation and discursive aspects that takeplace in the public sphere

d for an open, impartialn (exclusive)

Inclusion of those affected, including partisangroups (inclusive)

entific, technical Trust in institutions with a healthy level of criticism

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e34 29

indicating that a deliberative turn in resource management wouldaddress both. However, also on this point the theory on deliberativedemocracy diverges since the above outlined orientations havea different focus when it comes to questions of exclusion. Therefore,research on natural resource management that would choose toborrow from the deliberative orientation, and seek to achieve thecommunicative ideal, would tackle the question of how to involveparticipants into a meaningful debate. Under this perspectiveinternal exclusion would be addressed by granting deliberativespace and discursive means to all the participants. On the otherhand external exclusion may be overlooked and preference given tothose participants who are not strongly adhering to a particularposition and can be best engaged in meaningful debate. In thissense, the deliberative orientation can be seen as exclusive. Incontrast, a discursive orientation would pay a greater attention forboth internal and external exclusion associated with establisheddecision-making practices, as this approach supports the involve-ment of larger portions of the society, therefore covering differentviewpoints, including partisan groups. This is relevant to resourcemanagement practices, which are often characterized by a multi-tude of values and competing interests, and where it often happensthat partisan groups advance specific interests over a naturalresource (e.g., hunters’ claims over wildlife vs. environmentalists’claims over wildlife). Hence, of an interest to the discursive orien-tation to participation are aspects of external and internal exclu-sion. However, we cannot ignore the inequalities that are foundwithin the public sphere since people have different opportunitiesto participate and to contribute to the development of specificdiscourses. To this end an improved understanding of the mobili-zation strategies groups choose to pursue can help us to bettercomprehend external and internal exclusion. In turn this knowledgecan contribute to cope with issues of representation and couldusefully inform the design of participatory approaches.

In terms of the third dimension, that of trust, both orientationswould share the position that a degree of trust is needed fordeliberative democracy to function. Participants who entera deliberative forumneed to trust in the processes inwhich they areoperating, and need to trust the arguments advanced byfellow-participants are their own genuine opinions and do notserve a hidden agenda. Trust helps participants to engage ina discussion and thus contributes to the achievement of anoutcome that is seen to be fair and legitimate, even when it is notcompletely in line with the claims they initially brought to thesession. At the same time, in an atmosphere of trust, a degree ofcriticism is also welcome: it helps to question and challenge thearguments advanced and in so doing contributes to a reasoneddiscussion. A degree of trust is also instrumental for discussionwithin the public sphere and in this it goes beyond the known circleof members of an association where trust rests on interpersonalrelationships. Within the public sphere, trust allows citizens toengage with those outside the known group of like-minded people,with those holding opposing viewpoints (Chambers, 2003). That isnot to say that when actors with different viewpoints meet, theyhave to fully trust each other, but rather that they need to trust thatthe time and effort invested in the discussions will not be wasted.Hence, trust and a degree of healthy criticism would be of aninterest to both orientations.

Our analysis suggests that there can be advantages inaccounting for a discursive viewpoint to participation in resourcemanagement. In the specific, this could allow for an improvedunderstanding of the opinion formation processes on the use ofnatural resources, the claims stakeholders advance and the mobi-lization strategies used. We will now borrow some of the ideasadvanced by the discursive viewpoint and focus in the following caseon the process dimension.

3. The Gori�cko Landscape Park: a case study

This study is part of a larger investigation on participatoryapproaches and nature protection in Slovenia conducted bythe author. Here the part that addressed the establishment ofa landscape park (Krajinski park Gori�cko) is reported. The Gori�ckoLandscape Park (our translation), established in 2003, is a casewhere a bottom-up nature protection initiative succeeded to ach-ieve its objectives. Also, it is the first case which used a combinationof participatory tools meant to involve the local population. Theaim of the research reported here was to understand the initiativewhich has driven park establishment. To this end, we relied onDryzek’s (1997) approach to discourse analysis. He used thisanalytical approach to assess the environmental discourses ona global scale but later others have demonstrated that his approachcan be useful also to explore the construction of more specifictopics (e.g. Doulton and Brown, 2009). Dryzek’s (1997) analysis isbased on four analytical devices; basic entities, which existence isrecognized or constructed; assumptions, assumptions about thekinds of relationship that exist between different entities; agentsand motives, who key actors are, their interests and their motives;and metaphors and rhetorical devices, used to persuade by high-lighting some aspects over others. For the purpose of this studya fifth was added;management approach to natural resources, whichincludes ideas about how natural resources should be used andwhat management measures can best serve to this end. In this, theaim was to identify a) the discourses on the use of local resources,and to understand b) how these discourses have interfaced withthe participatory establishment process. Before discussing the case,we will provide some relevant background information on it.

3.1. Context

Gori�cko is a remote rural area of Pomurje region in the north-east of Slovenia (Fig. 1). It borders the Raab region (Austria) andthe }Orség region (Hungary), with which it shares the experience ofthe iron curtain and structural problems such as unemploymentand low economic performance. The Pomurje region is rich innatural resources; it has a fertile soil, abundant water streams anda favorable climate. Pomurje was, and still is, a region stronglycharacterized by agricultural production. During the period whenSlovenia was part of the Yugoslav Federation the Pomurje regionexperienced major transformations and in the specific the peasantsubsistence type of agriculture changed into a more professionalone.

As some have pointed out, the Yugoslav Federation inheritedEurope’s greatest agrarian over-population and the smallest farmsize. Throughout the socialist period it coped with this by imple-menting a series of agrarian reforms (Uvali�c, 1992). The earlyagrarian reforms targeted the socialization of agriculture by form-ing state-owned cooperatives and transferring private property tothe state. However, resistance to collectivization was strong and itremained half-enforced, e.g. in 1951 state-owned land was 5%,cooperative-owned 15%, and 80% remained private (Bi�cani�c, 1973).Later, after the clash with Stalin, further reforms aiming for marketsocialism and agricultural modernization were introduced (fordetails: Bi�cani�c, 1973). This agricultural modernization processresulted in severe pressure on the natural environment in Pomurje.From the 1970s onwards, the region was subject to pollution fromammonium, nitrate and phosphorus, with consequences for waterquality, biodiversity and also human health (Belovi�c et al., 2007;Moser et al., 2006). Moser et al. (2006) report on the Mura Riverpollution levels and comment that water quality was extremelypoor also because the up-stream Austrian paper industry was dis-charging wastewaters into the river. Bilateral agreements and

Fig. 1. Gori�cko Landscape Park, Slovenia. The figure is a map of the case study’s geographical location.

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e3430

advances in waste-water treatment plants reduced pollution by75% by the end of 1990s. Current monitoring indicates thatpollutants do not exceed authorized levels but remain high (Moseret al., 2006). After the Yugoslav breakdown in 1990 the region wasexposed to further issues; most state-owned agriculturalconglomerates and industry closed down, leading to a rise inunemployment levels and a drop in regional economic perfor-mance (Bibi�c, 1993; Tajnikar, 2001). Today, the agricultural sectorstill contributes to the regional economy and employs about 11% ofpopulation, but in general employment opportunities are limitedand locals seek employment elsewhere. Official reports warn thatthe region lags behind the national average on a number of indi-cators (RRA, 2007).

Against this background, in the mid-1990s a local initiative forthe establishment of a protected area in the region emerged inresponse to these issues. The initiators were a group of local actorswho engaged horizontally, with local inhabitants, as well as verti-cally, with national policymakers. Despite the initial resistanceencountered at both levels they succeeded in advancing thisinitiative. Major milestones include access to European funds,granted for a cross-border project, and the later agreement with theauthorities to put this park on the national priority list. The formerwas paramount for gaining policy status and led, as indicated in thenational legal framework for nature protection, to the Ministry ofthe Environment and Spatial Planning taking over the coordinationof the park establishment process. The Ministry designed anestablishment dossier and a consultancy firm (AHT Group AG) gotthe tender of 1,598,000 Euro. Over the course of one year, a numberof activities were undertaken, e.g. inventory of habitats, setting upa ranger service, awareness raising and public involvementactivities.

Public involvement activities consisted of two tools: workshopsand public consultations. The workshops were delivered in slots of15e20 h on a specific topic, e.g. agri-environmental measures, eco-

tourism and have involved 200 participants and 40 experts(Kristanc, 2003). These attracted local inhabitants who saw in thisprotected area an opportunity, or were interested to obtain furtherinformation. Local experts and activists acted as moderators anddeliberated with the participants on topics of local interest.Workshops provided extensive opportunities involvement andparticipants could “debate” issues of interest. This was the first timesuch workshops were used in the establishment of a protected areain Slovenia. Yet, claims that this is a sign of a deliberative turnwithinSlovene nature protection go with caution. Herewe understand theuse of workshops to be a learning outcome after a previouslyunsuccessful attempt to establish a protected area, the failure ofwhich is put down to weak public involvement (Ogorelec, 2002).However, a more detailed analysis of how the Slovene natureprotection policy positions in terms of participatory and delibera-tive ideals is beyond the scope of this paper.

On the other hand, public consultations are an establishedpractice in Slovenia. These were first introduced in the 1970s, whenSlovenia was part of the Yugoslav Federation, with the Act onspatial planning, so to inform locals on infrastructural projects.Today, this has changed and public consultations do not have onlyinformative purposes. These are held with the aim of bringingtogether the responsible authorities, the establishment team andthe local population that have a direct stake (Lavtar, 2007). Atconsultations the draft establishment act is presented, participantscan address the authorities, and the establishment team, withconcrete questions, objections and concerns. The authorities haveto respond by providing answers but do not need to act upon these.In the Gori�cko case consultations attracted a variety of participantsinclusive of those opposing and those supporting the parkestablishment.

Hence, in this case workshops and public consultations servedvery different purposes. Public consultations are mandatory andthe establishment team had to make sure these complied with the

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e34 31

legal framework i.e. that key aspects of the establishment act werepresented, that questions about these were collected and answersprovided. In the Gori�cko case a draft establishment act wasprepared by the establishment team in collaboration with expertsfor which reason consultations offered an opportunity to opendecision-making also to other stakeholders. Conversely, workshopshad no role in decision-making but were used to inform and engagelocals on specific activities. As a result, public consultations offeredmore opportunities for deliberation, i.e. communication centred onreasoned argument. At consultations the establishment team hadto explain the content of the draft establishment act and giveanswers to the objections raised, but also all participants had tojustify their claims and defend these against opposition.

4. Methods

Discourse analysis can be guided by a deductive or an inductiveresearch process (Doulton and Brown, 2009). Here discourseanalysis is taken as an analytical framework, which can support inthe identification of factors influencing the construction of thedifferent discourses. A critique of Dryzek’s (1997) work is thatcategories of discourse are established on the basis of historical andpolitical discussion, rather than empirical analysis (Barry andProops, 1999; Tuler, 1997). The research discussed here draws onempirical data. It is based on interviews which were triangulatedwith reports and other technical-scientific documents, books andjournal articles, and press releases.

Thirty-three semi-structured face-to-face interviews were heldbetween 2004 and 2007with respondents including state and localpublic servants, interest-group representatives, mayors, farmers,experts, and activists. Interviews lasted from 1.5 h to 3.5 h, weretape-recorded upon consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.The sampling method was snowballing, and the criteria forselecting respondents were involvement in the early park initiativeand/or participation at workshops, and knowledge about localaffairs. Data saturation was the criterion for closure (Patton, 2002).Respondents were interviewed about the following topics: localgovernance; the park initiative; the process that had driven it; andparticipatory workshops. Interviews were triangulated withtechnical-scientific documents, journal articles and press releases.To this end a search was conducted in a later time througha national bibliographic database (COBISS/OPAC) that brings

Table 2Analytical framework: two discourses on the use of Pomurje’s natural resources (adapte

Discourse 1: agricultural m

Basic entities whose existence is recognized MarketPricesTechnologyConsumers

Assumption about natural resources Dominance and control of snatural resources/exploitati

Agents and their motives State authoritiesAgricultural cooperativeLarge farm enterprises

Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices Pomurje as the Slovene gra(�zitnica Slovenije)An underdeveloped rural aNeed for more state interve

Management approaches to natural resources Extensive agricultural prodPig and cattle farmsRegulation of water streamAmelioration of water streaUse of pesticides and herbiHides/forgets items of ruralas these constitute a displa

together peer-reviewed and media text. Search terms includedPomurje, Gori�cko, natural resources, and rurally. Retrieved itemswere screened for relevancy. In addition contact was made withSlovene institutions (Court of Audit, Ministry of the Environment,Ministry of Agriculture, Environmental Agency, Regional Develop-ment Agency, Regional Health Unit, the Park Headquarters) andother organizations (e.g. environmental groups) which gave accessto reports and briefs not accessible via the bibliographic database.Hence, 50 media articles, 18 reports, 35 peer-reviewed publicationsconstitute our secondary data. Each of the data source (i.e. tran-scripts, reports, media articles, and publications) was analyzed byapplying the above five analytical devices. Then by examining thekind of statements made, the issues raised and the impliedassumptions two discourses were identified.

There are a few limitations to this study. A first limitation relatesto the fact that the conceptual framework (Table 1) was discussedagainst only one empirical case. A second limitation relates to thelimited number of interviews used for the analysis. Also, theempirical analysis would have benefited if we could have accoun-ted for all the three dimensions but due to limited funding had tofocus on one only.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Two discourses on the use of natural resources

Data indicates the existence of two discourses on the use ofnatural resources in the region; one that supports agriculturalmodernization, while the other supports environmental quality(Table 2). Both played a part in the park establishment process andare still influencing management practices in Pomurje.

Key for understanding the two discourses is the way Yugoslavagrarian reforms were implemented. At that time, there was stronginterest in improving agricultural production, and severalmeasureswere taken, including providing farmers with loans and investingin agricultural machinery (Uvali�c, 1992). Respondents report thatthe landscape changed greatly during this period. The traditionalpatchwork of small plots was transformed into a monoculturepattern of large field surface. Interventions on water streams weremade to better fit the irrigation needs of the newly introducedcrops (Klemen�ci�c, 1991). Data indicates that this period wasdominated by a discourse which supported an intensive use of

d from Dryzek, 1997).

odernization Discourse 2: environmental quality and rural wellbeing

Local economyOrganic productsTradition and heritageRural people

ociety overon.

Natural resources are needed forhuman well-being. These are subject to pressureswhich need to be reduced.Local activistsSmall farmersAssociations and NGOs

nary

reantion

A healthy environmentA pristine and traditional rural regionClean drinking waterBuy local from farmers

uction

smscidesheritage

y of poverty.

Small and diversified plotsAgri-environmental measures for habitat maintenanceSoft management of water streamsLimitations on pesticides and herbicidesOrganic agricultureHighlights the value of local natural and culturalrural heritage

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e3432

natural resources through the modernization of agriculture. Theactors advancing this position were state institutions and cooper-atives. Having access to political power, they conducted most of theactivities in a top-down manner, and because of the dominantsocialist ideology the local inhabitants (although not all) saw themas legitimate. The motives behind these discourses were intrinsi-cally political and included food security and popular consent overpolicy choices, for which the rhetorical devices used appealed tosentiments present in the region, highlighting specific needs andissues such as poverty, food security and marginalization. Later,with the fall of state socialism, new actors emerged, e.g. largeprivate agri-business enterprises, and took over the discourse onagricultural modernization. Together with a fraction of state insti-tutions, e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Agencies, theseadapted the rhetoric along changes of the economic and politicalsystem and the values it represents. The rhetorical devices nowused include regional competitiveness, efficiency, employmentopportunities and technological solutions.

Even though during the Yugoslav period, some locals mighthave not agreed with the agricultural modernization discourse, theinterview data gives no indication of major counter-positions priorto the 1980s and indicates that those who disagreed would do sowith caution. For instance, one respondent said that when in the1980s a neighbor of hers experimented with some organic produce,others looked at him with suspicion and soon after a poor harvesthe abandoned any further attempts. It should not be forgotten thatdespite the semi-liberal model, criticism of established practicesand/or ideology was not well received in Yugoslavia. Hence, it isdifficult to talk about a public sphere in the sense, as defined by thedeliberative accounts, prior to Slovene independence. Yet thepolitical elite tolerated forms of association when these pursueda non-political agenda, and these were many. e.g. Tourist andMountaineering Society, Hunting League. For which reason itwould also be wrong to assume that after independence the publicsphere had to be created in a vacuum. A structure did exist, but itsscope and activities had to be redefined. Bibi�c (1993, p. 368),a leading Slovene political scientist, stated that in Slovenia thesegroups “played a crystallizing role with regard to the entire processof political transformation”. They were instrumental in creatinga favorable climate for the fast development of associationalactivities in an independent Slovenia: a circumstance which hascontributed to the emergence of a counter-discourse on the use oflocal natural resources already in the early 1990s.

In the 1990s, some first reports onwater and soil pollutionweremade publicly available. One respondent commented that thesereports contributed to a sense of dissatisfaction and concern whichformed in response to the then emerging structural issues. Thedominant agricultural model began to be questioned and a counter-discourse, on the use of local resources, formed within a circle ofcritically oriented inhabitants. Interview data indicates some of thestepping stones toward the formation of this discourse. Forinstance, an important landmark was a cross-border event bringingtogether activists, practitioners and landscape planners from thethree neighboring regions of Gori�cko (SI), }Orség (H), and Raab (ATS)(Fig. 1). On that occasion, issues these regions shared, e.g. envi-ronmental pollution and unemployment, were discussed and anagreement was reached that a transnational protected area couldhelp in the pursuit of a more sustainable rural development(De�snik, 2004). In Slovenia, this meant the protection of thenorthern Pomurje, the Gori�cko area. Further landmarks were thesuccessful applications to European funds used for preparatoryactivities, as well as the later signing of a trilateral agreementbetween the three countries endorsing the transnational park.

Participants in this event linked up with other local actors andtogether they began to advocate a counter-discourse that contested

the prevalent type of intensive agriculture and supported moresustainable uses of natural resources, multifunctionality, and diver-sification of the rural economy. The advocates of the counter-discourse contended that establishing a protected area would helpto achieve this goal. Theydeconstructed thenatural environment intosoil, water, and biodiversity, which featured in the rhetorical devicesused,e.g. soil andwaterpollution. Yet, unlike theprevious, advocatesofthe counter-discourse used positive images of rural heritage high-lighting rural identity and local tradition and success stories of parksestablished in similar regions. Local rural heritage turned intoa resource andbegan to be showcased. For instance a respondent toldus about the renovation of an old family managed watermill whichwas turned into an educational centre and a museum.

‘The park was presented as an opportunity for this area. Peoplelook at this as an opportunity that could contribute to improveour living standards. We saw an opportunity and around thistime with my wife started to re-adapt this old mill. Once itsupplied our village and other villages nearby, but then thingschanged, you don’t need awindmill today. For many years it wasabandoned but now this [educational centre] is a new oppor-tunity for us.’

The mobilization strategy used by the advocates of the counter-discourse sought to influence locals’ opinion, to gain resources andto create alliances. First they tried to build up a sense of urgencyand emphasize the need for change in the region. Then they soughtalliances with nodes in the public sphere such as associations andother local groups. But they also engaged with decision-makerslocally (e.g. mayors) and nationally (e.g. the Ministry). This dualorientation strategy was fruitful. They needed the Ministry’ssupport for taking formal steps, e.g. passing the Decree. Theyneeded local support and partnerships that could help to accessfinancial resources (applications for EU grants) and assist inpromoting of the initiative throughout the region. A respondentwho was an activist in this grassroots movement reported thatcross-border projects were instrumental to this end.

‘Wetried togain local approvalfirst andbegan to talkwithmajorsand local exponents, but also with the inhabitants. Cross-bordercooperation helped to get some positive results. In 1998 we gota cross-border project funded from EU funds [Phare CBC], so wecould organize activities and get involved with the population.’‘Thenwe had a project approved for the pre-park establishmentand for the restoration of the Grad castle. We got Europeanfinancial resources for 4 years [Phare Program]. This wasunderstood as an opportunity also by othermunicipalities in theregion. In that year, the Gori�ckomunicipalities together receivedabout 5 million Euros of European support.’

What emerges from this is that the dual-orientation strategy(horizontally and vertically) the advocates of the counter-discourseused has worked well. Also, the success in accessing funds at anearly stage was important for getting the support of local decision-makers who then helped to mainstream the Gori�cko Park into thenature protection agenda at national level. By the end of the 2000,all of the 11 municipalities supported this initiative and in the sameyear a start was made of the formal part of the establishmentprocess supervised by the Ministry.

5.2. How did discourses interfaced with the participatory process?

Having identified two discourses of an interest was to under-stand how these discourses have interfaced with the participatoryprocess. The Slovene legal framework for nature protectionmandates the integration of interventions of this type with

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e34 33

measures and activities meant to inform and involve the localpopulation. TheMinistry of the Environment is expected to appointan establishment team which coordinates the park establishmentprocess, including measures for public involvement. In this case,this meant workshops in addition to the legally prescribed consul-tations and differences between the two were clarified above.

Interview data suggests that workshops attracted mostly thosewho already supported the park idea and those who sympathizedwith it but needed further information to make up their minds. Thepromoters of the park initiative and advocates of the counter-discourse frequently attended the workshops and occasionallyacted as moderators. Attendance by those opposing the park wasrare, and so the rhetoric used by the discourse on environmentalquality prevailed (e.g. the park as an opportunity). As a conse-quence, workshops have become an additional tool for promotingthe protected area.

‘Those who went to courses and workshops all saw an oppor-tunity. Personally, as a craft entrepreneur, I saw an opportunity.A park tells you that this is about tourism. In my opinion,a protected area, its nature, is worth a visit.’‘We now have a different approach to nature and to culturalheritage, and that is because somebody else has pointed outwhat we have. Years back this was not at all a concern./.now Ihave the impression that this has changed. Whether that isbecause of the park I don’t know. It probably helped in someways, but people are now interested in more sustainable formsof local development.’

Discussions at these settings were focused on the positiveaspects of protected areas and since there was limited opposition,workshops have greatly contributed to the rise of strong expecta-tions that this park would improve the quality of life in the Gori�ckoarea. Several respondents mentioned having hoped that the parkwould bring job opportunities and other benefits which, years afterthe establishment, they felt had not occurred, leaving themdisappointed.

‘I would have been happy if this [the Park] could have broughtsome new employment opportunities.’‘They spent all this money and people haven’t received anythingmore than lectures, workshops, excursions./. you see peoplehave expectations that besides the projects something moreconcrete will be done.’‘[P]eople were waiting a long time. The worst was when prob-lems in selling farmland started. This means that they have notexperienced many positive outcomes but only bureaucracy,which is a negative thing as it has complicated things.’

In contrast, public consultations attracted a wider variety ofworldviews. Actors advocating agricultural modernization andthose opposing the park were more interested in consultationsthan workshops. At consultations, the decision-makers werepresent and this allowed for a degree of negotiation. The presenceof park opponents greatly influenced the discussions, which weremore critical. Two specific elements were contested: the parkboundary and the level of protection. The former was contested bysome large farm enterprises and two municipalities, since they didnot agree to the inclusion of the southern territories, wheresubstantial agricultural production took place. They also contestedthe possibility of a stringent protection regime, as they were con-cerned about the implications this would have for local resourceuse. Resistance was substantial and the establishment team took itseriously. This was not, however, because a particular argument oreconomic interest dominated but, as reported by a respondent whowas in the establishment team, because they hoped to avoid thetype of objection raised in an earlier case where locals blocked the

establishment process. The result of this was a consensus on thedesignation of a landscape park, instead of a regional park asinitially proposed, excluding part of the southern territories. Bothoutcomes, giving the highly anthropogenic character of this land-scape, were seen as legitimate by the advocates of the counter-discourse. Therefore, public consultations performed better interms of accommodating a plurality of viewpoints, with argumentsboth for and against the park represented. However, the waycommunication occurred, both toward and from the source ofauthority, meant that the discussion had little effect on partici-pants’ attitudes and preferences or the worldviews shaping them.In this sense, it seems that the deliberative potential of participa-tory tools used was undermined.

In an earlier empirical study Hendriks (2005) concludes that theproductivity of a deliberative procedure is closely linked to theextent to which policy actors legitimize the process and endorsethe outcomes. In our case this specific aspect was present but notyet sufficient to guarantee a productive discursive participation.Here, it was the way advocates of competing discourses chose tointerface with the participatory tools that had a major influence onthe way participants engaged with the participatory process. Thosesupporting agricultural modernization saw little use in workshopsand chose to join consultations where they could directly addressdecision-makers, while those supporting environmental qualityused participatory workshops to influence public opinion. Thediscursive interactions during the workshops and consultationswere verymuch influenced by the dynamics that took place outsidethe deliberative procedure.

To conclude, this analysis supports earlier claims about the needto open up the study of deliberative democracy to broad publicdiscourse (Dodge, 2009) and in the specific it suggests that thereare advantages in knowing how mobilization strategies positionvis-a-vis the participatory process. Hence, a discursive viewpoint toparticipation in resource management could help practitioners togo beyond design features narrowly focused on participatory toolsand gather a better understanding of power and role local groupshave in a natural resource context. Second, it could help to betterunderstand the opinion formation processes on the use of naturalresources and the claims stakeholders advance as a result. Third,a discursive viewpoint could also offer some input for those inter-ested in understandingwhy some deliberative interactions turn outto be more productive than others.

6. Conclusions

Discussions on the relevance the theory on deliberativedemocracy has for natural resource management are nowemerging (e.g. Healy, 2009; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005; Webleret al., 1995). In this paper we draw from some recent literature todemonstrate that a “deliberative turn” in resource managementwould comprise also a discursive orientation that includes ideas ondeliberation as public debate. Differences between a deliberativeand a discursive approach to participation in resource managementwere outlined and an empirical case analyzed. The case wasapproached from a discursive viewpoint and Dryzek’s (1997)approach to discourse analysis used in the investigation ofa participatory protected area establishment in Slovenia. Twodiscourses on the use of local natural resources were identified. Oneof the discourses supports an extensive use of natural resources(agricultural modernization) while the counter-discourse supportsnature protection and rural well-being (environmental quality). Thefindings indicate that advocates of the two discourses choose toengage differently with the establishment process and this hadimplications on the deliberative potential of the participatory toolsused and also on the final outcome. The empirical case suggests

R. Rodela / Journal of Environmental Management 96 (2012) 26e3434

that discourses on the use of natural resources not only influencethe type of claims advanced and the way local groups perceivemanagement alternatives, but also discourses can influence theproductivity of discursive participation.

This study confirms earlier findings (e.g. Dodge, 2009) andsuggests that whether a participatory tool (e.g. workshop, consul-tation) will be able to meet certain deliberative standards does notdependon skilful design and facilitation alone, on the contrary this isvery much influenced by forces that take shape within the publicsphere. In this, the discursive orientation opens up the study ofparticipatory resource management to include the type of deliber-ative communication that takes place in the public sphere andinvolves negotiation overmeaning and opinion formationprocesseson the use of natural resources, and the resulting mobilizationstrategies that local groups may choose to pursue. To date limitedresearch has been done about how advocates of competingdiscourseson theuseof natural resources interactwithparticipatoryprocesses and the impact this has on the process and the outcome.Future research may study the elements that contribute to theformation of discourses and counter-discourses, theway discoursesrelate to questions of representation and the role of interpersonaland institutional trust. Also, of interest is how discourses influenceboth environmental policy and resource management practices.

Acknowledgements

Part of the work discussed here has benefited from supportgiven by the IDARI project, financed under the Fifth EuropeanCommission’s Framework Programme. This research commencedwhen the author was pursuing a D.Phil. at the University of Sussex,UK, and continued during her appointment at the School of Envi-ronmental Sciences of the University of Nova Gorica, SI. Currentlyshe is funded by FP7-Marie Cure Actions-IEF. The author gratefullyacknowledges Daniela Teixeira da Costa Ribeiro for providing themap of the area; the Slovene Court of Audit, the Gori�cko ParkHeadquarters, the Regional Development Agency, and the Envi-ronmental Agency for giving access to reports and other docu-ments; and the respondents for their availability. The author wouldlike to thank three autonomous reviewers for their comments.

References

Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the AmericanInstitute of Planners 35, 216e224.

Baber, W.F., Bartlett, R., 2005. Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy andEcological Rationality. MIT Press, London.

Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R., Steiner, J., 2010. Disen-tangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blindspots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy 18, 32e63.

Barry, J., Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology.Ecological Economics 28, 337e345.

Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Envi-ronmental Decisions. Cambridge University Press.

Belovi�c, B., Fujs, A., Aladi�c, S., Krajnc-Nikoli�c, T., 2007. Stal�s�ca in Odnos PrebivalcevPomurja do Naravnega Okolja. Zavod za Zdravstveno Varnost, Murska Sobota.

Benhabib, S., 1996. Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In:Benhabib, S. (Ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of thePolitical. Princeton University Press, Princeton (NJ), pp. 67e94.

Bibi�c, A., 1993. The emergence of pluralism in Slovenia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 26, 367e386.

Bi�cani�c, R., 1973. Economic Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia, Cambridge.Bohman, J., 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. MIT

Press, Cambridge (MA).Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L., Jacobs, L.R., 2004. Public deliberation, discursive partici-

pation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. AnnualReview of Political Sciences 7, 315e344.

Chambers, S., 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of PoliticalScience 6, 307e326.

Daniels, S., Walker, G., 1996. Collaborative learning: improving public deliberationin ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review16, 71e102.

De�snik, S., 2004. The Future of the Cultivated Landscape in the Three-lateral ParkGoricko-Raab-Órseg, Nature Parks e Prospects for Rural Areas in Europe, 29thOctober Leipzig.

Dodge, J., 2009. Environmental Justice and deliberative democracy: how socialchange organizations respond to power in the deliberative system. Policy andSociety 28, 225e239.

Doulton, H., Brown, K., 2009. Ten years to prevent catastrophe?: discourses ofclimate change and international development in the UK Press. Global Envi-ronmental Change 19, 191e202.

Dryzek, J.S., 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science.Cambridge University Press, New York.

Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Elstub, S., 2006. A double-edged sword: the increasing diversity of deliberativedemocracy. Contemporary Politics 12, 301e319.

Elstub, S., 2010. The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political StudiesReview 8, 291e307.

Fischer, F., 2006. Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment. TheAmerican Review of Public Administration 36, 19e40.

Fishkin, J.S., 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and PublicConsultation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

French, D., Laver, M., 2009. Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotagethrough withdrawal in citizens’ juries. Political Studies 57, 422e450.

Goodin, R.E., Niemeyer, S.J., 2003. When does deliberation begin? Internal reflectionversus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 51, 627e649.

Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Moderniza-tion and the Policy Process. Clarendon, Oxford.

Hendriks, C., 2005. Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberativeforums. Policy Sciences 38, 1e20.

Hendriks, C.M., 2006. Integrated deliberation: reconciling civil society’s dual role indeliberative democracy. Political Studies 54, 486e508.

Healy, S., 2009. Toward an epistemology of public participation. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 90, 1644e1654.

Klemen�ci�c, V., 1991. Prekmurje kot Obmejno Periferno Obmo�cje v Sloveniji Geo-grafske problematika severovzhodne. Slovenije 8, 108e124.

Kristanc, J., 2003. Slovenija Bogatejsa za Nov Park e Krajinski Park Gori�cko. Okoljein Prostor 972.

Lavtar, R., 2007. Sodelovanje Prebivalcev v Slovenskih Ob�cinah. In�stitut za lokalnosamoupravo. Maribor.

Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A.,Lafont, C., Manin, B., Martí, J.L., 2010. The place of self-interest and the role ofpower in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 18, 64e100.

Montpetit, É., Scala, F., Fortier, I., 2004. The paradox of deliberative democracy: thenational action committee on the status of women and Canada’s policy onreproductive technology. Policy Sciences 37 (2), 137e157.

Moser, J., Kovach, Á., Soltes, I., 2006. Environmental Situation at the Triangle Aus-triaeHungaryeSlovenia. The Austrian Court of Audit, Vienna.

Ogorelec, B., 2002. Establishing a Nature Park: Lessons Learnt, LE ALPI- culture delterritorio e futuro sostenibile, Centro Congressi Accademia Europea, Bolzano.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. The Importance of social learning in restoring the multi-functionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11, 10.

Parkins, J.R., Mitchell, R.E., 2005. Public participation as public debate: a deliberativeturn in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 18, 529e540.

Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications,London.

Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management:a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417e2431.

RRA, 2007. Regionalni Razvojni Program Pomurje 2007e2013. Regionalna razvojnaagencija, Mura, Murska Sobota.

Sanders, L., 1997. Against deliberation. Planning Theory 25, 347e376.Saarikoski, H., 2000. Environmental impact assessment as a collaborative learning

process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20, 681e700.Setälä, M., Grönlund, K., Herne, K., 2010. Citizen deliberation on nuclear power:

a comparison of two decision-making methods. Political Studies 58, 688e714.Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J.P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., Roche, B.,

2007. The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning amongstakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic CoastalWetlands. Environmental Science and Policy 10, 537e550.

Schusler, M.T., Decker, J.D., Pfeffer, J.M., 2003. Social learning for collaborativenatural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 15, 309e326.

Tajnikar, M., 2001. Transitional adjustment of large companies in Slovenia andeconomic policy. Post-Communist Economies 13, 331e344.

Tuler, S., 1997. A book review of: the politics of the earth: environmental discoursesby J. Dryzek. Contemporary Human Ecology 5, 65e66.

Uvali�c, M., 1992. Investment and Property Rights in Yugoslavia: the Long Transitionto a Market Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., Renn, O., 1995. Public participation in impact assessment:a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15,443e463.

Webler, T., Tuler, S., 2000. Fairness and competence in citizen participation.Administration and Society 32, 566e595.

Wondolleck, J.M., Yaffee, S.L., 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons fromInnovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington.

Young, I.M., 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29,670e690.