...
首页> 外文期刊>Environment and planning >Analysis and democracy: the antecedents of the deliberative approach of ecosystems valuation
【24h】

Analysis and democracy: the antecedents of the deliberative approach of ecosystems valuation

机译:分析与民主:生态系统评估审议方法的前身

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

As a political institution, open deliberation on public policy can enhance legitimacy and procedural justice. As a science, decision-aiding deliberative procedures can help overcome bounded rationality of individuals. Integrating the two modes of inquiry would be perfect for capturing the plural values of the environment. However, the analytic requirements seem to point in a different direction from the political ideals. Legitimacy problems arise when the supposedly unconstrained process is professionally 'guided'. But rigorous decision aids fail to work without some degree of cognitive guidance. A trend in ecosystems valuation research is the use of analytic techniques in the deliberative processes of value articulation. In this paper an analytic - deliberative approach is assessed against a deliberative democracy theory. This approach seeks to facilitate deliberation within individuals and to engineer preference towards instrumental rationality. The evaluative framework allows predetermination of the range of outcomes. Little room has been made for value debates, thus the moral need for actual discussion is weak. Being expert centred, the framework provides constricted spaces for empowerment. Alternative expressions unintelligible to the science may be put at a disadvantage. The scope for a reflexive democratic institution appears limited. A promising deliberative valuation approach should be integrative, including analytic and political elements as complementary to each other, and should be democratic in its production.
机译:作为一个政治机构,对公共政策的公开审议可以增强合法性和程序正义。作为一门科学,辅助决策的审议程序可以帮助克服个人的有限理性。整合两种查询模式对于捕获环境的多种价值将是完美的。但是,分析要求似乎指向与政治理想不同的方向。当所谓的不受限制的过程受到专业“指导”时,就会出现合法性问题。但是,如果没有某种程度的认知指导,严格的决策辅助工具将无法正常工作。生态系统估值研究的一种趋势是在价值表达的审议过程中使用分析技术。在本文中,针对协商民主理论评估了一种分析协商方法。这种方法旨在促进个人内部的商议,并设计对工具理性的偏爱。评估框架可以预先确定结果的范围。价值辩论几乎没有余地,因此进行实际讨论的道义需求微弱。以专家为中心,该框架提供了狭窄的授权空间。科学无法理解的替代表达可能会处于不利地位。自反性民主制度的范围似乎是有限的。一种有前途的审议性评估方法应是综合性的,包括相互补充的分析和政治因素,并且在其生产中应民主化。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environment and planning 》 |2011年第6期| p.958-974| 共17页
  • 作者

    Alex Y Lo;

  • 作者单位

    Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Parklands Drive,QLD 4222, Australia;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号