Linking the communicative turns in democracy, learning, planning, and resource management: Toward a conceptual framework for environmental planning and decision making

There is wide agreement that our current patterns of resource use and environmental management are unsustainable. In democratic societies the norms which define the range of acceptable actions, including those regarding resource use and environmental management, are in part developed and articulated through planning and decision making that is presumed to reflect public opinion and will and to be in the affected public's best interest. However, justifying this presumption in diverse societies is problematic given their inherent plurality of value orientations, perspectives, and perceived interests, and this is especially difficult when confronting environmental issues that are typically characterized by complexity, uncertainty, often obscure interdependencies, and which frequently provoke intense conflicts. The liberal-democratic model of decision making, guided by aggregating the preferences of private citizens, has often exacerbated conflicts, left various publics voiceless in the process, and produced ecologically irrational decisions. As well, critical theory argues that existing democratic institutions often obscure hegemonic flows of power in society that are steered by economic and administrative imperatives and serve to advance the interests of established power-holders at the environment and public's expense.;In response to these perceived limitations, a communicative turn has emerged throughout the social sciences, much of which builds on Jurgen Habermas' description of the ideals of discourse. This turn assumes that individuals may, through discourse on a topic, come to understand one another across their various differences such that their knowledge and perspectives are enlarged and enriched with understandings they had not previously appreciated. Preferences and interests are thus developed out of learning through discursive interaction, which may be transformative, and so diversity and difference are not obstacles to be overcome, but rather are vital resources for achieving reasoned agreements.;Building on this communicative turn, this research begins with a critical review of the literature on deliberative democracy, transformative learning, communicative planning, resource and environmental management, and ecological democracy. From this a solid theoretical basis is established for an inclusive, deliberative approach to planning and decision making in environmental contexts that holds the potential to: develop and articulate legitimate public opinion and will; steer governmental and administrative processes in the direction of the general public interest; create new social linkages that build social capital and solidarity and carry the potential to transform existing patterns of social relation; educate and inform through the collective presentation and critique of diverse knowledge claims and perspectives, which may lead to transformative learning; cope effectively with the complexity and uncertainty characteristic of environmental problematics; and produce plans and decisions that are qualitatively fairer and more rational than traditional liberal-democratic approaches.;Based on this theoretical understanding, a generalized conceptual framework is developed that describes the structure, positioning, procedural norms, and characteristic tone and disposition of communicative environmental planning and decision making that is considered best suited to achieve the potential just described. In this framework, a communicative planning and decision making process (CPP) is described situated between, interpenetrating, and joining together public and administrative spheres such that, by adhering to the communicative procedural norms outlined, it can provide for the deliberative transmission of outcomes of public discourses into administrative decision making. As well, by directly connecting the CPP to emergent public and administrative spheres that arise in response to particular environmental problems or issues, the process can be directly attuned to the contextual variables, significantly including the alignment of power, that frame the problem at hand and condition appropriate responses to it. The framework is idealized, and areas are identified where a certain de-idealization is necessary in order for it to be applied to real planning and decision making contexts. Finally, some approaches to applying, testing, and refining the framework are explored, and suggestions are made for additional disciplinary perspectives that could be brought to bear on this analysis in future research aiming to build upon it.