Hi Everyone,
I've uploaded the following articles.
Klijn, Erik-Hans (2008). "It's the Management Stupid!, Over het belang van management bij complexe beleidsvraagstukken", oratie Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Den Haag: Uitgeverij Lemma.
Edelenbos, Juriaan en Klijn, Erik-Hans (2007). "Trust in Complex Decision Making Networks: A Theoretical and Emperical Exploration", Adminstration and Society, 39(1), pp.25-50.
Curtis, C. and James, B. (2004) 'An institutional model for land use and transport integration', Urban Policy and Research, 22(3):277-297
The first two were sent out as background articles for the PMB Colloquium organised by Stan Majoor in April and the third is the paper about transport and land-use integration that I talked about yesterday. The second paper is the most relevant for my research.
Enjoy!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Meeting september 17th 2009
Thursday September the 17th we’ve discussed the paper written by Els about the use of the do-minimum alternative in the Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA) (see library for the paper). One of the interesting issues described in the paper is the problem of contested knowledge which is explained in the article of van Buuren and Edelenbos (2004). To solve this problem the method of Joint fact-finding can be used as described by Ehrmann and Stinson (1999).
This solution of Joint-Fact-Finding seems very good and logic, but in our discussion we wondered in what way it can be implemented. High costs and long time periods may form barriers to implement this method. It also may need a bureaucratic authority to check the outcomes. The Central Planning Authority (in Dutch CPB) is the authority which checks the SCBA’s, but doesn’t take part in the making process of the SCBA. So if the method of joint fact-finding is implemented in the SCBA, that doesn’t guarantee the CPB approves. The discussion resulted in questions about cooping with uncertainties, using advisory boards, the influence of (policy) power changes every four year and so on.
Next meeting we will discuss the abstract of Andrew.
This solution of Joint-Fact-Finding seems very good and logic, but in our discussion we wondered in what way it can be implemented. High costs and long time periods may form barriers to implement this method. It also may need a bureaucratic authority to check the outcomes. The Central Planning Authority (in Dutch CPB) is the authority which checks the SCBA’s, but doesn’t take part in the making process of the SCBA. So if the method of joint fact-finding is implemented in the SCBA, that doesn’t guarantee the CPB approves. The discussion resulted in questions about cooping with uncertainties, using advisory boards, the influence of (policy) power changes every four year and so on.
Next meeting we will discuss the abstract of Andrew.
Two articles uploaded
Two articles have been uploaded in our library under 'theory'.
- Brömmelstroet, te M., P. Schrijnen (2009 forth coming), From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
- Ehrmann, J., B. Stinson (1999), Joint Fact-Finding and the use of technical experts, in: Susskind (e.a.), The Consensus Building handbook. A comprehencive guide to reaching agreement, Sage, London
- Brömmelstroet, te M., P. Schrijnen (2009 forth coming), From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
- Ehrmann, J., B. Stinson (1999), Joint Fact-Finding and the use of technical experts, in: Susskind (e.a.), The Consensus Building handbook. A comprehencive guide to reaching agreement, Sage, London
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)