Abstract. The site selection procedure is participatory and citizens are to be involved as “co-designers of the procedure” (§ 5 (1) 2 StandAG). This is an understanding of participation that goes beyond information and consultation. Although participation is differently defined in participation research, there is agreement that participation – especially in this context – goes beyond formal public participation, as is customary in approval procedures in the context of commenting procedures, and includes forms of informal public participation (cf. Mbah, 2017). Further innovative forms of public participation are needed in which concepts – for participation, for learning, for reversibility, etc. – can be (further) developed. Paragraph 5 (3) stipulates a further development of the participation procedure with the public. On the one hand, this provides framework conditions and, on the other hand, opens up a scope for design, which must be designed together with different groups of actors. This requirement was formulated both before and within the framework of the sub-areas conference (cf. Brohmann et al., 2021; Ewer and Thienel, 2019; Kuhbier, 2020; NBG, 2019, 2021). Therefore, we would like to address the following research questions: What does “learning” mean in the German Site Selection Act (StandAG 2017, § 1 (2)) and how can it be governed and implemented? Who learns and under which conditions? What are the requirements and possibilities of participation and what limitations can be derived in this context? Knowledge and information are the basis of all decision-making processes. Learning is part of a reflexive information exchange and essential for creating, transferring, and readjusting knowledge. In this respect, learning and reflexion means at least a two-way process, often multiple ways and loops. Therefore, we would like to focus on reflexive learning processes, so called double-loop learning processes (Argyris, 1977; Argyris and Schön, 1978) that consider that there should be responsive paths of knowledge transfer to generate learning through reflexion. Such reflexive learning processes may take part at different levels; individual, collective (groups, e.g. departments in an organisation), organisational, and between organisations and indirectly involved or responsible (individual and collective) actors must learn. The reflexive learning processes go beyond strategies and techniques to reach a certain goal but scrutinise certain attitudes and may lead to changes in normative values and belief systems. This is not or if at all, only to a certain extent an automatic process. Rather for systematic learning and reflexion spaces and formats are needed as well as different methods of knowledge and information transfer – mainly if it comes to the requirements of participative formats. These methods and formats as well as spaces need to be adjusted to context and time, which means that e.g. different actors need to be differently addressed and the back-bonding into the organisation and institutional routines must be considered. For this, contextual knowledge and collaboration is crucial. Participatory and transdisciplinary approaches are important key concepts which need to be filled in with actions to initiate and further develop learning processes – as understood and demanded by the StandAG and the selected literature. We give insights into findings based on literature reviews, jurisdictional analysis of the StandAG, several interviews with different actors of the procedure and with experts of different topics (regional planning, place attachment, psychology). In summary, we identified challenges for learning and give insights how to overcome or at least process them.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
May 23, 2022
Laura Upenieks 
Open Access