Weaknesses and Strengths in Marine Protected Areas in

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: A Glance to Community-

management

Authors: Conceicao, Renan Alves, Suman, Daniel Oscar, and Gomes

Soares, Mario Luiz
Source: Journal of Coastal Research, 95(sp1) : 738-742
Published By: Coastal Education and Research Foundation
URL: https://doi.org/10.2112/SI95-144.1

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles
in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your
acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.

Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use.
Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as
copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Coastal-Research on 01 Jun 2020

Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
 Journal of Coastal Research SI 95 738–742 Coconut Creek, Florida 2020

Weaknesses and Strengths in Marine Protected Areas in Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil: A Glance to Community-management
Renan Alves Conceicao†*, Daniel Oscar Suman‡, and Mario Luiz Gomes Soares†

Mangrove Studies Department

†
Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
‡

Rio de Janeiro State University Brazil University of Miami

Miami, Florida, USA
www.cerf-jcr.org

ABSTRACT

Conceicao, R.A.; Suman, D.O.; Soares, M.L.G., 2020. Weaknesses and strengths in Marine Protected
Areas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: A glance to community-management. In: Malvárez, G. and Navas, F.
(eds.), Global Coastal Issues of 2020. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 95, pp. 738-742.
Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

Participatory institutions (PIs) are essential to endorse democracy in PAs (Protected Areas). In this perspective
the objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the councils of marine and coastal PAs in the state of Rio
www.JCRonline.org de Janeiro, through the development and adaptation of an Effective Participation Index (EPI). The synthetic
index was produced from the three variables at three analytical levels: L1-Institutionalization, L2-Deliberation
and L3-Representation. In general terms, the data show that the EPI acquires better scores in the marine
and coastal protected areas of greater structure and resources. In the disaggregated analysis, it was verified
that the level of the best performance of the EPI was the institutionalization, followed by deliberation and
representation, in that order.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Participatory institutions, protected marine areas, management councils.

INTRODUCTION Regarding effective participation, in the theory of deliberative

For specialized literature, participatory institutions (PIs) would
deepen democracy by making decision making a more public and
inclusive process, increasing its legitimacy. They would also have
the power to positively impact public policy outcomes by bringing
decision-making closer to those who are affected by them. Studies
conducted in various regions of the world show that participatory
institutions vary significantly in degree of institutionalization,
operating rules and the type of actor they include, but somehow
in their entirety, they establish participatory practices and/or
invest representative responsibilities in actors and institutions not
provided for by the classic model of representative government,
which is a model of representative government (Cameron,
Hershberg, and Sharpe, 2012; Fung and Wright, 2003; Gurza,
Lavalle, and Isunza Vera, 2011; Selee and Peruzzotti, 2009).
Some recent studies also show a tendency to address participatory
institutions from three approaches: (i) the connections that PIs
establish with other state institutions and with civil society;
(ii) the abandonment of the polarization between participation
and representation; and (iii) the selection of more accurate
variables and more effective methodological tools for assessing
the effectiveness of participatory institutions and their effects
on public policies and governments (Pires et al., 2011; Gurza,
Lavalle, and Isunza Vera, 2011).
The present article tries to offer a contribution to the studies of
the third approach mentioned in the previous paragraph.
DOI: 10.2112/SI95-144.1 received 31 March 2019; accepted in
revision 13 February 2020.
*Corresponding author: rnan_alves@hotmail.com
©
Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2020
democracy, Avritzer (2010) identifies two groups of studies on the
effectiveness of participation. In the first, the studies assume the
PIs as explanatory variables and aim to demonstrate their results,
impacts or effects on public policies and the actions of social and
governmental actors. This grouping of scholars is anchored in
the disciplinary integration between the tradition of deliberative
democracy and the approach to the evaluation of public policies.
Pires et al., (2011) typify these studies of the effectiveness of
participatory institutions in two broad fields. In the first, there
are researches that seek to measure the impact of participation in
terms of access and quality of goods, services and public policies.
In the other field, the results are measured in terms of the impacts
of PIs on the political culture, on political relations and practices,
on the work of civil society and public managers (Cortes, 2011;
Gurza, Lavalle, 2011; Pires and Vaz, 2010; Pires, 2011, Wampler,
2011).
The second group is characterized by studies interested in the
deliberative effectiveness of PIs, defined as “(...) the effective
capacity of these institutions to influence, control and decide
on a determined public policy ...” (Cunha, 2009). The scholars
of this segment highlight three principles of deliberative
democracy as guiding the notion of deliberative effectiveness,
namely, deliberative equality, publicity and plurality. Under this
approach, the studies analyze the process of deliberation within
the participatory arrangements and their quality, evaluating their
dynamics of functioning and the conditioning factors of their
effectiveness. For this, as Avritzer (2011) analyzes, in contrast
to approaching the deliberative model as a unit, scholars have
worked with the idea of ​​ “different deliberative moments”,

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Coastal-Research on 01 Jun 2020

Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
 Marine Protected Areas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
disaggregating levels of analysis that make it possible to gauge
their effectiveness.
This article is based on this second group of studies, which focuses
on the deliberative effectiveness of participatory institutions, also
identified in the literature as “quality of the deliberative process”.
For this, the analysis of the “institutionalization of deliberation”,
that is, the way in which deliberative ideals are promoted from the
rules and functioning of institutions becomes essential (Saward,
2000).
Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness
of the councils of marine and coastal PAs in the state of Rio de
Janeiro, through the development and adaptation of an Effective
Participation Index (EPI).
METHODS
In order to evaluate effective participation in the management
councils of PAs, an adaptation, created by Almeida and Cunha
(2011) of the Effective Participation Index (EPI) was used and
applied in 20 PAs of State of Rio de Janeiro for the study of
this research. The synthetic index was produced from the three
variables at three analytical levels: L1-Institutionalization, L2-
Deliberation and L3-Representation.
The source of the base data used was the National Register of
Protected Areas (CNPA). CNPA is maintained by the Ministry
of Environment with the collaboration of federal, state and
municipal managing bodies. Then, to quantify each of these
variables, questionnaires were sent about the variables via e-mail
or in-person to managers of protected areas listed for this study.
Protected Areas listed for this study were grouped into their
category: Environmental Protection Area (EPA), Ecological
Station (ES), Natural Monument (NM), National Park (NP),
Extractive Reserve (ER), Biological Reserve (BIOR) and
Sustainable Development Reserve (SDR). Thus, the variables
within each category were analyzed.
When it comes to three analytical levels, institutionalization
was evaluated based on: i) the degree of formalization of the rules
of operation of the councils; ii) the resources that these bodies
have to “respond to the bureaucratic demands of the public policy
management process” (LIMA et al., 2014); and (iii) the degree
to which the councils are formally recognized as members of
the “State” network of production and control of public policies
(LIMA et al., 2014).
The second level of analysis, deliberation (L2), grouped
variables related to the scope of the council's decisions, as well as
variables that inform about the institutional conditions that guide
the decision making in these instances. Basically, it is a question
of whether the councils are fulfilling their responsibilities on the
deliberation of the instruments of control in environmental policy.
Regarding the institutional conditions governing decision-making,
it was assumed that planning, adopting routines and establishing
prior rules for the deliberation of matters that are attributions of
the councils indicate a greater control of the political processes
by these instances, which affects the quality of decisions. The
variables selected to compose Level 2 (L2) are thus indicative of:
the degree of deliberation from the procedures or conditions that
guide the decision making; the concrete impact of councils on
public environmental policy; and the active connections that these
entities maintain with their institutional environment.
The third and final level that makes up the IEP concerns the
quality of representation on the council and the degree to which
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 95, 2020
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Coastal-Research on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
739
it accounts for and publishes its actions to broader audiences.
The new form of political representation put into practice by the
management councils has motivated a wide debate in the field
of studies on the institutional innovations (Gurza, Lavalle, and
Isunza Vera, 2011; Gurza, Lavalle, Houtzager, and Castello, 2006;
Lüchmann, 2007, 2011).
The variables selected to compose this level of analysis are
indicative of the degree of equality between governmental and
civil society representation; how the representation of civil society
is under the control of their own organizations; of the degree of
social anchoring of councils, that is, how deeply rooted they are
in civil society, and how much the council is accountable to wider
audiences.
The variables that make up the subindexes (L1, L2 and L3) are
originally found in the database as nominal, usually those that
admit yes or no as an answer, and ordinal. In general, they were
coded following an intuitive logic, when necessary, recoding was
applied, adjusting the values ​​of the answers to the theoretical
expectations. With this suitability, the variables of each subindex
were submitted to the Cronbach Alpha consistency test (α).
According to Maroco and Garcia-Marques (2006) there are two
criteria for reading the value of this statistical measure: one
of them is a little less rigid, where α is at least 0.60. Since the
test is very conservative, in addition to having a multifaceted
phenomenon, quantified in several variables with heterogeneous
measures, opted for the less demanding criterion.
The next step was to standardize the scales of each variable
(Carlos, Silva, and Almeida, 2018), according to the formula
below:
Observed value – Lowest Distribution Value
Highest Distribution value – Lowest Distribution Value
As a result of this procedure, all variables have values ranging
​​
from 0 to 1, and the closer to 1, the better the PAs performance
in a given variable. Subsequently the three subindexes were
created individually. For this, a weighted average was applied
with all variables of each subindex, using the weight (importance)
attributed to the measured attribute by each variable as the
weighting value. The product consisted of three subindexes, L1,
L2 and L3, which were submitted to a simple mean to obtain the
EPI.
RESULTS
The analysis of the performance of the EPI, disaggregated by
its subindexes, institutionalization (L1), deliberation (L2) and
representation (L3), pointed to a significant variation. From the
participants, representation is the weakest subindex, since most
Protected Areas (51%) obtained low values in ​​ this dimension.
The deliberation appears as the second most fragile, but far from
the former: 19% of the PAs presented low values, 55%, medium
and 27%, high. The institutionalization dimension is in a better
situation, with 12% of low values, 60%, medium and 28%,
high. The best average is presented by the institutionalization,
followed by deliberation, presenting more heterogeneity (Figure
1). Similar results were found by Hevia and Isunza Vera (2012)
in the consultative councils in Mexico, instances of civil society
participation in the formulation of social public policies.
Two of the dimensions that authors consider when evaluating
councils are similar to those adopted here: institutionalization,
representation and advocacy in politics. In Mexico, these
 740 Conceicao, Suman, and Soares
Figure 1. Effective Participation Index (PGI) by category and relative
values by category (%).
institutions also do not face problems regarding their
institutionalization, but they present weaknesses in terms of
representativeness and capacity to influence public policies.
When comparing the administrative spheres, that is, federal
and state PAs, the segmentation of the three levels of the index
by administrative instance confirms the negative prominence of
the protected marine and coastal areas of Rio de Janeiro. The
state PAs presented poor performance in institutionalization
(17%) and in deliberation (28%). It is worth mentioning that in
the state marine and coastal areas there was a better performance
of the institutionalization followed by deliberation. While in the
federal ones, the best performance is from the deliberation level,
which was followed by the institutionalization level. It should
be noted that lower heterogeneity was found in representation,
followed by institutionalization and deliberation, confirming that
representation is the most fragile dimension.
The demands raised revealed that the main difficulties of
the councils involve participation, which is related to the poor
motivation of the institutions to participate in the activities of the
council; followed by communication and information, mainly
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 95, 2020
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Coastal-Research on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
due to the lack of integration and communication among the
councilors and of these with people outside the council.
Also noteworthy are difficulties in the representativeness
of the council members, in relation to their role of link
between the members of their institution or interest group; and
institutionalization, involving difficulties of the council, such as
reconciling their professional activities with the role of councilor,
and the managing bodies of PAs (reduced staffing, bureaucratic
obstacles and financial difficulties).
In this view, experiences of support to participatory management
in Protected Areas are extremely positive and generate good
results. Thus, projects for the integration and training of councils
and communities in the participatory management of federal
and state Protected Areas are relevant, since their main tool is
to support the participatory management process of PAs, hold
training workshops with the council’s consultations of the PAs,
directly involving the holders and substitutes of these councils.
Thus, the main thematic addressed must be related to the
functioning of the managing council, the role of the advisor
and tools of a council; history and general aspects of the PA;
legislation of the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC);
management plan; and successful experiences in buffer zones and
PA councils.
Based on the analysis of these difficulties and the construction
of the work and/or action plans, with the assistance and follow-up
of the technical staff of the protected areas, the activities of the
action plans, when addressed, based mainly on the knowledge of
the management instruments of the PAs, of the communities with
the councils and integration between PAs, managers and advisers
allows greater integration with the councilors and facilitated the
planning of the actions.
DISCUSSION
Institutionalization
The good performance of L1, institutionalization, becomes
understandable when one observes the behavior of the variables
that measured the strength and institutional foundation of the
councils in the area investigated: 97% of them are enacted by law.
It should also be noted that 82% of these councils have internal
regulations recognition and, for this variable, no distinctions were
found in the cut by regions.
From the point of view of the effectiveness of their legal
instrument, therefore, councils in this area are duly recognized
in the network of SNUC policy controls. It is also important to
note that 82% of councils have internal regulations and, for this
variable, there were no distinctions in the cut between federal
and state PAs. 74% of councils work with at least one full-time
employee at the executive office; 12% work with two employees;
a small minority of works with more than two; and 9% of them
work without any employees. Only 19% of councils have an
employee who works exclusively as an executive secretary. In this
variable, the most successful federal APs are highlighted, where
35% of these protected areas responded affirmatively, whereas in
the state councils of Rio de Janeiro, only 10% of the employees
work exclusively on the councils. The analysis by population
size highlights an already verified trend: the larger the size of the
council, the greater the tendency for councils to have an exclusive
secretary. As emphasized, institutionalization of councils is the
best performing dimension in the EPI. However, its level of
consolidation is explained by the inequalities found in terms of
 Marine Protected Areas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
the infrastructure and resources available for the functioning of
the councils.
Deliberation
Regarding L2, deliberation, most councils hold bimonthly
meetings (74%) or at least quarterly (15%), through an established
annual calendar (66%), which suggests an institutionalized
functioning routine for these instances. This routine makes it easier
for members to control their own participation in meetings and,
therefore, their intervention in the issues at hand. However, this
routine is more universalized as a procedure in PAs that have better
structure and resources. Thus, the greater the institutionalization,
the greater the percentage of affirmative responses to the “annual
calendar of meetings” item. Another significant finding is that
only 20% of councils have permanent committees in their internal
structure. The existence of committees suggests a decision based
on a more qualified debate. The absence of internal committees can
help to explain even the reasons why the councils have not been
able to regulate, from their own resolutions, important aspects
regarding the implementation of internal policy. For example,
they have not been able to define the operating parameters, which
provide the services and execute the programs planned by the
SNUC to serve the neighboring community.
In general, the measurement of the degree of incidence of the
councils in the decisions, that is, their deliberation, considered
the routines of the decision-making process, such as planning,
forums for qualified debate and connections with political and
civil society. In the EPI evaluation, it has been demonstrated that
deliberation is the second best performing dimension. Its main
weaknesses are the lack of permanent committees in the internal
structure of the councils, the control of the entities that provide
services, and supervision of the social assistance network.
Representation
The analysis of L3 revealed that in 67% of councils,
representatives of civil society are elected in assemblies
specifically set up for this purpose, in only 8% of cases they are
appointed by the government and in 25% there is a combination
of the two procedures : assemblies and indication by the public
power. On the other hand, the variables that measure the social
anchorage of the councils, that is, how deeply they are rooted
in civil society, prove significant fragility that explains the poor
performance of the subindex representation in both spheres
(federal and state).
Managing councils often function as instances of dispute
between corporate interests and the communities to which the
policies are attached (Almeida and Tatagiba, 2012). Moreover,
one of the biggest challenges is exactly getting audiences in the
larger public. The variables highlighted here seek to find out to
what extent councils are responding to this challenge or facing it.
Concerning social mobilization at the initiative of the councils,
the majority (51%) declare to practice these actions annually or
semi-annually. Another 6% do them monthly, totaling 57% who
carry out this type of mobilization with some frequency. It should
be emphasized that the combined use of different repertoires
of collective action by social actors - whether institutional
participation, protest mobilization or others - has been emphasized
by recent studies of the interaction patterns between civil society
and the state (Abers, Serafim, and Tatagiba, 2014).
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 95, 2020
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Coastal-Research on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
741
The last indicator of representation of councils to be highlighted
is the existence of channels for receiving complaints. More than
half (54%) of the councils do not have mechanisms for receiving
complaints. The distribution of this indicator by size of the
headquarters of the Protected Areas accentuates the previous trend,
that is, the privilege of those with greater structure and resources.
This evidence corroborates the claim that council representation
corresponds to the poorest subindex of the EPI. In the analysis of
the quality of representation, although the indicators point out to a
predominance of the isonomy between the governmental and civil
society representation, as well as the indication of the latter by the
social organizations, weaknesses in terms of accountability and
publicity of actions for a broader public denounce the weakness
of the councils as to their social anchorage.
CONCLUSIONS
In general terms, the data show that the EPI acquires better
marks in the marine and coastal of conservation protected areas
with a greater structure and resources. In the disaggregated
analysis, it was verified that the level of the best performance of
the EPI was the institutionalization, followed by deliberation and
representation, in that order. Thus, in several aspects, the data
show that the regulatory process through which the environmental
policy that embraced the Protected Areas in Brazil in the last two
decades was reflected and was accompanied by the institutional
foundation of the councils. Although important inequalities can be
found with respect to the infrastructure and resources with which
the councils count on to function, the analysis of the variables of
the degree of institutionalization shows that these bodies are duly
recognized within the production and controls of the state network
of protected areas. However, significant weaknesses with regard
to certain indicators deserve to be highlighted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was conducted during a scholarship supported by
CAPES - Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation
of Graduate Education within the Ministry of Education of Brazil.
We are extremely grateful to have access over documents that
built this research, provided by managers and stakeholders of the
Protected Areas listed for this study.
LITERATURE CITED
Abers, R.; Serafim, L., and Tatagiba, L., 2014. Repertórios de
interação Estado-sociedade em um Estado heterogêneo: a
experiência da era Lula. Dados, Rio de Janeiro, 57(2), 325-
357p.
Avritzer, L., 2010. A dinâmica da participação local no Brasil.
São Paulo: Cortez, 235-249p.
Avritzer, L., 2011. Introdução. A qualidade da democracia e
a questão da efetividade da participação: mapeando o
debate. In: Pires, R.R.C. (org.). Efetividade das instituições
participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília:
Ipea.
Almeida, D.R. and Cunha, E.S.M., 2011. A análise da deliberação
democrática: princípios, conceitos e variáveis. In: Pires, R.
R. C. (org.). Efetividade das instituições participativas no
Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: Ipea.
Almeida, C. and Tatagiba, L., 2012. Os conselhos gestores sob o
crivo da política: balanços e perspectivas. Serviço Social e
Sociedade, São Paulo, 109, 68-92.
 742 Conceicao, Suman, and Soares
Cameron, M.A.; Hershberg, E., and Sharpe, K.E., 2012. Nuevas
instituciones de democracia participativa en América
Latina: la voz y sus consecuencias. México: Flacso.
Carlos, E.; Silva, R.D.A., and Almeida, C., 2018. Participação
e política pública: efetividade dos conselhos de assistência
social na gestão da política. Revista de Sociologia e Política.
26(67), 67-90.
Cortes, S.V., 2011. Instituições participativas e acesso a serviços
públicos nos municípios brasileiros. In: PIRES, R.R.C.
(org.). Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil:
estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: Ipea.
Cunha, E., 2009. A deliberação nos conselhos municipais
de assistência social. Relatório de Pesquisa. Projeto
Democracia Participativa. Democracia, Desigualdades e
Políticas Públicas no Brasil. vol. 2. Belo Horizonte.
Fung, A. and Wright, E.O., 2003. Deepening democracy:
institutional innovation in empowered participatory
governance. London: Verso.
Gurza Lavalle, A.; Houtzager, P.P., and Castello, G., 2011.
Democracia, pluralização da representação e sociedade
civil. Lua Nova, São Paulo, 67(67), 49-103.
Gurza Lavalle, A.; Houtzager, P.P., and Castello, G., 2006.
Representação política e organizações civis. Novas instâncias
de mediação e os desafios da legitimidade.  Revista Brasileira
de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, 21(60).
Hevia, F. and Isunza Vera, E., 2012. Participación acotada.
Consejos consultivos e incidencia en políticas públicas en el
ámbito federal mexicano. In: Cameron, M. A.; Hershberg, E.;
Sharpe, K. E. (coords.). Nuevas instituciones de democracia
participativa en América Latina: la voz y sus consecuencias.
México: Flacso.
Lima, P.P.F.; Alencar, J.; Ribeiro, U., and Cruxên, I., 2014.
Conselhos Nacionais: elementos constitutivos para sua
institucionalização. Textos para Discussão, 1951, Brasília-
Rio de Janeiro: Ipea, abr.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 95, 2020
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Coastal-Research on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
Lüchmann, L.H.H., 2007. A representação no interior das
experiências de participação". Lua Nova, São Paulo, 70,
139-170.
Maroco, J. and Garcia-marques, T., 2006. Qual a confiabilidade do
Alpha de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas?
Laboratório de Psicologia, Lisboa, 4(1), 65-90.
Pires, R.R.C. et al., 2011. Em busca de uma síntese: ambições
comuns e abordagens diversificadas na avaliação da
efetividade das instituições participativas. In: PIRES, R.R.C.
(org.). Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil:
estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: Ipea, 347-364.
Pires, R.R.C. and Vaz, A., 2010 Participação faz diferença? Uma
avaliação das características e efeitos da institucionalização
da participação nos municípios brasileiros. In: AVRITZER,
L. (org.). A dinâmica da participação no Brasil. São Paulo:
Cortez, p. 253-304p.
Pires, R.R.C., 2011. Efetividade das instituições participativas no
Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: Ipea.
Selee, A. and Peruzzotti, H.; 2009. Participatory innovation
and representative democracy in Latin America. In:
Peruzzotti, H.; Selee, A. (eds.). Participatory innovation and
representative democracy in Latin America. Washington:
Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Snuc., 2011. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasil.
Wampler, B., 2011. Que tipos de resultados devemos esperar
das instituições participativas? In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org.).
Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil:
estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: Ipea.