The theoretical claim for stakeholder participation in order to achieve
sustainable policy outcomes is prominent in the literature. Empirical evidence
substantiating this claim is, however, lacking. The complex characteristics of
the concepts of sustainability and participation demand a systematic approach
in which method develops from theory. We propose a qualitative assessment
approach based on theoretical considerations. We deliberately restrict our
approach not to prove causalities but to demonstrate tendencies. Our
methodological starting point refines the complex interrelation between
collective participation and sustainability by qualitatively assessing the
value of the two concepts separately before looking for mutual or opposing
trends. Based on theory, both concepts are re-split into two dimensions.
Collective participation is re-split into 1. inclusion and 2. influence and
sustainability is re-split into 1. the external impact of decisions and 2. the
internal capacity to face pressures. For each dimension the approach combines
an abstracting point-based scaling system with explanatory narratives. This
ensures the comparability of different cases and at the same time the
transparency and reliability of the assessment. By matching and comparing the
previous scaling results in the end, the assessment procedure explores whether
the degree of collective participation and the degree of sustainability are
rather synchronic or opposite. We exemplify our approach with an example of
local level non-governmental neighbourhood governance in India and review
primary data on the agitation for green spaces and slum eviction in Hyderabad.
This application outlines the disregard for diversity among stakeholders and
the cost-benefit assessment of sustainability as remaining theoretical and
methodological items for the amendment of our assessment approach in its
current version. After refinement the presented approach is intended for the
application on diverse cases of direct decision-making and for the meta-
analysis and comparison of secondary case-studies as well as for the analysis
of primary qualitative data
