Green Infrastructure (GI) research tends to focus on the need for GI to enhance ecological processes, its potential to provide health and economic benefits, and on the barriers preventing its uptake. Yet there has been inadequate focus on the social aspects of GI. In the United Kingdom (UK) the need for GI is well established, such that policymakers and planners are now turning to the question of how GI should be implemented. Drawing on a mixed method research approach centring on practitioner experience, this paper identifies potential social principles that underpin GI and questions the extent to which these are being implemented in the UK. Results highlight the hitherto unexplored complexities of GI maintenance, the effects of austerity politics, and the role of local-level power dynamics on the implementation of GI. Findings have implications for international literature on GI as well as nature-based solutions more broadly.
Green Infrastructure (GI) research tends to focus on the need for GI to enhance ecological processes, its potential to provide health and economic benefits, and on the barriers preventing its uptake. Yet there has been inadequate focus on the social aspects of GI. In the United Kingdom (UK) the need for GI is well established, such that policymakers and planners are now turning to the question of how GI should be implemented. Drawing on a mixed method research approach centring on practitioner experience, this paper identifies potential social principles that underpin GI and questions the extent to which these are being implemented in the UK. Results highlight the hitherto unexplored complexities of GI maintenance, the effects of austerity politics, and the role of local-level power dynamics on the implementation of GI. Findings have implications for international literature on GI as well as nature-based solutions more broadly. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-020-01372-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of 'minipublics', which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community—for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such 'minipublics', which we call the 'recruitment problem' (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the 'composition problem' (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the 'mandate problem' (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes—utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.
The authors examine the implementation of environmental regulation and demonstrate that path dependency, created largely by resource constraints, narrows the range of options for implementing regulation. It also magnifies the impact of the institutional history of the regulatory body and the impact of the disciplinary commitments of those working within the regulatory body on the implementation process. It is shown that the result is that those involved in the implementation process are unable to consider all possible routes to implementation but, rather, only a relatively few 'manageable' options for the regulation of particular activities. The arguments are examined in the context of implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000 (WFD) in Scotland. In particular the authors focus on the regulation of diffuse pollution under the WFD and on the role played by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in that regulation.
This paper considers the application of the sociological imagination during the analysis of data collected during an ethnographic study of an environmental regulator, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). SEPA is tasked with implementing the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Scotland, which will radically alter the regulation of water use. Applying a sociological imagination allowed the researcher to advocate for a more interdisciplinary and equitable understanding of sustainable water use when feeding back initial research results at the end of the data collection period. The researchers introduced socialised definitions of the environment, which linked social justice and ecological concerns. These insights provided a challenge to the traditional bio-physical science focus of the organisational participants, for whom sustainability is a relatively new addition to their duties. The paper concludes by discussing the importance of developing these interdisciplinary relationships in the future.
Whether pursuing the breadth of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals or delivering joined-up approaches within a single environmental domain, policy objectives, policy design and policy implementation should cohere vertically and horizontally. However, policy coherence remains a challenge to implement. The limited empirical scholarship on policy coherence tends to focus on policy documentation and/or the outcomes, with little attention to individual agency or social processes involved. Furthermore, there is little discussion of the normative dimensions of policy coherence and the political aspects of individual agency, indicating the need for political ecology. We conducted an empirical study within four UK catchment (watershed) partnerships, using critical interpretive policy analysis to enrich the interface between political ecology and environmental policy. We explored who practices policy coherence and how; what motivates those investing their energy into these practices; their constraints and the contradictions arising. We found that the appetite and ability to support policy coherence depends on individual agency as much as partnership structures, which are themselves situated in technocratic regimes of policy implementation. Within these regimes, agents presented as apolitical and enabling, making it challenging to research the political and social processes of policy coherence. A political ecology lens highlights how power is involved in these voluntary initiatives, potentially shoring up existing privilege inscribed into riparian habitats and their resources. Our contribution therefore responds to and amplifies the critique of traditional presentations of integrated water resource management devoid of politics.
The relationship between governance and representation is examined using the development of river basin management plans (RBMPs) in Scotland as a case study. We used a longitudinal ethnographic approach to explore the (1) remit and rationale for representation choices; (2) representative characteristics and claims; and (3) influence of nonparticipating interests on representatives. The invite-only 'advisory group' members represent a network of state, private, and third-sector interests. The members make claims to represent others on the basis of authority, accountability, shared identity, and epistemic values. These claims are made for specific although often multiple and overlapping constituencies. These representation claims suggest that representative, rather than traditional, legitimacy is being defended. However, members were also concerned about how the RBMP advisory groups coexisted with traditional and direct democratic processes. The results need to be considered within the overall system of environmental governance within Scotland, the UK, and Europe. The findings are relevant to multiple fields of environmental management, including protected area management and coastal management.
Some of the latest global paradigms in sustainable water governance revolve around ideas of promoting greater integration within policy implementation processes that impact on land and water. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), seen by many as a 'Sustainability Directive', reflects this trend, and places particular emphasis on building linkages between water management and land use planning. This paper presents the results of a research project that examined this integrative vision in a real world setting – the emerging relationship between the WFD's river basin management planning (RBMP) framework and the development planning (DP) system in Scotland. The project's approach draws from interpretive policy analysis, and the results are based on analyses of key policy documents, as well as in-depth interviews, primarily with land use planning staff from local authorities, as well as other relevant public agencies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The results show how an overarching political objective of 'increasing sustainable economic growth' is significantly affecting stakeholders' understandings of the RBMP-DP relationship, as well as their own roles and responsibilities within that relationship. This has created barriers to the deliberation and potential operationalisation of environmental limits to growth in the built environment, which may be skewing decision-making processes in a way that undermines the RBMP framework and its objectives of protecting and improving the water environment.
