Research Project Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
General enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Procurements and Contracts Division (Science R&D Team) Telephone No. 0207 238 5734 E-mail: [email protected] SID 5 Research Project Final Report Note In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results Project identification of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The NE0109 SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is 1. Defra Project code designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded 2. Project title research in a format that is easily Social Research Review to Inform Natural publishable through the Defra website. A Environment Policy SID 5 must be completed for all projects. • This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as 3. Contractor appropriate. organisation(s) Policy Studies Institute (PSI) ACCESS TO INFORMATION The information collected on this form will Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Land Use Consultants (LUC) Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation £ 131,391 acting as an agent authorised by Defra to 4. Total Defra project costs process final research reports on its (excl VAT) behalf. Defra intends to publish this form (agreed fixed price) on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with 5. Project: start date ................ 30/11/2009 exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. end date ................. 31/03/2011 Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors. SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 1 of 64 6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so. ..................................................................................... YES X NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow. Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer. In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. (b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 2 of 64 Executive Summary This report has been written by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI), with the assistance of project partners Land Use Consultants (LUC) and the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE). It reports on the Defra project ‘Social Research Evidence Review to Inform Natural Environment Policy’ (Defra project code NE0109). There is increasing recognition within both policy and academic communities that many natural environment-related policy issues cannot be framed, explored and addressed through evidence from any single perspective, but require more interdisciplinary research that embraces both social and natural science (amongst other disciplines). Social science has a key role to play, not only in finding appropriate solutions to existing policy challenges (to which it is already contributing), but also in helping to frame policy challenges in alternative ways that may enable the implementation of different and potentially more effective policy responses to these challenges. Stage One – The overviews. Stage One of the project provided an overview of social science evidence across eight of Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG) policy areas as a scoping exercise for the remainder of the project. The approach taken to produce the overviews involved identifying key policy objectives, a web-based review, targeted database searches and a call for information within the fortnightly mailing of the Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN). The findings and analysis were summarised in a series of eight overview summaries intended as a scoping exercise for the Stage Two reviews. These overviews are presented within the Annexes to the Final Project Report appended to this report (Appendix 1b). Stage Two – The evidence reviews. The high level findings from the three in-depth reviews are provided here to illustrate the content of the reviews, These should not be used to inform policy without an understanding of the nuances and limitations as presented within the standalone review reports: 1. The Perceptions review: ‘Public Perceptions of Landscapes and Ecosystems in the UK’. This review found that people enjoy different types of landscape and ecosystems at different times and for different purposes, accessing a ‘portfolio of places’ particular to each person. It was noted that frequency of use does not always reflect the quality of a place. The review went on to highlight that people are aware of some past changes to landscapes and ecosystems and will often demonstrate initial resistance to future change. However, understanding past changes can help people to appreciate the impact of future changes. Furthermore, engagement with the public about the wider set of ecosystem services may help people to understand the value of interventions designed to protect or enhance these services. 2. The Conflict Management review: ‘Interventions in managing natural environment conflicts: what works, in what contexts and why?’.This review highlighted conflict as a normal feature of policy-making; if permitted and properly managed, it can be an indicator of a healthy democracy. In general, conflict was found to arise through differences of interest or value between people, combined with the trigger of a perceived change in circumstances. Environmental conflicts have particular characteristics as they often involve interactions between ecological and societal complexities and are most commonly underlain by conflicts between people’s values. Many environmental conflicts therefore have a propensity for becoming 'intractable' and require particular management. Traditional top-down conflict management approaches do not always offer the most effective form of intervention for environmental conflicts, risking an exacerbation of conflict situations. 3. The Big Society review: ‘The Big Society concept in a Natural Environment Setting’. This review fed into the evidence needs for Defra’s Natural Environment White Paper. Findings indicate that: there has been a move towards greater inclusion of minority groups in local environmental action within the last 20 years but more remains to be done; different people are willing to take on different roles within local environmental action; people’s initial motivations for volunteering evolve over time such that continued volunteering may be driven by different factors; people identify a range of barriers to participation. Some could best be tackled via funding, support and capacity building; others may require efforts to broaden the remit of local environmental initiatives to better align with people’s priorities and motivations for engagement. There appears to be a divergence between the perceived capacity for communities to act (ex-ante) and actual capacity following SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 3 of 64 action. Communities are able and willing to act once engaged, but they need support, information, advice, resources and time to do so. The best people to design, organise and catalyse changes in community action may often be local communities themselves, but such efforts need to be coordinated to enable shared learning and beneficial ecological outcomes at the national scale. Cross-cutting themes. A number of themes have been identified which cut across the three reviews: a) The role of people’s values and identities within natural environment policy-making: The Perceptions review set out what is known about how, and why, people value different landscapes and ecosystems, and their responses to change. Differences in values between people are very often at the root of natural environment conflict situations. Where the issues touch upon notions of symbolism or people’s identities, the conflict situation can escalate significantly. However, the conflict management review also found that value standpoints can change through the course