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 of a conflict situation if the process is well managed. The Big Society review demonstrated the importance of understanding the diverse values and motives of different groups within communities and ensuring any community initiative intended to enhance local natural spaces is grounded in this understanding.

b) Balancing lay and expert knowledge in natural environment policy-making: The conflict management review highlighted the potential for conflicts to arise when the knowledge of experts or policy-makers is perceived as privileged over the knowledge of those who have managed the land or other resources and lived in the area for years. The review explored the difference between ‘communication to explain’ and ‘communication as mutual learning’; the latter allowing for different forms of knowledge to be accommodated within a conflict situation. The Perceptions Review highlighted that experts and the general public often hold different values for natural spaces, with expert views usually dominating decisions concerning protected area site designation. However, there has been increasing and continuing inclusion of alternative assessments based on public preferences.

c) Engaging people in the evaluation of outcomes: The emergence of the ‘Big Society’ highlights more than ever the need for more widespread but ‘light touch’ evaluations of small-scale initiatives that engage citizens in natural environment decision-making. Such evaluations need to combine objective environmental and social outcome measures with any additional outcome measures considered by local communities to be desirable. The Conflict Management review found that a focus on settlement or resolution alone does not offer an adequate indicator of management success if it fails to capture whether the outcome was also just, enduring and legitimate.

d) The role of place attachment within natural environment policy-making: Place attachment (or the emotional bond between people and places) was found to have a significant influence on citizen choices about the natural environment. Such emotional attachments often underlie what are commonly denoted as ‘NIMBY’ like public objections to wind farms or other proposed changes to valued landscapes. Such objections are not inevitable, and depend in part on the social interpretation and representation of the proposed change, which is often shaped by locally influential individuals or groups. The Conflict Management review explored the role of symbolic species in shaping place identity, and the risk that deep so-called ‘wicked’ natural environment conflicts can develop where these species are at threat. The Big Society review highlighted the role of place attachments in driving the motivations of communities to act to protect or enhance local natural spaces.

e) The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making: All three reviews demonstrated the importance of influential individuals. The Conflict Management review suggested such individuals often emerge from within the conflicting parties, not always working independently, but in many cases catalysing positive conflict management outcomes. The Big Society review found reference to ‘community champions’, ‘community pioneers’, ‘mavens’, ‘catalytic individuals’, all of whom demonstrate the necessary enthusiasm and community knowledge to tap into local pools of social capital and mobilise community members to engage in community efforts. Such individuals occur in all walks of life, with no particular social, economic or geographical characteristics. The one characteristic that they were found to have in common was not necessarily pro-environmental values but an overwhelming commitment to altruism.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 4 of 64

Project Report to Defra 8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

Contents

1. Introduction 6 2. Stage One – The overviews 7 2.1. Methodology 7 2.3. Themes that emerge from the overviews 8 3. Stage Two - In-depth review methodology 10 4. Review One: Public Perceptions of Landscapes and Ecosystems in the UK 12 4.1. How and why people currently value landscapes and ecosystems? 12 4.2. Perceptions of change to landscapes and ecosystems 13 5. Review Two: Interventions in managing natural environment conflicts: what works, in what contexts and why? 15 5.1. Characteristics and Causes of Environmental Conflict 15 5.2. Management Approaches 15 5.3. Key Issues in Environmental Conflict from a Social Science Perspective 15 5.4. Policy lessons 16 5.5. Conclusions 16 6. Review Three: The Big Society Concept in a Natural Environment Setting 17 6.1. Approach taken for the review 17 6.2. Summary of the Big Society Review 18 7. Cross-Cutting Themes 20 7.1. The role of people’s values and identities within natural environment policy-making 20 7.2. Balancing lay and expert knowledge in natural environment policy-making 21 7.3. Engaging people in the evaluation of outcomes 21 7.4. The role of place attachment within natural environment policy-making 22 7.5. The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making 23 8. Stage 3 – Dissemination activities 25 References 26

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 5 of 64 1. Introduction

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). The project set out to highlight social science that has a key role to play in policy, not only in finding appropriate solutions to existing policy challenges 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. In order to meet the challenges of identifying and synthesising relevant social research findings from such a broad evidence base and communicating these in a way that is both informative and accessible to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG) policy-makers, this project adopted a three-stage approach, with the following objectives: • Stage 1 aimed to provide a rapid overview of social science research of relevance to the ERG policy areas of interest, together with an assessment of three policy areas to be taken forward for more in-depth review and analysis. • Stage 2 sought to explore in greater depth the areas most pertinent to natural environment policy. It set out to include an in-depth review of three policy challenges identified in Stage 1, whether within or cutting across multiple ERG policy areas, via policy-maker / social researcher workshops and an in-depth review of the literature. • Stage 3 aimed to bring together the material identified and developed in Stages 1 and 2 in policy relevant formats. It has analysed and synthesised the outcomes of the previous stages and presents them in high quality formats relevant and usable by policy-makers, including full reports and executive summaries. The eight policy areas of primary interest to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG) included: biodiversity and wildlife issues, the Ecosystem Approach, land management and soil, flood risk management, water availability and quality, people and landscapes, rural affairs, and marine and fisheries. These eight broad policy areas were the focus of Stage 1, undertaken prior to the change in policy priorities following the 2010 general elections. The findings and analysis from the overviews were summarised in a series of eight overview summaries which were presented in a Scoping Report in February 2010. These summaries were intended as a scoping exercise for the Stage 2 reviews, but are also anticipated to provide those involved in the development and implementation of UK natural environment policy with a series of a concise, working summaries of social research of relevance to their specific policy responsibilities. A further outcome from Stage 1 was the identification of a number of themes to be taken forward for further investigation in Stage 2 of the project. Two of these were adopted for more in-depth review and analysis: (1) Public perceptions of landscapes and ecosystems in the UK – how and why do people value current landscapes and ecosystems, and public attitudes to future change; and (2) How social science can inform approaches to natural environment conflict management. Much discussion and scoping was undertaken to identify a suitable third review theme, with a final decision made in October 2010 to explore the Big Society concept in a natural environment setting, with the aim of contributing to some of the pressing evidence needs for the Natural Environment White Paper. This report provides a concise summary of all of the project’s activities. A full description of all of the project’s activities and outputs can be found within the following standalone project documents which are appended to this report. These include: • Appendix 1a – Final Report (presenting the full project findings). • Appendix 1b – Annexes to the Final Report (including the overview reports). • Appendix 2 - In-depth review one: ‘Public Perceptions of Landscapes and Ecosystems in the UK’. • Appendix 3 - In-depth review two: ‘Interventions in managing natural environment conflicts: what works, in what contexts and why?’. • Appendix 4 – Rapid review three – ‘The Big Society concept in a natural environment setting’.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 6 of 64 2. Stage One – The overviews

2.1. Methodology Tasks 1.1 to 1.3 sought to deliver summaries of existing social research in each of the policy areas of interest to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group, whilst Task 1.4 aimed to use these to identify the policy challenges to take forward for more in-depth review and analysis in Stage 2 of the project. This stage was undertaken prior to the changes in Government following the general elections in May 2010. • Task 1.0. Identifying key policy objectives: In order to focus the overview stage on social research of particular relevance to key policy objectives in each ERG area, an additional task was undertaken to analyse a range of policy strategy documents highlighted by Defra. This information was summarised in a Policy Objectives matrix, which is presented and discussed in Appendix 1a. This matrix formed the basis of a ‘traffic light’ system used before and after the database searching task. Initially, this traffic light system was used to indicate the extent of social research identified in relation to each policy objective through the web-review, thereby guiding where to focus the subsequent rapid database searches in order to fill the gaps. Following the database searches, this system highlighted where research gaps were appearing, which helped to determine candidate review areas for the second stage of the project. • Task 1.1. Web-based review and use of the SDRN mailing: A focused web-search was conducted in order to identify relevant publications produced by key organisations undertaking or commissioning research in the ERG policy areas of interest. A list of relevant organisations – including those in Defra’s delivery landscape network, academic institutions, research councils, key consultancies, relevant charities and devolved governments - was drawn up by PSI and sent to Defra and project partners for further input. Also, a call for information was included in the Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN) mailing, which elicited five responses together with requests for further information. The outcomes of this web-based review were summarised in eight annotated bibliographies, key themes and research gaps and sent to the project partners for further development in Task 1.2. • Task 1.2. Targeted database searches: Different members of the research team lead the searches in each of the policy areas. A common search strategy was drawn up, but it was agreed that partners would need to use their discretion in modifying this to best identify the literature of relevance to their policy areas, particularly given the limited time available for each review area (three days per area). The search terms were closely aligned to the policy objectives identified in Task 1.0, in order to ensure policy relevance of the sources reviewed. Searching was initially confined to journal literature from the last ten years, sourced through Web of Knowledge – a major online indexing and full-text social and environmental research database. The primary focus was on UK-focused research, but European and international studies were considered where transferable lessons could be drawn. The key findings emerging from these rapid searches were synthesised and summarised by the project partners into an overview summary, one for each policy area. This assessed the extent of social research identified in relation to each policy objective, discussed the key social research themes emerging, identified cross- cutting and overlapping issues, and described remaining research gaps in the area.

• Task 1.3. Determination of candidate policy challenges and themes for in-depth review in Stage 2: Defra indicated a desire for the project to identify any significant bodies of policy-relevant social research that do not appear to have been reviewed or utilised by policy to date. This proved to be particularly challenging as much research tends to be utilised only after publication, usually following complex and not readably traceable utilisation pathways. This is particularly true for more academic research, where researchers may have been less likely to develop policy links prior to publication. In order to address this challenge, the project team developed a visual representation of the degree of social science research identified against each of the key policy objectives in the ERG policy areas of interest. This was presented in this way to enable those who are familiar with how research has previously informed policy to identify where there is more or less social science research than expected. • Task 1.4. Assessment of policy challenges suitable for taking forward: This task used an assessment matrix to summarise the various merits and limitations of taking each of these policy challenges forward for more in-depth review in Stage 2 of the project. An assessment matrix was used as a way of transparently involving Defra in the selection.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 7 of 64 2.3. Themes that emerge from the overviews The overviews were written up in the form of a series of eight concise overview summaries. These overviews are provided in Appendix 1b, and were structured into a number of themes or issues as highlighted. These themes are provided here as a way of signposting the content of the overviews. In addition, social research gaps appearing in the social research literature reviewed were identified and are discussed in the main project report as provided in Appendix 1a. 1. Wildlife issues, including biodiversity: With the exception of the very broad area of research regarding community involvement, the scope and quantity of social research identified in relation to biodiversity issues was quite limited. The key themes emerging included the: i. Role of healthy eco-systems in climate change adaptation. ii. Management of non-native invasive species. iii. Public understanding of, and involvement in, biodiversity. iv. Relationship between biodiversity management and social issues. v. Sustainable farming and biodiversity. 2. The Ecosystem Approach: With the exception of the area of ecosystem service valuation approaches, the amount of social science of relevance to the Ecosystem Approach policy objectives ranges from ‘limited’ to ‘some’. The key social research themes to emerge from this overview included: i. Which aspects of the natural environment people value and why. ii. How social research can be used to place a financial value on environmental services. iii. How social research can help to ensure equity in service delivery. iv. How social research can help to secure the delivery of ecosystem services. v. How an Ecosystems Approach may be integrated into the policy process. vi. How social research can be used in embedding the Ecosystems Approach. 3. Land management and soil: The amount of social science research of relevance to the spectrum of policy objectives in the area of land management and soil is generally limited. The key themes identified within the literature included: i. Soil knowledge, management and protection. ii. Managing commons and multi-functional land. iii. Social and cultural factors affecting soil management and land use. 4. Flood risk management: There is a considerable body of literature associated with the social science of flooding. A significant driver behind the growth of this research interest in the UK has been the shift in policy focus from delivering flood protection, to more holistic flood risk management approaches. The key themes which emerge from the literature included: i. The social justice aspects of flood risk management. ii. The relative role of public and private institutions in flood risk management. iii. The relationship between local experience and government /national agencies. iv. Reducing vulnerability and building resilience and resistance to floods at an individual and community level. 5. Water availability and quality: Relatively large volumes of social research exist in relation to water industry efforts to manage and meet water demand, but less literature has been identified of relevance to the management of waterbodies and the needs and responsibilities of farmers. The key themes which emerge from the review included: i. Meeting water demand. ii. Understanding water demand and use behaviours. iii. Supporting farmers in reducing their impact on water quality.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 8 of 64 iv. Maintaining water quality in our lakes, rivers and waterbodies. 6. People and landscapes: This overview has identified significant social research exploring why people value landscapes and how this influences their behaviour within the countryside, but found only limited social research exploring the implications of climate change for how landscapes are used. The key themes which emerge included: i. Use of landscapes – access and recreation. ii. The perceived benefits of landscapes. iii. Landscape perceptions and preferences. iv. Judging condition and change in the landscape. v. The role of land managers. 7. Rural affairs: The objectives within this policy area are highly social in nature and therefore have been well-addressed by social science research. A growing body of research has been undertaken by independent research organisations such as the Commission for Rural Communities (England) and the Wales Rural Observatory. The key themes to emerge from this overview included: i. Identifying and targeting rural disadvantage and potential to incorporate the natural environment. ii. Integrating economic, social and environmental assets to realise the potential for rural areas: the case for a rural eco-economy. iii. Social capital and climate change adaptation. 8. Marine and fisheries: There is a reasonable volume of social research literature of relevance to the policy objectives identified in this policy area, though less in relation to the third theme. The literature in this policy area falls into three themes: i. Approaches to the management of marine resources and ecosystems. ii. Linking recreational angling to the freshwater fisheries environment. iii. Public perceptions of the marine and freshwater environment.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 9 of 64 3. Stage Two ­ In­depth review methodology

Four sub-tasks were originally proposed in order to fulfil the overarching aim of Stage 2 (i.e. to explore in greater depth the existing social research of relevance to three policy themes of most pertinence to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group). It was intended that Stage 2 would result in: 1. An understanding of the existing social research evidence in the three review areas; 2. The current policies and policy objectives relevant to addressing each policy challenge; 3. The implications of emerging social research findings for these policy objectives; 4. The identification of future social research needs. In coinciding with the general election and subsequently the build-up to the spending review, a highly flexible approach was adopted to achieve these goals, which necessarily departed at times from the original approaches set out in the proposal. In particular, the success of the original tasks set out within this stage relied heavily on significant policy engagement, both for refining the review topics to ensure they were of feasible scope and closely aligned to policy need, and for gaining an in-depth understanding of the nature and effectiveness of the current, past and emerging policies of relevance to each review theme. As a result of the post-election political context, the time that policy-makers or analysts were able to dedicate to this process was constrained. This led to limited engagement with policy-makers prior to the workshops. It also impacted on the level of policy attendance at the workshops themselves. This, together with the uncertainties and subsequent changes in policies and policy programmes following the election, had implications for the feasibility of the mapping approach originally proposed, as discussed later in this section. The approach taken is discussed under the following sub-tasks: • Task 2.0. In-depth review theme identification and scoping: The scoping report submitted upon completion of Stage 1 presented seven broad natural environment-related social research themes emerging from the overview scoping phase. Defra confirmed two of these review themes as planned in early 2010 (the Perceptions and the Conflict Management reviews). The subject area for the third review was not identified until November 2010, when it was agreed that the project would undertake a case study-based rapid evidence review to inform Defra’s Natural Environment White Paper discussions, considering the Big Society concept in a natural environment setting. • Task 2.1. Workshops, mapping of the key programme theories and understanding social research needs: The full objective of Task 2.1 was to: ‘Organise and facilitate three workshops with policy-makers and social researchers in order to map the key programme theories and to understand the emerging and future social research needs in each in-depth review area.’ It was originally proposed that the project team would liaise with relevant policy leads in Defra prior to the workshop in order to begin the programme theory mapping process. This did not prove appropriate or feasible so the project team developed an alternative approach to achieve the underlying aim; to ensure the reviews were policy relevant and closely aligned to existing and emerging policy need. The modified approach incorporated three stages: 1. Referring to the strategy documents used in Phase I to identify the policy objectives that each review could inform (and all strategy documents emerging following the change of government). 2. For the Perceptions review workshop, a series of telephone interviews were carried out with key policy analysts after the election to gain a better understanding of new and emerging policy priorities and of how the review could usefully inform these. 3. After rescheduling the conflict management review workshop to a date following the general election, CRE undertook a number of telephone interviews with key policy and practitioner representatives prior to the workshop to ensure a clear focus within the workshop. After the workshops and in liaison with the Defra Project Steering Group, decisions were made regarding where the project teams felt they had the greatest potential to provide novel and value-adding synthesis and review with regard to: the importance attached to particular issues within Defra; the availability of existing literature; the scope for additionality in research outputs; and the ability to develop a focused research question that could be adequately addressed according to the time and resource constraints of the project. This resulted in a series of overarching and sub-questions.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 10 of 64 • Task 2.2. Produce review protocols and two-page summary for policy comment: Given the broad interests of Defra’s Environment and Rural Group, neither review question generated by Task 2.1 could be sufficiently focused or narrowed to meet the strict criteria necessary for systematic review. It was established that the reviews could instead draw on some of the principles of systematic review where appropriate whilst maintaining rigour, quality and breadth. As such, a review protocol was developed for each review theme, setting out the: rationale and policy context for the review; type of review method proposed; final review question and sub-questions; search strategy and scope; exclusion criteria for sources identified; quality appraisal criteria; a data extraction template; synthesis approach; and key references. Each review adopted the same search time period, and utilised the same core databases (COPAC, Web of Science - including the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Greenfile, ASSIA, IBSS, and Science Direct). • Task 2.3. Conduct in-depth literature review in each policy area: The search process covered: six literature databases (enabling the identification of journal literature, monographs, conference proceedings, papers and grey literature); a Google Scholar search; internet searching of key organisational websites, citation follow-up, and personal recommendations resulting from the inclusion of Calls for Information in the fortnightly mailing of the Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN). Relevant sources already identified in the Stage 1 overviews were also included. In order to exclude any obviously irrelevant sources, all of the sources identified by these searches underwent a two- stage sieving process, firstly based on titles and then abstracts. The full papers for the remaining 215 sources for the Perceptions review and 251 for the Conflict Management review were read and assessed for inclusion in the review based on closer examination of how each source met the core review questions, together with a series of additional inclusion and exclusion criteria specific to each review. Quality appraisal criteria1 were used on any sources that had not already been assessed as part of academic journal or policy peer review processes and their contents used with appropriate caution. • Task 2.4. Undertake stand-alone case study analyses in each review area: Throughout discussions regarding the scope of the in-depth reviews, it became apparent that the ‘stand-alone case study analysis’ included in the original proposal would be most useful if integrated as case study snapshots within the reviews, with the aim of providing practical examples to illustrate the theories and ideas discussed in the reviews, relating them specifically to policy areas of interest to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group. Whilst the case study element provides a very useful policy anchor for the Conflict Management review, its value for the Perceptions review was limited as this theme is so place-specific. • Task 2.5. Produce interim report and present findings verbally to Defra: The interim findings of the two in-depth reviews were presented at the Steering Group meeting on Thursday 14th October, inviting useful comments which were incorporated in subsequent revisions of the reviews. Final drafts of each of the reviews were submitted in December 2010, and comments received in February 2011. These have been addressed and incorporated in the final reviews, which are available as separate standalone documents appended to this report. Summaries of each of the reviews are, however, provided below.

1 As drawn up by Liz Oughton on the basis of her training and experience as part of the ESRC Peer Review process

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 11 of 64

4. Review One: Public Perceptions of Landscapes and Ecosystems in the UK This review summarised selected social research evidence, identified in July – September 2010, which considers public perceptions of existing UK landscapes and ecosystems, and potential future changes to these. The relationship between people, land and landscape is complex, and has been the subject of research across a wide range of disciplines (Swanwick, 2009; Upham et. al, 2009). The review focuses on the aspects of landscapes and ecosystems that people value and how these values may be affected by future change. ‘Value’ is considered in this review in terms of a recognised provision of services or benefits (including aesthetic appreciation). Value is not considered in a monetary or economic sense in the review. The review identified a wealth of relevant social research evidence on the subject, from which the following key messages were identified, structured as follows: 4.1. How and why people currently value landscapes and ecosystems? Landscapes and ecosystems clearly matter to people and shape their everyday experiences, social interactions, wellbeing, and quality of life. In terms of landscapes, ecosystems and cultural services:

• People value landscapes and ecosystems both for their intrinsic value and for the cultural (and provisioning) services they provide, though they may not express it in these terms.

• These cultural services are both an emotional response to the landscape or ecosystem, responding to personal perceptions, and a rationalised response to the landscape or ecosystem, responding to personal needs and preferences at that time (e.g. selecting which path to use or place to visit).

• Influences on perceptions relate to a range of demographic, situational and awareness factors, which suggest the potential for public segmentation in this area. This kind of segmentation is useful for considering the management of landscapes and ecosystems but it is important to remember that there are a range of ‘publics’ and one person can have multiple identities.

• Whilst these influencing factors are complex, there are broad trends, indicating areas where policy and programmes could focus to improve engagement with the natural environment. In terms of preferences for specific landscape and ecosystem types:

• Countryside and greenspace are particularly important and represent the majority of visits to ‘the natural environment’. Visiting the countryside is considered by the majority to be either crucial or very important to quality of life.

• Almost half of visits to the natural environment in one government survey were to green and open spaces in and around towns. There is a vast body of evidence on the benefits of high quality greenspace, which is valued by people in high density urban environments as a source of access to nature.

• A range of preferences are apparent for different types of greenspace and greenspace management. Overarching preferences could be used to guide management (for example, people like spaces to be managed so that they feel safe, but do not like them to be ‘over managed’).

• People identify a range of preferential characteristics of landscapes and ecosystems, such as places which are wooded or contain small fields, but these are person-specific.

• It is possible to tentatively identify broad preferences for certain landscape and ecosystems types: firstly, the coast; secondly, mountains and hills, water, rivers and streams, woodlands, and rural villages; thirdly, field systems, hedgerows and field walls, and country lanes; and finally, bogs and marshes and moorland.

• These findings suggest that although ‘all landscapes matter’, some landscape characteristics or ecosystems deliver more of the cultural services than others. Nevertheless, evidence suggests variation exists between different users with, for example, some finding upland unappealing or too physically demanding and others seeking out the challenge and exhilaration that they offer.

• Social research indicates significant diversity in the landscapes and ecosystems that are most valued by people, with many having a strong and recognisable character (sense of place),

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 12 of 64 abundant wildlife, relatively easy access, and offering relative tranquillity – the ability to ‘get away from it all’. In terms of preferences for local versus more remote/distant places:

• People enjoy different types of landscape (and ecosystems) at different times and for different purposes, accessing a ‘portfolio of places’ that is particular to each person. These range from the ‘quick hits’ of a nearby greenspace, to the special, often magical places which are visited less often but which people want to know are available to them.

• The majority of visits to the ‘natural environment’ are taken close to home or wherever the journey is started from (whether this is the place of work, hotel, etc).

• There is a link between landscape perception and preferences, and the theory of place attachment. ‘Place’ is conceived as describing not only the physical characteristics of a location, but also the meanings and emotions associated with that location by individuals or groups.

• Place attachment theory provides a useful way of thinking about why people might be resistant to change, and also suggests that people may be more attached to places which hold the strongest personal meanings and associated emotions. For many, such places may constitute their home and local area, but more distant ‘iconic’ places are also important to them. This highlights the importance of accounting for emotional attachments held by people to places when managing landscapes and ecosystems and planning for future change. 4.2. Perceptions of change to landscapes and ecosystems In terms of changing landscapes and ecosystems; people have recognised a number of changes to landscapes and ecosystems, with specific evidence in relation to urban development, wind farms, changing agricultural practices, and land uses such as quarrying. In terms of perceptions of future change:

• The number of UK-specific social research studies on perceptions of landscape and ecosystem change is relatively low. However, there is evidence throughout the studies identified that people are concerned about future changes to landscape and ecosystems, particularly through urban development, climate change, visitor pressure (especially in popular and valued areas such as National Parks), and biodiversity loss.

• There is evidence that knowledge (or awareness) of past changes to the natural environment can help people to understand and engage with future changes.

• It is evident from studies of coastal management that in managing change it is important to take account of the psychological, symbolic, and emotional aspects of what is being changed.

• In terms of the role of woodland and forestry in future change, a Forestry Commission survey identified a belief that woodland and forestry can be used to mitigate the effects of climate change.

• As with landscape and ecosystem perceptions and preferences, there are variations in attitudes to environmental change, depending on demographic factors and environmental attitudes.

• The literature identified a range of techniques used to help people visualise potential future changes to landscapes and ecosystems, including GIS, photographs and photomontage. In terms of the trade-offs between what people value and managing future change:

• Although there was little evidence of specific social research studies considering trade-offs, the concept of trade-offs between what people value and the management of landscapes and ecosystems is evident throughout the literature.

• There is evidence that some people recognise that an increasing need for self-sufficiency in food production will result in landscape change (i.e. a trade-off between being able to produce the food we need and keeping landscapes as they are). Equally, there is evidence that consumers support the idea of farmers being paid to manage their land in more environmentally friendly ways, suggesting a desire to see greater emphasis on multi-purpose land management.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 13 of 64 • Yet many consumers are unaware of the realities of how food and other raw materials are produced; there is a widespread assumption that current food production methods are in harmony with their view of a traditional rural idyll which tends to be reinforced through food labelling and advertisements.

• There is evidence that the ‘trade-off’ between conservation of land or landscapes and development is more acceptable within landscapes that people consider to be ‘less distinctive and beautiful’, which is linked to the functions of certain landscapes and ecosystems, and reflects the importance of ‘special’ landscapes to people.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 14 of 64 5. Review Two: Interventions in managing natural environment conflicts: what works, in what contexts and why? Disagreements are a normal feature of policy-making, and conflicts can be interpreted as a sign that democracy is working, rather than it being dysfunctional. Nevertheless, there is acknowledgement that 'traditional' top-down approaches to managing environmental conflicts might not be the most effective interventions, and may even exacerbate conflict situations. Most environmental conflicts are underlain by conflicts between people, and natural scientists have acknowledged that the significance of the human dimension has often been overlooked in their work. As such there is a pressing need for a greater role of the social sciences in understanding and managing environmental conflicts. The overarching aim of the review is to identify what works most effectively in managing natural environment conflicts, for different people, in different contexts, and why? 5.1. Characteristics and Causes of Environmental Conflict Environmental conflicts are characterised by the interaction of ecological and societal complexity. The underlying causes of conflict are often categorised into 'conflicts of interest' and 'conflicts of value'. Conflicts of interest concern the allocation, use or distribution of resources with tangible losses and gains, whereas conflicts of value concern deep-seated differences in personal values, beliefs and culture. There is a diverse array of social, economic, ecological and political contextual drivers of conflict which, when combined with underlying differences in interest or value and a real, perceived or anticipated change in circumstances (a trigger), can lead to the escalation of a manifest conflict. Many environmental conflicts have a propensity for becoming 'intractable'. It is this aspect of environmental conflicts that makes social science particularly relevant in providing understanding and offering management insight. 5.2. Management Approaches The emphasis of this review is not on 'traditional' political top-down approaches, but rather on ‘alternative’ approaches to conflict resolution. These need to be considered, however, in relation to a wider mix of existing administrative and legislative processes. The approaches to conflict management described in the literature can be categorised as: a. Formalised Alternative Environmental Dispute Resolution techniques (ADR) deriving principally from the United States; b. Decision-support tools or models, and; c. Approaches embedded within broader structures of governance and longer-term participatory approaches to the management of conflict. There are overlaps between these approaches but the main distinction between them is that whilst the first two approaches tend to be applied following the escalation of a conflict situation, the third approach does not have conflict resolution as its primary aim. Participatory management approaches, or approaches that include a participatory component, have the potential to be more pre-emptive and therefore preventative of conflicts by virtue of the working relations and trust that they are able to forge between stakeholders. 5.3. Key Issues in Environmental Conflict from a Social Science Perspective The following key issues have been identified in relation to environmental conflict from a social science perspective: • Values and identity. Conflicts of value are much more difficult to address than conflicts of interest, although values may not be as fixed or divisive as they first appear. Addressing alternative and deeper values in management processes can lead to more longstanding and successful outcomes. • Communication and framing. Improving communication between conflicting parties is an essential component of conflict management. This includes: communication between the evidence providers, policy-makers or scientists and the parties to the conflict; communication between parties in a conflict; and communication between these parties and a wider audience. Framing, the way in which a situation or issue is defined, is central to communication as different definitions may represent differences in interpretation, understanding and interests. Communication as mutual learning empowers stakeholder groups, accommodates different forms of knowledge, and allows different interpretation of the evidence, whereas communication to explain may serve to exacerbate a conflict. The media has an important role

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 15 of 64 to play in communicating social environmental justice issues but may easily perpetuate and strengthen adversarial positions. • Trust. Issues of trust are relevant both between parties to a dispute but also with government agencies, decision makers and scientific or expert providers of evidence. Greater public engagement can increase trust in government. Trust issues cannot however be resolved solely by addressing knowledge differences or distribution of resources. There is a need to build long term working relationships and to establish face-to-face interaction between parties. • Third party intervention. Intervention of a neutral third party may be an important component of ADR and consensus building approaches. However, recent research has questioned the need for neutrality and impartiality of third parties, suggesting opportunities for resolution may lie with individuals from within the disputing parties who are able to take an active approach to drive a management process to ensure fairness, openness and representation of minority interests. Such individuals can play a vital role in communicating between groups, building trust between one another, arguing the viability of proposed solutions and identifying common goals. • Scale and context. Conflict management processes must account for and represent interests at different scales to ensure that decision making is legitimated and supported. The context of a conflict is a complex setting that includes legal, political, economic, cultural, demographic, technological and ecological environments. Conflicts may get stuck when the context doesn’t change or, alternatively, when the context is unstable, and stakeholders may assume that conditions will eventually move in their favour. • Evaluating conflict management success. A focus on settlement is not an adequate indicator of conflict management success but should also include an examination of the process by which this settlement was reached. 5.4. Policy lessons Both the localism agenda and the move towards an ecosystems approach (which recognises the multiple uses of the natural environment) suggest that larger and more diverse groups of stakeholders may be involved in decisions pertaining to the natural environment in the future, which will likely generate a wider diversity of viewpoints and understandings. This, together with changing pressures on the natural environment, suggests an increased likelihood of environmental conflicts. Bearing this in mind: i. Increased and early use of participatory approaches specific to the particular context and combined with other decision support tools may prevent such conflicts. ii. Value differences must be taken into account in order to develop durable outcomes. iii. If decision making capacities are given to local stakeholder groups they should be supported and legitimised by government at higher spatial scales. iv. Information from government and scientific evidence providers should be presented through a communication route of mutual learning rather than explanation. v. Action should be taken to identify and support participants within a conflict to act as local champions of reconciliation. 5.5. Conclusions Environmental conflicts are not inherently bad but are a sign of a thriving democracy. They tend to be dynamic and changing and therefore should be treated as part of an adaptive and longer term management approach. This means a move away from ideas of conflict resolution, which is inherently reactionary, towards conflict management which offers opportunities for growth and change. Participatory approaches offer many of the benefits outlined above. However, participation is not a panacea for managing conflicts and the evidence reviewed suggests that a combination of participatory and decision support tools are particularly suited to the management of environmental conflicts. Values may be the most divisive driver of conflicts but recognising their multiple and flexible nature means that they may also offer the basis for longer term and more stable solutions. As well as third party outsider facilitation of conflicts, there are opportunities for influential and respected individuals from within conflicting parties to play a significant role in conflict management.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 16 of 64 6. Review Three: The Big Society Concept in a Natural Environment Setting 6.1. Approach taken for the review

Scoping and selecting the third review theme The third review underwent a prolonged period of uncertainty whilst the most appropriate topic was identified. The project’s steering group were unable to proceed with any of the five remaining themes as a third review topic, either due to risks of duplicating existing work or work soon to be commissioned, or as a result of limited policy interest in these remaining themes. Instead, two new areas which had been highlighted within the comments received from circulating the scoping report were explored. These were:

• Citizen and community engagement in protecting and enhancing the natural environment2.

• The social impacts of different domestic water charging regimes. For each, a scoping search was undertaken and a short summary produced, outlining a range of sub-questions that could be considered for review within each theme. After circulation and discussions with the relevant Defra project staff, it was decided that neither was appropriate for further in-depth review. In October 2010, it was suggested that the resources remaining for the third review theme be used to feed into the analytical needs associated with the Natural Environment White Paper. A diverse range of questions were set out in a discussion document launched in July 2010 by Defra Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, ‘An invitation to shape the Nature of England’. It was decided that the third review could usefully contribute to the Big Society-related questions by identifying empirical examples in both the academic and grey literature of how the Big Society concept is already being implemented in the context of the natural environment, adopting a broad interpretation of ‘natural environment’ as any community green space, growing space, or area in which nature-based activities may be carried out. Rapid Review methodology A Rapid Review approach was adopted, which differs from the approach adopted in the other two reviews. It drew on elements of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) approach, intended to provide a balanced assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, utilising a rigorous and transparent approach but making concessions to the breadth or depth of the process by limiting particular aspects of the review approach3. REAs can provide a useful starting point when a review is needed to answer a particularly pressing policy concern. • Firstly, the web-based search of key research, policy, and think tank organisations4 was undertaken to identify emerging publications on the Big Society, and on community concepts which pre-dated the Big Society where appropriate. • Secondly, a series of database searches were undertaken in order to identify both academic and grey literature from a diverse evidence base, including a focus on the Big Society but also on earlier concepts of potential relevance to the ‘Big Society’ • Finally, relevant survey reports were examined to explore patterns of volunteering and engagement in the UK and Europe. Whilst six surveys were examined5, only three provided relevant information specifically on engagement in collective rather than personal environmental actions. These searches were run from October to November 2010.

2 Leading on from this, a more focused theme emerged, exploring how experiencing nature can promote citizen and community engagement in natural environment protection efforts. 3 As discussed in the guidelines produced by the Civil Service: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil- service/networks/professional/gsr/resources/rea-methods-rapid-evidence-assessment.aspx 4 Including: The Young Foundation, NESTA, new economics foundation, Community Development Foundation, Demos, Green Alliance, Institute for Public Policy Research, BTCV, Capacity Global, Institute for Volunteering Research, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 5 Defra’s ‘Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment tracker’ surveys, the UK Citizenship survey, Monitor of engagement with the natural environment, a recent Big Society Ipsos MORI poll, Eurobarometer surveys, and the Scottish ‘Environmental attitudes and behaviours’ survey

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 17 of 64 6.2. Summary of the Big Society Review

Through a rapid review of both academic and grey literature, this review sought to explore how the Big Society concept could be implemented in the context of the natural environment. In particular, it drew on a range of case studies6 to examine the potential for collective community action for the protection, restoration and management of local natural environments, and considered how such action may be facilitated by a range of actors, including businesses, existing civil society organisations, and local and central government. Overall, this review highlighted that communities often have the appetite to engage, but they need support, information, advice, resources and time to do so. The following questions were explored within the review and are presented in summary here. 1. Are visions and ideas emerging in the literature about how the Big Society concept relates in practice to the protection of the natural environment? Despite a significant amount of emerging grey literature on the Big Society, relatively little directly considered the Big Society in the context of the natural environment (at the time of writing). The exception is the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme, which published a formal response to Defra’s discussion document, emphasising the importance of: supporting and mobilising volunteers; establishing new types of formal community groups; and developing awareness-raising campaigns to promote environmental messages. In addition to this, a number of organisations have highlighted Big Society-related approaches and mechanisms which could be transferable to the natural environment context. Together these sources present a vision of empowered communities within a Big Society which are well-placed to lead localised policy-making and action, but all emphasise their need for focused help and support to do so. 2. Why is community-led action believed to be beneficial for the natural environment? There is increasing awareness amongst research, practitioner and policy communities that many of today’s intractable political challenges cannot be solved by the state and market alone (Bunt and Harris, 2010). Where social and environmental solutions rely on changes in the lifestyles of communities and individuals, it is increasingly apparent that the best people to design, organise and catalyse this may often be the communities themselves; not only are they more likely to recognise local needs and pools of social capital, but they also bring a knowledge of how existing spaces and relationships work, enabling them to identify and implement more appropriate, socially acceptable and cooperative solutions. Understanding how best to combine such knowledge with ecological expertise may be central to achieving the nationwide resilient ecological network called for by Professor Sir John Lawton7. 3. What types of environmental action could communities engage in? The review identified multiple spheres of cooperative civic action for the environment, broadly classified as: community-led campaigns, activism or advocacy; collective action linked to sustainable lifestyles (including community recycling, transport, energy, or food growing initiatives); and collective action linked to the protection, maintenance, monitoring and/or restoration of community green spaces and other local natural environments. Within these spheres of action, it has been possible to identify a range of roles which citizens may adopt. It is clear that different people are likely to prefer different roles and different levels of engagement; some may catalyse the initial diffusion of a new community initiative, others may prefer just to feed into decision-making panels when invited, and others may wish simply to volunteer time and labour to facilitate its practical implementation. This array of roles and spheres of activity provides a multitude of different engagement opportunities, catering for the needs, skills, interests and capacities of diverse community members. 4. Who already acts at the community level to protect the natural environment? Whilst significant understanding has developed in recent years about the typical profiles of people adopting personal pro- environmental behaviour change, far less is known about those engaged in community collective action for the environment. For a long time, the environment movement was seen as a white, able-bodied, middle- class, preservationist movement, holding little salience for many minority groups, such Black Asian Minority Ethnic and Refugee (BAMER) groups, older adults, the disabled or the very young. However, a gradual change has been observed in the last 20 years or so, largely through the emergence of the environmental

6 It should be noted that few of these had been robustly evaluated, though do provide valuable insights into the diverse initiatives and partnerships underway. 7 In ‘Making Space for Nature’ (2010): Available to download here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 18 of 64 justice movement. Consequently a more diverse picture of engagement is increasingly apparent, though overall levels of collective engagement across the population (or interest in being engaged) remain relatively low. The focus of most existing survey information is on personal behaviours and individual values rather than specific community-based environmental actions and the shared values that may underpin those. This complicates efforts to gain a clear picture of the diversity of collective engagement at present. 5. What or who motivates this action? When considering motivations for volunteering or engaging in community action at the community level, it is important to distinguish between motivations for initial engagement, and motivations for lasting commitment; motivations often change over time and this has important implications for ensuring the sustainability of community initiatives. Initial motivations may include: environmental or pro-social values; place attachment; the desire for personal development; social contact and networks; personal health and wellbeing benefits; and a small number of external triggers. The benefits gained from such experiences often serve to reinforce initial motivations ensuring longer-lasting commitment. Three factors, in particular, are thought to influence engagement longevity; (1) the satisfaction of seeing tangible environmental and social community outcomes; (2) forming strong social ties and relationships; and (3) ensuring engagement experiences match prior expectations, needs, abilities and interests. 6. What are the barriers that prevent community engagement? Whilst there are clearly many factors encouraging involvement, levels of engagement in natural environment volunteering or community groups remain relatively low in the UK. Commonly cited barriers to participation include: a lack of knowledge or awareness of opportunities; lack of confidence; practical constraints such as transport availability or health concerns; lack of time and busy lives; existing regulations; challenges in partnership working; short-term funding streams; and a lack of opportunities of interest. 7. What are the policy opportunities for working with different actors to overcome such barriers and encourage wider community engagement in natural environment protection? This review has not sought to highlight ‘best practice’ initiatives so that they can be rolled out in other community settings; this would risk undermining the core argument behind the value of local solutions tailored to local issues. Rather this review has explored how government might work with multiple actors to help create the conditions in which community initiatives and enthusiasm can flourish. Key findings in this regard include: (1) engagement is likely to be more widespread in initiatives that address both environmental and social needs; (2) certain civic actions may act as ‘entry points’ to engagement in others; (3) existing national surveys could be adapted to gain a better understanding of who is currently engaging in collective civic actions for the environment; (4) the need to highlight clear and consistent goals for communities to work towards without prescribing the process; (5) make it fun; (6) celebrate achievements; (7) understand the motivations, needs, expectations and interests of those involved from the outset; (8) ensure appropriate outreach; (9) use social network mapping to understand and engage the community, and identify their valued spaces; (10) reframe local spaces as community assets; (11) the potential to use art to encourage community ownership of a local natural environment or green space; (12) provide appropriate funding opportunities; (13) the potential to complement mainstream grant funding with challenge-based funds in order to catalyse grassroots innovation in particular areas; (14) the need to create more opportunities for civic engagement; (15) consider new incentives for civic engagement; (16) support the use of Web 2.0 tools to enable communities to co-ordinate their activities, share ideas and experiences, and form valuable partnerships that will enable them to achieve desired social and environmental goals; (17) develop low-cost approaches for evaluating community-led initiatives in order to monitor environmental and social outcomes and facilitate shared learning; (18) address regulatory barriers to innovation; and (19) work with agents of social change to enable wider engagement.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 19 of 64

7. Cross­Cutting Themes

It has been possible to identify a number of themes which cut across these three reviews and might provide useful insights for those involved in the formulation of natural environment policy. These include: 7.1. The role of people’s values and identities within natural environment policy-making Values and identity represents a strong theme throughout the project. The Perceptions review specifically set out to capture what is known about how, and why, people value different landscapes and ecosystems, and their responses to change. Such values and responses were seen in action within the Conflict Management and Big Society reviews as people were seen to work alongside others to protect or enhance locally-valued environments. • The Perceptions review highlighted a great diversity in what people value about landscapes and ecosystems. The review also stressed the important role played by people’s identities in determining their perceptions. As with people’s identities, people’s values are not always constant, and can merge or conflict. Value-based conflicts are particularly acute when people’s values or identities are associated with the environmental resource in question, most particularly when the same resource is valued differently by different people. Many groups (such as fishermen and farmers) maintain that their job is not just a livelihood but forms a part of their identity. Therefore any threat to their capacity to carry out their job is seen as a direct threat to their identity. • The Conflict Management Review also found that standpoints can change through the course of a conflict situation, and that processes which seek to find shared values or to forge common identities may offer potential solutions for value-based conflicts. Such processes will often seek to reframe a conflict situation so as to reveal underlying shared values and identities which might otherwise be overlooked within the conflict situation. • It was highlighted in the Perceptions review that each person has their own ‘portfolio of places’; ranging from local green spaces at the bottom of the pyramid which are valued for the ‘easy’ benefits they provide; to ‘magical’ places at the top of the pyramid that may be distant from where people live and will be visited only infrequently or even never. These latter places are valued for their existence (Research Box et al., 2009). • The Big Society review demonstrated the importance of understanding the diverse values (including both individual and shared values) and motives of different groups within communities and ensuring any community initiative intended to enhance local natural spaces is grounded in this understanding:

o The key motivation for many to engage relates to personal pro-environmental values, and a desire to overcome feelings of environmental helplessness or to alleviate perceptions of not doing enough.

o For others, personal values need not be specifically environmental to encourage community engagement in environmental action. Such people, termed ‘environmental citizens’ are ‘driven by a belief in the fairness of distribution of environmental goods’ and often motivated by altruistic values (Dobson, 2010).

o In some cases, pro-environmental collective action may arise from community initiatives that do not originally set out with an environmental focus, but rather may be driven by shared values and/or the desire for community improvement. This was the case for a large number of the groups applying to NESTA’s Big Green Challenge (Bunt and Harris, 2010), a competition launched in October 2007 to stimulate community innovation whilst encouraging the drive and focus required in order to achieve measurable carbon reduction.

o In other cases, people appear to have developed more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours after becoming conservation volunteers for social or health reasons. The volunteering organisation BTCV demonstrates this with its Green Gym programme (see Case study 4 within the Big Society review). Evaluations of the Green Gym scheme illustrated positive influences on environmental attitudes and behaviours, particularly around recycling, saving water, and domestic energy conservation.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 20 of 64 7.2. Balancing lay and expert knowledge in natural environment policy-making All three reviews highlighted the need to integrate both lay and expert knowledge in natural environment decision- making. Local, or lay, knowledge represents the practical wisdom drawn from experience in a particular place. In the past, many natural environment decisions were made primarily on the basis of expert knowledge, often missing the benefits of incorporating the tacit and local contextual knowledge built up over generations amongst communities, farmers and other land managers. By gathering knowledge from a range of experienced individuals and community members as well as the science professionals, it is possible to gain a better understanding of local institutions, social dynamics and social norms, and of local physical attributes, such as local variations in soil quality, sources of pollution, or amateur naturalist knowledge about local species distributions. Incorporating such knowledge into natural environment decision-making processes could facilitate more effective and widely acceptable negotiation of the management of a resource. • The Conflict Management review highlighted the potential for conflicts to arise when the knowledge of experts or policy-makers is perceived as privileged over the knowledge of those who have managed the land or other resources and lived in the area for years. Sairinin et al., (2010) highlight the difference between ‘communication to explain’ and ‘communication as mutual learning’. Whilst the former suggests the top-down communication of an official or government position and interpretation of scientific evidence, the latter emphasises two-way communication, seeking to empower stakeholder groups, incorporate local and expert knowledge, and allowing for different interpretations of scientific evidence. • The Perceptions Review highlighted the ongoing debate in the literature regarding the different ways in which ‘experts’ and the general public value landscapes for protected area designation purposes. As discussed by Swanwick (2009), the identification of valued landscapes in the UK has traditionally been dominated by the concept of natural beauty or areas of high ecological value, which underpins much of the protected landscape legislation. Early decisions about which areas were considered to be of sufficient natural value to be offered special protection were generally based on the judgements of elite members of committees, advised by expert officers. Over time, there has been increasing recognition of the need to consider landscape as a whole and therefore to complement this expert-focused approach with increasing inclusion of alternative assessments based on public preferences. • The Big Society review raises the challenge of how to maintain community enthusiasm for protecting and/or enhancing local natural spaces, whilst ensuring beneficial ecological outcomes for these areas. The Lawton Review (Lawton, 2010) highlights that local people, Local Authorities, the voluntary sector, farmers, land managers, statutory agencies and other stakeholders all have a crucial role to play in delivering a more coherent and resilient wildlife network. The review reiterates that local circumstances are important; in areas which have large amounts of relatively unfragmented habitat, local energies could most usefully be channelled into improving management and enhancing habitat diversity. In contrast, in areas with only small or isolated sites (perhaps in urban areas, for example), community efforts could usefully focus on the restoration and creation of new wildlife habitats. Case Study 23 in the Big Society review highlights an initiative by the London Wildlife Trust intended to encourage the creation and linking of such habitats in London, through its ‘Garden for a Living London’ campaign. 7.3. Engaging people in the evaluation of outcomes The emergence of the ‘Big Society’ highlights the need for more widespread evaluations of small-scale initiatives that have sought to engage citizens in land use decision-making. Such evaluations need to combine objective environmental and social outcome measures with any additional outcome measures considered by local communities to be locally important and desirable. • The Big Society review highlighted that few of the smaller-scale community-based initiatives intended to protect or enhance local natural spaces appear to have been evaluated. Many of these community-led initiatives do not have the resources to undertake such evaluations. There is therefore limited scope for wider recognition or sharing of the social and environmental benefits of their work. For larger scale programmes, such as BTCV’s Green Gym programme and the Eco-Mind programme, university-based research groups have been commissioned to undertake programme-level evaluations, though these appear to focus primarily on participant health and wellbeing outcomes rather than the environmental benefits of the programme. • A refined evaluation approach would need to combine qualitative and quantitative methods in order to capture the wider social benefits of such initiatives (including community cohesion, social capital, crime rates, wellbeing) as well as the more quantifiable environmental and ecological indicators of success.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 21 of 64 Support could usefully be provided to these community groups by government, either in creating a basic low-cost evaluation process that may be voluntarily employed by organisations to facilitate future learning, or in linking such organisations up to businesses, academics and local amateur naturalist groups, who may be able to provide pro-bono evaluation assistance and environmental monitoring experience and expertise. • The Conflict Management review explores evaluation approaches for natural environment conflict management processes. As discussed by Capitini et al., (2004), throughout the 1980s in the United States, conflict management success was evaluated primarily in terms of whether or not a final settlement or resolution was achieved. However, recent empirical work on evaluating the performance of environmental conflict management increasingly recognises that a focus on settlement or resolution alone does not provide an adequate indicator of management success (Todd, 2001; Gregory et al., 2001; Osset et al, 2008). A process may, for example, lead to a final settlement but it doesn’t answer questions such as: does that settlement create winners and losers? Is the outcome of the settlement enduring? Was the process fair and legitimate? As a result, some evaluations of environmental conflict management efforts look at both the process as well as outcomes of the management effort. Within such evaluations, the:

o Process criteria consider how the conflict management process has: (a) ensured all appropriate and interested parties are represented in the process; (b) recognised and accounted for complexities and uncertainties in information; (c) balanced power equally between parties; (d) adopted cost-effective measures; and (e) facilitated communication and mutual learning between all parties.

o Outcome criteria consider how the process has delivered: (a) a fair high quality written agreement; (b) positive impacts on environmental and social systems; (c) a durable and long- lasting settlement; (d) enhanced trust, social capital and working relations between parties. • The Perceptions review explores the challenges associated with making trade-offs in ecosystem goods and services within natural environment management decisions, since such decisions will inevitably challenge the needs and wants of different populations. Engaging these different populations in an evaluation of the outcomes of decisions could help to understand how future decisions can be made in a way that is both ecologically sound and publicly acceptable. 7.4. The role of place attachment within natural environment policy-making All three reviews highlight the importance of place attachment in shaping citizen choices about the natural environment. Place attachment has been defined as ‘a complex phenomenon incorporating an emotional bond between individuals and/or groups and the familiar locations they inhabit or visit’ (Devine-Wright and Howes, 2010: 271). It is thought that a range of thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are evoked through such attachments to place. • Devine-Wright (2009) proposes a multi-stage framework to illustrate the dynamic nature of individual and collective responses to changes in valued natural places over time, involving five stages; identification, interpretation, evaluation, coping, and acting. • The Perceptions review highlights the importance of place attachment and finds that the meanings that places have for people are often a better predictor of their reactions to the natural world than simple demographic descriptors. • Conflict often arises when natural spaces to which people have formed an emotional attachment are threatened in some way. Much of the initial work on place attachment theory emerged in relation to public objections to local renewable energy developments; particularly wind farms. These objections were perceived as a form of NIMBYism (‘Not In My Back Yard’); whereby people indicate support for a technological development in principle, such as wind farms, but then oppose such developments when they are proposed in their locality. NIMBY responses are usually denoted as inflexible, uninformed, closed-minded responses to change, when in reality they often constitute place-protective behaviours, rooted in disrupted emotional connections to place. Such proposed changes will not always result in conflict or disruption to place identity. The factors which make such responses more or less likely include the degree to which the proposed change is seen to be compatible with the character of the place, and the way in which the change is socially interpreted, evaluated and contested amongst individuals. • The Conflict Management review also highlights the role of symbolic species in shaping place identity, and the risk of conflict arising when the future of such species is threatened. Nie (2003) discussed the

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 22 of 64 debate over wolf and grizzly bear reintroduction, illustrating how symbolism can create ‘wicked’ natural environment conflicts within the fight for preservation as both species are significant symbols of American wilderness. • The Big Society review highlighted the role of place attachment in determining community interest in protecting, restoring or enhancing locally valued natural spaces. Manzo and Perkins (2006) explore this and find that in areas where neighbours are anonymous or where they do not stay long enough to develop any emotional connection to the place, residents tend not to be particularly committed to efforts to improve the neighbourhood. Where place attachment and sense of community is greater, disruptions to place and people’s emotional connections to that place can serve to mobilise community action to protect locally valued spaces. • The Big Society review also explored the difference between attachment to a particular place and conceptual attachments to a type of landscape or ecosystem. Ryan (2005) uses survey data to explore the emotional bonds between people and urban natural areas. He found that attachment to urban parks and natural areas was affected additionally by the level of knowledge of natural areas in general. Therefore, whilst neighbours with a view of the park and regular recreational users held a place-specific attachment to the park, those with a high degree of natural area knowledge and volunteers harboured a more conceptual attachment (i.e. an attachment to a type of landscape and ecosystem rather than to a particular place). It was found that those with place-specific attachments where especially tied to the particular park, were unwilling to go elsewhere when faced with potentially negative changes, and were more likely to campaign against such changes. In contrast, volunteers were much more likely to seek out a similar place in the face of negative changes; their expression of loss concerned the degradation of the park ecosystems, rather than the personal loss of access to the park. However, Ryan (2001) found that some longer-term volunteers who had spent many years nurturing and restoring their volunteer sites were more likely to take initial action to protest against negative changes to their natural areas. Ryan (2001) also highlighted that volunteers with greater social reasons for volunteering were much more likely to show attachment to the volunteer site. • The Big Society review discusses how people’s attachments to place interrelate to their sense of community and in turn heighten people’s motivation to volunteer. At the core of a sense of community often lies emotional attachments to people within that community, developed through feelings of mutual trust, social connections, shared concerns and experiences, and community values. Both bonds between people and to the place can motivate community members to participate in neighbourhood improvement efforts (Manzo and Perkins, 2006: 339), and observing the tangible outcomes of such efforts can further enhance these bonds. 7.5. The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making Apparent across all three reviews is the important role of influential individuals in shaping citizen values and choices about the natural environment; be it through their ability to influence the interpretation of a proposed landscape change, mediate natural environment conflict and to rally communities to adapt to or oppose change to locally valued natural environments. • The Conflict Management review highlights the influential role that third parties can play within conflict management situations. Where such people are present early on they can play a key role in the interpretation of a proposed change. Once conflict has manifested, such individuals may also be able to identify existing barriers to effective negotiation and communication and implement a resolution process. In contemporary social science literature, it has been argued that intermediaries need not always be ‘neutral’ since this tends to maintain the status quo between conflicting parties (Smith, 2001; Caton Campwell, 2003). Opportunities for more effective resolution may instead lie with individuals who are influential within disputing parties (Ury, 2000). Such individuals have been referred to as ‘policy entrepreneurs’ or ‘local champions of reconciliation’ (Leach and Sabatier, 2003; Dukes, 2004; Beem, 2007). • Influential insider individuals may also rally communities against proposed changes to locally valued landscapes or ecosystems. As seen in the offshore wind case study discussed by Devine-Wright and Howes (2010), this can be associated with emotional attachments to a specific place where a proposed change can be interpreted as either a ‘disruption’ or an ‘improvement’ to the local area. Changes to places may be viewed much more negatively where trusted local individuals rally opposition and mobilise local campaigns against proposed changes.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 23 of 64 • The Big Society review demonstrated how such individuals could instead use their influence to mobilise communities to enhance or improve local natural environments. Described in various different ways (‘community champions’, ‘community pioneers’, ‘mavens’, ‘catalytic individuals’), such individuals are able to recognise local environmental or social issues and identify novel ideas for addressing them. More importantly, they have sufficient enthusiasm and community knowledge to tap into local pools of social capital and mobilise community members to engage in efforts to develop and implement these ideas, whilst also exploring strategic partnerships with, for example, businesses or third sector organisations that could provide valuable skills and expertise. • Fell et al., (2009) explored the role of influential individuals in the diffusion of environmental behaviours through social networks, treating the environmental behaviours as ‘social innovations’ since they comprise ‘new things to do’ for the majority of the population. They suggest that certain individuals – ‘catalytic individuals’ – will, in certain social contexts, play a particularly important role in the process of diffusion of an innovation through a social network. This may be through acting as a trusted source of information and advice, by ‘setting the tone’ of their social circles, or by establishing an innovation as socially acceptable through their own attitudes and behaviour.

o These catalytic individuals were found to occur in all walks of life, with no particular social, economic or geographical characteristics. They are often gregarious, sociable, opinionated and positive, and their influence seems largely to derive from their internal consistency; they tend to say what they mean, mean what they say, and do what they say. The one characteristic that they were all found to have in common was an overwhelming commitment to altruism.

o When seeking to work with such catalytic individuals to encourage positive community action, it is important to see that such people are motivated by altruistic rather than necessarily pro- environmental values. Whilst several of the individuals interviewed by Fell et al. had already adopted a number of pro-environmental behaviours and were in some way promoting them to others, they were more likely to do so when they could see how such behaviours would benefit the people around them, for example through improved health or cost-savings.

• The RSA’s Connected Communities programme (Rowson et al., 2010) presents a useful tool for identifying and mapping the diversity of communities. Engaging communities in this mapping process may serve to increase the strength of connections in local communities and thereby build social capital in the community.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 24 of 64 8. Stage 3 – Dissemination activities

Dissemination efforts centre on the full Stage 2 Reviews, structured around six main activities to present the findings from the project and offer them for dissemination and publication: 1. Presentation of the review findings to a selected audience within Defra. 2. Publication of the final outputs online, including on Defra’s Science and Research Project database and project partner websites. This acts as a reference point for other dissemination activities. 3. Circulation to relevant research-policy networks via email highlighting the project with links to the full project. The following networks aim to reach a wide diversity of policy-makers, practitioners and researchers working on issues related to the three review themes, both in the UK and internationally: a. Sustainable Development Research Network, b. Northern Rural Network, c. Sustainable Scotland Network, d. Greenspace Scotland, e. SuScit Network, f. Countryside Recreation Network and g. International Association for Landscape Ecology. h. The NERC Interdisciplinary Network for Valuing Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Natural Resource Use8. i. The Natural Capital Initiative9 4. Circulation of relevant outputs specifically to key organisations currently working on similar issues, such as the: a. Institute for Volunteering Research, b. University of Exeter, c. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. 5. Publication explored in an academic journal, based on the material produced in the reviews. 6. Publication sought in the research section of fortnightly Royal Town Planning Institute magazine.

8 http://www.valuing-nature.net/ 9 http://www.naturalcapitalinitiative.org.uk

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 25 of 64

References to published material 9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other published material generated by, or relating to this project.

Stage 1 References

Policy documents used in policy matrix

ƒ England Biodiversity Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/biodiversity/documents/biostrategy.pdf) ƒ UK Biodiversity Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/Plan_LO.pdf) ƒ Wildlife Management Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/wm- strategy.htm) ƒ Soils Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/land/soil/documents/soil-strategy.pdf) ƒ Ecosystems Approach Action Plan (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural- environ/documents/eco-actionplan.pdf) ƒ Making Space for Water (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/policy/strategy/strategy-response1.pdf and http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/policy/strategy/strategy-update.pdf) ƒ Future water: the Government's water strategy for England (http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/quality/water/strategy/pdf/future-water.pdf) The Marine Strategy consultation (http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/msfd-legal- framework/index.htm) ƒ Previous Marine Strategy (http://www.pml.ac.uk/pdf/DEFRA%20Safeguarding%20our%20seas.pdf). ƒ The Marine Bill – (summary type documents include: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/ourseas-2009update.pdf and http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/protect-marine-env-leaflet.pdf) ƒ Fisheries 2027 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries2027vision.pdf). ƒ Charting a new course (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries/newcourse.pdf) ƒ The Pitt Review (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/final_report.html) ƒ The Government’s Response to Sir Michael Pitt’s Review of the summer 2007 Floods - Progress Report, December 2009 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/risk/pitt- progress091215.pdf) ƒ Rural strategy 2004 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/policy/strategy.htm) ƒ Diversity Review (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/diversityreview/publications/default. aspx) ƒ Natural England’s work for the people and landscapes (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/default.aspx and http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/default.aspx) ƒ Outdoors for All? (http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/dap-ofa.pdf). ƒ Defra’s Departmental Report 2009 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/about/how/deprep/docs/2009- deptreport.pdf).

Wildlife and biodiversity overview references

Bardsley DK., and Edwards-Jones, G. (2009). ‘Invasive species policy and climate change: social perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean'. Environmental Science and Policy 10 (3): 230-242.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 26 of 64 Barr, JJF., Lurz, PWW. et al. (2002). ‘Evaluation of immunocontraception as a publicly acceptable form of vertebrate pest species control: The introduced grey squirrel in Britain as an example’. Environmental Management 30 (3): 342-351. Bednar-Friedl, B., Buijs, A., Dobrovodská, M., Dumortier, M., Eberhard, K., Fischer, A., Langers, F., Mauz, I., Musceleanu, O., Tátrai, I. and Young, J. (2009). ‘A long-term biodiversity, ecosystem and awareness research network: Public perceptions of biodiversity change’. EU FPB Network, ALTER-Net [online]. Available at: http://www.alter-net.info/POOLED/DOCUMENTS/a311258/3_R5_D2_ALTER- Net_RA5_survey_report_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09] Bremner, A. and Park, K . (2007). ‘Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland’. Biological Conservation 139 (3-4): 306-314. Brooks, JS., Franzen, MA., Holmes, CM., Grote, MN. and Mulder, M. (2005). ‘Development as a conservation tool: Evaluating ecological, economic, attitudinal and behavioural outcomes’. Systematic Review No 20. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence [online]. Available at: http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/SR20.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Buijs, A., Fischer, A., Lisievici, P., Marcelová, N., Rink, D., Sedlá, J., Tátrai, I. and Young, J. (2004). ‘A long-term biodiversity, ecosystem and awareness research network – Deliberative events: Approaches to assess public attitudes to biodiversity and biodiversity management’. EU FPB Network, ALTER-Net [online]. Available at: http://www.alter- net.info/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/outputs/Deliberative_events_report.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Buller, H. (2008). ‘Eating Biodiversity: an Investigation of the Links Between Quality Food Production and Biodiversity Protection’. RELU Policy and Practice Note 3 [online]. Available at: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/Buller%20Policy%20&%20Practice%20Notes.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Denhen-Schmutz, K., Perrings, C. and Williamson, M. (2004). 'Controlling Rhodedendron ponticum in the British Isles: An economic analysis'. Journal of Environmental Management 70 (4) 323-322. De Vries, S., Verheij R., Grenewegen, P. and Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). ‘Natural environments – healthy relationships? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between and health’. Environment and planning A 35: 1717-1731. European Commission (2010) ‘Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity. Summary Flash Barometer 290, Wave 2. Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, EL. (2007). 'Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion'. Climate Policy 7 (1) 49-59. Fischer, A. and Young, J. (2007). ‘Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation’. Biological Conservation 136: 271–282 Fisher, A. and van der Wal, R. (2007). ‘Invasive plant suppresses charismatic sea-bird – the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options’. Biological Conservation 135: 256 – 267 Garcia-Llorente, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Gonzalez, JA., Alcorlo, P. and Montes, C. (2008). 'Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive species: Implications for management'. Biological Conservation 141 (12): 2969-2983. Hodgson, SM., Maltby, L., Paetzold, A. and Phillips, D. (2007) 'Getting a measure of nature: culture and values in an ecosystem service approach'. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32 (3): 249-262. Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starfinger, U., ten Brink, P. and Shine, C. (2009). ‘Assessing the impacts of Invasive Alien Species in Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission)’. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium [online]. Available at: http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2009/ias_assessments.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Ladle, RJ., Jepson, P. and Whittaker, RJ. (2005). ‘Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science'. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30 (3): 231 – 240. Loram, A., Thompson, K., Warren, PH. and Gaston KJ. (2008). ‘Urban Domestic Gardens (XII): The richness and composition of the flora in five UK cities'. Journal of Vegetative Science 19 (3): 321-U67, Marshall, K., White, R., Fischer, A. (2007). ‘Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management’. Biodiversity Conservation 16: 3129-3146. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) ‘Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a synthesis’ Report [online]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf [Accessed 20th October 2010]. Morris, C. and Reed, M. (2007). 'From burgers to biodiversity: The McDonalization of on-farm nature

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 27 of 64 conservation in the UK'. Agriculture and human values 24 (2): 207-218. Newton, J. (2007) ‘Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A brief overview of the evidence’ Report for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. North East Biodiversity Form and Natural England (2007). Attitudes towards Biodiversity in the North East of England: Research Report. Ohl, C., Stickler, T., Lexer, W., Risnoveanu, G., Geamana, N., Beckenkamp, M., Fiorini, S., Fischer, A., Dumortier, M. and Casear, J. (2008). ‘Governing Biodiversity: Procedural and Distributional Fairness in Complex Social Dilemmas’. UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig [online]. Available at: http://www.alternet.info/POOLED/DOCUMENTS/a311862/Governing%20biodiversity%20- %20Procedural%20and%20Distributional%20Fairness%20in%20Complex%20%20Social%20Dilemmas.p df [Accessed 16/12/09]. . Pearce, D. (2007). 'Do we really care about biodiversity?' Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (10): 313 – 333. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N. and Griffin, M. (2007). ‘Green exercise in the UK Countryside: Effects on Health and Physiological Well-Being, and Implications for Policy and Planning’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (2), 211-231. Pretty, R. (2007) The Earth Only Endures. London: Earthscan. Read, D., Bostrom, A., Granger Morgan, M., Fischhoff, B. and Smuts, T. (1994). ‘What do people know about global climate change? Survey studies of educated lay people.’ Risk Analysis 14 (6): 971-982. Scalera, R. (2010). 'How much is Europe spending on invasive alien species?'. Biological Invasions 12 (1): 173 - 177 Selfa, T., Jussaume, RA. and Winter, M. (2008). 'Envisioning agricultural sustainability from field to plate: Comparing producer and consumer attitudes and practices toward environmentally friendly food and farming in Washington State, USA’. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3): 262-276. Stewart, D. (2006). ‘Scottish Biodiversity List Social Criterion: Results of a survey of the Scottish population’. Scottish Government Social Research Project, Research Findings No. 26 [online]. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/99806/0024169.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Sustainable Development Commission. (2008). ‘Health, place and nature - How outdoor environments influence health and well-being: a knowledge base’. [Online] Available at: http://www.sd- commission.org.uk/ [Accessed 14/01/2010] Thornton, A. (2009) ‘Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey’. A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. TNS. Defra, London. Tompkins, EL., Few, R. and Brown, K. (2008). 'Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating stakeholder preferences into coastal planning for climate change'. Journal of Environmental Management 88 (4): 1580 – 1592. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J. and James, P. (2007). 'Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review’. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (3): 167 – 178. Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C. and Devine-Wright, P. (2009). ‘Public Attitudes to Environmental Change: a selective review of theory and practice. A Research Synthesis for the Living with Environmental Change Research Programme’ [online]. Available at: http://www.lwec.org.uk/sites/default/files/Public%20attitudes%20to%20environmental%20change_final%2 0report_301009_1.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. White, R., Fischer, A., Hansen, HP., Varjopuro, R., Young, J. and Adamescu, M. (2005). ‘Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation’. ALTER-Net Project No. GOCE-CT-2003-505298 [online]. Available at: http://www.alter- net.info/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/outputs/ANet_WPR4_2005_03_Confl_Part_SL_Attitudes2.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. White, PL., Ford, AE., Clout, MN., Engeman, RM., Roy, S. and Saunders, G. (2008). 'Alien invasive vertebrates in ecosystems: pattern, process and the social dimension.' Wildlife Research 35 (3): 171-179. Whitmarsh, L. (2009). ‘What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of 'climate change' and 'global warming'.’ Public Understanding of Science 18: 401–420. Young, S. (2005). 'Biodiversity, participation and community: Reintegrating people and nature'. Environmental politics 14 (5): 697 – 702.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 28 of 64

Ecosystems Approach overview references Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2008). ‘Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis’. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 317-344. Berkmann, J., Glenk, K., Keil, A., Leemhuis, C., Dietrich, N., Gerold, G. and Marggraf, R. (2008) ‘Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods’. Ecological Economics 65: 48 – 62 Bienabe, E. and Hearne, RR. (2006). ‘Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments’. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (4): 335-348. Brekke, K. A. and Howarth, RB. (2000). ‘The social contingency of wants.’ Land Economics 76 (4): 493- 503. Clark, J. K. and Stein, TV. (2003). ‘Incorporating the natural landscape within an assessment of community attachment’. Forest Science 49 (6): 867-876. de Groot, RBA. and Hermans, LM. (2009). ‘Broadening the picture: Negotiating payment schemes for water-related environmental services in the Netherlands’. Ecological Economics 68 (11): 2760-2767. Defra (2009) ‘Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment - tracker survey: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.’ TNS. Defra, London. Dobbs, T.L. and Pretty, J. (2008). ‘Case study of agri-environmental payments: The United Kingdom’. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 765-775. Dupraz, P., Vermersch, D., de Frahan, B. and Delvaux, L. (2003). ‘The environmental supply of farm households - A flexible willingness to accept model’. Environmental & Resource Economics 25 (2): 171- 189. European Commission (2008) ‘The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: an interim report’ Report to the European Commission. Ferrari, S. and Rambonilaza, M. (2008). ‘Agricultural multifunctionality promoting policies and the safeguarding of rural landscapes: How to evaluate the link?’ Landscape Research 33 (3): 297-309. Fisher, B., Turner, K. et al. (2008). ‘Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy- relevant research’. Ecological Applications 18 (8): 2050-2067. Ghazoul, J., Garcia, C. and Kushalappa, CG. (2009). ‘Landscape labelling: A concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem service schemes’. Forest Ecology and Management 258 (9): 1889-1895. Haines-Young, RH. and Potschin, MB. (2009). ‘Methodologies for defining and assessing ecosystem services’. Final Report, JNCC, Project Code C08-0170-0062. Hodgson, SM., Maltby, L., Paetzold, A. and Phillips, D. (2007). ‘Getting a measure of nature: culture and values in an ecosystem service approach’. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32 (3): 249-262. Hokby, S. and Soderqvist, T. (2003). ‘Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden’. Environmental & Resource Economics 26 (3): 361-383. Howarth, RB. and Wilson, MA. (2006). ‘A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: Aggregation by mutual consent’. Land Economics 82 (1): 1-16. Jackson, LE., Pascual, U. and Hodgkin, T. (2007). ‘Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes’. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 121 (3): 196-210. Kanowski, P J. and Williams, KJH. (2009). ‘The reality of imagination: Integrating the material and cultural values of old forests’. Forest Ecology and Management 258 (4): 341-346. Kenwick, RA., Shammin, R. and Sullivan, WC. (2009). ‘Preferences for riparian buffers’. Landscape and Urban Planning 91 (2): 88-96. Landell-Mills, N. (2002). ‘Developing markets for forest environmental services: an opportunity for promoting equity while securing efficiency?’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 360 (1797): 1817-1825. MacMillan, D., Hanley, H. and Lienhoop, N. (2006) ‘Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine’. Ecological Economics 60: 299 – 307. Mee, LD., Jefferson, RL., Laffoley, D. and Elliott, M. (2008). ‘How good is good? Human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive’. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2): 187-204. Natural England (2009) No charge? Valuing the natural environment. Sheffield: Natural England.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 29 of 64 Nicholson, E., Mace, GM., Armsworth, PR., Atkinson, G., Buckle, S., Clements, T., Ewers, RM., Fa, JE., Gardner, TA., Gibbons, J., Grenyer, R., Metcalfe, R., Mourato, S., Muûls, M., Osborn, D., Reuman, DC., Watson, C. and Milner-Gulland, EJ. (2009) ‘FORUM: Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world’ Journal of Applied Ecology 46(6): 1139 – 1144 Olsson, P. and Folke, C. (2001). ‘Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: A study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden’. Ecosystems 4 (2): 85-104. Ozdemiroglu, E., Tinch, R., Johns, H., Provins, A., Powell, J. and Twigger-Ross, C. (2006). ‘Valuing our Natural Environment’. Final Report NR0103 for Defra [online]. Available at: http://www.eftec.co.uk/eftec_reports/eftec-Valuing_Our_Natural_Environment-136.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Pagiola, S., Rios, AR. And Arcenas, A. (2008). ‘Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua’. Environment and Development Economics 13: 299-325. Patrick, I., Barclay, E. and Reeve, I. (2009). ‘If the price is right: farmer attitudes to producing environmental services’. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 16 (1): 36-46. Posthumus, H., Morris, J., Angus, A. and Graves, A. (2009). ‘Land valuation and decision-making: Report of Proceedings of Foresight Land Use Futures and RELU Workshop’ [online]. Available at: http://www.relu.ac.uk/events/Events%20and%20Meetings/relu-foresight%20workshop- valuation%20final%20v1.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Research Box in association with Land Use Consultants and Rick Minter (2009) ‘Experiencing Landscapes: capturing the cultural services and experiential qualities of landscape’. Sheffield, Natural England. Rouquette, JR., Posthumus, H., Gowing, DJG., Tucker, G., Dawson, QL., Hess, TM. and Morris, J. (2009). ‘Valuing nature-conservation interests on agricultural floodplains’. Journal of Applied Ecology 46 (2): 289- 296. RSPB (2009) ‘Naturally, at your service: Why it pays to invest in nature’. RSPB, Bedfordshire [online]. Available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Valuingnature_tcm9-230654.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. SDRN (2004) ‘Environment and social justice’ Rapid Research and Evidence Review produced for the Sustainable Development Research Network [online]. Available at: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/envsocialjusticereview.pdf [Accessed 20/10/2010]. Shabman, L. and Stephenson, K. (2000). ‘Environmental valuation and its economic critics’. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management-Asce 126 (6): 382-388. Think-Lab (2009) ‘Defra Ecosystems Approach Research Programme Synthesis Report’. Defra. Upham, P, Whitmarsh, L, Poortinga, W, Purdam, K, Darnton, A, McLachlan, C, Devine-Wright, P. (2009). ‘Public Attitudes to Environmental Change: a selective review of theory and practice. A Research Synthesis for the Living With Environmental Change Programme’ [online]. Available from: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Public%20Attitudes%20to%20Environmental %20Change_exec%20summary_tcm6-35479.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. White, T. (2000). ‘Diet and the distribution of environmental impact’. Ecological Economics 34 (1): 145- 153. Zendehdel, K., Rademaker, M., de Baets, B. and Huylenbroeck, GV. (2009). ‘Improving tractability of group decision making on environmental problems through the use of social intensities of preferences’. Environmental Modelling & Software 24 (12): 1457-1466.

Land management and soil overview references

Armstrong, P. (2009) The Sustainability of Hill Farming. RELU Policy and Practice Note 13 [online]. Available from: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Armsworth/PP13%20for%20WEB.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. Blackstock, K., Brown, K., Burton, R., Dilley, R., Dwyer, J., Matthews, K., Mills, J., Ingram, J., Schwartz, G., Slee, B. and Taylor, J. (2007) Understanding and influencing positive behaviour change in farmers and land managers: a project for Defra. Final Report [online]. Available from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=1&Proje ctID=14518 [Accessed 16/12/09]. Brown, K. (2006). 'New Challenges for old Commons: The role of Historical Common Land in

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 30 of 64 Contemporary Rural Spaces'. Scottish Geographical Journal 122 (2): 109—129. Burton. RJF., Kuczera, C. and Scwarz, G. (2008) ‘Exploring Farmers’ Cultural Resistance to Voluntary Agri-environmental Schemes’ Sociologia Ruralis 48(1): 16 – 37 Davies, BB. and Hodge, ID. (2006) ‘Farmers’ Preferences for New Environmental Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for Biodiversity Benefits’ Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(3): 393 - 414 Davies, BB. and Hodge, ID. (2007) ‘Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q- methodology study in East Anglia, UK’ Ecological Economics 61: 323 – 333 Dwyer, J., Mills, J. Ingram, J., Taylor, J., Burton, R., Blackstock, K., Slee, B., Brown, K., Schwarz, G., Matthews, K. and Dilley, R. (2007). ‘Understanding and Influencing Positive Behaviour Change in Farmers and Land Managers – A Project for Defra’ [Online]. Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&Proje ctID=14518 [Accessed 12/01/2010]. Eiser, JR., Stafford, T., Henneberry, J. and Catney, P. (2009). “Trust me, I’m a Scientist (Not a Developer)’: Perceived Expertise and Motives as Predictors of Trust in Assessment of Risk from Contaminated Land’. Risk Analysis 29 (2): 288-297. Fischer, A., Petersen, L., Feldkötter, C. and Huppert, W. (2007) ‘Sustainable governance of natural resources and institutional change – an analytical framework’ Public Administration and Development 27: 123 – 137 Huby, M., Cinderby, S., Crowe, AM., Gillings, S., McClean, C.J., Moran, D., Owen, A. and White, PCL. (2005). ‘The Association of Natural, Social and Economic Factors with Bird Species Richness in Rural England’, RELU Working Paper No. 3 [online]. Available at: http://www.sei.se/relu/secra/wp3.pdf [Accessed 13/01/2010]. Ingram, J. (2008). ‘Are Farmers in England Equipped to meet the Knowledge Challenge of Sustainable Soil Management? An Analysis of Farmer and Advisor Views’. Journal of Environmental Management 86: 214-228. Ingram, J. and Morris, C. (2007). ‘The knowledge challenge within the transition towards sustainable soil management: An analysis of agricultural advisors in England’. Land Use Policy 24: 100-117. Karp, A. (2009) Assessing the social, environmental and economic impacts of increasing rural land use under energy crops. RELU Policy and Practice Note 9 [online]. Available from: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Karp/Karp.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. Knowler, D. and Bradshaw, B. (2007). ‘Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Agriculture: A review and Synthesis of Recent Research’. Food Policy 32: 25-48. Little, D. (2008) Warm water fish production as a diversification strategy for arable farmers. RELU Policy and Practice Note 2 [online]. Available from: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Little/March%202008%20Dave%20Little %202.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. Lobry de Brun, LA. and Abbey, JA. (2003). ‘Characterisation of Farmers' Soil Sense and the Implications for On-farm Monitoring of Soil Health’. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture’ 43 (3): 285-305. Mather, AS., Hill, G. and Nijnik, M. (2006). ‘Post-productivism and Rural Land Use: Cul de sac or Challenge for Theorization?’. Journal of Rural Studies 22: 441-455. Natural England (2009) Farming with nature: Agri-environment schemes in action [online]. Available from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/Farming%20with%20Nature%20-%20Nov%2009_tcm6- 14724.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. Rawlins, A. and Morris, J. (2010). ‘Social and Economic Aspects of Peatland Management in Northern Europe, with Particular Reference to the English Case’. Geoderma 154: 242-251. Short, C. (2000). ‘Common land and ELMS: A Need for Policy Innovation in England and Wales’. Land Use Policy 17: 121-133.

Flood risk management overview references

Association of Drainage Boards (2009) ‘A Vision for Internal Drainage Boards in England and Wales’ [online]. Available at: http://www.shiregroup- idbs.gov.uk/admin/latestnews/A%20Vision%20for%20IDBs%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.pdf [Accessed 12/01/2010].

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 31 of 64 Brown JD. and Damery, SL. (2002). ‘Managing flood risk in the UK: towards an integration of social and technical perspectives’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27 (4): 412-426 Carroll B., Morbey, H., Balogh, R. and Araoz, G. (2009). ‘Flooded homes, broken bonds, the meaning of home, psychological processes and their impact on psychological health in a disaster’. Health and Place 15 (2): 540-547 Defra (2005) Making Space for Water [online]. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/policy/strategy/strategy-response1.pdf [Accessed 12/01/2010] Erdlenbruch K, Thoyer, S., Grelot, F., Kast, R. and Enjolras, G. (2009). ‘Risk sharing policies in the context of the French flood prevention action programmes’. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2): 363- 369. Evans et al. (2008) ‘An Update of the Foresight Future Flooding 2004 Qualitative Risk Analysis,’ Cabinet Office, London [online]. Available at: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/final_report.html [Accessed 12/01/2010]. Evans E., Hall, J et al. (2006) ‘Future Flood Risk Management’ in the UK Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water Management 159 (1):53-61 Fielding, J. (2007). ‘Environmental injustice or just the lie of the land: and investigation of the socio- economic class of those at risk from flooding in England and Wales’. Sociological Research Online 12 (4) Fielding J. and Burningham, K. (2005). ‘Environmental inequality and flood hazard’. Local Environment 10 (4): 379-395 Haynes H., Haynes, R. and Pender, G. (2008). ‘Integrating socio-economic analysis into decision support methodology for flood risk management at the development scale (Scotland)’. Water and Environment 22 (2): 117-124 Howgate O.R. and Kenyon, W. (2009). ‘Community cooperation with natural flood management: A case study in the Scottish Borders’. Area 41 (3): 329-340 Institution of Civil Engineers (2001) ‘Learning to Live with Rivers’, London. Johnson C. and Priest, SJ. (2008). ‘Flood risk management in England: A changing landscape of risk responsibility?’ International Journal of Water Resources Development 24 (4): 513-525 Johnson C., Penning-Roswell, E. and Tapsell, S. (2007). ‘Aspiration and reality: flood policy, economic damages and the appraisal process’. Area 39 (2): 214-223 LUPG (2009) ‘Adapting agricultural policy to increased flood risk’ [online]. Available at: http://lupg62.wisshost.net/Default.aspx?page=153 [Accessed 12/01/2010]. LUPG (2004) ‘Integration of agricultural, forestry and biodiversity policies with flood management in England and Wales’ [online]. Available at: http://www.lupg.org.uk/pdf/pubs_integrn%20agri%20forestry%20and%20biodiv%20pols%20with%20fld%2 0mmnt.pdf [Accessed 12/01/2010]. Messner. F. and Meyer, V. (2005) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception: Challenges for flood damage research. UFZ Discussion Paper. Leipzig, UFZ. Morris J. et al (2009) Impacts of Summer Floods on Rural Communities in England, Cranfield University, Report to the Commission for Rural Communities, Cheltenham Naess L., Bang, G., Eriksen, S. and Vevatne, J. (2005). ‘Institutional adaptation to climate change: Flood responses at the municipal level in Norway’. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 15 (2): 125-138 ODPM (2003) ‘Preparing for Floods’ [online]. Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/preparingfloods [Accessed 12/012010] Parker, DJ. (2004). ‘Designing flood forecasting, warning and response systems from a societal perspective’. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 13 (1): 5-11 Parker, D., Tapsell, S. and McCarthy, S. (2007) ‘Enhancing the benefits of flood warnings’ Natural Hazards 43: 397 – 414 Parker DJ., Priest, SJ. and Tapsell, SM. (2009). ‘Understanding and enhancing the public’s behavioural response to flood warning information’. Meteorological Applications 16 (1): 103-114 Penning-Roswell E. and Wilson, T. (2006). ‘Gauging the impacts of natural hazards: The pattern and cost of emergency response during flood events’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 32 of 64 (2):99-115 Penning-Roswell, E., Floyd, P., Ramsbottom, D. and Surendran, S. (2005). ‘Estimating injury and loss of life in floods: A deterministic framework’. Natural Hazards 36 (1-2): 43-64 Posthumus H. and Morris, J. (2007). ‘Implications of CAP reform for land management and runoff control in England and Wales’. Land Use Policy 27 (1): 42-50 Ryedale Flood Research Group (2009) ‘Making Space for People’ [online]. Available at http://knowledge- controversies.ouce.ox.ac.uk/ryedaleexhibition/Making_Space_for_People.pdf [Accessed at 11/012010] Spellar, G. (2005) Improving community and citizen engagement in flood risk management decision- making, delivery and flood response. Environment Agency Technical Report SC040033/SR3. Bristol, Environment Agency. Steinführer, A. (2009) Communities at risk: Vulnerability, resilience and recommendations for flood risk management. EC Project Report Number T11-07-15. Tapsell S. and Tunstall, S. (2003). ‘An examination of the health effects of flooding in the United Kingdom’. Journal of Meteorology 28 (283): 341-349 Tapsell S., Penning-Roswell, EC., Tunstall, SM and Wilson, TL. (2002). ‘Vulnerability to flooding health and social dimensions’. Philosophical Transactions of the royal Society of London Series A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 360 (1796): 1511-1525 Pitt, M. (2008). ‘The Pitt Review’ Cabinet Office, London [online]. Available at: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview.html [Accessed 12/01/2010]. Treby, E., Clark, J. and Priest, SJ. (2006). ‘Confronting flood risk: Implications for insurance and risk transfer’. Journal of Environmental Management 81 (4): 351-359 Twigger-Ross, C. (2005) The impact of flooding on urban and rural communities. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report SC040033/SR1. Bristol, Environment Agency. Twigger-Ross, C. (2005) Improving institutional and social responses to flooding: Work Package 1 – Flood Warning. Environment Agency Report SC060019. Bristol, Environment Agency. Twigger-Ross, C. (2009) Improving institutional and social responses to flooding: Synthesis Report: Work Package 5. Environment Agency Project SC060019/SR6. Bristol, Environment Agency. Walker, G., Burningham, K., Fielding, J., Smith, G., Thrush, D. And Fay, H. (2006) Addressing Environmental Inequalities: Flood Risk. Environment Agency Science Report SC020061/SR1. Bristol, The Environment Agency. Walker, G. (2009). ‘Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice’. Antipode 41($): 614-636 Werritty, A. (2006). ‘Sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm?’ Area 38 (1): 16-23 Wheater, H. and Evans, E. (2009). ‘Land use, water management and future flood risk’. Land Use Policy 26 (Supplement): S251-S264

Water quality and availability overview references

Adger, N. (2001) ‘Social capital and climate change’. Tyndall Centre Working Paper No 8. Norwich, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Barrett, G., and Wallace, M. (2009). ‘Characteristics of Australian urban residential water users: implications for water demand management and whole of the system water framework’. Water Policy 11 (4): 413 - 426. Blackstock, KL., Ingram, J., Burton, KM. and Slee, B. (2009). ‘Understanding and influencing behaviour change by farmers to improve water quality’. Science of the Total Environment (article in press) Blackstock, KL. (2009). 'Between a rock and a hard place: incompatible objectives at the heart of river basin planning'. Water Science and Technology 59 (3): 425 – 431. Brooks, N. (2003) ‘Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework’. Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 38. Norwich, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Burton, RJF., Kuczera, C. and Schwarz, G. (2008). ‘Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes’. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1): 16 – 37 Chapagain, A. and Hoekstra, A. (2007) ‘The water footprint of tea and coffee consumption in the

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 33 of 64 Netherlands’.Ecological Economics 64: 109-118. Chapagain, A. and Orr, S. (2008). ‘UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on global water resources’. Volume 1 [Online]. Available at: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Orr%20and%20Chapagain%202008%20UK%20waterfootprint- vol1.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09] Chappells, H. and Medd, W. (2008) ‘What is fair? Tensions between sustainable and equitable domestic water consumption in England and Wales’, Local Environment 13(8): 725-741 Chu JY., Wang C., Chen, J. and Wang, H. (2009). ‘Agent-Based Residential Water Use Behaviour Stimulation and Policy Implications: A Case Study in Beijing City’. Water Resources Management 23 (15): 3267-3295 Collins, A., and Maille, P. (2008) Farmers as Producers of Clean Water: Getting Incentive Payments Right and Encouraging Farmer Participation. Daigger, GT. (2009). 'Evolving Urban Water and Residuals Management Paradigms: Water reclamation and reuse, decentralization and resource recovery'. Water Environment Research 81 (8): 809 – 823. DEFRA (2008) England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative Phase 1 Report: April 2006 – March 2008. Del Sal-Salazar, S., Hernandez-Sancho, F. and Sala-Garrido, R. (2009). 'The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept'. Science of the Total Environment 407 (16): 4574 – 4586. Foote, JL., Gregor, JE., Hepi, MC., Baker, VE., Houston, DJ. and Midgley, G. (2007). ‘Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation‘. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 645 – 654. Friends of the Earth (2004) ‘Briefing: The Voluntary Initiative and Water Pollution’. Halich, G. and Stephenson, K. (2009). ‘Effectiveness of residential water use restrictions under varying levels of municipal effort’. Land Economics 85 (4): 614 – 626. Hughes, N., Hafi, A. and Goesch, T. (2009). ‘Urban Water Management: optimal price and investment policy under climate variability’. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 53 (2): 175 – 192. Humphrey, N.C.B. et. Al. (2007) ‘Voluntary Initiative Pilot Catchment Study’. UKWIR Report Ref. No. 07/WR/26/2. Published by UK Water Industry Research Limited [online]. Available at: http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/_Attachments/resources/1051_S4.pdf [Accessed 28/10/2010] Hurlimann, A., Dolnicar, S. and Meyer, P. (2009). 'Understanding behaviour to support water supply management in developed nations: A review of literature, conceptual model and research agenda'. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1): 47-56. Jefferies, C. (2004) ‘SUDs in Scotland – The Monitoring Programme of the Scottish Universities SUDS Monitoring Group’ [online]. Available at: http://www.sudsnet.abertay.ac.uk/documents/SNIFFERSR_02_51MainReport.pdf [Accessed 20/10/2010] Jorgensen B., Graymore, M., O'Toole K. (2009). ‘Household Water Behaviour Use: An integrated model’. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1): 227 – 236. MacLeod, CJA., Blackstock, K. and Haygarth, G. (2008). 'Mechanisms to improve integrative research at the science-policy interface for sustainable catchment management'. Ecology and Society 13 (2): 48. Medd, W. and Chappells, H. (2007). ‘Drought and demand in 2006: Consumers, Water Companies and Regulators’ ESRC End of Award Report, RES-177-25-0001. Swindon, ESRC [online]. Available at: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/ViewOutputPage.aspx?data=lWEC7sNY9jlnfD32Q%2 fmeIPy2Z95wEGwMilPOpEWE8C3bnGeIqICC6ELGfIkdwycXSnxkUvvW2t3w%2bLoS2ebBl%2brOVcvmY L2AhjEbURy9GDeWFrviX%2bqfUSKbjPfdeUfU&xu=0&isAwardHolder=&is [Accessed 16/12/09]. Menegaki, A., Mellon, R., Vrentzou, A., Koumakis, G. Tsagarakis, K., (2009) ‘What’s in a name: Framing treated wastewater as recycled water increases willingness to use and willingness to pay’ Journal of Economic Psychology 30, 285-292 Messner, F. and Meyer, V. (2005) ‘Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception: Challenges for flood damage research’. UFZ Discussion Paper. Leipzig, UFZ. Morton, LW. and Weng, CY. (2009) ‘Getting to better water quality outcomes: the promise and challenge of the citizen effect’ Agric Hum Values 26: 83-94. Nancarrow, B., Leviston, Z., Po, M., Porter, N., and Tucker, B., et al (2008) ‘What drives communities

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 34 of 64 decisions and behaviours in the use of waste water’. Water and Science Technology 57 (4) 485-491. Owens, L., Bramley, H. and Tocock, J. (2009) ‘Public understanding of sustainable water use in the home’ A research report completed for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Posthumus, H., Hewett, CJM., Morris, J. and Guinn, PF. (2008). ‘Agricultural land use and flood risk management: engaging with stakeholders in North Yorkshire’. Agricultural Water Management 95: 787 – 798. Ryan, AM., Spash, CL. and Measham, TG. (2009). ‘Socio-economic and psychological predictors of domestic greywater and rainwater collection: Evidence from Australia’. Journal of Hydrology 379 (1-2): 164 – 171. Sharp, L. (2006). ‘Water demand management in England and Wales: Constructions of the domestic water user’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49 (6): 869-889. Schleich, J., and Hillenbrand, T. (2009). ‘Determinants of residential water demand in Germany’. Ecological Economics 68 (6): 1756 – 1769. Schneider, S. et al., (2000) ‘Adaptation: Sensitivity to natural variability, agent assumptions and dynamic climate changes’ Climatic Change 45: 203-221. Sloots, K., Spierenburg, P. and van der Vlies, A. (2004) Dutch approach to abating agricultural non-point pollution: farmers’ behaviours and their motivation. Tompkins, E. and Adger, N. (2005) ‘Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy’ Environmental Science and Policy 8: 562-571. Walker, A. (2009) ‘The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services’. A report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

People and landscapes overview references

Ambrose-Oji, B. (2009). ‘Equality and inclusion of social diversity with respect to woods and forests in the UK: An evidence review’. Research Report, Forest Research. Alice Holt Lodge Farnham, Surrey [online]. Available at: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/Diversity_and_Equality_Evidence_Review_March09.pdf/$FILE/Diver sity_and_Equality_Evidence_Review_March09.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Antrop, M. (2005). ‘Why landscapes of the past are important for the future’. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 21-34. Agyeman, J., Devine-Wright, P., and Prange, J. (2009). ‘Close to the edge, down by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place attachment in a climate changed world’. Environment and Planning A 41 (3): 509-513. Bell. S. Morris, N. Findlay, C. Travlou, P. Montarzino, Alicia . Gooch, D. Gregory, G. and Ward Thompson, C. (2004) Nature for people: the importance of green spaces to East Midlands communities, English Nature Research Report Number 567 [Online]. Available from: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/R567 [Accessed 28/10/2010]. Bird, W. (2007) ‘Natural Thinking: Investigating the links between the natural environment, biodiversity and mental health’ [online]. Available from: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/naturalthinking_tcm9-161856.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. Brown, OJ. (2008) ‘Barriers to participation: A review of why specific communities in Northern Ireland do not use the countryside for recreation’ [online]. Available from: http://www.ni- environment.gov.uk/barriers_to_participation_final_document.pdf [Accessed 07/01/2010]. Brush, R., Chenoweth, RE. and Barman, T. (2000). ‘Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes’. Landscape and Urban Planning 47: 39-45. Buckley, C., van Rensberg, TM. and Hynes, S. (2009). ‘Recreational demand for farm commonage in Ireland: A contingent valuation assessment’. Land Use Policy 26: 846-854. Buijs, AE., Elands, BHM. and Langers, F. (2009). ‘No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences’. Landscape and Urban Planning 91: 113-123. Buijs, AE., Pedroli, B. and Luginbuhl, Y. (2006). ‘From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape’. Landscape Ecology 21: 375-389. Council of Europe (2000). The European Landscape Convention - Firenze, 20.X.2000 (ETS No. 176). Official text in English and Explanatory Report. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. In Swanwick (2009)

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 35 of 64 Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 265 (2009) pp. S62-S75. Croucher, K., Myers, L., Bretherton, J., (2007). The Links Between Greenspace and Health: A Critical Literature Review. University of York, York. De Groot, WT. and Van Den Born, RJG. (2003). ‘Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands’. Landscape and Urban Planning 63: 127-138. Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Bone, A. and Sunnenberg, G. (2006). ‘Developing scenarios and visualisations to illustrate potential policy and climatic influences on future agricultural landscapes’. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 114: 103-120. Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., Woolley, H. (2002). Improving Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces. ODPM, London, pp. 35. Fahy, F. and Cinneide, MO. (2009). ‘Re-constructing the urban landscape through community mapping: an attractive prospect for sustainability?’ Area 41: 167-175. Fuller, D. (2005). ‘Chilterns Tranquillity Study: Summary report on the Participatory Appraisal consultations in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ [online]. Available from: http://countryside-quality- counts.org.uk/pubs_tranquility.html [Accessed 16/12/09]. Garre, S., Meeus, S. and Gulinck, H. (2009). ‘The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: A case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium)’. Landscape and Urban Planning 92: 125-135. Gee, K. (2010). ‘Offshore wind power development as affected by seascape values on the German North Sea coast’. Land Use Policy 27: 185-194. Grant, MJ. and Edwards, ME. (2008). ‘Conserving idealized landscapes: past history, public perception and future management in the New Forest (UK)’. Vegetation History and Archa`eobotany 17: 551-562. Gret-Regamey, A., Bishop, ID. and Bebi, P. (2007). ‘Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS’. Environment and Planning B- Planning & Design 34: 50-67. Gross, H., Lane, N., (2007_. Landscapes of the lifespan: exploring accounts of own gardens and gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27, 225–241.Harshaw, HW., Sheppard, SRJ. and Kozak, RA. (2007). ‘Outdoor recreation and forest management: A plea for empirical data’. Forestry Chronicle 83: 231-238. Hickman, C. (2009). ‘Cheerful prospects and tranquil restoration: the visual experience of landscape as part of the therapeutic regime of the British asylum, 1800-60’. History of Psychiatry 20: 425-441. Hojring, K. (2002). ‘The right to roam the countryside - law and reality concerning public access to the landscape in Denmark’. Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 29-41. Hopf, T. (2006). ‘The right of public access to the landscape as a commons situation’. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 15: 16-19. Johansson, M. and Laike, T. (2007). ‘Intention to respond to local wind turbines: The role of attitudes and visual perception’. Wind Energy, 10, 435-451. Kuiper, J.(2000). ‘A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality’. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 77: 143-156. Land Use Consultants and University of Sheffield (1998). ‘North Pennines Environmental Capital: A Pilot Study’. Unpublished Report to the Countryside Commission and English Nature. Land Use Consultants (2009). ‘Phase 1 of Research into the implications of climate change impacts and adaptation and mitigation responses for landscape character and quality of life’. For Scottish Natural Heritage. Unpublished at present. Mcevoy, D., Cavan, G., Handley, J., McMorrow, J. and Lindley, S. (2008). ‘Changes to climate and visitor behaviour: Implications for vulnerable landscapes in the north west region of England’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16: 101-121. Millward, A. and Royal, S. (2008). Community Perceptions of The National Forest. Birmingham, Alison Millward Associates. Munoz, SA. (2009) Children in the Outdoors: A literature review. Sustainable Development Research Centre, Forres, Scotland. Myatt, LB., Scrimshaw, MD. and Lester, JN. (2003). ‘Public perceptions and attitudes towards a forthcoming managed realignment scheme: Freiston Shore, Lincolnshire, UK’. Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (6-7): 565-582. Myatt, LB., Scrimshaw, MD. and Lester, JN. (2003a). ‘Public perceptions and attitudes towards an

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 36 of 64 established managed realignment scheme: Orplands, Essex, UK’. Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2): 173-181. Natural England (2009a). ‘NE114 - Responding to the impacts of climate change on the natural environment: The Broads’. Sheffield, Natural England. Natural England (2009b). ‘NE115 - Responding to the impacts of climate change on the natural environment: Cumbria High Fells’. Sheffield, Natural England. Natural England (2009c). ‘NE116 - Responding to the impacts of climate change on the natural environment: Dorset Downs’. Sheffield, Natural England. NFO Transport and Tourism (2006). National Nature Reserve baseline visitor survey. Nilsson, K., Baines, C. and Konijnendijk, CC. (eds) (2007) COST Strategic Workshop Final Report: Health and the Natural Outdoors [online]. Available from: http://www.umb.no/statisk/greencare/general/strategic_workshop_final_report.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 146 (ROAME No. F02AA632) [online]. Available from: http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/Report%20No146.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. O’Brien, L. (2004) People’s experiences of woodlands in north-west and south-east England. Forest Research Summary, Forestry Commission [online]. Available from: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/SERG_Peoples_experiences_of_woodlands_research_summary.pdf /$FILE/SERG_Peoples_experiences_of_woodlands_research_summary.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. O’Brien, L. (2005) Trees and woodlands: nature’s health service [online]. Available from: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/FR_twnhs_book.pdf/$FILE/FR_twnhs_book.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. OPENspace (2008) Greenspace and Quality of Life—A Critical Literature Review. Report for Greenspace Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and SNIFFER. Greenspace Scotland, Stirling. Orr, HG., Wilby, RL., Hedger, MM. and Brown, I. (2008). ‘Climate change in the uplands: a UK perspective on safeguarding regulatory ecosystem services’. Climate Research 37: 77-98. Ozguner, H. and Kendle, AD. (2006). ‘Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK)’. Landscape and Urban Planning 74: 139-157. Pretty, J., Griffin, M. Sellens, M. and Pretty, C. (2003). ‘Green Exercise: complementary roles of nature, exercise and diet in physical and emotional well-being and implications for public health policy’. CES occasional paper 2003-1. University of Essex. Pretty, J., Smith, D.J., (2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation Biology 18 (5), 631–638. Research Box and Land Use Consultants (2009). ‘Experiencing Landscapes: capturing the cultural services and experiential qualities of landscape’. Natural England Commissioned Report NECR024. Rose, C., Dade, P. and Scott, J. (2008) ‘Qualitative and quantitative research into public engagement with the undersea landscape in England’. Natural England Research Report NERR019. Natural England, Sheffield [online]. Available from: http://landscapecharacter.org.uk/resources/reports/undersea-landscape- in-england [Accessed 16/12/09]. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (2004). Natural Fit: Can Green Space and Biodiversity increase Levels of Physical Activity? A Report by Dr William Bird for RSPB. Faculty of Public Health, Royal College of Physicians, London. Scott, A. (2002). ‘Assessing Public Perception of Landscape: the LANDMAP experience’. Landscape Research 27 (3): 271 - 295. Sheppard, SRJ. (2005). ‘Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour’. Environmental Science & Policy 8: 637-654. Swanwick, C., Hanley, N. and Termansen, M. (2007). ‘Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation’. Final report to DEFRA. London, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Swanwick, C. (2009). Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 265 (2009). pp. S62-S75. TEP (2006). The Mersey Forest Comparator Study. Warrington, TEP. Thompson, R. (2007). ‘Cultural models and shoreline social conflict’. Coastal Management 35: 211-237. Tress, B. and Tress, G. (2003). ‘Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning - a study from

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 37 of 64 Denmark’. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 161-178. Tveit, MS. (2009). ‘Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups’. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 2882-2888. Upham, P. Whitmarsh, L. Poortinga, W. Purdam, K. Darnton, A. McLachlan, C. Devone-Wright, P. (2009). ‘Public Attitudes to Environmental to Environmental Change: a selective review of theory and practice: A Research Synthesis for The Living with Environmental Change Programme’ [online]. Available from: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Public%20Attitudes%20to%20Environmental %20Change_exec%20summary_tcm6-35479.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Ward-Thompson, C., Bell, S., Satsangi, M., Netto, G., Morris, N., Travlou, P., Chapman, M., Raemaekers, J. and Griffiths, A. (2003). ‘The Countryside Agency Diversity Review: Options for Implementation’. Final Report [online]. Available from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/diversityreview/research/scoping.aspx [Accessed 16/12/09]. Weldon, S., Bailey, C. and O’Brien, L. (2007) New pathways to health and wellbeing: summary of research to understand and overcome barriers to accessing woodland. For Forestry Commission Scotland [online]. Available from: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/infd-78pdpc [Accessed 16/12/09]. O’Brien, L. (2004) ‘People’s experiences of woodlands in north-west and south-east England’. Forest Research Summary, Forestry Commission [online]. Available from: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/SERG_Peoples_experiences_of_woodlands_research_summary.pdf /$FILE/SERG_Peoples_experiences_of_woodlands_research_summary.pdf [Accessed 15/12/09]. Urban Parks Forum (2001). Public Park Assessment—A Survey of Local Authority Owned Parks, focusing on Parks of Historic Interest. Report for DTLR, Heritage Lottery Fund, Countryside Agency and English Heritage. pp. 5–10.

Rural affairs overview references

Adger, WN. (2003). 'Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change'. Economic Geography 79 (4): 387-404. Adger, WN., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, DR., Naess, LO., Wolf, J, and Wreford, A. (2009). 'Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?' Climatic change 93: 335-354. Agarwal, S., Rahman, S. & Errington, A. (2009), 'Measuring the Determinants of Relative Economic Performance of Rural Areas', Journal of Rural Studies 25: 309-321. Atterton, J. (2008), 'Rural Proofing in England: A Formal Commitment in Need of Review', Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No. 20. Bain, E. (2002) Social inclusion in rural areas: Innovative projects for young people [online]. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/10/15570/11775 [Accessed 16/12/09]. Bryden, J., Courtney, P., Atterton, J. & Timm, A. (2004), 'Scotland - North and South', in Bryden, J. & Hart, K. (eds.), 'Why Local Economies Differ: the Dynamics of Rural Areas in Europe', Edwin-Mellen Press. Cloke, P., Goodwin, M., Milbourne, P. and Thomas, C. (1995). 'Deprivation, poverty and marginalisation in rural lifestyles in England and Wales'. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (4): 351-365. Commission for Rural Communities (2007) Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities: A New Agenda, CRC 45. Courtney, R., Hill, G. and Roberts, D. (2006) ‘The role of natural heritage in rural development: An analysis of economic linkages in Scotland’ Journal of Rural Studies 22: 469 – 484 Hodge, I. & Monk, S. (2004), 'The Economic Diversity of Rural England: Stylised Fallacies and Uncertain Evidence', Journal of Rural Studies 20: 263-272. Huby, M., Owen, A. & Cinderby, S. (2007), 'Reconciling Socio-economic and Environmental data in a GIS Context: An Example from Rural England', Applied Geography 27: 1-13. Huby, M. (2009) Social and environmental inequalities in rural areas. RELU Policy and Practice Note 12 [online]. Available from: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Huby/PP12_WEB.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Kitchen, L. & Marsden, T. (2009), 'Creating Sustainable Rural Development through Stimulating the Eco- economy: Beyond the Eco-economic Paradox?', Sociologia Ruralis 49(3): 273-294.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 38 of 64 Lowe, P. & Ward, N. (2007), 'Sustainable Rural Economies: Some Lessons from the English Experience', Sustainable Development 15: 307-317. Pretty, J. & Ward, H. (2001), 'Social Capital and the Environment', World Development 29(2): 209-227. Primrose, D. (2008) Scotland’s Environmental and Rural Services: Exploring User Experiences [online]. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/19155303/0 [Accessed 16/12/09]. Reimer, B. (2003), 'The new Rural Economy Project: What have we Learned?', in paper presented to the Rural Sociology Society, Montreal. RELU (2010) ‘Sustainable uplands: reshaping land use policy for our hills’ [online]. Available at: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Reed%20Hubacek/PPN14.pdf [Accessed 28/02/2010]. Shucksmith, M. (2003). 'Social Exclusion in Rural Areas: A review of recent research' London: Defra. Winter, M. & Rushbrook, L. (2003), 'Literature Review of the English Rural Economy', Exeter: Defra, ESRC and the Countryside Agency.

Marine and fisheries overview references

Bates, R. (2005) Why seas matter to Wales: A WWF Cymru commissioned survey conducted by Beaufort Research Ltd [online]. Available from: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/worldoceansdaysurvey05.pdf [Accessed 16/12/09]. Bell, JJ. (2007) ‘The use of volunteers for conducting sponge biodiversity assessments and monitoring using a morphological approach on Indo-Pacific coral reefs’ Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17(2): 133-145 Berghöfer, A., Wittmer, H. and Rauschmayer, F. (2008). 'Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects'. Marine Policy 32 (2): 169-177. Butler, J., Radford, A., Riddington, G. and Laughton, R. (2009). ‘Evaluating and ecosystem service provided by Atlantic salmon, sea trout and other fish species in the River Spey, Scotland: The economic impact of recreational rod fisheries’. Fisheries Research 96 (2-3): 259-266 Bruckmeier, K., Ellegård, A. and Píriz, L. (2005). 'Fishermen's Interests and Cooperation: Preconditions for Joint Management of Swedish Coastal Fisheries'. Ambio 32 (4): 101-110. Danielson et al., (2005) ‘Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches’ Biodiversity and conservation 14(11): 2507 - 2542 Danielson et al., (2009) ‘Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterisation of approaches’ Conservation Biology 23(1): 31-42. Delaney, AE., McLay, HA. and van Densen, WLT. (2007). 'Influences of discourse on decision-making in EU fisheries management: the case of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua)'. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (4): 804-810. de Santo, EM. (in press). ''Whose science?’ Precaution and power-play in European marine environmental decision-making'. Marine Policy. Douvere, F. (2008). 'The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management'. Marine Policy 32 (5): 762-771. Environment Agency (2009) ‘Economic evaluation of inland fisheries’ Environment Agency, Bristol. Environment Agency (2006) ‘A Better Environment. Healthier Fisheries’ [online]. Available from: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0206BKDQ-e-e.pdf [Accessed 12/01/2010]. Environment Agency (2010) ‘Public attitudes to angling’ Environment Agency, Bristol. Frid, C., Paramor, O. and Scott, C. (2005). 'Ecosystem-based fisheries management : progress in the NE Atlantic'. Marine Policy 29: 461-469. Frid, C., Paramor, O. and Scott, C. (2006). 'Food for thought. Ecosystem-based management of fisheries: is science limiting?' ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 1567-1572. Gaichas, S.K. (2008). 'A context for ecosystem-based fishery management: Developing concepts of ecosystems and sustainability'. Marine Policy 32 (3): 393-401. Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G., and Kaiser, MJ. (2005). 'Importance of Attitudinal Differences among Artisanal Fishers toward Co-Management and Conservation of Marine Resources'. Conservation Biology

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 39 of 64 19 (3): 865-875. Gilliand, P.M. and Laffoley, D. (2008). 'Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem- based marine spatial planning' Marine Policy 32 (5): 772-778. Goffredo et al., (2004) ‘Volunteers in marine conservation monitoring: a study of the distribution of seahorses carried out in collaboration with recreational scuba-divers’ Conservation Biology 18(6): 1492 - 1503 Griffin, L. (2009). 'Scales of knowledge: North Sea fisheries governance, the local fisherman and the European scientist'. Environmental Politics 18 (4): 557-575. Helvey, M. (2004). 'Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged'. Coastal Management 32: 173-190. Hickley, P. and Chare,S. (2004). ‘Fisheries for non-native species in England and Wales: angling or the environment?’ Fisheries Management and Ecology 11 (3-4): 203-213. Hilborn, R., Maguire, JJ., Parma, AM. and Rosenberg, AA. (2001). 'The Precautionary Approach and risk management: can they increase the probability of successes in fishery management?'. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58 (1): 99-107. Jamieson, L., Munro, G. and Perrier, M. (2009) Social change in Scottish fishing communities: A brief literature review and annotated bibliography. Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, Edinburgh, Scottish Government Social Research. Jentoft, S. (2007a). 'Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance'. Marine Policy 31 (4): 360-370. Jentoft, S. (2007b). 'In the Power of Power: The Understated Aspect of Fisheries and Coastal Management'. Human Organization 66 (4): 426-437. Jentoft, S. and Chuenpadgee, R. (2009). 'Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem'. Marine Policy 33 (4): 553-560. Lovell et al., (2009) ‘An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys’ Biodiversity and conservation 18(12): 3295-3307 May, CK. (2008). 'Achieving Sustainability in US Fisheries: Community Engagement in Co-Management'. Sustainable Development 16: 390-400. Mikalsen, KH. and Jentoft, S. (2001). 'From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management'. Marine Policy 25: 281–292. Moore et al., (2006) ‘Linking human and ecosystem health: The benefits of community involvement in conservation groups’ Ecohealth 3(4): 255-261. Murawski, SA. (2007). 'Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource management'. Marine Policy 31: 681-690. Nerbonne et al., (2008) ‘Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring: Tensions among group goals, data quality and outcomes’ Environmental Management 42(3): 470-479. Newman, C et al., (2003) ‘Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation’ Biological Conservation 113(2): 189 - 197 Oughton E. et al. (2009). ‘Angling in the Rural Environment’ [online]. Available at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/aire/index.php [Accessed 12/01/2010]. Pattengil-Semmens, CV. and Semmens, BX. (2003) ‘Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program’ Conference Symposium on Coastal Monitoring Through Partnerships, Washington, US. Pomeroy, RS., Mascia, MB. and Pollnac, RB. (2006) Marine Protected Areas: The Social Dimension. Background Paper 3, produced for the FAO Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rogers, SI. and Greenaway, B. (2005). 'A UK perspective on the development of marine ecosystem indicators'. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 9-19. Rose, C., Dade, P. and Scott, J. (2008) ‘Qualitative and quantitative research into public engagement with the undersea landscape in England’ Natural England Research Report NERR019. Natural England, Sheffield. Schmeller et al., (2009) ‘Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe’ Conservation Biology 23(2): 307-316.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 40 of 64

Additional references used in water theme scoping

N.B. Some of these were subsequently incorporated into the water overview.

Chappells, H. and Medd, W. (2008) ‘What is fair? Tensions between sustainable and equitable domestic water consumption in England and Wales’ Local Environment 13(8): 725-741. Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (2008) Water charging: a submission to the Independent Review of Household Charging and Metering for Water and Sewerage Services. CIEH, London. Ekins, P. and Dresner, S. (2004) Green taxes and charges: Reducing their impact on low income households. Report by the Policy Studies Institute for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Environment Agency (2009a) Water neutrality: an economic assessment for the Thames Gateway. Resource efficiency science programme. Environment Agency, Bristol. Environment Agency (2009b) The impact of household water metering in South East England. Environment Agency, Bristol. ICS Consulting (2009) A report for the independent review of charging for household water and sewerage services: Tariff modelling. ICS Consulting. Owen, L., Bramley, H. and Tocock, J. (2009) Public understanding of sustainable water use in the home. A report to Defra. Defra, London. Rajah, N. and Smith, S. (1993) ‘Distributional aspects of household water charges’ Fiscal Studies 14(3): 86-108. Randolph, B. and Troy, P. (2008) ‘Attitudes to conservation and water consumption’ Environmental science and policy 11: 441-455. Walker, A. (2009) The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services. Report to Defra. Defra, London.

Stage 2 References

Perceptions Review Protocol references

Burji, M., Hersberger, A.M. and Schneeberger, N. (2004) Driving forces of landscape change – current and new directions. Landscape Ecology, 19: 857-868. CEE (2010), 'Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management', Version 4.0, Bangor University: Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation. Defra (2010) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Draft Structural Reform Plan. 16th July 2010. Published by Defra. Defra (2010a) An invitation to shape the Nature of England. Discussion Document July 2010. PB13428. Published by Defra. HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our programme for Government. May 2010. Cabinet Office, Whitehall. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Pope, C., Mays, N. and Popay, J. (2007) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods. Open University Press, London. Roe, M. Selman, P. and Swanwick, C. (in press) The Development of Approaches to Facilitate Judgement on Landscape Change Options, A Study for Natural England. March 2010 Draft. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2010) Progress and Steps towards Delivery. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Upham, P. et. al. (2009) Public Attitudes to Environmental Change: as selective review of theory and practice. A Research synthesis for the Living With Environmental Change Programme. Published by Research Councils UK.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 41 of 64

Conflict Review Protocol references

CASP (2006), ‘10 Questions to Help You Make Sense of Qualitative Research’, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, Public Health Resources Unit, available online, URL: www.phru.nhs.uk/Doc_Links/Qualitative%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf CEE (2010), 'Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management', Version 4.0, Bangor University: Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation. MRC (2008), 'Developing and evaluating: complex interventions: new guidance', Medical Research Council, available online, URL www.mrc.ac.uk/ complexinterventions guidance. Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G. & Walshe, K. (2005), 'Realist Review - A New Method of Systematic Review Designed for Complex Policy Interventions', J Health Serv Res Policy 10(1): 21-34. Rycroft-Malone, R., Fontenla, M., Bick, D. & Seers, K. (2010), 'A Realistic Evaluation: The Case of Protocol-based Care', Implementation Science 5: 38.

Perceptions Review References

Agyeman, J. Devine-Wright, P., and Prange, J. (2009) ‘Close to the edge, down by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place attachment in a climate changed world’ Environment and Planning A, 41 (3): 509-513. Akbar, K. F., Hale, W. H. G. and Headley, A. D. (2003) ‘Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 63: 139-144. Andrews, M. and Gatersleben, B. (2010) ‘Variations in perception of danger, fear and preference in a simulated natural environment’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (4): 473-481. Balram, S. and Dragicevic, S. (2005) ‘Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 71: 147-162. Barber, A. and Green, S. (2005) Green future: a study of the management of multifunctional urban green spaces in England. Greenspace Forum Ltd, Reading. Barnwell, P. S. (2007) ‘The power of Peak Castle: cultural contexts and changing perceptions’ Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 160: 20-38. Bartlett, D. (2006) ‘Natural England — prospects for landscape, people and planning’ Ecos - A Review of Conservation, 27: 109-114. Bednar-Friedl et al. (2009) ‘A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness research Network’ Public Perceptions of biodiversity change – results from a (pilot) survey in 8 European Countries. ALTER- Net. Project No. GOSE-CT-2003-505298. Bell, P. J. P. (2000) ‘Contesting rural recreation: the battle over access to Windermere’ Land Use Policy, 17: 295-303. Bell, S. (2001) ‘Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 201-211. Bell, S., Montarzino, A. and Travlou, P. (2007) ‘Mapping research priorities for green and public urban space in the UK’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6: 103-115. Bell, S. M. and English Nature (2004) Nature for people: the importance of green spaces to East Midlands communities. English Nature, Peterborough. Bell, D., Gray, T. and Haggett, C. (2005) ‘The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses’ Environmental Politics, 14 (4): 460-477. Bird, W. and Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds (2004) Natural fit: can green space and biodiversity increase levels of physical activity? RSPB: Sandy. Black Environment Network (2005) Ethnic communities and green spaces: guidance for green space managers. Black Environment Network: Llanberis. Blacksell, M. (2005) ‘A walk on the South West Coast path: a view from the other side’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30: 518-520. Bloodworth, A. J., Scott, P. W. and Mcevoy, F. M. (2009) ‘Digging the backyard: Mining and quarrying in

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 42 of 64 the UK and their impact on future land use’ Land Use Policy, 26: S317-S325. Bonnes, M., Uzzell, D., Carrus, G. and Kelay, T. (2007) ‘Inhabitants' and experts' assessments of environmental quality for urban sustainability’ Journal of Social Issues, 63: 59-78. Booth, J. E., Gaston, K. J. and Armsworth, P. R. (2009) ‘Public understanding of protected area designation’ Biological Conservation, 142: 3196-3200. Burji, M., Hersberger, A.M. and Schneeberger, N. (2004) ‘Driving forces of landscape change – current and new directions’ Landscape Ecology, 19: 857-868. Buijs, AE., Elands, BHM. and Langers, F. (2009) ‘No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 91: 113-123. Buijs, AE., Pedroli, B. and Luginbuhl, Y. (2006) ‘From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape’ Landscape Ecology, 21: 375-389. Burgess, J., Clark, J. and Harrison, C. (2000) ‘Culture, communication, and the information problem in contingent valuation surveys: a case study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme’ Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 18: 505-524. Burji, M., Hersberger, A.M. and Schneeberger, N. (2004) Driving forces of landscape change – current and new directions’ Landscape Ecology, 19: 857-868. Butler, T. (2009) ‘Memoryscape’: integrating oral history, memory and landscape on the river Thames. Palgrave Macmillan. CABE (2010) Urban Green Nation: Building the Evidence Base. CABE: Kemble Street. Castonguay, G. and Jutras, S. (2009) ‘Children's appreciation of outdoor places in a poor neighbourhood’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29: 101-109. Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W. and Curtis, S. (2008) ‘Mingling, observing, and lingering: everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations’ Health and place, 14: 544-561. Caula, S., Hvenegaard, G. T. and Marty, P. (2009) ‘The influence of bird information, attitudes, and demographics on public preferences toward urban green spaces: The case of Montpellier, France’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8: 117-128. CEE (2010) Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management. Version 4.0, Bangor University: Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation. Chaniotis, P. and Stead, S. (2007) ‘Interviewing people about the coast on the coast: appraising the wider adoption of ICZM in North East England’ Marine policy, 31: 517-526. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R. and Hyde, T. (2006) ‘Valuing the diversity of biodiversity’ Ecological Economics, 58: 304-317. Church, A. and Ravenscroft, N. (2008) ‘Landowner responses to financial incentive schemes for recreational access to woodlands in South East England’ Land Use Policy, 25: 1-16. Clark, P. (2006) The European city and green space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St. Petersburg, 1850-2000. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT, Ashgate. Clay, G. R. and Daniel, T. C. (2000) ‘Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 49: 1-13. Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C. and Kuo, F. E. (1997) ‘Where Does Community Grow?: The social context created by nature in urban public housing’ Environment and Behavior, 29 (4): 468-493. Collins, K., Ison, R., Blackstock, K., Dunglinson, J., Dilley, R., Matthews, K., Futter, M., Marshall, K., Allan, C., Wilson, B. P., Bommel, S. V., Röling, N., Aarts, N., Turnhout, E., Mccrum, G. and Rivington, M. (2009) ‘Living with environmental change: adaptation as social learning’ Environmental policy and governance, 19: 351-440. Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention. Firenze, (20.X.(2000 (ETS No. 176). Official text in English and Explanatory Report. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Cummings, V. and Whittle, A. (2003) ‘Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees’ Antiquity, 77: 255-266. Davies, B. B. and Hodge, I. D. (2007). ‘Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK’ Ecological Economics, 61: 323-333. Defra (2008) A framework for pre-environmental behaviours. Full Report. Defra: London. Defra (2009) Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey. A research report

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 43 of 64 completed for the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs by TNS. Defra: London. Defra (2010) An invitation to shape the Nature of England. Discussion Document July, PB13428. Defra: London. Defra (2010a) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Draft Structural Reform Plan, 16th July. Defra: London. Devine-Wright, H. and Devine-Wright, P. (2009) ‘Social representations of electricity network technologies: exploring processes of anchoring and objectification through the use of visual research methods’ British Journal of Social Psychology, 48 (2): 357-373. Doick, K. J., Sellers, G., Castan-Broto, V. and Silverthorne, T. (2009) Understanding success in the context of brownfield greening projects: The requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8: 163-178. Dockerty, T. Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Bone, A. and Sunnenberg, G. (2006) ‘Developing scenarios and visualisations to illustrate potential policy and climatic influences on future agricultural landscapes’ Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 114: 103-120. Done, A. and Muir, R. (2001) ‘The landscape history of grouse shooting in the Yorkshire Dales’ Rural history, 12: 195-210. Droseltis, O. and Vignoles, V. L. (2010) ‘Towards an integrative model of place identification: Dimensionality and predictors of intrapersonal-level place preferences’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30: 23-34. Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., Woolley, H., (2002) Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces:urban research report. Report for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: London. Economics, G. L. A., London, T. F., Agency, L. D., Mayor, L. and Authority, G. L. (2003) Valuing greenness: green spaces, house prices and Londoners' priorities. Greater London Authority: London. Eftec in association with Environmental Futures Limited (2006) Valuing Our Natural Environment. Final Report NR0103 for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra: London. Elands, B. H. M., O'leary, T. N., Boerwinkel, H. W. J. and Freerk Wiersum, K. (2004) ‘Forests as a mirror of rural conditions; local views on the role of forests across Europe’ Forest Policy and Economics, 6: 469- 482. Ellis, G., Barry, J. and Robinson, C. (2007) ‘Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q- methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50: 517-551. Farnum, J. T. Hall, et al. (2005) Sense of place in Natural Resource Recreation Tourism: An Evaluation and assessment of research findings. Gen Tech, Rep. PNW-GTR-660, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Farrell, E. P., Führer, E., Ryan, D., Andersson, F., Hüttl, R. and Piussi, P. (2000) ‘European forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past’ Forest Ecology and Management, 132: 5-20. Finney, N. and Rishbeth, C. (2006) ‘Engaging with marginalised groups in public open space research: the potential of collaboration and combined methods’ Planning theory and practice, 7: 27-46. Fischer, A. (2010) ‘On the Role of Ideas of Human Nature in Shaping Attitudes Towards Environmental Governance’ Human Ecology, 38: 123-135. Fischer, A. and Marshall, K. (2010) ‘Framing the landscape: Discourses of woodland restoration and moorland management in Scotland’ Journal of Rural Studies, 26: 185-193. Fischer, A. and Young, J. C. (2007) ‘Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity management and conservation’ Biological Conservation, 136: 271-282. Fish, R., S. Seymour, and Watkins, C. (2003) ‘Conserving English Landscapes; land managers and agri- environmental policy’ Environment and Planning A, 35: 19-41. Fletcher, S., Potts, J. S., Heeps, C. and Pike, K. (2009) ‘Public awareness of marine environmental issues in the UK’ Marine policy, 33: 370-375. Forest Research (2010) Benefits of Green Infrastructure for the Urban Regeneration and Greenspace Partnership. French, P. W. (2004) ‘The changing nature of, and approaches to, UK coastal management at the start of the twenty-first century’ Geographical journal, 170: 116-125.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 44 of 64 Gamborg, C. (2002) ‘The acceptability of forest management practices: an analysis of ethical accounting and the ethical matrix’ Forest Policy and Economics, 4: 175-186. Gibbs, L. M. (2010) ‘’A beautiful soaking rain’: environmental value and water beyond Eurocentrism’ Environment and Planning D-Society and Space, 28: 363-378. Gilg, A. (2009) ‘Perceptions about land use’ Land Use Policy, 26: S76-S82. Gill, N., Waitt, G. and Head, L. (2009) ‘Local engagements with urban bushland: Moving beyond bounded practice for urban biodiversity management’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 93: 184-193. Glück, P. (2000) ‘Policy means for ensuring the full value of forests to society’ Land Use Policy, 17: 177- 185. Grahn, P. and Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003) ‘Landscape planning and stress’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2: 1-18. Grahn, P. and Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010) ‘The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 94: 264-275. Grant, MJ. and Edwards, ME (2008) ‘Conserving idealized landscapes: past history, public perception and future management in the New Forest (UK)’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17: 551-562. National Audit Office (2006) Enhancing urban green space. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Stationery Office: London. Green, K. and Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning (2008) An investigation into the de- centralisation of urban parks and green spaces in the UK: 2007. Hadley, D. (2009) ‘Land use and the coastal zone’ Land Use Policy, 26: S198-S203. Hagerhall, C. M. (2001) ‘Consensus in landscape preference judgements’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21: 83-92. Haggett, C. (2008) ‘Over the Sea and Far Away? A Consideration of the Planning, Politics and Public Perception of Offshore Wind Farms’ Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10: 289-306. Haines-Young, R. (2009) ‘Land use and biodiversity relationships’ Land Use Policy, 26: S178-S186. Hall, C., McVittie, A. and Moran, D. (2004) ‘What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods’ Journal of Research Studies, 20: 211-225. Hanley, N., Macmillan, D., Patterson, I. and Wright, R. E. (2003) ‘Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments’ Animal Conservation, 6: 123-129. Hanley, N., Ready, R., Colombo, S., Watson, F., Stewart, M. and Bergmann, E. A. (2009) ‘The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change’ Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1404-1412. Hardie-Boys, N. and New Opportunities Fund (2004) Green spaces and sustainable communities : achievements and challenges. New Opportunites Fund: London. Hatton Macdonald, D., Crossman, N. D., Mahmoudi, P., Taylor, L. O., Summers, D. Haygarth, P. M. and Ritz, K. (2009) ‘The future of soils and land use in the UK: Soil systems for the provision of land-based ecosystem services’ Land Use Policy, 26: S187-S197. Hayward, M. W. and Kerley, G. I. H. (2009) ‘Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes?’ Biological Conservation, 142: 1-13. Hedges, A. (2000. Living in the countryside: the needs and aspirations of rural populations, Countryside Agency: Cheltenham. Hickman, C. (2009) ‘Cheerful prospects and tranquil restoration: the visual experience of landscape as part of the therapeutic regime of the British asylum, 1800-60’ History of Psychiatry, 20: 425-441. Hinds, J. and Sparks, P. (2008) ‘Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28: 109-120. HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our programme for Government. Cabinet Office, Whitehall: London. Hobbs, R. (2009) ‘Woodland restoration in Scotland: ecology, history, culture, economics, politics and change’ Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 2857-2865. Horn, S. A. and Regan, C. L. (2005) ‘To nature or not to nature: associations between environmental preferences, mood states and demographic factors’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25: 57-66. Howarth, R. B. and Farber, S. (2002) ‘Accounting for the value of ecosystem services’ Ecological

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 45 of 64 Economics, 41: 421-429. Hoyle, R. W., Thirsk, J. and British Agricultural History Society (2004) People, landscape and alternative agriculture : essays for Joan Thirs. British Agricultural History Society: Exeter. Jay, M. and Schraml, U. (2009) ‘Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants –uses, perception and integrative potential’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8(4): 283-294. Johansson, M. and Laike, T. (2007) ‘Intention to respond to local wind turbines: The role of attitudes and visual perception’ Wind Energy, 10: 435-451. Jones, C. R. and Eiser, J. R. (2009) ‘Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study’ Energy Policy, 37: 4604-4614. Jones, C. R. and Eiser, J. R. (2010) ‘Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?’ Energy Policy, 38: 3106-3117. Jones, E. L. (2009) ‘The environmental effects of blood sports in lowland England since 1750’ Rural history, 20: 51-66. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J. and Dunnett, N. (2007) ‘Woodland as a setting for housing-appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place identity in Warrington New Town, UK’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 79: 273-287. Kaczynski, A. and Henderson, K. (2007) ‘Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation’ Leisure Sciences, 29 (4): 315-354. Kanowski, P. J. and Williams, K. J. H. (2009) ‘The reality of imagination: Integrating the material and cultural values of old forests’ Forest Ecology and Management, 258: 341-346. King’s College London (2011) Understanding the diverse benefits of learning in natural environments. Report commissioned by Natural England. Krause, C. L. (2001) ‘Our visual landscape: Managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 239-254. Ladkin, D. (2005) ‘Does 'restoration' necessarily imply the domination of nature?’ Environmental Values, 14: 203-219. Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G. and Davies, C. (2009) ‘Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8: 97-108. Laing, R., Davies, A. M., Miller, D., Conniff, A., Scott, S. and Morrice, J. (2009) ‘The application of visual environmental economics in the study of public preference and urban greenspace’ Environment and Planning B-Planning and Design, 36: 355-375. Land Use Consultants and University of Sheffield (1998) North Pennines Environmental Capital: A Pilot Study. Unpublished Report to the Countryside Commission and English Nature. Land Use Consultants et al. (2006) Landscape Change Scenarios. Report on Ayrshire Pilot Study. Research Report for Scottish Natural Heritage. Lange, E., Hehl-Lange, S. and Brewer, M. J. (2008) ‘Scenario-visualization for the assessment of perceived green space qualities at the urban-rural fringe’ Journal of Environmental Management, 89: 245- 256. London Assembly. Green Spaces Investigative Committee and Greater London Authority (2001) Scrutiny of green spaces in London. Greater London Authority: London. London Mayor, Great Britain. Natural England and Authority, G. L. (2008) Parks, people and nature: a guide to enhancing natural habitats in London's parks and green spaces in a changing climate. Greater London Authority: London. Macfarlane, R., C. Haggett, and Fuller, D. (2005) Tranquillity Mapping: Developing a Robust Methodology for Planning Support [online]. Available at: http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/countryside/item/download/542 [Accessed 03/02/(2011]. Marshall, K., White, R. and Anke, F. (2007) ‘Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management’ Biodiversity and Conservation, 16: 3129-3146. Martin, G. P. (2005) ‘Narratives great and small: neighbourhood change, place and identity in Notting Hill’ International journal of urban and regional research, 29: 67-88. Martin, W. E., Wise Bender, H. and Shields, D. J. (2000) ‘Stakeholder objectives for public lands: Rankings of forest management alternatives’ Journal of Environmental Management, 58: 21-32.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 46 of 64 Martínez, M. L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P. and Landgrave, R. (2007) ‘The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics’, 63: 254-272. Matthews, R. (2006) ‘The People and Landscape Model (PALM): Towards full integration of human decision-making and biophysical simulation models’ Ecological Modelling, 194: 329-343. Mcevoy, D., Cavan, G., Handley, J., McMorrow, J. and Lindley, S. (2008) ‘Changes to climate and visitor behaviour: Implications for vulnerable landscapes in the north west region of England’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16: 101-121. Mcglashan, D. J., Duck, R. W. and Reid, C. T. (2004) ‘The foreshore: geographical implications of the three legal systems in Great Britain’ Area, 36: 338-347. MEA - Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press: Washington DC. Mee, L. D., Jefferson, R. L., Laffoley, D. D. and Elliott, M. (2008) ‘How good is good? Human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive’ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 187-204. Merriman, P. (2006) ‘’A new look at the English landscape': landscape architecture, movement and the aesthetics of motorways in early post-war Britain’ Cultural geographies, 13: 78-105. Milligan, C. and Bingley, A. (2007) ‘Restorative Places or Scary Spaces? The Impact of Woodland on the Mental Well-Being of Young Adults’ Health and Place, 13: 799-811. Min, B. and Lee, J. (2006) ‘Children's neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26: 51-71. Moberg, F. and Rönnbäck, P. (2003) ‘Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration’ Ocean and Coastal Management, 46: 27-46. Morris, D., Oreszczyn, S., Blackmore, C., Ison, R. and Martin, S. (2006) ‘A systemic approach to scoping of factors influencing more sustainable land use in Herefordshire’ Local environment, 11: 683-699. Morris, J., Colombo, S., Angus, A., Stacey, K., Parsons, D., Brawn, M. and Hanley, N. (2009) ‘The value of public rights of way: A choice experiment in Bedfordshire, England’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 93: 83-91. Myatt, LB. Scrimshaw, M.D. and Lester, J.N. (2003a) ‘Public perceptions and attitudes towards a forthcoming managed realignment scheme: Freiston Shore, Lincolnshire, UK’ Ocean and Coastal Management 46 (6-7): 565-582. Myatt, L. B., Scrimshaw, M. D. et al. (2003b) ‘Public perceptions and attitudes towards a forthcoming managed realignment scheme: Freiston Shore, Lincolnshire, UK’ Ocean and Coastal Management 46(6- 7): 565-582. Myatt-Bell, L. B., Scrimshaw, M. D., Lester, J. N. and Potts, J. S. (2002) ‘Public perception of managed realignment: Brancaster West Marsh, North Norfolk, UK’ Marine policy, 26: 45-57. Natural England (2010) Monitor of Engagement with the natural environment: The national survey on people and the natural environment. Annual Report from the 2009-2010 survey. Natural England Commissioned Report NECR049. New Map Consortium (Land Use Consultants, Hunting Technical Services, Professor Richard Dunn and Professor Terence Lee) (1993) New Map of England Pilot Project. Technical Report 2: Perceptions of Landscape and Preferences for Change. Unpublished Report for the Countryside Agency, Land Use Consultants, London. Nielsen, A. B., Olsen, S. B. and Lundhede, T. (2007) ‘An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 80: 63-71. Nijnik, M. and Mather, A. (2008) ‘Analyzing public preferences concerning woodland development in rural landscapes in Scotland’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 86: 267-275. Nijnik, M., Zahvoyska, L., Nijnik, A. and Ode, A. (2009) ‘Public evaluation of landscape content and change: Several examples from Europe’ Land Use Policy, 26: 77-86. Nilsen, E. B., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N. C. and Coulson, T. (2007) ‘Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management’ Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 274: 995-1002. Nohl, W. (2001) ‘Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 223-237. Oku, H. and Fukamachi, K. (2006) ‘The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 47 of 64 attributes and recreational activity’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 75: 34-42. ONS (2011) Measuring national wellbeing – discussion paper on domains and measures [online]. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_240726.pdf [Accessed 19/11/(2011] OPENspace (2008) Greenspace and Quality of Life—A Critical Literature Review. Report for Greenspace Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and SNIFFER. Greenspace Scotland: Stirling. Orezczyn, S. (2000) ‘A systems approach to the research of people’s relationships with English Hedgerows’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 50:107-117. Owen, S. (2007) ‘Classic English hill towns: ways of looking at the external appearance of settlements’ Journal of urban design, 12: 93-116. Ozguner, H. and Kendle, A. D. (2006) ‘Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK)’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 74: 139-157. Ozguner, H., Kendle, A. D. and Bisgrove, R. J. (2007) ‘Attitudes of landscape professionals towards naturalistic versus formal urban landscapes in the UK’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 81: 34-45. Palang, H., Alumäe, H. and Mander, Ü. (2000) ‘Holistic aspects in landscape development: a scenario approach’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 50: 85-94. Park, J. J., Jorgensen, A., Swanwick, C. and Selman, P. (2008) ‘Perceived landscape impacts of mobile telecommunications development in the Peak District National Park, England’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51: 679-699. Parker, G. and Ravenscroft, N. (2001) ‘Land, rights and the gift: the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the negotiation of citizenship’ Sociologia ruralis, 41: 381-398. Parr, H. (2007) ‘Mental health, nature work, and social inclusion’ Environment and Planning D-Society and Space, 25: 537-561. Paterson, A. (2002) Scotland's landscape: endangered icon. Polygon at Edinburgh: Edinburgh. Pavlikakis, G. E. and Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2003) ‘A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management’ Journal of Environmental Management, 68: 193- 205. Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corlianò, M. E., Zaccarelli, N. and Dadamo, M. (2007) ‘Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 79: 29-37. Phillips, R., Aitken, S. C., Nicholson, H. N., Young, L., Barrett, H., Holloway, S. L., Valentine, G., Tucker, F., Matthews, H., Smith, F., Barker, J., Tapsell, S., Tunstall, S., House, M., Whomsley, J. and Macnaghten, P. (2001) ‘Geographies of childhood’ Area, 33: 117-189. Piegay, H., Mutz, M., Gregory, K. J., Rinaldi, M., Bondarev, V., Chin, A., Wyzga, B., Dahlstrom, N., Zawiejska, J., Elosegi, A., Gregory, S. V. and Joshi, V. (2005) ‘Public perception as a barrier to introducing wood in rivers for restoration purposes’ Environmental Management, 36: 665-674. Piussi, P. and Farrell, E. P. (2000) ‘Interactions between society and forest ecosystems: challenges for the near future’ Forest Ecology and Management, 132: 21-28. Pollock, V. L. and Sharp, J. P. (2007) ‘Constellations of identity: place-ma(r)king beyond heritage’ Environment and planning D, 25: 1061-1078. Pope, C., Mays, N. and Popay, J. (2007) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods. Open University Press: London. Posthumus, H. Morris, J. Angus, A. and Lienhoop, N. (2006) ‘Land valuation and decision-making: Report of Proceedings of Foresight land Use Futures and RELU workshop’ [online]. Available at: www.relu.ac.uk [Accessed 16/12/09]. Powe, N. A., Garrod, G. D. and Mcmahon, P. L. (2005) ‘Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis’ Ecological Economics, 52: 513-526. Pretty, J. and Smith, D. (2004) ‘Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management’ Conservation Biology, 18: 631-638. Petty, J., Griffin, M. Sellens, M. and Pretty, C. (2003) Green Exercise: complementary roles of nature, exercise and diet in physical and emotional well-being and implications for public health policy. CES occasional paper 2003-1. University of Essex: Colchester. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N. and Griffin, M. (2007) ‘Green exercise in the UK

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 48 of 64 Countryside: Effects on Health and Physiological Well-Being, and Implications for Policy and Planning’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2): 211-231. Ravenscroft, N., Curry, N. and Markwell, S. (2002) ‘Outdoor recreation and participative democracy in England and Wales’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45: 715-734. Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., Macdonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A. and Kalivas, T. (2009) ‘Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services’ Ecological Economics, 68: 1301-1315. Readman, P. (2001) ‘Landscape preservation, 'advertising disfigurement' and English national identity, c. 1890-1914’ Rural history, 12: 61-84. Reid, S. and Curtice, J. (2010) Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2009: Sustainable Places and Greenspace. For ScotCen, the Scottish Centre for Social Research. The Scottish Government: Edinburgh. Research Box in association with Land Use Consultants and Rick Minter (2009) Capturing the Cultural Services and Experiential Services of Landscape. Phase 1 report for Natural England. Research Box in association with Land Use Consultants and Rick Minter (2010) Capturing the Cultural Services and Experiential Services of Landscape. Phase 2 Report for Natural England. Final Draft: final report due for publication Spring 2011. Rickinson, M. (2001) ‘Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical review of the evidence’ Environmental Education Research, 7(3): 207-320. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young, M., Sanders, D. and Benefield, P. (2004) A review of research on outdoor learning. A review by the National Federation for Educational Research and King’s College London. Riley, M. (2006) ‘Reconsidering conceptualisations of farm conservation activity: the case of conserving hay meadows’ Journal of Rural Studies, 22: 337-353. Riley, M., Harvey, D. C., Brown, T. and Mills, S. (2005) ‘Narrating landscape. The potential of oral history for landscape archaeology’ Public archaeology, 4: 15-26. Rishbeth, C. and Finney, N. (2006) ‘Novelty and nostalgia in urban greenspace: refugee perspectives’ Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 97: 281-295. Robertson, M. and Walford, R. (2000) ‘Views and visions of land use in the United Kingdom’ Geographical journal, 166: 239-254. Roe, M. Selman, P. and Swanwick, C. (in press) The Development of Approaches to Facilitate Judgement on Landscape Change Options. A Study for Natural England. March 2010 Draft. Rotherham, I. D. (2007) ‘The implications of perceptions and cultural knowledge loss for the management of wooded landscapes: A UK case-study’ Forest Ecology and Management, 249: 100-115. Rupp-Armstrong, S. and Nicholls, R. J. (2007) ‘Coastal and estuarine retreat: A comparison of the application of managed realignment in England and Germany’ Journal of Coastal Research, 23: 1418-+. Sandström, U. G., Angelstam, P. and Khakee, A. (2006) ‘Urban comprehensive planning - identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 75: 43-57. Sanesi, G., Lafortezza, R., Bonnes, M. and Carrus, G. (2006) ‘Comparison of two different approaches for assessing the psychological and social dimensions of green spaces’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5: 121-129. Schofield, D. and Cox, C. J. B. (2005) ‘The use of virtual environments for percentage view analysis’ Journal of Environmental Management, 76: 342-354. Scott, A. (2002) ‘Assessing Public Perception of Landscape: the LANDMAP experience’ Landscape Research, 27(3): 271 - 295. Scott, A. (2003 ‘Assessing Public Perception of Landscape: From Practice to Policy’ Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5: 123-144. Scott, A., Carter, C., Brown, K. and White, V. (2009) ‘'Seeing is Not Everything': Exploring the Landscape Experiences of Different Publics’ Landscape Research, 34: 397-424. Scott, H. V., Lorimer, H., Wylie, J., Rose, M., Franklin, A., Mackenzie, A. F. D., Neyland, D. and Cronin, A. M. (2006) ‘Animating landscape’ Environment and planning D, 24: 475-632. Seeland, K. and Nicolè, S. (2006) ‘Public green space and disabled users’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5: 29-34. Serbruyns, I. and Luyssaert, S. (2006) ‘Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 49 of 64 for directing private forest management’ Forest Policy and Economics, 9: 285-296. Sheppard, S. R. J. and Meitner, M. (2005) ‘Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups’ Forest Ecology and Management, 207: 171-187. Smith, C., Clayden, A. and Dunnett, N. (2009) ‘An exploration of the effect of housing unit density on aspects of residential landscape sustainability in England’ Journal of urban design, 14: 163-187. Snaddon, J. L. and Turner, E. C. (2007) ‘A child's eye view of the insect world: perceptions of insect diversity’ Environmental Conservation, 34: 33-35. Soini, K. (2001) ‘Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map- making’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 57: 225-239. Soliva, R., Ronningen, K., Bella, I., Bezak, P., Cooper, T., Flo, B. E., Marty, P. and Potter, C. (2008) ‘Envisioning upland futures: Stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe's mountain landscapes’ Journal of Rural Studies, 24: 56-71. Stanley, N. (2005) ‘Thrills and spills: young people's sexual behaviour and attitudes in seaside and rural areas’ Health, risk and society, 7: 337-348. Stephenson, J. (2008) ‘The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 84: 127-139. Stewart, A. and O’Brien, L. (2010) Inventory of social evidence and practical programmes relating to trees, woods and forests and urban/peri-urban regeneration, place-making and place-shaping. For Forest Research. [Online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/place_and_communities_inventory_report_Oct(2010.pdf/$FILE/place_and_ communities_inventory_report_Oct(2010.pdf [Accessed 01/11/2010]. Suckall, N., Fraser, E. D. G., Cooper, T. and Quinn, C. (2009) ‘Visitor perceptions of rural landscapes: A case study in the Peak District National Park, England’ Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1195- 1203. Sutherland, W. J., et al. (2008) ‘Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning’ Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 821-833. Swanwick, C., Hanley, N. and Termansen, M. (2007) Scoping Study on Agricultural Landscape Evaluation. Final Report to Defra. Defra: London. Swanwick, C. (2009) ‘Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape’ Land Use Policy, 26: S62-S75. Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P. and Hamilton, S. K. (2007) ‘Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits’ Ecological Economics, 64: 245-252. Tapsell, S., Tunstall, S., House, M., Whomsley, J. and Macnaghten, P. (2001) ‘Growing up with rivers? Rivers in London children's worlds’ Area, 33: 177-189. Terkenli, T. S. (2005) ‘New landscape spatialities: the changing scales of function and symbolism’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 70: 165-176. The Futures Company (2010) Understanding what people want from the natural environment using customer segmentation. Report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra: London. Thompson, R. (2007) ‘Cultural models and shoreline social conflict’ Coastal Management, 35: 211-237. Thompson, C. W., Aspinall, P. and Montarzino, A. (2008) ‘The Childhood Factor: Adult Visits to Green Places and the Significance of Childhood Experiences’ Environment and Behavior, 40: 111-143. Thornton, A. (2009) Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. TNS. Defra, London. Tibbatts, D. (2002) The benefits of parks and greenspace. The Urban Parks Forum (now GreenSpace): Reading. Tippett, J., Handley, J. F. and Ravetz, J. (2007) ‘Meeting the challenges of sustainable development - A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning’ Progress in Planning, 67: 9-+. Toke, D. (2005) ‘Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales’ Energy Policy, 33: 1527-1539. Tompkins, E. L., Few, R. and Brown, K. (2008) ‘Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change’ Journal of Environmental Management,

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 50 of 64 88: 1580-1592. Trousdale, W. and Gregory, R. (2004) ‘Property evaluation and biodiversity conservation: Decision support for making hard choices’ Ecological Economics, 48: 279-291. Tudor, D. T. and Williams, A. T. (2006) ‘A rationale for beach selection by the public on the coast of Wales, UK’ Area, 38: 153-164. Tunstall, S. M. and Penning-Rowsell, E. C. (1998) ‘The English beach: experiences and values’ Geographical journal, 164: 319-332. Tveit, M., Ode, A. and Fry, G. (2006) ‘Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character’ Landscape Research, 31: 229-255. Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M. (2007) ‘Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 83: 62-69. Tzoulas, K. and James, P. (2010) ‘Peoples’ use of, and concerns about, green space networks: A case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9: 121-128. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2010) Progress and Steps towards Delivery. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge. Upham, P. Whitmarsh, L. Poortinga, W. Purdam, K. Darnton, A. McLachlan, C. Devone-Wright, P. (2009) ‘Public Attitudes to Environmental to Environmental Change: a selective review of theory and practice: A Research Synthesis for The Living with Environmental Change Programme’ [online]. Available from: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Public%(20Attitudes%(20to%(20Environment al%(20Change_exec%(20summary_tcm6-35479.pdf [Accessed 16/12/2009]. Urban Green Spaces Taskforce and Great Britain. Dept. For Transport Local Government The Regions (2002) Green spaces, better places : final report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. Dept. for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: London. Urban Green Spaces Taskforce (2002) Good practice for improving urban green spaces. Report for DTLR: London. Van Der Horst, D. (2006) ‘A prototype method to map the potential visual-amenity benefits of new farm woodlands’ Environment and Planning B-Planning and Design, 33: 221-238. Van Herzele, A. and Wiedemann, T. (2003) ‘A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 63: 109-126. Van Rensburg, T. M., Mill, G. A., Common, M. and Lovett, J. (2002) ‘Preferences and multiple use forest management’ Ecological Economics, 43: 231-244. Vouligny, É., Domon, G. and Ruiz, J. (2009) ‘An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use’ Land Use Policy, 26: 890-900. Walford, N. (2007) ‘Geographical and geodemographic connections between different types of small area as the origins and destinations of migrants to Mid-Wales’ Journal of Rural Studies, 23: 318-331. Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O'dowd, S. and Birnie, R. V. (2005) ‘'Green on green': public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48: 853-875. Warren, C. R. and Mcfadyen, M. (2010) ‘Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland’ Land Use Policy, 27: 204-213. Ward-Thompson, C., Bell, S., Satsangi, M., Netto, G., Morris, N., Travlou, P., Chapman, M., Raemaekers, J. and Griffiths, A. (2003) The Countryside Agency Diversity Review: Options for Implementation. Final Report [online]. Available from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/diversityreview/research/scoping.aspx [Accessed 16/12/2009]. Ward-Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., and Montarzino, A. (2008) ‘The childhood factor: Adult visits to green places and the significance of childhood experience’ Environment and Behaviour 2008, 40: 111. Watson, R. and Albon, S. (2010) UK National Ecosystem Assessment Draft Synthesis of current status and recent trends [online]. Available at: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ [Accessed 20/10/2010]. Weiss, G. (2004) ‘The political practice of mountain forest restoration--comparing restoration concepts in four European countries’ Forest Ecology and Management, 195: 1-13. Wellstead, A. M., Stedman, R. C. and Parkins, J. R. (2003) ‘Understanding the concept of representation within the context of local forest management decision making’ Forest Policy and Economics, 5: 1-11. White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D. and Depledge, M. (2010) ‘Blue space: The

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 51 of 64 importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4): 482-493. Whitehead, M. (2009) ‘The wood for the trees: ordinary environmental injustice and the everyday right to urban nature’ International journal of urban and regional research, 33: 662-682. Wilson, M. A. and Howarth, R. B. (2002) ‘Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation’ Ecological Economics, 41(3): 431-443.

Conflict management review references

Andrew, J. S. (2001) 'Making or breaking alternative dispute resolution? Factors influencing its success in waste management conflicts', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21(1): 23-57. Barli, O., E., Baskent, Z., Turker, M.F. & Gedik, T., (2006). "Analytical approach for analyzing and providing solutions for the conflicts among forest stakeholders across Turkey." Forest Policy and Economics 9(3): 219-236. Barrow, C. J. (2010) 'How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA?', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(5): 293-301. Beem, B. (2007) 'Co-management from the top? The roles of policy entrepreneurs and distributive conflict in developing co-management arrangements', Marine Policy 31(4): 540-549. Beierle, T. C. & Konisky, D.M., (2000) 'Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning', Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19(4): 587-602. Bell, P. J. P. (2000) 'Contesting rural recreation: the battle over access to Windermere', Land Use Policy 17(4): 295-303. Bergseng, E. & Vatn, A., (2009) 'Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict - Some evidence from the Nordic countries,' Journal of Forest Economics 15(3): 147-165. Bishop P and G Davis (2002) Mapping public participation in policy choices, Australian Journal of Public Administration 61 (1):14-29. Bojórquez-Tapia, L. A., de la Cueva, H., Diaz, S., Melgarejo, D., Alcantar, G., Jose Solares, M., Grobet, G. & Cruz-Bello, G., (2004) 'Environmental conflicts and nature reserves: redesigning Sierra San Pedro Mártir National Park, Mexico,' Biological Conservation 117(2): 111-126. Bourdeaux, C., O'Leary, R. & Thornburgh, R., (2001) 'Control, communication, and power: A study of the use of alternative dispute resolution of enforcement actions at the US Environmental Protection Agency', Negotiation Journal-on the Process of Dispute Settlement 17(2): 175-191. Bro E, Arroyo B and P. Migot (2006) Conflict between grey partridge Perdix perdix hunting and hen harrier Circus cyaneus protection in France: A review, Wildlife Biology 12 (3):233-247. Brody, S. D., Grover, H., Bernhardt, S., Tang, Z., Whitaker, B. & Spence, C., (2006) 'Identifying potential conflict associated with oil and gas exploration in texas state coastal waters: A multicriteria spatial analysis', Environmental Management 38(4): 597-617. Brown, K., Adger, N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D. & Young, K. (2001) 'Trade-off Analysis for Marine Protected Area Management', Ecological Economics 37: 417-434. Bruckmeier, K. & Hoj Larsen, C., (2008) 'Swedish coastal fisheries - From conflict mitigation to participatory management', Marine Policy 32(2): 201-211. Brummans, B. H. J. M., Putnam, L.L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R.J., & Wiethoff, C., (2008) 'Making sense of intractable multiparty conflict: A study of framing in four environmental disputes', Communication Monographs 75(1): 25-51. Bryan, T. (2003) 'Context in Environmental Conflict: Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit', Environmental Practice 5(3): 256-264. Bullock, R. & Hanna, K. (2008) 'Community forestry: Mitigating or creating conflict in British Columbia?', Society & Natural Resources 21(1): 77-85. Butler J.R.A. Middlemass S.J. Graham I.M. and R.N. Harris, (2010) Perceptions and costs of seal impacts on Atlantic salmon fisheries in the Moray Firth Scotland,: Implications for the adaptive co-management of seal-fishery conflict Marine Policy doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.011. Cadoret, A. (2009) 'Conflict dynamics in coastal zones: a perspective using the example of Languedoc- Rousillon (France)', Journal of Coastal Conservation 13(2/3): 151-163.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 52 of 64 Capitini, C. A., Tissot, B.N., Carroll, M.S., Walsh, W.J. & Peck, S. (2004) 'Competing perspectives in resource protection: The case of marine protected areas in west Hawai'i', Society & Natural Resources 17(9): 763-778. Carolan, M. S. & Bell, M.M., (2003) 'In truth we trust: Discourse, phenomenology, and the social relations of knowledge in an environmental dispute', Environmental Values 12(2): 225-245. Carpenter, S. (1999) 'Choosing Appropriate Consensus Building Techniques and Strategies' in Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. & Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds), 'The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement', pp 61-97, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Carss D.N. (eds.) (n.d.) Reducing the conflict between cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European scale, REDCAFE Final Report Summary. Cassidy A (2010) Bovine Tuberculosis a Problem for Farmers, Conservationists and Policy-makers Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Policy and Practice Note 19. Castro, A. P. & Nielsen, E. (2001) 'Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management', Environmental Science & Policy 4(4-5): 229-239. Caton Campbell, M. (2003) 'Intractability in environmental disputes: Exploring a complex construct', Journal of Planning Literature 17(3): 360-371. Creative Research Ltd (2009) Wildlife management and Invasive Non-Native Species Report of Research Findings among the General Public, Anglers and the Horticultural Trade May. Daniels, S. E. & Walker, G.B. (2001) 'Working through environmental conflict : the collaborative learning approach', Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Daniels, S. E. (2009) 'Exploring the Feasibility of Mediated Final Offer Arbitration As a Technique for Managing Gridlocked Environmental Conflict,' Society & Natural Resources 22(3): 261-277. Davis, C. B. & Lewicki, R.J., (2003) 'Environmental Conflict Resolution: Framing and Intractability—An Introduction,' Environmental Practice 5(3): 200-206. Davos, C. A., Siakavara, K., Santorineou, A., Side, J., Taylor, M. & Barriga, P. (2007) 'Zoning of marine protected areas: Conflicts and cooperation options in the Galapagos and San Andres archipelagos,' Ocean & Coastal Management 50(3-4): 223-252. Delgado, L. E., Marin, Bachmann, P.L. & Torres-Gomez, M., (2009) 'Conceptual Models for Ecosystem Management through the Participation of Local Social Actors: the Rio Cruces Wetland Conflict', Ecology and Society 14(1). Douvere, F. (2008) 'The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management,' Marine Policy 32(5): 762-771. Douvere, F. & Ehler, C.N., (2009) 'New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning,' Journal of Environmental Management 90(1): 77-88. Dukes, E. F. (2004) 'What We Know About Environmental Conflict Resolution: An Analysis Based on Research', Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(1-2): 191-220. Elliott, M. & Kaufman, S., (2003) "Building Civic Capacity to Resolve Environmental Conflicts." Environmental Practice 5(3): 265-272. Emerson, K., O'Leary, R. & Bingham, L.B. (2004) "Commentary: Comment on Frank Dukes's 'What We Know About Environmental Conflict Resolution'', Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(1-2): 221-231. Emerson, K., Orr, P.J., Keyes, D.L. & McKnight, K.M., (2009) 'Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating-performance outcomes and contributing factors', Conflict Resolution Quarterly 27(1): 27-64. Fell D., Austin A., Kivinen E., Wilkins C. (2009) ‘The diffusion of environmental behaviours; the role of influential individuals in social networks. Report 2: The evidence’. A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Brook Lyndhurst. Defra, London. Fell, P. T. (2008) 'Conflict and legitimacy: explaining tensions in Swedish hunting policy at the local level', Environmental Politics 17(1): 105-114. Fischer, A. & Marshall, K. (2010) 'Framing the landscape: Discourses of woodland restoration and moorland management in Scotland', Journal of Rural Studies 26: 185-193. Fish, R. (2010) Participation and an ecosystems approach to decision making: Draft Guidelines (NR0124). Report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London. Fleisher Trainor, S., (2006) 'Realms of Value: Conflicting Natural Resource Values and Incommensurability', Environmental Values 15(1): 3-30.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 53 of 64 Foote J.L., Gregor J.E., Hepi M.C., Baker V.E.,Houston D.J. and G Midgley (2007) ‘Systematic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation’ , Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 645-654. Forester, J. (1999) 'Dealing with Deep Value Differences', in Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. & Thomas- Larmer, J. (eds), 'The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement', pp 463-493, Thousand Oaks, Sage. Forst, M. F. (2009) 'The convergence of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the ecosystems approach,' Ocean & Coastal Management 52(6): 294-306. Frame, T.M., Gunton, T. & Day, J. C., (2004) 'The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia', Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1): 59-82. Gray, B. (2004) 'Strong Opposition: Frame-Based Resistance to Collaboration', Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(3): 166-176. Gray, B. & Putnam, L.L., (2003) 'Means to What End? Conflict Management Frames,' Environmental Practice 5(3): 239-246. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T. & Fields, D. (2001) 'Decision Aiding, Not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights Through Structured Environmental Decisions', Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(3): 415- 432. Gritten, D., Saastamoinen, O. & Sajama, S. (2009) 'Ethical analysis: A structured approach to facilitate the resolution of forest conflicts', Forest Policy and Economics 11(8): 555-560. Harrison, J. L. (2006) ''Accidents' and invisibilities: Scaled discourse and the naturalization of regulatory neglect in California's pesticide drift conflict', Political Geography 25(5): 506-529. Hiedanpaa, J. (2005) 'The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland', Ecological Economics 55(4): 485-498. Hjortso, C. N., Christensen, S.M. & Tarp, P., (2005) 'Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for natural resource management using cognitive mapping: The case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise, Vietnam,' Agriculture and Human Values 22(2): 149-167. Imperial, M. T. & Kauneckis, D., (2003) 'Moving from conflict to collaboration: Watershed governance in Lake Tahoe', Natural Resources Journal 43(4): 1009-1055. Innes, J.E. (1999) 'Evaluating Consensus Building' in Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. & Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds), 'The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement', Thousand Oaks, Sage. Johnson, J. C. & Griffith, D.C., (2010) 'Finding Common Ground in the Commons: Intracultural Variation in Users' Conceptions of Coastal Fisheries Issues', Society & Natural Resources 23(9): 837-855. Jones P.S., Young J and A.D. Watt (eds.) (2005) Biodiversity Conflict Management A report of the BIOFORUM project www.nbu.ac.uk/bioforum Karjalainen, T. P. & Jarvikoski, T., (2010) 'Negotiating river ecosystems: Impact assessment and conflict mediation in the cases of hydro-power construction', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(5): 319-327. Kearney, R. E. (2002) 'Co-management: the resolution of conflict between commercial and recreational fishers in Victoria, Australia', Ocean & Coastal Management 45(4-5): 201-214. Kothari, U. (2001) ‘Power knowledge and social control in participatory development’, In Cooke, B. and Kothari U. (eds.) Participation: the New Tyranny Zed Books, London p. 139-152. Kyllonen, S., Colpaert, A., Heikkinen, H., Jokinen, M., Kumpula, J., Marttunen, M., Muje, K. & Raitio, K., (2006) 'Conflict management as a means to the sustainable use of natural resources', Silva Fennica 40(4): 687-728. Leach, W.D. & Sabatier, P.A., (2003) 'Facilitators, Coordinators, and Outcomes', In O'Leary, R. & Bingham, L. (eds), The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. O'Leary, R. and L. Bingham (2003) The promise and performance of environmental conflict resolution. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future. Lewiciki R.J., Gray B. and M. Elliott (eds.) (2003) Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts Island Press, Washington. Lubell, M. (2004) 'Resolving Conflict and Building Cooperation in the National Estuary Program',

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 54 of 64 Environmental Management 33(5): 677-691. McBeth, M. K. & Shanahan, E.A., (2004) 'Public opinion for sale: The role of policy marketers in Greater Yellowstone policy conflict', Policy Sciences 37(3-4): 319-338. McShane, T. O. Hirsch, P.D. et al. (In Press) 'Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being', Biological Conservation In Press, Corrected Proof. Messner, F., Zwirner, O. & Karkuschke, M. (2006) 'Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree River basin', Land Use Policy 23(1): 63-75. Nie, M. (2003), 'Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict' Policy Sciences 36(3-4): 307-341. O'Leary, R., Durant, R.F., Fiorino, D.J. & Weiland, P., (1999) 'Managing for the Environment: Understanding the Legal, Organizational, and Policy Challenges', San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. O'Leary, R. & Summers Raines, S. (2001) 'Lessons learned from two decades of alternative dispute resolution programs and processes at the US Environmental Protection Agency,' Public Administration Review 61(6): 682-692. Orr, P. J., Emerson, K. & Keyes, D.L., (2008) 'Environmental conflict resolution practice and performance: An evaluation framework', Conflict Resolution Quarterly 25(3): 283-301. Patterson, M. E., Montag, J.M. & Williams, D.R., (2003) 'The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making', Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1(3): 171-183. Persson, J. (2006) 'Theoretical reflections on the connection between environmental assessment methods and conflict', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(7): 605-613. Peterson, M. N., Peterson, T.R., Peterson, M.J. Lopez, R.R. & Silvy, N.J., (2002) 'Cultural conflict and the endangered Florida Key deer', Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4): 947-968. Peuhkuri, T. (2002) 'Knowledge and interpretation in environmental conflict: Fish farming and eutrophication in the Archipelago Sea, SW Finland', Landscape and Urban Planning 61(2-4): 157-168. Poirier Elliott, M.L. (1999) 'The Role of Facilitators, Mediators, and Other Consensus Building Practitioners', in Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. & Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds), 'The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement', pp 199-239, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Pollnac, R., Campson, T., Genio, E., Marlessy, C., Holle, E., Pido, M., Nissapa, A., Boromthanarat, S. & Thu Hue, N., (2007) 'Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia', Marine Policy 31(6): 645-656. Pound D. (2009) Adopting Effective Stakeholder Engagement Processes to Deliver Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network, Natural England www.naturalengland.org.uk. Putnam, L. L., Burgess, G. & Royer, R., (2003) 'We Can't Go On Like This: Frame Changes in Intractable Conflicts,' Environmental Practice 5(3): 247-255. Rauschmayer, F. & Wittmer, H., (2006) 'Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts,' Land Use Policy 23(1): 108-122. Rauschmayer, F., H. Wittmer, H. & Berghofer, A., (2008) 'Institutional challenges for resolving conflicts between fisheries and endangered species conservation', Marine Policy 32(2): 178-188. Redpath, S. A., Arroyo, B.E., Leckie, F.M., Bacon, P., Bayfield, N., Gutierrez, R.J. & Thirgood, S.J., (2004) 'Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: a Raptor-Grouse case study', Conservation Biology 18(2): 350-359. Reed M.S., (2010) Sustainable Uplands: Reshaping Land Use policy and our Hills, Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Policy and Practice Note 14, Feb. Reed, M.S., (2008) ‘Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review’, Biological Conservation 141 (10):2417-2431 Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. & Markovchick-Nicholls, L. (2006) 'A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management,' Journal of Environmental Management 80(2): 167-176. Sairinen, R., Barrow, C. & Karjalainen, T.P., (2010) 'Environmental conflict mediation and social impact assessment: Approaches for enhanced environmental governance?' Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(5): 289-292. Sava J and R. Varjopuro (2007) Asymmetries, conflicting interests and the possibilities of cooperation: The case of grey seals in Kvarken. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 9 (2): 165-184. Shmueli, D. F. (2008) 'Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 55 of 64 and three case studies', Geoforum 39(6): 2048-2061. Shmueli, D. F. & Ben Gal, M., (2003) 'Stakeholder Frames in the Mapping of the Lower Kishon River Basin Conflict', Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21(2): 211-238. Shmueli, D. F. & Ben Gal, M., (2005) 'Creating Environmental Stakeholder Profiles: A Tool for Dispute Management,' Environmental Practice 7(3): 165-175. Shriver, T. E. & Peaden, C. (2009) 'Frame Disputes in a Natural Resource Controversy: The Case of the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer in South-Central Oklahoma', Society & Natural Resources 22(2): 143-157. Sidaway, R. (2005) 'Resolving environmental disputes : from conflict to consensus', London: Earthscan. Skutsch, M. M. (2000) 'Conflict management and participation in community forestry', Agroforestry Systems 48(2): 189-206. Smith, G. (2001) 'Taking Deliberation Seriously: Green Politics and Institutional Design', Environmental Politics 10(3): 72-93. Smith, P.M. (2006) 'The Application of Critical Discourse Analysis in Environmental Dispute Resolution', Ethics, Place and Environment 9(1); 79-100. Sneddon, C. (2002) 'Water conflicts and river basins: The contradictions of co-management and scale in Northeast Thailand', Society & Natural Resources 15(8): 725-741. Stagl, S. (2006) Emerging Methods for Sustainability Valuation and Appraisal. Discussion paper prepared for the Sustainable Development Research Network. Available at: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/ Striegnitz, M. (2006) 'Conflicts over coastal protection in a National Park: Mediation and negotiated law making', Land Use Policy 23(1): 26-33. Suman, D. (2001) 'Case studies of coastal conflicts: comparative US/European experiences', Ocean & Coastal Management 44(1-2): 1-13. Suryanata, K. & Umemoto, K., (2005) 'Beyond environmental impact: articulating the "intangibles" in a resource conflict,' Geoforum 36(6): 750-760. Susskind, L., & Cruickshank, J. (1987) 'Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches To Resolving Public Disputes', New York: Basic Books. Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. & Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds) (1999) 'The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement', Thousand Oaks, Sage. Thirgood, S. & Redpath, S. (2008) 'Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human-wildlife conflict', Journal of Applied Ecology 45(5): 1550-1554. Todd, S. (2001) 'Measuring the effectiveness of environmental dispute settlement efforts', Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21(1): 97-110. Ury, W.L. (2000) 'The Third Side: Why we Fight and How we can Stop', New York: Penguin. Van Veen, D. H., Kreutzwiser, R.D. & de Löe, R.C., (2003) 'Selecting appropriate dispute resolution techniques: a rural water management example,' Applied Geography 23(2-3): 89-113. Villa, F., Tunesi, L., & Agardy, T., (2002) 'Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multiple-criteria analysis: the case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy,' Conservation Biology 16(2): 515-526. Vraneski, A. & Richter, R., (2003) 'What's News? Reflections of Intractable Environmental Conflicts in the News: Some Promises, Many Premises', Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21(2): 239-262. White, R. M., Fischer, A., Marshall, K., Travis, J.M.J., Webb, T.J., di Falco, S., Redpath, S. & van der Wal, R., (2009) 'Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts', Land Use Policy 26(2): 242-253. Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F. & Klauer, B., (2006) 'How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?' Land Use Policy 23(1): 1-9. Woods A. (2010) The Big Society: helping communities take action Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Policy and Practice Note 24. Yasmi, Y., Schanz, H. & Salim, A., (2006) 'Manifestation of conflict escalation in natural resource management', Environmental Science & Policy 9(6): 538-546. Young J. Watt A and D Carss (n.d.) Managing conflicts affecting biodiversity, ecosystems and human well- being in a changing environment. Pilot review for the ‘Living with Environmental Change’ Programme Objective B (Environment)

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 56 of 64 Zografos, C. & Martinez-Alier, J. (2009) 'The politics of landscape value: a case study of wind farm conflict in rural Catalonia', Environment and Planning A 41(7): 1726-1744.

Big Society Review References

Adebowale. M. and Church, C. (2009) Hard to Reach? Diversity and the Environment. Capacity Global. Amin, A., Cameron, A. and Hudson, R. (1999) ‘Welfare as work? The potential of the UK social economy’ Environment and Planning A, 31: 2033-2051. Bell, S., Ward Thompson, C. and Travlou. P. (2003) ‘Contested views of freedom and control: Children, teenagers and urban fringe woodlands in Central Scotland’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2: 87-100. Bergman, N., Markusson, N., Connor, P., Middlemiss, L. and Ricci, M. (2010) Bottom up, social innovation for addressing climate change [online]. Available at: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/Bergman%20et%20al%20Social%20Innovation%20W P.pdf [Accessed 31st January 2011]. Berto, R. (2007) ‘Assessing the restorative value of the environment: A study on the elderly in comparison with young adults and adolescents’ International Journal of Psychology 42: 331-341. Beveridge, R. and Guy, S. (2005) ‘The rise of the eco-preneur and the messy world of environmental innovation’ Local Environment 10(6): 665-676. Biggs, R., Westley, FR. and Carpenter, SR. (2010) ‘Navigating the Back Loop: Fostering Social Innovation and Transformation in Ecosystem Management’ Ecology and Society 15(2): 9. Brook Lyndhurst (2010) The Big Green Challenge Final Evaluation Report. Executive Summary for NESTA. Brook Lyndhurst, London. Bruyere, B. and Rappe, S. (2007) ‘Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers’ Journal of Environment and Planning and Management 50(4): 503-516 BTCV (2008a) Inspiring people, inspiring places. BTCV, Doncaster. BTCV (2008b) Tasty...BTCV’s Taster Volunteering Programme, September 06 to September 07 [online]. Available at: http://www2.btcv.org.uk/tasty_report.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2010]. BTCV (2008c) BTCV Green Gym National Evaluation Report: Summary of findings [online]. Available at: http://www2.btcv.org.uk/gg_evaluation_0308.pdf [Accessed 10th November 2010]. BTCV (2009) Investing in Sustainable Futures. BTCV Strategic Plan 2009 – 2013. BTCV, Doncaster. BTCV (2010) Mobilising Communities. Annual Review 2009/10. BTCV, Doncaster. Bunt, L. and Harris, M. (2010) Mass Localism: A way to help small communities solve big social challenges. NESTA, London. Burningham, K. and Thrush, D. (2001) Rainforests are a long way from here: The environmental concerns of disadvantaged groups [online]. Available at: http://www.capacity.org.uk/downloads/rainforest_are_long_way.pdf [Accessed 11th November 2010]. CABE (2009) Helping community groups to improve public spaces [online]. Available at: http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/helping-community-groups-to-improve-public-spaces.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2010). Cabinet Office (2010) Giving Green Paper. HM Government. Available online: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Giving-Green-Paper.pdf [Accessed 12th January 2011]. Campbell, G. (2009) ‘Transforming neglected spaces’ Green Places 58: 37-39. Carter, C. (2007) Offenders and Nature: Helping people, helping nature [online]. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Offenders_and_Nature_Report.pdf/$FILE/Offenders_and_Nature_Report.p df [Accessed 3rd February 2011]. Church, C. (2002) The Quiet Revolution. 10 years since Agenda 21: Measuring the impact of community- based sustainable development in the UK. Shell Better Britain Campaign. Church, C. (2007) Changed Places, Changed Lives: The social impacts of environmental action. BTCV, Doncaster. CLG (2010) Citizenship Survey: 2009-10. Cohesion Research Statistical Release 12. Department for Communities and Local Government.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 57 of 64 Connell, N. (2007) Social and environmental responsibility and the small business owner. Federation of Small Businesses, London. Curtis, DJ. (2009) ‘Creating inspiration: The role of the arts in creating empathy for ecological restoration’ Ecological Management and Restoration 10(3): 174-184. Curtis, R. (2010) ‘Farming with nature’ Green Places 62: 24-25. Dean, JH. and Bush, RA. (2007) ‘A community psychology view of environmental organisation processes’ American Journal of Community Psychology 40: 146-166. Defra (2009) Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey. A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London. Defra (2010) Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – a tracker survey. Data Tables [online]. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/pubatt/ [Accessed 20th November 2010]. Defra (2010b) An invitation to shape the Nature of England. Discussion Document. Defra, London. Devine-Wright, P. (2003) Emotions, place change and renewable energy: Towards a new psychological framework for understanding NIMBY opposition. Paper presented at the 33rd annual conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Devine-Wright, P. (2006) ‘Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies’ in Murphy, J. (ed) Framing the present, shaping the future: Contemporary governance of Sustainable Technologies. London: Earthscan. Dobson, A. (2010) Environmental citizenship and pro-environmental behaviour. Rapid Research and Evidence Review for the Sustainable Development Research Network. Policy Studies Institute, London. Eden, S. (1996) ‘Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions’ Public Understanding of Science 5: 183-204. Fell, D., Austin, A., Kivinen, E. and Wilkins, C. (2009) The diffusion of environmental behaviours: the role of influential individuals in social networks. Report 1. Key Findings. A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Brook Lyndhurst. Defra, London. Gatersleben. B., Meadows, J., Abrahamse, W. and Jackson, T. (2008) Materialistic and environmental values of young volunteers in nature conservation projects, RESOLVE Working Paper 07-08. Granville, G. (2000) Understanding the experience of older volunteers in intergenerational school-based projects. The Beth Johnson Foundation. Grealy, T. (2005) Volunteering England Good Practice Bank: We don’t discriminate, do we? Welcoming lesbian and gay volunteers. Volunteering England, London. GreenSpace (2010) Draft GreenSpace Response – Supporting a Stronger Civil Society: An Office for Civil Society consultation on improving support for frontline civil society organisations [online]. Available at: http://www.green- space.org.uk/downloads/Publications/Supporting%20a%20Stronger%20Civil%20Society%20- %20GreenSpace%20response.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2010]. Hare, R. and Nielsen, JB. (2003) Landscape and Community: Public involvement in Landscape projects in the United Kingdom. Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning. Hill, K. (2006) Older volunteering: Literature Review. Volunteering in the Third Age. Ipos MORI (2010) Ipsos MORI Big Society Poll for the RSA [online]. Available at: http://www.ipsos- mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/big-society-poll-for-RSA-september-2010-topline.pdf [Accessed 22nd November 2010]. IVR (2002) UK-Wide evaluation of the Millennium Volunteers Programme. Research Report RR357 for the Department for Education and Skills. IVR (2004) Volunteering among groups deemed at risk of social exclusion. Institute for Volunteering Research, London. Johnstone, P. (2006) ‘Community-managed countryside’ Green Places 22: 34-37. Kidd, MC. (2009) ‘Vegetable Empire’, Environmental Health News 24: 9. Kingsley, JY., Townsend, M. and Henderson-Wilson, C. (2009) ‘Cultivating health and wellbeing: members’ perceptions of the health benefits of a Port Melbourne community garden’ Leisure Studies 28(2): 207-219. Koss, RS. and Kingsley, JY. (2010) ‘Volunteer health and emotional wellbeing in marine protected areas’

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 58 of 64 Ocean and Coastal Management 53: 447-453. Lawton, J. (2010) Making space for nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network. Report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Levett-Therivel (2007) Wellbeing: International policy interventions. Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Ling, C., Hanna, K. and Dale, A. (2009) ‘A template for Integrated Community Sustainability Planning’ Environmental Management 44: 228-242. London Wildlife Trust (2005) London’s Life-Force: How to bring natural values to Community Strategies [online]. Available at: http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RdQ1QhtJxS0%3d&tabid=101&mid=499&language =en-US [Accessed 7th February 2011]. London Wildlife Trust (2008) Living landscapes: A call to restore the UK’s battered ecosystems, for wildlife and for people [online]. Available at: http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5AVx8MY5CZE%3d&tabid=101&mid=499&languag e=en-US [Accessed 7th February 2011]. London Wildlife Trust (2009) Diverse city: Celebrating ecological and social diversity in our capital. London Wildlife Trust Annual Review 2008-2009 [online]. Available at: http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RdQ1QhtJxS0%3d&tabid=101&mid=499&language =en-US [Accessed 7th February 2011]. London Wildlife Trust (2010) A natural future for London: London Wildlife Trust’s Strategic Plan 2010- 2015[online]. Available at: http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fZdmLwje7yc%3d&tabid=608&mid=1214&language =en-US [Accessed 7th February 2011]. Low, N., Butt, S., Ellis Paine, A., Davis Smith, J. (2007) Helping out: A national survey of volunteering and charitable giving. Report for the Cabinet Office. NatCen and Institute for Volunteering Research, London. Manzo, LC. and Perkins, DD. (2006) ‘Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning’ Journal of Planning Literature 20: 335-350. McEwan, G. (2008) ‘Communal task of restoration’ Horticulture Week 28th August 2008: p18-19. Measham, TG. and Barnett, GB. (2008) ‘Environmental volunteering: motivations, modes, outcomes’ Australian Geographer 39(4): 537-552. Midwinter, E. (1991) The Carnegie Inquiry into the Third Age. Centre for Policy on Ageing. Milligan. C., Gatrell, A. and Bingley, A. (2004) ‘”Cultivating health’: therapeutic landscapes and older people in northern England’ Social Science and Medicine 58: 1781-1793. Morris, J. and Urry, J. (2006) Growing places: A study of social change in the National Forest. Forest Research. Murray, R. (2009) Danger and Opportunity: Crisis and the new social economy. NESTA, London. Natural England (2010) Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: The national survey on people and the natural environment. Annual Report from the 2009-2010 survey. Natural England. nef (2010) 21 Hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all flourish in the 21st Century [online]. Available at: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/21-hours [Accessed 15th November 2010]. NESTA (2009) Big Green Challenge Finalists: The people-powered innovation prize, NESTA, London. O’Brien, L. (2004) Hill Holt Wood Social Enterprise and Community Woodland. Forest Research. O’Brien, L. (2005) Trees and their impact on the emotional wellbeing of local residents on two inner London social housing estates. Forest Research. O’Brien, L., Townsend, M. and Ebden, M. (2008) ‘I like to think when I’m gone I will have left this a better place’: Environmental volunteering – motivations, barriers and benefits’ Report to the Scottish Forestry Trust and Forestry Commission. Ojala, M. (2007) ‘Confronting macrosocial worries: Worry about environmental problems and proactive coping among a group of young volunteers’ Futures 39: 729-745. Osborne, O. (2005) Social and community enterprise: A European perspective. Northern Alliance for Sustainability, Amsterdam. Passy, R., Morris, M. and Reed, F. (2010) Impact of school gardening on learning. Final report submitted

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 59 of 64 to the Royal Horticultural Society. Penker, M. (2009) ‘Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria’ Land Use Policy 26: 947-953. Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Sellens, M. and Pretty, C. (2003) ‘Green exercise: complementary roles of nature, exercise and diet in physical and emotional wellbeing and implications to public health policy’. CES Occasional Paper 1, University of Essex, Colchester. Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M. and South, N. (2005a) ‘A countryside for health and wellbeing: the physical and mental health benefits of green exercise’. Report for the Countryside Recreation Network. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M. and Griffin, M. (2005b) ‘The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise’ International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15(5): 319-337. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N. and Griffin, M. (2007) ‘Green exercise in the UK Countryside: Effects on health and psychological wellbeing, and implications for policy and planning’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(2): 211-231. Quayle, H. (2007) The true value of community farms and gardens: social, environmental, health and economic. Report for the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens. RELU (2010) Shaping the Nature of England: Policy pointers from the Relu Programme. Relu Briefing Paper 13 [online]. Available at: http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/briefings/BRIF13/NatureofEngland.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2010]. RHS (nd) Britain in Bloom Starter Pack: Communities improving local environments [online]. Available at: http://www.letsgogardening.co.uk/Downloads/BinBStarterPack.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2010] Roe, J. (2006) Wild Adventure Space for Young People: Project Review, Survey of Findings. Report for the Countryside Agency, English Nature and Rural Development Service [online]. Available at: http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/pdf/WASYP3_Proj_Review110906.pdf [Accessed 3rd February 2011]. Rose, J. (1990) ‘Pocket Parks – Countryside conservation by local people’ ECOS 11(1): 7-11. Rossi-Snook, K., Ozbay, G. and Marenghi, F. (2010) ‘Oyster (Crassostrea viginica) gardening program for restoration in Delaware’s Inland Bays, USA’ Aquacult. Int. (18): 61-67. Rowson, J., Broome, S. and Jones, A. (2010) Connected Communities: How social networks power and sustain the Big Society. RSA, London. Ryan, RL., Kaplan, R. and Grese. RE. (2001) ‘Predicting volunteer commitment in Environmental Stewardship programmes’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(5): 629-648. Ryan, RL. (2005) ‘Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas’ Environment and Behavior 37: 3-42. Savage, V., O’Sullivan, C., Mulgan, G. and Ali, R. (2009) Public services and civil society working together: An initial think piece. The Young Foundation, London. Scott, F. (2010) New times, new connections: civil society action on climate change. Green Alliance, London. Scott-Cato, M. and Hillier, J. (2010) ‘How could we study climate-related social innovation? Applying Deleuzean philosophy to Transition Towns’ Environmental Politics 19(6): 869-887. Seyfang, G. (2006a) ‘Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks’ Journal of Rural Studies 22: 383-395. Seyfang, G. (2006b) ‘Harnessing the potential of the social economy? Time banks and UK public policy’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26(9/10): 430-443. Seyfang, G. (2006c) ‘Sustainable consumption, the new economics and community currencies: Developing new institutions for environmental governance’ Regional Studies 40(7): 781 – 791. Seyfang, G. (2006d) ‘Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks’ Journal of Rural Studies 22: 383-395 Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007) ‘Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda’ Environmental Politics 16(4): 584 – 603. Shandas, V. and Messer, WB. (2008) ‘Fostering green communities through civic engagement’ Journal of the American Planning Association 74(4): 408-418. Sheath, E. (ed) (2010) ‘Success Story in Sussex’ Green Places 65: 32-35.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 60 of 64 Sites, W., Chaskin, RJ. and Parks, V. (2007) ‘Reframing community practice for the 21st Century: Multiple traditions, multiple challenges’ Journal of Urban Affairs 29(5): 519-541. Smeaton, D. and Vegeris, S. (2009) Older people inside and outside the labour market: A Review. Research Report 22 for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Smith, A. (2006) ‘Green niches in sustainable development: the case of organic food in the United Kingdom’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24: 439-458. Smith, A. (2007) ‘Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes’ Technological Analysis and Strategic Management 19(4): 427-450. Somerset, C. (2006) Opening Green Doors: Doorstep Greens and Community Green Space. Report to the Countryside Agency. Steward, F., Liff, S., Dunkelman, M., Cox, J. and Georgi, S. (2009) People-powered responses to climate change: Mapping community-led proposals to NESTA’s Big Green Challenge. NESTA, London. Stoddart, K. (2009) ‘Social enterprise: leading the way for business’ The Environmentalist 79: 18-20. Take Action (2009) Ecologist 39(6): 43 Taylor, DE. (1993) ‘Minority environmental activism in Britain: From Brixton to the Lake District’ Qualitative Sociology 16(3): 263-295. Townsend, M. (2006) ‘Feel blue? Touch green! Participation in forest/woodland management as a treatment for depression’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 5: 111-120. Van Viannen, AEM., Nijstad, BA. and Voskuijl, OF. (2008) ‘A person-environment fit approach to volunteerism: volunteer personality fit and culture fit as predictors of affective outcomes’ Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30(2): 153-166. Wakefield, SEL., Elliott, SJ., Eyles, JD. and Cole, DC. (2006) ‘Taking environmental action: The role of local composition, context and collective’ Environmental Management 37(1): 40-53. Warburton, D. (2002) Urban Britain in Bloom: An evaluation study. A report for ENCAMS. Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P. and Montarzino, A. (2007) ‘The Childhood Factor: Adult visits to Green Places and the significance of childhood experience’ Environment and Behavior 40: 111-143. Worsley, K. (2006) ‘Did they do well?’ Green Places 27: 22-24. Wright, J. (2000) ‘Going for growth’ Volunteering 57: 8-9. Young Foundation (2010a) Communities in the Big Society: Shaping, managing, running services. The Young Foundation, London. Young Foundation (2010b) Investing in Social Growth: can the Big Society be more than a slogan? Young Foundation, London.

Big Society Case Study weblinks

1. Women’s Environmental Network: http://www.wen.org.uk/your-wen/ 2. Surfers against Sewage: http://www.sas.org.uk/ 3. Environmental Justice Foundation: http://www.ejfoundation.org/ 4. FreeCycle: http://www.uk.freecycle.org/ 5. Community Composting Network: http://www.communitycompost.org/ 6. Community Recycling Network: http://www.crn.org.uk/ 7. Green Works: http://www.green-works.co.uk/ 8. London Community Resource Network: http://www.lcrn.org.uk/about 9. Pedal Power: http://www.cardiffpedalpower.org/default.htm 10. CarPlus: http://www.carplus.org.uk/ 11. Living Streets: http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/ 12. Cycling Touring Club: http://www.ctc.org.uk/ 13. Eco-Teams: http://ecoteams.org.uk/ 14. Green Streets: http://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy-efficiency/products/energy-innovation/green- streets.html 15. Energy 4 All: http://www.energy4all.co.uk/energy_aboutus.asp

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 61 of 64 16. H2ope Water Power Enterprises: http://www.h2ope.org.uk/content/view/19/29/ 17. Bollington Carbon Revolution: http://www.bollingtoncarbonrevolution.co.uk/about/index.html 18. Low Carbon Communities: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/consumers/lc_communities/lc_communities. aspx 19. RCUK Energy and Communities Programme: http://www.rcukenergy.org.uk/news/68-using- communities-to-find-the-answer-to-energy-demand-problems.html 20. National Trust: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-volunteering.htm 21. Woodland Trust: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/about-us/people- partners/volunteers/Pages/helpers.aspx 22. RSPB: http://www.rspb.org.uk/volunteering/ 23. Bird Watch: http://www.rspb.org.uk/birdwatch/ 24. Bat Conservation Trust:http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/nbmp.html 25. National Federation of Badger Groups: 26. http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/content/home.asp 27. Amphibian and Reptiles Groups UK: http://www.arguk.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=3 28. http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/mapping-the-BGC-summary.pdf 29. http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/BGC-Evaluation-Exec-Summary-FINAL.pdf 30. http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/public_services_lab/environment/big_green_challenge/ass ets/features/mass_localism 31. http://www.thegreenvalleys.org/ 32. http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/BGC-finalists-booklet.pdf 33. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/support/what-transition-initiative 34. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/Opening%20Green%20Doors_tcm6-9082.pdf 35. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/stratplan.pdf 36. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/evaluatingefa 37. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/changedplaces 38. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/changedplaces 39. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/blaenaugwent.pdf 40. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/BTCV_Annual_Review_2010.pdf 41. http://www2.btcv.org.uk/gg_evaluation_0308.pdf 42. http://www.incredible-edible-todmorden.co.uk/ 43. http://apps.rhs.org.uk/schoolgardening/uploads/documents/Impact_of_school_gardening_on_lear ning_821.pdf 44. http://apps.rhs.org.uk/schoolgardening/default.aspa 45. http://www.vision-twentyone.com/var/documents/project-fairwatercommunitygarden.pdf 46. http://www.vision-twentyone.com/fairwater-community-garden 47. http://www.eastsideroots.org.uk/index.html 48. http://www.globalgeneration.org.uk/about-us 49. http://www.capitalgrowth.org/opengardens/ 50. http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/BGC-finalists-booklet.pdf 51. http://www.soilassociation.org/Whatwedo/Communitysupportedagriculture/tabid/266/Default.aspx 52. http://www.railwaylandproject.org/index 53. http://www.sbg.org.uk/index.asp 54. http://www.letsgogardening.co.uk/Downloads/BinBStarterPack.pdf 55. http://www.sharedpractice.org.uk/Downloads/Urban_Britain_Bloom_Evaluation.pdf 56. http://www.pocketparks.com/ 57. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/Opening%20Green%20Doors_tcm6-9082.pdf 58. http://www.soilassociation.org/Whatwedo/LandTrust/tabid/264/Default.aspx 59. http://www.opalexplorenature.org/ 60. http://www.yarde-orchard.co.uk/ 61. http://www.sl.life.ku.dk/upload/report_no14.pdf 62. http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/helping-community-groups-to-improve-public-spaces.pdf 63. http://www.groundwork.org.uk/what-we-do/major-initiatives/united-futures.aspx 64. The London Wildlife Trust website: http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 62 of 64 References for the cross cutting themes

Beem, B. (2007) ‘Co-management from the top? The roles of policy entrepreneurs and distributive conflict in developing co-management arrangements’ Marine Policy 31: 540-549. Bunt, L. and Harris, M. (2010) Mass Localism: A way to help small communities solve big social challenges. NESTA, London. Capitini, CA., Tissot, BN., Carroll, MS., Walsh, WJ. and Peck, S. (2004) ‘Competing perspectives in resource protection: The case of marine protected areas in west Hawaii’ Society and natural resources 17(9): 763-778. Caton Campbell, M. (2003) ‘Intractability in environmental disputes: Exploring a complex construct’ Journal of Planning Literature 17(3): 360-371. Defra (2010) Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – a tracker survey. Data Tables [online]. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/pubatt/ [Accessed 20th November 2010]. Devine-Wright, P. (2009) ‘Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place protective action’ Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 19: 426-441. Devine-Wright, P. and Howes, Y. (2010) ‘Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study’ Journal of Environmental Psychlogy 30: 271-280. Dobson, A. (2010) Environmental citizenship and pro-environmental behaviour. Rapid Research and Evidence Review for the Sustainable Development Research Network. Policy Studies Institute, London. Dukes, EF. (2004) ‘What we know about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on research’ Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(1-2): 191-220. Fell, D., Austin, A., Kivinen, E. and Wilkins, C. (2009) The diffusion of environmental behaviours: the role of influential individuals in social networks. Report 1. Key Findings. A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Brook Lyndhurst. Defra, London. Fish, R. (2010) Participation and an ecosystems approach to decision making. Draft Guidelines. Report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Gatersleben. B., Meadows, J., Abrahamse, W. and Jackson, T. (2008) Materialistic and environmental values of young volunteers in nature conservation projects, RESOLVE Working Paper 07-08. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T. and Fields, D. (2001) ‘Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(3): 415-432. Irvine, RJ., Fiorini, S., Yearley, S., McLeod, JE., Turner, A., Armstrong, H., White, PCL. and van der Waal, R. (2009) ‘Can managers inform models? Integrating local knowledge into models of red deer habitat use’ Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 344 – 352. Lawton, J. (2010) Making space for nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network. Report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Leach, WD. and Sabatier, PA. (2003) ‘Facilitators, coordinators and outcomes’ in O’Leary, R. and Bingham, L. (eds) The promise and performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, Washington DC: Resources for the Future. Manzo, LC. and Perkins, DD. (2006) ‘Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning’ Journal of Planning Literature 20: 335-350. Measham, TG. and Barnett, GB. (2008) ‘Environmental volunteering: motivations, modes, outcomes’ Australian Geographer 39(4): 537-552. Nie, M. (2003) ‘Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict’ Policy Sciences 36(3-4): 307-341. Ojala, M. (2007) ‘Confronting macrosocial worries: Worry about environmental problems and proactive coping among a group of young volunteers’ Futures 39: 729-745. O’Brien, L. (2004) Hill Holt Wood Social Enterprise and Community Woodland. Forest Research. O’Brien, L., Townsend, M. and Ebden, M. (2008) ‘I like to think when I’m gone I will have left this a better place’: Environmental volunteering – motivations, barriers and benefits’ Report to the Scottish Forestry Trust and Forestry Commission. Persson, J. (2006) ‘Theoretical reflections on the connection between environmental assessment methods and conflict’ Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(7): 605-613. Putnam, LL., Burgess, G. and Royer, R. (2003) ‘We can’t do on like this: Frame changes in intractable

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 63 of 64 conflicts’ Environmental Practice 5: 247-255. Research Box in association with Land Use Consultants and Rick Minter (2009) Capturing the Cultural Services and Experiential Services of Landscape. Phase I report for Natural England. Rowson, J., Broome, S. and Jones, A. (2010) Connected Communities: How social networks power and sustain the Big Society. RSA, London. Ryan, RL., Kaplan, R. and Grese. RE. (2001) ‘Predicting volunteer commitment in Environmental Stewardship programmes’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(5): 629-648. Ryan, RL. (2005) ‘Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas’ Environment and Behavior 37: 3-42. Sairinen, R., Barrow, C. and Karjalainen, TP. (2010) ‘Environmental conflict mediation and social impact assessment: Approaches for enhanced environmental governance?’ Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(5): 289-292. Scott, A., Carter, C., Brown, K. and White, V. (2009) ‘Seeing is not everything’: Exploring the landscape experiences of different publics’ Landscape Research 34: 397-424. Sheath, E. (ed) (2010) ‘Success story in Sussex’ Green Places 65: 32-35. Smith, G. (2001) ‘Taking deliberation seriously: Green politics and institutional design’ Environmental politics 10(3): 72-93. Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds) (1999) The Consensus Building Handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, Sage. Swanwick, C. (2009) ‘Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape’ Land Use Policy 26: S62-S75. Todd, S. (2001) ‘Measuring the effectiveness of environmental dispute settlement efforts’ Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21(1): 97-110. Ury, WL. (2000) The Third Side: why we fight and how we can stop. New York, Penguin. Warburton, D. (2002) Urban Britain in Bloom: An evaluation study. A report for ENCAMS.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 64 of 64