DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining the Role of Community Engagement in Nature-Based Solutions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining the Role of Community Engagement in Nature-Based Solutions Examining the role of community engagement in nature-based solutions Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Master of Philosophy by Sophie Preston April 2020 i Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... vi Abstract................................................................................................................................ vii Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... viii 1 Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem framing ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Community engagement with NBS ......................................................................... 3 1.3 Approach ................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 EKLIPSE assessment framework outline ................................................................ 6 1.5 Socioeconomic context ........................................................................................... 9 1.6 Austerity and Liverpool green space ..................................................................... 10 2 Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................ 14 2.1 Introduction to the Literature Review ..................................................................... 14 2.2 Development of the concept of NBS ..................................................................... 14 2.3 Challenges to mainstreaming NBS ....................................................................... 20 2.4 Governance .......................................................................................................... 24 2.5 Good governance ................................................................................................. 26 2.6 Governance of NBS .............................................................................................. 28 2.7 Public participation history .................................................................................... 30 2.8 Collaborative governance: facilitating co-creation in NBS ..................................... 30 2.9 ‘Good governance’ and citizens as a key stakeholder ........................................... 33 2.9.1 Definition ........................................................................................................ 33 2.9.2 Public participation in environmental governance: 20th century – present day34 2.9.3 Aarhus Convention 1998 ............................................................................... 35 2.10 Arnstein’s Ladder: discourses of power in participation literature .......................... 36 2.10.1 Empowerment ................................................................................................ 38 2.11 Benefits of participation in NBS ............................................................................. 38 2.11.1 Knowledge co-production and co-creation ..................................................... 38 2.11.2 Trust .............................................................................................................. 39 2.11.3 Knowledge co-production and social learning ................................................ 39 2.11.4 Connection to nature and urban place-making ............................................... 40 2.11.5 Opportunities to learn about the environment................................................. 41 2.11.6 NBS policy support ........................................................................................ 41 2.11.7 Environmental stewardship ............................................................................ 41 2.12 Examples of collaboration with citizens in NBS ..................................................... 42 2.12.1 Co-creation and knowledge co-production in NBS projects ............................ 42 2.12.2 Trust .............................................................................................................. 43 ii 2.12.3 Environmental education and connection to nature ........................................ 44 2.13 Critique of participation: trade offs and barriers to participation ............................. 44 2.13.1 Arnstein’s Ladder critique............................................................................... 45 2.13.2 Who participates? .......................................................................................... 46 2.14 Summary .............................................................................................................. 47 3 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................... 48 3.1 Introduction to the methodology ............................................................................ 48 3.2 Epistemelogical and philosophical framework ....................................................... 49 3.3 Research aims ...................................................................................................... 50 3.4 Case study overview ............................................................................................. 51 3.5 Description of URBAN Green UP Sub-Demo Areas .............................................. 52 3.6 Layer methodology ............................................................................................... 55 3.7 Qualtitative research methods description ............................................................ 59 3.7.1 Literature review ............................................................................................ 59 3.7.2 Policy document analysis ............................................................................... 60 3.7.3 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................. 62 3.7.4 Participant observation .................................................................................. 63 3.7.5 Workshops ..................................................................................................... 64 3.7.6 Questionnaires based on workshops ............................................................. 73 3.7.7 Workshop data analysis ................................................................................. 74 3.8 Limitations of the methodology.............................................................................. 74 3.9 Summary .............................................................................................................. 75 4 Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................... 77 4.1 Introduction to Layer 2: Policy document analysis ................................................. 77 4.1.1 Existing NBS and NBS policy context ............................................................ 77 4.1.2 Socio-economic context and its implications for NBS policy ........................... 79 4.1.3 URBAN GreenUP potential outcomes relating to community engagement ..... 80 4.1.4 Political support ............................................................................................. 81 4.1.5 Barriers to engagement with NBS .................................................................. 81 4.1.6 Integration of citizen engagement into monitoring .......................................... 82 4.2 Summary .............................................................................................................. 83 4.3 Layer 3: Interviews ................................................................................................ 84 4.4 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 84 4.4.1 Role of different stakeholder groups in URBAN GreenUP .............................. 85 4.4.2 Methods of engaging the public ..................................................................... 87 4.4.3 Benefits of community engagement with URBAN GreenUP ........................... 88 4.4.4 NBS policy ..................................................................................................... 91 4.4.5 Limitations of community engagement in URBAN GreenUP .......................... 92 iii 4.4.6 Austerity ......................................................................................................... 96 4.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 96 4.6 Layer 4: Citizen Workshops .................................................................................. 98 4.7 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 98 4.8 Layer 4, Workshop 1: Citizen science workshop ................................................... 98 4.8.1 Description of workshop activities .................................................................. 99 4.8.2 Pre-workshop questionnaire results ............................................................... 99 4.8.3 Participant profile ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Walking & Cycling Newsletter
    Sefton’s Spring Walking & Cycling Newsletter Issue 43 / April – June 2017 Spring has sprung, time to join one of our great walks or rides throughout Sefton. Contents Walking Cycling Walking Diary 3 Cycling Diary 23 Monday 4 Pedal Away 24 Maghull Health Walks Southport Hesketh Centre 25 Netherton Feelgood Factory Health Walks Ride Programme Macmillan Rides 25 Crosby Health Walks Tour de Friends 26 St Leonard’s Health Walks The Chain Gang Ainsdale Health Walks Rides for the over 50’s 27 Tuesday 6 Sefton Circular Cycle Ride 28 Bootle Health Walks Dr Bike – Free Bicycle Maintenance 29 Hesketh Park Health Walks Tyred Rides 30 Walking Diary Formby Pinewoods Health Walks Ditch the Stabilisers 30 Box Tree Health Walks Active Walks is Sefton’s The walks range from 10 to 30 minutes Waterloo Health Walks Wheels for All 31 up to 90 minutes for the Walking for Wednesday 8 Freewheeling 31 local health walk Health walks and 90 to 150 minutes for Wednesday Social Health Walks programme and offers walks beyond Walking for Health. Netherton Health Walks a significant number Walking is the perfect exercise as it places Sefton Trailblazers Introduction little stress upon bones and joints but uses Thursday 10 Now the clocks have sprung forwards of regular walking groups over 200 muscles within the body and can we can enjoy lighter, brighter days May Logan Health Walks across Sefton. The walks help develop and maintain fitness. Formby Pool Health Walks and spend more time outdoors Ainsdale Sands Health Walks walking and cycling around Sefton continue throughout Prambles and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagine Sefton 2030 Vision Consultation Report - August 2016 Forward by Cabinet Sponsors
    Imagine Sefton 2030 Vision Consultation Report - August 2016 Forward by Cabinet Sponsors Sefton Council is leading on developing a new and exciting vision for the future of the Borough; focusing on what is important and to be bold and ambitious, so that Sefton is a place where we are all proud to live, where people want to spend time, where people can achieve and where businesses thrive and investors are drawn to. We have worked very closely with our partners, businesses, private sector organisations, the voluntary, community and faith sector and our local community to understand what you love about the area and how we can work together to deliver the ambitions expressed leading up to 2030 and beyond. It has been really important that we ask local people, visitors and people who work in the Borough what your Vision is for the Borough and the engagement we have carried out on the Vision built upon the work and the many conversations that have taken place with communities during the past few years. The extensive engagement that was carried out to help us with our understanding saw us engaging with over 3500 people of all ages from across the Borough, who visit the Borough and who have businesses here to provide us with a collective view on the areas that are important for the Borough for the future. The inclusive process included a development of a website and a Visioning Toolkit, Pop-up Community Roadshows, meetings, workshops, surveys, a comprehensive social media campaign and yes we even had answers on a postcard.
    [Show full text]
  • Liverpool City Region Spatial Planning Statement of Common Ground
    Liverpool City Region Spatial Planning Statement of Common Ground October 2019 i Table of Contents 1 Parties Involved ........................................................................................................ 3 Principal Signatories ........................................................................................................ 3 2 Signatories ................................................................................................................ 4 3 Strategic Geography ................................................................................................. 6 4 Strategic Planning Matters ........................................................................................ 8 Liverpool City Region Spatial Development Strategy ...................................................... 8 Housing ........................................................................................................................... 8 Housing delivery and unmet need .................................................................................... 8 Employment Land ......................................................................................................... 11 Strategic B8 sites ............................................................................................................. 11 Green Belt ..................................................................................................................... 11 Retail Hierarchy in the City Region ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Liverpool Access
    A5036 Port of Liverpool access Newsletter 2 – January 2016 Improving access to the Port of Liverpool As you may know, Highways England is investigating the future traffic growth from the expansion of the Port ways to improve access to the Port of Liverpool of Liverpool and from other developments in the area. and to reduce congestion on the A5036 and in the surrounding area. This is our second newsletter Upgrade the existing road - we are describing designed to keep you informed as the scheme this as the Online Option. This option focuses on progresses. four key junctions: Hawthorne Road 1 , Netherton Way 2 , Park Lane 3 and Copy Lane 4 . What are we doing and why? Build a new road through the Rimrose Valley No specific scheme has been identified or proposed linking to the Broom’s Cross Road (Thornton to yet but we are currently looking at two options that Switch Island Link) - we are describing this as would reduce congestion on the A5036, improve the Offline option. journey time reliability for drivers and meet the needs of Progress so far Maghull A5758 Newsletter 1 told you about the surveys we were Broom’s Cross conducting to enable us to better understand existing Road traffic, environmental and ground conditions. We want Northway Thornton to let you know how this information is being used. Moor A5758 Lane A565 A5207 The traffic surveys, which started in September, have 4 been completed. This data is now being analysed so Great Crosby Option 2 M57 that it can be incorporated into our traffic model to (offline) rk a help us assess future traffic flows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sefton Coast Newsletter Winter 2002/2003
    Coastlines The Sefton Coast Newsletter Winter 2002/2003 oastlines, the newsletter of the Sefton Coast Partnership. CCoastlines aims to provide information to elcome to this winter's local people and visitors about the natural value edition of Coastlines, the of the coastline, the current policies for Wnewsletter for the Sefton conservation management and other topical Coast. With the worst of the issues. The Sefton Coast Partnership includes weather out of the way we are Sefton Council, the National Trust, English looking forward to the coming of spring, when the Nature, The Wildlife Trusts, the Reserve Forces Digging out the Marine wealth and diversity of this coast Lake at Southport and Cadets Association, RSPB and local begins to emerge. To prompt you into community and interest groups in a co-operative getting out on the coast again we are partnership. running a photograph competition; see centre pages for further information. All enquiries and correspondence relating to All you have to do is take a Coastlines should be addressed to; photograph on the Sefton Coast. There is a huge range of Sefton Coast Strategy Unit photographic opportunities from Ainsdale Discovery Centre Complex wildlife to landscapes and people to The Promenade buildings. So good luck to you all and we Shore Road look forward to receiving your photographs. Foreshore, probably at Ainsdale-on Sea Bootle / Seaforth Southport PR8 2QB Whilst putting this edition of Coastlines Tel 01704 572329 together. We spent some time looking Fax 01704 575628 for photographs as examples for the Email; [email protected] photograph competition (see centre Web; www.seftoncoast.org.uk pages).
    [Show full text]
  • The A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Public Information Exhibition A5036 Port of Liverpool Access
    A5036 Port of Liverpool access Welcome to the A5036 Port of Liverpool access public information exhibition A5036 Port of Liverpool access The scheme Congestion at the junction of the A5036 and Copy Lane The A5036 between the Switch Island The proposed bypass will take traffic away from Interchange and Princess Way is a key communities by Church Road and Dunnings commuter route, as well as the main Bridge Road, reducing congestion at junctions and along local roads. access connecting the Port of Liverpool with the motorway network. Improving the A5036 will make journeys safer, quicker and more reliable as well as improving The road currently suffers from severe local life and regional economic growth. congestion, which causes delays, safety issues, and environmental concerns. The Port of Liverpool is set to become even busier with the opening of Liverpool2, which will add to the pressure on the A5036. Our key aims for the scheme are to: improve traffic conditions improve safety on the route for all road users and road workers minimise environmental impacts and protect/enhance the environment support economic growth improve accessibility and integration reduce future maintenance requirements Provide value for money Congestion at the junction of the A5036 and Park Lane A5036 Port of Liverpool access The story so far Congestion at Copy Lane Heavy congestion on the A5036 has A5036 Port of Liverpool access been a serious problem for some time, Preferred route and many solutions have been Maghull Broom’s A5758 Cross Rd. considered over the years to alleviate Northway A59 Thornton the problem. This has included A565 A5758 Moor Lane M58 A5207 widening junctions, amending traffic Preferred route Switch Island M57 signals and consideration of non-road Great Crosby Copy Lane solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • CROSBY AREA COMMITTEE Meeting Held at Waterloo Primary School
    THE “CALL IN” PERIOD FOR THIS SET OF MINUTES ENDS AT 12 NOON ON TUESDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER, 2005. MINUTE NOS. 51 TO 65 ARE NOT SUBJECT TO “CALL IN ITEM NO. 19e CROSBY AREA COMMITTEE Meeting held at Waterloo Primary School, Crosby Road North, Waterloo on 9th November, 2005 Present:- Councillor Jones (in the Chair); Councillors Barber, Douglas, Hill, Johnson, J. Murray, Parry and Roberts. Parish Councillor B. Draper (Representing Sefton Parish Council). Parish Councillor K. Hounsell (Representing Thornton Parish Council). Parish Councillor T. West (Representing Hightown Parish Council). Advisory Group Member - Mr. B. Wright. (Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Firth, S. Murray and Walker). Also present: 24 members of the public and 1 member of Merseyside Police. 51. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12th October, 2005 were approved. The Chair introduced Mr. Frank Egerton, who had recently been appointed as Area Manager for the Committee in connection with the Decentralisation of Services pilot proposal on ‘street scene’ activity and Sgt. Paul Riding who was deputising for Inspector Oade. 52. POLICE ISSUES Sgt. Riding reported on (a) the crime statistics for the area for October which indicated an increase in criminal damage to property and motor vehicles and also several incidents at Coronation Park (a total of 118 incidents); (b) anti-social behaviour initiatives involving the Police, British Transport Police and the Force’s Mounted Section; (c) discussions 40 CROSBY AREA COMMITTEE - 9/11/2005 ITEM NO. 19e which Inspector Oade had with representatives of the Council regarding environmental improvements for Coronation Park to improve the security and safety of the Park; (d) the proposals for Police reorganisation on Merseyside as part of the national review of Police Services in England; (e) the current position in relation to applications for licensed premises in the Committee’s area under the provisions of the new Licensing Act.
    [Show full text]
  • A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme
    A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme – Public consultation Submission from North West Friends of the Earth (Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland) 1. Introduction Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the public consultation for the Port of Liverpool Access Scheme, and the two options presented. We strongly oppose the two options due to the significant potential impacts on the environment, health and local communities. Furthermore, we object to the consulation process as conducted so far which presents a narrow range of options – just two, both road, both with significant impacts – rather than a genuine choice of solutions to deal with port expansion. The two options do not present a real choice for communities, carrying as they do major negative implications for local green spaces, biodiversity, air pollution, noise, landcape and more. Vital information on the benefits and effects used to inform the consultation brochure is not in the public domain, therefore the public are being asked to ‘choose’ a route based on limited information. A very basic summary of benefits and effects is presented, despite the next stage of the process being to decide on a preferred option and detailed design work. It is far too late to release reports containing the economic and environmental assessments after the public consultation has closed. If Highways England view this as a genuine opportunity for local residents to shape the decision then far more detailed information must be made available for the public consultation. The process must be halted and non-road solutions re-assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Liverpool Access Preferred Route Announcement
    A5036 Port of Liverpool access Preferred route announcement September 2017 A5036 Port of Liverpool access – Preferred route announcement Introduction Public consultation The A5036 Port of Liverpool access scheme is We held a 6 week public consultation starting part of our continued programme of investment Monday 16 January 2017 and closing Monday 27 into motorways and major A-roads. Once February 2017 which presented two options: completed, the scheme will improve road access to the Port of Liverpool. Option A – upgrading the existing The Port of Liverpool is already the busiest A5036 road with junction improvements at port in the North West and, with a new deep- Hawthorne Road, Netherton Way and Copy sea container berth known as Liverpool2, it is Lane. At the Hawthorne Road and Copy set to become even busier. That’s great news for Lane junctions, additional capacity will be jobs and the regional economy but this growth provided by widening the existing A5036 to depends upon freight being able to access allow three lanes through the junction in both the port. directions. At the Netherton Way junction, additional capacity will be provided with the Why is the scheme needed? construction of a new signalised roundabout with through lanes for the A5036. The A5036 between the port and the M57/M58 © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100030649 Switch Island interchange is already congested. A5758 Maghull Broom’s Cross Rd. This situation will get worse as the area is Northway A59 A565 developed. Thornton A5758 Moor Lane M58 A5207 The scheme is vital since it will reduce congestion Switch Island M57 Great Crosby – providing the right road system for the expansion Copy Lane of the port and other developments in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • 31/03/2016 - Highways England and SMBC Combined Answers to RVF’S Questions Submitted 25/02/2016
    31/03/2016 - Highways England and SMBC Combined answers to RVF’s questions submitted 25/02/2016 Question Answer 1. What will be done with Switch Island to The operation of Switch Island is being assessed as part of the overall assessment of accommodate the traffic increase should a road both offline and online options. This assessment will help to determine what, if any, be built through Rimrose Valley? improvements may be required to accommodate changes in traffic flows at the junction. 2. Following the survey work done by and on The outline ground investigation has indicated that the tip largely consists of ash, behalf of Highways England, what are the clinker (waste from industrial processes), brick, concrete and domestic waste. We results/facts around the landfill and what is the are currently examining a number of options for the construction methods through realistic impact to constructing a road through the tip. Rimrose Valley, plus what are the plans and cost The assessment of options will also consider the likely costs involved. Costs are being to manage and/or excavate the landfill? evaluated, but there are no plans for any excavation of the landfill outside of the footprint of the road. Current thinking is to design any road so as to minimise the amount of excavation that is required. The GI report is now available and a copy of the report is being issued to Simon. Unfortunately due to the size of the electronic copy it will be unlikely that this report can be added to the Highways England web page.
    [Show full text]
  • R(Sefton MBC) V Highways England
    Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Sefton MBC v Highways England Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 3059 (Admin) Case No: CO/5493/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PLANNING COURT Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ Judgment handed down at: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL Date: 16/11/2018 Before : MR JUSTICE KERR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : THE QUEEN Claimant on the application of SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL - and - HIGHWAYS ENGLAND Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tom Cosgrove QC and Jack Parker (instructed by David McCullough, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council) for the Claimant Tim Buley (instructed by General Counsel’s Office of Highways England) for the Defendant Hearing date: 23rd October 2018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Sefton MBC v Highways England The Hon. Mr Justice Kerr: Introduction: 1. Did the defendant, Highways England, act unlawfully by declining to include, in a consultation about a new access route to the Port of Liverpool, the option of building a tunnel under the Rimrose Valley? That is the main issue in this application brought by the claimant (the council). At the hearing, it became clear that the claim is no longer said by Highways England to have been brought out of time. 2. Highways England says the tunnel option was lawfully ruled out as too expensive and poor value for the taxpayer and that the two surface routes considered were the only realistic options, although those consulted were able to object to both options by advocating a tunnel and will be able to take the same objection again once a development consent order is applied for.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature at Work Liverpool City Region and Warrington Green Infrastructure
    Nature at Work Liverpool City Region and Warrington Green Infrastructure Framework Action Plan Version 1.2 1 | P a g e Contents 2 | P a g e Introduction The Liverpool City Region Green Infrastructure Partnership has worked over the last three years to develop a Framework for the City Region and Warrington. The Framework is now “owned” by the Liverpool City Region Local Nature Partnership (LNP) and supported by the Cheshire and Warrington LNP. This work has for the first time assessed the spatial distribution of green infrastructure across Liverpool City Region and Warrington. It has also looked at a range of social and economic factors that affect and are affected by green infrastructure. 80% of the area is Green Infrastructure1 8,000 jobs in the Green Infrastructure sector2 These generate £300m/year GVA for the city region and Warrington3 Green infrastructure provides some of the fundamental services that we rely on for our economy and way of life – worth over £100bn annually –what price The Mersey?4 Yet we do not plan it as a critical infrastructure. Recognising the state of the economy, the Liverpool City Region and Warrington Green Infrastructure Framework shows how green infrastructure supports the economy, health and wellbeing and enables the sustainable use of our natural assets. It looks to link directly to priorities expressed in key city region and Warrington strategies and policies. Perhaps Lord Heseltine in his report to government did leave a stone unturned5. Major cities around the world are looking to make their green infrastructure work harder to support the economic and social aspirations, whilst also safeguarding their natural capital6.
    [Show full text]