Social Research Evidence Review to Inform Natural Environment Policy

DEFRA NE0109: Social Research Evidence Review to Inform Natural Environment Policy

FINAL REPORT

March 2011

Policy Studies Institute (PSI)

In partnership with:

Centre for Rural Economy (CRE)

Land Use Consultants (LUC)

Defra NE0109: Social Research Evidence Review to Inform Natural Environment Policy

Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

This Final Report, and its accompanying Annex, presents the findings of the Defra project ‘Social Research Evidence Review to inform Natural Environment Policy’ (NE0109). This project sought to draw together relevant social research findings from a broad and diverse evidence base for Defra’s Environment and Rural Group.

This report is accompanied by a Summary Report, and three standalone Review Reports.

Suggested citation for this report: Bell, S., Vanner, R., Oughton, E.A., Emery, S.B., Lock, K. and Cole, L. (2011) Defra NE0109 Social Research Evidence Review to Inform Natural Environment Policy. Final Project Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Policy Studies Institute. Defra, London.

This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation; they do not necessarily reflect Defra policy.

If you have any questions about the review, please send them to:

Robin Vanner Visiting Research Fellow Policy Studies Institute 50 Hanson Street, London, W1W 6UP, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]

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. The project sought to draw together relevant social research findings from a broad and diverse evidence base and to present them in a way that is informative, relevant and accessible to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG) policy-makers. This has required project staff liaising closely with many of those within Defra’s delivery landscape. Stage 1 of the project provided an overview of the evidence across eight of Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG) policy areas, Stage 2 involved three evidence reviews focusing on themes which cut cross ERG policy areas, and Stage 3 focused on the presentation and dissemination of the review findings into policy relevant formats.

Stage One – The overviews Stage 1 of the project provided an overview of the evidence across Defra’s ERG policy areas as a scoping exercise for the remainder of the project. Carried out prior to the May 2010 elections, 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. 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 from the rapid reviews were summarised in a series of eight overview summaries. These summaries were intended as a scoping exercise for the Stage Two reviews. It is also anticipated that they could 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. These overviews are presented within the Annexes of this report (i.e. Appendix 1b to the SID 5 project report) and their contents outlined in this report. The outcome of Stage 1 was also the identification of seven candidate bodies of social science evidence that might be taken further in Stage 2 for more in- depth review.

Stage Two – The evidence reviews Stage 2 set out to explore in greater depth three areas of social science evidence most pertinent to natural environment policy. These reviews were undertaken during a time of considerable political uncertainty with the selection of the review themes occurring during the election of the new Coalition Government and the subsequent uncertainty around the spending review. Through extensive dialogue between project staff, policy-makers and social researchers, the following three themes were eventually developed and confirmed for in-depth review: 1. The Perceptions review: ‘Public perceptions of landscapes and ecosystems in the UK’. 2. The Conflict Management review - ‘Interventions in managing natural environment conflict: what works, in what contexts and why?’. 3. The Big Society review: ‘The Big Society concept in a Natural Environment Setting’.

Method These themes were developed to ensure the final reviews reflected the needs of natural environment policy-makers. To do this, the project team organised two workshops with policy- makers and social researchers in order to understand the emerging and future social research needs in each in-depth review area. This process highlighted that full systematic reviews would not be feasible to adequately respond to the breadth of evidence needs identified. Instead, alternative approaches were adopted: • For the perceptions theme, a thematic review process was adopted to respond to a number of specific questions. • For the conflict management theme, an in-depth review was completed, drawing on elements of the realist review approach. The realist approach uses context, mechanism and outcome (CMO) chains as a way of organising, synthesising and understanding the evidence. • For the Big Society theme, a rapid review was undertaken in order to respond appropriately to the pressing evidence needs of those within Defra working on the Natural Environment White Paper.

A search methodology was developed for each review, with commonalities across the reviews where appropriate. This involved searching six literature databases; a Google Scholar search; internet searching of key organisational websites, citation follow-up and Calls for Information in the fortnightly SDRN mailing. Once all sources of evidence were captured, obviously irrelevant sources were eliminated, firstly based on the titles and then abstracts. Quality appraisal criteria were then used to ensure that any concern or uncertainty about non peer-reviewed evidence was appropriately reflected within the final review. Case studies were also integrated within the reviews where appropriate, with the aim of providing practical examples to illustrate the theories and ideas discussed in the reviews.

The high level review findings are provided below for the three reviews. These are provided to illustrate the contents of the review and should not be used to inform policy without an understanding of the nuances and limitations as presented within the standalone review reports.

Key findings from the Perceptions review The review summarised selected social research evidence, identified in searches undertaken in July – September 2010, which considers public perceptions of existing UK landscapes and ecosystems, and potential future changes to these. People were found to hold strong emotional attachments to landscapes and ecosystems, which play an important role in defining ‘sense of place’. The literature indicates the type of landscapes and ecosystems people prefer as well as their preferences for certain characteristics, and indicates the numerous and complex influences on perceptions. 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. Uses of these places are physical but the way people respond to landscapes and ecosystems is emotional. People are aware of some past changes to landscapes and ecosystems (often in the form of built development), and are initially resistant to change where this threatens their existing perception or sense of place. However, the literature suggests that an understanding of past changes, and the impacts these have had on landscapes and ecosystems, can help people to understand the impact of potential future changes, whether this is interventions such as managed realignment of the coast, or the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and species. The complex nature of public perceptions requires a range of deliberate and participatory techniques to ensure this information is gathered effectively and efficiently. Key Messages:

• All landscapes (and ecosystems) are valued: ‘Local places’ (usually greenspaces) are highly valued, often for their ease of access and ‘quick hits’ of nature. Such places have significant potential to influence wellbeing, particularly where efforts are made to enhance their quality. However, people also hold strong emotional attachments to distant places they visit less frequently (such as the coast or uplands). It is important to ensure the cultural services delivered by both types of place are protected and enhanced.

• Knowledge exchange is essential: Greater understanding of the full range ecosystems services provided by an area may enhance public acceptability of interventions designed to protect or enhance these services in the future. Likewise, such interventions could be more sensitively designed when based on a better understanding of the ways in which the public value these services and spaces.

Key findings from the Conflict Management review Conflict tends to arise through differences of interest or value between people, combined with the trigger of a perceived change in circumstances. Conflict is a normal feature of policy-making, and if permitted and properly managed, can be an indicator of a healthy democracy. Environmental conflicts however have particular characteristics: 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. The overarching aim of the Conflict Management review was to identify what works most effectively in managing natural environment conflicts, for different people, in different contexts, and why?.

There is acknowledgement within the literature that '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. The approaches to conflict management within the literature can be categorised - with some overlap - as: i) Formalised Alternative Environmental Dispute Resolution techniques (ADR) deriving principally from the United States; ii) Decision-support tools or models, iii) Approaches embedded within broader structures of governance and longer-term participatory approaches to the management of conflict. The main distinction between them is that the first two approaches tend to be applied following the escalation of a conflict situation, whereas the third approach does not have conflict resolution as its primary aim. Approaches which use participatory management processes have the potential to be more pre-emptive and therefore preventative of conflicts by virtue of the working relations that they forge between stakeholders. Social sciences have a valuable role to play in tackling environmental conflicts, particularly through understanding how to: identify shared values between conflicting parties; reconsider communication and framing within the process; build trust; enable effective third party interventions; ensure a legitimate scale and appropriate context for the conflict management process; and improve approaches for evaluating the outcomes of conflict management processes.

Key findings from the Big Society review This rapid review of academic and grey literature explored how the Big Society concept could be implemented in the context of the natural environment; thereby contributing towards the evidence needs for Defra’s Natural Environment White Paper. Findings indicate that: • With a growing focus on environmental and social outcomes, there has been a move towards greater inclusion of minority groups in local environmental action within the last 20 years but little data is available to monitor this.

• Different people are willing to take on different roles within local environmental action.

• People’s initial motivations for volunteering evolve and change over time; such that the motivation to continue to volunteer 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 the greater observed levels of capacity following 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 these three reviews and provide useful insights for those involved in the formulation of natural environment policy. These include: 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. • 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 interpretations of scientific evidence 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 inclusion of alternative assessments based on public preferences. Finally, the Big Society review considers this issue from the perspective of how to maintain community enthusiasm for protecting and/or enhancing local natural spaces.

• 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.

• 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, with conflict ensuing when the identity of a valued place is threatened. 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 revitalise a neighbourhood. The Big Society review also explored the difference between an attachment to a particular place and a conceptual attachment to a type of landscape or ecosystem. The review found that volunteers with a high level of knowledge of natural areas were more likely to hold conceptual rather than place attachments, and were therefore more able to accept equivalent alternatives in the face of changes, depending on the time and energy they had put into the area in question.

• The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making: All three reviews demonstrated the importance of influential individuals. The Conflict Management review found that 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.

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 10 2. REPORT ON STAGE 1 – THE OVERVIEW REPORTS ...... 13 2.1. Methodology ...... 13 2.2: Policy Analysis ...... 16 2.3. Outlines of the overviews ...... 19 2.4. Emerging social research gaps in the ERG policy areas ...... 24 3. STAGE TWO - METHODOLOGY UNDERTAKEN FOR THE IN-DEPTH REVIEWS30 Task 2.0. In-depth review theme identification and scoping ...... 31 Task 2.1. Workshops, mapping of the key programme theories and understanding social research needs ...... 32 Task 2.2. Produce review protocol and two-page summary for policy comment...... 34 Task 2.3. Conduct in-depth literature review in each policy area...... 35 Task 2.4. Undertake stand-alone case study analyses in each review area ...... 36 Task 2.5. Produce interim report and present findings verbally to Defra ...... 36 4. REVIEW 1: PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGE TO UK LANDSCAPES AND ECOSYSTEMS ...... 37 4.1. Methodology ...... 37 4.2. How and why people currently value landscapes and ecosystems ...... 37 4.3. Perceptions of change to landscapes and ecosystems ...... 39 4.4. Implications for policy ...... 40 5. REVIEW 2: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CONFLICT MANAGEMENT ...... 42 5.1. Characteristics and Causes of Environmental Conflict ...... 42 5.2. Management Approaches ...... 42 5.3. Key Issues in Environmental Conflict from a Social Science Perspective ...... 43 5.4. Policy lessons ...... 44 5.5. Research gaps ...... 44 5.6. Conclusions ...... 45 6. REVIEW 3: THE BIG SOCIETY CONCEPT IN A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SETTING ...... 46 6.1. Scoping and selecting the third review theme ...... 46 6.2. Review theme and key questions ...... 46 6.3. Rapid Review methodology ...... 47 6.4. Review summary ...... 49 7. CROSS-CUTTING THEMES ...... 53 7.1. The role of people’s values and identities within natural environment policy-making ...... 53 7.2. Balancing lay and expert knowledge in natural environment policy-making ...... 56 7.3. Engaging people in the evaluation of outcomes ...... 58 7.4. The role of place attachment within natural environment policy-making ...... 59 7.5. The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making ...... 63 8. CONCLUDING COMMENTS ...... 67 REFERENCES ...... 68

1. Introduction

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 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.

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 ERG policy-makers, this project adopted a three-stage approach, with the following objectives:

• Stage 1 aimed to provide a rapid overview of the social science research relevant to the ERG policy areas of interest, together with an assessment of which three policy challenges could be most usefully 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 three 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 tasks and sub-tasks required to deliver this are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Three stage research approach

1.1 Web-based review and follow-up with key organisations

1.2 Conduct targeted literature database searches in each ERG policy area Stage one: Rapid review 1.3 Produce written overview of literature emerging in each ERG policy area and synthesis of the literature in 1.4 Assess and identify three key policy challenges to pursue the 8 ERG policy areas of interest 1.5 Produce scoping report

1.6 Present scoping findings to Defra

2.1 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 Stage two: Review of three 2.2 Conduct in-depth systematic literature review in each review area key policy areas/ challenges 2.3 Undertake stand-alone case study analyses in each review area

2.4 Produce interim report and present findings verbally to Defra steering group

Stage three: 3.1 Produce draft final report, research findings documents and policy briefings Final reporting 3.2 Present draft final outputs to Defra and key stakeholders for feedback and dissemination 3.3 Finalise all outputs and disseminate to key audiences

The eight policy areas of primary interest to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG) in this project 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 priorities following the 2010 general elections.

The findings and analysis from the rapid reviews 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 areas of policy challenge 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; and (2) Interventions in managing natural environment conflicts: what works, in what contexts and why? 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 final report presents the key findings from each of the stages of this research, the methods adopted and challenges faced, and the cross-cutting themes and evidence needs emerging from the three in-depth reviews.

The remainder of the report is structured as follows: • Section 2 reports on Stage 1 activities - the overview phase - including the methods used and key findings; • Section 3 reports on Stage 2 methods and activities, including the selection of topic areas, and the search methodology adopted for the subsequent literature reviews; • Section 4 presents a summary of the key findings of the Public Perceptions review; • Section 5 summarises the key findings of the Natural Environment Conflict review; • Section 6 summarises the approach taken and key findings of the Big Society review; • Section 7 presents five reflective themes that emerged through the three Stage 2 reviews; • Section 8 presents the overall key findings of the project.

In addition to this, the report references a number of standalone project documents which are presented alongside this report as appendices to the project’s SID 5 report. These include: • Appendix 1a – Final Report (i.e. this 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’.

2. Report on Stage 1 – The overview reports

2.1. Methodology Sub-tasks 1.0 to 1.5 were intended to deliver the objectives of Stage 1, i.e. to provide a rapid overview and synthesis of social science research of relevance to ERG policy areas, and to identify three policy challenges to take forward for more in-depth review and analysis.

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. Task 1.0 was introduced at the inception phase of the project to ensure the project developed a clear understanding of Defra’s policy objectives in the focal ERG policy areas, though this was undertaken prior to the changes in Government following the general elections in May 2010.

Task 1.0. Identifying key policy objectives The project inception meeting highlighted that efforts would be needed to focus the overview stage on social research of particular relevance to key policy objectives in each ERG area. For this reason, an additional task was undertaken before commencing the literature searching tasks, in which a range of policy strategy documents highlighted by Defra were analysed to identify the primary objectives of interest to this project. A list of these documents is available in Annex 1. The analysis was primarily focused on executive summaries where available, with reference made to the full documents when further clarification was required.

This information was summarised in a Policy Objectives matrix, which is presented and discussed in Section 2.2. 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 database searches in order to fill the gaps. Following the database searches, this system helped to highlight where research gaps were appearing, which was of value in determining some of the 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 (see Annex 2). The publications and news pages of these sites were manually searched in order to identify relevant publications published since 2005. It was assumed that relevant research prior to this date would likely have already gone through the peer review process and therefore should be captured by the subsequent database searches in Task 1.2.

Meanwhile, 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 main findings from the web-review and mailing responses were summarised in eight annotated bibliographies, one for each policy area. Also identified were the key themes emerging from the web-based research and any apparent research gaps. These annotated bibliographies were sent to the project partners for further development in Task 1.2. Also developed was an online shared database of references, which was updated during the database searching. This ensured that any references identified by the project team could be rated for relevance against each of eight ERG policy areas, and helped to prevent duplication of effort amongst project partners for cross-cutting issues.

Task 1.2. Targeted database searches Different members of the research team lead the searches in each of the policy areas (as illustrated in Table 1).

Table 1. Partner leads by policy area

ERG Policy Area Lead Partner Wildlife issues, including biodiversity LUC Ecosystem Approach LUC Land management and soil CRE Flood risk management CRE Water availability and quality LUC People and landscapes LUC Rural affairs CRE Marine and fisheries CRE

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 (this was particularly true for marine and fisheries research, which is a clear international issue). Key citations were followed up, and the reference lists of the most recent papers scanned in order to identify broader non-journal sources, including conference papers, proceedings and so forth. Where resources allowed, additional databases and search engines were also searched, such as Scopus and Google Scholar. See Annex 3 for more information about the search procedures used.

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. It is, however, recognised that these judgements are not definitive; articles were identified through a limited period of searching, focusing primarily on the Web of Knowledge database and from focused web searches. Had further databases been searched using search terms that aligned specifically with the apparent gaps, additional sources may have been identified.

Task 1.3. Determination of candidate policy challenges and themes for in-depth review in Stage 2 A key component of Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 was to ensure that information on issues and themes that cut across ERG policy areas were captured. In addition to enabling the identification of these cross-cutting themes, an additional benefit of such a wide ranging overview was the identification of a number of occasions where social science literature from one area could begin to address social research gaps relating to policy objectives in another policy area i.e. a cross-fertilisation of knowledge. Defra also 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. This has been presented visually so that those familiar with how research has previously informed policy might be able to identify where there is more or less social science research than expected.

Task 1.4. Assessment of policy challenges suitable for taking forward Sub-task 1.4 identified seven broad natural environment-related social research themes emerging from the overview scoping phase. 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. Five research themes reflected policy challenges that cut across multiple ERG policy areas. These include: 1. Access to the natural environment and its resources; 2. Conflict resolution within natural environment decision-making; 3. Building capacity to integrate monetary and non-monetary approaches within policy decision making; 4. The role of lay knowledge in natural environmental decision making;

5. Public perceptions of, and concern for, future changes to specific landscapes / seascapes and ecosystems.

There were also two candidate areas which sought to cross fertilise knowledge from one policy area to another. These included: 6. The role of volunteers in the successful implementation, monitoring and evaluation of marine and freshwater environmental policy 7. Social factors influencing the resilience and adaptive capacity of farmers to changing patterns of water availability in the context of future climate change

2.2: Policy Analysis In order to guide the literature searching, an analysis of key policy strategy documents (see Annex 1) in each of the ERG policy areas was undertaken (based on a list of strategy documents approved by Defra), pulling out the primary policy objectives in each area and focusing on those that could usefully be informed by social research. This information was summarised and transferred into a policy objectives matrix, as illustrated in Table 2.

The overviews produced therefore primarily reflect the policy-relevant social research findings identified through the combination of web review, project team expertise and database searching. They are not intended as in-depth comprehensive reviews as they were based on searches of only one database and, since they were completed prior to the 2010 election, focus on the social research literature of relevance to the priorities and key policy objectives of the previous government. Whilst Stage 2 focuses on the emerging priorities post-election, it was not possible to revisit all the Stage 1 searches to reflect these new priorities.

The extent of social science research undertaken in relation to each of the policy objectives was described and assessed using the following colour coding system:

Key: Significant social science literature Some social science literature No or limited social science literature Not primarily answerable by social science

The resulting tables, included in each of the appended overviews, provide a visual indication of where further research is needed to inform the key policy objectives in each ERG policy area.

Table 2 - ERG Policy Objectives Matrix Land ERG Policy Wildlife issues Ecosystem management Flood risk Water availability People and Areas and biodiversity approach and soil management and quality landscapes Rural affairs Marine and fisheries Natural Priorities England & adopted from Defra's key Strategy ‘Working with ‘Securing a the Pitt Review priorities, The ‘Fisheries 2027’, ‘Our seas – a documents the grain of healthy (PR), govt PR ‘Future Water’, Diversity shared resource’, ‘Charting a nature’, UK natural response, and Defra Review, Defra’s Rural new course’ & ‘A Better Biodiversity environment’ ‘Safeguarding ‘Making space Departmental ‘Outdoors for Strategy, & Environment, Healthier Action Plan our Soils’ for water’, Report 2009 All?’ RDPE Fisheries’ Understanding Priorities: Ensuring that Developing why people - Economic those with a ways of valuing Improved Water companies to value landscapes and social How to reduce Community Better stake in the ecosystem planning and prepare and and how this regeneration; the impact, and involvement in protection of marine services reduction of risk maintain plans to influences their - Social justice improve the biodiversity agricultural environment of flooding and meet demand for use of, attitudes for all; sustainability of objectives soils have a role in its impacts water to, and - Enhancing the fishing the decisions behaviour value of our that affect them within the countryside; countryside Understanding The evidenced Using case the drivers of needs of rural Encouraging studies that degradation of Improving water people and wider Healthy demonstrate landscapes and Embedding an Knowing when efficiency standards communities appreciation of ecosystems the benefits of Preventing soil the implications ecosystems and where it will for industry, are addressed the non-use Policy resilient to climate taking an pollution of this for approach in flood commerce and through benefits of the objectives change Ecosystems future fisheries domestic. mainstream marine Approach. enjoyment and public policy environment use of these and delivery areas Introducing Ensuring people effective and fair from a wider demand range of Advising people Economic management backgrounds are Diversification Effective and on how to growth is Encouraging Management of strategies, e.g. able to access of fishing fair governance protect supported in the use of the non-native metering, product and enjoy the communities of common themselves, rural areas with precautionary invasive species labelling, encourage countryside. into non-fishing land families and the lowest level approach people to value activities property of performance water, rainwater use, water foot- printing.

. Understanding Developing a the implications Identifying sources of Understanding robust of climate Understanding Understanding Protecting and Helping farmers pollutants, economic and evidence base. Being rescued change on the role of rural consumer enhancing adapt to the needs contaminants social reasons for and cared for in landscape and communities in demand for stores of soil of water quality, and toxins, and biodiversity an emergency how it is used. responding to sustainably carbon water availability. the drivers degradation climate change produced fish behind marine pollution Considering Ensuring that Building farming, how to marine, land Building the Maintaining high Understanding food and forestry incentivise land and water resilience of Staying healthy quality waterbodies and minimising sectors that meet managers management soils to a and speeding for recreational, drivers of the needs of (farmers, mechanisms are changing recovery amenity, unsustainable consumers and woodlands, etc) responsive and climate biodiversity. harvest make a net to maintain the work effectively positive countryside. together contribution to the Identifying Considerations The environment opportunities related to the contribution of (focus on for Dealing with impact of fishing to local biodiversity, food mainstreaming our legacy of abstraction, and Management of economies and labelling and an ecosystems contaminated potential for fisheries flexibly the culture of consumer approach land accelerating coastal behaviour). reservoir communities development

Ensuring efficiency Monitoring of supply, The influence of climate change Promoting changes in the particularly in areas on fisheries and stocks joined up state of soil vulnerable to future working within drought. Defra and the Defra network to deliver environmental outcomes Maintaining Fisheries to play a greater role in more appropriate limits England and Wales to encourage effectively. Recapturing on the more people to help and protect the benefits of concentrations of the environment and help fishing set-aside land potentially harmful to contribute more to social and chemicals in economic development objectives drinking water

2.3. Outlines of the overviews The overviews were written up in the form of a series of eight concise summaries and were revised in light of two rounds of comments in February and October 2010. These overviews are provided within the Annexes to this report. However, their contents are outlined in this section so that prospective users can understand the content of the full summaries. These outlines are followed by a summary of the social research gaps appearing in the social literature reviewed that are of relevance to the policy objectives identified in Task 1.0.

2.3.1. Outline: Wildlife issues, including biodiversity With the exception of the very broad area of research regarding community involvement, the scope and quantity of social research into biodiversity issues is quite limited. The key themes which emerge from the literature include: • Theme One: Role of healthy eco-systems in climate change adaptation. Explores the public’s limited awareness of the impact of climate change on biodiversity, briefly considers the influence of the media on public understanding of the relationships between ecosystems and climate change, and presents an example of a study exploring public understanding of the trade-offs and conflicts that exist with regard to coastal planning for climate change. • Theme Two: Management of non-native invasive species1. Considers human responses to non-native invasive species, including people’s willingness to pay for, and public acceptability of, proposed eradication programmes. • Theme Three: Public understanding of, and involvement in biodiversity. Introduces a range of studies exploring public attitudes towards, and mental constructs of, biodiversity i.e. what do people understand by ‘biodiversity’ and what about it matters to them? These studies suggest that both public understanding of biodiversity and concern about changes in biodiversity are variable. • Theme Four: Relationship between biodiversity management and social issues. Examines the benefits provided to humans by biodiversity, as well as the important role of trust and communication in determining the success of conservation efforts. Describes biodiversity management as a ‘social dilemma’. • Theme Five: Sustainable farming and biodiversity. Focuses on public attitudes to, and consumers’ willingness to pay for, food produced using sustainable agricultural techniques that promote the conservation of biodiversity. This touches on a wider cross- cutting theme relating to the role of public understanding of, and emotional attachment to, nature in motivating their adoption of pro-environmental behaviours and sustainable lifestyles.

1 It should be noted that Defra’s Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy (2008) was not included in Defra’s list of policy strategy documents analysed in Task 1.0 and therefore key objectives relating to Defra’s non native species policy may have been omitted.

2.3.2. Outline: The Ecosystem Approach With the exception of the area of ecosystem service valuation approaches2, 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 include: • Theme One: What aspects of the natural environment people value and why. Explores how people value the benefits derived from natural resource systems, and how and why these vary spatially, temporally and across different sections of society. It is important to distinguish ‘values’ from ‘benefits’ here; value means being consciously aware of and appreciating an ecosystem service, whilst people may benefit from an ecosystem through the services it provides without being aware of this e.g. clean air. • Theme Two: How social research can be used to place a financial value on environmental services. Highlights studies where economic valuations of the environmental services delivered by ecosystems cross over into other social research themes. Not covered is the large body of research on different approaches to economic valuation of ecosystem services as this is an area in which Defra is already commissioning significant research. • Theme Three: How social research can help ensure equity in service delivery. Explores how cost-benefit analysis (CBA) tools may be able to throw light on questions about equity in ecosystem service delivery, and considers how the benefits of environmental improvements and management decisions can fall disproportionately to certain social groups. • Theme Four: How social research can help to secure the delivery of ecosystem services. Discusses how Payments for Environmental Services (PES) can be used to translate external, non-market environmental services into financial incentives for land managers to preserve ecosystems and thereby secure the supply of ecosystem services. Considers limitations of PES schemes, and factors affecting farmers’ participation rates in such schemes. • Theme Five: How an Ecosystems Approach can be integrated into the policy process. Notes the relative lack of research under this theme, and suggests that case studies could constitute a useful way of examining how an Ecosystems Approach can work within existing decision-making frameworks. Highlights the value of the case studies already examined in Defra’s Ecosystem Approach research programme. • Theme Six: How social research can be used in embedding the Ecosystems Approach. Highlights the value of social research in: a) identifying the range of people affected by natural resource use and management decisions; b) facilitating non-monetary ecosystem service valuation methods where these prove to be more appropriate than economic valuations; c) understanding stakeholder familiarity with the terminology and concepts associated with ecosystem services prior to their involvement in ecosystem valuation processes; and d) making better use of lay knowledge to understand the dynamics of local institutions and how these produce social interactions which support (or compromise) sustainable management of ecosystems.

2 This body of work has not been covered in this review due to the substantial volume of research already commissioned by Defra on the economic and social valuation of ecosystem services.

2.3.3. Outline: 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 limited3. The key themes identified within the literature include: • Theme One: Soil knowledge, management and protection. Introduces different forms of knowledge ("know-what", "know-how" and "know-who" knowledge, and ‘expert’ and ‘tacit’ knowledge). Explores how these play out to determine the uptake of sustainable soil management practices by farmers. Highlights the importance of trust in ‘experts’ in the management of contaminated land in an urban context. Highlights how the nature of the relationship between different stakeholders can determine the success of efforts to promote change in current land management practices. • Theme Two: Managing commons and multi-functional land. Reports on an area of research suggesting that sustainable management of common lands is often supported by their continued multifunctional use, which relies upon the harmonisation of the broad range of values, experience and objectives implicated in such use. Specifically highlights the need for more integration between the policy regimes that have a potential influence on peatland management (e.g. farm income, biodiversity, water resources, climate regulation and flood risk management). • Theme Three: Social and cultural factors affecting soil management and land use. Explores the range of social and cultural factors that influence the uptake of soil conservation technology amongst farmers.

2.3.4. Outline: 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 include: • Theme One: The social justice aspects of flood risk management. Highlights that socio-economic and demographic characteristics are significant determinants of vulnerability to floods, and explores the link between social deprivation and increased levels of exposure to flooding. • Theme Two: The relative role of public and private institutions in flood risk management. Describes how the shift from flood protection to flood risk management (FRM) has been associated with a change in emphasis, from direct government responsibility to individual responsibility supported by public and private institutions. • Theme Three: The relationship between local experience and government /national agencies. Emphasises the need to move beyond traditional stakeholder consultation, towards approaches that facilitate more meaningful integration of local actors in local planning and policy decisions. In this way FRM strategies can be developed that are tailored and more suitable to specific local circumstances. Highlights that one

3 In order to maintain feasible scope this overview largely focused on rural land management rather than urban land management, but this may be broadened in scope in the Stage 2 reviews.

area involving complex institutional arrangements is the role of land management in FRM. • Theme Four: Reducing vulnerability and building resilience and resistance to floods at an individual and community level. Emphasises the heterogeneity of vulnerable groups, the different ways in which they think about their own flood risk, and factors that influence their behavioural responses to such risk. Suggests that people do not always make a purely objective or cognitive assessment of personal flood risk (both coastal and inland), but incorporate personal experience and emotional state in their risk perceptions.

2.3.5. Outline: 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 include: • Theme One: Meeting water demand. Considers how advances in social science research can help water managers to better understand the varied and complex responses of different water users to water demand reduction strategies, such as price increases. • Theme Two: Understanding water demand and use behaviours. Focuses on social factors affecting per-person levels of water consumption, introduces the concepts of virtual water and water footprints, and highlights the need for fair demand management strategies. Suggests that interpersonal and institutional trust can play important roles in reducing household water consumption. • Theme Three: Supporting farmers in reducing their impact on water quality. Highlights how cultural factors that influence perceptions of what constitutes a ‘good’ farmer play a role in determining the adoption of more sustainable and less polluting agricultural practices, and considers how best to engage with farmers to change individual behaviour. • Theme Four: Maintaining water quality in our lakes, rivers and waterbodies. Explores people’s willingness to pay for improved ecological status in waterbodies; particularly in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Indicates a lack of social research concerning public views and perceptions in relation to water quality, but highlights some work on public perceptions of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).

2.3.6. Outline: 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. For this stage of the research, in order to maintain feasible scope, ‘landscape’ has been taken in the search process to refer to the ‘countryside’ and its component features, as ‘countryside’ is used in the majority of policy objectives listed in this policy area, though some reference is also made to

‘countryside in and around towns’, including urban greenspace, where this was referred to in the literature4. The key themes which emerge include: • Theme One: Use of landscapes – access and recreation. Explores real and perceived barriers to access to specific landscapes, and how these vary for different socio-economic groups. Reports on research considering how managers can increase visitor numbers to different landscapes, whilst maintaining sustainable management practices. • Theme Two: The perceived benefits of landscapes. Confirms the importance of landscape to people and the wide range of services and benefits it provides. Suggests that landscape features will deliver the same range of services regardless of where they are in the UK, though the setting of individual features may affect how they are perceived and may also affect the level of service delivery. • Theme Three: Landscape perceptions and preferences. Highlights a significant amount of environmental psychology literature pertaining to environmental preferences, aesthetics and the restorative effects of landscapes. Reports on research indicating that natural/wilderness environments tend to be preferred over urban/artificial ones. Indicates that people tend to recognise a landscape as the sum of its component parts (i.e. the different characteristics combine to form the landscapes they know), rather than picking out preferences for individual features. Considers the impacts of agricultural landscapes on public preference, and discusses studies exploring the impact of specific infrastructural features on landscape preference. • Theme Four: Judging condition and change in the landscape. Considers tools and methodologies for accurately presenting and interpreting future changes in the landscape (e.g. from climate change or climate change mitigation strategies) to people and communities. Emphasises public tendencies to idealise current landscapes and thereby create pressure to maintain landscapes as they are at present. • Theme Five: The role of land managers. Considers a cross-cutting topic relating to the potential to incentivise land managers to maintain the countryside. Highlights the use of social research in the appraisal of environmental stewardship and agri-environment schemes, but a lack of examples concerning approaches for incentivising other types of land managers.

2.3.7. Outline: 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 include: • Theme One: Identifying and targeting rural disadvantage and potential to incorporate the natural environment. Discusses how current approaches used to measure rural disadvantage can serve to conceal its actual extent and nature. Highlights that research on sustainable rural communities must incorporate a more nuanced

4 The focus is broadened to include green space and other types of landscape in the second stage reviews.

understanding of the natural environment, and suggests that sustainability in rural areas must not be seen only in terms of preservationism. • Theme Two: Integrating economic, social and environmental assets to realise the potential for rural areas: the case for a rural eco-economy. Highlights the concept of the rural ‘eco-economy’ and its ability to link environmental, social and economic resources in innovative ways to achieve the goal of sustainable rural development. • Theme Three: Social capital and climate change adaptation. Highlights the value of maintaining and enhancing social capital as a means of enhancing the resilience of rural communities to future climatic hazards. Recommends the establishment of mechanisms of trust and cooperation between actors in the state and civil society which are built from the bottom-up and based on local social capital, in order to heighten local communities’ predisposition to take adaptive and – more particularly – action for mitigation.

2.3.8. Outline: Marine and fisheries There is a reasonable volume of social research literature of relevance to the policy objectives identified in this policy area; most of the policy objectives identified are supported by ‘significant’ or ‘some’ social science literature, and only one objective by ‘limited’ social science literature. The literature in this policy area falls into three themes: • Theme one: Approaches to the management of marine resources and ecosystems. Significant social science research exists in the area of marine resources, and particularly in relation to the broadening of the management of marine resources beyond a pure focus on fisheries. Much of the research relates to the challenges of meeting international and national obligations for the sustainability of marine environments. The significant level of existing social research reflects the international and complex nature of the management problem. Further social science research will be essential to facilitate effective monitoring and adaptation of new governance structures. • Theme two: Linking recreational angling to the freshwater fisheries environment. In contrast, there has been relatively limited social research undertaken in relation to freshwater fisheries in England and Wales, with most existing research focusing on the social and economic benefits of freshwater angling. The Water Framework Directive has, however, proven to be a significant driver in acknowledging the role of recreational anglers in managing and observing the river environment and further research in this area is emerging in the grey literature. • Theme three: Public perceptions of the marine and freshwater environment. There is a relative gap in the social research literature reviewed in relation to this theme. However, useful work has been undertaken by Natural England highlighting a general lack of awareness amongst the public of marine biodiversity, and somewhat negative public perceptions of England’s marine environment.

2.4. Emerging social research gaps in the ERG policy areas A number of gaps were apparent within the academic social literature identified in relation to the key policy objectives within each ERG area. Whilst some of these may be an artefact of the

necessarily light-touch search approach adopted for each overview, it may be useful to draw these out as a guide to where less social science research was forthcoming (also providing further explanation of the assessments made in Table 2). These are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Gaps apparent in the social science identified in Stage 1

Gaps identified in relation to wildlife issues, including biodiversity • Public understanding of and concern for the effects of climate change on biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. • Factors influencing whether people recognise the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. • Social impacts, public perceptions and concerns related to non-native species in the UK, and to the reintroduction of once-native species (both terrestrial and aquatic). • Understanding the social and economic circumstances which lead to environmental degradation, and how these vary in different communities; • Understanding the factors that influence perceptions of when biodiversity degradation is acceptable/unacceptable; • Factors influencing people’s support for farming practices that promote biodiversity; • Determinants of success of a range of food eco-labelling and quality farm product schemes; • Understanding of when and where social priorities take precedence over biodiversity and for whom, and of what social circumstances lead to biodiversity degradation.

Whilst research has been undertaken overseas that may shed light on some these issues, there is a need to enhance our understanding of the unique relationship between people and biodiversity specifically within the UK context.

Gaps identified in relation to the Ecosystem Approach 1. In relation to the value and benefits of ecosystems and their distribution: • UK preferences for and attitudes to actual and prospective changes in ecosystems, landscapes and species5. How to measure and represent the intangible benefits of ecosystems in terms compatible with existing criteria and indicators of sustainable land management that emphasise quantification and objectivity (Kanowski and Williams, 2009). • An examination of the cultural services associated with urban (as opposed to rural) landscapes. • How to take account of the fact that the values placed on environmental services can vary according to spatial scale e.g. the aesthetic and cultural values given to a landscape by those living within it may differ from the value placed on it by visitors from distant cities. • How differences in human values across regions or countries may affect interpretation of

5 In filling this gap it would be important to avoid asking the public abstract questions since context, contingencies, trade-offs and choices are all important influences (Upham et al., 2009); there is the potential to re-use deliberative data gathered for other purposes.

European legislation that seeks to implement an Ecosystems Approach, for example, the ‘good environmental status’ sought by the Marine Strategy Directive (Mee et al., 2008). • Distributional issues raised by the Ecosystems Approach (e.g. the social justice consequences of climate change mitigation strategies at a range of scales – international, national, local). 2. In relation to the need for support for operationalising the Ecosystems Approach. • The need to clarify the ‘social’ human and cultural side of the ecosystem services framework, and more specifically how best to measure the wellbeing benefits that ecosystems provide (partially linked to the point above about intangible benefits). • Governance (decision-making) issues raised by the Ecosystems Approach e.g. how best to use data gathered from deliberative and participatory methods alongside monetary valuations, overcoming the traditional reliance on figures; how to incentivise environmental managers on the ground to adopt the Ecosystems Approach. • How to raise public awareness of the role of ecosystem services in maintaining their desired quality of life and how this would influence the values they assign to different ecosystem services. • How to promote better communication and coordination between the gatherers and users of ecosystems data so that the emerging evidence base has practical application to policy-makers and land managers. • How best to foster an Ecosystems Approach across national and local government e.g. through alternative measures of prosperity to GDP; policy integration tools; inclusion of Ecosystems Approach in the Treasury Green Book; alignment of Local Area Agreement targets with an Ecosystems Approach; other toolkits and case studies. • Development of techniques to support evaluation of trade-offs between benefits/ stakeholders that arise from ecosystem management decisions. • Identifying opportunities for synergies of interest amongst ecosystem stakeholders and investigating how to implement them e.g. delivery of water quality from appropriate land management by upland farmers also benefits water companies. • Further case studies focusing on the difference that an Ecosystems Approach has made will be useful in embedding the approach further and promoting understanding of the terminology. The National Ecosystem Assessment will be useful in this context. (Think- Lab, 2009).

Gaps identified in relation to land management and soil • Understanding farmer values, motivations and decision-making in relation to managing land for environmental objectives, and the forms of knowledge that farmers bring to bear to manage their land sustainably – from the ‘whole farm’ perspective. • Specifically, understanding how the need by farmers to earn an income from the farm affects land management (e.g. either positively in terms of allowing the continuation of “traditional management practices” or negatively in terms of stretching the time and resources the farmer is able to put into land management). • Examining the knowledge needs of soil management advisors. • The causes and social implications of the under-use of common land.

• Understanding how to capture the public goods value of common lands and to attribute this value (financial and reputational) to those responsible for their management. • How to integrate existing policy regimes that suit local conditions (for commons management). • Examining the land use and landscape implications of the increasing prevalence of lifestyle farming.

Gaps identified in relation to flood risk management: • The role of uncertainty in flood forecasting; there is a need to examine the ways in which uncertainty can be introduced into FRM in a way that does not reduce confidence and therefore willingness to act on the part of the individual. • The need to understand what interventions may encourage vulnerable households and communities to adapt and enhance their personal resilience to floods (both coastal and inland). • Cross-cutting research agendas could usefully explore conflicts arising between the use of highly productive land for flood protection and food production. A number of issues relate to how to bring about successful multifunctional land use within a complex institutional framework that operates across a number of scales from the individual farm to the local/national and EU level and a number of policy areas. • There is a need to understand how best to incorporate local knowledge in FRM, not just as a consultancy exercise but ensuring people are included as participants in the process. • A number of changes are currently underway in the management of flood risk in response to the Pitt Review, the Floods Directive, and the Flood and Water Management Act. Research could usefully examine the effectiveness and social impacts of these changes and the ways in which they are implemented; the distribution of costs and benefits across geographical areas and how these can be managed.

Gaps identified in relation to water availability and quality • The social impact of increased water abstraction, and public acceptability of proposals to accelerate reservoir development. • Public understanding of water supply as an environmental stress, and the implications of this for demand-related water behaviours and public acceptability of measures proposed to ration or limit water use. It is important to note that much of the research into water demand management comes from outside the UK, particularly Australia, and that there is a need for more UK-based research on this issue. • Social considerations in maintaining high quality water bodies. • Helping farmers to reduce their water demand. • Understanding how best to encourage farmers to adopt less polluting agricultural practices. • Public understanding and/or awareness of virtual water and ‘water footprints’, and potential interventions to encourage consumers to reduce their consumption of water- intensive commodities.

Gaps identified in relation to people and landscapes: • Attitudes to the UK natural environment have more often been investigated in relation to the impact of new infrastructure than in relation to prospective ‘natural’ change, such as climate change (Upham et al., 2009). Upham et al., (2009) in a recent comprehensive study of public attitudes to environmental change, also noted that the number of UK studies on attitudes to ecosystem and landscape change is surprisingly low – most studies appear to be regionally-specific or small-scale and ‘there are so few studies that there is little opportunity for building on experience’. • Understanding how ‘landscape condition’ is perceived by people and what these perceptions say about how land should be managed in the future. • Research Box et al. (2009) introduced the Portfolio Pyramid that identified the different uses that people make of different types of landscape; social research could usefully be undertaken to explore the extent to which landscapes close to where people live can substitute for more ‘special’ landscapes further away. • Public perceptions of future land and landscapes, and the benefits of incentivising land managers to protect ecosystems and landscapes. • Whilst the searches did not focus explicitly on urban landscapes, gaps were highlighted by authors of some of the sources reviewed concerning the availability of social research on public perceptions of peri-urban or urban fringe landscapes. • Perception studies relating to marine and river environments are low (though one study was identified on public perceptions of the undersea landscape; Rose et al., 2008).

A general point to highlight is that much of the academic literature on people and landscapes is from the United States and other countries outside the UK, and there is increasing evidence that perceptions of landscapes are place-specific.

Gaps identified in relation to rural affairs

• How to improve monitoring of the role that the natural environment plays in sustainable rural development, particularly in relation to non-farm rural business and livelihoods. • Rural areas have an important part to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Further research is required to better understand the role that rural areas can play to reduce emissions within the context of changing economic and social arrangements i.e. the role of rural areas in the transition to a low carbon economy. • There are opportunities for rural communities to better capture the public value of rural environments. In order to facilitate this, further research is required into the public values held for different environmental assets, and the mechanisms for translating this value into financial benefits for those responsible for ‘producing’ and maintaining the valued environments. For example, the role of uplands in storing carbon as well as providing water for urban communities and providing business opportunities for game managers, farmers and tourism industries.

Gaps identified in relation to marine and fisheries • Public understanding of, and concern for, the impact of climate change on marine and freshwater fisheries resources. • Public awareness of how policy measures (such as marine conservation zones, marine protected areas and quotas) and consumer choices can help prevent further collapse of fish stocks and marine biomass. • Linked to the point above, understanding the preferences and perceptions of the UK public in relation to sustainable fish consumption and production methods. • The role of NGOs within the wider marine stakeholder engagement process. • How stakeholder involvement may lead to the empowerment of some marine interest groups at the cost and marginalisation of other groups. • The ways in which anglers (sea and freshwater) can contribute to the development of healthy ecosystems, including marine and freshwater fisheries. Linked to this is the role of volunteers in the implementation and policing of marine and freshwater policy, and the interest of anglers in supporting government monitoring and enforcement activities. The role of volunteers in terrestrial biodiversity conservation has been studied by social scientists, but much less so in freshwater environments. • How anglers might organise themselves to better support the development and continuation of the sport. • Public understanding, perceptions of, and interest in, marine biodiversity and what lies below the UK sea-surface (as highlighted in the wildlife and biodiversity section).

3. Stage Two - Methodology undertaken for the in-depth reviews

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 challenges of most pertinence to Defra’s Environment and Rural Group (ERG)). 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 comprehensive 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 during this stage, 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. Figure 2 sets out the revised approach adopted for Stage 2 in response to this context.

Figure 2. Revised Approach to Stage 2

(N.B. Boxes outlined in blue indicate tasks relying in part upon policy engagement)

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, and suggested that subsets of these could usefully be explored in more depth in Stage 2 of the project. As discussed in Section 2.1, five of these cut across multiple ERG policy areas and two sought to cross-fertilise knowledge and literature from one policy area to inform key policy questions in another.

Defra confirmed two of these review themes as planned in early 2010. These were ‘Public perceptions of and concern for, future changes to specific landscapes/seascapes and ecosystems’ (later refined to the Perceptions review) and ‘Conflict management within natural environment decision-making’ (eventually refined to the Conflict Management review). Whilst the second theme did conform to the original idea that the review would be focusing on a policy ‘challenge’ (albeit a broad one), the first theme could not be classified as a policy ‘challenge’ as such, but rather a body of social research of importance when tackling a range of different policy challenges faced by Defra policy-makers. 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 review to inform Defra’s Natural Environment White Paper discussions, considering ‘The Big Society Concept in a Natural Environment Setting’ (the Big Society rapid review).

The reviews were assigned in order to ensure that each partner would be working on a theme that best played to their strengths and experience: • Land Use Consultants (LUC) were best placed to develop the Perceptions review as it fitted in with their extensive experience in the landscape field; • The Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) were assigned the Conflict Management review, which was in line with the interests of the research staff involved; and • Policy Studies Institute (PSI) was later assigned the Big Society review, which fitted well with other projects underway at PSI, and drew on their expertise as a policy institute.

Since a different approach was adopted for the Big Society rapid review, this will be discussed in Section 6. The rest of this section focuses on the approach used for the Perceptions and Conflict Management reviews.

Task 2.1. Workshops, mapping of the key programme theories and understanding social research needs The full objective of Task 2.1 is 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.’ The proposal set out the need for a small workshop with the aim of: 1. Facilitating the mapping of key policy programme theories of relevance to the policy challenge under review; 2. Identifying, exploring and honing down the priority policy issue(s) within each review theme where existing social science literature could most usefully be reviewed and synthesised without duplicating previous or contemporary research.

Through these processes, it was hoped that the project team would develop a shared understanding of: • The current policies within Defra’s ERG programme areas that may influence or be relevant to each in-depth review area. • The type of evidence that informed the framing and development of the policies; • The effectiveness of these policies to-date in tackling the policy ‘challenge’ under review (where documented evidence on effectiveness is readily available); • Factors limiting their effectiveness; • The potential for social research to help frame the policies in a way that is more effective for tackling the policy challenges under review.

It was originally proposed that the project team would liaise with relevant policy leads in Defra prior to the workshop in order to complete an abbreviated logical framework analysis in order to begin the programme theory mapping process in advance of the workshops. In this way, it was hoped to produce a graphical presentation of programme theories and the assumptions underlying them – a log frame - on a single presentation slide, for discussion during the workshop.

This approach to the mapping did not prove appropriate or feasible for the following five key reasons:

1. One of the final review areas – the Perceptions theme did not constitute a policy ‘challenge’ against which the effectiveness of existing policies could be mapped, but rather is a body of social science research that could inform policy approaches to a variety of different policy challenges. It therefore proved unfeasible to map ‘the effectiveness of policies to-date in tackling the policy challenge under review’. 2. The final review areas chosen were much broader than anticipated within the proposal and therefore relevant to most, if not all, of the policy programmes within the Environment and Rural Group. Mapping all of the policies within each of these policy programmes was beyond the resources available for the mapping task. 3. Engagement with policy leads and analysts within Defra demonstrated that the required knowledge was widely dispersed among a larger number of people than anticipated. Gaining the information required about all relevant policy programmes therefore did not prove feasible. 4. Within the context of the change of government, policy attendance at the Perceptions workshops was limited. This constrained the degree to which this workshop could be used as part of the policy programme mapping process. 5. The change in government mid-way through Stage 2 resulted in much uncertainty regarding the status of many of the existing policy programmes and the relevance of strategy documents published by the previous government. This undermined the value in trying to map the policy programmes developed by the previous government, as these were liable to change.

As such, the project team developed an alternative approach to the mapping, focusing instead on how to achieve its 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 original strategy documents used in Phase I together with some additional Natural England, Forestry Commission and Defra strategy documents (see Annex 1) to identify the overarching policy objectives that each review could inform. This was done prior to the election, and it is recognised that policy priorities and objectives have since changed, but the process did assist efforts to identify where to focus policy engagement efforts. Efforts have since been made to consider the relevance of the reviews to emerging policy documents being produced by the new Coalition Government, including Defra’s Structural Reform Plan (Defra, 2010) and Defra’s Discussion Document, ‘An invitation to shape the Nature of England’ (Defra, 2010). 2. For the Perceptions review, within a workshop setting efforts were made to facilitate policy-makers to prioritise the objectives of most relevance to their current work and to elaborate on the policies they were working on, subsequently discussing which of a series of questions set out under this review theme could usefully inform their work. For the reasons previously mentioned, this did not prove effective. However, the diverse mix of social researchers present did enable much useful discussion concerning bodies of existing research that could valuably be reviewed under this topic. Subsequently it was decided that a series of telephone interviews would be 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. Given the lack of policy attendance secured for the first scheduled conflict management review workshop, this workshop was cancelled and invitations re-issued for a date following the general election. CRE were therefore able both to secure greater policy attendance, but also to carry out a number of telephone interviews with key policy and practitioner representatives prior to the workshop to ensure a clear focus within the workshop.

The outcomes of this process are summarised in Annexes 5a and 6a.

Each of the workshops adopted a slightly different format tailored to their review theme (as outlined in the workshop reports available in Annex 5b and 6b), but in each case, the workshop participants converged upon three alternative strands for review within each theme. These were considered alongside the discussions held during the telephone interviews in order to identify priority sub-themes under each review (see Annexes 5a and 6a). 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.

Several subsequent discussions with Defra resulted in an overarching question for each review, together with a series of sub-questions (see Sections 4 and 5).

Task 2.2. Produce review protocol and two-page summary for policy comment. Neither review question generated by Task 2.1 could be sufficiently focused or narrowed to meet the strict criteria necessary for systematic review. Following several discussions and much useful advice from experts in qualitative and quantitative systematic review processes, 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 (available in Annexes 7 and 8), setting out the: • Rationale for the review and policy context; • Type of review method proposed; • Final review question and sub-questions; • Search strategy and scope (including search terms, search dates, databases and web sites) • Exclusion criteria for sources identified (to maintain focus and ensure only the most relevant sources are used) • Quality appraisal criteria (used to assess the quality of non-peer reviewed sources) • Data extraction template (to guide the type of data to be extracted across each review area)

• Synthesis approach • Key references.

Whilst the approaches adopted in each review necessarily varied due to the different types of question under review, each review adopted the same search time period, and utilised the same core databases (COPAC, Web of Science - including the Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Conference Papers-, Greenfile, ASSIA, IBSS, and Science Direct).

A two-page summary of each protocol was developed and circulated to the Defra Steering Group for approval in order to ensure the final scope was approved prior to using further resources to progress each review.

Task 2.3. Conduct in-depth literature review in each policy area. Once the protocols had been developed for each review (available in Annexes 7 and 8), the project partners undertook the literature searching.

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 and 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 (as set out in the review protocols in Annexes 7 and 8).

Quality appraisal criteria6 were used on any sources that had not already been assessed as part of academic journal or policy peer review processes (as set out in the protocols in Annexes 7 and 8). Conclusions drawn from sources that did not meet all the quality appraisal criteria were included only after careful consideration of the methods employed in the research studies in question and with an awareness of potential study limitations, and any caveats associated with conclusions draw from these sources were made clear within the reviews.

The resulting review reports are provided as separate outputs from the project, with the summaries of the key findings provided in Sections 4, 5 & 6.

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

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 most 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 final task of Stage 2 was the production of the interim report and a verbal presentation of the interim findings to Defra. The interim report highlighted progress made up to October 2010, documented the approaches taken in Stage 2 and the reasons for modifications to the original approaches proposed, summarised the workshop discussions and outcomes and incorporated and summarised key findings emerging from the reviews.

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 alongside this report. Summaries of each of the reviews are, however, provided in Sections 4, 5 and 6 below.

4. Review 1: Perceptions of Change to UK Landscapes and Ecosystems

This review summarised selected social research evidence 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). This review focused on the aspects of landscapes and ecosystems that people value and how these values may be affected by future change. ‘Value’ was considered in this review in terms of a recognised provision of services or benefits (including aesthetic appreciation). Value was not considered in a monetary or economic sense in this review. Defra has a separate and substantial research programme regarding the monetary valuation of landscapes and ecosystems services.

4.1. Methodology Following the scoping stage (Stage 1) of the project, a policy and programme mapping exercise was undertaken using key policy documents and consultation with researchers and policy teams in Defra and its agencies via a workshop and informal interviews. Mapping was used to develop a set of targeted research questions and from these a review protocol was devised (available in Annex 7). Key databases and websites of key organisations were searched (from July to September 2010) to identify relevant UK-based social research undertaken since 2000. The review found a wealth of relevant social research evidence on the subject, from which the following key messages were identified: 4.2. How and why people currently value landscapes and ecosystems

Landscapes, ecosystems and cultural services • Landscapes and ecosystems clearly matter to people and shape their everyday experiences, social interactions, wellbeing, and quality of life.

• 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, which every individual has the potential to experience, 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 perception relate to a range of demographic, situational and awareness factors, which allow for some segmentation of valuation evidence. These kind of segmentations are 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 which indicate areas where policy and programmes could focus to improve engagement with the natural environment.

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 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 huge body of evidence on the benefits of high quality greenspace, and it is valued by people in high density urban environments as a nearby source of nature.

• A range of preferences are apparent for different types of greenspace and greenspace management. These 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.

• Whilst segmentation efforts highlight the need for caution in drawing general conclusions, it is possible to identify broad preferences for certain landscape and ecosystems types: firstly, the coast; secondly, mountains and hills, water, rivers and streams, woodlands (with the wide range of social benefits provided by woodland having been extensively researched), 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’ (and similarly it could be said that ‘all ecosystems matter’), some landscape characteristics or ecosystems deliver more cultural services than others. Nevertheless, evidence suggests there is variation between different users with, for example, some individuals finding upland unappealing or too physically demanding and others seeking out the challenge and exhilaration that they offer.

• Social research indicates that the landscapes and ecosystems that are most valued by people are diverse, have a strong and recognisable character (sense of place), support abundant wildlife, are relatively accessible, and offer relative tranquillity – the ability to ‘get away from it all’.

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.

• The concept of place attachment 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 with the strongest personal meanings and associated emotions. For many, such places may constitute their home and local area, but can also include more distant ‘iconic’ places 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. 4.3. Perceptions of change to landscapes and ecosystems

Changing Landscapes and Ecosystems • People have recognised a number of changes to landscapes and ecosystems, particularly in relation to urban development, wind farms, changing agricultural practices, and land uses such as quarrying.

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.

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 landscape changes will likely result from the increasing need for self-sufficiency in food production (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.

• Yet many consumers are unaware of the realities of how food and other raw materials are produced, assuming that food production is 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 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.

• There is a significant literature on ‘willingness to pay’ approaches, which are part of the wider economic literature on the valuation of environmental costs and benefits and so were not analysed in detail in this review. 4.4. Implications for policy

• Recognising that all landscapes (and ecosystems) are valued: ‘Local places’ (usually greenspaces) are highly valued, often for their ease of access and ‘quick hits’ of nature. Such places have significant potential to influence wellbeing, particularly where efforts are made to enhance their quality. However, people also hold strong emotional attachments to distant places they visit less frequently (such as the coast or uplands). It is important to ensure the cultural services delivered by both types of place are protected and enhanced.

• Ensuring the right combination of techniques for gathering evidence on the values people attach to place/s: it may be necessary to adopt specific combinations of deliberative and participatory techniques, ensuring the techniques used are tailored to the communities of interest and sensitive to relevant policies, landscapes and ecosystems.

• There is potential for segmentation to be used to better understand the reported range of perceptions of landscapes and ecosystems: Defra’s ‘Natural Environment Segmentation’ project, completed by the Futures Company, presents a useful starting point in this process.

• Greater knowledge exchange around ecosystems services is required: efforts to enhance public knowledge and understanding of the full range ecosystems services provided by an area may improve public acceptability of interventions designed to protect or enhance these services in the future. In turn, such interventions could be more sensitively designed when based on a better understanding of the ways in which the public value these services and spaces (i.e. when decisions are made using both lay and expert knowledge).

• People who have experienced or are at least aware of past change to landscapes and ecosystems are often better able to understand and accept future changes: when people are made aware of how a place has changed in the past, and how it will change in the future with and without intervention, they may be more likely to accept future changes.

• The role of young people in planning for change is important: as future custodians of these places as well as a section of society, greater efforts could usefully be made to engage young people in the process of planning for changes to landscapes and ecosystems.

5. Review 2: Natural environment conflict management

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 was 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. The 'alternative' approaches to conflict resolution considered within this review need to be considered 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; 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 that they forge between stakeholders.

5.3. Key Issues in 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 and allows different interpretation of the evidence, whereas communication to explain may exacerbate a conflict. The media has an important role to play in communicating social environmental justice issues but may easily end up perpetuating and strengthening 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 involvement 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. Recent research has questioned the neutrality and impartiality of third parties. This may however be an advantage if the third party can take an active approach to drive a management process to ensure fairness, openness and representation of minority interests. Similarly, opportunities for resolution may lie with individuals from within the disputing parties. Such individuals can play a vital role in communicating between groups, building trust between one another and arguing the viability of proposed solutions. 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. The criteria for evaluating conflict management success should include: • The involvement and representation of all appropriate parties;

• The ability to recognise and process evidence of different types and to deal with uncertainty; • The process should be fair and seen as legitimate with transparency and clear rules of engagement; • Cost effectiveness in terms of time and resource; • A process to include mutual learning and improved communication in order participants feel empowered. Outcome criteria should include: • A high quality written agreement considered fair and just by all; • Evidence of an improvement in the environment and a positive impact on social systems; • Durability of the settlement and the level of controversy diminished; • Social and political capitals are created, trust is built and working relationships improved.

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: • Increased and early use of participatory approaches specific to the particular context and combined with other decision support tools may prevent such conflicts. • Value differences must be taken into account in order to develop durable outcomes. • If decision making capacities are given to local stakeholder groups they should be supported and legitimised by government at higher spatial scales. • Information from government and scientific evidence providers should be presented through a communication route of mutual learning rather than explanation. • Action should be taken to identify and support participants within a conflict to act as local champions of reconciliation. 5.5. Research gaps A number of gaps emerged within the literature identified, including: • The need for a better understanding of the available decision-support tools, their strengths, weaknesses and applications. In particular, how best to combine decision- support tools within longer term participatory management approaches in relation to conflict management.

• The need to move away from a view of values as fixed and unchanging entities. Research and management design could usefully seek to understand value differences, particularly within interactional group conflict situations. • Further research into the role of 'local champions of reconciliation' in UK case studies is required, in terms of how such individuals can be identified (for example, through framing studies) and how their role can be enhanced in reaching successful conflict management outcomes. • There is scope for exploring novel means of decision-making where arbitration is required. • Research is required to better understand the ways in which Social Impact Assessment (SIA) can be used to predict and mitigate for potential conflicts caused by developments or changes in policy. 5.6. 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.

6. Review 3: The Big Society Concept in a Natural Environment Setting

6.1. 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:

1. Citizen and community engagement in protecting and enhancing the natural environment7.

2. The social impacts of different domestic water charging regimes.

For each, a series of focused literature searches were undertaken using Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar, in order to gain an understanding of the key social research questions that could usefully be reviewed and to identify recent work undertaken of particular relevance to each area. In each case the aim was to produce a short summary, outlining a range of sub-questions that could be considered for review within each theme. These summaries are available in Annexes 9a and 9b. After circulation and discussions with the relevant Defra project staff, it was decided that neither was appropriate for further in-depth review. At this point it was decided to conserve the remaining resources until further clarity was available on the emerging policy priorities of the new Coalition Government.

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.

6.2. Review theme and key questions The final review theme adopted was: ‘The Big Society concept in a Natural Environment setting’. It aimed to explore the potential for collective community action for the protection, restoration and management of local natural environments and to consider how such action may be facilitated by

7 Leading on from this, a more focused theme emerged, exploring how experiencing nature can promote citizen and community engagement in natural environment protection efforts.

a range of actors, including businesses, existing civil society organisations, and local and central government.

The key questions of interest for the review included:

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?

2. Why is community-led action believed to be beneficial for the natural environment?

3. What types of environmental action could communities engage in?

4. Who already acts at the community level to protect the natural environment?

5. What or who motivates this action?

6. What are the barriers that prevent community engagement?

7. What are the policy opportunities for working with different actors to overcome such barriers and encourage wider community engagement in natural environment protection?

The full review is available as a separate standalone document alongside this report, but a summary of the key messages is provided below. First, a brief description of the Rapid Review methodology is provided, which differs from the approach adopted in the other two reviews.

6.3. Rapid Review methodology This Rapid Review drew on several elements of the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methodological approach. REAs intend 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 approach8. REAs can provide a useful starting point when a review is needed to answer a particularly pressing policy concern (such as pressing evidence needs associated with the Natural Environment White Paper). Once the immediate question is answered it can then form the basis of a more detailed full systematic review. In this way, a Rapid Evidence Assessment may be seen as an ‘interim evidence assessment’.

For this review, undertaken in Autumn 2010, a three-stage search approach was adopted including a web-based search, database searches, and a brief analysis of key survey reports. Firstly, the web-based search of key research, policy, and think tank organisations9 was undertaken to identify emerging publications on the Big Society, and on community concepts which pre-dated the Big Society where appropriate. The resulting titles and summaries were filtered for potential relevance, focusing only on those articles which made direct reference to the

8 As discussed in the guidelines produced by the Civil Service: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civilservice/networks/professional/gsr/resources/rea-methods-rapid-evidence-assessment.aspx 9 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.

environment or nature, or to Big Society mechanisms that could be transferable to a natural environment context. A call for information was also placed in the fortnightly mailing of the Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN) to identify any emerging but unpublished work of relevance.

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’, as highlighted in Table 1 below. Since this review intends to stimulate ideas about the different forms that the Big Society could take in a natural environment context, it was important to adopt such a broad focus in order to identify a diverse range of case studies and ideas.

Three principle categories of search terms were used, including: (1) ‘Population’ terms to identify actors likely to play a significant role in community-based initiatives; (2) ‘Natural environment’ terms; and (3) ‘Big Society’ relevant concepts. The search terms utilised are outlined in Table 410.

Table 4. Database Search Terms

1. Population terms 2. Natural environment terms 3. Big Society-relevant concepts Citizens Natural environment Big Society Communities Nature Grassroots innovation Volunteers Green spaces (or greenspaces) Community innovation Voluntary groups Parks Localism Charities Community gardens Bottom-up development Non-governmental organisations Nature reserves Ecological citizenship Social enterprises Conservation areas Eco-teams Civil society Allotments Eco-preneurs Rural areas Eco-innovation Woodland Environmentalism Countryside Environmental citizenship Landscape Environmental stewardship Hedgerows Environmental activism Rivers Environmental entrepreneur Farms Environmental innovation Environmental champions Community innovation Social innovation Social economy Sociotechnical innovation Green niche Green entrepreneur

The combined Population-Natural Environment-Big Society terms were searched in seven indexing and bibliographic databases, including: ASSIA, Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management, Greenfile, Web of Science, Science Direct, Sociological Abstracts and Planex. Planex was particularly useful in identifying grey literature encompassing case studies of

10 These terms were truncated as appropriate in different databases

community action11, many of which were then followed up through searching appropriate websites. The searches were limited to the last 20 years of publication, since many of the relevant concepts have arisen since the 1990s, but reference lists were also used to identify earlier references where appropriate. Efforts were primarily focused on identifying UK-based case studies unless relevant examples or key lessons emerged from the US, Europe or Australia12.

The hits recorded from the searches were filtered following a three-stage process. Firstly, irrelevant hits were disregarded on the basis of titles, secondly on the basis of abstracts, and thirdly after reading the full articles.

Finally, key survey reports were examined to explore patterns of volunteering and engagement in the UK and Europe. Whilst six surveys were examined13, only three provided relevant information specifically on engagement in collective rather than personal environmental actions.

Through these three search approaches, a range of empirical examples and theoretical concepts were identified of relevance to this review, which were synthesised and summarised in the review. A first draft was submitted to Defra in December 2010 and a revised final draft, accommodating policy comments, submitted in February 2011.

6.4. Review summary This rapid review was intended to contribute to the Big Society-related evidence needs set out in Defra’s discussion document ‘An invitation to shape the Nature of England’. Due to differences in the approach taken, this review did not seek to provide an in-depth review of a focused body of literature as is the case with the other two reviews carried out in Stage 2 of the project.

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 studies 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 highlights 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

11 Though it should be noted that few of these appeared to have been formally evaluated 12 Countries with similar political contexts were focused on as it has been suggested that one reason why policies may fail if transferred from one country to another is if ‘insufficient attention is paid to the differences between the economic, social, political and ideological contexts in the transferring and the borrowing country’, known as ‘inappropriate transfer’. Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (2010) ‘Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making’ Governance 13(1): 5-24. 13 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

amount of emerging grey literature on the Big Society, relatively little directly considers the Big Society in the context of the natural environment. 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. 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 Lawton14.

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

14 In ‘Making Space for Nature’ (2010): Available to download here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf

(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 justice movement. Consequently a much 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. However, 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 these. 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.

7. Cross-Cutting 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:

1. The role of people’s values and identities within natural environment policy-making.

2. Balancing lay and expert knowledge in natural environment policy-making:.

3. Engaging people in the evaluation of outcomes.

4. The role of place attachment within natural environment policy-making.

5. The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making.

These themes are explored in turn below and the references as extracted and collated from the reviews are provided in Annex 10.

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 set out to work alongside others to protect or enhance environments of most personal value. The Perceptions review highlighted a great diversity in what people value about landscapes and ecosystems. Influencing factors include age, ethnic origin, gender, familiarity, place of upbringing and residence (particularly rural and urban), and environmental awareness. The review also stressed the important role played by people’s identities in determining their perceptions. People’s values are not always constant, and can merge or conflict in response to changes in people’s identities. For example, interviews with land managers who had recently become parents highlighted a shift in their perceptions of landscapes and their work as a result (Scott et al., 2009). It was highlighted in the Perceptions review that each person has their own ‘portfolio of places’ (illustrated in Figure 3). At the base of the pyramid is the local green space or local countryside where the basic ‘quick hits’ of experiencing some form of nature can be obtained. These areas are largely valued for the ‘easy’ benefits they provide even if they do not have much variety or high aesthetic quality. In contrast, at the top of the pyramid are those sometimes ‘magical’ places that may be distant from where people live and will be visited only infrequently but have the potential to deliver a once-in-a-lifetime experience and which people want to know are available even if they visit them very rarely or even never; they are valued for their existence (Research Box et al., 2009).

Figure 3. The Portfolio of Places Pyramid

Source: Research Box et al., 2009

The Conflict Management Review highlighted situations where differences in values have been a driver of conflict situations. 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 common 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. Such processes bring conflicting parties together to help them communicate the underlying roots of their perspective positions and to present possible outcomes that they can agree upon. As highlighted in Section 7.5, finding a trusted intermediary, either within or external to the conflicting parties, can facilitate this process. An example where a conflict situation was de-escalated through the reframing of a situation is provided by the Quincy Library Group case study, in which stakeholders were able to identify a common goal and interest and thereby manage a long-standing conflict. This is summarised below.

The Quincy Library Group Case study: How a reframing of conflict can identify shared values between conflicting parties15: Quincy is a small resource-based town in north-eastern California. Conflict was occurring between local environmentalists and the logging industry over preservation of the natural forests in the area. Both sides tried to influence the comprehensive planning process of the National Forest Service. Prompted by failed proposals, rejected legal appeals and sharp declines in timber harvest, several of the adversaries formed the Quincy Library Group, named after the neutral premises where they met. To reach a compromise that could be supported by all stakeholder groups, they adopted a subordinate goal of ‘community stability and forest health’ as a new objective to unite the conflicting parties. Thus the conflict de-escalated through identifying a common goal and interest between the conflicting parties and, in this case, a common adversary.

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. • The key motivation for many to engage is a desire to overcome feelings of environmental helplessness and alleviate perceptions of not doing enough. • 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’ (Dobson, 2010). • In some cases, pro-environmental collective action may arise from community initiatives that do not originally set out with an environmental focus; instead they may be driven by pro-social values, or a desire to bring wider social and environmental benefits to communities 16. 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. • In other cases, people appear to have developed more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours after becoming conservation volunteers. 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.

15 Sources: Putnam et al., (2003) ‘We can’t go on like this: Frame changes in intractable conflicts’ Environmental Practice 5: 247-255 -http://www.env-econ.net/2005/09/the_quincy_libr.html 16 These may relate to the idea of ‘shared values’; as highlighted by Fish et al., (2011: 1186), ‘shared values demonstrate that human wellbeing and quality of life is a function of satisfying individual ‘wants’ but also the fulfilment of a variety of social, health-related and cultural collective needs’.

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 natural resource 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 local natural 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. Conflict situations can be exacerbated where the former approach is used and experts believe that the public will eventually agree with their position, but only after the public’s information ‘deficit’ is filled. Conversely, Sairinin et al highlight the value of the latter mutual learning approach when trying to manage conflicts characterised by mistrust of government actors and real or perceived power differences between actors. Persson (2006) points out that even public consultation can be viewed as a one-way process, particularly if it is perceived that the decision has already been made. Irvine et al., (2009) highlight the potential to use participatory GIS-based wildlife modelling to bring together knowledge from local deer managers with that from scientists in making more effective deer management decisions in the Scottish Uplands (as summarised below).

Integrated deer management in the Scottish Uplands17: Deer management is often characterised by conflicts over population size, leading to disputes over culling targets. Underlying this is that government agencies often seek to manage the deer on their land at low densities to reduce grazing impacts, whilst the general practices of privately owned sporting estates is to maintain deer populations at relatively high densities to provide a hunting resource. To respond to this, a participatory approach was developed to integrate local knowledge from deer managers with formal scientific understanding and ecological spatial data in a simple Geographic Information System (GIS). The resulting model generated greatly improved predictions of red deer distributions in the Scottish uplands at a landscape scale, rather than at the scale of land ownership. This shifted the debate forward to arguments based on shared knowledge and understanding of the deer and its habitat, allowing for the establishment of an adaptive management cycle.

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 influence of this long-running debate of how to balance quantitative and qualitative, expert and public, and components or whole landscape approaches is apparent throughout academic research and practice. 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; how can ecologists and conservationists work with communities to help them realise their personal visions for the area without compromising its ecological integrity? Furthermore, how might communities best co-ordinate their efforts to create the resilient nationwide ecological network called for in the Lawton Review? 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 habitat. Case Study 23 in the Big Society review highlights an initiative by the London Wildlife Trust

17 Source: 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

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 additional outcome measures considered by local communities to be locally important and/or 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 programme18 and the Eco-Mind programme19, 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. Such an 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 indicators of success, concerning for example carbon emissions reductions, biodiversity levels, pollution levels, and so forth. 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 (perhaps combining ecological indicators with the Social Return on Investment methods adopted by BTCV), 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:

18 Including evaluations by Oxford Brookes University (available here: http://www2.btcv.org.uk/gg_evaluation_0308.pdf) and by the University of Essex (available here: http://www2.btcv.org.uk/hine_peacock_pretty_2008.pdf). 19 Including an evaluation by the University of Essex (available here: http://www.mind.org.uk/assets/0000/2138/ecotherapy_report.pdf).

• Process criteria consider how the conflict management process has: ensured all appropriate and interested parties are represented in the process; recognised and accounted for complexities and uncertainties in information; balanced power equally between parties; adopted cost-effective measures; and facilitated communication and mutual learning between all parties. • Outcome criteria consider how the process has delivered: a fair high quality written agreement; positive impacts on environmental and social systems; a durable and long- lasting settlement; 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. The guide produced by Fish (2010) – ‘Participation and an ecosystems approach to decision making’ – may provide useful insights about how best to engage people in decisions to identify publicly acceptable (and ecologically sound) ecosystem service trade-offs and perhaps also in subsequent outcome evaluation processes.

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. A related concept is that of place identity, which refers to ‘the ways in which physical symbolic attributes of certain locations contribute to a positive sense of personal or social identity’ (Devine-Wright and Howes, 2010: 272). 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

place20. However, 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 area i.e. whether the change is seen to enhance or threaten the character and values of the place. • The way in which the change is socially interpreted, evaluated and contested amongst individuals; a process which is often shaped by influential community individuals, social networks, the local media, and institutions actively seeking to influence ways of thinking. The capacity for different groups to influence perceptions will depend significantly on the degree to which they are trusted by community members. This is illustrated by the case study below21.

20 These disruptions to place may affect both physical aspects of the valued place but also social networks that constitute sources of support to individuals, particularly in low-income communities. 21 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 Psychology 30: 271-280.

Compatibility of proposed change: A wind energy case study Devine-Wright and Howes (2010) report on the public responses to a proposed offshore wind farm in North Wales; comparing the responses of two coastal towns approximately 15km from the site of the proposed wind farm. The proposed wind farm consisted of up to 200 wind turbines, each over 150m tall, producing a total maximum of 750MW of electricity.

It is known that the proposed wind farm was controversial in Llandudno since the application was first submitted to the UK government in 2005, with a Llandudno-based action group campaigning against it. This was confirmed by both the qualitative and quantitative results of the public engagement in Llandudno in comparison to the results from Colwyn Bay: • Many residents of Llandudno expressed fear and anger that its ‘natural beauty’ will be threatened by the industrial scale of the wind farm. Questionnaire analyses illustrate how the strength of place attachment for Llandudno respondents significantly correlated with negative interpretations of the proposed wind farm (regarded as ‘an eyesore that would fence in the bay’) and a range of oppositional behaviours (such as signing petitions). • In contrast, questionnaire findings from Colwyn Bay suggest a general lack of engagement with the process, either as a potentially positive or negative form of change.

The difference in the results appears to be explained by differences in not only place attachment but also in how the change is interpreted within the community. Both towns were founded in the 19th century as places of respite and relaxation for visitors from cities such as Manchester and Liverpool. However, more recently, Llandudno has maintained a more successful tourist economy, receiving 20% of Welsh tourist income. Associated with this, Llandudno is interpreted by residents in terms of its natural beauty, a place for restoration and retreat, and an escape for tourists from nearby cities.

Devine-Wright (2009) proposes a multi-stage framework, depicted in Figure 4, 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.

Figure 4. Stages of psychological response over time to place change

Source: Devine-Wright (2009) p272

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 debate over wolf and grizzly bear reintroduction illustrating how symbolism can create ‘wicked’ natural environment conflicts as both species are significant symbols of American wilderness within the fight for preservation. The Big Society review highlighted the role of communities in place attachments with more settled communities demonstrating great levels of place attachment which in turn is associated with a greater capacity in the local community to revitalise a neighbourhood. 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 contribute to collective efforts to improve the neighbourhood. Furthermore, disruptions to place and people’s emotional connections to that place can serve to mobilise community action to protect the site, as illustrated in the Railway Land Nature Reserve Case Study (Number 12 in the Big Society review). 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.

There are however circumstances where volunteers can develop place attachments. 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 found that volunteers with greater social reasons for volunteering were much more likely to show attachment to the volunteer site. This would suggest that such volunteer’s relationship with the site have more in common with recreational users. 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 (as illustrated by those involved in the Britain in Bloom campaign – see Case Study 14 in the Big Society review). It is therefore apparent that place attachment can play a central role in determining citizen choices about local natural environments; in terms of how they are valued and in understanding motivations to engage in efforts to protect or enhance them. This suggests that any efforts to mobilise collective community action for the natural environment would benefit from a thorough understanding of the specific places and characteristics that are important to different community groups and for what reasons.

7.5. The role of influential individuals within natural environment policy-making Apparent across all three reviews is the key 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; in both alternative dispute resolution and consensus building approaches (Susskind et al., 1999). Where such people are present early on, they can play an important 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. Emphasis has traditionally been placed on the need for a ‘neutral’ third party, able to facilitate communication and build trust between disputing parties. However, in more contemporary social science literature, it has been argued that such intermediaries need not always be ‘neutral’ since this tends to maintain the status quo between conflicting parties (Smith, 2001; Caton Campwell, 2003). Instead, and recognising that complete neutrality is unlikely, opportunities for more effective resolution may lie with certain 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). Third party insiders, who are known and respected within a group and able to gain widespread trust and buy-in may play a vital role in facilitating

communication between groups, building trust not just between the groups but in the viability of proposed solutions. An example of this is illustrated below22.

Maine lobster and Chesapeake Bay blue crab fisheries case study: The role of ‘insider’ third parties in conflict management Beem (2007) examines challenges arising during attempts to develop co-management arrangements in the Maine lobster and Chesapeake Bay blue crab fisheries in order to address local distributional conflicts. Whilst discussions of co-management were eventually shelved as unsuccessful in Chesapeake Bay, they were effectively implemented in Maine, despite a number of similarities in user group composition and resource attributes as well as support from key decision-makers. Beem attributes this in part to the lack of intermediary or ‘policy entrepreneur’ in the Chesapeake fishing community. There was no strong leadership within the community to take the ideas of the state to the watermen and convince them or change their ideas about how co-management might enhance their power in decision-making processes. In contrast, a key individual (Robin Alden) played a crucial role in advocating for co- management in the Maine lobster fishery. She was a known entity within the fishing communities as editor and founder of the ‘Commercial fisheries news’, providing the best and most comprehensive coverage of the New England fishing industry for over 20 years. Robin therefore represented a voice from within the industry, in contrast to those from outside who advocated co-management in Chesapeake who had no influential supporters within the industry.

This is not to say that such influential individuals will always act to defuse conflict situations. Influential insider individuals may also to rally communities against proposed changes to locally valued landscapes or ecosystems. As seen in the offshore wind case study, this can be associated with emotional attachment to a specific place where a proposed 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. The Big Society review demonstrates how such individuals could instead use their influence pro- actively 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 a local environmental or social issue 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.

22 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

A useful study for understanding the typical attributes or characteristics of such influential individuals was undertaken by Fell et al., (2009) for Defra. They 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 (2009: 13). 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. The literature suggests that their influence is likely to be most salient amongst homophilic individuals (i.e. people ‘like them’). 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. Such individuals are apparent in the Incredible Edible Todmorden case study (Case Study 5 in the Big Society Review).

The Incredible Edible Todmorden case study: The role of influential individuals in catalysing community action The Incredible Edible Todmorden (IET) is a network of volunteers, businesses and gardeners, which campaigns for and grows real food. IET was launched by two ladies in Todmorden – Pam Warhurst and Mary Clear - in March 2008 following growing concern about the environment. They decided to focus on gardens as they felt there is something in humans that responds to growing, and gave themselves five years to get a community garden up and running. Pam adopted the ‘thinking’ role for the project, whilst Mary focused on inspiring the community with the idea of growing their own vegetables: • Mary initiated the process by completely demolished her front garden and focused on planting a ‘garden without walls’. Since food is traditionally grown in the back garden and flowers in the front, she made a hole in the wall to her back garden allowing people to step in and help themselves. The aim was to develop a propaganda garden, exemplifying to other community members what they can do. Over time, the community began to visit the garden, harvest its produce and increasingly they picked up the idea and ran with it in other spaces in the community. • Pam was the owner of the local cafe, chaired regeneration company Pennine Prospects and sat on the boards of the West Yorkshire Tourism Partnership and Natural England. Formerly chair of Calderdale NHS Trust, leader of Calderdale Council and deputy chair of the Countryside Agency, in 2005 she received a CBE for services to the environment. This has led to a wide range of activities across the community. To illustrate just a few, residents now grow food in grow bags, rear worms in wormeries, make compost, get involved in a community garden, attend free cookery courses, or offer gardening expertise. Calderdale Council have adopted policies borough-wide to remove obstacles stopping the use of community or disused land for growing, and to offer guidance to groups and public bodies about how it can be achieved. IET have also set up a simple legal framework with the council to transfer council land to IET for growing, with forms of licences for orchards, planters and growing plots. When thinking about how to work with catalytic individuals to encourage wider community engagement in natural environment related civic actions, 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 - social network mapping - which could constitute a useful tool, both for identifying these community champions and for understanding the social context that such individuals work within. Social network mapping does this by identifying: • Bonding social capital: horizontal relationships and trust within the community, such as those between friends and neighbours, and social ties between people from different background (community cohesion).

• Bridging social capital: vertical relationships such as those between service providers and users (co-production) and participation in voluntary, civic and political activity. • Agents of change: these may be the ‘catalytic individuals’ or ‘social entrepreneurs’ within the community with visions for change and / or the skills to mobilise and coordinate wider community activity (much like the idea of the ‘Social Entrepreneur in Residence’ suggested by the Young Foundation23). • Isolated individuals: some individuals may be identified with very few social ties. Following the mapping process, efforts may be taken to access these individuals via the limited connections they do have or perhaps through local befriending schemes. • Tensions and community conflicts: understanding where these lie is the first stage in preventing escalation. 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. Dobson (2010) highlights the existence of a stronger sense of common purpose amongst community members where levels of social capital are high. As highlighted in Section 7.4, these mapping activities could be combined with efforts to identify the places and characteristics that are important to particular individuals or groups within the community (Ryan, 2005), which may help in identifying neighbourhood spaces that are most likely to motivate community members ‘to act collectively to preserve, protect, or improve their community and participate in local planning processes’ (Manzo and Perkins, 2006).

8. Concluding comments

This project has sought to bring together social research findings from a broad and growing evidence base. Whilst the project began prior to the election of the Coalition Government in 2010, and was therefore shaped by the policy priorities of the previous government, the findings presented are relevant and pertinent to a number of emerging policy areas. The Big Society review fed in to the Natural Environment White Paper; the findings of the Perceptions review could usefully inform the work of the recently announced UK Green Infrastructure Partnership; and the findings of the Conflict Management review will become increasingly pertinent in light of the growing pressures placed on natural systems by climate change and resource shortages.

23 http://www.youngfoundation.org/our-work/ventures-and-investment/health-launchpad/seir/social-entrepreneur-residence- seir

References

Stage 1 References

Policy documents used in policy matrix

England Biodiversity Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/biodiversity/documents/biostrategy.pdf) UK Biodiversity Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/Plan_LO.pdf) Wildlife Management Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife- pets/wildlife/management/wm-strategy.htm) Soils Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/land/soil/documents/soil- strategy.pdf) Ecosystems Approach Action Plan (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural- environ/documents/eco-actionplan.pdf) 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) 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) Previous Marine Strategy (http://www.pml.ac.uk/pdf/DEFRA%20Safeguarding%20our%20seas.pdf). 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) Fisheries 2027 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries2027vision.pdf). Charting a new course (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries/newcourse.pdf) The Pitt Review (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/final_report.html) 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) Rural strategy 2004 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/policy/strategy.htm) Diversity Review (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/outdoorsforall/diversityreview/publi cations/default.aspx)

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) Outdoors for All? (http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/dap-ofa.pdf). 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. 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.alternet.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.alternet.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 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%20Di lemmas.pdf [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%20ch ange_final%20report_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.alternet.info/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/outputs/ANet_WPR4_2005_03_Confl_Part_SL_Atti tudes2.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.

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. 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%20En vironmental%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%2 0WEB.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&Comp leted=1&ProjectID=14518 [Accessed 16/12/09]. Brown, K. (2006). 'New Challenges for old Commons: The role of Historical Common Land in 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&Comp leted=0&ProjectID=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%20D ave%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%20W ales.pdf [Accessed 12/01/2010]. 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%20 with%20fld%20mmnt.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 (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 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%20waterf ootprint-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=lWEC7sNY9 jlnfD32Q%2fmeIPy2Z95wEGwMilPOpEWE8C3bnGeIqICC6ELGfIkdwycXSnxkUvvW2t3w %2bLoS2ebBl%2brOVcvmYL2AhjEbURy9GDeWFrviX%2bqfUSKbjPfdeUfU&xu=0&isAwar dHolder=&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 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/Diversity_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) 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 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_su mmary.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 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%20En vironmental%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_su mmary.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. 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.p df [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 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.

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.

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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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/$FI LE/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, 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%(20 Environmental%(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.

100

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 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.

101

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.

102

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.

103

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. 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.

104

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', 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.

105

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 and three case studies', Geoforum 39(6): 2048-2061.

106

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.

107

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 wellbeing in a changing environment. Pilot review for the ‘Living with Environmental Change’ Programme Objective B (Environment) 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%20Inno vation%20WP.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.

108

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_N ature_Report.pdf [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. 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.

109

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.greenspace.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’ 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.

110

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&mi d=499&language=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.

111

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 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.

112

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. 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.

113

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

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.asp x 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/assets/f eatures/mass_localism 31. http://www.thegreenvalleys.org/ 32. http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/BGC-finalists-booklet.pdf

114

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_learning_ 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/

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].

115

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 conflicts’ Environmental Practice 5: 247-255.

116

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.

117