Improving strategic planning for nature: Panacea or pandora's box for the built and natural environment?

IF 5.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Ambio Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1007/s13280-024-01995-9
Alister Scott, Matthew Kirby
{"title":"Improving strategic planning for nature: Panacea or pandora's box for the built and natural environment?","authors":"Alister Scott, Matthew Kirby","doi":"10.1007/s13280-024-01995-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper assesses how strategic planning for nature can be improved for England's built and natural environment using mainstreaming and landscape-scale concepts. Whilst both concepts feature in academic literature, there has been limited attention on their role as catalytic agents for strategic planning. Addressing this gap, evidence is used from two stakeholder workshops involving 62 senior policy experts managing a range of operational and hypothetical strategic spatial planning challenges. The results reveal a significantly weakened strategic planning arena characterised by policy disintegration, short termism and uncertainty. Key findings highlight the fallacy of pursuing strategic planning for nature in isolation from wider policy integration fusing environmental, economic and social components from the outset. Current barriers to progress include institutional inertia, technocratic vocabularies and neoliberalist priorities exacerbated by a weak underlying theory. Conversely opportunities for mainstreaming processes may help knowledge generation and exchange within transdisciplinary partnerships, whilst landscape scale thinking can improve understanding of issues using natures inherent geometry transforming processes and outcomes. The paper recommends the adoption of strategic planning pathways using mainstreaming and landscape-scale approaches working in tandem. Whilst focused on the English context, our findings are transferable to other planning systems in the Global North, especially those championing neoliberal market led policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11183010/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-01995-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper assesses how strategic planning for nature can be improved for England's built and natural environment using mainstreaming and landscape-scale concepts. Whilst both concepts feature in academic literature, there has been limited attention on their role as catalytic agents for strategic planning. Addressing this gap, evidence is used from two stakeholder workshops involving 62 senior policy experts managing a range of operational and hypothetical strategic spatial planning challenges. The results reveal a significantly weakened strategic planning arena characterised by policy disintegration, short termism and uncertainty. Key findings highlight the fallacy of pursuing strategic planning for nature in isolation from wider policy integration fusing environmental, economic and social components from the outset. Current barriers to progress include institutional inertia, technocratic vocabularies and neoliberalist priorities exacerbated by a weak underlying theory. Conversely opportunities for mainstreaming processes may help knowledge generation and exchange within transdisciplinary partnerships, whilst landscape scale thinking can improve understanding of issues using natures inherent geometry transforming processes and outcomes. The paper recommends the adoption of strategic planning pathways using mainstreaming and landscape-scale approaches working in tandem. Whilst focused on the English context, our findings are transferable to other planning systems in the Global North, especially those championing neoliberal market led policies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改进自然战略规划:建筑环境和自然环境的灵丹妙药还是潘多拉盒子?
本文评估了如何利用主流化和景观尺度概念改善英格兰建筑与自然环境的自然战略规划。虽然这两个概念在学术文献中都有提及,但人们对它们作为战略规划催化剂的作用关注有限。为了弥补这一不足,我们使用了两个利益相关者研讨会的证据,其中有 62 位高级政策专家参与,管理一系列操作性和假设性战略空间规划挑战。研究结果表明,战略规划领域已被严重削弱,其特点是政策解体、短期化和不确定性。主要研究结果突出表明,脱离更广泛的政策整合,从一开始就将环境、经济和社会因素融合在一起,孤立地进行自然战略规划是错误的。目前阻碍进展的因素包括机构惰性、技术官僚主义词汇和新自由主义优先事项,而基础理论薄弱则加剧了这些因素。相反,主流化进程的机会可能有助于跨学科伙伴关系中的知识生成和交流,而景观尺度思维则可以利用自然界固有的几何图形转变进程和结果,增进对问题的理解。本文建议采用主流化和景观尺度方法协同工作的战略规划路径。虽然我们的研究重点是英国的情况,但我们的研究结果也可用于全球北方的其他规划系统,尤其是那些倡导新自由主义市场主导政策的系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ambio
Ambio 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
123
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.
期刊最新文献
Rutger Rosenberg: A pioneering marine ecologist. Long-term changes in herbivore community and vegetation impact of wild and domestic herbivores across Iceland. Improving strategic planning for nature: Panacea or pandora's box for the built and natural environment? Unveiling urban governance diversity: Clustering cities based on mitigation actions. When concern is not enough: Overcoming the climate awareness-action gap.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1