Ideals and practicalities of policy co-design – Developing England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes

IF 6 1区 社会学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Land Use Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107343
Ruth Little , Judith Tsouvalis , José Luis Fajardo Escoffié , Susan E. Hartley , David Christian Rose
{"title":"Ideals and practicalities of policy co-design – Developing England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes","authors":"Ruth Little ,&nbsp;Judith Tsouvalis ,&nbsp;José Luis Fajardo Escoffié ,&nbsp;Susan E. Hartley ,&nbsp;David Christian Rose","doi":"10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on the scale or level of complexity of England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. ELM offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice. This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders who were involved in the initial phase of ELM co-design from 2018 to 2020. Using interview data, we provide critical insights for both academics and government on 'pragmatic' applications of co-design to active policy development and reflect on what this tells us about the wider processes of policy development that may need to change in order to accommodate this more ‘democratic’ approach. Our analysis, which identified key barriers to co-design as articulated by institutional stakeholders and civil servants, revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of ‘co-design’ in the initial development of ELM. These early-stage challenges included: (i) a lack of shared decision-making and empowering stakeholders to contribute to problem-definitions; (ii) confidentiality requirements that introduced barriers to information-sharing; (iii) insufficient transparency and feedback on what happened to stakeholder’s contributions in terms of policy development; (iv) an absence of detail on the schemes, including proposed approaches, payment rates, advice, baseline measures, the kinds of ‘outcomes’ expected, and monitoring mechanisms; and (v) a repetition of themes that participants had already discussed. Many of these mismatches may be common to other policy arenas. We argue that improved application of policy co-design in government will rely on wider changes to political processes and the institutional culture and practices within the civil service.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17933,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Policy","volume":"147 ","pages":"Article 107343"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724002965/pdfft?md5=9d8cf554c4ddf11fffa2b2ba4f677e30&pid=1-s2.0-S0264837724002965-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Use Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724002965","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on the scale or level of complexity of England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. ELM offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice. This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders who were involved in the initial phase of ELM co-design from 2018 to 2020. Using interview data, we provide critical insights for both academics and government on 'pragmatic' applications of co-design to active policy development and reflect on what this tells us about the wider processes of policy development that may need to change in order to accommodate this more ‘democratic’ approach. Our analysis, which identified key barriers to co-design as articulated by institutional stakeholders and civil servants, revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of ‘co-design’ in the initial development of ELM. These early-stage challenges included: (i) a lack of shared decision-making and empowering stakeholders to contribute to problem-definitions; (ii) confidentiality requirements that introduced barriers to information-sharing; (iii) insufficient transparency and feedback on what happened to stakeholder’s contributions in terms of policy development; (iv) an absence of detail on the schemes, including proposed approaches, payment rates, advice, baseline measures, the kinds of ‘outcomes’ expected, and monitoring mechanisms; and (v) a repetition of themes that participants had already discussed. Many of these mismatches may be common to other policy arenas. We argue that improved application of policy co-design in government will rely on wider changes to political processes and the institutional culture and practices within the civil service.

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
政策共同设计的理想与现实--制定英国脱欧后的环境土地管理 (ELM) 计划
在英国脱欧后的环境土地管理(ELM)计划中,很少有像英国脱欧后的环境土地管理(ELM)计划这样规模或复杂程度的例子。环境土地管理计划为分析这种规模的协同设计如何在实践中发挥作用提供了一个令人着迷的 "实验室"。本文首次从决策者和利益相关者的角度对这一过程进行了深入的实证评估,他们都参与了 2018 年至 2020 年的 ELM 协同设计初始阶段。利用访谈数据,我们为学术界和政府提供了关于 "务实 "地将共同设计应用于积极政策制定的重要见解,并反思了这对更广泛的政策制定过程的启示,这些过程可能需要改变,以适应这种更加 "民主 "的方法。我们的分析确定了机构利益相关者和公务员所阐述的共同设计的主要障碍,揭示了 "共同设计 "的原则和实践在最初开发 ELM 时的不匹配。这些早期阶段的挑战包括(i) 缺乏共同决策和授权利益相关者对问题定义做出贡献;(ii) 保密要求对信息共享造成障碍;(iii) 利益相关者在政策制定方面的贡献缺乏足够的透明度和反馈;(iv) 缺乏计划细节,包括建议的方法、支付率、建议、基线措施、预期 "成果 "类型和监测机制;(v) 重复参与者已经讨论过的主题。其中许多不匹配现象可能在其他政策领域也很常见。我们认为,在政府中更好地应用政策共同设计将有赖于对政治进程以及公务员制度文化和实践进行更广泛的改革。
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
Land Use Policy
Land Use Policy ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
8.50%
发文量
553
期刊介绍: Land Use Policy is an international and interdisciplinary journal concerned with the social, economic, political, legal, physical and planning aspects of urban and rural land use. Land Use Policy examines issues in geography, agriculture, forestry, irrigation, environmental conservation, housing, urban development and transport in both developed and developing countries through major refereed articles and shorter viewpoint pieces.
期刊最新文献
Spatial allocation of nature-based solutions in the form of public green infrastructure in relation to the socio-economic district profile–a GIS-based comparative study of Gdańsk and Rome Forestry on abandoned agricultural land: Future options for Russia Unravelling the link between land use policy and digital infrastructure: Insights from Czech rural communities Enhancing land management policy in Bangladesh: A blockchain-based framework for transparent and efficient land management Rethinking household food security under a changing climate in drought prone areas of Ethiopia
×
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
×
提示
确定
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