Annex 1 (rev.

) to Programme Director letter INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTS

(All relevant projects should have submitted reports by 31 Jan 2004) Programme Name Project Title : : Environment and Human Behaviour Appraisal, institutional learning and sustainability; defining a new agenda Award No Award Holder(s) Period of Report Institution(s) Total ESRC Award : : : : : LCAG/027 Dr. Susan Owens, Dr. Tim Rayner, Ms Olivia Bina 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003 University of Cambridge 43217.97

Total co-funding of Award from outside ESRC (do not include HEFCE or University contributions): none.

Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge)

Report
Aims and Methods of Research:
Aims: 1. To develop a new research agenda linking appraisal, policy learning and sustainability, making full use of the applicants extensive theoretical work in these areas, and their rich sources of empirical material. 2. To contribute to rigorous analysis and better understanding of the role of appraisal in policy processes with environmental implications. In particular, to explore how practices of appraisal influence outcomes (and evolution) in key domains of public policy. 3. To contribute to more effective practice in this field by providing insights on the nature and conduct of appraisal, on ways in which processes are affected by participants, and vice versa, and on the role of appraisal in the wider context of sustainable development. 4. To be inclusive in scope, embracing the concept of appraisal as well as considering a range of methodologies and practices in different sectors Objectives a) To draw together and evaluate recent and current thinking and research on the nature and role of a range of appraisal techniques, including theoretical/conceptual and practice-oriented dimensions.. b) To characterise official discourse, with particular emphasis on the following questions: How are the nature and role of appraisal techniques represented by governments, statutory agencies, EU institutions and international organizations? What theories of the policy process are implicit in these representations? How, if at all, are they changing? c) To consider how and to what extent the claims (or implicit claims) of a) and b) are supported by empirical evidence. How, and with what short- and longer-term effects, has appraisal operated in practice? How does this experience accord with the expectations of theorists, policy makers, key stakeholder groups and practitioners, and how are these expectations in turn affected by it? What are the theoretical implications? d) To distil key findings from a-c) above. Themes for analysis include: - changing conceptions of subjectivity in the process of appraisal; - the quest for civil legitimacy; - the spaces that even technical approaches may provide for dialogue; - the ways in which different approaches to appraisal (involving factors identified in a-c) may lead to alternative constructions of what it means for development to be sustainable. e) Building on the themes discussed in d), to define important outstanding issues and questions, in order to develop a new research agenda, as outlined above. f) To maintain a dialogue throughout with academic colleagues, practitioners and policy makers in this field. Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge) 2

Methods:
This project was always intended primarily to be a desk study. We have reviewed an extensive range of literature, both academic and practitioner-oriented, an exercise that has informed a substantial jointly-authored paper (see below). We have met on average fortnightly to discuss issues arising from the literature. As envisaged in our application, we have pursued contacts and/or held discussions with a range of individuals prominent in the field of environmentally-oriented appraisal processes. These included academics (for example, Maria Partidario of the Nova Universidade de Lisboa; Sheila Jasanoff of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard; Richard Cowell and Heli Saarikoski of Cardiff University, Department of City and Regional Planning), policy makers (for example, Roger Smithson, John Hack and colleagues at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), practitioners (for example, Mark Southgate, formerly with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, now Head of Planning & Local Government at the Environment Agency; Roger Levett of Levett-Thrivel Consultants), and others (for example, David Gee of the European Environment Agency). We are expecting to conduct discussions with a number of experts from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Roger Smithson, John Hack, Nick Simon and Sarah Sing, who are working on the development of guidance for planning authorities on sustainability appraisal) in late January 2004. The award holders have attended, addressed or presented papers at a number of conferences/ seminars. Susan Owens spoke at Environment and Human Behaviour Programme seminars in February and December 2003, and drew on this project in her Plenary address to the Environmental Governance Session at the Royal Geographical Society/Institute of British Geographers international Conference in September 2003. Tim Rayner spoke on the issue of environmental appraisal at the Programmes second seminar in June. His paper analysing the experience of the UKs first multi-modal transport study was presented at a workshop on Evaluation methods and tools for regional sustainable development, under the auspices of the EU REGIONET Thematic network, 11-13 June 2003, Manchester, UK, and has been accepted for inclusion in a special issue of the journal Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Olivia Bina spoke on 'Relating SEA to its contexts and to sustainable development' at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Marrakech in June 2003 and in November she presented a paper on Re-thinking the purpose of Strategic Environmental Assessment at a Manchester University/IDPM conference on New Directions in Impact Assessment for Development: methods and practice. She will be presenting some of our findings at the forthcoming IAIA Annual Meeting (April 2004).

Confirmation Statement:
The research is being conducted as anticipated in the initial contract with ESRC.

Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge)

Highlights of the Research and Important Findings:

Appraisal defined in our project to include a variety of ex ante techniques and procedures that seek to predict and evaluate the consequences of certain human actions has been afforded an increasingly important role in environmental policy. The research is showing that both the nature of appraisal and its role in the political process have been inadequately conceptualised. Exploring a literature that has tended to polarise technical and deliberative models, we identify a need for sensitive selection and combination of approaches, taking account of both the object and objective of appraisal in particular contexts. We suggest that an important role for appraisal (by design or by default) may be that of providing spaces for dialogue and learning in the making of policies and decisions. This perspective on appraisal has both theoretical and practical implications, some of which have already been identified and will contribute to our final agenda for further research. We observe that a great deal has been written about the virtues of different approaches to appraisal but rather less has been done to test the various claims through meticulous empirical work. Developments in both theory and practice are likely to flow from such research.

Some key issues and findings to date The following is drawn largely from the substantive paper that we have submitted to Environment and Planning A. It provides a flavour of what is emerging from the project, rather than an exhaustive summary. Along with a number of other commentators, we suggest that both technical and deliberative approaches, as typically represented, have shortcomings, and that the most constructive way forward is likely to involve a careful tailoring of different forms of appraisal to specific problems and situations. In this sense, we suggest that the polarisation that has characterised much recent commentary may be unhelpful. In the policy-making arena, more careful tailoring of appraisal processes and tools is slowly becoming a priority, and it is time for longitudinal research involving retrospective and real time studies of such practices, to address a number of important questions. When appraisal practices become more open, deliberative and participatory, allowing for full acknowledgement of uncertainty and different framings, can policies still be formulated and decisions made, and do they differ from those that might have emerged from the old approaches? Can subjectivity successfully be reframed as practical reason (or under what circumstances is this possible)? One of the most interesting questions how, if at all, practices of appraisal provide spaces for dialogue and learning of various kinds needs to be addressed not only in the context of fora that seek consciously to promote such outcomes (those that might be said to adopt a learning strategy) but also in quasi-technical practices where there is some evidence that learning (amongst regular participants, and ultimately in a wider policy community) can occur over time; studies of the latter might provide useful lessons on how to nurture constructive elements in the design of modified appraisal procedures. The newer, deliberative, and mixed, approaches, also need to be scrutinised, as noted above. In both cases, we have to ask: what kinds of learning might be looked for in practices of appraisal across various policy domains, and by what means they are to be detected and explored? A further question suggested by such findings is how enduring are any new positions or values learned in processes of appraisal. What makes for lasting changes in perspective, that translate into the substance of policy?

To answer such questions, we need research, with retrospective elements where necessary combined with (and sometimes incorporating) real time studies of appraisal processes as they are happening. A generous time frame is essential if we are to detect subtle and long-term processes of knowledge creep and enlightenment, of a kind that might eventually lead to significant reframing of policy problems. There are questions about depth Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge) 4

and breadth of analysis too, and in particular a need, identified by several authors, to be sensitive to the variety of ways in which knowledge and information are used (for example, the experience of participants, their social identities, the stories they tell, the images and representations they invoke in discussion, and their intuition).

There is growing evidence from empirical observation that controversial techniques can ride out criticism for many years, but sometimes become untenable. We are still far from understanding the processes through which legitimacy is maintained without difficulty, questioned with little effect or forfeited to such a degree that policies and practices have to be modified. The reasons for change when it does happen in certain sectors, or at particular political moments, are not always clear. The New Approach to Appraisal in UK transport policy is a good example, suggesting that the general political climate, and dominant discourses in any given policy sector, can pre-empt or permit certain kinds of analysis at different times. In-depth research, which may of necessity be retrospective, needs to be conducted in a range of different sectors and contexts, to explore how attempts to gain civil legitimacy, by adopting new approaches to appraisal, actually work in practice.

Finally, there is the crucial question of connections between appraisal and the policies and decisions (and, ultimately quality of life and environment) that it is meant to influence the question of outcomes, rather than outputs. There remains a dearth of empirically strong, theoretically-informed analysis in this area, while assumptions (implicit theories of the policy process) abound. Thus we strongly endorse recent calls for a broadening investigations beyond the qualities of the assessment and its direct products, to include the use of assessment results in, and their impacts on, decision making, and to explore the contextual conditions within which the assessment operates. In exploring the interface between appraisal and policy, we are inevitably asking questions about rationality and power, and seeking to explain stability and change in both the short and the longer term.

Changes to Original Award:

Tim Rayner took up a lectureship at the London School of Economics from September 2003, therefore Olivia Bina was employed for one additional month and a no-cost extension was granted to 31 January 2004.

Research Staff:
Name Tim Rayner Olivia Bina Status RA1A 8 RA1A 9 Period of appointment 1/1/03 31/8/03 1/10/03 31/1/04

Publications
Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge) 5

In press Rayner, T. Sustainability and Transport Appraisal: the case of the Access to Hastings Multi-Modal Transport Study, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management.

Under consideration Owens, S. Making a difference: some reflections on research and policy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Owens, S., Rayner, T. and Bina, O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Submitted to Environment and Planning A.

In preparation, journals still to be decided Owens, S. and Bina, O. Environment and sustainability in strategic assessment Owens, S. Bina, O. and Rayner, T. Appraisal: a new agenda for research

Engagement with potential research users

(outside the academic community)

As envisaged in our application, we have pursued contacts and held discussions with a range of individuals prominent in the field of environmentally-oriented appraisal processes. In addition to academics from different disciplines (examples listed above), we have contacted the following institutions for discussions, comments and recommendations on our current thinking for a research agenda: Policy makers and other public sector agencies Office of the Deputy Prime Minister The Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research European Environment Agency (Denmark) The RMNO (The Netherlands) Practitioners and think tanks Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (our key contact has now moved to the Environment Agency and will provide a useful link with that organisation) Levett-Therivel Consultants The Wuppertal Institute (Germany)

We have also established links with other researchers in the Environment and Behaviour Programme, in particular with the Natural Capital project.

Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge)

Contribution to Programme
The project synthesises existing work, some of it arising out of the Global Environmental Change Programme, and is developing a new research agenda linking appraisal, policy learning and sustainable development. Its aims include rigorous analysis of the role of appraisal in the political process, new conceptualisations of this role, and contributions to more effective practice in this important field. Questions raised by the Programme The Environment and Behaviour Programme seeks to derive insights into three fundamental questions. Our research speaks most directly to the third, which asks what public policy approaches might persuade people to change environmentally damaging behaviour. The background paper (Ekins 2002) notes that providing information can play an educative and attitude-shaping role, and that indicator systems can allow the implications of alternative courses of action to be evaluated. In this context our proposed focus on appraisal practices is highly relevant. Through a combination of the information and knowledge that they generate, and the potential they offer for deliberation about the ultimate ends of policy, we suggest that contemporary appraisal practices can enable individuals and organisations to address the complexity inherent in the pursuit of sustainable development. Such practices may quite conceivably change attitudes in the process. The project improves understanding of how such processes work, how they could be made to work better, and how they could best be researched. In response to the first of Ekins questions - why people behave as they do towards the environment - our contribution lies in improved understanding of why certain agents, including government bodies or other organizations, may fail to consider the environmental implications of their practices. This may be because key values embedded within their favoured techniques of policy evaluation and appraisal effectively preclude full consideration of environmental implications. The second question asks how behaviour is adapted in response to environmental change. The introduction of environmental appraisal procedures in sectors not traditionally considered to have an environmental remit can be regarded as part of a process of adaptation, in which traditional forms of environmental policy, having failed to halt environmental decline, are joined by more systematic efforts to integrate environmental considerations horizontally across government policy sectors. This may be regarded as part of a broader project of ecological modernisation, whereby economic growth becomes decoupled from negative environmental effects usually associated with it. New Opportunities In accordance with the ESRCs expectations for a New Opportunities Programmes, the project synthesises a body of existing empirical research and theoretical literature - in this case, that which covers the relationships between appraisal, policy learning of various kinds, and sustainable development. From this existing body of work (including our own research, much of it yet to be published), and discussions with many of those who have contributed to it, an agenda of further research into these important relationships is emerging. So too, we anticipate, will recommendations for practice. To forge such a new research agenda, the crossing of disciplinary boundaries will be essential. The project identifies differences in expectations of the role to be played by appraisal in relation to sustainable development, and aims to increase the degree of mutual understanding among contributors to literatures on appraisal, evaluation and policy analysis.

Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge)

Detailed Progress:
(i) brief rsum of the development of the research since the start of the award

See sections above for detail.

(ii)

if this is not the first progress report, main developments since the last report

Not applicable. (iii) None (iv) None. (v) an estimate of how far the original timetable will be met) changes introduced or envisaged in the research objectives or methodology any difficulties encountered e.g. in staffing, access, data analysis

The proposed timetable had been met by December, apart from the one-month extension mentioned above.

Owens, Rayner and Bina (University of Cambridge)