Community forests and regeneration in post-industrial landscapes

Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843 www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Community forests and regeneration in post-industrial landscapes Lawrence Kitchen ¤, Terry Marsden, Paul Milbourne School of City and Regional Planning, CardiV University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, CardiV CF10 3WA, United Kingdom Received 3 February 2004; received in revised form 29 July 2005

Abstract Through a critique of existing regeneration literatures the paper points to the close relationship between regeneration and sustainable development. It suggests that the economic aspects of sustainable development have tended to dominate: leading to the neglect of nature in both regeneration and sustainable development, with regeneration having a principal focus on socio-economic issues in urban settings. To address these lacunae we suggest the need for a more environmentally sensitive regeneration theory. Using this approach the paper draws on recent in-depth research in three post-industrial coalWeld areas where regeneration processes operate in the form of community forest projects. It provides a critical perspective on these regeneration processes, integrating theory with empirical data and highlighting how nature is drawn into broader economic and social processes of regeneration. In conclusion, using forestry initiatives as examples, we reXect on the conceptual dissonance apparent in regeneration theory and practice, and point to theoretical insights that could enable a more critical regeneration theory; more beneWcial outcomes to regeneration processes; and an improved understanding of the relations between nature, capital and community in regeneration processes and sustainable development. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Regeneration; Sustainable development; Community forestry; Social (second) nature; Environmental justice

1. Introduction The point of departure of this paper concerns a perceived tendency to neglect environment and nature in existing regeneration literatures. We argue that, within academic literatures, there is a close relationship between dominant approaches to regeneration and the discourse of sustainable development, particularly its economic aspects. Consequently, environment and nature have tended to be neglected. We suggest that the focus in the literature on urban deprivation and on the socio-economic aspects of regeneration has contributed to signiWcant gaps in the consideration of the relations between nature, environment and regeneration processes. This is not to argue that nature and environment are unimportant in urban locations. Rather, it is to emphasise the wider importance of how *

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Kitchen), Marsden [email protected] (T. Marsden), [email protected] (P. Milbourne). 0016-7185/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.008

nature and environment are constructed in all types of space: urban, suburban, peri-urban and rural. The integration of theory and empirical research material in this paper problematizes relations between nature, capital and community in environmental and community regeneration processes, raising issues of social, economic and ecological concern, and environmental justice. Addressing these, issues we reXect on the conceptual dissonance apparent in regeneration theory and practice, and point to theoretical insights that could enable a more critical and environmentally sensitive regeneration theory; more beneWcial outcomes to regeneration processes; and an improved understanding of the relations between nature, capital and community in regeneration processes. In this paper we provide a critical perspective on regeneration processes in certain post-industrial spaces: highlighting the ways that nature is drawn into economic and social regeneration processes. We do this by integrating theory with empirical material drawn from recent research in three coalWeld areas where community forestry projects have been initiated as regeneration processes: the English

832

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

National Forest; the Great North Forest in north-east England; and the Central Scotland Forest. Following the collapse of the United Kingdom deep coal mining industry during the last two decades of the twentieth century, many coalWeld areas were transformed into post-industrial spaces; spaces where industry has collapsed and capital has Xed, leaving a legacy of social welfare issues and damaged landscapes. Given the spatially speciWc single-industry domination of coal mining, its collapse had a profound eVect on local communities. As Coates and Barratt-Brown (1997) argue, the programme of pit closures resulted in residual, trapped populations of unemployed people, with signiWcant levels of social exclusion and disadvantage. In addition the pit closures left extensive areas of derelict land and despoiled landscapes. Community forestry initiatives aim to regenerate environment, economy and community in discrete areas through projects, which include tree planting and other environmental improvements, and also elements such as education, recreation, health, art and grant access. These regeneration initiatives, then, bring back nature to spaces where the environment has been exploited and damaged by extractive industries. Through these forestry projects and their associations with trees and woods, nature is drawn into a set of broader and shifting policy agendas, including socio-economic regeneration, social exclusion/inclusion and sustainable development. Following this introduction the remainder of the paper is divided into four sections. First, we discuss critically the dominant approaches to regeneration theory. Second, we introduce our case study community forests, including discussions of the shifting UK forestry policy agenda, and the rationale for community forests. Third, we draw on recent research in these community forests to examine critically claims of regeneration in these embryonic forest spaces. In conclusion, we suggest ways towards a more environmentally sensitive regeneration theory. 2. Dominant approaches to regeneration Regeneration is a term that has multiple connotations. Furbey (1999) discusses the religious, spiritual, political, biological and organic meanings of regeneration as a signiWer of profound change. He concludes that, owing to its numerous roots, regeneration has become an elastic, powerful and pervasive metaphor in policy-making: a metaphor that oVers possibilities for a range of disparate ideas. Smith (2001), drawing on Hill (1994), points to the urban focus of regeneration: From one perspective, regeneration is the pragmatic application of land-use planning, deregulation and Wnancial incentives, to revive the urban economy. (Hill, 1994, p. 165) While there are a number of recent academic studies that recognise the need to integrate nature, ecology and environment with regeneration discourses, these studies retain a

primarily urban focus (e.g. Bromley et al., 2003; Cowell and Thomas, 2002; Jonas and Gibbs, 2003; Rydin et al., 2003). To a certain extent, then, regeneration policy and discourse has been concerned principally with urban areas and issues, but as Smith (2001, p. 4) suggests, regeneration policy has seen a shift in emphasis from welfare-based social projects to market-led projects, encompassing competitive bidding for funds and focused on economic growth. This shift in emphasis has opened up potential budgets for the delivery of regeneration to rural and ex-coalWeld areas through mechanisms such as the Single Regeneration Budget, RECHAR (Ball, 1999), LEADER (Shucksmith, 2000a) and Rural Challenge (Jones and Little, 2000). In addition, as Smith observes, new discourses have been drawn into regeneration policy and practice: for example, Community Economic Development (Filion, 1998; Foley and Martin, 2000; Haughton, 1999), and regeneration through governance processes (Southern, 2002). Moreover, while regeneration remains concerned principally with urban areas, there is now a speciWc academic focus on rural regeneration, which Morgan (2002) argues is inextricably linked to Common Agricultural Policy developments (Bennett et al., 2000; Edwards et al., 2000; Shucksmith, 2000b). More broadly, regeneration is concerned with the sustainable development of all categories of space, perceived to be deWcient in terms of economy, environment or social cohesion. The discourse of sustainable development is, then, a core theme in regeneration theory, policy and practice. Selected quotes from a range of UK policy documents illustrate sustainable development’s ubiquity. For example the section on ‘Economic and Social Regeneration’ in Rural Strategy 2004 issued by the Department for Environment Food and Rural AVairs (DEFRA) refers to a ‘new Planning Policy Statement on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7)’: PPS7 seeks to embed the principles of sustainable development in the planning system as it applies to rural areas. (DEFRA, 2004, p. 14) The public policy framework for community-based regeneration draws explicitly on sustainable development discourse to the extent that it has a section devoted to sustainable development (Development Trusts Association, 1997). Social inclusion is perceived to be a key component of regeneration and policy makers seek to integrate social inclusion and sustainable development, notwithstanding perceived tensions between environmental and social concerns (Policy Studies Institute, 2002). Other regeneration discourses such as Community Economic Development (Haughton, 1999, p. 14) reXect inclusive ecological integrity. But, as Campbell (1996) suggests, the elusive ideal of sustainable development lies within a triangle of conXicting goals, with vertices of economic development, social justice and environmental protection. It is argued widely that economic development has gained the ascendancy in these conXicts and that sustainable development has come to mean sustainable economic development.

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

2.1. Sustainable development: the environmental critique Environmental critiques of sustainable development suggest that economists have appropriated its original expression of environmental concern. Put broadly, writers such as Dobson (1996), Dryzek (1997), Escobar (1996), Fischer and Black (1995), Foster (2002), McManus (1996), and O’Connor (1994) argue that development strategies require radical changes to meet environmental limits but that economic sustainable development discourse has succeeded in marginalising the discourses of limited growth implied by the current global situation. Consequently, conservation and development can be proposed as convergent rather than divergent objectives, and the rhetorics of economic growth and environmental concern can be combined and not opposed, allowing policy makers to endorse and embrace sustainable development without fear of compromising current lifestyles and accumulation strategies. A recent development in the environmental critique of sustainable development is the deployment of Regulation Theory, which focuses on the ability of capital to maintain its accumulation strategies in the face of the regular crises and contradictions inherent in capitalism (e.g. Aglietta, 1979; Jessop, 1997; Tickell and Peck, 1992). There is a growing corpus advocating regulation approaches to issues of sustainable development and the relations between nature, environment, capital and society; many of which are concerned with conditions where primary industries such as mining and forestry may be seen to alter and produce nature. For example, Bridge and McManus (2000) illustrate how the forestry sector in British Columbia and the mining sector in Nevada have incorporated environmental sustainability discourses into their modes of social regulation in order to forestall the implication of these extractive and nature-appropriating industries in potential environmental crises. 2.2. Sustainable development: the environmental justice critique Sustainable development also intersects the environmental justice agenda (e.g. Schlosberg, 1999). For example, Holland (1999) criticises the economic emphasis of sustainable development, and argues that it may not serve to protect the future environment. Similarly, for Norton (1999) the key component of sustainable development is intergenerational equity and well-being, and he argues that current discourses of sustainable development are inadequate at protecting or enhancing the future environment. And while Dobson (1998) attempts to formulate an overarching theory of environmental justice, one that would cement the relations between sustainability and justice, he concludes that: ƒ the justice and sustainability agendas are diVerent, and it may also be that the agenda for the defence of non-human nature is diVerent from both of these.

833

There will inevitably be points at which all three agendas intersect, but everything here suggests that it would be a mistake to take common interest for granted. (Dobson, 1998, p. 262) But, Dobson suggests, it all depends on how environmental sustainability and social justice are deWned in the Wrst place; and as Barry (1999, p. 101) argues, disagreements concerning the deWnition of sustainability are not a basis for dismissing it as a project. Pointing to the complex and contested nature of sustainable development—a complexity that tends to engender conXicts between diVerent industries and those who depend on them; between developed and developing nations; and between the interests of generations—Low and Gleeson assert the necessary precedence of environmental justice: Sustainable development without environmental justice is an empty formula. (Low and Gleeson, 1998, p. 14) 2.3. Regeneration theory: second nature and third nature Sustainable development, then, is the subject of critique on the grounds of its economic bias and its limited potential to address environmental justice issues. Given that sustainable development is a core theme of regeneration, these critiques apply also to regeneration. Drawing from this discussion, we suggest that the innate economic emphasis of current regeneration theory, Xowing from its close relationship with sustainable development, leads to an inadequate consideration of the relations between, on the one hand, economic development and capital, and, on the other hand, nature and environment. A more environmentally sensitive approach to regeneration is required to address these theoretical lacunae. Arguably the seminal work in this area is that of Smith (1984) and the idea of second nature. Smith argues that nature is produced through a series of historical political economic processes of appropriation of nature by capital, which transforms ‘Wrst’ nature into ‘second’ nature deWned in commodity terms. For Smith, Hegel’s ‘idealist second nature’ constituted in free will and the laws of the market provide the template for capitalist ‘second nature’. Smith argues that with production for exchange and proWt, nature-society relations are altered radically such that capitalist nature becomes a hegemonic regime: that the imperative of capital and the processes of material production result in the appropriation and production of nature by human beings on a global scale. Moreover, Smith argues, within the logic of exchange value, Wrst and second nature are redeWned as Wrst nature is produced from within and as part of second nature. With the production of Wrst nature, the distinction between Wrst nature, as the non-human world, and second nature, as the humanly produced world, collapses. First nature is concrete and material: the nature of commodities having use and exchange values. Second nature is abstract and is social nature:

834

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

The same piece of matter exists simultaneously in both natures; as physical commodity subject to the laws of gravity and physics it exists in the Wrst nature, but as exchange-value subject to the laws of the market, it travels in the second nature. Human labour produces the Wrst nature, human relations produce the second. (Smith, 1984, p. 55) From a slightly diVerent angle, and pointing to the diVering uses of the term sustainable development, O’Connor (1998) argues that for environmentalists sustainability means the use of renewable resources and non-accumulation of pollution; for ecologists it means the maintenance of natural systems, air quality and wilderness protection; for sociologists, the sustaining of community; and: Capital, of course, uses the term to mean sustainable proWts, which presuppose long-term planning of the exploitation and use of renewable and non-renewable resources, and of the “global commons”. (O’Connor, 1998, p. 249) In short, O’Connor argues, the interests of capital pursue only economic sustainability and are inimical to sustainable development conceived more broadly. Escobar (1996) further develops the idea of second nature, arguing that in sustainable development discourse there is a continuous reinvention of nature, such that it comes to be regarded as capital. In addition, Escobar points to the ‘second contradiction of capitalism’. ReXecting capitalism’s Wrst contradiction between its productive forces and production relations, there is a second contradiction involving capital’s self-destructive relationship with its conditions of production, which is manifested in the perceived ecological crisis (O’Connor, 1998). Escobar suggests that a focus on the conditions of production in capitalist accumulation is required. For Escobar, human labourpower, infrastructure, space, nature and environment are the conditions of production; capitalism commodiWes them by ascribing Wctitious prices in markets. Escobar concludes that the eVects of sustainable development discourse include the creation of knowledge linked to capital; the perception that poverty is linked to damaged environments (pace the environmental justice agenda); the ascription of nature as environment; and the capitalization of natural resources: Trees produced capitalistically on plantations, privatized land and water rights, genetically altered species sold in the market ƒ are all examples of the “capitalization” of nature and human life. This process is mediated by the state; indeed, the state must be seen as an interface between capital and nature, including human beings and space. (Escobar, 1996, p. 55) There are positive aspects to these capital processes. For example, in our case studies the state has recognised that certain environments have been despoiled by extractive

industry and has backed regeneration projects that draw on nature to regenerate Wrstly environment, and then, in integrative processes, society and economy. Proceeding from second nature, we suggest that the processes described by Escobar potentially construct a more positive ‘third nature’. 2.4. Urban political ecology Urban political ecology (UPE) (Kiel, 2003) is a recent theoretical development in nature-society relations. The principal thrust of UPE is to excavate the complexities of the socio-natural, socio-ecological and socio-economic processes that interact with global capital Xows and exchanges to constitute cities and other urban settlements. Kiel (2003, p. 725) suggests two reasons for UPE’s urban focus. Firstly, we are, increasingly, an urban species. Secondly, Kiel points to the importance of Lefebrve’s (1991, 1996, 2003) work for UPE: that urban society has succeeded rural and industrial modes as the ‘currently relevant incarnation of historical capitalist forms of societilization’. Notwithstanding its privileging of the urban, UPE delivers a critique of prevailing sustainable development and regeneration discourses in ways that connect with environmental justice (Agyemon et al., 2002); regulation theory (Gibbs, 2002); and, especially, the ‘second-nature’ approaches discussed above. For example, Swyngedouw and Heynen (2003) call for attention to the inter-related webs and networks within which nature is transformed by social and economic processes to produce both new natures, and uneven development and power relations. And, connecting with community forests, Heynen (2003) explores how the scale and ecology of urban forests (single trees, groups and islands of trees) aVects and is aVected by uneven social and power relations. Taken together, the literatures discussed point to the need for theoretical approaches to regeneration sensitive to nature and environment. We illustrate this more environmentally sensitive approach by exploring empirical examples from recent research on community forest projects in three UK coalWeld areas. These case studies, we suggest, present examples of processes that attempt to construct ‘third nature’. They are in areas where, over time, the extractive industry of coalmining has appropriated and constructed spaces of ‘second nature’: a nature of derelict landscapes. The community forest projects aim to construct ‘third nature’, a more palatable, ecologically healthy, though still commodiWed, nature, through environmental regeneration. 3. Community forests: integrating environment and nature into regeneration Community forests are a relatively recent addition to UK forestry practice and it is useful to contextualize them within UK forestry policy. The key player in UK state forestry is the Forestry Commission (FC). Established in

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

1919, FC’s initial remit was to create a strategic reserve of timber in case of future war. Possessing the legal status of a government department, FC has traditionally combined a number of roles: research, regulation, planting, management of the forest estate and advising government on forestry policy. Historically, through shifts of rationale from strategic reserve to targets such as import substitution and rural employment, productivist aVorestation remained as the principal focus of policy: planting targets and Treasury discount rates ensured that FC sought to buy and aVorest marginal upland areas where land was cheap. Arguably, productivist forestry constitutes a form of ‘second nature’. Reinforced by tax relief incentives oVered for planting trees, productivist forestry remained the predominant policy discourse until the late 1980s. Since then, in response to a range of challenges from environmental organisations (e.g. NCC, 1987; RSPB, 1986; Tompkins, 1986, 1989) and a general increase in environmental concerns, Mather (2001) observes a sharply deWned turn towards post-productivism: In forestry, it can be characterised in simple terms by a reduction in emphasis on timber production relative to the provision of environmental goods and services. It also extends to the environmental relations of the forest and forestry management practices, and to the regulation thereof. (Mather, 2001, p. 250) Community forest projects are a particular and signiWcant development of post-productivism; a development that moves beyond ‘a reduction in emphasis on timber production’ into regeneration broadly conceived. There are community forest projects operating across the UK, but the ‘Community Forest programme’, which operates only in England, epitomises the aims and ethos of community forests. Initiated in the early 1990s the National Community Forest Partnership consists of the Countryside Agency, the Forestry Commission, 58 local authorities and other national and local organisations (www.communityforest. org.uk). There are twelve Community Forests in England: their boundaries encompass a total of 452,649 ha and a total population of 26.4 million people live within 20 km of a Community Forest (Countryside Agency, 1999). Many community forests are newly planted, although some incorporate ancient woods such as Sherwood Forest. Southern England has Wve community forests, with two in the midlands, and Wve in the north of England. The community forests in the north and midlands all encompass coalWeld areas, while Marston Vale in the south was the site of extensive brick-clay extraction. The aims of the Community Forest programme, projected over a 40 year period, are to provide high quality environments for local populations; manage new and existing woodlands to encourage commercial enterprise initiatives; enhance and maintain wildlife biodiversity; provide access to recreational amenities; encourage new social skills

835

such as community arts; provide access to education and understanding of the natural world; and build pride in place identity (Countryside Agency, 1999, p. 4). Practical tasks to achieve these aims include: extensive new tree planting; bringing existing woodland into management and opening it up for access; creating an extensive network of public access routes such as paths and tracks; managing and creating non-woodland habitats; planting hedgerows; and restoring derelict land for forest use. Community forest projects are designed not only to improve the local ecology, but to enhance local economies and social conditions by involving local populations, increasing social capital, raising property values, and attracting inward investment, new businesses and new jobs, both within and out with the forestry sector. In summary, community forest projects seek social, economic and environmental regeneration (Countryside Agency, 1999, p. 15). They represent an attempt to bring back nature to spaces where the environment has been exploited and damaged by extractive industries such as coal mining. Through an association with forests, woods and trees, nature is being drawn into broader economic and social regeneration policy processes. 3.1. The case study community forests: research methods Research was carried out at two spatial scales in three coalWeld areas where community forest projects were in operation (Fig. 1). Firstly, there was an area-wide scale involving interviews with local government, forest project personnel and environmental interest groups. Secondly, there was a local focus on two ex-mining communities in each of the three forest areas. In each community a series of six discussions was held with local groups. Discussion group participants were asked to indicate their willingness to give one-to-one interviews at a later date. Ten of these individual interviews were done in each community. The Weldwork necessitated extended periods of time in these communities, which enabled an ethnographic research component (Kitchen et al., 2004). The Wrst case study area was the English National Forest, which was Wrst proposed in a policy statement entitled Forestry in the Countryside (Countryside Commission, 1987). In 1990, following competition between Wve areas, central government selected an area of almost 512 square km in the English midlands. Key to the selection was that the central, coalWeld section of the area was among the least wooded in the UK (Sheail, 1997a). Sheail emphasises the critical role of central government, which embraced the National Forest vision as an example of how environmental care could be achieved through economic development. The National Forest’s symbolic position at the heart of England, and its status as a Xagship policy initiative have resulted in a considerable literature analysing its development (e.g. Allison, 1996; Bell and Evans, 1998; Beaverstock et al., 1997; Cloke et al., 1996a,b; Sheail, 1997a,b). Cloke et al. (1996b) focus on the sustainable development aims of the National Forest Company Strategy:

836

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

Fig. 1. Case study areas and research communities: the forest areas.

Sustainable development of the Forest is at the heart of the Forest’s philosophy ƒ. Economic sustainability will arise from the development of a sustainable forest industry and the broader regeneration of the local economy. (National Forest, 1994, p. 5) The second case studied was the Great North Forest in north-east England, which was part of the Community Forest programme described above. A newly forested area, this was the smallest study area, consisting of 205 square km of County Durham, south Tyne and Wear, and Derwentside. This forest encompassed isolated rural ex-mining communities, rugged scenery, opencast mining and bordered on the large urban spaces of Sunderland, Gateshead and Washington. The strategy of the Great North Forest connected regeneration, economic development, the environment and sustainable development: As exemplars, the Community Forests can assist companies in addressing sustainable development as well as creating sustainable industries of their own. (Countryside Commission, 1993, p. 5)

Finally, although it was not within the Community Forest programme, the Central Scotland Forest subscribed to a similar set of aims and objectives. The Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSCT), with the support of FC, administered the forest project. Bordering the large cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, at 1587 square km it was the largest study area, and within its boundaries there was a range of landscape types including extensive tracts of derelict, post-industrial countryside, with ongoing opencast mineral extraction and a number of remote ex-mining communities. Similarly to the other community forests, sustainable development is highlighted as a key principle for the establishment and management of the Central Scotland Forest (Central Scotland Countryside Trust, 1995, p. 16). Sustainable development, then, pervades these three initiatives for regeneration through community forestry. In a similar way to sustainable development discourse, community forest strategies and rhetoric resonate with an inclusive ethos that seeks the integration of economy, environment and community.

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

3.2. Commonalities across the case study community forests All three study areas had a history of mining, in addition to new forestry projects. Now the latter was seen as a regenerative palliative to the legacy of the former. Although the study areas were in diVerent parts of the UK, with diVerent landscapes and histories, there were commonalities in their histories and cultures of coal mining. The deep coalmines had long since closed but many of the discussants and interviewees for the research project recalled the mines in operation, having either worked in the mines or having coal miners in their families. Ex-miners were aware that they had been complicit in exploiting local nature for capital accumulation, and that they had in turn been exploited, not least in the environmental conditions that were outcomes of these exploited natures. They recalled the patina of coal dust that used to cover their houses and their washing-lines; the roads made persistently Wlthy by coal dust slurry; the noise of heavy machinery, railway trains and heavy road traYc; and the polluted watercourses and land, such as the still highly toxic Lambton Coke Works in the Great North Forest. There were other commonalities associated with coal mining: where the architecture, machinery and practices of mineral extraction had signiWcantly transformed the landscape. Amid agricultural Welds, meadows, hills and woods transformations by mineral extraction processes stood out. Coal-tips, known as ‘bings’ in Scotland, and ‘banks’ in the Midlands and the North East, rose steeply like small mountain ranges. These ‘socio-natural’ (Swyngedouw, 1999) geographical formations, produced by the social, industrial and capital accumulation processes inscribed in them, were described in policy terms as ‘derelict land’, but wild nature showed signs of clawing its way back in the form of wild Xowers, shrubs and weeds. In addition to the sites being reclaimed by wild nature, capital accumulation processes continued in the form of opencast mining and quarrying. Opencast mining is not a large-scale employer but it does transform landscapes and produce particular modes of social nature (Beynon et al., 2000). When an opencast site is exhausted, leaving an extensive depression, there is the potential for landWll operations. There were landWll sites in all three of the forest areas. Drawing on Smith’s (1984) ‘second nature’, then, both state interventions and fractions of capital had at speciWc times, produced and aVected landscape, environment and nature in these spaces: mining nature, post-industrial nature, second nature and, most recently, third nature, in the form of the community forestry projects. As discussed earlier, these community forestry projects represented state-backed initiatives for regeneration: attempts to bring back nature to spaces where the environment had been exploited and damaged by extractive industries. They were constituted in the three components of regeneration and sustainable development: environment, economy and society. The analysis and discussion below highlights tensions and contradictions, and points to competing discourses

837

and understandings of nature, regeneration and sustainable development in these processes. 4. Community forests: regeneration and sustainable development outcomes To a certain extent the ways that each of these community forests integrated the environmental, social and economic components of regeneration and sustainable development reXected their institutional structures. In the National Forest the commercial ethos of the National Forest Company (NFC) was reproduced in regeneration-based organisations. Moira Replan and Ibstock Community Enterprises were grant-funded organisations, focused on economic regeneration. They ran job-training and information technology schemes; provided banking and credit facilities; and were initiating regeneration-oriented intermediate labour markets. The Ashby Woulds Regeneration Forum comprised representatives of the NFC, local government, local community groups, local church groups, miners welfare associations, landowners and mineral operators. Regeneration and community groups in the Great North Forest were not as economically orientated as in the National Forest. The Groundwork Trusts had strong links to the forest project; groups such as Craghead Woods Group, South Stanley Partnership and the Square Route Group were focused on environmental concerns; and organisations such as the Shiney Resource and Advice Project (SHARP) were more concerned with social issues. Local authority oYcials argued that the existence of the Great North Forest as a focus for regeneration had enabled councils to attract signiWcant resources. The Central Scotland Forest was connected to community groups and local projects. In addition, there were community regeneration groups as yet unconnected to the Central Scotland Forest, such as those at Limerigg, Slammanan and Forth. The most visible environmental regeneration outcomes, related to the forests, were the countryside parks and the new tree plantations. Using pit and opencast sites the country parks contained newly planted trees, small lakes and ponds; car parks; amenity buildings; children’s facilities; interpretation boards; and networks of planned pathways. The Sence Valley Country Forest Park near Ibstock, and Sarah’s Wood, an all-abilities forest park at Moira were key sites in the National Forest regeneration of derelict land programme. In the Great North Forest there were a number of new ‘Gateway’ country parks being established including Riverside Park at Chester le Street; Watergate Farm Park in Gateshead; Wardley Red Barns, a colliery site near South Tyneside; and Herrington Country Park, a regenerated opencast site adjoining Shiney Row. In the Central Scotland Forest country parks had been established on derelict land at Polkemmet, Beecraigs and Palacerigg, and there was a range of local community forest projects, including those at Greenhead Moss, Plains and Langlees.

838

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

Regenerated derelict sites and new tree plantations were key to the community forest projects’ sustainable development strategies. They provided opportunities for recreation, tourism and improved ecological diversity. In addition, these regenerated sites were becoming a focus for community activity. For example, in the National Forest local schools used forest sites for natural history and wildlife projects. The Great North Forest project team had a team of outreach workers running forest-oriented community projects, and there had been an extensive community arts programme based on forest spaces. In central Scotland, where industrially related poor health was seen as a key component of social exclusion, local doctors referred some patients to the ‘Green Gym’. These patients did voluntary work, of a moderately strenuous type, on Central Scotland Forest projects. A similar scheme operated in the National Forest area. These regeneration outcomes were achieved through a range of partnership arrangements between the respective forest project organisations, local government and other partners such as FC, Woodland Trusts, Nature Conservation, English Heritage, Wildlife Trusts, Groundwork Trusts, the Countryside Agency and the Scottish Executive. Some of the regeneration initiatives, such as tree planting in the National Forest, involved voluntary community participation programmes. Using these partnership-networks the forest project organisations acted as enablers for local groups and parish councils to access grants for tree planting and for regeneration more broadly conceived: I think the regeneration of the forest is causing further regeneration of the forest – the canal – the reclamation of the spoil sites ƒ. When you think of the forest you will think of the canal, you will think of the landscaping that has gone on – the regeneration. (Retired Mining Engineer, National Forest 10/06/02) I think one of the prime strengths of community forests is that ability to address social, environmental and economic agendas simultaneously. Not pretend that they are separate issues but show that joined up thing. (Countryside Agency 23/07/02) Interviewees argued that the general enhancement of the regenerated environment promoted sustainable development. This was most evident in the National Forest. The implicit link, argued by several interviewees, between the National Forest project and sustainable economic regeneration was that improving the natural environment of the area had attracted more people to live there; encouraged tourism; and attracted businesses and inward investment. They observed that the area was now cleaner and more pleasant, and pointed to the increasing housing development; to increases in tourist visits to forest sites; and to new businesses in the forest area. Although observations concerning the enhanced natural environment were general to all three of the community forest projects, perceptions of economic regeneration were conWned to the National For-

est. Across the forests, there was, however, a range of tensions and contradictions concerned with the modalities of production, regeneration and economic development. 4.1. Modalities of production: second and third nature conXicts The key tension concerned ongoing opencast coal mining operations in these forest areas. Opencast mining is, as mentioned earlier, often followed by landWll, and interviewees expressed serious misgivings concerning ongoing opencast and landWll operations and the possibilities of future permissions for these activities, presented by the presence of extensive, untapped coal measures under the forest areas. Moreover, it was argued that opencast mining brought little to the local economy. The few staV required tended to be specialist contractors who travelled with the job; worked long shifts; slept on site; and returned home to other parts of the country during their oV-duty periods (see also Beynon et al., 2000). These tensions may be seen as conXicts between the modalities of second and third nature, with the producers of a regenerated third nature perceived as supporters of the continuing production of environmentally damaging second nature. All three forestry project organisations took a pragmatic stance on the issues of opencast and landWll. They stated that they would support, or at least not object to, applications for future opencast and landWll, and argued that they were not environmental campaign organisations. Their interest was in the forest project and its ramiWcations, and they had to form partnerships with planning departments and mineral operators. They argued that opencast and landWll had potential for planning gain and future regeneration, funded by private capital. In addition, landWll tax credits provided signiWcant income towards local regeneration. The National Forest position was typical of the project stance and points to the power of capital: What we are doing as a company is working with those who are doing the opencasting. You have got ten to Wfteen years of working left. After that has Wnished what we would like to see are country parks or wildlife sites. So we work with them now so that they start to put together their restoration plans. So that when it is Wnished we will get the beneWt. We have no powers – we cannot tell them what to do. But we work in partnership and say – how about? What we want is for the mineral companies to get what they want – get it over and done with – get their money and then they are more likely to support us. (NFC Representative, 30/4/02) By contrast, community regeneration groups and respondents argued that opencast and landWll operations were inimical to the regeneration ethos of the forest projects and damaging to the local environment: that the project organisations should take a position against mineral operations and landWll in the forest areas.

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

In the National Forest one environmental interest group had formed to address concerns about opencast mining and landWll operations. Its members suggested that deals between NFC and the mineral operators were struck in the Ashby Woulds Regeneration Forum, which they argued was closed to the wider community. They stated that they had sought the support of the NFC against opencast and landWll proposals but had been rebuVed: The exploitation of the environment is continuing, hidden under the cloak of the National Forest. (Blackfordby, National Forest, 22/5/2002) One reason that communities, and local authorities, objected to opencast proposals, apart from noise pollution, dirt and dust, and increased heavy road traYc, was that there was a history of mineral developers reneging on environmental regeneration agreements: the Kobec opencast site near Forth was cited as a current example. A Central Scotland Forest development oYcer observed that: Traditionally there were a lot of small operators in this area. There were quite a number of companies operating and they were sort of the classic, I shouldn’t say it on tape – ‘cowboy’ type operator – you know they make their quick buck and go away – and in fact there are several abandoned coal mines in the area where the operator went bust – and no restoration bond existed. (Central Scotland Forest, 10/09/02) Local authority planners conWrmed that a number of opencast operators had gone into liquidation before ful-Wlling the regeneration agreements of their opencast permissions. Permissions policy now required the mineral operator to lodge a bond against failure to comply with the regeneration agreement, but it was argued that, in the event of compliance failure, local authorities lacked the expertise to carry out the regeneration. LandWll operations were a particularly contentious issue in the Central Scotland Forest, with landWll sites close to Forth, at Levenseat, Climpy, and Greengairs. Indeed, Greengairs had provided empirical material for a paper on the incipient environmental justice movement in Scotland (Scandrett et al., 2000). There were also landWll issues in the Great North Forest and the National Forest. There were, then, widely held arguments that local environments had been, and continued to be, exploited by fractions of capital. Moreover, it was perceived that the forestry projects were complicit in this environmental exploitation, which, particularly through opencast mining, was both detrimental to local communities and contradicted the regeneration ethos of the forestry projects. 4.2. Modalities of regeneration: environmental and social considerations Programmes and tools for regeneration were also issues of concern. It was argued that, for the community forest projects, meeting targets for tree planting often

839

overrode environmental regeneration. It was further argued that some project-initiated regeneration had been unnecessary and even damaging to the natural environment: You’ve got wetlands – a lot of old mineral workings. Very successfully they regenerated themselves into wonderful wildlife habitats. Those have now been bulldozed in the interests of so-called regeneration. What they are doing is almost as bad as the Forestry Commission when it covered our hillsides and certain parts of the country with conifers – and that is changing the ecology. (National Forest, 22/5/02) There were also concerns about the appropriateness of forests and woods as tools for social regeneration. Firstly, there were those who argued that forests were irrelevant to regeneration processes in the particular circumstances of deprived areas. In the Central Scotland Forest, for example, a representative of the Levenseat Trust, an environmental NGO that administered LandWll Tax Credits, argued that the forest would not be able to provide viable economic and employment opportunities; its only social role would be to provide access and recreation: I do Wnd this thing of community woodlands quite vague. It’s taken on board that a lot of people need community woodlands. It’s not what they really want. They want access – they want somewhere nice to take their dog for a walk. (Levenseat Trust 11/10/02) A local FC manager was concerned that recreation, health and forests would not be a high priority for many of the local population: Because a lot of times in these areas, people are more concerned about the damp coming down the walls – they don’t have a job. Somewhere to walk is nice – but it’s not highest up on their priorities. (FC, Central Scotland 11/09/02) Similar arguments were expressed in the Great North Forest, particularly by SURESTART, a government initiative targeted at families with young children in communities experiencing social exclusion, and by SHARP: Ask anyone around here do they want a country park or an Asda. They would say let’s have an Asda. The parents just home in on what beneWts they can get now. They don’t look at the whole, long-term picture. (SURESTART 10/07/02) You can talk about the forest, but if you asked in Shiney Row – what would you want – a forest or an Asda in the middle of that roundabout? They would say an Asda in the middle of that roundabout. You can keep your forest because that forest is no good to people around here. When you are not feeling well in yourself – when you have got worries – Wnancial worries – housing worries, the forest isn’t a priority really. (SHARP 10/07/02)

840

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

The second strand of argument was more of an actively negative understanding of woods and forests. There was the studied apathy of some young people towards the forest projects: It’s boring – just a load of trees. I don’t like trees. (Moira Youth Club 1/05/02) But as in previous studies (e.g. Bishop et al., 2002; Burgess, 1995, 1996; Kitchen et al., 2002; MacNaghten and Urry, 2000) there was fear of the forest. In all three community forests, women especially expressed fear of the forest. Forests were perceived as frightening places where women and children were in danger. It was argued that extending the tree cover provided more opportunities for vandalism, arson, vehicle theft and joy-riding, and drug-related crime. Community interviewees in all three forest areas expressed similar concerns. Pennywell Woods, in the Great North Forest on the edge of Sunderland, and Fauldhouse Community Woods, in the Central Scotland Forest, were cited as particular examples of failed regeneration projects, which were now ‘no-go’ areas: There was a lot of money pumped into that area. I mean, all local community groups were involved. They employed artists who did sculptures. Mothers and toddlers groups were involved – schools, youth groups – everything. And I mean it was seen as, you know, a great beneWt to the community. But then after three years no-one would take on the upkeep of this bit of the forest and if you went to see it now – it’s like all the seats are burnt – it’s used as a dumping ground. (Mother, Great North Forest 9/07/02) From this perspective an increase in woods and forests, rather than contributing to regeneration and sustainable development, was exacerbating social exclusion. DiVerent understandings of nature also surfaced. For example, there was evidence that the community forests were contributing to wildlife diversity. Interviewees observed increases in wildlife activity, such as foxes, deer, birds and wildXowers. National Forest interviewees reported that Sence Valley Forest Country Park was becoming a nationally known site for ornithology. In the Great North Forest, established woods such as Craghead Woods were dense and had extensive species diversity, including reports of red squirrels. Encouraged by FC provision of ‘raptor perches’, in Scotland there were increasing numbers of owls, sparrow hawks, hen harriers and goshawks. But community representatives in the Central Scotland Forest were in dispute with FC concerning raptor’s depredations of their racing pigeons. And others did not welcome increases in wildlife: Aye, unwanted wildlife such as like foxes, rabbits. If it is all farm land you maybe wouldn’t get as much, but if there is somewhere to stay in woods nearby. You see nature programmes, if there are woods nearby you see foxes in back gardens -nuisance stuV. You know

somebody wants to reintroduce wolves up here, don’t you? (Forth Bowls Club 9/09/02) Similarly, while many welcomed the controlled, palatable nature of country parks, they were concerned that wilder forest spaces aVorded increased opportunities for ‘country’ activities such as hunting with terriers, lamping, poaching and even badger baiting, and for newer, perceived antisocial activities such as motor-bike scrambling. These observations connected with the earlier evidence of fear of the forest and social exclusion. 4.3. Modalities of regeneration: economic aspects In the National Forest area concerns were also expressed with respect to some aspects of economic regeneration. There were perceptions that a two-tier economy was developing. New businesses to the area tended to be in the consumer goods distribution industry. Consequently, it was argued that a low skill, low pay economy was developing, with decreases in unemployment not necessarily accompanied by signiWcant increases in the amount of disposable income available in the area. A lot of the slag heaps have been changed into, not necessarily industrial places where people work, but places like the National Forest Discovery Centre and Conkers – service jobs. But no signiWcant employer has been brought in. (Ashby Woulds History Society 29/4/02) I don’t see any growth locally and economically – I don’t see any growth in employment that is going to be outstanding. Most of the communities have become virtually dormitories for other areas. The only growth will be in leisure, tourism and visitor attractions. Again no signiWcant impact on employment – only small numbers. (Moira REPLAN 30/4/ 02) A second tier comprised higher income, technical and managerial grades in the local industries, who tended to come from and live outside of the area. Conversely, it was argued that the population increase, which owed to the National Forest’s new popularity as a dormitory for commuters to Birmingham and Leicester, was leading to infrastructure overstretch, particularly in healthcare and education, and, contrarily, to a loss of green spaces: In fact because of the National Forest we are going to lose a lot of our greenery because so many people want to come and live here. They are building a thousand houses down the road from where you are staying. (Ashby Woulds History Society 23/05/02) The National Forest area’s popularity had, of course, raised house prices and interviewees at all scales were concerned that young and less aZuent local people were being excluded from the housing market:

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

There are house builders moving in and building new houses but at the end of the day they are not moving in and building one bedroom Xats for those who can’t aVord to get on the property ladder. So that’s maybe a false feeling that we could help in that respect. (NFC Representative 2, 30/4/02) These arguments connected with the modalities of economic development observed above, and some regeneration organisation and local authority interviewees argued that the National Forest was increasing social exclusion by creating spaces that were inaccessible to disabled people, and by charging excessive prices for access to some forest tourist sites. As indicated earlier, it was only in the National Forest that economic regeneration was a factor and problems were perceived. Indeed, in central Scotland they would have welcomed the opportunity to have these problems: So there is potential for us to change our use, if we had these facilities, the walks and sporting venues, we then could perhaps become a commuter village because we live within travel distance of Glasgow, Falkirk, Stirling and Edinburgh. You are only talking about being, at the most forty-Wve minutes from any of these places. So we could bring a new generation into the village because the village is getting older. So bring in some yuppies. (Forth Regeneration Initiative, 11/10/02) There was, then, a wide range of diVerent understandings of nature, regeneration and sustainable development across the three community forest areas. We suggest that identiWcation, observation and analysis of these diVerent understandings are enabled by sensitivity to the environmental component of regeneration and sustainable development processes. 5. Conclusions: towards a critical, environmentally sensitive regeneration theory The analysis here has been drawn from recent research in three coalWeld areas of England and Scotland, where the collapse of the coal mining industry had contributed to disadvantaged communities and damaged environments. Community forestry projects, which receive a certain degree of backing from the state, have been initiated in these areas as a particular mode of regeneration; a mode that it is claimed integrates society, economy and environment. As Escobar (1996) argues, the state has an important mediating role in the processes of capital accumulation as the interface between capital, nature, community and space. In the case of these community forestry projects the state has, at the least, backed them as regeneration projects. The claims being made are that, just as mineral extraction processes have carved out nature from these areas, constructed second nature (Smith, 1984), and left derelict land, nature can be brought back through the introduction of trees, woods and an improved environment; a more positive,

841

state-induced third nature can be constructed. Regeneration and sustainable development will then Xow from the forest process in the forms of ecological diversity, inward investment, and a general economic and social uplift. The research data reveal, however, a range of contradictions and tensions. The wellspring of regeneration theory is sustainable development. As Campbell (1996) argues, we can approach the seductive vision of sustainable development only approximately and indirectly by attempting to resolve the tensions between the fundamental aims of sustainable development: the vertices of the triangle formed by social equity, environmental protection and economic development. But, as we have discussed, the critique of sustainable development suggests that it has come to be dominated by economic aspects; a shift in emphasis reXected by a focus on the economy in regeneration theory and policy. Using an environmentally oriented framework the analysis shows that the triangular tensions discussed theoretically are grounded and made real in the implementation of these particular regeneration processes. While the analysis pointed to a range of outcomes positive for regeneration and sustainable development in these areas, there were also a number of negativities. These included local community concerns about the appropriateness of forests as a regeneration instrument; forests as dangerous places, and as catalysts for social exclusion; and negativities in economic regeneration. Importantly, there were local community perceptions of fundamental contradictions in the regeneration ethos of these community forestry projects. This is the point where the regeneration, sustainable development and environmental justice agendas intersect. To reiterate: Sustainable development without environmental justice is an empty formula. (Low and Gleeson, 1998, p. 14) Local community, and some local authority respondents, expressed concerns about the ongoing processes of opencast mining and landWll operations in these newly forested areas. It was argued that sustainable development, broadly conceived, and environmental and social justice were being sacriWced for the beneWt of capital. The data reveal dissonance in regeneration theory, policy and practice, with tensions between the rhetoric of regeneration policy and a practice that continues to encompass and encourage the production of second nature by capital. Taken together with the other evidence, including the positive regeneration outcomes, there is the material for vigorous debates; an embryonic environmental politics between the community forest organisations; partnership members such as FC and Countryside Agency; local authorities; mineral and landWll operators; and the environmental NGO’s and local organic environmental and community interest groups that are emerging in the case study areas. We suggest that regeneration theory must be

842

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843

more environmentally sensitive if it is to observe, reXect on and inform these debates. We have argued that regeneration theory tends to be normative and that it needs a critical dimension: more speciWcally a dimension sensitive to nature and environment. This critical dimension, we have suggested, can be achieved by integrating regeneration theory with the environmental and justice critiques of sustainable development, particularly with an emerging urban political ecology, and with the critical concepts of second and third nature. To reiterate, the idea of second nature points explicitly to the ways that nature becomes social nature; produced, altered and commodiWed by fractions of capital in social, economic and natural processes. Third nature implies the positive ways by which a (re) commodiWed nature is brought back to derelict landscapes. These ideas are apposite in cases of mineral extraction and forestry, which both produce nature and shape environments coincident with deprived communities. This is not to suggest any conspiracy or connivance between the state, represented by the forest organisations and local government, and vested capital interests, in the forms of mineral and landWll operators. But we do suggest that regeneration theory and policy must recognise that capital has the ability to contribute to social processes that shape, alter, produce and construct nature and environment. In conclusion, we argue that the innate economic emphasis of regeneration theory, Xowing from its close relationship with sustainable development, leads to an inadequate consideration of the relations between the development and maintenance of social cohesion; economic development and capital; and nature and environment. A critical approach to regeneration and sustainable development, one more sensitive to nature and environment, is required to address these theoretical lacunae. This critical aspect could enable regeneration theory to inform regeneration discourse and political debates that would take account of, and engage with, debates on economy, environmental protection and development, and social and environmental justice: the three components of sustainable development and regeneration. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Forestry Commission for funding this research. All interpretations are the responsibility of the authors. We also thank the three anonymous referees for their insightful comments. References Aglietta, M., 1979. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. New Left Books, London. Agyemon, J., Bullard, R., Evans, B., 2002. Exploring the nexus: bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space and Polity 6, 77–90. Allison, L., 1996. On planning a forest. Town Planning Review 67 (2), 131–143.

Ball, R., 1999. Delivering new potential for community economic development? European structural funds, RECHAR II and the West Midlands coal communities. Policy and Politics 27 (4), 515–532. Barry, B., 1999. Sustainability and intergenerational justice. In: Dobson, A. (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 93– 117. Beaverstock, J., Bell, M., Child, L., Evans, D., Sheail, J., 1997. The national forest and global environmental sustainability. European Environment 7, 54–62. Bell, M., Evans, D., 1998. The national forest and local agenda 21: an experiment in integrated landscape planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41 (2), 237–251. Bennett, K., Beynon, H., Hudson, R., 2000. CoalWelds regeneration: dealing with the consequences of industrial decline. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Policy Press, Abingdon. Beynon, H., Cox, A., Hudson, R., 2000. Digging Up Trouble: The Environment Protest and Opencast Mining. Rivers Oram Press, London. Bishop, K., Kitchen, L., Marsden, T., Milbourne, P., 2002. Forestry, community and land in the South Wales valleys. Papers in Environmental Planning Research No. 25, Department of City and Regional Planning, CardiV University, CardiV. Bridge, G., McManus, P., 2000. Sticks and stones: environmental narratives and discursive regulation in the forestry and mining sectors. Antipode: A Journal of Radical Geography 32 (1), 10–47. Bromley, R., Hall, M., Thomas, C., 2003. The impacts of environmental improvements on town centre regeneration. Town Planning Review 74 (2), 143–164. Burgess, J., 1995. Growing in conWdence: understanding people’s perceptions of urban fringe woodlands. Countryside Commission, London. Burgess, J., 1996. Focusing on fear; the use of focus groups in a project for the Community Forest Unit. Area 28 (2), 130–135. Campbell, S., 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (3), 296–312. Central Scotland Countryside Trust, 1995. Central Scotland forest strategy. Central Scotland Countryside Trust, Shotts, Lanarkshire. Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., Thomas, C., 1996a. The English National Forest: local reactions to plans for renegotiated nature-society relations in the countryside. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 21, 552–571. Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., Thomas, C., 1996b. From wasteland to wonderland: opencast mining, regeneration and the English National Forest. Geoforum 27 (2), 159–174. Coates, K., Barratt-Brown, W., 1997. Communities under attack: the struggle for survival in the CoalWeld Communities of Britain. Spokesman, Nottingham. Countryside Agency, 1999. Regeneration around cities: the role of England’s Community Forests. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission, 1987. Forestry in the countryside. Countryside Commission CCP 245, Cheltenham. Countryside Commission, 1993. The Great North Forest and Tees Forest. Countryside Commission Pamphlet, Cheltenham. Cowell, R., Thomas, H., 2002. Managing nature and narratives of dispossession: reclaiming territory in CardiV Bay. Urban Studies 7, 1241– 1260. DEFRA, 2004. Rural Strategy 2004. Defra Publications, London. Development Trusts Association, 1997. Here to stay: a public policy framework for community-based regeneration. Development Trusts Association, London. Dobson, A., 1996. Environmental sustainabilities; an analysis and a typology. Environmental Politics 5 (3), 401–428. Dobson, A., 1998. Justice and Environmental Sustainability: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability and Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

L. Kitchen et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 831–843 Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., Woods, M., 2000. Partnership working in rural regeneration: governance or empowerment? Area Regeneration Series Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Escobar, A., 1996. Constructing nature: elements for a poststructural political ecology. In: Peet, R., Watts, M. (Eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Routledge, London, pp. 46–68. Filion, P., 1998. Potential and limitations of community economic development: individual initiative and collective action in a post-Fordist context. Environment and Planning A 30, 1101–1123. Fischer, F., Black, M. (Eds.), 1995. Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future. Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Foley, P., Martin, S., 2000. Perceptions of community led regeneration: community and central government viewpoints. Regional Studies 34 (8), 783–787. Foster, J.B., 2002. Ecology Against Capitalism. Monthly Review Press, New York. Furbey, R., 1999. Urban ‘regeneration’: reXections on a metaphor. Critical Social Policy 19 (4), 419–445. Gibbs, D., 2002. Local Economic Development and the Environment. Routledge, London. Haughton, G., 1999. Community economic development: challenges of theory, method and practice. In: Haughton, G. (Ed.), Community Economic Development. The Stationery OYce, London, pp. 3–22. Heynen, N.C., 2003. The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode: A Journal of Radical Geography 35 (5), 980–998. Hill, D.M., 1994. Citizens and Cities: Urban Policy in the 1990s. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London. Holland, A., 1999. Sustainability: should we start from here? In: Dobson, A. (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 46–68. Jessop, B., 1997. Survey article: the regulation approach. The Journal of Political Philosophy 5 (3), 287–326. Jonas, A.E.G., Gibbs, D.C., 2003. Changing local modes of economic and environmental governance in England: a tale of two areas. Social Science Quarterly 84 (4), 1018–1037. Jones, O., Little, J., 2000. Rural challenge(s): partnership and new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 171–183. Kiel, R., 2003. Urban political ecology. Urban Geography 24 (8), 723–738. Kitchen, L., Milbourne, P., Marsden, T., Bishop, K., 2002. Forestry and environmental democracy: the problematic case of the South Wales valleys. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 4 (2), 139– 155. Kitchen, L., Marsden, T., Milbourne, P., 2004. Social Forestry in the postindustrial countryside: making connections between social inclusion and the environment. Papers in Environmental Planning Research No. 28, School of City and Regional Planning, CardiV University, CardiV. Lefebrve, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford. Lefebrve, H., 1996. Writings on Cities. Blackwell, Cambridge MA. Lefebrve, H., 2003. The Urban Revolution. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Low, N., Gleeson, B., 1998. Justice, Society and Nature: An Exploration of Political Ecology. Routledge, London. MacNaghten, P., Urry, J., 2000. Bodies in the woods. Body and Society 6, 166–182. Mather, A.S., 2001. Forests of consumption: postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19, 249–268. McManus, P., 1996. Contested terrains: politics, stories and discourses of sustainability. Environmental Politics 5 (1), 48–73.

843

Morgan, K., 2002. The new regeneration narrative—local development in the multi-level polity. Local Economy 17 (3), 191–199. National Forest, 1994. The strategy: the forest vision. Countryside Commission, Northampton. Nature Conservancy Council, 1987. Birds, bogs and forestry. NCC, Peterborough. Norton, B., 1999. Ecology and opportunity: intergenerational equity and sustainable options. In: Dobson, A. (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 118–150. O’Connor, M. (Ed.), 1994. Is Capitalism Sustainable? The Guilford Press, New York. O’Connor, J.R., 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. The Guilford Press, New York. Policy Studies Institute, 2002. Sustainable development and social inclusion: towards an integrated approach to research. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1986. Forestry in the Flow Country: the threat to birds. RSPB, Sandy, Beds. Rydin, Y., Holman, N., Hands, V., Sommer, F., 2003. Incorporating sustainable development concerns into an urban regeneration project: how politics can defeat procedures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (4), 545–561. Scandrett, E., Dunion, K., McBride, G., 2000. The campaign for social justice in Scotland. Local Environment 5 (4), 467–474. Schlosberg, D., 1999. Environmental justice and the new pluralism: the challenge of diVerence for environmentalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sheail, J., 1997a. The new National Forest: from idea to achievement. Town Planning Review 68 (3), 305–323. Sheail, J., 1997b. The national forest of the English Midlands—a local government perspective. Local Government Studies 23 (4), 1–16. Shucksmith, M., 2000a. Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2), 208–218. Shucksmith, M., 2000b. Exclusive Countryside? Social inclusion and regeneration in the countryside. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Smith, N., 1984. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford. Smith, A., 2001. Constructions of nature and the regeneration of the East Durham CoalWeld, North East England, UK. Transcript of Paper presented to the session “Beyond the Social Construction of nature: re-thinking political economy and environment” at the Association of American Geographers Conference, New York City, 2001. Southern, R., 2002. Understanding multi-sectoral regeneration partnerships as a form of local governance. Local Government Studies 28 (2), 16–32. Swyngedouw, E., 1999. Modernity and hybridity: nature, Regeneracionismo and the production of the Spanish Waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89, 443–465. Swyngedouw, E., Heynen, N.C., 2003. Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode: A Journal of Radical Geography 35 (5), 898–918. Tickell, A., Peck, J., 1992. Accumulation, regulation and the geographies of post-Fordism: missing links in regulation theory. Progress in Human Geography 16 (2), 190–218. Tompkins, S.C., 1986. The Theft of the Hills: aVorestation in Scotland. The Ramblers Association, London. Tompkins, S.C., 1989. Forestry in Crisis: The Battle for the Hills. Christopher Helm, London. .