Local sustainability initiatives in English National Parks: What role for adaptive governance?

Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Local sustainability initiatives in English National Parks: What role for adaptive governance? J.R.A. Clark a,∗ , R. Clarke b a b

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies, Birkbeck University of London, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 December 2009 Received in revised form 14 May 2010 Accepted 19 June 2010 Keywords: English National Parks Adaptive governance Local sustainable development initiatives

a b s t r a c t Adaptive governance has assumed growing importance in natural resource management literatures, emphasising learning and adaptation among actors at different political administrative levels and geographic scales as a precondition for the emergence of sustainable development. Here we assess this claim by examining five case studies of ‘good practice’ in sustainability, drawn from a national survey conducted in English National Parks. Specifically, we evaluate whether (1) adaptive governance characteristics are present in these ‘good practice’ initiatives, and (2) what governance role, if any, National Park Authorities have played in mediating individual and collective activities and behaviours within these projects at different levels and scales. We conclude with a critical assessment of the capacity of the adaptive governance approach to furnish new understandings of sustainable development initiatives in English NPs. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Recent scholarship on natural resource management has emphasised the importance of ‘adaptive governance’ in delivering more environmentally sustainable outcomes (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Brunner et al., 2005; Ladson, 2009; Larsen and Gunnarsson-Ostling, 2009). Broadly, adaptive governance prioritises collaborative learning between individuals, organisations and natural and social institutions, as a means of instilling behavioural adaptation among them. Particular attention is paid to actors’ involvement in ‘cross-level’ and ‘cross-scale’ interactions,1 which allegedly furnish the managerial and learning frameworks to catalyse sustainable development. Adaptive governance was developed to examine management of social–ecological systems (i.e. “ecological system[s] intricately linked with and affected by one or more social systems”, Anderies et al., 2004 32 ) and globally, one of the most common social–ecological systems is protected landscapes (PLs); extensive tracts of land where the interaction between

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 121 414 6262. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.R.A. Clark), [email protected] (R. Clarke). 1 Cross-level interactions are defined as activities transacted between actors at the same scale (i.e. individual–individual, organization–individual, etc.). Cross-scale interactions are activities transacted between actors situated at different scales. 2 Cf. Berkes and Folke’s (1998, 4) comment that such systems serve to demonstrate “that the delineation between social and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary”. 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.012

people and nature has produced significant ecological, cultural, biological and scenic qualities and value (Dudley and Stoulton, 2009). Adaptive governance approaches are now used widely in this context (Schoon, 2008; Hahn et al., 2006; Hayes, 2006). Here we consider the utility of adaptive governance in shedding light on local sustainability projects in European PLs, focussing on the example of England. Such projects are concentrated chiefly in two national designations, National Parks (NP) and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). From the outset, NP and AONB managers have relied on building partnerships with a mix of public, private and voluntary sector actors to address the (often) multiple goals of nature conservation, recreation and economic development established by government for English PLs. This role in encouraging sustainable development was formalised in the Environment Act (1995), and given impetus in 2002 by the then Minister for Rural Affairs, Alun Michael, calling for NPs to become “test-beds for sustainable development” (DEFRA, 2002, 1) with pump-priming grant aid introduced in that year under a statefunded initiative, the National Parks Sustainable Development Fund (NPSDF).3 Using the lexicon of adaptive governance, the NPSDF and the management bodies of English PLs therefore mediate ‘cross-level’ and ‘cross-scale’ interactions, by bridging multiple administra-

3 Nationally funding for the NPSDF in 2008–2009 was £200,000. (A similar scheme, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Sustainable Development Fund, was introduced in 2005, with funding of c.£60,000 in 2008–2009.)

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

tive levels and scales in order to facilitate state and stakeholder relations. Drawing on a national survey of sustainability projects undertaken in English NPs during 2006–2007, here we seek to establish whether adaptive governance characteristics can thus be identified in exemplar projects of ‘good practice’ in sustainability, and what governance role, if any, NPAs and the NPSDF have played in mediating these projects across administrative levels and geographic scales. We begin by examining the literature on adaptive governance. We consider how this literature relates to sustainable development, and how it might inform the particular case of English NPs and the role of their managing bodies. Next, using five ‘good practice’ sustainability case studies, we examine the role of the NPSDF and NPAs in the establishment and development of these projects. Representing some of the most successful examples of sustainable development nationally, these initiatives provide an empirical canvass to explore whether adaptive governance characteristics are present, and, if so, the extent to which NPAs and the NPSDF facilitated their constitutive learning and adaptation processes. The paper concludes with a critical assessment of adaptive governance in furnishing new understandings of local sustainability in English NPs.

Adaptive governance and sustainable development Social science boasts a diversity of different governance approaches, offering researchers a rich variety of descriptive and analytical possibilities. Broadly governance refers to the formal and informal structures and institutions (e.g. regulation, markets, government policies and managerial discourses) by and through which actors’ decision making behaviours are transacted, often through complex networks of relations (Rhodes 2007). Many authors use this term to characterise the shift over the last two decades from state-centred to decentralised policy management, with government and civil society relations becoming increasingly intertwined in allegedly ‘new’ procedural arrangements (Clark, 2006, 2010). Undoubtedly in western Europe, these changes have shaped how natural resources and land uses are now viewed, with governance in PLs seen variously as a tool of state managerialism (Thompson, 2005), geographically defined mechanisms for conservation, amenity and recreation (Mose, 2007; Natural England, 2007), or, more loosely, as discourses and accompanying practices that moderate sustainability outcomes (Mehnen et al., 2009). Notwithstanding these differing interpretations, governance is now frequently invoked in the context of sustainable development. Thus across European PLs, stakeholder involvement has been prioritised in delivering environmental management and sustainable rural development, with non-state actors (NGOs, local communities) participating increasingly in locally-based sustainability and biodiversity initiatives. Adaptive governance speaks directly to these debates. This concept is defined by Folke et al. (2005, 441) as “connect[ing] individuals, organisations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organisational levels”, comprising “social networks with teams and actor groups that draw on various knowledge systems and experiences for the development of a common understanding of policies”. Proponents of adaptive governance thus emphasise the importance of organisational learning, joint decision making and multi-stakeholder participation in clarifying sustainable development, and in identifying the interrelations needed between stakeholders to ensure more sustainable outcomes. A growing corpus of work from this perspective now testifies to the importance of learning among individuals, organisations, agencies and institutions at multiple political–administrative levels and geographic

315

scales to bringing about behavioural adaptations favouring the environment (e.g. Berkes and Folke, 1998; Berkes et al., 2003; Brunner et al., 2005; Folke et al., 2005; Gunderson, 1999; Olsson et al., 2007). More recent studies have considered how notions of adaptation and learning might underpin sustainable development over longer timescales (Dietz et al., 2003; Folke, 2007; Folke et al., 2005). Thus Folke et al. (2005) note that social capital (particularly social networks) and collective social identifiers (including management experiences) are essential in determining the capacity of social–ecological systems to adapt successfully to change. This approach has been extended in recent contributions that apply adaptive governance principles to managing socio-cultural and scenic attributes of PAs, such as sustainable tourism (Fennell and Butler, 2003; Plummer and Fennell, 2009). Adaptive governance’s contribution thus lies in clarifying how human and social capitals can be integrated to promote more sustainable outcomes. Specifically, the literature identifies: 1. Cross-level and cross-scale interactions which allegedly provide crucial opportunities for learning, so precipitating change in actor behaviour. In particular, mutual learning and adaptation among state and non-state actors is viewed as critical to “navigating transitions” (Olsson et al., 2006) towards sustainability under conditions of dynamism and uncertainty (Adger et al., 2005; Brondizio et al., 2009; Cash et al., 2006; Olsson et al., 2007; Scholz and Stiftel, 2005; Young, 2006). 2. ‘Bridging organisations’ (Westley, 1995; Hahn et al., 2006) and ‘cross-scale institutions’ play an important (from some perspectives, crucial) role in these interactions. The literature asserts these organisations and institutions catalyse change in actor behaviour by performing two roles: through organisations bridging levels of resolution to link local, regional and national groups and actors; and by institutions acting as conduits and mediators of cross-level and cross-scale flows of knowledge and resources crucial to the success of sustainability initiatives. The literature asserts that by doing so bridging organisations and cross-scale institutions facilitate socialisation and learning (Berkes, 2009; Grumbine, 1997). 3. Central to learning transitions are the ways actors and actor groups collectively relate to and use physical and environmental resources, often by building commonly-agreed understandings of these resources. For example, actors may draw on the knowledge and expertise of local communities, or Local and Regional Authorities to establish shared goals for sustainability, as a basis for developing projects responsive to local circumstances, issues and problems (Folke et al., 2005; Folke, 2006; Dewulf et al., 2004; Olsson et al., 2004, 2006). Multi-levelled and multi-scaled processes of learning and the boundary-spanning role of organisations and institutions thus provide an important focus to explore empirically. This is the challenge we take up here. First, however, we consider how adaptive governance might apply to English NPs. English National Parks, bridging organisations and cross-scale institutions English NPs were introduced as part of the post-World War 2 political settlement in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (NPACA) 1949. National Parks were charged with two statutory purposes under NPACA: to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and to promote to the public opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of Parks’

316

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

special qualities (MacEwen and MacEwen, 1982, 1987). NPs are managed by National Park Authorities (NPAs). Yet despite being charged with these major responsibilities, the powers delegated by the state to NPAs were initially very modest. Core annual funding from government for NPAs remains frugal, while control of the development planning process in Parks was only granted to NPAs in 1995. Moreover, NPs were faced with complex managerial tasks in seeking to balance often contradictory statutory duties on conservation and access, in the face of these institutional limits (Curry, 1992; Dower et al., 1998). The de facto expectation upon NPAs to act as prototypical bridging organisations has therefore been high. To function effectively, NPAs have had to adapt and be flexible, striving to link together not only spatial scales but also different domains of authority—state, statutory purposes, local authorities, and local community interests.4 Additional pressure to create adaptive forms of governance arose from the fact that, unlike many PL designations globally which are publically owned with little or no human habitation, English NPs contain extensive tracts of private land, often hosting urban areas (MacEwen and MacEwen, 1982, 1987). So a plausible case could be made that, by working for over four decades across the boundaries of geographic scales and political–administrative levels, NPAs have become accustomed to facilitating co-operative working and learning among actors in NPs. Thus, NPAs’ on-the-ground activities have focused on building social cohesion in rural communities far in advance of the recent interest in social capital (e.g. Peak Park Experiment of the late 1970s, Dower, 1985; Parker, 1985), while English NPs are at the forefront of developing new approaches to participatory planning and management (Hubacek and Reed, 2009). These activities underline the potential role of NPAs in bringing together resources, ideas, interests and actors at different levels and scales for learning purposes, underscoring claims that English NPs offer a “new paradigm” (Philips, 2003 8) for protected areas globally (though this is fiercely disputed; see Locke and Dearden, 2005). Within English NPs, focusing of this learning activity upon sustainability was crystallised by the Sandford Review (1974) with its injunction that public enjoyment “shall be in a manner and by such means as will leave their natural beauty unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future generations”. Nonetheless, it was not until the early 2000s that concerted action for sustainable development began to develop through the 2000 Rural White Paper and the subsequent Planning Policy Statement (PPS 7) on rural planning.5 As part of this drive, in July 2002 DEFRA undertook the Review of English NPAs, culminating in an announcement by the then Minister of State for Rural Affairs, Alun Michael: “If our own National Parks are not to become museums of the landscape they must be successful in economic and social terms, too. We believe passionately in sustainable development—a future in which economic, social and environmental considerations are balanced in harmony. So our National Parks will be our test-beds for sustainable development. . .they can show the way forward for all rural areas, whose well-being is central to DEFRA’s priorities” (DEFRA, 2002, 1). To address this goal, the Government introduced new funding to be administered by NPAs to encourage grassroots sustainability

4 NPAs have been likened to “hybrids, special case local authorities with close links to local government that also act as non-departmental public bodies with national purposes” (Thompson, 2005 327). 5 This impetus has been underlined recently with Natural England’s stated goal “that protected landscapes play a key role in the conservation, enhancement and delivery of the sustainable use and management of England’s natural environment [by] exemplifying and demonstrating best practice” (NE 2007, 2).

initiatives, the NPSDF. The Fund offers grants to organisations, businesses, community groups and individuals who wish to develop new projects for achieving a more sustainable way of life in NPs. Such projects must demonstrate that they (a) further the statutory purposes of NPs; (b) are sustainable against an appropriate test of sustainable development (in practice, these tests are at NPAs’ discretion); (c) have the demonstrable support or involvement of communities; (d) are complementary to key local, regional and national strategies; (e) help deliver NP Management Plan objectives; and (f) are located within, or bring significant benefit to, the relevant NP and its population. Again, using adaptive governance terms, it could be argued that the NPSDF thus acts as a ‘cross-scale institution’, by enabling multi-levelled and scaled interactions among actors within NPs. Certainly, high expectations are now held by government for the NPSDF and NPAs in promoting sustainable development: “The Authorities’ primary responsibility is to deliver their statutory purposes. In doing so, they should ensure they are exemplars in achieving sustainable development, helping rural communities in particular to thrive. Such models can offer wider application to other areas beyond the Park boundaries, and Authorities are encouraged to disseminate their experience to other rural authorities. For example, through the use of resources such as the Sustainable Development Fund, the Authorities have piloted initiatives which have tested new approaches and, in doing so they have become examples of best practice” (DEFRA, 2010, 11 emphasis added). It is these ‘examples of good practice’ funded under the NPSDF which we examine here. Applying an adaptive governance approach to English NPs suggests three axes for empirical examination of these projects. These are (1) the degree of crossscale interaction within each project: to what extent have project participants used different political–administrative levels and/or geographic scales to fashion these local projects? (2) The nature of cross-scale learning among participating actors: what learning and adaptation processes have been instigated in each project? (3) Shared understandings of sustainability: how have the qualities and attributes of English NPs been mobilised in each project to encourage sustainability? An important focus of these shared understandings is the ways in which cross-level and cross-scale social capitals (e.g. local cohesiveness, networks of relations) become intertwined with place-based attributes and associations. These three research strands structure the paper’s empirical analysis.

Methodology The study is based on a national survey of sustainability projects in English NPs, undertaken in 2006–2007 by the authors on behalf of Natural England. Data collection comprised four interrelated activities. First was a comprehensive literature review of secondary data on sustainability projects in NPs. Secondly, primary data on these initiatives were collected via a questionnaire sent to NPA officers, asking respondents about their operation, outputs and perceived and actual benefits. The questionnaire also requested that respondents nominate ‘outstanding’ projects from their NP. Thirdly, a project Steering Group comprising representatives from the Council for National Parks (CNP), Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Rural Development Service, Natural England and English Heritage provided valuable additional information on sustainable development activities within the English NP system. These activities enabled identification of more than 150 sustainability projects, resulting in a wealth of empirical detail. The Steering Group met three times and, as well as providing advice and

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324 Table 1 Sustainability criteria developed for short-listing “exemplars of good practice in sustainable development in English NPs”. Environmental criteria Yes No n/a • Conserves or promotes biodiversity • Promotes a high quality environment or enhances local habitats • Promotes “reduce –reuse – recycle” • Contributes to raising awareness of environmental issues • AONB purposes or sustainability • Achieves aesthetic improvement of the built or natural heritage • Fulfils part of a site management plan, Local Agenda 21, Community Strategy or Parish Plan Social criteria Yes No n/a • Can demonstrate local support (e.g. evidence of community consultation) • Involves the local community and/or young people generally in developing or working on the project itself • Breaks down social or cultural barriers/promotes equality • Addresses local social needs • Has appropriate community structures/networks in place to co-ordinate project • Contributes towards healthier lifestyles Economic criteria Yes No n/a • Draws in funding from other sources • Demonstrates value for money • Contributes to the local economy by generating own income • Business plan in place or in preparation • Contributes to local employment, training or volunteering Cultural criteria Yes No n/a • Contributes towards maintaining local culture • Has cultural or historical links • Uses traditional materials or skills in managing the countryside (including the built environment) • High quality design and use of sustainable materials/techniques • Provides interpretation or educational opportunities • Involves using the arts (e.g. sculpture/theatre/music/photography)

clarification, developed evaluative criteria for short-listing “exemplars of good practice in sustainable development in English NPs”. To qualify as ‘exemplars’, projects needed to fully satisfy the six characteristics (a)–(f) above, and to meet additional environmental, social and economic criteria identified by the Group, shown in Table 1. Based on this evaluation by the Steering Group, the pool of projects was refined to a ‘long list’ of 30 initiatives which in turn was narrowed down by the Steering Group to 5 ‘good practice’ examples. Fourthly and finally field visits were undertaken by the authors to these good practice projects to provide objective appraisals of sustainability outcomes, and to meet with local community groups and entrepreneurs who had formulated, developed or otherwise participated in them. Thus our aim was not to consider a representative sample of all NPSDF projects, but rather to focus upon illustrative contemporary good practice examples as defined by policy practitioners, to assess whether or not they exhibited adaptive governance characteristics. For although the concept of adaptive governance applied to PLs is promising, its practical value needs empirical exploration and validation. In order to provide empirical measurement of adaptive governance characteristics for each project, so making the concept more tangible, nine metrics were adopted under three headings, as follows: (a) evidence of cross-level and cross-scale interactions; (b) type and nature of learning practice; and (c) evidence of actual or rhetorical use of physical resources/environment (see Table 2; cf. Raadgever et al., 2006). The five good practice projects are described next and analysed along the three axes of adaptive governance identified above. An ␣-index ´ is derived for each project (with ␣ ´ being the sum of the nine metrics in Table 2, thus the index is scored out of nine). We seek to identify the adaptive governance processes of each project, and pay particular attention to the actual roles played by NPAs as ‘bridging organisations’, and by the NPSDF as a ‘cross-scale institution’. Furthermore, mindful of Armitage et al.’s (2008) injunction

317

to scope as fully as possible the ongoing adaptation and learning processes of sustainability, for each project we specify actor involvement, focii of learning and individual and group dynamics (see Table 3).

Good practice in sustainable development—what role for adaptive governance? 5.1 Renewable energy and restoring woodland in south-west England South West Wood Fuels Ltd (SWWF) is an Exmoor-based wood fuel supply co-operative. Founded in 2000, its aim was to bring together woodland owners and contractors within the National Park, with firewood merchants and suppliers of wood-fired stoves and boilers. In 2004, SWWF applied for and was awarded £10,000 by the Exmoor National Park Sustainable Development Fund to support and develop its activities. SWWF’s bid argued that the cooperative addressed sustainable development by providing economic (e.g. valorisation of wood ‘waste’), social and environmental benefits (e.g. enhancing the nature conservation value of neglected woodland). SWWF’s Operating Board used the grant to fund three workshops in spring 2005 that brought together its membership with actors across the south-west region to develop a regional wood fuel production and consumption network. Outcomes from the workshops included a new regional partnership agreement on machinery sharing and the launch of a ‘south-west sustainability campaign’, aimed at making co-op members aware of the ways wood fuel use could meet national sustainability targets. In 2005, a second SDF grant enabled SWWF to provide training courses to heating engineers and plumbers on log boiler technology and installation techniques, and to print and distribute information packs to encourage householders within the National Park to install domestic woodfuel boilers. By 2008, 34 domestic wood boilers had been installed by SWWF in the NP. The two SDF awards have thus enabled SWWF to ‘upscale’ activities from the National Park to the south-west region, and to broaden its remit from better management of neglected woodland to the promotion and marketing of wood fuel boilers to households. In the process, SWWF has developed from a co-op confined in the mid 2000s to Exmoor National Park to become a regional network, with increasing national profile. By 2009, for example, its business activities extended from Exmoor to the Peak District and Herefordshire in the north and west of England, and to Kent in the east. The project provides some evidence of adaptive governance processes (␣-index ´ = 7; see Tables 2 and 3). Cross-level interactions were already a feature of this project prior to SDF, but cross-scale interactions were triggered by the three SDF funded workshops which, according to respondents, resulted in growth in the co-op’s membership and rapid geographical spread of its business activities. Thus during 2004–2009, membership grew from 8 to 153 individuals and organisations. SWWF now includes 4 Local Authorities, 6 housing associations, and 27 property owners and tenants with wood-fuelled heating. Its Operating Board is now seeking to build links with wood fuel networks in France and Germany. Clearly SDF has facilitated cross-scale interactions, therefore, with these interactions helping facilitate knowledge sharing analogous to adaptive governance: for example, SWWF publishes and circulates a monthly newsletter, and has set up a website, while also providing the means for new forms of collaboration (a skills base inventory and register of machinery and plant available to members at reduced hire cost). The project also provides evidence of learning processes and learning outcomes. Respondents claimed SWWF enabled them to

318

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

Table 2 Measuring adaptive governance: criteria and associated metrics. Adaptive governance criteria

Adaptive governance metric

How measured in the good practice project case studies

Cross-level and cross-scale interactions

Evidence of cross-level and cross-scale interactions

Learning processes

Type of learning practice; nature of learning outcomes

Commonly-agreed understandings

Shared understandings of, and way(s) in which participants relate to and use, material resources

(i) Evidence of cross-level co-operations; (ii) evidence of cross-scale co-operations; (iii) evidence of co-operations across political administrative boundaries. Role of NPSDF/NPA in facilitating these interactions (i) Evidence of single- and/or double-loop learning6 ; (ii) evidence of participants’ contribution to projects through: setting project agendas; analysing project problems, developing solutions, taking decisions; (iii) evidence of experimentation within projects; (iv) evidence of joint/participative information sharing. Role of NPSDF/NPA in facilitating these learning processes (i) Evidence of actual or (ii) rhetorical use of physical resources/environment in project. Role of NPSDF/NPA in facilitating these uses

“experiment” with new business possibilities, for example one member said attending the workshops had “broadened my horizon [and] provided valuable feedback” for his heating business, while another commented it had provided him with “new commercial opportunities”. Learning among businesses seems therefore to be ‘single-loop’, focused on managers reflecting on the benefits offered by SWWF’s marketing and cooperative arrangements, and making modifications to commercial practice on this basis. Evidence for double-loop learning was less evident. Undoubtedly SWWF’s introduction of a sustainability awareness campaign has been successful, with a 2009 survey showing that 78% of its membership was aware that active woodland management locally could help meet national renewable energy targets. But it is not clear whether this has lead to fundamental change in business goals which ‘doubleloop’ learning presupposes. Nonetheless, according to staff in the South West Regional Development Agency, SWWF makes a “significant contribution” to regional renewable energy targets, by providing a market for wood and timber waste, thereby sustaining “tens of local jobs” in countryside management and artisanal trades (authors’ interview). Thus, SWWF’s novel learning focus is that building local social capital (through cooperative working, and preserving and enhancing woodland management skills) can deliver economic and environmental benefits. SWWF’s members have therefore begun to develop common understandings of the value of the under-utilised multifunctional woodland resource within Exmoor NP and beyond, and to use their local knowledge and new networked links to fashion new market-based forms of governance stretching beyond their locality. The result is a melding of place-based social and environmental capitals, demonstrating that a viable commercial project can also have significant benefits for landscape, habitats and local communities. 5.2 Reed and sedge harvesting in north Norfolk and Broadland The reed and sedge beds of north Norfolk and the Broads were distinctive working landscapes for many hundreds of years. Their conservation depends on periodic cutting, with the residue used for thatch (which in the past was an important vernacular building material). This management has helped sustain internationally important wildlife habitat. However, by the mid-1990s cheap reed imports from Poland and Turkey had undermined the local prod-

6 Single-loop learning occurs when an individual or an organization learns in such a way that its present policies or present objectives remain unmodified. By contrast, double-loop learning results in modification of these underlying norms, policies and objectives (Argyris and Schön, 1978).

uct. Just five reed cutting businesses were left in Norfolk by 1997, with management confined to nature reserves. An integrated solution was needed, and the remaining businesses, supported by Broads Authority staff, submitted a proposal for SDF monies in 2003. This sought funding to buy new cutting machinery, to be placed in collective ownership of the five businesses, with local economic and environmental sustainability benefits claimed for their small-scale operation. In the event, two SDF grant awards were made by the Broads Authority in 2003 and 2005: the first of £67,400 to fund machinery purchase, and the second to finance training for reed cutters in countryside management skills. Collective ownership of machinery required reed cutting businesses to share information more effectively, and led directly to the formation in late 2003 of a new cooperative, the Broads Reed and Sedge Cutters Association (BRASCA). Since 2003 BRASCA has made reed and sedge cutting businesses better organised, and, by raising the profile of this traditional activity has enabled businesses to identify new markets. Thus as well as restoring thatch on old vernacular buildings, since 2005 tiled roofs on 15 houses have been replaced with thatch, with BRASCA’s membership growing to sixteen businesses (BA 2009). During 2003–2009, the area of fen managed commercially has increased from 200 to 450 hectares (approximately 30% of the total fenland resource). According to respondents in local Wildlife Trusts, BRASCA has also made it easier for them to canvass the views of reed and sedge cutting businesses. The Association is now wholly financed via its members, who pay an annual fee proportionate to their business turnover. Some adaptive governance characteristics are readily apparent here (␣-index ´ = 6, see Tables 2 and 3). In contrast to 5.1, this initiative is derived from cross-level rather than cross-scale interactions, arising from the five businesses acting with Broads Authority staff to find a solution to growing international competition for reed and sedge. The two SDF grants enabled these businesses to develop a commercially viable project based on re-valorizing reed beds and reinstating traditional skills. In interview, BRASCA’s Chairman commented: “The Broads Authority helped us solve the problems of access to some sites and the co-operation of landowners, in particular, the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, helped to make the industry more sustainable. But it was the Broads Authority’s SDF, together with the Broads and Rivers LEADER + programme, that was the lifeline for us”. BRASCA’s establishment is concrete expression of the strength of this cross-level interaction. The co-operative has improved cohesion between businesses, and, interviewees claimed, led to renewed interest among east Anglian and Broads communities in what had been viewed before as a moribund industry. Learning opportunities are also evident. For example, interviewees commented that BRASCA’s monthly meetings allowed them

Table 3 Cross-scale institutional roles and adaptive learning patterns in the five ‘best practice’ initiatives. Initiative

Who learnt/adapted

How learnt/adapted

When learnt/adapted

South West Wood Fuels (Exmoor National Park)

Operating Board of SWWF; co-operative membership

Experiential, focused on neglected woodland. Instrumental, with three SDF funded workshops in 2005 identifying new regional and national marketing opportunities; knowledge sharing through expanding networks of co-operative members.

Gradual change following Single-loop—Co-op offers new Bridging/enabling organisation: workshops, with rapid expansion business possibilities to ENPSDF underwrites cost of in co-operative membership. members for woodfuel workshops, providing promotion, marketing and use. communicative link across Members reinstating sustainable political-administrative levels management of woodland. and geographic scales; offers advice and financial assistance to SWWF.

Reed cutting businesses; staff in Broads Authority

Community composting and recycling (Yorkshire Dales National Park)

Co-operative Board; co-operative membership

Mosaic Partnership (Peak District National Park Authority, Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority)

Staff in two National Park Authorities

Bioflame (North Yorkshire Moors National Park)

Business seeking to develop commercial application of RRR

Double-loop—78% of SWWF membership now aware that positive woodland management locally can meet national renewable energy targets. Social learning among reed cutting Change from micro-businesses to Single-loop—reintroduction of businesses and Broads Authority co-operative approach following management practices in staff, based on developing viable receipt of SDF grants. abandoned wetlands to make commercial strategy in face of reed and sedge beds global competition. commercially viable. Double-loop—establishment of Broads Reed and Sedge Cutters’ Association; Entrant’s scheme; increased business awareness of benefits of commercial collaboration. Experiential learning Incremental learning focused on Single-loop—‘Growing with Grace’ (learning-by-doing) among ‘social sustainability’. changing LA green waste Organizing Committees; collections; training potentially transformative opportunities for 6 school learning among co-op leavers. membership to RRR mentality. Double-loop—co-op membership encourages change in domestic purchasing and lifestyle patterns. Assertion of shared values and ‘community’. Social and transformative learning On-going. SDF award made in Single loop—participating NPs within NPAs, seeking to break 2004; National Lottery grant identify Community Champions down barriers to BME awarded in March 2009. among local BME communities; communities. staff capacity building and new interpretation facilities. Double-loop—NP officers reinterpret NPACA vision for BME communities. Encouragement to Park residents to take part. Experiential learning, derived from Difficult start-up; benefited from Single-loop—business manager entrepreneurial activities of SDF and DAPA grant aid. addressed needs of company business manager. Business growth, new commercial start-ups assisted by DAPA. opportunities.

Steerage/enabling organisation: Broads Authority brokers agreement among local actors and makes two SDF awards in 2003 and 2005.

Marginal, though YDNPA provides communicative link across geographic scales with national government.

NPAs as adaptive learning organisations.

Marginal: no explicit use made by either business of NP qualities or attributes, though have benefited from the NPA’s advice and financial support.

319

Double-loop—develop technologies to transform waste materials into viable commercial resource.

NP cross-level/cross-scale function (if any)

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

Reed and sedge harvesting, north Norfolk (Broads Authority)

What learnt and type of group learning

320

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

to reflect on how to plan their work, and to experiment with new business opportunities (including fences, livestock bedding, thatching of sheds, paper manufacture) which one respondent said he would have been “too cautious” to do on his own. Moreover, due to growing interest among young people, Association members decided in 2005 to start a ‘New Entrants’ Scheme’. This offers entrance-level training in reed cutting, storage techniques and boating skills. It provides ‘hands-on’ practical experience of reed bed management over a three-week period, with courses led by BRASCA members. 18 people have successfully completed the Entrants’ Scheme since 2005 and 12 have found jobs in the Broads. In 2008, further courses were opened for established members on reintroducing management to previously abandoned fenland. BRASCA has therefore brought together disparate microbusinesses, and created a learning environment by making its members aware of the importance of adapting and diversifying skills, while cooperating commercially. It has also demonstrated to young people that fenland restoration offers viable employment, while contributing to wider biodiversity benefits. This suggests BRASCA is contributing to developing local social capital. There is single- and arguably double-loop learning here (see Table 2). BRASCA’s establishment has provided a forum to discuss shared understandings and approaches to fenland conservation, in particular methods aimed at securing its effective long-term management. And, by acting as a communal focus, BRASCA has given businesses greater ‘voice’ with organisations up and down the reed/sedge commodity chain, while establishing or reviving links between wetland habitats, landscape management, and Broads local economies. Respondents commented that reed and sedge cutting now has “real [place-based] meaning and purpose” for participants. 5.3 Community composting in the Yorkshire Dales ‘Growing with Grace’ started as a horticultural nursery and food supply co-operative in the Yorkshire Dales, based on recycling green waste. It consists of two acres of glasshouses at the edge of the National Park. Initially composting on site was enough for the nursery, but as the food supply arm of the business grew in the 1990s other sources had to be found. From 1997, members were encouraged to bring their own green waste to the co-op, while in 2000 the Co-op Board struck a deal with Craven District Council to provide collection and transport facilities for household green waste within a 100 mile radius. This is composted and used to grow fresh produce. The produce is then sold from the ‘on farm’ shop and via vegetable and fruit box deliveries. By 2009, customers include over one hundred households, four local schools and two hospitals. As well as being a competitive business, ‘Growing with Grace’ is a social enterprise. In 2006, an organising committee was established by interested members that circulated details of the Yorkshire Dales SDF around the co-op, canvassing ideas for a proposal. The notion of ‘social sustainability’ emerged as very popular, and consequently the bid focused on the businesses’ long-term social benefits to its employees, consumers and the Dales community. By shaping the bid in this way, ‘Growing with Grace’s membership contributed directly to the businesses’ agenda setting and forward planning. The proposal requested funding to provide training opportunities for school-leavers in horticulture, composting, packing, retailing and driving delivery rounds. It was successful and the grant used by the operating Board to help fund 2 full- and 4 part-time jobs. While adaptive governance characteristics are clear (␣´ index = 6, see Tables 2 and 3), the NPA and NPSDF’s roles are more ambiguous than in 5.1 or 5.2. Cross-level interactions are very strong, but it is not apparent these have changed substantively through

NPA/SDF intervention: for example 5.1, where the operation of SWWF ‘upscaled’, or 5.2 where SDF funding enabled BRASCA’s formation. ‘Growing with Grace’s webs of cross-level interactions instead predate SDF funding, with its successful operation dependent on members pooling their individual social and professional networks and giving up their own time to underwrite the co-op. Cross-level interaction is also clear through agreements concluded by the Co-op Board with Craven District Council to collect and deliver green waste, and in the Board adding value to its horticultural produce by applying for and being granted certified organic status in 2007. SDF funding has however helped finance the six jobs, with the appointees benefiting from horticultural training (including plant propagation and biocontrol), as well as opportunities for ‘learning-by-doing’ through moving between different jobs in the co-op. Since 2006, two have gained vocational qualifications in horticulture. They have also been exposed to a social enterprise working environment for the first time. The Co-op’s board has been particularly successful in promoting to its membership how small changes in individual behaviour can have positive environmental benefits (for example by bringing in green waste, supporting the nursery and organic shop, and buying organic foodstuffs). In this way, ‘Growing with Grace’ has encouraged single-loop learning among its members around reappraisal of purchasing decisions and household ‘lifestyle choices’; and recognition of the value of green waste as a resource. Moreover, the NPSDF officer at Yorkshire Dales NPA did provide contacts with public sector bodies, for example identifying DEFRA and Local Government Association staff who advised the co-op’s food supply arm on how to meet national regulatory food safety requirements. This project has thus blended attributes of NP status (chiefly their high nature and scenic value) with active networking by co-op members to create a social enterprise which is commercially viable. Common understandings of sustainability focus on the active involvement of the co-op membership in shaping the content of the 2006 SDF bid around social enterprise, ‘self-help’ and the importance of community—an innovative response in the face of increasing commercial pressure and competitiveness. 5.4 ‘Mosaic’—breaking down barriers to English National Parks among black and ethnic minority populations Led by nine NPAs7 in partnership with the Black Environment Network (BEN), the Council of National Parks (CNP) and the Youth Hostels Association, the ‘Mosaic Partnership’ seeks to improve ethnic communities’ engagement with National Parks. At first the Partnership paid for day trips to Parks by black and minority ethnic (BME) visitors from urban areas. However, in 2006 SDF funding of £60,000 was granted for two more focussed projects. One is to train ‘Community Champions’ from BME communities to act as ambassadors for NPs. The second targets capacity building within the nine NPs so that officers and personnel interact with BME visitors more effectively. These projects seek to address social sustainability through development of clear targets for improved engagement between NPAs and BME communities. The first project targets appointment by NPAs of ‘Champions’ as a means of improving BME visitor experiences, and increasing numbers of BME visits per year. The second has key indicators of (1) increasing responses by BME communities to NP public consultations; and (2) increasing ethnic diversity amongst NPA staff and members. National Lottery fund-

7 Dartmoor, Exmoor, Lake District, New Forest, North York Moors, Northumberland, Peak District, and Yorkshire Dales National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority.

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

ing was granted to Mosaic in January 2009, providing core financing for the Partnership until March 2012. Mosaic’s cross-level and cross-scale interactions comprise collaboration among NPAs, BEN, CNP and a variety of BME groups to break down the reality of NPs as the recreational preserve of white middle classes. Measuring the two projects’ adaptive governance characteristics is made difficult (␣-index ´ = 6), as seven NPs are in the process of implementation and, in the Peak District and Yorkshire Dales NPs where implementation has begun, monitoring data is incomplete. Nonetheless, during 2006–2009 the Peak District National Park Authority worked through Mosaic to appoint 20 community champions from surrounding urban areas, who have participated in four feedback forums per year since 2006, helping the Authority to identify BME visitor needs more effectively. Thus, PDNPA user surveys indicated a rise in Black, Asian and ethnic minority visits from 1.4% to 3% of visitors during 2006–2009. Champions have also brought primary school groups (from Indian, Pakistani and Caribbean communities) in Derby, Sheffield, Barnsley, Kirklees and Oldham to visit the Park each year since 2006. Although these are marginal improvements, and may not be solely attributable to work by Community Champions, they do demonstrate the adaptive capacity of PDNPA in reaching out to BME communities. The Yorkshire Dales NPA’s programme with Mosaic is the ‘Dales Experience’, whereby 250 participants per year from urban BME backgrounds are given specially facilitated day visits. The Authority aims to double this number of specially facilitated visitors by 2011. The NPA is also developing opportunities for people from BME and other under-represented groups to be directly involved in its work as members, staff or volunteers. These social sustainability projects have engaged PD and YDNPAs in single- and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning occurs from the procedural changes needed to respond to widening access and participation with BME communities and change in physical infrastructure in the two Parks, such as signage, interpretative panels, and setting up training courses for staff. Double-loop learning is evident in the two PAs addressing the socio-cultural underpinning of the 1949 NPACA ‘vision’ for English NPs, recognising that Parks’ status as ‘iconic landscapes’ is replete with values that can exclude, as much as include; and the need to reinterpret this ‘cultural code’ for second- and third-generation BME Britons. This learning process has required NP managers to recast the 50 year ‘heritage’ of English NPs in ways that are accessible to BME communities, by producing a new range of interpretive materials and introducing special events targeting BME visitors, so creating a much broader-based societal appeal. Mosaic’s activities address building relations with urban-based BME populations. Commonly-agreed understandings of sustainability are focused on capturing BME opinion of practical ways to address the social exclusivity of English NPs. This involves social learning among PA staff, with the long-term aim of reshaping the meaning and purpose for NPs among BME communities. Nonetheless a recent evaluation of the Mosaic partnership flagged the issue of lack of monitoring, and recommended focusing on the ‘quality not quantity’ of Community Champions; and improving monitoring of Champions’ activities and resulting impacts.

321

needed for the prototype, based on its potential contribution to alternative energy generation. The Bioflame gasifier is now marketed worldwide for a range of different wastes. The company’s largest overseas order has been for 19 burners exported to Costa Rica and El Salvador to help traditional coffee mills dry coffee for export using bean husk waste instead of timber from rain forest. In interview, Grundmann commented that this equipment was responsible for the conservation of 60,000 m3 of central American rainforest annually—equivalent to half of the timber felled in Yorkshire every year. Adaptive governance characteristics are evident here (␣´ index = 5), but NPA/SDF’s role has, at best, been marginal. Cross-level interactions with farms, the Regional Development Agency Yorkshire Forward and the NYMNPA were instigated by Bioflame’s director. Direct marketing of the gasifier began in 2003 to farms within the National Park, providing a means of local incineration of waste, generating energy and, because wood chip is used as a combustion starter, encouraging woodland management in the National Park. In 2007, Bioflame completed a £2.5m demonstration power station running on local wood waste within the National Park, with financial assistance from Yorkshire Forward. This facility is now exporting electricity to the National Grid. The company now employs 22 people directly and over 100 indirectly, and work is underway to build three further combined heat and power plants. However, NPA officers enabled some of the cross-scale linkages for business expansion beyond the Park. Thus commercial exploitation required the new company to build strong relations with banks and export companies, with NYMNPA providing introductions to two LAs, and contacts in the Department of Trade and Industry (a DTI SMART award of £40,000 for further R&D quickly followed in 2005), and DEFRA. Bioflame has benefited from the flexibility and foresight of NPA officers in recognising the need to provide support to entrepreneurs through start-up and the ‘near market stages’ of innovation, with supplementary funding given in 2005 under NYMNPA’s Developing Assets of Protected Areas initiative. Operating in this way across local, regional and national scales has amplified the contribution made to sustainable development by Bioflame, by addressing reduce-reuse-recycle objectives at all these scales. Similarly cross-scale/cross-level learning patterns are almost entirely focused on corporate entrepreneurial behaviour. Adaptation and learning has arisen from reappraising ‘refuse’ as a resource, and from Grundmann identifying commercial opportunities for products and using networks to boost commercial expansion. While its activities now span local, regional, national and international scales, Bioflame has not contributed to developing commonly-agreed understandings of sustainability. Moreover, at one level no explicit use is made of NP qualities or attributes in the project, with the business benefiting only marginally from the NPA’s involvement. Yet the embeddedness of locality within networks (i.e. ideas, inspiration, and entrepreneurial context) has constituted a vital ingredient in the businesses’ commercial expansion.

Adaptive governance: critical insights into sustainable development in English NPs?

5.5 Invention and entrepreneurship in north Yorkshire Set up in 2001, the Bioflame company began life in the North York Moors NP. The company’s technical director, Matthias Grundmann, invented a prototype mobile gasifier (a clean burn incinerator) in 2002–2003 to generate energy, capable of using fuels from wood waste to old tyres and dried sewage sludge. In 2003, Grundmann and his three business partners submitted a proposal to SDF for £29,000 to pay for emissions testing equipment

The preceding case study analyses have sought to establish whether adaptive governance characteristics can be discerned in ‘good practice’ sustainable development projects. Using the nine metrics set out above shows there is a positive correlation between local sustainability and adaptive governance processes in the five good practice examples (Table 3). The case studies also confirm that applying an adaptive governance approach offers some new insights into the processes underlying sustainability projects in

322

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

English NPs. Most clearly, the approach sheds light on how the stakeholders behind each project draw on multiple geographic scales to source expertise and resources for sustainability projects. ‘Fixed’ physical resources are clearly important in gelling together project constituencies (e.g. reed cutting and woodland management of case studies 5.1 and 5.2). Similarly, local knowledge and locally-perceived ‘needs’ (social, economic, environmental) have been effectively mobilised through the strong associations of English NPs as ‘iconic landscapes’, to bring about collaborative action (e.g. case studies 5.3 and 5.4). In some cases, the interest constituencies participating in these initiatives have capitalised on the status conferred by NP designation to attract ‘out of region/‘at a distance’ opportunities such as commercial advice, expertise and investment partners (e.g. case study 5.5). Thus, the place-based specificities of NPs have anchored in place cross-scale interactions favouring sustainability outcomes. Three out of the five case studies demonstrate how NPAs have moderated, to varying degrees, the activities of organisations and actors at multiple levels and scales with the attributes of NPs. Furthermore, NPAs’ unique position as local institution and state representative has enabled Park officers to facilitate government networks and routeways not readily accessible to project participants, while providing the requisite capacity and credibility to work with local stakeholders (e.g. case studies 5.3 and 5.5). The case studies also confirm that NPAs are well placed to facilitate propitious links for projects, being able to intervene at the right time developmentally; to act as valuable repositories of multiple scaled knowledges and interests; and to enhance vertical and horizontal learning among actors (single- and double-loop patterns, see Table 3). Yet case studies 5.3 and 5.5 confirm that NPAs/NPSDF do not act with equal effect as ‘bridging organisations’, and in some cases may be of limited usefulness (e.g. where networked connections are already well established, or where physical resources play only a marginal role). Moreover, many hundreds of schemes are approved annually within English NPs under NPSDF, and the parent survey from which these ‘good practice’ examples were drawn confirms substantive shortcomings in the NPSDF as it currently operates. The national survey revealed, for example, that certain NPAs had given little publicity to the NPSDF, partly because of lack of staff time and resources, tending to limit its reach to better informed social groups. From our own interviews with project participants, it was apparent that some NP staff were unclear about what was wanted from SDF projects, with NPAs content to fund projects which were unlikely to have a major impact on sustainable development outcomes. Likewise, the Mosaic project shows how some NPAs have been more progressive than others in addressing the needs of widening participation with BME communities. Crucially among the ‘good practice’ cases, interviews with participants revealed a lack of monitoring of project outcomes from NPAs (e.g. case study 5.4). Interviewees also commented that there was uncertainty among NPA staff about how to share knowledge of good practice examples among the English NP ‘family’, lending credence to a recent study on NPAs’ involvement in the development of sustainable tourism, which found “a diverse, piecemeal and sometimes under informed approach” among them nationally (Sharpley and Pearce, 2007, 1). This weakens the UK Government’s aspiration for English NPs to act as “test beds for sustainable development. . .they can show the way forward for all rural areas”, and strongly suggests that transferral of best practice from NPs to other areas will not be as straightforward or unproblematic as the Government’s 2010 announcement implies. Results derived from ‘good practice’ examples selected by policy practitioners must therefore be treated with caution. Among some

residents in NPs there is also a lingering suspicion of ‘sustainability’: in the words of one respondent, for its “ratcheting up constraints on business” (authors’ interview). More critically, adaptive governance’s key concepts of cross-level and cross-scale adaptation and learning ultimately serve only to identify the importance to these initiatives of these characteristics. Deeper exploration of sustainability processes using adaptive governance is rendered difficult, for its current ‘tool kit’ of analytical approaches arguably does not enable nuanced consideration of actor involvement, scientific and public learning and problem responsiveness. It also does not clarify the question of ‘governing’ or ‘governance’ of sustainability: that is, the extent to which sustainability initiatives reflect new state-defined forms of managerial control (e.g. uptake of NPSDF grant aid leading to ‘compliance’ with state goals for sustainable development), or rather genuine grassroots mobilisation. This is an issue acknowledged in recent contributions to adaptive governance debates, calling for a more critical assessment of power relations (e.g. Berkes, 2009; Adger et al., 2005). For, as Thompson (2005, 328) makes clear, activities within NPs are embedded in particular structural arrangements of power relations between the English state. As state representatives, the role of NP officers as facilitators of sustainability is therefore double-edged. SDF projects go through an approvals process; and, ultimately, the national SDF budget is limited to what DEFRA’s annual comprehensive spending review settlement from the Treasury permits. So how far are NPA officers aware of their responsibilities to the state, and to what extent does this closeness compromise their ties with local communities? A NPA Chief Executive’s comment was particularly revealing on this point: “If you look at this NPA, trying to make sense of being in the gap between the national and the local, the demands from the national are huge. . .. In an ideal world, we’d like more money for the SDF. Money that can be used to fund start-ups, as seed corn investment, you know. We’re currently saying to DEFRA, ‘look, we’d be far better off if you just gave us £50,000 more programme money and just said “get on with it, get on with plugging sustainability”. We’d then bung the money in to helping a range of new projects and get stuck in. I’m not looking to extend us by huge numbers of people, because I don’t think it’s the way forward. What I want instead is to put money into initiatives and get a return from that” (Authors’ interview, 21/06/07). For one Park Authority, at least, officers are not simply acting ‘managerially’ to promote government goals for sustainability. Instead, they are seeking to assist the development of initiatives that go beyond state-imposed requirements, potentially leading to genuinely novel, locally-appropriate forms of governance for sustainable development. However, further studies are needed to establish whether these comments are representative of the aspirations of NPAs nationally.

Conclusions This paper has examined whether the emerging literature on adaptive governance can cast new light on sustainability initiatives in English NPs. We have not sought to be representative of the full range of projects funded since 2002 under NPSDF here, but have instead focused on five contemporary ‘good practice’ exemplars of sustainable development, as defined and selected by policy elites. We have explored whether and to what extent adaptive governance properties are evident, in particular examining the importance of cross-scale interactions in each; the role of NPAs and the NPSDF as bridging organisations and cross-scale institutions; and the importance of project participants developing common understandings of sustainability.

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

The ‘good practice’ projects seem to derive from individual and/or collective vision and accompanying ‘buy in’/committed action, which is critical to animating the varied resources of English NPs. Resources in the five projects are physical (environmental), material (financial/infrastructure), socially constructed (ideological, discursive), or all three. The case studies exhibit hybrid patterns of governance, comprising cross-level, cross-scale, hierarchical and market-based aspects in order to capitalise on particular community strengths and NP attributes. All five exemplars have a knowledge base of expertise informed by a clear vision; participants who use to the full their contacts and networks; and a transactional base, comprising accessing of specialist advice, expertise and sometimes finance, often from extra-local sources. Each case example also exhibits comprehensive understanding by participants of place qualities and dynamics. At its simplest, this takes the form of initiatives evoking particular qualities of the NP within which they are situated, by picking out particular resources or elements within these Parks, for example capitalising on physical qualities. More usually, however, these initiatives play off NPs’ role as complex sets of natural, intellectual, social and cultural resources, demonstrating PLs’ potency in developing ‘strong’ forms of sustainability. The analysis shows that, in three out of the five projects, NPAs have acted as bridging organisations with the NPSDF playing a major role in facilitating ‘cross-scale’ interactions and learning processes among communities, businesses and local stakeholders. However, this is not to say that these initiatives would have failed in the absence of NPAs, or that, more generally, ‘cross-scale’ interactions are not possible without NPSDF intervention. Rather, NPAs and the NPSDF have acted as brokers and interlocutors in the spatialities of sustainability in English NPs, helping reduce transaction costs to project participants and bringing valuable knowledge, social and financial capitals into play that might otherwise have been unavailable to these local initiatives. Based on these good practice examples, NPAs are gradually developing their local presence within English NPs to act as focii for capacity building on sustainability. Most pertinently the NPSDF has provided NPAs with a platform enabling sustainability as a concept to be realised as a collective endeavour, by building trust and new capacities between individuals at different organisational levels and geographic scales. In doing so, the orthodox portrayal of sustainability as interrelated, interacting economic, environmental and social ‘pillars’ gives way to more spatially differentiated, complex realities. Crucially however, it is less clear whether adaptive governance prescriptions can be used to furnish more complete understandings of the cross-scale/cross-level interactions underpinning the spatialities of ‘successful’ sustainability projects. For exploration of these sustainability processes requires going beyond consideration of actor involvement, scientific and public learning and problem responsiveness, to consider underlying power relations animating these projects. Whether this is possible using the adaptive governance ‘tool kit’ will require further detailed consideration in other empirical contexts.

References Adger, W., Brown, K., Tompkins, E., 2005. The political economy of crossscale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society 10 (2), 9 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9. Argyris, C., Schön, D., 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass. Anderies, J., Janssen, M., Ostrom, E., 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9 (1), 18 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/.

323

Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18 (1), 86–98. Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5), 1692–1702. Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Brondizio, E., Ostrom, E., Young, O., 2009. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel socio-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34. Brunner, R., Steelman, T., Juell, L., 2005. Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. Columbia University Press, New York. Cash, D., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multi-level world. Ecology and Society 11 (2), 8 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/. Clark, J.R.A., 2006. ’The Institutional Limits to Multifunctional Agriculture: SubNational Governance and Regional Systems of Innovation’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24, 331–349. Clark JRA, 2010. Geographies of multifunctionality: developing governance explanations Geography Compass, forthcoming. Curry, N., 1992. Controlling development in the national parks of England and Wales. Town Planning Review 2, 107–121. DEFRA, 2002. National parks at the heart of sustainable development. News Release Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020918a.htm. DEFRA, 2010. English National Parks and the Broads—UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 (London, DEFRA). Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Dercon, G., 2004. How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: a multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14 (3), 177–192. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 (5652), 1907–1912. Dower, M., 1985. Perspectives on integrated rural development. Landscape Research 10 (2), 21–25. Dower, M., Buller, H., Asamer-Handler, M., 1998. The Socio-economic Benefits of National Parks: A Review. Scottish National Heritage, Inverness. Dudley, N., Stoulton, S. (Eds.), 2009. Defining Protected Areas: An International Conference in Almeria, Spain. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland. Fennell, D., Butler, R., 2003. A human ecological approach to tourism interactions. International Journal of Tourism Research 5, 197–210. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30, 411–473. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3), 253–267. Folke, C., 2007. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Paper given at Workshop on Resilience, Realities and Research in African Environments, Jesus College, University of Oxford, 19 June. Grumbine, R., 1997. Reflections on ‘what is ecosystem management’? Conservation Biology 11 (1), 41–47. Gunderson, L., 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management: antidotes for spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3, 7 http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7. Gunderson, L., Holling, C. (Eds.), 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington D.C.. Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Johansson, K., 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology 34, 573–592. Hayes, T, 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of Protected Areas. World Development 34 (12), 2064–2075. Hubacek, K., Reed, M., 2009. Lessons learned from a computer-assisted participatory planning and management process in the Peak District National Park, England. In: Allan, C., Stankey, G. (Eds.), Adaptive Environmental Management: A Practitioner’s Guide. Springer, Netherlands. pp. 189–202. Ladson, T., 2009. Adaptive management of environmental flows—10 years on. In: Allan, C., Stankey, G. (Eds.), Adaptive Environmental Management: A Practitioner’s Guide. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 261–273. Larsen, K., Gunnarsson-Ostling, U., 2009. Climate change scenarios and citizenparticipation: mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures. Habitat International 33, 260–266. Locke, H., Dearden, P., 2005. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environmental Conservation 32, 1–10. MacEwen, A., MacEwen, M., 1982. National Parks: Conservation or Cosmetics? Allen and Unwin, London. MacEwen, A., MacEwen, M., 1987. Greenprints for the Countryside? The Story of Britain’s National Parks. Allen and Unwin, London.

324

J.R.A. Clark, R. Clarke / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 314–324

Mehnen, N., Mose, I., Strijker, D., 2009. Governance in protected areas—current state of research and existing research gaps. Paper given at 1st International Conference on Landscape Economics European Consortium for Landscape Economics, July 2–4, Vienna. Mose, I. (Ed.), 2007. Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: Towards a New Model for the 21st Century. Ashgate, Aldershot. Natural England, 2007. Natural England’s Draft Policy on Landscape NEB PU08, 05. Natural England, Cheltenham. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environmental Management 34 (1), 75– 90. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L., 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology and Society 12 (1), 28 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L., Carpenter, S., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., Holling, C., 2006. Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Socio-ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 1–18 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/. Parker, K., 1985. The Peak District experiment. Landscape Research 10 (2), 16– 20. Philips, A., 2003. Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for Protected Areas. The George Wright Forum 20 (2), 8–31. Plummer, R., Fennell, D., 2009. Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: prospects for adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (2), 149–168.

Raadgever, T., Mostert, E., van de Giesen, N., 2006. Measuring adaptive river basin management Adaptive management of water resources. Summer Specialty Conference. Missoula, Montana, USA, June 26–28. Sandford, J., 1974. Report of the National Park Policies Review Committee chairman Rev. Rt. Hon. Lord Sandford, Department of the Environment. HMSO, London. Scholz, J., Stiftel, B. (Eds.), 2005. Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.. Sharpley, R., Pearce, T., 2007. Tourism, marketing and sustainable development in the English National Parks: the role of National Park Authorities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (5), 557–573. Schoon, M., 2008. Adaptive governance in transboundary conservation: the influences of scale, path dependency and institutional evolution. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Congress for Conservation Biology, Convention Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Jul 10, 2008 www.allacademic.com/meta/p239780 index.html. Thompson, N., 2005. Inter-institutional relations in the governance of England’s National Parks: a governmentality perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 323–334. Westley, F., 1995. Governing design: the management of social systems and ecosystems management. In: Gunderson, L., Holling, C. (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Young, O., 2006. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society 11 (1) www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art27/.