This article differentiates between descriptive and explanatory factors to develop a typology and a theory of stakeholder and public engagement. The typology describes different types of public and stakeholder engagement, and the theory comprises four factors that explain much of the variation in outcomes (for the natural environment and/or for participants) between different types of engagement. First, we use a narrative literature search to develop a new typology of stakeholder and public engagement based on agency (who initiates and leads engagement) and mode of engagement (from communication to coproduction). We then propose a theory to explain the variation in outcomes from different types of engagement: (1) a number of socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional contextual factors influence the outcomes of engagement; (2) there are a number of process design factors that can increase the likelihood that engagement leads to desired outcomes, across a wide range of sociocultural, political, economic, and biophysical contexts; (3) the effectiveness of engagement is significantly influenced by power dynamics, the values of participants, and their epistemologies, that is, the way they construct knowledge and which types of knowledge they consider valid; and (4) engagement processes work differently and can lead to different outcomes when they operate over different spatial and temporal scales. We use the theoretical framework to provide practical guidance for those designing engagement processes, arguing that a theoretically informed approach to stakeholder and public engagement has the potential to markedly improve the outcomes of environmental decision-making processes.

Unity between human and physical geography continues to be debated widely. However, if geography is to take advantage of its unique positioning between the natural and social sciences, geographers need to be able to communicate more effectively and efficiently across human and physical specialisms. In this paper we focus on the significance and uses of language in interdisciplinary research practice. Interdisciplinary research faces a range of challenges in achieving effective communication between discipline‐based experts, of which language is key. This paper draws on a discussion developing the initial ideas for a research application and a field day to familiarize the group members with the study area. Dialects, metaphor and articulation are identified as three overlapping aspects of language which play an important role in developing understandings between different disciplines. These three different aspects of language are illustrated through the analysis of three situations focusing on the words dynamic, mapping and catchment. We conclude that interdisciplinary projects must allocate time to the development of shared vocabularies and understandings. Common understanding derived from shared languages in turn plays a vital role in enhancing the relations of trust that are necessary for effective interdisciplinary working.

No abstract

Framing encompasses the processes of identifying and bounding the area of research and based on our own experiences as academics we have found significant differences in the ways that researchers establish and frame a disciplinary, compared to an interdisciplinary, research project. In this paper we have attempted to contribute to the development of the conceptual framework underpinning interdisciplinary research through analysis of interviews with a number of academics already working in an interdisciplinary manner. Successful projects are able to identify and support the processes that allow the communication and negotiation that is necessary, not just for the initial framing of a research funding proposal but to be able to maintain negotiation. Self awareness and continual reflexivity and a willingness to be questioned by others are essential to this process.

River flooding is a serious hazard in the UK with interest driven by recent widespread events. This paper reviews different approaches to flood risk management and the borders (physical, conceptual and organisational) that are involved. The paper showcases a multi-method approach to negotiating flood risk management interventions. We address three fundamental issues around flood risk management: differences and similarities between a variety of approaches; how different approaches work across borders between professionals, lay people, organisations and between different planning regimes; and, whether the science evidence base is adequate to support different types of flood risk management. We explore these issues through a case study on the River Tweed using Q methodology, community mapping and focus groups, participatory GIS, and interviews, which enabled co-production of knowledge around possible interventions to manage flooding. Our research demonstrated that excellent networks of practice exist to make 123Nat Hazards (2016) 82:S217-S240 DOI 10.1007/s11069-016-2284-2 decisions about flood risk management in the Scottish-English borders. Physical and organisational borders were continually traversed in practice. There was an overwhelming desire from professional flood managers and local communities for an alternative to simply structural methods of flood management. People were keen to make use of the ability of catchments to store water, even if land needed to be sacrificed to do so. There was no difference in the desire to embrace natural flood management approaches between people with different roles in flood management, expertise, training or based in different locations. Thus conceptual borders were also crossed effectively in practice.

Recent decades have seen dramatic changes in the ways in which households in developed Western economies gain their livelihoods, with marked elements of a return to old ways of working. There has been a shift from reliance upon one family wage to the need for family employment as well as growing reliance on self-employment and small business. These changes mean that childcare for working parents, and the promotion of new small enterprise, are key areas of policy concern. Drawing on original English empirical research around both these themes, this article shows the ways in which UK households draw on redistribution between the generations as a v - v generally decommodified v - v contribution to livelihoods and "getting by." We argue that these results confound widely utilized models of how people behave, and take particular issue with how economists and policy-makers model the household and its boundaries as the institutional context for individual decisions.Household Boundaries/decision-making Policy Models Childcare Small Business Gendered Work Economic Individualism,

No abstract

In this paper we bring together arguments developed from three conceptual frameworks: the embeddedness of household economic behaviour; the processes of social inclusion and exclusion; and ideas of choice and well‐being. Our study is based on a comparative analysis of self‐employed micro‐business households in two rural locations: the Lofoten Islands in northern Norway and Northumberland in northern England. It explores the ways in which micro‐businesses may limit social exclusion and promote rural development. Household behaviour and decision making are compared in different policy contexts and different micro contexts inside the household itself. We demonstrate that the role that business activity plays in combating social exclusion is by no means straight forward. Choices by households and the individuals within households play a key role in determining perceptions of well‐being. We demonstrate that well‐being is made up through decisions made across a range of different spheres of inclusion such as family, community, gender and paid and unpaid work roles. The findings have implications for the formulation of rural development policies.