Making sense of policy implementation: The construction and uses of expertise and evidence in managing freshwater environments

Abstract

Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Environmental Science and Policy. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be re ected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A de nitive version was subsequently published in Environmental Science and Policy, 30, June 2013, 10.1016/j.envsci.2012 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThis paper explores how environmental policy is implemented and enacted through the management of technical and institutional knowledge at the local level. We use the conservation of the freshwater pearl mussel in the River Esk, North Yorkshire, UK, as an empirical case study to examine the interaction that takes place between professionals from different institutional and disciplinary backgrounds as they come together to work on a common problem. We focus on two aspects: the way in which an institutional context was created; and the interaction between the professionals involved. Our analysis demonstrates that the strategic intermediary role of professionals is vital to policy implementation. The intermediary uses their strategic vision and undertakes political manoeuvring following the presentation and interaction of different knowledges and evidence to ensure a certain course of action. This is different from a knowledge broker. The role of the professional is to draw on expertise, both formal and tacit, to interpret and judge data in relation to decision making. Those individuals participating in decision making of this nature have multiple histories, roles and motivations which enables innovation in the creation of meaning within environmental management. The quality of the evidence can be assumed adequate once subject to diverse professional scrutiny. These findings are important since innovative behaviour that creates new structures and practices is becoming central to delivering good management of land, water and biodiversity.

Micro-hydro power in the UK: The role of communities in an emerging energy resource

“…process is the assumption that expertise is held in particular individuals or institutions, and that it is value free. However, as social science research has demonstrated, the nature of evidence, ideas, arguments and framing all matter in the way in which expertise is determined and used in the process of environmental governance (Jasanoff 2003;Owens, 2010;Bracken and Oughton, 2013). As such, expertise is not self-evident but rather determined by both 'what' is going to count as relevant knowledge and subsequently 'who' then possesses such knowledge to inform policy debates within the public arena (Gieryn, 1999;Jasanoff, 2003, Eden et al, 2006.…”

Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards

“…Floods and their management tend to be interpreted in a specific way that is partly dictated by legislation, which is in turn related to a certain jurisdiction, which then informs and influences practice. Individuals and organisations themselves in turn interpret legislation and plans in different ways according to personal and local priorities (Bracken and Oughton 2013). There is a vast literature outlining different approaches to FRM, but also research that questions the prevailing interpretations of what flood management should be, how it should be assessed, and, therefore, how it should be practiced (Werritty 2006;Rouillard et al 2015).…”

Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems

“…We know that for beneficial outcomes, top-down, technical approaches must be balanced with bottom-up, participatory knowledge (Bracken & Oughton 2013;Cinderby et al 2011), that communication is critical, and that knowledge production and knowledge communication are intertwined (Callon 1999). What presents problems is the application of these ideals in a world where experts and the public are growing more aware of the complexity of the "social-ecological" (e.g.…”