IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v24y2006i5p661-680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but Also Fails to Challenge the Science – Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Sally Eden

    (Department of Geography, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, England)

  • Sylvia Tunstall

    (Flood Hazard Research Centre, School of Health and Social Science, Middlesex University, Queensway, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SA, England)

Abstract

Ecological restoration is an expanding area of science and practice for environmental management, but in urban environments in particular its challenge to traditional approaches can be limited because it is seen primarily as a scientific or practical endeavour rather than a social one. In general, the restoration literature, especially on the scientific and practitioner side, suffers from the ‘deficit model’ of public understanding and from a lack of fit between the expectations of restoration and policy workers and those of their local publics. Hence, the irony is that, although restorationists may be seen as radical in scientific and policy terms because of their challenge to the tradition of the ‘hard engineering’ of rivers, they are not radical in social science terms because they fail to challenge the tradition of technocratic environmental management of the public and its deficit model. We illustrate this through two examples of urban river restoration in England—the Alt and the Brent—and we conclude by suggesting how such problems might be addressed through more emphasis on and integration of social science within research and practical agendas for urban restoration projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Sally Eden & Sylvia Tunstall, 2006. "Ecological versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but Also Fails to Challenge the Science – Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(5), pages 661-680, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:5:p:661-680
    DOI: 10.1068/c0608j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c0608j
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c0608j?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sally Eden & Andrew Donaldson & Gordon Walker, 2006. "Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1061-1076, June.
    2. Sylvia Tunstall & Susan Tapsell & Sally Eden, 1999. "How Stable are Public Responses to Changing Local Environments? A 'Before' and 'After' Case Study of River Restoration," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 527-545.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cleland, Jonelle & Rogers, Abbie A., 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: a knowledge base approach," Research Reports 107578, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    2. Eileen S. Johnson & Kathleen P. Bell & Jessica E. Leahy, 2018. "Managing the science-policy boundary: implications for river restoration," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 281-289, September.
    3. Hodgson, Isla D. & Redpath, Steve M. & Fischer, Anke & Young, Juliette, 2018. "Fighting talk: Organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 332-343.
    4. Brian P Bloomfield & Bill Doolin, 2017. "Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2457-2476, November.
    5. Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.
    6. Chia‐Hao Ho & Steffen Böhm & David Monciardini, 2022. "The collaborative and contested interplay between business and civil society in circular economy transitions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 2714-2727, September.
    7. Guillermo Curado & V. Manzano-Arrondo & E. Figueroa & j.M. Castillo, 2014. "Public Perceptions and Uses of Natural and Restored Salt Marshes," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 668-679, December.
    8. Lowe, Philip & Phillipson, Jeremy & Proctor, Amy & Gkartzios, Menelaos, 2019. "Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 28-37.
    9. Paola Gazzola & Maggie H Roe & Paul J Cowie, 2015. "Marine spatial planning and terrestrial spatial planning: reflecting on new agendas," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1156-1172, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:5:p:661-680. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.