IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v36y2018i8p1355-1370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mainstreaming the environment through appraisal: Integrative governance or logics of disintegration?

Author

Listed:
  • Duncan Russel
  • John Turnpenny
  • Andrew Jordan

Abstract

In both national and international circles, environmental policy makers are repeatedly faced with the challenges posed by scientific, institutional and administrative fragmentation and complexity. Within this context, appraisal – of policies, programmes and projects – has been repeatedly advocated as a key integration tool that can help policy makers navigate such fragmentation and complexity by better integrating environmental concerns into decision making. In this paper, we examine the challenges that are posed for integrative governance, defined as the theories and practices that focus on the relationships between policy instruments and/or governance systems, from the perspective of efforts to integrate environmental considerations into all sectors of decision making via appraisal. Drawing on institutional theory, we explore the cross-sectoral and multi-level institutional challenges surrounding the integration of environmental considerations across different levels of appraisal. We do so by examining appraisal in the European Commission, and at the national, regional and local level in the UK. We argue that conflicts between different ‘logics of integration’ – or disintegration – routinely hamper the integration of environmental concerns between governance levels and across governance sectors. These logics include differences between appraisal systems; between appraising in theory and in practice; between different sectors and between the fragmented professional logics of different policy actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Duncan Russel & John Turnpenny & Andrew Jordan, 2018. "Mainstreaming the environment through appraisal: Integrative governance or logics of disintegration?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1355-1370, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:8:p:1355-1370
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654418767656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654418767656
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654418767656?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. Pearce, David, 1998. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 84-100, Winter.
    2. Richard P. Eales & William R. Sheate, 2011. "Effectiveness Of Policy Level Environmental And Sustainability Assessment: Challenges And Lessons From Recent Practice," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(01), pages 39-65.
    3. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    4. Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2007. "Gearing-up governance for sustainable development: Patterns of policy appraisal in UK central government," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(1), pages 1-21.
    5. Susan Owens & Tim Rayner & Olivia Bina, 2004. "New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice, and Research," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(11), pages 1943-1959, November.
    6. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan Wong, 2019. "Balancing Institutions for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals Through ‘Network Within Hierarchy’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.

    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. Camilla Adelle & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny, 2012. "Proceeding in Parallel or Drifting Apart? A Systematic Review of Policy Appraisal Research and Practices," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 401-415, June.
    2. John Turnpenny & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2014. "The Challenge of Embedding an Ecosystem Services Approach: Patterns of Knowledge Utilisation in Public Policy Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 247-262, April.
    3. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    5. Tony Jackson, 2010. "Environmental Policy under New Labour," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 25(5-6), pages 510-522, August.
    6. Dave Huitema & Andrew Jordan & Eric Massey & Tim Rayner & Harro Asselt & Constanze Haug & Roger Hildingsson & Suvi Monni & Johannes Stripple, 2011. "The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 179-198, June.
    7. Zimmermann, Michel & Pye, Steve, 2018. "Inequality in energy and climate policies: Assessing distributional impact consideration in UK policy appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 594-601.
    8. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    9. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    10. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    12. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2017. "Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 62-74.
    13. Broich, Tobias, 2017. "Do authoritarian regimes receive more Chinese development finance than democratic ones? Empirical evidence for Africa," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 180-207.
    14. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    15. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    16. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    18. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01019642, HAL.
    19. Reibling, Nadine & Ariaans, Mareike & Wendt, Claus, 2019. "Worlds of Healthcare: A Healthcare System Typology of OECD Countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 611-620.
    20. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2009. "Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in," MPIfG Discussion Paper 09/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    21. Bernhard Ebbinghaus, 2009. "Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform," Chapters, in: Lars Magnusson & Jan Ottosson (ed.), The Evolution of Path Dependence, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:36:y:2018:i:8:p:1355-1370. 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.