Proponents of ecosystem services approaches to assessment claim that it will ensure the environment is ‘properly valued’ in decision making. Analysts seeking to understand the likelihood of this could usefully reexamine previous attempts to deploy novel assessment processes in land-use planning and how they affect decisions. This paper draws insights from a meta-analysis of three case studies: environmental capital, ecological footprinting, and green infrastructure. Concepts from science and technology studies are used to interpret how credibility for each new assessment process was assembled, and the ways by which the status of knowledge produced becomes negotiable or prescriptive. The influence of these processes on planning decisions is shown to be uneven, and depends on a combination of institutional setting and problem framing, not simply knowledge content. The analysis shows how actively cultivating wide stakeholder buy-in to new assessment approaches may secure wider support, but not necessarily translate into major influence on decisions.
AdelleCJordanATurnpennyJ, 2012, “Proceeding in parallel or drifting apart? A systematic review of policy appraisal research and practices”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30401–415
2.
Babtie Group Ltd, 1993aProof of Evidence: Site Selection and the Level of Provision—PrinciplesPublic Inquiry into the Draft Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire, Document BCC/3, Babtie Public Services Division, Reading, Berks
3.
Babtie Group Ltd, 1993bProof of Evidence: General Philosophy of the Plan A: The Council's CasePublic Inquiry into the Draft Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire, Document BCC/2A, Babtie Public Services Division, Reading, Berks
4.
BakerJSheateWPhilipsPEalesR, 2013, “Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—help or hindrance?”Environmental Impact Assessment Review403–13
5.
BarrettJBirchRCherrettNSimmonsC, 2004, “An analysis of the policy and educational application of the Ecological Footprint”, Stockholm Environment Institute, York and WWF Cymru, Cardiff
6.
BarrettJBirchRCherrettNWeidmannT, 2005, “Reducing Wales' ecological footprint—main report”, Stockholm Environment Institute, York and WWF Cymru, Cardiff
7.
BraatL Cde GrootR, 2012, “The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy”Ecosystem Services14–15
8.
BrundellM J, 1994, “Inspector's report of the inquiry into the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire”, 21 September–16 November 1993, Planning Inspectorate, Bristol
9.
CaldwellL K, 1984Science and NEPA150 (University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL)
10.
CallonM, 1986, “Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay”, in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Ed. LawJ (Routledge, London) pp 196–233
11.
CampbellGSheateW, 2012, “Embedding an ecosystem approach?” Town and Country Planning March, pages 150–155
CarmonaMSiehL, 2008, “Performance measurement in planning—towards a holistic view”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26428–454
15.
ClarkW CMajoneG, 1985, “The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications”Science, Technology and Human Values10(3) 6–19
16.
CCC, 2000Local Sustainability Strategy for Cardiff. Cardiff County Council, Cardiff
17.
ClarkW CMajoneG, 1985, “The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications'”Science, Technology and Human Values10(3) 6–19
18.
CollinsAFlynnA, 2005, “A new perspective on the environmental impacts of planning: A case study of Cardiff's International Sports Village”Journal of Environmental Planning and Policy7277–302
19.
CollinsAFlynnA, 2007, “Engaging with the ecological footprint as a decision-making tool: Process and responses”Local Environment12295–312
20.
CollinsACowellRFlynnA, 2009, “Evaluation and environmental governance: The institutionalisation of ecological footprinting”Environment and Planning A411707–1725
21.
Comhar, 2009Towards a Green New Deal. Comhar Sustainable Development Unit, Dublin
22.
Comhar, 2010Creating Green Infrastructure for Ireland: Enhancing Natural Capital for Human Well Being. Comhar Sustainable Development Unit, Dublin
23.
Commission on the Social Sciences, 2003, “Great expectations: The social sciences in Britain”, London
24.
CostanzaRDalyH, 1992, “Natural capital and sustainable development”Conservation Biology637–46
25.
CounsellD, 1999, “Attitudes to sustainable development in the housing capacity debate: A case study of the West Sussex Structure Plan”Town Planning Review70213–229
26.
CowellR, 2013, “The greenest government ever? Planning and sustainability after the May 2010 coalition government”Planning Practice and Research2827–44
27.
CowellROwensS, 1997, “Sustainability: The new challenge”, in Town Planning into the 21st Century Eds BlowersAEvansB (Routledge, London) pp 15–32
28.
CowellROwensS, 1998, “Suitable locations: Equity and sustainability in the minerals planning process”Regional Studies32797–811
29.
CowellROwensS, 2006, “Governing space: Planning reform and the politics of sustainability”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24403–421
30.
DCC, 2008Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan 2008–2012. Dublin City Council, Dublin
de LaetM, 2000, “Patents, travel, space: Ethnographic encounters with objects in transit”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18149–168
33.
DoE, 1994Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 (MPG6): Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England. Department of the Environment, London
34.
DoEHLG, 2008The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity: Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland. Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Government of Ireland, Dublin
35.
GCC, 2011Galway City Development Plan 2011–2017. Galway City Council, Galway
36.
Haines-YoungRPotschinM, 2014, “The ecosystem approach as a framework for knowledge utilisation”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32301–319
37.
HajerM, 1995The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
38.
HockleyN, 2014, “The use and influence of cost–benefit analysis: A venue for integrating ecosystem knowledge in decision making”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32283–300
39.
HoldenE, 2004, “Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form”Journal of Housing and the Built Environment1991–109
40.
HooperAPunterJ, (Eds) 2006Capital Cardiff 1975–2020: Competitiveness, Boosterism and the Urban Environment (University of Wales Press, Cardiff)
41.
JordanARusselD, 2014, “Embedding an ecosystems services approach? The utilisation of ecological knowledges in decision making”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32192–207
42.
KitscheltH, 1986, “Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies”British Journal of Political Science1658–95
43.
KKCC, 2010Habitat Survey and Mapping for Kilkenny City. Kilkenny City Council and The Heritage Council, Kilkenny
44.
LatourB, 1986, “The powers of association”, in Power, Action, Belief Ed. LawJ (Routledge, London) pp 264–280
45.
LatourB, 1987Science in Action (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
46.
LennonM, 2013Meaning Making and the Policy Process: The Case of Green Infrastructure Planning in the Republic of Ireland unpublished PhD thesis, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University
47.
LoA Y, 2011, “Analysis and democracy: The antecedents of the deliberate approach of ecosystems valuation”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29958–974
48.
McKenzieEPosnerSTillmannPBernhardtJ RHowardKRosenthalA, 2014, “Use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making—how, when, why, and by whom? Lessons from three international cases of spatial planning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32320–340
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis World Resources Institute (Island Press, Washington, DC)
51.
MurdochJ, 1998, “The spaces of actor-network theory”Geoforum29357–374
52.
MurdochJ, 2004, “Putting discourse in its place: Planning, sustainability and the urban capacity study”Area3650–58
53.
MurdochJAbramSMarsdenT, 1999, “Modalities of planning: A reflection on the persuasive powers of the development plan”Town Planning Review70191–212
54.
OwensS, 2012, “Experts and the environment—the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution”Journal of Environmental Law241–22
55.
OwensSCowellR, 2010Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process2nd edition (Routledge, London)
56.
OwensSRaynerTBinaO, 2004, “New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice and research”Environment and Planning A361943–1959
57.
PellizzoniL, 2001, “The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason”British Journal of Sociology5259–86
58.
RauschmayerFvan den HoveSKoetzT, 2009, “Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2742–58
59.
RavetzJ, 2003, “Models as metaphors”, in Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook Eds KasemirBJägerJJaegerC CGardnerM T (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 62–77
60.
RCB, 1993Draft Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire. Royal County of Berkshire, Berkshire County Council Highways and Planning Department, Reading, Berks
61.
RCEP, 2002Environmental Planning 23rd report, Cmd 5459, Royal Commission on Environment and Pollution (The Stationery Office, London)
62.
RichR F, 1997, “Measuring knowledge utilization: Process and outcomes”Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization10(3) 11–24
63.
RobertsonM, 2012, “Measurement and alienation: Making a world of ecosystem services”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series37386–401
64.
RusselDTurnpennyJ, 2009, “The politics of sustainable development in UK government: What role for integrated policy appraisal?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27340–354
65.
RydinY, 1995, “Sustainable development and the role of land use planning”Area27369–377
66.
RydinY, 2010Governing for Sustainable Urban Development (Earthscan, London)
67.
ShackleySDarierE, 1998, “Seduction of the sirens: Global climate change and modelling”Science and Public Policy25313–325
68.
ShoveE, 1998, “Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: Theories of technological transfer and energy in buildings”Energy Policy261105–1112
69.
StibbeA, 2012, “Today we live without them: The erasure of animals and plans in the language of ecosystem assessment”ECOS3347–53
70.
TEEB, 2010The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi
71.
ten BrinkP (Ed.), 2011TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making (Earthscan, London)
72.
TurnpennyJRusselDJordanA, 2014, “The challenge of embedding an ecosystems services approach: Patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32247–262
73.
UK NEA, 2011UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of Key Findings. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge
74.
WackernagelMReesW, 1996Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (New Society, Gabriola Island, BC)
75.
WaylenKYoungJ, 2014, “Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: The case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32229–246
76.
WiedmannTMinxJBarrettJWackernagelM, 2006, “Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis”Ecological Economics5628–48
