IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v24y2006i5p681-700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evidence – Policy Interface in Strategic Waste Planning for Urban Environments: The ‘Technical’ and the ‘Social’ Dimensions

Author

Listed:
  • Simin Davoudi

    (Institute for Research on Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Newcastle University, Devonshire Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England)

Abstract

In the last decade there has been an upsurge in governmental interest in evidence-based policy, coupled with an emphasis on a utilitarian view of research. This emphasis on research for the benefit of policy has contributed to the highly selective nature of the construction of knowledge on urban environments, with those areas that have not been regarded as a policy problem failing to attract investment in research. Strategic waste planning has been a striking example of such policy areas. The first part of this paper provides an overview of the disjuncture between policy and evidence and argues that the lack of research has contributed to the underdevelopment of intellectual capital in this field. This overview sets the context for the second and third parts of the paper which draw on a case study of recent attempts to improve the evidence base for urban waste policy at the regional level. The author examines the interface between the technical and the social dimensions of knowledge production and knowledge transfer as experienced in the work of the Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB) in the North West of England. By drawing on five basic tenets of technical rationality, the author provides a critical analysis of how the NWRTAB's adoption of a predominantly technical – rational approach affected the dynamics of knowledge – policy interplay. It is argued that technical rationality proved to be inadequate in satisfying some of the rhetorical expectations that are often associated with it, and which help perpetuate its continuing popularity among professionals and policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Simin Davoudi, 2006. "The Evidence – Policy Interface in Strategic Waste Planning for Urban Environments: The ‘Technical’ and the ‘Social’ Dimensions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(5), pages 681-700, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:24:y:2006:i:5:p:681-700
    DOI: 10.1068/c0609j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c0609j
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c0609j?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. Joe Weston, 2000. "EIA, Decision-making Theory and Screening and Scoping in UK Practice," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 185-203.
    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. Ulrike Pröbstl-Haider, 2022. "EIA Effectiveness in Sensitive Alpine Areas: A Comparison of Winter Tourism Infrastructure Development in Germany and Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Julio A. Soria-Lara & Luca Bertolini & Marco Te Brömmelstroet, 2017. "Towards a more effective EIA in transport planning: a literature review to derive interventions and mechanisms to improve knowledge integration," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(5), pages 755-772, May.
    3. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    4. Amir Saffari & Mohammad Ataei & Farhang Sereshki & Mostafa Naderi, 2019. "Environmental impact assessment (EIA) by using the Fuzzy Delphi Folchi (FDF) method (case study: Shahrood cement plant, Iran)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 817-860, April.
    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. Juan Pablo Celemín & Guillermo Ángel Velázquez, 2018. "Spatial Analysis of the Relationship Between a Life Quality Index, HDI and Poverty in the Province of Buenos Aires and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 57-77, November.
    7. Lindsay C. McCallum & Christopher A. Ollson & Ingrid L. Stefanovic, 2016. "Development of a Health Impact Assessment Screening Tool: A Value Versus Investment Approach," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Graham Wood & Agustin Rodriguez-Bachiller & Julia Becker, 2007. "Fuzzy Sets and Simulated Environmental Change: Evaluating and Communicating Impact Significance in Environmental Impact Assessment," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(4), pages 810-829, April.
    9. Christopher Snary, 2004. "Understanding Risk: The Planning Officers' Perspective," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(1), pages 33-55, January.
    10. Gałaś, Slávka & Gałaś, Andrzej, 2016. "The qualification process of mining projects in environmental impact assessment: Criteria and thresholds," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 204-212.
    11. Cristina I. Pereira & Camilo M. Botero & Contanza Ricaurte-Villota & Oswaldo Coca & David Morales & Benjamin Cuker & Celene B. Milanes, 2022. "Grounding the SHIELD Model for Tropical Coastal Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.

    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:681-700. 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.