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. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 243-243, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 129-130, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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. Ranjana Raghunathan, 2022. "Everyday Intimacies and Inter-Ethnic Relationships: Tracing Entanglements of Gender and Race in Multicultural Singapore," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(1), pages 77-94, March.
    4. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    5. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    6. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Gigi Foster, 2020. "The behavioural economics of government responses to COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S3), pages 11-43, December.
    8. 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).
    9. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    10. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    11. Gerards, Ruud & Welters, Ricardo, 2016. "Impact of financial pressure on unemployed job search, job find success and job quality," ROA Research Memorandum 008, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    12. Vasile-Daniel Păvăloaia & Elena-Mădălina Teodor & Doina Fotache & Magdalena Danileţ, 2019. "Opinion Mining on Social Media Data: Sentiment Analysis of User Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Cailong Xu & Ruidong Li & Wenwen Song & Tingting Wu & Shi Sun & Shuixiu Hu & Tianfu Han & Cunxiang Wu, 2021. "Responses of Branch Number and Yield Component of Soybean Cultivars Tested in Different Planting Densities," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    14. Caitlin Robinson & Stefan Bouzarovski & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Underrepresenting neighbourhood vulnerabilities? The measurement of fuel poverty in England," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(5), pages 1109-1127, August.
    15. Michaela Haase & Emmanuel Raufflet, 2017. "Ideologies in Markets, Organizations, and Business Ethics: Drafting a Map: Introduction to the Special Issue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(4), pages 629-639, June.
    16. Rafael Alcadipani & Cíntia Rodrigues Oliveira Medeiros, 2020. "When Corporations Cause Harm: A Critical View of Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Corporate Crimes," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 285-297, November.
    17. Mansoora Ahmed & Sun Zehou & Syed Ali Raza & Muhammad Asif Qureshi & Sara Qamar Yousufi, 2020. "Impact of CSR and environmental triggers on employee green behavior: The mediating effect of employee well‐being," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2225-2239, September.
    18. Licsandru, Tana Cristina & Cui, Charles Chi, 2018. "Subjective social inclusion: A conceptual critique for socially inclusive marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 330-339.
    19. Giger, Markus & Mutea, Emily & Kiteme, Boniface & Eckert, Sandra & Anseeuw, Ward & Zaehringer, Julie G., 2020. "Large agricultural investments in Kenya’s Nanyuki Area: Inventory and analysis of business models," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Alex Bryson & Christine Erhel & Zinaïda Salibekyan, 2017. "The Effects of Firm Size on Job Quality: A Comparative Study for Britain and France," DoQSS Working Papers 17-08, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.

    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.