Back
Why:
The Tools: Applications Benefits and Linkages for Ecosystems (TABLES) project was established to deliver work packages 9 and 10 of the National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on exercise. It captures and embeds the value of nature explicitly in decision- and policy- making frameworks through the translation and adaptation of the ecosystem approach into formal guidance to inform and enhance the selection, development, implementation and evaluation of tools set within key stages of a policy/decision-making cycle.
The project identifies, classifies and prioritises extant public policy tools that the TABLES research team and partners judged to have most impact in policy and decision-making across the built and natural environment. These tools are then adapted using an ecosystem services framework into specific guidance which together forms an integrated suite of tools that can be used by professionals to inform policy or decision-making processes.
What:
Aim:
The principal aim of work packages 9 and 10 is to mainstream the principles of the ecosystem approach by adapting public policy and decision-support tools within an ecosystem services framework to improve policy- and decision-making processes and outcomes.
Summary:
The research proceeds directly from the recommendations of the UK NEA to develop a suite of tools that enable decision-makers to value ecosystems and to use this intelligence more effectively in decision- and policy-making processes. One challenge lies in embedding the value of the ecosystem approach and its attendant ecosystem services across a wider group of stakeholders than the immediate Defra family of agencies, to include built environment professions and the private sector, where it remains essentially invisible and ignored.
Outputs/outcomes:
|
Output/outcome
|
Status
|
Opportunity for input
|
Anticipated audience(s)
|
|
Framework
|
Completed in draft form (May 2013) as the EATME tree. The framework is the top level guidance for IDEAS-SURVEY-ASSESS-PLAN-ACT-EVALUATE stages and provides the platform for all other outputs below.
|
Various avenues from interactive workshops, to video conferences and other methods (October and December 2012; May to July 2013)
|
The framework is anticipated to be used / viewed by academics, practitioners, the public and others
|
|
Interactive road map of tools
|
Draft out for consultation within the EATME platform. May 2013
|
Workshops, telephone conferences, e-mail and other methods of input to identify tools for ecosystem system proofing
|
The interactive road map is in the form of a website to enable maximum impact on all varieties of audiences
|
|
Integrated toolkit
|
The ecosystem proofed tools are contained and signposted within the general framework within the EATME toolkit, May 2013
|
Workshops, telephone conferences, e-mail and other methods of input
|
The interactive road map is in the form of a website to enable maximum impact on all varieties of audiences
|
|
Descriptions of tool usage
|
Testing under the remit of WP10 within a variety of our case studies (May to July 2013)
|
May to July 2013
|
Professional bodies and case studies using our evaluation strategy
|
Methods/tools utilised:
The methodology employed in this research is depicted within a dartboard schematic, with the work proceeding from the outer rings from scoping and team formation to the bull's eye (completion) stage with direct testing of our framework.
In order to maximise the impact of our research and secure maximum user/stakeholder buy-in, an approach was employed which captured the knowledge and experience of case study exemplars using the ecosystem approach/ecosystem services or delivering effective change management. Their input through scoping interviews, workshops, reflection and evaluation formed part of a deliberative process of engagement that informed the development of material. Further engagment practices included interactive workshops and information exchange to maximise social learning and ensuring that the resultant framework and toolkit has legitimacy in the various arenas where they are going to be used.
Case studies:
Wolverhampton City Council
Birmingham City Council
Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan
Natural Resources Wales
Isle of Wight AONB
Staffordshire County Council
Grow with Wyre project
Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnerships
North Devon District Council
Cotswold AONB
High Weald AONB
South Downs National Park
Sustainable Urban Rural Fringes (SURF): Gaywood Valley, Kings Lynn
West Country Rivers Trust
Links to other work packages:
Close collaboration is required with all other WPs to identify the wide spectrum of tools used, and to select the tools being reviewed/ further developed in more detail.
WP1: New tool?/ Design of tools; Asset checks as part of wider toolkit
WP4: Developing indicators for tools; Understanding of cultural values from Natural Capital assets
WP5: Developing indicators for tools; Thought-piece on tools likely to be developed in WP5 and how they might relate to the AONB/NIA context
WP6: Futures-orientated thinking and tools
WP7: Response options outcomes and tools
WP8: Culture change for successful use of tools; developing indicators for tools
Team:
Principal Investigator:
Alister Scott (Birmingham City University)
Team Members:
Jonathan Baker (Collingwood Environmental Planning)
Claudia Carter, Michael Hardman (Birmingham City University)
David Collier (National Farmers Union)
Ron Corstanje, Jim Harris (Cranfield University)
Mark Everard (Pundamilla)
Paul Gibbs (David Jarvis Associates)
Mike Grace, Tim Sunderland, Ruth Waters (Natural England)
Karen Leach (Localise West Midlands)
Richard Wakeford (Rural Consultant)
Oliver Hölzinger (Consultancy for Environmental Economics & Policy)
Advisers:
Mike Kelly (Rural Planning Associates)
Mark Reed (Birmingham City University)
Eleanor Rowe (Royal Town Planning Institute)
Nick Grayson (Birmingham City Council)
Jonathan Porter (Ecosystems Knowledge Network)
Charles Cowap (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors)
Resource allocated: £200,000