UK Data Archive

Study Number 6300

Lake District Stakeholders' Perceptions of Personal, Organisational and Environmental Change, 2004-2005

USER GUIDE

RELU Capacity Building Project Project: RES 224-25-0042 Lancaster University Centre for Ecology and Hydrology In-depth interviews with Lake District stakeholders Topic Guide

1. Personal background and route towards a career in the environment / conservation industry / countryside.

2. Perception of change in his/her work. 3. Perceptions of change in his/her organisation. 4. Expectations of change in the Lake District in the next 25 years.

Data Access Consent Agreement I give my consent for the information collected during the interview with members of the RELU Capacity Building Project at Lancaster University (Project: RES 224-25-0042) to be used for academic purposes. I understand that the transcription of the interview will be stored in an appropriate data archive in the UK and access to this data will be granted to researchers. Signed: Name: Date:

DEVELOPING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN LAND USE IN THE ENGLISH LAKE DISTRICT

About this project

1. Underlying rationale

Over the next decades, major changes in rural land use are expected:

1. as a direct result of international economic pressures through Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms;

2. from changes in the structure of rural communities; 3. in response to increasing, more localised, societal and economic

pressures.

The need for careful management of land use change is especially acute in a National Park, where there is a wide range of potentially conflicting interests that need to be balanced to meet the needs of a range of different land managers and users. The Lake District National Park (LDNP), is pre-eminent among Britain’s National Parks, and World Heritage Site status is currently being sought. The LDNP is subject to many interacting environmental, social/cultural and economic pressures, which have to be identified, understood and ultimately reconciled if it is to be maintained both as a working environment and a recreational/tourist resource. Research into these interactions is essential to support knowledge-based management of the LDNP, and the resolution of conflicts among stakeholders. Moreover, the many interactions in the LDNP provide an excellent opportunity to develop and maintain interdisciplinary research involving both natural and social scientists.

The principal driver of local land use change in the LDNP is through the farming community in reaction to economic and environmental pressures. Possible changes are increased forestry, for commercial purposes, a reduction in sheep and cattle and associated activities, abandonment, and the development of the land for tourism. But planners will want to

maintain or enhance the landscape, given the importance of tourism to the National Park (see The Structure Plan for Cumbria). This might for example involve the development of natural woodland for conservation purposes. The question will then arise as to which landscape is desirable, and sustainable. The economic pressures will have implications for the functioning and appearance of the natural environment, which is already affected by drivers connected with land-use, e.g. fertiliser application and soil erosion, together with atmospheric deposition, discharges to surface waters, and water supply.

Traditionally, natural scientists have considered land-use change as a primary driver of environmental effects, and have considered its impacts on soil biogeochemistry, erosion, terrestrial ecology, water quantity and quality, and freshwater ecology. For social scientists, land use and landscape are usually seen as the outcomes of a set of deeper processes surrounding profit-seeking, within constraints of environment, land-ownership, political regulation, and cultural/ethical framings. These two disciplines must come together to address the environmental and social issues that drive the management of land-use change. In order to do this effectively, researchers within each field need to gain appreciation of the issues, skills and language of the other disciplines, and how these relate and correspond to their own approach.

Thus, this Capacity Building project aims to foster interaction among young scientists from different disciplines, who have the task of developing a comprehensive approach to environmental and societal issues driven by land-use change, focusing on specific issues relevant to the Lake District National Park.

Buttermere, looking southeast

2. Stakeholders

Many individuals and organisations can be considered to be stakeholders in the LDNP and its future. These include interests in farming, recreation, tourism, conservation and game sports, together with local authorities, planning bodies, the business community, environmental protection bodies, environmental campaign groups, water companies and, in this context, the academic community. Clearly, the project, and research emanating from it, will depend strongly upon stakeholders’ views and ideas. It is envisaged that stakeholders will be involved in the project in two ways. Firstly, and at an early stage in the project, the Research Team will contact key individuals and organisations to solicit their needs, wants and problems. Secondly, appropriate and willing stakeholder representatives will be invited to one or more of the project Workshops.

3. Workshops

A series of discussion workshops will be held to aid the development of an interdisciplinary approach to examining land use change effects, including conflicts and their resolution, in the LDNP. The first workshop was held on 30th November 2004 at Brockhole, near Windermere. The second workshop was held on 22nd March 2005 at the Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University. The final set of workshops will be held during July 2005.

A joint Research Councils programme co-sponsored by Defra and SEERAD.

This research is being conducted as part of the Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme (Project: RES 224-25-0042). RELU is funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, with additional funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.

DEVELOPING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN LAND USE IN THE ENGLISH LAKE DISTRICT

Project context: the English Lake District

Introduction

The Lake District is situated in the northwest of England. It is one of nine National Parks in England, and is the largest of the Parks, with an area of approximately 2200 square km. The landscape of the Lakes is world-renowned for its beauty; it is pre-eminent among the English National Parks, and is a candidate World Heritage Site.

The landscape of the Lake District comprises wild hills, deep ribbon lakes and coastline. The highest peak in the area is Scafell Pike, at an altitude of 3210ft (978m). Probably the most distinctive feature of the area are the large number of lakes, ranging from large ribbon lakes such as Windermere (England's largest) and Ullswater, to small lowland lakes such as Grasmere and Rydal Water, and a large number of small upland lakes known locally as tarns.

The Lake District has been inhabited for at least 10,000 years. Among the groups that have left their mark upon the local landscape are the Romans, the Vikings, and the miners and quarriers of the 18th and 19th centuries. Tourism began to develop in the 18th century and today it is, along with farming, the major industry of the region. About 12 million people visit the Lake District every year.

The Lake District. The National Park comprises the dark brown area.

Image produced from the Ordnance Survey Get-a-map service. Image reproduced with kind permission of Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland.

Landscape, geology and climate

The geology of the Lake District comprises largely acidic volcanic rocks. Three main rock types are found in the area:

1. The Skiddaw Group, about 500 million years old. Formed from mud settling on the ocean floor, these rocks form the northern part of the National Park area. They give rise to the characteristic smooth outlines of the hills in the northern Lakes.

2. The Borrowdale Volcanics Group, about 450 million years old. These rocks are formed from volcanic lavas and ash flows. They dominate the central part of the National Park and are associated with the highest and craggiest hills, notably Scafell Pike itself.

3. The Windermere Group, about 420 million years old. These comprise slates, siltstones and sandstones, again formed in the marine environment. They comprise much of the southern part of the National Park and form lower, rolling countryside. Here also may be found several plateau of Carboniferous Limestone.

The form of the Lake District landscape has been heavily influenced by glaciation, particularly valley glaciers, which have created the distinctive pattern of steep-

sided valleys and rugged peaks seen particularly in the central area of the Park. It is glaciation that has scoured out the deep valleys which allowed the formation of the distinctive long, thin ribbon lakes such as Windermere, Coniston Water and Ullswater.

The climate of the Lake District is strongly influenced by its position on the western side of Britain, receiving southwesterly winds and weather systems across the Atlantic. The climate is therefore mild and wet. The hilly topography has a strong local effect on rainfall; annual rainfall in the centre of the Park can be up to four times higher than at the coast.

A view of Buttermere

Economy and Land Use

The Lake District National Park is home to about 42,000 people. Of the working population, about two-thirds are employed in services or catering, largely focused on the tourist industry. Agriculture (including forestry and fishing) employs about one-tenth of the working population, with a similar proportion working in manufacturing.

Land use is dictated by the steep rugged nature of the terrain, the mild damp climate, and the largely acidic and poor soils. Agriculture, particularly sheep and cattle rearing, dominates. On the high fells, much of the land is grazed in common; the Lake District has one of the largest areas of common grazing land in Western Europe. Of particular note are the local sheep, particularly the Herdwick, which is bred to live on the open hills and is probably Britain's hardiest sheep breed. Historically, much of the land was farmed as small family holdings; however, in more recent times it has become increasingly difficult for small farmers to earn a living from farming alone. The number of farms, and the proportion of the population employed in agriculture, have declined significantly in the past 40-50

years. In common with many other upland areas of the UK, a large proportion of farm income comes from subsidies, from both the UK Government and the European Union. In part, subsidy is intended to preserve rural culture and the appearance of the landscape by encouraging farming to continue. Many farmers in the Lake District are seeking to diversify by providing tourist accommodation and facilities such as cafes. Many farms in the area are owned by the National Trust, which altogether owns about one-quarter of all the land within the National Park. In accordance with the Trust's key aim of preserving the UK's historic countryside, the Trust supports tenant farmers on its land and encourages the maintenance of traditional family farms.

Woodland covers 10-15% of the National Park area. About half of this area comprises broad-leaved woodland, and the remainder conferous woodland. While much of the broad-leaved woodland is ancient, coniferous woodland predominantly comprises more recent plantations, owned and managed by the Forest Enterprise. Coniferous plantations are managed for timber production, wildlife and landscape protection, and for tourism and amenity.

The Lake District also plays an important role in the water resources of North West England. Two of the large lakes, Thirlmere and Haweswater, are water supply reservoirs owned and managed by United Utilities, the main water supply company for the region. United Utilities also owns areas of land around its reserviors, amounting to about 7% of the National Park, thus making it one of Park's main landowners.

Bibliography/Further links

Encyclopedia Tiscali has a series of photographs of the Lake District, including many of the lakes.

A joint Research Councils programme co-sponsored by Defra and SEERAD.

This research is being conducted as part of the Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme (Project: RES 224-25-0042). RELU is funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, with additional funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.

RES-224-25-0042, Prof E Tipping, Lancaster University 01 Sep 04 – 31 Aug 05 Developing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Address Environmental and Social Issues Resulting from Changes in Land Use The aim of this project was to develop ways for social and natural scientists to work together in order to address environmental and social issues resulting from changes in land use in the English Lake District. To achieve this aim four young scientists from the Lancaster Environment Centre engaged in a part-time year long process of learning how to work together and exploring ways of effectively working alongside stakeholders to address issues in the Lake District. The Lake District proved an excellent study area. As Foot and Mouth in 2001 revealed, whilst the landscape is very much a cultural (farmed) landscape, much of the population is dependent on income from the tourism sector. In order to try to understand potential futures in the Lake District it is clear that a holistic understanding of the links between the resident and visiting populations and rural land uses is essential. The project mainly consisted of meetings where those involved discussed issues ranging from ways of studying and understanding the world, ways of doing research in groups of scientists with very different skills, to the current issues affecting the Lake District. In all, six main meetings took place, three of which were confined to scientists, and three involving both scientists and representatives of stakeholders. The first meeting engaged stakeholders in a discussion of the issues currently affecting the Lake District, and was instrumental in providing a focus for ideas on ways in which social and natural sciences could be applied jointly to provide useful advice and direction on such issues. As the project progressed and the young scientists’ ideas on how and what to propose for future work clarified, the focus of meetings moved towards discussing draft proposals for future research among scientists and stakeholders, to ensure that the proposals were both achievable scientifically and were of value to stakeholders. The project enabled:

• The development of a group of young scientists with an increased individual and group capacity for undertaking interdisciplinary work through their enhanced understanding of the factors contributing to effective interdisciplinary science. A large number of small meetings took place between the scientists aimed explicitly at understanding their different approaches and assumptions.

• The wider development of an awareness of interdisciplinary potential and its importance within the Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University.

• Establishment of links between the academic community and a range of stakeholders in the Lake District National Park resulting in increased awareness amongst stakeholders of the relevance of interdisciplinary science to an understanding of the rural environment. The research involved a range of stakeholders such as the National Trust, United Utilities and Cumbria Tourist Board to representatives from Commoner Associations.

• Increased awareness of the environmental and societal issues impacting on rural land use in the Lake District National Park and how these relate to particular stakeholders.

• Production of a proposal for work in the Lake District National Park which will incorporate public values into an exploration of potential future land use. If funding is gained for this proposal it will allow the young scientists to develop research techniques for the integration of natural and social science including public value towards developing potential scenarios of future land use.

DEVELOPING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN LAND USE IN THE ENGLISH LAKE DISTRICT

Workshop I ‘Elaborating a research agenda for the Lake District’. 30th November 2004, Lake District National Park Centre, Brockhole, Windermere 1. Brief summary of themes and concerns The Lake District is a highly valued environment due to its significance as a ‘cultural landscape’. Historically farming has been a key activity in the creation and maintenance of this ‘manicured’ landscape. As a cultural landscape the Lake District is, to a very large extent, a ‘farmed landscape’. While there is a shared sensitivity amongst institutional stakeholders towards the value of this cultural landscape and a desire to move towards more ecologically sustainable practices, there is also a diversity of opinions as to the scope of land-use and landscape change that may be possible and desirable. This implies the acknowledgement that the Lake District is an evolving reality where a range of activities including farming take place (forestry, water management, energy production, conservation of ecosystems, tourism, craft/artisan industries, etc.). It also implies the acknowledgement that the understanding of the Lake District as a ‘cultural landscape’ varies with time and between different social groups and institutions which gives scope for potential future scenarios where, at least in some parts of the Lake District, farming may be playing a different role. Therefore some key emerging questions seem to be:

o What do people want the Lake District National Park to be like in

the future both ecologically and culturally? o What kind of farming system would be needed in the LD in the

future to provide both a viable living for farmers and a healthy environment?

o And what are the economic conditions under which this is achievable?

o What is the scope for the development of non-farming activities? o Where will the money required to maintain the LD as a culturally

and ecologically thriving landscape come from? 2. Key issues The discussions in the workshop revolved to a large extent around farming, partly as a reflection of its current economic, social and cultural importance. However, it was evident that other issues also generated general interest and enthusiasm but did not get sufficiently ‘aired’ as a result of this concentration on farming. It may be that these issues also provide significant or interesting research topics. 2.1 Farming One set of issues revolve around the recognition of farmers as key players in the evolution of the landscape and the need to understand whether they are aware of the issues facing them in the future and willing to adapt to changes in farming practices/political contexts/market trends and how this is affecting the environment. Those who are currently responsible for managing most of the Lake District (farmers) contribute both to its ecological and cultural state but their role as producers is economically threatened and the role of landscape managers may not pay enough, or be one that attracts them. Institutional stakeholders are clear that the Lake District needs to become more ecologically sustainable and that farming is key in that process. However, the cultural implications of such change and how it will actually manifest itself for the Lake District farmers is unknown. It may be that many farmers are unaware of the extent of change which will be brought about through the decoupling process under CAP reform and the impacts of this shifting emphasis from production to ecosystem services. 2.1.1 Economic change, viability and sustainability Are farmers aware of the potential impact of the most substantial policy shift in farming since post-war incentives to enhance productivity? If so;

o To what extent do farmers either have or lack the power to influence

change? Is the amount of power that they have appropriate? o Will farmers want to cease to be primarily producers? Are they

diversifying?

o What kind of economic, informational support do they need to do so? o What new markets are farmers focusing on? How are farmers getting

access to new markets? o How is diversification affecting farmers’ own perceptions of their

value to wider society? How might this affect the manner in which farmers engage with change?

o How is it affecting their livelihoods? o What new forms of entrepreneurial association does it require/is

leading to? o What new forms of family/community life are emerging? What are the

implications for sustainability? o What are the social and economic impacts of initiatives such as

‘Leader+’? o How important is local demand of local farming products? o Is there a role for organic farming?

2.1.2 Agricultural policy and agri-schemes

o What were the aims of the Lake District ESA? o Has the ESA worked for the Lake District? o Can being part of the ESA scheme under CAP reform make farming

economically viable for all farmers, or will there be some fall-out? o How effective are the agri-schemes going to be in achieving their aims? o Will people like the landscape changes which will result from

changing agricultural policy? 2.1.3 Social/cultural change and sustainability

o How are farmers coping with the pressures of the housing market? Who is keeping the farm/house, who is selling, why, how are they living through this process?

o How many farmers are needed for farming in the LD to be viable? What are its economies of scale?

o Are farming skills being lost? What are the implications for sustainability?

2.2 Planning In general the opinions around the table seemed to be that planning was an important issue both restricting and enhancing the economic viability of the area as well as influencing the cultural nature of the Lake District. Major issues included:

o Affordable housing for locals o Planning restrictions on holdings affecting the above

o Infrastructure for an ageing population, transport, health o Car parking for tourism o Constraints on ‘green’ energy sources, wind, wood, energy crops

2.3 Landscape: potential for change

o Cultural significance of landscape: what changes are expected/acceptable?

o Who should be consulted about the value of the landscape/future changes in the landscape?

o When and where is ‘wilding’ appropriate? Farm, valley, whole LD? o What are/can be the new alternative land-uses underlying such a

dynamic cultural landscape? 2.4 Tourism

o Can an eco-tax be implemented in the LD? o What is the potential for the increase in tourism? o What is the potential for ‘green tourism’? o What is the effect of number of tourists in the daily practice of farmers,

in the way they routinely operate? 2.5 Ecosystem fragility Many of the issues under farming are relevant here but this was given as a specific research issue

o Is the Lake District ecosystem fragile? o What is causing it to be so? o What can be done about it? o Can we look more closely at the impacts of grazing on biodiversity and

look closely at farmer management in relation to those impacts? o Would it be worthwhile to have a case study based on common land?

2.6 Renewable Energy in the Lake District

o Is there potential for it in the Lake District? o What will it be? And what will its impacts be? o Can bio fuels be part of the future of the Lake District, if so, how?

2.7 An understanding of where we are now This goes back partly to the success of the ESA schemes to date as well as the environmental fragility issue, but there seemed to be a requirement for a serious analysis of the current situation in the Lake District using a catchment approach to include;

o Valley by valley analysis of public domain, private & owned and tenanted farms

o How many key fell farms are there? o What impact do NT or County Council farms in high places have? Are

they important as reservoirs for particular breeds? o Investigate collapse of heafing system in relation to ownership o In more general terms, what is the data required to be able to think

about the LD in a systemic way? _

The National Trust representative was unable to attend the meeting, but has sent us the following list of research requirements: 1. Information regarding the value of the landscape to people - both actual (i.e. car-park spend) and secondary (i.e. if the landscape were not maintained or changed what would be the impact upon visitors and tourism). 2. Information regarding sustainable stocking limits on the fells - both upper (for biodiversity) and lower (for the maintenance of effective hefts) 3. Need for detailed landscape character assessment information (e.g. at a local scale) - in order to set against capacity for change etc. Must include data on the historic environment, as well as the natural 4. Information regarding environmental quality - water, air, light, noise etc

DEVELOPING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES RESULTING FROM CHANGES IN LAND USE IN THE ENGLISH LAKE DISTRICT

Workshop II. ‘Interdisciplinary research in the Lake District’ March 22nd 2005, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University 1. Policy context The key question: What is the relevant political context for research of an interdisciplinary nature in the Lake District National Park? A list of likely policy drivers was presented as a means of starting discussion: Countryside White Paper CAP reform Soils Directive LDNP Management Plan Water Framework Directive World Heritage Site status The timescale of prediction (20 years) and the interdisciplinary nature of any proposed research were emphasised. Possible methods of feeding research into policy making were suggested:

• Think tanks • Northern Way • Stakeholder engagement • Green Alliance

The policy context It was pointed out that the policy context is a very difficult thing to forecast. If we went back 20 years to 1985 and attempted to forecast the current policy context, it is unlikely that we would be very successful. Individual elements of the policy context have their own different timescales, and different policies are likely pulling in different directions. ‘Disasters’ such as BSE and Foot & Mouth can have unforeseen, rapid impacts on the policy context. Discourses on topics such as climate change can alter greatly over a 20 year time period. Cross-compliance in relation to multiple policies, e.g. the Water and Soil Framework Directives, is going to be important in the future. There may be a danger in becoming too policy-oriented; other drivers such as developments in consumer demand, leisure activities, housing demands and transport use could be beneficially analysed. Scenario-building was proposed as an alternative to straightforward forecasting, as it can account for the multiplicity of ways in which the future unfolds. Scenarios could be constructed in social, economic and environmental contexts, and their interactions studied. The policy context could then be studied as an external influence on these drivers. Another alternative would be to focus upon actors (i.e. stakeholders) rather than policy; this would essentially focus upon what animates policy change, e.g. liberalisation, risk-aversion, willingness to change, in other words, the underlying cultural mood. Can we unravel what past animators have been and what future ones might be? Multiculturalism, for example, could become an important future animator. What is important is that these animators are what drives the policy context, so teasing them out would essentially be looking at the system from a more fundamental point of view. Studying the media and looking at how information is fed to the public could be important here. Focusing research into policy-making Policy needs to be recognised as a process: the idea that there is a group of entities to which we simply communicate our research is over-simplistic. The ways in which natural scientists communicate their research findings into policy-making tend to be quite proscribed. There can be disparities between scientific expert recommendations and actual policy (flood defence is a good example). Communicating with organisations that know how to get research into the public domain (e.g. the Green alliance) could be very useful. The Bowland and Bodmin Moor initiatives (Defra) are good examples of holistic ways of looking at policy impacts on land management, by focusing on a geographic area.

Could we ask: how can we ‘regulate’ social ‘mood, giving ‘the environment’ back to the people who actually manage the land. What will evolve in the future in terms of policy is likely to be a mix of quantitative knowledge and ‘mood’. 2. Stakeholder engagement The key question: What lessons can we learn from each other’s experiences of stakeholder engagement in the Lake District National Park? Selected relevant stakeholders were listed: Institutional

• County/District Councils • Cumbria Tourist Board • Defra • English Nature • Environment Agency • Forestry Commission • LDNPA • National Trust • United Utilities

Lay

• Residents of Lakeland towns, villages and valleys • Members of farming community • Members of tourism community

The following questions were posed as a means of starting discussion:

• At what stage in the research process have stakeholders been involved? • How have they been involved? • Which aspects of stakeholder engagement have worked well? • Which aspects have proved difficult? • How can we improve our approaches?

There is quite a spectrum of funder-researcher-stakeholder engagements, and nearly all projects require some contact with stakeholders following completion. But stakeholders usually have no accessibility to the research or its outcomes. (How) can we change this? There are ‘advanced’ ways of communication out there, but accessibility and the meaningfulness of research are still important issues.

Getting communication started Greater stakeholder involvement with research at all stages is going to become increasingly important. But this raises its own issues on both sides. The drivers of academic research tend to be single-discipline and output-oriented, away from the more discursive world of stakeholder interaction. Among land managers there can be a feeling that involvement with research is a threat, as they don’t often get a chance to influence outcomes. On a practical note, farmers don’t often have the time to be involved in projects, for example to attend meetings. Paying them for their time could be useful in encouraging their greater involvement. The degree of stakeholder involvement can be important – it can be important for research not to be driven too much by the viewpoints of a particular group of stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement in formulating research could be useful, but possibly at the risk of bias in the work. Communication in practice Some examples of issues arising from past/current projects involving stakeholder communication are:

• Mutual understanding of approaches between researchers and stakeholders is important.

• People (e.g. farmers) want to be told why they are asked to take particular courses of action.

• Stakeholders response to research results can be complex – in extremes they may not believe the work!

• Not ‘privileging’ scientific knowledge, but seeing it as one of a number of knowledges, can be very important.

• Factual lay knowledge is crucial, but value-laden knowledge is not. • Lay involvement in forestry in Scotland has resulted in actions being

taken that were not necessarily those that would have been taken on expert advice, but as a result areas of high biodiversity have been produced.

• Communication structures in farming communities are important. It might be useful to focus on the research-policy-‘real world’ cycle and to focus research onto the relationships among people at all stages of this cycle.

3. Interdisciplinarity The key question: What lessons can we learn from each others’ experiences of interdisciplinarity at Lancaster? Some starting propositions were presented as a means of starting discussion:

• Disciplines define what counts as evidence and priorities in research

• Disciplines can constrain new ways of thinking and knowing • Interdisciplinarity is all about breaking this path of knowledge

production

Questions were posed to encourage sharing of experiences;

• What does interdisciplinarity mean to you? • What other disciplines have you worked with? • What kinds of relationships exist between disciplines? • What was the relationship between ‘lay knowledge’ and ‘science’ in

your research?

And finally………… What can we do next to continue the promotion of interdisciplinarity at

Lancaster? What does interdisciplinarity mean? Working together towards a common goal – tackling a problem from a broader perspective rather than approaching it from the most obvious angle. This is perhaps different to multi-disciplinarity, the process of carrying out lots of different kinds of research independently. It was felt that interdisciplinarity may arise from multidisciplinarity if there is a willingness to take on ideas from different disciplines. Transdisciplinarity was also raised as another ‘word’ to describe the many forms that ‘working together’ as different scientists can take. Interdisciplinarity in practice – stakeholder engagement The issues raised by the Loweswater project were raised here and some comparisons made with work in Tanzania looking at soil conservation. The solutions for sustainability are not always obvious, in Tanzania, farmers children were encouraged to go to school and get educated, thereby stopping future generations from having to farm and impacting on the sustainability of

the land. In Loweswater, stakeholder engagement and taking a more rounded approach (stepping outside of the framing – noxious blooms and water quality) has already identified some key policy areas (LDNP planning) and issues (farmer insecurity) that are likely to impact on the physical environment. In Loweswater there are issues of policies at national and National Park level having unexpected and negative outcomes. It is apparent from that work that to gain knowledge about how policy relates to practice on the ground an understanding of the behaviours, constraints etc operating on those on whom the policy impacts is essential. Issues to be aware of when working in interdisciplinary teams with stakeholders

Tokenism • Examples were given of research that had attempted to cover all the

angles but had done so in a ‘tick-box’ fashion rather than accurately reflecting reality, in particular the impacts on local people. It was also felt that there was a tendency for consultation to be a token affair, carried out after the decisions have already been made.

Lay agendas • The requirement for an understanding of both ‘lay knowledge’ and lay

definitions of the problems, agenda’s – e.g. At a rural primary school, parents agenda may be for ‘happy, well-adjusted kids’, LEA agenda ‘efficient education’. When working with stakeholders ‘lay knowledges’ aren’t all we are working with, we also need to know about ‘lay agenda’s’ and ‘lay framings of knowledge’. Becoming involved with stakeholders may affect the objectivity of research, e.g. for Loweswater to what extent do we play an advocacy role?

An example of an interdisciplinary problem and some of the issues it throws up The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was raised together with the consideration that the implementation policies are adopting the ‘least risk’ route. The WFD has taken 20 years to arrive and comes from society’s desire for ‘clean, healthy water’. There is a political requirement for waters to reach good ecological status but this is likely to beyond the ability of scientists to achieve. It may be better to approach the problem by finding out what people really want and what they are prepared to do to achieve that. This raised the issue of ‘top down’ policies, coming down from ‘on high’ and translated into practice at the bottom level. It was acknowledged that the reality of attempting to make processes work from bottom-up would be very problematic and the organisational and participatory requirements substantial. The challenge is in part then to compile evidence and priorities (knowledges) within disciplines to reach the goal of good ecological status

and make them transferable across situations. However, it was acknowledged that things developed locally don’t always translate well to other places How do we do it? Interdisciplinarity is helped by individuals who can span disciplines to a certain extent, or at least have an understanding and an openness towards other disciplines. Claire Waterton talked about her ‘discipline’ the sociology of knowledges – which is a paradoxical discipline, constantly deconstructing other disciplines and looking at the whole question of disciplinarity. The capacity builders talked about spending time understanding different scientific approaches, finding common ground through working on specific proposals. Challenges/advice/opportunities It was commented that even under RELU very few proposals were evenly balanced between the sciences, equally good from all disciplines. In general many sources of funding tended to be biased towards research from particular angles (inevitable given the structure of our education), examples were given where science was driven either from the social or physical side and then the other angles are considered as ‘add-ons’. It was felt that there is a lot of politics in funding but that there is a definite shift towards interdisciplinarity and a recognition not just from research councils but more widely (e.g. Defra, FC) that it’s no longer appropriate to tackle issues from a single perspective. It was felt that the importance of interdisciplinarity and its ability to work is always enhanced by having a focus, even where there’s not necessarily consensus about the nature of that problem. Mentoring – to ensure high quality work in interdisciplinary teams it is useful for those working in teams to be mentored by others in their own area of science who are outside of the interdisciplinary team. Interdisciplinarity is asking a lot…challenging to produce outputs in the same way as single disciplinary scientists alongside the extra input of the time/effort it takes to work with/understand others. In addition the formalized structure for outputs is not really there, at least not with the same academic credential as single science research. Whilst Defra etc. are recognising its importance it doesn’t always make the academic career successful. What can we do at Lancaster to enhance interdisciplinary research? Focus on particular topics, e.g. ‘water’ Develop practical proposals to take forward Keep meeting and talking Café in courtyard – the locked doors of CEH don’t help

RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) 2008 will be a negative force if interdisciplinarity is not acknowledged as a useful and academically challenging direction. ‘Lessons’ for RELU proposers:

i. Consider the changing role of the state and individual over the next 20 years.

ii. The policy context has many elements, not necessarily complementary.

iii. Events and disasters disrupt forecasts and policies. iv. Scenario-building is an alternative to forecasting. v. Cross-compliance with different policies will be important in the

future. vi. As a starting point for thinking, ‘social mood’ is an alternative

animator to the ‘policy context’. vii. It is over-simplistic to consider ‘research communication’ as

something that only happens after the event. viii. People want to know why they are asked to pursue particular

courses of action. ix. Stakeholder accessibility to research is important, but beware bias. x. Science is only one of many knowledges. xi. Think of the research>policy>’real world’ cycle as a whole, instead of

just ‘feeding’ into policy making.

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Rural Economy and Land Use - RELU

Search

Cymraeg | Feedback | Advanced Search

● Home

● Our Science

● News Centre

● Data Holdings

● Products

● About Us

● Working with Others

● CEH Science

�❍ Biodiversity

�❍ Biogeochemistry

�❍ Water

● Environmental Information Data Centre

● Publications

● Contact Us

Buttermere, English Lake District

The slopes around Buttermere

A favourite spot for photorgaphers

You are here: CEH Web | Our Science CPG | RELU

Working together on future land use in the Lake District

Steve Lofts, Lisa Norton & Ed Tipping (CEH),

Phil Macnaghten, Javier Caletrio Garcera & Ellie Straughton (Institute for Environment, Philosophy & Public Policy,

Lancaster University)

The English Lake District is one the best-loved parts of the British countryside. But, as with many other parts of Britain, the countryside and the people who live and work there are under many pressures: tourism, house prices, pollution and changes in farming practices are just some of the issues faced.

In the past, scientists would have studied an issue like pollution in isolation, without thinking about the reasons why the problem might have happened in the first place. Now the government wants groups of scientists with different skills to work together on such issues, so that different aspects (such as economics, effects on communities and ecological effects) can be thought through by a single group

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/ecp/RELU.html (1 of 3) [06/10/2009 15:57:34]

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Rural Economy and Land Use - RELU

Drystone walls have become a part of the

traditional English landscape

of experts working closely together. This is being done through a research initiative called RELU (Rural Economy and Land Use).

A key part of RELU is encouraging social and natural scientists to work together and to come to understand one another’s approaches. To this end, a portion of RELU funding is devoted to developing the ability of natural and social scientsts to work together. This project is intended to contribute towards that goal, with a focus on developing approaches to tackle the particular issues of sustainable land use in the English Lake District. The project is being carried out by four young scientists: two from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and two from the Institute for Environment, Philosophy & Public Policy at Lancaster University.

The main aims of the project are:

● to get social and natural scientists working together;

● to discuss ideas and research with ‘stakeholders’ (people with an interest in the Lake District, such as farmers and local councils);

● to understand better the main issues of sustainable land use in the Lake District;

● to identify topics for future research that are useful and relevant.

The project is centred upon a series of workshops, where stakeholders (e.g. the National Park Authority, Cumbria County Council, the National Trust and farmers’ representatives) will come together with scientists to discuss current and future issues affecting sustainable land use in the Lake District.

To find out more about the project, download the relevant pdf file:

More information about this project

Project context: the English Lake District

Building our capacity to do interdisciplinary work

The scientific team

The project workshops

● Report on Workshop I, December 2004

● Report on Workshop II, March 2005

More about the RELU initiative

Contacting us

We are interested in hearing from you if you feel you have an interest or point of view on RELU issues, and you would like to discuss it further with us.

Please contact Dr Steve Lofts. Thank you!

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/ecp/RELU.html (2 of 3) [06/10/2009 15:57:34]

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Rural Economy and Land Use - RELU

A joint Research Councils programme co-sponsored by Defra and SEERAD.

This research is being conducted as part of the Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme (Project: RES 224-25-0042). RELU is funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, with additional funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.

top of page

staff portal | general enquiries | sitemap | copyright | terms/disclaimer | privacy | freedom of information | customer service | complaints | access keys

© NERC - Centre for Ecology & Hydrology - 2009

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/ecp/RELU.html (3 of 3) [06/10/2009 15:57:34]