Explore the vast range of titles available.

Green Infrastructure (GI) research tends to focus on the need for GI to enhance ecological processes, its potential to provide health and economic benefits, and on the barriers preventing its uptake. Yet there has been inadequate focus on the social aspects of GI. In the United Kingdom (UK) the need for GI is well established, such that policymakers and planners are now turning to the question of how GI should be implemented. Drawing on a mixed method research approach centring on practitioner experience, this paper identifies potential social principles that underpin GI and questions the extent to which these are being implemented in the UK. Results highlight the hitherto unexplored complexities of GI maintenance, the effects of austerity politics, and the role of local-level power dynamics on the implementation of GI. Findings have implications for international literature on GI as well as nature-based solutions more broadly.

An enduring challenge for environmental governance is how to coordinate multiple actors to achieve more collaborative and holistic management of complex socio-ecological systems. Catchment partnerships are often thought able to achieve this, so here we ask: do such partnerships actually help navigate complexity, or merely add to it? We answer this question by analysing the experiences of four voluntary UK catchment partnerships. Our data combined a structured desk-based analysis of partnership documents, with semi-structured interviews with partnership coordinators, chairs and partner representatives. These data were analysed using a qualitative thematic approach informed by the literatures on catchment management and collaborative governance of complexity. We found that partnerships both add to and help navigate the complexity of holistic and inclusive environmental management. Maintaining partnerships entails costs for partners, and partnerships connect messily and multitudinously to other initiatives. However, the partnerships were all judged as worthwhile, and made progress towards goals for water quality, biodiversity and river restoration. They were especially valued for envisioning and initiating complex activities such as Natural Flood Management. Communication and networking by partnership coordinators and partners underpinned these achievements. Aspects of pre-existing governance systems both enabled and constrained the partnerships: in particular, statutory agencies responsible for policy delivery were always important partners, and delivering partnership plans often depended on public-sector grants. This draws attention to the pervasive effect of governmentality in collaborative governance. More attention to analysing—and supporting—such partnerships is worthwhile, complemented by reflection on the limits to environmental governance in the face of complexity.

There are many recommendations for environmental management practices to adopt more holistic or systems-based approaches and to strengthen stakeholder participation. However, management practices do not always match or achieve these ideals. We explore why theory may not be reflected by practice by exploring experiences of projects seeking to implement the ecosystem approach, a concept that entails participatory holistic management. A qualitative inductive approach was used to understand the processes, achievements, and challenges faced by 16 projects across the British Isles. Many projects made significant progress toward their goals, yet failed to achieve fully participatory holistic management. Many of the challenges that contributed to this failure can be explained in terms of the legacy effects of previous projects and the wider social-ecological system. These legacy effects do not necessarily imply a fixed path dependency or lock-in. We therefore call these effects sticking points. Drawing on the literature on institutional analysis and knowledge production, we distinguish three main types of sticking point: (1) institutional, arising from previous ways of working; (2) cognitive, arising from ways of framing and knowing; and (3) political, arising from pre-existing power relations. These sticking points may interact. For example, attempts to promote systems thinking and management may be impeded by a tendency for reductionist thinking, itself reinforced by the constraints on prioritization that arise from pre-existing statutory targets. These influences often arise from aspects of societal and institutional context beyond the control of any individual project. Stickiness is not necessarily all bad, but often acts to constrain the “opening up” away from previous approaches. Because the longterm success of natural resource management is argued to depend on more integrated, participatory, and holistic environmental management, we argue that these sticking points demand more explicit attention in both research and practice.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a key lever to support the transition towards sustainable agricultural production in Europe. However, successive reforms have been incremental and modest with regard to environmental objectives. This contribution presents an assessment of the choices made by Member States in their CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs), directing the EUR 307 billion in funding to support agriculture and rural areas for the period 2023–2027. The focus is on the different funding instruments supporting the restoration of freshwater ecosystems, in particular addressing the impact of drainage, restoring wetland and floodplain connectivity, and increasing landscape-scale water retention. A detailed mapping of farm practices supported by CAP funding – i.e. conditionality, eco-schemes, rural development (Environment and Climate measures), and investments – is presented. Results show that interventions to reduce the impact of drainage, restore wetland and floodplain connectivity, and increase landscape-scale water retention remain limited in scope. Illustrative examples of good practice are highlighted, along with recommendations for improved implementation of the CAP in the current programming period and the next round of reform. CAP 2023–2027 offers opportunities for wetland and freshwater ecosystem restoration. Member State choices show limited ambition and do not fully exploit the potential of the CAP to support restoration efforts. Good practices where the CAP supports wetland and freshwater ecosystem restoration are identified. Better metrics and performance-based incentives are needed to improve outcomes.

There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.

Integrated water resource management (IWRM) is a well-established goal, but there is little evidence about processes of integration linked to water policies. To address this, in 2016–2018 we used a content analysis, a survey and interviews with key actors leading the creation of plans to implement Europe’s Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. We explored whether and how implementation of these policies is being coordinated and reflect on implications for integrated water governance. We found a strong emphasis on achieving integration via coordination. Our interviews brought particular attention to the resources and capacities needed to improve collaboration across teams, including but not limited to information-sharing. Our study gives insight into practical approaches that may support coordination and hence integration of different policy goals for water management: however further theoretically-informed study to track these and other processes is required, as work to connect policy integration with IWRM is still in its infancy.

The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000–2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation “trajectories” of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement—often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.

There is increasing recognition of the wicked nature of the intertwined climate, biodiversity and economic crises, and the need for adaptive, multi-scale approaches to understanding the complexity of both the problems and potential responses. Most science underpinning policy responses to sustainability issues, however, remains overtly apolitical and focussed on technical innovation; at odds with a critical body of literatures insisting on the recognition of systemic problem framing when supporting policy processes. This paper documents the experience of implementing a mixed method approach called quantitative story-telling (QST) to policy analysis that explicitly recognises this normative dimension, as the methodology is part of a post-normal science (PNS) toolkit. The authors reflect on what was learnt when considering how QST fared as a tool for science–policy interaction, working with European Union (EU) level policy actors interested in sustainable agriculture and sustainable development goal 2. These goals—also known as UN Agenda 2030—are the latest institutionalisation of the pursuit of sustainable development and the EU has positioned itself as taking a lead in its implementation. Thus, the paper illustrates our experience of using PNS as an approach to science policy interfaces in a strategic policy context; and illustrates how the challenges identified in the science–policy literature are amplified when working across multiple policy domains and taking a complex systems approach. Our discussion on lessons learnt may be of interest to researchers seeking to work with policy-makers on complex sustainability issues.

Freshwater ecosystems are vital for biodiversity and human well-being, but remain amongst the most degraded globally. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) offer a promising pathway to restoration, yet implementation remains fragmented and often limited in scale. This paper synthesises insights from 18 demonstration cases across Europe, carried out under the EU Horizon 2020 MERLIN project, to identify key factors enabling the systemic upscaling of freshwater restoration through NbS. Drawing on practical experiences, five interdependent “building blocks” are proposed: (1) comprehensive status review; (2) narratives of the future; (3) evidence-informed approach; (4) resource management and (5) stakeholder engagement. These dimensions reflect cross-cutting challenges and capacities — such as context-sensitive planning, adaptive learning, financing strategies and inclusive governance. While grounded in diverse local contexts, the framework offers a strategic orientation for scientists, practitioners and policy-makers working to align restoration efforts with the ambitions of the European Green Deal and Nature Restoration Regulation. Rather than prescribing uniform solutions, the paper provides practice-informed guidance for embedding restoration in complex social–ecological systems. Synthesises lessons from 18 diverse freshwater restoration cases across Europe under the MERLIN project; Proposes five strategic building blocks for scaling Nature-based Solutions: system understanding, shared vision, evidence use, resource management and stakeholder engagement; Emphasises the interdependence of ecological, institutional and societal dimensions in upscaling restoration; Demonstrates the value of transdisciplinary collaboration, adaptive planning and embedded implementation; Offers practice-orientated insights aligned with the European Green Deal and Nature Restoration Regulation.

The paper presents insights from carrying out a pan-EU sustainability assessment using Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) data (the old wine) with societal metabolism accounting (SMA) processes (the new bottles). The SMA was deployed as part of a transdisciplinary study with EU policy stakeholders of how EU policy may need to change to deliver sustainability commitments, particularly to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The paper outlines the concepts underlying SMA and its specific implementation using the FADN data. A key focus was on the interactions between crop and livestock systems and how this determines imported feedstuffs requirements, with environmental and other footprints beyond the EU. Examples of agricultural production systems performance are presented in terms of financial/efficiency, resource use (particularly the water footprint) and quantifies potential pressures on the environment. Benefits and limitations of the FADN dataset and the SMA outputs are discussed, highlighting the challenges of linking quantified pressures with environmental impacts. The paper concludes that the complexity of agriculture’s interactions with economy and society means there is great need for conceptual frameworks, such as SMA, that can take multiple, non-equivalent, perspectives and that can be deployed with policy stakeholders despite generating uncomfortable knowledge.