.

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

Critical Analysis of Environmental Policy Instruments

2. Keywords

Environmental policy, social change, economic instruments, regulations, voluntary instruments.

3. Introduction

Changing social practice – at the level of the individual and/or the organisation – is widely seen as a vital component of local, national and international strategies for addressing environmental issues. For example, it has been claimed that to ‘solve’ the ‘problems’ of resource depletion, urban air pollution and contaminated land, people should be made or encouraged to reduce energy consumption, the use of private vehicles and the production of waste. In many cases, such alterations in behaviour do not to occur automatically – even where there is broad agreement concerning the nature of the ‘problem’ and the most appropriate way to tackle it. (Such agreement is, of course, frequently lacking in the environmental field.) There are many possible reasons for this – relating, amongst other things, to:

• people’s willingness to change ways of living/working that may be long-standing, deep-seated, or economically advantageous;
• what people need in order to make such changes (eg access to capital, knowledge, labour, skills, time).

Thus, public authorities frequently find themselves in situations where ‘barriers’ (of the kind indicated above) inhibit social change that is deemed – by themselves and their advisors – to be socially or environmentally beneficial. In such situations, they may seek to influence behaviour by implementing ‘policy instruments’. For example, they may pass a new law banning a particular behaviour, they may institute a new tax, or they may embark on an advertising campaign. When they do so, their choice of instrument may be based on range of judgements relating, for example, to:

• the precise nature of the overall policy objective;
• the nature of any barriers thought likely to inhibit achievement of that objective;
• an instrument’s anticipated effectiveness, administrative cost, efficiency, political acceptability and/or potential for motivating continuous environmental improvements – in that particular policy-making context.

The selection of instruments is sometimes challenged – usually by policy experts – on technical grounds. It is also challenged – often by stakeholder organisations – on grounds relating to an instrument’s overall policy objective. Challenges concerning an instrument’s objective generally derive – explicitly or implicitly – from more fundamental political/philosophical differences concerning, for example, the nature of the relationship between humans and the environment, as well as social and environmental values.

There are a number of ways in which one might try to make sense of disagreements concerning the selection of environmental policy instruments. One would be to adopt what is known as a realist approach to knowledge. Such an approach assumes that it is possible for knowledge to be certain and objective. On such a view, it should – in principle at least – be possible to resolve policy debates by establishing the ‘true’ ‘facts’ of a matter.

An alternative – and one which is favoured here – would be to adopt a constructivist approach. This assumes that the production of ‘knowledge’ can be seen as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’; and that all knowledge claims, including scientific ones, inevitably reflect – to some extent – the social context within which they are produced. On this view, different views concerning the selection of an instrument can be seen as reflecting – in part at least – the values and interests of the individuals and groups by whom they are advanced; the ‘knowledge communities’ to which those individuals and groups belong; and the ‘discourses’ and forms of ‘rationality’ with which those knowledge communities are associated. (See Appendix 3 for brief explanations of how these terms are being used here.)(1)

4. Aim

The aim of this TLR is to provide students with an opportunity to develop a critical understanding of environmental policy instruments. The TLR focuses, in particular, on:

• the philosophical underpinnings of different kinds of policy instrument;
• the social context within which debates about the selection of policy instruments takes place.

It seeks to do this primarily by means of exercises focusing on two issues (domestic waste and transport to/from a university) with which students should already be familiar. Similar exercises could be devised involving other environment-related topics according to the needs or interests of the tutor or students.

5. Learning outcomes

After using this TLR, students should:

• have explored – by means of simulated direct experience – the likely response of stakeholders to the deployment of different kinds of policy instrument in a real-life decision-making situation.
• have analysed the philosophical assumptions associated with different kinds of policy instrument.
• have explored the influence of social context (including stakeholder behaviour) on the selection of policy instruments by public authorities.
• be able to make a more critically-informed contribution to debates on policy instruments.
• have developed their oral communication / debating skills.

6. Pre-requisites

Students should already have some knowledge of environmental policy instruments. In particular, they should know that there are a number of different kinds of instrument; and be broadly familiar with the key features of those instruments, as well as the policy context within which each might be deployed. Where this is lacking, students might be given a mini-lecture on the subject. (See Appendix 1 for guidance on the material that might be included in such a lecture.)

Students should also be familiar with the idea that the production of knowledge can be viewed as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’, and have had at least some experience of thinking critically about such processes. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:

• Classifying Knowledge Claims
• Evaluating Knowledge Claims

Some knowledge of environmental values/ethics would also be advantageous. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:

• Introduction to Environmental Values
• Approaches in Environmental Ethics

7. How to use TLR

The TLR has been designed to be used broadly as follows. Exercise 1 could be run with relative ease with classes of up to about 30 students. Exercise 2 would work best with classes of around 10 to 20 students. Where larger class are involved, it might be advisable to divide the class into smaller groups (at least for the ‘Transport Summit’ simulation).

Introduction and Exercise 1

i) Introduce the TLR, reviewing the nature of the content, the aims and learning outcomes, and the way in which the TLR will be used.

ii) Give the students a copy of the Briefing Sheet (see Appendix 2) and Glossary of Key Terms (see Appendix 3).

iii) Instruct them to read the Introduction and the section entitled Exercise 1: Domestic Waste, and then – working individually, in pairs or in small groups – to answer the study questions for Exercise 1.

iv) Review – in a whole-class discussion – what has been learnt from the exercise.

This exercise could be completed in a single workshop lasting approximately two hours. Alternatively, it could be divided up so that Steps (i), (ii) and the first part of (iii) take place in class (requiring about 15 minutes); Step (iii) is completed as independent study; and Step (iv) takes place in class (requiring 30-60 minutes depending on the depth of the discussion).

Exercise 2

v) Instruct the students to read the section of the Briefing Sheet entitled Exercise 2: Commuting to/from the College.

vi) Assign stakeholder roles to students. Depending on the number of students in the class, it might be necessary for the students to work individually or in small groups. (It is important that most – and, ideally, all – of the stakeholder groups listed in the Briefing Sheet are represented at the ‘Transport Summit’ to ensure that the widest possible range of views explored.)

vii) Instruct the students to prepare for the Summit as per the instructions on the Briefing Sheet.

viii)Conduct the Transport Summit simulation, chaired by the tutor in the role of the Vice Chancellor (or even by the VC her-/himself!). This should begin with each participant giving her/his presentation, followed by an open debate during which participants seek to defend their own positions and explain why they oppose alternative positions. Students should stay ‘in-role’ throughout the entire Summit. Where students were assigned to stakeholders in small groups, they should allocate one group member to give the presentation, but should all take part in the subsequent debate.

ix) Review – in a whole-class discussion – what has been learnt from the exercise. Amongst other things, this might focus on:

• the factors that influenced the positions advocated by different stakeholders;
• the most desirable outcome of the Summit from the point of view of the VC (as chief executive of the College and representative of the College’s ultimate decision-making body, the Board of Governors), and the role played by the VC in the Summit;
• the extent to which the Summit favoured the interests of some stakeholders in preference to others.
• the extent to which different stakeholders are likely to be able to influence the College’s decision-making in such a situation.

x) This discussion might be extended to include an exploration of the following:

• the extent to which the selection of a particular policy instrument in any given situation can be seen as an objective decision;
• the extent to which the selection of a policy instrument reflects the priorities (eg cultural, economic, environmental, political) of the decision-making authority;
• the extent to which different kinds of stakeholder (eg academics, activist groups, business organisations, media organisations, non-governmental organisations, professional bodies) are able to influence the selection of policy instruments by public authorities;
• the extent to which the policy instruments advocated by different kinds of stakeholders may reflect the interests, values, etc of those stakeholders;
• the extent to which different policy instruments may embody different sets of assumptions concerning, for example: the nature of human-environment interactions; the ways in which the environment is valued; the distribution of responsibilities for tackling environmental ‘problems’; the nature of environmental decision-making (cf difference between expert-led and inclusionary/participative approaches to decision-making); the nature of knowledge (cf, in particular, differences between a realist and a constructivist epistemology) and issues pertaining to risk, uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle; role of the market and issues pertaining to economic growth/development; the role of the state; individual liberty.
• the extent to which policy instruments – once they have been implemented – serve to reinforce some ideas or beliefs about (or discourses concerning) society and/or the environment – at the expense of competing or alternative ideas, beliefs, discourses etc.

Steps (v), (vi) and the first part of (vii) would require about 30 minutes’ worth of class time. Step (vii) should be completed as independent study. Steps (viii) to (x) would require about 120 minutes worth of class time. However, it could be completed in around 90 minutes if the time made available for the debate was restricted to around 30 minutes, and the subsequent discussion was carefully managed.

8. Instructions to students

See Appendix 2.

9. Stimulus Material

See Appendix 1 for notes on content of possible mini-lecture to be given to students prior to use of TLR.

See Appendix 2 for Briefing Sheet to be given to the students.

10. Degree stage

This TLR has been designed to be run with students at level 2. With variations, it would also be suitable for students at level 3 and level M.

11. Resource requirements

The TLR has no special resource requirements other than access to the material provided.

12. Preparation

None.

13. Links with other TLRs

This TLR is closely related to the following TLR:

• Valuing Nature? - Economics and Environmental Valuation

14. Follow-up activities

Students could be asked to undertake one or both of the following (assessable) tasks:

a) Write a submission to the Vice Chancellor, or the college/student newspaper, outlining ‘their’ views (ie the views of the stakeholder they represented) on the issues discussed at the ‘Transport Summit’. In particular, they should seek to defend their choice of policy instrument and explain why they opposed alternative instruments. Their letters should not simply be a re-write of their presentations, but should also take account of the views expressed by other participants at the Summit.

b) Write an evaluation of what they have learnt from the two exercises focusing, in particular, on: ways in which the selection of environmental policy instruments might be said to reflect the values, interests, etc of both public authorities and other stakeholder groups; and ways in which environmental policy instruments might be said to embody and reinforce some ideas or beliefs about (or discourses concerning) society and/or the environment – at the expense of competing or alternative ideas, beliefs, discourses etc.

15. Recommended reading

Much of the literature on policy instruments can be divided into two broad categories. Firstly, there are texts that approach the subject theoretically from within the discipline of economics. Three examples of such texts are listed in the first section below. Then there is a wider set of reading which concerned with the pros and cons of specific instruments in specific situations. The material referenced in the second section below is that which has been used in the development of the exercise on domestic waste included in this TLR. The ENDS magazine, the Economist, and the journals and websites of environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth provide a source of articles and critiques of a wider set of instruments which might be used in developing variations on this TLR.

Economic Theory

• Jacobs, M (1991) The Green Economy. Pluto Press. [Part 3 provides a clear and relatively jargon free explanation of economic and other types of instruments for pollution control.]
• Bowers, J, (1998) Sustainability and Environmental Economics. Addison, Wesley, Longman Ltd. [Ch 3-6 provide a helpful if technical explanation of different types of instruments and the justification for them.]
• Pearce, D, Markandya, A. & Barbier, E. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London. [Ch 7 explores economic instruments.]

Information on Specific Instruments

• Bowers (as above) - chapter on Domestic Waste.
• Butler, John and Paul Hooper, (1999) Optimising Recycling effort: An evaluation of local Authority PCW recycling initiatives, Sustainable Development, Vol. 7, pp. 35-46.
• ENDS on landfill tax e.g. ENDS Report, February 2000, ‘Slim Your Bin’ waste campaign, p11.
• Friends of the Earth: Press Release: Labour and Tory Councils Fail on Waste Recylcing – Europe may force improvements. Available on-line at:
  http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/1997/19970306101736.html

Appendix 1

Environmental Policy Instruments

Types of instrument

The main types of policy instrument are listed below. Within each type, there are a range of instruments which differ in detail. Some policy instruments can be an amalgamation of more than one type.

Tax- or subsidy-based instruments are appropriate when decisions are made on a financial basis. Through making the environmentally damaging option (eg consumption of fossil fuels) more expensive (or the environmentally-friendly decisions cheaper) the circumstances for decision making alter.

Regulation-based instruments are absolute rules or laws which may be used, for example, to prohibit substances (eg CFCs) or activities (eg trade in endangered species), or set limits on the amount of something that is permitted (eg the emission of pollutants). Failing to comply with the requirements of regulatory instruments may lead to fines or other penalties. Regulation is often a good way of ensuring that particular required improvements in pollution standards are achieved.

Tradable Permits are a ‘half-way point’ between taxes and regulations. As with regulation, fixed decisions are made about how much of something (eg emission of a particular pollutant) is to be permitted in total. Then, if one individual or company is not emitting their full quota of that pollutant, they can ‘trade’ their permit to pollute to another individual or company. An issue here concerns how the permits are distributed in the first place. One option is to distribute permits according to historic pollution levels (this is called ‘grandfathering’). Another is to auction permits to a highest bidder.

Voluntary Instruments are a catch-all for the wide range of other actions which a government might take to encourage people to make voluntary changes in their behaviour. Many individuals and groups already voluntarily make environmentally friendly choices in their lives without any extra persuasion from the government. Nevertheless, the government can provide a boost for such activities, principally through three mechanisms: a) persuasion, b) provision of information and c) changes in the legal context (Jacobs, 1991). The latter, for example, includes giving citizens ‘environmental rights’ to sue individuals or companies who break particular environmental laws. It could also include transferring rights of land ownership to a set of local individuals who may give a higher priority to maintaining long term sustainability.

Criteria for choosing between instruments

There are a number of different criteria for choosing between instruments. According to neo-classical economic theory, an ideal instrument would:

• be effective;
• provide motivation for further change;
• be administratively cheap;
• be economically efficient;
• be politically acceptable.

This ideal is not achievable, but considering the different criteria provides a basis for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different types of instruments, and between the range of possible instruments within that type.

Effectiveness: This concerns the ability of the instrument to meet the objective which has been set with reasonable certainty and speed. It is difficult to predict how much effect a tax, subsidy or voluntary instrument will have. In contrast, regulation and tradable permits are designed to achieve a specified reduction in pollution. A further important factor to consider here is the extent to which the pollution objective is locationally sensitive. An overall objective (about regional or national reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, for example) can be addressed through tradable permits; however, if there is concern about pollution at one location (for example, discharges to a particular river) then only regulation will ensure that the particular problem is addressed.

Motivation: The instrument should provide a reason for individuals and companies to continue to reduce their pollution beyond the target of the instrument. In this respect taxes, subsidies, tradable permits and some voluntary instruments do better than regulation in which there is no further incentive to change behaviour once the flat fee has been avoided.

Administrative cost: Administration refers to the costs of monitoring liability for a particular instrument, and those of ensuring compliance. Any instrument which varies with weights, volumes, or concentrations of pollutants (i.e. taxes or tradable permits) will be far more expensive to monitor than regulation, where the liability depends on whether a simple measure of volume (etc) has been exceeded. It is also important to consider the extent to which individuals or companies would be able to break the law or avoid the tax: if they did so, would they be discovered, would they be prosecuted and what would be their punishment? Policy instruments are clearly better if they are hard or expensive to avoid.

Economic efficiency: This refers to the extent to which the instrument minimises the costs of pollution-reduction. The key question here concerns whether or not the instrument makes every polluter reduce their pollution to the same extent. If it does, then it is likely to be inefficient. This can be understood in relation to the different types of instrument. The imposition of a regulation ensures that all individuals or companies reduce their pollution to the same standard. This may be very easy (and cheap) for some polluters and very difficult for others. Because it is very expensive for some polluters to meet this standard, the overall costs to society may be high. If a tax or tradable permits were imposed instead then the individuals/companies could vary the extent to which they responded according to their costs. This would ensure that society’s overall costs of pollution reduction would be minimised.

Political acceptability: Political acceptability refers to the extent to which the policy instrument fits in with the government’s wider priorities – which are, of course, greatly influenced by pressures emanating from a wide range of interest and pressure groups, as well as the mass media and the general public. There are two particular matters which should be considered here. Firstly, what is the effect of the instrument upon people’s liberty? It can be politically unacceptable to ban an activity (for example, smoking) just because it is known to be dangerous. Another important factor, however, relates to the distributional effects of the tax. Are poor people forced to change their behaviour more than rich people? Regulation means that everyone changes their behaviour to the same extent, taxes mean that rich people can use their wealth and pay for continuing pollution. Whether a government views this as fair or not will depend on their political leanings.

Designing an instrument

The criteria for instrument choice help to indicate which instruments are suitable for particular purposes. However, they also help in the important process of the detailed design of policy instruments. Some of the factors to consider when developing detailed design are considered below:

Tax or subsidy: Who is to be taxed (or subsidised)? On what basis are they to be taxed and is there an administrative machinery for monitoring liability already in place? Are there environmentally-friendly substitute good available - or will the measure just raise revenue without changing behaviour? Who is to collect the tax and is there an administrative machinery for collecting the tax already in place? How is the level of the tax be decided - will it be easy or difficult to adjust it if it proves to be ineffective at encouraging behaviour change? What are the potential routes for avoiding the tax, and what are the risks incurred? Who prevents tax avoidance? Is education/information needed to help individuals and firms respond to this tax?

Regulation: Who is to be regulated and on what basis (volume, concentration etcetera)? What potential routes are available for avoiding the regulation? What are the risks of avoiding the regulation? Who detects, charges and prosecutes those who avoid the regulation? Can a route be found to build in an incentive for continuing decreases in pollution? What would be the costs of introducing a higher level of regulation if the current level proves inappropriate? Is education/information needed to help individuals and firms respond to this regulation?

Tradable permits: How are the permits to be distributed? How is permit ownership to be regulated and checked? Are administrative procedures already available for such checking or do they need to be developed? What are the risks (chances of detection, prosecution, conviction and level of punishment) of polluting without the required permits?

Voluntary instruments: What type of voluntary mechanism is to be used? Who is going to be persuaded/informed, how, when, by whom and about what? How is the legal context to change? Who will be responsible for enforcing the change? How will the effectiveness of the instrument be monitored?

Appendix 2

Briefing sheet

Introduction

Changing social practice – at the level of the individual and/or the organisation – is widely seen as a vital component of local, national and international strategies for addressing environmental issues. For example, it has been claimed that to ‘solve’ the ‘problems’ of resource depletion, urban air pollution and contaminated land, people should be made or encouraged to reduce energy consumption, the use of private vehicles and the production of waste. In many cases, such alterations in behaviour do not to occur automatically – even where there is broad agreement concerning the nature of the ‘problem’ and the most appropriate way to tackle it. (Such agreement is, of course, frequently lacking in the environmental field.) There are many possible reasons for this – relating, amongst other things, to:

• people’s willingness to change ways of living/working that may be long-standing, deep-seated, or economically advantageous;
• what people need in order to make such changes (eg access to capital, knowledge, labour, skills, time).

Thus, public authorities frequently find themselves in situations where ‘barriers’ (of the kind indicated above) inhibit social change that is deemed – by themselves and their advisors – to be socially or environmentally beneficial. In such situations, they may seek to influence behaviour by implementing ‘policy instruments’. For example, they may pass a new law banning a particular behaviour, they may institute a new tax, or they may embark on an advertising campaign.

When they do so, their choice of instrument may be based on range of judgements relating, for example, to:

• the precise nature of the overall policy objective;
• the nature of any barriers thought likely to inhibit achievement of that objective;
• an instrument’s anticipated effectiveness, administrative cost, efficiency, political acceptability and/or potential for motivating continuous environmental improvements – in that particular policy-making context.

The selection of instruments is sometimes challenged – usually by policy experts – on technical grounds. It is also challenged – often by stakeholder organisations – on grounds relating to an instrument’s overall policy objective. Challenges concerning an instrument’s objective generally derive – explicitly or implicitly – from more fundamental political/philosophical differences concerning, for example, the nature of the relationship between humans and the environment, as well as social and environmental values.

There are a number of ways in which one might try to make sense of disagreements concerning the selection of environmental policy instruments. One would be to adopt what is known as a realist approach to knowledge. Such an approach assumes that it is possible for knowledge to be certain and objective. On such a view, it should – in principle at least – be possible to resolve policy debates by establishing the ‘true’ ‘facts’ of a matter.

An alternative – and one which is favoured here – would be to adopt a constructivist approach. This assumes that the production of ‘knowledge’ can be seen as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’; and that all knowledge claims, including scientific ones, inevitably reflect – to some extent – the social context within which they are produced. On this view, different views concerning the selection of an instrument can be seen as reflecting – in part at least – the values and interests of the individuals and groups by whom they are advanced; the ‘knowledge communities’ to which those individuals and groups belong; and the ‘discourses’ and forms of ‘rationality’ with which those knowledge communities are associated. (See Appendix 3 for brief explanations of how these terms are being used here.)(1)

Exercise 1: Domestic Waste

In this exercise, a number of different (imaginary) local councils are addressing issues relating to domestic waste in innovative ways. The environmental policy instruments being used by each council are described briefly below. Once you have read these descriptions, answer the study questions that follow.

1. Sophisticated new waste collection equipment allows Council 1 to weigh wheelie bins as they are being emptied. A bar code on the wheelie bin is also read, and the weight of waste recorded so that a per-kilo charge can be made on every household on a monthly basis.
2. Council 2 introduces the mini-bin with just one quarter the capacity of existing bins. Households whose waste production exceeds the capacity of their bin must either pay a hefty charge for a larger bin, or, if the waste arises on an occasional basis, dispose of it themselves in the civic amenity site.
3. The area administered by Council 3 also experiments with mini-bins. Here, however, households are offered the mini-bins on a voluntary basis. Those who use the mini-bins are charged a reduced Council tax.
4. Council 4 concentrates on the promotion of composting as a means to reduce household waste. A scheme supplies compost bins and worm bins at reduced cost to households in the district.
5. The area administered by Council 5 is divided into 5 small towns. In an innovative move to address waste arisings in the district, the Council divides the district into 5 waste areas corresponding with the small towns. It launches a competition between the 5 areas for which can exhibit the greatest proportional reduction in domestic waste arisings. The competition occurs alongside a campaign run through schools, churches, and other community organisations. The winning areas experience a minor reduction in their Council tax for the year.
6. Council 6 introduces the same sophisticated weighing equipment as was developed for Council 1. However, rather than charging households per kilo of waste, the Council sets a standard weight of waste which they might expect per household per year. Those households who exceed this amount of waste are subject to a hefty fine. The Council, however, says it is relaxed about households forming private agreements to buy space in each others wheelie bins in order to avoid the charge.

Study Questions

Choose two or three of the councils described above and answer the following questions.

1. What type or combination of types of instrument is being used by your chosen councils?

2. Make brief notes – insofar as you are able to – comparing and contrasting the instruments chosen by your two/three councils in terms of the extent to which they are likely to:

a) be effective;

b) provide motivation for further change;

c) be administratively cheap;

d) be economically efficient;

e) be acceptable to different groups within the local authority area.

3. In view of your answers to the previous question, what conclusions can you draw concerning:

a) any differences in the precise objectives of the instruments adopted by the councils?

b) any more general difference in the priorities of the councils concerning, for example: environmental improvements, financial considerations, the interests of different groups within the local authority area?

4. More fundamentally, what can you say about the social and environmental values implicit in the approaches adopted by the councils? For example:

a) Whose actions are assumed to cause damage to the environment? (Suggest some alternative actors who might have been selected instead).

b) On what scale (individual/household/communal/commercial) is it assumed that decisions are made about waste production?

c) What factors or values are assumed to influence these decisions? (Suggest some alternative factors that could influence these decisions).

Exercise 2: Commuting to/from College

In this exercise, the Vice Chancellor of Anywhere College has written to a range of stakeholder organisations (within and outside the college) to invite them to participate in a ‘Transport Summit’ to discuss the issue of transport to and from the college. (A list of stakeholders and the main text of the Vice Chancellor’s letter can be found at the end of this briefing sheet.)

Students will be asked to play the roles of the different stakeholders at the Summit. This will involve the following activities:

Prior to the Summit:

• Make notes on the general purpose, values, interests, etc of your stakeholder group, department, organisation, etc.
• Make notes on ‘your’ views (ie the views of the stakeholder organisation to which you are assigned) on the three questions posed in the Vice Chancellor’s letter. (See below.)
• Prepare a brief presentation (lasting no more than two minutes) summarising ‘your’ views on the three questions posed in the Vice Chancellor’s letter.

During the Summit:

• Make your presentation (playing the part of your stakeholder).
• Listen to the presentations of the other stakeholders. (You are advised to make notes on these, as you will be expected to discuss them afterwards.)
• Take part in an open discussion (staying ‘in-role’) during which you should seek to defend ‘your’ position and explain why you oppose alternative positions.

After the Summit:

• Take part in an open discussion (no longer ‘in-role’) concerning what has been learnt from this exercise. Amongst other things, you may be asked to comment on the extent to which this exercise simulated the kinds of issue that might be raised in real-life cases of environmental policy-making; the extent to which measures (ie policy instruments) advocated by different stakeholders in real-life situations reflect the purpose, values, interests, etc of those stakeholders; and the extent to which different kinds of stakeholder are able to influence the selection of instruments by public authorities.

List of Stakeholders

• Chair, ‘Right to drive’ staff-student alliance
• Chair, Anywhere College Environment Committee
• Chair, Anywhere Meadows local residents’ group
• Chair, College cycle-users group
• Head, Estates Department, Anywhere College (2)
• Head, Finance Department, Anywhere College
• Head, Transport Section, Planning Division, Anywhere Council
• Operations Manager, Anywhere Bus Services Ltd
• President, Students’ Union

Main Text of Vice Chancellor’s Letter

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I am writing to request your help in addressing transport issues around Anywhere College. The College is committed to introducing a more ‘environment-friendly’ transport policy under its recently introduced Environmental Policy. Amongst other things, it has been suggested that the College should seek to reduce the use of private vehicles for commuting to and from the College. There are a number of measures that might be introduced to achieve such a goal, including: reduction or elimination of car parking on College property; introduction of charges for parking on College property; promotion (possibly involving some kind of incentive) of ‘environment-friendly’ modes of transport (eg walking, cycling and public transport). Each of these has different ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ pertaining not just to the environment and economics, but also, for example, to: access (eg for people with special needs, for vulnerable groups, during early mornings and late evenings), jobs (eg of the existing car park attendants), impacts on local residents, and individual liberty (eg of people to make their own decisions about transport).

The College has therefore decided to hold a ‘Transport Summit’. At the Summit, interested parties will be invited to debate the issues indicated above. However, in view of the limited time that will be available, and the College’s general commitment to improving its environmental performance in the area of transport, participants at the Summit will be asked to focus on the following questions:

• What, if any, are the main problems associated with seeking to reduce the use of private vehicles?
• What measure (or combination of measures) do you think the College should introduce to reduce the use of private vehicles? (Your proposals need not necessarily be based on the measures listed as examples in the first paragraph of this letter.)
• What reasons do you have for opposing alternative measures?

In order to get the most out of the Summit, all participants will be asked to give a brief presentation outlining their views. There will then be an open discussion during which participants will be able to comment on each other’s presentations and defend their own positions.

Appendix 3

Glossary of Key Terms

Discourse: A way of talking about, thinking about or representing a particular subject or topic, along with associated social practices. (Knowledge and practice in discourses are mutually reinforcing.) Discourses may be specifically environmental (eg relating more or less directly to particular movements within environmental politics and philosophy such as Deep Ecology or Ecological Modernisation); and/or of a more general political nature (eg relating more or less directly to particular ideologies such as Anarchism, Capitalism or Socialism); and/or of a religious nature (eg relating more or less directly to particular religious traditions such as Christianity or Buddhism – or branches within those religions); and so on. Discourses are said to structure the ways in which we can understand the world and act in the world, and to be part of the way in which power circulates and is contested. As such, they are said to be productive or enabling: particular discourses enable us to think and act in particular ways. However, they are also said to be constraining, insofar as we cannot readily think or act outside of, or beyond, the particular discourses that shape us.

Knowledge community: A group whose members characteristically share a set of beliefs (often tacitly-held and taken-for-granted) concerning, for example: the nature of ‘reality’ and ways in which knowledge can be produced and validated; the validity of certain theoretical and ‘factual’ knowledge; the choice of legitimate objects for scholarly and professional attention; and the education and training required for full membership of such a community. Examples of such communities include particular professions (eg environmental health) and academic disciplines / sub-disciplines (eg eco-toxicology), and more general groupings such as the industrial-scientific community or the green-scientific community.

Rationality: A more or less distinctive way of comprehending, or reasoning about, the world, upon or within which discourses may be constructed. Rationalities concern, in particular, alternative conceptions of the possible forms which knowledge about the world can take – but whose underlying premises are routinely concealed from - or, at least, taken for granted by – those who draw upon them in constructing their discourses. Examples of rationalities include: ‘technical rationality’, which asserts – explicitly or implicitly – the superiority of ‘instrumental’ knowledge (especially knowledge which facilitates the control of physical, biological or other processes), and which proclaims – explicitly or implicitly – the objectivity of such knowledge; and ‘cultural rationality’, which asserts that knowledge necessarily contains a subjective component: that human values, motives, interests and intentions are reflected in all knowledge claims. As with discourses (see above), rationalities can be said to be both enabling and constraining in the effects they have on the ways in which we can understand, and act in, the world.

Notes:

(1) For an extended discussion of environmental decision making from a constructivist perspective, see Jones, PC and Merritt, JQ (In press) Science and Environmental Decision-Making: The Social Context. In Huxam, M and Sumner, D (eds) Science and Environmental Decision-Making. Pearson, London.

(2) Responsible for management of all buildings and grounds; safety of staff, students and visitors; security of property.