A Collaborative Partnership Approach
to Integrated Waterside Revitalisation:
The Experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign,
the North West of England
Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
By Joon Sik Kim
December 2001
i
To my family
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you, Peter.
iii
ABSTRACT
Joon S. Kim
Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Abercromby Square, Liverpool,
L69 3BX, UK
<<To review later>>
The emergence of a new model of governance, bringing together governmental and
non-governmental forces to achieve the policy goal, calls for a novel form of
partnership driven by interdependence and networking between a range of actors.
Although this approach is often described as ‘collaborative planning’, there is
widespread acknowledgement that the ‘new’ practice has operational difficulties. This
paper draws on the results of a research project investigating how a concrete example
of collaborative partnerships, the Mersey Basin Campaign in North West of England,
can operate for integrated waterside revitalisation.
The Mersey Basin Campaign is a government-sponsored 25-year initiative that aims
to improve water quality and the waterside environments of the Mersey Basin, a
heavily urbanised area containing the two conurbations of Merseyside and Greater
Manchester. In Australia, 1999, the Campaign won the Inaugural River Prize as the
World’s best river-management initiative by far of environmental co-operation
between all partners. From the experience of the Campaign, our research identified
three key aspects of integrated waterside revitalisation; consensus building,
facilitation and open participation. In carrying out the study, six detailed case studies
within the Campaign’s activities have been investigated in the context of three key
aspects. About 40 semi-structured interviews have been undertaken, and over 25
meetings and field works have been observed.
Our research shows having shared ownership of the partnership, which can be
motivated from feelings of achievements among member representatives are
fundamental for effective partnership service delivery. It has been seen that once the
representatives have ownership of the partnership, they act as a catalyst to stimulate
and motivate action from their parent organisations.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: 1INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 4
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 5
1.3.1 Case Study as a Research Strategy ........................................................................................ 5
1.3.2 Selecting the Case Study ........................................................................................................ 7
1.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO: GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN WATERSIDE REVITALISATION ................... 11
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.2 CONCEPTUALISING GOVERNANCE ................................................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Characteristics of Governance ............................................................................................ 13
2.2.2 Typology of Governance ...................................................................................................... 14
HIGH................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 GOVERNANCE IN WATERSIDE REVITALISATION ........................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Changing of Governance in Waterside Management .......................................................... 20
2.3.2 From Government towards Governance .............................................................................. 26
2.4 IMPLEMENTING WATERSIDE REVITALISATION ............................................................................. 27
2.4.1 Principles for Waterside Revitalisation ............................................................................... 27
2.4.2 Institutional Arrangement for Waterside Revitalisation ...................................................... 31
2.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 35
CHAPTER THREE: COLLABORATIVE PLANNING AND PARTNERSHIP INSTRUMENTS
................................................................................................................................................................ 37
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 38
3.2 COLLABORATIVE PLANNING THEORY........................................................................................... 38
3.2.1 Background to Collaborative Planning Theory ................................................................... 38
3.2.2 The Concept of Collaborative Planning............................................................................... 39
3.2.3 Collaborative Planning in Practice ..................................................................................... 44
New Partnerships .......................................................................................................................... 47
3.3 INSTRUMENT FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING: PARTNERSHIPS ................................................... 48
3.3.1 Partnerships towards Collaborative Planning .................................................................... 48
3.3.2 Conceptualising Partnerships .............................................................................................. 54
3.3.3 A Life Cycle of Partnerships ................................................................................................ 59
3.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 63
CHAPTER FOUR:DESIGNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT FOR INTEGRATED
WATERSIDE REVITALISATION .................................................................................................... 65
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 66
4.2 ENGAGING COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TO WATERSIDE REVITALISATION .................................. 67
4.2.1 Advantages in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation ....................................................... 67
4.2.2 Limitations in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation ........................................................ 68
4.3 DESIGNING A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP FOR REVITALISING WATERSIDES .......................... 69
4.3.1 Pre-partnership Collaboration ............................................................................................ 69
4.3.2 Collaborative Partnership Creation and Consolidation ...................................................... 70
4.3.3 Collaborative Partnership Programme Delivery ................................................................. 78
4.3.4 Collaborative Partnership Termination or Succession ........................................................ 89
4.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 89
CHAPTER FIVE:CASE STUDY: THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN ....................................... 91
5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 92
5.2 CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 92
5.2.1 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 92
5.2.2 Selection of the Case Study .................................................................................................. 95
5.3 BACKGROUND TO THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN ..................................................................... 100
5.3.1 The Mersey Basin ............................................................................................................... 100
5.3.2 The Idea of the Mersey Basin Campaign ........................................................................... 102
v
5.4 THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN ................................................................................................. 103
5.4.1 The Objectives of the Mersey Basin Campaign ................................................................. 104
5.4.2 Organisational Structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign ................................................. 105
5.4.3 Scope of Action in the Mersey Basin Campaign ................................................................ 112
5.5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 116
CHAPTER 6: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OFTHE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN
.............................................................................................................................................................. 117
6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 118
6.2 PRE-PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION STAGE............................................................................... 118
6.2.1 Building common purpose ................................................................................................. 119
6.2.2 Identifying Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 120
6.3 PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION ......................................................................... 121
6.3.1 Designing Facilitating Bodies: Flexibility ......................................................................... 122
6.3.2 Attracting Formal Members of the Campaign ................................................................... 124
6.3.3 Attracting Informal Members of the Campaign ................................................................. 128
6.4 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME DELIVERY STAGE ........................................................................... 133
6.4.1 Network-oriented Service Delivery .................................................................................... 133
6.4.2 Outcomes of the Collaborative Approach .......................................................................... 137
6.7 PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION OR SUCCESSION STAGE ................................................................. 143
6.8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 144
CHAPTER SEVEN: THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN IN PRACTICE ................................. 147
7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 148
7.2 CONSENSUS BUILDING IN PRACTICE ........................................................................................... 148
7.2.1 The Mersey Estuary Management Project ......................................................................... 149
7.2.2 The Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups ...................................................... 165
7.2.3 Summary of Consensus Building Process .......................................................................... 172
7.3 FACILITATION IN PRACTICE ........................................................................................................ 173
7.3.1 The Water Mark Scheme .................................................................................................... 174
7.3.2 The Showricks Bridge Project ............................................................................................ 185
7.3.3 Summary of Facilitation..................................................................................................... 190
7.4 OPEN PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE ............................................................................................ 190
7.4.1 The Mersey Basin Weekends .............................................................................................. 190
7.4.2 Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys .................................................................... 198
7.4.3 Summary of Open Participation......................................................................................... 203
7.5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 203
CHAPTER EIGHT:CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 205
8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 206
8.2 RESEARCH SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 206
8.3. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH ...................................................... 208
8.3.1 Objective One: Conceptualisation ..................................................................................... 209
8.3.2 Objective Two: Real-life Context ....................................................................................... 212
8.3.3 Objective Three: Guidelines .............................................................................................. 214
8.3.4 Objective Four: Applicability ............................................................................................ 220
8.4 A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP RESEARCH AGENDA ............................................................. 222
8.4.1 Towards Accountable Outcomes of Collaborative Efforts ................................................. 222
8.4.2 Towards a Comparative Research ..................................................................................... 224
8.4.3 Towards a Future Collaborative Practice ......................................................................... 225
8.5 FINAL CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 226
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 228
APPENDIX ONE: CASE STUDY ACTIVITY ................................................................................ 241
APPENDIX TWO:ANALYSIS OF THE MERSEY BASIN WEEKENDS .................................... 247
APPENDIX THREE: PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................................... 271
vi
List of Tables
Table 1.0.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Studies ..................................... 6
Table 2.0.1 Modes of Governance: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks ................. 17
Table 2.0.2 Varieties of Network ................................................................................ 19
Table 2.0.3 Prioritising the Issues of Water-based Schemes..................................... 20
Table 2.0.4 The Trend of Governance in the UK ...................................................... 21
Table 0.5 Water Use Categories in Catchment Planning ............................................ 32
Table 3.0.1 The Main Components of a Collaborative Planning ............................. 40
Table 3.0.2 Potential Outcomes of Consensus Building ........................................... 47
Table 3.0.3 The Features of Networks and Partnerships .......................................... 49
Table 3.0.4 A Typology of Partnership: The Work of Nick Bailey ........................... 57
Table 3.0.5 Networks, Markets and Hierarchies in a Partnership Life Cycle .......... 60
Table 4.0.1 Key Aspects of Waterside Revitalisation ................................................. 82
Table 4.0.2 Criteria for Evaluating Consensus Building .......................................... 87
Table 5.0.1 The Choice of Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice........................... 100
Table 5.0.2 NWC Water Quality Classifications...................................................... 104
Table 5.0.3 The Changes of the Campaign Structure, 1982-2000 .......................... 105
Table 6.0.1 The Mersey Basin Trust Membership: 1991 -1999 .............................. 128
Table 7.0.1 Mersey Estuary Management Plan, Work Programme 1992-1995 ..... 153
Table 7.0.2 A Comparison Between the MEMP and the MEAP ............................ 155
Table 5.0.3 Pledge Groups of the Campaign ........................................................... 167
Table 7.0.4 Number of Events in the Mersey Basin Campaign 1997-1999 ............ 191
Table 7.0.5 Successive Participation in the Mersey Basin Weekends, 1997-1999 . 193
Table 7.0.6 Summary of the Kingfisher Survey Results .......................................... 199
Table 7.7 Comparison in Numbers of Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly
Sightings in the 1998 Survey ............................................................................ 200
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.0.1 The Structure of the Thesis ..................................................................... 8
Figure 2.0.1 Types of Planning Style ......................................................................... 15
Figure 2.0.2 From Government Towards Governance ............................................. 26
Figure 2.0.3 An Ecosystem Approach to Managing Human Activities .................... 28
Figure 2.0.4 Ecosystem and Principles for Waterside Revitalisation ....................... 31
Figure 3.0.1 A Common Structure of Partnerships .................................................. 50
Figure 3.0.2 A Concept of Partnership: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks ......... 56
Figure 4.0.1 Involving Local Communities ............................................................... 76
Figure 4.0.2 Involving Local Communities: Collaborative Partnerships at Local
Level ..................................................................................................................... 77
Figure4.0.3 An Institutional Design for Collaborative Planning ............................. 80
Figure 4.0.4 A Mechanism of Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery ............. 83
Figure 5.0.1 Research Methodology: Interview Structure ........................................ 93
Figure 5.0.2 The Author’s Case Study Activity Featured in one of the Campaign’s
Publications ......................................................................................................... 94
Figure 5.0.3 The Mersey Basin .................................................................................. 96
Figure 5.0.4 Selecting the Six Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice .............. 98
Figure 5.0.5 The Structure of Mersey Basin Campaign: 1992-2001 ..................... 106
Figure 5.0.6 Locations of the River Valley Initiatives ............................................. 110
Figure 5.0.7 Geographically-Tiered Approach to River Management ................... 111
Figure 5.0.8 Mersey Basin: Water Quality 1985-2000 ............................................ 113
Figure 5.0.9 Mersey Estuary: Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1972-1996 .............. 113
Figure 5.0.10 Water Quality Improvements: the River Roch ................................. 114
Figure 5.0.11 Water Quality Improvements: the River Glaze ................................. 114
Figure 6.0.1 The Community Context of the Mersey Basin Campaign ................. 131
Figure 6.0.2 A Partner’s Advertisement on Water Quality Improvement, NWW .. 131
Figure 6.0.3 The Relationship Between Water Quality and Economic Regeneration
............................................................................................................................ 141
Figure 7.0.1 The Area Covered by the Mersey Strategy .......................................... 150
Figure 7.0.2 The Organisational Structure of the Mersey Strategy ....................... 151
Figure 7.0.3 Diverse Areas of Interest in the Mersey Estuary ................................ 159
Figure 7.0.4 An Example of the Water Mark Scheme ............................................ 174
Figure 7.0.5 Operational Process of the Water Mark ............................................. 176
Figure 6.0.6 Footpath Network of West Lancashire and Sefton ............................ 185
Figure 7.0.7 Publication Highlighting the Missing Link of Showrick’sBridge ..... 186
Figure 8.0.1 Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery: Top-down and Bottom-up
............................................................................................................................ 219
Figure 8.2 The Value of Community Empowerment: Hypothetical Framework .. 224
viii
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter One:
Introduction
1
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Research Context
Governance in modern society needs to bring together governmental and nongovernmental forces to achieve the economic and social goals (Stoker, 1997). There is
widespread acknowledgement that urban problems are no longer solvable by
traditional state intervention and agencies. This changed the traditional image of
government towards an enabler, which acts as a catalytic agent facilitating provision
and action by and through others. The changing of social-political environment forces
the pattern of government to the new form of governance that is often described as
‘collaborative planning’. Patsy Healey (1997) sets out five parameters of systematic
institutional design for a collaborative form of policy development and delivery.
These are to:

recognise the range and variety of stakeholders;

spread power from the agencies of government;

provide opportunities for informal invention and for local initiatives;

foster the inclusion of all members of political communities; and

be continually and openly accountable.
Collaborative planning has, however, raised issues about how common values can be
forged and applied in a real-life context, especially in the face of political inequality
stands, due to its idealism and utopianism (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998).
Although such ideas are now widely accepted, there is widespread acknowledgement
that the ‘new’ practice has operational difficulties. This is because the novel form of
planning practice requires a transformation of traditional compartmentalised working
practices and the engagement of a wider range of players including those who were
not directly involved in traditional practice.
While great emphasis has been laid on the importance of collaboration for the
delivery of policy goals, there has been little analysis or evaluation of the applicability
of theory and principles of collaborative planning to a real-life context. The emphasis
on consensus building and conflict resolution has been particularly noticeable in the
current research stream of collaborative planning. This is an attempt to develop an
empirical framework to implement collaborative effort in the practice of planning (see
particularly Susskind et al. (1999b)). Not surprisingly, those studies deal with tensions
and conflicts that motivate stakeholders to participate to protect and secure their
2
Chapter One: Introduction
resources and interests. Then, another question needs to be asked. What if there is no
obvious tension to generate a strong motivation among stakeholders but the political
goal can be only achieved by collaborative efforts?
Bearing this question in mind, the central aim of this thesis is to investigate how a
collaborative approach can be applied to the practice of planning, in particular a
process of integrated waterside revitalisation. This research examines a concrete
example of integrated waterside revitalisation in the UK. Planning practice engages
conflicting parties in the face of inequalities of power and political voice. The issues
of sustainable development in the political arena of planning practice in the UK are
widely acknowledged but not all stakeholders are willing to spend their extra time,
effort and money. Thus, it is difficult to generate strong motivation among
stakeholders.
The practice of integrated waterside revitalisation requires collaborative planning
involving a significant number of stakeholders; no single organisation can solve the
problems of ecosystem management unilaterally. This thesis focused on the practice
of waterside revitalisation. This was an attempt to promote more focused efforts
rather than to cover wider-ranging planning practice, as a certain geographical
boundary, such as a river basin, helped focus on particular issues and emphasised on
area-based targets.
The concept of collaborative planning is now firmly on the agenda of integrated
waterside revitalisation. Throughout the history of waterside management, the
complexities of waterside issues and conflicts between diverse interests have been
significant limitations to the achievement. Approaching the development of integrated
policies for waterside management, the London Rivers Association (London Rivers
Association, 2000) argues that there is the need to promote a new Planning Policy
Guidance Note ‘Blue Belts’ (as a watery equivalent to green belts) for better
protection and use of watersides, and integration of complexity of the water space
planning. However, the DETR points out that the new PPG on watersides may cause
additional conflicts among a considerable number of existing plans, strategies and
guidance of waterside management (Harfield, 2000).
Viewed from an institutional perspective, there is also a concerted effort among
planning academics to develop work supportive of practitioners. This has shaped the
3
Chapter One: Introduction
nature of the institutional approach such as Healey’s collaborative planning theory1.
This recognises that planners can play a positive role in achieving benefits for the
environment by means of ‘communicative action’ and ‘mediated negotiation’ (Rydin,
1998). Drawing on ideas in institutionalist politics, March and Olsen (1989) argue
that, regardless of the cultural differences between countries, ‘political democracy
depends not only on economic and social conditions but also on the design of political
institutions’.
“We learn from more than arguments and voice in participatory
settings, but how we do so is far from clear. In negotiations,
participatory groups, and ordinary meetings too, we learn not just with
our ears but with our eyes, not just with our heads but with our hearts.
We come not only to hear new information we find relevant, but we
come to see new issues that need our attention. We come not only to
revise our sense of strategies, but to develop new relationships with
others too.” (Forester, 1999:p129)
The emergence of a new model of governance calls for a novel form of partnership
institution driven by interdependence and networking between a range of actors
(Newman and Verpraet, 1999). This thesis draws on the results of research
establishing a framework for designing political institutions to achieve collaborative
planning in the field of integrated waterside revitalisation.
1.2 Research Aim and Objectives
The aim of the research is to investigate how a collaborative partnership approach as
presented in contemporary planning theories can be applied to, and improve, a process
of integrated waterside revitalisation in the practice of planning. For this aim, the
following objectives have been defined:
1. to examine how a process of integrated waterside revitalisation may be
conceptualised as a collaborative partnership approach, with particular reference
to theories of governance, collaborative planning, partnership, and integrated
watershed management;
1
See Healey (1992a; 1992b; 1993; 1994; 1997; 1998a; 1998b), and Healey et al. (1997). The work of
Forester (1989; 1993; 1996; 1999) has also had a great influence.
4
Chapter One: Introduction
2. to investigate how the theory and general principles of the collaborative
partnership approach have fared in a concrete example of waterside revitalisation;
focused on institutional arrangements and implementation of a collaborative
partnership in a particular river basin;
3. to develop guidelines to ensure that the particular practice of integrated waterside
revitalisation is consistent with the principles of a collaborative partnership
approach; and
4. at the same time, to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life
context.
1.3 Research Methodology
To meet the aim and objectives, this research employs a case study methodology.
1.3.1 Case Study as a Research Strategy
The case study is but one of several ways of doing social science research. Other ways
include experiments, surveys, histories, and the analysis of archival information as in
economic studies. The essence of a case study is the attempt to illuminate a decision
or set of decisions; why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what
result (Schramm, 1971). Comparing them with the other research methodologies, Yin
(1994) points out that case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or “why”
questions are being posed, when the researcher has little control over events, and
when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context.
Together with advantages of case studies (Table 1.1) in mind, it is quite clear that the
research aim and objectives can only be achieved by a case study methodology.
5
Chapter One: Introduction
Table 1.0.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Studies
Advantages
1.
Case studies allow the researcher to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context, especially when it is difficult to differentiate between phenomenon and context.
2.
Case study data are drawn from people’s experiences and practices and so are seen to be strong in
reality.
3.
Case studies allow for generalisations from a specific instance to a more general issue.
4.
Case studies allow the researcher to show the complexity of social life. Good case studies build on
this to explore alternative meanings and interpretations.
5.
Case studies can provide a data source from which further analysis can be made. They can,
therefore, be archived for further research work.
6.
Because case studies build on actual practices and experiences, they can be linked to action and
their insights contribute to changing practice. Indeed, case study may be a subset of a broader
action research project.
7.
Because the data contained in case studies are close to people’s experiences, they can be more
persuasive and more accessible.
Disadvantages
1.
Case studies provide little basis for scientific generalisation. “How can you generalise from a
single case?”
2.
The very complexity of a case can make analysis difficult.
3.
While the contextualisation of aspects of the case strengthen this form of research, it is difficult to
know where ‘context’ begins and ends.
Source: Adapted from Blaxter et al. (2001), Cohen and Manion (2000) and Yin
(1994)
First, this research is to investigate a “contemporary social phenomenon” in a “reallife context” that can only be satisfied by a case study methodology. Unravelling a
mechanism of delivering collaborative efforts in practice requires data drawn from
people’s experiences and practices. Second, the central aim of this thesis is to answer
the question of “how” collaborative efforts can be made in the practice of planning.
Third, the researcher can use case studies when the boundaries between phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 1994). Policy and decision-making processes
surround integrated waterside management are complex and impossible to separate
from its economic, social, environmental and political contexts.
The greatest concern over disadvantages of case studies is perhaps the lack of rigour
of case study research that may provide little basis for systematic generalisation.
Taking this argument into account, this study uses a number of different research
techniques; documentation review, observation and interview2. These multiple
2
For further details of research methodology, see Section 5.2.1
6
Chapter One: Introduction
sources of evidence permit triangulation of crosschecking results and generating new
insights into the data (England, 1993; Yin, 1994).
1.3.2 Selecting the Case Study
The Mersey Basin Campaign, the North West of England, has been chosen as a case
study. The Campaign is a strategic partnership between public, private and voluntary
sectors. It aims to improve the water quality of the rivers, canals and estuary of the
Mersey Basin and restore associated degraded land to optimum uses for industry,
housing or amenity. The Campaign is a 25-year government-sponsored initiative that
was formally launched by the Department of the Environment in 1985.
Ten years ago notices along the Mersey advised people not to throw
lighted cigarettes into the water for fear of igniting vapours rising
from the water. Now, … seals have been seen swimming in the estuary
and octopuses have been discovered where once the few remaining fish
were so contaminated with mercury and cadmium that they attracted a
public health warning. (Brown, 1999: p10)
The Campaign is not only one of the largest river basin projects in the world (Wood et
al., 1999) but also a very early example of collaborative partnership that pioneered the
idea of collaborative planning in the process of integrated waterside revitalisation in
the UK. In 1999, the Campaign awarded the Inaugural Thiess Environmental Service
Riverprize in recognition of excellence in river management, which is a global
competition with over 100 entries.
For further in-depth investigation of service delivery practice of collaborative
partnership, this thesis chooses six detailed case studies within the Campaign. The
selection of, and introduction to, case studies are discussed thoroughly in Chapter 5.
1.4 The Structure of the Thesis
This thesis can be divided into two distinct parts; the theoretical framework (Part 1)
and the case study (Part 2). Figure 1.1 illustrates the structure of the thesis.
7
Chapter One: Introduction
Figure 1.0.1 The Structure of the Thesis
This chapter, Chapter 1, introduces the thesis, setting out the research framework and
methodology to meet the research aim and objectives. The chapter states the research
context and includes a brief account of the generation of research questions and the
choice of research techniques. This also introduces the structure of the thesis as a
whole.
Part 1 (Chapter 2, 3 and 4) engages with research objectives one and three: to
conceptualise collaborative partnership approaches learning from theories of
8
Chapter One: Introduction
governance, integrated waterside revitalisation, partnership and collaborative
planning; and to develop principles and guidelines for a collaborative partnership
approach.
Chapter 2 presents the theories of governance that are applied to those of integrated
waterside revitalisation. The chapter explores the trend of governance in the UK, in
particular the practice of waterside management, and develops principles for
integrated waterside revitalisation by adapting ecosystem approaches. This chapter
concludes with emphasis on the need for collaborative planning to implement
effective waterside management. In Chapter 3, the concept of collaborative planning
is examined in terms of theories and practice. By exploring operational difficulties of
collaborative planning in practice, the chapter searches for a desirable instrument to
deliver collaborative efforts in a real-life context. As a possible institutional
arrangement for collaborative planning, the chapter also explores the notion of
partnership approaches. Drawing from the results of the investigations in Chapters 2
and 3, Chapter 4 develops a theoretical framework for the case studies. This chapter
provides principles and guidelines for implementation of collaborative partnership
including its institutional arrangement and the mechanism for delivering its service.
Part 2 (Chapters 5, 6 and 7) reflects the research objectives two and four: to
investigate how the concept of the collaborative partnership approach has fared in a
concrete example of waterside revitalisation; and to judge the applicability of theory
and principles to a real-life context.
Chapter 5 provides a background to the case study with a contextual and descriptive
account of the case study. This includes the rationale behind the selection of the case
study, the Mersey Basin Campaign, and further six case studies from Campaign’s
activities for the investigation of service delivery mechanisms. In Chapter 6, the
institutional arrangements of a concrete example of collaborative partnership are
investigated in four stages of a partnership life cycle: pre-partnership collaboration;
partnership creation and consolidation; partnership programme delivery; and
partnership termination and succession. Chapter 7 focuses especially on the practice
of service delivery in a particular collaborative partnership. The six case studies are
classified and evaluated in three different aspects of collaborative efforts: consensus
building; facilitation; and open participation.
9
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter 8 sets out the final conclusion for the whole thesis. The chapter summarises
the results of the investigation of theoretical frameworks and case studies, and
attempts to evaluate the thesis in the wider spectrum of collaborative planning. The
chapter concludes with the limitations of the thesis and proposals for further study
that is needed in order to implement more effective collaborative efforts in the
practice of planning.
10
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Chapter Two:
Governance Issues
in Waterside Revitalisation
11
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
2.1 Introduction
The theories of governance are often explanatory ones describing the new socialpolitical phenomenon of modern society. Shifting the analytical focus from
government to governance means, in general, focusing more on process and less on
institutions (Jessop, 1995). Stoker (1997) has defined the concept of governance as
wider than that of government; it takes into account not just the institutions of
government but also the process through which these institutions interact with civil
society.
This chapter aims to conceptualise governance under three headings: characteristics,
typology and modes of governance. The historical trend of governance and its
influence on planning practice in the UK is also explored in this chapter, with a
particular focus on the practice of environmental planning and waterside
revitalisation. By examining the principles for waterside revitalisation, this chapter
concludes that a collaborative planning style is a desirable planning type among the
others in delivering integrated waterside revitalisation.
2.2 Conceptualising Governance
In modern society the main tendency in social-political issues has been to shift the
balance between government and society away from the public sector and more
towards the private and voluntary sectors. New patterns of interaction between
government and society shift the balance towards a sharing of tasks and
responsibilities, towards doing things together instead of doing them either by the
‘state’ or by the ‘market’ (Kooiman, 1993b). This has changed the traditional image
of government. Modern government is no longer seen as the direct provider of welfare
and other public services. The image of government has been changed as an enabler, a
catalytic agent facilitating provision and action by and through others. Osborne and
Gaebler (1992) have described this ‘reinvented’ form of government as more about
‘steering’ and less about ‘rowing’ by emphasising the role of government as a policy
manager, catalyst, and broker.
Generally speaking, the concept of governance is wider than that of government,
which is used to refer to the formal institutional structure and location of authoritative
12
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
decision-making in the modern state (Leftwich, 1994). The concept of governance
directs attention to the distribution of power both internal and external to the state.
Stoker (1997) points out that governance is about governmental and nongovernmental organisations working together to achieve policy goals. Its concern is
with how the challenge of collective action is met and the issues and tensions
associated with this shift in the pattern of governing.
In order to conceptualise governance, this section explores three aspects of
governance. Firstly, characteristics of governance (complexity, dynamics and
diversity) are used to describe a new form of social-political phenomenon in modern
society. Secondly, by translating these characteristics of governance to planning
theory, four different types of planning style are classified: the bureaucratic model;
the political influence model; the ideological model; and the collaborative model.
Finally, modes of governance (hierarchies, markets and networks) are introduced as
an analytical framework for understanding the ways of delivering governance in
modern society.
2.2.1 Characteristics of Governance
In a systematic approach to explaining the new social-political phenomenon,
Kooiman (1993a) has applied the notions of dynamics, complexity and diversity to
the concept of governance. In the new forms of governance the complex, dynamic and
varied qualities of social-political systems may find a better and more profound
expression than in most traditional political or administrative models of government.
In other words, the nature of society is basically dynamic, complex and varied, but the
traditional way of governing is not dynamic, complex and varied (enough). Because
of the lack of tradition in looking at and working with complexity, dynamics and
diversity, disciplines such as public administration and political science have
produced hardly any analytical or operational tools for governing. Therefore, the
nature of governance should be in line with that of society, dynamics, complexity and
diversity.
Dynamics is about systems going from one state or place to another and always
implies interactions that are the primary operational forces in societies. A dynamic
approach to governance emphasises the process and changes of interactions between
13
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
players. It pays systematic attention to the forces that bring about movements and it
tries to influence these patterns of change and their consequences. It manipulates
aspects of the dynamics of interference, interplay and intervention.
Complexity is consisting of many different and connected parts (Pearsall, 1998), and
consequently deals with manifold interactions of many parts within a system.
Complexity does not have to do with the number or variety of subsystems, but with
the way they interact. Selecting and ordering interactions is the essence of coping with
complexity.
Diversity is to do with the great and growing individualisation, differentiation,
specialisation and variety of the modern society. Diversity emphasises on individual
opportunities and responsibilities. The importance of diversity is particularly
emphasised in relation to dynamics and complexity. Neither dynamics nor complexity
by themselves contain objective criteria to decide whether an interaction is going in a
certain direction or to decide whether a certain interaction still belongs to a
(sub)system or not (Kooiman, 1993a).
2.2.2 Typology of Governance
INTERDEPENDENCE AND DIVERSITY
It is clear that a concept of governance is impossible to separate from that of
dynamics, complexity and diversity. However, there is difficulty in applying the
notion of dynamics, complexity and diversity as an analytical framework for
classifying types of planning style. This is mainly because there is considerable
duplication between the three. Governance takes place in interactions between actors
on micro (individuals), meso (organisation and management) and macro (regions)
levels of social-political aggregation. These interactions not only reflect the basic
complexity, dynamics and diversity of modern society, but also interactions are
themselves complex, dynamic and diverse. The three qualities are useful to explain
the concept of governance, but it is difficult to separate each quality as a dependent
variable. Therefore, there is the need to simplify the theory of dynamics, complexity
and diversity in order to challenge for the development of a typology of planning style
within the concept of governance.
14
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
In this context, Innes and her colleagues develop two variables, interdependence
(reflecting dynamics and complexity) and diversity (Innes and Gruber, 1999; and
Innes and Booher, 2000). These variables focus on the interactive relationship among
interests and players. Interdependence implies that actors are interrelated or connected
such that something that happens to at least one actor, on at least one occasion, in at
least one place, will affect all the actors. Consequently, interdependence increases a
dynamic and complex feedback loop between players (Evans and Newnham, 1992).
These interactions are explained with the concept of reciprocity. Networking these
interests provides the power to not only enable changes and successful adaptation but
also respond to environmental stresses and opportunities. In the contemporary
information-based global society (Castells, 1996) interdependence and linkages have
become more important than ever to the success of enterprises (Davis and Meyer,
1998).
TYPES OF PLANNING STYLE
Innes and Gruber (1999) developed four types of planning style by applying
characteristics of governance, interdependence and diversity. These four types are: the
rational/technical model of planning; the political influence model of planning; the
ideological model of planning; and the collaborative model of planning (Figure 2.1).
Diversity
Figure 2.0.1 Types of Planning Style
Political
Influence
Collaborative
Rational/
Technical
Bureaucratic
Ideological
Interdependence
Source: Adapted from Innes and Gruber (1999)
15
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
The rational/technical or bureaucratic model of planning style is the traditional
approach in planning, where the task involves the analysis of alternatives in the light
of known and defined goals and objectives (Innes and Gruber, 1999). This typically
also includes the tasks of making sure plans and strategies are consistent with laws
and regulations and consistently applied in practice. This model is best adapted for
situations where there is little or no difference of opinion about goals and where
complex interdependencies among players do not have a significant role.
The political influence model of planning style is one that is often seen as antiplanning, though many planners and much planning practice often embrace this
approach. The basic idea behind this model is to develop a plan, which provides
something for all or most of the powerful interests. The idea is that a person (or
agency) accumulates power by winning the loyalty of these interests (Innes and
Gruber, 1999). The political influence model is more effective than the
rational/technical model at dealing with diverse interests. There is however a
limitation in dealing with interdependencies among these interests.
The ideological model of planning style is driven by an ideology or at least a set of
ideas the players hope to implement. Innes and Gruber (1999) pointed out that this
kind of planning tends to be implemented by players who are outside the
governmental process, who organise and spearhead a movement to promote a
particular view of how a community or region ought to be. The ideological model of
planning does recognise interdependency, through only for the limited set of interests
included in the movement. Typically, environmental advocacy organisations operate
under this model.
The collaborative model of planning style is one where multiple stakeholders
representing different interests work together through face-to-face dialogues to help
decide what the issues are and what to do about them. Collaboration involves
reciprocity and synergy. This model of planning can be time consuming, but it has the
advantage that it may be the only way to develop a collective vision on which players
can act without central direction or control and the only way to resolve some conflicts
(Innes and Booher, 1999b). The collaborative planning deals with both diversity of
players and interdependence.
16
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
2.2.3 Modes of Governance
Modes of governance can be characterised and deployed in an analytical framework
for understanding the way social life is organised (Thompson et al. 1991). These
modes are those of markets, hierarchies and networks and are defined and compared
in Table 2.1. Markets are relationships based on contract, prices and haggling.
Hierarchies focus on formal and bureaucratic relationships based on employment.
Networks are relative informal relationships based on mutual benefits and reciprocity.
Table 2.0.1 Modes of Governance: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks
Key Features
Market
Hierarchy
Network
Normative basis
Contract - Property
rights
Employment
relationship
Complementary
strengths
Means of communication
Prices
Routines
Relational
Methods of conflict
resolution
Haggling - resort to
courts for enforcement
Administrative fiat supervision
Norm of reciprocity reputational concerns
Degree of flexibility
High
Low
Medium
Amount of commitment
among the parties
Low
Medium to high
Medium to high
Tone or climate
Precision and/or
suspicion
Formal, bureaucratic
Open-ended, mutual
benefits
Actor preferences or choices
Independent
Dependent
Interdependent
Source: Adapted from Powell (1991)
HIERARCHIES
Hierarchy presupposes an already determined outcome or purpose; the underlying
idea of hierarchy is that such an outcome can be a broken down into a set of subprocesses. So, hierarchy depends upon ideas of organisation, task specialisation and
rationality. In addition hierarchies involve a stratification of authority and the
following of rules. Thus each level of a hierarchy directs the action of those ‘lower
down’, ultimate authority resides with those at the ‘top’, and at each level those
involved carry out more narrowly defined tasks with less and less autonomy. The
hierarchical running of organisations is usually referred to as bureaucracy.
In a hierarchy mode of governance communication occurs in the context of the
employment contract. Relationships matter and previous interactions shape current
17
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
ones, but the patterns and context of intra-organisational exchange are most strongly
shaped by one’s position within the formal hierarchical structure of authority. Elliott
Jaques (Jaques, 1991) (p118) points out that “hierarchy is the best structure for getting
work done in big organisations”. This is because a hierarchical structure - clear
departmental boundaries, clean lines of authority, detailed reporting mechanisms, and
formal decision-making procedures - is particularly well-suited for mass production
and distribution.
MARKETS
Markets, as described by economic theory, are spontaneous co-ordination
mechanisms with rationality and consistency to the self-interested actions of
individuals and firms. The crucial feature of the market as a co-ordination device is
that it involves voluntary exchange of goods and services between two parties at a
known price. Through a complex set of such exchanges the economic activities of
people who are widely dispersed and who are entirely unaware of each other’s
existence can be co-ordinated.
In a market mode of governance transactions, the benefits to be exchanged are clearly
specified, no trust is required, and agreements are bolstered by the power of legal
sanction. The value of the goods to be exchanged in markets is much more important
than the relationship itself. The market is open to all comers, but while it brings
people together, it does not establish strong bonds of altruistic attachments. Markets,
however, offer choice, flexibility and opportunity. Market co-ordination is the result
of human actions but not of human design (Hayek, 1945), and then has powerful
incentive effects from the society.
NETWORKS
The key feature of networks is that co-operation and trust are formed and sustained
within networks. In contrast to either hierarchy or market, networks co-ordinate
through less formal, more egalitarian and co-operative means. In a network mode of
governance, individual players (especially in relation to resource allocation) exist not
by themselves, but in relation to other players. Benefits and burdens come to be
shared. A mutual orientation - knowledge that the parties assume each has about the
18
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
other and upon which they draw in communication and problem solving - is
established. In comparison to hierarchies, networks are rather horizontal relationships
(Lowndes et al. 1997; Powell, 1991; and Thompson et al. 1991).
Rhodes (1991) argues that networks have different structures of dependencies, and
classifies five different networks: policy networks; issue networks; professionalised
networks, intergovernmental networks and producer networks (Table 2.2). Policy
networks can be characterised by vertical relationships, stability and continuity of a
highly restrictive membership. These kinds of networks may occur in a political arena
such as Parliament. Issue networks involve large number of participants, but there is
limited degree of interdependence, as there is often no single focal point in the arena.
However, it is clear that the variety of network is potentially much greater than the
five categories. As Rhodes discussed, there is no one pattern of relationships for all
policy areas.
Table 2.0.2 Varieties of Network
Varieties of Network
Policy Networks
Issue Networks
Professionalised
Networks
Intergovernmental
Networks
Producer Networks
Key Characteristics
Complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies
and distinguished from other complexes by breaks in the structure of
resource dependencies. Stability of relationships, continuity of a highly
restrictive membership, vertical interdependence based on shared service
delivery responsibilities and insulation from other networks and invariably
from the general public.
Large number of participants and their limited degree of interdependence.
Stability and continuity are at a premium, and the structure tends to be
atomistic. Commonly, there is no single focal point at the centre with which
other sectors need to bargain for resources.
Pre-eminence of one class of participant in policy-making: the profession,
e.g. the National Health Service, wherein the power of the medical
profession is substantial. These networks express the interests of a particular
profession and manifest a substantial degree of vertical independence whilst
insulating themselves from other networks.
Membership with the explicit exclusion of all public sector unions; an
extensive constellation of interests encompassing all the services (and
associated expertise and clients) of local authorities; and limited vertical
interdependence because they have no service delivery responsibilities but
extensive horizontal articulation or ability to penetrate a range of other
networks, i.e. the national community of local government.
Prominent role of economic interests (both the public and private sector), in
policy-making; their fluctuating membership; the dependence of the centre
on industrial organisations for delivering the desired goods and for expertise;
and the limited interdependence of the economic interests.
Source: Adapted from Benson (1982), Heclo (1978) and Rhodes (1991)
19
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
2.3 Governance in Waterside Revitalisation
Governance in the UK has been changed with influence of economic, social and
political issues. Activities in town and regional planning including waterside
management have also been consistent with trend of governance. Priority in relation
to waterside management issues has varied in different societies and periods (Table
2.3). For example, priorities in developing countries may focus on rather water
resources as irrigation, hydroelectric power, flood protection for food security, and
pollution control concerning eradication of disease; whilst developed countries may
prioritise their water resources focusing on water supplies, recreational uses, and
nature conservation. This section explores how the changing of governance has
influenced waterside management.
Table 2.0.3 Prioritising the Issues of Water-based Schemes
‘Developed countries’
Priorities often domestic and
industrial supplies
Priorities normally urban centres
Major influence associated with
property rights
Reacts to ‘chemophobia’
Increasingly
Increasingly
WATER RESOURCES
FLOOD PROTECTION
FISHERIES
POLLUTION CONTROL
RECREATION
CONSERVATION
‘Developing countries’
Priorities often irrigation and
hydro-electric power
Priority is food security
Subsistence only: little
enhancement
Eradication of disease
Little known
Little known
Source: Adapted from Newson (1992)
2.3.1 Changing of Governance in Waterside Management
The overall historical review on the trend of governance in the UK including the
practice of waterside management is summarised in Table 2.4. This periodical
analysis is reviewed under five headings: economic and social change; salient
political issues; key planning activities; environmental and waterside management;
and primary modes of governance.
20
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Table 2.0.4 The Trend of Governance in the UK
Economic and
social change
Salient political
issues
Key planning
activities
Environmental
and waterside
management
Primary modes
of governance
1950s and 1960s
Post-war boom
Mixed economy
Consensus politics
Increasing living standards
Rapid development
New towns
Redevelopment
1970s
Turning point in economic growth
Urban-rural shift
Inner city decline
Racism and urban disorder
Excesses of economic growth
Inner city policy
Rehabilitation and conservation
Pollution control
1980s
Recession (and recovery)
New technology
Collapse of mixed economy consensus
Unemployment
Thatcherism
Urban regeneration
Countryside policy
Flagship projects
1990s
Globalisation of: politics, economics
and environmental change
Growth management in
functional terms: resource,
recreation and amenity
Lack of stewardship
Water quality improvement:
pollution control
River engineering: flood
prevention
Waterway management
Hierarchies: the paternalistic
approaches of the public
sector
Active environmental care and
protection
Mixture of utilitarian/ functional
concerns
Focus on countryside
Active water pollution control
Riverside development as
recreational function
Public sector service delivery
Hierarchies and markets: growth of
the market mode in the domination
of the hierarchy mode
Market-led utilitarianism
Narrow conception of conservation
Abandoned waterside redevelopment
Public-private partnership approach
Greater private sector involvement in
large scale dockland redevelopment
Sustainable, holistic and ecological
approach
Integrated environmental management
Waterside as an ecosystem concern
Holistic partnership approach in natural
basin boundary
Emphasis on stewardship
Hierarchies and markets: the domination
of the market mode
Hierarchies, markets and networks:
emphasis of the network mode in line
with influence from European Union
collaborative planning concept and
sustainable development
European integration
Environmental crisis
Regeneration
Sustainable development
Collaborative planning
Source: Modified from Cullingworth and Nadin (1994), Kidd and Shaw (2000), Parker and Penning-Rowsell (1980) and Rydin (1998)
21
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
The 1960s and 1970s: Hierarchies
Since the nineteenth century watersides have tended to be considered as supporting
economic activity such as fishery, agriculture and industry based on rapid commercial
and industrial growth and consequent rapid urbanisation. The post-war economic
boom of the early 1970s collapsed in 1973-74, as oil prices and interest rates rose
(Rydin, 1998). Economic decline left watersides as a neglected resource, including
abandoned industrial sites and older port areas. Despite the fact that watersides were
beginning to be considered for recreation and leisure uses in the 1970s (Parker and
Penning-Rowsell, 1980), heavily polluted water severely restricted recreational
opportunities. Environmentalists became more vocal about issues of pollution (Rydin,
1998).
The shift towards more environmentally conscious public policy was becoming
particularly evident at the European level (Rydin, 1998). As early as 1970, the
Countryside Commission recommended changes to the practice of coastline
management in England and Wales in ‘The Planning of the Coastline’ (Countryside
Commission, 1970). In terms of its history, coastal zone management is rather
different from the other waterside development approaches. Coastal planning has
been directed towards helping to ensure wildlife conservation in coastal areas. This is
partly because about a third of the coastline of England and Wales is included in
national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, as Cullingworth and
Nadin (1994) point out, there have also been economic pressures for major industrial
development in certain parts, particularly on some estuaries. It cannot be ignored that
a growing number of people are attracted to the coast for recreation and for
retirement.
Environmental planning, including waterside management, was extended and
significantly developed in this period, particularly with regard to pollution control.
This was in response to the continuing growth of the environmental movement in this
period and the evident problems of past growth. Planning activities in the 1970s
focused externally on the economic, political and social contexts. By the early 1970s,
planning seemed to be firmly established as a central part of state planning, led by the
public sector and the ideas of command and control (Davies, 1998).
22
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
The 1980s: Markets
The 1980s was the decade of Thatcherism, a political response to the economic and
social conditions of the time, which has had its own profound social and economic
consequences. The 1980s began with the deepening and eventual bottoming-out of the
economic recession that followed the 1973-4 oil crisis (Rydin, 1998). While urban
policy of the 1970s focused on improving public sector service delivery, the 1980s
can be seen as a decade of economic regeneration in line with a more market-oriented
approach. The power of the state was to be reduced through privatisation and
deregulation (Davies, 1998).
In the 1980s, the primary thrust of urban policy in Britain was urban regeneration
through private sector property development (Lawless, 1989; Robson, 1988;
Solesbury, 1990).Various new policies have encouraged land and property
development in this period. City Grants (formerly Urban Development Grants and
Urban Regeneration Grants) were usually obtained for property schemes, although the
number of jobs created may assist a project to obtain a grant. Derelict Land Grants,
made available in urban areas in 1982, favoured ‘hard’ projects where there is
property development as opposed to ‘soft’ ones, which may merely provide open
space or an enhanced environment. Urban Development Corporations (UDCs),
created in 1980, appear to have been established to create an environment in which
property development will occur and one criterion for measuring their success was the
amount of such investment leverage (Law, 1992).
In the 1970s and 1980s economic vitality in waterside areas was in decline with the
industrial crisis, and became a neglected resource in the region and the nation. Dating
from the ‘boom’ at the end of the nineteenth century, the older dock area gradually
declined to become one of the more depressed areas of the city during the 1970s.
Abandoned older port areas, often close to the urban core zone, bring severe physical
and economic problems while at the same time offering unrivalled opportunities for
regeneration by reinstalling other forms of economic activities.
In this period most large-scale dockland regeneration projects were carried out by a
partnership between the public and private sectors. The rise of the partnership
approach also influenced watersides, and was accompanied by the launch of the
UDCs. They had extensive planning powers within their designated areas (mainly in
23
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
waterfronts), and undertook a policy of encouraging private sector developments
through cheap land and infrastructure investment (Rydin, 1998). Subject to criticisms,
they have transferred abandoned and vandalised areas to commercially and
environmentally reliable areas. The 1989 Water Act in England and Wales split the
regional water authorities into privatised water companies and established the
National Rivers Authority (NRA). The rapid rise of public interest in, and knowledge
about, environmental issues through the 1980s created a climate in which public
participation was expected and, indeed, required in almost every planning situation
(Heathcote, 1998).
The 1990s: Networks
In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm was
significant in raising awareness and produced a declaration comprising 26 statements,
which formed the basis for current international environmental law. Following on
from this conference, in 1987 the UN World Commission on Environment and
Development, WCED, published its report, Our Common Future (WCED, 1987).
This argued forcefully for the existence of a global environmental treaty and sought to
popularise the concept of ‘sustainable development’: that is development that meets
the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. The 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro initiated an Agenda
21 process oriented towards the implementation of policies for sustainable
development, and the recognition that much of this change would have to occur at the
local level in turn led to a Local Agenda 21 process.
This sustainability concept has been extensively emphasised in planning activities in
the 1990s. The implementation of the sustainability concept emphasises the need for
co-ordination between economic, environmental and social aspects of planning
activity. As the need for integration became more widely accepted, the importance of
networks in governance was increasingly accentuated, together with hierarchies and
markets. Williams (1996) points out that networking enables interaction between
authorities and organisations from different member-states, and has become a major
feature of professional life throughout the EU.
24
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
The 1990s may be characterised by a collaborative approach closely associated with
the language of ‘sustainability’ and the ‘ecosystem approach’. This novel planning
theory is closely associated with the work of Patsy Healey under the heading of
collaborative planning theory3 (earlier variants were termed communicative
planning). Collaborative planning focuses on building links between networks and
doing so communicatively (Healey, 1997). In this context, Amin and Thrift (1995)
emphasise the web of social relations, and the networks linking actors and
organisations.
In terms of institutions for environmental planning, the Environment Agency for
England and Wales was established in 1996 by integrating the responsibilities of other
existing authorities4. The broad scope of the Environment Agency takes into account
the natural boundaries such as river catchment areas. However, the local community
identity and a true sense of partnership are limited in the Agency’s approach (Kidd
and Shaw, 2000). There was, in this period, an almost universal emphasis on
partnership whether for urban regeneration, local economic development or local
environmental initiatives. The changes in urban policy exemplified this with a shift
away from the traditional Urban Programme towards a system whereby local
authorities were required to bid for inner city money in partnership with business and
voluntary organisations. This was first through City Challenge and then through the
Single Regeneration Budget, which combined various grant regimes. This shift
towards partnership can be seen as part of a broader change towards patterns of
‘governance’ rather than ‘government’.
In terms of the style of planning, there does not appear to be any evidence yet of a
shift away from the partnership approach that resulted from Major’s government
approach to the Thatcherite initiatives of the 1980s (Rydin, 1998). However, there
was a remarkable transformation in the nature of partnership working in the 1990s
due to the advent of the concept of ‘sustainability’. It breaks out of the traditional
thinking of urban regeneration that is particularly related to ‘the market’.
Consequently, this broadens the range of stakeholder involvement and establishes a
new type of partnership leading to a collaborative approach. In this operation,
3 This major approach is examined in more detail later in Section 3.2.
4
The integrated responsibilities are from the former NRA, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, the
local waste regulation authorities and certain staff of the Department of the Environment.
25
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
networking and bargaining have been seen as valuable skills for actors to achieve the
sustainability goals associated with economic, environmental and social issues.
2.3.2 From Government towards Governance
As discussed, changing social-political environments have forced planning activity to
reform patterns of governance rather than government. Figure 2.2 summarises the
changing of governance in relation to types of planning style and modes of
governance.
Figure 2.0.2 From Government Towards Governance
Source: Kim and Batey (2001), middle diagram is adapted from Innes and Gruber
(1999)
The primary planning style of the 1960s and 70s was the rational/technical or
bureaucratic planning. As the actors in planning activity were less diverse and less
interdependent, hierarchies were a primary mode of governance. However, it is
clearly evident that a market mode of governance was dominant in the practice of
planning in the 1980s. The planning style in the 1990s can be characterised by
26
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
collaborative planning that emphasises a network mode of governance in dealing with
conflict situations between multiple players. A crude periodisation of modes of
governance can also carry with it the myth of progress - bureaucracy as all-bad,
markets as a necessary evil, and networks as the ‘new Jerusalem’ (Lowndes and
Skelcher, 1998). However, it cannot be ignored that hierarchies and markets are also
important for collaborative planning models to enable organisations operate in
planning practice.
2.4 Implementing Waterside Revitalisation
This section aims to explore the notion of waterside environments and principles in
implementing waterside revitalisation. The first part examines a set of nine principles
in relation to waterside issues based on the concept of an ecosystem approach and
sustainability. The second part explores general guidelines for institutional
arrangement in waterside planning and management.
2.4.1 Principles for Waterside Revitalisation
THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
Figure 2.3 illustrates the concept of ecosystem approach. Human activities need to be
concerned by building links between natural environment, economy and society. This
approach should be viewed as a healing process that restores and maintains
environmental health, as well as anticipating and preventing future harm. This means
striving to ensure that existing land uses and activities are adapted, and all new
developments are designed to contribute to the health, diversity, and sustainability of
the entire ecosystem (the physical environment, human communities, and economic
activities). To deal effectively with environment-related problems, an ecosystem
approach is required to managing human activities.
27
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Figure 2.0.3 An Ecosystem Approach to Managing Human Activities
Source: Author
PRINCIPLES FOR WATERSIDE REVITALISATION
In order to apply the ecosystem approach to waterside revitalisation, this research
identified nine principles that can be applied to make watersides healthier for
environment, community, and economy: cleanliness, conservation, connectivity,
accessibility, usability, diversity, affordability, attractiveness and stewardship5.
Cleanliness is essential to achieve the waterside’s full potential as an attractive
environment for the nature, society and businesses. Cleaner waterside environments
can support a healthier waterside ecosystem. Clean watersides can also offer
recreational opportunities; increase the property value of waterside location; reduce
costs of fresh water supply; and encourage businesses to locate.
Conservation of the waterside ecosystem and heritage is the second principle. The
waterside is one of the most diverse and productive ecosystems, and a rich variety of
species is the cornerstone of a healthy ecosystem. Moreover, waterside heritage
provides not only educational and tourism opportunities but also an attractive
environment for recreational and commercial activities.
The Connectivity principle has two aspects; greenway network connections as a
region’s ‘green infrastructure’; and institutional network connections. Watersides that
provide linear greenway with rich wildlife habitats must be connected with a region’s
28
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
greenway network such as parts of wildlife corridors, green wedges and green belts.
The institutional arrangements should be formalised by connecting all interest groups
in water-related issues.
Accessibility to watersides should be designed for all kinds of community. People
should have accessibility to watersides facilitated by integrated public transport,
valley trails, formal walkways linking the city’s green infrastructure by overcoming
the barriers often presented by road and rail corridors. Watersides should also be
psychologically accessible to ethnic groups and all sectors of society, including the
disabled, children, and elderly people by removing the threat of vandalism.
The Usability of watersides should be able to support a mix of public and private uses
that are primarily water-related and permit public access, use, and enjoyment of the
water’s edge. Revitalisation should provide a local balance of employment and
residential opportunities, and minimise conflicts with adjacent or existing
communities. In terms of waterside engineering, the design, use, and management of
waterside places should enhance safety and minimise risks caused by flooding and
erosion.
The Diversity of waterside uses and the environment should not only stimulate
various patterns of land use, but also add to the diversity of experiences and settings
in both the built and natural environment. The mix of land uses and facilities for
competing public demands within environmental limits should be balanced between:
public and private; urban and rural; regional and local; residential and recreational;
industrial and commercial; built and natural environments; large- and small-scale;
active and passive; busy and quiet; and free and user-pay.
Affordability enables the waterside to belong to every group of society. In economic
terms, this means there must be a balance of affordable recreation opportunities and a
mix of housing types to allow in people of all income levels. For the developer,
waterside projects might be more affordable when there is co-ordination of activities
and sharing of resources. Additionally, a healthy environment may be a more
productive setting for economic activities.
5
These nine principles for revitalising waterside are modified from Kim (1998) and Royal
Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (1990).
29
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Attractiveness can bring people into the waterside and make it a place to enjoy. The
natural attractiveness of the waterside includes water, wildlife and green space.
However, other land uses of watersides should also be attractive to the public. Open
space, waterside restaurants, and shopping are desirable aspects, and can be followed
by large-scale developments. Design and landscaping should protect, enhance, and
create distinctive and memorable places along the waterside.
Stewardship within waterside communities is one of the most important factors in
revitalising watersides. This is because communities are also users, maintainers and
polluters. Undoubtedly, the people who live, work or use watersides can maintain and
continue to revitalise watersides. They should be managed by stewardship, and most
communities should be able to be involved in the waterside revitalisation. Therefore,
local communities are able to value their waterside with their own vision rather than
that of others. Moreover, involving community volunteers is cost-effective in
developing and managing watersides.
These nine principles in relation to elements of an ecosystem approach are illustrated
in Figure 2.4. For example, natural environment element of ecosystem may be
associated with principles of cleanliness, conservation and connectivity; economy
element may be tied up with usability, diversity and affordability; and society element
may be inconsistent with accessibility, attractiveness and stewardship. However, they
cannot be separated, and there should be an integrated and systematic approach to
delivering all principles.
30
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Figure 2.0.4 Ecosystem and Principles for Waterside Revitalisation
Source: Kim and Batey (2001)
2.4.2 Institutional Arrangement for Waterside Revitalisation
STAKEHOLDERS IN WATERSIDE REVITALISTAION
A list of water-related interests has been developed by the National Rivers Authority
(1993), and is presented in Table 2.5. Categories of water use are potable (drinking)
water supply, industrial water supply, agriculture, flood control, thermal electric
power generation, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, water-based recreation,
fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality management. Not surprisingly, this set of
waterside stakeholders is more likely to focus on water resource management that was
the primary responsibility of the NRA. However, the NRA overlooked the importance
of landward activities, such as landward regeneration projects and forestry. In relation
to water uses, this research identifies waterside stakeholders in four categories6:
governing bodies, waterside businesses, public interest groups, and residential
(private) water users.
These categories are adapted from Heathcote’s model (Heathcote, 1998) that includes government
agencies, industrial water users, commercial shipping and fishing interests, residential (private) water
users, public interest groups, and aboriginal communities.
6
31
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Table 0.5 Water Use Categories in Catchment Planning
Water Use Categories
Potable (Drinking) Water
Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Agriculture
Flood Control
Thermal Electric Power
Generation
Hydroelectric Power
Generation
Navigation
Water-based Recreation
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Water Quality Management
Typical Uses
Municipal water supply (surface or groundwater sources)
Residential water supply (private wells)
Process water supply
Cooling waters
Irrigation waters
Livestock watering
Milkhouse wash water
Livestock housing wash water
Impoundment of high flows for delayed release
Construction of dams, reservoirs, levees, and channel protection
Cooling waters
Settling pond waters
Water for pipe flushing and maintenance
Impoundment of water for power generation
Construction of dams and reservoirs
Pumping and drawdown of water levels
Recreational boating (e.g., sailing, canoeing, motor boat traffic)
Commercial shipping
Commercial navigation for tourism purposes (e.g., sightseeing)
Recreational fishing
Recreational boating and windsurfing
Swimming
Hiking
Picnicking
Nature enjoyment activities (e.g., bird-watching)
Aesthetic enjoyment
Aquatic and riparian habitats
Protection of community structure
Protection of rare and endangered species
Protection of minimum flows for water quality preservation
Low-flow augmentation from reservoirs
Assimilation of waste discharges from municipalities and industries
Assimilation of storm- and combined-sewer discharges
Source: National Rivers Authority (1993)
Governing bodies have a direct role in water use and decision-making about river
basin management. These include government agencies, such as municipal
governments and their public utilities, natural resources agencies, public health
agencies, and agencies involved with shipping and navigation. These also include
water companies and government agencies that oversee and regulate water-related
activities, such as the Environment Agency
Waterside Businesses are both land-based and water-based industries. In general,
land-based industries are interested in obtaining water of adequate quality and
quantity for industrial process and cooling water purposes. Water-based industries
include commercial shipping and fisheries that concern about water level. This
category also includes businesses that are not directly related to water uses but located
32
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
adjacent to rivers, lakes, or canals. These businesses concern adjacent waterside
environments in terms of waste management and public relations. Waterside
businesses are among the most straightforward to understand and relatively easy to
list and characterise. However, there is potential for businesses to come into conflict
with recreational water users (water sports and recreational fisheries), wildlife habitat
preservation and local residents.
Public interest groups are sometimes termed non-government organisations, NGOs
(occasionally the acronym ENGO is used, for environmental non-governmental
organisation). It is important to note that these groups do not necessarily reflect all or
even a majority of public opinion on a given issue or watershed system. Often, they
have strong and clearly stated agendas of their own. The expertise in these groups is a
valuable adjunct to the planning process and many include perspectives and insights
that have largely been ignored by conventional planning approaches.
Residential (private) water users are the most numerous water users in most areas.
Their primary concerns are usually the quality of water for consumption and water
supply. Many also have an interest in recreational water-based activities such as
swimming, boating, and nature enjoyment. Additionally, there are also property
interests and strong links to valued local features in relation to water management
practice.
KEY ASPECTS FOR INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Dealing with waterside stakeholders, Schramm (1980) has emphasised the need for
co-ordination and co-operation at local, regional, and national levels in waterside
revitalisation. He developed the following general guidelines for institutional
arrangement in river basin planning and management:
1. The institutional framework for the project must allow consideration of a wide
range of alternatives to solve observed problems, including those that may be
outside the specific responsibilities of planning bodies.
2. The planning agencies must have the expertise needed for multiple-objective
planning and evaluation procedures, especially in economic, social, and
environmental areas.
33
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
3. The institutional framework must facilitate adaptation of the plan to meet
changing national, regional, and local priorities.
4. The institutional framework must seek representation of all parties affected by the
specific development plans and management.
5. The institutional framework must reward initiative and innovation among the
members of the technical team and within co-operating agencies.
6. The technical team must be sufficiently free from day-to-day responsibilities so
that they can concentrate on long-range planning and anticipation of future
problems.
7. The institutions must have the capacity for learning and improving over time,
including sufficient continuity over time and the ability to evaluate past
programmes.
8. There must be sufficient authority within the institutional framework to enforce
conformity of execution with construction and operating plans.
9. The institutional framework must be capable of guaranteeing an acceptable
minimum level of professional performance by the technical team.
10. The plan implementation stage must include provisions for the timely and
sufficient supply of needed services by other agencies, as well as provisions to
assure continued functioning - i.e., operation, repair, and maintenance of the
facilities and services provided.
THE NEED FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
The background of the shift to the governance is the governing failures caused by the
traditional model of government. In a theoretical perspective, Held (1987) emphasised
the need for governance in relation to involvement of the state in the reproduction of
the inequalities of everyday life; motions of political parties as appropriate structures
for bridging the gap between state and society and the array of power centres which
such parties and their leaders cannot reach; and conceptions of politics as
governmental affairs and systems of power which negate this concept. By translating
the notion of governance to waterside revitalisation, Westley (1995) points out the
fact that no one organisation, even in the case of the least jurisdictionally complex
ecosystem, can solve the problems of ecosystem management unilaterally.
34
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
Watersides have a considerable number of stakeholders including: public sector such
as central government, local governments and governmental agencies; private sector
such as water-based industries but also waterside adjacent businesses; voluntary
sector including numerous public interest groups in a wider perspective; and the
general public as water users. It is important to allow consideration of a wider range
of stakeholders in revitalising watersides and to achieve multiple objectives to meet
the nine principles of waterside revitalisation: cleanliness; conservation; connectivity;
accessibility; usability; diversity; affordability; attractiveness; and stewardship.
The need for integration between stakeholders in watersides has been discussed since
the 1970s. It is now clear that waterside environments involve diverse interests and
actors but also close interaction between them. Therefore, there is the need for a
collaborative planning approach in order to implement integrated waterside
revitalisation.
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has explored the changes in governance in modern society in responding
to the changes of social-political environments and its influence on waterside
revitalisation in the UK. As an attempt to conceptualise governance, this chapter
characterised governance as dynamic, complex and diverse. Together with these
characteristics of governance, this research also introduced the four types of planning
style: the rational/technical or bureaucratic model; the political influence model; the
ideological model; and the collaborative planning model. Additionally, the three
modes of governance have been discussed: hierarchies; markets; and networks.
Through the periodical evaluation of governance in the UK, particularly focused on
environmental planning and waterside issues, it has been suggested that modern
society requires collaborative planning rather than a bureaucratic planning approach.
It has been argued that the modern information-based society deserves a notion of
governance that involves complexity, dynamics and diversity. Although the emphasis
of governance is on a collaborative planning model, it is essential to remember that
the collaborative planning model is not always suitable for all planning activities. The
concept of governance suggests that a certain political situation and problem can be
solved by a certain planning style (or combination of planning styles). Therefore the
35
Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation
challenge is to find a suitable institutional arrangement in responding to a particular
political environment.
Social and political environments of waterside revitalisation echo the trend towards
governance. Waterside issues emphasise the need for wider stakeholder involvements
and integration between multiple objectives to be achieved. As it engages diverse
interests and interdependence between actors, it is evident that there is the need for a
collaborative planning approach in revitalising watersides. Networking and
bargaining become valuable planning skills for the collaborative approach. The
collaborative planning model has been seen as a new form of governance model to
tackle problems caused by the fragmentary approach of traditional planning practice.
36
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Chapter Three:
Collaborative Planning and
Partnership Instruments
37
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
3.1 Introduction
This chapter acknowledges that a collaborative style of planning is needed in
revitalising watersides, and explores the notion of collaborative planning in theory
and practice. This chapter is structured to explore the nature of collaborative planning,
collaborative planning in practice, and an instrument for collaborative planning. The
chapter also explores the nature of the partnership approach, recognising an implicit
assumption that the partnership approach is a possible institutional arrangement for a
collaborative planning model.
3.2 Collaborative Planning Theory
3.2.1 Background to Collaborative Planning Theory
The basis of the collaborative planning concept is from communicative rationality as
articulated by Habermas who published ‘Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns,
Band I: Handlungsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (Habermas,
1981)’ in 19817. There have been various interpretations of communicative rationality
as a basis for planning over the last two decades. When Habermas’ communicative
philosophy is translated to planning theory, a number of the terms have been used in
describing the new concept; for example, ‘communicative planning (Forester, 1989)’,
‘argumentative planning (Forester, 1993)’, ‘planning through debate (Healey,
1992a)’, ‘inclusionary discourse (Healey, 1994)’, ‘collaborative planning (Healey,
1997)’, ‘co-operative management regime (Glasbergen, 1998)’ and ‘deliberative
planning (Forester, 1999)’.
This diversity has arisen partly because collaborative planning is an evolution of
theoretical thinking, but it is also due to significant differences between the theoretical
bases of different forms of the collaborative approach. It also shows that theories
around collaborative planning are those developed to describe the new form of social
phenomenon that can be found in all parts of modern society rather than to guide the
novel form of governance. Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998) argue that
collaborative planning is not so much a theory, rather it could be described as a ‘life
view’ based on a participatory perspective of democracy and a dislike –or at least a
38
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
grave suspicion – of free-market economies8. This ambiguity concerning the mixture
of these three components – evolution, difference and description – is particularly
problematic when the theory is translated to the practice of planning.
Two main approaches to collaborative planning have been developed by John
Forester (1989; 1993; 1996; and 1999) and by Patsy Healey (1992a; 1992b; 1993;
1994; 1997; 1998a; and 1998b). The difference between the two approaches not only
reflects different personal understandings but also reflects the different experiences
and focus of each author. Forester emphasises the US with its fragmented planning
framework that relies on more informal negotiation and Healey puts the emphasis on
experience of more formal arenas for mediation typical of the UK system. Healey’s
collaborative planning is more concerned with the transformative influence upon
existing structure (in the institutional sense) while Forester focuses more on agency
and the mechanisms and direct outcomes of inter-personal relations9. As this research
involves investigation of planning practice in the UK through the institutional
approach, the term ‘collaborative planning’ is used here.
3.2.2 The Concept of Collaborative Planning
DEFINITION OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
The collaborative planning approach is one where multiple stakeholders representing
different interests work together through face-to-face dialogues to help decide what
the issues are and what to do about them. Patsy Healey has advanced the main
components of a collaborative approach to planning (Table 3.1). Collaboration
involves reciprocity and synergy. Each player brings something that may help other
players and each has resources that others need and they jointly search for actions and
strategies that none could achieve alone. Thus collaborative planning deals with both
diversity of players and interdependence. A collaborative approach to planning can be
time consuming, but it has the advantage that it may be the only way to develop a
It was translated as ‘The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the
Rationalization of Society (Habermas, 1984)’ in 1984.
8
The basis of the demonised instrumental rationality.
9
For a more detailed discussion, see Allmendinger (Forthcoming), Healey (1997) and Tewdwr-Jones
and Allmendinger (1998).
7
39
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
collective vision on which players can act without central direction or control, and the
only way to resolve some conflicts (Innes and Gruber, 1999).
Table 3.0.1 The Main Components of a Collaborative Planning
Main Components of Collaborative Planning
1. a recognition that all forms of knowledge are socially constructed; and that the
knowledge of science and the techniques of experts are not as different from
‘practical reasoning’ as the instrumental rationalists had claimed.
2. a recognition that the development and communication of knowledge and
reasoning take many forms, from rational systematic analysis, to storytelling, and
expressive statements, in words, pictures or sound.
3. a recognition, as a result, of the social context within which individuals form
interests; individuals thus do not arrive at their ‘preferences’ independently, but
learn about their views in social contexts and through interaction.
4. a recognition that, in contemporary life, people have diverse interests and
expectations, and that relations of power have the potential to oppress and
dominate not merely through the distribution of material resources, but through
the finegrain of taken-for-granted assumptions and practices.
5. a realisation that public policies which are concerned with managing co-existence
in shared spaces which seek to be efficient, effective and accountable to all those
with a ‘stake’ in a place need to draw upon, and spread ownership of, the above
range of knowledge and reasoning.
6. a realisation that this leads away from competitive interest bargaining towards
collaborative consensus-building and that, through such consensus-building
practices, organising ideas can be developed and shared which have the capacity
to endure, to co-ordinate actions by different agents, and to transform ways of
organising and ways of knowing in significant ways, in other words, to build
cultures.
7. a realisation that, in this way, planning work is both embedded in its context of
social relations through these day to day practices, and has a capacity to challenge
and change these relations through the approach to these practices; context and
practice are not therefore separated but socially constituted together.
Source: Adapted from Healey (1993; and 1997)
Collaborative planning emphasises networks as a mode of governance more than the
other modes, hierarchies and markets. There is evidence that where networks exist,
broadly based collaborative planning forms can develop rapidly (Healey et al. 1997).
In network forms of resource allocation, individual units exist not by themselves, but
in relation to other units (Powell, 1991). The network mode of governance arises from
40
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
a view that actors are able to identify complementary interests. Therefore, the
development of interdependent relationships based on trust, loyalty and reciprocity
enables the bringing together of all stakeholders on an equal basis.
One of the most significant advantages of networks is that they allow interactive
communication between stakeholders, considering communication is the most
important task in collaborative planning. Powell (1991) has indicated that the most
useful information is rarely that which flows down the formal chain of command in an
organisation (hierarchy mode), or that which can be inferred from shifting price
signals (market mode). Information passed through networks is ‘thicker’ than
information obtained in the market, and ‘freer’ than that communicated in a hierarchy.
Therefore, knowledge and information can flow through networks to implement their
common purpose (Thompson et al. 1991), and mutual learning and development of
skills between stakeholders can be encouraged. It is now clear that collaborative
activities can be developed and maintained through the network mode of governance.
ADVANTAGES OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
Advantages and the need of collaborative planning approaches that are described in a
range of literature reflect the notion of a collaborative approach, reciprocity and
synergy. By adapting a list developed by James Meadowcroft (1998) who focuses
especially on the area of environmental management (which is the focus of this
research) the advantages of collaborative approaches can be summarised in four
aspects.
First, a collaborative approach provides a structured framework for encouraging
pluralist inputs to policy-making. This is particularly important in the area of
environmental management where there is a complexity of the interests. It is clear that
no one party or narrow grouping of parties can resolve disputes successfully, and a
wide range of representation encourages more effective policy-making. As it is almost
impossible to process policy-making with inclusive involvement from all interest
groups in practice, a collaborative framework is required to allow that a limited
number of representative groups can collaborate in policy-making and its
implementation.
41
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Second, a collaborative approach provides a mechanism for building consensus and
more especially for transforming interests. As participants explore the problems and
search for possible solutions together, they gain mutual understanding of each other’s
interests. This interaction leads to an interactive learning among participant groups by
engaging with each other within a structured framework in a process of defining
problems, identifying solutions and initiating practical reform (Glasbergen, 1996).
Third, collaborative approaches are flexible. They can be adapted to different
circumstances and applied in different contexts. It is particularly true when a
framework for collaborative efforts can be established in a piecemeal-based approach
as different problem areas can be identified. Additionally, flexibility enables a
framework to be established that is responsive to the changes of political and
economic environments. Flexibility also exists in relation to the variety of
participants, the decision-making framework, the management time frame, and the
implementation procedure.
Fourth, collaborative approaches have potential to generate more stable and
legitimate policy outcomes. Because a considerable number of interest groups are
involved in a process of policy-making, there may be the relative openness and
transparency of the process. Meadowcroft (1998) pointed out that many relevant
groups are involved in concluding and enforcing an agreed solution set, and thus
policies may appear more authoritative in the eyes of concerned publics. These
relative openness and transparency of process may increase confidence in policy
continuity and public acceptability of proposed policies.
LIMITATIONS OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
Collaborative planning has, however, raised questions about how common values can
be forged and applied in a field of differences and power plays due to its idealism and
utopianism (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). These emphasise three sets of
issues in particular relation to the design of practice10.
The first issue is related to the construction of collaborative bodies. There is an
assumption that all stakeholders need to be included in the collaborative planning
10
See especially Healey (1997; 1998a; and 1998b), Innes and Booher (1999c), Tewdwr-Jones and
Allmendinger (1998) and Meadowcroft (1998).
42
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
process. This is essential to ensure that a discussion is well informed about the
positions and perspectives of the various parties. However, it is not clear who
establishes collaborative bodies, and how all stakeholders sharing a common purpose
can be identified and encouraged to get involved (Healey, 1998b).
The second set of issues is related to the dynamics of the collaborative process. This
is mainly because interactive networks are difficult to establish in the tradition of
planning and political environment where hierarchies and markets are dominant. At
the heart of this argument is the observation that real world politics is not about
negotiation among equals, but power-centred interaction. Therefore, powerful actors
like state agencies, bureaucracies, business federations and multinationals can be
expected to dominate such collaborative bodies. There are also difficulties in
communication between a considerable number of players. This is mainly because of
the limited representation caused by diverse counterparts, technical complexity and
views of absent parties (Laws, 1999). Meadowcroft (1998) argues that such groupbased processes inevitably undermine genuine democratic government by transferring
important decisions away from ‘responsible officials’ into the hands of ‘pressure
group cartels’.
The third issue is the effectiveness of collaborative outcomes. The process of
collaboration itself is a positive outcome by developing a shared vision in a complex
policy and encouraging mutual learning. However, there are two questions can be
asked:

What guarantee is there that the outcomes that are ‘agreed’ really will address
adequately the grave social, economic and environmental problems they are
intended to solve?

Will not the negotiation process consume substantial resources of time and
energy, in order to produce a ‘lowest common denominator’ policy?
Although the outcomes of collaborative approaches are supposed to produce win-win
situations for all participants, there will always be winners and losers in such a
politicised arena as planning. Ideal discourses do not have a time limit, but planning
discourses do have (Reuter, 1999). Moreover, agreement between participants on the
benefits of a particular polity is only successful for that particular policy: it does not
43
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
mean that the same participants will readily agree to new forms of practices or work
for policy-making (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998).
3.2.3 Collaborative Planning in Practice
PRAGMATIC MOTIVATIONS TOWARDS COLLABORATIONS
As discussed earlier, collaborative planning brings advantages to the planning
activities in modern society. In many practical situations, inter-organisational theory
identifies the pragmatic reasons for organisational collaborations. A review of the
literature on inter-organisational theories provides the following aspects that motivate
inter-organisational collaboration: common purpose; resource dependency; legal or
regulatory requirements; and legitimacy. Each of the determinants may be a separate
and sufficient cause for collaboration. However, the decision to collaborate with other
organisations is usually based on a combination of multiple determinants.
Firstly, pursuing common purpose is a widespread motivator influencing interorganisational collaboration. When organisations recognise some mutual need or
purpose, and organisational domains are not sensitive issues, inter-organisational
collaboration becomes more likely (Schermerhorn, 1975). Oliver (1990) determines
‘reciprocity’ as a critical contingency that motivates organisations to collaborate in
order to pursue common or mutually beneficial goals and interests. Moreover,
interdependence between organisations is also emphasised, as the mutual dependence
is created when organisations in different sectors need resources and services from
each other. Organisations choose to collaborate when they realise the interdependence
of their goals, and increased interdependencies lead to a greater need for intra- and
inter-organisational collaborations (Mulford and Rogers, 1982; and Owen, 1998).
Secondly, resource dependency induces organisations to seek out or be receptive to
inter-organisational collaborations (Schermerhorn, 1975; and Weiss, 1987). Halpert
(1982) argues that an organisation may voluntarily collaborate when faced with the
threat of resource loss among other things (i.e. autonomy, and task and power
domains) as a result of prevailing market and environmental conditions. Resource
dependency relationships may cause environmental uncertainty (Borys and Jemison,
1989; Provan, 1982). Collaboration helps organisations forestall, forecast, or absorb
uncertainty and achieve an orderly, reliable pattern of resource flows and exchanges.
44
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
However, Oliver (1990) points out that resource uncertainty may prompt
organisations to try to exert power, influence, or control over other organisations that
control their required scarce resources.
Thirdly, organisations sometimes co-operate in order to meet necessary legal or
regulatory requirements that are mandates from higher authorities (Oliver, 1990; and
Weiss, 1987). When a powerful force from external organisations demands
collaboration it is more likely to happen (Schermerhorn, 1975). However, Weiss
(1987) argues that legal requirements may be too weak to overcome the obstacles to
co-operation, if they stand alone without the reinforcement of political consensus,
standard procedures, pre-existing relationships, systematic enforcement or shared
moral codes.
Finally, organisations seek to increase their legitimacy to improve their reputation,
image, prestige, or to justify their activities or outputs in their institutional
environment. This encourages organisations to enter an inter-organisational relation
(Schermerhorn, 1975). Weiss (1987) believes that satisfying norms and values and
obtaining political advantage are motivations for public agencies to collaborate.
IMPLEMENTING COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
The major concern in collaborative planning theory in recent years has been to
develop a framework for applying the theory to practice. Patsy Healey (1997: pp268281) sets out four parameters of the institutional design for a collaborative form of
policy development and delivery: stakeholders and arenas; routines of organising and
styles of discussion; making policy discourses; and maintaining consensus.
Getting started: facilitators, stakeholders and arenas
A key task in this stage is to identify the stakeholders of the issue and establish an
‘institutional place’ with funding arrangement. Existing political and administrative
procedures may be part of the communication problem through their masking of
power relations and distorted communication. However, they can be changed when
there is the capacity to ‘read the cracks’ in the power relations, to see the
opportunities for ‘doing things differently’, and to be able to widen a crack into a real
45
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
potential for change. In this context, initiators have a critical responsibility for this
opening up stage.
Routines and styles of discussion
‘Opening out’ discussions to explore the identified problems enable learning about
each other’s interests. Healey identifies three particular aspects of this process that
require attention in terms of managing meetings. First is the style of discussion that
ensures everyone has a voice and is heard through sensitivity to cultural differences,
room arrangements, who speaks when and how. Second is the language that each
participant uses that gives respect to each other while avoiding ambiguous imagery or
misleading statements. Third is the representation, which refers to the different ways
in which participants are ‘called up’ to speak and to prevent those ‘not present’ from
being ‘absent’ from the discussion.
Making policy discourses
Discussions in conventional strategic planning exercises are translated into and
filtered through the technical planning arena. This structured analytical framework
translates a person’s speech into a ‘point’. However, discussions in a process of
collaborative approaches need to be less technical, much richer and more widely
shared to allow for different views to be maintained. If so, as Healey points out, how
can a strategy emerge from such an open process? The answer is not clear.
Nonetheless, it appears to rely on a collective decision-making process that does not
‘close off’ options but works through different scenarios and their consequences.
Maintaining the consensus
Effective consensus building is based on clear understanding of what a strategy means
and the reason for it. A collaborative process should aim to evolve participants’
activities flexibly, not to control and direct what they do. As new participants emerge
and situations change then the more formalised institutional arrangements become
useful in enforcing the consensus.
46
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
OUTCOMES OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES
Consensus building focuses on a process that individuals presenting differing interests
engage in long-term, face-to-face discussions, seeking agreement on strategies, plans,
policies and actions. Recognising that consensus building is a broad term
encompassing many types of collaborative efforts, Innes and Booher (1999b) develop
a framework for potential outcomes of collaborative approaches (Table 3.2).
Outcomes of consensus building are not just the productions of agreed strategies.
They argue that some of outcomes are direct effects that are immediately identifiable
at the end of the project (first order effects), for example high-quality agreement and
innovative strategies. These may also include social capital (trust and relationships),
intellectual capital (mutual understanding) and political capital (ability to work
together for common purpose). However, others may not be evident until some time
later (second and third order effects). It is not necessary for every outcome criterion to
be achieved to have a successful consensus building, as one or more criteria of the
outcomes may be particularly important in responding to the different political and
economic circumstances of the individual cases.
Table 3.0.2 Potential Outcomes of Consensus Building
First Order Effects
Social Capital: Trust,
Relationships
Intellectual Capital:
Mutual Understanding,
Shared Problem Frames,
Agreed Upon Data
Second Order Effects
Third Order Effects
New Partnerships
New Collaborations
Co-ordination and Joint Action
More Coevolution, Less
Destructive Conflict
Joint Learning Extends
Into the Community
Implementation of
Agreements
Political Capital: Ability to
Work Together for Agreed Changes in Practices
Ends
Changes in Perceptions
High-Quality Agreements
Innovative Strategies
Results on the Ground:
Adaptation of Cities,
Regions, Resources,
Services
New Institutions
New Norms and Heuristics
New Discourses
Source: Innes and Booher (1999b: p419)
47
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
3.3 Instrument for Collaborative Planning: Partnerships
The arguments in the face of power in planning practice might be taken to suggest
that ‘government’ (which can enforce compliance) is more reliable rather than
‘negotiation’ in delivering policy goals. But this has a set of presumptions: 1)
government already understands the problems; 2) government can decide how to
distribute the burdens of adjustment; and 3) government is able to implement
solutions without the co-operation of other external planning bodies. However, it is
simply not true. Meadowcroft (1998) argues that it can be only achieved through
engagement with groups representing different aspects of an issue and various
political dimensions of a problem. In this context, a hypothesis in this thesis is that a
partnership approach may be a suitable for instrument implementing collaborative
planning in conjunction with multiple actors in practice.
3.3.1 Partnerships towards Collaborative Planning
A DEFINITION OF PARTNERSHIP
Although it is evident that a partnership instrument is needed for the implementation
of collaborative planning, there are arguments that the partnership has been dismissed
as ‘containing a high level of ambiguity’ (MacKintosh, 1992) and ‘a meaningless
concept’ (Lawless, 1991). This is partly because of its loose application to a wide
variety of policy initiatives by both advocates and critics (Bailey, 1995). As Lawless
points out, ‘there is no legal definition of partnership, nor is there anything we can
call the “typical” partnership’ (Lawless, 1991). This is because many partnerships
emerge spontaneously from the need to progress. Moreover, theoretical frameworks
for understanding partnerships are not well developed (MacKintosh, 1992).
In this research a partnership has been defined as a coalition of different organisations
in order to achieve a common purpose and shared vision of a defined area. An
effective partnership cannot be dominated by any of its member organisations in
decision-making, and the existence of the partnership does not affect the statutory
powers and obligations of its member organisations. The term ‘different
organisations’ distinguishes a partnership from a ‘network’; the latter is described as
an individual based relationship (Table 3.3). In comparison to the networks,
48
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
partnerships focus on organisational relationships based on formal agreement within a
clearly defined boundary. There is also a moral dimension that distinguishes
partnerships in town planning from business collaboration in the market place. This is
the aspiration to further public interests rather than private gain.
Table 3.0.3 The Features of Networks and Partnerships
Network
Partnership
Focus
Individual relationships
Organisational relationships
Motivation
Voluntaristic
Voluntaristic or imposed
Boundary
Indistinct
Clear
Composition
Fluid
Stable
Membership
Defined by self and/or others
Defined by formal agreement
Formalisation
Low
High
Source: Lowndes et al. (1997)
A common structure of partnerships is illustrated in Figure 3.1. A partnership, service
provider, delivers its programme through a range of member partners that may
include public/private sectors, professional services and user groups. In order to coordinate the overall partnership activities, a facilitating body is needed. This
facilitating body is usually in a form of a committee or working group involving
representatives from member partners. When a partnership involves a considerable
number of representatives, the facilitating body may be divided into several subgroups.
49
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Figure 3.0.1 A Common Structure of Partnerships
Provider
Facilitating
Body
Private
sector
Public
sector
Professional
services
User
group
Service
Source: Muir and Rance (1995: p128)
The definition of partnership in this research is intended to indicate not only urban
regeneration partnerships but also social and environmental partnerships. The
definition emphasises that a partnership provides the basis for a collaborative
approach by bringing together stakeholders who are working for a common purpose.
However, the partnership approach toward collaborative planning in a real-life
context is more complex and abstruse.
THE RISE OF THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACH
The apparent and changing nature of the partnership approach must be seen in line
with the changes in political, economic and social environments in the UK. As
discussed earlier, the fundamental changes that are apparent in relation to partnership
working are economic restructuring and the centralisation of state power during the
late 1970s and into the 1980s11.
Economic decline and growing levels of unemployment brought major political
changes, such as the centralisation and privatisation of urban policy in the 1980s
(Bailey, 1995; and Boyle, 1993). Those are closely associated with Thatcherism
shifting the balance of power between central and local government through diluting
the powers of the big Labour-controlled Metropolitan authorities (Report of the
11
See Table 2.3 ‘The Trend of Governance in the UK, in Chapter 2.
50
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Commission for Social Justice, 1994). Privatisation affected in particular the public
utilities of greatest importance for planning and the development of land, such as gas,
water and electricity, and later, much of transport (Davies, 1998).
Powers and finance of local government had gradually moved to central government.
Major services, which were under local government in the 1970s, such as strategic
planning, transport, education and housing, were taken over by central government.
These services have transferred to central government departments, quangos (quasiautonomous national government organisations) or special agencies accountable to
central government. As Bailey (1995) argues, the creation of Urban Development
Corporations (UDCs) is the best example of the increased government centralisation
by engaging the private sector. As the UDCs were designed to exclude local
authorities, the UDCs forged a new exclusive alliance between central government
and major private property developers.
As the leadership of local government was taken over by the central government,
local authorities sought new institutional arrangements that could increase their
influence and the leverage with limited funds and resources. Local authorities have
regarded partnerships as one way in which these two objectives could be achieved
(Bailey, 1995). Since the early 1990s, local authorities have increasingly welcomed
the need for partnership, and the partnership approach has been a more acceptable part
of government policy. Local authorities recognised that their position has changed
from that of a passive service provider to being an ‘enabler’, leading co-ordination of
new policies and strategies for economic development in partnership with other
agencies (Keating, 1991). Many local authorities had also learnt how to operate a
plan-led system in a market economy (Davies, 1998).
Apart from the need for partnerships from the viewpoint of local authorities,
partnerships have arguably been seen as an institutional arrangement leading to
synergy12 that is a possible solution to tackling complex urban problems. Many
researchers, such as Shields (1995), argue that the contemporary urban environments
are variegated so that there is the need for multi-dimensional approach, and such
changes have been accelerated by globalisation (Amin and Graham, 1997). There is
12
Synergy means that the whole is being greater than the sum of the parts. Working together in
developing and implementing a common strategy can increase effort and effectiveness, utilise local
knowledge, and bring to bear the skills and expertise of all sectors (Haughton and Whitney, 1989).
51
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
now a widespread acknowledgement that urban problems are no longer solvable by
traditional state intervention and agencies. The proposition is simply that complex
problems demand complex agencies to solve them, as Newman and Verpraet stressed,
and they add:
Partnership processes seem well suited to this restructuring of
cities, by integrating capital, leading sectors and favoured social
groups in specific locations. In addition to this vertical integration
of projects, partnerships also fragment decision-making across
space and can be argued to be better suited to such selective
restructuring than older forms of territorial management. We
support the view that there is a direct link between socially and
economically fragmented cities and new forms of governance.
(Newman and Verpraet, 1999: p488)
It seems that partnerships are widely accepted in the practice of planning as a
particular instrument for tackling complex urban problems caused by the traditional
fragmentary governing structure. It is now clear that “a concern with partnerships is
best situated in the context of these broader trends [challenge of collective action] in
governing and public management” (Stoker, 1997: p35). Partnerships are
consequently recognised as a possible service delivery method for collaborative
planning style that emphasises co-operation and co-ordination in modern societies.
Partnerships are, however, one of many possible instruments that a government would
employ in order to achieve its policy goals. There is, then, anther question that may be
asked. Why might the partnership approach be chosen as a particular instrument for
collaborative planning over all the others?
PARTNERSHIP INSTRUMENTS FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
To answer this question, a considerable amount of research has been focused on
theorising the characteristics of partnerships by distinguishing from other forms of
public organisations. MacKintosh (1992) has established three characteristics of the
partnership approach13:
13
Her work has been developed further by other researchers, for example Bailey (1994; and 1995) and
Hastings (1996).
52
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments

synergy, where more can be achieved by two or more sectors working together
than separately;

transformation, which is a process whereby partners seek to change or
challenge the aims and operating cultures of other partners; and

budget enlargement, which assumes that a primary reason why organisations
form partnerships is to extract additional resources from other parties.
In line with these, the following set of characteristics of the partnership instrument
have been identified for a more comprehensive explanation of the reason for making
partnerships desirable in the collaborative model.
Firstly, partnerships may produce additional assets, skills and powers through
synergy. Hastings (1996) argues that added value from sharing resources and from
joint efforts of agencies may increase effectiveness or efficiency of policy outcomes.
The principle of synergy, which is the essence of partnerships, reinforces the point
that a partnership approach is a desirable instrument for the collaborative model.
Another argument related to synergy is that partnerships appear to involve less
government coercion than do other possible modes of public sector intervention
(Woodside, 1986). Partnerships are more likely to be voluntary agreements between
the several actors, making them less coercive than an attempt on the part of
government to achieve the same goals through regulatory activities or direct public
provision of services (Peters, 1997). Considering the principle of subsidiarity14 has
been emphasised, especially in European regions (Armstrong, 1993), public
perception is a crucial element for any instrument of modern governance. In
partnerships, the public sense of lower levels of coercion may be more important than
any other public organisations (Peters, 1997). This may result in wider involvement
from various interests in decision-making, and this is a fundamental principle of the
collaborative model.
Secondly, mutual transformation is the outcome that is modified through negotiation.
Partnerships are arenas of bargaining, lobbying and negotiation about purpose and
objectives, and broad parameters of agreement need to be established quickly if
results are to be achieved (Bailey, 1995). Therefore partnerships may lead to quicker
“Subsidiarity asserts that no responsibility should be located at a higher level than is necessary”
(DETR, 1999: p12).
14
53
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
consensus building between partners than other forms of public organisation so as to
achieve the common goal quickly.
Through this collaborative process, as Peters (1997) argues, partnerships enable
programmes to escape from the political and bureaucratic processes that might cause
slow progress on decision-making or make a programme impossible to implement. In
the bureaucratic process, significant legal restraints on the procedures of programmes
are important parts of implementing programmes. In a partnership arrangement,
however, those procedural demands can be loosened substantially, and quicker and
possibly more effective decisions can be made. Partnerships may be able to evade
unwanted controls much more readily than the manager of a ‘normal’ public
organisation. Therefore, the partnership may provide an executive capacity for
collaborative efforts that could not be achieved under political and bureaucratic
processes.
Thirdly, budget enlargement may secure more accessible resources by building
commitment through leverage (Brindley et al. 1989). Partnerships can be costeffective when compared to other possible means of achieving the same goals. This
means that the cost of providing the same service will be less for each side of the
arrangement than it would if it were providing the service alone. Moreover,
partnerships can be a useful tool through which to gain access to the resources and
skills of other agencies (Hutchinson, 1995). Evidence of partnership formation is
required notably in order to bid for funds from both central government and European
Union resources (Coulson, 1997; Painter and with Clarence, 2001).
3.3.2 Conceptualising Partnerships
MODES OF GOVERNANCE
As discussed earlier, a partnership instrument is relatively desirable for implementing
collaborative approaches. Although MacKintosh’s work is helpful in understanding
the characteristics of partnership, it has limitations in describing how a partnership
works in a real-life context. To develop a more reliable framework for the partnership
approach, this research essentially focuses on modes of governance, which were
discussed in Section 2.2.3, Chapter 2.
54
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
In the practice of planning, a particular set of institutional arrangements may be
associated with a variety of modes of governance, and it includes partnerships. As a
simple explanation, partnerships possess a combination of three modes of governance,
markets, hierarchies and networks. Although all three modes of governance are
playing important roles, partnerships have a particularly affinity with network modes
of governance (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998). This is because partnerships are based
on synergy and transformation and emphasise co-operation between actors. However,
market and hierarchy modes of governance are also important in terms of the budget
enlargement of partnerships.
Figure 3.2 illustrates a concept of partnership instrument in relation to modes of
governance. In conventional planning exercises, the inter-organisational relationship
is rather based on hierarchies (central-local governments) and markets (business
collaboration). This is because network modes tend to be limited within a single
organisation (‘organisational unit’ in Figure 3.2). Once a partnership is established, a
network mode of governance can be easily developed between different organisations
within a partnership boundary. Hierarchies in the partnerships may establish more
formalised institutional arrangements. Markets lead to budget enlargement of the
partnerships. Networks enable collaboration between different organisational units.
55
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Figure 3.0.2 A Concept of Partnership: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks
Source: Author
A TYPOLOGY OF PARTNERSHIPS
There are a considerable number of different kinds of partnership typology (Bailey,
1995; Foley and Hutchinson, 1994; RTPI, 1998). Among those, the work of Bailey
(1995) is recognised as a relatively comprehensive set, and can be seen in Table 3.4.
He has identified six different types of partnership arrangements (development
partnership; development trust; joint agreement, coalition and company; promotional
partnership; agency partnership; and strategy partnership) based on four variables
(mobilisation; area of coverage; range of partners; and remit).
56
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Table 3.0.4 A Typology of Partnership: The Work of Nick Bailey
Type
Development
Mobilisation
Locally
Area of coverage
Single site or
small area, e.g.
town centre
Development
trust
Locally
Neighbourhood
Joint agreement,
coalition,
company
Locally but
may be in
response to
national policy
Clearly defined
area for
regeneration
Promotional
Locally, e.g.
by Chamber of
Commerce
District or citywide
Agency
Nationally
based on
legislative
powers
Regional,
county, local
Urban, or subregional
Strategic
sub-regional,
metropolitan
Range of partners
Private developer,
housing
associations, local
authority
Community-based
with LA & other
representatives
Public, private, and
sometimes voluntary
Private sector-led.
Sponsored by
Chamber of
Commerce or
development agency
Public sector
sponsored with
private sector
appointees
All sectors
Remit
Joint development to
mutual advantage
Community-based
regeneration
Preparation of
formal/ informal
strategy.
Implementation
often through third
parties.
Place marketing,
promotion of growth
and investment
Terms of reference
from sponsoring
agency
Determining broad
strategy for growth
& development &
accessing EU funds
Source: Adapted from Bailey (1995)
Although his work helps to understand the different types of partnership currently in
existence, there is still duplication between categories and areas that the categories
cannot cover. For example, there is no clear category that associates with nationally
based environmental partnerships such as the Urban Wildlife Partnership15. This kind
of partnership is based nationally and locally and aims to work for nature
conservation in a wider spectrum rather than to benefit a particular local area. This is
partly because the Bailey’s work tends to focus on partnerships that involve economic
regeneration, but it is mainly due to the fluid and ambiguous nature of partnerships.
All partnerships operate differently in practice. These are influenced by the
geographical location in which they operate, the nature of the activities they
undertake, and their membership and organisational structure (RTPI, 1998).
15
The Urban Wildlife Partnership was founded in 1985 to create a better future for wildlife and people
in towns and cities throughout the UK. The Partnership is a network of urban wildlife groups, Wildlife
Trusts, Local Authorities, Groundwork Trusts, Community Groups, Community Forests and other local
and regional environmental organisations in the UK.
57
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
Therefore, it is almost impossible to establish a firm set of partnership types. Larger
numbers of categories and variables do not guarantee a clearer typology. By
recognising these arguments, this research establishes a simple typology of
partnerships that broadly categorises two types of partnerships, collaborative
partnerships and partial partnerships. These categories are essentially focused on the
nature of governance (interdependence and diversity) and modes of governance
(markets, networks and hierarchies).
A collaborative partnership is basically an ideal model of partnership, which meets
both prominent interdependence and diversity. In terms of modes of governance, a
collaborative partnership should be able to represent and balance all modes of
governance. Under the general concept of partnership, this research defines
collaborative partnerships as those promoting development, which is compatible with
and meets all the following criteria:
1. The need to bring together all interest groups involved in the development and
work to their mutual benefit.
2. The need to establish an integrated vision that is accepted and understood by
all who are involved.
3. The requirement to include the development process as a whole in order to
inter-relate all elements, the natural environment, society and economy.
The first criterion highlights the point that the structure of a collaborative partnership
should enable the partners to work to their mutual benefit as equal partners. This
emphasises balancing powers between partners who are involved throughout all
modes of governance. The second criterion is to establish the interdependence so as to
develop an integrated vision that emphasises the need for efficient, reliable
information sharing between partners. The third criterion underlines diversity of
governance in modern society, which requires a more holistic approach for
sustainability leading to the harmonisation of economic, social and environmental
decision-making (Kidd and Shaw, 2000).
Partial partnerships are those that fail to satisfy one or more of above three criteria
for the collaborative partnership definition. With reference to modes of governance, a
partial partnership is one that is biased towards one or two modes of governance, so
the implementation of partnership is not based on all three modes. For example, a
58
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
market mode of governance is dominant in ‘promotional partnerships (Bailey, 1995)’,
which are initiated largely by private business interests. ‘Informal partnerships (RTPI,
1998)’ are characterised as informal groupings of members with similar interests that
are mostly associated with network modes of governance. In the case of hierarchies,
‘joint committees (RTPI, 1998)’ may be an example. This type is a mechanism that
can be used to develop partnerships working between local authorities under the
powers conferred to them in S102 (iv) of the Local Government Act 1972.
3.3.3 A Life Cycle of Partnerships
Despite a partnership having multiple modes of governance, the selection between
modes of governance is a matter of practicality to meet particular political and
economic circumstances that the partnership faces (Kickert et al. 1997).
Consequently, it is assumed that different modes of governance may be required at
different stages of the partnership life cycle. In line with this, Lowndes and Skelcher
(1998) have identified a life cycle of partnerships based on contrasts between modes
of governance, which typically has four stages (Table 3.5). These are pre-partnership
collaboration, partnership creation and consolidation, partnership programme
delivery, and partnership termination or succession16.
The pre-partnership collaboration stage requires networking between stakeholders,
which is rather based on informality and trust, and willingness to collaborate to
achieve a common purpose. The partnership creation and consolidation stage needs to
structure a hierarchical framework for formalised decision-making procedure, and
requires a market approach to allocate funding for the partnership establishment. The
partnership programme delivery stage requires a systematic co-ordination between
hierarchies (regulation and supervision of contractors), markets (bids and
management of expenditure programme) and networks (informal agreements to
negotiate complexities of contracts). In the partnership termination and succession
stage, networking is once more important to maintain the partnership’s commitment
16
The four stages of partnership life cycle, which are discussed in this section, draw heavily on the
work of Lowndes and Skelcher (1998). However, their work tends to focus on public-private
partnerships of urban regeneration projects at local level. Therefore, some contents have been modified
to support a wider view of partnership definition in this research, which takes into account of social,
economic, environmental and political contexts.
59
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
and encourage potential for a future collaboration after the termination of the
partnership.
Table 3.0.5 Networks, Markets and Hierarchies in a Partnership Life Cycle
Stage in the
Life Cycle
Pre-partnership
Collaboration
Mode of
Governance
Networking between
individuals/ organisations.
Partnership Creation
and Consolidation
Hierarchy incorporating
some organisations.
Formalisation of authority
in partnership board and
associated staff.
Partnership
Programme Delivery
Market mechanisms of
tendering and contractual
agreements.
Regulation and supervision
of contractors.
Networking assists in
production of bids and
management of expenditure
programme.
Partnership
Termination and
Succession
Networking between
individuals/ organisations as
means to maintain agency
commitment, community
involvement and staff
employment.
Relationship
between Stakeholder
Informality, trust and co-operation.
Willingness to work together to achieve
collective purpose.
Differential resources result in emergence of
inner and outer networks, with some actors
becoming marginalised.
Negotiation and contest over definition of
membership and allocation of board seats.
Disruption of network as informal balance of
power codified.
Informal systems and agreements are replaced
by hierarchical structure with formalised
procedures and decisions.
Low co-operation between providers.
Purchasers’ suspicion of over-selling by
potential providers.
Distinction between inner and outer network
sharpens as partnership determines agreed bids
and/ or fund allocation. Reliance on informal
agreements within network to negotiate
complexities of contracts.
Emergence of trust-based contracting with some
organisations.
Uncertainty as network stability afforded by
partnership comes to an end.
Potential for new openness/ expansion of links.
Trust and informality, with negotiation and
contest concerning strategic role of partnership.
Source: Adapted from Lowndes and Skelcher (1998)
PRE-PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION
Pre-partnership collaboration is characterised by informality and a stress on personal
relationships based on network modes of governance. The quality of relationships is
linked to the level of trust between actors and the extent to which interaction is seen
as leading to mutual benefit. The expectation of mutual benefit is seen as crucial in
pre-partnership collaboration. When there is a greater trust, a wider group of
individuals tend to be involved, allowing for a greater variety of inputs, a more
efficient use of resources, and a broader sense of ownership. These relationships are
60
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
built out of a combination of ‘vision’ and ‘cost-benefit analysis’. Vision is important
in gaining the commitment of partners, while cost benefit analysis determines whether
relationships will be maintained over time. Market-like cost-benefit calculations are
also important for individual agencies in deciding whether or not to invest in potential
partnership opportunities.
Through informal networks, information can pass more freely (Innes, 1999a). The
information may reach key stakeholders in this stage, but this seems not to guarantee
their active involvement to the partnership. Another significant issue at this stage is
that networks make it hard for newcomers to break into existing groups by
establishing the reliance on social contact, unwritten roles or informal codes of
conduct (Powell, 1991).
PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION
Partnership creation and consolidation is characterised by the increased importance of
hierarchy as a mode of governance. Informal network relationships, however,
continued to be of considerable significance. Formalisation at this stage is linked to
increased transparency and clearer accountability in terms both of accessing funds,
but also of ensuring probity and effective implementation structures. The setting up of
some kind of bureaucracy - with clear roles, responsibilities and reporting lines - is
necessary at this stage. This is because it moves from a concern with exchanging
information and ideas to a focus on project or policy implementation. Partnership
creation involves negotiation and determines amongst other things, which
stakeholders will have representatives on the board. This stage also focuses on a
particular issue like the allocation of seats to a board or management committee.
In establishing a partnership structure, it should be also noted that a partnership
creation does not guarantee the presence of networking (Powell, 1991). There is the
need to negotiate across organisational boundaries and cultures in order to establish
reliable networking. Because hierarchies become more visible in the process of
partnership creation, the voluntary and community sectors are often relegated to the
periphery.
61
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME DELIVERY
Partnership programme delivery is characterised by the co-ordination between all
modes of governance, market, hierarchy and network, although Lowndes and
Skelcher (1998) place particular emphasis on a market-style mode of governance.
They have underlined the fact that inter-agency working involves a high degree of
competition among organisations. Competition exists between stakeholders in the
bidding process for central government schemes. Such competition is to stimulate
partnerships to develop innovative and cost-effective programmes of work, and to
ensure the fund provider receives value for money and maximum programme
effectiveness. A negative effect of the competition is, however, that a partnership
might succeed in spending money without reaping the potential gains of collaborative
working. A market mode of governance is emphasised particularly in the practice of
urban regeneration partnerships that may be keen at profit or commercial advantage.
Together with market modes of governance, networks are also highlighted at this
stage with reference to sustainability. The tensions between market and network
modes of governance are clear, particularly the potential for market-style of
relationships to undermine trust, mutuality and co-operation between partners.
Importance of networks is particularly emphasised in non-profit partnerships and
those working for sustainability such as environment or social partnerships. These
partnerships may include, for example, nature conservation partnerships, crime
prevention partnerships, and recreation-related partnerships. Hierarchy modes of
governance also associate in this stage in terms of regulatory and administrative
matters of overall programme implementation.
PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION OR SUCCESSION
Partnership termination or succession is characterised by a re-assertion of a network
co-ordination mode as a means to maintain agency commitment, community
involvement and staff employment. As Hay (1998) argues, a network mode of
governance may well continue to linger on long after the partnership termination; that
its strategic significance has been dissipated and the principal strategic attentions of
its nominal participants directed elsewhere. Networks may enable to carry out the role
of partnership to be carried on even after the termination. While partnership
62
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
termination seems to be very much dependent on the nature of the initiative that
employs the strategy (Maybury, 1998), partnerships tend to take one of following
stances (Sullivan and Lowndes, 1996 quoted in Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998).
The first option is to ‘keep the partnership going’. Those who wish to keep a formal
partnership in place after funding ceases are driven by a brief that either (a) valuable
relationships have been built and might perish without a formal framework; or (b)
specific partnership outputs needs managing and developing beyond the life of the
funded partnership; or (c) the locality continues to have pressing social and economic
needs despite the funded intervention and that a continued partnership would help to
keep attention focused area.
Secondly, termination can end up with a ‘let it die peacefully’ strategy. Those who
want to close up the partnership tend to keep a structure and a programme going with
dedicated budgets. Behind this kind of termination, the assumption is that the goal of
partnership is to empower community groups by building capacity to manage their
local environments.
Finally, a partnership may conclude to ‘support what lasts’ strategy. This cluster of
views is in a middle way of the previous two exit strategies. This strategy may be
chosen when the importance of sustaining the partnership commitments has been
recognised, but there is a shortage of funds. The stress in this strategy is on seeking
support from mainstream local budgets for focal points of activity in the locality so as
to allow co-ordination to arise from informal networks.
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter explored the notion of collaborative planning theory and instrumental
arrangements for implementing collaborative approaches. There is an extensive
literature on the need for collaborative approaches and factors contributing to an
effective collaboration. However, there is relatively not much research and knowledge
on implementation of collaborative planning in the practice of planning. Despite the
operational difficulties of collaborative approaches, it is important to note that
collaborative planning is not envisaged as a replacement for the entire structure of the
existing planning system. Rather it is a flexible management mechanism, which can
be grafted onto existing systems of policy-making and administration. Collaborative
63
Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments
planning is not intended radically to displace other forms of planning styles, but rather
to supplement these. The real question is not whether collaborative planning has
problems, drawbacks, and dangers, but whether in particular contexts it may achieve
more satisfactory results than traditional regulatory approaches (Meadowcroft, 1998).
Partnership instruments have been identified as one of the desirable institutional
arrangements for collaborative approaches. Changing patterns of partnerships are
obviously emerging with the changing of the planning pattern in the UK. From the
mid-1980s property boom, public and private sectors had co-operated on large-scale
urban projects. However, as Newman and Verpraet (1999) mention, the new
partnerships in the 1990s tend not to be mechanisms of planned restructuring but
rather they target hot spots in the new urban economy. The emphasis of partnership
arrangements has been shifted to cover a wider range of issues than merely property
development (O'Toole and Usher, 1992). Although there is an emphasis on
collaborative partnerships in the mid-1990s, it should be noted that there is the need
for both collaborative and partial partnerships to tackle different types of urban
problems. This is because “there are no single model for the correct form of
partnership”(RTPI, 1998: p10), but the form of collaborative partnerships has been
necessary in order to tackle the complexity of modern society.
64
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Chapter Four:
Designing an Institutional Arrangement
for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
65
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
4.1 Introduction
Previous chapters discussed the need for collaborative approach in implementing
integrated waterside revitalisation. An institutional arrangement for waterside
revitalisation needs to be a place for communication and building networks between
participants. The need to plan and manage ecosystems as a whole and to develop
integrated policies has been widely acknowledged17. It is clear that waterside
revitalisation requires collaborative planning approaches. Together with the advent of
the sustainability concept, there is a growing recognition of the need for cross-sectoral
and multi-level co-operation in economic, social and environmental decision-making.
Such ideas direct environmental planning and management towards the engagement
of many organisations and individuals not previously directly concerned with
environmental matters (Kidd and Shaw, 2000). A river basin boundary as an
ecosystem, in particular, almost never corresponds to its administrative boundaries,
and consequently, it causes operational difficulties in an effort to incorporate the
fragmented administrative structure.
Drawn from previous chapters, this chapter intends to establish an appropriate
institutional arrangement for integrated waterside revitalisation and develop key
aspects for each stage of the institutional life cycle. This chapter can be broadly
divided into two parts. The first part investigates advantages and limitations of
collaborative planning in engaging in the practice of waterside revitalisation. The
second part of the chapter develops an institutional arrangement for the collaborative
partnership approach to achieve integrated waterside revitalisation. This consists of
each stage of the life cycle of partnership: pre-partnership collaboration, partnership
creation and consolidation, partnership programme delivery, and partnership
termination.
17
See, particularly, Grumbine (1994), Rabe (1986), Slocombe (1993) and Sparks (1995).
66
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
4.2 Engaging Collaborative Planning to Waterside Revitalisation
4.2.1 Advantages in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation
The advantages identified in engaging the concept of collaborative planning to
waterside revitalisation are summarised under two headings: sustainability issues and
geographical boundaries.
First, because the waterside issues are related to sustainability, the common purpose
between stakeholders can be readily built. The waterside issues are diverse and
complex. Considering the fact that waterside revitalisation is needed an effort to
incorporate the principles of sustainable development, common purposes for
watersides should involve the co-operation between economic, environmental and
social issues18. The concept of sustainable development is now firmly on the agenda
of waterside revitalisation. As sustainability is the “1990s fever” in the practice of
planning, especially environmental management, this may enable waterside
stakeholders to generally agree on a common purpose of sustainability in waterside
revitalisation. This sustainability-related common purpose may also encourage wider
involvement ranging from public agencies to local interest groups. Another advantage
related to sustainability is that the discourse arena is less likely to be dominated by
powerful agencies. This is because sustainability issues are less likely to generate
tensions between stakeholders, and there are no obvious stakes involving political
and/or economic resources to compete for.
Second, a certain geographical boundary, such as a river basin, helps focus on
particular issues and emphasise on area-based targets. One policy area where
networking and developing new patterns of collaborative planning is an explicit
theme is the Local Agenda 21 process (Selman and Parker, 1997; and Young, 1996).
In many cases, though, the LA 21 can “degenerate into more traditional forms of
participation activity and stall on the hard conflicts that are encapsulated within the
concept of sustainable development between equity, economic and environmental
agenda” (Rydin, 1998: p118). When collaborative planning engages in the waterside,
it has got a certain geographical boundary such as a river basin. It helps identify who
are the stakeholders in relevant interests, develop what are the issues to tackle in a
concrete waterside environment, and gain local knowledge of the waterside.
18
See Section 2.4.1, Principles for Waterside Revitalisation, in Chapter 2.
67
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Therefore, targeting waterside issues may promote more focused efforts rather than
strategies covering wide-ranging sustainability issues.
4.2.2 Limitations in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation
There are two arguable issues in applying the collaborative concept to waterside
issues.
Firstly, sustainability issues are not the top priority of all waterside stakeholders,
although sustainability may promote wider involvement from various waterside
stakeholders. However, the common purposes based on sustainability - which raises
philosophical and conceptual issues - are difficult to generate commitment from
stakeholders, although the word, sustainability, is also used often for reasons for
political expediency. Generally speaking, conflict potentially increases when there is:
1) high goal incompatibility; 2) high activity interdependence; and 3) limited
resources to compete (Schmidt et al., 1986). The issues of sustainability may create
common purposes and require comprehensive interactions between participants.
However, sustainability does not generate obvious tensions between players to
compete for limited resources. The main procedures of the British planning system
have been varying emphasis on economic development or social issues (Rydin, 1998).
The high costs of taking no action can be the incentive to collaborate (Gary, 1989),
but sustainability may not stress threat or scarcity of resource loss among participants.
This lack of tension between stakeholders around waterside issues makes difficult to
encourage them to put their extra time, money and efforts into revitalisation.
Secondly, traditional compartmental approaches to environmental planning and
management in the UK (Rydin, 1998) may be another obstacle to collaboration.
Therefore, inclusion of all affected stakeholders can be one of the serious difficulties
in achieving effective collaborative efforts in waterside revitalisation. Moreover,
revitalising watersides leading environmental issues has been traditionally treated in a
top-down approach. Hence, community stewardship issues in waterside management
have not fully developed, and this is a fundamental weakness of a top-down approach
(Paton and Emerson, 1988). This may concern community participation on waterside
revitalisation. Community-based regeneration cannot work effectively when it
operates at a large geographical area and a large number of interests (Johnston, 1999;
68
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
McArthur, 1993) such as waterside management. This is because environmental
improvement, especially water quality improvement, takes a long time, and should be
based on a long-term management strategy on a broader scale. However, these
organisations are mostly small and short of personnel and resources. A communitybased organisation needs clearly focused targets which are hooks for facilitating
community actions such as preventing crimes or enhance services because they aim to
‘do a few things well in a short period’ (Ward and Watson, 1997).
4.3 Designing a Collaborative Partnership for Revitalising
Watersides
It is now clear that a collaborative partnership approach is a possible institutional
arrangement for waterside revitalisation. However, a collaborative partnership is a
relatively new concept and its theoretical framework has not been clearly developed.
Consequently, some operational problems have been identified with particular
reference to the idealism of collaborative theory itself. Therefore, this section intends
to establish an institutional framework for collaborative partnership through a life
cycle of partnerships in revitalising the waterside.
4.3.1 Pre-partnership Collaboration
BUILDING COMMON PURPOSE
Building common purpose is essential in pre-partnership collaboration stage, as
Lowndes and Skelcher (1998: p332) quote, “once common interest falters, the
partnership’s done”. Building common purpose emphasises achieving each
stakeholders’ goals and capacity building of organisations analysing whether the
outcomes satisfies the real issues in dispute. Common purposes on waterside issues
need the sustainability concept that can be seen as the ‘1990s fever’. Consequently,
building common purposes may be straightforward. Generally speaking, building
common purpose must start from identifying problems. This is because participants
would never agree on the solution, if they do not agree on the problems. In this
context, Innes (1998) emphasises the importance of joint fact-finding, in which
stakeholders and experts work together to collect and analyse information.
69
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
IDENTIFYING KEY STAKEHOLDERS
Not involving key stakeholders is one of the serious limitations to effective
collaborative processes by reducing power to implement the agreements(Gary, 1989;
and Owen, 1998). MacKenzie (1996) identifies that participation of appropriate actors
is one of requirements to the success of ecosystem management. It is clear that wider
stakeholder involvement in the planning, decision-making and implementation stages
is one of primary principles contributing to effective collaborative approaches.
As most institutional innovations start off in an informal context (Innes et al. 1994;
and Ostrom, 1990), this stage tends to be reliant on personal networks. A key role of
networks in identifying stakeholders is to facilitate wider exchanges of information so
as to stimulate wider involvement. However, networking cannot be formalised into
rules or procedures. Networking activities are undertaken by individuals and are
reliant upon their personal motivation and skill. Lowndes, Nanton, McCabe and
Skelcher (1997) argue that networks are facilitated where individuals have worked
together in previous situations, in ‘the same (or linked) organisations’, or within ‘the
same geographical area’. A possible way to identify more comprehensive
stakeholders is to involve existing local area-based networks or organisations at an
early stage so as to arrange initial contacts to stakeholders within the particular
waterside area.
4.3.2 Collaborative Partnership Creation and Consolidation
DESIGNING A FACILITATING BODY
After establishing common purposes, participants regard development of new
decision-making structures as central to the management effort (Yaffee et al. 1996).
A partnership generally runs through a facilitating body19. Establishing a suitable
institutional structure of facilitating body at an early stage can prevent many
difficulties that may arise later. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI, 1998)
addresses the management structures that need to be considered and agreed before the
partnership is formed. The structures need also to be reviewed at regular intervals.
19
See Figure 3.1 A Common Structure of Partnerships, in Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3.
70
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
RTPI (1998: p37) identifies key considerations for the structure of the facilitating
body:

the role of the Board/Steering Group;

the role of the Chairperson;

responsibilities of Board/Steering Group Members;

roles of observers;

management meetings;

number and frequency of Board/Steering Group meetings;

conflicts of interest;

developing sub-groups;

the role and responsibilities of any Secretariat; and

the role and responsibilities of partners.
Ideally, working committees should never be larger than 30 people, with 20 or fewer a
much more desirable size (Heathcote, 1998). This is because larger committees are
difficult to administer (for instance, in arranging meetings) and the difficulties of
communicating across the space they must occupy. Larger committees often tend to
splinter into small discussion groups rather than to function as a single unit. Smaller
committees are also better able to build strong working relationships (networks) that
are essential in collaborative processes and produce useful outcomes.
In terms of the rule of practice (or rules of game) within an organisation (Clegg,
1989), rules tend to be determined by the market in which an organisation operates,
but also in part by the hierarchical power within the organisation resulting form the
specific alliances and strategies constructed (Atkinson, 1999). Those market and
hierarchical modes of governance in partnerships drive their objectives and tasks. As
these may be determined by most powerful partner organisations, collaborative
benefits can be limited. When a partnership covers a larger geographical scale and
deals with complexity (as it does in the case of waterside revitalisation partnerships),
it tends to divide the facilitating body into several sub-groups. Because those
facilitating bodies are formally structured, hierarchy modes of governance are needed
in building relationships between different facilitating bodies or sub-committees. The
multi-level management structure of partnerships should also ensure the environment
for communication and co-operation between different bodies or sub-committees.
71
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
INVOLVING FORMAL MEMBERSHIPS
Formal memberships involve partners who are members of administrative structures
such as committees or working groups within the partnership. Although most of the
key stakeholders can be identified, encouraging them to take an active part in a
partnership is another problematic aspect. A collaborative partnership approach can
be established based on its reciprocity and synergy. However, sustainability is not the
top priority of all waterside stakeholders and there are no high costs of taking no
action, as discussed in Section 4.2.2. The sustainability issues of waterside
revitalisation may not generate stakeholders’ commitments to become involved,
especially, within the traditional fragmentary approach of environmental management
in the UK.
There is the need for more obvious hooks to attract stakeholders of the waterside
issues. These are more likely to be based on hierarchies and markets such as capital
resources and administrative powers. It has been increasingly evident that funding
availability is the most popular reason that stakeholders get involved. Martin and
Pearce (1994) point out the potential of the European Regional Development Fund20
(ERDF) and it preparation process that can stimulate on the creation of collaborative
approaches at regional level by broadening participants’ perspectives, promoting a
more corporate approach, and drawing in a wider range of social partners.
The collaborative partnerships need resource-based hooks to attract stakeholders to
become involved. Funding schemes such as the ERDF may facilitate regionally based
collaboration by securing supports from larger organisations (i.e. central government
and the EC).
Lowndes and Skelcher (1998: p327) argue that “while funds (or the possibility of
funds) could bring partners together, it could not keep them round the table”. Once
initial excitement of funding availability has declined, stakeholders seem not to be
interested in the mundane management tasks. Gary (1989) believes that mandates
from external parties may guarantee that parties appear at the table, but they do not
typically encourage parties to negotiate in good faith. If participants do not believe
that their interests would be protected and advanced throughout the process, they
The ERDF is one of the European Union’s four Structural Funds. Its main aim is to promote
economic and social cohesion in the European Union by working to reduce inequalities between
regions or social groups (European Commission, 2001).
20
72
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
would be reluctant to take an active part of the process. From the experience of SRB
programmes, the RTPI suggests that hosting conferences or open days may be a way
of keeping stakeholders interested.
Not only did it [a conference or an open day] allow many people to
meet for the first time, allowing them to share their experiences, it also
showed people what was happening across the region and enabled
many to put their own project into the context of the programme as a
whole (RTPI, 1998: p40).
Events like conferences may be also used as an opportunity for a consultation process,
which may be necessary to review the visions and management structure of the
partnerships in regular intervals.
Another important aspect of formal membership is the inclusion of all affected
stakeholders. This is because a process that meets this criterion is more swiftly and
smoothly implemented than one the does not (Innes, 1999a). Ideally, participants in a
collaborative process should represent points of view and interests, neither numbers of
people (Straus, 1999a) nor strength of powers. The collaborations are less stable when
participants start with uneven shares of equity with one party being more dominant
(Blodgett, 1992). Therefore, it is important to ensure the involvement as equal
partners in defining the needs and identifying problems, causes, solutions, and
resources (Hartig et al. 1998). Westley (1995) emphasises that participants in
collaborative efforts must ensure that equal access to resources is provided, as
inequalities in distribution of resources and media attention may result in power
imbalance.
On the other hand, collaborative partnerships need to concern reluctant stakeholders.
If one of key stakeholders group is not willing to participate, the facilitating body
should explore with the other participants whether another group representing the
same interests would be an acceptable substitute (Carlson, 1999). However, seeking
alternative stakeholders should be carried out after investigating whether the
collaborative approach can be proceed comprehensively without the particular
reluctant stakeholder (Thomas-Larmer, 1998).
73
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
INVOLVING INFORMAL MEMBERSHIPS
Informal memberships include stakeholders who may not represent their interest in
formalised structures, but take part of the partnership activities under the partnership
objectives. In many cases, informal members are local interest groups and local
communities. Arnstein (1969) identifies eight different levels of public involvement:
manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated
power, and citizen control. ‘Higher involvement’ would be to sit at the decisionmaking table and represent interests of community groups in the consensus building
process as a formal membership. Informal membership may engage ‘lower
involvement’ that is participation by updating information on local projects and taking
part of local community group activities. However, ‘why involve the community?’
The simple answer is ‘the community has a right to be involved’ (Department of the
Environment, 1995: p21; and DETR, 1997: p13). The importance of community
involvement has been emphasised in terms of following three broad headings (DETR,
1997; and Ward and Watson, 1997):
1. Better decision making: local people or particular interest groups can identify
the problems and needs of the particular area or group. Therefore, involving
communities is important at the early stage of partnership creation;
2. More effective programme delivery: at the point of programme delivery,
involving community and voluntary is cost-effective. The community is able
to mobilise resources in the form of people’s time and effort; and
3. Sustained programme: where the community is playing an important role in
long-term task of revitalisation and management. Once a sense of community
has been made, the benefits of revitalisation activities are more likely to be
sustained, and the community is more likely to be involve in other projects.
Community participation in waterside issues seems to have limitations due to its
traditional compartmental approach, long-term, and large-scale areas. Therefore,
public consultation has been much more common than public participation in water
environment decision-making in practice (Baker Associates, 1997 quoted in Tunstall
et al., 2000). The process of involving informal membership has not been considered
exclusively in the waterside issues. It is evident that funding availability is an
important hook for attracting informal memberships. However, there is no doubt that
74
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
collaborative partnerships need to aim for enhancing community stewardships so as to
stimulate the healthy development of the environment and the people who inhabit it
(see Section 2.4.1: Principles for Waterside Revitalisation). When people share a
strong sense of community they are motivated and empowered to change problems
they face, and are better able to mediate the negative effects of things over which they
have no control (Chavis, 1990; and Forrester, 1999).
Figure 4.1 illustrates a mechanism of community involvement. In a process of
involving local communities, Rothenbuhler (1991) has found that communication
(information and interaction) with others is the beginning of community involvement.
Information includes keeping caught up with the local news and interaction is for
socialising with other community members. Communication provides the basis for a
sense of community. When a sense of community is developed, the community is
willing to be involved in local community projects. This involvement takes two
forms: either providing ideas for project implementation; or working to improve their
environments (Rothenbuhler, 1991). Some kinds of people are motivated to work for
change because they have an idea about how to improve things, although working for
change represents a higher level of involvement than having the ideas. Other kinds of
people are motivated to work for change because they know something must be done
and hope a good idea will follow.
75
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Figure 4.0.1 Involving Local Communities
Community
Involvement
Idea or working
for change
Stewardship
beginning of community
involvement
Communication
Information
keeping caught up with the
local news
Interaction
getting together with
other people
Source: Adapted from Chavis (1990) and Rothenbuhler (1991)
Drawn from Figure 4.1, this research attempts to develop a further mechanism of
community involvement in a partnership context (Figure 4.2). This focuses on how a
partnership may stimulate local communities to become involved in partnership
activities. As Rothenbuhler (1991) suggests, enhancing communication may stimulate
the development of local stewardship in the local area. Therefore, first, the partnership
needs to provide considerable information to local communities to develop an
understanding of, and respect for their environment. This may include organising
education and awareness programmes, for example, involving school education and
publishing information packs. On the other hand, the information could be distributed
through other forms of media such as newsletters, advertisements and articles in local
newspapers regarding their local environment. Second, it is evident that residents who
socially interact with their neighbours are more likely to be aware of local voluntary
organisations and become members (Chavis, 1990). In order to facilitate this informal
social interaction, the partnership may organise some kinds of social events or smallscale festivals that can provide an opportunity for the local people to meet each other
in line with education and awareness programme delivery.
76
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Figure 4.0.2 Involving Local Communities: Collaborative Partnerships at Local
Level
Source: Author
After the communication stage, stewardship for their environments may develop
between individuals. This may encourage ‘higher’ community involvement such as
working as a member partner within a partnership environment. In terms of
community representation in the collaborative partnerships, the communication is
once again important to work with other member partners.
The community groups share information with other sector partners. The community
groups may provide local knowledge to the partnership, and obtain information on
their local environment from other member partners. The interaction is another kind
77
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
of communication that develops networks between partners. Interactions can be
formed based on mutual benefits, common goals, shared resources and risks.
However, in order to enhance a sense of ownership in the collaborative process, the
community needs to be involved from the point at which the partnership is established
(Dewar and Forrester, 1999; Worpole, 1999). The sense of ownership enables the
community to feel that the partnership’s aims are their aims. Consequently, the
community may be involved in the long-term management of their waterside
environment.
ESTABLISHING VISIONS AND OBJECTIVES
Kim (1998) identified that one of powerful factors contributing to effective
partnership programme delivery is a strong sense of vision that is developed with
inclusion of all affected stakeholders. However, it is almost impossible to bring in all
stakeholders at the earlier stage of partnership establishment. The diversity and
complexity of the waterside issues may force to limit invitations of participation to
key regional stakeholders at the time of establishing visions of partnerships. As a
result, views of smaller interest groups or roles of local communities can be ignored
by the emphasis place on major public and private organisations in the region.
Alternatively, the partnership needs to allow comprehensive consultation processes
for its aims and objectives.
4.3.3 Collaborative Partnership Programme Delivery
MANAGING COLLABORATIVE ARENAS
Considering all service delivery processes are organised in collaborative arenas, how
these arenas are managed is critical for successful service delivery. The issues must be
discussed openly, and there should be agreement on how the group would conduct
itself. It is important to recognise that even when agreements are reached,
unanticipated conflicts may arise afterwards. Gary (1989) points out that the role of
facilitators is crucial for the effective collaborative process. Processes and
management skills at the meetings for building consensus have been provided in
78
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
various literature21. Therefore, this section introduces a number of key principles of
managing collaborative arenas, rather than exploring management skills and
techniques in great depth. These principles are summarised as follows:
1. Managing the collaborative process is based on the network mode of
governance that encourages ‘thicker’ communication among participants for
the most effective results. The process must create new personal and working
relationships and social and political capitals among participants. Networking
is also critical to ensure that a complex system can be responsive and adaptive.
2. Participants in the arena must own the process. The process should allow
participants to set their own ground rules and determine their own tasks,
objectives, and discussion topic. Participants must be involved from the
beginning of the collaborative process and should design the process
themselves. This may provide a sense of ownership so that participants
commit themselves to a more active role in the process and implementation.
3. The process of collaboration must be educational. All participants must be
aware of, and learn from, facts, scientific knowledge, expertise, and
experiences from other participants. This learning process may change
stakeholders’ attitudes from a traditional compartmentalised working practice
towards a collaborative approach.
4. The collaborative process in the committee must not make losers. It should
end with the win-win strategy for all stakeholders. This is essential to
encourage wider involvement ranging from public agencies to businesses and
local interest groups.
KEY ASPECTS OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
The major concern in collaborative planning theory in recent years is to develop a
framework for applying the theory to practice. Generally speaking, Figure 4.3
illustrates an institutional form for collaborative form of policy development and
delivery that is shown in a wider literature22. Collaborative planning requires a
21
See especially, Doyle and Straus (1982), Kaner (1996), Schwarz (1994), Straus (1999b).
See especially, Castells (1996), Healey (1997; and 1998a), Innes and Booher (1999b), Susskind et
al., (1999b).
22
79
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
discourse arena (coordinating committee) to build consensuses among participants. In
this context, Castells (1996) defines consensus building as the entire efforts of
collaborative approaches that are seen as part of the societal response to changing
conditions in modern society. This model shows that collaborative efforts are
delivered through those who participate in a coordinating committee and search for
feasible solutions for the identified problems. It also emphasises facilitation that is an
impartial meeting management skill so as to enable participants to focus on
substantive issues and goals (Elliott, 1999) in a coordinating committee. However, in
order to investigate how collaborative efforts can be delivered in practice, which is the
aim of this research, there is a need for a more comprehensive model showing a
service delivery mechanism of collaborative partnerships in a real-life context.
Figure4.0.3 An Institutional Design for Collaborative Planning
Collaborative Institutional Form
Coordinating Committee
Meeting Management
Consensus
Building
Facilitation
Service Delivery
Source: Extensively adapted from Castells (1996), Healey (1997; and 1998a), Innes
and Booher (1999b) and Susskind et al. (1999b)
Creighton (1983 quoted in Heathcote, 1998) has pointed out that some stages of the
planning process require broad reviews by the widest audience possible and others
stages have a greater need for technical focus and continuity. In this context,
partnership approaches may require different implementation processes to operate at
different stages (RTPI, 1998). For example, the decision-making process may require
80
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
formal membership of the partnership, as it usually rests with a forum such as a board
of directors. Informal members may be needed for consultation processes and cooperative practical works that emphasise both top-down and bottom-up approaches
(Paton and Emerson, 1988).
The collaborative partnership requires a multiplicity of implementation processes to
achieve its goals. Some stages of planning processes require continuity of leadership
and clarity of vision, but others require rather citizen participatory approaches. This is
especially evident when the partnerships deal with complexity and dynamics of
multiple issues such as integrated waterside management. Therefore, the institutional
arrangements for waterside revitalisation should be able to accommodate multiple
processes to draw these complexities and dynamics. This research has identified three
key aspects of the collaborative partnership for waterside revitalisation based on the
notion of collaborative planning: consensus building, facilitation and open
participation.
First, consensus building is critical to partnership building (Harding, 1997), and it has
been recognised as a primary tool for implementing collaborative efforts. Consensus
building focuses on a process in which individual stakeholders engage in face-to-face
dialogue to seek agreement on strategies, plans, policies and actions. This emphasises
an integrated vision established through agreement from all stakeholders.
Second, facilitation highlights a partnership way of working by encouraging member
partners to deliver its services. The fundamental principle behind this facilitation is
that translating the vision of partnership to its partners may stimulate member
organisations to identify with its objectives and take action for themselves.
Third, open participation emphasises a wider definition of involvement. The
institutional framework for the waterside management should allow consideration of a
wider range of alternatives including multi-level co-operations and responsibilities
outside of the formal planning bodies (Schramm, 1980). Therefore, there must be a
channel for informal memberships to become part of the partnership activities.
Faced with the complexity of waterside agendas, the partnership should be able to
make stakeholders reach agreed statements for common goals (consensus building); to
encourage partners to implement focused issues or projects (facilitation); and to allow
wider involvement of all interest groups willing to participate in various aspects (open
81
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
participation). Table 4.1 shows a comparison between these three key aspects of
collaborative partnership for waterside revitalisation. Consensus building and
facilitation proceed in a process of meeting management with relatively limited
involvement, while open participation is more related to organising practical projects
by involving a much wider range of interest groups than the other two. Consensus
building produces strategies and plans by formal membership. Facilitation has wider
involvement than a consensus building process in implementing strategies and
practical projects. Each aspect of waterside revitalisation cannot be isolated in
implementing a collaborative approach.
Table 4.0.1 Key Aspects of Waterside Revitalisation
Governing Method
Implementing Actions
Partner Participation
Consensus
Building
committee meetings
strategies
limited to formal memberships
Facilitation
committee meetings
strategies or projects
involves (in)formal
memberships, but selected for a
focused agenda or project
Open
Participation
project management
projects
open to formal and informal
memberships
Source: Author
A mechanism of collaborative partnership service delivery that is developed in this
research is illustrated in Figure 4.4. A collaborative partnership has co-ordinating
committees as facilitating bodies. A co-ordinating committee is structured to
incorporate and steer collaborative actions to deliver the partnership services by
means of not only developing and implementing strategies and plans (strategyoriented action) but also organising and undertaking practical projects (projectoriented action).
82
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Figure 4.0.4 A Mechanism of Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery
Source: Author
Strategy-oriented actions have two different types. One is to develop strategies of ‘inhouse management’ for the partnership such as corporate plans. This influences the
institutional context of the partnership including the co-ordinating body itself. This
strategic process includes reviewing the visions of the partnership and rearranging the
institutional structure in responding to the changes in political environment. The other
type of strategy-oriented action is to develop management plans and strategies for
integrated waterside revitalisation. The implementation of these strategies can be
directly delivered through formal members of the partnership possessing statutory
powers. The process of consensus building itself transforms the attitudes of
participants through mutual understanding and learning processes. The strategic
actions may also be delivered through a facilitation process by encouraging partner
members to take actions to meet the agreed visions.
83
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Project-oriented actions can be delivered through facilitation and open participation
aspects of waterside revitalisation. The partnership can act as a facilitator to
encourage member partners to take their indisposed projects forward. The projects can
be also implemented by inviting open participation. Open participation engages much
wider participations including informal memberships and the general public. A
collaborative partnership may need to organise open participation events to facilitate
their involvement, although open participation projects can be also organised by
member partners themselves.
CONSENSUS BUILDING
Consensus building is “a process of seeking unanimous agreement” (Susskind, 1999a:
p6). A wider definition of consensus building covers the entire efforts of collaborative
approaches that are seen as part of the societal response to changing conditions in
increasingly networked societies, where power and information are widely distributed
(Castells, 1996). A narrower definition, which this research suggests, is that
consensus is a way of searching for feasible strategies to deal with uncertain,
complex, and controversial planning and policy tasks where other practices have
failed (Innes and Booher, 1999b). Susskind (1999a) explains that consensus building
involves a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders. Consensus may
be reached when everyone agrees that they can cope with whatever is proposed after
the consensus building process. Consensus building requires facilitators or mediators
who can frame a proposal after listening carefully to everyone’s concerns. Participants
in a consensus building process have both the right to expect that no one will ask them
to undermine their interests and the responsibility to propose solutions that will meet
everyone else’s interests as well as their own.
The governing method for consensus building often takes the form of committee
meetings with an exclusive invitation to formal members. This limited invitation is
because there is the need to control committee size for effective meeting management.
The usual outcome of consensus building is some kind of strategy or plan. Consensus
building may proceed at various geographical scales from the regional level to the
local watercourse level. However, small local interest groups tend to be less involved
84
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
in the process at the regional level. Heathcote (1998: p132) summarised a typical
process of consensus building in collaborative committees as follows:
1. Representatives from a range of constituencies are invited to attend a ‘retreat’ over
one or more days. Those invited should have the power to make decisions on behalf
of their constituencies.
2. The meeting begins with introductory remarks from the sponsor, including a
statement to the effect that consensus is the desired outcome of the process, that the
process attempts to value and accommodate all major viewpoints, and that everyone
will have an equal opportunity to speak.
3. Each of the participants in turn is invited to speak about the reasons for their
participation, their views on the issue, and the reasons for those views. This step
serves to clear the air and ensure that everyone’s view is known to the group.
4. The facilitator then emphasises the importance of full understanding in the process
and invites the participants to talk to one another, learning more about them as
individuals and about their views and values. The proviso in this step is that
discussions may be held only on a one-to-one basis. Each participant is encouraged to
learn from each other participant. The facilitator may set a time limit, probably
several hours, on this activity.
5. After this initial ice-breaking and information-gathering step, the facilitator recalls
the group into a plenary session. The mood of this session is usually much more
relaxed and friendly then that of the initial meeting, reflecting the participants’ new
understanding of their colleagues and a building sense of team. The facilitator invites
the group to speak, again one at time, on any insights they have had or any questions
that remain in their minds. The participants should, however, be discouraged from
talking about any ‘deals’ that have been struck between stakeholder groups.
6. The facilitator then allows the group plenty of time for free discussion, this time
allowing larger groups to converse. In this step, what typically happens is that small
clusters of people form, and as the discussion-and consensus-begins to develop, the
clusters gradually coalesce into larger and larger groups until the whole group is
together.
7. Even at this encouraging stage, consensus may be fragile. The group should
choose a quiet and diplomatic individual as recorder. The group then calls out the
85
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
points of consensus for the recorder to write on a flip chart or blackboard. This list is
systematically reviewed and edited by the group until the wording is acceptable to
everyone.
8. As a final step, each participant formally signs the agreed-upon position to
indicate full support.
Judith Innes (1999a) develops a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating
consensus-base efforts in relation to the nature of a consensus process and its
outcomes (Table 4.2). The power of a consensus building comes from inclusion, not
exclusion. The process itself has no formal authority. Power results from the fact that
participants represent political powers and authorities from public, private and
voluntary sector organisations. This emphasises that the role of representatives who
bridge between the collaborative arena and their parent organisations. A good
collaborative effort would be one in which the representatives at the table have kept in
close touch with the stakeholder groups they represent, kept them up-to-date on the
discussions, and introduced stakeholders’ concerns into the dialogue.
FACILITATION
Facilitation used to be defined as an impartial meeting management skill so as to
enable participants to focus on substantive issues and goals (Elliott, 1999). However,
this research defines facilitation as a process that encourages members of partners to
take actions in a particular agenda or a certain project under the vision of the
collaborative partnership. Considering that facilitation is organised within the
collaborative arena, the facilitation process needs to be consistent with the principles
of collaboration and consensus building.
86
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
Table 4.0.2 Criteria for Evaluating Consensus Building
Criteria about Process
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
The consensus building process includes representatives of all relevant and significantly
different interests;
The process is driven by a purpose that is practical and shared by the group;
It is self-organizing;
It follows the principles of civil discourse;
It adapts and incorporates high-quality information;
It encourages participants to challenge assumptions;
It keeps participants at the table, interested, and learning; and
It seeks consensus only after discussions fully explore the issues and interests and significant
effort was made to find creative responses to differences.
Criteria to Assess Outcomes
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11
O12
O13
O14
The process produced a high-quality agreement;
It ended stalemate;
It compared favourably with other planning or decision methods in terms of costs and benefits;
It produced feasible proposals from political, economic, and social perspectives;
It produced creative ideas for action;
Stakeholders gained knowledge and understanding;
The process created new personal and working relationships and social and political capital
among participants;
It produced information and analyses that stakeholders understand and accept as accurate;
Learning and knowledge produced within the consensus process were shared by others beyond
the immediate group;
It had second-order effects, beyond agreements or attitudes developed in the process, such as
changes in behaviours and actions, spin-off partnerships, collaborative activities, new practices,
or even new institutions;
It resulted in practices and institutions that were both flexible and networked, which permitted
a community to respond more creatively to change and conflict;
It produced outcomes that were regarded as just;
The outcomes seemed to serve the common good or public interest; and
The outcomes contributed to the sustainability of natural and social systems.
Source: Adapted from Innes (1999a: pp647-654)
Facilitation is formalised as a result of the dialogue in the collaborative committee.
The involvement of participants is wider than one of consensus building, as it tackles
a specific agenda and practical projects involving both formal and informal members.
Nevertheless, participants in the facilitation process tend to be limited to a particular
geographical area or a specific interest. Therefore, facilitation may involve wider
involvement, but the affected stakeholders may be a smaller number. This may allow
more comprehensive networks to be established within the smaller working group.
The facilitation process enables a collaborative partnership to implement its vision
through partners. The role of representatives is also emphasised in facilitation
processes to secure effective feedback to partner organisations.
The outcomes of facilitation in waterside revitalisation originate from both strategyoriented and project-oriented actions. Firstly, for strategic actions, the collaborative
partnership needs to persuade partner organisations (who have administrate power to
87
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
implement agreed strategies) to synchronise their individual plans and strategies with
the vision of the partnership. Additionally, another supplementary outcome of
facilitation is to speed up the production process of partner organisation’s strategic
plans. Collaborative partnerships can also develop a facilitation scheme such as an
award scheme to encourage partners to put extra efforts into the improvement of
waterside environments. Secondly, project-oriented facilitations are to encourage
member partners to take their indisposed projects forward. These processes may
involve resolving conflicts and complexities between affected stakeholders.
OPEN PARTICIPATION
It is now clear that it is impossible to bring all stakeholders at the table, and not all
interest groups are willing to participate in a decision-making process. Open
participation is a process that provides a channel for all those interest groups, who are
willing to participate, to become part of collaborative activities. In contrast to the
other two key aspects, open participation is organised by project management rather
than through the co-ordinating committee. This process involves a much wider range
of interest groups comparing with the other two aspects. Open participation may
involve not only all member partners from government agencies to local interest
groups but also the general public. However, it is more likely to involve informal
members in more localised schemes.
In order to stimulate open participation in revitalising the waterside, the collaborative
partnership needs to organise a focal event to encourage their participations. As
discussed earlier, funding availability may act as a hook to attract wider participation,
particularly from local interest groups. The scope of open participation can be
determined by the participants themselves. Therefore, the collaborative partnership
needs to provide information and practical guidelines for the participant organisations
and individuals to ensure that their activities meet the partnership vision. For instance,
local environment protection groups may undertake a tree-planting project along their
local watercourses. This may be in consistent with the sustainable development
vision. However, without scientific guidelines and strategies on the local wildlife
environments, this local project may destroy their local wild flora or wildlife habitats
by planting inappropriate species.
88
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
4.3.4 Collaborative Partnership Termination or Succession
There are three different exit strategies for the partnership termination or succession:
complete close of the partnership; continuity of the vision through partner
organisations; and succession of the partnership institution. Considering it is generally
assumed that they will only run for a limited period (Bailey, 1995), partnerships are
required to prepare situation after their termination. The exit strategies need to secure
that the vision of the partnership can be sustained even after the partnership
termination. Most important aspect of exit strategies is to develop comprehensive
networks between partner organisations that may enable future collaboration. In this
context, networks between formal and informal memberships are particularly
important. A possible exit strategy is a rearrangement of the institutional structures.
The partnership structure may be divided into several mini versions of partnership as
extensions of sub-committees or facilitating bodies subject to funding bids.
4.4 Conclusion
The emergence of new forms of collaborative planning style creates a number of
operational difficulties due to its idealism and utopianism. It is clear that integrated
waterside revitalisation needs a collaborative planning approach to achieve its
sustainability principles. However, this sustainability in the waterside issues has been
seen as a ‘necessary evil’; sustainability might enable common purpose to be
established and involve wider stakeholders despite the complexity of the waterside
issues, but it may not generate a strong commitment from stakeholders. By drawing
attention to the operational difficulties of collaborative approaches in waterside
issues, this chapter has attempted to design an institutional arrangement for integrated
waterside revitalisation.
It has been argued that collaborative partnerships are one of desirable institutional
arrangements for integrated waterside revitalisation, considering the complexity and
dynamics of waterside environments. The institutional arrangement for waterside
collaborative partnerships that has been proposed in this chapter is structured in a
form of the life cycle of partnerships: pre-partnership collaboration, partnership
creation and consolidation, partnership programme delivery, and partnership
termination. There is no doubt that network modes of governance are essential to
89
Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation
implement integrated waterside revitalisation. Bearing in mind the point that
collaborative partnerships require a multiplicity of implementation processes, this
chapter has developed a service delivery mechanism through three key aspects of
waterside revitalisation: consensus building; facilitation; and open participation.
There is a relatively extensive literature on consensus building processes as
conventional tools for conflict resolution and collaborative efforts. However, there is
not much research and knowledge on how collaborative partnerships operate in
delivering integrated waterside revitalisation. In particular, facilitation and open
participation aspects of waterside revitalisation, which have been identified through
this research, are little known. Therefore, the following chapters will investigate a
concrete example of collaborative partnership in a particular river basin in terms of its
institutional arrangement and operational practice.
90
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Chapter Five:
Case Study: The Mersey Basin Campaign
91
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
5.1 Introduction
Although the collaborative planning approach is emphasised in the field of waterside
revitalisation, little is known about its implementation in a real-life context.
Therefore, there is a need to investigate a concrete example of the collaborative
partnership in order to identify operational difficulties, and to make recommendations
that will ultimately lead to better collaborative efforts. The case study in this research,
the Mersey Basin Campaign, the North West of England, has been selected to
illustrate this point.
This chapter introduces the case study that will be investigated extensively in Chapter
6 (focusing on the Campaign’s institutional arrangement) and Chapter 7
(concentrating on the service delivery practice of the Campaign). This chapter
consists of two major parts. The first part sets out the research methodology and
reasons for choosing the case study. This also includes the choice of six individual
case studies within the Campaign activities, which will be explored in Chapter 7. The
second part of this chapter focuses on the background to the Mersey Basin Campaign,
including the objectives, institutional structure, and scope of activities.
5.2 Case Study Methodology
5.2.1 Research Methodology
A case study method has been chosen for the primary research strategy. This is
because this research aims to investigate the contemporary issues of collaborative
partnership that is a novel form of partnership in modern society. In carrying out case
studies, about 40 semi-structured interviews have been undertaken, and over 25
meetings and practical projects have been observed. The case studies were undertaken
in two stages of interviewing (Figure 5.1). At an early stage in the research, 7 initial
interviews together with observations of meetings and practical projects were
undertaken in order to understand the nature of the Mersey Basin Campaign and build
up networks with key players of the Campaign. Understanding of the overall
Campaign activities was gained from these initial interviews with practitioners and
observations. These experiences helped the author to select detailed case studies
focusing on the service delivery practice of the Campaign. The secondary interviews
92
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
were specifically focused on: 1) the institutional arrangement of the Campaign based
on the four stage of partnership life cycle; and 2) the service delivery practice of the
Campaign based on the three key aspects of the collaborative partnership for the
waterside revitalisation.
Figure 5.0.1 Research Methodology: Interview Structure
Most interview questions were open-ended, and were intended to encourage
interviewees to give their personal opinions rather than the views representing their
organisations. Although interviewing was the primary method of undertaking the case
studies, in some instances, taking part in practical projects enabled the author to
obtain more precise insights (Figure 5.2). Becoming involved in practical projects
within the Campaign activities provided good opportunities to conduct informal
interviews with the project participants. This relaxed approach helped the author to
gather internal information and personal opinions from interviewees. This is because
the author came to be regarded as a part of a group rather than an external observer.
This is particularly important as the research is concerned with inter-organisational
and interpersonal relations between individual representatives in a partnership
institution.
93
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Figure 5.0.2 The Author’s Case Study Activity Featured in one of the Campaign’s
Publications
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign(2000c:p14)
Note: The Author (left of the photo) participated in voluntary group projects that were
organised as a part of the Mersey Basin Weekend in 1999.
Interview questionnaires have been individually structured according to the positions
held by individual interviewees and the scope of their involvement in Campaign
activities. Depending on the individual interviewees, therefore, the interview length
varied between 30 minutes and two and a half hours. The interview preparation
included not only the agenda of the interview but also the personal details of the
interviewees such as current position, scope of participation in the Campaign, former
employee records and personal views on the Campaign, if possible. These helped the
author to conduct wide-ranging interviews covering all aspects of activities in which
the individual interviewee has been involved. Additionally, these inclusive
preparations also helped in carrying out independent analysis of the interview
contents by understanding each interviewee’s personal and political positions.
94
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Interviewees were selected on the basis of the experience that the author gained
through initial interviews and observations, and suggestions from interviewees were
also taken into account. In the first instance, it is obvious that one of the first
considerations for selecting interviewees should be who they are directly involved in
the Campaign activities. Initial contacts to the interviewees were made as a result of
information obtained through web sites, documents and personal networks of my
supervisor. At the end of each interview, the interviewee was invited to introduce
other colleagues who may be appropriate for further interviews in relation to
particular aspects of the case study.
Many inter-organisational studies face the criticism that conducting interviews with
internal players is essential but they are more likely to protect vulnerable aspects of
themselves and disguise the meanings of some of their actions and feelings. In order
to extend the scope of the case studies, the author endeavoured to select a wide range
of interviewees such as key facilitators, actively or passively participating
representatives, academia, and the general public. Most of all, the author deliberately
approached, and conducted interviews with ex-employees of the Campaign. This is
because ex-employees have a comprehensive understanding of internal aspects of the
Campaign, but also possess external views. Although there is a consideration that exemployees may have grievances against the Campaign, they are more likely to
provide precise features and critical arguments, as they do not have direct
responsibilities to the Campaign.
5.2.2 Selection of the Case Study
THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN AS THE CASE STUDY
It is certainly true that there are great differences among the political and
administrative traditions in different countries. Many good examples of collaborative
planning are to be found in the Netherlands, which has long served as an example of a
consensus-based political system. On the other hand, the United States stands at the
opposite end of the cultural continuum that represents the individualistic,
confrontational and litigious cultures (Fiorino, 1995; Meadowcroft, 1998; Rabe, 1986;
and Rabe, 1988). Regardless of the cultural and political differences between
countries, this search for new approaches towards positive collaborative efforts is
95
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
widespread in both various locations and aspects of governance. These cultural and
political differences force planning academics and practitioners to adapt collaborative
approaches in responding to different circumstances in practice to achieve benefits for
the environment and society.
This research covers a concrete example of collaborative efforts in the context of the
United Kingdom, in particular focuses on integrated waterside revitalisation. The case
study, the Mersey Basin Campaign, is a strategic partnership between public, private
and voluntary sectors to clean up the rivers, canals and estuary of the Mersey Basin
(Figure 5.3) and restore associated degraded land to optimum uses for industry,
housing or amenity. The Campaign was formally launched by the Department of the
Environment in 1985. This 25-years government-sponsored initiative is a very early
and rare example of collaborative partnerships in the UK. The Campaign pioneered
the idea of collaborative planning in a process of integrated waterside revitalisation.
Figure 5.0.3 The Mersey Basin
Preston
Burnley
Blackburn
Irish Sea
Southport
Bury
Wigan
Rochdale
Oldham
Salford
Stockport
Liverpool
Birkenhead
Warrington
Runcorn
Ellesmere Port Northwich
Macclesfield
Chester
Crewe
0
30km
The Campaign is one of the largest river basin projects in the world (Wood et al.
1999). In 1999, the Campaign awarded the Inaugural Thiess Environmental Service
Riverprize in international recognition of excellence in river management. This global
96
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
competition with over 100 entries took part in the International River Management
Symposium that is organised as a part of the River Festival in Brisbane, Australia.
The Riverprize judge panel, which consisted of international experts in river and river
basin management, pointed out that the Campaign “is the best example by far of
environmental co-operation between all partners who work so willingly and
efficiently with the Campaign” (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000a: p7). This clearly
emphasises the international recognition of the Campaign as a good example of
collaborative partnership in the field of integrated waterside revitalisation.
SIX CASE STUDIES FOR SERVICE DELIVERY PRACTICE
The selection of the case studies investigating service delivery practice of the
Campaign is based on the three key aspects of collaborative partnerships for waterside
revitalisation in practice: consensus building; facilitation; and open participation (each
aspect will be explored extensively in Chapter 7). In order to maximise the use of this
case study strategy, it was felt that one case study alone would be insufficient for
sound conclusions to be made. Given the time and resource constraints of the PhD
framework, six case studies (allocating two for each aspect of collaborative
partnership) were seen as an appropriate number to allow sufficient depth.
The primary intention in selecting case studies was to include the full range of
characteristics of the Campaign. Figure 5.4 illustrates the rationale for the case study
selection to reflect diverse characteristics of the Campaign within the service delivery
mechanism. A consensus building process has two categories: (a) delivering the tasks
of the partnership through a policy making process; (b) developing strategies for ‘inhouse management’. In the case of (a), agreed strategies can be directly implemented
through formal members of partnership possessing statutory powers, while the (b)
type of consensus building is to influence the facilitating body of the partnership. The
two categories of facilitation are: (c) developing strategies to encourage partners to act
under the vision of partnership; and (d) stimulating partners to implement practical
projects. Open participation is either: (e) engaging members of the partnership; or (f)
engaging members of the general public.
97
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Figure 5.0.4 Selecting the Six Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice
Source: Author, modified from Figure 4.2
Consensus building engages strategy-oriented actions that are delivered through
formal memberships. The two case study categories are as follows:
(a) Consensus building to deliver the tasks of the partnership through a policymaking process. Statutory organisations among member partners may be
directly involved in developing and delivering the strategies and plans. For
this category, the Mersey Estuary Management Project has been chosen. This
case study involves a Mersey Strategy that is a partnership delivering
integrated estuary management under the Campaign vision. The Strategy
conducts and implements a Mersey Estuary Management Plan and its Action
Plans that are produced through comprehensive consensus building processes.
(b) Consensus building to develop strategies for ‘in-house management’ of the
partnership. These activities include the production of corporate plans and a
review of partnership visions and structure in responding to the change of
98
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
political environment. The Mersey Basin Campaign Council and the Manifesto
Pledge Groups have been chosen for this category. This case study shows how
consensus building can operate in steering the Campaign and developing
recommendations to implement the pledges that show the commitment of the
Campaign.
Facilitation may involve both strategy-oriented and project-oriented actions that may
be delivered through formal and informal memberships of the partnership. The two
case studies on the facilitation aspect of the Campaign are as follows:
(c) Facilitation by developing strategies to encourage partners to act under the
vision of the partnership. In this category, the Water Mark Scheme has been
chosen as a case study. The Water Mark is an award scheme to encourage
waterside businesses to take voluntary actions to improve their waterside
environments beyond the legal requirements.
(d) Facilitation by implementing practical projects. The Showrick’s Bridge
Project has been selected as a second case study of facilitation. The
Showrick’s Bridge project is a good example of facilitation aimed at replacing
the missing link in a footpath network. This project, which was initially
addressed by a voluntary group, involved a conflict resolution process
between local authorities over the funding responsibilities.
Open participation is more likely to be project-oriented actions involving not only the
member partners but also the general public. There are two case studies:
(e) Open participation engaging members of the partnership. The Mersey Basin
Weekends have been chosen as a case study in this category. The Weekends
are well-established annual events inviting voluntary actions in the region, in
particular, from member organisations of the Mersey Basin Trust and other
partners of the Campaign.
(f) Open participation engaging members of the general public. The Kingfisher
and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys have been selected. The Surveys invite the
general public to report sightings of the kingfisher and dragonfly/damselfly.
The Surveys served numerous purposes including water quality survey,
education and awareness, and marketing for the Campaign.
99
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
The choice of case studies for service delivery practice is summarised in Table 5.1.
Given six categories, the selected case studies were those organised by direct
involvements from the facilitating bodies of the Campaign, rather than mainly by a
single member organisation. After this initial sift, the two case studies within the same
category have been selected with a consideration of a possible comparison and
contrast between the two. It was intended originally to select a relatively wellestablished project and a cursory project. However, there were methodological
difficulties of defining and distinguishing between the two, and lessons could be
learnt from both projects. The practicalities of the research have been also considered,
i.e. the need to have reliable and accessible information.
Table 5.0.1 The Choice of Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice
Key Aspect
Consensus
Building
Facilitation
Open
Participation
Case Study
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Mersey Estuary Management Project
Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge
Groups
Water Mark Scheme
Showrick’s Bridge
Mersey Basin Weekends
Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly
Surveys
Characteristics
Strategy for project
implementation and management
Strategy for in-house
management
Strategy-oriented action
Project-oriented action
Invitation to member partners
Invitation to the general public
Source: Author
5.3 Background to the Mersey Basin Campaign
This section explores the biological and political environments of the Mersey Basin
that raised the idea of the Mersey Basin Campaign.
5.3.1 The Mersey Basin
BIOLOGICAL ISSUES OF THE MERSEY BASIN
At the advent of the Mersey Basin Campaign in 1985, the River Mersey and its
tributaries were amongst the most polluted rivers in Europe, receiving up to 60% of
the mainland pollution generated by industry and a living population of around six
million (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). As the Industrial Revolution began in
100
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Britain with the North West of England in particular, the Mersey Basin area was one
of the first regions in the world to experience the full force of industrialisation and
urbanisation that had its roots in textiles industries of Elizabethan times (Handley and
Wood, 1999).
From the early nineteenth century, the River Mersey effectively became the carrier for
the largely uncontrolled effluent of the world’s first industrial region. The Mersey
Estuary has particularly suffered a legacy of abuse and neglect since the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution. The long-standing pollution of the Mersey Estuary was
recognised and commented upon more than 150 years ago by James Newland who
was the Borough Engineer, when he expressed his concern to the Liverpool City
Council in 1848:
‘The whole of the sewage is still thrown into the river, much of it,
indeed into the basin, and all of it at such points as to act very
prejudicially on the health of the town. It becomes therefore a
consideration of vital importance how to relieve the river from its
pollution’ (quoted from Jones, 2000: p124)
Pollution control measures were, however, only first substantiated in the 1950s.
Furthermore, there was no systematic appraisal of water, air and landward pollution
until the Strategic Plan for the North West (SPNW Joint Planning Team, 1973) was
published in 1973. This emphasised the long-term nature of environmental
improvements and its cost, in particular, river pollution being by far the greatest
burden. This recognition, the need of environmental improvement for the regional
economy, was echoed in the preparation of a Regional Economic Strategy for the
North West (North West Partnership/North West Regional Association, 1996).
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE MERSEY BASIN
The economic history of the Mersey Basin had been in stark contrast (Boland, 1999).
Merseyside was famed for its international maritime industry that helped to drive the
expansion of the British economy. Thus, the region had been regarded as ‘the western
gateway to the world’ (Lane, 1997: p1). The Mersey Basin had by 1851 become the
world’s greatest manufacturing region, accounting for some 63% of the British textile
industry which itself yielded over 50% of the total value of the nation’s exports.
101
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Industrial and commercial activities were centred on the Liverpool-Manchester urban
area with numerous satellite towns such as Burnley, Rochdale, Oldham, Runcorn and
St Helens. In the 1920s, the region’s economy began to decline in the face of fierce
global competition, and this decline gathered pace in the 1930s, reaching its peak
during the 1950s and 1960s.
The onset of acute economic restructuring in the 1970s and 1980s, caused by the
decline of the port and manufacturing sectors, shifted the comparison to that of an
‘unwanted mausoleum’ of the British economy (Merseyside Socialist Research
Group, 1980: p7). This major decline left some deep-rooted structural problems such
as: mass unemployment and labour market disintegration; ingrained social problems;
political radicalism; and urban degeneration (Boland, 1998). Faced with an
increasingly competitive and globalised economic environment, the region found
itself facing many economic, political and social challenges, particularly that of
reducing unemployment and social exclusion. A major policy response occurred in
1993, when the European Commission designated Merseyside an Objective 1 region
within the European Union. This reflects the significance problems of the region’s
economy even in the European context.
5.3.2 The Idea of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Biological, social and political environments of the Mersey Basin in the early
1980s had driven the establishment of the Campaign. The idea of the
Campaign was founded on a personal initiative of a government minister,
Michael Heseltine who saw potentials of riverside in the North West over the
significant problems of poor water quality and industrial dereliction
(Department of the Environment, 1982).
To rebuild the urban areas of the North West we need to clean and
clear the ravages of the past, to recreate the opportunities that
attracted earlier generations to come and live there and invest there.
The great challenge is now the Mersey and its tributaries. From its
source well to the east of Manchester to the sea beyond Liverpool we
must aim for much cleaner water. This objective, which will provide an
incentive for the location of industry that needs clean water, gives
102
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
purpose to the restoration of the banks and the riverside. It encourages
the restoration to full use and beauty of the many waterside places
neglected over the years. A Mersey Basin restored to a quality of
environmental standards fit for the end of this century will be of
incalculable significance in the creation of new employment … I can
think of no more exciting challenge for the decades ahead. (Michael
Heseltine quoted in Department of the Environment, 1982: pp1-2)
5.4 The Mersey Basin Campaign
In 1985, the Department of the Environment formally launched the Mersey Basin
Campaign with personal support from Secretary of State for the Environment. The
Campaign covers an area of some 4,680 square kilometres and with over 2,000km of
watercourses, and is a £4 billion funding programme: £2.5 billion for water quality
measures and £1.4 billion for landward regeneration (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997).
The Campaign aims to improve water quality and the waterside environments of the
Mersey Basin, a heavily urbanised area containing the two conurbations of
Merseyside and Greater Manchester. The Campaign is clearly based on the notion of
collaborative partnership that was a shift to new ground in British administrative
practice (Wood et al., 1999). The Campaign is a unique partnership, which brings
together all interest groups on the Mersey Basin and co-ordinates all partners. Jeff
Hinchcliffe, Chief Executive of the Mersey Basin Campaign described the notion of
the Campaign:
There is no legal entente that is the Mersey Basin Campaign. The
structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign is like any other campaign.
It’s like an Anti-drink Driving Campaign. It doesn’t exist legally. It’s
just a good idea. We don’t think people who drunk should drive cars …
this good idea is getting put into effect by the government passing
laws, the police exercising control, adverts on TV, posters in pubs, and
so on. … Everybody in society has got something to contribute. You
can take that model to the Mersey Basin Campaign.
103
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
5.4.1 The Objectives of the Mersey Basin Campaign
The Campaign has three overarching objectives; improving water quality; stimulating
sustainable waterside development; and encouraging local watercourse stewardship.
These are:
1) to improve river quality to at least class 2 (fair) standard by the year 2010 so
that all rivers and streams are clean enough to support fish;
2) to stimulate attractive waterside developments for business, recreation,
housing, tourism and heritage; and
3) to encourage people living and working in the Mersey Basin to value and
cherish their watercourses and waterfront environments.
The first objective of the Campaign – water quality improvement – is to improve the
quality of watercourses by the year 2010 to at least Class 2 (Fair, GQA Grade C or
better) of the water quality classification developed by the National Water Council
(NWC). Table 5.2 shows the NWC water classification that is based on a General
Quality Assessment (GQA) system judging water quality with a variety of indicators.
Table 5.0.2 NWC Water Quality Classifications
NWC
Class
GQA
Grade
1a
A
1b
B
2
C
2
D
3
E
4
F
Description
Water of good quality and suitable
for all fish species
As above but considered to be
‘marginal’
Fair quality and supporting coarse
fish
Again water of fair quality but
deteriorating
Water quality poor and coarse fish
now beginning to straggle
Poor quality and fish likely to be
absent
Indicators
Trout, Salmon, stonefly larvae, mayfly
larvae
As above
Dragonfly larvae, caddisfly larvae
Water hog louse, horse leech, water
flea
Very few lice, leeches and fleas
Very fee organisms present. Blood
worms present in low quality water
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c: p8)
The objectives of the Campaign were initially the first two – 1) and 2) - as it aimed to
tackle the region’s twin problems of poor water quality and industrial dereliction. In
1994, the third objective was added in recognition of an essential role of local
stewardship in revitalising the waterside. These three objectives reflect the concept of
sustainable development in integrating the environmental, economic and social issues.
104
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
5.4.2 Organisational Structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign
THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN CENTRE: FACILITATING BODY
The Mersey Basin Campaign has the Mersey Basin Campaign Centre as a facilitating
body of the partnership. The role of the Campaign Centre is to:

Support the Campaign Chairman in his responsibility to the Secretary of State for
the delivery of the Campaign objectives;

To facilitate the Campaign partnership through networking, initiatives,
sponsorship, education and awareness;

Directly represent the Campaign through the many initiatives and projects being
developed and undertaken in the Campaign name; and

To be accountable for all the resources devoted to the Campaign (Mersey Basin
Campaign, 2000b).
The structure of the Campaign Centre has been flexible and restructured several times
in response to changing political and accounting conditions around the Campaign
(Table 5.3). In 1992, the structure of this facilitating body has been formed with thee
key elements representing public, private and voluntary sectors. These three elements
were the Mersey Basin Campaign Unit, the Mersey Basin Business Foundation and
the Mersey Basin Trust. However, there was additional structural reform with the
creation of the Mersey Basin Campaign Council in 1999.
Table 5.0.3 The Changes of the Campaign Structure, 1982-2000
Year
1982
1983
1984
1987
1991
1992
1996
1999
2001
Events
‘Cleaning up the Mersey’ Consultation Paper produced.
1st Mersey Basin Campaign Conference held.
The Mersey Basin Campaign Unit was set up.
The Mersey Basin Campaign Voluntary Sector Network launched.
The Voluntary Sector Network changed to the Mersey Basin Trust as a
charitable body.
The Mersey Basin Business Foundation launched.
The Campaign Unit changed to the Mersey Basin Campaign Administration
Ltd as a freestanding company.
The Campaign Council was set up.
The Administration Ltd absorbed to the Mersey Basin Business Foundation
Source: Adapted from Mersey Basin Campaign (1993)
105
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
The structure of the Campaign Centre has echoed the principle of collaborative
planning by creating three central elements representing public, private and voluntary
sectors. This ‘three-element’ structure enabled not only representations from diverse
interests but also inputs from the various experiences of the Campaign partners.
Apparently, each key organisation operates and represents a different mode of
governance, hierarchies, markets and networks (Figure 5.5). The Administration
Company, which was a part of Government Office, it had a good understanding of a
hierarchical approach in the practice of planning. The Company learnt how the
Campaign could work and deal with local governments and governmental agencies.
The Business Foundation are able to inject a market approach to the Campaign
activities that may strengthen a business-like basis such as providing value for money
at all levels of investment. In much the same way, the Trust that nurtures
comprehensive voluntary networks in the region.
Figure 5.0.5 The Structure of Mersey Basin Campaign: 1992-2001
Source: Author
The Mersey Basin Campaign Unit had acted as an overall co-ordinator and
administrator of the partnership. It was originally part of the Environment and
Technology Directorate, Government Office for North West. It was reformed as an
106
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
independent company, the Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Ltd in 1996; as a
subsidiary company of the Mersey Basin Business Foundation. It was grant-aided by
the Government to promote, manage and support the Campaign effort, implementing
and facilitating policy and action. It had two main roles. Firstly, the Campaign, as a
partnership, needs to be operated by strategies presented and developed by all partners
involved. The Campaign has got about 30 local authorities, 600 voluntary
organisations and 23 businesses and government agencies. Therefore, the
Administration Company had to consult member partners and codify a common
agenda that could coordinate all interest groups involved in the Campaign. As the
Campaign was government-aided, the second role of the Company was to produce
accountability for the annual government grant. The Company was to set the
Campaign’s context and to deliver synchronised strategies satisfying accountability
for the government grants. In March 2001, in an effort of simplifying the structure of
the Campaign, the Administration Company became nominal and the role of the
Company is now taken over by its parent company, the Mersey Business Foundation.
The reasons and impacts of these structural changes on the Campaign operation will
be discussed in detail in Section 6.3.1, Chapter 6.
The Mersey Basin Business Foundation grew out of an initial partnership between the
Campaign, ICI, Shell and Unilever23, and was launched in 1992 to act as a channel for
business resources for Campaign related activities and to provide a forum for business
interests within the Campaign. The aims of the Foundation are: to help identify, fund
and implement projects to a high standard; to encourage greater participation in
Campaign activities by all sectors of the community; and to enable like-minded
businesses to meet and discuss solutions to environmental problems. At the time of
writing this thesis, the Foundation stands at around 20 members and with cash
contributions of around £310,000 (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000c).
The Mersey Basin Trust began operation in 1987 as the Voluntary Sector Network,
which has started with the influence from the Manchester Council for Voluntary
Services to the Campaign since 1985. However, in order to support voluntary groups
as a charitable body, the Mersey Basin Trust has formed in 1991. The Trust is a
registered charity that is encouraging and supporting over 600 voluntary groups and
23
ICI became involved in 1987, Shell in 1988, and Unilever in 1989.
107
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
schools through a variety of grants and project. The Trust undertakes environmental
improvements and raises awareness of the value of local watercourses in the wider
community. The aims of the Trust are:

to facilitate private sector investment in Campaign projects and activities;

to involve new voluntary and community organisations with the Campaign; and

to support particular elements of the Campaign including the developing network
of River Valley Initiatives (RVIs) (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000c:p14).
Members of the Trust include individuals, wildlife groups, outdoor recreation workers
and participants, urban and rural heritage organisations, schools and other educational
groups, and canal and civic societies. The Trust has got two sub-groups, Stream Care
and Water Detectives. Additionally, the Trust supports community groups with a
couple of grant schemes such as Waterside Revival Grant and ICI Green Action
Grant.
Following the appointment of a new chair of the Campaign, there was a restructuring
of the Campaign Centre in 1999, and the Mersey Basin Council24 has been
established. This is a collective committee combining the networking and advisory
role of following four existing committees drawn from previous structure of the
Campaign:

Campaign Development Group;

Mersey Basin Business Foundation Board of Directors;

Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Board of Directors; and

Mersey Basin Campaign Board.
Apart from the three key facilitating bodies, the Campaign has the Water Watch
project and the RVIs. The Water Watch project was launched in 1990 in Manchester
to tackle litter related issues caused by litter and debris floating on the city’s
waterway. It is both a delivery mechanism in itself and part of the Campaign
philosophy of acting as a facilitator for partner groups and organisations to take their
own action. The RVIs are ‘mini Campaign’ partnerships delivering the Campaign’s
vision to individual local watercourses.
108
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
RIVER VALLEY INITATIVES
In 1991, the NRA announced a five-year report on the state of the rivers (National
Rivers Authority, 1991), and the report found that the River Alt and Roch were the
only rivers showed no sign of improvement between 1985 and 1990. Responding to
this, Liverpool Friends of the Earth and Liverpool Healthy City 2000 organised a
public seminar to discuss the water quality of the River Alt and the improvement
actions needed to be taken. The seminar concluded the need of a working group to
establish a green corridor along the River Alt. To this end, in 1992, the Minister for
Environment and Countryside launched the Alt 2000 with ten working group
members that became the very first River Valley Initiative under the umbrella of the
Campaign.
The RVIs are in effect seen as ways to encourage action at a more local level and to
involve local communities more systematically. The RVIs build on joint working,
which enables groups of local authorities to work together and pursues common
cross-boundary interests. The RVIs have a particular value in that they focus the
Campaign’s way of working on to specific stretches of river. As the local RVIs are
targeting specific watercourses, they harness the energy of communities bringing
Campaign motives and methods to where action can be locally determined and
undertaken. The RVIs have various partners from various interest groups including
public, private and voluntary sectors. A core membership of a steering group in a
typical RVI includes the Mersey Basin Campaign, local authorities, the Environment
Agency, North West Water, and the relevant Groundwork Trust.
Between 1992 and 1998, eight RVIs were established, and there are now seventeen
RVIs in the Mersey Basin. These are: Sankey NOW, Alt 2000, Clear Glaze
Partnership, R.E.E.L., Darwen RVI, Beal Valley Partnership, RiVa 2005, Medlock
Tame RVI, Bollin Valley Partnership, Weaver Valley Initiative, Rossendale Rivers
Initiative, Upper Weaver Initiative, Mersey Strategy, Etherow Goyt Partnership,
Gowy Network, DaY Valley Action and Merseyside Canal Partnership (Figure 5.6).
24
The details of the Council will be explored in Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2.
109
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Figure 5.0.6 Locations of the River Valley Initiatives
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c: p18)
One of the paramount benefits of the RVIs is that the course of action is determined
locally in responding to individual characteristics of watercourses such as
environmental, political, social, and economic issues. Given their common link to the
Mersey Basin Campaign, there seems to be a great degree of similarity both between
the issues the RVIs are tackling and the wording of the aims and objectives. Five
dominant themes in their aims and objectives are:

Improving water quality;

Enhancing the land adjacent to the river and identifying suitable sites for
conservation, landscape improvement and community access;

Raising the public profile of the river;

Improving access to the river, mainly through the construction of integrated
footpath and cycle networks; and
110
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign

Ensuring community involvement in the initiatives (Kidd et al. 1997).
GEOGRAPHICALLY-TIERED APPROACH
A particularly distinctive feature in the Campaign structure is a geographically-tiered
approach (Figure 5.7). The Campaign area is split into smaller catchment areas led by
independent steering groups such as the River Valley Initiatives. The Campaign’s
geographically-tiered approach started when the Catchment Project Groups were
established in 1985 by addressing the specific needs of particular catchments. The
Campaign area was split into five project groups led by local authorities: Central;
Upper; Estuary; Southern; and Leeds and Liverpool Canal Corridor project groups.
Figure 5.0.7 Geographically-Tiered Approach to River Management
MerseyBasin
Catchment Project Groups
Individual Watercourse
Sections of Watercourse
Community
The Mersey Basin Campaign
5 Catchment Project Groups
(e.g. Estuary Catchment Project
Group)
17 RVIs in the Mersey Basin
Local Environment Agency Plans
(e.g. Alt 2000 RIV/Lower Mersey
LEAP)
25 Sections of the River Alt
(e.g. Blueprint for Action in
the Alt 2000 RVI)
Source: Author
Since 1993 these project groups have been complemented by RVIs and have faded in
recent years. RVIs seek to address, in a more local level, the specific problems and
opportunities associated with particular watercourses. The RVIs deliver the
Campaign’s vision at the local level. The Alt 2000 RVI, formed in 1992, helped
pioneer the concept of the RVI and its operational practice. Professor Peter Batey,
chair of the Alt 2000 RVI, develops a strategic framework to translate the objectives
of RVIs into its service delivery. His report, which submitted to the Campaign’s
111
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Board of Directors held on 4th March 1999, shows that such a framework can be a
combination of topic-based (e.g. water quality; habitat; access; education and
awareness) and area-based (dividing the length of the river and its tributaries into
geographical sections). This approach, dividing local watercourses in manageable
sizes for stimulating local actions, is applied to the Alt 2000’s ‘Blueprint for Action
(Alt 2000, 1999)’ that is organised into 14 sections for the Alt itself and 11 sections
for tributary streams.
This tiered approach may help deliver the Campaign’s vision directly into local
activities by translating regional strategies to local actions. It also enables the
Campaign to work with a concern of diverse characteristics of individual
watercourses by working with local interest groups that have area-based knowledge,
local networks and resources. Targeting individual watercourses encourages local
community groups to contribute to their neighbourhood watercourses (rather than the
Basin as a whole), and stimulates stewardship on their waterside environments.
5.4.3 Scope of Action in the Mersey Basin Campaign
In relation to Campaign’s objectives, there are three primary actions in Mersey Basin
Campaign: water quality improvement, landward regeneration, and local stewardship.
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Water quality is an important aspect in the success of the Campaign. The Campaign’s
original water quality objective was to improve the quality of all watercourses by the
year 2010 to at least Class 2, ‘fair’ standard so that they are able to support fish.
Figure 5.8 shows the great strides in water quality improvement in the Mersey Basin
that have been made since 1985. The percentage of river length classed as being of
‘good’ or ‘fair’ quality (Class 2 or above in Table 5.2, Section 5.4.1) has doubled in
the year 2000 comparing with that of the year 1985.
112
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
Figure 5.0.8 Mersey Basin: Water Quality 1985-2000
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c: p6)
In terms of the water quality improvement, the Mersey Estuary has received particular
attention from a direct result of North West Water’s (now known as United Utilities)
capital investment programme. The pollution problems in the estuary have been
tackled on three fronts: reductions in direct industrial discharges, particularly of heavy
metals, reductions in domestic waste water discharges, and better water quality
entering the estuary from upstream (Handley et al. 1998). Figure 5.9 illustrates the
dramatic decrease in the discharge of crude sewage in the estuary with the evidence of
biochemical oxygen demand.
Figure 5.0.9 Mersey Estuary: Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1972-1996
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c: p6)
113
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
As part of the £ 2.5 billion investment of the United Utilities (by the year 2010), the
linkage between investment in sewage treatment plant and water quality can be seen
in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11, although it is not always so readily apparent. This
emphasises the importance of continuing investment on a substantial scale in
achieving the basin-wide water quality target to secure long-term benefits.
Figure 5.0.10 Water Quality Improvements: the River Roch
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (1997: p17)
Figure 5.0.11 Water Quality Improvements: the River Glaze
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (1997: p17)
River water quality improvements are very largely the responsibility of the United
Utilities and they in turn are reliant on the pricing structure approved by the DETR
and OFWAT. By means of delivering partnership targets through member partners,
the Campaign holds annual meetings with the North West Water and Environment
Agency to support and monitor the progress on improving water quality. Apart from
large investments of the North West Water and other partners, the Campaign
undertakes physical clean-up projects and education programmes through the Water
Watch and RVIs. This also includes the Campaign’s support to other water quality
improvement initiatives such as the Healthy Waterways Trust to oxygenate the
Manchester Ship Canal, and the Rural Areas Initiative to support actions of farmers.
114
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
LANDWARD REGENERATION
Much publicity on landward regeneration of the Campaign was afforded to a
significant number of large-scale projects, carried out by the major public and private
sector agencies, such as urban development corporations in the North West. Although
these successes of waterside flagship projects were in line with the Campaign’s
objectives, there was no obvious involvement of the Campaign in its development
process. However, rationale behind this is that the twin aspirations of improved water
quality and the regeneration of waterside sites are closely associated. Improving water
quality has helped the transformation of derelict land and buildings on the waterside
location.
That is not to say there were no tangible achievements of landward regeneration. The
Campaign supports and encourages the development of waterside sites to help local or
regional economic, social and environmental regenerations by means of creating new,
and maintaining existing, initiatives to advise or assist in the improvement or use of
waterside locations. The Campaign also encourages the reclamation of small derelict
sites. The landward activities of the Campaign are more obvious at the local levels.
The Campaign helps and encourages communities and other improve waterside
locations for environmental, educational, wildlife conservation, recreational, tourism
or heritage purposes. The Campaign supports community groups in waterside
enhancement projects through funding such as the Waterside Revival Grant. The
Campaign has also conducted smaller-scale projects at the local level, especially
through the Trust and RVIs. These may include footpath improvements, waterside
parks, footbridge construction, and riverside and canalside improvements.
LOCAL STEWARDSHIP
The Campaign recognised that developing an understanding of, and respect for, the
water environment, is an important process of stimulating local stewardship. The
Campaign has put much energy into securing these changes of attitude and awareness
in a number of different ways. These have been highlighted in their education and
awareness programmes. Over 1000 organisations - schools, community groups and
residents’ associations - throughout the Campaign area have received direct assistance
over the past twelve years. This has taken the form of grants for environmental
115
Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign
improvement, and advice and other assistance (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). The
Campaign focuses particularly on schools in delivering their educational programmes.
This involves training for teachers, providing water-related study programmes, and
developments of educational packages and resources such as ‘Learning through Play’
and ‘Fact Pack’. The Campaign also offers funding for educational programmes, and
links education providers to businesses for further support.
5.5 Conclusion
The first part of this chapter discussed the research methodology including the
interview design and the selections of the case studies. The Mersey Basin Campaign,
the case study, is notably based on the notion of collaborative planning, and it is a
unique example of collaborative partnership operating integrated waterside
revitalisation in the UK. It is also clear that the Campaign has a complicated
operational practice, mainly because of the multifaceted problems the Campaign deals
with.
The review of the Campaign in this chapter may show that the Campaign and its
associated RVIs present an innovative approach to river management. Although there
are limitations and difficulties associated with this experience, it does potentially offer
some useful lessons, which may assist the development of more effective river valley
management in the UK and elsewhere.
116
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
CHAPTER 6
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OF
THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN
117
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
6.1 Introduction
A collaborative partnership approach is becoming increasingly evident as an
appropriate instrument in delivering integrated waterside revitalisation. However,
there are operational difficulties in translating the theory of collaborative planning
into the practice of partnership instruments. This chapter investigates an institutional
arrangement of a particular practice of integrated waterside revitalisation, the Mersey
Basin Campaign. This is to identify limitations and good practice, and to draw lessons
that can be applied and disseminated more widely. This chapter is structured
according to the four stages of a partnership life cycle as discussed in Chapter 4.
These four life cycle stages are: Pre-partnership Collaboration; Partnership Creation
and Consolidation; Partnership Programme Delivery; and Partnership Termination
and Succession.
6.2 Pre-partnership Collaboration Stage
The Campaign was established in responding to the social and political environments
of the North West of England in the early 1980s. In the wake of the Toxteth riots,
Michael Heseltine, the former Secretary of State for the Environment, took particular
attention to Merseyside. Following his 1981 visit to Merseyside, the Merseyside Task
Force Initiative (MTFI) was created (Cullingworth and Nadin, 1994). Initially, this
was a task force of officials from the Department of the Environment. The MTFI was
intended to bring together and concentrate the activities of central government and to
work with local government and the private sector. The MTFI aimed to find ways of
strengthening the economy and improving the environment in Merseyside (House of
Commons, 1983). Peter Walton, the former Head of the Mersey Basin Unit25, who
was involved in creating the Campaign, recalls that:
“The whole thing [the Mersey Basin Campaign] started with inner city
riots, the Toxteth riots. Following on that, Michael Heseltine set up
about 40 separated initiatives including the Merseyside Task Force
that was the origin of the Merseyside Government Office. The sprit of
25
Before the Campaign, Peter Walton was a civil servant in the Sports Council, one of early
Merseyside initiatives in the Heseltine’s years, and in North West Regional Office, the Department of
the Environment.
118
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
innovation [of the Campaign] was started from all these initiatives.
Toward the end of his activities, he looked at the river and said that it
was dreadful. Then, asked what we could do about it.”
The Campaign started as rather a political inspiration of Michael Hesetine than a
product of ‘marriage of convenience (RTPI, 1998)’, an apt expression of the common
motivation of partnership formation.
6.2.1 Building common purpose
In order to translate political ambition into reality, the Department of the Environment
produced a consultation paper, ‘Cleaning up the Mersey (Department of the
Environment, 1982)’, in November 1982. The consultation paper outlined the present
state of water quality, the problems of watersides and improvement projects that were
undertaking at that time. As identifying agreed problems is a starting point for
building common purpose (Innes, 1998), it was very straightforward for the
Campaign. Poor water quality and consequent high costs of the economic
development were already major concerns of the region. The common purpose of the
Campaign, improving water quality, was simple and widely accepted. The
consultation paper, therefore, sought for answers on ‘how to do it’ rather than ‘what to
do’. The questions raised in the consultation paper were as follows:

Are the most affected people ready and willing to tackle problems
in the Mersey Basin?

How much will it all cost and who should pay for it?

How long will it take?

What part can the different bodies (the public, private and
voluntary sectors) play?

How best can co-ordination of effort and continuing commitment
be ensured?
The consultation paper stated two main means of achieving the necessary
improvements: powers of regulation (hierarchy); and capital expenditure (market).
This might be because the consultation paper was produced in the early 1980s when
hierarchy and market approaches were accepted as means of service delivery.
119
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
However, a significant shift at that time was that the paper emphasised ‘importance of
interaction (networking)’ between ‘three sectors’, public, private and voluntary
sectors. This became a basis of the Campaign structure.
‘The public and private sectors, and the voluntary movements, all need
to be involved if the anticipated improvements in water quality are to
be fully capitalised upon. … The importance of interaction between
sectors should be stressed.’ (Department of the Environment, 1982)
The consultation paper was circulated widely among the many interests involved.
Following on the consultation paper, the Secretary of State held the first Mersey Basin
Campaign Conference at Daresbury in 1983 with over 200 participants.
6.2.2 Identifying Key Stakeholders
The consultation process was a main feature of the pre-partnership collaboration
stage. The consultation was part not only of building common purpose but also
identifying and networking with key stakeholders in the Mersey Basin. Interviewees
reported that stakeholders have been identified through the consultation process and
other networking developed through their daily working life. Peter Walton
emphasised significant roles of pre-existing networks in this stage of the partnership
life cycle. He reported:
“The influence of the Merseyside Task Force on the way of
[partnership] working was of enormous benefit. Within two
metropolitan counties, there were good environmental and countryside
teams into which I could plug. … And derelict land reclamation was a
good network among the local authorities. In terms of networking
[among voluntary groups] the Groundwork Trust was important. …
But each network was particular concerned with its own physical area
and subject, and there wasn’t a pre-existing network in the whole basin
area. We had to break all that down. It was a whole series of personal
contacts.”
It is clear that networks developed through pre-existing organisations are essential to
establish a new partnership in the area. The Merseyside Task Force provided area-
120
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
based knowledge and networks particularly in the area of the Estuary, which was their
territory. The Task Force developed a way of partnership working in the region taken
up by the government. This reflected to the formation and structure of the Campaign.
Derelict land reclamation and the Groundwork Trust26 provided useful contacts to
local governments and voluntary groups within the Basin area. The last part of Peter
Walton’s quotation refers to difficulties in breaking into the existing networks and
creating conditions for collaboration, as networking involves personal contacts and
skills. Initial contacts to wider stakeholders in this were crucial to take the partnership
forward to a creation and consolidation stage. These contacts made stakeholders
aware of the formation of the partnership, and might have encouraged them to become
part of the partnership from its first formation.
6.3 Partnership Creation and Consolidation
A year after the Mersey Basin Campaign Conference, a press conference27 was held in
March 1984 in order to begin the initial formation of the Campaign. The statement
from the press conference raised three messages: 1) we need a radical clean-up
campaign; 2) we need a new non-statutory body to run it; and 3) we need the
Department of the Environment to take the lead. This was because the need for
collaboration between the public, private and voluntary sectors has been recognised as
essential to improve water quality of the Basin. Additionally, there was the need for a
driving force to fill the vacuum of leadership in co-ordinating the environmental
management in the area. The press conference also concluded the needs for a 25-year
time-period and for two billion pounds investment based on a brief calculation from
the North West Water Authority. In March 1995, the Mersey Basin Campaign was
officially launched.
Heseltine’s political inspiration motivated the creation of the Campaign. This brought
several advantages in the establishment of the Campaign at an early stage. Unlike
other short-term initiatives in the early 1980s, the Campaign had an exceptional 25year long-term time scale. It was also relatively easy to bring inputs from
26
The Groundwork Trust, formed in 1981, is a registered charity working in partnership with the local
community to improve the local environment with a network of over 40 national branches.
27
Press Conference On Mersey Initiative, Mersey Clean-up Initiative Moves to Third Stage (16 March
1984)
121
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
governmental bodies such as the Department of the Environment and the North West
Water Authority. However, persuading other stakeholders to become involved in the
Campaign was problematic. This was because the common purpose of the Campaign
was to improve the water quality in relation to sustainability. As discussed in Section
4.2.2, the mostly agreed sustainability objectives of the Campaign could not be the
sole reason for all stakeholders to contribute their resources to the Campaign. This
section therefore investigates how the Campaign attracts partners to get involved and
the structure used by the Campaign to deliver its service.
6.3.1 Designing Facilitating Bodies: Flexibility
As discussed in Section 5.4.2, there have been continuous changes in the Campaign
structure. The Administration Company was established in 1996 due to a simple
accounting reason. Jeff Hinchcliffe, Campaign Chief Executive, reported:
“The way the Campaign Unit was funded was through the income that
came into the Government Office. … But, as most Government Offices
are asked to do more with less money, we were conscious that the
funding might be reduced beyond the point at which we can be
effective. … So, we asked the government to give us a grant every year,
if they want to keep the Campaign. The trouble was the Government
couldn’t make a grant to a Government Office. So, the Campaign Unit
had to come out of the Government Office and to become independent
in order to get the grant as a company.”
Although it was an accounting reason, the impact of this restructure on the attitude of
the facilitating bodies was massive. He continued:
“When the old Campaign Unit was within the Government Office, they
[Government Office] were ‘aware’ of what was going on. They didn’t
set targets, they didn’t monitor, and they didn’t account. We were very
soft focused. … What happened when the Administration Company
was born was that the Department of the Environment wanted to know
what they were getting for the annual grant. They wanted to know not
only what we actually do with the money but also why they should
122
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
want the Campaign to do that. … Suddenly, for the first time, the
Campaign was managed from target setting through to the delivery of
the outputs. It was a big change in the way of thinking.”
As a result of setting up the Administration Company as a subsidiary company, the
Business Foundation had to be restructured and play a more significant role in the
Campaign than simply presiding financial supports for projects. Jeff Hinchcliffe also
indicated that the Business Foundation was particularly important in terms of
inputting a business way of thinking to the Campaign.
Another structural change of the Campaign was the creation of the Campaign Council
in 1999. The Council combines the networking and advisory role of previous
meetings involving: Campaign Development Group; Mersey Basin Business
Foundation Board of Directors; Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Board of
Directors; and Mersey Basin Campaign Board (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000b).
Although the creation of the Council was in response to the changing conditions of
the Campaign, it was largely an input from the new chairperson, Joe Dwek. Regarding
the creation of the Council, Mark Turner reported:
“The new chairman came along and didn’t feel that the existing
structure was working very effectively. I think the problem was we had
too many meetings and directors. … The Administration Company and
Business Foundation as separated organisations were doing largely
the same sort of things. The reason of having three individual
organisations perhaps doesn’t exist anymore. … It’s a response to the
changing conditions, plus a product developed by the new chairman.”
The structure of the Campaign has been changed several times for various reasons.
The Campaign has been, however, fairly consistent in keeping to the principle of
‘three-sector representation’. It is clear that the structure of the facilitating bodies
needs to adapt to changes in political and administrative environments. As Jeff
Hinchcliffe indicated, such changes have been significant but have affected only a
limited number of people, mostly the Campaign Centre staff. The research shows that
the structural reforms have been tools for managing administration at the Campaign
Centre as a facilitating body. However, the reforms have not influence the whole
123
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Campaign partners. In the case of the Campaign, the principle of collaboration
between public, private, and voluntary sectors at the core of the partnership structure
has helped to deliver a consistent message to wider partners. Moreover, a
geographically-tiered approach of the Campaign might play a role in securing a
consistent support from wider partners during its numerous structural reforms. As
individual RVIs mange discrete geographical areas, the activities of individual local
initiatives were not significantly influenced by those structural reforms at the regional
centre.
6.3.2 Attracting Formal Members of the Campaign
The Mersey Basin is faced with a range of administrative, political, economic and
environmental issues. The scope and complexity of these issues in the Basin are
immense (Kidd, 1995). The complexity of waterside issues forced the Campaign to
establish a much broader vision based on the concept of sustainability that can be
agreed by most stakeholders. This enables a win-win strategy by covering wider
issues together in economic, social, and environmental decision-making. The
overarching objectives give benefits in developing common purposes between
stakeholders and prevent serious conflicts in between them. However, the
sustainability visions could not secure the stakeholder participation because it could
not generate strong commitment from stakeholders to put extra time, effort and
money into the partnership. The Campaign therefore had to develop a set of hooks to
attract waterside stakeholders in the Mersey Basin.
DIRECT HOOKS TO ATTRACT STAKEHOLDERS: RESOURCES
As discussed in Section 4.3.2, market-based hooks such as funding availability are
most popular reasons for stakeholders to get involved in a partnership. It is evident
that a European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and its preparation process
have stimulated collaboration in implementing tasks of regional issues (Martin and
Pearce, 1994).
The Council for Ministers set up the ERDF in December 1974 with the objectives of
‘correcting the principal imbalances in the Community resulting from agricultural
124
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
preponderance, industrial change and structural unemployment’ (Roberts et al., 1993).
A significant revision of the ERDF was agreed with the adoption of new regulations
as the introduction of the principle of programme fund by the Council of Ministers in
1984 (Nevin, 1990; and RTPI, 1994). Programme funding was another response to the
perceived needs to ensure that its funds were used to pursue a properly thought-out
strategy for regional economic development rather than support an ad hoc selection of
individual projects (Williams, 1996). In the case of the English regions the resolution
of the ERDF requirement for partnership has been strongly privileged the position of
the new integrated Government Offices (Lloyd and Meegan, 1996).
The Campaign was one of the pioneering initiatives that were awarded ERDF
programme funding. As the result of a successful application for the ERDF in 1984,
the Mersey Basin Programme was created with a total sum of 63 million pounds of
ERDF grant over the Programme Phase I and II (1984-1991). Jeff Hinchcliffe
indicated that the funding opportunity, especially the ERDF, played a significant role
in attracting stakeholders to become part of the Campaign. In particular, the ERDF of
the Mersey Basin Programme helped considerably in attracting partners in the early
years of the Campaign; as there was a narrow understanding of the concept of
partnership. Peter Walton, the former Head of Mersey Basin Campaign Unit,
reported:
“People in Macclesfield asked why they should be interested in the
Mersey Basin, so I said the River Bollin flows into the River Mersey, so
you are part of the Basin. By the way, there is a European grant. They
suddenly thought this is a good idea. The money talked. … The local
authorities were in particularly because at that time the other sources
of funding were diminishing. … Resources are much bigger than a
grant, but people got completely hooked on getting money from the
government and the EC.”
Although the ERDF was an essential element in attracting partners and stimulating
regional collaboration in the Basin area, several arguable points in relation to the
ERDF have been raised among interviewees. Firstly, the European grant played a
significant role in stimulating the motivation of being part of the Campaign. This
resulted in a lack of enthusiasm in implementing the objectives of the Campaign, as
there was less understanding of a true sense of partnership. As Lowndes and Skelcher
125
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
(1998) argue, the funding opportunity may bring the stakeholders together, but cannot
keep them round the table. Interviewees perceived that the partners seemed not to be
interested in implementing the tasks of the Campaign, once the initial excitement of
funding availability had declined. Peter Walton reported:
“Local authorities were always pressured for resources. They saw the
Campaign as a mean to supply funding sources. If it wasn’t in
satisfaction, they were almost in a way of attacking the Campaign at a
certain time because we couldn’t deliver what they wanted.”
Therefore, the Campaign needed to change the views of the partners in a way of
collaborative working to deliver its programme.
Secondly, the water industry had become privatised during the Mersey Basin
Programme. The North West Water Authority that was a key partner of the Campaign
became the North West Water Company. Although it was agreed to spend the twothird of the European grant on water quality improvement (and the one-third on
landward regeneration), the EC concerned that the Mersey Basin Programme grant
might create substantial benefits to the privatised water company, as Peter Walton
reported. As consequent, this caused the waterside to have less European grants in the
future.
INDIRECT HOOKS TO ATTRACT STAKEHOLDERS: ADDED VALUES
Although it is not as obvious as a market-oriented hook, the credibility of the
Campaign has been also identified as a hook to attract stakeholders in the Mersey
Basin. This credibility of the Campaign comes because it is a regional partnership
initiative with central government support. Apart from the obvious market-oriented
resources such as the ERDF, the Campaign’s supporting role in securing external
funding of the partners has also been identified as a hook to partners. Gwen White,
former Community Officer of the Campaign, reported:
“Advantages of the Campaign are its regional role and a kind of the
DETR’s support. Nowadays, every funding application has to show the
synergy of the interests in a partnership. I think that helped [attract
partners]. Planners learnt to see benefits of being a part of a bigger
organisation.”
126
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
This added value can be seen at a process of the involvement of the North West Water
Authority28 (NWWA) that has been a key partner of the Campaign since the
beginning. Prior to privatisation, water managers were located within quangos, the
regional water authorities such as the NWWA. Since reorganisation of the water
industry (Department of the Environment, 1973) in 1974, the North West Water
Authority have been responsible for the management of the whole water cycle of the
Mersey catchment as well as the other river basins in Lancashire and Cumbria. As a
result, for much of the 1970s, water managers were promoting major public
investment projects such as dams and reservoirs (Rees, 1990). In 1978 the NWWA
issued their consultation document on long-term objectives including a specific water
quality objectives to improve the rivers in the Mersey catchment to Class 2 (fair,
supporting fishes). As a result the water treatment investment caused the increases in
water bills, the water authorities were needed to justify their public accountability to
the central government.
There are four explanations of the early involvement of the NWWA in the Campaign.
Firstly, the NWWA had a shared common purpose improving water quality of the
Mersey Basin. Secondly, major improvement projects of the NWWA had been
undertaken in the Mersey Basin before the Campaign. Their 170 million pounds
programme to improve the Mersey Estuary was already well on the way even before
the Campaign’s consultation paper published. Thirdly, the government had supported
the Authority’s long-term aims in principle, and the Campaign had been initially
developed as a government initiative with a political inspiration. These governmental
backgrounds had bonded two organisations to develop strategies together. Finally, and
most importantly, the Campaign can strengthen the public accountability of the
NWWA to the government. Additionally, the Campaign may give the Authority a
high priority when allocating external finance.
The evidence of these added values of the Campaign as a regional strategic
partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors can be found widely in
involvements of other partners. Interviewees indicated that the regulatory agencies,
such as the Environment Agency, saw an opportunity for wider consultation by being
a part of the Campaign. Business sectors saw the potential for promoting a positive
image of the company and better public relations by working within the sustainable
28
Former North West Water, and now United Utilities.
127
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
issues. In this context, Mark Turner, River Valley Initiatives Manager, emphasised the
significance of publicity that the Campaign can generate:
“The main reason for the companies getting involved with the
Campaign is that it a good PR for them. They want to associate with
something, which is positive. The Campaign won the World River prize
in 1999, so they become part of the Campaign and get more publicity
of that.”
6.3.3 Attracting Informal Members of the Campaign
INFORMAL MEMBERSHIPS: MEMBERS OF THE MERSEY BASIN TRUST
Informal membership is mainly related to voluntary groups and members of the
general public in the area. In this context, members of the Trust may represent
informal members of the Campaign. Members of the Trust consist of community
groups, voluntary organisations, schools, individuals, parish councils and small
businesses. This free membership is over 600 in 1999 and the numbers are increasing
(Table 6.2).
Table 6.0.1 The Mersey Basin Trust Membership: 1991 -1999
Year
1991/2
1992/3
1993/4
1994/5
1995/6
1996/7
1997/8
1998/9
Full
134
174
210
269
288
308
320
341
Associate
18
50
109
168
234
251
256
267
Total
152
224
319
437
522
559
576
608
Note: Full memberships include community groups and voluntary organisations, and
associate memberships include schools, individuals, parish councils and small
businesses.
Source: Mersey Basin Trust (1999)
128
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Caroline Downey, the Director of the Trust, reported the role of the Campaign in the
community participation as a facilitator:
“There are people out there who are already doing things. … What
we are trying to do is to work as glue. We aren’t there to duplicate. We
aren’t there to reinvent the wheel. The wheel is there and going
around. We are there to oil it.”
Interviewees from the voluntary sector indicated that the benefits of becoming part of
the Campaign are: 1) small funding opportunities as the group must to be a member to
apply for the Trust fund; 2) expertises and helps from the Trust and other member
partners of the Campaign when undertaking practical projects; 3) credibility and
strengthening when they speak to the local authorities in discussing their projects; and
4) feelings of comfort in being part of bigger organisations. Additionally, bigger
partner organisations from both the public and private sectors such as the DETR, the
Environment Agency, the North West Water, ICI, and so on, give the Campaign an
added credibility to attract smaller organisations including voluntary groups.
Nonetheless, this free membership causes that member organisations may not take
memberships seriously. A representative of the Trust members, the Water Recovery
Group, reported:
“ They [the Trust] sent us an information pack and a membership
application form. We just signed up because it was a free membership.
Since then, the Campaign sent us their newsletters and we got involved
in some events they organised from time to time. That’s all.”
However, it is evident that voluntary groups who are also members of their local RVI
are more actively involved in the Campaign’s activities. This is because the RVIs
provide closer interactions between local interest groups focusing on their local
watercourse issues. The Campaign’s geographically-tiered approach brought
waterside projects to the level of local watercourse communities. This enables local
communities to commit and focus on their neighbourhood watercourses rather than on
the basin as a whole. As the result, the Campaign is able to facilitate involvements
from local communities more effectively in revitalising local watercourses.
129
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
ATTRACTING INFORMAL MEMBERS
The Mersey Basin Campaign is using a top-down approach in relation to its
geographically-tiered approach in attracting the general public to the Campaign
activities. As discussed in Section 3.4.3, the community involvement in waterside
revitalisation needs a driving force to stimulate local awareness. This is because the
waterside issues are not a top priority of community groups that may generate
community participation as a bottom-up approach. However, the Campaign brings
down its vision to the local community level and facilitates community involvement
to develop a sense of stewardship. The Campaign, then, facilitates the community
involvement to the partnership level and enables the community to act within the
vision of the partnership.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the community context of the Mersey Basin Campaign. The
Campaign found that creating and developing a ‘sense of ownership’ of the
watercourses among local communities is an important task in order to encourage the
local populations in the Basin to value their waterside environments. To achieve this
the Campaign has directed a great deal of effort to enhance communication
(information and interaction) with the community through its geographically-tiered
approach (top-down). This may encourage community groups to cherish their local
waterside environments and become involved in Campaign activities (bottom-up).
Firstly, the Campaign offers information on local watercourses to local communities
through education programmes, publications such as periodic reports and newsletters,
and private partner’s advertisements (Figure 6.2). Education and awareness
programmes to local communities have been developed in securing importance of
their waterside environments. In this way the benefits from community involvement
are clearly communicated to the local population, and the community feels more
confident to become involved; by understanding how they can take control for their
futures and take actions that really affect their quality of life.
130
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Figure 6.0.1 The Community Context of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Hierarchy
Network
Market
Communication
Bottom-up
Top-down (Tiered approach)
Informati
on
Sharing
Information
clear idea of what community
needs and can do, then
provide base information for
the local strategies, such as
LEAPs
Formal
Membershi
p
Interacti
onResources
Sharing
funding from other partners and
manpower from community
volunteers
Communit
y
Involveme
nt
Stewardship
Informal
Membershi
p
Communicatio
n
Informati
on
Media & Awareness Programmes
Newsletters, Education &
Awareness Programmes,
Publications, and Partners
Advertisements
Interactio
n
Community
Social Events
Events of cleaning-up
watercourses, giving the
opportunity for contact with local
wildlife, and involving walking
along the watercourses
Source: Author
Figure 6.0.2 A Partner’s Advertisement on Water Quality Improvement, NWW
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (1997)
With respect to public involvement in the Campaign, one interviewee reported on the
value of communication in giving information to generate public interests and
awareness in a local area. At a public consultation interview regarding to the amenity
and wildlife value of Kirkby Brook29, a local resident pointed out that:
“They [Groundwork Trust] have done all the work for this pond
[Kirkby Brook restoration project]. After that, the Groundwork used to
send their newsletters to my house ... It was good to know what the
29
The author took part in the consultation interview as a part of the Wildlife Trust workshop in 4 th
September 1999.
131
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Groundwork is doing in this area and other parts of the city. But it’s
pity that they don’t send us the newsletters any more.”
For the second communication method, the Campaign encourages interactions
between individual members of the community by providing some social events in
relation to their local watercourses. This may include events of cleaning-up
watercourse, guided walks, wildlife educations and social BBQs on watersides. For
example, the Alt 2000 RVI, one of the more active RVIs, has provided touring
environmental theatres in school, and has organised clean-ups and community
barbecues, ‘Alt Walks’, and ‘Environmental Week’, ‘Alt 2000 Spring Tide
Spectacular’. These kinds of events become opportunities for both interactions
between individuals and education by discussing about the local watercourse
environments.
When a community group is involved in Campaign activities, there are two kinds of
participation. First, the community groups may become formal members of the
Campaign to act as members in co-ordinating committees in regional or local levels,
i.e. the Campaign Council and the Steering groups in the RVIs. In those committees,
the community groups communicate (sharing information and interacting) with other
partners. Sharing information can build clear ideas of what the community needs from
and can do for their waterside environments. This also provides base information in
establishing a strategy of local watercourses such as LEAPs. Interaction by sharing
resources, such as funding from other partners and manpower from community
groups, enables the effective project implementation.
Second, the community groups may become informal members of the Campaign in
participating practical projects to improve their local watercourses. In this context, a
process of community involvement in the Campaign may begin from cleaning-up
events. Stream and river clean-up projects may result in visible effects of what the
community can do for their watercourses. This may increase a willingness of
maintaining and keeping an eye on their environments. Speaking from her experience
as a member of Friends of Healey Dell, Caroline Downey explained a process of
generating stewardship by undertaking clean-up events:
“We have gone through the process of doing the clean-ups for two or
three years. … When you are working with them, they come to the
132
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
point where they turn around and say ‘Why the hell are we out here
every two or three weeks and cleaning up this rubbish? Who is putting
it here?’ … That’s what the group gets to. They want to stop this.
That’s what our group is looking at the moment, campaigning and
writing to local authorities and the Environment Agency [to make sure
keep the area clean]. The community is starting to stand up and shout.
That is the process [of empowering the communities] beyond the
clean-ups.”
Throughout this, increased stewardship of their waterside environments enables the
communities to become involved in or organise further waterside improvement
projects. This may extend to other projects for improving their living environments.
6.4 Partnership Programme Delivery Stage
As discussed in Chapter 4, partnership service delivery is based on three key aspects
of integrated waterside revitalisation: consensus building; facilitation; and open
participation. In this context, six in-depth case studies in the Campaign activities will
be investigated in Chapter 7. Therefore, this section explores overall aspects of the
Campaign’s service delivery, particularly, in relation to its institutional arrangement.
6.4.1 Network-oriented Service Delivery
It is clear that partners became involved in the Campaign for various reasons. These
may be related to resources and added values. As Lowndes and Skelcher (1998)
argue, funding (opportunities) can bring partners together, but it cannot keep them
round the table or persuade them to work on the vision of the partnership. One of the
interviewees who had been involved in a RVI at the early years of the Campaign
reported:
“I remember a person coming from a local authority who used to keep
telling us, ‘I am doing this out of interest, this is not in my job
description’. That is what he has been told. He couldn’t really justify
the time he spent [on the Campaign activities]. So, he came to the
133
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
meetings, but he found difficulties to do anything very much [between
meetings], because it wasn’t in his work programme”
The Campaign developed collaborative arenas that can bring partners together and
stimulate their commitments on waterside revitalisation. Most of all, the Campaign
had to change attitudes of partners from compartmentalised working practice towards
collaborative thinking. During the early year of the Campaign much of its time was
spent in spreading awareness of its vision and persuading other organisations to work
towards its objectives (Kidd and Shaw, 2000). Interviewees reported that the most
difficult part at the early stage was to develop an understanding of the collaborative
concept among partners. Peter Walton, the former Head of the Campaign Unit,
reported:
“In the early years of the Campaign, North West Water proposed to
have a flagship project in an early improvement scheme. Beyond their
programme they wanted to see the actual class changes from Class 3
to Class 2 in a specific area. They asked which area they should look
at. There was no one who suggested North West Water to invest in
their area… No one had been asked before. … It was a completely new
approach, so nobody know how to respond to such a genuine special
offer.”
Interviewees who are partner representatives to the Campaign indicated that the
feeling of achievement in the partnership helped encourage their commitment to
undertaking tasks for the partnership. Stuart Roberts, a former representative of
Cheshire County Council, reported:
“I come to the Campaign because it differs from what I do in day-today practice. I can see something is happening because of what we do
in the group. … It’s a rewarding job, actually.”
Speaking from her experience working with the Alt 2000 RVI in the early years,
Gwen White valued the activities of voluntary groups in stimulating a feeling of
achievements. She reported:
“When we started the River Valley Initiatives, it was quite difficult to
get the concept across. To get things going while we were talking
134
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
about the aims and objectives and getting funding in, we encouraged
the voluntary groups to get out there, do things, engage with people,
show them something is happening and show them you can change
something. … The voluntary and community sectors provide some of
visual outcome for the Campaign. … That gets the thing kick started
while the statutory and private sector organisations were trying to get
into their board or get funding.”
The Campaign is based on a network mode of governance by bringing all sectors with
equal voices. In order to develop a collaborative notion in the partnerships,
interviewees emphasised the importance of the role of facilitators (chair and coordinator) at the meetings. A success of a collaborative partnership may depend on the
skills of facilitators. Interviewees reported that steering groups or committees are
better to be chaired by a person who does not represent a strong interest of a singular
issue.
Interviewees also acknowledged the hierarchical position of representatives in their
parent organisations. The right level of representation is important. A more senior
level of representation is required in committees seeking a strategic overview.
However, senior level representation may not suit a working group that deals with
practical aspects. Additionally, some interviewees who involve in the RVIs also
indicated that the representation in the Steering Groups gradually slides down the
hierarchy. Inappropriate representation may slow down the process of implementation
because the representative may have to go back to the parent organisation to make
decisions or find relevant resources and information. Furthermore, the research found
that there are frequent changes of representatives because they have to move out due
to their job changes. However, representatives from voluntary groups tend to stay in
the group longer than other sectors. This is because their interests tend to be lifetime
commitments and do not depend on their job descriptions. In relation to another issue
on the representation, Gwen White reported:
“People are coming from particular viewpoints. They have to. It’s
their job. The purpose and value of the meetings are being able to see
where they are coming from. It’s not about getting them to change
their viewpoints, because they can’t. … But, it’s about sharing those
135
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
with the others to see and understand. It’s learning. Even if I don’t like
what others are saying, but I understand why they are saying it. I know
what I have to work with, so I start looking for the solution.
Understanding and learning are the value of the whole Mersey Basin
Campaign, I think.”
There are two important issues in her dialogue. Firstly, a collaborative arena requires
diverse interests from individual partners to deliver its service. The collaborative
approach is not just consensus building or conflict resolution that targets an agreement
as a final product. The collaborative arena is not a place for bringing everybody
together and making everybody to have the same viewpoint and opinion. The arena is
to co-ordinate diverse interests and to work to an agreed goal. The collaborative
approach needs a consensus in which all partners are agreed on what they are going to
do. It also requires individual interests and particular viewpoints to implement tasks
of the partnership. This individuality may enable to bring resources and information
from a much wider group of partners.
Secondly, understanding and learning are essential for effective service delivery.
Understanding of other interests in the arena enables representatives to see and work
for a wider vision of the Basin as a whole rather than a narrow view of a single
organisation. The research found that recognition of the wider vision might shift the
attitude of representatives towards a collaborative working. As communication is
content of information sharing and interaction, Peter Batey, Chair of Alt 2000 RVI
and Mersey Strategy RVI, reported:
“At some point in each meeting, I intentionally ask every member to
update what has happened since the last meeting. This gives an
opportunity for everybody to speak and for building understanding of
what others are doing. It also persuades them to work on our tasks in
between meetings because they have to say something at this time. …
We have time to have a casual chat apart from the formal procedure of
the meetings. These moments are also important to network with other
participants informally. The amount of information you can get from
these informal chats is enormous. It can be about the inside story of the
136
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
organisations. It can be about a new funding opportunity coming out
in the near future.”
Interviewees indicated that they have not changed their viewpoints on waterside
issues while working within the partnership. However, they have changed their views
on the partnership working. William Crookshank, representative of the Mersey
(Estuary) Strategy RVI from the Environment Agency, reported:
“I haven’t changed my view on the estuary issues, but I certainly
changed my view on how the partnership works. When I was told to go
to the Mersey Strategy initially, I thought ‘why do I have to go to a
partnership, though we can do it better ourselves.’ Now, I know what a
partnership can do. So, I will be happy to get involved in another
partnership when I move out from the Mersey Strategy RVI.”
It is now clear that the value of a collaborative partnership is not all about achieving
the common goal. Although it is not obvious to quantify, networks and
understandings developed through a collaborative process can be also outcomes of the
partnership. The William Crookshank’s dialogue shows that his experience of getting
involved in Campaign activities transformed his viewpoints on the way of the
partnership working and his attitude to work to collaborative efforts. This may
encourage future collaboration in the area, even though there will be no obvious hook
such as funding opportunities attracting stakeholders.
6.4.2 Outcomes of the Collaborative Approach
Through interviews and observations undertaken by the author, it is generally evident
that the activities of the Campaign show positive prospective in relation to Innes’
criteria, which discussed in Table 4.2, Section 4.3.3.30 However, as her criteria are
limited on consensus building, these may not be able to assess fully on the outcomes
of waterside revitalisation, as facilitation and open participation are also important in
its service delivery. Additionally, it is difficult to evaluate the outcomes of a whole
Campaign prospective. This is because the Campaign covers a wide range of issues.
30
The evidence can be found in six in-depth case studies in Chapter 7.
137
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Therefore, different locations and projects of the Campaign activities reflect different
results in evaluating the Innes’ criteria. It has been also realised that it is almost
impossible to examine the effectiveness of collaborative approaches without accurate
tools to measure the outcomes of sustainability objectives. Considering all, this
research focuses on whom the outcomes are effective to and what alternative ways are
to justify the accountability of the outcomes.
EFFECTIVENESS TO WHOM?
The outcomes in a collaborative partnership are wider than just achieving the common
purpose of the partnership. The research found that representatives within the
collaborative arena generally agree on the wider scope of the outcomes from
collaborative actions. They valued the process of the collaborative approach as well as
its final product of achieving objectives. For example, solving conflicts may be a final
product. However, the process of conflict resolution may generate a wider scope of
outcomes such as feelings of achievement and better understanding between
representatives in the arena. Although these ‘hidden values’ of collaborative
approaches are widely accepted between representatives in the collaborative arena, it
is much more complicated to make people outside of the arena understand about the
wider prospective of the collaborative outcomes. This is related to the Innes’ criteria
O9: learning and knowledge produced within the consensus process were shared by
others beyond the immediate group (see Table 4.2, Section 4.3.3). In this context, the
feedback process of representatives to their parent organisations is significant.
However, it is almost impossible to achieve an ideal collaborative approach unless
there is a total transformation in the whole planning system.
Stakeholders become part of the collaborative partnership with different stakes. They
have to satisfy their initial purposes of becoming involved in the partnership. For
example, businesses should get publicity opportunities to promote positive image of
companies. Local authorities should get funding opportunities. Regulatory agencies
should get wider consultation opportunities. Voluntary groups should also get what
they wanted from the partnership. However, most importantly, the partnership should
also achieve its primary goals. In the case of the Campaign, the primary objectives are
water quality improvement, landward regeneration and community participation.
138
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
ENGAGING WATER QUALITY TO ECONOMIC REGENERATION
Since 1985, there have been the great strides in water quality improvement in the
Mersey Basin where the percentage of river length classed as being of ‘good’ or ‘fair’
quality – that is clean enough to support fish – has doubled by the year 2000. Periodic
surveys of fish numbers and species reveal that almost 80% of the 219 watercourses
sampled contain fish of some kind and around 34% support the pollution-sensitive
brown trout (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). Nevertheless, population, health and
species diversity does vary markedly. The aspiration of the Campaign is that by 2010
all watercourses in the Basin will be of ‘good’ or ‘fair’ quality.
Water quality has been a primary issue in the Campaign’s aims. This is because water
quality is a most obvious way to measure the outcomes of the Campaign. It was also
an initial aspiration of the establishment of the Campaign. There is a linkage between
the Campaign’s investment in sewage treatment plants and water quality in rivers
(Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). However, the Campaign has made an effort to
engage the first objective to the second one; the water quality improvement to
regional economic regeneration. Peter Walton, the former Head of the Campaign
Unit, reported that:
“The things that people see and think as the Mersey Basin Campaign
improves our lives are often the cheapest, the things can be seen, for
example, waterside parks, small-scale footpaths, and so on. Huge
expenditure has spent on the sewage treatment work, but you don’t get
much credit for that except that fishes come back.”
The Campaign is succeeding in meeting the target of the water quality objective with
2.5 billion pound investments. The enormous investment of the Campaign to improve
water quality has been generally perceived professionals who involve in revitalisation
of the Basin. However this is not always perceived the general public. Although the
water quality improvement is measurable and essential for environmental
sustainability of the region, its socio-economic impact to the region is not as obvious
as the water quality statistics.
On the other hand, a significant number of large-scale landward regeneration projects
in the Basin have been carried out by the Urban Development Corporations. Intense
139
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
economic regeneration in the region has been implemented by Urban Development
Grants, Derelict Land Grants, Enterprise Zones, Regional Selective Assistance, City
Challenges, Inner City Task Forces and Inner City Partnerships. In this context, the
Campaign has a limitation in getting directly involved in the major economic
regeneration projects of the region. This is because the notion of network-oriented
approaches simply cannot implement large-scale regeneration projects. Furthermore,
these single-minded and short-term regeneration initiatives could not find a mutual
benefit of becoming part of the Campaign. Therefore, the Campaign was established
to forge an explicit link between good water quality and economic development. The
rationale is founded on the fundamental recognition that without good water quality –
aesthetically, chemically and biologically, then efforts at comprehensive regeneration
will either founder or will be only partly realised. Stuart Roberts, a representative of
Cheshire County Council, reported:
“Improving water quality means more attractive areas for recreation
uses on the water that promote new types of recreation. … If it is
polluted water, then people try to avoid contact with the water. … A
good water quality means that housing development is coming out
along the waterside.”
The research found that the linkage between water quality and economic regeneration
has been widely accepted among interviewees who are actively involved in the
Campaign. However, the linkage was questionable between interviewees who are not
part of the Campaign. Therefore, there was a need to secure the accountability of the
Campaign’s water quality and landward regeneration objectives. The Campaign,
North West Water and the Environment Agency commissioned a university research
group to produce a report; ‘The Relationship between Water Quality and Economic
Regeneration in the Mersey Basin’ based on a questionnaire survey to property
valuers. This was published in 1998 (Handley et al. 1998) and provided, subject to
criticism, evidence supporting the notion that investments to improve water quality is
an essential component in achieving the aim of continued economic regeneration.
The report found that an importance of water in the property development is directly
reflected in enhanced rental premiums for waterside property, ranging from 0-15% for
offices, 0-25% for leisure-related property and 10-40% for residential property.
Generally, aesthetic quality is more important for commercial property, with physical
140
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
water quality becoming relatively more important through leisure to residential
property. However, water quality is different from other factors in the development
process insofar as it exerts an influence at a number of different levels. These can be
identified as direct, indirect and intrinsic benefits. These also can be equated with the
stimulation of direct economic regeneration, image building and the achieving of
water quality for its own sake and as a part of sustainability (Figure 6.3). If good
water quality is not in place, either in aesthetic or chemical/biological terms, then
development will not be prejudiced. Those estimated economic benefits through
valuing waterside location might also have important policy implications for
waterside property developments (Garrod and Willis, 1994).
Figure 6.0.3 The Relationship Between Water Quality and Economic Regeneration
Source: (Handley et al. 1998)
ACCOUNTABILITY TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Campaign as an institution needs to be accountable. Although water quality
improvement is scientifically measurable, it is difficult to judge how effectively the
second and third objectives, improving waterside environments and encouraging local
stewardship, have been achieved. As discussed earlier in this section, the Campaign
puts an effort to engage the issues of water quality improvement to those of landward
regeneration by supporting the notion that investments to improve water quality is an
essential component in achieving the aim of continued economic regeneration in the
region. However, the third objective, community participation, is more problematic in
defining outcomes of community works. This is because a partnership, as an
institution, has to deal with accountability and organisations outside of the
collaborative arena. In the case of the Mersey Basin Campaign, it can be seen in a
tension between the Trust and the Campaign Centre (the Administration Company
before the restructure) as most interviewees indicated. Causes of the tension within
the facilitating body may be summarised in three headings.
141
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Firstly, the Campaign Centre and the Trust have a significant different understanding
in the objectives of community participation. Caroline Downey, the Director of the
Trust, reported that:
“As far as the Campaign [Centre]’s concern, their ideal of what we
should be doing is community involvement, community involvement in
clean-ups, community involvement in tree plantings, community
involvement in doing things to reach their target … Ours is to build the
strength of the community as much as to improve the physical
waterside environments. I think that is key point of how we differ.”
The waterside issues involve the definition of sustainable development that implies
empowerment, participation and changing attitudes (Rydin, 1998). The Trust aims to
stimulate local stewardship and empower communities by using aspects of waterside
issues. On the other hand, the Campaign Centre aims to improve waterside
environments by using the input from the local environmental groups.
Secondly, the role of the Trust in the Campaign is unclear. One of main roles of the
Trust was a supporting mechanism to the RVIs. However, this responsibility is now
transferred to a RVI manager in the Campaign and the link between the Trust and the
RVIs is weakened. The expertise and experiences of the Trust in the community
participation may not be fully translated to the practice of the RVIs. Although the
Trust and the Centre seem to agree that local stewardship is an essential element of
their objectives, the Centre may consider that encouraging stewardship is mainly the
role of the RVIs rather than one of the Trust.
The third cause of this tension is the need for accountability of the Trust activities to
the government. Peter Wilson, Government Office of North West, reported that:
“The Trust gets a grant from the Government Office as a part of the
grant we give to the Campaign. So, the Campaign needs to report back
to us what they have done with the government money. … A number of
community projects is one of requirements in these reports.”
Two parties, the Trust and the Centre, have got different viewpoints in valuing and
measuring effectiveness of community works. Speaking from these three aspects,
there is a question that can be raised. Who are the clients?
142
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
The client of the Trust is clearly the local community as the Trust aims to strengthen
local communities. Sibongile Pradhan, Community Officer of the Mersey Basin Trust,
reported:
“The numbers don’t tell the real results of the community work. The
numbers of clean-up events are not for sustainable development and
strengthening communities. … It [community participation] is a long
term. In order to build up a strong community, it needs about 10 visits
to produce their own action plan. But with this amount of work, 3-4
clean up project can be done.”
The client of the Campaign Centre is the government. The Centre wants the Trust to
achieve a certain amount of community work because they need the statistic numbers
in order to satisfy the government requirement and secure future funding from the
government. The Campaign uses the increasing numbers of the Trust membership as
an evidence of commitment from the voluntary sector. There are obvious
disagreements and misunderstandings between the Trust, the Centre and the
government.
In order to solve the conflict, the Campaign is planning to change the funding
structure of the Trust. Two options are raised from interviewees. Firstly, the
Campaign Centre is to commission the Trust to meet their target so that the Campaign
can get what they pay for. Secondly, the Trust pursuits independent funding from the
government, as they point out that the current joint grant with the Campaign Centre
may cause the conflict. This will enable them to be independent from the Campaign in
terms of the resource sharing. However, these changes in the funding structure will
not solve the initial conflict from the goal incompatibility, disagreements in their aims
and scope of communities.
6.7 Partnership Termination or Succession Stage
A partnership is generally assumed to run only for a limited period. The time limit for
the Mersey Basin Campaign is the year 2010 that is the limit currently set by the
government to fund the Campaign Centre. An exit strategy of the Campaign has not
been set at the time of writing. The Campaign plans to establish the exit strategy in
143
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
2005 so as to set a more accurate exit strategy towards the end of the programme.
This is because of a considerable change in the Campaign structure and the agenda of
its activities in the recent years.
There are three possible exit strategies for the partnership: 1) a complete termination
of the partnership; 2) a succession of the partnership as an institution; and 3) a
succession of the partnership activities by member partners after the termination of
the partnership institution. Interviewees are generally confident that the Campaign
may continue in some aspects after the year 2010. Although they consider a
possibility of an extended government grant enabling the success of the Campaign
institution, the third option is the most expected exit strategy among the interviewees.
Mark Turner, RVI Manager, reported that:
“The RVIs might continue, the membership of the Trust might
continue. I think something will continue. … Perhaps by the year 2010,
water quality won’t be such a focus as it’s getting better. Perhaps
there will be new things to do. … So, the Campaign can be more
leisure-based or more recreational-based.”
In order to secure that the activities of the partnership can be sustained even after the
partnership termination, the partnership needs to develop a clear exit strategy in both
the institutional arrangement and the vision reflecting necessary future activities. The
most important aspect in the exit strategy is to develop strong networks between
partner organisations that may last longer after the termination than other modes of
governance, hierarchies and markets. Networks between member partners may enable
further collaboration in the future. The Campaign’s geographically-tiered approach
may benefit its exit strategy, as there is a strong possibility that the RVIs as
independent initiatives may continue their services after a possible termination of the
Campaign.
6.8 Conclusion
Conflict potentially increases when there is: 1) high goal incompatibility; 2) high
activity interdependence; and 3) limited resources to compete (Schmidt and Kochan,
1986). The Campaign has created common purposes and comprehensive interactions
between member partners. However, there has not been a strong tension in sharing
144
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
resources in the Campaign’s collaborative arena. This has enabled the common
purpose of the Campaign to be generally accepted between wider stakeholders in the
Basin. In addition, the Campaign needed to develop broad objectives based on
sustainability issues in order to allow a win-win strategy in its objectives.
Nonetheless, objectives with no tension could not act as a stimulus to make
stakeholders become involved in the partnership. Despite the fact that poor water
quality was a problem in the region, the benefit that improved water quality might
bring was not a main concern of all stakeholders.
As the motivation of taking part of the Campaign could not be generated as a bottomup approach, the Campaign needed a driving force to stimulate the motivation among
stakeholders. The most obvious hooks to attract stakeholders were resources, in
particular, the ERDF at the early years of the Campaign. Additionally, the credibility
of the Campaign as an umbrella initiative with government supports acted as another
kind of hook to attract stakeholders. It is also apparent that the pre-existing networks
in the Basin helped establish the Campaign in a way of partnership working,
identifying stakeholders and providing local knowledge.
An informal approach and network mode of governance are fundamental elements of
the collaborative arena, especially for its service delivery. In order to deliver its
service, the Campaign needed to transform the attitude of member partners from the
compartmental working practice towards the collaborative way of working. Dialogue
in the arena developed a comprehensive understanding of each partner’s perspectives
of the Basin. It also enabled participants to see a wider vision of the Basin as a whole
rather than one of a narrow interest of their parent organisation. Together with this
understanding and broader vision, feelings of achievement that the participants may
get from the arena helped encourage them to contribute to the Campaign’s objectives.
The outcomes of collaborative actions are more widely defined within the
collaborative arena than the outside of the arena. However, establishing outcomes is
more problematic when they need to be accountable from the outside organisations.
This is partly because there is no accurate tool to measure how the sustainability
objectives are achieved. However, there are also many ‘hidden’ outcomes of a
collaborative approach. It is evident that an informal approach and networking played
a significant role for a partnership’s formation and its service delivery. Furthermore,
145
Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign
networking is also important in the exit strategy of the partnership so as to sustain the
vision of the partnership after the termination.
The sustainability objectives of the Campaign were a ‘necessary evil’ in the
Campaign. The sustainability was widely accepted among stakeholders, but the
intractable issues around sustainability are apparent in attracting stakeholders to
become involved, persuading them to work for the objectives and accounting the
outcomes. It is clear that dialogue in the collaborative arena leading to comprehensive
understandings is a fundamental element in delivering the partnership services.
However, there is a need to explore how a collaborative partnership delivers its
services in practice. This will be investigated in Chapter 7, particularly, focusing on
six case studies within the Campaign activities.
146
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
Chapter Seven
THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN
IN PRACTICE
147
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
7.1 Introduction
In Chapter 6, the institutional arrangement of the Mersey Basin Campaign has been
investigated according to the four life cycles of partnerships. Focusing on the
partnership programme delivery stage of the Campaign, this chapter will explore the
three aspects of the collaborative partnership within Campaign activities: consensus
building; facilitation; and open participation. Undertaking six in-depth case studies,
two for each individual aspect, this chapter will investigate the practice of service
delivery in a particular collaborative partnership. Each case study will look for lessons
can be learnt from the experience of the Campaign in a real-life context. This chapter
judges the applicability of theory and principles of collaborative approaches to the
practice of planning.
7.2 Consensus Building in Practice
This section draws on the results of two case studies investigating how a consensus
building process can be applied to a process of integrated waterside revitalisation in
the Campaign. As discussed, the effective consensus building process is heavily
related to meeting management skills that have already been the subject of a
considerable amount of research (Susskind et al., 1999b). Therefore, this case study
investigates how the consensus building process can influence to the process of
waterside revitalisation in particular.
The Mersey Estuary Management Project, as the first case study of this section
explores working practices of consensus building in aspects of regulating an
integrated management plan and its implementation. The second case study, the
Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups, investigates how a consensus
building process can be implemented in managing and maintaining a partnership
body. The Mersey Estuary Management Project is implemented by a well-established
partnership, the Mersey Strategy. Whilst, the Campaign Council and Manifesto
Pledge Groups are relatively recently established as outcome of restructuring the
Campaign in 1999.
148
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
7.2.1 The Mersey Estuary Management Project
This detailed case study explores how a concrete example of collaborative
partnerships, the Mersey Strategy, can operate for integrated estuary management by
means of a consensus building process. In carrying out this case study, nine semistructured interviews have been undertaken: eight partner representatives of the
Mersey Strategy partnership; and a planner from a local authority who implements the
Mersey Estuary Management Plan (a outcome of consensus building) have been
undertaken. Additionally, an annual conference, Mersey Estuary Forum, and a threeday seminar relation to the Mersey Strategy have been observed (Appendix 1).
BACKGROUND TO THE MERSEY ESTURARY MANAGEMENT PROJECT
The Mersey Strategy is one element of the Mersey Basin Campaign and covers the
Mersey Estuary (Figure 7.1), the tidal part of the River Mersey, which extends from
Liverpool Bay in the Irish Sea up to the tidal limit at Howley Weir in the town of
Warrington some 30 kilometres from the coast. The Estuary has suffered from
industrial pollution and the discharge of domestic wastewater since the Industrial
Revolution. By the late 1950s there were no fish in the river and the system was
effectively ‘dead’(Jones, 2000).
In 1989, the proposed construction of a tidal barrage across the lower reaches of the
Mersey prompted the suggestion that a plan be prepared for the Estuary. The
Campaign commissioned University consultants to produce a Mersey Estuary
Management Plan (MEMP) in 1992. This was published in 1995 (University of
Liverpool Study Team, 1995) and provided a strategic policy framework for
integrated estuary management in the Mersey Estuary. The MEMP is based on:
“a vision of the future of the Mersey Estuary as one of the cleanest
developed estuaries in Europe, where the quality and dynamics of the
natural environment are recognised and respected and are matched by
a high quality built environment, a vibrant maritime economy, and an
impressive portfolio of estuary-related tourism and recreation
facilities. The MEMP [would] provide a framework for coordinated
action. The Plan [would] be a key instrument in addressing critical
management issues so as to secure the sustainable development of the
149
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
Mersey Estuary and to maintain and develop its position as one of
region’s most valued environmental assets.” (University of Liverpool
Study Team, 1995: p12)
Figure 7.0.1 The Area Covered by the Mersey Strategy
The Mersey Estuary Zone
Burnley
Preston
Blackburn
Irish Sea
Southport
Bury
Wigan
Rochdale
Oldham
Salford
Stockport
Liverpool
Birkenhead
Warrington
Runcorn
Ellesmere Port Northwich
Macclesfield
Chester
Crewe
0
30km
Source: Kim and Batey (2000)
The Campaign’s Estuary Project Group took up the task of implementing the Mersey
Strategy. The Strategy is to build strength into an integrated approach to the overall
management and development of the Mersey Estuary. The implementation process for
the Mersey Strategy provides a good example of a collaborative partnership in action.
The Strategy has been translated into the Mersey Estuary Action Programme (MEAP)
through a comprehensive consensus building process (Mersey Strategy, 1998; and
Mersey Strategy, 2000b). The MEMP and the MEAP together form part of a Local
Environment Agency Plan (LEAP)31 of the Estuary coverage, Lower Mersey LEAP,
31
The Local Environment Agency Plans are methods of river catchment management for the
sustainable development developed by the Environment Agency. LEAPs help to identify, assess and
resolve local environmental problems or opportunities for enhancement (Environment Agency, 1999).
The Lower Mersey LEAP area includes Liverpool, Widnes, South Warrington, Runcorn, Ellesmere
Port, a large area of the Wirral and part of Cheshire.
150
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
representing the agreed policies and action programme of a range of agencies in
addition to the Environment Agency (Environment Agency, 1997).
The Strategy has a Steering Group as a facilitating body of the partnership. The
Steering Group operates on a collaborative basis. The personnel of the Group are
variable mainly due to the career progression of its members. The Group has tried to
keep the size of 12-15 representatives from diverse sectors. At the time of writing, the
Steering Group Members are:

Local Authorities: Cheshire County Council, Wirral Metropolitan Borough
Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Halton Borough Council.

Private Sector: North West Water Ltd., Littlewoods Organisation plc, Peel
Holdings.

Voluntary Sector: Royal Yachting Association and Mersey Basin Campaign.

Statutory Organisations: Environment Agency and English Nature.

Technical Advisor: University of Liverpool. (Mersey Strategy, 2000b: p66)
Inspired by the structure of the MEMP, the Mersey Strategy has reformed its
organisational structure by establishing four Topic (or User) Groups; Economic
Development, Estuary Resources, Recreation, and Understanding and Monitoring
Topic Groups (Figure 7.2). The Topic Groups have strengthened the ability for the
Strategy to manage wider involvement from more diverse interest groups and
generated the focused commitment to a particular area of interest within the range of
estuary issues. The Steering Group and other Topic Groups meet every 2-3 months
and the meeting duration is generally 2-3 hours.
Figure 7.0.2 The Organisational Structure of the Mersey Strategy
Source: Modified from University of Liverpool Study Team (1995)
The need of a co-ordinated management plan for the Estuary has been promoted since
a proposal for a Mersey Barrage in the late 1980s. At the same time, the Albert Dock
development, which was a major waterfront project on the Liverpool-side Estuary,
had accelerated the production of an integrated estuary management plan. Stuart
151
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
Roberts, Cheshire County Council, who chaired the Steering Group from 1992
onwards, described that:
“Probably the Albert Dock is the first development in that area, and
probably the first place that actually happened. Back in the early
1990s, we could see there would be other interests on the other sites in
the Estuary. We were conscious that those new development and new
recreational uses needed to be carefully planned and managed in
themselves, also to avoid upsetting and causing conflicts with some of
existing uses like commercial navigation and nature conservation.”
The Mersey Estuary Management Plan took 3 years to develop based on 15 detailed
topic reports and was officially launched by the Minister for Merseyside in February
1996 (Table 7.1).
152
Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice
Table 7.0.1 Mersey Estuary Management Plan, Work Programme 1992-1995
March 1992
Conference
March 1993
March 1994
Draft Plan
Final Plan
First Report
Public Sector Partners
Report to Committee
Report to Committee
Private & Vol. Sector
Consultation
Consultation

University Study Team

Definition of Study Area

Prepare Proposals

Voluntary/Private Sector

Identify Opportunities
Consultation

Identify Zones

Statutory Agency Review

Advise on Mechanisms

Land Ownership and Tenure

Waste Water Treatment

Navigation, Tidal Regime

Tourism

Nature Conservation and Pollution

Emergency Planning

Recreation

Coast and Flood Defence

Review of Experience Elsewhere

Area Issue Reports

Implementation

Monitoring
March 1995
Approval of Plan
Revise Plan
Public
Conference 1
Conference 2
Conference 3
Conference 4
Source: Modified from (University of Liverpool Study Team, 1995)
153
Chapter One: Introduction
A considerable amount of consultation took place during the formulation of the plan.
Additionally, a series of annual conferences also organised. Subsequently, these were
translated into the Mersey Estuary Forum later on. The MEMP was intended:

to focus attention on the Estuary as one of the Mersey region’s most important
environmental assets and convey a positive image of the area as a unique
conurbation with an enormous water resource (with recreational and tourist
potential) at its core;

to provide the basis for an agreed and coordinated programme of environmental
action and creative conservation to be implemented by the commissioning
partners and others;

to set out proposals for the management of river-based recreation and for the
protection of ecological assets;

to establish part of the technical basis to enable the local authorities and others to
respond to major development initiatives on the Estuary; and

to enable the commissioning partners to speak with an informed and authoritative
voice on matters affecting the Estuary. (University of Liverpool Study Team,
1995: pp 9-10)
John Entwistle, representative of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, has reported
that:
“It [MEMP] is a tool for us to use the actual management plan itself
policies, guides and principles, which we can use in everyday work. …
The hope is … everybody’s singing from same song sheet.”
In 1997, one of the Steering Group members, Mike Knowles, undertook an internal
consultant study on an evaluation of the MEMP and its implementation. The Mike
Knowles’ Study is based on comprehensive interviews and discussions with more
than 34 interviewees within 29 partner organisations of the Mersey Strategy.
However, there was criticism that this internal consultant study was undertaken only
12 months after the MEMP published, which was not sufficient time to establish the
scope of the Plan effectively in the practice of planning. Nonetheless, his study,
‘Towards an Action Plan (Knowles, 1997)’, concluded the following key issues:

The MEMP has had a negligible impact on the planning activities on the Mersey.
154
Chapter One: Introduction

The MEMP has a limited status within most organisations.

Only interested individuals have an awareness of the MEMP.

There are no structures to retain and broaden the engagement of consulted
organisations.

The benefits and relevance of the MEMP, to many, are minimal.

There is an importance that the MEMP should be creating actions related to the
Estuary.

The resourcing of the MEMP requires tangible outputs.

There is little effective focus and communication about the MEMP.

The MEMP process has not been facilitated. (Knowles, 1997: p6)
A driving force of the production of the MEAP was the involvement of the
Environment Agency in a process of co-ordinating the MEMP and a LEAP covering
the Estuary area, Lower Mersey LEAP. In order to implement the MEMP and Lower
Mersey LEAP together, the Agency felt that there is a need of taking actions out of
the MEMP. With input from the Agency, the Mersey Strategy has produced the
Mersey Estuary Action Programmes that are to take forward the policies of the
MEMP into a programme of agreed actions to address specific issues in the Estuary
(Table 7.2). The Management Plan is meant to be a visionary policy document, which
co-ordinated and produced by the specialists of the university. The Action Programme
is meant to take stock of current and future initiatives, identify gaps in coverage or
topic areas, and seek ways in which to fill these gaps. Although two Plans have been
produced in a basis of comprehensive consensus building, another difference between
two is the production process. University consultants produced the Management Plan,
and the Steering Group acted as an advisory and consultation group. The Action
Programmes are collective documents of consensuses that have been built from four
Topic Groups of the Mersey Strategy, about 50 member partners who are actual
players of the area. These two different methodologies were not deliberately intended,
however, most interviewees agreed that they needed different approaches in different
situations and purposes.
Table 7.0.2 A Comparison Between the MEMP and the MEAP
ME Management Plan
ME Action Programmes
155
Chapter One: Introduction
Purpose
Life
Provider
Policy Framework
Identifying and prioritising issues
Long-term (5 years)
Short-term (1 year)
University Consultant
Topic Groups of the Partnership
Source: Author
The MEMP and MEAP are developed as advisory plans that do not have any statutory
powers or legal responsibilities on the Estuary issues. These plans are unique as an
advisory plan that it has been agreed to fulfil the role of a LEAP for the Mersey
Estuary. The Lower Mersey LEAP states:
“The estuary sits in the middle of this [Lower Mersey] LEAP area and
many of the issues raised within this LEAP have an impact on the
Estuary. At first it was thought that this LEAP would include the
Estuary. However, after some consideration we decided to take the
Estuary out of this LEAP area. We hope to work with the Estuary
Project Group to move the MEMP on to an issues and action stage.”
(Environment Agency, 1997: p62)
The process of putting together the three plans, MEMP, MEAP and LEAP, has also
mirrored the Lower Mersey LEAP to add much diverse issues such as social issues,
although these are beyond the work field of the Agency. Another advantage for the
MEMP as a part of the LEAP is that regular updates of the MEMP and the continuity
of the Plan may be secured by the Agency where regulates to review the LEAPs
annually and needs a full review on a five-year cycle.
The interviewees have reported that there were two major driving forces in combining
two plans, MEMP and LEAP. Firstly, there has been active involvement of the
Environment Agency in the Campaign and, consequently, the Mersey Strategy.
Secondly, it was always the intention of the Environment Agency to secure wider
consultation in the production of the LEAPs as it is emphasised in the R&D Technical
Reports (Baker Associates, 1997; and Environment and Society Research Unit, 1998).
The MEMP provided much wider consultation than a typical process of LEAP
production. It was therefore a good opportunity for the Agency to have a positive
publicity.
The limitation presented may conclude lack of awareness and ownership on the
MEMP among partners. This might be because the MEMP is produced the University
156
Chapter One: Introduction
consultant with limited number of member partners (about 10 members of the
Steering Group). The MEMP might facilitate awareness and ownership among only
those who are involved in the production. Generally, the interviewees agreed that the
MEMP has not been effective on translating its objective to the whole range of the
partner, although a considerable amount of consultation has been carried out.
However, this weakness of the MEMP can be covered by the MEAP that is produced
by a comprehensive consensus building with wider involvements through four Topic
Groups.
The majority of interviewees pointed out that the representatives who have been
involved in the production of the MEMP and the MEAPs can have more inclusive
impacts on the estuary activities in practice than those who have not. This is because
participants felt that the Plans are their personal achievements, and they aware of the
Plans. Nonetheless, consensus building for the strategy can also give negative
impacts. There is a danger that an advisory plan, especially in the case of the MEAP,
which is developed by consensus building process, tends to be a simple description of
what partners are already doing rather than put extra efforts to the Estuary. Setting out
that context, Stuart Roberts, representative of Cheshire County Council described:
“I think that is a fair comment. A lot of what’s in the Action
Programme is what’s happening in those organisation anyway, but
that was always deliberate intention. … Having them in one document
meant that we could look at the gaps where things ought to be
happening in line with the Management Plan objectives, but aren’t.
Then, we [the Mersey Strategy] can try to get things moving on that.”
As an example, one area identified within the Recreation Topic Group is a need to
produce a guide to recreational uses in the Estuary. There was no single body that felt
that is their responsibility to produce the guide. The Strategy consequently took over
the recreational guide project, and published ‘Making The Most Of The Mersey: A
Leisure Guide to Your Estuary (Mersey Strategy, 2000a)’ in 2000. A lesson can be
learnt from this incident is that there is the need to realise the limitations of advisory
plans and to maximise the implementation of the plans from those limitation.
There is no doubt that the MEMP provided a comprehensive policy framework for
integrated estuary management. The Management Plan intended that development
157
Chapter One: Introduction
proposals could be assessed so that the activities around the Estuary can be
coordinated. Although the MEMP and MAMP have been strongly referred to in the
Lower Mersey LEAP, not surprisingly, the meaning of the MEMP and MEAP to the
actual users in practice was a ‘subsidisation tool’ to facilitate the actions rather than
control them. Interviewees reported that the uses of the management plans are mainly
to facilitate the action when a certain project, which has been addressed by the plans,
is promoted.
The management plans is also used as an ‘information source’. Kevin Curran,
Liverpool City Council, reported that the MEMP was a very useful document in
understanding the Estuary issues when he started a new position in relation to the
Estuary. While the Council has a limited amount of information on the Estuary, the
plan provides a considerable amount of information or referred where the information
he is looking for can be found. At an organisational level, the management plans is a
‘publicity tool’ that indicates a wider consultation has been proceed, as the
Environment Agency may be an example. Additionally, there is a concern that the
MEMP and MEAP can be a good reference for applying the Single Regeneration
Budget that partnership approaches can be prioritised.
By realising the limitations and enhanced uses of the advisory plans, the rest of this
case study investigates what are the working practices to maximise the
implementation of the MEMP and the MEAP. The first part examines the issues of
the institutional arrangement and the participation of representatives in the Mersey
Strategy. Secondly, it investigates how the services of the Strategy can be delivered
through the network that is a dominant mode of governance in a consensus building
process.
DELIVERING SERVICES: CONSENSUS BUILDING
Like other part of the Basin, the Mersey Estuary is faced with a range of
administrative, political, economic and environmental issues (Figure 7.3). The Mersey
Strategy developed a much broader vision based on the concept of sustainability in
order to respond to the scope and complexity of these issues in relation to the Estuary.
Although this enables a win-win strategy by covering wider issues together in
158
Chapter One: Introduction
economic, social, and environmental decision-making, sustainability was not the sole
reason for them to put extra time, effort and money into the partnership.
Figure 7.0.3 Diverse Areas of Interest in the Mersey Estuary
To come later.
Source: Author
Note: These photographs show a range of interest in recreational and navigational
purposes.
The Mersey Strategy has a set of hooks to attract stakeholders of the estuary issues. In
general, interviewees indicated that the government-sponsored credibility of the
Mersey Basin Campaign has been seen as an attractive benefit for stakeholders to
become partners of the Mersey Strategy. For example, the regulatory agencies, such
as the Environment Agency, saw an opportunity for wider consultation by being a part
of the Mersey Strategy. It can be seen in the production of the Lower Mersey LEAP
using wider consultation process of the MEMP, as discussed. Business sectors, such
as Littlewoods Organisation plc, saw the potential for promoting a positive image of
the company and better public relations by working within the sustainability vision.
Besides these, some interviewees mentioned that the Mersey Barrage project, which
was being actively promoted in the 1980s, provided a stimulus to networking, which
may have facilitated the creation of partnerships.
The Estuary Zone contains as many as nine local authorities and some forty
organisations have regulatory responsibilities for the Estuary. The Estuary Project
Group comprised most of these organisations together with representatives of the
private and voluntary sectors, a membership of almost fifty. It was a matter of concern
for the Mersey Strategy to create a much smaller Steering Group; a committee with 20
or fewer is a desirable size for it to be effective (Heathcote, 1998). Additionally, the
159
Chapter One: Introduction
Strategy had to find a way of managing the Steering Group to be in a manner
consistent with the principles for collaborative planning: the working committee
should include representatives of all relevant and significant interests (Innes and
Booher, 1999b); and participants should represent points of view and interests, not
merely large organisations with the most wide-ranging powers (Straus, 1999a).
The Steering Group seems to be well in line with consensus building principles in
terms of the structure of the group. Most interviewees reported that they were satisfied
with the size and diversity of the Steering Group. By recognising importance of the
size of the Group as a ‘working group’ rather than a ‘committee’, the Strategy has
carefully selected the representatives. In this context, representatives on the Steering
Group pointed out:
“ In term of the size, we probably got it right. It’s not too big, it’s not
too small … It’s about 14-15 officially, but regularly it’s usually about
10 or dozen people … So, it should be very selective.” (John Entwistle)
“This is a good steering group. It’s a good diversity. …. We have the
structure of four local authorities, two statutory bodies, two voluntary
sectors and two private sectors. We try to have that structure all the
time.” (William Crookshank)
“Individuals [representatives] were carefully chosen and it was not
just self-provided. We looked not only a range of the organisations but
also their personal interests and knowledge of the estuary as well. So it
was people who in various ways were already involved in the estuary.”
(Stuart Roberts)
There was a wide acknowledgement that wider involvements would provide good
credibility for the partnership. It was therefore a matter of concern that the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Company, as a big user of the Estuary, has not been actively
involved in the partnership. In order to get reluctant stakeholders involved in the
Strategy, the regional credibility of the Mersey Basin Campaign has been promoted as
a significant aspect. This is because the organisations that are taking part of the
Campaign tend to keen at involving other activities in relation to the aims and
objectives of the Campaign. For example, Littlewoods plc who is a partner of the
Campaign is also represented on the board of the Mersey Strategy, although they are
160
Chapter One: Introduction
not an organisation that has direct involvement in the Estuary or has legal
responsibilities on the Estuary.
From the interviews undertaken, the Mersey Strategy might take three possible
approaches to get reluctant stakeholders involved. First, for the public sector,
establishing inclusive information on the whole Estuary may attract the administrative
bodies to get actively involved. The ability of cooperating partners is important to
establish this integrated information source. Secondly, for the business sector, the
Strategy needs effective marketing as a mutual partnership, which endeavours to
achieve a win-win strategy. There is a need to emphasise that the Strategy is not just
an environmental and ecological green group or an organisation that takes a view of
contentious project. Finally, using ‘big names’ of existing partners might lead to
positive reactions from smaller interest groups as Stuart Roberts reported:
“We deliberately use some big name such as Littlewoods to give
confident to other organisations, maybe smaller businesses to get
involved, and to demonstrate our credibility. When we had a launch of
the very first Action Programme for the business sector, we had the
chairman of Littlewoods as a main speaker. We deliberately splashed
the name around as an attraction to get interest from other
businesses.”
For more comprehensive involvement, the Mersey Strategy uses the Mersey Estuary
Forum, which is an annual conference. This provides a valuable opportunity to
translate direct messages to a wider range of stakeholders, and keep partners
interested in the partnership, as RTPI (1998) suggests. A representative from a local
authority described on the Mersey Estuary Forum that:
“From a local authority’s point of view, it is an opportunity for us to
invite politicians to go along to see what the authority officers are
doing on their behalf in terms of keeping the process is going. Political
accountability is quite important, especially when local authority is
putting the money in.”
Another way to encourage wider participation from general public, the Strategy
considered organising Friends of the Mersey Estuary. Although continuous
involvements from wider stakeholders have been emphasised in this context, the
161
Chapter One: Introduction
interviewees are also conscious on the ability of the Steering Group as a working
group. William Crookshank stressed that:
“In the Steering Group, you can have as many big players as you like.
But, what you really need are active members. If the representatives
from those big players are not active members who are just looking at
what is going on, the benefits to the Steering Group might not be there.
… Nothing is going to be happened if you haven’t got people taking
things forward. … If you haven’t got a Steering Group that can steer, it
couldn’t go anywhere.”
This argument suggests a need of further investigation on the working manner of the
Steering Group, especially, focused on roles of active members at the Steering Group
and the factors contribute to being an active member or a less active member.
A service delivery mechanism of collaborative partnerships, which tend to be based
on a network mode of governance (Kim, 1999) may be different from other economic
regeneration partnerships. This is because the actions from partner organisations
cannot be directly motivated through a network-oriented approach that depends on
roles of individual representatives rather than their own organisations. The interviews
undertaken by the author show that most representatives on the Steering Group have
not changed their own organisational points of view on the Estuary while working
within the Mersey Strategy. However, they gained a better understanding of the
Estuary issues, and came to recognise the need for a wider perspective on the Estuary
than could be achieved by individual partners ploughing a lone furrow. Nevertheless,
most interviewees had found that the motivation for working actively in the Steering
Group is dependant on the enthusiasm of individuals rather than the concerns of their
own organisations.
The research shows that having shared ownership of the partnership among those
representatives is fundamental for effective partnership service delivery. William
Crookshank, a representative of the Environment Agency, commented that:
“Initially, I was representing the Agency … to make sure the Action
Programme is produced. … I am now, at the Steering Group meeting,
representing the Steering Group and the [Mersey] Strategy more than
the Agency. … I have a problem when I talk about ‘we’. I sometimes
162
Chapter One: Introduction
think, am I talking about ‘we’ as the Agency or ‘we’ as the Mersey
Strategy?”
Throughout the interviews, it is clear that the more active representatives, in the view
of their colleagues, have similar feelings. Additionally, it has been identified that once
the representatives have ownership of the partnership, they act as a catalyst to
stimulate and motivate action by partner organisations. This is because: 1) they are
more likely to have a strong feedback process to their parent organisations; 2) they are
generally prepared to seek resources for the Mersey Strategy from their parent
organisation; and 3) they tend to make their colleagues aware of the Mersey Strategy
throughout internal networks within their parent organisations. The research indicates
that these three actions of representatives are essential to make the partner
organisations aware of the importance of the Mersey Strategy, and consequently,
encourages them to work for the Strategy’s aims. In a long term, active members who
feel ownership to the Strategy continue marketing the Strategy even after he or she
moved out from the Steering Group. If so, there is another question to be asked. How
can the ownership of the partnership be developed among the representatives?
There is no simple answer. However, it may be easier to answer the question as to
what distinguishes active members from less active members in the Steering Group.
In describing differences between active members and less active members, some
interviewees commented that:
“It could be, I think maybe that one or two people I can think of who
contributed less are there [Steering Group] to represent a particular
organisation’s interests [rather than to represent their sectors] and
make sure to secure those.” (Stuart Roberts)
“It’s fair to say that some organisations intend to protect their own
interests rather than necessarily be a sort of proactive partner. So they
just observe what everyone else is doing and make sure that other
people’s actions aren’t going to impact on them.” (Louise Hopkins)
It is clear that most of the active member representatives perceive much wider
potential for the partnership. Active representatives have pointed out that the potential
outcomes are the product of written agreements, public awareness, mutual
understanding on the Estuary, a learning process, changing attitudes and viewpoints
163
Chapter One: Introduction
of working within partnerships and the ability to prevent future conflicts on Estuary
issues. On the other hand, less active members described the purpose of the Strategy
as simply enabling issues concerned with the Estuary to be raised. They also
prioritised their roles on the Group as representing their own organisational interests.
Marsh (1998) argues that communication exchange (interaction and information
sharing) in a working group affects the outcomes of the network-oriented approach,
by offering a unique opportunity for partners to gain a better understanding of each
other’s interests and improving partner relationships. Regarding communications on
the Steering Group, Stuart Roberts reported:
“[In the Steering Group meetings] maybe the discussion is not
confidential, but sometimes things would be said not to repeat it
outside. Individuals are representatives of our sectors rather than our
organisations. When I (or other people) express the view that wouldn’t
necessary be the view of my own authority, the organisation that
employs me. The view I express will be one that I feel to be the best
interests for the Estuary.”
The interviews indicate ownership of the partnership may be stimulated when the
representatives are made aware of wider visions of the Estuary developed through
communication exchanges. Vice versa, ownership of partnership also stimulates
active communication exchanges. The interviewees have found that the level of
involvement may affect to the level of information that representatives brought into
the Steering Group.
The feeling of achievement and awareness on outcomes has been also identified as
another aspect that encourages member representatives to be actively involved.
William Crookshank, one of active members of the Steering Group, reported that:
“It [the Mersey Strategy] is a sort of in my blood, you know. It’s my
personal achievement. I could see that things we proposed have been
achieved, so I was quite happy to put a lot of my personal effort into
the Mersey Strategy. … It was a kind of snowball effect.”
This issue has been confirmed by Stuart Roberts. Speaking of his experience of the
Economic Development Topic Group, Stuart Robert carefully mentioned that:
164
Chapter One: Introduction
“I was in the Economic Development [Topic] Group which one of the
least successful among the four. … One of the keys to the success of the
topic group is people [in the group] who feel that they are working to
achieve something that wouldn’t otherwise happen, so that they can
come and contribute. … I think it is what we didn’t have at the
Economic Development Topic Group. … People couldn’t really see the
benefit for them to come along to the meetings and really get
involved.”
It is now clear that tangible outcomes of the Group may act as a catalyst to stimulate
and motivate individual members to get actively involved so that they can feel the
ownership on the Strategy after being involved a while. There is also a growing
awareness that, without tangible outputs, individual representatives may not be able to
weigh their commitment to the Strategy in balance with the work required by their
employing organisations (Knowles, 1997).
Discussing outcome of the consensus building, many interviewees identified that their
personal or professional networks, which developed through the activities of the
Strategy, were also important. They all agreed that a comprehensive networking has
been developed within the Steering Group and from the other meetings and
conferences they attended in relation to the Strategy. The interviewees reported
networks were useful in streamlining such communication by encouraging
information sharing (Powell, 1991) while not only they were on the Group but also
even after they left the Strategy. However, one interviewee reported that newcomers
have found difficulties in breaking into the close-knit relationships among active
members in the Steering Group.
7.2.2 The Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups
This case study refers to a consensus building process in developing strategies for the
facilitating body of the partnerships. It engages an institutional arrangement enabling
member partners to participate in shaping strategies and tasks for the partnership in
operation. From the structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign, the Campaign Council
and Manifesto Pledge Groups have been recognised as steering structures of the
Campaign Centre through the partner’s consensus building process. For this case
165
Chapter One: Introduction
study, interviews with six council members and three co-ordinators of pledge groups
have been undertaken. To obtain understanding of the case study, two Campaign
Council meetings and a pledge group meeting have been observed (Appendix 1).
Additionally, meeting minutes of earlier Council meetings and individual Pledge
Group meetings have been examined.
BACKGROUND TO THE CAMPAIGN COUNCIL AND THE MANIFESTO
PLEDGE GROUPS
The Campaign Council has been established by the new chairperson of the Campaign
demanding a simpler structure that can create better communication between key
organisations within the Campaign. The Council has been established by merging four
committees of the Campaign: Campaign Development Group; Mersey Basin Business
Foundation Board of Directors; Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Board of
Directors; and Mersey Basin Campaign Board. The Council aims to provide strategic
overview for the Campaign and help building links with major regional organisations.
The Council involves representatives of:

10 public sector members (Government Office for the North West, North West
Regional Development Agency, Environment Agency, Countryside Agency,
English Nature, Regional Assembly, Lancashire County Council, Cheshire
County Council, Tameside MBC and Salford City Council);

22 private sector members (United Utilities, British Waterways, Manchester Ship
Canal, ICI, ICL, Shell UK, British Gas Transco, Littlewoods, Associated Octel,
Alfred McAlpine, Manweb, Scottish Power, Royal Bank of Scotland, National
Westminster Bank, Manchester Airport, Vauxhall Motors, Bechtel Water
Technology, Arkady Craigmillar, Brunner Mond, Addleshaw Booth, AEA
Technology and Deloitte & Touche); and

8 non governmental organisations (Mersey Basin Trust, Water Watch,
Sustainability North West, Groundwork Trust, Tidy Britain Group, Lancashire
Wildlife Trust, Cheshire Landscape Trust and University of Liverpool) (Mersey
Basin Campaign, 2000b)
166
Chapter One: Introduction
As a part of restructuring of the Campaign, the Manifesto Pledge Groups has been set
up as task groups for the 8 manifesto pledges (Table 7.3) that are launched in 1999.
There are six pledge groups: Regional Pledge Group (Pledge 1); Partnership Pledge
Group (Pledges 2 and 3); Water Quality Pledge Group (Pledge 4); Education Pledge
Group (Pledges 5 and 8); Natural Environment Pledge Group (Pledge 6); and River
Valley Initiatives Pledge Group (Pledge 7). The role of pledge groups is to turn these
pledges into feasible actions by keeping the pledges high on the regional agenda.
Pledge Groups were formed to provide linkages between the Campaign Centre and
the partnership about the pledges. Their role is to: 1) advise the Campaign Chair and
Chief Executive on practical ways to deliver the pledges; 2) help turn the theory of the
pledges into action; 3) bring forward new ideas; and 4) monitor progress, keeping the
pledges relevant and effective.
Table 5.0.3 Pledge Groups of the Campaign
No
Pledge
1
Commit the Campaign to the
Region's future
2
Seek specific commitments
from our partners.
3
4
5
Strengthen the whole
partnership of the Campaign
Continue the drive to improve
water quality in our river and
streams
Promote the recognition of the
value and potential of our
watercourses and waterfront
environments
6
Recognise the value of the
natural environment
7
Continues our support for
River Valley Initiatives
8
Education and young people
Detail
Three core objectives of water quality, waterside development
and care and concern for the environment will be our
contribution to the Regional Strategy; our commitment to the
sustainability of the Region's environment for future
generations. The Campaign is not a stand-alone initiative but is
part of the way forward for the Northwest.
The Campaign forms an agreement that will secure and
monitor their commitment to waterways and waterway
projects. The group encourages commitment specifically
expressed in their business and development plans.
The Campaign tries to involve more schools, more
communities and more businesses in our work.
A great deal has been achieved but the pressure to secure the
investment that will complete the task has to be maintained.
For too long the region has turned its back on the rivers.
The Mersey Estuary is designated as a European Special
Protection Area and a RAMSAR wetland site. The Campaign
is keen to encourage initiatives that will enhance conditions for
the basin's wildlife and that will encourage people to respect
their wildlife heritage.
These are one of the Campaign's major success stories, helping
to identify and work with local communities and encouraging
them to take action.
The Campaign believes that by influencing the attitudes and
future behaviour of young people the group will lay the
foundations for a positive outlook on our watercourses
stretching into the future. Education is not simply about
providing an understanding of the physical aspects of a river
167
Chapter One: Introduction
basin but also developing attitudes and culture which will help
secure the interest and active involvement of young people in
the Campaign's cause.
Source: Adapted from Mersey Basin Campaign (2001b)
Bearing in mind that the Council and Pledge Groups are still at the early stage of its
development, there was a consideration among interviewees that the roles of two
meetings are not firmly defined yet. However, in this research, the Pledge Groups
have been seen as a sub-structure of the Council considering that the agenda and
members of the Council have been sub-divided into each pledge group. Although the
Council and Pledge Groups stress a collaborative approach in their objectives, there is
an arguable view that the meetings have failed to meet the principles of consensus
building.
DELIVERING SERVICES: CONSENSUS BUILDING
Mark Turner, representative of the Campaign Centre to the Council, reported that:
“the Council has got a membership of 40 or 50 people who are senior
people within major organisations. It is to give representatives a feel of
what is happening in the Campaign. … The Council is there to manage
the Campaign and ensures that the Campaign delivers what is on the
Corporate Plan. … It’s there as a sort of forum really. It’s not
designed for a working group.”
He raised three important points: 1) the size of the Council is too big to manage and
achieve effective consensus building; 2) the Council provides a unique and potential
environment for consensus building with senior level representation among key
regional players; and 3) consensus building may be not an essential role of the
Council.
The Council has been structured by combining the networking and advisory role of
four committees. The size of the Council is consequently immense. Most interviewees
described the size of the meeting is ‘too big’. There are 40 member organisations on
the Council, and the number of meeting attendants can be up to 60 people in fullattendance. However, three Council meetings that had been held during the case study
168
Chapter One: Introduction
period indicate that there were less than 40 percent of attendances32. From the
interviews undertaken and meetings observed, there are possible explanations on
lower attendance rate.
Firstly, there is a lack of motivation for the partners to participate in the Council
meetings. The meeting is more likely to be rather ‘information giving’ and ‘rubberstamping’ administration process than interactive decision-making. As one business
representative reported that:
“the primary reason for coming along to the Council is to ensure the
money we put in is spent on as we intended.”
Another interviewee said:
“I am not sure why I have to come to the Council meetings.”
Additionally, the Council encompasses regional overview that cannot be simulated to
day-to-day practice for locally based partners, especially for local authorities. This
point can be forwarded to the second aspect, absent of local authorities. Only one
local authority has been attended at the Council regularly although there are four local
authorities on the list. This is because the local authorities have no regional remit, and
the Council’s strategic overview at regional level may be off of their agenda. Thirdly,
the immense size of meeting may give an impression that there are many ‘other
people’ who can participate, so may take pressure off from individual members
attending at the meeting.
Referring to the Mark Turner’s second point, the Council possesses enormous
potential to deliver comprehensive consensus building at the regional level. The
Council involves a wider range of representation from public and private sectors
together with non-governmental organisations and voluntary groups. Moreover, the
Council involves a high seniority of representation; executive members of the Council
made up of positional leaders, or senior bureaucrats of partner organisations. This
enables administrative simplicity for the Council meetings, because they are actual
decision makers of their parent organisations. It is a rare event in the region to bring
those key regional players in a same space and in a regular basis. However, besides
32
There have been three Council meetings since the first meeting on 10 th January 1999. There were
about 15 attendees among officially listed 40 members at each meeting (excluding 7-8 of the Campaign
Centre staff).
169
Chapter One: Introduction
the size and attendance rate, the Council might fail to meet the principles of consensus
building. In essence, this relates to the concepts of democratic decision-making,
including sharing information, building of trust and credibility, relationships between
the public and the decision makers, and conformance with pre-existing requirements
such as laws and funding availability (Heathcote, 1998).
Speaking from Author’s meeting observation and examination of the Council meeting
minutes, the Council meetings are not designed to stimulate a comprehensive
discussion and interaction among those who are sitting at the table. Most of time at
the Council has been spent on reporting Campaign’s activities since last meeting. One
of representatives of the Campaign Centre reported that the Campaign chairperson
and chief executive of the Campaign are only persons among about 7 representatives
from the Campaign Centre who can speak up at the discussion. This may be because
the Campaign Centre is prudent in manipulating the key partners, especially who are
at the Council, so as not to upset them as they are major funding sources for the
Campaign. This leads to the third point of the Mark Turner’s quotation.
The Campaign Council may not aim to achieve comprehensive consensus building.
Instead, the Campaign uses the Council as a forum to allow member partners to meet
in a regular basis, allowing them to share their experiences. It also shows partners
what is happening across the region and enables many to put their own project into
the context of the Campaign as a whole. As the Campaign Centre takes cautions not to
disconcert the Council members in the meetings, the actual consensus building has
been preceded outside of the Council through consultation process by organising oneto-one individual meetings with key partners. Although it is not the real form of
consensus building, this enables the Campaign Centre to build more close and
personal contacts with its key partners. Additionally, these individual meetings
resolve conflicts before they become serious in the Council meetings. Peter Batey, a
representative of the University of Liverpool to the Council, reported:
“I’ve done some breakfast meetings with the Campaign chairman to
discuss about current issues of the Campaign and its future. …
Sometimes, when the Campaign faced a sensitive issue, he [the
chairman] asked me to speak up at a certain point in the next Council
meeting to give him support.”
170
Chapter One: Introduction
The Council builds consensus through a consultation process by approaching
individual partners informally apart from formal procedure. Because it is not a ‘true’
consensus building process, it cannot generate ‘true’ outcomes of consensus building.
Generally speaking, the Council could not create the commitment and ownership from
individual members, although the experience of the Mersey Strategy has shown that
the ownership in consensus building process is a significant aspect for effective
service delivery. Therefore, the information flow at the meetings has been restricted,
and individual members were only representing particular organisation’s interests so
as to protect their own interests.
Some of six Pledge Groups are arguably better than the Council in involving
stakeholders and working with those who participated. The size of meeting is much
more manageable as the group is made of 7 to10 member. More focused agenda of
Pledge Groups enabled to attract a variety of interest groups including area-based
groups and voluntary sectors, although the agenda weights still on regional strategic
overview. However, the Pledge Groups have also suffered from low attendance rate at
the meeting. Mark Turner, member of Supporting RVIs Pledge Group, explained:
“Pledge Groups have been seen initially to meet once or twice of the
year, very infrequently, just to take an overview what’s happening.
What has happened is that Pledge Groups met more often than that.
Perhaps, that is overloaded people’s diary little bit. If the Pledge
Group meetings go back to once every six months, that would be more
appropriate than being once every quarter.”
Although six Pledge Groups made of member organisations of the Campaign Council,
the representatives participating in the Pledge Groups are not always same people
who are representatives to the Council. This is mainly because attending two different
meetings is very time consuming, especially, for senior bureaucrats of partner
organisations. A couple of interviewees reported that absent of senior level
representation at the Pledge Groups may cause a problem in managing the meetings
effectively. Setting out this context, Caroline Downey, member of Education Pledge
Group, explained:
“I think people on those pledge groups are, as you say, wrong level. …
They can’t decide. They can’t input in. They have to go back to their
171
Chapter One: Introduction
organisations and find somebody else. … I’ve got 10 people who are
coming together and who are looking at education and awareness.
Three of those happen to be funders of our [the Campaign’s]
educational programme. … Now, the person who sits on the education
[pledge group] from North West Water is not the person who decides
on our funding. [She stressed same situations with representatives
from the Environment Agency and Shell] … So I have to then go again
to those funders. So, I have spent time on the education pledge group
and I have spent additional time on chasing funders, you know those
key people.”
In distinguishing active groups from less active groups, the research shows that more
active pledge groups have mutual interests and commitment on particular projects
rather than general overview33. For example, Natural Environment Pledge Group have
been identified as an active group by interviewees, and the group produced more
practical outcomes organising projects such as fish and biodiversity surveys, a
training day and a conference. On the other hand, outcomes from less active groups
such as Partnership and Supporting RVIs Pledge Groups were rather limited on
strategic overviews that could not generate concentrated inputs from participants.
In order to deliver more effective consensus building in the Council and Pledge
Groups, it may be advisable to organise a combined structure of the two; the Pledge
Groups may be considered as sub-topic groups of the Council. This may encourage
participants’ motivation by creating more interactive discussion environment in the
meeting in terms of: providing a manageable size of meetings and facilitating feelings
of achievement among participant by contributing to focused issues. This combined
meeting may reduce the number of meetings and consequently save time of the
Campaign Centre staff and perhaps of the representatives.
7.2.3 Summary of Consensus Building Process
Like other forms of partnership, a collaborative partnership delivers its services
through partner organisations. The two case studies showed that the size of meeting
and the right level of representation are essential for effective consensus building. The
172
Chapter One: Introduction
case studies also identified that the actions by partner organisations in a collaborative
partnership need to be motivated by individual representatives who are actively
involved in the partnership. Consequently, the shared ownership of the partnership
among the representatives, which may be stimulated by communication exchange in a
working committee, has been seen to be a fundamental factor contributing to effective
implementation of collaborative partnerships. However, as Straus (1999b) argues,
partially met consensus building principles may: 1) decrease participants’ motivation
to commit themselves to a consensus-based process; 2) waste valuable and limited
resources including time and money; and 3) damage the credibility of project sponsors
and facilitating body.
It is certain that commitment and motivation among those who participate in the
working committees can be accelerated when there are activities or projects that
participants can contribute. These feelings of achievement among participants may
lead to active involvement, and consequently, encourage sense ownership in a
working group. In addition, as better meeting management can encourage better
communication exchange in a committee, the facilitating skills of the co-ordinator or
the chair are of paramount importance. Practical skills for better meeting management
can enhance positive outcomes of consensus building.
7.3 Facilitation in Practice
This section investigates how a collaborative partnership facilitates actions from
partners to deliver integrated waterside revitalisation. For facilitation process
throughout developing strategies, the Water Mark Scheme has been explored. This
awarding scheme is to facilitate waterside businesses to improve their waterside
environment voluntarily. It is a newly introduced scheme, and is waiting for launching
an official programme after the pilot scheme completed. The Showrick’s Bridge
Project case study shows a process of facilitation in a practical project where
bureaucratic planning practice caused conflicts in implementation process. This
project is recognised as a good example of facilitation in action that would not have
been implemented without the effort of the Alt 2000 RVI as a facilitator.
33
The same result has been seen from the experience of the Mersey Strategy at the previous section.
173
Chapter One: Introduction
7.3.1 The Water Mark Scheme
The Water Mark case study addresses a process in facilitating waterside businesses to
practice sustainable waste management. For this case study, two individual interviews
and a group interview with four members of Working Group for the pilot scheme
have undertaken. Additionally, a Water Mark Progress Meeting has been observed
and a site visit to a company awarded the Water Mark has been carried out (Appendix
1).
BACKGROUND TO THE WATER MARK SCHEME
The Water Mark is an award scheme for waterside businesses to tackle waste in their
local rivers and canals and to provide an incentive for waterside companies to do
more than the standard legal requirement. Considering there is no single legislation on
solid waste, the initial idea of the scheme involved looking at a solution to prevent
businesses tipping or allowing solid wastes to get down the banks of rivers and canals
into the watercourses. Water Watch originally had an idea to develop a ‘Business
Charter’, which was more like a pledge that businesses could sign up agreeing to
prevent solid waste getting into rivers and canals. From these ideas, a pilot ‘Water
Mark’ scheme has been launched by the Mersey Basin Campaign’s Darwen and
REEL River Valley Initiatives, with help from Water Watch, the Environment
Agency, nine local authorities and Groundwork Business Environment Association
(Mersey Basin Campaign, 1999). During the pilot scheme period, between February
and November 1999, nine businesses in the Darwen and REEL RVI areas of
Lancashire signed up to get involved, and four businesses have received awards at the
time of writing34 (Figure 7.4). Following the positive results of the pilot scheme, it
may be expanded over the whole of the Mersey Basin area.
Figure 7.0.4 An Example of the Water Mark Scheme
To come later
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2001a: p5)
Note: The photograph shows an area of a business, Graham and Brown, Blackburn,
which was awarded the Water Mark during the pilot scheme.
174
Chapter One: Introduction
The Water Mark scheme encourages businesses to minimise their impact on the water
quality and make sustainable improvements on the waterside environment over and
above the regulatory requirements. Participants receive an information pack giving
guidelines on waste management and a checklist to assess their waste management
practices. To be eligible for the award companies must satisfy the scheme’s waste
management criteria and provide a plan to improve their local waterside, for example,
involving river clean-ups, landscaping or other amenity projects. To achieve an
award, a waterside business must first undergo a site audit to check compliance with
legislation such as the Duty of Care (E.P.A. s. 34) and the Water Resources Act 1991
(s. 85). Compliance is a condition of proceeding to award level. The award certificate
is given when the business has produced an improvement plan for their waterside site
and they have demonstrated a commitment to carrying it out and have begun
implementation. The certificate is valid for a year and renewal is based on continued
compliance with legislation, their having completed the planned improvements and
that they have a plan for further improvements.
The detailed operational process has been illustrated in Figure 7.5. RVIs and the
Environment Agency play significant roles in implementing the Water Mark Scheme.
Following the initial contact through a RVI co-ordinator, the Environment Agency
carries out a pollution audit on the site of waterside businesses. In satisfactory of the
audit result, businesses produce an improvement action plan for their sites with
assistance from a RVI co-ordinator. On the completion of the work proposed in the
action plan, the Water Mark award is granted, and the certificate may be renewed
according to the result of annual monitoring.
There is another similar kind of award scheme, the Green Business Parks (GBP),
which is developed and implemented by the Groundwork Trust, especially targeting
business estates located within business park sites. The GBP scheme operates
alongside with the Environment Agency to improve environmental performance of
business estates and industrial estates. Unlike the Water Mark, the GBP scheme works
collectively targeting a group of business in a business park rather than with single
business.
34
Signed nine businesses are Akzo Nobel, B&Q Blackburn, B&Q Brierfield, Darwen WwTW,
Hyndburn WwTW, Graham & Brown, Phillips Components, St. Regis, and Potterton Myson.
175
Chapter One: Introduction
Figure 7.0.5 Operational Process of the Water Mark
Source: Modified from Water Watch (2000: p17)
DELIVERING SERVICES: FACILITATION
The pilot scheme has been developed by Working Group of the Water Watch, RVIs,
the Environment Agency, local authorities, and Groundwork Business Environment
Association. The roles of the Working Group are: to develop the principles and
structure of the award scheme; to produce the required materials; to promote the
award scheme to businesses; to carry out site audits and liaise with participants; to
assess and make decisions on awarding businesses; and to monitor progress of the
scheme (Water Watch, 2000). Each member of Working Group has provided various
resources in developing and implementing the pilot scheme.
Water Watch has organised and coordinated the Working Group in developing the
pilot scheme. Development from the idea of Business Charter has been stepped up
when two RVIs identified difficulties in involving business in their activities. As the
scheme was to be categorised a RVI project, the main mechanism of delivering the
scheme is the RVIs. Therefore, the RVIs would have a considerable responsibility for
overall project implementation including contacting businesses, raising fund and
monitoring. Most interviewees emphasised the importance of the RVI’s networks and
knowledge of local areas that enable the initial contact to businesses and co-operative
actions from various partners. From this context, Judy Yacoub, CED Partnership, who
is a member of the Working Group reported:
“The real value that the RVI co-ordinators can give is, quite apart
from the technical side of it, making an initial contact with companies
to take them into it [Water Mark scheme] step by step. In order to
achieve the Water Mark Scheme, we need to get additional funding to
make it happen and set up the partnership to get the work achieved.
That is something that obviously wouldn’t happen without close
working with RVI co-ordinators.”
Sarah Lester, co-ordinator of Darwen RVI, has reported the strengths of the RVI’s
networking and local knowledge in implementing the scheme:
176
Chapter One: Introduction
“If you know what is happening in the area and you know what the
other groups might be interested in doing some planting or whatever,
you can put the two together.”
Speaking from his experience of operating the pilot scheme with B&Q Brierfield,
Steven Beesley, Project Officer of REEL RVI, added:
“Some of the companies, especially large ones, totally finance
themselves within their own budgets. … [But] because they [B&Q]
restricted how much grant they can put in any one store, they couldn’t
finance the whole project [creating seating area on canalside]. But
that was helped by input from a local community group such as free
labouring.”
His point extends the outcomes of the scheme. The Water Mark may be not only to
involve businesses as it initially stated but also can break down the barrier between
local businesses and community groups. The Water Mark may therefore facilitate
future co-operative actions managing local watercourses in encouraging links between
waterside business and local communities.
The Environment Agency played a significant role in providing technical advice to
both Working Group and businesses, especially following the involvement of the
Environment Protection Officer who has also brought in the Agency’s ecologists to
give specialist advice. In terms of the role of the Agency, Mary Lee, Water Watch,
said:
“The Environment Agency’s input has changed over time. Initially they
got involved to advise the technical side, and then they took more
active role. Where we were originally only going to look at solid waste,
they said ‘Well, really you can’t look at solid waste without looking at
appliances, so you really need to look at the whole lot’. Because they
were willing to put their time and effort into doing this, in particular
their expertise, we broadened the scheme to look at the whole range of
waste issues on watercourse.”
She also reported the benefit for the Agency in getting involved in the scheme.
“… sometimes businesses are quite aware of the Environment Agency
[because they are a force body], so they worry about the Agency’s
177
Chapter One: Introduction
visit. Because the Agency is coming in very friendly capacity [when
they visit the site for Water Mark scheme], it gives an opportunity for
dialogue. … They are not there to scratch. [Additionally] the
Environment Agency can prevent pollution before enforcement even
though the businesses don’t get to the award stage.”
For the Environment Agency, approaching businesses thorough the Water Mark
scheme may prevent pollution by encouraging businesses to practice better
environmental management, and establish positive images of the Agency.
Interviewees also addressed that the site audit needs to be carried out by the
Environment Agency officers, who have expertise, as a part of their day-to-day
practice. Speaking from her previous employ experience as an Environment
Protection Officer in the Agency, Sarah Lester reported:
“[Site] visits are better to be done by the Environment Agency officers,
and they would rather want to do it themselves not to miss anything
[on the checklist]. … They do that kind of work everyday, anyway.”
Although the Environment Agency was actively involved in the pilot scheme, the
involvement of the local authorities has been limited. There were nine local
authorities that initially intended to get involved in the pilot scheme. However, two of
them, Pendle and Hyndburn, seem to get involved particularly in on-site specific
issues rather than in designing and monitoring the scheme. One interviewee reported
that local authorities might not see the waterside litter problem as their limits, so they
might find difficulties to commit time on the pilot scheme.
The Groundwork Business Environment Association got involved in the pilot scheme
through a business seminar that is organised to promote the pilot Water Mark scheme.
The Association is set up as a business membership club to help businesses to achieve
ISO35 14001, the Environmental Management Systems; the ISO 14000 series is a
voluntary set of standards intended to encourage organisations to systematically
address the environmental impacts on their activities (Pringle et al. 1998). The
interviewees emphasised the significant role of the Association in the pilot scheme in
relation to the comprehensive business networks and their expertise in dealing with
35
The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is a non-governmental organisation aiming
to facilitate the international exchange of goods and services by establishing international standards and
reconciling regulatory differences between countries.
178
Chapter One: Introduction
businesses. Many businesses from the Association members, who were already
interested in environment management, have signed up for the pilot Water Mark
scheme.
Most interviewee identified that the sole reason for businesses to get involved in the
scheme is obviously a good opportunity for positive publicity that can lead to positive
public relations.
“What we found there [in the pilot scheme] is that the business is keen
to get involved, and they’ve been very positive about responses from
getting involved. They’ve been very positive about the fact that they’ve
got an award they can put on the wall. They’ve been very positive
about the fact that they’ve got very good publicity out of it.” (Andrew
Coombe, Water Watch)
Nonetheless this publicity opportunity may be an attractive hook for larger size
businesses, the publicity may not be a high priority for smaller or medium size
businesses in persuading them to get involved in the scheme. Some interviewees
reported that technical advice can be a better hook for smaller businesses as Mary Lee
indicated; that one of the feedback businesses found particularly good were the
Environment Agency’s on-site advice and technical advice on the information pack.
In the following, Sarah Lester addressed that an environmental audit proceeding as a
part of the Water Mark scheme is a significant benefit for smaller businesses to get
involved:
“Some of the small companies may not know what their legal
requirement are on discharges or waste management practices. So I
see it as a way of working together with the regulator, because the
worst thing that can happen for them is something to go wrong, then
their ignorance is not a defending cause, so they get fined. It is really a
way of getting an audit done for free. For what they should have been
done for the minimum requirement, they have to pay somebody to do
that for them through some kinds of consultancies.”
Most interviewees agreed generally that the Water Mark scheme is an appealing
approach to facilitate a better environmental management practice of waterside
179
Chapter One: Introduction
businesses. From the view of practitioner, Steven Beesley reported the value of the
Water Mark scheme:
“The Water Mark scheme for me is a very attractive proposal for
approaching any businesses. Without that, it is very difficult to go into
businesses to say ‘you are causing pollution, what you’re going to do
about it’. But we can go and say there is an award you can get for
what you should do.”
Although the principle of the scheme is agreed as an effective pathbreaking method
approaching businesses, there are questions about how the scheme should be
operated. How might facilitators raise supports and bring resources from partner
organisations to run the scheme? Why had the pilot scheme been mainly targeted to
larger businesses, although smaller businesses are much more problematic in
managing their waterside environments? How should facilitators handle differences of
management performance between larger businesses and smaller one?
Firstly, it has been clear that implementing the scheme requires considerable
resources both in time and money to make businesses take part in the Water Mark
(Water Watch, 2000). This is more obvious when they target smaller businesses that
require a very time consuming process in making first contact and promoting
environmental awareness. The Working Group of the Water Mark needs to address
wider involvement from various interest groups. However, this wider involvement
may be straightforward when the finalised scheme is launched and is organised by the
RVIs using the RVI’s local network and knowledge.
In order to encourage partners to get actively involved in the Water Mark, the
Working Group needs a set of much wider benefits of involving the scheme than just
business involvement. Considering the significant role of the regulatory agencies
implementing the scheme, the Working Group needs to stress to the Environment
Agency what they can get from the scheme. This may include opportunities to prevent
pollution before it becomes a serious problem and promote positive public relations
with businesses. Additionally, addressing the role of the Water Mark at the ISO 14001
certification may encourage involvement of another important player, Groundwork
Business Environment Association. There is a wide spread acknowledgement that
ISO 14001 standard is a management system standard, not a performance standard.
180
Chapter One: Introduction
Hence, it may reduce its effectiveness in encouraging pollution prevention and limit
its ability to spur improvements in environmental performance (Krut and Gleckman,
1998; and Pringle et al. 1998). Furthermore, considering the standard encourages
holistic approach and external communication, the Water Mark may add the value of
the company’s environmental ‘performance’ and ‘external communication’ in
conducting an ISO 14001 audit.
For enhanced facilitation, additionally, the Working Group needs to secure support
not only from individual partners but also from the Campaign Centre. Most
businesses who signed up for the pilot scheme are members of Groundwork Business
Association but they are not the members of the Campaign or Campaign’s Business
Foundation. Although it was a testing scheme, the businesses have been contacted
through the Association’s networks rather than the Campaign’s network. This may
indicate that the Campaign had not been very supportive for the Water Mark at its
initial development stage. Andrew Coombe reported carefully that this might be
because of a lack of the Campaign’s support to the Water Watch in general, so as
same as the Water Mark that is initially organised by the Water Watch:
“Since the new chairman started, this has been much more emphasised
within the Campaign addressing issues on rubbish on waterways. A
problem which we had in the past is that the message we have been
saying about ‘Look, this [rubbish] is a problem, we need to take
seriously’ hadn’t been getting through. Hence, the Water Watch only
has limited support [from the Campaign]. We don’t have any central
government money from the DETR by the Campaign. We only have
money from our existing supporters.”
Therefore, the Water Mark may also need to develop hooks to attract the Campaign
to get more actively involved in the scheme and improve further working coordinations between the Campaign and the Water Watch. This may include an
opportunity to broaden membership and involvement from the business sector
considering the business who signed up for the scheme may involve in further
Campaign’s activities as Andrew Coombe pointed:
“My personal opinion is that we [the Campaign] don’t do enough to
persuade the people who support the Campaign to take action
181
Chapter One: Introduction
themselves. We just take attitude that ‘Oh, they support the Campaign,
therefore they are all right’. We are not trying to influence as much as
we should do. We are not allowed to upset them, … which put us in a
difficult position, because we rely on their funding. … It’s not very
good personally. That’s why this [Water Mark] is stepping forward.
You can go to businesses and say ‘Look, you already support the
Campaign, here is the step you can take within your company to do
something’. That’s why the Water Mark is a good scheme. … The
Water Mark can be a hook for businesses to get involved in the
Campaign on the ground, and after they involved, the Campaign
persuade the business to act on other Campaign issues.”
Additionally, the Water Mark’s pathbreaking roles in between businesses and local
communities may stimulate involvement from the Mersey Basin Trust.
The second question is related to the size of businesses in the pilot scheme. The Water
Watch (Water Watch, 2000: p3) stated that ‘small and medium sized businesses
should be particularly targeted because, from experience, they have been found to
have a particular impact on watercourses’. However, most of the businesses signed up
for the scheme were of a large size such as B&Q chains, Phillips and Waste Water
Treatment Works. Steven Beesley and Judy Yacoub explained that:
“The reason why these large ones come forward first is that the all of
them have got some kinds of environmental officer employed by the
companies. … They are very keen to work with communities and they
have already got that link. But small one didn’t have that sort of
resource.” (Steven Beesley)
“Most of the companies, which already signed up, have been involved
in some kinds of environmental improvement such as ISO 14001. In
some respects, it must be a lot easier for them and they didn’t have to
do a lot more.” (Judy Yacoub)
There are however some benefits of involving bigger companies for the pilot scheme,
for instant, a flagship effect to smaller businesses by giving credibility of the scheme
to smaller businesses. From her practical experience, Sarah Lester reported that:
182
Chapter One: Introduction
“One of the companies in the Darwen catchment, Graham and Brown,
said when I went to see them that part of the reason they did this
scheme [Water Mark] was because they knew B&Q signed up to it.
They supply B&Q, so there is direct effect to supply chain.”
Following this context, Judy Yacoub added that:
“The other thing about B&Q is that having signed up one store they
are quite happy for any stores they have within the catchment area to
take part of the scheme.”
It is clear that the pilot scheme might take advantages getting larger companies
involved. Nevertheless, the Water Mark needs to develop more obvious hooks to
attract smaller businesses. This may include 1) free site audit for environmental
management; 2) better chance to achieve ISO 14001 by operating better
environmental management in day-to-day practice; 3) the potential for promoting a
positive image of the company; 4) an opportunity for better public relations by
working within local communities. Although it is outside of the scheme, a lesson
approaching to businesses can be learnt from the experience of the Sankey Now RVI
organising a sport event, five-a-side football challenge between local companies as a
part of the Mersey Basin Weekend36 2000. After these kinds of ice-breaking events
for businesses, the Water Mark scheme may be more accessible to participated
businesses.
Thirdly, how could the Water Mark handle differences of management performances
between larger businesses and smaller one in evaluating the audit for the award? Mary
Lee replied from the above question that:
“The scheme is designed to be equally applicable to large businesses
and small businesses, so it had to have flexibility to take into account
of different site conditions, the amount of money they might have and
available manpower. So, it could be creating a waterside sitting area
for staff, or it could be a big management plan for their site. The idea
was not just making look pretty, but trying to encourage them to
consider the site nature conservation.”
36
The Mersey Basin Weekends will be extensively investigated in section 7.4.2 as a part of Open
Participation case studies.
183
Chapter One: Introduction
Steven Beesley also reported that:
“It will take a lot of effort on the time of the [RVI] co-ordinator to help
them [smaller businesses] to design the scheme and convince them it
can be achievable on a smaller budget. Obviously we decided when we
drew up the criteria that any scheme should relate to the capability of
the company. A smaller one couldn’t be expected to do a larger
scheme.”
Although it seems that most interviewees were aware of this argument, there is still
the need to produce clearer guidelines in operating the site audit.
For the enhanced facilitation, Judy Yacoub also suggested that it is feasible to target
one or two businesses per year per RVI in the finalised scheme. This is because the
Water Mark requires a time consuming process but the RVI co-ordinators may find
difficulties to spend extra time and effort on the scheme within their current workload.
After completing the pilot scheme, the Water Mark is having difficulties in finding
resources to launch the finalised scheme. Therefore, it is worth considering launching
a joint award scheme with the Green Business Parks scheme that is a similar award
scheme developed by the Groundwork Trust. This may increase the credibility of the
scheme that may secure more support from both partner organisations and participant
businesses. By joining the two that are supported by the Environment Agency
separately, the combined award scheme may secure more active involvement from the
Agency, which is a fundamental aspect of operating the scheme.
The combined scheme may broaden target of businesses, not just pollution makers or
waterside location. As the Water Watch is thinking forward to create a waterside
adoption scheme, engaging two schemes may be much more feasible. The waterside
adoption scheme is to bring local businesses that are not adjacent to the watercourse
and waterside local community groups; and to get them involved in a long-term
commitment on managing particular waterside area where they adopted. This may
stimulate local stewardship of the waterside environments and encourage wider
involvement of businesses from outside watersides. Therefore, for both the Water
Mark and the Groundwork, the benefit of joined scheme may be of covering much
wider areas and bringing wider involvement and resources from each other and their
partners. The businesses from the GBP scheme, who may be involved in the adoption
184
Chapter One: Introduction
scheme may have the potential for more positive publicity and better public relations.
Local waterside community groups may get support and resources from businesses in
their local areas, the Campaign and the Groundwork Trust.
7.3.2 The Showricks Bridge Project
This case study focuses on the facilitation process of a practical project. The
Showrick’s Bridge Project demonstrates the significance of facilitation in solving a
conflict between stakeholders. In carrying out the case study, three semi-structured
interviews and a site visit have been undertaken (Appendix 1).
BACKGROUND TO THE SHOWRICK’S BRIDGE PROJECT
During the First World War, the Ministry of Defence removed both Baines’ Bridge
and Showrick’s Bridge on the River Alt. Since then, there have been missing links in
an extensive footpath network in the West Lancashire and Sefton area (Figure 7.6).
The Ramblers Association, a national voluntary organisation with a focus on
footpaths, had persistently raised the issue of rebuilding those missing links for
twenty or so years. Ever since Lancashire County Council restored Baines’ Bridge by
working with the Ramblers Association in the late1980s, the replacement of
Showrick’s Bridge had been regarded as a high priority in developing the footpath
network of the area.
Figure 6.0.6 Footpath Network of West Lancashire and Sefton
To come later
Source: Ask to Rodney Flether or make a new one.
The Ramblers Association highlighted the missing link of Showrick’s Bridge during
the Alt Walks week, one of the social events of the Alt 2000 RVI, in May 1997
(Figure 7.7). The real progress was made when the Environment Agency funded a
new design and costing exercise for the bridge. A partnership between Sefton
Metropolitan Borough Council, Lancashire County Council, the Environment Agency
and the Countryside Commission assembled the funding package of £137,000 needed
185
Chapter One: Introduction
to replace the bridge. In December 1997, Sefton Borough Council joined Lancashire
County Council in approving funding for the bridge, which was set to be in place by
summer 1998 (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1998).
Figure 7.0.7 Publication Highlighting the Missing Link of Showrick’sBridge
To come later
Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (1998: p1)
Note: Members of the Ramblers Association walk down to both side of the riverbanks
in order to get publicity addressing the missing footpath link.
The site of Showricks Bridge is located close to Maghull on the administrative border
between Sefton Borough Council and Lancashire County Council. The location
between two authorities was a major delaying the Showrick’s Bridge project for over
10 years. It was only in the final two years that real progress was made, largely
because of the intervention of the Alt 2000 RVI. This case study explores the
approach of the Alt 2000 RVI in facilitating the Showrick’s Bridge project.
DELIVERING SERVICES: FACILITATION
The Alt 2000 Access Group, one of sub-committees of the Alt 2000 Steering Group,
played a highly significant role in facilitating the Showrick’s Bridge project. At the
time of the project, the Access Sub-group included representatives of the Mersey
Basin Trust, Knowsley MBC, Sefton MBC, Lancashire County Council, the
Environment Agency, and Ramblers Association as active players. The key element,
which helped to facilitate the Showrick’s Bridge project, was Alt 2000’s collaborative
arena that allowed open discussion toward extensive consensus building between all
those players.
Firstly, the collaborative nature of Alt 2000 enabled the voice of voluntary groups to
be heard by governmental authorities. The Showrick’s Bridge project was a longstanding issue of the Ramblers Association even before Alt 2000 got involved.
Rodney Flether, the representative of Ramblers Association at the Alt 2000 Access
186
Chapter One: Introduction
Group, reported that, as a voluntary group, it was generally difficult to get the
message across to the authorities, but being in Alt 2000 put his organisation on the
same footing as other sectors in the Access Group:
“Alt 2000 has already got the other organisations. I couldn’t call the
meeting for the Showrick’s Bridge, but it [Alt 2000] could. So, Alt
2000 called the meeting, and I could go and make my point. … Without
a body like Alt 2000, I could have made my point to the local authority
but it would have taken longer and would have been less likely to be
accepted. These things do take time, but this facilitation saved time
because I had access to these people.”
Secondly, the collaborative discussion at the Alt 2000 Access Group extended the
issues of the Showrick’s Bridge to a wider group of stakeholders. Speaking from her
experience as a chairperson of the Alt 2000 Access Group at the time of the
Showrick’s Bridge project, Gwen White pointed out that:
“the problem of the Showrick’s Bridge was the cost. … They [Sefton
and Lancashire Councils] couldn’t possibly put it on top of their list of
priorities. It has been realised that it’s not just a Sefton and a
Lancashire problem, so we need to open it up. That’s what we did. …
Because it was in the agenda [of the Access Group], people knew the
Showrick’s Bridge was there to be tackled. The breakthrough was
somebody from the Environment Agency saying ‘we have a bit of
money, can we spend it on the Showrick’s Bridge?’ The Environment
Agency paid their consulting engineer to do some design and costing.”
Although the actual conflict of the project lay between Sefton Metropolitan Borough
Council and Lancashire County Council, it would be a mistake to dismiss this case as
being about a simple two-party negotiation. While the representatives of the two local
authorities could not stand each other, the intervention from the third party exerted
pressure on the two local authorities to promote the Showrick’s Bridge project. Her
point makes clear that a comprehensive consensus building by Alt 2000, where
communication and trust are strong, brought in the resources and efforts from all the
member organisations.
187
Chapter One: Introduction
After the involvement of the Environment Agency in initial design and costing, Alt
2000 invited all interest groups to a meeting for the Showrick’s Bridge project on the
4th December 1996 at Maghull Town Council. The meeting was attended by
representatives of the Alt 2000, Sefton MBC, Lancashire CC, the Ramblers
Association, Environment Agency, Mersey Basin Trust, Maghull Town Council and
Mersey Waste Disposal Authority. As Rodney Fletcher reported, this particular
meeting was intended to open up the communication channels among conflicting
stakeholders:
“Over the years, Sefton has always said that Lancashire won’t pay
their part. …But in the [Maghull] Town Hall meeting, the Bridge
Master from Lancashire said ‘you can have the bridge tomorrow if
Sefton pays their part’. … So, I said [in the meeting] if you [Sefton]
don’t put it back in, we would take you to the Court under the Section
56 of the Highways Act. The person from Sefton went back to his office
and estimated how much it would cost if we go to the court and how
much it would cost if we put the bridge in. It turned out to be cheaper
to put the bridge in than to go to the court. So, we’ve got the bridge.”
Rodney Fletcher referred to a bargaining process of the facilitation. The Section 56 of
the Highways Act (Cross and Sauvain, 1981), Proceedings for an Order to Repair
Highway has been a bargaining tool in resolving conflict caused by bureaucratic
planning practice. Gwen White reported that this facilitation has been implemented
collaboratively than adversely:
“The other elements in this [the Showrick’s Bridge project] was
actually Sefton was legally bound to replace the bridge. There was an
obligation according to the Highways Act to replace the bridge legally.
Politically in Sefton it was difficult for them to justify spending this
money on this bridge because of the tight budget. … The engineers in
Sefton actually asked us [Alt 2000] to ask the Ramblers Association to
threaten them with high court action as the way of unblocking the
political will to do this, because the Ramblers Association was also a
member of Alt 2000. So, the chair of the local branch [of the Ramblers
Association] wrote to Sefton saying they would take legal action. That
was a kind of face-saver for the local authority. Because the bridge
188
Chapter One: Introduction
wasn’t on the top of the list, the threat from the third party, the legal
action, was what they needed. … Up to then, everybody had known
that the Ramblers could do that, but nobody wanted to push that far.
So nothing had been done for years and years. … But, it wouldn’t have
happened without Alt 2000.”
This demonstrates a good example of collaborative facilitation enhancing preception
and understanding, resolving conflicts and remaining open to counterarguments. The
most important lesson that can be learnt from this case is that an ‘informal’ way of
collaborative actions can be more effective than a ‘formal’ way to solve conflicts that
caused by the bureaucratic practice of planning. However, this collaborative
facilitation can be implemented where there is a conprehensive consensus building
process that promotes ownership and wider vision of the partnership. As is shown in
this case, the representatives, in particular, of Sefton did not only represent the
interests of Sefton but worked for a much wider vision of the partnership. The role of
Alt 2000 was important to open up the issues initially and solve conflicts before it
caused more serious problems.
In terms of meeting structure and management for better collaborative facilitation,
Gwen White added:
“It does help saying I am from the Mersey Basin Campaign because
it’s large and it’s mutual. People respond to such a body. If one of the
partners did the same thing, I don’t think they would get the same
response. … Alt 2000 does the same thing once it is established. … [In
this context] I think it is important to have a chair [at the working
group] who aren’t threatening and doesn’t have particular baggage.”
Because facilitation processes are usually operating under conditions of conflict, the
role of facilitators is important. Facilitators should be able to bring experience and
ability to the task at hand and seek to protect the impartiality and credibility of the
processes in the eyes of all parties (Elliott, 1999).
189
Chapter One: Introduction
7.3.3 Summary of Facilitation
The two case studies show clearly that facilitation is not just a negotiation process
between conflicting bodies. As it can be seen in the Showrick’s Bridge case, when
there is a well-established collaborative culture in the working group, facilitation can
be mostly implemented as a part of a comprehensive consensus building process. This
is because an accomplished consensus building process can: 1) build better
communication and understanding among participants; 2) open up the discussion and
bring resources from all members who participate; and 3) unlock opportunities to
resolve potential conflicts that are unlikely to be resolved in a traditional approach of
planning. When there is a poorly developed consensus building or facilitation runs
without the basis of consensus building at the working group, it is important for
facilitators to identify existing networks in relation to the project initially. Meeting
management skills of facilitators may also be useful to increase participants’
motivation and commitment in practice.
7.4 Open Participation in Practice
The two case studies that are examined for open participation are the Mersey Basin
Weekends for inviting members of the Campaign, and the Kingfisher and
Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys for inviting members of the general public. The
Weekends are recognised as a well-established annual event for voluntary action in
the region since 1992 whilst there have been only three Kingfisher Survey since 1988
due to a lack of resources.
7.4.1 The Mersey Basin Weekends
The case study of the Mersey Basin Weekends is to investigate an open participation
process in organising events for members of the Campaign, in particular, from
voluntary groups. With regard to the Weekends, seven semi-structured interviews
have been undertaken, and four events of the 1999 and 2000 Weekends have been
observed (Appendix 1).
190
Chapter One: Introduction
BACKGROUND TO THE MERSEY BASIN WEEKENDS
The Mersey Basin Weekend is an annual event undertaking practical action to
improve and raise awareness about local watercourses in the Mersey Basin. These
involve the Mersey Basin Trust members, other Campaign partners, voluntary groups
and general public in the Mersey Basin. The Weekend was launched in 1992
celebrating five years of voluntary environmental action of the Trust. The Weekend
has been held annually in the first weekend of October focusing on voluntary
waterside projects such as river and stream clean-ups, environmental works, guided
walks, water sports and educational events. The aim of the Weekends is eventually to
deliver the Campaign’s activity at the local level, but also to generate high level of
publicity and awareness of local issues and the Campaign itself.
The number of events are variable in each year, however, over 100 events have been
organised every year (Table 7.4). Considering most events of the Weekends are
organised by the member of the Trust, who are mostly environmental voluntary
groups, more than half of total events are, not surprisingly, related to clean-ups and
other environmental works. To support the Weekend projects, the Trust arranges
project grants, usually 100 pounds per selected project, coming from members of
Business Foundation and Stream Care. The result of the Weekend is reported to the
Annual General Meeting of the Trust, which is held on the weekend after the Mersey
Basin Weekend.
Table 7.0.4 Number of Events in the Mersey Basin Campaign 1997-1999
Unit: Number of events (% of events)
Type of Event
1997
Clean up
31 (28.7%)
Other Environmental Work
27 (25%)
Guided Walk
12 (11.1%)
Educational Event
7 (6.5%)
Water Sports
4 (3.7%)
Other
27 (25 %)
Total
108
Source: Adapted from (Bates, 1999)
1998
27 (25.2%)
33 (30.8%)
7 (6.6%)
17 (15.9%)
8 (7.5%)
15 (14%)
107
1999
35 (29.4%)
26 (21.8%)
14 (11.8%)
19 (16%)
9 (7.5%)
16 (13.5%)
119
191
Chapter One: Introduction
DELIVERING SERVICES: OPEN PARTICIPATION
The Weekends are more likely to be organised by voluntary groups themselves. Ann
Bates, the 1999 Weekend organiser, pointed out that:
“the Weekend has been organised by posting information on and
registration form of the Weekend to the Trust members based on the
database [of previous year participants]. Then, individual member
organisations decided what they will do for the Weekend and sent back
their registration form. This is a kind of self-organised event and
depends on an each year organiser.”
Her point echoes three aspects in organising the Weekend. First, the Weekend is
rather targeting existing supporters than developing the involvement of new ones.
Because of the way of organising the Weekends, there is limitation involving general
public or voluntary groups that are not members of the Trust. Second, the organiser
has a sole responsibility in the entire process and contributes to the success of the
Weekend. However, the Weekends have been organised by the temporary part-time
staff employed in between June and October. Ann Bates also reported that unskilled
and discontinuous personnel might cause missing data and files of previous year
events. Third, the Weekend is “a kind of self-organised event”. The Weekends are
widely recognisable events among voluntary groups in the Campaign area, so that
local community groups participate voluntarily to the Weekend events. Then, what
does make the voluntary group get involved readily in the Weekends?
This research identified 32 organisations that participated continuously in the
Weekends for three years between 1997 and 199937 (Table 7.5). Examining those 32
organisations, three similarities among them may be found. Firstly, all 32
organisations have a strong network with the Campaign, especially, through the Trust
and RVIs. Without a doubt, key partners of the Campaign and ranger services are
closely involved in the Campaign’s activities. Secondly, not only the key partners and
ranger services, but also 11 voluntary groups have been recognised as wellestablished organisations in the area. Most of 11 voluntary groups have organised
their own projects for the Weekend instead of taking a part in a project organised by
37
The 1996 Campaign Weekend data was not available, and the actual case study activities for this
research were completed in the early 2000 before the 2000 Weekend was organised.
192
Chapter One: Introduction
bigger organisations. Finally, the grant of the Weekend is a small amount, but a very
attractive hook for voluntary groups, as Tony Jones pointed out.
Table 7.0.5 Successive Participation in the Mersey Basin Weekends, 1997-1999
Type of Organisation
Number of
Supporting Funding
Organisation
Received*
Not Received
Voluntary Group
11
8
3
School
2
1
1
Key Partners of the Campaign
9
4
5
Ranger Service
8
4
4
Other
2
1
1
Total
32
18
14
* Number of participants who received the Weekend support funding in any year
Source: Author, Modified from Appendix 2: Activities and Participants of the Mersey
Basin Weekends 1997-1999.
Specking from a voluntary group point of view, Colin Greenall, Committee Member
of the Sankey Canal Restoration Society that is one of the eleven voluntary groups,
reported:
“The [Sankey Canal Restoration] Society has a quite close
relationship with the Groundwork St. Helens and Sankey Now [RVI].
We are member of Sankey Now [Steering Group], and when Gill
Maltby was a Sankey Now Co-ordinator, she used to attend the
committee meeting of the Society. … We do what we do, but if we do
our work on the Campaign’s Weekend day we can get a grant for what
we are doing anyway. So that is good.”
As another reason for the voluntary group to get involved in the Weekend, John
Foley, Waterway Recovery Group, reported that:
“Community organisations are usually trying to get involved in bigger
organisations or bigger events, for example, the Mersey Basin
Weekend. … Yes, a grant is one thing, but small community
organisations are always trying to be a part of something big. They
feel more comfortable in that way.”
Colin Greenall’s comment confirms that a close network with the Campaign and a
grant opportunity have promoted the involvement to the Weekend. His point,
193
Chapter One: Introduction
however, brought up another argument in organising open participation events.
Although the events in the Weekends facilitate the practical improvement works in
the Mersey Basin, the Weekend activities are, however, what the participating
organisations are normally doing as their routine procedures. Therefore, the activity in
the Weekend would not be seen as extra efforts to the voluntary action in the Mersey
Basin.
Responding this point, Gwen White, former Community Officer of the Mersey Basin
Trust, and Caroline Downey, Director of the Mersey Basin Trust, emphasised that the
Weekend was originally allocated in the publicity and marketing side of the
Campaign. In terms of amount of community work, there is no difference whether
voluntary groups carry out their work on the Weekend date or one day after.
Nonetheless, the result of the Weekend is important for the Trust because it provides
statistic evidence of community action of the Campaign. Considering there is no
obvious tool to measure the outcome from voluntary action, the result of the Weekend
is apparent to the Campaign and other supporting partners, especially to the DETR,
that the community group is a part of and working with the Campaign.
In order to make community groups to organise their work on the Weekend as an
annual basis, Caroline Downey reported that:
“They [community groups] may organise their work before or after the
Weekend, if they didn’t know when the Weekend is. So, it is important
to set an absolute date of the Weekend such as every first weekend of
October so that every community group knows exactly when the
Weekend will be organise. It would be helpful to put the Weekend event
on their annual schedule, not week after or week before.”
A common argument on open participation is that it is difficult to control all activities
that are organised by individual participants. For example, there are many tree
planting and habitat management events throughout the Weekends, but individual
participants may not have obvious guidelines or expert advices on which tree species
and which area is suitable for tree planting. Therefore, it can give rather negative
impact on local flora or local wildlife habitat. In order to avoid this, the community
group, who is involved in the Weekends, has been advised to contact their local RVI
or Community Officer, when the community group needs an expertise advice on their
194
Chapter One: Introduction
project. Caroline Downey added that one of requirement for the group who awarded a
Weekend grant is to contact a local expertise group such as Mersey Forest, Ranger
Services, Andrew Pond Life and Wildlife Trust. This advising procedure may be also
a good opportunity for those community groups to broaden their local networking.
The Trust encourages networking among the Weekend participants by organising
joint projects between participating organisations, which propose a similar kind of
work in a same area. This enables the voluntary group to observe and learn from other
groups operating similar practice. Furthermore, when the participating organisation is
willing to make further networking with other groups, the Trust organises initial
contact as a facilitator and offers a limited amount of expenditure such as travelling
costs.
The Mersey Basin Weekends have been recognised as well-established and successful
events by the Campaign (Bates, 1999; Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000c; and Mersey
Basin Trust, 2000). Many interviewees worried that employing different temporary
part-time staff for the Weekend organiser each year might endanger satisfactory
outcomes of the Weekend. This is because: 1) the temporary organiser may not be
well qualified to work on organising a regional event; 2) changing personnel may
cause difficulties in accumulating expertise and experience in organising the
Weekends; and 3) the changing of organisers may lose connections with participants
from previous year considering the personal networking is essential, in particular,
related to voluntary activities. Caroline Downey suggested that employing a
secondary community officer for the Trust, who can concentrate on events including
the Weekends, would be ideal.
Another common issue raised among the interviewees including Ann Bates is that the
database of the Campaign that has been used for posting the initial invitation letters of
the Weekend is not reliable. John Foley in Waterway Recovery Group reported that:
“We have received the same marital twice regarding to the Mersey
Basin Weekend this year [1999]. It has been posted to us in two
slightly different addresses. These things don’t give a good impression
to us and anybody in other organisations.”
195
Chapter One: Introduction
The aspect of updating database and streamlining the archive management system in
the Campaign is not a new issue, and there is no need to emphasis more about
streamlining the database of the Campaign.
Although the Weekends are advertised in the Campaigner, newsletter of the
Campaign, the initial invitation letter is the main marketing tool in organising the
Weekends. Therefore, the Weekends are organised for and by members of the
Campaign, and it has limitations in extending its scope to general public. Involving
the general public to the Weekends may: 1) extend wider involvements in open
participation for the Campaign; 2) create valuable opportunities in terms of education
and awareness for local residents in the area; and 3) offer opportunities for voluntary
groups to get new supporters for their groups. Caroline Downey suggested that flyer
posters advertising the Weekends through ranger service could be useful in terms of
involving new community groups and members of general public.
Involving a wider range of interest groups is essential for effective open participation.
Additionally, evaluating outcomes of open participation is fundamental for the
partnership. The evaluations of the Weekend within the Campaign Centre have not
adequately taken into account, as it concerns less about long-term and secondary
effects of voluntary actions. The number of events organised during the Weekends is
notably important for the Campaign’s accountability reason. Peter Wilson, the DETR,
reported that the Campaign has to prove the certainty of achievements to the DETR in
order to justify their future funding from the government. While the numbers and
statistics of voluntary action are the requirements of the central government, the
numbers of the Weekend events cannot be ignored. However, the outcomes of the
Weekends can also fulfil numerous other purposes. A good example of wider effects
of voluntary action can be seen from the author’s experience involving in a Weekend
event with the Sankey Canal Restoration Society in 1999:
The Sankey Canal Restoration Society is a voluntary group carrying
out physical works to restore and repair the filled or dry docks of the
Sankey Canal. As a part of the 1999 Mersey Basin Weekend, they did a
restoration work at Penkford Bridge and Newton Common Lock of the
Canal. Their work brought great interests from local residents. One of
local residents mentioned that she was curious about what those
strangers were doing in her neighbourhood, but she was delighted to
196
Chapter One: Introduction
know this neglected area was actually a part of the canal. When the
members of the Society were straggling to remove a large block of
solid asphalt concrete that was dumped after the road surface work,
another local resident approached to the site and offered help. He said
he works with an industrial crane, so he could come back next day and
remove the asphalt block by himself. And he did.
The amount of physical improvement works of voluntary group may not be
significant. However, as this story echoes, the impact of the voluntary group action on
the local neighbourhood is massive. Simply, those educational and awareness effects
toward local stewardship cannot be achieved by governmental bodies.
The Weekends are good marketing tools, but it has limitations in empowering the
community that is a primary goal of community participation. Because of the way
organising the Weekends, it is difficult to get ‘hard-to-reach’ community groups
involved. Caroline Downey reported that the Weekends, as big community events of
the Campaign, also played a role in making a connection with between ‘hard-toreach’ groups. There was a Weekend event inviting an ethnic minority group, the Wai
Yin Chinese Women Society in Manchester, as a part of the 2000 Weekend. For more
effective management for the Weekend events, Caroline Downey suggested a way to
promote the feeling that the Campaign values the community actions:
“Every staff in the Campaign needs to go and visit the Weekend sites.
Just wearing the Campaign T-shirt on will be enough to show the
Campaign’s interests to them. … In that way, the local community
groups who participate in the Weekend events may feel that the
Campaign is taking care of what they are doing. And they will come
back next year.”
The Campaign used to organise a social event for the Weekend participants on a night
of the Weekend. The social event has been cancelled since the 1998 Weekend due to
the lack of resources. However, it was a good opportunity of acknowledging the
participants’ efforts, delivering education and awareness programmes to the local
community, and enhancing networks between the Campaign partners and local
voluntary groups.
197
Chapter One: Introduction
7.4.2 Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys
The case study of Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys is to explore a
process of open participation in inviting general public to get involved in survey for
numbers and distributions of wildlife species in the region. To carry out this case
study, three semi-structured interviews have been undertaken (Appendix 1).
BACKGROUND TO THE KINGFISHER AND DRAGONFLY/DAMSELFLY
SURVEYS
In May 1988, the Mersey Basin Trust and Lancashire Wildlife Trust undertook a
survey for a number and distribution of kingfishers. After this pilot scheme in 1988,
the Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys (Kingfisher Survey below) had been
re-launched in 1995 as a Campaign’s 10th anniversary year event (Hind, 1995).
Because of satisfactory result in the 1995 survey, the Mersey Basin Trust decided to
establish this survey as a regular event in three-year interval. Between 1st May and
30th September, the Mersey Basin Trust with support from the private sector sponsors
of the Campaign asks members of the public to report any sightings of the kingfisher
and dragonfly/damselfly in the Basin area. The survey took place on all watercourses
in Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Lancashire and High Peak area
of Derbyshire (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1999). The survey information and
questionnaire had been distributed to libraries, tourism information centres and
schools, and the Trust members in the area.
One of the aims of the surveys is to establish base-line information of numbers and
distribution of the wildlife species in the Mersey Basin (Table 7.6). However, the
primary aim is to raise awareness of the existence of wildlife, which relies on clean
water within the Basin, so as to highlight the achievements of the Campaign and to
encourage local people to perceive their watercourses in a positive light. The survey
may also bring educational opportunities to wider audience. The aims of the 1998
survey are:

to compare to the results with other surveys carried out in 1988 and 1995 and
assess any improvement;
198
Chapter One: Introduction

to raise awareness of the importance of the clean water for wildlife within the
Mersey Basin; this would also encourage local people to value their watercourses
for the benefit and enjoyment they can get through involvement in local projects;
and

to highlight the achievements of the Mersey Basin Campaign and its key partners
(Dawson and Eagles, 1999).
Table 7.0.6 Summary of the Kingfisher Survey Results
Unit: Number of sightings (%: Comparison with previous survey)
Wildlife Species
Period
1988
1995
1998
May
176
184 (+8%)
188 (+2.1%)
May-Sep.
-
704
905 (+28.5%)
May-Sep.
-
3,990
3,628 (-9.1%)
Kingfishers
Dragonflies/Damselflies
Source: Adapted from Dawson and Eagles (1999), Mersey Basin Campaign (1999)
and Hind (1995)
Note: The 1988 survey was undertaken on the only subject of numbers of kingfishers
for a month period in May.
DELIVERING SERVICES: OPEN PARTICIPATION
The rationale behind the survey is that the presence of kingfishers and dragonflies/
damselflies depends on high quality water to be able to survive. However, the survey
does not show scientific results. Firstly, number of sightings depends on population
density of the area. For example, the 1998 survey indicated that numbers of kingfisher
and dragonfly/damselfly sightings were significantly high in urban areas of
Manchester where have generally been known as poor water quality areas. On the
other hand, High Peach, where is generally known as a good water quality area but
relatively rural area, had lower number of sightings. Secondly, different habitat
requirements of two species (kingfishers and dragonflies) generated sceptical results
in numbers of sights in a particular area. For instant, Table 7.7 shows that
Macclesfield and High Peak have a similar number of kingfisher sightings, but
dragonfly/damselfly has been seen 150 sightings more in Macclesfield than High
199
Chapter One: Introduction
Peak. Vice versa, Wigan and Bolton have significantly different numbers of
kingfisher sightings although they are similar in number of dragonfly/damselfly
sightings.
Table 7.7 Comparison in Numbers of Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly
Sightings in the 1998 Survey
Area
Number of Kingfishers
Macclesfield
42
High Peak
49
Bolton
115
Wigan
22
Source: Adapted from Dawson and Eagles (1999: p6)
Unit: sightings
Numbers of Dragonflies
236
82
208
271
Although the surveys are not totally based on scientific methods, the survey shows
some evidence of the relationship between water quality and wildlife sightings. One
example can be found in Trafford and Salford where possess high population density
as parts of Manchester metropolitan. The survey indicates lower numbers of sightings
in both species due to polluted water in the Manchester Ship Canal that passes
through the area. However, Lucie Eagles, one of authors of the 1998 survey report,
emphasises that the primary aim of the survey is for public awareness and publicity
than the scientific results on water quality:
“It’s difficult to carry out a highly scientific study because some areas
have a higher population density and therefore have more potential
spotters. … [But] a considerable number of scientific surveys [on
water quality] are done by the Environment Agency, and there are so
many scientific data that we can use. So the survey didn’t need to be
scientific. … It [the survey] aims for public awareness not scientific
results.”
The interviewees reported that the selection of the wildlife species for the survey was
important in order to meet two major aims of the survey: distribution of wildlife in
relation to water quality in the Mersey Basin; and public awareness on watercourse
environments. The kingfisher and dragonfly/damselfly have been chosen as survey
species because 1) they are indications of clean water; and 2) their looks attract
people’s attention. Obvious benefits having attractive wildlife species as a survey
200
Chapter One: Introduction
target are a considerable number of responses and publicity opportunities after the
survey completed.
There were over 1300 responses in 1998, and every year the participants have been
increasing (Dawson and Eagles, 1999). Furthermore, there were over 20 articles
published on local newspapers in relation to the Kingfisher Survey in 199838. It was
significant amount of publication from single survey project undertaken with limited
resources, as Tony Jones, former Executive Director of the Mersey Basin Trust,
reported. An amount of publicity that the surveys could generate is also important in
terms of involving businesses into the surveys. In carrying out the surveys, the Trust
needed resources from businesses in order to cover the costs of printing materials and
postages. A good publicity could not only secure involvement from businesses, but
also provide an opportunity to highlight the achievement of the Campaign. Publicity
of the Campaign’s achievements would encourage the feelings of achievement among
partners of the Campaign, that is a fundamental element for comprehensive consensus
building, as discussed in Section 7.2.
Selecting appropriate wildlife species for the survey might act as an essential element
to meet the three goals of the surveys. Additionally, the comprehensive networking of
the Campaign was also a critical element in carrying out the surveys. Networking has
performed in three different ways. Firstly, private sector networks within the
Campaign could enhance credibility in getting businesses involved. The Trust needed
to approach to bigger businesses contributing a large amount of costing. Most
businesses, which offered sponsorship to the surveys, have already been involved in
the Campaign and regarded as key players of the Campaign. Secondly, the Trust was
able to get professional advice and practical information through the Campaign’s
network in producing survey martial; e.g. information pack, questionnaire and final
report. For example, the survey information pack instructing how to identify different
species of dragonflies and damselflies has been produced with help from the Insect
Line, British Dragonfly Society and Cheshire Wildlife Trust. Furthermore, high
quality photographs for the final report have been brought from the RSPB and English
Nature. Thirdly, the distribution of survey questionnaires had also been through the
Campaign’s network. Although the surveys are targeting general members of the
201
Chapter One: Introduction
public, members of the Trust including schools have been actively involved in the
surveys because they are already interested in environmental and educational issues.
From the experience of the Mersey Basin Weekends, it is clear that events for open
participation need to be organised in regular basis so as to secure continuous
involvement. Tony Jones argued that lack of resources has been an impediment in
undertaking the surveys. Although the Trust managed to get resources from private
sector partners in terms of producing material, they had to recruit student placements
for the survey co-ordinators. He also reported that lack of resources forced the surveys
in irregular basis until 1995 and it became an event in three-year interval afterwards;
not as an annual event. Lucie Eagles reported that the database of the1995 survey
containing names and addresses of participants has been lost. Consequently, the
survey organiser was not able to contact to previous survey participants in order to
encourage them to participate in the following1998 survey. Again, this emphasises the
need of effective archive management practice within the Campaign.
Considering an educational purpose is a most popular reason of involving open
participation events, the Trust emphasised the surveys as an educational package. The
information pack has been circulated for providing a sample method of identifying
precise species of dragonfly/damselfly. However, it also has potential to encourage
teachers to use the information pack as a teaching tool.
It is clear that the surveys need to be designed for both surveying and educational
purposes in order to maximise its outcome. In this context, the survey result reports
are also needed to consider an educational function as the Trust sent out the survey
reports to survey participants after the completion of the surveys. This may generate a
positive feeling among participants that the Campaign values their efforts in carrying
out the surveys, and it may encourage individuals to develop their partisanship and
commitment to the future Campaign’s activities. Providing a feedback to participants
can develop an informing level of participation, as it described in the ‘ladder of
citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969)’, and this is a potential step for higher levels of
participation in future.
38
These include: Daily Post (1998); Reporter South Manchester (1999); Stockport Times (1999);
Howie (1999); Freethy (1999); Ellesmere Port Standard (1999); Going for Green (1999); Hartley
(1999); and Hegarty (1999).
202
Chapter One: Introduction
7.4.3 Summary of Open Participation
For the organising body, open participation can not only bring wider involvement but
also be a good marketing tool for the partnership. It is now clear that open
participation can generate a great deal of publicity and provide evidence of wider
support from various sectors. This may ensure the credibility of the organisation to
both member partners and general public. A stronger networking and funding
opportunity have been identified as the reasons for informal members to get involved
in the open participation events. In addition, an educational purpose is the main hook
for general public.
7.5 Conclusion
This chapter explored six detailed case studies to investigate service delivery
operation of the Campaign according to the three aspects of collaborative
partnerships: consensus building; facilitation; and open participation. By exploring
specific cases of Campaign activities through the views of practitioners, this chapter
showed how collaborative efforts can be delivered in a real-life context and judged
the applicability of theory and principles to the practice of planning. Generally
speaking, the Campaign is in consistent with the principles of collaborative planning.
However, particular political circumstances of the Campaign forced the Campaign to
develop alternative ways to deliver collaborative efforts than those presented in
theories; for example, consensus building process in the Council.
It is now clear that the three aspects of collaborative partnerships cannot be isolated.
This research shows that having a shared ownership of the partnership between
member representatives is fundamental for effective consensus building. Once
participating member representatives have feelings of achievement, their stimulated
ownership of the partnership may act as a catalyst to motivate action from their parent
organisations. Two case studies on facilitation show that effective facilitation must be
in the basis of the comprehensive consensus building. A comprehensive networking
between member partners is essential for open participation. The ownership among
participants may be stimulated when they possess feelings of achievement. Therefore,
small-scale projects run by the voluntary group, which can be easily organised with
little efforts and funds, may provide a considerable impact on developing ownership
203
Chapter One: Introduction
of the partnership. This is especially true at the beginning of partnership
establishment.
204
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
Chapter Eight:
Conclusions
205
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
8.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out the final conclusions for the whole thesis. Firstly, this chapter
begins by summarising the structure of investigation of theoretical frameworks and
case studies that had been carried out. Secondly, the chapter discusses the lessons
learnt from this research and provides an evaluation of the research presented in the
thesis. Finally, this chapter discusses future research possibilities in the wider
spectrum of collaborative planning and presents a research agenda in relation to a
collaborative approach to integrated waterside revitalisation.
8.2 Research Summary
The central aim of this thesis was to investigate how collaborative efforts can be made
in a real-life practice, especially for integrated waterside revitalisation. Much prior
research in the field of collaborative planning has focused on the processes of conflict
resolution and consensus building in approaching this question. Nevertheless, there
has been little effort to understand the notion of collaborative practice dealing with
the issues of sustainability. The remained question was how diverse members of
society and the planners hoping to achieve sustainability principles can act more
effectively together in the face of political inequality. This thesis focused on the
practice of waterside revitalisation. This was an attempt to promote more focused
efforts rather than to cover wider-ranging planning practice, as a certain geographical
boundary, such as a river basin, helped focus on particular issues and emphasised on
area-based targets.
This thesis had two distinct parts. In the first part of this thesis, Chapters 1,2,3 and 4
were intended to conceptualise collaborative partnership approaches drawing on
theories of governance, collaborative planning, partnership, and integrated watershed
management. Chapters 5, 6 and 7, the second part, aimed at investigating how the
collaborative partnership approach has fared in a concrete example of waterside
revitalisation and to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life
context.
Chapter 1 set out the background and context of the research, along with the
development of the topic within an appropriate methodological framework. The
206
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
chapter developed the main aim of the research to fill the gaps that are identified
through observations and reviews of theory and practice in the field of collaborative
planning. The overall structure of the thesis was also introduced in the chapter.
In Chapter 2, the theories of governance were applied to the practice of waterside
revitalisation. This chapter attempted to conceptualise governance in terms of: the
three characteristics (dynamic, complexity and diversity); the four types of planning
style (the bureaucratic model, the political influence model, the ideological model and
the collaborative model); and the three modes of governance (hierarchies, markets and
networks). This research illustrated the periodical review of governance in the UK in
relation to types of planning style and the modes of governance. Based on the concept
of the ecosystem approach, this research developed the nine principles for integrated
waterside revitalisation. Drawn on these discussions, the chapter emphasised the need
for collaborative planning in order to implement integrated waterside management.
Chapter 3 explored the concept of collaborative planning both in theory and in
practice. By evaluating advantages and limitations of the collaborative planning
theory, this research found that partnerships are desirable instruments for
implementation of collaborative planning in a real-life context. With an assumption
that partnerships are effective responses to the range of complex issues and problems
associated with water management and development, the notion of partnerships was
explored in this chapter. This included its definition, the political background of the
apparent, typology, and the life cycle.
Building on earlier chapters, in Chapter 4 a theoretical framework was developed for
the case studies. Even if partnership is the correct instrument for integrated waterside
management, it is impracticable to think that all partnership arrangements function in
the same way. Therefore, this research provided principles and guidelines for
implementation of collaborative partnerships performing effective integrated
waterside revitalisation. These were according to the four stages of a partnership life
cycle: pre-partnership collaboration; partnership creation and consolidation;
partnership programme delivery; and partnership termination and succession.
Chapter 5 introduced the case study, the Mersey Basin Campaign. This chapter
examined the research methodologies applied to the case studies: literature review,
interviewing, observation and participation (taking part in practical projects). The
207
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
chapter also set out the reasons for choosing the case study, including the choice of
six individual case studies within the Campaign activities. The chapter provided a
background to the case study, including the objectives, institutional structure, and
scope of activities.
Chapter 6 investigated institutional arrangements of a particular collaborative
partnership, the Mersey Basin Campaign by applying the theoretical framework that
developed in Chapter 4. This chapter aimed at investigating how the theory and
principles of institutional arrangements for the collaborative partnership have fared in
the experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign. This research identified good practice
and limitations in the experience of the Campaign, and drew lessons that can be
applied and disseminated more widely. This involved an investigation on the
establishment and operation of a particular collaborative partnership at each of the
four stages in its life cycles.
Chapter 7 dealt with more specific cases of delivering partnership services. It is clear
that dialogue in the collaborative arena leading to comprehensive understandings is a
fundamental element in delivering the partnership service. Focusing on the
partnership service delivery of the Campaign, this chapter explored the three aspects
of the collaborative partnership within Campaign activities: consensus building;
facilitation; and open participation. By exploring six cases of collaborative practice
through the views of practitioners, the chapter showed how collaborative efforts can
be made in a real-life context, and judged the applicability of theory and principles to
the practice of planning.
8.3. Research Findings and Evaluation of the Research
The central aim of this thesis is to investigate how a collaborative partnership
approach as presented in contemporary planning theories can be applied to, and
improve, a process of integrated waterside revitalisation in the practice of planning. It
can be argued that this aim has been achieved in a great extent. In particular, this
research demonstrated a mechanism of delivering collaborative efforts in a real-life
context, which might have general applicability. This section evaluates research
findings of this thesis at each of the four research objectives that were presented in
208
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
Chapter 1. Bearing in mind this central question, this research developed four research
objectives that needed to be investigated. These are:
1. to examine how a process of integrated waterside revitalisation may be
conceptualised as a collaborative partnership approach, with particular reference
to theories of governance, collaborative planning, partnership, and integrated
watershed management (Conceptualisation: Chapters 2, 3 and 4);
2. to investigate how the theory and general principles of the collaborative
partnership approach have fared in a concrete example of waterside revitalisation;
focused on institutional arrangements and implementation of a collaborative
partnership in a particular river basin (Real-life Context: Chapters 5, 6 and 7);
3. to develop guidelines to ensure that the particular practice of integrated waterside
revitalisation is consistent with the principles of a collaborative partnership
approach (Guidelines: Chapters 4, 6 and 7); and
4. at the same time, to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life
context (Applicability: Chapters 6 and 7).
8.3.1 Objective One: Conceptualisation
to examine how a process of integrated waterside revitalisation may be
conceptualised as a collaborative partnership approach, with
particular reference to theories of governance, collaborative planning,
partnership, and integrated watershed management
This research started by reviewing a comprehensive set of literature on governance,
collaborative planning, partnership and inter-organisational theories in order to
engage those theories to the practice of integrated waterside revitalisation. In this
research, collaborative planning has been conceptualised in relation to characteristics
of governance (diversity and interdependence) and the modes of governance (markets,
hierarchies and networks). Generally speaking, collaborative planning deals with both
diversity of players and interdependence between them (see Figure 2.2: From
Government towards Governance, in Section 2.3.2). This research also noted the
emphasis of the network mode of governance in defining the concept of collaborative
planning. However, it cannot be ignored that hierarchies and markets are also
209
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
important modes of governance for collaborative planning to enable organisations
operate in planning practice.
The research identified nine principles of waterside revitalisation based on the
ecosystem approach: cleanliness; conservation; connectivity; accessibility; usability;
diversity; affordability; attractiveness; and stewardship (see Figure 2.4: Ecosystem
and Principles for Waterside Revitalisation, in Section 2.4.1). This emphasised the
particular need for collaborative efforts in integrated waterside revitalisation. It
highlighted the fact that no single organisation can solve the problems of ecosystem
management unilaterally, even in the case of the least jurisdictionally complex
ecosystem. It was also pointed out that the institutional arrangements for integrated
waterside management must allow consideration of a wide range of alternatives to
solve observed problems, including those that may be outside of the specific
responsibilities of the planning bodies.
The need for collaborative planning has been emphasised over the last two decades.
The advantages of collaborative efforts are broadly summarised as follows:

A collaborative approach provides a structured framework for encouraging
pluralist inputs to policy-making;

A collaborative approach provides a mechanism for building consensus and more
especially for transforming interests;

A collaborative approach is flexible; and

A collaborative approach has the potential to generate more stable policy
outcomes.
On the other hand, there is wide spread acknowledgement that collaborative planning
theory has operational problems in translating to the practice of planning. These are:

The construction of a discourse arena: all-inclusive participation is not possible.

The dynamics of the process: real world politics is not about negotiation or
interactive network among equals, but interaction faced the political power.

The effectiveness of outcomes: the negotiation process consumes substantial
resources of time and energy in order to produce a ‘lowest common denominator’
policy.
210
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
By taking into account these criticisms of collaborative planning, this research
identified partnerships as one of many possible instruments that would be employed
in order to achieve policy goals though collaborative efforts. This is because:

Partnerships may produce additional assets, skills and powers through synergy. It
is expected that those added values from co-operation of resources and from joint
efforts of agencies may increase effectiveness or efficiency of policy outcomes.

Partnerships are arenas for bargaining, lobbying and negotiation about purpose
and objectives so that they may lead to quicker consensus building between
partner members than is possible through other forms of public organisation.

Partnerships are cost-effective compared to other possible means of achieving the
same goals, and can be a useful tool through which to gain access to the resources
and skills of other agencies.
In recognition of the point that partnerships emerge spontaneously from the need to
progress in the practice of planning, this research intended to develop a theoretical
framework for understanding partnerships. This research defined partnership in a
wider spectrum to indicate not only urban regeneration partnerships but also social
and environmental partnerships. To develop a more reliable framework for the
partnership approach, this research essentially focuses on modes of governance to
conceptualise the partnership approach (see Figure 3.2: A Concept of Partnership,
Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, in Section 3.3.2). As a simple explanation,
partnerships possess a combination of three modes of governance. However, this
research emphasised that networks – tend to be limited within a single organisation –
can be easily developed between different organisations within a partnership
boundary.
From the arguments of collaborative planning theory, this research developed an
institutional framework for the collaborative partnership approach in delivering
integrated waterside revitalisation. This started by reviewing advantages and
limitations of collaborative planning in engaging to issues of waterside revitalisation.
Identified advantages were:

Although the waterside issues are diverse and complex, the common purpose
between waterside stakeholders can be readily built; this is because the waterside
issues are related to sustainability.
211
Chapter Eight: Conclusions

A certain geographical boundary, such as a river basin, helps focus on particular
issues and emphasise on area-based targets.
Discussed limitations are:

Sustainability may not stress threat or scarcity of resource loss among waterside
stakeholders, this makes difficult to generate commitment from them.

Traditional compartmental approaches to environmental planning and
management in the UK may be another obstacle to collaboration.
A possible institutional arrangement for waterside revitalisation that developed in this
research covers each stage in the life cycle of partnership: pre-partnership
collaboration; partnership creation and consolidation; partnership programme
delivery; and partnership termination or succession. As a part of this theoretical
framework that applied to the case study, this research developed a mechanism
involving local communities in partnership activities (see Figure 4.2: Involving Local
Communities, Collaborative Partnerships at Local Level, in Section 4.3.2). It
emphasised communication (information and interaction) that might lead to local
stewardship, the beginning of community involvement. Focusing on the partnership
programme delivery stage, this research suggested three key aspects of collaborative
partnerships: consensus building, facilitation and open participation. In particularly,
this research developed a mechanism of collaborative partnership service delivery
based on the three key aspects. It was illustrated in Figure 4.4: A Mechanism of
Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery (Section 4.3.3). This institutional
framework, including the two mechanisms of involving local communities and
delivering collaborative partnership service, will be revisited in this chapter, Section
8.3.3.
8.3.2 Objective Two: Real-life Context
to investigate how the theory and general principles of the
collaborative partnership approach have fared in a concrete example
of waterside revitalisation; focused on institutional arrangements and
implementation of a collaborative partnership in a particular river
basin
212
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
The main research stream of collaborative planning is to seek a way of making
collaborative efforts in practice by adapting theories and principles of consensus
building, conflict resolution and participatory planning. However, a common
precondition of those theories is that stakeholders are willing to participate in the
collaborative planning process to secure their resources and interests. This research
investigated a working practice of collaborative partnership when there is no obvious
tension among stakeholders that generates motivations and commitments.
The sustainability objectives of the Mersey Basin Campaign are essential to tackle a
river basin ecosystem and create a win-win strategy for wider stakeholders. Although
the sustainability issue has been widely acknowledged in the Mersey Basin, it has not
been everybody’s priority. The situation may be different in other parts of the world.
For example, a sustainable development issue may be a life-threatening priority
among stakeholders in rural areas where the local economy is solely dependant on
eco-tourism or fishing industry. The Mersey Basin is a heavily urbanised area
containing the two conurbations of Merseyside and Greater Manchester. The
sustainability issue in the Mersey Basin in the 1980s, at the time when the Campaign
was established, was not a top priority of all key stakeholders in the region to put their
extra money, time and efforts to the partnership.
The Mersey Basin Campaign developed their objectives based on the concept of
sustainability covering wider issues together in economic, environmental and social
decision-making. Although the overarching objectives have helped prevent serious
conflicts between stakeholders, these could not secure strong stakeholder participation
and commitment from them. This research found that funding resources stimulated
collaboration in implementing tasks of regional regeneration. The role of the ERDF
that was allocated to the Campaign was significant in attracting stakeholders,
especially local authorities. Besides the funding resources, the Campaign offered
other hooks to attract stakeholders: regulatory agencies saw a wider consultation
opportunity; businesses saw the potential for promoting a positive image and better
public relations; and voluntary groups saw an opportunity to strengthen their voice.
Additionally, ‘big name’ partner organisations in the public and private sectors
provided an added credibility to attract smaller groups.
The funding opportunities and credibility of the Campaign might stimulate the
regional collaboration for integrated waterside management in the Mersey Basin.
213
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
However, it is evident that partner organisations seemed not to be interested in
implementing the tasks of the Campaign, once initial excitement of funding
availability had declined. Therefore, the Campaign needed to develop an
understanding of collaborative approach among stakeholders and change their
attitudes towards a collaborative form of planning practice.
The six detailed case studies (Chapter 7), especially the experience of the Mersey
Estuary Management Project, showed that the role of representatives linking their
parent organisations to the partnership is fundamental for effective service delivery.
This research found that having shared ownership of the partnership among
representatives is essential to the achievement of collaborative efforts, especially
when there is no obvious stake. This is because representatives with a sense of
ownership: 1) are more likely to have a comprehensive feedback process to their
parent organisations; 2) are generally prepared to seek resources for the partnership
from their parent organisations; and 3) tend to make their colleagues aware of the
partnership throughout internal networks within their parent organisations. In order to
achieve this, the research found that the well-managed consensus building process is
fundamental. Understanding and learning are essential to enable representatives to
value and contribute to a wider vision for the whole basin rather than a narrow view
of a single organisation. Feelings of achievement are identified as another factor to
stimulate ownership among representatives.
A particular aspect of the collaborative partnership approach in focusing on
institutional arrangements and implementation of a collaborative partnership is
explored in Section 8.3.3.
8.3.3 Objective Three: Guidelines
to develop guidelines to ensure that the particular practice of
integrated waterside revitalisation is consistent with the principles of a
collaborative partnership approach
By reviewing the literature and reflecting the results of the case studies, this thesis
developed guideline to achieve effective collaborative efforts in a partnership
delivering integrated waterside revitalisation. This guideline covers each stage in the
life cycle of partnership.
214
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
PRE-PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION
At this stage of establishment, a partnership needs to build common purpose and
identify key stakeholders in the area of interests. Generally speaking, building
common purpose in the field of waterside revitalisation needs to reflect the concept of
sustainable development. This is because a river basin needs an ecosystem approach
in targeting environmental, economic and social aspects and in meeting the nine
principles of waterside revitalisation (see Section 2.4.1). This research identified that
networks developed through pre-existing organisations were essential to establish a
new partnership in the area. This is because pre-existing networks may provide areabased knowledge, experience working within partnerships and useful contacts to key
stakeholders. Additionally, as a requirement of collaborative planning, key
stakeholders in the area need to be identified at this stage. A joint fact-finding process
– stakeholders and experts working together to collect and analyse information - has
been suggested at this stage to stimulate feelings of achievement and ownership from
an early stage.
PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION
A partnership, as an institution, needs to: 1) develop a decision-making structure; 2)
involve partner members; and 3) establish a set of objectives. The structure of the
partnership needs to reflect various aspects of waterside revitalisation. This research
found that a desirable structure for decision-making might be one that splinters into
smaller discussion groups rather than functioning as a single unit. This is because the
waterside has a considerable number of stakeholders, and larger groups in a
committee; as these may cause difficulties not only in administering but also
achieving effective communication and better working relationships across the space
they must occupy. However, the structure needs to be flexible in responding to local
circumstances of a particular river basin and to changes in its political environments.
As discussed, the waterside sustainability issues are not the top priorities among
stakeholders, it is difficult to motivate a strong commitment among stakeholders to
become involved in a collaborative partnership. Throughout this research, it has been
increasingly evident that funding availability is the most popular hook upon which to
215
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
attract reluctant stakeholders. This research also emphasised the need for wider
involvement including voluntary groups and the general public for a better
collaborative effort. The community involvement can be motivated through
communication (interaction and information). Awareness programmes and
community social events may stimulate the two-way communication between a
partnership and community members, and between members of the community.
In terms of institutional arrangements, the experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign
emphasised a geographically-tiered approach to allow different planning processes in
different geographical scales. The Campaign area is split into smaller catchment areas
led by independent steering groups such as the River Valley Initiatives. This enabled
to deliver the Campaign’s vision at the local level and to address the specific needs of
particular catchments. Moreover, targeting individual watercourses encourages local
community groups to contribute to their neighbourhood watercourses, and stimulates
stewardship on their waterside environments. As a collaborative partnership engages a
considerable number of stakeholders and needs to respond the changing of political
environments around them, the flexibility of the structure is also important.
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME DELIVERY
A partnership delivers its service through member partners. It is therefore important to
recognise that effective meeting management is essential to deliver the objectives of
the partnership through member partners. A collaborative arena requires diverse
interests from individual partners to deliver its service. This research made clear that a
collaborative arena is not a place for bringing everybody together and making
everybody to have the same viewpoint and opinion. The arena is to co-ordinate
diverse interests to work to an agreed goal. Thus, in delivering its service, this
research recognised that a partnership needs different implementation processes to
tackle different problems. Some planning processes require continuity of leadership,
whilst others need bottom-up approaches. Faced with the complexity of waterside
agendas, this research developed the three key aspects of collaborative partnership in
delivering integrated waterside revitalisation: consensus building; facilitation; and
open participation.
216
Chapter Eight: Conclusions

Consensus building is a primary tool for implementing collaborative efforts. It
focuses on a process in which individual representatives engage in face-to-face
dialogue to seek agreement on strategies, plans, policies and actions.

Facilitation is a means of partnership working by which member partners are
engaged to deliver its services. The fundamental principle behind facilitation is to
translate the vision of partnership to its partners so as to stimulate member
organisations to identify with its objectives and take action for themselves.

Open participation is a channel for a wider range of alternatives including
different levels of participation and responsibilities outside of the formal planning
bodies. It allows wider involvement of all those interest groups willing to
contribute to various aspects of partnership activities.
These three key aspects cannot be isolated in delivering the partnership service. This
emphasises that a collaborative partnership is not only to develop consensus between
stakeholders but also, more importantly, to implement actions beyond the traditional
implementation procedure in the practice of planning. Figure 8.1 illustrates top-down
and bottom up approaches in a mechanism of a collaborative partnership service
delivery. As discussed in Figure 4.4 (A Mechanism of Collaborative Partnership
Service Delivery, Section 4.3.3), a collaborative partnership delivers its service
through member partners. A collaborative partnership has co-ordinating committees
as facilitating bodies (the Mersey Basin Campaign Centre for the Campaign and
Steering Groups for the River Valley Initiatives). A co-ordinating committee is
structured to incorporate and steer collaborative actions to deliver the partnership
services by means of not only developing and implementing strategies and plans
(strategy-oriented action) but also organising and undertaking practical projects
(project-oriented action). In this context, the three key aspects of collaborative
partnerships have been emphasised.
Consensus building engages strategy-oriented actions that are delivered through
formal memberships. Consensus building delivers the tasks of the partnership through
a policy-making process, as it can be seen in the case of the Mersey Estuary
Management Plans and its Action Plans. The implementation of these strategies can
be directly delivered through formal members of the partnership possessing statutory
powers. Consensus building may also need to develop strategies for ‘in-house
217
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
management’ of the partnership, such as the production of corporate plans and a
review of partnership visions and structure in responding to the change of political
environment. The process of consensus building itself transforms the attitudes of
participants through mutual understanding and learning processes.
Facilitation may involve both strategy-oriented and project-oriented actions that may
be delivered through formal and informal memberships of the partnership. Facilitation
develops strategies to encourage partners to act under the vision of the partnership
such as the Water Mark Scheme. Facilitation also implements practical projects as the
Showrick’s Bridge Project aimed at replacing the missing link in a footpath network.
This research found that facilitation could be mostly implemented as a part of a
comprehensive consensus building process. This is because an accomplished
consensus building process can: 1) build better communication and understanding
among participants; 2) open up the discussion and bring resources from all members
who participate; and 3) unlock opportunities to resolve potential conflicts that are
unlikely to be resolved in a traditional approach of planning.
Open participation engages much wider participations including informal
memberships and the general public. A collaborative partnership may need to
organise open participation events to facilitate their involvement, although open
participation projects can be also organised by member partners themselves.
218
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
Figure 8.0.1 Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery: Top-down and Bottom-up
Collaborative Partnership
Coordinating Committee
Strategy-oriented
Building
Bottom-up
Community Participation
Top-down
Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery
Consensu
s
Project-oriented
Facilitati
on
Open
Participatio
n
Member
Public
Informal
Formal
Membership PartnersMembership
Active
Involvement
Citizen Control, Delegated
Power, and Partnership
Stewardsh
ip of Community
Beginning
Involvement
Passive
Involvement
Manipulation, Therapy,
Informing, Consultation, Placation
Communicatio
n
Information
Media & Education
Programmes
Newsletters, Education and
Awareness Programmes,
Publication, and Partners’
Advertisements
Interacti
on
Organising
Social
Events
Events of Cleaning-up Water
courses, Guided Walks,
Community BBQ Social
Events, and Family Fun Fair
Events
Source: Author
The Mersey Basin Campaign possesses a unique institutional framework coordinating a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach. It is clear that creating
and developing a ‘sense of ownership’ of the watercourses among local communities
is an important task in order to encourage the local populations in the Basin to value
219
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
their waterside environments. To achieve this the Campaign has directed a great deal
of effort to enhance communication (information and interaction) with the community
through its geographically-tiered approach (top-down). This includes giving
information through media and the Campaign’s education and awareness
programmes, and stimulating interaction among individual community members by
organising social events. This may encourage community groups to cherish their local
waterside environments and become involved in Campaign activities (bottom-up).
With respect to public involvement in a collaborative partnership, a community group
may get involved in the partnership actively by means of: becoming a formal member
of the partnership to act as members in co-ordinating committees in regional or local
levels, i.e. the Campaign Council and the Steering groups in the RVIs; or becoming
informal members of the partnership in participating practical projects to improve
their local watercourses. However, not all community members want to get involved
in a decision-making process to take control for their futures and take actions that
really affect their quality of life. A community member may participate in a passive
way of involvement, for example, keeping update local news and participating a
consultation practice. This passive involvement may encourage local communities to
participate in future partnership activities such as open participation events engaging
the general public.
PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION OR SUCCESSION
There are three possible exit strategies for partnerships: complete closing down of the
partnership; continuity of partnership activities through member partners after
termination of partnership institution; and succession of the partnership as an
institution. The most important aspect of exit strategies is to develop comprehensive
networks between member partners so as to enable future collaboration, as existing
networks help establish a new partnership in the area.
8.3.4 Objective Four: Applicability
to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life context
220
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
While great emphasis has been laid on the importance of collaboration for the
delivery of policy goals, there has been little analysis or evaluation of the applicability
of theory and principles of collaborative planning in a real-life context. The emphasis
on consensus building and conflict resolution has been particularly noticeable in the
current research stream of collaborative planning. Throughout this research,
especially in Chapters 6 and 7, it is evident that theory and principles of collaborative
planning, particularly principles of consensus building, are important for delivering
effective collaborative efforts. However, issues were raised when this research
developed an empirical framework to implement collaborative efforts in delivering
sustainable waterside revitalisation. In relation to outcomes of sustainable
development, there are a number of questions to be answered: how to measure the
achievement of collaborative efforts delivering the sustainable development goal: how
to make outcomes accountable if the outcomes of a collaborative partnership is
impossible to measure?
The Mersey Basin Campaign has developed three overarching objectives: water
quality improvement, landward regeneration and local stewardship. The water quality
objective is the only one that can be clearly measured by scientific surveys. For the
second objective, the Campaign developed supporting research evidence that
investment to improve water quality is an essential component in achieving the aim of
continued landward regeneration. This is based on the rationale that efforts at
comprehensive landward regeneration will either founder or will be only partly
realised with good water quality. However, there is no obvious tool to measure the
local stewardship. This can be seen from the example of ‘the Mersey Basin Trust vs.
the Mersey Basin Centre’ (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2). The Trust aims to empower local
communities to achieve the sustainable development goal, although the Centre
(funding source to the Trust) needs statistical evidence of the Trust’s projects in order
to satisfy the government requirements and secure future funding from the
government.
The outcomes of collaborative efforts are not just the productions of agreed strategies
(see Table 3.1 in Section 3.3) as like a simple consensus building process or a conflict
resolution practice. This research found that representatives, who participate
extensively in the activities of a collaborative partnership, might see the wider
benefits of the collaborative efforts. These wider outcomes are mainly products of a
221
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
process of collaborative approach, i.e. mutual understanding, learning, reducing
conflicts and opportunities for future collaboration. However, external bodies of the
partnership or member partners who passively participate reported a narrow list of
outcomes that the partnership delivered. However, as it discussed earlier, not all of
stated objectives of the Campaign are clearly measurable. This argument leads to the
need for the further research in the field of collaborative planning.
8.4 A Collaborative Partnership Research Agenda
This research is not an attempt to solve all problems that collaborative planning faces
in practice. It provided a framework for more manageable collaborative approaches
when it engaged with weaknesses generated from a lack of motivation among
stakeholders. This section presents how the work presented in this thesis can be
extended and discusses possibilities for the future in the form of a collaborative
planning research agenda.
8.4.1 Towards Accountable Outcomes of Collaborative Efforts
The work presented in this thesis can be extended in order to provide a new enabling
framework for the analysis of outcomes of collaborative partnership that aims to
achieve sustainable development. It is now clear that individuals ‘within’ the
discourse arena can be transformed toward a collaborative way of working through
the dialogue leading to comprehensive understanding and learning. This research
showed that individuals ‘within’ the discourse arena understand the value of the
collaborative action. However, how to translate the value of the collaborative efforts
to ‘outside’ of the discourse arena? In short, we need for further studies developing a
framework measuring the collaborative efforts to prove the accountability of
collaborative outcomes to external bodies or individuals outside of the discourse
arena. This may enable much wider collaboration and much effective collaborative
service delivery in the practice of planning.
The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign shows that a collaborative partnership
needs to make their outcomes accountable to their funding bodies such as central
government. This is especially problematic when the issues are related to community
222
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
action, as it can be seen in the conflict situation between the Mersey Basin Centre and
The Mersey Basin Trust. The problem caused because it is unclear whether the inputs
of time, effort and finance that the Trust requires to empower communities are
justified in terms of the outputs produced. Then, there are a number of questions
raised. What is the value of empowering community? Is it possible to present the
value of community action in a statistical form?
The value of empowering community is widely recognised and promoted, but its
economic value has rarely been explored. Community activity has often been seen as
a ‘free good’ with no accompanying costs. However, voluntary organisations need
management costs, such as recruiting, deploying, supporting and training volunteers
all require time and money. In this context, Gaskin and Dobson (Gaskin and Dobson,
1997) undertook a pilot project evaluating the economic equation that represents the
relationship between the investment by the organisation and the economic value of
volunteer activity (in estimating a ‘volunteer wage bill’). This equation was calculated
in dividing the value of volunteer activity by the volunteer management and/or
organisational running costs. Their research found that organisations yielded a higher
return were often ‘practically run themselves’, with volunteers doing a large amount
of self-management. Adapting from this, it will be possible to estimate what the
economic value of empowering community.
Figure 8.2 illustrates a hypothetical framework to evaluate the economic values of
community activity and empowerment. The economic value of community activity
can be assessed by analysing the contribution of volunteers to organisations or
communities and values it at the appropriate market wage rates. This is based on the
assumption; what would the wage bill be, if the organisation had to employ people at
current local pay rates to provide their services? As a community group or
organisation is empowered so that they can organise their own future project
themselves, the management and organisational running costs may be reduced and the
economic value of community activity may be increased. However, empowering
community is not a ‘free good’ either. This requires staff (community development
officer) time and money of a facilitating body, such as the Mersey Basin Trust. It can
be also argued that costs of empowering ‘hard-to-reach’ groups are higher than those
of ‘well-established’ community groups. Therefore, costs of empowering may
decrease according to the empowerment proceed.
223
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
Figure 8.2 The Value of Community Empowerment: Hypothetical Framework
Individual Community
Organisation
Inputs
Facilitating Body
Management / organisational
running costs
The value of
community / volunteer activity
Process of Community Empowerment
Outputs
The value of community
empowerment
Costs of
community empowerment
Source: Author
This proposed research may conduct a number of case studies by developing a
method that analyses impact of empowerment efforts on individual community
groups. It would be possible to estimate comparable figures of the market values
analysing inputs and outputs of community organisations and comparing at the point
before and after the input of community empowerment from the facilitating body.
Although this model may provide major new insights into the economic value of
community empowerment, it should be noted that the result of empowering
community is not to be measured incidentally, but in consideration of its long-term
effects. Therefore, the time-scale of this model needs to be carefully designed.
8.4.2 Towards a Comparative Research
This thesis provided some insights regarding collaborative partnerships that aim at
delivering integrated waterside revitalisation by engaging the concept of sustainable
development. The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign provided some valuable
lessons and suggests that may be applicable to other collaborative partnership, in
particularly relation to waterside management projects. The evidence presented here
is based on a single case study and further comparative research is required to full test
the conceptual framework that collaborative partnerships can employ to deliver their
services.
224
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
Methodological frameworks that developed in this thesis can be used for the
evaluation of other examples of integrated waterside management projects. For the
selection of case study for this proposed research, another waterside management
project that won Riverprize39can be chosen. This is because award-wining projects
may have similarities, as they are selected from the same judging categories, but they
are developed in different political circumstance in different parts of the world. This
may increase applicability of the service delivery framework for collaborative
partnerships that this thesis suggested.
8.4.3 Towards a Future Collaborative Practice
The Mersey Basin Campaign was established in the 1980s and pioneered the way of
collaborative partnership working in the North West. This thesis found that a
collaborative partnership needs to develop hooks to attract stakeholders to become
involved in partnership activity, and funding opportunities have been emphasised as
an obvious hook. It is now clear that individuals who have participated in a
collaborative process may be transformed their attitude towards collaborative efforts.
Consequently, participants develop better understanding of a partnership approach
and value the collaborative outcomes. The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign
also showed that representatives to the Campaign were generally willing to participate
in other partnerships in future (see Section 6.4.1, quotation from William
Crookshank). Because the Campaign developed a comprehensive network in the area
and transformed the views of member partners on the partnership working, a new
partnership in the Mersey Basin area may be established without any obvious hooks
such as funding opportunities.
It may be therefore interesting to explore the formation of partnerships after the
experience of the Campaign in the area. This research agenda may be undertaken by
interviewing and questionnaire survey to member representatives of the Campaign
who get also involved in other partnerships during or after serving the Campaign. The
questions may be focused on comparative experience working within the different
partnerships and impact of Campaign experience on working within other kinds of
39
The Mersey Basin Campaign was the 1999 winner of the Riverprize in recognition of excellence in
river management. This is an annual global competition that is organised as a part of International
River Management Symposium in Brisbane, Australia.
225
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
partnerships. The result of this investigation may provide clear evidence of wider
outcomes of collaborative efforts by offering insights on long-term effects of a
collaborative partnership in the area.
8.5 Final Conclusions
How can a collaborative partnership approach as presented in contemporary planning
theories be applied to, and improve, a process of integrated waterside revitalisation in
the practice of planning? To answer this main aim of this thesis, the prior seven
chapters have investigated both the theory and the practice of collaborative
partnerships. It has been argued that the aim of this thesis has been comprehensively
achieved. The value of this research is summarised as follows.
Firstly, this thesis presumes that no realistic discussion of planning is possible without
taking political-economic and bureaucratic powers into account. Throughout the
course of this research it is clear that the ideal collaborative planning is impossible to
implement in the real-life context. This research showed how collaborative effort can
be made in the face of power. Despite the limitations of collaborative planning theory
from its idealism this research made a contribution to a mechanism for delivering
collaborative efforts under the political and bureaucratic planning practice. Although
this research explored the practice of integrated waterside revitalisation in particular,
the principles of collaborative approaches that have been suggested in this thesis can
be also applied to other forms of partnerships in different fields of planning.
Secondly, a considerable amount of earlier research that attempt to apply
collaborative planning theory to practice are focused on cases that involve obvious
tensions surround the stake, which motivate stakeholders to participate. However, this
research engaged the theory and the practice of collaborative planning with the issues
of sustainable development that cannot motivate most stakeholders to participate.
Therefore, this thesis provided a framework for collaborative approaches towards
sustainable development by attracting reluctant stakeholders, facilitating their actions
and accounting the collaborative outcomes.
Thirdly, by exploring various cases of integrated waterside management practice, this
research offered diverse management strategies that may useful to other collaborative
partnership in delivering integrated waterside management. Practical reflection that
226
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
discussed in this research may help those who wish to develop collaborative
approaches to integrated waterside revitalisation in the other parts of the UK or the
world.
In short, there may be a set of limitations in undertaking this research, although there
have been a great deal of attentions taken into account to overcome those limitations.
As in other inter-organisational studies, the first criticism of this research may be
around issues about the selection of interviewees for the case study. This is because
conducting interviews with internal players is essential but internal players are more
likely to protect vulnerable aspects of themselves and disguise the meanings of some
of their actions and feelings. As an attempt to overcome this argument, the author
conducted interviews with ex-employees of the Campaign as they have a
comprehensive understanding of internal aspects of the Campaign. Moreover, exemployees are more likely to provide precise features and critical arguments, as they
do not have direct responsibilities to the Campaign.
The second issue relates to the flexible structure of the Campaign. Since this research
started in October 1998, there has been significant structural change (the creation of
the Mersey Basin Council) in the year 2000 when the new chairperson was appointed.
This research tried to emphasise institutional arrangements both before and after
restructuring, as different structural arrangements were needed in responding different
situations. At the time of writing (at the end of 2001), the Campaign is undertaking
another structural change regarding to re-arrangement of the Mersey Basin Trust. Due
to the time-scale of this research as a PhD thesis, the case study activities ended at the
beginning of 2001.
The third issue is that there are tensions and conflicts between not only organisations
but also individuals. Dealing with politically sensitive issues limits scope of this
research at a certain level, which might not be reflected in this research.
227
Bibliography
These are references at the moment.
Revise needed.
Bibliography
228
Bibliography
Allmendinger, P. (Forthcoming) Planning in a Postmodern Age, London: John Wiley.
Alt 2000 (1999) Blueprint for Action, Liverpool: Alt 2000.
Amin, A. and Graham, S. (1997) The Ordinary City. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 22, 411-429.
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (1995) Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, H.W. (1993) Subsidiarity and the operation of European community regional policy in
Britain. Regional Studies 27, 575-606.
Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners 35,
216-224.
Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban
regeneration. Urban Studies 36, 59-72.
Bailey, N. (1994) Towards a research agenda for public-private partnerships in the 1990s. Local
Economy 8, 292-306.
Bailey, N. (1995) Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy, London: UCL Press.
Baker Associates (1997) A Method for Community Involvement in LEAPs, Environment Agency R&D
Techical Report W32, The Environment Agency.
Bates, A. (1999) Mersey Basin Weekend Report, Unpublished internal report, Manchester: Mersey
Basin Trust.
Benson, J.K. (1982) A Framework for Policy Analysis. In: Rogers, D., Whitten, D. and and
Associates, (Eds.) Interorganizational Coordination, pp. 137-176. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press]
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2001) How to Research, 2nd edn., Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Blodgett, L.L. (1992) Research Notes and Communications Factors in the Instability of International
Joint Ventures: An Event History Analysis. Strategic Management Journal 13, 475-481.
Boland, P. (1998) Urban Governance and Economic Development: a case study of Knowsley,
Merseyside, Unpublished PhD Thesis. Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff
Univeristy.
Boland, P. (1999) Merseyside and Objective 1 Status, 1994-1999: Implications for the Next
Programming Period. Regional Studies 33, 788-792.
Borys, B. and Jemison, D.B. (1989) Hybrid Arrangements or Strategic Alliances: Theoretical Issues in
Organisational Combinations. Academy of Management Review 14, 234-249.
Boyle, R. (1993) Changing Partners: the experience of urban economic policy in West Central
Scotland, 1980-1990. Urban Studies 30, 309-324.
Brindley, T., Rydin, Y. and Stoker, G. (1989) Remaking planning: the politics of urban change in the
Thatcher years, London: Unwin Hyman.
Brown, P. (Sep 29, 1999) Award for Mersey clean-up. The Guardian 29 September 1999 edn, 10-10.
229
Bibliography
Carlson, C. (1999) Convening. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The
Consensus Building Handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, pp. 169-197.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]
Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I, The Rise of the
Network Society, Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Chavis, D.M. (1990) Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and
Community Development. American Journal of Community Psychology 18, 55-81.
Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power, London: Sage.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (2000) Research Methods in Education, 5th edn., London: Routledge.
Coulson, A. (1997) Business Partnerships and Regional Government. Policy and Politics 25, 31-38.
Countryside Commission (1970) The Planning of the Coastline. A report on a study of cosatal
preservation and development in England and Wales, London: HMSO.
Creighton, J.L. (1983) Identifying public/staff identification techniques. In: Creighton, J.L., Priscoli,
J.D. and Dunning, C.M., (Eds.) Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years
Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, IWR Research Report 82-R1, Fort Belvoir:
Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.]
Cross, C. and Sauvain, S. (1981) The Highways Act 1980, London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Cullingworth, J.B. and Nadin, V. (1994) Town and Country Planning in Britain, 11th edn. London:
Routledge.
Daily Post (Jun 2, 1998) North West Today: Dragonflies are stars. Daily Post 2 June 1998 5-5.
Davies, H.W.E. (1998) Continuity and Change: the evolution of British planning system, 1947-97.
Town Planning Review 69, 135-152.
Davis, S. and Meyer, C. (1998) Blur: The Speed of Change in the Connected Economy, Reading MA:
Addison Wesley.
Dawson, M. and Eagles, L. (1999) Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Survey 1998, Manchester:
Mersey Basin Trust.
Department of the Environment (1973) A Background to Water Reorganisation in England and Wales,
London: HMSO.
Department of the Environment (1982) Cleaning Up the Mersey: A Consulation Paper on Tackling
Water Pollution in the Rivers and Canals of the Mersey Catchment, and Improving the
Appearance and Use of their Banks, Manchester: DoE, North West Regional Office.
Department of the Environment (1995) Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: a
guide for practitioners, London: Department of the Environment.
DETR (1997) Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: a guide for practitioners,
London: DETR.
DETR (1999) Subsidiarity and Proportionality in Spatial Planning Activities in the European Union,
London: DETR.
Dewar, D. and Forrester, K. (1999) Environment Action Key to Involvement. Planning 4 June 1999,
6-6.
230
Bibliography
Doyle, M. and Straus, D. (1982) How to make meetings work, New York: Jove.
Ellesmere Port Standard (Jan 28, 1999) Water quality improvements. Ellesmere Port Standard 28
January 1999
Elliott, M.P. (1999) The Role of Facilitators, Mediators, and Other Consensus Building Practitioners.
In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building
Handbook, pp. 199-239. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]
England, K.V.L. (1993) Suburban Pink Collar Ghettoes. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 83, 243-271.
Environment Agency (1997) Local Environment Agency Plan, Lower Mersey, Consultation Report,
Sale: Environment Agency.
Environment Agency (1999) Local Environment Agency Plan: Alt/Crossens, Consultation Report,
Preston: Environment Agency.
Environment and Society Research Unit, U. (1998) Prioritising the Issues in Local Environment
Agency Plans through Concensus Building with Stakeholder Groups, R&D Technical Report
W114, Bristol: Environment Agency.
European Commission. The European Regional Development Fund: What is the ERDF for?
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/activity/erdf/erdf1_en.htm . 2001. Date
visted: 21 November 2001. (GENERIC)
Ref Type: Electronic Citation
Evans, G. and Newnham, J. (1992) The Dictionary of World Politics: a reference guide to concepts,
ideas and institutions, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Fiorino, D. (1995) Making Environmental Policy, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strategic planning for public-private partnership organisations: a review of strategy development
models, paper presented to British Academy of Management, Annual Conference, September,
Lancaster University. (1994)
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Forester, J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice, Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Forester, J. (1996) Beyond dialogue to transformative learning: how deliberative rituals encourage
political judgement in community planning processes. In: Esquith, S., (Ed.) Democratic
Dialogues: Theories and Practices, Poznan: University of Poznan]
Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Forrester, K. (1999) Renewal on Stream. Planning 30 April 1999, 15-15.
Freethy, R. (Jan 6, 1999) Nature Watch. Lancashire Evening Telegraph 6 January 1999
Garrod, G. and Willis, K. (1994) An economic estimate of the effect of a waterside location on
property values. Environmental and Resource Economics 4, 209-217.
Gary, B. (1989) Collaborating Finding a Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
231
Bibliography
Gaskin, K. and Dobson, B. (1997) The Economic Equation of Volunteering: A Pilot Study. CRSP270,
Loughborough: CRSP.
Glasbergen, P. (1996) From Regulatory Control to Network Management. In: Winter, G., (Ed.)
European Environmental Law: A Comparative Perspective, pp. 185-200. Dartmouth:
Adershot]
Glasbergen, P. (1998) Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a
Policy Strategy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Going for Green (1999) Cleaner water brings back the kingfisher. Going for Green April 1999
Grumbine, R.E. (1994) What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 8, 27-38.
Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Band 1: Handlungsrationalitat und
gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action; Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization
of Society (Translated by T. McCarthy), Cambridge: Polity Press.
Halpert, B.P. (1982) Antecedents. In: Rogers, D.L. and Whetten, D.A., (Eds.) Interorganizational
Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, pp. 54-72. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press]
Handley, J. and Wood, R. (1999) The Consequences of Landscape Change: Principles and Practice;
Problems and Opportunities. In: Greenwood, E.F., (Ed.) Ecology and Landscape
Development: A History of the Mersey Basin, pp. 243-261. Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press]
Handley, J., Wood, R., Birrell, G. and Russell, N. (1998) The Relationship between Water Quality and
Economic Regeneration in the Mersey Basin, A Report to North West Water, the Environment
Agency and the Mersey Basin Campaign, Manchester: Manchester University.
Harding, A. (1997) Public-Private Partnerships in the UK. In: Pierre, J., (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban
Governance: European and American Experience, pp. 71-92. London: MacMillan Press]
Harfield, R. (2000) Call for rethink on urban rivers. Planning 3 March 2000, 1-2.
Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Heidtke, T.M. and Shah, H. (1998) Implementing Ecosystem-based
Management: Lessons from the Great Lakes. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 41, 45-75.
Hartley, P. (Mar 17, 1999) Kingfishers reign after a clean-up. Manchester Evening News 17 March
1999
Hastings, A. (1996) Unravelling the Process of 'Partnership' in Urban Regeneration Policy. Urban
Studies 33, 253-268.
Haughton, G. and Whitney, D. (1989) Equal Urban Partners? The Planner 75, 9-11.
Hay, C. (1998) The tangled webs we weave: the discourse, strategy and practice of networking. In:
Marsh, D., (Ed.) Comparing Policy Networks, pp. 33-51. Buckingham: Open University
Press]
Hayek, K. (1945) The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35, 519-530.
Healey, P. (1992a) A Planner's day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the
American Planning Association 58, 9-20.
232
Bibliography
Healey, P. (1992b) An Institutional Model of the Development Process. Journal of Property Research
9, 33-44.
Healey, P. (1993) Planning Through Debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In: Fischer,
F. and Forester, J., (Eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London:
UCL Press]
Healey, P. (1994) Strategic spatial planning as a process of argumentation, OP23, Centre for
Architecture and Planning Research, Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, Hong Kong:
MacMillan.
Healey, P. (1998a) Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban
Planning. Environment and Planning A 30, 1531-1546.
Healey, P. (1998b) Collaborative Planning in a Stakeholder Society. Town Planning Review 69, 1-22.
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. and Needham, B. (1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans:
Innovation in Europe, London: UCL Press.
Heathcote, I.W. (1998) Integrated Watershed Management: Principles and Practice, New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Heclo, H. (1978) Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In: King, A., (Ed.) The New
American Political System, pp. 87-124. Washington, DC: American Enterprise]
Hegarty, K. (Mar 20, 1999) Kingfisher sightings are on the increase. Lancashire Evening Post 20
March 1999
Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.
Hind, V. (1995) Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Survey 1995, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.
House of Commons, E.C. (1983) The Problems of Management of Urban Renewal, London: HMSO.
Howie, J. (Jan 8, 1999) In the country: Mersey Basin Campaign reveals an increase in kingfisher
sightings. Chester Chronicle 8 January 1999 7-7.
Hutchinson, J. (1995) Can Partnerships Which Fail Succeed? The Case of City Challenge. Local
Government Policy Making 22, 41-51.
Innes, J.E. (1998) Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association Winter, 52-63.
Innes, J.E. (1999a) Evaluating Consensus Building. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and ThomasLarmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook, pp. 631-675. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publication]
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999b) Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: a
framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association 65, 412-423.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999c) Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: toward a
theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 9-26.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2000) Metropolitan Development as a Complex System: A New
Approach to Sustainability. In: Hull, A., (Ed.) Shaping Places,
233
Bibliography
Planning Strategies in Conflict: the case of regional transportation planning in the bay area, Paper
presented to the 13th Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning, Bergen,
Norway, 7-11 July. (1999)
Innes, J.E., Gruber, J., Thompson, R. and Neuman, M. (1994) Coordinating Growth and
Environmental Management through Consensus-building: Report to the California Policy
Seminar, Berkeley: University of California.
Jaques, E. (1991) In Praise of Hierarchy. In: Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J.,
(Eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: the coordination of social life, pp. 108-118.
London: Sage]
Jessop, R. (1995) The Regulation Approach, Governance and Post-Fordism: Alternative Perspectives
on Economic and Political Change. Economy and Society 24, 307-333.
Johnston, B. (1999) Ask your neighbour. Planning 5 Feburary 1999, 13-13.
Jones, P.D. (2000) The Mersey Estuary - Back from the Dead?, Solving a 150-Year Old Problem.
J.CIWEM 14, 124-130.
Kaner, S. (1996) Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making, Philadelphia: New Society.
Keating, M. (1991) Comparative Urban Politics, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Kickert, W., Klijn, E.H. and Koppenjan, J. (1997) Managing Complex Networks: strategies for the
public sector, London: Sage.
Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2000) The Mersey Basin Campaign and Its River Valley Initiatives: An
Appropriate Model for the Management of Rivers? Local Environment 5, 191-209.
Kidd, S., Shaw, D., Delaney, A. and Hibbitt, K. (1997) The Mersey Basin Campaign: River Valley
Initiatives, 37 edn. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.
Kim, J.S. (1998) Urban Waterfront Regeneration: What factors contribute to the success of waterfront
regeneraiton?, Thesis for Master of Civic Design. The University of Liverpool. Master of
Civic Design.
Jul 9, 1999. Revitalising the Waterside in a Community Context: the experience of the Mersey Basin
Campaign, paper presented at 13th AESOP congress, Bergen, July 1999. Association of
European Schools of Planning. (1999)
Kim, J.S. and Batey, P.W.J. (2000) A Collaborative Partnership for Integrated Estuary Management:
The Mersey Strategy, North West England. International Journal of Public-Private
Partnerships
A Collaborative Partnership Approach to Integrated Waterside Revitalisation: The experience of the
Mersey Basin Campaign, paper presented in the First World Planning Schools Congress,
Shanghai, China, 11th-15th July. Shanghai: Tongji University. (2001)
Knowles, M. (1997) Towards an Action Plan, Unpublished Internal Report. Liverpool: Mersey
Strategy.
Kooiman, J. (1993a) Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity. In:
Kooiman, J., (Ed.) Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, pp. 35-48.
London: Sage]
Kooiman, J. (1993b) Social-Political Governance: Introduction. In: Kooiman, J., (Ed.) Modern
Governance: New Government-Social Interactions, pp. 1-6. London: Sage]
234
Bibliography
Krut, R. and Gleckman, H. (1998) ISO 14001: A Missed Opportunity for Sustainable Global Industrial
Development, London: Earthscan.
Lane, T. (1997) Liverpool: City of the Sea, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Law, C. (1992) Property-led Urban Regeneration in Inner Manchester. In: Healey, P., O'Toole, M. and
Usher, D., (Eds.) Rebuilding the City, pp. 60-76. London: E & FN Spon]
Lawless, P. (1989) Britain's Inner Cities, London: Paul Chapman.
Lawless, P. (1991) Public-private sector partnerships in the United Kingdom, Sheffield: Sheffield
City Polytechnic.
Laws, D. (1999) Representation of Stakeholding Interests. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and
Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: A comprehensive guide to
reaching agreement, pp. 241-285. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]
Leftwich, A. (1994) Governance, the State and the Politics of Development. Development and
Change 25, 363-386.
Lloyd, P. and Meegan, R. (1996) Contested Governance: European Exposure in the English Regions.
In: Alden, J. and Boland, P., (Eds.) Regional Development Strategies: A European
Perspective, pp. 55-85. London: Regional Studies Association]
London Rivers Association (2000) Putting Rivers on the Map: Blue Belt and the Future of Urban
Rivers, London: London Rivers Association.
Lowndes, V., Nanton, P., McCabe, A. and Skelcher, C. (1997) Networks, Partnerships and Urban
Regeneration. Local Economy 11, 333-342.
Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: an analysis
of changing modes of governance. Public Administration 76, 313-333.
MacKenzie, S.H. (1996) Integrated Resource Planning and Management: The Ecosystem Approach in
the Great Lakes Basin, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
MacKintosh, M. (1992) Partnership: Issues of Policy and Negotiation. Local Economy 7, 210-224.
March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics, New
York: Free Press.
Martin, S. and Pearce, G. (1994) The Impact of 'Europe' on Local Government: Regional Partnerships
in Local Economic Development. In: Dunleavy, P. and Stanyer, J., (Eds.) Contemporary
Political Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 962-972. Belfast: Political Studies Association]
Maybury, J. (1998) Exit strategies and urban regeneration initiatives, Unpublished Master
Dissertation. University of Liverpool. Master of Civic Design.
McArthur, A. (1993) Community Partnership: A Formula for Neighbourhood Regeneration in the
1990s? Community Development Journal 28, 305-305.
Meadowcroft, J. (1998) Co-operative Management Regimes: A way forward? In: Glasbergen, P., (Ed.)
Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy,
pp. 21-42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers]
Mersey Basin Campaign (1993) The Mersey Basin Campaign. Campaigner Summer 1993 4-5.
Mersey Basin Trust.
235
Bibliography
Mersey Basin Campaign (1997) Building a Healthier Economy through a Cleaner Environment: Mid
Term Report, Manchester: Mersey Basin Campaign.
Mersey Basin Campaign (1998) Alt 2000 hails Showricks Bridge success. Campaigner (Summer
1998):1-1. Mersey Basin Trust. Summer 1998.
Mersey Basin Campaign (1999) 'Water Mark' for Waterside Businesses. Campaigner Spring 1999
edn, 6-6. Mersey Basin Campaign.
Mersey Basin Campaign (1999) Second survey predicts more sightings. The Campaigner (Winter
98/99):6-6. Mersey Basin Campaign. Winter 98/99.
Mersey Basin Campaign (2000a) International Crown for the Campaign: the Inaugural Thiess
Environmental Services Riverprize. The Campaigner January 2000 edn, 7-7. Mersey Basin
Trust.
Mersey Basin Campaign (2000b) Mersey Basin Campaign Corporate Plan 2000/01, Manchester:
Mersey Basin Campaign.
Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c) Progress Report: 1985-2000, Manchester: Mersey Basin
Campaign.
Mersey Basin Campaign (2001a) Businesses make their Water Mark. Campaigner January 2001 edn,
4-5. Mersey Basin Trust.
Mersey Basin Campaign. Pledge Groups. http://www.merseybasin.org.uk/regeneration/pledgegroup/index.htm . 12-3-2001. 12-3-2001. (GENERIC)
Ref Type: Electronic Citation
Mersey Basin Trust (1999) Mersey Basin Trust: Annual Review 1998-1999, Manchester: Mersey
Basin Trust.
Mersey Basin Trust (2000) Annual Review 1999-2000, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.
Mersey Strategy (1998) Mersey Estuary Action Programme, Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.
Mersey Strategy (2000a) Making the Most of the Mersey: A Leisure Guide to Your Estuary,
Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.
Mersey Strategy (2000b) Mersey Estuary Action Programme (Draft), Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.
Merseyside Socialist Research Group (1980) Merseyside in Crisis, Manchester: Manchester Free
Press.
Muir, T. and Rance, B. (1995) Collaborative Practice in the Built Environment, London: E & FN
Spon.
Mulford, C.L. and Rogers, D.L. (1982) Definitions and Models. In: Rogers, D.L. and Whetten, D.A.,
(Eds.) Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, pp. 9-31.
Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press]
National Rivers Authority (1991) The Quality of Rivers, Canals and Estuaries in England and Wales,
Water Quality Series Report No. 4, Bristol: NRA.
National Rivers Authority (1993) National Rivers Authority Strategy (8-part series encompassing
water quality, water resources, flood defence, fisheries, conservation, recreation, navigation,
research and development), Bristol: National Rivers Authority Corporate Planning Branch.
Nevin, E. (1990) The Economics of Europe, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
236
Bibliography
Newman, P. and Verpraet, G. (1999) The Impacts of Partnership on Urban Governance: Conclusions
from Recent European Reseach. Regional Studies 33, 487-491.
Newson, M. (1992) Land, Water and Development: river basin systems and their sustainable
management, London: Routledge.
North West Partnership/North West Regional Association (1996) Sustainable Regional Economic
Strategy for North West England , Wigan: NWRA.
O'Toole, M. and Usher, D. (1992) Editorial. In: Healey, P., Davoudi, S., O'Toole, M., Tavsanoglu, S.
and Usher, D., (Eds.) Rebuilding the City: property-led urban regeneration, pp. 215-222.
London: E & FN Spon]
Oliver, C. (1990) Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future
Directions. Academy of Management Review 15, 241-265.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: the political economy of institutions and decisions,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Owen, S. (1998) Managing for Sustainability. In: Schnurr, J. and Holtz, S., (Eds.) The Cornerstone of
Development: Integrating Environmental, Social and Economic Policies, pp. 117-147.
Ottawa: International Development Research Center]
Painter, C. and with Clarence, E. (2001) UK Local Action Zones and Changing Urban Governance.
Urban Studies 38, 1215-1232.
Parker, D.J. and Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (1980) Water Planning in Britain, London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Paton, R. and Emerson, T. (1988) "Top-down" and "Bottom-up": Goodbye to all that? Local Economy
3, 159-168.
Pearsall, J. (1998) The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Peters, B.G. (1997) 'With a Little Help From Our Friends': Public-Private Partnerships as Institutions
and Instruments. In: Pierre, J., (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and
American Experience, pp. 11-33. London: MacMillan Press]
Powell, W. (1991) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. In: Thompson, G.,
Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J., (Eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: the
coordination of social life, pp. 265-276. London: SAGE]
Pringle, J., Leuteritz, K. J., and Fitzgerald, M. ISO 14001: A Discussion of Implications for Pollution
Prevention, ISO 14000 Working Group White Paper. National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable . 1-28-1998. National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. 11-20-2000. (GENERIC)
Ref Type: Electronic Citation
Provan, K.G. (1982) Interorganizational Linkages and Influence over Decision Making. Academy of
Management Journal 25, 443-451.
Rabe, B.G. (1986) Fragmentation and Integration in State Environmental Management, Washington,
D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.
Rabe, B.G. (1988) The Politics of Environmental Dispute Resolution. Policy Studies Journal 16, 565601.
237
Bibliography
Rees, J. (1990) Natural Resources, Methuen.
Report of the Commission for Social Justice (1994) Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal,
London: Vintage.
Reporter South Manchester (Mar 18, 1999) River wildlife on the up. Reporter South Manchester 18
March 1999 edn, 942 1-1.
On the Complementarity of Discourse and Power in Planning, paper presented in the Association of
European Schools of Planning, Bergen, Norway July. Bergen: University of Bergen. (1999)
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1991) Policy Networks and Sub-central Government. In: Thompson, G., Frances, J.,
Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J., (Eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The coordination of
social life, pp. 203-214. London: Sage]
Roberts, P., Hart, T. and Thomas, K. (1993) Europe: A Handbook for Local Authorities, Manchester:
CLES.
Robson, B. (1988) Those Inner Cities, Oxford: Clarendon.
Rothenbuhler, E.W. (1991) The Process of Community Involvement. Communication Monographs
58, 63-77.
Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (1990) Watershed, Interim Report August
1990, Toronto: Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront.
RTPI (1994) The Impact of the European Community on Land Use Planning in the United Kingdom,
London: Royal Town Planning Institute.
RTPI (1998) Planning in Partnership: A guide for planners, London: Royal Town Planning Institute
Services Ltd.
Rydin, Y. (1998) Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK, London: Macmillan.
Schermerhorn, J.R. (1975) Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation. Academy of
Management Journal 18, 846-856.
Schmidt, S.M. and Kochan, T.A. (1986) Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Administrative Science
Quarterly 17, 359-369.
Schramm, G. (1980) Integrated River Basin Planning in a Holistic Universe. Natural Resources
Journal 20, 787-805.
Schramm, W. (1971) Notes on case studies of instructional media projects. Working paper,
Washington, DC: The Academy for Educational Development.
Schwarz, R.M. (1994) The Skilled Facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Selman, P. and Parker, J. (1997) Citizenship, civicness and social capital in Local Agenda 21. Local
Environment 2, 171-184.
Shields, R. (1995) A guide to urban representations and what to do about it: alternative traditions in
urban theory. In: King, A., (Ed.) Re-presenting the city: ethnicity, capital and culture in the
twenty-first century metropolis, pp. 227-252. London: Macmillan]
Slocombe, D.S. (1993) Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management. Bioscience 43, 612-622.
238
Bibliography
Solesbury, W. (1990) Property Development and Urban Regeneration. In: Healey, P. and Nabarro, R.,
(Eds.) Land and Property Development in a Changing Context, Aldershot: Gower]
Sparks, R.E. (1995) Need for Ecosystem Management of Large Rivers and Their Floodplains.
Bioscience 45, 168-182.
SPNW Joint Planning Team (1973) Strategic Plan for the North West, London: HMSO.
Stockport Times (Jan 7, 1999) The kingfisher returns. Stockport Times 1 July 1999 edn, edn
Stoker, G. (1997) Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance. In: Pierre, J., (Ed.) Partnerships
in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, pp. 34-51. London: Macmillan
Press]
Straus, D.A. (1999a) Designing a Consensus Building Process using a Graphic Road Map. In:
Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building
Handbook, pp. 137-168. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]
Straus, D.A. (1999b) Managing Meetings to Build Consensus. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and
Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: a comprehensive guide to
reaching agreement, pp. 287-323. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]
Sullivan, H. and Lowndes, V. (1996) City Challenge Succession Strategies: governance through
partnership, Unpublished consultancy report, Birmingham: INLOGOV.
Susskind, L. (1999a) An Alternative to Robert's Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations, and Ad
Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate by Consensus. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and
Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Hanbook: A Comprehensive Guide to
Reaching Agreement, pp. 3-57. Thousamd Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]
Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999b) The Consensus Building Handbook,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: a critique
of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A 30, 1975-1989.
Thomas-Larmer, J. (1998) Getting reluctant stakeholders to the table: experienced mediators talk it
over with Concensus. Consensus July 1998 edn, 39 5-6. the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes
Program.
Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J. (1991) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks:
the coordination of social life, London: SAGE.
4-6-0. Involving the Public in Urban Watercourse Restoration and Rehabilitation, Paper presented at
the River Restoration Centre Annual Workshop, April 6-7 2000, Britannia Hotel, Manchester.
Manchester: The River Restoration Centre. (2000)
University of Liverpool Study Team (1995) Mersey Estuary Management Plan: a strategic policy
framework, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Ward, M. and Watson, S. (1997) Here to Stay: A public policy framework for community-based
regeneration, London: The Development Trusts Association.
Water Watch Lee, M., (Ed.) (2000) Water Mark Pilot Award Scheme Review: February to November
1999, Unpublished Internal Report. Manchester: Mersey Basin Campaign.
WCED, W.C.o.E.a.D. (1987) Our Common Future , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
239
Bibliography
Weiss, J.A. (1987) Pathways to Cooperation among Public Agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 7, 94-117.
Westley, F. (1995) Governing Design: The management of social systems and ecosystems
management. In: Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. and Light, S., (Eds.) Barriers and Bridges to
the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, pp. 391-427. New York: Columbia University
Press]
Williams, R.H. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning, London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Wood, R., Handley, J. and Kidd, S. (1999) Sustainable Development and Institutional Design: The
example of the Mersey Basin Campaign. Journal of Environmentsl Planning and
Management 42, 341-354.
Woodside, K. (1986) Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy. Canadian Journal of
Political Science 19, 775-793.
Worpole, K. (1999) Regenerating Communities , Birmingham: Groundwork.
Yaffee, S.L., Phillips, A.F., Frentz, I.C., Hardy, P.W., Maleki, S.M. and Thorpe, B.E. (1996)
Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience,
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research, Design & Methods, 2nd edn., London: Sage.
Young, S. (1996) Promoting Participation and Community-based Partnerships in the Context of Local
Agenda 21: A Report for Practitioners, Manchester: University of Manchester.
240
Appendix One: Case Study Activity
Appendix One:
Case Study Activity
241
Appendix One: Case Study Activity
1. Interviews
Initial Interviews
David Neale (Alt 2000, Project Officer)- 9th February 1999
Peter Batey (Alt 2000, Chair of the Steering Group)- 23rd February 1999
Gill Maltby (Sankey NOW, Project Officer)- 19th February 1999
Sibongile Pradhan (Mersey Basin Trust, Community Officer)- 26th February 1999 and
4th September 1999
Mark Turner (Mersey Basin Campaign, RVIs Manager)- 26th February 1999
Tony Jones (Mersey Basin Trust, Executive Director)- 20th February 1999
Jeff Hinchcliffe (Mersey Basin Administration Ltd., Executive Director)- 26th March
1999
Second Interviews
Mark Turner (Mersey Basin Campaign, Deputy Chief Executive) – 6 June 2000
Louise Hopkins (Mersey Basin Campaign,) – 13 June 2000
Caroline Downey (Mersey Basin Trust, Deputy Chief Executive) – 13 June 2000
Peter Wilson (Government of the North West) – 23 June 2000
Peter Walton – (Mersey Basin Unit, Former Head of the Mersey Basin Unit) – 26 July
2000
Tony Jones (Heritage Lottery Fund, Former Deputy Chief Executive of The Mersey
Basin Trust) – 15 August 2000
Jeff Hinchcliffe (Mersey Basin Campaign, Chief Executive of the Mersey Basin
Campaign)- 28 November 2001 (Telephone Interview)
2. Meetings and Events
Alt 2000 RVI Steering Group Meeting- 22nd January 1999
242
Appendix One: Case Study Activity
Alt 2000 Spring Tide Spectacular- 20th February 1999
Alt 2000 Day in Part of Country Fair at Croxteth Country Park- 18th July 1999
Stream Care Clean-up Event- 6th March 1999
Groundwork North West Conference- 5th March 1999
Sankey NOW RVI Steering Group Meeting- 8th April 1999
The 6th Mersey Basin Campaign Conference- 19th May 1999
Presented a paper, ‘Revitalising the Waterside in a Community Context: the
experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign’, in the 13th AESOP Congress, Bergen,
Norway- 7th-11th July 1999
The Into The Blue Conference, Sustainable Urban Watercourses For The 21st
Century, which organised by the Urban Wildlife Partnership and the Mersey Basin
Trust- 3rd-4th September 1999
A steering committee of Sankey Canal Restoration Society- 14th October 1999
The 9th Mersey Basin Trust Annual General Meeting- 16th October 1999
Research Discussion with Dr. Laura McAllister in LIPAM- 9th November 1999
Mersey Basin Councils- 4th April 2000 and 19th June 2000
RVI Co-ordinators Meeting- 15th March 2000
River Restoration Centre Workshop– 6 April 2000
Alt 2000 Annual Meeting– 10 March 2000
National Seminar, Building Partnership– 1 June 2000
The 7th Mersey Basin Campaign Conference – 7 November 2000
Six Case Studies
1-a. Mersey Estuary Project
Steering Group Representatives
243
Appendix One: Case Study Activity
Peter Batey (Univ. of Liverpool)
John Entwistle (Wirral MBC) – 24 May 2000
William Crookshank (Environment Agency) – 5 June 2000
Stuart Roberts (Cheshire County Council) – 9 June 2000
Louise Hopkins (Mersey Basin Campaign) – 13 June 2000
Andrew Pannell (Halton Borough Council) – 16 June 2000
Ceri Jones (Sefton MBC) – 16 June 2000
Shanthi Rasaratham (North West Water)
User of the MEMP
Kevin Curran (Liverpool City Council) – 10 October 2000
Meeting Observation
Mersey Estuary Forum (annual conference) – 16 June 2000
Countryside Exchange Programme (three-day seminar) – 10 October 2000
1-b. Manifesto Pledge Groups
Mark Turner (Mersey Basin Campaign, Deputy Chief Executive) – 6 June 2000
Louise Hopkins (Mersey Basin Campaign) – 13 June 2000
Caroline Downey (Mersey Basin Trust, Deputy Chief Executive) – 13 June 2000
Manifesto Pledge Group 7 (RVIs), the Mersey Basin Campaign- 29th September 1999
2-a. Water Mark
Andrew Coombe (Water Watch) – 8 June 2000
Mary Lee (Water Watch) – 8 June 2000
244
Appendix One: Case Study Activity
Sarah Lester (Dawen RVI, Project Officer) – 19 July 2000
Steven Beesley (REEL RVI, Co-ordinator) – 19 July 2000
Judy Yacoub (CED Partnership) – 19 July 2000
Water Mark Procession Meeting – 19 July 2000
Site Visit to Water Mark award business, B&Q Nelson and Blackburn – 19 July 2000
2-b. Showricks Bridge Project
Gwen White (North Liverpool Partnership) – 19 June 2000
Rodney Fletcher (R.A) – Need to hunt (phone number is in file)
Peter Batey
3-a. Mersey Basin Weekends
Carole Lindberg (North West Water, Public Relation Manager) – 9 October 1999
Ann Bates (Mersey Basin Trust, Mersey Basin Weekend Organiser)– 10 October
1999
Colin Greenall (Sankey Canal Restoration Society, Committee Member) – 10 October
1999
Caroline Downey (Mersey Basin Trust, Deputy Chief Executive) – 13 June 2000
Open Day at North West Water Waste Treatment Works, Warrington, the Mersey
Basin Weekend Event- 8th October 1999
Sankey Canal Clean Up (St. Helens Ranger Service and Sankey Canal Restoration
Society), the Mersey Basin Weekend Event - 9th October 1999
3-b. Kingfisher Surveys
245
Appendix One: Case Study Activity
Lucie Eagle (Mersey Basin Campaign, Student Placement) – 8 June 2000
246
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Appendix Two:
Analysis of The Mersey Basin Weekends
247
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Community-based Organisations
Organisation
All Saints Youth Club
Avanley Conservation Society
Alvanley Parish Council
Atherton Environmental
Projects (5 Joint)*
Atherton Environmental
Projects
Atherton Heritage Society
Description of
Activities
Tree, bulb planting
Pondlife (Wirral & C
Badger Group)
Footpath clearance
Clean up canal
Clean up of Colliers
Clean up
Bacup Duck of Edinburgh
Award
Barrowford Parish Council
Birch Community Centre
Clean, planting (Grwk
Rossendale)
Renovation of footpath
Clean up
Birchfields Green Action Group
Birchfields Green Action Group
Gore Brook Clean up and
planting
Gore Brook Clean up
Blackbook Conservation
Society
Bollin Valley Project
Bollin Valley Project
Bolton Prince’s Trust (Croal
Walk (Whaley B A
Society)
Inspect NWW WWTW
Pollution inspect
Environmental clean up
Category
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Edu (Public)
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Walk)
Other
Other
Env. (Clean
1997
1998
1999
1
0.5
4
0.2
1(F)
1
1
0.5
2(F)
1(F)
1(F)
1
1(F)
1(F)
0.5*3
1
1
0.5
248
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Wardens)
Bolton & District Anglers
Association
Bolton Watch Club
Bolton Wildlife Project
Bolton Wildlife Project
Brotherod Playscheme
Burnage Community Park
Management Group
Bury Canoe and Kayak Club
Burrs Activity Centre Ltd.
(Bury Canoe)
Captain’s Clough Residents
Association
Chesham Fold Tenants &
Residents Association
Clayton-le-Moors with Altham
Prospects
Cloverhill Residents Action
Group
Cheadle Angling Club
Cheshire Landscape Trust
Croal Irwell Valley Wardens
Teaching angling to
children
Art with natural materials
Wetland management
Clean up, planting
(Captain’s C.)
Clean up
Clean up
Canoeing (Burrs Activity
Centre)
Canoeing (Bury Canoe
Club)
Clean up, planting (Bolton
W. P.)
Clean up
Habitat management
Clean up of the river
Clean up River Mersey
Tree dressing (Frodsham
Town C.)
Environmental Clean up
up)
Rec. (Angling)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Water
Sports)
Rec. (Water
Sports)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env, (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
1
1
1
0.5
2(F)
4
0.5*2
0.5*2
0.5
1
1(F)
2
2
2
1 (F)
0.5(F)
0.5
249
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
(Bolton P T)
Cronkshaw Fold Farme Study
Centre
Crosby Hall Educational Trust
(Bishop Scl)
Crow Wood Conservationist
Fencing and planting
Pond clean up and dipping
Clean up
Cycle Stockport
Water quality survey
Deeside Park Conservation
Trust
Dry Stone Walling Association
Cheshire
East Lancashire Cub Scouts
Clean up of Shotwick
brook
Practice event at Hard
Time Farm
Clean up local environment
East Manchester Community
Boat Project
Eddisbury Artists (Frodsham W
C Group)
Elton Sailing Club
Clean up and build access
point
Art exhibition
Formby Residents (Alt 2000)
Friends of Blackleach
Clean up and plating
Improve access and clean
up
Planting wild flowers
Friends of Court Hey Park
Friends of Cronkshaw Fold
Friends of Dean Wood
Clean up reservoir
Water power boat
demonstration
Footpath improvement
up)
Env. (Physical)
2(F)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Water
Test)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Event)
0.5(F)
4(F)
1
1(F)
1
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Physical)
1
2
2(F)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Multiple)
Env. (Physical)
0.5*3
1
0.5
1(F)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Physical)
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
250
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Friends of Happy Valley
Planting
Friends of Happy Valley
Friends of Healey Dell
Variety of environmental
tasks
Clean up and BBQ
Friends of Owley Wood
Friends of Owley Wood
Physical works
Planting wild flowers
Friends of Parrswood
(Parrswood R Trust)
Friends of Prestwich Forest
Park (BTCV)
Friends of Prestwich Forest
Park (BTCV)
Friends of the Valley
Fair and open day
Friends of Woolston Park
(Warrington R.)
Friends of Woolston Park
(Warrington R.)
Frodsham Wildlife
Conservation Group
Frodsham Wildlife
Conservation Group
Gower Hey Wood Conservation
Group
Gower Hey Wood Conservation
Group
History study
Tree Planting
Clean up
Oaken stream clean up
Reed harvest
Art exhibition (Eddisbury
Art., 99)
Walk (Frodsham Town
Council)
Stream clean up
Autumn clean up
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Multiple
Multiple
(Clean up)
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Event)
2(F)
2(F)
1
1
2
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
0.5(F)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
0.5
1
Rec. (Walk)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
1
0.5*3
0.5*2
1
1
251
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Gower Hey Wood Conservation
Group
Granby Toxteth Activity Club
Enhancing flood damaged
area
Building garden
Gypsy Brook Tenants &
Residents Association
Halton &Warrington Midweek
Group
Hayfield Civic Trust
(Derbyshire Ser.)
Heaton Park Wardens
Clean up
Heaton Park Wardens
High Peak RSPB Members
Group
Hinsford Town Junior Football
Club
Hollingworth Lake Wardens
Fun Fishing Session
Bird Watch (Stockport
YOC, RSPB)
Canal trip (Inland W.
Association)
Environment work
(Rochdale PTV)
Seed collection
Hollins Conservation Group
Huddersfield Canal Society Ltd
Inland Waterways Association
Inland Waterways Association
Inland Waterways Association
(5 joint)*
Leigh and Lowton Sailing Club
Improve local habitat
(BTCV)
Clean up
Clean up Dell area
Canal restoration work
Canal trip (Hinsford
Football Club)
Clean up canal
Clean up canal
Sailing race for the
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clane
up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Angling)
Rec. (Event)
1(F)
2
1
0.5
0.5(F)
1
1
0.33
Rec. (Event)
0.5
Multiple
0.5
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Physical)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Water
1
1
2(F)
1(F)
0.5
1(F)
0.2
1
252
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Lion Salt Works Trust (Weaver
RVI)
Littleborough Action Group
Littleborough Civic Trust
(Groundwork)
Littleborough Civic Trust
Liverpool Sailing Club
Lomeshaye Marsh Project (N
&C College)
Lomeshaye Marsh Project (N
&C College)
Manchester IWA (5 joint)*
Manchester IWA (Worsely
Cruising Club)
Manchester Nation Trust
Volunteers
Manchester Nation Trust
Volunteers
Manchester Nation Trust
Volunteers
Manchester Prince’s Trust
Volunteers
Manchester, Bolton and Bury
Canal Society
disabled
Historical evening
Sprots)
Rec. (Event)
A range of environment
projects
Repair of steps and
walkpath (F)
Cleaning and planting
Env. (Multiple)
3(F)
Env. (Physical)
0.5*4
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Clean up of club area
Env. (Clean
up)
Clean up
Env. (Clean
up)
Wetland management
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Clean up canal
Env. (Clean
up)
Clean up canal and towpath Env. (Clean
up)
Restoring nature area
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Erosion control, bridge
Env. (Physical)
rebuilding
Pond reclamation work
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Access (Man. Leisure
Env. (Physical)
Service)
Guided walking event
Rec. (Walk)
1
1
3
1(F)
0.5*3
0.5
0.2
0.5*2
0.5(F)
1(F)
1(F)
0.5*2
1
1
253
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Matthew Moss Youth &
Community Group
Merseyside Cub Scouts
Fun day event at canalside
Rec. (Event)
Clean up
Milnrow and Newhey
Riverwatch
Milnrow and Newhey
Riverwatch
Milnrow and Newhey
Riverwatch
Mill Hill St Peter’s Scouts
Social event
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Event)
1
Walk along Beal
Rec. (Walk)
1
Clean up the river Beal
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Event)
Rec. (Walk)
Moore Nature Reserve (BTCV)
Moore Nature Reserve
Naden Valley Conservation
Group
North West Ecological Trust
North West Ecological Trust
North West Ecological Trust
Oakwood High Youth Club
Offerton Community Council
Offerton Community Council
Oldham & District RSPB
Members Group
Clean up at Mill Hill
Bridge Street
Learning craft skill
Walk (Warrington Ranger
Service)
Clean up
Env. (Clean
up)
Access improvement
Env. (Physical)
Construction of a dam
Env. (Physical)
Planting water plants
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Sailing or canoeing for the Rec. (Water
disabled
Sports)
Clean up stream and garden Env. (Clean
up)
Clean up and rebuild wall
Muliple.
(Clean up)
Bird Watching
Rec. (Event)
1
1
1
1
0.5*3
0.5
1
1
1(F)
1
2(F)
1
1(F)
1(F)
1
1
1(F)
1
1
254
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Oughtrington Community
Association
Parrswood RuralTrust (Friend
of Parrswood)
Peak National Park & Hayfield
Civic Trust
Peak National Park & Hayfield
Civic Trust
Pendle Civic Trust
Planting and clean up
Fair and open day
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Poulton Parish Council
Habitat (Warrington Angler Env. (Habitat
Ass) (F)
man.)
Prince Albert Angling
Clean up (Macclesfield
Env. (Clean
Association
Ranger)
up)
Queen’s Park Restoration Group Creation of wetlands
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Queen’s Park Restoration Group Group exhibition and talk
Edu. (Public)
Queen’s Park Restoration Group Pond Clearance and BBQ
Multiple
(Clean up)
Ramblers’ Association (Darwen Walk along Darwen
Rec. (Walk)
RVI)
Rochdale & Bury RSPB
Bird watching
Rec. (Event)
Members Group
Rochdale Canal Society
Walk
Rec. (Walk)
Rochdale Prince’s Trust
Environment work
Multiple
Volunteer
(Hollingworth)
Rossendale ETF Team
Clean pond
Env. (Clean
(Groundwork Ross.)
up)
Saddleworth Conservation
Clean up
Env. (Clean
1(F)
0.5
Clean up (Joint Derbyshire
Service)
Clean up (Joint Derbyshire
Service)
Clean up
0.5(F)
0.5
1
0.5*2
0.5
2
1
1(F)
0.5
2
1
0.5
0.5(F)
1
255
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Action Group
Sankey Canal Restoration
Society
Sankey Canal Restoration
Society
Sankey Volleyball Club
(Sankey Now)
Sefton Conservation Volunteers
Shaw & Crompton Environment
Group
Shaw & Crompton Environment
Group
Stacksteads Riverside Park
Group
Stockport Heritage Trust
Stockport & District Anglers
Federation
Stockport RSPB Members
Group
Stockport YOC Group
Squares Tenants and Residents
Association
Tameside Princes Trust
Volunteers
The Inland Waterways
Protection Society
The Inland Waterways
Mulitple (St. Helens Ran.
SankeyN)
Canal clean up (St. Helens
Ranger)
Volleyball tournament
Habitate creation
Habitat (Beal Valley
Partnership)
Clean up of Fullwood
(Groundwork)
Clean up of the river Irwell
Heritage walking
Angling competition
up)
Multiple
0.33
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Event)
0.5(F) 0.5(F) 0.5(F)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Walk)
Rec. (Angling)
2
0.5
1(F)
0.5
0.5
1
1(F)
1
Bird Watch (High Peak,
Stoc. YOC)
Bird Watch (High Peak,
Stoc RSPB)
Path and bridge
improvement
Environmental works
Rec. (Evnet)
0.33
Rec. (Event)
0.33
Multiple
1
Projects being undertaken,
clean up
Repaint of bridge 59
Env. (Clean
up)
Multiple
1(F)
Env. (Physical)
1
2
1(F)
256
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Protection Society
The Inland Waterways
Protection Society
The Inland Waterways
Protection Society
The Loamy Wood Project
The National Trust (Manchester
N T)
The Norton Priory Museum
Trust
Todmorden Angling Society
Town Hill Community Trust
Trafford Ecology Park
Voluntary Group
Wardens & Friends of Healey
Dell
Warrington Anglers Association
Walk and tour
(Physical)
Rec. (Walk)
Walk and bridge inspection
Multiple
2
Clean up
1
Family learn event
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Edu. (Public)
Junior open match
Environmental fun day
Guided walk
Rec. (Angling)
Rec. (Event)
Rec. (Walk)
1(F)
Clean up and BBQ
Multiple
1(F)
Restoring nature area
Habitat (Poulton Parish
Council) (F)
Warrington Anglers Association Angling tip
Warrington Anglers Association Fishing competition
Waterside Community Project
Clean up, water test, access
Waterway Recovery Group
Towpath improvement
Whaley Bridge Amenity Society Walk (Blackbrook C
Society in 97)
Whaley Bridge Amenity Society Clean up the river Goyt
Canal Basin
Wheelton Boat Club
Clean up of canal
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
Rec. (Event)
Multiple
Env. (Other)
Rec. (Walk)
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Clean
up)
1(F)
1
0.5(F)
1(F)
1
1(F)
0.5*2
1
1
2
2(F)
1
2(F)
0.5*3
1(F)
1
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
257
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Whitewell Bottom Junior Youth
Club
Whitewell Bottom Junior Youth
Club
Wigan RSPB Members Group
Wildfowl and Wetland Trust
Winsford Anglers
Clean up Whitewell Brook
Winsford Youth Forum
Canoeing for leaning
difficulties
Pondlife (Avanley Conser.
Society)
Woodwork demonstration
Walk on RiVa 2005 area
Wirral & Cheshire Badger
Group
Wirral Countryside Volunteers
Wirral Footpath & Open Spaces
Preservations Society
Worsely Cruising Club
(Manchester IWA)
Worsely Cruising Club
Clearing pathway to create
a path
Bird Watching
Guided walk
Clean up the river Weaver
Env. (Clean
up)
Env. (Physical)
Rec. (Event)
Rec. (Walk)
Env. (Clean
up)
Rec. (Water
Sports)
Edu. (Public)
Rec. (Event)
Rec. (Walk)
1(F)
1(F)
2
2
1
1(F)
1(F)
1
0.5
2(F)
1
Clean up canal and towpath Env. (Clean
0.5*2
up)
Clean up and family party
Multiple
2
night
(Clean up)
Wycoller Country Park
Family event, pond dipping Edu. (Public)
1
* ‘5 joints’- a joint event of Manchester IWA, Atherton Environmental Projects, Clear Glaze RVI, Manchester Ship Canal Co, and Lorez Canal
Services.
258
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Schools
Organisation
Description of Activities
Acresfield Primary School
Clean up and enhancing
nature area
Asmall Primary School
Creating wildlife garden
Category
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Env. (Habitat
1
2(F)
man.)
Env. (Habitat
1(F)
man.)
Env. (Clean up)
0.5(F)
Bishop Martin School (Crosby
H Trust)
Doveholes Primary School
Pond clean up and dipping
Fallibroome High School
(Macc Rang)
Fallibroome High School
Grappenhall School
Clean up, pond dipping
Green School Network
Hollin Primary School (Grwk
R, O, T)
Holland Moor School
Clean up school and college
Pond nature study
Env. (Clean up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean up)
Edu. (School)
Tree planting in school
ground
Science projects
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Edu. (School)
Riverside studies
Edu. (School)
1
Water Testing
Env. (Water
Test)
Env. (Clean up)
1
Horns Mile School
Environment Group
Manchester Metropolitan
University
Manchester Metropolitan
University
Moorhead High School
Nelson & Colne College
Planting and collecting seeds
Clean up school pond
Pond management
Clean up of the river and
stream
Clean up
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Multiple
Env. (Clean up)
1
1
0.5
1
1(F)
2(F)
1
0.5
1
1
1
1(F)
1
1
0.5*3
259
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
(Lomeshaye P)
Nelson & Colne College
Wetland management
(Lomeshaye P)
North Manchester Schools
Clean up and tree planting
Forum
Ouder Hill Community School Creating beach area and
planting
Oughtrington Primary School Walk, clean up, planting
Our Lady Queen of Peace
Tree planting in school
School
grounds
Penkford School (Sankey
Bulb planting at school
Now)
garden
St. Anne’s R.C. Primary
Clean up
School
St. Michael’s Primary School
Improving nature area
West End Plant a Life
West End Plant a Life
Building dipping platform
Planting at school pond
Taxal & Fernilee Primary
School
Clean up and enlarging a
pond
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Multiple
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean up)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
0.5
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
1
0.5
1
2(F)
1(F)
1(F)
1
260
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Key Partners of the Mersey Basin Campaign
Organisation
Description of
Category
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Activities
Alt 2000 (Formby Residents)
Clean up and planting
Env. (Multiple)
0.5
Alt 2000
Clean up and fun day
Multiple
1
Beal Valley Partnership
Clean up wetland and
Env. (Habitat
planting
man.)
Beal Valley Partnership (Shaw
Clean up and habitat
Env. (Habitat
… Group)
management
man.)
Blackburn & Darwen Borough
Multiple (Grwk B, Darwen Env. (Multiple)
0.33
Council
RVI)
Bollin Valley Partnership
Walk
Rec. (Walk)
Bollin Valley Partnership
Clean up the river bank
Env. (Clean up)
British Trust Conservation
Improve access
Env. (Physical)
1(F)
Volunteers
British Trust Conservation
Clean up
Env. (Clean up)
Volunteers
British Trust Conservation
Mass task for local group
Multiple
Volunteers
British Trust Conservation
Consultation meeting and
Multiple (Other)
Volunteers
clean up
BTCV (Moore Nature Reserve)
Leaning craft skill
Rec. (Event)
05.*3
BTCV (Friends of Prestwich
Tree planting
Env. (Habitat
0.5
Forest Park)
man.)
BTCV (Friends of Prestwich
Clean up
Env. (Clean up)
Forest Park)
BTCV (Halton & Warrington
Improve local habitat
Env. (Habitat
Midweek Gp)
man.)
British Waterway
Walking around canal
Rec. (Walk)
1
1998
1999
1
1
0.5
1
1
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
2(F)
0.5
0.5
1
1
261
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Canal Partnership
Canal Partnership
Cheshire Wildlife Trust
Clean up canalside
Fishing competition and
walk
Erecting owl boxes
Cheshire Wildlife Trust (Weaver
RVI)
Cheshire Wildlife Trust
Clean up of Valley Brook
Clear Glaze Partnership
Clean up of Westleigh
brook
Clean up canal
Clear Glaze Partnership (5
joints)*
Clear Glaze Partnership
(Groundwork)
Darwen RVI (NWW)
Darwen RVI (Grwk Blackburn,
B&D Council)
Darwen RVI
Darwen RVI
Darwen RVI (Ramblers’
Association)
Day RVI
Groundwork (Littleborough
Civic Trust)
Groundwork (Clear Glaze
Partnership)
Water testing at Tameside
Env. (Clean up)
Rec. (Multiple)
1
1
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean up)
1(F)
0.5
Env. (Water
Test)
Env. (Clean up)
1(F)
Env. (Clean up)
0.2
Community events
Rec. (Event)
Open day of WWTW
Clean up and practical
works
Clean up the river and
bank
Sculpture workshops
Walk along Darwen
Edu. (Public)
Env. (Multiple)
Clean up of Bryning
Brook
Repair of steps and
walkpath (F, 95)
Community events
Env. (Clean up)
1
0.5
0.5
0.33
Env. (Clean up)
1
Other
Rec. (Walk)
1
Env. (Physical)
Rec. (Event)
1
1
0.5
1
0.5*4
0.5
262
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Groundwork Blackburn (D RVI,
B&D Coil.)
Groundwork Macclesfield &
Vale Royal
Groundwork Macclesfield &
Vale Royal
Groundwork Macclesfield &
Vale Royal
Groundwork R, O, T (Hollin
School)
Groundwork R, O, T (S & C
Env. Group)
Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham
& Tameside
Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham
& Tameside
Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham
& Tameside
Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham
& Tameside
Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham
& Tameside
Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham
& Tameside
Groundwork Rossendale (Bacup
DEA)
Groundwork Rossendale
Groundwork Rossendale (Ross.
ETF Team)
Clean up and practical
works
Green Health Check on
businesses
Clean up with businesses
Env. (Multiple)
0.33
Other
1
Env. (Clean up)
1(F)
Canoeing on the canal
Pond nature study
Rec. (Water
Sports)
Edu. (School)
Clean up Fullwood
Env. (Clean up)
Pond Clean up & planting
Launch of newsletter
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Other
Clean up of the river
Env. (Clean up)
Physical development
Env. (Physical)
1
Wetland habitat, footpath
improve
Pond Dipping
1
Clean up, planting
Env. (Habitat
Man.)
Env. (Water
Test)
Env. (Clean up)
Opening of picnic site
Clean up of pond
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Clean up)
1(F)
0.5
0.5
1
1
1(F)
1
1(F)
1(F)
0.5
1
0.5(F)
263
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Groundwork Salford & Trafford
Groundwork Salford & Trafford
Groundwork St. Helens,
Knowsley, Sefton
Groundwork Tameside
Groundwork Wigan
Groundwork Wirral (RiVa 2005)
Manchester Ship Canal Co. (5
joints)*
Medlock/Tame RVI
Mersey Basin Business
Foundation
Mersey Strategy
Mersey Valley Partnership (E M
Energy)
North West Water (Darwen RVI)
North West Water (Wigan
Ranger Service)
North West Water
North West Water
REEL
Riva 2005
Riva 2005 RVI (Groundwork
Wirral)
Riva 2005 RVI
Clean up, Walkway
(Salford CC)
Development lake and
pond
Planting wildflowers
Path improvement
Clean up Beech Hill
Gateway improvement,
planting
Clean up canal
Watery fun with schools
Variety environmental
tasks
Launch of action
programme
Enhancing the nature trail
area
Open day of WWTW
Walk and open day of
WWTW
River clean up
Open day of WWTW
Guided walk
Clean up
Gateway improvement,
planting
Waterside fun day
Env. (Multiple)
0.5
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
men.)
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Clean up)
Env. (Multiple)
1(F)
2
1(F)
1
0.5
Env. (Clean up)
Edu. (School)
Multiple
0.2
1
Other
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Edu. (Public)
Mulitple
Env. (Clean up)
Edu. (Public)
Rec. (Walk)
Env. (Clean up)
Env.(Multiple)
Mulitple
1
1
1
1
0.5*2
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
6
2
1
1
0.5
1
264
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
RiVa 2005 RVI
Salford City Council
Sankey Now (St Helens Ranger,
SCARS)
Sankey Now (Sankey Volleyball
Club, 97)
Sankey Now
Sankey Now (Penkford School)
The Environment Agency
Upper Weaver RVI
Weaver RVI
Weaver RVI (Lion Salt Works
Trust)
Weaver RVI (Cheshire
Countryside Service)
Weaver RVI (Cheshire Wildlife
Trust)
River poetry competition
Clean up, walkway
(Salford GW)
Pond, picnic area
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Multiple)
Multiple
0.33
Volleyball tournament
Rec. (Event)
0.5
Wildlife Watching
Bulb planting at school
ground
Tree planting
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Clean up)
Clean up of Leoghton
Brook
Guided walk
Historical evening
Producing environmental
sculptures
Clean up of Valley Brook
Rec. (Walk)
Rec. (Event)
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
0.5
Other
0.5*2
Env. (Clean up)
0.5
265
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Ranger Services
Organisation
Description of
Category
Activities
Blackburn Borough Council
Clean up at Witton
Env. (Clean up)
Service
Country Park
Cheshire Countryside Management Migration watch and
Rec. (Event)
Service
record
Cheshire Countryside Management Producing environment
Other
Service
sculptures
(WeaverRVI)
Cheshire Countryside Management Walk
Rec. (Walk)
Service
Croal Irwell Valley Countryside
Ravenden Brook clean up Env. (Clean up)
Services
Croal Irwell Valley Countryside
Walk along the Irwell
Rec. (Walk)
Services
Derbyshire Countryside Service
Clean up river Sett
Env. (Clean up)
Derbyshire Countryside Service
Clean up
Env. (Clean up)
(Hayfield CT)
Derbyshire Countryside Service
Clean rubbish from the
Env. (Clean up)
(Peak N. Park)
river
Derbyshire Countryside Service
Clean rubbish from the
Env. (Clean up)
(Peak N. Park)
river
Lancashire Countryside Service
Pond dipping
Edu. (Public)
Liverpool Ranger Service
Talk on otter
Edu. (Public)
Liverpool Ranger Service
Casting competition
Rec. (Event)
Macclesfield Ranger Service
Clean up and pond
Multiple
(Fallibroome Sch)
dipping
Macclesfield Ranger Service
Pond work at Rectory
Env. (Habitat
Fields
man.)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997
1998
1999
1
1
0.5*2
1
1
1(F)
1
1(F)
0.5(F)
0.5(F)
0.5
4(F)
1
2
1
0.5
1
266
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Macclesfield Ranger Service
(Prince A A Ass.)
Manchester Leisure Services (Man.
P Trust)
Mersey Valley Countryside Warden
Service
Mersey Valley Countryside Warden
Service
Mersey Valley Countryside Warden
Service
Oldham Countryside Service
Voluntary Rangers
Peak National Park Ranger Service
Rochdale Countryside Warden
Service
Salford Countryside Ranger Service
Sefton Coast and Countryside
Management Service
Sefton Coast and Countryside
Management Service
Sefton Coast and Countryside
Management Service
Sholver Rangers Foundation
Smithills Countryside Warden
Service
St. Helens Ranger Service
(SankeyNow, SCARS)
St. Helens Ranger Service
St. Helens Ranger Service
Clean up (PA Angling
Associat.)
Access
Evn. (Clean up)
Access improvement
Env. (Physical)
Pond management
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Walk)
1
Env. (Clean up)
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
1(F)
Guided walk around
Chorton
Clean up of the Medlock
Clean up
Pond Management
0.5
Env. (Physical)
0.5*2
1
1(F)
Woodland walk
Canal safari
Env. (Clean up)
Multiple (Clean
up)
Rec. (Walk)
Rec. (Event)
Tour of pumping station
Rec. (Event)
1
Pond dipping
Edu. (Public)
1
Access improvement
Clean up Ravenden
Env. (Physical)
Env. (Clean up)
Pond, picnic area
Multiple
0.33
Evening talk
Canal clean up (SCARS)
Rec. (Event)
Env. (Clean up)
1
0.5(F) 0.5(F) 0.5(F)
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
267
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Stockport Urban & Countryside
Service
Tameside Countryside Warden
Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
Warrington Borough Council
Ranger Service
West Lancashire Countryside
Ranger Service
West Lancashire Countryside
Ranger Service
West Lancashire Countryside
Ranger Service
Wigan MBC Countryside Ranger
Service
Wigan MBC Countryside Ranger
Clean up of Etherow
Env. (Clean up)
1(F)
Watery event, family fun
fair
Walk
Rec. (Event)
1
Rec. (Walk)
1
History study (Fri.
Woolstom)
Walk (Moore Nature R
Wardens)
Build a willow seats
Rec. (Event)
0.5(F)
Rec. (Walk)
0.5
Env. (Physical)
2
Reed harvest (Friend
Woolston)
Crunching competition
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
0.5
Woodland discovery day
Rec. (Event)
1
1
Walk (World Wide Fund,
1999)
Art workshop using
recycled
Pond Habitat
improvement
Children’s batty
workshop
Walk and open day of
NWW
Walking event
Rec. (Walk)
1
0.5
Rec. (Event)
1
1
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Rec. (Event)
1
Multiple
0.5
Rec. (Walk)
1
1
0.5
1
268
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
Service
Wirral Ranger Service
Wirral Ranger Service
River dipping, walk,
display
Bird watch
Multiple
(Event)
Rec. (Event)
2
1
Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Others
Organisation
ACRE Recycling
City Environment Centre
Congleton Town Council
Edison Mission Energy (Mersey
Valley P.)
Frodsham Town Council
Frodsham Town Council (F W C
Group)
Hollingworth Lake Country Park
Lorenz Canal Service (5 joint)*
New Mills Heritage and
Information Centre
New Mill Urban Study Centre
Pure Adventure
Salford Quays Heritage Centre
Description of Activities
Clean up of River Irk
Pond Dipping
Planting 4,500 wild flower
bulbs
Enhancing the nature trail
area
Tree dressing (Cheshire
Landscape T)
Walk (Frodsham Wildlife
Conserv.)
Talk about canals
Clean up canal
Walks around the heritage
centre
Build safe platform and water
test
Problem solving at water’s
edge
Guided Tour on Environment
Improve
Category
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Env. (Clean up)
1
1
1
Edu. (Public)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
man.)
Env. (Habitat
0.5(F)
man.)
Rec. (Walk)
1999
1
2(F)
1
Edu. (Public)
Env. (Clean up)
Rec. (Walk)
1
Multiple
0.5*2
0.5*2
0.2
2
3(F)
Env. (Others)
1(F)
Rec. (Walk)
2 (F)
269
Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends
The Boat Museum, Ellesmere
Port
Vale Royal Environmental
Network
Visions Community Design
Water Adventure Centre,
Droysden
Worldwide Fund for Nature
Worldwide Fund (Warrington
Ranger)
Fun fair for children
Rec. (Event)
2
Public consultation of
document
Open day in Castlefield
Canoeing (School, woman)
Other
1
WWF annual sponsored walk
Walk to grab some sponsors
Rec. (Event)
Rec. (Water
Sports)
Rec. (Walk)
Rec. (Walk)
1(F)
1(F)
2(F)
1(F)
4(F)
2
0.5
270
Appendix Three: Publications
Appendix Three:
Publications
271