Call for discussion papers: 'Place-sensitive understandings of nature recovery in the UK'

This discussion paper series aims to help understand the relationship between place, people and policy around nature recovery. Below is some additional context, with a particular focus on the UK policy environment, to provide some background and starting points for proposals to consider.

Analysis from engagement conducted through our place-focused Where we Live Next programme identified the value of SHAPE contributions in this space. Of relevance here is how these disciplines can help unpack complex systems challenges for policymaking on the restoration of nature and wildlife, whilst also balancing and aligning these with wider sustainability priorities (such as efforts towards renewable energy delivery and commitments to housing) as well as social and economic objectives. A focus on nature can help us unearth the connections that people have to their local natural environments, as well as provide a better understanding of some of the challenges in connecting people to nature within and across places It can also help us tap into the more emotive and relational elements of place such as identity, place-love, sense of belonging, narratives, place attachment and ‘pride in place’.

Nature Recovery, defined as the process of protecting, restoring and enhancing nature to achieve biodiverse and thriving ecosystems within which humans are a balanced component to positive change, is important in current environmental debates. The previous government’s Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appointed 48 authorities to prepare a Local Nature Recovery Strategy for their area, which were due to be in place across England by March 2025. This demonstrates the value of action at place-level. In a recent speech, Defra’s Secretary of State stated speeding up nature recovery is one of the department’s five priorities and that access to nature plays an important role in delivering Labour’s missions. Research on nature recovery in conversation with place-sensitive policymaking is therefore particularly timely and of relevance for central and local government policymakers.

Other notable policy levers include:

• The Environment Act 2021 which aims to halt species decline by 2030 though legally binding targets enforced by the Office for Environmental Protection
• The Environment Improvement Plan 2023 (EIP) which builds on the 25 Year Environment Plan and has an ‘apex goal’ of improving nature and halting biodiversity decline
• The Environmental Improvement Plan for Northern Ireland published in September 2024 outlines interventions to improve the quality of the environment and thereby wellbeing and the environment.
• Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes were introduced to support the rural economy while considering the goals of the 25YEP and net zero commitments
• The Nature Recovery Network (NRN), is a commitment to the EIP to harness places with high natural capital and establish a more collaborative and joined up approach
• Nature Recovery Action Plan for Wales was published in 2015 and updated for 2020-21; it sets out a Nature Recovery Framework including statutory biodiversity targets.
• The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill introduced in March 2024 aims to change land ownership and management practices in rural and island areas.
• The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill(not yet published) is expected to introduce statutory nature recovery targets.
• Biodiversity Net Gain became mandatory in February 2024 to ensure developments had a positive impact on habitats, and has increased activity in relation to nature markets
• The UK’s government mission driven agenda also commits to addressing the water sewage crisis, promoting regenerative farming to ensure nature recovery and food security, and improving access to green spaces
• The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) strategy to ensure housing and infrastructure development can meet its environmental obligations and contribute to nature recovery.

As much as these interventions seek to achieve ambitious goals, there are pitfalls and challenges already apparent, and a greater breadth and depth of research is required to understand the rapid changes in this environmental policy space.

Objectives

Discussion papers in this series should draw on research and evidence from SHAPE disciplines with the aim of informing policy audiences of relevant understandings, questions, and issues relating to nature recovery, and point to how place-sensitive policy and practice can be applied and enhanced. All papers should make use of real-world examples and case studies to illustrate the discussion.

Our focus is in bringing a place-sensitive lens to nature recovery policy and practice. Successful discussion papers will take on the ‘place-sensitive lens’ by focusing on a specific scale of place or context, but will also ensure that, where relevant, findings are generalisable across contexts, scales and levels of decision-making. For example: ocean, coastal and wetland ecosystems, clean and safe water ways, species reintroduction, enhancing biodiversity, ecosystem services, woodlands and agroforestry, peatlands, farmed landscapes, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and nature markets/carbon credits/biodiversity net gain policies. We will also consider funding papers that reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of this place-sensitive approach to nature recovery from a variety of perspectives.

Questions

Below, we set out the types of questions we are anticipating discussion papers could address, though this is not intended to exhaust all options. We expect researchers to submit proposals based on their areas of expertise, reflecting the elements they are best placed to respond and contribute to. Cross-cutting approaches are also welcome as well as proposals from researchers who focus on devolved nations or include devolved nations in their approach are encouraged.

Analysis of current policy & practice landscape:

Papers focusing on this area may draw together some of the latest research to point to contested issues that SHAPE disciplines can help policymakers to better understand, including consideration of place-sensitivity, or where there are opportunities to reframe these debates using SHAPE insights. Questions that could be considered include:

• What are the current opportunities and challenges in relation to nature recovery in a particular context or scale of place; for example, how is nature recovery work making a difference to place and how does it do this?
• How does nature recovery relate to other environmental issues like climate adaptation, net zero or pollution? Where are there points of conflict between nature recovery and other policy goals? (such as housing and infrastructure)
• To what degree is current policy on nature recovery place-sensitive? Where we the gaps, opportunities and issues on the horizon?
• What are the roles of different stakeholders, in particular national and local government as well as private and third sectors (e.g. business and parishes) in intervening to support nature recovery objectives?
• What investment and mobilisation is required to translate research into policy that delivers effective outcomes? Are there valuable examples of joining up often conflicting agendas through place-sensitive activity?

Environmental ethics:

Papers focusing in this area may draw on a range of disciplines to examine some of the more fundamental normative questions that might point to re-framings or more critical views of current approaches to nature recovery. Papers should use case studies and examples to help illustrate the discussion. Questions that could be considered include:

• What is the purpose of policy on nature recovery? What normative framework and associated principles best underpins policy on nature recovery?
• How is nature understood and valued, and how does this influence nature recovery interventions? How is/should nature recovery be measured and monitored over different time frames and scales?
• How is/should nature recovery be measures and monitored over different time frames and scales?
• What is the relationship between nature recovery and environmental justice? What does fairness look like in the context of nature recovery, how does this vary between places, and what are the implications for place-sensitive policymaking?

People and nature:

Papers exploring this element might dig deeper into the relationship between people and nature, while retaining a focus on policy by drawing on lessons from how these relationships influence policy and practice. Examples of effective and meaningful public engagement are particularly helpful.

• What factors prevent and/or enable meaningful participatory engagement and partnership working between publics, local authorities and central government on nature recovery?
• What are the additional benefits and opportunities created by nature recovery, such as employment, health and wellbeing?
• What is the role of humanities disciplines in understanding nature recovery and shaping policy, both from research and practice perspectives? What are the cultural implications of shifting ideas about people and nature?
• How might new technologies change our relationships and understandings with nature?

Deliverable

The expected deliverable is a concise, robust, evidence-based, well-referenced, contextualised and balanced discussion paper that responds to the context and objectives, and addresses the audience identified above. As a guide, the length of the paper should be around 4000 words and no more than 5000, excluding references. It should be evidence-based and meet high academic standards. All papers will be subject to peer review which will be facilitated by the Academy. Assuming they meet the expected standards, papers will be published on the programme evidence hub webpage in the author’s name.

For clarity, the expectation is that this work will be based on existing knowledge, research, and analysis on these topics rather than involving new field research. Authors can draw on their existing published material as well as a wider evidence base, but the paper should be an original work that has not been published elsewhere already.

As highlighted above, these are not opinion-pieces, but should include case studies, useful conclusions and where appropriate, proposals, areas for further discussion, or gaps and opportunities for consideration.

Authors should follow the Academy’s style guidelines when writing their papers. References should be made using the footnote method.

Author profile

The author or authors of the paper (jointly authored papers will be considered) must have demonstrable expertise linked to knowledge that enables them to contribute authoritatively to the public debate on this issue.

The nature of this programme means that a range of perspectives and backgrounds are welcomed and expected. We welcome applications from researchers at all stages of their careers, including independent researchers, or those working directly in policy and practice.

The framing of the programme is around the SHAPE disciplines and as such the papers should draw on evidence from them. However, it is important to highlight that relevant non-academic expertise is welcome.

Fees

This is a paid commission with fixed terms. The fee paid for each paper will be £4000. Payment will be made upon signature of the contract. Please note that this is a commissioned paper, not a grant, and therefore it may be subject to VAT.

Timeline

Proposal deadline: The final deadline for submission of proposals will be 12 March 2025.

Appointment: We aim to appoint authors within 10 days of the deadline.

Delivery deadline: First drafts are expected eight weeks after appointment (approximately 30 May 2025). Reviews and revisions will follow.

Revisions: Following a first draft, the British Academy will arrange two reviews: firstly, from our policy team, with a focus on the audience, and secondly an academic review. Revising and responding to these revisions is an important part of the process and additional revisions may be required to refine the paper.

Engagement opportunities: Knowledge exchange and practitioner workshops will be organised by the British Academy as part of our Sustainable Futures programmes that may provide opportunities to discuss the papers. Appointed researchers will be invited to those workshops.

To respond, please submit a proposal (comprising a brief CV, an outline (no more than 2 pages) that describes the paper you would like to contribute to this series and the expected date you will submit your first draft). These should be sent to Isabelle Taylor [email protected] and cc’ing [email protected]. See timeline below for deadlines.

Please ensure your proposal describes how your paper will respond to the objectives and the framing set out in these Terms of Reference.

Your proposal will be evaluated by our Working Group (a group of Fellows of the British Academy). If it meets the requirements, we will request a short follow-up call. Assessments of proposals will be based on the following criteria:

• Relevance of the paper to the objectives and questions set out in these Terms of Reference (particularly the grey box above)
• Quality of the proposed approach and robustness of the ideas presented
• Relevance to the policy and research landscape
• The alignment of the delivery date with our timetable below

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this or ask questions in advance of submitting your proposal, please contact Isabelle Taylor.