Search

• Learning and Action Alliances (LAAs) are increasingly used to overcome the challenges with participatory forms of governance. • While social learning in LAAs is well understood, less attention has been given to how capacity is built. • Different elements of capacity building generate changes at various scales, cascading outwards from the individual to society. • LAAs will require a unique combination of capacity building elements depending on their different contexts and objectives. • Without careful consideration, the natural presumption that building capacity leads to desired changes may not be realized. Learning and Action Alliances (LAAs) are becoming an increasingly popular method for overcoming the challenges associated with participatory forms of governance, where decision making requires collaboration between stakeholders. In flood risk management, LAAs provide a mechanism through which institutional participants can come together, share knowledge, innovate, and devise solutions to 'wicked' problems. While the social learning generated at LAAs is now well understood, the mechanism by which this learning is translated into action is less so. In this paper, we argue that in order to maximise the potential for action, LAAs must attend to different elements of capacity building, in order that action can diffuse outwards, from the individual members of the LAA, to their organisations and society beyond. By investigating two UK case study examples, we illustrate how different elements might be utilised in combination, to maximise the potential for longer-term, longer-lasting change. We conclude that the architects of participatory processes, including LAAs, should attend to different elements of capacity building, and consider those best suited to their individual contexts and objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights the tension between advocacy for ‘Blue growth’ in maritime policy and efforts to safeguard future economic growth via the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In 2015, policy-makers withdrew three of four proposed Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in the Irish Sea from consideration for designation, due to concerns that they could significantly impact on the fisheries sector in Northern Ireland because they overlap with prawn fishing grounds in the Irish Sea. Although research has quantified the potential impact upon fishing vessels, none has quantified the impact upon the fisheries sector nor assessed the significance of this impact. Arguably, MCZ designations (or lack thereof) based on the ‘significance’ of an impact require robust underpinning evidence. This paper reports the findings of an Economic Impact Assessment, which has quantified the impact of a decline in landings upon the Northern Ireland fisheries sector and regional economy (data which is currently absent from the evidence base for the MCZ designation process in England). It finds that this will incur job losses in three fishing ports in Northern Ireland, but is unlikely to have a significant impact upon Northern Ireland's fisheries sector and regional economy in terms of jobs and Gross Value Added (GVA). In the worst case, the resulting economic impact is a decrease of £1.05–1.12 m/year GVA in Northern Ireland, which is 1.1% of the contribution of fishing and fish processing to the regional economy. Economic significance assessments, using this methodology, may be useful in supporting the evidence base underpinning MCZ designation and other aspects of marine planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] The extent of benefit of Ghana’s land use planning system is examined. [•] Planning in Ghana generates considerable benefits in residential neighbourhoods. [•] The benefits emanate mainly from infrastructure and formalized title. [•] Worship centres in residential neighbourhoods do not generate benefit. [•] Benefit analysis in terms of planning demands and conditions in Ghana is required. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]