Search

A sea-change in attitudes toward the acceptability of same-sex relationships has taken place in the twenty-first century. The UK has been at the forefront of legal changes in allowing same-sex couples to adopt children (the Adoption and Children Act 2002) and groundbreaking research on the well-being of these children. Over a decade on from our previous review for Family Law we evaluate the empirical evidence on the gains for children adopted by same-sex couples in the following areas: psychological adjustment, family relationships, and openness about adoption. Further examination is given to considering the motivations to adopt expressed by lesbian and gay adoptive parents. This includes a willingness to adopt children who have often been deemed hard-to-place, which is reflected in our local authority data too. Yet both adoption services and prospective lesbian and gay adoptive parents still appear hesitant at points of assessment and placement. Given national statistics on the numbers of children waiting for adoption, could more be done to place these children in suitable homes headed by a same-sex couple?

Achieving social equity among local stakeholders should be a key objective for ecosystem service (ES) governance in Europe’s ecologically fragile treeline areas. The ES literature tends to be biased towards distributional equity and market-based instruments when assessing social equity of ES governance. In this study, we analyze a wide range of social equity procedures that have been applied in Europe, using 11 synthesized case studies of governance-related challenges and 75 proposals for governance enhancement from 8 European countries provided by researchers with expertise on treeline area governance. The proposals were grouped by inductive clustering into 10 procedural or distributional equity-related policy recommendations: (1) increase stakeholder collaboration, (2) balance interactions between horizontal and vertical governance levels, (3) increase ES education, (4) use science to guide decisions, (5) start collaboration at an early stage, (6) enhance transparency, (7) aim to mitigate negative impacts, (8) use an ES approach to identify synergistic goals for governance, (9) enhance balanced multi-functional land use, and (10) use market-based instruments to balance benefits and costs deriving from governance decisions. Finally, we discuss 5 more general proposals on how regulatory and market-based approaches could be linked to enhance both procedural and distributional equity of treeline area governance.