This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 04:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice &ResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Rural England: TheImperative for a NewParadigm of EnvironmentalManagementSue Markwell & Neil RavenscroftPublished online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Sue Markwell & Neil Ravenscroft (1997) Rural England:The Imperative for a New Paradigm of Environmental Management, PlanningPractice & Research, 12:1, 21-32, DOI: 10.1080/02697459716680

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459716680

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, 21± 31, 1997

Rural England: The Imperative for aNew Paradigm of EnvironmentalManagementSUE MARKWELL & NEIL RAVENSCROFT

Introduction

Strategic advice about, and management of, the rural environment in England

has traditionally been the general preserve of a single profession: the RuralPractice Division member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

(RICS), colloquially known as the land agent or rural practice chartered

surveyor. While the profession traces its antecedence to biblical references to

Joseph, son of Jacob, as ª Comptroller of the Pharaoh’ s household, Minister of

Agriculture, Minister of Food, Collector of the People’ s Tributes and Keeper ofthe Royal Conscienceº (see Chapman, 1969), it continues to retain its

signi® cance, as underlined in the recent UK Government White Paper on Rural

England:

Most land is owned and managed by private individuals. Practical

responsibility for sustainable land management therefore rests primar-

ily with them. Landownership encourages responsibility. Most landmanagers and rural entrepreneurs have a personal stake in the quality

of the countryside environment¼ . We rely on them to act as stewards

of England’ s countryside, using best environmental practice to nurture

its quality and wealth of wildlife. (DoE/MAFF, 1995, p. 104)

Although now numbering just over 5000 active members, out of a total of nearly

100 000 chartered surveyors dealing with all aspects of property (RICS, 1996b),

the rural profession thus continues to be at the core of rural land management,the implication of which has not been lost on the many overseas purchasers of

rural resources in the UK, as explained by the Agricultural Attache at the

German Embassy:

Britain is possibly the only country where, if you have the money, you

can buy something you like and leave it to other people to manage it,

look after it and guarantee a certain income¼ . Anywhere else you

have to look after it yourself. (Weiers, 1995)

The underlying paradigm upon which this certainty is based is an attachment to

the ` stewardship’ rhetorically self-evident in the long-term private family owner-

Sue Markwell and Neil Ravenscroft, The Department of Land Management and Development, The

University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AW, UK. Email: s.s.markwell@reading.ac.uk

210269-7459/97/010021-11 $7.00 Ó 1997 Journals Oxford Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sue Markwell & Neil Ravenscroft

ship of rural land (Bracewell-Milnes, n.d.). This attachment is based on the

belief that, unlike government and the newer ® nancial institutions, private

owners are not saddled with citizens or shareholders overridingly concerned with

short-term, predominantly ® nancial, gains. In managerial terms, this long-term

view differs from the short-term in concentrating not on the maximisation of® nancial return, but on maintaining current occupation and ensuring future

inheritance.

Rather than the overtly ® nancial performance-driven basis of the short-term

approach, the argument goes, the basis of the long-term paradigm is not rooted

solely or primarily in the actual management of the land, but in the ® nancial and® scal manipulation of the owner’ s capital. To the extent that this paradigm

favours continuity and futurity over short-term gain, the attention to environmen-

tal management is axiomatic; it is at the core of the rhetorical justi® cation for

the retention of long-term private ownership. It is also a basis from which to

argue that, as custodians of the physical environment, these private ownersshould receive ® nancial support from the state in recognition of their stewardship

and to compensate them for foregoing more commercially advantageous uses of

their land (see Bracewell-Milnes, n.d., and Pennington, 1996, for commentaries

on the UK, or Edwards, 1995, for a similar commentary on the USA).

Regardless of the rhetorical claims about caring for the environment, it is clearthat in neither the case of ` stewardship’ nor state incentive is the environment

actually at the top of the agenda. Rather, in both cases it is very much a

by-product or externality of other processesÐ the retention of familial ownership

and the attraction of state subsidy. This view has been con® rmed by the 114th

President of the RICS, who, in his inaugural address, commented that, despiteits ` quintessential’ association with the physical environment, neither the Insti-

tution nor its members had adequately established their ` green’ credentials (Pott,

1995). While chartered surveyors were, in Pott’ s terms, ª deeply involved at

every stage in land-use decision-making ¼ º (1995, p. 14), they had, to date,

shown little apparent regard for environmental issues. Indeed, the RICS itself hasmade the point that many chartered surveyors still believed that ª there is nothing

in the environment for themº (RICS, 1995, p. 9). To some extent, this position

is a predictable result of the traditional focus of land law and management in the

UK, as pointed out by Hughes:

UK law has traditionally stressed the need to reconcile con¯ icts

between various users of the environment, with the environment itself

being passive in the process; its approach has thus been one of con¯ ict

mediation and environmental management. (1996, p. 27)

Pott’ s observations have been borne out, in the rural context, by the ® ndings ofthe RICS rural practice client needs survey (Consensus Research International,

1994), which indicated that while nearly half of all clients wanted more advice

on environmental matters, few expected to gain it from chartered surveyors.

While this situation clearly underlines Pott’ s observationsÐ and is replicated

across the entire professionÐ the position for rural chartered surveyors, asprimary resource professionals, is particularly acute, given their broad-ranging

responsibility for the management of the physical environment.

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rural England and Environmental Management

In building upon Pott’ s lead, the RICS has recently published its ® rst

environmental strategy (RICS, 1996a), with the aim of ensuring ª that all its

members are made aware of the impact they and their businesses have on the

environment and on the sustainability of development in all its formsº (Anon,

1996). In promoting this agenda, one of the key objectives in the strategy is thatthe RICS should seek to manage its own business in an ` environmentally sound’

manner, while also publishing guidance and providing support for members to

do likewise. The strategy is also concerned with raising chartered surveyors’

awareness of ` environmental issues’ and the contribution that they can make to

the resolution of those issues.Rather than promote unequivocally the role and position of chartered survey-

ors in delivering the ` best environmental practice’ called for by the government,

the strategy document does more to underline the current level of confusion and

interchangeability in the use of terminology which exists within the surveying

profession:

Effective management of property and natural resources is essential if

the aims of environmental improvement and sustainable development

are to be met. Current industry debates about titles: ` estate manage-

ment’ or ` facilities management’ or ` property management’ , should notconceal the fact that issues of sustainability are now central to the

function, however it is described. (RICS, 1996a, p. 15)

Moreover the strategy also indicates the continuing development, by the RICS,

of a dual project on the environment. This is attempting to exploit the perceived

public relations bene® ts of promoting externally an ethically based ` green’ imageof the profession, while concurrently promoting internally the increasing market

opportunities offered by ` environmentally-related’ work.

While having the advantage of placing ` the environment’ , whatever its

construction, ® rmly on the agenda for surveyors, as well as providing a

continuing theme for successive RICS presidents, it is not at all clear how theRICS de® nes either the term itself or the agenda which it is generating. Nor,

more pertinently for the operation of the land-use planning system at the local

level, is it clear how this ` environmental’ agenda impacts on, or is received by,

those actually working in the rural profession and charged, in policy terms, with

delivering ` environmental best practice’ .This paper seeks both to inform the debate, by reference to the environmental

attitudes of rural chartered surveyors, and to examine the extent to which they

are personally and professionally capable of incorporating the RICS’ new

paradigmatic vision into their work. The paper will conclude by considering the

extent to which the ® ndings are consistent with recent rural policy documents,and the potential impact which this may have on the future planning and

management of the countryside.

The Framework for a New Managerial Paradigm

In delineating the tenets of a new managerial paradigm which seeks to place a

greater value on the implementation of ` environmental best practice’ in the

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sue Markwell & Neil Ravenscroft

management of land alongside the ® nancial and ® scal management of capital,

both the RICS and its membership are faced with a number of fundamental

issues. In particular, while concepts such as sustainable development and

sustainability have arrived in legislation, alongside a regulatory shift towards

environmental protection, there is much confusion, even amongst environmentallawyers, about what signi® cance these terms have and from what epistemologi-

cal basis they have been derived.

The domain view at present appears to be that the signi® cance of such terms

is highly symbolic, in re¯ ecting a rhetorical vision of the environmental

economics championed by Pearce et al. (1989) in their ` Blueprint’ workand reproduced in the UK Strategy on Sustainable Development (DoE, 1994).

This is clearly evident in the Rural White Paper (DoE/MAFF, 1995), where

sustainable development is positioned as the cornerstone of an increasingly

localised and decentralised economy quite incapable of realisation within the

proposed policy framework (Lowe, 1995). Based on the dubious constructof social change (the vision) driving market-based economic change (thepolicy framework), the rhetoric is highly problematic, particularly given the lack

of ® rm leadership in and by government. To some extent this explains the

evident problems over terminology, within both of® cial guidance and colloquial

usage, and may also provide an explanation, or even rationale, for the RICS’construction of its environmental strategy driving both internal and external

agendas.

To the individual surveyor, however, the distinction between the ` old’ ® scal

paradigm of management and the ` new’ environmental one may be of little

relevance since, as Hughes (1996) suggests, the traditional construction of` environmental work’ has been inextricably linked to management, the core

professional activity of surveyors. Consequently, the need for the new paradigm

may be less than axiomatic, particularly when the continuing focus of surveyors’

work will not be on the ethics of future management and development, but upon

the ® nancial returns and ® scal implications of current activities.

The Environmental Attitudes of Rural Chartered Surveyors

In seeking to delineate the extent to which surveyors are aware of, or have begunto develop, this new environmental paradigm in their work, a questionnaire

survey, derived from the work of Welford & Gouldson (1993) and Elkington

(1987), was conducted on a strati ® ed 5% sample of rural practice chartered

surveyors working in private practice, land agency and the voluntary, public and

corporate sectors (see Markwell & Ravenscroft, 1996). Conducted in late 1995,soon after the publication of the RICS Guidance Note on environmental

management (RICS, 1995), the survey, which generated a response from

approximately 40% of those contacted, found relatively little evidence, outside

the public and corporate sectors, of work practices re¯ ecting any recognition of

the new or emerging agenda. Instead, the current emphasis was very much onbenchmarking the quality of services provided, through the adoption of British

Standard 5750, Quality Management Systems.

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rural England and Environmental Management

This general ® nding re¯ ects the views of Keller (1995), that in a profession

dominated by small private-sector businesses, where few external standards

exist, the initial response to pressure for change is to concentrate on developing

those standards internally, before they are imposed from outside. Interestingly,

however, rather than responding directly to the emergent, but uncertain, agendaabout the environment (British Standard BS7750, Environmental Management

Systems, not yet being fully operational), surveying ® rms seemingly chose

service quality as a surrogate. As a result, the respondents claimed, overwhelm-

ingly, that notwithstanding their apparent lack of concern for ` the environ-

ment’ Ð however describedÐ it was signi® cant to their businesses, withapproximately 90% claiming that it was either ` important’ or ` very important’ to

them.

Most respondents claimed that they were already undertaking ` environmental’

work. The type of work cited as being ` environmental’ was, however, very

wide-ranging, with the most commonly undertaken being habitat protection,health and safety issues, planning applications, land-use issues and pollution

control. Much of this work is in response to policies derived by the European

Commission. In particular, new waste regulations have given rise to much

grant-aided pollution control work, while the restructuring of the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) has provided a steady source of grant aid for habitatand general land use management work.

While this illustrates the point made by Hughes (1996) about the shift in

environmental regulation from management to protection, it also suggests that,

for many of those surveyed, the notion of paradigm shift has no meaning in this

context. Rather, this construction of ` environmental’ work re¯ ects a continuationof the traditionally agricultural focus of much rural chartered surveying work. In

con® rmation of this position, relatively few respondents undertook work in the

more specialised areas of environmental auditing or policy, contaminated land or

climate-related work, although there was some evidence that work in areas such

as energy conservation appears to be of increasing signi® cance.While there was little evidence of a paradigm shift in the type of work

undertaken, the signs were more encouraging with respect to a realignment in the

nature of work practices. Approximately one-quarter of the respondents claimed

to have developed an environmental policy, with the majority being written.

However, excluding the public and corporate sectors, just 10% of respondentsworked in private organisations with an environmental policy, while in only 4%

of cases was this a written policy. Equally, with the exception of the public

sector, where environmental policies have existed for a number of years, few

policies in the private sector have existed for more than ® ve years.

Although the coverage of the environmental policies which do exist isvariable, the most common areas dealt with are health and safety, energy

conservation, staff training, waste management and general environmental

awareness. While considering energy conservation an important issue, less than

half of the environmental policies (and very few at all in the private sector) deal,

for example, with policies for staff transport. In addition, issues such as pollutioncontrol, land-use implications and the social impacts of environmental manage-

ment are not common elements of environmental policies for ® rms, although it

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sue Markwell & Neil Ravenscroft

is in these areas that chartered surveyors claim to be most active in advising their

clients.

Of those businesses which have not developed an environmental policy, the

overwhelming reasons for not doing so are that they are not considered relevant

or necessary to the business, with respondents making comments such as:

I don’ t understand why there should be a need for a formal environ-

mental policy for our business. (private sector respondent)

and:

There is not a perceived need for such a policy. (private sector

respondent)

The results of the survey therefore indicate a sharp division among rural practice

chartered surveyors, with the elements of a new environmental paradigm either

assuming signi® cance, or not. Lack of appropriate policies is therefore less afunction of size, cost or expertise than of the primary focus of the business. This

is borne out by the reasons given for developing an environmental policy in the

future, where the emphasis is on opportunism and expediency, particularly in

terms of client pressure, the possibility of new business opportunities or warding

off competition. This is precisely the agenda driving the internal element of thenew RICS environmental strategy (RICS, 1996). Expediency in addressing

negligence claims is also fast becoming an additional motivating factor for many

businesses (Hymas et al., 1995; Greenwood, 1996).

In contradistinction to this rejection of the need to develop a new paradigm

for their work, many of those surveyed have taken active decisions to modifyaspects of their personal lives. In the main this relates to domestic practices such

as the purchase of more organic or environmentally friendly foodstuffs, in-

creased recycling of household waste and improved energy ef® ciency. For some,

the modi® cations also covered aspects such as their personal transport, either in

purchasing more fuel-ef® cient cars, or reducing their overall reliance on privatetransport. Rather than being exceptional, these practices are redolent of changes

being made throughout society. What is interesting, therefore, is not so much

that chartered surveyors are as capable as anyone else of modifying their

lifestyles, but that this modi® cation is not, in the main, carried over into their

businesses.

Implications for Environmental Planning

The clearest implication to emerge from the survey is that while many chartered

surveyors are aware of and, on a personal level, in favour of the need for a new` environmental’ paradigm, they often fail to appreciate the centrality of their role

in achieving the paradigm shift and remain, for the most part, implacably

opposed to any further ` intervention’ in their freedom to make land-use deci-

sions. At the core of this world-view is a continued belief that, left to their own

devices, land owners and managers, as stewards of the physical environment, actin a manner which promotes, rather than detracts from, environmental quality

(see Pennington, 1996).

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rural England and Environmental Management

Rather than balance this orientation with the recognition that market solutions

are not infallible, the Rural White Paper (DoE/MAFF, 1995) largely concurs. In

particular, and despite much evidence to the contrary, it continually asserts the

position that local people, particularly landowners and their advisers, are both

most interested and most able to deliver what it terms ` sustainable environmentalquality’ . However, as far as chartered surveyors are concerned, there is as yet

neither the general understanding of what this may actually mean in practice, nor

any strong commitment to change in the future.

Notwithstanding this general position, however, there are examples of estate

owners and managers attempting to modify the ways in which they manage land.At the individual site level there is an increasing number of examples of

environmental land management plans. While in many respects resembling more

traditional management plans (see Leay et al., 1986, for example), environmen-

tal plans concentrate much more explicitly on the conservation of fauna and ¯ ora

and the interrelationship between this conservation and the wider use of the site.One example of the widespread use of such plans involves the non-operation

land holdings of National Power PLC, where plans are being drawn up in

accordance with BS7750 to ensure the protection of rare species (National Power

PLC, 1994).

In terms of preparing such plans for operational land, such as productivefarmland, the LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) environmental audit

initiative, based on the introduction on to arable farms of integrated crop

management, is gaining popularity. While limited to particular types of land use,

the LEAF initiative has shown, since its introduction as part of a pan-European

project in 1991, that farmers can maintain and even improve the commercialviability of their businesses while also improving the sustainable environmental

quality of their farms. One private sector respondent to the survey now uses a

LEAF-based resource audit as an integral element in the management of clients’

land, reporting that the bene® ts include helping to identify areas of a farm or

estate in need of particular attention, helping to raise the standard of estatemanagement and improving the ® nancial performance of the business.

While these types of initiative are primarily related to land management with,

as yet, relatively little impact on local planning, some rural chartered surveyors

and estate owners see a logical extension to the process being the development

of whole estate plans capable of incorporation in the development plan. Al-though still rare, such plans would comprise all proposed development, including

that covered by permitted development rights, with the intention of ensuring that

planning of® cers and elected members have full information on the estate’ s

future plans. It would also ensure that the future development of the estate would

conform with other policy initiatives, related to Local Agenda 21 and Environ-ment Agency catchment plans, for example.

Concluding Remarks

From the attitudes of chartered surveyors towards the environment, together withthe initiatives being taken by some, it is possible to delineate at least the broad

framework for a new paradigm of environmental management. At the core of

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sue Markwell & Neil Ravenscroft

this paradigm is the need to integrate environmental protection into all areas of

policy and work practice. Apart from continually stressing the longevity associ-

ated with the management of rural land, and its positive relationship to the

notions of futurity so fundamental to sustainable development (see, for example,

DoE, 1994), one of the key concepts in achieving this appears to be quality. Thisis evident in the Rural White Paper, with its reference to ` environmental best

practice’ (DoE/MAFF, 1995), in the attention being given to quality manage-

ment systems by an increasing number of ® rms of chartered surveyors, and in

its core role throughout the new RICS environmental strategy (RICS, 1996).

Although this notion of quality is not subject to any robust de® nition, beinginstead limited to the managerialist rhetoric of ` best practice’ , an inference can

be drawn that it is associated with the delineation of a systems approach, where

the quality of outcome is assured through attention to the processes used in its

achievement. While this type of approach is gaining popularity through total

quality management, it also suits the audit type techniques found in the LEAFinitiative, for example, as well as the adoption of revised work processes as part

of a comprehensive approach to increased environmental awareness.

As such, the construct of ` environmental quality’ appears to be equally

relevant to both work practices and management systems. Notwithstanding the

lack of clarity in the current use of the term, therefore, it seems to engender twofundamental, and interrelated, policy needs: the de® nition of a revised metaethic

which is able to challenge the current anthropocentricity of both land policy and

management (Stone, 1995); and the incorporation of this revision in the delin-

eation of policies capable of contributing to sustainable development, ª the

cornerstone of both the Government’ s rural policies and its planning policiesº(DoE, 1996, p. 1).

Although the notion of a new metaethic may sound unlikely in the current

political climate, there is evidence in the recently published draft revised

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (DoE, 1996), that its framework is already

being drawn up. Rather than its original title, of ` The Countryside and the RuralEconomy’ , the draft revised PPG7 has as its title ` Environmental Quality and

Economic Development’ . While missing the chance to de® ne the term ` environ-

mental quality’ , the draft revised PPG7 does make clear that not only is there a

strong interrelationship between the economy and the environment, but the

environment itself is to be accorded value, indicating at the very least that formernotions of anthropocentricity are to be challenged, if not entirely dismissed.

As Anderson (1996) states, such a shift in emphasis is necessary to progress

from the confrontational neo-classical ` either/or’ rhetoric of ` environment versus

development’ , to a position from which to ª acknowledge and exploit the

interdependence of environmental protection and economic developmentº (DoE,1996, p. 3). In doing so, however, the overtly political nature of the environment/

development debate must be recognised:

This represents not so much a decision or policy in itself but an

approach to decision making and policy formulation. It also acceptsthat some environmental costs will have to be borne as the price of

economic development, and that implies that the process is inevitably

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rural England and Environmental Management

evaluative and judgmental and may be effectively political in that it

will have to decide between competing claims and values. (Hughes,

1996, p. 95)

Having taken the ® rst initiative, in recognising the need for the revised

metaethic, the subsequent step, from creating the framework to insinuating the

new metaethic in the tenets of sustainable development, is certainly attainable,

in according with both the principles of the Rural White Paper and the planningguidance in the draft revised PPG7.

Yet, although it is apparent that the principal elements of the new paradigm

are being assembled, it is equally apparent that in overall terms, the rhetoric of

environmental concern, however articulated, is rarely matched by the current

actions of most rural chartered surveyors. Such concern is, as Shrivastava (1995)has recently suggested, still located at the margins of business, with the core

decisions on tax, ® nance, markets and clients still largely unaffected or un-

modi® ed. What emerges from this is really the opposite of any attempt to

formulate a new paradigm of environmental management on the part of either

the RICS or its members. Rather than a comprehensive appraisal of therelationship between rural practice surveying businesses and the environment,

the results indicate a high degree of segmentation and opportunism, character-

ised by the application of ` common sense’ to the management of clients’ land:

Although we have no formal policy, employer/employees have a fairly

sharp awareness of environmental factors and we run the estate’ s

business on a common sense/responsible basis. (land agent respondent)

While there is no doubt that this is a serious failing on the part of rural land

managers, it is equally clear that it is part of a wider problem, based on a

consistent failure by government to develop a suitable structure for future landpolicy and management which goes beyond the visionary perspective of the

Rural White Paper (Tromans, 1995). For while extending the rhetoric of

environmental quality, as well as linking it to development, the same emphasis

on vision at the expense of structure remains apparent in draft revised PPG7.

While not absolving chartered surveyors from their responsibilities, therefore,the failure to develop more fully a concept such as environmental quality has

undoubtedly left them in a policy vacuum. That they have little option but to

engage in the debate is becoming increasingly clear, perhaps even as a survival

strategy. As the RICS client needs survey (Consensus Research International,

1994) implies, a refusal to engage will lead not only to surveyors being deniedaccess to a new and expanding market opportunity, but it could also undermine

their continuing claim to be ` the property profession’ . Moreover, and as the

empirical research indicates, environmental awareness in business is increasingly

being viewed as a question of ethics, effectively calling into question any

organisation which does not consider the environment as an integral element ofits corporate strategy (see McCloskey & Smith, 1995; Roberts, 1995).

As this paper has shown, the overriding response of rural practice chartered

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sue Markwell & Neil Ravenscroft

surveyors has been one of indifference and apathy. While the questionnaire

® ndings indicate an increasing level of environmental awareness and activity,

much of this is either partial or super® cial or, predominantly, both, with very

little evidence of much genuine interest or activity. Even where there is activity

it often involves no more than appropriating the name of environmentalism tosundry work practices or ` innovations’ in client services.

In seeking to introduce the new paradigm, therefore, the central issue for rural

practice chartered surveyors appears to be how to endorse the need for a major

change in their value systems in a form compatible with, rather than antithetical

to, their wider commercial concerns (see Roberts, 1995). Without a suitablepolicy framework, the adoption of enhanced business behaviour towards the

environment can only be an act of faith, based on the extent to which both the

profession and its clients can be encouraged to support, accept and act upon new

forms of advice and business operation. Ultimately, it is apparent that attitudes

must change to re¯ ect a new agenda in which the criteria for successful businesswill be quite different from the present:

De® nitions of business success are likely to be wider in the future and

every enterprise will have to demonstrate its contribution to theultimate aim of zero negative impact on the environment. Even in the

small business it will more often be the case that competitive advan-

tage will be achieved not merely by keeping abreast of environmental

developments, but also by initiating change within an organisation and

responding with new environmentally friendly products and processes.(Gray, 1994, p. 187)

While there is evidence that some rural surveyors are predisposed to participate

in progress towards this vision, it is clear that this can only be as part of a widershift of attitudes and practice. As such, there is now an overriding need on the

part of government and its rural policy advisers to ensure that the realignment

of policy is based ® rmly on a clear and unambiguous de® nition of the emerging

metaethic of environmental quality.

Acknowledgements

The empirical work informing this paper was funded by the Royal Institution ofChartered Surveyors, under its Environmental Research Programme. The authors

wish to acknowledge this support, together with the work of Yvonne Rydin,

coordinator of the programme. In addition, our thanks are extended to Charles

Cowap for his many helpful comments on the original research report.

References

Anderson, M. (1996) One step beyond, Planning Week (6 June), pp. 14±15.

Anon. (1996) Leader, Chartered Surveyor Monthly, 5(11), p. 14.

Bracewell-Milnes, B. (n.d.) Caring for the Countryside: Public Dependence on Private Interest (London,

Social Affairs Unit).

Chapman, D. H. (1969) Walmsley’ s Rural Estate Management (London, Estates Gazette).

Consensus Research International (1994) Rural Property: Research into Customer Needs (London, Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors), 65 pp.

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rural England and Environmental Management

Department of the Environment (DoE) (1994) Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy, Cm 2426 (London,

HMSO).

Department of the Environment (1996) Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (revised): The CountrysideÐ

Environmental Quality and Economic Development, Consultation Paper (London, Department of the

Environment).

Department of the Environment/Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DoE/MAFF) (1995) Rural

England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside, Cm 3016 (London, HMSO).

Edwards, V. M. (1995) Dealing in Diversity: America’ s Market for Nature Conservation (Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press).

Elkington, J. (1987) The Green Capitalists: Industry’ s Search for Environmental Excellence (London, Victor

Gollancz), 258 pp.

Gray, R. H. (1994) Corporate reporting for sustainable development: accounting for sustainability in 2000 AD,

Environmental Values, 3(1), pp. 17±45.

Greenwood, B. (1996) The environmental transaction, paper presented at the Law Society/General Council of

the Bar/RICS Joint Planning Law Conference: Bringing the Environment Down to Earth, New College,

Oxford, 13±15 September 1996.

Hughes, D. (1996) Environmental Law (London, Butterworths), 628 pp.

Hymas, M., Wood, G. & Fox, P. (1995) Environmental audits of land and property, in: Royal Institution of

Chartered Surveyors, Environmental Management and the Chartered Surveyor, RICS Guidance Note, pp.

85±107 (London, RICS Business Services), 107 pp.

Keller, N. (1995) Smart surveyors must assure clients of a quality service, Property Week, 50(8), pp. 28±29.

Leay, M. J., Rowe, J. & Young, J. D. (1986) Management Plans: A Guide to their Preparation and Use ,

Publication CCP206 (Cheltenham, Countryside Commission), 52 pp.

Lowe, P. (1995) Vision without strategy: the rural white paper, Countryside Recreation Network News, 3(3),

pp. 18±19.

McCloskey, J. & Smith, D. (1995) Strategic management and business policy-making: bringing in environmen-

tal values, in: F. Fischer & M. Black (Eds) Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable

Future, pp. 199±209 (London, Paul Chapman), 221 pp.

Markwell, S. S. & Ravenscroft, N. (1996) Sustainable Development and Environmental Management in the

Countryside: The Role of the Rural Chartered Surveyor, Research Report No 96/2 (Centre for Environ-

ment and Land Tenure Studies, The University of Reading).

National Power PLC (1994) National Power Environmental Performance Review `94 (Swindon, National

Power PLC), 33 pp.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A. & Barbier, E. B. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy (London, Earthscan).

Pennington, M. (1996) Conservation and the Countryside: By Quango or Market?, IEA Studies on the

Environment No. 6 (London, Institute of Economic Affairs), 68 pp.

Pott, S. (1995) Inaugural addressÐ an abridged version, Chartered Surveyor Monthly, 4(9), pp. 14±15.

Roberts, P. (1995) Environmentally Sustainable Business (London, Paul Chapman), 271 pp.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (1995) Environmental Management and the Chartered Surveyor,

RICS Guidance Note (London, RICS Business Services), 107 pp.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (1996a) Land, Property, Construction and the Environment (London,

RICS).

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (1996b) List of Members (London and Basingstoke, Macmillan).

Shrivastava, P. (1995) Industrial and environmental crises: rethinking corporate social responsibility, in:

F. Fischer & M. Black (Eds) Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future,

pp. 183±198 (London, Paul Chapman), 221 pp.

Stone, C. D. (1995) Moral pluralism and the course of environmental ethics, in: M. Oelschlaeger (Ed.)

Postmodern Environmental Ethics, pp. 243±259 (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press).

Tromans, S. (1995) High talk and low cunning: putting environmental principles into legal practice, Journal

of Planning and Environment Law (1995), p. 779.

Weiers, C. (1995) Quoted in ` Overjoyed and over here!’ Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Rural

Property Bulletin (July/August), p. 4.

Welford, R. & Gouldson, A. (1993) Environmental Management and Business Strategy (London, Pitman),

210 pp.

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

28 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014