How does biodiversity conservation argumentation generate effects in policy cycles?

Biodiversity and Conservation - Tập 27 - Trang 1725-1740 - 2016
Pekka Jokinen1, Malgorzata Blicharska2,3, Eeva Primmer4, Ann Van Herzele5, Leena Kopperoinen4, Outi Ratamäki6
1University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
2Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
3Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Uppsala, Sweden
4Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
5Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Brussels, Belgium
6University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

Tóm tắt

Arguments in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of biodiversity policy frame conservation in a range of ways and express interests that can be conflicting. Policy processes are cyclic and iterative by nature and as policies are constantly reformulated, argumentation has an important role at each policy stage. In this paper, we utilise the policy cycle model to shed light on biodiversity-related policy processes and the ways in which argumentation generates effects at different stages of these processes. The paper first draws on literature and the theory-driven assumptions are then illustrated with insights from four European case studies on different policy processes in which biodiversity conservation plays a role. The analysis shows that argumentation tends to evolve over the course of the policy cycle, and framing has a key role across the different policy stages. It is concluded that the ways in which arguments persist, accumulate, diffuse, and replace old arguments, should be the target of increased attention in policy analysis.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff AG, Sanches-Azofeifa A, Robalino JA (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:16089–16094 Andersson I, Petersson M, Jarsjo J (2012) Impact of the European water framework directive on local-level water management: case study Oxunda catchment, Sweden. Land Use Policy 29:73–82 Barrett SM (2004) Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Adm 82:249–262 Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 26:611–639 Beunen R, van der Knaap WGM, Biesbroek GR (2009) Implementation and integration of EU environmental directives. Experiences from the Netherlands. Environ Policy Gov 19:57–69 Blicharska M, Angelstam P (2010) Conservation at risk: conflict analysis in the Białowieża Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 6:68–74 Blicharska M, Van Herzele A (2015) What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland. For Policy Econ 57:22–30 Brewer GD, deLeon P (1983) The foundations of policy analysis. Brooks/Cole, Monterey Callaghan K, Schnell F (2009) Who says what to whom: why messengers and citizen beliefs matter in social policy framing. Soc Sci J 46:12–28 Cashore B, Vertinsky I (2000) Policy networks and firm behaviours: governance systems and firm responses to external demands for sustainable forest management. Policy Sci 33:1–30 Chong D, Druckman JN (2007) Framing theory. Annu Rev. Polit Sci 10:103–126 Corner A, Hahn U (2010) Message framing, normative advocacy and persuasive success. Argumentation 24:153–163 Dekker M, Turnhout E, Bauwens BMSDL, Mohren GMJ (2007) Interpretation and implementation of Ecosystem Management in international and national forest policy. For Policy Econ 9:546–557 Doremus H (2003) A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ Sci Policy 6:217–232 Dovers S (2005) Environment and sustainability policy: creation, implementation, evaluation. The Federation Press, Raton, Sydney Ferraro PJ, Simpson RD (2002) The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ 78:339–353 Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755 Gimona A, Poggio L, Brown I, Castellazzi M (2012) Woodland networks in a changing climate: threats from land use change. Biol Conserv 149:93–102 Haines-Young R (2009) Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy 26S:S178–S186 Handmer JW, Norton TW, Dovers SR (eds) (2001) Ecology, uncertainty and policy: managing ecosystems for sustainability. Pearson, Harlow Haslett JR, Berry PA, Bela G, Jongman RHG, Pataki G, Samways MJ, Zobel M (2010) Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodivers Conserv 19:2963–2977 Heclo HH (1972) Policy analysis. Br J Polit Sci 2:83–108 Henry P-Y, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Julliard R, Clobert J, Čelik J, Gruber B, Schmeller DS, Babij V, Henle K (2008) Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv 17:3357–3382 Hoogerwerf A (1990) Reconstructing policy theory. Eval Progr Plan 13:285–291 IUCN (2014) IUCN red list of threatened species. www.redlist.org. Accessed 17 Aug 2015 Jann W, Wegrich K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 43–62 Jenkins R (2007) The meaning of policy/policy and meaning. In: Hodgson SM, Irving Z (eds) Policy reconsidered: meanings, politics and practices. The Policy Press, Bristol, pp 21–36 Kaljonen M (2008) Co-construction of agency and environmental management. The case of agri-environmental policy implementation at Finnish farms. J Rural Stud 22:205–216 Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New York Kartez J, Casto M (2008) Information into action: biodiversity data outreach and municipal land conservation. J Am Plan Assoc 74:467–480 Laws D, Rein M (2003) Reframing practice. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 172–206 Laycock H, Moran D, Smart J, Raffaelli D, White P (2009) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Biol Conserv 142:3120–3127 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345:1558–1560 Maxim L, van der Sluijs J (2007) Uncertainty: cause or effect of stakeholders’ debates? Analysis of a case study: the risk for honeybees of the insecticide Gaucho®. Sci Total Environ 376:1–17 Mendes A (2006) Implementation analysis of forest programmes: some theoretical notes and an example. For Policy Econ 8:512–528 Mickwitz P (2003) A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: context and key concepts. Evaluation 9:415–436 Mild K, Stighäll K (2005) Action plan for the conservation of the Swedish population of white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5486, Stockholm Miller P, Fagley N, Casella N (2009) Effects of problem frame and gender on principals’ decision making. Soc Psychol Educ 12:397–413 Morris RKA (2011) The application of the habitats directive in the UK: compliance or gold plating? Land Use Policy 28:361–369 Nowlin M (2011) Theories of the policy process: state of the research and emerging trends. Policy Stud J 39:4–60 Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional proscesses. Acad Manage Rev 16:145–179 O’Toole LJ Jr (2000) Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. J Public Adm Res Theory 10:263–288 Perrin S, Bernauer T (2010) International regime formation revisited: explaining ratification behaviour with respect to long-range transboundary air pollution agreements in Europe. Eur Union Polit 11:405–426 Peuhkuri T, Jokinen P (1999) The role of knowledge and spatial contexts in biodiversity policies: a sociological perspective. Biodivers Conserv 8:133–147 Pressman JL, Wildavsky A (1973) Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. University of California Press, Los Angeles Primmer E (2011) Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry. J Clean Prod 19:1822–1832 Primmer E, Karppinen H (2010) Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. For Policy Econ 12:136–146 Primmer E, Jokinen P, Blicharska M, Barton DN, Bugter R, Potschin M (2015) Governance of ecosystem services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002 Rantala T, Primmer E (2003) Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders’ rhetoric in Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6:205–216 Ratamäki O, Jokinen P, Sørensen P, Breeze T, Potts S (2015) A multi-level analysis on pollination-related policies. Ecosyst Serv 14:133–143 Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431 Rivera J, Oetzel J, deLeon P, Starik M (2009) Business responses to environmental and social protection policies: toward a framework for analysis. Policy Sci 42:3–32 Rodrigues AS, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM et al (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643 Sand PH (2001) A Century of Green Lessons: the contribution of nature conservation regimes to global governance. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 1:33–72 Sandström C (2009) Institutional dimensions of co-management: participation, power, and process. Soc Nat Resour 22:230–244 Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Polit 52:510–529 Shiver TE, Pearden C (2009) Frame disputes in a natural resource controversy: the case of the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer in south-central Oklahoma. Soc Nat Resour 22:143–157 Sturtevant BR, Fall A, Kneeshaw DD et al (2007) A toolkit modeling approach for sustainable forest management planning: achieving balance between science and local needs. Ecol Soc 12. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art7/ Tallis H, Lubchenco J (2014) A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515:27–28 TEEB Foundations (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations, (Ed Kumar P), Earthscan, London Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SL, Boyce DG, Britten GL et al (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244 Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458 van der Duim R, Caalders J (2002) Biodiversity and tourism: impacts and interventions. Ann Tour Res 29:743–761 Van Herzele A, Aarts N (2013) “My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci 46:63–81 Van Herzele A, Aarts N, Casaer J (2015) Wildlife comeback in Flanders: tracing the fault lines and dynamics of public debate. Eur J Wildl Res 61:539–555 Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69:1245–1252 Wätzold F, Schwerdtner K (2005) Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy. Biol Conserv 123:327–338 Wätzold F, Mewes M, Van Apeldoorn R et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Biodivers Conserv 19:2053–2069