Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How does biodiversity conservation argumentation generate effects in policy cycles?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett SM (2004) Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Adm 82:249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 26:611–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer GD, deLeon P (1983) The foundations of policy analysis. Brooks/Cole, Monterey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong D, Druckman JN (2007) Framing theory. Annu Rev. Polit Sci 10:103–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner A, Hahn U (2010) Message framing, normative advocacy and persuasive success. Argumentation 24:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doremus H (2003) A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ Sci Policy 6:217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovers S (2005) Environment and sustainability policy: creation, implementation, evaluation. The Federation Press, Raton, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro PJ, Simpson RD (2002) The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ 78:339–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R (2009) Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy 26S:S178–S186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handmer JW, Norton TW, Dovers SR (eds) (2001) Ecology, uncertainty and policy: managing ecosystems for sustainability. Pearson, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heclo HH (1972) Policy analysis. Br J Polit Sci 2:83–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogerwerf A (1990) Reconstructing policy theory. Eval Progr Plan 13:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kartez J, Casto M (2008) Information into action: biodiversity data outreach and municipal land conservation. J Am Plan Assoc 74:467–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345:1558–1560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mendes A (2006) Implementation analysis of forest programmes: some theoretical notes and an example. For Policy Econ 8:512–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickwitz P (2003) A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: context and key concepts. Evaluation 9:415–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris RKA (2011) The application of the habitats directive in the UK: compliance or gold plating? Land Use Policy 28:361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlin M (2011) Theories of the policy process: state of the research and emerging trends. Policy Stud J 39:4–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional proscesses. Acad Manage Rev 16:145–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole LJ Jr (2000) Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. J Public Adm Res Theory 10:263–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peuhkuri T, Jokinen P (1999) The role of knowledge and spatial contexts in biodiversity policies: a sociological perspective. Biodivers Conserv 8:133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rantala T, Primmer E (2003) Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders’ rhetoric in Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratamäki O, Jokinen P, Sørensen P, Breeze T, Potts S (2015) A multi-level analysis on pollination-related policies. Ecosyst Serv 14:133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandström C (2009) Institutional dimensions of co-management: participation, power, and process. Soc Nat Resour 22:230–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Polit 52:510–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van der Duim R, Caalders J (2002) Biodiversity and tourism: impacts and interventions. Ann Tour Res 29:743–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69:1245–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions. This study was funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (Project BESAFE, Grant Number: 282743).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tampere, 33014, Tampere, Finland

    Pekka Jokinen

  2. Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7050, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Malgorzata Blicharska

  3. Swedish Biodiversity Centre, P.O. Box 7016, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Malgorzata Blicharska

  4. Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, 00251, Helsinki, Finland

    Eeva Primmer & Leena Kopperoinen

  5. Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Anderlecht, 1070, Brussels, Belgium

    Ann Van Herzele

  6. University of Eastern Finland, 80101, Joensuu, Finland

    Outi Ratamäki

Authors
  1. Pekka Jokinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malgorzata Blicharska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eeva Primmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann Van Herzele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leena Kopperoinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Outi Ratamäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pekka Jokinen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Rob Bugter, Paula Harrison, John Haslett and Rob Tinch.

This is part of the special issue on ‘BESAFE’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Primmer, E. et al. How does biodiversity conservation argumentation generate effects in policy cycles?. Biodivers Conserv 27, 1725–1740 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1216-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1216-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation