- R. Bommarco (1)
- M. Bucur (1)
- R.J.F. Bugter (2)
- Rob Bugter (2)
- Esther Carmen (1)
- I. Coninx (1)
- Georgia Cosor (1)
- Vera Fabok (1)
- A. Felicioli (1)
- M. Fischer (1)
- Nicoleta Geamana (1)
- Paula Harrison (1)
- John Haslett (1)
- U. Heink (1)
- C.M.A. Hendriks (1)
- A. Herzele Van (1)
- Pekka Jokinen (3)
- P. Jokinen (2)
- D. Kleijn (1)
- A.M. Klein (1)
- Leena Kopperoinen (1)
- W.E. Kunin (1)
- J. Maes (1)
- Laurence Mathieu (1)
- Dieter Mortelmans (1)
- A. Müller (1)
- David N. Barton (1)
- P. Neumann (1)
- L.D. Penev (1)
- T. Petanidou (1)
- Marion Potschin (1)
- S.G. Potts (1)
- Eeva Primmer (3)
- E. Primmer (1)
- P. Rasmont (1)
- S.P.M. Roberts (1)
- O. Schweiger (1)
- J. Settele (1)
- H.G. Smith (1)
- P.B. Sorensen (1)
- I. Steffan-Dewenter (1)
- Rob Tinch (1)
- B.E. Vaissiere (1)
- M. Vila (1)
- A. Vujic (1)
- M. Woyciechowski (1)
- J. Young (1)
- M. Zobel (1)
Arguments for biodiversity conservation : factors influencing their observed effectiveness in European case studies
Tinch, Rob ; Bugter, Rob ; Blicharska, Malgorzata ; Harrison, Paula ; Haslett, John ; Jokinen, Pekka ; Mathieu, Laurence ; Primmer, Eeva - \ 2018
Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (2018). - ISSN 0960-3115 - p. 1763 - 1788.
Argument framing - Arguments for biodiversity conservation - Biodiversity policy - Ecosystem services - Science policy interfaces
Making a strong case for biodiversity protection is central to meeting the biodiversity targets in international agreements such as the CBD and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Effective arguments are needed to convince diverse actors that protection is worthwhile, and can play a crucial role in closing the implementation gap between biodiversity policy targets and outcomes. Drawing on a database of arguments from 11 European case studies, along with additional interview and case study material from all 13 case studies of the BESAFE project, we analysed relationships between potential and observed effectiveness of arguments. Our results show that strong logic, robustness, and timing of arguments are necessary but not sufficient conditions for arguments to be effective. We find that use of multiple and diverse arguments can enhance effectiveness by broadening the appeal to wider audiences, especially when arguments are repeated and refined through constructive dialogue. We discuss the role of framing, bundling and tailoring arguments to audiences in increasing effectiveness. Our results provide further support for the current shift towards recognition of value pluralism in biodiversity science and decision-making. We hope our results will help to demonstrate more convincingly the value of biodiversity to stakeholders in decision processes and thus build better cases for its conservation.
Governance of Ecosystem Services : A framework for empirical analysis
Primmer, Eeva ; Jokinen, Pekka ; Blicharska, Malgorzata ; Barton, David N. ; Bugter, Rob ; Potschin, Marion - \ 2015
Ecosystem Services 16 (2015). - ISSN 2212-0416 - p. 158 - 166.
Arguments - Biodiversity conservation - Ecosystem services - Governance - Policy implementation
Biodiversity conservation policies justified with science and intrinsic value arguments have produced disappointing outcomes, and the need for conservation is now being additionally justified with the concept of ecosystem services. However, little, if any empirical attention is paid to ways in which different types of ecosystem service decisions are made, to what arguments are effective in turning policy into practice and further into conservation outcomes and, in general, to how ecosystem services are governed. To close this gap, this paper identifies the different modes of governance in policy implementation from biodiversity and environmental conservation literature and incorporates them in a conceptual model of ecosystem services commonly utilised at present, the cascade model. The resulting conceptual framework encompasses: (1) hierarchical governance; (2) scientific-technical governance; (3) adaptive collaborative governance; and; (4) governing strategic behaviour. This comprehensive framework provides a structure for empirical analysis of ecosystem services governance, which takes into account the people and organisations making decisions, and, in particular, the different arguments that are used when implementing policies. The framework will facilitate holistic ecosystem service analyses and support policies in generating conservation and sustainability impact.
Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies : Deliverable No: 3.1, EC Contract Ref: FP7-ENV-2011-282743
Herzele, A. Van; Coninx, I. ; Mortelmans, Dieter ; Young, J. ; Bela, Györgyi ; Heink, U. ; Carmen, Esther ; Blicharska, Malgorzata ; Hendriks, C.M.A. ; Bogers, M.M.B. ; Jokinen, Pekka ; Geamana, Nicoleta ; Bucur, M. ; Cosor, Georgia ; Maes, J. ; Müller, A. ; Fabok, Vera ; Kopperoinen, Leena ; Primmer, Eeva ; Bugter, R.J.F. - \ 2014
European Commission FP7 - 128 p.
Arguments - multi-level biodiversity governance
This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies:
• Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance?
• How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)?
• How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance?
The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance.
The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance.
The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do”
D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level
governance interactions in case studies
with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), up-scaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media.
The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.
Behind the scenes of BESAFE
Bugter, R.J.F. ; Jokinen, P. ; Primmer, E. ; Blicharska, M. - \ 2014
International Innovation 2014 (2014). - ISSN 2041-4552 - p. 104 - 108.
Developing European conservation and mitigation tools for pollination services: approaches of the STEP (Status and Trends of European Pollinators) project
Potts, S.G. ; Biesmeijer, J.C. ; Bommarco, R. ; Felicioli, A. ; Fischer, M. ; Jokinen, P. ; Kleijn, D. ; Klein, A.M. ; Kunin, W.E. ; Neumann, P. ; Penev, L.D. ; Petanidou, T. ; Rasmont, P. ; Roberts, S.P.M. ; Smith, H.G. ; Sorensen, P.B. ; Steffan-Dewenter, I. ; Vaissiere, B.E. ; Vila, M. ; Vujic, A. ; Woyciechowski, M. ; Zobel, M. ; Settele, J. ; Schweiger, O. - \ 2011
Journal of Apicultural Research 50 (2011)2. - ISSN 0021-8839 - p. 152 - 164.
life-history traits - agri-environment schemes - different spatial scales - bee population-dynamics - agricultural landscapes - pollen limitation - land-use - fragmented habitats - plant reproduction - species responses
Pollinating insects form a key component of European biodiversity, and provide a vital ecosystem service to crops and wild plants. There is growing evidence of declines in both wild and domesticated pollinators, and parallel declines in plants relying upon them. The STEP project (Status and Trends of European Pollinators, 2010-2015, www.stepproject.net) is documenting critical elements in the nature and extent of these declines, examining key functional traits associated with pollination deficits, and developing a Red List for some European pollinator groups. Together these activities are laying the groundwork for future pollinator monitoring programmes. STEP is also assessing the relative importance of potential drivers of pollinator declines, including climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, agrochemicals, pathogens, alien species, light pollution, and their interactions. We are measuring the ecological and economic impacts of declining pollinator services and floral resources, including effects on wild plant populations, crop production and human nutrition. STEP is reviewing existing and potential mitigation options, and providing novel tests of their effectiveness across Europe. Our work is building upon existing and newly developed datasets and models, complemented by spatially-replicated campaigns of field research to fill gaps in current knowledge. Findings are being integrated into a policy-relevant framework to create evidence-based decision support tools. STEP is establishing communication links to a wide range of stakeholders across Europe and beyond, including policy makers, beekeepers, farmers, academics and the general public. Taken together, the STEP research programme aims to improve our understanding of the nature, causes, consequences and potential mitigation of declines in pollination services at local, national, continental and global scales.