Change and stability in conservation discourses: A historical account of 30 years of citizen engagement in nature conservation policies in the Netherlands

IF 2.2 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Journal for Nature Conservation Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jnc.2025.126855
A.E. (Arjen) Buijs , C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen
{"title":"Change and stability in conservation discourses: A historical account of 30 years of citizen engagement in nature conservation policies in the Netherlands","authors":"A.E. (Arjen) Buijs ,&nbsp;C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen","doi":"10.1016/j.jnc.2025.126855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In recent years, there has been a shift in global and European nature conservation discourses − from prioritizing ‘Ecology First’ to emphasizing a ’People and Nature’ approach with a strong emphasis on stakeholder participation. However, recent developments, such as the 30x30 biodiversity goal formulated at COP28 and the EU Nature Restoration Law, suggest that policy approaches based on strict conservation and state legal force are gaining ground again. This resurgence has reignited debates on the role of stakeholder and citizen engagement in nature policy and management. As the Netherlands has been a key player in nature conservation discourse and policy innovation, we have examined the debates on citizen engagement in nature conservation policies in the Netherlands from 1990 onwards. Our findings challenge the common belief in a unidirectional progression towards increased participation and broader stakeholder engagement. Instead, we find that the proclaimed democratic and economic turns are merely minor disruptions in the continued dominance of the hegemonic discourse rooted in an ‘Ecology First’ perspective.</div><div>Our research reveals that although participatory and economic approaches are often included in the titles and framing of policy documents, translating the rhetoric of societal value of nature and economic opportunities into actual policy-making has proven to be challenging. We assert that these changes should not be viewed as linear but rather as an emergent process, dynamically responding to evolving social, economic, and political contexts. We have identified six factors which explain the relative strength, dynamics, and persistence of these discourses on public engagements: changing scientific paradigms, EU regulations; economic factors; public and political support; personal views; and issues of scale. Contrary to expectations, high levels of public support for nature conservation have not led to a greater focus on participatory approaches. Instead, it appears that high levels of support bolster conservationists’ self-confidence and reduce sensitivity to the social consequences of conservation, thereby reinforcing a top-down, ecology-based approach. We argue that this phenomenon can be described as the “irony of public support”, where policy responses to increased public support may actually jeopardize that support in the long-term.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54898,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Nature Conservation","volume":"84 ","pages":"Article 126855"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Nature Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138125000329","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a shift in global and European nature conservation discourses − from prioritizing ‘Ecology First’ to emphasizing a ’People and Nature’ approach with a strong emphasis on stakeholder participation. However, recent developments, such as the 30x30 biodiversity goal formulated at COP28 and the EU Nature Restoration Law, suggest that policy approaches based on strict conservation and state legal force are gaining ground again. This resurgence has reignited debates on the role of stakeholder and citizen engagement in nature policy and management. As the Netherlands has been a key player in nature conservation discourse and policy innovation, we have examined the debates on citizen engagement in nature conservation policies in the Netherlands from 1990 onwards. Our findings challenge the common belief in a unidirectional progression towards increased participation and broader stakeholder engagement. Instead, we find that the proclaimed democratic and economic turns are merely minor disruptions in the continued dominance of the hegemonic discourse rooted in an ‘Ecology First’ perspective.
Our research reveals that although participatory and economic approaches are often included in the titles and framing of policy documents, translating the rhetoric of societal value of nature and economic opportunities into actual policy-making has proven to be challenging. We assert that these changes should not be viewed as linear but rather as an emergent process, dynamically responding to evolving social, economic, and political contexts. We have identified six factors which explain the relative strength, dynamics, and persistence of these discourses on public engagements: changing scientific paradigms, EU regulations; economic factors; public and political support; personal views; and issues of scale. Contrary to expectations, high levels of public support for nature conservation have not led to a greater focus on participatory approaches. Instead, it appears that high levels of support bolster conservationists’ self-confidence and reduce sensitivity to the social consequences of conservation, thereby reinforcing a top-down, ecology-based approach. We argue that this phenomenon can be described as the “irony of public support”, where policy responses to increased public support may actually jeopardize that support in the long-term.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for Nature Conservation
Journal for Nature Conservation 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
7.9 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal for Nature Conservation addresses concepts, methods and techniques for nature conservation. This international and interdisciplinary journal encourages collaboration between scientists and practitioners, including the integration of biodiversity issues with social and economic concepts. Therefore, conceptual, technical and methodological papers, as well as reviews, research papers, and short communications are welcomed from a wide range of disciplines, including theoretical ecology, landscape ecology, restoration ecology, ecological modelling, and others, provided that there is a clear connection and immediate relevance to nature conservation. Manuscripts without any immediate conservation context, such as inventories, distribution modelling, genetic studies, animal behaviour, plant physiology, will not be considered for this journal; though such data may be useful for conservationists and managers in the future, this is outside of the current scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
The effect of fire on the structure of animal metacommunities in a Cerrado landscape: A 10-year survey of anurans, birds and moth assemblages Change and stability in conservation discourses: A historical account of 30 years of citizen engagement in nature conservation policies in the Netherlands Socio-ecological indicators for effective monitoring of trophic rewilding with medium/large herbivores Can ecological networks established through interactions of multi-species conservation priorities maintain biodiversity and contain urban development? Improving success rates of remote conservation translocations by mitigating harsh in-situ environmental conditions: A case study on a Critically Endangered succulent
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1