Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:40:22.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysing constraints to improve conservation decision-making: a theoretical framework and its application to the Northern Vosges, France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2021

Anaï Mangos ,
Juliette Rouchier  and
Yves Meinard Open the ORCID record for Yves Meinard [Opens in a new window]
Anaï Mangos
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris Sciences et Lettres Research University, CNRS, UMR [7243], LAMSADE, Place Lattre de Tassigny, 75016, Paris, France
Juliette Rouchier
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris Sciences et Lettres Research University, CNRS, UMR [7243], LAMSADE, Place Lattre de Tassigny, 75016, Paris, France
Yves Meinard*
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris Sciences et Lettres Research University, CNRS, UMR [7243], LAMSADE, Place Lattre de Tassigny, 75016, Paris, France
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Yves Meinard, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Key to bridging knowing–doing gaps is analysis of the constraints binding interactions between decision-makers and conservation biologists to clarify the problems they address. We apply this analysis to decision situations in the Northern Vosges (France), which illustrate three kinds of constraints: governance, framework and initiative. We explore how conservation biologists can mitigate constraints so as to foster more ambitious conservation actions in each case. The first case explores attempts at reintroducing the lynx (Lynx lynx). In this case, we show that governance plays a key role, in the sense that conservation actions should focus on improving the acceptability of reintroductions to key stakeholders. The second case refers to water monitoring schemes. Here we show that framing is the dominant constraint. This means that conservation actions are tightly limited by the use of a restrictive scientific apparatus. The last case study, fish stock protection, is constrained by initiative. Here, decision-makers have too much leverage to implement solutions they favour, even if they are not the best options in conservation terms. Exploring how our framework relates to the existing literature allows us to highlight its usefulness for rationalizing conservation problem framing and for strengthening the ambitions of conservation actions.

Keywords

conservation decisiondecision processdecision supportenvironmental policygovernanceknowing-doing gaps
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 174 - 181
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arlettaz, R, Mathevet, R (2010) Biodiversity conservation: from research to action. Natures Sciences Sociétés 18: 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barreteau, O, Antona, M, D’Aquino, P, Aubert, S, Boissau, S, Bousquet, F et al. (2003) Our companion modelling approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6: 1.Google Scholar
Baynham-Herd, Z, Redpath, S, Bunnefeld, N, Keane, A (2020) Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology 34: 232–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beier, P, Hansen, LJ, Helbrecht, L, Behar, D (2017) A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conservation Letters 10: 288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, NJ, Roth, R (2019) Realizing the transformative potential of conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities. Biological Conservation 229: A6–A8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, NJ, Roth, R, Klain, SC, Chan, K, Christie, P, Clark, DA et al. (2017) Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, D, Abel, N, Knight, AT, Leitch, A, Langston, A, Ban, NC (2011) The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could ‘mental models’ help? Conservation Letters 4: 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bower, SD, Brownscombe, JW, Birnie-Gauvin, K, Ford, MI, Moraga, AD, Pusiak, RJP et al. (2018) Making tough choices: picking the appropriate conservation decision-making tool. Conservation Letters 11: e12418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, AG, Lespez, L, Sear, DA, Macaire, JJ, Houben, P, Klimek, K et al. (2018) Natural vs anthropogenic streams in Europe: history, ecology and implications for restoration, river-rewilding and riverine ecosystem services. Earth-Science Reviews 180: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büscher, B, Fletcher, R (2019) Towards convivial conservation. Ecology and Society 17: 1–14.Google Scholar
Charter of the Northern Vosges Natural Park (2014) Projet de territoire Horizon 2025, Charte du Parc naturel régional des Vosges du Nord, 138 pp. [www document]. URL https://www.parc-vosges-nord.fr/wp-content/themes/adipso/_images/charte.pdf Google Scholar
Corchia, L (2013) Jürgen Habermas. A Bibliography: Works and Studies (1952–2013): With an Introduction by Stefan Müller-Doohm. Pisa, Italy: Arnus Edizioni-Il Campano.Google Scholar
Davies, AL, Bryce, R, Redpath, SM (2013) Use of multicriteria decision analysis to address conservation conflicts: multicriteria decision analysis. Conservation Biology 27: 936–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engen, S, Hausner, VH (2018) Impact of local empowerment on conservation practices in a highly developed country. Conservation Letters 11: e12369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, EO, Weigård, J (2003) Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fédération de Pêche du Bas-Rhin (n.d.) Fédération de Pêche du Bas-Rhin homepage [www document] URL https://www.peche67.fr Google Scholar
Ferraro, PJ, Pattanayak, SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4: e105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Game, ET, Kareiva, P, Possingham, HP (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting: priority-setting mistakes. Conservation Biology 27: 480–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Game, ET, Schwartz, MW, Knight, AT (2015) Policy relevant conservation science. Conservation Letters 8: 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R, Failing, L, Harstone, M, Long, G, McDaniels, T, Ohlson, D (2012) Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, C, Game, ET (2016) Conservation Planning: Informed Decisions for a Healthier Planet. Greenwood Village, CO, USA: Roberts Publishers.Google Scholar
Habermas, J (1984) Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One. Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hawley, S (2011) Recovering a Lost River: Removing Dams, Rewilding Salmon, Revitalizing Communities. Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R, Hisschemöller, M (2001) Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis (pp. 42–72). London, UK: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Jarić, I, Quétier, F, Meinard, Y(2019) Procrustean beds and empty boxes: on the magic of creating environmental data. Biological Conservation 237: 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, D (2019) Conservation Politics: The Last Anti-Colonial Battle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, AT, Cowling, RM, Rouget, M, Balmford, A, Lombard, AT, Campbell, BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22: 610–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrosa, C, Carrasco, LR, Tambosi, LR, Banks-Leite, C, Milner-Gulland, EJ (2019) Spatial conservation planning with ecological and economic feedback effects. Biological Conservation 237: 308–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Bao, JV, Chapron, G, Treves, A (2017) The Achilles heel of participatory conservation. Biological Conservation 212: 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattsson, BJ, Arih, A, Heurich, M, Santi, S, Štemberk, J, Vacik, H (2019) Evaluating a collaborative decision-analytic approach to inform conservation decision-making in transboundary regions. Land Use Policy 83: 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matzek, V, Pujalet, M, Cresci, S (2015) What managers want from invasive species research versus what they get. Conservation Letters 8: 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinard, Y, Tsoukiàs, A (2019) On the rationality of decision aiding processes. European Journal of Operational Research 273: 1074–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pannell, DJ, Gibson, FL (2016) Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects: cost of poor decision metrics. Conservation Biology 30: 382–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redpath, SM, Arroyo, BE, Leckie, FM, Bacon, P, Bayfield, N, Gutierrez, RJ, Thirgood, SJ (2004) Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human–wildlife conflict: a raptor–grouse case study. Conservation Biology 18: 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, DC, Sutherland, WJ, Amano, T, González-Varo, JP, Robertson, RJ, Simmons, BI et al. (2018) The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conservation Letters 11: e12564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, MW, Cook, CN, Pressey, RL, Pullin, AS, Runge, MC, Salafsky, N et al. (2018) Decision support frameworks and tools for conservation. Conservation Letters 11: e12385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, T, Sunderland-Groves, J, Shanley, P, Campbell, B (2009) Bridging the gap: how can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica 41: 549–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, WJ, Pullin, AS, Dolman, PM, Knight, TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 305–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokarski, M (2019) Hermeneutics of Human–Animal Relations in the Wake of Rewilding. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toomey, AH, Knight, AT, Barlow, J (2017) Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10: 619–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukiàs, A (2007) On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective. Annals of Operations Research 154: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, E, Metze, T, Wyborn, C, Klenk, N, Louder, E (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 45: 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnhout, E, Van Bommel, S (2010) How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society 15: 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vercammen, A, Burgman, M (2019) Untapped potential of collective intelligence in conservation and environmental decision making. Conservation Biology 33: 1247–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilhelm-Rechmann, A, Cowling, RM (2011) Framing biodiversity conservation for decision makers: insights from four South African municipalities. Conservation Letters 4: 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RS, Hardisty, DJ, Epanchin-Niell, RS, Runge, MC, Cottingham, KL, Urban, DL et al. (2016) A typology of time-scale mismatches and behavioral interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems: time-scale mismatches. Conservation Biology 30: 42–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyver, J (2014) The Lynx Effect. Master’s thesis. London, UK: Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Yanco, E, Nelson, MP, Ramp, D (2019) Cautioning against overemphasis of normative constructs in conservation decision making. Conservation Biology 33: 1002–1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed