Concepts of Nature as Communicative Devices: The Case of Dutch Nature Policy

Abstract

The recent widespread shift in governance from the state to the market and to civil society, in combination with the simultaneous shift from the national level to supra-national and sub-national levels has led to a significant increase in the numbers of public and private players in nature policy. This in turn has increased the need for a common vocabulary to articulate and communicate views and values concerning nature among various actors acting on different administrative levels. In this article, we will examine the role of concepts of nature as communicative devices in public debates and political decision-making. We try to show that the now dominant functionalist approach to concepts of nature, due to its focus on interests, threatens to narrow public and political communications to purely strategic negotiations. Instead of this functionalist approach we put forward a structuralist approach, which focuses not on interests but on values.

Keywords

Concepts of nature nature policy multi-level governance pluralism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alphandéry

and Fortier

(2001). ‘Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France’, Sociologica Ruralis 41: 311–28.

Bervaes

J.C. A. M.

, Buijs

A. E.

, . (1997). Draagvlak voor natuur?

Wageningen:

IBN-DLO and SC-DLO.

Bohman

(1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Callicott

J. B.

(1989). In Defense of the Land Ethic. Albany, SUNY Press.

Carlson

(1984). ‘Nature and Positive Aesthetics’, Environmental Ethics 6 (1): 5–34.

Drenthen

(1999). ‘The Paradox of Environmental Ethics: Nietzsche's view of Nature and The Wild’, Environmental Ethics 21 (2): 163–75.

English Nature (2002). Working Today for Nature Tomorrow. English Nature: Annual Report 1 April 2001 - 31 March 2002, UK Government.

Fernàndez-Galiano

(1998). ‘Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest’, European Nature. Magazine on the Interface of Policy and Science(1): 12.

Flader

S. L.

and Callicott

J. B.

, Eds. (1991). The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

10.

Habermas

(1997). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.

11.

Hiedanpää

(2002). ‘European-wide Conservation versus Local Well-being: The Reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland’, Landscape and Urban Panning 61 (2–4): 113–23.

12.

Jongman

R.H. G.

(1998). ‘Promising National and Regional Approaches’, European Nature. Magazine on the Interface of Policy and Science (1): 18–19.

13.

Julien

(1998). ‘Natura 2000: The Ecological Network of the European Union’, European Nature. Magazine on the Interface of Policy and Science (1): 12.

14.

Kersbergen

v. and Waarden

F. v.

(2001). Shifts in Governance: Problems of Legitimacy and Accountability. The Hague, Social Science Research Council.

15.

Keulartz

(1998). The Struggle for Nature. A Critique of Radical Ecology. London and New York: Routledge.

16.

Keulartz

(2001). ‘Towards a Civilized Struggle for nature’, European Nature. Magazine on the Interface of Policy and Science (6): 15–17.

17.

Keulartz

, Windt

H. v. d.

, . (2002). ‘Natuurbeelden en natuurbeleid’, Filosofie & Praktijk 23 (1): 3–20.

18.

Klaver

, Keulartz

, . (2002). ‘Born to be Wild’, Environmental Ethics 24 (1): 3–21.

19.

Leopold

(1949). A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

20.

LNV (2000). Natuur voor mensen, mensen voor natuur. Nota natuur, bos en landschap in de 21ste eeuw. Den Haag.

21.

Mayntz

(1999). ‘Nieuwe uitdagingen voor de governance theory’, Beleid & Maatschappij 26 (1): 2–12.

22.

Natuurbeschermingsraad (1993). Natuur tussen de oren. Utrecht: Natuurbeschermingsraad.

23.

Pinton

(2001). ‘Conservation of Biodiversity as a European Directive: The Challenge for France’, Sociologia Ruralis 41: 329–42.

24.

van het Landelijke Gebied

Raad

(1998). Natuurbeleid dat verder gaat. Amersfoort.

25.

RIVM (2002). Natuurbalans 2002.

26.

Rolston

(1988). Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

27.

Swart

, Windt

H. v. d.

, . (2001). ‘Valuation of Nature in Conservation and Restoration’, Restoration Ecology 9 (2): 230–38.

28.

Top

M. v. d.

and Zouwen

M. v. d.

(2000). ‘Europees natuurbeleid in Nederland: een pionier die zichzelf in de weg loopt’, Landschap 17 (2): 81–96.

29.

WRR (1998). Ruimtelijke ontwikkelingspolitiek. Den Haag:

Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.

30.

Zouwen

M. v. d.

and Tatenhove

J. P. M. v.

(2002). Implementatie van Europees natuurbeleid in Nederland. Wageningen: Natuurplanbureau, 74