IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p7715-d846877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Biodiversity Governance: A Comparison of Two French Initiatives

Author

Listed:
  • Baptiste Bedessem

    (Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France)

  • Lucie Morère

    (Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France)

  • Louise Roblin

    (Institut des Sciences Juridiques et Philosophiques de la Sorbonne, 1, Rue de la Glacière, 75013 Paris, France)

  • Anne Dozières

    (Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France)

  • Anne-Caroline Prévot

    (Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France)

Abstract

Broadening citizen participation in biodiversity governance is often presented as a priority by public institutions. Citizens’ engagement in policy design fostering the protection of biodiversity would indeed allow two-way knowledge transfers between expert knowledge and local knowledge; it would also enable citizens to influence collective choices; and it would finally lead to inclusive decision-making processes. However, the achievement of these promises depends strongly on the capacity of public participation exercises to be fair and efficient. By focusing on these two concepts, this paper aims to contribute to identifying obstacles and tools for public participation in biodiversity governance through a comparative analysis of two case studies. The first one consists of three one-day open space technology meetings, which aimed to engage citizens in orienting biodiversity research during Paris COP21. The second one was a two-year long experiment of Citizens Committees-based participatory governance led by the French Office for Biodiversity. These two case studies are representative of two complementary dimensions of biodiversity governance: the orientation of scientific research and the regulation of individual and collective actions through laws, rules and institutional communication. Among other insights, our results determine the existence of strong skepticism regarding the political outputs of public participation, which is reinforced when the objectives and the means of the exercises are not clear enough. Second, we argue that the efficiency of participative biodiversity governance depends on the capacity of institutions to propose diversity of citizen engagement formats and objectives in order to reflect the diversity of citizens’ motivations and preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Baptiste Bedessem & Lucie Morère & Louise Roblin & Anne Dozières & Anne-Caroline Prévot, 2022. "Participatory Biodiversity Governance: A Comparison of Two French Initiatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7715-:d:846877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7715/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7715/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Judith Petts, 2001. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes: Waste Management Case-studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 207-226.
    2. Maria Peter & Tim Diekötter & Kerstin Kremer, 2019. "Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Robert Anson & Robert Bostrom & Bayard Wynne, 1995. "An Experiment Assessing Group Support System and Facilitator Effects on Meeting Outcomes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 189-208, February.
    4. Diarmuid Torney, 2021. "Deliberative Mini-Publics and the European Green Deal in Turbulent Times: The Irish and French Climate Assemblies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 380-390.
    5. Claire Dupont & Diarmuid Torney, 2021. "European Union Climate Governance and the European Green Deal in Turbulent Times," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 312-315.
    6. Judith Petts & Catherine Brooks, 2006. "Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: challenges for Deliberative Democracy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1045-1059, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Douglas Dean & Richard Orwig & Douglas Vogel, 2000. "Facilitation Methods for Collaborative Modeling Tools," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 109-128, March.
    3. Alexander Walter & Roland Scholz, 2007. "Critical success conditions of collaborative methods: a comparative evaluation of transport planning projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-212, March.
    4. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    5. Arnaud Bilek & David Carassus & Damien Gardey, 2014. "Évaluation démocratique et performance des politiques publiques territoriales : les enseignements d’une analyse comparative à l’échelle internationale," Post-Print hal-01881876, HAL.
    6. David Albert, 2012. "L'entreprise face aux mondes virtuels," Working Papers halshs-02401194, HAL.
    7. HaeRan Shin, 2016. "Re-making a place-of-memory: The competition between representativeness and place-making knowledge in Gwangju, South Korea," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(16), pages 3566-3583, December.
    8. Finardi, Corrado & Pellegrini, Giuseppe & Rowe, Gene, 2012. "Food safety issues: From Enlightened Elitism towards Deliberative Democracy? An overview of EFSA’s “Public Consultation” instrument," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 427-438.
    9. Stephen Jones, 2020. "Waste Management in Australia Is an Environmental Crisis: What Needs to Change so Adaptive Governance Can Help?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Frank Wendler, 2023. "The European Green Deal Agenda After the Attack on Ukraine: Exogenous Shock Meets Policy‐Making Stability," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(4), pages 352-364.
    11. Wessel Ganzevoort & Riyan J. G. van den Born, 2021. "Counting Bees: Learning Outcomes from Participation in the Dutch National Bee Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    13. Bing Mei & Shuxia Yang, 2019. "Nurturing Environmental Education at the Tertiary Education Level in China: Can Mobile Augmented Reality and Gamification Help?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-12, August.
    14. Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2003. "Internet Multiattribute Group Decision Support in Electronic Commerce," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 481-499, November.
    15. Anna Wesselink & Jouni Paavola & Oliver Fritsch & Ortwin Renn, 2011. "Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2688-2704, November.
    16. Mohamed Khalifa & RonChi-Wai Kwok & Robert Davison, 2002. "The Effects of Process and Content Facilitation Restrictiveness on GSS-Mediated Collaborative Learning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 345-361, September.
    17. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    18. Karim Gassemi, 2019. "Collective Strategy Formulation: An Experimental Research Assessing the Positive Impact of Group Decision Support System on Work Group," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 9(5), pages 150-157.
    19. Arnaud Bilek & David Carassus & Damien Gardey, 2011. "Evaluation démocratique et performance des politiques publiques territoriales : les enseignements d’une analyse comparative à l’échelle internationale," Post-Print hal-01881837, HAL.
    20. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7715-:d:846877. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.