Aim and objectives Expected results Work packages WP 1 Building a framework of arguments for the value of biodiversity WP 2 Case studies on the effectiveness of arguments WP 3 The interaction between governance scales WP 4 Relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services and values WP 5 Synthesis: Arguments for improved biodiversity policy-making and governance WP 6 Dissemination, communication and science-policy dialogue WP 7 Management of the consortium Methodology Partners Project timetable Project organisation

WP 2 Case studies on the effectiveness of arguments

Coordinators: Pekka Jokinen (SYKE) and Ulf Grandin (SLU)

 

Objectives

The overall aim of WP 2 is to:

• review methods for assessing the effectiveness of various arguments for biodiversity loss;
• conduct empirical case studies for analysing the significance of various arguments in biodiversity-related decision-making;
• assess the potential and observed consequences of the various arguments for preventing biodiversity loss and improving the conditions for biodiversity.

Description of work

Task 2.1: To review literature on methods to assess the effectiveness of arguments for biodiversity protection

From the very beginning of the project, SYKE and SLU will start reviewing literature on the assessment of the effectiveness of biodiversity protection in general and of different argument types in particular. This task will be carried out together with WP1 leaders Alterra and NERC-CEH and as far as possible combined with the WP1 review of arguments in use.

 

Task 2.2: Select case studies

BESAFE research aims to address the effectiveness of alternative types of arguments for biodiversity protection within an appropriate variation of socio-economic, ecological and cultural contexts as well as to test all types of argument valuation. BESAFE also considers all aspects of biodiversity from specific sites of conservation importance to international and national frameworks and initiatives. Based on these preliminary criteria about 30 candidate case studies were identified during proposal preparation. WP2 will undertake a preliminary assessment of data available from the candidate case studies that could be used for the assessment of effectiveness. The results of the task 2.1 review and the preliminary assessment will be discussed at the ‘Selection and Exchange’ workshop organised jointly with WP1 to establish which data can be obtained in a reliable way from a sufficient number of case studies. The results from that workshop will guide case study selection and the development of the methodology for case study analysis in WP2. A first set of cases will then be selected from the candidates and analysed carefully according to the theoretical and practical dimensions of the provisional framework. If any shortcomings are identified, complementary candidate cases will be added. After this analysis a final selection of approximately 12-15 cases will be produced. The final choice of cases will cover all aspects of the WP1 initial framework. Task 2 will be carried out in close cooperation with WPs 1, 3, 4 and 5 and will be coordinated with the BIOMOT project as far as possible. The case study selection will be presented during stakeholder workshop WS1.

 

Task 2.3: Develop comparative approach and test schemes

We will utilise a comparative research framework giving attention to different countries, different governance levels, different policy sectors, and different biodiversity-related issues. The data and methods will not be completely standardised as we will compare policy processes with various constellations of policy actors, with different kind of problem definitions, and within different institutional settings. Instead of completely standardising the data and methods, we will develop a conceptual framework which serves the operational basis for comparing the different cases and for understanding the similarities/differences in the dynamics and mechanics within the cases. The policy process in each case study is divided into three basic stages, problem framing, policy framing and implementation, which will allow comparison points to be found across cases which seem to differ significantly from each other. We will then test the comparative case study framework by carrying out 2-3 pilot case studies addressing different governance levels at an early stage in the project. We will also test data analyses methods to be used for the case studies. Task 2.3 will be carried out in close cooperation with WPs 3 and 4.

 

Task 2.4: Data collection in case studies and set up of project database

Data collection will include those data necessary to address the research objectives of WPs 3 and 4 in addition to WP2. Data collection will also be coordinated as much as possible with the BIOMOT project. Hence, these WPs and BIOMOT will work closely together to devise a data collection protocol for all case study leaders covering political, socio-economic, cultural and ecological data. A joint electronic working group on data collection will be set up. To assure data quality and compatibility, data collector training sessions as well as cross checking between cases will be organised, also if possible in cooperation with the BIOMOT project. Ecological data collection will be mostly limited to existing observations available from ongoing monitoring networks, available assessments and Biodiversity Action Plans and observations and experiments from other projects and programmes (e.g. ATEAM, ALARM, PEER) within case study regions. Other sources of data will be collected using a variety of techniques, including reviewing existing literature and research reports, conducting thematic (structured or semi-structured) interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders, collecting policy and planning documents, and carrying out survey studies. The overall strategy of data collection will be guided and strengthened by the mixed methods design. This means, in particular, that we will combine qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques in every individual case study where the combination is effective and increases validity. The volume of empirical work in individual case studies will be specified together with the final selection of the cases. When applicable, the mapping of stakeholders and the collection of ecological and ecosystem services background data will be assisted by GIS techniques. The goal is to carry out four to five case studies for each of the three governance scales. A relational database will be developed to hold all data collected in the case studies based on an Open Source technology platform. If possible a common data platform with the BIOMOT project will be developed. Strict data entry and checking protocols will be developed.

 

Task 2.5: Carry out general data analysis in cooperation with WPs 3 and 4, concentrating on within governance scale aspects

Transforming and analysing the data will primarily be conducted by methods based on content and argumentation analyses. Integrated data analysis involving the joint and interactive analysis of data represented in different forms will be employed. Other methods will be utilised in individual cases where appropriate. The reliability of results will be guaranteed by methodological triangulation (i.e. the employment of several methods in a single case study) and by triangulation of researchers (i.e. group work and the review of research by evaluators and auditors). When applicable, analysis will be supported by GIS mapping and visualisation techniques. First results of the case study work will be presented in the first stakeholder workshop which is planned about half a year into the data collection. Feedback will be used to adapt methodology and protocols when necessary so possible data gaps can be mended. The first results of analysis will be presented at the second stakeholder workshop WS2.