Corresponding author: Joachim Maes (
Academic editor: Christoph Goerg
Achieving acceptance among local stakeholders is crucial for biodiversity conservation, as their often diverging interests can hamper the success of conservation projects. While research exists on the different narratives and arguments used in the international policy debates, there is not much evidence on how effective alternative arguments are in communicating the value of biodiversity to local stakeholders. This paper used a multiple case study design for sites of the European Union’s Natura 2000 network to investigate which arguments have been successfully used to persuade local stakeholders of restoration projects, funded under the EU’s LIFE program. Particular focus is given to the role of ecosystem services as arguments for nature conservation and how these relate to other instrumental and non-instrumental arguments. Instrumental arguments appeared particularly effective for commercial users, where economic interests stood against the conservation activities. But also stakeholders without commercial interest tended to be more receptive to arguments that implied a benefit for themselves or their communities, such as recreation or a cultural value. Regarding ecosystem services this study found that they should be understood as an addition to the category of instrumental arguments. Where pure economic factors were not sufficient to create a business case for conservation, ecosystem services were frequently applied to make the case for conservation stronger. Finding consensus among the different stakeholders is a key factor in achieving any conservation at all. The argument strategy should therefore always consist of a mix of instrumental and non-instrumental arguments, as only focusing on instrumental arguments might repel those individuals who seek a strong ethical motivation.
Müller A, Maes J (2015) Arguments for biodiversity conservation in Natura 2000 sites: An analysis based on LIFE projects. Nature Conservation 12: 1–26. doi:
Despite global political efforts under the Convention of Biological Diversity to conserve the world’s biodiversity, it is still declining with unrestrained speed. In 2010 it became apparent that the global and European targets to halt biodiversity loss by then had not been achieved (
One of these factors are conflicts between the conservation goals and the interest of different stakeholder groups at local scale (
Two main categories of arguments for nature conservation can be distinguished: instrumental arguments and non-instrumental arguments. Both lines of argumentation have been commonly used across cultures and periods. For instance, the political awareness shift towards environmental values and the need to protect these by specific regulation in western societies in the second half of the 20th century was on the one side driven by instrumental arguments about human dependence on nature in publications such as ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (
While various scholars have investigated the political discourses at national or international level on biodiversity conservation (
The Natura 2000 network is the European Union’s main instrument for biodiversity conservation. It offers an ideal example to study the effectiveness of alternative arguments at local level, because it allows for comparisons between different sites, while all sites receive their normative motivation from the same legislative foundation. The network was established in 1992 under the Habitats Directive in order to protect key habitats and species in Europe (
While this perspective on biodiversity offers a high potential for operational action, it has been criticized by environmental philosophers as an ‘itemizing approach’ that neglects that people value biodiversity for reasons related to a contextual narrative (
In fact many Natura 2000 sites have to deal with conflicts with local stakeholders. This paper will take a descriptive approach drawing on persuasion theory (
This case study uses the Natura 2000 sites as example for analyzing which arguments are effective in communicating the value of biodiversity to local stakeholders. The multiple-case design was chosen because it generally offers stronger robustness of the results (
Our study used both document analysis and in-depth interviews to create a methodological triangulation. For the document analysis 365 Natura 2000 projects were selected from the LIFE online database. This database provides information on all projects funded under the LIFE fund, the main EU funding instrument for the environment. Only LIFE projects, classified under the strand ‘Nature’ were considered since these projects target restoration activities in Natura 2000 sites. Next we analyzed all the projects submitted and approved in the years 1992 to 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010, and 2011. Follow-up projects (projects which received funding more than once and encoded separately in the database) were not considered as separate projects in our analysis but analyzed together with the first project to avoid double or triple counting of arguments. In sum, our sample represents almost 25% of all the Nature projects funded under the LIFE program between 1992 and 2013.
The selected cases were analyzed with respect to the arguments which were used to present the project in the LIFE database, on the project website and in other public communication materials. As a result of this analysis the relative frequency of all appearing arguments was determined.
The frequency analysis yielded first insights into which arguments project managers expected to be effective. In addition, the results were used to guide the subsequent in-depth interviews with LIFE project managers. In total 55 project managers were invited to participate in the study. Out of these 14 responded and attended the interviews. The in-depth interviews aimed at exploring the perceptions of project managers about the effectiveness of alternative arguments. The interview protocol (Suppl. material
Codes of argument types were predefined and based on categories which were identified by
Classification of arguments (Argument types) and types of premise statements. Frequency of use of the argumentation in LIFE projects. The short names between brackets are used in Tables
Argument types | Type of premise statement (short name) | Frequency | Relative frequency (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Instrumental | Economic | Productivity, resources, industrial use of nature, market products (Productivity) | 20 | 4.1 |
Contribution to regional economic growth (Growth) | 24 | 5.0 | ||
Livelihoods, employment (Employment) | 11 | 2.3 | ||
Direct payment/subsidy (monetary and non-monetary forms) (Subsidy) | 0 | 0 | ||
Social | Provisioning services, emphasis on quality, naturalness, impacts on human well-being (Provisioning ecosystem services) | 15 | 3.1 | |
Regulating services, carbon, nutrients, water-functions leading to indirect benefits (Regulating ecosystem services) | 10 | 2.1 | ||
Recreation, aesthetic value/experience (Recreation and cultural ecosystem services) | 38 | 7.9 | ||
Human health, reduction in disease risk (Health) | 2 | 0.4 | ||
Precaution, risk reduction, resilience of services (Resilience) | 9 | 1.9 | ||
Intellectual stimulus (Intellect) | 24 | 5.0 | ||
Legal obligation (Legal) | 18 | 3.7 | ||
Reputation, looking good, winning customers/staff/voters (Reputation) | 1 | 0.2 | ||
Options for future use, bio-prospecting (Options) | 1 | 0.2 | ||
Non-instrumental | Inherent | Rights/values of nature itself, intrinsic value (Intrinsic) | 151 | 31.3 |
Ethical, moral and religious obligations to nature (Ethical) | 8 | 1.7 | ||
Achieving balance of nature, healthy systems, natural functions (Functions) | 25 | 5.2 | ||
Human happiness | Social/cultural/heritage/collective well-being and welfare (Social well-being) | 41 | 8.5 | |
Psychological/spiritual/individual well-being and biophilia (Individual well-being) | 0 | 0 | ||
Sustainable development, obligation or values for future generation (Sustainability) | 34 | 7.0 | ||
Goal not expressed | Species conservation matters (Reason not specified) | 51 | 10.6 |
In contrast codes for stakeholder groups were created by first using open coding and in a second step building meaningful categories. Stakeholder categories were based on their expected interest in the ecosystem. Many common frameworks for stakeholder analysis use interest as criterion. For instance Mitchell’s stakeholder matrix categorizes stakeholders by interest and the power to influence outcomes (
After coding, the interviews were analyzed according to the structural framework which is presented in more detail hereafter. The results on different argument types were organized in tables for greater manageability. These tables present effectiveness of arguments by stakeholder group. The effectiveness of arguments is understood in this paper as a combination of observed and potential effectiveness. The full concept is described in a later paragraph. The table content should be understood as qualitative information that describes the observed cases of this study. Tables should not be read as ‘average’ or ‘universal’ indicators of effectiveness, but solely summarize observations of our study. The transferability of these observations to other contexts is part of our analysis and is discussed accordingly in the respective paragraphs.
Ideally an investigation of the effectiveness of arguments triangulates information on the perceptions of the communicator (in our case the project manager) with those of the recipient (in our case the stakeholders). However, data on stakeholder perceptions was difficult to obtain, because in many cases representative members of the stakeholder groups were difficult to identify. For the scope of this study we chose therefore to concentrate on the project managers as primary data source. This limitation bears the risk of a systematic bias if project managers willingly or unwillingly favored specific arguments or neglected others. Based on the interviews we assessed the risk of a willingly produced bias as low. The concern of an unwillingly produced bias, however, is more difficult to dispel. The persuasion through a specific argument is a cognitive process that takes place in the mind of the individual stakeholder. It is therefore only indirectly observable by project managers. Yet what project managers can observe is if the change in attitude translates into a change in behavior. For instance, a stakeholder that previously opposed the project might finally demonstrate acceptance but this was not recorded. Nevertheless the possibility of unwillingly produced bias remains and has to be considered when discussing the results.
A second limitation of the research design is the self-selection of interviewees into the study, as participants might systematically differ from project managers who did not respond to the invitation. In fact, it is likely that study participants have a higher than average level of awareness and interest in the topic of the study (the effective persuasion of stakeholder groups). Most likely participants have been more deeply engaged with the question as to how to communicate the value of their projects to relevant stakeholders. This should imply, however, that the study participants command over a more accurate perception about the effectiveness of arguments than their colleagues. Given these consideration self-selection seems no threat, but rather a quality feature of the study results.
Our research question about the effectiveness of arguments is at its core effect-oriented. Therefore, this study draws on literature from persuasion theory (
Structural framework used for the assessment of arguments to protect and restore biodiversity in LIFE projects across Europe.
Secondly, the study focused on the argumentation and its effect on persuasion. The communicator identity played therefore a subordinated role and was consciously kept comparable among cases. Yet the possibility of an effect of the communicator identity was considered during the analysis of the observations.
In contrast, the identity of the message recipient varied strongly between and within single cases. It was expected to find strong variation in argument effectiveness between different stakeholder groups, as they share different norms, values and interests. After the open coding procedure stakeholders from single cases were categorized in four groups to create a higher degree of abstraction of the results: commercial users of the ecosystem, non-commercial users, public agencies and civil society organizations.
Measures for observed effectiveness are: persistence, accumulation, level-crossing, diffusion, and replacement. The persistence of an argument can be understood as its enduring over time (
Potential effectiveness can either be analyzed in a purely logical exercise or in assessing the attitudes of stakeholders to certain arguments. In this study we focused on the latter. In particular, we asked project managers about their expectations with respect to the effectiveness of specific arguments for particular stakeholders. The difference to observed effectiveness lies in the fact that project managers do not necessarily have the evidence from directly testing the arguments, but instead base their statements on their general knowledge of the stakeholders. Therefore data on potential effectiveness should be treated with care. Potential effectiveness was mainly used to backup findings formed on observed effectiveness and made up a relatively small part of the analysis.
A first assessment screened 365 LIFE projects for the argumentation on biodiversity they contain. The spatial distribution of the sample is presented in Figure
Sample of LIFE projects selected for the assessment. LIFE projects were mapped by linking the project number to the Natura 2000 sites where the project was implemented. Several projects cover more than one site, in particular in Northern Italy and Southern Belgium, which results in some clustering.
Studies were selected from all countries of the EU but there is some perceived bias towards Northern Italy and South Belgium, since several LIFE projects in these regions covered more than one Natura 2000 site which results in a clustered presentation in these areas.
Our study found a rich variety of arguments used to make a case for nature protection in Natura 2000 sites. The inherent argument that nature has a right or value of its own reappeared in almost a third of the of the Life projects included in the first screening phase. People also often underline the importance of conservation without going into detail (10.6% of the projects screened). Natura 2000 sites are also related to the cultural heritage of a region which is seen as important to protect.
Natura 2000 sites provide multiple ecosystem services which is reflected in the argumentation found in the project information sheets (13% of the projects used ecosystem services as argumentation). The role of the network in providing cultural ecosystem services, notably recreation and aesthetic values, is used to argue for the conservation of a site. Regulating and provisioning services appear as arguments as well but they are mostly not framed as ecosystem services. An argument which is regularly used is the water regulation capacity of Natura 2000 sites to store water and maintain hydrological functions.
Several projects also stress the importance of Natura 2000 sites for their contribution to the regional economy (5%), and in particular, to help achieve a more sustainable development (7%)
The in-depth assessments are based on interviews with project managers. Here we present a summary of the results per argument type (see Table
Effectiveness of economic arguments per stakeholder group.
Stakeholder group | Productivity | Growth | Employment | Subsidy | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
General public | Medium to low effectiveness | Effective | - | - |
Schools | Low effectiveness | Not effective | - | - | |
Visitors/Recreationists | - | - | - | - | |
|
Landowners/ |
If applicable, very high effectiveness; often not applicable, as productivity and conservation interests diverge | If applicable, effective; often not applicable, as economic and conservation interests diverge | If applicable, effective; often not applicable, as no direct impact on employment observable | Effectiveness strongly varies; also cases of counterproductive subsidies observed |
Stock breeders | If applicable, very high effectiveness; often not applicable, as productivity and conservation interests diverge | If applicable, effectiveness; often not applicable, as economic and conservation interests diverge | - | Effective | |
Forestry | Not applicable, as productivity and conservation interests diverge | Often not applicable, as economic and conservation interests diverge | - | - | |
|
Environmental |
- | - | - | - |
Animal rights associations | - | - | - | - | |
Municipalities and other public agencies | High effectiveness | High effectiveness; often not applicable, as economic and conservation interests diverge | - | Effective | |
|
|||||
|
Persistent | Persistent | - | Persistent for commercial users | |
|
If applicable, accumulating | If applicable, accumulating | - | No accumulation | |
|
If applicable, used by both local government, civil society and sometimes commercial users | If applicable, used by regional and local government and sometimes civil society | - | No level-crossing | |
|
Some diffusion to general public | Some diffusion to municipality | - | No diffusion | |
|
If applicable, no replacing; if not applicable replacing by legal | If applicable, no replacing; often in combination with recreation/tourism | - | - |
Effectiveness of social arguments per stakeholder group.
Stakeholder groups | Provisioning ecosystem services | Regulating ecosystem services | Recreation and cultural ecosystem services | Health | Resilience | Intellect | Legal | Reputation | Options | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
General Public | If applicable, effective | - | Effective | Effective | If applicable, effective | Effective | Effective | - | - |
Schools | - | Not effective | Effective | - | - | Effective | Not effective | - | - | |
Visitors/ |
- | Effective | Effective | - | Effective | - | - | - | - | |
|
Landowners/ Farmers/ Fisheries | - | Effectiveness varies depending on beneficiary of the services | Not effective | - | If applicable effective | - | Effectiveness varies strongly by context; determinants are regulatory level, strength of enforcement and acceptance of normative base of the regulation | Effective, if social environment in favor of conservation | - |
Stock breeders | - | Effective | - | - | - | - | Effectiveness depending on country context; similar projects were very differently perceived in different countries; possible determinant is attitude towards law in general | - | - | |
Forestry | - | Effective | Not effective | - | If applicable, effective | - | Effective | - | - | |
|
Environmental NGOs | - | - | - | - | - | - | Effective, if general public is not opposing intervention | - | |
Animal rights associations | - | - | - | - | - | - | Not effective | - | - | |
Municipalities and other public agencies | If applicable, effective | Effective | Effective when paired with ecotourism | - | Effective | - | Effective | Varies strongly; depending on public opinion about the interventions | - | |
|
||||||||||
|
Not persistent | Persistent | Persistent | - | Persistent | Persistent use in context of schools; in other context not used | Persistent | Not persistent | - | |
|
Not accumulating, often too abstract for many stakeholder groups | No accumulation observed | Accumulating if tourism industry is growing | - | No accumulation | No accumulation | Accumulation if EU law reinforced through national law | No accumulation | - | |
|
No level-crossing observed | Level-crossing | - | - | Depending on the concrete threat | No level-crossing | If level-crossing depends on country context; may also lead to reactance | Level-crossing both of agreement with argument or reactance to the argument | - | |
|
No diffusion observed | No diffusion observed | - | - | Often combined with Ecosystem Services etc. (e.g. flood prevention) | No diffusion | If diffusing depends on country context; may also lead to reactance | - | - | |
|
Replacing through direct economic benefits or moral obligations | - | Often accompanied by biophilia or local economic growth | - | Depending on the concrete threat | No replacing | Replacing or combining with consensus seeking management solutions | - | - |
Effectiveness of non-instrumental arguments per stakeholder group.
Stakeholder groups | Intrinsic | Ethical | Functions | Social well-being | Individual well-being | Sustainability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
General Public | Effectiveness varies | Effective | Effectiveness varies | Effective | Effectiveness varies, can even be counterproductive in case of invasive species | Effective, but rarely used |
Visitors/Recreationists | Not effective | - | Effective | Effective | - | ||
Schools | Effective | Effective | Effective | - | High effectiveness; particularly if strengthened by education programs that involved visits to nature, engagement with specific species etc. | - | |
|
Stock breeders | Not effective | Usually not used, only for some effective | Effectiveness varies; depending on explicit link between balance of nature and livestock breeding | - | - | - |
Forestry | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Landowners/ Farmers | Persistent, but effectiveness varies strongly | Usually not used, only for some effective | Effectiveness varies | - | - | Effective | |
|
Environmental NGOs | Effectiveness varies strongly; depending on context can even produce counterproductive results | - | Effective | - | - | - |
Animal rights associations | Counterproductive in context of invasive species | - | Not effective in context of invasive species | - | Counterproductive in case of invasive species | - | |
Municipalities and other public agencies | Not effective | Effective | - | Effective | - | - | |
|
|||||||
|
Persistent | Persistent, but mainly not explicitly referred to | Persistent in some context | Not persistent | Persistent if communication activities are repeatedly reinforced | Not persistent | |
|
Accumulation only observed in context of invasive species, where it has adverse effect | Not accumulation | No accumulation observed | - | No accumulation | - | |
|
level-crossing from animal rights associations to general public | No level-crossing | No level-crossing observed | No level-crossing observed | - | - | |
|
Potential diffusion from school children to parents | Potential diffusion from school children to parents | No diffusion observed | - | School children as mediator to adults, but no clear evidence for that | - | |
|
Typically replaced by legal and economic arguments | Typically replaced by legal and economic arguments | Often replaced by recreation or regulating services | - | Accompanied by intrinsic or moral arguments | - |
Effectiveness of argument with goal not expressed per stakeholder group.
Stakeholder groups | Species conservation matters | |
---|---|---|
|
General Public | Effectiveness varies |
Visitors/Recreationists | - | |
Schools | Effective | |
|
Stock breeders | Effectiveness unclear |
Forestry | - | |
Landowners/ Farmers | Effectiveness unclear | |
|
Environmental NGOs | Effective |
Animal rights associations | - | |
Municipalities and other public agencies | Effectiveness unclear | |
|
||
|
Very persistent | |
|
Accumulating | |
|
No level-crossing observed | |
|
Different directions | |
|
No replacing observed |
In general economic arguments showed high effectiveness among commercial users and public authorities. However, in several cases the economic arguments were actually not applicable to the context because commercial interests and conservation aims required opposing management options. For instance one project manager in Bulgaria stated that
‘
The same was true for arguments about increased productivity. In almost all cases it was impossible to make this argument, as the demanded conservation measures were expected to deter optimal productivity. Consequently, in many cases conservation projects had to deal with strong opposition from commercial users.
Economic theory would typically suggest dealing with these conflicting interests by creating a business case for conservation. For instance this could be done through subsidizing the desired behavior. The examined cases in this study did not contain any incidence where the project management paid direct subsidies to the commercial users. Yet in several cases the project management employed commercial users in some of their activities, provided non-monetary assistance or highlighted the possibility to apply for other public subsidies. On the downside several cases reported financial incentives to be counterproductive. For instance, one interview partner stated that financial incentives were in his eyes not capable of introducing permanent behavioral change:
In another case public subsidies were found to be directly undermining conservation purposes. In a land conservation project the manager explained that they had failed to include fallow area in the project because land owners were receiving subsidies for these areas which were still classified as agricultural land.
For public authorities the case was more favorable. Economic aspects seemed to persuade municipalities in several cases. For example one project manager described the synergies between bird conservation and economic interest of the region like this:
Economic arguments were rarely used for non-commercial users of the ecosystem, because project managers expected them not to be effective with that group. Two of the examined cases suggest that local social cohesion may be a factor that makes the general public more receptive to economic arguments.
Finally, economic arguments were in none of the examined cases used for civil society organizations. However, environmental organization used this type of argument repeatedly in addition to their normative claims to persuade other stakeholder groups.
Another factor that seems to determine the effect of the legal argument is the normative attitude to the conservation purpose and to public regulation in general. One example illustrated this very clearly. We interviewed two managers of large carnivore projects, out of which one reported the legal argument to be very effective while the other stated the opposite. These deviating effects came along with very different attitudes to the large carnivores in question and legal obligations in general.
Arguments about provisioning or regulating services were used in six different cases. In many cases project managers seemed to find it difficult to identify which ecosystem services their project generated. Yet, individual cases hinted that ecosystem services can be very effective arguments, if applicable. One project manager, for instance, claimed that the carbon storage potential of his project was very effective in convincing various stakeholder groups. Other interviewees mentioned flood prevention as a very effective argument. For non-commercial users recreation and intellectual stimulus seemed to be particularly strong arguments. However, the same arguments appeared weak in persuading public authorities or commercial users.
In addition, ecosystem services were most effective, where the benefits were easily understood. Many project managers highlighted that the concept of ecosystem services was too complex or scientific for stakeholder communication. Instead project managers referred to the service itself. Where the service could be easily understood, as in the case of recreation or flood control, they ultimately appeared to be strong arguments.
Reputational benefits seemed to be another strong argument, as it was quite frequently used. Particularly, it seemed to be a strong argument to persuade municipalities. However, in some cases it appeared counterproductive, because its effect depended—unsurprisingly—on the public opinion about the conservation measures in question. For instance, protection against invasive species seemed to be a very controversial intervention. One project manager stated:
Bioprospecting and benefits to human health were used very rarely in the examined cases.
The argument about a moral obligation was only used in three interviews, but it followed a similar pattern. Finally, the argument about maintaining the balance of nature was not effective for commercial users, but very effective for non-commercial users such as recreationists or the general public
Remarkable were the findings on a psychological benefit/biophilia. Biophilia was an argument often applied to persuade non-commercial users. Particularly recreationists appeared to be receptive to this argument. In addition, project managers seemed to try to trigger biophilia in other groups such as school children or the general public through activities in and with nature. In one case for instance, the project manager explained that the local population was alienated from their immediate natural environment and organized tours had been used to re-establish their emotional relationship to nature.
Non-instrumental arguments are among the oldest and most widespread arguments for a value of nature. They contributed largely to a policy shift in the 1970s and 1980s which brought environmental problems to the forefront of public awareness (
Economic arguments were often vague and did avoid to consider concrete benefits such as job creation. In many cases it was obvious that the vagueness of the argument was caused by the impossibility to claim concrete economic benefits for the project. In most cases commercial users did not directly benefit through the project, thus economic arguments were not applicable in these cases. Indirect benefits may occur e.g. through productivity gains due to maintaining ecological functionality. As described earlier productivity gains were hardly used by project managers as arguments. We can therefore not make any conclusive statement about these benefits. At the same time, the findings show parallels to the findings of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature, where most authors agree that companies can only be expected to produce environmental (and social) co-benefits when doing so does not diminish the economic profitability (Blowfield and Murray 2004,
In those cases where commercial users were directly benefitting economically, economic arguments were perceived as effective. However, project managers in this study also referred to the risk of motivation crowding out by suggesting the possibility of deterring intrinsic motivations by subsidizing stakeholders for conservation actions. One project manager described economic arguments as a short-lived solution, because the motivation for action would disappear as soon as the economic incentive was gone. At the same time, however, non-instrumental motivations would get lost if focus was given to economic arguments. These findings are in line with literature on motivation crowding out (
Instrumental arguments that refer to social benefits can be understood as an addition to economic arguments, because they appeal to the self-interest of individuals or groups. While in many cases creating a business case for conservation through purely economic arguments was not possible, social arguments were added to the argumentation in many cases with success. Arguments about ecosystem services are one type of non-economic arguments that refer to instrumental values. As our results have shown they succeeded in some, but not all, cases to create a business case for conservation by drawing the attention to non-monetary benefits such as flood prevention. Our findings confirm a trend identified by other scholars (
At the same time, however, the findings suggest that the concept of ecosystem services may be very theoretical and often not appropriate to communicate to local stakeholders. A large number of project developers used arguments that can be framed under the ecosystem services concept, without being aware that these benefits could fit under this concept. Other project developers refused the terminology of ecosystem services because they saw it as too scientific or too technical to communicate to local stakeholder groups. This finding has to be treated carefully, because it is possible that project managers underestimated the ability of stakeholders to relate to the ecosystem services terminology. While we can therefore not be completely certain about the effectiveness of references to the term ‘ecosystem services’, our findings provide clear evidence that specific ecosystem services are often used by project managers to communicate with local stakeholders and that these arguments are effective in many cases.
Bringing these findings together, project managers favored usually a mix of different arguments. While the non-instrumental arguments were widely used and appeared to be generally accepted by stakeholders, they were in the majority of cases combined with instrumental arguments. Instrumental arguments were used to create a business case for conservation and to appeal to the self-interest of stakeholders. In our study no project manager saw a risk of crowding out intrinsic motivations by economic arguments, as long as the intrinsic arguments continued to be used. This argumentation strategy was described as having the advantage to speak to individuals of the same stakeholder group who had different values and preferences as well as to address different dimensions in the considerations of the same individual.
The popularity of arguments that do not express a clear goal possibly relates to the advantage of being vague. By leaving out the premise of the claim, it remains open to interpretation. It is possible therefore, that the argument speaks to a wider audience. At the same time, however, the vagueness could also weaken its persuasive power, which seemed to be case in several of our observed cases.
As expected the socio-economic context of a project has an impact on the effectiveness of arguments. Several cases gave suggestive evidence of the importance of the relationship to nature or the species in question in explaining the effect that an argument had on stakeholder groups. For cases where the project developer reported that a stakeholder group commanded over solid knowledge or has an emotional connotation to the respective natural environment, it seemed that intrinsic arguments were more effective than otherwise. However, where there was no strong previous relationship with nature, several project managers reported to have succeeded in fostering it through activities that made stakeholders engage with and in nature, e.g. through guided tours.
While in general economic arguments seemed to be hardly effective for non-commercial users, our cases contained some exceptions. For instance a Greek project manager reported that arguments about the economic dependence of local stock breeders on the ecosystem, was an effective argument for the general public. Social cohesion seemed to be the underlying mediating factor, which made unaffected stakeholders more receptive to benefits borne by others. While the evidence of this mechanism in our study is only narrative, it is in line with other studies that found that economic arguments are not only effective for directly affected individuals, but may be used as a general welfare argument (cf.
In our structural framework we outlined that the way of presenting the argument is further expected to be a determining factor. We identified three general modes of how the message was communicated that went beyond wording of the message. One of these factors was already mentioned - the communication of nature’s value through experiences in and with nature. This experience-oriented way of presenting was reported to be effective, particularly for non-commercial users.
It links closely to the second method of communication that we identified as mediating factor. This second method is participatory practices. Participation appeared in the examined cases in various forms. For instance, several projects involved stakeholders directly in their project activities, e.g. in monitoring of an animal population or management practices. In other cases the project management held participatory meetings with local stakeholder to provide information, identify concerns and try to resolve them. These findings have to be seen in lights of the literature dedicated to participatory approaches (
Finally, the identity of the message communicator plays an important role for persuasion. In our study, we found that sometimes third parties were employed to communicate the message who had potentially a better relationship to the stakeholders. For example, one forest project used the foresters to communicate with hunters, as these had a mutually trustful relationship.
In other cases project managers attempted to improve their own relationship with stakeholders through various techniques. For instance, information provision and general transparency were reported as a way to create trust. As already mentioned, consensus seeking approaches pursued the same aim. These findings are in line with general theories on how trust can facilitate cooperation and under which conditions it can be built (
The results of this study showed a certain pattern in the effectiveness of instrumental and non-instrumental arguments used in conservation. The non-instrumental argument about the moral base of biodiversity conservation was usually an accepted paradigm with which stakeholders did not generally disagree. However, the acceptance of this norm was in most cases not sufficient to motivate action against economic interests. Instrumental arguments were decisive among commercial users of the ecosystem. Whereas their economic interests seemed to diverge from conservation interests, additional instrumental arguments, including ecosystem services, could be used to create a business case for conservation. Instrumental arguments are hence not replacing but adding to non-instrumental arguments to guarantee political feasibility.
Stakeholders without commercial interest tended to be more receptive to arguments that implied a benefit to themselves or their communities, such as recreation or cultural value. While non-instrumental arguments found acceptance, it was typically the mix of instrumental with non-instrumental arguments that appeared effective for this group.
Overall the study showed a mixed picture, where different individuals of the same stakeholder group could be persuaded by very different arguments.
Project managers thus recommended in general a mixed communication strategy that deploys both instrumental and non-instrumental arguments. While it would be possible that a mixed communication strategy blurs the intended message, project managers in this study were convinced that a mix of instrumental and non-instrumental arguments made the communication more effective. First, they suggested that a mix of arguments helped to reach different individuals in the same stakeholder group who might differ in their values and preferences. Second, instrumental and non-instrumental arguments were seen as complementary in simultaneously relating to different dimensions of an individual’s values or preferences.
The findings of this study add to the recent field of environmental communication by showing that conflicts with local stakeholders can be reduced by effective communication. To create effective stakeholder communication this study suggests that managers of conservation projects should avoid focusing on single arguments, regardless whether or not they are instrumental or non-instrumental. In order to be effective environmental stakeholder communication has to account for the multiple values and preferences within stakeholder groups and within individuals by employing a mixed communication strategy.
This research was a case study of the BESAFE project, funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission.
However, the Habitats Directive also makes a reference to ‘natural habitats’ which indicates a value for the historical concept of ‘naturalness’ (
Interview protocol
Text
List of questions used by the interviewer during the telephone interview with project managers.