Road, forestry and regional planners' work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: A case study in Poland's hotspot regions

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 54, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1373-1395

  Blicharska, Malgorzata ^a   Angelstam, Per ^a   Antonson, Hans ^b   Elbakidze, Marine ^a   Axelsson, Robert ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH NATIONAL ROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biodiversity conservation; Landscape approach; Policy implementation; Public participation; Spatial planning

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; FORESTRY POLICY; LANDSCAPE PROTECTION; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; REGIONAL PLANNING;

POLAND;

EID: 81855202302     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.575297     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Abbott, A., 1988. The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert labour. University of Chicago Press.
2. Agnoletti, M., ed., 2006. The conservation of cultural landscapes. Cambridge: CAB International.
3. Angelstam, P. and Dönz-Breuss, M., 2004. Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale - an evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecological Bulletins, 51, 305-332.
4. Angelstam, P., et al., 2003a. Two-dimensional gap analysis: a tool for efficient conservation of planning and biodiversity policy implementation. Ambio, 32, 527-534.
5. Angelstam, P., et al., 2003b. Habitat thresholds for focal species at multiple scales and forest biodiversity conservation - dead wood as an example. Annales zoologici fennici, 40, 473-482.
6. Angelstam, P., et al., 2004. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation - a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecological bulletins, 51, 427-453.
7. Antonson, H., 2001. MKB-handböcker om kulturmiljön. En studie utgående från användarens erfarenheter. VTI Meddelande 915. VTI, Linköping (in Swedish).
8. Antonson, H., 2009a. Landscapes with history: addressing shortcomings in Swedish EIAs. Land use policy, 26, 704-714.
9. Antonson, H., 2009b. Bridging the gap between research and planning practice concerning landscape in Swedish infrastructural planning. Land use policy, 26, 169-177.
10. Antonson, H., 2011. The treatment of landscape in a Swedish EIA process. Environmental impact assessment review, 31, 195-205.
11. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4), 216-224.
12. Atley, T. and Morad, M., 2009. Mind the gap: the UK's new planning system, landscape conservation and biodiversity. International journal of environmental studies, 66, 785-790.
13. Blicharska, M. and Angelstam, P., 2010. Conservation at risk: conflict analysis in the Białowieża Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 6 (1), 68-74.
14. Blicharska, M., et al., 2011. Context dependency and stakeholder involvement in EIA: the decisive role of practitioners. Journal of environmental planning and management, 54, 337-354.
15. Bridgewater, P.B. and Cresswell, I.D., 1998. The reality of the world network of biosphere reserves: its relevance for the implementation of the Convention on biological diversity. In: Biosphere reserves - myth or reality? Proceedings of workshop on biosphere reserves. World International Union for Nature Conservation Congress. Montreal, Canada. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 1996.
16. Bryman, A. and Teevan J., 2005. Social Research Methods. Chapter 13: Quantitative data analysis. London: Oxford University Press, 282-310.
17. CILP, 2008. Raport o stanie lasów w Polsce 2007. Warszawa: Centrum Informacyjne Lasów Pań stwowych.
18. COE, 2011. Parties to the Convention. European Landscape Convention. CETS No. 176. [online] Available from: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/176.html [Accessed 29 June 2011].
19. Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention. Florence: European Treaty Series No. 176.
20. Dryzek, J.S., 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford University Press.
21. Duram, L.A. and Brown, K.G., 1999. Assessing public participation in US watershed planning initiatives. Society and natural resources, 12, 455-467.
22. EC, 1999. European Spatial Development Perspective towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
23. EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Official journal of the European Communities, L327/1.
24. Edman, T., et al., 2011. Toward spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: assessment of forest landscapes' conservation value and using umbrella species in Poland. Landscape and urban planning, 102, 16-23.
25. EEC, 1979. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Brussels: European Commission.
26. EEC, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.
27. Elander, I., et al., 2005. Biodiversity in urban governance and planning: examples from Swedish cities. Planning theory and practice, 6, 283-301.
28. Fahrig, L., 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. The annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 34, 487-515.
29. Foucault, M., 1991. Governmentality. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, eds. The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality. With two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. London: Wheatsheaf Harvester, 87-104.
30. Forester, J., 1999. Deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
31. GDOŚ, 2011. Europejska Sieć Ecologiczna Natura 2000. [online] Available from: http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/natura2000/ [Accessed 23 February 2011].
32. Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W.A., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy and planning, 7 (3), 175-184.
33. Hanski, I., 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature, 396, 41-49.
34. Innes, J. and Booher, D.E., 2003. Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: M. Hajer and H. Wagenaar, eds. Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, 33-59.
35. Ioras, F., 2003. Trends in Romanian biodiversity conservation policy. Biodiversity and conservation, 12, 9-23.
36. Isaksson, K., Richardson, T., and Olsson, K., 2009. From consultation to deliberation? Tracing deliberative norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning. Environmental impact assessment review, 29 (5), 295-304.
37. Jakubiec, Z. and Buchalczyk, T., 1987. The brown bear in Poland: its history and present numbers. Acta theriologica, 32, 147-164.
38. Kaljonen, M., 2008. Bringing back the lost biotopes: the practice of regional biodiversity management planning in Finland. Journal of environmental policy and planning, 10, 113-132.
39. Keshkamat, S.S., Looijen, J.M., and Zuidgeest, M.H.P., 2009. The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: a spatial decision support system for the Via Baltica project, Poland. Journal of transport geography, 17, 54-64.
40. Kluvankorá-Oravská, T., et al., 2009. From government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of Central and Eastern European transition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 186-196.
41. Kuemmerle, T., et al., 2011. Predicting potential European bison habitat across its former range. Ecological applications, 21, 830-834.
42. Kvale, S., 1994. Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of phenomenological psychology, 25, 147-173.
43. Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews - an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Lazdinis, M., Angelstam, P., and Lazdinis, I., 2007. Maintenance of forest biodiversity in post-soviet governance model: perceptions by local actors in Lithuania. Environmental management, 40, 20-33.
45. Luz, F., 2000. Participatory landscape ecology - a basis for acceptance and implementation. Landscape and urban planning, 50, 157-166.
46. Mabelisa, A.A. and Maksymiuk, B.G., 2009. Public participation in green urban policy: two strategies compared. International journal of biodiversity science and management, 5, 63-75.
47. Mazmanian, D.A. and Sabatier, P.A., 1981. Effective policy implementation. Toronto: Lexington Books.
48. Mazmanian, D.A. and Sabatier, P.A., 1989. Implementation and public policy. Lanham: University Press of America.
49. Mikusiński, G., et al., 2007. Conservation planning in forest landscapes of Fennoscandia and an approach to the challenge of countdown 2010. Conservation Biology, 21, 1445-1454.
50. Miller, J.R., et al., 2009. Biodiversity conservation in local planning. Conservation biology, 23, 53-63.
51. Niedziałkowska, M., et al., 2006. Environmental correlates of Eurasian lynx occurrence in Poland - large scale census and GIS mapping. Biological conservation, 133, 63-69.
52. Niemelä, J., 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and conservation, 8, 119-131.
53. Noss, R.F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation biology, 4, 355-364.
54. O'Toole, Jr., O.T., 2000. Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. Journal of public administration research and theory, 10, 263-288.
55. Papageorgiou, K. and Vogiatzakis, I.N., 2006. Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environmental science& policy, 9, 476-486.
56. Petts, J., 2000. Municipal waste management: inequities and the role of deliberation. Risk analysis, 20, 821-832.
57. Petts, J. and Brooks, C., 2006. Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decision making: challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and planning A, 38, 1045-1059.
58. Plut, D., 2000. Environmental challenges of Europe: the state of environment and environmental trends in the EU (EU15) and the Accession Countries (AC10). GeoJournal, 52, 149-155.
59. Rauschmayer, F., et al., 2009a. Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental policy and governance, 19, 159-173.
60. Rauschmayer, F., Paavola, J., and Wittmer, H., 2009b. European governance of natural resources and participation in a multi-level context: an editorial. Environmental policy and governance, 19, 141-147.
61. Richardson, T., 2005. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environmental impact assessment review, 25, 341-365.
62. Roberge, J.-M., Angelstam, P., and Villard, M.-A., 2008. Specialised woodpeckers and naturalness in hemiboreal forests - deriving quantitative targets for conservation planning. Biological conservation, 141, 997-1012.
63. Rykowski, K., 1997. Forest policy evolution in Poland. Journal of sustainable forestry, 4 (3), 119-126.
64. Saarikoski, H., Tikkanen, J., and Leskinen, L.A., 2010. Public participation in practice - assessing public participation in the preparation of regional forest programs in Northern Finland. Forest policy and economics, 12, 349-356.
65. Sandström, U.G., Angelstam, P., and Khakee, A., 2006. Urban comprehensive planning - identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landscape and urban planning, 75, 43-57.
66. Skowronek, E., Krukowska, R., and Swieca, A., 2003. Transformations of cultural landscape: the case of the Polish-Ukrainian borderland. Landscape interfaces. In: G. Palang and G. Fry, eds. Cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
67. Stancioiu, P.T., Abrudan, I.V., and Dutca, I., 2010. The Natura 2000 ecological network and forests in Romania: implications on management and administration. International forestry review, 12, 106-113.
68. Söderman, T., 2005. Treatment of biodiversity issues in Finnish environmental impact assessment. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 23, 87-99.
69. UN, 1992. Convention on biological diversity. Treaty Series No. 30619. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations.
70. UNECE, 1998. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
71. UNECE, 2011. Status of ratification. 13. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. [online] Available from: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ctreaty.htm [Accessed 22 February 2011].
72. Urbanc, M., et al., 2004. Comprehension of rapidly transforming landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe in the 20th century. Acta geographica Slovenica, 44 (2), 101-131.
73. Wegner, A., Moore, S.A., and Bailey, J., 2005. Consideration of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment in Western Australia: practitioner perceptions. Environmental impact assessment review, 25, 143-162.
74. Wärnback, A. and Hilding-Rydevik, T., 2009. Cumulative effects in Swedish EIA practice - difficulties and obstacles. Environmental impact assessment review, 29, 107-115.
75. Yermokhin, M., et al., (eds.), 2007. Belarusian-Polish forest mapping: final report. Bird Life European Forest Task Force. [online] Available from: http://www.forestmapping.net/[Accessed 22 Feb 2011].
76. Zellei, A., Gorton, M., and Lowe, P., 2005. Agri-environmental policy systems in transition and preparation for EU membership. Land use policy, 22, 225-234.