Show simple item record

hal.structure.identifierLaboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision [LAMSADE]
dc.contributor.authorMeinard, Yves*
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-19T11:46:14Z
dc.date.available2017-07-19T11:46:14Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/16615
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectConservation policyen
dc.subjectLegitimacyen
dc.subjectTransparencyen
dc.subjectKnowledge gapsen
dc.subjectEthicsen
dc.subject.ddc333en
dc.subject.classificationjelQ.Q5.Q58en
dc.titleWhat is a legitimate conservation policy?en
dc.typeArticle accepté pour publication ou publié
dc.description.abstractenMost conservation actions are part of public policies: they are financed through taxes and are part of policy packages. Consequently, conservation practitioners often have to face challenges to the legitimacy of their actions and expenses. But what is a legitimate conservation policy? This article develops a philosophically qualified answer and explores its application to concrete conservation situations. This approach is anchored in a "performative” interpretation of the philosophy of Rawls, Habermas and other deliberative democracy theorists. The performative approach emphasizes the primacy of practice and the elusiveness of purportedly definitive, purely theoretical definitions of legitimacy. As an application of this approach, a legitimate conservation policy is provisionally defined as one such that: (i) the defenders of the policy have justified it, as a matter of fact; (ii) even if it is not attacked, they are ready to argue to justify it; and (iii) if it is actually attacked, they enact this readiness. A specification of this three-fold criterion is then introduced, by analysing a series of real-life conservation actions or policies. This analysis unveils four widespread mechanisms (opaque procedures, closed circles of experts, denials of knowledge gaps and concealments of ethical debates) leading to illegitimate conservation policies. Identifying these mechanisms and their links with the provisional definition of legitimacy makes it possible to foster the legitimacy of conservation actions and policies. Finally, concrete practical implications for conservation researchers and practitioners are outlined.en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlnameBiological Conservation
dc.relation.isversionofjnlvol213, Part Aen
dc.relation.isversionofjnldate2017-09
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpages115-123en
dc.relation.isversionofdoi10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.042en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpublisherElsevieren
dc.subject.ddclabelEconomie de la terre et des ressources naturellesen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.relation.forthcomingprintnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenonen
dc.description.halcandidateouien
dc.description.readershiprechercheen
dc.description.audienceInternationalen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewedouien
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewedouien
dc.date.updated2017-07-19T11:12:44Z
hal.identifierhal-01593554*
hal.version1*
hal.update.actionupdateMetadata*
hal.author.functionaut


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record