Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/23865
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHugé, Jean-
dc.contributor.authorRochette, Anne-Julie-
dc.contributor.authorJanssens de Bisthoven, Luc-
dc.contributor.authorDahdouh-Guebasa, Farid-
dc.contributor.authorKoedam, Nico-
dc.contributor.authorVANHOVE, Maarten-
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-12T08:38:09Z-
dc.date.available2017-06-12T08:38:09Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 75, p. 91-102-
dc.identifier.issn1462-9011-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/23865-
dc.description.abstractBiodiversity is under threat from anthropogenic pressures, in particular in biodiversity-rich developing countries. Development cooperation actors, who traditionally focus on the improvement of socio-economic conditions in the South, are increasingly acknowledging the linkages between poverty and biodiversity, e.g. by referring to the ecosystem services framework. However, there are many different framings which stress the need for biodiversity integration and which influence how biodiversity and development are and/or should be linked. Moreover, there is a gap between the lip service paid to biodiversity integration and the reality of development cooperation interventions. This study analyses how biodiversity framings are reflected in environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, and how these framings influence EIA and decision-making. The findings, based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of World Bank EIAs undertaken in West Africa, indicate the incoherent quality but also the dominance of the ‘utilitarian’ and ‘corrective’ framings, which respectively stress human use of nature and mitigation of negative unintended development impacts. Identifying and highlighting these discursive trends leads to increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity among all development actors in North and South. However, some framings may lead to an overly narrow human-centred approach which downplays the intrinsic value of biodiversity. This study proposes recommendations for an improved integration of biodiversity in development cooperation, including the need for more systematic baseline studies in EIAs.-
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors wish to acknowledge the support granted through the CEBioS and KLIMOS-Acropolis programmes supported by the Belgian Development Cooperation (DGD). Jean Huge is supported by the Belgian National Fund for Research FRS-FNRS. The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their key contribution to the improvement of this manuscript.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.rights© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved-
dc.subject.otherbiodiversity; development cooperation; environmental impact assessment (EIA); Africa; baseline-
dc.titleUtilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation-
dc.typeJournal Contribution-
dc.identifier.epage102-
dc.identifier.spage91-
dc.identifier.volume75-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatA1-
dc.description.notesHuge, J (reprint author), Vrije Univ Brussel, Plant Biol & Nat Management APNA, Pl Laan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium jean.huge@ulb.ac.be-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.003-
dc.identifier.isi000407869500011-
item.fullcitationHugé, Jean; Rochette, Anne-Julie; Janssens de Bisthoven, Luc; Dahdouh-Guebasa, Farid; Koedam, Nico & VANHOVE, Maarten (2017) Utilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation. In: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 75, p. 91-102.-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.validationecoom 2018-
item.contributorHugé, Jean-
item.contributorRochette, Anne-Julie-
item.contributorJanssens de Bisthoven, Luc-
item.contributorDahdouh-Guebasa, Farid-
item.contributorKoedam, Nico-
item.contributorVANHOVE, Maarten-
item.accessRightsOpen Access-
crisitem.journal.issn1462-9011-
crisitem.journal.eissn1873-6416-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Second Submission__Env_Sci_Pol_8 Feb 2017.pdfPeer-reviewed author version673.26 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Second__Version_Tables__Env_Sci_Pol_8 Feb 2017 (2).pdfSupplementary material780.78 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
1-s2.0-S1462901117301090-main.pdf
  Restricted Access
Published version298.71 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

4
checked on Sep 2, 2020

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

11
checked on Sep 28, 2024

Page view(s)

74
checked on Sep 6, 2022

Download(s)

294
checked on Sep 6, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.