公众咨询在未来农药使用决策中的作用:来自欧盟“从农场到餐桌”战略公众咨询的见解

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
A. Frelih-Larsen, Charlotte-Anne Chivers, Irina Herb, J. Mills, M. Reed
{"title":"公众咨询在未来农药使用决策中的作用:来自欧盟“从农场到餐桌”战略公众咨询的见解","authors":"A. Frelih-Larsen, Charlotte-Anne Chivers, Irina Herb, J. Mills, M. Reed","doi":"10.1080/1523908X.2023.2212369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper considers the role of public consultations in complex agri-environmental policy-making. Through a critical discourse analysis of submissions to the public consultation concerning the European Union’s Farm to Fork Strategy, we examine the role of public consultations as a democratic process and the extent to which their non-deliberative nature advances solutions to contentious and complex challenges. We explore different perspectives around the future of agricultural pesticide use and find evidence of polarised submissions. Those in favour of reducing pesticides tend to argue on the grounds of planetary and human health, emphasizing that alternatives already exist and resistance to change results from a lack of political will. Those arguing against setting further restrictions on pesticide use, focus on food security and the lack of viable alternatives. Taking inspiration from Arnstein’s (1969) [A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224] ladder of participation and Fishkin’s (2011) [Making deliberative democracy practical. Chapter 4. In When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation (pp. 95–105] questions around what makes deliberative democracy practical, we argue that consultations are not merely ‘tokenistic’, but do appear to be inadequate where discourses are strongly polarised, as they are not sufficiently inclusive or thoughtful, using scientific findings only where these support pre-existing views. As such, we explore how other deliberative approaches may be more adequate for seeking legitimate solutions to complex challenges.","PeriodicalId":15699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","volume":"84 1","pages":"476 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of public consultations in decision-making on future agricultural pesticide use: insights from European Union’s Farm to Fork Strategy public consultation\",\"authors\":\"A. Frelih-Larsen, Charlotte-Anne Chivers, Irina Herb, J. Mills, M. Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1523908X.2023.2212369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper considers the role of public consultations in complex agri-environmental policy-making. Through a critical discourse analysis of submissions to the public consultation concerning the European Union’s Farm to Fork Strategy, we examine the role of public consultations as a democratic process and the extent to which their non-deliberative nature advances solutions to contentious and complex challenges. We explore different perspectives around the future of agricultural pesticide use and find evidence of polarised submissions. Those in favour of reducing pesticides tend to argue on the grounds of planetary and human health, emphasizing that alternatives already exist and resistance to change results from a lack of political will. Those arguing against setting further restrictions on pesticide use, focus on food security and the lack of viable alternatives. Taking inspiration from Arnstein’s (1969) [A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224] ladder of participation and Fishkin’s (2011) [Making deliberative democracy practical. Chapter 4. In When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation (pp. 95–105] questions around what makes deliberative democracy practical, we argue that consultations are not merely ‘tokenistic’, but do appear to be inadequate where discourses are strongly polarised, as they are not sufficiently inclusive or thoughtful, using scientific findings only where these support pre-existing views. As such, we explore how other deliberative approaches may be more adequate for seeking legitimate solutions to complex challenges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"476 - 492\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2212369\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2212369","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考虑了公众咨询在复杂的农业环境政策制定中的作用。通过对有关欧盟“从农场到餐桌”战略的公众咨询意见书的批判性话语分析,我们研究了公众咨询作为民主进程的作用,以及它们的非审议性质在多大程度上推动了有争议和复杂挑战的解决方案。我们围绕农业农药使用的未来探索了不同的观点,并找到了两极分化的证据。那些赞成减少农药的人往往以地球和人类健康为理由进行辩论,强调替代品已经存在,对变革的抵制是缺乏政治意愿的结果。那些反对进一步限制农药使用的人关注的是粮食安全和缺乏可行的替代品。受Arnstein(1969)的启发[公民参与的阶梯]。参与阶梯与Fishkin’s (2011) [j] .美国规划学会学报,35(4),216-224。第四章。在《当人民说话:协商民主和公众协商》(第95-105页)中,我们提出了关于是什么使协商民主变得可行的问题,我们认为协商不仅仅是“象征性的”,而且在话语强烈两极分化的情况下似乎是不充分的,因为它们没有足够的包容性或深思熟虑,只使用科学发现来支持预先存在的观点。因此,我们探讨了其他审议方法如何更适合寻求复杂挑战的合法解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of public consultations in decision-making on future agricultural pesticide use: insights from European Union’s Farm to Fork Strategy public consultation
ABSTRACT This paper considers the role of public consultations in complex agri-environmental policy-making. Through a critical discourse analysis of submissions to the public consultation concerning the European Union’s Farm to Fork Strategy, we examine the role of public consultations as a democratic process and the extent to which their non-deliberative nature advances solutions to contentious and complex challenges. We explore different perspectives around the future of agricultural pesticide use and find evidence of polarised submissions. Those in favour of reducing pesticides tend to argue on the grounds of planetary and human health, emphasizing that alternatives already exist and resistance to change results from a lack of political will. Those arguing against setting further restrictions on pesticide use, focus on food security and the lack of viable alternatives. Taking inspiration from Arnstein’s (1969) [A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224] ladder of participation and Fishkin’s (2011) [Making deliberative democracy practical. Chapter 4. In When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation (pp. 95–105] questions around what makes deliberative democracy practical, we argue that consultations are not merely ‘tokenistic’, but do appear to be inadequate where discourses are strongly polarised, as they are not sufficiently inclusive or thoughtful, using scientific findings only where these support pre-existing views. As such, we explore how other deliberative approaches may be more adequate for seeking legitimate solutions to complex challenges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信