European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 539–555 | Cite as

Wildlife comeback in Flanders: tracing the fault lines and dynamics of public debate

  • Ann Van HerzeleEmail author
  • Noelle Aarts
  • Jim Casaer
Original Paper


Conflicts and debates on wildlife issues often prove “intractable” or resistant to resolution. This paper develops a three-layered methodological approach to identify the fault lines and dynamics, which perpetuate social division and conflict. This approach was applied to the analysis of six publicly debated events that followed the comeback of the red fox and wild boar in Flanders, Belgium. The integrated findings demonstrate that conflict was not merely a manifestation of incompatible goals and views, but was highly determined by the conduct of the debate itself. The debates evolved along a few main fault lines, most notably “belonging/not belonging”, “opportunity/threat” and “control by intervention/nature controls itself”. A number of dynamics were identified along these fault lines, including the convergence and alignment of arguments (in particular, dichotomisation), the linking and scaling up of issues and the stigmatisation of outgroups. These processes were largely driven by the parties’ strategies to gain credibility and support with audiences. At the same time, however, they tended to magnify the problems, polarised positions along the fault lines, and thus hampered resolution. Furthermore, part of the debate served to confirm institutional roles and identities, which, in turn, contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. Contrasting views on “nature” were hardly a topic of discussion. Rather they were locked into dichotomies and classifications expressed by the contending parties. Together, the findings from this paper provide useful clues for transforming the dynamics perpetuating the conflict to different dynamics that allow for more constructive relations between the parties involved.


Intractable conflict Dynamics of debate Human-wildlife conflict Fault line Argumentation Dichotomisation Views on nature 



This paper derives from research funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development: the BESAFE project, grant number 282743.


  1. Aarts N, van Woerkum C (1995) The communication between farmers and governments about nature. Eur J Agric Educ Ext 2(2):1–11Google Scholar
  2. Arts K, Fischer A, van der Wal R (2012) Common stories of reintroduction: a discourse analysis of documents supporting animal reintroductions to Scotland. Land Use Policy 29:911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (2009) World at risk. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger P (1998) The limits of social cohesion: Conflict and mediation in pluralist societies. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  5. Billig M (1996) Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisi J, Liukkonen T, Mykrä S, Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2010) The good bad wolf—wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the finnish wolf conflict. Eur J Wildl Res 56:771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blicharska M, Angelstam P (2011) Conservation at risk: Conflict analysis in the Bialowieża Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. J Environ Plan Manag 54(10):68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blicharska M, Van Herzele A (2015) What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Bialowieża Forest in Poland. For Policy Econ forthcoming articleGoogle Scholar
  9. Boonman-Berson S, Turnhout E, van Tatenhove J (2014) Invasive species: the categorization of wildlife in science, policy, and wildlife management. Land Use Policy 38:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brady HE (2011) The art of political science: Spatial diagrams as iconic and revelatory. Perspect Polit 9(2):311–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buijs AE, Arts BJM, Elands BHM, Lengkeek J (2011) Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castree N (2001) Socializing nature: Theory, practice and politics. In: Castree N, Braun B (eds) Social nature: Theory, practice and politics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  13. Coleman PT, Vallacher RR, Nowak A, Bui-Wrzosinska L (2007) Intractable conflict as an attractor: a dynamical systems approach to conflict escalation and intractability. Am Behav Sci 50(11):1454–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dascal M (2008) Dichotomies and types of debate. In: Van Eemeren FH, Garssen B (eds) Controversy and confrontation. John Benjamins BV, Amsterdam, pp 27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deinet S, Ieronymidou C, McRae L et al (2013) Wildlife comeback in Europe: the recovery of selected mammal and bird species. Zoological Society of London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  16. Drenthen MAM, Keulartz FWJ, Proctor J (2009) New visions of nature. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eder K (1997) The social construction of nature: a sociology of ecological enlightenment. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New DehliGoogle Scholar
  18. Elchardus M (2007) Sociologie, een inleiding. Pearson Education Benelux, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Elias N (1994) Introduction: a theoretical essay on established and outsider relations. In: Elias N, Scotson JL (eds) The established and the outsiders: a sociological inquiry into community problems. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New DehliGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrote G, Lopez G, Gil-Sanchez JM et al (2013) Human-felid conflict s a further handicap to the conservation of the critically endangered Iberian lynx. Eur J Wildl Res 59:287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin J (2005) The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument. Informal Logic 25(2):151–165Google Scholar
  22. Govier T (2009) Logical opposition and social opposition. Cogency 1(1):43–57Google Scholar
  23. Haila Y (2012) Genealogy of nature conservation: a political perspective. Nat Conserv 1:27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison CM, Burgess J (1994) Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 19:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heydon MJ, Wilson CJ, Tew T (2010) Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems, solutions and regulation in England. Wildl Res 37(8):731–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keulartz J (2009) European nature conservation and restoration policy—Problems and perspectives. Restor Ecol 17(4):446–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keulartz J, Leistra G (2008) Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy—Case studies in multilevel governance. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim J, Kim EJ (2008) Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Commun Theor 18:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kotulski Y, König A (2008) Conflicts, crises and challenges: wild boar in the Berlin city—a social empirical and statistical survey. Nat Croat 17(4):233–246Google Scholar
  30. Kurtz HE (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing the problem of environmental justice. Polit Geogr 22:887–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Linnell JDC (2013) From conflict to coexistence: insights from multi- disciplinary research into the relationships between people, large carnivores and institutions. Report for the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  32. Luhmann N (1995) Legal argumentation: an analysis of its form. Mod Law Rev 58(3):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macagno F (2013) The acts and strategies of defining. In: Kisicec G, Zagar IZ (eds) What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives. Windsor Studies in Argumentation, University of Windsor, Open Monograph Press, pp 63-78Google Scholar
  34. Macagno F, Walton D (2010) Dichotomies and oppositions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 23(2):229–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Niemelä J, Young J, Alard D et al (2005) Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. For Policy Econ 7:877–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paavola J (2004) Protected area governance and justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Environm Sci 1:59–77Google Scholar
  38. Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A et al (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reilly N (2011) Rethinking the Interplay of Feminism and Secularism in a Neo- secular Age. Feminist Rev 97:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scheppers T, Huysentruyt F, Neukermans A et al (2013) Grofwildjacht in Vlaanderen: cijfers en statistieken over de periode 2002–2012. Rapporten van het Instituut voor. Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  41. Skogen K, Mauz I, Krange O (2006) Wolves and eco-power: a French-Norwegian analysis of the narratives on the return of large carnivores. Rev Geogr Alp 94(4):78–87Google Scholar
  42. Stone DA (1988) Policy paradox and political reason. Scotts Foresman & Co, GlenviewGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas K (1983) Man and the natural world, changing attitudes in England (1500-1800). Allen Lane/Penguine Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  44. Vallacher R, Coleman PT, Nowak A, Bui-Wrzonsinska L (2012) Why do conflicts become intractable? The dynamical perspective on malignant social relations. In: Tropp LR (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 13–28Google Scholar
  45. Van Den Berge K, De Pauw W (2003) Vos—Vulpes vulpes. In: Verkem S, De Maeseneer J, Vandendriessche B et al (eds) Zoogdieren in Vlaanderen. Natuurpunt Studie & JNM-Zoogdierenwerkgroep, Mechelen and Gent, Belgium, pp 363–369Google Scholar
  46. Van Gelder T (2007) The rationale for RationaleTM. Law Probab Risk 6:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Herzele A (2006) A forest for each city and town. Story lines in the policy debate for urban forests in Flanders. Urban Stud 43(3):673–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Herzele A, Aarts N (2013) “My forest, my kingdom” – Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci 46(1):63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Lieshout M, Dewulf A, Aarts N, Termeer C (2011) Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a “mega farm” in a small Dutch village. Ecol Soc 16(1):38Google Scholar
  50. Webb TJ, Raffaelli D (2008) Conversations in conversation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. J Appl Ecol 45(4):1198–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whatmore S, Boucher S (1993) Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice of environmental planning gain. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 18:166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Winkel G, Gleißner J, Pistorius T, Sotirov M, Storch S (2011) The sustainably managed forest heats up: discursive struggles over forest management and climate change in Germany. Crit Policy Stud 5(4):361–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young J, Watt A, Nowick P et al (2005) Towards sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers Conserv 14:1641–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nature & Society research groupResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Strategic Communication, WU Social SciencesWageningen UniversityWageningenNetherlands
  3. 3.Corporate Communication, Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
  4. 4.Wildlife Management research groupResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)GeraardsbergenBelgium

Personalised recommendations