Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: traditions, trends, perspectives

References

• Acosta Frances, M., van Bommel, S., van Wessel, M., Ampaire, E. L., Jassogne, L., & Feindt, P. H. (2019). Discursive translations of gender mainstreaming norms: The case of agricultural and climate change policies in Uganda. Women's Studies International Forum, 74, 9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2019.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acosta Frances, M., van Wessel, M., van Bommel, S., Ampaire, E., Jassogne, L., & Feindt, P.H. (2019). The power of narratives: Explaining inaction on gender mainstreaming in Uganda's climate change policy. Development Policy Review, forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Ahey, B.K., & Pralle, S. B. (2016). Governing complexity: Recent developments in environmental politics and policy. Policy Studies Journal, 44(S1), S28–S49. doi: 10.1111/psj.12159
   Google Scholar
• Angermüller, J., Nonhoff, M., Herschinger, E., Macgilchrist, F., Reisigl, M., Wedl, J., … Ziem, A. (2014). Diskursforschung. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. 2 Bde. Bielefeld: transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., Appelstrand, M., Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., & Visseren-Hamakers, I. (2010). Discourses, actors and instruments in international forest governance. In P. Rayner, J. Buck, & A. Katila (Eds.), Embracing complexity: Meeting the international forest governance challenge: International union of forest research organisation (pp. 57–74).
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B. J. M., Appelstrand, M., Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Atyi, R. E. A., … Yasmi, Y. (2010). Discourses, actors and instruments in international forest governance. In Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report. Prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on the International Forest Regime (No. 28, pp. 57–74). Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO).
   Google Scholar
• Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest policy and economics, 11(5-6), 340–347. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audet, R. (2016). Transition as discourse. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 19(4), 365–382. doi: 10.1504/IJSD.2016.080512
   Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75. doi: 10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, G., Flynn, A., Hines, F., & Johns, R. (2001). Ecological modernization as a basis for environmental policy: Current environmental discourse and policy and the implications on environmental supply chain management. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 14(1), 55–72.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Douglas, B., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bixler, R. P., Dell’ Angelo, J., Mfune, O., & Hassan Roba, H. (2015). The political ecology of participatory conservation: Institutions and discourse. Journal of Political Ecology, 22, 164–182. doi: 10.2458/v22i1.21083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brand, K. W., Eder, K., & Poferl, A. (1997). Ökologische Kommunikation in Deutschland. Opladen: Westdt. Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, R. L. (2000). Politicized moral geographies. Debating biodiversity conservation and ancestral domain in the Philippines. Political Geography, 19(6), 673–705. doi: 10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00024-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 691–712. doi: 10.3390/su8070691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs, A., Mattijssen, T., & Arts, B. (2014). The man, the administration and the counter-discourse: An analysis of the sudden turn in Dutch nature conservation policy. Land Use Policy, 38, 676–684. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, L. M. (2007). Local conservation practice and global discourse: A political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 313–334. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00538.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chateauraynaud, F. (2011). Argumenter dans un champ de forces. Essai de balistique sociologique. Paris: éditions Pétra.
   Google Scholar
• Chateauraynaud, F., & Debaz, J. (2017). Aux bords de l'irréversible. Sociologie pragmatique des transformations. Paris: éditions Pétra.
   Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., & Feindt, P. H. (2017). Post-exceptionalism in food and agricultural policy: Transforming public policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1565–1584. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1334081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Koning, J., Winkel, G., Sotirov, M., Blondet, M., Borras, L., Ferranti, F., & Geitzenauer, M. (2014). Natura 2000 and climate change—polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 39, 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1927/2012). The public and its problems. An essay in political inquiry. Edited and with an introduction by Melvin L. Rogers. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131, 353–360. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durand, L., & Vázquez, L. B. (2011). Biodiversity conservation discourses. A case study on scientists and government authorities in Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dürbeck, G. (2019). Narratives of the anthropocene in interdisciplinary perspective. In G. Comos & C. Rosenthal (Eds.), Anglophone literature and culture in the anthropocene (pp. 22–44). Cambridge: Cam¬bridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Eder, K. (1988). Die Vergesellschaftung der Natur. Studien zur sozialen Evolution der praktischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Erjavec, K., & Erjavec, E. (2015). ‘Greening the CAP’–just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents. Food Policy, 51, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinosa, C. (2013). The riddle of leaving the oil in the soil-Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT project from a discourse perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 36, 27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinosa, C. (2014). The advocacy of the previously inconceivable: A discourse analysis of the Universal declaration of the Rights of mother earth at Rio+ 20. The Journal of Environment & Development, 23(4), 391–416. doi: 10.1177/1070496514536049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Grancis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H. (2017). Agricultural policy. In H. Heinelt & S. Münch (Eds.), Handbook of European policy: Formulation, development and Evaluation (pp. 115–133). London: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161–173. doi: 10.1080/15239080500339638
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2017). The handbook of science and technology studies. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feola, G., & Jaworska, S. (2018). One transition, many transitions? A corpus-based study of societal sustainability transition discourses in four civil society’s proposals. Sustainability Science, online first.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Public policy analysis: Theories, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). London: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Miller, G. J. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D. R., Leifeld, P., & Iwaki, Y. (2013a). Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic change, 116(3-4), 523–545. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J., & Leifeld, P. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 70–92. doi: 10.1177/0002764212463360
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison ( Alan Sheridan, Trans). New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, D. A. (2005). Commanding heights? The strength and fragility of business power in global politics. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 771–801. doi: 10.1177/03058298050330030501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhards, J. (1995). Framing-dimensions and framing-strategies: Contrasting ideal and real type frames. Social Science Information, 34, 225–248. doi: 10.1177/053901895034002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottweis, H. (2012). Political rhetoric and stem cell policy in the United States: Embodiments, scenographies, and emotions. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 211–235). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison notebooks (Vol. 2). Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grundmann, R., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2010). The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 4(2), 125–146.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action, volume one: Reason and the rationalization of society ( Thomas A. McCarthy, Trans). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1986). Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action, volume two: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (Book) ( Thomas A. McCarthy, Trans). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 43–76). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental siscourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the Network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harlow, J., Golub, A., & Allenby, B. (2013). A review of utopian themes in sustainable development discourse. Sustainable Development, 21(4), 270–280. doi: 10.1002/sd.522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, D. (2009). Discourse as ideology: Neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5-6), 319–325. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger, S. (2001). Kritische Diskursanalyse: Eine Einführung. Duisburg: DISS.
   Google Scholar
• James, W. (1920). The letters of William James ( Vol. 1). Boston: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. D., & Radaelli, C. M. (2015). The narrative policy framework: Child or monster? Critical Policy Studies, 9(3), 339–355. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1053959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., Shanahan, E., & McBeth, M. (2014). The science of stories: Applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis. Berlin, Tokyo et al.: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, R. (1998). Müll - die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion des Wertvollen. Die öffentliche Diskussion über Abfall in Deutschland und Frankreich. Opladen: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, R. (2012). Doing discourse research. An introduction for social scientists. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, R., Hirseland, A., Schneider, W., & Viehöver, W. (Eds.). (2010). Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse. Bd. 2: Forschungspraxis. 4. Erweiterte Ed. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, R., Hirseland, A., Schneider, W., & Viehöver, W. (Eds.). (2011). Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse Bd. 1: Theorien und Methoden. 3. aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, R., & Poferl, A. (2011). Umweltdiskurse und Methoden der Diskursforschung. In M. Groß (Ed.), Handbuch Umweltsoziologie (pp. 199–220). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85. doi: 10.1017/S000712340000380X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and radical democracy in hegemony and socialist strategy. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, S., Blum, M., & Leipold, S. (2019). What future for the voluntary carbon offset market after Paris? An explorative study based on the discursive agency approach. Climate Policy, 19(4), 414–426. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1556152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansing, D. M. (2011). Realizing Carbon's value: Discourse and calculation in the production of Carbon Forestry Offsets in Costa Rica. Antipode, 43(3), 731–753. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00886.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, C. (1989). Risikodiskurse: Gesellschaftliche Auseinandersetzungen um die Definition von Risiken. Soziale Welt, 40, 418–436.
   Google Scholar
• Leifeld, P. (2017). Discourse network analysis. In The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp. 301). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leipold, S. (2014). Creating forests with words — a review of forest-related discourse studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 40, 12–20. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leifeld, P. (2009). Anhang B Die Untersuchung von Diskursnetzwerken mit dem Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA). Politiknetzwerke: Modelle, Anwendungen und Visualisierungen, 391.
   Google Scholar
• Leipold, S., & Winkel, G. (2016). Divide and conquer—discursive agency in the politics of illegal logging in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 36, 35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leipold, S., & Winkel, G. (2017). Discursive agency: (Re-)conceptualizing actors and practices in the analysis of discursive Policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 510–534. doi: 10.1111/psj.12172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levidow, L., Birch, K., & Papaioannou, T. (2012). EU agri-innovation policy: Two contending visions of the bio-economy. Critical Policy Studies, 6(1), 40–65. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2012.659881
   Google Scholar
• Litfin, K. T. (1994). Ozone discourse: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La condition postmoderne. Rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Minuit.
   Google Scholar
• Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marttila, T. (2015). Post-foundational discourse analysis: From political difference to empirical research. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Medina, G., Pokorny, B., & Weigelt, J. (2009). The power of discourse: Hard lessons for traditional forest communities in the Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5-6), 392–397. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mert, A. (2009). Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: Shifts in discourses of environment and democracy. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(2), 109–122. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. P. J. (2002). Ecological modernization and the global economy. Global Environmental Politics, 2(2), 92–115. doi: 10.1162/15263800260047844
   Google Scholar
• Nelkin, D., & Pollak, M. (1981). The atom besieged: Extraparliamentary dissent in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oels, A. (2005). Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 185–207. doi: 10.1080/15239080500339661
   Google Scholar
• Pataki, G. (2009). Ecological modernization as a paradigm of corporate sustainability. Sustainable Development, 17(2), 82–91. doi: 10.1002/sd.403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential peirce: Selected philosophical writings ( Vol. 2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, C. A., & Tilzey, M. (2005). Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: Neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), 581–600. doi: 10.1191/0309132505ph569oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pülzl, H., Kleinschmit, D., & Arts, B. (2014). Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 386–393. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.920044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104. doi: 10.1007/BF02832235
   Google Scholar
• Roe, E. M. (1994). Narrative policy analysis. Theory and practice. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A. (1999). Fostering the development of policy theory. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 261–276). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A. (2000). Clear enough to be wrong. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D., & Tannen, D. (Eds.). (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourses seriously: Explaining change through discursive Institutionalism as the fourth “New Institutionalism”. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S175577390999021X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, V., & Ollmann, J. K. (2013). Punctuations and displacements in policy discourse: The climate change issue in Germany 2007-2010 (pp. 157–183).
   Google Scholar
• Sengers, F., Raven, R. P., & Van Venrooij, A. H. T. M. (2010). From riches to rags: Biofuels, media discourses, and resistance to sustainable energy technologies. Energy Policy, 38(9), 5013–5027. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seppänen, J., & Väliverronen, E. (2003). Visualizing biodiversity: The role of photographs in environmental discourse. Science as Culture, 12(1), 59–85. doi: 10.1080/0950543032000062263
   Google Scholar
• Somorin, O. A., Brown, H. C. P., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Sonwa, D. J., Arts, B., & Nkem, J. (2012). The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: Policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 288–298. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A. P. J. (1992). Sociology, environment, and modernity: Ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Society & Natural Resources, 5(4), 323–344. doi: 10.1080/08941929209380797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, A. (2009). Just space or spatial justice? Difference, discourse, and environmental justice. Local Environment, 14(10), 999–1014. doi: 10.1080/13549830903277417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, K. G., Marsden, T., & Milbourne, P. (2005). Ernance, rurality, and nature: Exploring emerging discourses of state forestry in Britain. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(5), 679–695. doi: 10.1068/c43m
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, R. (2009). Discourse, power, and energy conflicts: Understanding Welsh renewable energy planning policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27(3), 512–526. doi: 10.1068/c08100h
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. J., & Buttel, F. H. (1992). How do we know we have global environmental problems? Science and the globalization of environmental discourse. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 23(3), 405–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toke, D., & Raghavan, S. (2010). Ecological modernisation as bureaucracy: Organic food and its certification in the UK and India. International Journal of Green Economics, 4(3), 313–326. doi: 10.1504/IJGE.2010.037531
   Google Scholar
• Tyrrell, M., & Clark, D. A. (2014). What happened to climate change? CITES and the reconfiguration of polar bear conservation discourse. Global Environmental Change, 24(1), 363–372. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.016
   Google Scholar
• Upton, T. A., & Cohen, M. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 585–605. doi: 10.1177/1461445609341006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Väliverronen, E. (1998). Biodiversity and the power of metaphor in environmental discourse. Science Studies, 11(1), 19–34.
   Google Scholar
• Van Heeswijk, L., & Turnhout, E. (2013). The discursive structure of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade): The negotiation and interpretation of legality in the EU and Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 32, 6–13. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhulst, J., & Beling, A. E. (2014). Buen vivir: Emergent discourse within or beyond sustainable development? Ecological Economics, 101, 54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, P., & Payne, D. (2017). Trends, frames and discourse networks: Analysing the coverage of climate change in Irish newspapers. Irish Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 5–28. doi: 10.7227/IJS.0011
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (Eds.). (2017). Theories of the policy process (4th ed.). New York, NY: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, R. (2017). Taming the climate? Corpus analysis of politicians’ speech on climate change. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 212–231. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1274504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkel, G. (2012). Foucault in the forests—A review of the use of ‘foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkel, G. (2014, July). When the pendulum doesn’t find its center: Environmental narratives, strategies, and forest policy change in the US Pacific Northwest. Global Environmental Change, 27, 84–95. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Critical Policy Studies, 5(4), 361–390. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2011.628002
   Google Scholar
• Winkel, G., & Leipold, S. (2016). Demolishing dikes: Multiple streams and policy discourse analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 108–129. doi: 10.1111/psj.12136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. (Ed.). (2013). Critical discourse analysis: Four volumes. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zittoun, P. (2009). Understanding policy change as a discursive problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 65–82. doi: 10.1080/13876980802648235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar