Framing and visualising biodiversity in EU policy

References

• Alkon AH, Traugot M. 2008. Place matters, but how? Rural identity, environmental decision making, and the social construction of place. City Community. 7(2):97–112.10.1111/j.1540-6040.2008.00248.x
   Google Scholar
• Banks M, Zeitlyn D. 2015. Visual methods in social research. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Benford RD, Snow DA. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol. 26:611–639.10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
   Google Scholar
• Bradley B. 2006. Two concepts of intrinsic value. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 9(2):111–130.10.1007/s10677-006-9009-7
   Google Scholar
• Burr V. 1995. Social constructionism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carolan M. 2009. “This is not a biodiversity hotspot”: the power of maps and other images in environmental sciences. Soc Nat Resour. 22:278–286.10.1080/08941920801961040
   Google Scholar
• Childs M. 2008. Storytelling and urban design. J Urbanism. 1(2):173–186.
   Google Scholar
• Darryn A, Young N. 2010. Seeing climate change: the visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media. Cult Geogr. 18(4):517–536.
   Google Scholar
• Dewulf A, Bouwen R. 2012. Issue framing in conversations for change: discursive interaction strategies for “doing differences”. J Appl Behav Sci. 48(2):168–193.10.1177/0021886312438858
   Google Scholar
• Doyle J. 2007. Picturing the clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Sci Cult. 16(2):129–150.10.1080/09505430701368938
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek J. 1997. The Politics of the Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2008. The European Union’s biodiversity action plan: halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/bio_brochure_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2011. The EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Entman R. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun. 43(4):51–58.10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Google Scholar
• Farnham T. 2007. Saving nature’s legacy: origins of the idea of biological diversity. London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 12(2):219–245.10.1177/1077800405284363
   Google Scholar
• Glowka L, Burhenne-Guilmin F, Synge H. 1994. A guide to the convention on biological diversity (Environmental policy and law paper No. 30). Cambridge: The World Conservation Union.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson K. 2013. Environmental discourses and biodiversity: the construction of a storyline in understanding and managing an environmental issue. J Integr Environ Sci. 10(1):39–54.10.1080/1943815X.2013.769455
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson K. 2014. Biological diversity under development: a study of the co-production that is biological diversity. J Integr Environ Sci. 10(1):39–54.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer M. 1997. The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/019829333X.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Hajer M, Fischer F. 1999. Beyond global discourse: the rediscovery of culture in environmental politics. In: Fischer F, Hajer M, editors. Living with nature: environmental politics as cultural discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Hall S. 1997. Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Hannerz U. 1996. Transnational connections: culture, people, places. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen A, Machin D. 2008. Visually branding the environment: climate change as a marketing opportunity. Discourse Stud. 10(6):777–794.10.1177/1461445608098200
   Google Scholar
• Hansen A, Machin D. 2013. Editors’ introduction: researching visual environmental communication. Environ Commun. 7(2):151–168.10.1080/17524032.2013.785441
   Google Scholar
• Hansen A. 2015. Promising directions for environmental communication. Environ Commun. 9(3):384–391.10.1080/17524032.2015.1044047
   Google Scholar
• Ito M. 2008. Seeing animals, speaking of nature: visual culture and the question of the animal. Theory Cult Soc. 25(4):119–137.10.1177/0263276408091987
   Google Scholar
• Joffe H. 2008. The power of visual material: persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes. 55(1):84–93.10.1177/0392192107087919
   Google Scholar
• Keulartz J. 2007. Using metaphors in restoring nature. Nat Cult. 2(1):27–48.
   Google Scholar
• Kohler Riessman C. 2008. Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Kopnina H, Washington H, Gray J, Taylor B. 2018. The ‘future of conservation’ debate: defending ecocentrism and the nature needs half movement. Biol Conserv. 217:140–148.10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.016
   Google Scholar
• Krishnamurthy KV. 2003. Textbook of biodiversity. Enfield: Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Leopold A. 1969. A sand county almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson J. 2004. Intrinsic value and the notion of a life. J Aesthet Art Critic. 62(4):319–329.10.1111/jaac.2004.62.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Linder SH. 2006. Cashing-in on risk claims: on the for-profit inversion of signifiers for “global warming”. Soc Semiotics. 16(1):103–132.10.1080/10350330500487927
   Google Scholar
• Lousley C. 2016. Charismatic life: spectacular biodiversity and biophilic life writing. Environ Commun. 10(6):704–718.10.1080/17524032.2016.1205644
   Google Scholar
• Machin D. 2007. Introduction to multimodality. London: Hodder Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Machin D. 2013. What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Crit Discourse Stud. 10(4):47–355.
   Google Scholar
• Meisner MS, Takahashi B. 2013. The nature of time: how the covers of the world’s most widely read weekly news magazine visualize environmental affairs. Environ Commun. 7(2):255–276.10.1080/17524032.2013.772908
   Google Scholar
• Merchant C. 2003. Reinventing Eden: the fate of nature in Western culture. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell WJT. 2002. Showing seeing: A critique of visual culture. J Vis Cult. 1(2):165–181.10.1177/147041290200100202
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer K. 2008. Identifying the components of effective service advertisements. J Serv Mark. 22(2):104–113.10.1108/08876040810862859
   Google Scholar
• Oelschlaeger M. 1991. The idea of wilderness. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Olausson U. 2011. We’re the ones to blame: Citizens’ representations of climate change and the role of the media. Enviro Commun. 5(3):281–299.10.1080/17524032.2011.585026
   Google Scholar
• Palmer C. 2002. Christianity, Englishness and the southern English countryside: a study of the work of H. J Massingham Soc Cult Geogr. 3(1):25–38.10.1080/14649360120114125
   Google Scholar
• Rose G. 2007. Visual methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual material. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Sandercock L. 2005. Out of the closet: The importance of storytelling in planning practice. In: Stiftel B, Watson V, editors. Dialogues in urban and regional planning. London: Routledge; p. 299–321.10.4324/9780203314623
   Google Scholar
• Seppänen J, Väliverronen E. 2003. Visualizing biodiversity: the role of photographs in environmental discourse. Sci Cult. 12(1):59–85.10.1080/0950543032000062263
   Google Scholar
• Shamir R. 2008. The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Econ Soc. 37(1):1–19.10.1080/03085140701760833
   Google Scholar
• Smith N, Joffe H. 2009. Climate change in the British press: the role of the visual. J Risk Res. 12(5):647–663.10.1080/13669870802586512
   Google Scholar
• Sumares D, Fidélis T. 2011. Natura 2000 and the narrative nature of nature: a case for critical discourse analysis. J Integr Environ Sci. 8(1):53–68.10.1080/1943815X.2011.556649
   Google Scholar
• Szerszynski B, Urry J. 2006. Visuality, mobility and the cosmopolitan: inhabiting the world from afar. Br J Sociol. 57(1):113–131.10.1111/bjos.2006.57.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Takacs D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise. London: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Takach G. 2013. Selling nature in a resource-based economy: romantic/etractive gazes and Alberta’s bituminous sands. Environ Commun. 7(2):211–230.10.1080/17524032.2013.778208
   Google Scholar
• Tunström M. 2007. The vital city: constructions and meanings in the contemporary Swedish planning discourse. Town Plann Rev. 78(6):681–698.10.3828/tpr.78.6.2
   Google Scholar
• Uggla Y. 2008. Strategies to create risk awareness and legitimacy: the Swedish climate campaign. J Risk Res. 11(6):719–734.10.1080/13669870701746316
   Google Scholar
• Uggla Y. 2010a. The values of biological diversity: a travelogue. J Environ Planning Man. 53(1):91–105.10.1080/09640560903399806
   Google Scholar
• Uggla Y. 2010b. What is this thing called “natural”? The nature–culture divide in climate change and biodiversity policy. J Polit Ecol. 17:79–91.
   Google Scholar
• Washington H, Taylor B, Kopnina H, Cryer P, Piccolo J. 2017. Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. Ecol Citizen. 1(1):35–41.
   Google Scholar
• Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T. 2015. Protecting the wild. Parks and wilderness, the foundation of conservation. San Fransisco (CA): Foundation for Deep Ecology.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman M. 2001. The nature of intrinsic value. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar