Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives policy recommendations based on scientific research and agreed climate targets. We outline the concepts and requirements for implementing the sustainability goals. The Triple Helix Twin model is tested as method to analyze the governance of environmental policy formation and implementation. The model is applied to the controversial case of creating the large-scale natural area Northern Park Black Forest in Germany in the period of 2011 to 2014. The protected zone was set up employing criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN (Category II National Parks). The findings indicate that the creation of protected areas need the participation of stakeholders to address so-called wicked problems that arise between diverse social needs and science based expert knowledge. Findings contribute to the operationalization of the Triple Helix Twins (THT) model for analysing policy impact and transformational governance. We recommend to employ the Triple Helix Twins for future comparative research of the transition from high level concept to local realization.
1 Introduction
New Conservation challenges existing governance frameworks i.e., science-based and eco-centric paradigms in environmental conservation and Category I National Parks where human activity is completely excluded (Sutherland et al., 2018; IUCN 2021) and proposes a more people-centered approach for protection of nature (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Mace, 2014). This paradigm shift underpins the debate in the diverse ecological conservation community (Sandbrook et al., 2019; Holmes et al., 2014) on how to reach climate and biodiversity goals. While, traditionally, environmental conservation proposes protection of nature from human influence, because human impact and economic growth must inevitably result in land degradation and endangered wildlife due to unsustainable practices (Taylor, 2020; Hiss, 2014), “new conservation” reintroduces human health into ecology sciences and emphasizes the value of nature and intact ecosystems for human well-being and survival (Sandbrook et al., 2019). Consequently, environmental governance (Clement, 2021) suggests an intertwined future of environmental and socio-economic systems to anticipate climate change – a future which is only sustainable on the premise of equity, stakeholder participation and policy adaptation (Leach et al., 2018).
In this present study on redefining a managed forest into a National Park Triple Helix Twins is operationalized and tested as an analytical model (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2006). It is an extension of the classic Triple Helix model that includes the public in an alternative triad that acts as a regulator on the original model. Triple Helix Twins is characterized by a balance between innovation and sustainability and provides a means for developing innovation pathways to achieve sustainability objectives. Through the sub-concept of “consensus space” it provides a stakeholder driven design principle for the generation of topics that question existing routines and governance and it provides a modus operandi for system building in innovation that starts with controversy, mutually blockading interests or a missing transformation path to generate new syntheses drawing upon the two wings of the Triple Helix Twins to generate novel social and technological innovations (Etzkowitz and Zhou 2017). The Yin (university-government-public] Triple Helix modifies a classical Yang (university-industry-government) Triple Helix interaction – providing a sustainability grounded innovation theory and practice (Zhou and Etzkowitz, 2021).
The first phase is exemplified by the controversy that is inherent in the revised concept of National Parks: from being secluded places for the protection of pristine nature, which exclude and expropriate local stakeholders, to becoming an evidence-based ecosystem service concept designed and managed by local stakeholders within a new environmental governance framework. In the case of creating the Northern National Park Black Forest it is analysed how new environmental policy in the German Bundesland Baden-Württemberg first promoted and then reduced the primacy of science and challenged the institutionalized interrelationship of science and government, and put ecology policy on the research agenda of social science.
The following section discusses the literature on (1) national parks as a traditionally government driven and top-down initiative, illustrates (2) conflicting values in conservation and academia, introduces the (3) altered agenda towards participation in ecological policy and outlines (4) governance issues to build the framing for transformation. The next section places the case within the Triple Helix framework and outlines how the Triple Helix Twins contributes to closing the research gap in transformational governance research and how it is operationalized in a transformational governance model for analysing the case. The data collection methods are then outlined. The next section presents the case describing the situation and conflicts in Baden-Württemberg prior to the formal establishment of the National Park and the altered approach after the culmination of conflict and outlines the resulting park design, governance model and the altered science agenda. The findings are then discussed concerning the adequacy of the THT as a transformational governance model for ecology policy impact analysis. The chapter concludes by presenting the avenues for future research in the governance of ecological transitions.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Protection of Nature in National Parks as Top-Down Government Projects
The protection of land is a recurring theme in conservation and originally followed a distinct pattern of top-down policy-making to deliver ecosystem services such as fresh water and air quality, and tourism for nearby cities or as recreational resorts (Spenceley 2017). Thus, for example, in the beginning of the 19th century, population growth in Rio de Janeiro initiated a period of intense deforestation and commercialization of the tropical forest. After 1750, the forests on the surrounding slopes of Rio de Janeiro were used by large commercial agriculture (sugarcane and timber). The city grew rapidly hereafter due to four important factors: discovery of other and precious stones inside the colony; increasing the traffic to and from the port of Rio de Janeiro, and increasing the size of the port, for the transport of products; a decline in the share of sugarcane in the colony’s economy and the growth of the importance of coffee with the increase in number of plantations on the slopes of the city of Rio de Janeiro; and the arrival of the Portuguese royal family in 1808 following the invasion of Portugal by Napoleonic troops, bringing with it 20,000 people, a population growth of the city of 25%. As a consequence, the city faced severe water supply problems in 1824, 1829, 1833 and 1844 (Drummont, 1998). To reverse this situation, in 1861 Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil, declared the freshwater catchment area a protected forest – albeit in the absence of a lengthy citizen consultation process. It was the first such park created in the world. He started a top-down process of expropriation of farms, with the objective of promoting reforestation and providing for the natural regeneration of vegetation. In 13 years, more than 100,000 trees were planted, most of the species used being endemic in the region. Today, Tijuca National Park is one of the largest urban forest parks, covering an area of 39.51 square kilometres. Tijuca National Park differs from the other 68 Brazilian national parks precisely because it is within a large metropolitan area.1 Equally, Africa has been re-zoning land for protection of wildlife and nature with little concern for the livelihoods of farmers, indigenous people and pastoralist communities (Mbaria, 2016; Idrissou et.al., 2013; Ngoka and Lameed, 2012).
As a general rule, in the 19th century protected areas were started top down by national governments, as with the Tijuca National Park in Brazil where the need was to provide water services to the growing city and urban citizens. In Southern Africa, the Kruger National Park established by Paul Kruger, the President of the Transvaal, in 1898, became a disputed heritage symbol of a “white safari” nation (Glenn, 2021; Carruthers 1995). In these large-scale government projects and in some charity-based projects initiated by wealthy families, local people and small-scale subsistence farmers found themselves without either a voice or a stake in the design of national parks and were confronted with the loss of their livelihoods (Mbaria, 2016). On the other side, national parks in the US like the Yosemite National Park, first protected in 1864 under an Act signed by Abraham Lincoln and handed over to the State of California to manage, were the result of popular pressure from environmental activists of the era using photography of the Park’s iconic scenery (Pappas, 2003). Equally, Yellowstone 1874, established in the Wyoming Territory before it achieved statehood was the first direct national park and a bottom-up social movement that pushed government to act to achieve its goals. These US Parks were controversy and US citizen driven but with little respect to the First Nations tribes living there.
Approaches in New Conservation question the exclusive top-down approach. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) carried out a collaborative study in which indigenous communities and scientists developed common visions of future development in and for protected areas. In 2007, IPCC saw a new role of local and indigenous knowledge in adaptation to climate change and in sustainability (IPCC, 2007) and identified many initiatives for a different governance of protected places (Johnson, 1992; Reid et al., 2006; Sutherland et al., 2005; Twinomugisha, 2005). New developments attempt to use the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which proposes a transparent and participatory construction process and explicitly includes diverse scientific disciplines, stakeholders, and knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge (Díaz et al., 2015).
2.2 The Protection of Nature: Ecological Conservation as an Academic Battlefield
The sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022) offers high level science and evidence-based policy recommendations to support national governments in place-based policy implementation (Barca 2019). The main objectives are reaching the global targets of a 1.5° Celsius increase in global temperature and implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2020; Mace, Norris and Fitter, 2012; Wilhere, 2021). For the CBD, Dinerstein et al. (2019) propose a science-driven approach for saving biodiversity in pairing the 1.5-degree targets of the Paris Climate Agreement with a Global Deal for Nature (GDN) “that targets 30% of Earth to be formally protected and an additional 20% designated as climate stabilization areas, by 2030” (Dinerstein et al., 2019). The formal protection of land follows the categorization of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): National Parks of Category II are defined as “Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.” (IUCN 2021).
Following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, the depletion of natural resources and the consequences of economic development and unsustainable behaviour became part of documents and projects of international organizations and national governments. The Brundtland Report Our Common Future defined the concept of sustainable development as [one that] “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Holden et al., 2014; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It reflects concern that a balance should be reached between economic growth, environment protection and social well-being (Holden et al., 2014).
Twenty years later, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, global environmental problems were again discussed. At this conference, 178 countries adopted Agenda 21, an action plan to develop partnerships and enable Sustainable Development, with each country being committed to reflecting, globally and locally, on how governments, science, companies and non-governmental organizations and all sectors of society could cooperate in the study and creation of solutions to social and environmental problems. Collaborative work between the United Nations and the various countries led to the definition The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015, when the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s) were defined (UN, 2015). Equally, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment underlines the relevance of ecosystem services and biodiversity for connecting people and nature (MEA, 2005).
With conflicting targets, such as economic growth versus protection of nature, and reaching the climate goals in a fossil fuel dependent society the road map of poor countries to economic prosperity became unclear and the trade-off between economic growth, social equity and environmental sustainability started to divide the conservation community. As a consequence, different conservation “schools” materialized and conservation initiated a discourse on how to implement the SDG agenda.
The traditional eco-centric and science driven side of conservation still provides the framing for national park concepts of IUCN category I (IUCN 2021). Holden (2017) and Ang and Van Passel (2012) argue that, next to satisfying human needs and ensuring social equity, conservation must be respectful of environmental limits. Eco-centric traditionalists such as Soulé (Taylor, 2020) extend this argument further and point out that there is no empirical evidence that affection for nature will grow with well-being. In their view, the services humans obtain from ecosystems, and the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being, depend on ecosystem functioning and biodiversity to support the multiple benefits to humans (TEEB, 2010). Thus, in eco-centrism, protection and re-establishment of biodiversity remains the first (and only) priority for all conservation activities. The condition of science-led eco-centrism is that conservation goals should be based strictly on science.
One new paradigm is people-centered conservation and critical social science (Sandbrook et al., 2019; Tallis and Lubchenco, 2014), whose representatives believe that giving a voice to those affected by conservation action is an ethical imperative. This inclusive conservation school criticizes the outcome that people are to be displaced to make space for protected areas. These approaches are considered in the New Conservation school that links human well-being and ecosystem health and promotes the ecological stewardship of local stakeholders (Rapport et al., 1998).
A third stream is conservation through capitalism. Traditional eco-centric conservation scholars see economic growth as a driver of threats to biodiversity (Soulé, 2013) and disagree with the statement that conservation will only be a durable success if it has the support of corporations (Sandbrook et al., 2019). Other authors – for instance, Georgina Mace – state that “conservation needs long term commitment” (Mace, 2014) and public engagement which is juxtaposed to short-term private shareholder value and rent seeking. Many authors fear that economic arguments for conservation are risky because they can lead to unintended consequences and hazards for the protection of ecosystem integrity (Sandbrook et al., 2019).
These ideological shifts underline that science is not ultima ratio: in the view of New Conservatism and social scientists, scientific facts need to be accepted and conveyed in the logic of a societal discourse. Scientific results are socially constructed – similar to an evolutionary process (Fleck, 1980). Local communities manage their own resources (Sandbrook et al., 2019) – but on the basis of education, knowledge, ethical values and the wish for social mobility and economic well-being. These values are embedded in new approaches for protected zones with a new focus on inclusions of indigenous groups (Mace, 2014).
2.3 Environmental Governance: Bridging the Sciences and Managing the Transition
Governance is a new topic in ecology studies and an important one (Clement, 2021). All conservation approaches outlined above, have in common the problem that both the governance model to operationalize the policy agenda on the basis of ethical design principles such as sustainability, equality and access, and the process of implementation, are not clear.
New framings in the governance of sustainable development (Holden et al., 2017; Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Clement, 2021) challenge “[…] who decides, how decisions are made, and where and why we intervene” (Clement, 2021). Thus, environmental governance advances alongside long-term developments and needs to cope with highly dynamic processes as well as with unexpected findings and events in the process of realization. Integration of many different stakeholders such as experts and citizens over a long period can facilitate implementation, but it is a difficult management task. Furthermore, the emotional aspects, in terms of land use/loss, the fear of irreversible decisions and the insufficiency of methods to cope with the inherent social and technical complexity, add up to a journey and navigation into the unknown (Nikolakis and Innes 2020).
In that context, Lindblom’s Muddling Through is an organizational model of incremental policy-making (Howlett and Migone, 2015). It describes the formal and informal iterative political decision-making and consultative processes aiming at building feasible solutions and political compromises in accordance with political agendas and legal rules. However, the approach is characterized by slow decision-making within institutional structures and informal bypasses, and a lack of transparency for outsiders. In that respect, public administration and formalized politically-influenced regulations are regarded as bureaucratic obstructions rather than as an adequate support structure for transformation (Seibel, 2020). Clement illuminates that point well: “Sometimes governance may be so dysfunctional that it must transform, but intentionally pursuing such radical change is unlikely to succeed unless many different factors come together at the same time” (Clement, 2021: 75).
One way to mitigate these procedural shortcomings is the inclusion of those who have a self-understanding of protecting the landscape in the best way, live off the land, and are directly involved in land conversion (Mace, 2014; Adams and Hutton, 2007). Accordingly, “Participative Governance” becomes a crucial but, equally, challenging element in environmental governance (Baasch and Blöbaum, 2017). Another new feature of the highly institutionalized and formalized processes in Western Democracies is the timely and voluntary disclosure of information embedded in a dialogue and feedback culture (Gupta, 2008). As a new framework, “Adaptive Governance” allows for adaptations of management strategies on the basis of joint reflection, learning and assessment (Clement, 2021). It also relies on the robustness and transparency of the communication and implementation process (Gebhardt, 2019).
The anthropocentric perspective (Dora et al., 2015) puts human needs at the centre and assigns to stakeholder new responsibilities such as integrated decision-making, definition of concerted actions, and joint implementation of management plans (Leach et al., 2018). Megan et al. highlight preconditions for that role; for instance, willingness to accept change, transparency, access to information and education, and adequate mechanisms of participation (Megan et al., 2014). Consequently, IUCN criteria and goals are an important first step towards the implementation of protected zones (Farber et al., 2002; Costanza et al., 2014; Grizzetti et al., 2016), but they need a governance model and process design to involve the stakeholders.
2.4 Triple Helix Twins as a Governance Model
The original Triple Helix Model was derived from the early and mid-twentieth century experience of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New England businesses and political leadership in placing an overlay of venture capital on university-originated advanced technology in order to create new sources of economic growth (Etzkowitz, 1993). Increasing global environmental concern has given rise to an alternative version of this model, the Sustainable Triple Helix or “Triple Helix Twins” (THT) (Zhou and Etzkowitz, 2021). In this context, knowledge production goes beyond the innovative capacity of institutionalized science: it includes application of citizen knowledge, models of circular economies and social entrepreneurs. Social innovation, participation, and interpretation of scientific facts by experts, laypeople and indigenous populations, as well as other local stakeholders, are all central elements of a Triple Helix model that opens up to society and all sources of innovation (Cai and Amaral, 2021). The THT model represents a concept that simultaneously integrates society, social and environmental sustainability, and can constitute a functional approach for the operationalization and application of knowledge in a framework that defines sustainability in the tradition of the Club of Rome (Schwarz-Herion, 2018). A Twinned Triple Helix of innovation is a balance wheel that produces novel results and practices out of societal controversy and shifting paradigms, and also opens new pathways for science-based progress in reorganised knowledge-based innovation systems of university, industry, government (Etzkowitz, 2012; Ruhrmann et al., 2021). Last but not least, the model explains social and economic development as occurring through interactions (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1995, 2000) and meaningful communication (Leydesdorff, 2021). Therefore, it provides an adequate research design for analysing the communication architecture and the governance of long-term processes addressing climate change adaptation.
3 Research Method and Design
National Parks are evaluated under the new paradigm of community interpreted, place-based biodiversity and climate policies (Fish et al., 2016; Barca, 2019). The research is theory driven and provides a secondary data analysis of grey and scientific literature, websites, surveys and in-depth case studies carried out by University of Stuttgart and the consulting company PwC (Table 1).
Research design for analyzing transformative governance: THT Phases and data sources
Citation: Triple Helix 9, 2 (2022) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10031
The backbone of the research is an exemplary case study on the development and implementation of the sustainability agenda in Baden-Württemberg, a German Bundesland. The data collection is guided by the analytical framework of the literature research and the operationalized Triple Helix Twins model. It is hypothesized here that the implementation of a science- and evidence-driven agenda in the natural sciences needs a critical reflection in the social sciences in the light of interpretation of facts, communication and interaction as a second-order selection mechanism for the development. It can be assumed from the literature research that the new climate policy agenda is not free of conflicts and various stakeholder shape the agenda and road map for implementation. With the THT we propose a dynamic governance model for system building from controversy towards solution design. A process model with different stages is proposed for the analysis. The transformative governance analysis is organized in four stages: 1. policy formation 2. controversy 3. reorganization of governance and 4. impact.
Concentrating on the organizational aspects of the THT, the issue of whether Triple Helix-based developmental concepts are an adequate instrument for analysing and also inducing environmentally and socially sound and entrepreneurial pathways is discussed. Insights and documentation from the exemplary case German Black Forest National Park, which was established in the period of 2011 to 2014 are used to discuss the organizational characteristics of environmental policy implementation, and the key events in the evolutionary path that indicate a changing governance from Yin (fuzzy and society driven) to Yang (institutionalized) or vice versa.
The validation of the hypothesis is supported by the following research questions:
-
Can the analysis of interpretation and operationalization of the environmental agenda and the interaction mode validate the THT model for analysing transformational governance? Do research findings verify, challenge or enhance the Triple Helix Twins model?
-
How does the interrelated relationship between natural sciences and social science and the emerging governance framing for novel ecosystems and New Conservation manifest itself? What are framework conditions for transformational governance?
-
Can the operationalization of climate and biodiversity goals and the decision-making process based on a Triple Helix Twins design for transformational governance, provide a blueprint for the design and realisation of protected zones?
4 Case: National Park Northern Black Forest
The case is presented following the Triple Helix Twin phases: policy formation, controversy and reorganisation of governance and impact on governance and concept.
5 Policy Formation: A National Park for the Black Forest
The Black Forest was originally a mixed forest of deciduous and fir trees: it was almost entirely deforested by intensive forestry and charcoal burning in the middle of the 19th century. The conversion of forested into agrarian land for subsistence farming and coal production followed a similar pattern of land degradation and change of conditions as had occurred in Brazil. However, in the following century, the domination of an extensive timber industry led to replantation with spruce monocultures and the black forest became a managed forest. Since 1990, extreme weather events such as heat waves and major storms, bark beetle infestation, and overharvesting have all damaged the forest in such a way that the renewed degradation raised public awareness and experts expressed concerns about ecological sustainability (FVA, 2020). Historically, many smaller zones in the Black Forest had been already declared protected zones before a larger protected zone, i.e., the National Park Northern Black Forest entered the discussion (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018; 2020). For instance, the regional predecessor of the National Park, the Black Forest Nature Park was established in 2000 and currently covers a surface area of 40 square kilometres (see Figure 1). It has Protected Forests, Nature Reserves and “Habitats Directive Sites” which belong to Natura 2000, the European Network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species. There are also some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. These smaller areas allow for simultaneous use of nature for the benefits of biodiversity and human well-being. Although biodiversity remains the priority, humans are seen as part of nature, and partnerships with small local firms and private land owners are part of the scheme (Sandbrook et al., 2019) and the conflict of diverging interest can be managed or bargained locally (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016).
Map of National Park (NP NBF) (dark green); Nature Park (light green); in the State of Baden-Württemberg (beige green)
Citation: Triple Helix 9, 2 (2022) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10031
Source: Nationalpark 2021 https://www.nationalpark-schwarzwald.de/de/nationalpark/lage-zonierung (accessed 21 May 2022)When the Green Party won the sub-national level election in Baden-Württemberg State,2 in 2011, with the ambitious agenda of an “ecological transformation”, together with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) coalition partner which promised job creation and regional growth (Koalitionsvertrag, 2011–2016) the National Park was defined in the binding coalition treaty (Koalitionsvertrag / coalition treaty 2011–2016). The new Park was a core topic of the Green Party aiming at establishing a state-based protected area, strongly regulated and financed from public funds, which anticipated the protection of nature for its own sake in order to reverse the wounds of the Anthropocene in the cultivated landscape (Sandbrook et al., 2019; Taylor, 2020). However, the Social Democrats and also other parties did not buy into this eco-centric conservation concept (Dreyer and Renn, 2011). The project of creating a National Park on the top of existing protected zones was promoted by the large environmental associations in favour of the green project; for instance, Friends of the Earth (BUND), Nature Protection Fund (NABU), Greenpeace (Greenpeace, 2012) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Equally, The German Agency for Conservation supported the concept as a contribution to the national biodiversity strategy of protecting 5% of a natural forest development. The 5% target was adopted early in 2007 in order to restore diversity of landscapes, plants and animals in Germany (BMUB, 2007). With this strategy the Federal Government pursued the international mandate from the Convention on Biological Diversity, (CBD) to fulfil an obligation ratified in 1994 (CBD, 2021).
In that setting, radical political changes initiated by new political leaders were further impeded by local experts and civil servants in the State administration. Resistance from local municipalities and stakeholders was strong and protests erupted between 2011 and 2013. A lengthy and controversial debate ensued, involving sawmill SME s, sheep farmers and forest owners, and politicians from the former Baden-Württemberg government CDU (Christian Democratic Party), on ecological meaningfulness and socio-economic risks. (Smoltczyk, 2013). At the same time, Friends of the Schwarzwald Nationalparks founded an interest association (FK NP NBF, 2011) to support the initiative, while Unser Nordschwarzwald, another association consisting of private forest owners, the timber processing industry and privately-owned small sawmills, argued that lumber would be withdrawn from the market despite rising demands from the construction and renewable energy industry; jobs in the industry would be lost as a result (Forstkammer Waldbesitzerverband, 2013).
It was only after a stalemate occurred, from the outcome of opposition from entrenched interest which was regarded as a political failure for the Green Party, that a consultative process was started by the government to open the matter to civil engagement and discussions of standpoints.
7 Controversy Triggers Participatory Governance
In order for rapid realization of the revolutionary and eco-centric national park idea to be achieved in the election period, the traditional routines had to be questioned, and new participatory elements were discussed to gain support from citizens and other interest groups. Table 2 provides an overview of the stakeholders.
The government of Baden-Württemberg started an extensive research programme supporting the setting-up and implementation with formative evaluation, citizen engagement and action research. Freiburg Institute for Applied Social Research ran a representative “acceptance and awareness” pilot study of the park with computer-based telephone interviews involving households in Baden-Württemberg and in municipalities close to the park (Blinkert, 2014), followed by many other monitoring studies in social and nature sciences as well as citizen science (Dickinson, et al., 2010 on the inclusion of “hobby” researchers). Aspects such as the noticeable effects of climate change, experimental designs in direct democracy like “Citizen Dialogues” and “Real-World Laboratories” (Schäpke et al., 2018), and the adoption of the biodiversity goals by the Federal Government, helped to overcome stalemates and bring stakeholders to round table meetings in the Black Forest municipalities. The mediation was started by the newly nominated State Minister for Rural Development, Food and Consumer protection of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Green Party). He met regional representatives and environmental associations to discuss the Park idea. The meetings were followed by a citizen engagement process initiated and orchestrated by the University of Stuttgart, with some 2000 survey responses being collected (Stuttgarter Zeitung, 2013). In addition, the clustering of the pressure points led to the formation of regional working groups and experts from industry and science and local stakeholders from society being invited to participate (Renn, 2017). These groups discussed the potential impact of the National Parks in the following fields:
-
(1) Regional development, renewable energies, spatial planning, public transportation and mobility, timber commissions, drinking water;
-
(2) Tourism and local recreational valuation;
-
(3) National Park and Nature Park collaboration;
-
(4) Forest restructuring, bark beetle management, forest development models in the protected zones;
-
(5) Protection in relation to biodiversity, potential conflicts in relation to endangered species programme; and
-
(6) Wildlife and stock management: the Western Capercaillie protection plan.
An extensive participation model with 150 workshop events and focus groups in the municipalities involved supported the process (MLR, 2013a; 2013b) and led to high levels of awareness and acceptance in the population as well as to location-based implementation schemes and specific actions.
At the same time, many experts, orchestrated by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a management consultancy company, engaged with the consultation process in terms of valuations of ecosystem services and potential/risk assessments. In their final, 1200-page report, PwC calculated the timber provision service thus: “Only 26,600 cubic meters would be taken out of the market by felling of greater numbers of trees to restructure the forest. Loss of 110 timber jobs in the region would be compensated by high job gain in tourism” (PwC, 2013).
In 2013, the State Ministry of Baden-Württemberg published a press release indicating that the PwC expert report confirmed the importance of the project for the protection of nature and the regional development. The SPD, as coalition partner, stated that the National Park would be a crucial economic project for the state (Staatsministerium Baden-Württemberg, 2013) and the vote in favour was passed in the State Parliament following this detailed consultation process. The National Park was formally established in 2014 (Nationalpark, 2021; MLR, 2013a, 2013b) as the first and only National Park in the State of Baden-Württemberg, on the basis of a state law and a successful vote that was put to the State Parliament on the 28 November 2013 (Nationalpark, 2021).
8 Impact: Altered Concept, New Governance and New Conservation
The public consultation process broke up the old pattern of policy making and policy implementation and finally led to a modification of the strictly protected zone, in the form of the establishment of transfer zones, or UNESCO biospheres zones, where human activity and development is allowed to a specified extent (Aschenbrand and Michler, 2021). In addition, a longer transmission time, from managed forest to protected zone, was agreed.
Because the NBF NP was located in a formerly managed forest, the topic of transformation had to be addressed. The Park has core zones where visitor numbers are strictly controlled without human intervention, as well as developing and managed areas (Table 3). In the core zones the concept of eco-centric process conservation is applied: this prohibits any intervention in the protected areas and allows for the emergence of self-organized ecosystems without any human intervention (Sturm, 1993; Schwarzwald Information, 2021). The concept was fiercely debated by experts (Piechocki, 2010) and local stakeholders such as sheep farmers and forest practitioners. Both groups fear that there will be a reduction in biodiversity in the core zones due to invasive non-native species (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2018).
The consultation process resulted in taking into account the time needed for environmental and social transformation (clearing of the highly protected zones). The transformation of 75% of the total surface area into core zones might take up to 30 years (IUCN, 2021). The clarification of the timeframe allows for necessary adaptations such as the removal of deadwood (to prevent the spread of bark beetles to the nearby managed forests), and wildlife management (to protect the growth and stands of trees from damage). The timeline ensures a better social compatibility (for reskilling and relocation of small- and medium-sized timber-related business) and an emerging sustainable economic development for recreation, tourism, small farming and timber production (Okauchi, 2020).
The outcome of intense interaction and open dialogue was a new map of the protected area and a slower, but well-defined transition path from managed to protected forest. The National Park was formally established in the format of a National Park Category II in 2014, covering an area of 10 square kilometres (Nationale Naturlandschaften, 2021; Landtag von Baden-Württemberg 2013). It consists of two independent zones of 7.6 square kilometres and 2.4 square kilometres, separated by a 3.5 square kilometre corridor due to property issues and private ownership. The Bundesland Baden-Württemberg State and Baden-Baden city (see Figure 2) designated their public forests to the new NBF NP. Private forest owners kept their land. Today, the NBF NP covers a surface area of 10.62 square kilometres with 7% of the forest area of the State meeting the IUCN area criteria for National Parks (IUCN, 2021). The NBF NP is surrounded by the existing Regional Nature Park (see Figures 1 and 2). Including the NP NBF Germany has 16 National Parks covering an area of 1.050.442 ha (BFN 2020).
Map with area concept (core zones in dark green, development or transition zones in light green and managed zone in orange, buffering zone in mossy green, red line: National Park boundary.
Citation: Triple Helix 9, 2 (2022) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10031
Source: https://www.nationalpark-schwarzwald.de/fileadmin/Mediendatenbank_Nationalpark/06_Karten_und_Broschueren/Karten/NLP_Zonen_Gliederung.jpg (accessed 10 June 2021)The National Park Administration was set up as a special authority of the State of Baden-Württemberg assigned to the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection. It is assisted by a National Park Council in which state representatives, Nature Park and all neighbouring municipalities participate and jointly decide, with the National Park Administration, on important matters.
There is also an interdisciplinary Advisory Body which comprises professional and interest groups from different spheres. The NP Administration employs 90 members of staff in five different state departments (Nationalpark, 2021):
-
(1) Administration;
-
(2) Ecological Monitoring, Research and Species Protection;
-
(3) NP Planning, Regional Development and Tourism;
-
(4) Environmental Education; and
-
(5) Forestry and Conservation
In 2018, institutional and personnel costs were matched by an income of 1.75m Euros from 560,000 visitors (Südkurier, 2018).
Summarizing, the NBF NP was initially a political and eco-science driven topic and a strongly disputed large-scale project with a high level of social and technical complexity. Nonetheless, the NP was rapidly institutionalized in a short time period (2011–2014) with a participatory governance process that involved stakeholders from scientific, industrial and non-governmental spheres and local citizens on the basis of addressing sustainable development. In the process, new elements of citizen participation were introduced to understand better the public perception of conservation objectives, to overcome the lock-in and to deal with stakeholder protest. Although the options available to citizens were limited, acceptance of the NP improved during the citizen engagement process. Ultimately, a growing awareness of the value of nature, and perceived future ecosystem services such as spirituality, health and well-being were realized in a New Conservation approach (Messier et al., 2015; Hoffmann 2015, Mace, 2016). The new design also offers ample opportunities to study natural ecological processes, transformation pathways, species and continuing evolution in accordance with new knowledge on biodiversity and climate change.
9 Discussion
When discussing the findings in terms of the research questions the analysis of interpretation and operationalization of the environmental agenda and the interaction mode show that the THT model has great potential for analysing transformational governance from old to new order especially when the causes for “controversy” are part of the analysis. Consequently, “policy formation” becomes the initial stage of the THT process model. In the case it is exemplified how traditional policy making in the political-administrative muddling-through-model (Seibel, 2021) and the science driven rationale of environmental policies (IUCN 2021) a priori exclude laymen and citizens from the process. The research findings enrich the Triple Helix Twins model because they illustrate how top-down implementation of science-driven high-level concepts develop on an isolated track and eventually clash with societal values. This pattern has great explanatory value for the emergence of controversy. The case shows how different stages of the THT concept can be linked to key events. The occurrences indicate the likelihood of the next stage in the process (Table 3).
Area concept of the Northern Black Forest National Park
Citation: Triple Helix 9, 2 (2022) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10031
Source: Nationalpark (2021). Working together for the benefit of Nature and People https://www.Nationalpark-Schawarzwald.de/fileadmin/Mediendatenbank_Nationalpark/Flyer/Flyer_Willkommen_GB_Webversion.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2022The exemplary case of the National Park encompasses the debate on primacy of state and science in environmental governance. In the light of changing conservation paradigms and values such as New Conservation (Sandbrook et al., 2019; Holmes, Sandbrook and Fisher, 2017) it becomes clear that climate change adaptation and mitigation need a societal debate. In the present case the divided scientific conservation community of eco-centrism and people-centred New Conservation was mirrored by the concept of the Green Party (“protect nature from people”) and social democrats and other parties (“in favour of local stakeholders and financial sustainability, jobs before nature”). The dispute arose in Germany with regard to re-zoning a managed (and profitable) forest and strictly protect it from human intervention.
The case also sheds lights on the interrelation of natural sciences and social science and the emerging governance framing. It exemplifies that education, democracy and equity are important framework conditions for participatory governance building.
The Northern Black Forest National Park offers important insights as to how a political agenda and a traditional eco-centric conservation approach drove the choices (National Park versus other forms of protected zones). It exemplifies how environmental governance in Germany shifted from a formal, law-driven approach to a different policy making model that adopts new organizational elements of public and consulting direct democracy to achieve integration of experts, stakeholders and citizens under a new paradigm.
Only when the controversy halted the progress of realization, the traditional Triple Helix governance of policy formation supported by an institutionalized knowledge transfer between forest science experts and policy-makers was abandoned for an open, transparent and citizen-engagement process in order to discuss the ecological design principles and the socio-economic feasibility of the project. This shift is possible in a political system with a democratic framework but has limits in totalitarian regimes or in countries that favour economic growth and accept collateral damage like land degradation, loss of biodiversity and unequal distribution of wealth (Adapa, Sheridan and Yarram, 2021; Rutten and Boekema, 2007).
The operationalization of climate and biodiversity goals and the decision-making process based on a Triple Helix design can provide a blueprint for the design and realisation of protected zones. Participative governance elements were used as an experimental design and emergency intervention to keep the process ongoing. These elements might become good practice for the application of the model where complex and sophisticated legal procedures have alienated citizens and the state. In any event, the transparent documentation of the process by the State Government not only delineates the time-consuming and costly process of decision-making: the case also illuminates an emerging governance model characterized by dialogue, joint learning and problem solving, based on the principles of credibility, salience, and legitimacy (Gupta, 2008).
There are different views on the relationship between nature, society and economic development. On the one hand, there is the vision of economic development, where traditionally the Triple Helix formed by the university – industry – government participants lobbied for more opportunities for knowledge-based, venture capital driven, economic development. On the other hand, there is pressure regarding the public interest, in which innovation and economic development will not be harmful to biodiversity, are realigned with climate goals and take into consideration the complex interaction of responsible land use, biodiversity, greenhouse gas, temperature and human health. In the Yang phase of our case, the THT model leads to newly organized processes, a changed, participatory governance, altered concepts and citizen science (Dickinson, et al., 2010) rather than to create scientific spin-off startups or create new industries.
The realization path of the Northern Black Forest National Park illustrates how different views can be reflected, discussed and actioned. It follows that achieving balance of new topics and framing them is a process involving continuous contemplation of underlying views and interests. Managing the consensus space remains a wicked problem (Martine et al., 2016) and a model that encompasses transboundary governance and greater citizen engagement can help to formulate adequate policies, implement the SDG targets faster and make protected zones that allow for limited human activities more resilient and sustainable. New stakeholders such as family-owned agricultural businesses, local citizens and the forestry industry must be involved in the difficult decision-making process regarding complex scientific topics, in order to align socio-economic well-being with sustainable practices. The introduction of a consultative process into national park formation represents a social innovation in how to manage large-scale transformation and paradigm change, and the conflict inherent in the “nature-and-people-interaction” in general. The Triple Helix Twins model provides the analytical framing for transformational governance and can be used to introduce experimental designs as a legitimate political choice.
9 Conclusion and Outlook
Environmental policy is deeply rooted in socio-economic systems. We have discussed the previous model of top-down creation of National Parks such as Tijuca or Kruger that co-opted nature and ecology to serve cities, particular societal interests or political agendas. The case of the Northern Black Forest exemplifies how New Conservation brings about a new dialogue-driven approach that takes trade-offs and diverging interest into consideration and brings them into the centre of discussions. Decision-making for the protection of nature, on the basis of scientific ecological knowledge, can easily forget about human needs; or, vice versa, human needs can also corrupt the original ecological agenda. Social sciences are therefore needed for the interpretation and operationalization of the environmental agenda. This discursive relationship between natural sciences and social science is prevalent in ecology, where concepts are place-based and social and ecological systems merge to support ecosystem integrity for sustainability.
Triple Helix Twins provides a framing for knowledge creation, application of knowledge and the correct methodological framing on the basis of sustainability (Brundtland style) whilst still acknowledging and respecting the fears and frictions that can accompany implementation. Innovation must come from both established and new sources, the latter to include citizens and indigenous people, previously largely excluded from the sustainability agenda. The Triple Helix was originally rooted in the generation of new paradigms for knowledge-based economic and social development; and moderation of conflict among elite participants, through mediation and coalition building (Dzisah, 2018). Here, it proposes a societal model that reconciles seeming opposites of ecosystem provisioning like food production and well-being and regulatory ecosystem services such as biodiversity into a mutually productive relationship.
More comparative research with the THT analytical design is needed in terms of operationalization of the IPCC sustainability agenda and the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in different socio-economic constellations in the biodiversity hotspots of this planet and in different societies and political systems. Emerging concepts for protected zones and transformational governance must be compared in terms of effectiveness and efficiency with regard to achieving the biodiversity and climate targets and overcoming the era of a fossil fuel dependent society which has caused the problems we are facing today. The Triple Helix Twins provides a model for studying innovation and sustainability in the Black Forest – and beyond.
Notes
The population of the city of Rio de Janeiro is 6.8 million: the population of the metropolitan region is 13.1 million (IBGE Cidades, 2022).
Germany is federally-structured: it is a parliamentary democracy, rule-of-law based, and with a relatively equal distribution of wealth compared to Latin America, Africa and the United States.
References
Adams WM and Hutton J (2007) People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5(2): 147–183.
Adapa S, Sheridan A and Yarram SR (2021) Entrepreneurship in Regional Communities: Exploring the Relevance of Embeddedness, Networking, Empowerment and Communitarian Values. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ang F and Van Passel S (2012) Beyond the environmentalist’s paradox and the debate on weak versus strong sustainability. BioScience 62(3): 251–259.
Argyris C and Schön DA (1989) Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary. American Behavioral Scientist 32(5): 612–623.
Aschenbrand E and Michler T (2021) Why do Unesco biosphere reserves get less recognition than national parks? A landscape research perspective on protected area narratives in Germany. Sustainability, 13(24): 13647.
Baasch S and Blöbaum A (2017) Umweltbezogene Partizipation als gesellschaftliche und methodische Herausforderung. Umweltpsychologie 21 (2): 1–33.
Barca F (2019) Place-based policy and politics. Renewal 27(1): 84–95.
Bernard F, de Groot RS and Campos JJ (2009) Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: A case study of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica. Forest Policy and Economics 11(3): 174–183.
Beteiligungsportal Baden Wuerttemberg. Available at: https://beteiligungsportal.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/informieren/projekte-und-berichte/beteiligung-beim-nationalpark-schwarzwald/wegekonzept/ (accessed 10 March 2022).
Blinkert B (2014) Pilotstudie zu Indikatoren für Akzeptanz und Ablehnung des Nationalparks Schwarzwald. https://www.nationalpark-schwarzwald.de/de/forschen/sozialwissenschaftlich/studien#c13050 (accessed 10 March 2022).
Brockerhoff EG et al. (2017) Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation 26(13): 3005–3035.
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BFN) (2018). Available at: https://www.bfn.de/presse/pressearchiv/2018/detailseite.html?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=6521&cHash=6c9419d28093f607e14b27239b9bb301 (accessed 10 June 2021).
Bundesamt für Naturschutz BFN (2020). Available at: https://www.bfn.de/en/service/facts-and-figures/nature-conservation/nature-conservation-areas/national-parks-in-germany.html. (accessed 10 June 2021).
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BFN) (2022) List of National Parks. Available at: https://www.bfn.de/nationalparke (accessed 9 April 2022).
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) (2007) Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Kabinettsbeschluss vom 7. November. Available at: http://www.biologische-vielfalt.de/fileadmin/NBS/documents/broschuere_biolog_vielfalt_strategie_bf.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
Butchart SHM et al. (2010) Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328 (5982): 1164–1168.
Cai Y and Amaral M (2021) The Triple Helix model and the future of innovation: a reflection on the Triple Helix research agenda. Triple Helix 8(2): 217–229. doi:10.1163/ 21971927–12340004
Cai, Y., and Etzkowitz, H. (2020). Theorizing the Triple Helix model: past, present, and future. Triple Helix 7(2/3): 189–226. doi:10.1163/21971927-bja10003
Carruthers J (1995) The Kruger National Park: A Social and Political History. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: University of Natal Press.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2021) Country Profile: Germany. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/countries/?country=de (accessed 10 June 2021).
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 – Summary for Policy Makers. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/gbo5 (accessed 18 March 2022).
Clement S (2021) Governing the Anthropocene: Novel Ecosystems, Transformation and Environmental Policy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C and Maginnis S (eds) (2016) Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 97.
Collins HM (1992) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooke P (2013) Introduction: complex systems integration, “emergence”, and policy modularization. In: Cooke P (ed.) Re-framing Regional Development: Evolution, Innovation, and Transition. London: Routledge, 1–26.
Costanza R et al. (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26(1): 152–158.
Díaz S et al. (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16.
Dick B (2011) Action research literature 2008–2010: themes and trends. Action Research 9(2): 122–143.
Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B and Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41: 149–172.
Dinerstein E et al. (2019) A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Science Advances 5(4): eaaw2869–eaaw2869.
Directorate General Environment (2021) Natura 2000. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm (accessed 10 June 2021).
Dora CD et al. (2015) Indicators linking health and sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda. The Lancet 385(9965): 380–391.
Dreyer M and Renn O (2011) Editorial: participatory approaches to modelling for improved learning and decision-making in natural resource governance. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(6): 379–385.
DW (2019) German cabinet approves bill to shoot protected wolves. https://www.dw.com/en/german-cabinet-approves-bill-to-shoot-protected-wolves/a-48826369 (accessed 10 June 2021).
Dzisah J (2018) Re-tooling the Triple Helix: Georg Simmel’s Tertius Gaudens as an anchor? Ghana Journal of Social Science 15(1): 177.
Etzkowitz H (1978) The liberation of technology. WIN Magazine.
Etzkowitz H (1993) Enterprises from science: the origins of science-based regional economic development. Minerva 31: 326–360.
Etzkowitz H (2012) Triple Helix clusters: boundary permeability at university – industry – government interfaces as a regional innovation strategy. Environment and Planning, C: Government and Policy 30(5): 766–779.
Etzkowitz H and Zhou C (2006) Triple Helix Twins: innovation and sustainability. Science and Public Policy 33(1): 77–83.
Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.
Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L (1995) The Triple Helix – university – industry – government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review 14: 14–19.
Farber SC, Costanza R and Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41(3): 375–392.
Fish R, Church A and Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services 21: 208–217.
Forstkammer Baden-Württemberg Waldbesitzerverband eV (2013) Stellungnahme zum Gesetz des Landes zur Errichtung des Nationalparks Schwarzwald (Nationalparkgesetz – NLPG).
Fleck L (1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv.
Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt (FVA) (2020) Waldzustandsbericht 2020. https://www.fva-bw.de/fileadmin/publikationen/wzb/ws2020.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
FK NP NBF (Freundeskreis National Park Schwarzwald) (2011) https://freundeskreis-nationalpark-schwarzwald.de/ueber-uns/freundeskreis.html (accessed 10 June 2021).
Gebhardt C (2019) The impact of participatory governance on regional development pathways: citizen-driven smart, green and inclusive urbanism in the Brainport Metropolitan Region. Triple Helix (2019/1): 1–41.
Geissinger A, Laurell C, Öberg C and Sandström C (2019) How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. Journal of Cleaner Production 206: 419–429.
Glenn I (2021) The Kruger Park and Jacob Dlamini’s safari nation: a social history of the Kruger National Park. Critical Arts 35(2): 121–126.
Greenpeace (2012) Assessment: a national park for Baden-Württemberg! The best for nature and the Black Forest region. Available at: https://www.karlsruhe.greenpeace.de/sites/www.karlsruhe.greenpeace.de/files/gp-factsheet_np-schwarzwald.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Reynaud A and Cardoso AC (2016) Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science and Policy 61: 194–203.
Gupta A (2008) Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 8(2): 1–7.
Hickey S and Mohan G (eds) (2004) Participation, from Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. London: Bloomsbury.
Hiss T (2014) Can the world really set aside half of the planet for wildlife? Smithsonian 45(5): 66.
Hoffmann A (2015) Much ado about doing nothing: the conflicts about the Black Forest National Park as a call for integrating forgotten understandings of nature. Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science. Available at: https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?fileOId=8259958&func=downloadFile&recordOId=8259957 (accessed 10 June 2021).
Holden E, Linnerud K and Banister D (2014) Sustainable development: our common future revisited, Global Environmental Change 26(1): 130–139.
Holden E, Linnerud K and Banister D (2017) The imperatives of sustainable development. Sustainable Development 25(3): 213–226.
Holmes G, Sandbrook C and Fisher JA (2017) Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new‐conservation debate. Conservation Biology 31(2): 353–363.
Howlett M and Migone A (2015) Charles E. Lindblom, “The science of muddling through”. In: Balla SJ, Lodge M and Page EC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration, Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 80–95.
IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) (2021) IBGE@cidades-Rio de Janeiro. Available at: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/rj/rio-de-janeiro/panorama (accessed 6 February 2022).
Idrissou L, van Paassen A, Aarts N, Vodouhè S and Leeuwis C (2013) Trust and hidden conflict in participatory natural resources management: The case of the Pendjari National Park (PNP) in Benin. Forest Policy and Economics 27: 65–74.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2021) Category II: National Park Criteria. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-ii-national-park (accessed 10 June 2021).
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2020) Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A User-friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling up of NbS. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.en
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2022) Sixth assessment report: impacts, adaptations, vulnerabilities. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (accessed 16 March 2022).
Jon W (2011) Finding balance between human need and global stewardship. Conservation Biology 25(6): 1087–1090.
Kareiva P and Marvier M (2012) What is conservation science? BioScience 62(11): 962–969.
Keping Y (2018) Governance and good governance: a new framework for political analysis. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11(1): 1–8.
Koalitionsvertrag (2011–2016) Available at: https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/dateien/PDF/Koalitionsvertrag-web.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
Landtag von Baden-Württemberg 15 (2013) Wahlperiode Drucksache 15 /412708. 10. Available at: https://www.landtag-bw.de/files/live/sites/LTBW/files/dokumente/WP15/Drucksachen/4000/15_4127_D.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
Lawler OK et al. (2021) The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health. Lancet Planetary Health 5(11): e840–e850.
Leach M et al. (2018) Equity and sustainability in the anthropocene: a social – ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Global Sustainability, 1, e13.
Leydesdorff L (2021) The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge Communication: Theoretical Perspectives on an Empirical Philosophy of Science. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Leydesdorff L and Lawton Smith H (2022) Triple, quadruple, and higher-order helices: historical phenomena and (neo-)evolutionary models. Triple Helix. doi:10.1163/21971927-bja10022
Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345(6204): 1558–1560.
Mace GM, Norris K and Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27(1): 24–31.
Marvier M and Kareiva P (2014) The evidence and values underlaying “new conservation”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29(3): 131–132.
Mbaria J (2016) The big conservation lie: the untold story of wildlife conservation in Kenya. Auburn, WA: Lens and Pens Publishing LLC.
MEA Millennium ecosystem assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press, 563–563.
Megan FK, Vivian FR and Evlyn MLMN (2014) The concept, dimensions and methods of assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: a literature review. Social Indicators Research 116(3): 681–698.
Messier C et al. (2015) From management to stewardship: viewing forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters 8(5): 368–377.
Ministerium für Ernährung, Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz (MLR) (2013a). Available at: https://stm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/service/presse/pressemitteilung/pid/unabhaengiges-gutachten-zur-errichtung-eines-nationalparks-im-schwarzwald-liegt-vor/ (accessed 13 March 2022).
Ministerium für Ernährung, Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz (MLR) (2013b) Eine Spur Wilder! Available at: https://www.nationalpark-schwarzwald.de/de/nationalpark (accessed 13 March 2022).
Nationale Naturlandschaften (2021) Nationalparks. Available at: http://nationale-naturlandschaften.de/nationalparks?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1-el1euR8QIVieFRCh3j2Q3TEAAYASAAEgIHKvD_BwE (accessed 13 March 2022).
Naturpark Schwarzwald (2021). Available at: https://www.naturparkschwarzwald.de/ (accessed 13 March 2021).
Ngoka PC and Lameed GA (2012) Adapting a community – participatory wildlife conservation model to management of Nigerian national parks for sustainable tourism. Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 161: 307–319.
Nikolakis W and Innes JL (2020) The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okauchi, K. (2020) Slow development towards park creation: a history of the Black Forest in post-war Germany. Environment and History. Available at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/eh/pre-prints/content-whp_eh_1641 (accessed 18 March 2022).
Pappas JP (2003) Forest scholars: The Early History of Nature Guiding at Yosemite National Park, 1913–1925. Arizona: Arizona State University.
Pech S and Sunada K (2008) Population growth and natural-resources pressures in the Mekong River Basin. AMBIO 37(3): 219–224.
Piechocki R (2010) Landschaft – Heimat – Wildnis: Schutz der Natur – aber welche und warum? München, Germany: Beck, (= Becksche Reihe. Band 1711), 110.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (2013) Assessment and potential analysis of the planned National Park in the Northern Black Forest: Summary of the Expert Report. Available at: https://www.nationalpark-schwarzwald.de/fileadmin/Mediendatenbank_Nationalpark/PDFs/Gesamtgutachten_final.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
Rapport DJ, Costanza R and McMichael AJ (1998) Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(10): 397–402.
Renn O (2017) Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Routledge.
Ruhrmann H, Fritsch M and Leydesdorff L (2021) Synergy and policy-making in German innovation systems: smart specialisation strategies at national, regional, local levels? Regional Studies. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2021.1872780 (accessed 18 March 2022).
Rutten R and Boekema F (2007) Regional social capital: embeddedness, innovation networks and regional economic development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(9): 1834–1846.
Sandbrook C, Fisher J, Holmes G, Luque-Lora R and Keane A (2019) The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustainability 2: 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5.
Schäpke N et al. (2018) Jointly experimenting for transformation? Shaping real-world laboratories by comparing them. Gaia 27(1): 85–96.
Schwarzwald Information (2021) Prozesschutz. Available at: https://www.schwarzwald-informationen.de/nationalpark-wildtiermanagement-prozessschutz.html (accessed 10 June 2021).
Schwarz-Herion O (2018) The Impact of the Climate Change Discussion on Society, Science, Culture and Politics: From the Limits to Growth via the Paris Agreement to a Binding Global Policy? Singapore: Springer Singapore, 1–32.
Seibel W (2020) Autonomy, integrity, and values in public administration: a dilemma and a case. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 3(2): 155–166.
Smoltczyk A (2013) Black Forest conservation gets controversial. Available at: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/plans-for-national-park-in-black-forest-encounter-public-resistance-a-935899.html (accessed 8 March 2022).
Soule M (2013) The “new conservation”. Conservation Biology 27: 895–897.
Spenceley A (2017) Tourism and protected areas: comparing the 2003 and 2014 IUCN World Parks Congress. Tourism and Hospitality Research 17(1): 8–23.
Staatsministerium Baden-Württemberg (2013) Pressemitteilung. Available at: http://www.fbg-ibach.de/053_PM_MP_Nationalparkgutachten.pdf (accessed 10 June 2021).
Sturm K (1993) Prozeßschutz – ein Konzept für naturgerechte Waldwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 2: 81–192.
Stuttgarter Zeitung (2013) Survey results of FORSA Institute on behalf of NABU. Available at: https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.neue-umfrage-grosse-mehrheit-fuer-nationalpark-nordschwarzwald.c5b8b487-b115-4981-b387-402004500f49.html (accessed 2 April 2022).
Südkurier (2018) Mehrkosten für den Nationalpark Schwarzwald. Available at: https://www.suedkurier.de/baden-wuerttemberg/Mehrkosten-fuer-den-Nationalpark-Schwarzwald-Die-gruen-schwarze-Regierung-steuert-auf-einen-Streit-zu;art417930,9798385 (accessed 10 June 2021).
Sutherland WJ et al. (2018) A 2018 horizon scan of emerging issues for global conservation and biological diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 33(1): 47–58.
Tallis H and Lubchenco J (2014) Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515(7525): 27–28.
Taylor B (2020) Michael Soulé (1936–2020) on spirituality, ethics, and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 34(6): 1426–1432.
TEEB RO (2010) Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature.
Terry CD et al. (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(23): 8812–8819.
Tobin PC (2018) Managing invasive species. F1000 Research 7: 1686. Available at: https://f1000research.com/articles/7–1686 (accessed 18 March 2022).
UN (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed 18 March 2022).
Vargas L, Willemen L and Hein L (2019) Assessing the capacity of ecosystems to supply ecosystem services using remote sensing and an ecosystem accounting approach. Environmental Management 63(1): 1–15.
Wald Prinz (2019) Who owns the German forest? Available at: http://www.wald-prinz.de/waldbesitzer-wem-gehort-der-wald/665 (accessed 10 June 2021).
Wilhere GF (2021) A Paris-like agreement for biodiversity needs IPCC-like science. Global Ecology and Conservation 28: e01617.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27.
Zhou C and Etzkowitz H (2021) Triple Helix Twins: a framework for achieving innovation and UN sustainable development goals. Sustainability 13: 6535. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126535
