Analyzing argumentation patterns in political discourse for better policy design

References

• APS (Année Politique Suisse). (2021, May, 30). Dossier – Bauen ausserhalb der Bauzonen. https://anneepolitique.swiss/dossiers/821-bauen-ausserhalb-der-bauzonen
   Google Scholar
• Arnautu, D., & Dagenais, C. (2021). Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool – A scoping review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 211. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9
   Google Scholar
• Baek, H., Chung, J.-B., & Yun, G. W. (2021). Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake – National vs. local. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blum, W. E. H. (2005). Functions of soil for society and the environment. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 4(3), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-005-2236-x
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Pivot.
   Google Scholar
• Cowell, R., & Devine-Wright, P. (2018). A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? – Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(4), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1443005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dang, T. K. P., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Arts, B. (2016). A framework for assessing governance capacity – An illustration from Vietnam’s forestry reforms. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(6), 1154–1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15598325
   Google Scholar
• Devine-Wright, P. (2011). Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies – Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. WIREs Climate Change, 2(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.89
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’ – Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 517–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EspaceSuisse (ed.) (2022, May 27). RPG-Revision – Das Raumplanungsgesetz wird revidiert. https://www.espacesuisse.ch/de/raumplanung/rechtsgrundlagen/rpg-revision
   Google Scholar
• FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources – Main Report. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/i5199e/i5199e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• FC (Federal Council). (2018, April 4). BBI 2018 7443 – Botschaft zur zweiten Etappe der Teilrevision des Raumplanungsgesetzes. Fedlex publication platform for federal law. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2018/2625/de
   Google Scholar
• FC (ed.) (2022, May 18). FEDLEX – The publication platform for federal law. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/de/consultation-procedures/ended/
   Google Scholar
• FCh (Federal Chancellery). (2023, May 10). How new laws come about. https://www.ch-info.swiss/en/edition-2023/das-parlament/weg-zu-einem-neuen-gesetz
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D. R., Leifeld, P., & Iwaki, Y. (2013). Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change, 116(3-4), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FOSD. (2021, April 4). Revision Raumplanungsgesetz – 2. Etappe (RPG2) und Landschaftsinitiative. https://www.are.admin.ch/are/de/home/raumentwicklung-und-raumplanung/raumplanungsrecht/revision-des-raumplanungsgesetzes–rpg-/rpg2.html
   Google Scholar
• FOSD (Federal Office for Spatial Development). (2018, June 6). Ergebnisbericht – Zweite Etappe der Teilrevision des Raumplanungsgesetzes. https://www.are.admin.ch/dam/are/de/dokumente/recht/dokumente/erlass/ergebnisbericht-zweite-etappe-der-teilrevision-des-raumplanungsgesetzes-rpg-vernehmlassung-zu-neuen-elementen.pdf.download.pdf/Ergebnisbericht%20der%20Vernehmlassung_DE.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gärling, T., & Loukopoulos, P. (2007). Effectiveness, public acceptance, and political feasibility of coercive measures for reducing car traffic. In T. Gärling, & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life – Problems, causes, and solutions (pp. 313–324). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Haelg, L., Sewerin, S., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). The role of actors in the policy design process – Introducing design coalitions to explain policy output. Policy Sciences, 53(2), 309–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09365-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyen, D. A. (2022). Increasing the public acceptability of consumption-related regulations in climate and environmental policy. Öko-Institut Policy Brief. https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/Policy-Brief_Oeko-Institut_Increasing-public-acceptability-of-consumption.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Horton, P., & Brown, G. W. (2018). Integrating evidence, politics and society: A methodology for the science–policy interface. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0099-3
   Google Scholar
• Huijts, N. M. A., Midden, C. J. H., & Meijnders, A. L. (2007). Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2780–2789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework – Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In P. A. Sabatier, & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 183–223). Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kammermann, L., & Ingold, K. (2019). Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles – Stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy. Policy Sciences, 52(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9341-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Gouais, A., & Wach, E. (2013). A qualitative analysis of rural water sector policy documents. Water Alternatives, 6(3), 439–461. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/volume6/v6issue3/227-a6-3-7/file
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi, B. T., & Spears, L. (1994). Public policy consensus building: Connecting to change for capturing the future. North Dakota Law Review, 70(2), 9. https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol70/iss2/9
   Google Scholar
• Linder, W., & Mueller, S. (2020). Swiss democracy – Possible solutions to conflict in multicultural societies. 4th ed. Springer Nature Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, S. (2009). Institutional causes of urban and rural sprawl in Switzerland. Land Use Policy, 26(4), 919–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative analysis – Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (2015). Governing the commons – The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peake, L., & Robb, C. (2021). Saving the ground beneath our feed – Establishing priorities and criteria for governing soil use and protection. Royal Society Open Science, 8(11), 201994. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perić, A., Maruna, M., & Nedović-Budić, Z. (2022). Who plans what for whom under the “iron law” of megaprojects? The discourse analysis of the belgrade waterfront project. Changing Societies & Personalities, 6(2), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2022.6.2.182
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., Capano, G., Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Chou, M.-H., & Ravinet, P. (2018). Designing for policy effectiveness – Defining and understanding a concept. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rädiker, S., & Kuckartz, U. (2019). Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA – Text, Audio und Video. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22095-2
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, T. S., Schmid, N., & Sewerin, S. (2019). Policy goals, partisanship and paradigmatic change in energy policy – Analyzing parliamentary discourse in Germany over 30 years. Climate Policy, 19(6), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1594667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solly, A. (2021). Land use challenges, sustainability and the spatial planning balancing act – Insights from Sweden and Switzerland. European Planning Studies, 29(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1765992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Eder, C. (2021). Public opinion in policy contexts – A comparative analysis of domestic energy policies and individual policy preferences in Europe. International Political Science Review, 42(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120913047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sudau, M., Celio, E., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2022). Application of Q-methodology for identifying factors of acceptance of spatial planning instruments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2043259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UREK-S (Kommission für Umwelt, Raumplanung und Energie des Ständerates). (2022, April 4). Ergebnisbericht vom 19. Januar 2022 zur Vernehmlassung – Teilrevision Raumplanungsgesetz 2. Etappe. https://fedlex.data.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/dl/proj/2021/64/cons_1/doc_6/de/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-dl-proj-2021-64-cons_1-doc_6-de-pdf-a.pdf
   Google Scholar
• van Vliet, J., de Groot, H. L. F., Rietveld, P., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Manifestations and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, W. (2011). A content analysis of reliability in advertising content analysis studies [Master Thesis]. East Tennessee State University, TN. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article = 2566&context = etd
   Google Scholar
• Wicki, M., Huber, R. A., & Bernauer, T. (2020). Can Policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions. Journal of Public Policy, 40(4), 599–625. DOI:10.1017/S0143814X19000205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar