IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v15y2015icp174-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market-based environmental governance and public resources in Alberta, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Hackett, Ryan

Abstract

Both proponents and critics of market-based conservation instruments (MBIs) have shared a tendency to characterize these new governance tools as a shift from former state centred management to a greater reliance on markets and market actors as a means of achieving conservation goals. A growing literature on the use of MBIs has outlined a series of characteristics and typologies thought to define these new environmental governance approaches. Chief among these has been the tendency to view such tools as either a displacement of state intervention in favour of private actors and free markets, or active state engagement in re-regulation in support of such ends. This paper draws on a case study of conservation offsets in response to resource development in the Canadian province of Alberta to complicate some of these pervasive narratives. Rather than representing a shift from state to market, or state intervention in support of market instruments, the provincial government has actively engaged in both limiting the development of a market-based system and shaping the parameters of existing industry-NGO offset projects in ways that avoid risks and conflict and support existing power dynamics around resource allocation and use in the province.

Suggested Citation

  • Hackett, Ryan, 2015. "Market-based environmental governance and public resources in Alberta, Canada," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 174-180.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:15:y:2015:i:c:p:174-180
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615000042
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noel Castree, 2008. "Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(1), pages 131-152, January.
    2. Sarah Milne & Bill Adams, 2012. "Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 133-158, January.
    3. Dressler, Wolfram & Roth, Robin, 2011. "The Good, the Bad, and the Contradictory: Neoliberal Conservation Governance in Rural Southeast Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 851-862, May.
    4. Norah Mackendrick, 2005. "The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(1), pages 21-44, March.
    5. Erik Swyngedouw, 2005. "Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(11), pages 1991-2006, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andreas Scheba, 2018. "Market-Based Conservation for Better Livelihoods? The Promises and Fallacies of REDD+ in Tanzania," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    3. Meesters, Marieke Evelien & Behagel, Jelle Hendrik, 2017. "The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and the neutralization of harm in Mongolia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 274-282.
    4. Eero Palmujoki & Pekka Virtanen, 2016. "Global, National, or Market? Emerging REDD+ Governance Practices in Mozambique and Tanzania," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 59-78, February.
    5. Navé Wald & Douglas Hill, 2016. "‘Rescaling’ alternative food systems: from food security to food sovereignty," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(1), pages 203-213, March.
    6. David M. Lansing, 2014. "Unequal Access to Payments for Ecosystem Services: The Case of Costa Rica," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(6), pages 1310-1331, November.
    7. Georgina Blakeley, 2010. "Governing Ourselves: Citizen Participation and Governance in Barcelona and Manchester," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 130-145, March.
    8. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    9. Carmelina Bevilacqua & Yapeng Ou & Pasquale Pizzimenti & Guglielmo Minervino, 2019. "New Public Institutional Forms and Social Innovation in Urban Governance: Insights from the “Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics” (MONUM) in Boston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Esin Özdemir & Ayda Eraydin, 2017. "Fragmentation in Urban Movements: The Role of Urban Planning Processes," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 727-748, September.
    11. Chervier, Colas & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2019. "When the Implementation of Payments for Biodiversity Conservation Leads to Motivation Crowding-out: A Case Study From the Cardamoms Forests, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 499-510.
    12. Mariska JM Bottema & Simon R Bush & Peter Oosterveer, 2021. "Territories of state-led aquaculture risk management: Thailand’s Plang Yai program," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1231-1251, September.
    13. Hunsberger, Carol & Work, Courtney & Herre, Roman, 2018. "Linking climate change strategies and land conflicts in Cambodia: Evidence from the Greater Aural region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 309-320.
    14. Ingolfur Blühdorn & Michael Deflorian, 2019. "The Collaborative Management of Sustained Unsustainability: On the Performance of Participatory Forms of Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Hasan, Muhammad Badrul & Driessen, Peter & Zoomers, Annelies & Van Laerhoven, Frank, 2020. "How can NGOs support collective action among the users of rural drinking water systems? A case study of Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) systems in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    16. Sarah Milne & Bill Adams, 2012. "Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 133-158, January.
    17. Justin Beaumont & Maarten Loopmans, 2008. "Towards Radicalized Communicative Rationality: Resident Involvement and Urban Democracy in Rotterdam and Antwerp," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 95-113, March.
    18. Ching Leong, 2017. "Hajer’s institutional void and legitimacy without polity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 573-583, December.
    19. Nienke Busscher & Frank Vanclay & Constanza Parra, 2019. "Reflections on How State–Civil Society Collaborations Play out in the Context of Land Grabbing in Argentina," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Jang-Hwan Jo & Chang-Bae Lee & Hye-Jung Cho & Jukwan Lee, 2021. "Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:15:y:2015:i:c:p:174-180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.