Abstract
While biodiversity conservation has had a long-standing relationship with markets, the recent past has seen a proliferation of novel market-based instruments in conservation such as payments for ecosystem services. Even though several conservation organisations have aligned themselves with this ‘neoliberal’ shift, relatively few studies have investigated the extent to which this move resonates with the values held by conservation professionals. An earlier study of the views of conservationists participating in the 2011 Society for Conservation Biology conference found both supportive and critical perspectives on the use of markets in conservation (Sandbrook et al. 2013b). This chapter investigates the consistency of the perspectives identified in the earlier study by applying the same Q methodology survey to a group of Cambridge, UK-based conservationists. Although both studies reveal supporting and more sceptical perspectives on the use of markets in conservation, the pro-market perspective in each sample is nearly identical. This finding provides empirical confirmation of a growing body of research that suggests that a relatively consistent set of pro-market perspectives have permeated the thinking of decision makers and staffs of conservation organisations. It also lends some support to the suggestion that a transnational conservation elite may be driving this uptake of market approaches.
We thank the staff of various conservation organisations in Cambridge, UK, for participating in the Q survey interviews for this study, and the Gates Cambridge Trust for supporting the first author’s research. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers of this chapter for their insightful comments, which have considerably sharpened our argument.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arsel, M., and B. Büscher. 2012. Nature™ Inc.: Changes and Continuities in Neoliberal Conservation and Market-Based Environmental Policy. Development and Change 43: 53–78.
Balmford, A., and T. Whitten. 2003. Who Should Pay for Tropical Conservation, and How Could the Costs Be Met? Oryx 37 (2): 238–250.
Brannstrom, C. 2011. A Q-Method Analysis of Environmental Governance Discourses in Brazil’s Northeastern Soy Frontier. The Professional Geographer 63: 531–549.
Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford: International African Institute.
Brockington, D., and R. Duffy. 2011. Capitalism and Conservation. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Brown, S. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Büscher, B. 2014. Collaborative Event Ethnography: Between Structural Power and Empirical Nuance? Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 132–138.
Büscher, B., and W. Dressler. 2007. Linking Neoprotectionism and Environmental Governance: On the Rapidly Increasing Tensions Between Actors in the Environment-Development Nexus. Conservation and Society 5 (4): 586–611.
Büscher, B., S. Sullivan, K. Neves, J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. 2012. Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 (2): 4–30.
Campbell, L.M. 2010. Collaborative Event Ethnography: Conservation and Development Trade-Offs at the Fourth World Conservation Congress. Conservation and Society 8 (4): 245–249.
Campbell, L.M., C. Corson, N.J. Gray, K.I. MacDonald, and J.P. Brosius. 2014. Studying Global Environmental Meetings to Understand Global Environmental Governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 1–20.
Castree, N. 2008. Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation. Environment and Planning A 40: 131–152.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. https://www.cbd.int/sp/. Accessed Feb 2013.
Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Eckert, P. 2006. Communities of Practice. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. K. Brown, vol. 1, 2nd ed., 683–685. London: Elsevier B.L.
Eden, S., A. Donaldson, and G. Walker. 2005. Structuring Subjectivities? Using Q Methodology in Human Geography. Area 37 (4): 413–422.
European Commission. 2011. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/EP_resolution_april2012.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2013.
Ferraro, P.J. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments. Conservation Biology 15 (4): 990–1000.
Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46 (01): 1.
Harvey, D. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2006. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso.
Heynen, N., and P. Robbins. 2005. The Neoliberalization of Nature: Governance, Privatization, Enclosure and Valuation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (1): 5–8.
Holmes, G. 2011. Conservation’s Friends in High Places: Neoliberalism, Networks, and the Transnational Conservation Elite. Global Environmental Politics 11 (4): 1–21.
Igoe, J., and D. Brockington. 2007. Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction. Conservation and Society 5 (4): 432–449.
Landell-Mills, N., and I.T. Porras. 2002. Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor, Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Foresty Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
López-i-Gelats, F., J.D. Tàbara, and J. Bartolomé. 2009. The Rural in Dispute: Discourses of Rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum 40 (4): 602–612.
MacDonald, K.I. 2010a. Business, Biodiversity and New ‘Fields’ of Conservation: The World Conservation Congress and the Renegotiation of Organisational Order. Conservation and Society 8 (4): 268.
———. 2010b. The Devil Is in the (Bio)diversity: Private Sector “Engagement” and the Restructuring of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42 (3): 513–550.
Mazur, K.E., and S.T. Asah. 2013. Clarifying Standpoints in the Gray Wolf Recovery Conflict: Procuring Management and Policy Forethought. Biological Conservation 167: 79–89.
McAfee, K. 2012. The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets. Development and Change 43 (1): 105–131.
McCarthy, J., and S. Prudham. 2004. Neoliberal Nature and the Nature of Neoliberalism. Geoforum 35 (3): 275–283.
Muradian, R., M. Arsel, L. Pellegrini, F. Adaman, B. Aguilar, B. Agarwal, E. Corbera, et al. 2013. Payments for Ecosystem Services and the Fatal Attraction of Win-Win Solutions. Conservation Letters 6 (4): 274–279.
Pagiola, S., A. Arcenas, and G. Platais. 2005. Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World Development 33 (2): 237–253.
Pattanayak, S.K., S. Wunder, and P.J. Ferraro. 2010. Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4 (2): 254–274.
Pearce, D.W., and E. Barbier. 2000. Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy. London: Earthscan.
Peck, J. 2011. Global Policy Models, Globalizing Poverty Management: International Convergence or Fast-Policy Integration? Geography Compass 5 (4): 165–181.
Peck, J., and N. Theodore. 2010a. Mobilizing Policy: Models, Methods, and Mutations. Geoforum 41 (2): 169–174.
———. 2010b. Recombinant Workfare, Across the Americas: Transnationalizing “Fast” Social Policy. Geoforum 41 (2): 195–208.
Pirard, R. 2012. Market-Based Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: A Lexicon. Environmental Science & Policy 19–20: 59–68.
Rastogi, A., G.M. Hickey, R. Badola, and S.A. Hussain. 2013. Diverging Viewpoints on Tiger Conservation: A Q-Method Study and Survey of Conservation Professionals in India. Biological Conservation 161: 182–192.
Robbins, P. 2000. The Practical Politics of Knowing: State Environmental Knowledge and Local Political Economy. Economic Geography 76 (2): 126–144.
———. 2006. The Politics of Barstool Biology: Environmental Knowledge and Power in Greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37 (2): 185–199.
Sandbrook, C.G., I.R. Scales, B. Vira, and W.M. Adams. 2011. Value Plurality Among Conservation Professionals. Conservation Biology 25 (2): 285–294.
Sandbrook, C.G., W.M. Adams, B. Büscher, and B. Vira. 2013a. Social Research and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 1–4.
Sandbrook, C.G., J.A. Fisher, and B. Vira. 2013b. What Do Conservationists Think About Markets? Geoforum 50: 232–240.
Sandel, M. 2012. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. London: Penguin Books.
Schurman, R.A., and D.T. Kelso. 2003. Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stokstad, E. 2016. Conservation Researchers Get a New Roost in Cambridge. Science 351 (6269): 114.
Storm, S. 2009. Capitalism and Climate Change: Can the Invisible Hand Adjust the Natural Thermostat? Development and Change 40 (6): 1011–1038.
The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB). 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/synthesis-report/. Accessed 20 Feb 2013.
Tuler, S., and T. Webler. 2009. Stakeholder Perspectives About Marine Oil Spill Response Objectives: A Comparative Q Study of Four Regions. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 17 (2): 95–107.
United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP). 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy. Accessed 13 Jan 2013.
Vira, B. 2002. Trading with the Enemy? Examining North-South Perspectives in the Climate Change Debate. In Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy, ed. D.W. Bromley and J. Paavola, 164–180. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
———. 2015. Taking Natural Limits Seriously: Implications for Development Studies and the Environment. Development and Change 46 (4): 762–776.
Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Mind and Interpretation. London: Sage Publications.
Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization Articles 7 (2): 225–246.
Wunder, S. 2007. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conservation Biology 21 (1): 48–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blanchard, L., Sandbrook, C.G., Fisher, J.A., Vira, B. (2018). Investigating the Consistency of a Pro-market Perspective Amongst Conservationists. In: Larsen, P., Brockington, D. (eds) The Anthropology of Conservation NGOs. Palgrave Studies in Anthropology of Sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60579-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60579-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60578-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60579-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)