Skip to main content

Investigating the Consistency of a Pro-market Perspective Amongst Conservationists

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Anthropology of Conservation NGOs

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 32.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford, A., and T. Whitten. 2003. Who Should Pay for Tropical Conservation, and How Could the Costs Be Met? Oryx 37 (2): 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannstrom, C. 2011. A Q-Method Analysis of Environmental Governance Discourses in Brazil’s Northeastern Soy Frontier. The Professional Geographer 63: 531–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford: International African Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, D., and R. Duffy. 2011. Capitalism and Conservation. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büscher, B. 2014. Collaborative Event Ethnography: Between Structural Power and Empirical Nuance? Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 132–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castree, N. 2008. Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation. Environment and Planning A 40: 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, S., A. Donaldson, and G. Walker. 2005. Structuring Subjectivities? Using Q Methodology in Human Geography. Area 37 (4): 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46 (01): 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heynen, N., and P. Robbins. 2005. The Neoliberalization of Nature: Governance, Privatization, Enclosure and Valuation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (1): 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, G. 2011. Conservation’s Friends in High Places: Neoliberalism, Networks, and the Transnational Conservation Elite. Global Environmental Politics 11 (4): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igoe, J., and D. Brockington. 2007. Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction. Conservation and Society 5 (4): 432–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. The Devil Is in the (Bio)diversity: Private Sector “Engagement” and the Restructuring of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42 (3): 513–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, K. 2012. The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets. Development and Change 43 (1): 105–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., and S. Prudham. 2004. Neoliberal Nature and the Nature of Neoliberalism. Geoforum 35 (3): 275–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D.W., and E. Barbier. 2000. Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J. 2011. Global Policy Models, Globalizing Poverty Management: International Convergence or Fast-Policy Integration? Geography Compass 5 (4): 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., and N. Theodore. 2010a. Mobilizing Policy: Models, Methods, and Mutations. Geoforum 41 (2): 169–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. Recombinant Workfare, Across the Americas: Transnationalizing “Fast” Social Policy. Geoforum 41 (2): 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirard, R. 2012. Market-Based Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: A Lexicon. Environmental Science & Policy 19–20: 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P. 2000. The Practical Politics of Knowing: State Environmental Knowledge and Local Political Economy. Economic Geography 76 (2): 126–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. The Politics of Barstool Biology: Environmental Knowledge and Power in Greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37 (2): 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C.G., I.R. Scales, B. Vira, and W.M. Adams. 2011. Value Plurality Among Conservation Professionals. Conservation Biology 25 (2): 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C.G., W.M. Adams, B. Büscher, and B. Vira. 2013a. Social Research and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C.G., J.A. Fisher, and B. Vira. 2013b. What Do Conservationists Think About Markets? Geoforum 50: 232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. 2012. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurman, R.A., and D.T. Kelso. 2003. Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokstad, E. 2016. Conservation Researchers Get a New Roost in Cambridge. Science 351 (6269): 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storm, S. 2009. Capitalism and Climate Change: Can the Invisible Hand Adjust the Natural Thermostat? Development and Change 40 (6): 1011–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Taking Natural Limits Seriously: Implications for Development Studies and the Environment. Development and Change 46 (4): 762–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Mind and Interpretation. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization Articles 7 (2): 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S. 2007. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conservation Biology 21 (1): 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics