Skip to main content

Commodifying Streams: A Critical Physical Geography Approach to Stream Mitigation Banking in the USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography

Abstract

The idea of selling nature in order to save it is at the core of market-based approaches to environmental conservation, which are increasingly common in the USA and internationally. What are the consequences of this shift? Has putting a price tag on nature succeeded in protecting it where previous command-and-control environmental regulation failed? In this chapter, we answer these questions through a case study of stream mitigation banking. Drawing on social science data from document analysis and interviews across the USA, and natural science data from geomorphic fieldwork in North Carolina, a national stream restoration hotspot, we argue that market-based environmental management is magnifying existing trends rather than improving conservation.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
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

  • Ardon, M., J.L. Morse, M.W. Doyle, and E.S. Bernhardt. 2010. The water quality consequences of restoring wetland hydrology to a large agricultural watershed in the southeastern coastal plain. Ecosystems 13: 1060–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beechie, T.J., D.A. Sear, J.D. Olden, G.R. Press, J.M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and M.M. Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. Bioscience 60: 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, Emily, and Margaret A. Palmer. 2011. River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications 21 (6): 1926–1931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, N.R., and P.S. Lake. 2003. Local habitat restoration in streams: Constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecological Management & Restoration 4: 193–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corps [US Army Corps of Engineers] and EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency]. 2008. Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. Federal Register 73: 19593–19705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, Robert, Rudolf de Groot, Paul Sutton, Sander van der Ploeg, Sharolyn Anderson, Ida Kubiszewski, Stephen Farber, and R. Kerry Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26: 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronon, William. 1991. Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the great west. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, Gretchen C., ed. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, Jessica. 2016. Enterprising nature: Economics, markets, and finance in global biodiversity politics. London: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, Martin W., and F. Douglas Shields. 2012. Compensatory mitigation for streams under the clean water act: Reassessing science and redirecting policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48 (3): 494–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M., Jai Singh, R. Lave, and M. Robertson. 2015. The morphology of streams restored for market and non-market purposes: Insights from a mixed natural-social science approach. Water Resources Research 51 (7): 5603–5622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECOLOGIC. 2006. The use of market incentives to preserve biodiversity. Brussels: DG Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • eftec, et al. 2010. The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection: The case for habitat banking. eftec: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2007. Green paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, Palmer, and Morgan M. Robertson. 2009. Mitigation under section 404 of the clean water act: Where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17: 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, P.S., N. Bond, and P. Reich. 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology 52: 597–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, Rebecca. 2012. Fields and streams: Stream restoration, neoliberalism, and the future of environmental science. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, Rebecca, Martin W. Doyle, and Morgan M. Robertson. 2010. Privatizing stream restoration in the U.S. Social Studies of Science 40 (5): 677–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, Rebecca, and Morgan Robertson. 2017. Biodiversity offsetting. In Handbook of political economy of science, ed. David Tyfield, Rebecca Lave, Samuel Randalls, and Charles Thorpe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maron, Martine, Richard J. Hobbs, Atte Moilanen, Jeffrey W. Matthews, Kimberly Christie, Toby Gardner, David A. Keith, David B. Lindenmayer, and Clive A. McAlpine. 2012. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation 155: 141–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, Kathleen. 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 (2): 133–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, Christer, Lina E. Polvi, Johanna Gardestrom, Eliza Maher Hasselquist, Lovisa Lind, and Judith M. Sarneel. 2015. Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: Success or failure? Ecohydrology 8 (5): 753–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odgaard, A.J. 1987. Streambank erosion along two rivers in Iowa. Water Resources Research 23: 1225–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M.A., and S. Filoso. 2009. The restoration of ecosystems for environmental markets. Science 325 (5940): 575–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied river morphology. 2nd ed. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Violin, Christy R., Peter Cada, Elizabeth Sudduth, Brooke A. Hassett, David L. Penrose, and Emily Bernhardt. 2011. Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications 21 (6): 1932–1949.

    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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lave, R., Doyle, M., Robertson, M., Singh, J. (2018). Commodifying Streams: A Critical Physical Geography Approach to Stream Mitigation Banking in the USA. In: Lave, R., Biermann, C., Lane, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71460-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71461-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics