Investigating the Consistency of a Pro-market Perspective Amongst Conservationists
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.
- Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford: International African Institute.Google Scholar
- Brown, S. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- ———. 2010b. The Devil Is in the (Bio)diversity: Private Sector “Engagement” and the Restructuring of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42 (3): 513–550.Google Scholar
- McCarthy, J., and S. Prudham. 2004. Neoliberal Nature and the Nature of Neoliberalism. Geoforum 35 (3): 275–283.Google Scholar
- Pearce, D.W., and E. Barbier. 2000. Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- ———. 2010b. Recombinant Workfare, Across the Americas: Transnationalizing “Fast” Social Policy. Geoforum 41 (2): 195–208.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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Mind and Interpretation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar