Regulation of Activities for Wetland Conservation and Management: Overview

  • Mark EverardEmail author
Reference work entry


However strong the scientific and ethical case for the conservation of wetlands and their associated biodiversity and capacities to support human livelihoods, practical conservation and management depends upon a number of drivers. In this regard, “regulation” has a far broader meaning than purely the enactment of legislation. Indeed, statutory obligations may be poorly observed or poorly enforced, or may be practically unenforceable, in many territories, particularly in the developing world. The wider formal and informal policy environment, referred to collectively as societal levers, comprises statutory legislation, common/civil law, markets, market-based instruments, and both formal and informal protocols evolved as a fragmented policy environment of incentives and constraints influencing the freedoms of and rewards to resource owners and managers. Harmonisation of these societal levers with higher level sustainable aspirations is necessary to influence landowner or land manager decision-making at a local scale.


Societal levers Legislation Common law Rights Protection Markets Market-based instruments Choice Protocols 


  1. Bettey J. The development of water meadows in the southern counties. In: Cook H, Williamson T, editors. Water management in the English landscape: field, marsh and meadow. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1999. p. 179–95.Google Scholar
  2. Carty P, Payne S. Angling and the law. Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Books; 1998. 330pp.Google Scholar
  3. Everard M. Common ground: the sharing of land and landscapes for sustainability. London: Zed Books; 2011. 214pp.Google Scholar
  4. Everard M, Appleby T. Ecosystem services and the common law: evaluating the full scale of damages. Environ Law Manag. 2008;20:325–39.Google Scholar
  5. Everard M, Appleby T, Pontin B, Hayes E, Staddon C, Longhurst J, Barnes J. Air as a common good. Environ Policy Manag. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.04.008. ISSN:1462-9011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Everard M, Bramley M, Tatem K, Appleby T, Watts W. Flood management: from defence to sustainability. Environ Liabil. 2009;2:35–49.Google Scholar
  7. Everard, M., Dick, J., Kendall, H., Smith, R.I., Slee, R.W, Couldrick, L., Scott, M. and MacDonald, C. (2014). Improving coherence of ecosystem service provision between scales. Ecosyst Ser
  8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water – synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. OECD. Paying for biodiversity: enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010. Scholar
  10. Power AG. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2010;365(1554):2959–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Schomers S, Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst Ser. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002i.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scottish Government. Land use strategy. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. 2011. Accessed 9 Aug 2014.
  13. Smith S, Rowcroft P, Everard M, Couldrick L, Reed M, Rogers H, Quick T, Eves C, White C. Payments for ecosystem services: a best practice guide. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. 2013. Accessed 9 Aug 2014.
  14. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor. 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Water Security Network, University of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations