Market-Based Instruments and Conservation Practices on Private Land
The rise of market-based instruments (MBIs) as a conservation tool presents an important context in which to extend our understanding of how conservation practices interact with policy. This chapter centres on a reverse-auction MBI called ‘EcoTender’ in Victoria, Australia. We examine the types of conservation actions that emerge through landholders’ participation in EcoTender and explore the way EcoTender is adopted, co-opted and resisted in different ways. This includes how landholders approach the costing of their own labour as part of the bidding process, the ways in which local ecologies may resist program prescriptions and the desire for social interaction amongst participants in a program that requires competition for cost efficiency. We conclude by reflecting on the future of MBIs for facilitating conservation practice.
KeywordsMarket-based instruments Financial incentives Conservation practice More-than-human Governance
- Fitzsimons, J., Pulsford, I., & Wescott, G. (2013). Linking Australia’s landscapes: An introduction. In J. Fitzsimons, I. Pulsford, & G. Wescott (Eds.), Linking Australia’s landscapes: Lessons and opportunities from large-scale conservation networks (pp. 3–6). Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Laven, D. N., Jewiss, J. L., & Mitchell, N. J. (2013). Toward landscape-scale stewardship and development: A theoretical framework of United States National Heritage Areas. Society & Natural Resources, 26(7), 762–777.Google Scholar
- Mansfield, B., Biermann, C., McSweeney, K., Law, J., Gallemore, C., Horner, L., & Munroe, D. K. (2014). Environmental politics after nature: Conflicting socioecological futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.973802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A., & Strappazzon, L. (2003). Auctions for conservation contracts: An empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(4), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2003.t01-1-00224.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Windey, C. (2015). Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecological Economics, 120, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar