Market-Based Instruments and Conservation Practices on Private Land

  • Benjamin CookeEmail author
  • Ruth Lane


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.


Market-based instruments Financial incentives Conservation practice More-than-human Governance 


  1. Blackmore, L., & Doole, G. J. (2013, November). Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs for Australian biodiversity conservation. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 143–153. Scholar
  2. Collard, R. C., Dempsey, J., & Sundberg, J. (2014). A manifesto for abundant futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 322–330. Scholar
  3. Cooke, B., & Moon, K. (2015). Aligning ‘public good’ environmental stewardship with the landscape-scale: Adapting MBIs for private land conservation policy. Ecological Economics, 114, 152–158. Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Fletcher, R., & Büscher, B. (2017). The PES conceit: Revisiting the relationship between payments for environmental services and neoliberal conservation. Ecological Economics, 132, 224–231. Scholar
  6. Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Büscher, B., & Anderson, Z. (2016). Questioning REDD + and the future of market-based conservation. Conservation Biology. Scholar
  7. Gill, N., Klepeis, P., & Chisholm, L. (2010). Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(3), 317–334. Scholar
  8. Hajkowicz, S. (2009). The evolution of Australia’s natural resource management programs: Towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 471–478. Scholar
  9. Head, L., Larson, B., Hobbs, R. L., Atchison, J., Gill, N., Kull, C., & Rangan, H. (2015). Living with invasive plants in the anthropocene: The importance of understanding practice and experience. Conservation and Society, 13(3). Scholar
  10. Higgins, V., Dibden, J., & Cocklin, C. (2012). Market instruments and the neoliberalisation of land management in rural Australia. Geoforum, 43(3), 377–386. Scholar
  11. Holmes, G., & Cavanagh, C. J. (2016). A review of the social impacts of neoliberal conservation: Formations, inequalities, contestations. Geoforum, 75, 199–209. Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Lokocz, E., Ryan, R. L., & Sadler, A. J. (2011). Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(2), 65–76. Scholar
  14. 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. Scholar
  15. McElwee, P., Nghiem, T., Le, H., Vu, H., & Tran, N. (2014). Payments for environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 423–440. Scholar
  16. Moon, K., Marshall, N., & Cocklin, C. (2012). Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 292–300. Scholar
  17. Morris, A. W. (2008). Easing conservation? Conservation easements, public accountability and neoliberalism. Geoforum, 39(3), 1215–1227. Scholar
  18. Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., & Corbera, E. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 274–279. Scholar
  19. Ogden, L., Heynen, N., Oslender, U., West, P., Kassam, K. A., & Robbins, P. (2013). Global assemblages, resilience, and earth stewardship in the anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(7), 341–347. Scholar
  20. Owley, J., & Rissman, A. R. (2016). Trends in private land conservation: Increasing complexity, shifting conservation purposes and allowable private land uses. Land Use Policy, 51, 76–84. Scholar
  21. Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(2), 254–274. Scholar
  22. Pellizzoni, L. (2011). Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 795–803. Scholar
  23. Pirard, R. (2012). Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon. Environmental Science and Policy, 19–20, 59–68. Scholar
  24. Rissman, A. R., Owley, J., Roe, A. W. L., Morris, A. W., & Wardropper, C. B. (2017). Public access to spatial data on private-land conservation. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roth, R. J., & Dressler, W. (2012). Market-oriented conservation governance: The particularities of place. Geoforum, 43(3), 363–366. Scholar
  26. Sattler, C., & Matzdorf, B. (2013). PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosystem Services, 6, 2–11. Scholar
  27. Schwartz, K. Z. S. (2013). Panther politics: Neoliberalizing nature in southwest Florida. Environment and Planning A, 45(10), 2323–2343. Scholar
  28. Selinske, M. J., Coetzee, J., Purnell, K., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Understanding the motivations, satisfaction, and retention of landowners in private land conservation programs. Conservation Letters, 8(4), 282–289. Scholar
  29. Selinske, M. J., Cooke, B., Torabi, N., Hardy, M. J., Knight, A. T., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sorice, M. G., & Donlan, C. J. (2015). A human-centered framework for innovation in conservation incentive programs. Ambio, 44(8), 788–792. Scholar
  31. 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. Scholar
  32. van Hecken, G., & Bastiaensen, J. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: Do market-based approaches work? Development and Change, 41(3), 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. Scholar
  34. Vatn, A. (2015). Markets in environmental governance—From theory to practice. Ecological Economics, 117(1), 225–233. Scholar
  35. Whitten, S. M., Reeson, A., Windle, J., & Rolfe, J. (2013, December). Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: A framework and case study assessment. Ecosystem Services, 6, 1–11. Scholar
  36. Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234–243. Scholar
  37. Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 834–852. Scholar
  38. Wynne-Jones, S. (2012). Negotiating neoliberalism: Conservationists’ role in the development of payments for ecosystem services. Geoforum, 43(6), 1035–1044. Scholar
  39. Yung, L., & Belsky, J. M. (2007). Private property rights and community goods: Negotiating landowner cooperation amid changing ownership on the Rocky Mountain front. Society & Natural Resources, 20(8), 689–703. Scholar
  40. Zammit, C. (2013, March). Landowners and conservation markets: Social benefits from two Australian government programs. Land Use Policy, 31, 11–16. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations