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

  • Rebecca Lave
  • Martin Doyle
  • Morgan Robertson
  • Jai Singh
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronon, William. 1991. Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the great west. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  9. Daily, Gretchen C., ed. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dempsey, Jessica. 2016. Enterprising nature: Economics, markets, and finance in global biodiversity politics. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ECOLOGIC. 2006. The use of market incentives to preserve biodiversity. Brussels: DG Environment.Google Scholar
  14. eftec, et al. 2010. The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection: The case for habitat banking. eftec: London.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. 2007. Green paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lake, P.S., N. Bond, and P. Reich. 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology 52: 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lave, Rebecca. 2012. Fields and streams: Stream restoration, neoliberalism, and the future of environmental science. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Odgaard, A.J. 1987. Streambank erosion along two rivers in Iowa. Water Resources Research 23: 1225–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmer, M.A., and S. Filoso. 2009. The restoration of ecosystems for environmental markets. Science 325 (5940): 575–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied river morphology. 2nd ed. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Lave
    • 1
  • Martin Doyle
    • 2
  • Morgan Robertson
    • 3
  • Jai Singh
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of GeographyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School, Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Cbec Eco EngineeringWest SacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations