Adjusting policy to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: The case of conservation banking in California

Land Use Policy

Volumn 36, Issue , 2014, Pages 73-82

  Mann, Carsten ^a   Absher, James D ^b  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation banking; Institutional interplay; Institutional policy analysis; Offsetting; Policy design; Social ecological fit

Indexed keywords

BANKING; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84883621685     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Amblard L., Mann C. Ex-ante Institutional compatibility assessment for policies - first insights from a case study of the Nitrate Directive in Auvergne, France. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54(5):661-684.
2. Anderies J.M., Janssen M.A., Ostrom E. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9(1):18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/ (accessed 22.03.11).
3. Bauer M., Fox J., Bean M.J. Landowners bank on conservation: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance on conservation banking. Environ. Law Rep. 2004, 34:10717-10722.
4. Berkes F., Kislalioglu M., Folke C., Gadgil M. Exploring the basic ecological unit: ecosystem-like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems 1998, 1:409-415.
5. Berkes F., Folke C., Colding J. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience 2000, 459. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6. Carroll N., Fox J., Bayon R. Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: a Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems 2008, 298. EarthScan Press, London.
7. Castree N. Neoliberalising nature: processes, effects, and evaluations. Environ. Plan. A 2008, 40(1):153-173.
8. Collier R.B., Collier D. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America 1991, 902. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
9. Cox M. Advancing the diagnostic analysis of environmental problems. Int. J. Commons 2011, 5:346-363.
10. DeCaro D., Stokes M. Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation Attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22:1443-1451.
11. Ekstrom J.A., Young O.R. Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art16/ (accessed 22.03.11).
12. Farrell K.N. Living with living systems: the co-evolution of values and valuation. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14:14-26.
13. Folke C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. Change 2006, 16:253-267.
14. Folke C., Pritchard, Berkes F., Colding J., Svedin U. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12(1):30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art30/ (accessed 22.03.11).
15. Fox J., Nino-Murcia A. Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19:996-1007.
16. Galaz V., Olsson P., Hahn T., Folke C., Svedin U. The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. Institutions and Environmental Change 2008, 147-186. Cambridge, MIT Press. O.R. Young, L.A. King, H. Schroeder (Eds.).
17. Gibson C.C., Ostrom E., Ahn T.K. The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:217-239.
18. Haddas B.M., Huigen H. Putting Markets to Work: The Design and Use of Marketable Permits and Obligations 1997, 52. OECD Publishing, Paris.
19. Hagedorn K. Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2008, 35:357-384.
20. Hagedorn K. Environmental Co-Operation and Institutional Change: Theories and Policies for European Agriculture 2002, 392. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham.
21. Hajkowicz S. The evolution of Australia's natural resource management programs: towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:471-478.
22. Higgins V., Dibden J., Cocklin C. Market instruments and the neoliberalisation of land management in rural Australia. Geoforum 2012, 43(3):377-386.
23. Hough P., Robertson M. Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 2009, 17:15-33.
24. Jordan A., Wurzel R.K.W., Zito A.R. The rise of 'new' policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government?. Political Stud. 2005, 53:477-496.
25. Jordan A., Wurzel R.K.W., Zito A.R. New Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects 2003, 232. Routledge, London.
26. Ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., Bayon, R., 2004. Biodiversity offsets: views, experiences, and the business case. (accessed 03.05.11). https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-IUCN-II-report-en.pdf.
27. Ten Kate, K., Treweek, J., Ekstrom, J., 2010. The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection - the case of habitat banking. (accessed 03.05.11). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/eftec_habitat_technical_report.pdf.
28. Kraft M.E., Vig N.J. Environmental policy from the 1970 to the twenty-first century. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-first Century 2006, 1-33. CQ Press, Washington, DC. M.E. Kraft, N.J. Vig (Eds.).
29. Laranja M., Uyarra E., Flanagan K. Policies for science, technology and innovation: translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Res. Policy 2008, 37:823-835.
30. Lascoumes P., Le Gales P. Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments? From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance 2007, 20:1-21.
31. Lockie S., Higgins V. Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. J. Rural Stud. 2007, 23:1-11.
32. Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D., Bennet, G., 2011. 2011 Update: State of Biodiversity Markets. (accessed 03.05.11). http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/2011_update_sbdm.
33. Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Moore, B., 2010. State of Biodiversity Markets Report: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide. (accessed 03.05.11). http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf.
34. March J.G. Rediscovering Institutions 1989, 227. The Free Press, New York.
35. March J.G., Olsen J.P. The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1984, 78(3):734-749.
36. Marsh L.L., Salvesen D.A., Porter D.R. Mitigation Banking: Theory and Practice 1996, 304. Island Press, Washington, DC.
37. Mauerhofer V. The 'governance check': assessing the sustainability of public spatial decision-making structures. Land Use Policy 2012, 30:228-336.
38. Mead D.L. History and theory: the origin and evolution of conservation banking. Conservation & Biodiversity Banking. A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems 2008, 9-31. EarthScan, London/Sterling, VA. N. Carroll, J. Fox, R. Bayon (Eds.).
39. Moon K., Cocklin C. A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25(3):493-503.
40. Moss T. Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. (Special feature on nudging evolution? Critical exploration of the potential and limitations of the concept of institutional fit for the study and adaptive management of social-ecological systems). Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17(3):2. [online] (accessed 22.11.12). 10.5751/ES-04821-170302.
41. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of the Groups 1965, 186. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
42. Ostrom E. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J. 2011, 39:7-27.
43. Ostrom E. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:15181-15187.
44. Ostrom E. Understanding Institutional Diversity 2005, 355. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
45. Ostrom E. The Drama of the Commons 2002, 525. National Academies Press, Washington.
46. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of institutions for Collective Action 1990, 281. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
47. Ostrom E., Janssen M.A., Anderies J.M. Going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:15176-15178.
48. Paavola J., Gouldson A., Kluvánková-Oravská T. Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environ. Policy Govern. 2009, 19:148-158.
49. Pahl-Wostl C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environ. Change 2009, 19:354-365.
50. Pierson P. Review: when effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Polit. 1993, 45:595-628.
51. Roth R.J., Dressler F. Market-oriented conservation governance: the particularities of place. Geoforum 2012, 43:363-366.
52. Schneider A., Sidney M. What is next for policy design and social construction theory?. Policy Stud. J. 2009, 37:103-119.
53. Scott W.R. Institutions and Organizations 2001, 280. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
54. Tommel I., Verdun A. Innovative Governance in the European Union: The Politics of Multilevel Policymaking 2008, 363. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., Boulder, CO.
55. Treib, O., 2008. Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. (accessed 28.04.11). http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/Articles/lreg-2008-5/.
56. US Army Corps of Engineers, 2009. Public Notice Number: 200500420. (accessed 05.07.11). http://www.aklandlaw.com/uploads/file/09-01-20_Full_Presentation_Materials_2009_for_BLOG.pdf.
57. US Fish and Wildlife Service Guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of conservation banks', issued through a memorandum to Regional Directors, 2 May 2003 2003, US Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
58. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Conservation Banking. Incentives for Stewardship. (accessed 04.04.13). http://www./fws.gov/endangered.
59. US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, 1996. Supplemental Policy Regarding Conservation Banks Within the NCCP Area of Southern California. (accessed 15.07.11). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/docs/fullsuplmnt.pdf.
60. Vatn A. Cooperative behavior and institutions. J. Socio-Econ. 2009, 38:188-196.
61. Vatn A. Institutions and the Environment 2005, 481. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham.
62. Wheeler D.P., Strock J.M. Official Policy on Conservation Banks' 1995, The Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency.
63. Wissel S., Wätzold F. A conceptual analysis of the application of tradable permits to biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:404-411.
64. Young O.R., Underdal A. Institutional dimensions of global change IHDP Scoping Report 1997, International Human Dimensions Programme, Bonn, Germany.
65. Young O.R. Institutional dynamics: resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Global Environ. Change 2010, 20:378-385.
66. Young O.R. The architecture of global environmental governance: bringing science to bear on policy. Global Environ. Politics 2008, 8:14-32.
67. Young O.R. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale 2002, 222. MIT Press, Cambridge, London.