What do conservationists think about markets
What do conservationists think about markets
复制标题
自然资源保护主义者对市场有何看法
DOI：
10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.009
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
B. Vira
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Sandbrook;J. Fisher;B. Vira
近年来生物多样性保护实践的特点是越来越多地使用基于市场的工具。在寻求理解这一发展的过程中，一个新兴的批判性社会科学研究机构倾向于将保护主义者描述为在意识形态上支持保护市场的人。另一种可能性是，环保主义者寻求市场解决方案，作为对当前政治和经济环境的务实回应。在本文中，我们试图从经验上建立一个保护专业人员样本对保护市场的实际看法。我们使用q -方法论，这是一种分析受访者主观立场的结构和形式的工具。结果表明，我们的受访者对在保护中越来越多地使用市场持谨慎态度。我们确定了两种主要的话语，我们称之为“以结果为中心的热情”和“意识形态怀疑主义”。这两种观点都没有表明对市场方法的强烈或不批判的支持，我们的受访者的观点似乎认识到市场在理论和实践上的局限性。虽然我们在本文中记录的两种主要话语之间的观点存在一些差异，但我们对“谨慎实用主义”的立场有相当大的趋同。我们的结论是，那些研究保护的人需要对过度概括保护专业人士所持有的观点和价值观保持谨慎，因为在这一领域采用市场主导方法的共识似乎远远少于所建议的。进一步的研究可以在组织层面调查亲市场行为的驱动因素，因为我们的受访者明显的个人怀疑。
The recent history of biodiversity conservation practice has been characterised by the increasing use of market-based instruments. In seeking to understand this development, an emerging body of critical social science research tends to characterise conservationists as being ideologically in favour of markets in conservation. An alternative possibility is that conservationists pursue market solutions as a pragmatic response to prevailing political and economic circumstances. In this paper we seek to establish empirically what a sample of conservation professionals actually think about markets in conservation. We used Q-methodology, a tool for analysing structure and form within respondents’ subjective positions. The results show that our respondents are circumspect about the growing use of markets in conservation. We identify two dominant discourses that we label ‘outcome focused enthusiasm and ‘ideological scepticism’. Neither of these perspectives indicates strong, or uncritical, support for market approaches, and the views of our respondents appear to recognise the limitations of markets both in theory and practice. While there is some difference in views between the two dominant discourses that we document in this paper, there is considerable convergence towards a position that we label ‘cautious pragmatism’. We conclude that those studying conservation need to be cautious about over-generalising the perspectives and values held by conservation professionals, as there appears to be far less consensus about the adoption of market-led approaches in this sector than has been suggested. Further research could investigate the drivers of pro-market behaviour at the organisational level given the evident personal scepticism of our respondents.