IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v45y2013i10p2323-2343.html

Panther Politics: Neoliberalizing Nature in Southwest Florida

Author

Listed:
  • Katrina Z S Schwartz

    (Department of Political Science, University of Florida, 234 Anderson Hall, POB 117325, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA)

Abstract

The past quarter century has witnessed a ‘quieter revolution’ in land-use management in the United States, from top-down regulation and adversarial environmentalism to multistakeholder collaboration and voluntary market-based mechanisms designed to forge a compromise between nature protection, property rights, and local livelihoods. The latter approach has become hegemonic, and yet this dramatic shift has received little attention from political ecologists. In this paper I argue that two contradictory lessons on the topic can be drawn from political ecology. On the one hand, proponents of the ‘quieter revolution’ invoke themes and normative stances shared by political ecologists, celebrating self-management by place-based communities drawing on local knowledge, in opposition to control by central governments and powerful environmental groups wielding ‘big science’. On the other hand, the ‘quieter revolution’ exemplifies the neoliberalization of nature, which political ecologists have critiqued as providing a ‘stamp of environmental approval’ for capitalist expansion, often at the expense of the nature values it claims to defend. Thus, the ‘quieter revolution’ exposes tensions in the application of the Third-World-based political ecology orientation to a First World setting. I explore these tensions through a case study of voluntary and collaborative approaches (specifically, transfer of development rights and habitat conservation planning) in exurban Collier County in southwest Florida. I argue that in this context, it is more useful to focus on the neoliberalization of nature than on the valorization of local knowledge and control, because the discourse of local knowledge and livelihoods aligns with the (anti-environmental) interests of locally powerful actors. These power relations—and the limits of deeply embedded assumptions that undergird the political ecology literature—are revealed most effectively through ethnographic examination of the micropolitics of particular cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Katrina Z S Schwartz, 2013. "Panther Politics: Neoliberalizing Nature in Southwest Florida," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(10), pages 2323-2343, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:45:y:2013:i:10:p:2323-2343
    DOI: 10.1068/a45294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a45294
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a45294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James McCarthy, 2005. "Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(6), pages 995-1014, June.
    2. McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth & Walls, Margaret, 2005. "Farmland Preservation and Residential Density: Can Development Rights Markets Affect Land Use?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 131-144, October.
    3. Levinson, Arik, 1997. "Why oppose TDRs?: Transferable development rights can increase overall development," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 283-296, June.
    4. Virginia McConnell & Elizabeth Kopits & Margaret Walls, 2006. "Using markets for land preservation: Results of a TDR program," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 631-651.
    5. James McCarthy, 2002. "First World Political Ecology: Lessons from the Wise Use Movement," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(7), pages 1281-1302, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evangeline R Linkous, 2017. "Transfer of development rights and urban land markets," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(5), pages 1122-1145, May.
    2. Krithika Srinivasan, 2017. "Conservation biopolitics and the sustainability episteme," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(7), pages 1458-1476, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    2. Bruno, Erica & Falco, Enzo & Shahab, Sina & Geneletti, Davide, 2023. "Integrating ecosystem services in transfer of development rights: a literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Theresa Selfa & Joanna Endter-Wada, 2008. "The Politics of Community-Based Conservation in Natural Resource Management: A Focus for International Comparative Analysis," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(4), pages 948-965, April.
    4. Wang, Bo & Li, Fan & Feng, Shuyi & Shen, Tong, 2020. "Transfer of development rights, farmland preservation, and economic growth: a case study of Chongqing’s land quotas trading program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Woodward, Richard T., 2011. "Double-dipping in environmental markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 153-169, March.
    6. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.
    7. Somayeh Ahani & Hashem Dadashpoor, 2021. "Urban growth containment policies for the guidance and control of peri-urbanization: a review and proposed framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 14215-14244, October.
    8. Paing, Win Min & Han, Phyu Phyu & Ota, Masahiko & Fujiwara, Takahiro, 2023. "The state-private hybrid forest policy in Myanmar: The impact of neoliberalism on the forestry sector after the 1990s," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Tol, Richard S.J., 2017. "The structure of the climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 431-438.
    10. Zhao, Qianyu & Zhang, Zhanlu, 2017. "Does China’s ‘increasing versus decreasing balance’ land-restructuring policy restructure rural life? Evidence from Dongfan Village, Shaanxi Province," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 649-659.
    11. Kate Driscoll Derickson, 2009. "Gendered, Material, and Partial Knowledges: A Feminist Critique of Neighborhood-Level Indicator Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(4), pages 896-910, April.
    12. Daniel H. Mutibwa, 2022. "The (Un)Changing Political Economy of Arts, Cultural and Community Engagement, the Creative Economy and Place-Based Development during Austere Times," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Sarkki, Simo & Rönkä, Anna Reetta, 2012. "Neoliberalisations in Finnish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 152-159.
    14. McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the density of development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 440-457, May.
    15. Maureen G Reed, 2007. "Uneven Environmental Management: A Canadian Comparative Political Ecology," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(2), pages 320-338, February.
    16. Maier, Carolin & Abrams, Jesse B., 2018. "Navigating social forestry – A street-level perspective on National Forest management in the US Pacific Northwest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 432-441.
    17. Jiang, Yong & Swallow, Stephen K., 2017. "Impact Fees Coupled With Conservation Payments to Sustain Ecosystem Structure: A Conceptual and Numerical Application at the Urban-Rural Fringe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 136-147.
    18. Liu, Xiangping & Lynch, Lori, 2006. "Do Agricultural Preservation Programs Affect Farmland Conversion? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Working Papers 28569, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    19. Abrams, Jesse, 2019. "The emergence of network governance in U.S. National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:45:y:2013:i:10:p:2323-2343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.