Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada
Conservation easements (CEs) are a private land conservation (PLC) tool, with landowners voluntarily selling property rights to an outside entity (governmental or nongovernmental). Pioneered in the USA, CEs were operationalized in the late 1980s, and by 2001, legislation had swept across Canada. I a...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Canadian Science Publishing
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | FACETS |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2024-0016 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832540800647430144 |
|---|---|
| author | Forrest Hisey |
| author_facet | Forrest Hisey |
| author_sort | Forrest Hisey |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Conservation easements (CEs) are a private land conservation (PLC) tool, with landowners voluntarily selling property rights to an outside entity (governmental or nongovernmental). Pioneered in the USA, CEs were operationalized in the late 1980s, and by 2001, legislation had swept across Canada. I asked how did subnational Canadian CE policy develop? I analyzed Hansard records and interviewed government officials, finding coercion from the Federal government and environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs), with transfer being ideologically, geographically, and temporally uneven. CE legislation reveals a fundamental shift in how subnational governments were trying to enhance biodiversity conservation, specifically by legitimizing PLC and non-state partners. Interestingly, this study both confirms, and pushes back against, previous Canadian policy transfer studies. I found a lack of formal subnational policy networks and an increased role of subnational policy innovators unlike previous studies, while the substantial U.S. influence align with older policy cases. ENGOs were the most active proponents to push for CE legislation, not policymakers or foreign states. Ultimately, Canadian federalism creates unique subnational policy arenas that require further study to understand the movement of conservation policy, especially with the crises of biodiversity and climate. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-760e24963ae146bb9d1b16510b20df09 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2371-1671 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Canadian Science Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | FACETS |
| spelling | doaj-art-760e24963ae146bb9d1b16510b20df092025-02-04T14:55:46ZengCanadian Science PublishingFACETS2371-16712025-01-011011110.1139/facets-2024-0016Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in CanadaForrest Hisey0Department of Geography, Geomatics, and Environment, University of Toronto, Mississauga , CanadaConservation easements (CEs) are a private land conservation (PLC) tool, with landowners voluntarily selling property rights to an outside entity (governmental or nongovernmental). Pioneered in the USA, CEs were operationalized in the late 1980s, and by 2001, legislation had swept across Canada. I asked how did subnational Canadian CE policy develop? I analyzed Hansard records and interviewed government officials, finding coercion from the Federal government and environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs), with transfer being ideologically, geographically, and temporally uneven. CE legislation reveals a fundamental shift in how subnational governments were trying to enhance biodiversity conservation, specifically by legitimizing PLC and non-state partners. Interestingly, this study both confirms, and pushes back against, previous Canadian policy transfer studies. I found a lack of formal subnational policy networks and an increased role of subnational policy innovators unlike previous studies, while the substantial U.S. influence align with older policy cases. ENGOs were the most active proponents to push for CE legislation, not policymakers or foreign states. Ultimately, Canadian federalism creates unique subnational policy arenas that require further study to understand the movement of conservation policy, especially with the crises of biodiversity and climate.https://facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2024-0016conservation easementspolicy transferprivate land conservationconservation policy |
| spellingShingle | Forrest Hisey Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada FACETS conservation easements policy transfer private land conservation conservation policy |
| title | Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada |
| title_full | Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada |
| title_fullStr | Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada |
| title_full_unstemmed | Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada |
| title_short | Provincial diffusion, national acceptance: the transfer of conservation easement policy in Canada |
| title_sort | provincial diffusion national acceptance the transfer of conservation easement policy in canada |
| topic | conservation easements policy transfer private land conservation conservation policy |
| url | https://facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2024-0016 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT forresthisey provincialdiffusionnationalacceptancethetransferofconservationeasementpolicyincanada |