Affiliation:
1. Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, College of Natural Resources North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA
2. Center for Geospatial Analytics, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, College of Natural Resources North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA
Abstract
AbstractAs urban areas grow, ecosystem extent and condition continue to decline. Some countries have adopted “no net loss” policies that require compensatory actions for unavoidable ecosystem losses. In the US, mitigation banking has emerged as a means of offsetting losses, but the system remains dominated by private commercial banks and mitigation outside of an urban context. With this in mind, we seek to understand the institutional drivers of innovative finance for urban mitigation projects at the public agency level. Applying institutional logics and institutional isomorphisms as theoretical foundations, we conducted a qualitative case study of innovative finance for habitat restoration at the Port of Seattle, a public port in Seattle, Washington (USA). Findings from interviews, focus groups, and document analysis suggest that hybrid institutional logics, unique organizational characteristics, and coercive and normative isomorphisms drive organizational change in this context, but significant barriers exist to establishing similar systems in the US.
Reference89 articles.
1. Biodiversity offsetting and the production of “equivalent natures”: a marxist critique;Apostolopoulou E.;ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies,2019
2. Competing logics in the expansion of public service corporations
3. Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector
4. Banks S. Brunton C. Engelburg D. Roach T.&Snyder G.(2014)EPA needs to clarify its claim of “no net loss” of wetlands. US EPA Office of the Inspector General. Washington D.C.
5. The Social Impacts of Wetland Mitigation Policies in the United States