The environmental statehood of ecological restoration: An institutional analysis of three regulatory case studies
研究了澳大利亚三个生态修复监管案例，发现监管框架反而阻碍生态系统恢复，并提出了“环境国家性”概念来解释这一悖论。
• Regulation hinders ecosystem recovery following ecological restoration. • Regulatory frameworks paradoxically seek to legitimise land degradation and environmental protection. • Applying the concept of environmental statehood assists in elucidating regulatory barriers to recovery. Throughout Australia, social-ecological systems are in decline. Ecological restoration has been identified as a key process for reversing this decline, but the recovery of social-ecological systems following ecological restoration is rare. As ecological restoration is a social practice as much as it is a natural science practice, regulatory frameworks have a key role to play in either promoting or impeding recovery. This paper investigates how institutions in the regulatory space for ecological restoration approach recovery and identifies the drivers for regulatory instruments through a multi-level institutional analysis of three regulatory case studies across Australia. The findings from the institutional analysis demonstrate a paradox in the regulation of ecological restoration as it shows that the regulatory frameworks are actually contributing to low recovery rates. Ecological restoration is often regulated by the same regulatory frameworks that regulate land degradation and the regulatory systems continue to articulate the value of land degrading activities, with ecological restoration a way of avoiding state liability. Drivers for regulatory reform are then often market orientated. These findings all demonstrate what has been called an environmental statehood; that is, the way in which modern states engage with social-ecological issues, only continues to reinforce land degradation. The role of the state, state institutions and regulation is often overlooked in studies addressing socio-ecological resilience and adaptation, despite the central role of these institutions in the management of socio-ecological systems. This paper adds to the growing scholarship that addresses this research gap by contributing an empirically informed analysis of the regulation of ecological restoration in Australia.