The “balance discourse”: A case study of power and wetland management

- The dominant discourse in Alberta calls for a balance of economics and conservation.
- Using Q methodology we examine what balance means to key wetland policy actors.
- There is consensus that more robust policy will not unduly impact the economy.
- Disagreement between policy actors lies in the process for governing wetlands.
- The 'balance discourse' is a privileged account that requires careful examination.

The discourse that has dominated the public debate over wetland management in Alberta, Canada, is one that calls for economics to be 'balanced' with wetland conservation. Yet within this 'balance discourse', there is little understanding of how, by whom, and for whom economic prosperity and wetland conservation should be balanced. Using Q methodology, we strive to uncover whether key decision makers subscribe to the dominant public discourse of 'balance', and where key decision makers are positioned within the discourse relative to one another. We find that, in contrast to the dominant public discourse, there is a strong consensus amongst key policy actors that a more robust wetland policy will not unduly impact the economy. The disagreement between policy actors instead lies in the process for governing wetlands. On key issues of governance, we find a discursive coalition between industry and key government decision makers, which favors a 'business as usual' approach to wetland management that includes minimal regulation and an increased use of market-based instruments. This perspective is in contrast to other voices that expressed concern over current rates of wetland loss, with calls for stronger laws and policies for managing these losses. We suggest that the 'balance discourse' has become a privileged account that obscures what is being balanced and by whom.