Impact and benefit agreements (IBAs) between natural resource developers and Aboriginal communities are increasingly portrayed as viable approaches to assure Aboriginal people will reap economic benefits of resource extraction in their traditional territories. Drawing from existing literature about the social context of IBA negotiations, especially in Northern Canada, the authors’ analysis contributes to the study of negotiated agreements by using Lukes’s three dimensions of power to examine how IBAs confer particular advantages and disadvantages to Aboriginal people and proponents of development, thereby distributing power inequitably. The authors argue that, under some conditions, IBAs may provide more direct engagement with industry and a sharing of benefits from resource development than heretofore has been provided in Northern Canada. Depending on the before-, during- and after processes and outcomes, IBAs can also stifle Aboriginal people from sharing information about benefits negotiated by other groups, prevent deeper understanding of long-term social impacts of development, thwart subsequent objections to the development and its impacts, and reduce visioning about the type and pace of development that is desirable.

Many jurisdictions in North America use a ''mitigation sequence'' to protect wetlands: First, avoid impacts; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; and third, compensate for irreducible impacts through the use of wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or protection. Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision-making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented. This paper draws on literature published between 1989 and 2010, as well as 33 semi-structured, key-informant interviews carried out in 2009 and 2010 with actors intimately involved with wetland policy in Alberta, Canada, to address key reasons why ''avoidance'' as a policy directive is seldom effective. Five key factors emerged from the literature, and were supported by interview data, as being central to the failure of decision-makers to prioritize wetland avoidance and minimization above compensation in the mitigation sequence: (1) a lack of agreement on what constitutes avoidance; (2) current approaches to landuse planning do not identify high-priority wetlands in advance of development; (3) wetlands are economically undervalued; (4) there is a ''techno-arrogance'' associated with wetland creation and restoration that results in increased wetland loss, and; (5) compensation requirements are inadequately enforced. Largely untested but proactive ways to re-institute avoidance as a workable option in wetland management include: watershed-based planning; comprehensive economic and social valuation of wetlands; and long-term citizen-based monitoring schemes.

No abstract

Downshifting," reducing work hours, thereby income, to increase leisure time, offers a possible individual-level solution to the stress many experience from long working hours and work intensification. Recently, some have argued that an increase in leisure time with a reduction in income might also foster pro-environmental lifestyles as has been demonstrated for the "voluntary simplicity" movement. Quantitative research on the relationship between downshifting and quality of life is scant, with equivocal results, and studies of the relationship between downshifting and environmental lifestyles are even more rare. Survey data from a western Canadian city reveal nonsignificant impacts of downshifting on two measures of quality of life (subjective well-being and satisfaction with time use) as well as on sustainable transportation practices. However, downshifting is significantly associated with sustainable household practices. In order for downshifting to have more widespread positive effects, further structural changes in broader domains such as work culture, urban design, and support for families will be required.

ABSTRACT. The objective of this paper is to provide a preliminary discussion of how to improve our conceptualization of social thresholds using (1) a more sociological analysis of social resilience, and (2) results from research carried out in collaboration with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations of the Yukon Territory, Canada. Our sociological analysis of the concept of resilience begins with a review of the literature followed by placement of the concept in the domain of sociological theory to gain insight into its strengths and limitations. A new notion of social thresholds is proposed and case study research discussed to support the proposition. Our findings suggest that rather than view social thresholds as breakpoints between two regimes, as thresholds are typically conceived in the resilience literature, that they be viewed in terms of collectively recognized points that signify new experiences. Some examples of thresholds identified in our case study include power in decision making, level of healing from historical events, and a preference for small-scale development over large capital intensive projects.

Collectively, current resource‐development literature has given little attention to organizational features of ownership as important variables in community resilience. By drawing from six local buyout cases in Canada's forest sector, we reveal the complexity and numerous constraints on local ownership and expose a more nuanced context than most sociologists tend to consider. Our findings suggest that the meaning of local ownership and community resilience varies depending upon the composition (e.g., private vs. public; mill vs. forest license vs. coupled mill & forest license), type (social, cooperative, trust and/or direct‐share ownership), extent of ownership (percentage of local versus extra‐local shares), and the level of control (e.g., proportion of locally held seats on the Board of Directors) associated with ownership. Future research on local ownership should more carefully differentiate between the nature of local ownership and its associated outcomes.

No abstract

SummaryWetlands in India supply crucial human and animal needs such as drinking water, protein production, fodder, water purification, wildlife habitat, and flood storage. Increased appreciation of uses and threats is essential to protect wetlands where justified. Three quarters of India's population is rural, it places great demands on India's wetlands and losses continue to occur. This paper is based on extensive discussions with natural resource managers, government employees, farmers, academicians, and resource users at dozens of sites in India, as well as an extensive literature search. Twelve important kinds of wetland loss are identified and mechanisms believed to be causing them discussed: (1) agricultural conversion, (2) direct deforestation, (3) hydrologie alteration, (4) inundation, (5) defoliation, (6) altered upper watersheds, (7) accumulative water demands, (8) water quality degradation, (9) wetland consolidation, (10) global climate change, (11) ground-water depletion, (12) exotic species and biodiversity. Wetland understanding, management, and Public awareness in India must continue growing if wetland resources are to remain functional.