Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Searching for Sustainability
- General Introduction: An Interdisciplinary Experiment
- I PRAGMATISM AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY
- II SCIENCE, POLICY, AND POLICY SCIENCE
- III ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
- IV SCALING SUSTAINABILITY: ECOLOGY AS IF HUMANS MATTERED
- V SOME ELEMENTS OF A PHILOSOPHY OF SUSTAINABLE LIVING
- VI VALUING SUSTAINABILITY: TOWARD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
- 23 Commodity, Amenity, and Morality: The Limits of Quantification in Valuing Biodiversity
- 24 The Cultural Approach to Conservation Biology
- 25 Evaluation and Ecosystem Management: New Directions Needed?
- 26 What Do We Owe the Future? How Should We Decide?
- 27 Environmental Values and Adaptive Management, with Anne Steinemann
- Index
- References
27 - Environmental Values and Adaptive Management, with Anne Steinemann
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Searching for Sustainability
- General Introduction: An Interdisciplinary Experiment
- I PRAGMATISM AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY
- II SCIENCE, POLICY, AND POLICY SCIENCE
- III ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
- IV SCALING SUSTAINABILITY: ECOLOGY AS IF HUMANS MATTERED
- V SOME ELEMENTS OF A PHILOSOPHY OF SUSTAINABLE LIVING
- VI VALUING SUSTAINABILITY: TOWARD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
- 23 Commodity, Amenity, and Morality: The Limits of Quantification in Valuing Biodiversity
- 24 The Cultural Approach to Conservation Biology
- 25 Evaluation and Ecosystem Management: New Directions Needed?
- 26 What Do We Owe the Future? How Should We Decide?
- 27 Environmental Values and Adaptive Management, with Anne Steinemann
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
While it is a truism that environmental policy is ultimately driven by “social values,” there is currently considerable confusion regarding how to understand and assess social values, and corresponding confusion regarding the role of values in the broader process of environmental policy formation, implementation, and management. In this paper, we set out to describe an alternative direction for environmental value studies, a process that emphasizes pluralism, participation, and iteration rather than just simple elicitation of preferences and preference aggregation. Our goal will be to provide an approach that will help to better understand environmental values, especially in public processes for environmental management.
Our approach to environmental values is based on theory, but our theory is not one of the usual ones, such as utilitarianism, or a theory that nature or its elements have “rights” or something like that. Ours is a theory about process rather than a theory about ultimate values. We take the view that, since we live in a diverse society – and neither hope nor expect that this will change – the problem is not to decide which theory of ultimate value is correct, but rather to design a process by which diverse societies – with many voices expressing many worldviews and ultimate values – can act in a way that will tend toward a working consensus on environmental policy decisions (Norton, 1991).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Searching for SustainabilityInterdisciplinary Essays in the Philosophy of Conservation Biology, pp. 514 - 548Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2002
References
Agee, J. K., and Johnson, D. R. (1988) Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. Seattle, WAM: University of Washington Press
, (1996) “Measuring Urban Sustainability,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4–6):381–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, T. F. H., and Hoekstra, T. W. (1992) Toward a Unified Ecology: Complexity in Ecological Systems. New York: Columbia University Press
Allen, T. F. H., and Starr, T. B. (1982) Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Ariansen, Per. (1997) “The Non-Utility Value of Nature. An Investigation into Biodiversity and the Value of Natural Wholes.” In Skogforsk, Communications of the Norwegian Forest Research Institute (Meddelelser fra Skogforsk) 47. Aas, Norway: Agricultural University of Norway
, , and , (1993) “Sustainability and Environmental Valuation,” Environmental Values, 2:299–334Google Scholar
, , and , (1998) “Environmental Communication and the Cultural Politics of Environmental Citizenship,” Environment and Planning A 30(8):1445–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , (1988a) “Exploring Environmental Values Through the Medium of Small Groups. Part One: Theory and Practice,” Environment and Planning A 20:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1988b) “Exploring Environmental Values Through the Medium of Small Groups. Part Two: Illustrations of a Group at Work,” Environment and Planning A 20: 457–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , 1994“Trends and Issues in Land and Water Resources Management: Setting the Agena for Change,” Environmental Management 18: 167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , (1996) “Collaborative Learning: Improving Public Deliberation in Ecosystem-Based Management,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16: 71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenfeld, D. (1993) Beginning Again: People and Nature in the New Millennium. New York: Oxford University Press
Freeman, A. M. III. (1993) The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future
Glasser, H. (1995) Towards a Descriptive, Participatory Theory of Environmental Policy Analysis, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
, and , (1994) “Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values,” Management Science, 40(8):1035–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , (1992) “Adapting the Environmental Impact Statement Process to Inform Decisionmakers,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(1):58–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , (1993) “Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach,” Journal of Risk Uncertainty, 7: 177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , (1979) “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” American Economic Review, 69: 623–638Google Scholar
Gundersen, A. G. (1995) The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., and Light, S, (1995) “Barriers Broken and Bridges Built: A Synthesis,” in L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and S. Light (eds.), Barriers and Bridges. New York: Columbia University Press
, , and , (1996) “Rationalising Environmental Responsibilities: Comparison of Lay Publics in the UK and the Netherlands,” Global Environmental Change, 6(3):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S., (1978) “Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management,” Wiley IIASA International Series on Applied Systems Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons
(1992) “Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry and Dynamics of Ecosystems,” Ecological Monographs, 62(4):447–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1996), “Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience,” in C. S. Holling (ed.), Engineering within Ecological Constraints. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press
, and 1999a. “Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1):9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1999b. “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4):412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.) (1982) Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, New York: Cambridge University Press
, (1996) “Value-Focused Thinking: Identifying Decision Opportunities and Creating Alternatives,” European Journal of Operational Research, 92: 537–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmis, D. (1990) Community and Politics of Place. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma
Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., and Hartley, J. A. (1995) Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Kuhn, T. (1996), Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Lee, K. (1993) Compass and Gyroscope. Covelo, CA: Island Press
Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac. London: Oxford University Press
, and , (1996) “Adaptive Management: Promises and Pitfalls,” Environmental Management, 20: 437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, R., (1995) Ecological Democracy. Boston, MA: Boston South End Press
(1990), “Context and Hierarchy in Aldo Leopold's Theory of Environmental Management,” Ecological Economics, 2: 119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, B. G.. (1991), Toward Unity Among Environmentalists, New York; Oxford University Press
Norton, B. G. (1999) “Ecology and Opportunity: Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable Options,” In Dobson, A. (ed.), Fairness and Futurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press
O'Neil, R. V., DeAngelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., and Allen, T. F. H. (1986) A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Page, T. (1977) Conservation and Economic Efficiency. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
Reich, R. B. (1998) “Policy Making in a Democracy,” in R. B. Reich (eds.), The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
, (1998) “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe,” Journal of European Public Policy 5(1):98–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, M. (1988) The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
. (1998) “Aggregation and Deliberation in Valuing Environmental Public Goods: A Look Beyond Contingent Pricing,” Ecological Economics, 24(2, 3): 213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, F. B., and Knopf, F. L. (eds.). (1996) Ecosystem Management. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc
Shepherd, A. (1998) “Post Project Monitoring and Impact Assessment,” in H. Fittipaldi, and A. Porter, (eds.), Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century. Washington, DC: Army Environmental Policy Institute
, and , (1997) “Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(6):725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., and McCoy, E. D. (1994) Method in Ecology: Strategies in Conservation. New York: Cambridge University Press
, (1995) “The Construction of Preference,” American Psychologist, (50): 364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Griffin, D., and Tversky, A. (1990) “Compatibility Effects in Judgement and Choice,” in R. M. Hogarth (ed.), Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Toulmin, S. (1972) Human Knowledge, Vol. 1 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
, , and , (1990) “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” American Economic Review, (80):204–217Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (UNCHS) (1994) Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Urban Indicators for Country Reporting. Geneva: UNCHS (Habitat II)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Science Advisory Board (1990) Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency
and , (1994) “Choices without Prices without Apologies,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, (26):129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Winterfeldt D, and Edwards W, (1986) Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Walters, C. J. (1986) Adaptive Management of Natural Resources. New York: Macmillan
(1997) “Challenges in Adaptive Management of Riparian and Coastal Ecosystems,” Conservation Ecology 1(2). http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , (1995) “Public Participation in Impact Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, (15): 443–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar