Search

Biological invasions cause many impacts that differ widely in how they are perceived. We argue that many conflicts in the valuation of the impacts of alien species are attributable to differences in the framing of the issue and implicit assumptions--such conflicts are often not acknowledged. We present 13 principles that can help guide valuation and therefore inform the management of alien species. Seven of these relate to the science domain, representing aspects of change caused by alien species that can be measured or otherwise assessed using scientific methods. The remaining six principles invoke values, risk perception, and environmental ethics, but also cognitive and motivational decision biases. We illustrate the consequences of insufficient appreciation of these principles. Finally, we provide guidance rooted in political agreements and environmental ethics for improving the consideration of the consequences of these principles and present appropriate tools for management decisions relating to alien species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rising popularity of biodiversity offsetting as a tool for balancing biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere has sparked debate on many fronts. The fundamental questions are the following: Is offsetting good, bad, or at least better than the status quo for biodiversity conservation outcomes, and what do we need to know to decide? We present a concise synthesis of the most contentious issues related to biodiversity offsetting, categorized as ethical, social, technical, or governance challenges. In each case, we discuss avenues for reducing disagreement over these issues and identify those that are likely to remain unresolved. We argue that there are many risks associated with the unscrutinized expansion of offset policy. Nevertheless, governments are increasingly adopting offset policies, so working rapidly to clarify and-- where possible--to resolve these issues is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ethical position underpinning decisionmaking is an important concern for conservation biologists when setting priorities for interventions. The recent debate on how best to protect nature has centered on contrasting intrinsic and aesthetic values against utilitarian and economic values, driven by an inevitable global rise in conservation conflicts. These discussions have primarily been targeted at species and ecosystems for success, without explicitly expressing concern for the intrinsic value and welfare of individual animals. In part, this is because animal welfare has historically been thought of as an impediment to conservation. However, practical implementations of conservation that provide good welfare outcomes for individuals are no longer conceptually challenging; they have become reality. This reality, included under the auspices of “compassionate conservation,” reflects an evolved ethic for sharing space with nature and is a major step forward for conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The ecosystem services (ES) concept is one of the main avenues for conveying society's dependence on natural ecosystems. On-ground applications of the concept are now widespread and diverse and include its use as a communication tool, for policy guidance and priority setting, and for designing economic instruments for conservation. Each application raises ethical considerations beyond traditional controversies related to the monetary valuation of nature. We review ethical considerations across major on-ground applications and group them into the following categories: anthropocentric framing, economic metaphor, monetary valuation, commodification, sociocultural impact, changes in motivations, and equity implications. Different applications of the ES concept raise different suites of ethical issues, and we propose methods to address the issues most relevant to each application. We conclude that the ES concept should be considered as only one among various alternative approaches to valuing nature and that reliance on economic metaphors can exclude other motivations for protecting ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managed relocation is defined as the movement of species, populations, or genotypes to places outside the areas of their historical distributions to maintain biological diversity or ecosystem functioning with changing climate. It has been claimed that a major extinction event is under way and that climate change is increasing its severity. Projections indicating that climate change may drive substantial losses of biodiversity have compelled some scientists to suggest that traditional management strategies are insufficient. The managed relocation of species is a controversial management response to climate change. The published literature has emphasized biological concerns over difficult ethical, legal, and policy issues. Furthermore, ongoing managed relocation actions lack scientific and societal engagement. Our interdisciplinary team considered ethics, law, policy, ecology, and natural resources management in order to identify the key issues of managed relocation relevant for developing sound policies that support decisions for resource management. We recommend that government agencies develop and adopt best practices for managed relocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The South American temperate and sub-Antarctic forests cover the longest latitudinal range in the Southern Hemisphere and include the world's southernmost forests. However, until now, this unique biome has been absent from global ecosystem research and monitoring networks. Moreover, the latitudinal range of between 40 degrees (°) south (S) and 60° S constitutes a conspicuous gap in the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) and other international networks. We first identify 10 globally salient attributes of biological and cultural diversity in southwestern South America. We then present the nascent Chilean Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) network, which will incorporate a new biome into ILTER. Finally, we introduce the field environmental philosophy methodology, developed by the Chilean LTSER network to integrate ecological sciences and environmental ethics into graduate education and biocultural conservation. This approach broadens the prevailing economic spectrum of social dimensions considered by LTSER programs and helps foster bioculturally diverse forms of Earth stewardship. INSET: Box 1. Field environmental philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progress in understanding and achieving sustainability requires addressing it as both a scientific and an ethical issue. If sustainability is defined as "meeting human needs in a socially just manner without depriving ecosystems of their health," most of the words in its definition are normative or value laden. Depending on how critical normative terms such as "human needs" and "ecosystem health" are defined, sustainability could mean anything from "exploit as much as desired without infringing on the future ability to exploit as much as desired" to "exploit as little as necessary to maintain a meaningful life." We suggest that there are five key areas of sustainability. By examining how recent university cluster hires in sustainability compare with these five areas, we show not only how hiring has been radically lopsided but also how ethics has been entirely ignored. Lack of attention to the ethical dimension of sustainability is stifling progress toward sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation biologists struggle to decide how many animals to save. In this article, I outline 18 approaches to setting population target levels (PTLs) for animals, with rules of thumb and analytical recommendations for each approach. Minimally viable populations, the most common target level, are necessary but not sufficient for most efforts, given the range of values that bear on conservation. Reference ecosystems, either extant or historical, are key for setting practical target levels. Setting PTLs sufficient for conserved populations to be animals in all respects (including functional, social, landscape, ethical, aesthetic, and spiritual aspects) is a critical consensus point. In many cases densities as well as overall population size will need to be specified. I suggest a four-tiered system of setting incrementally higher population target levels such that conservation provides first for demographic sustainability, then ecological integrity, then sustainable use, and finally restoration of historical numbers of wildlife, based on times when human beings had less impact on the planet than we do today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contrasts the instrumental-value approach, extensionist approach, and biocentric approach to environmental ethics with the Buddhist approach of Daisaku Ikeda in terms of their meaning for wildlife conservation. I argue that both anthropocentric and biocentric approaches create a false dichotomy between humans and nature and are not helpful to modern wildlife conservation, which aims to balance the needs of people with the conservation of nature. The views of Daisaku Ikeda, in particular the principle of dependent origination and the theory of the oneness of life and its environment, constitute one alternative approach that does not separate humans from the natural world but places people within the web of all living things. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neither biologists nor nonbiologists in today's society are paying adequate attention to the escalating ethical issues raised by the human predicament, and the expertise of biologists seems to demand they make additional contributions to environmental ethics, broadly defined. Massive environmental destruction and the development of biological and nuclear weapons have changed the world; cultural evolution of ethics has not kept pace. "Bioethics" must be expanded from its focus on medical issues to consider such things as the ethics of preserving natural capital for future generations and those of dealing with overconsumption. Bioethics should examine issues as diverse as the ethics of invading Iraq to increase the role of the rich in generating climate change and the ethics of the Lomborg affair. Achieving a sustainable global society will require developing an agreed-upon ethical basis for the necessary political discourse, and the time to start is now. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents letters to the editors of this periodical. Reference to an essay, 'Human Natures, Nature Conservation, and Environmental Ethics,' by Paul Ehrlich in which he claims that ecologists failed to respond to the destruction of Earth's natural systems; Response of Ehrlich; Reference to an update in the March 2002 issue by Jeffrey Cohn about Biosphere 2, and the fact that he did not mention the estuary system that had been there; Response of Chris Langdon about the Biosphere 2 Center.

Presents a study on the importance of cultural evolution in the scientific community and public to improve the response of society to environmental ethics. Need for nature conservation due to an increase in the loss of biodiversity; Role of the social sciences; Attitudes of environmental scientists toward environmental ethics and conservation; Question of why attitudes toward conservation differ.

Focuses on the necessity of vivantary responsibility in the determination of ecological policy. Relationship between social values and ecological policy; Models of interaction between ecology and policy, including the objectivist model; Conclusion that vivantary responsibility, or human obligation to the living systems of earth, is the fundamental ethic that emerges from ecology.

The article focuses on the environmental responsibility of the present generation towards the future generation. Problems facing mankind today include population growth, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and the control of nuclear energy, which threaten massive evil for generations yet unborn. Scientists have been reminding people of their moral responsibility to future generations. It informs that present generation is bound by ties of justice to real future persons. Several economists agree that adequate income measurements must encompass the cross-generational costs of environmental deterioration and resource depletion.