Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation

Abstract

Given the concern about biodiversity loss, there are a number of arguments used for biodiversity conservation ranging from those emphasising the intrinsic value of biodiversity to those on the direct use value of ecosystems. Yet arguing the case for biodiversity conservation effectively requires an understanding of why people value biodiversity. We used Q methodology to explore and understand how different conservation practitioners (social and natural science researchers, environmental non-Governmental organisations and decision-makers) in nine European countries argue for conservation. We found that there was a plurality of views about biodiversity and its conservation. A moral argument and some arguments around the intrinsic and ecological value of biodiversity were held by all stakeholder groups. They also shared the view that species valuation does not justify the destruction of nature. However, there were also some differences within and between the groups, which primarily reflected the espousal of either ecocentric or anthropocentric viewpoints. Our findings suggest that moral arguments and those around biodiversity's intrinsic and ecological value could potentially serve as a starting point for building consensus among conservation practitioners.

Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision‐making

“…Representations of these value dimensions have been found also in other Q-analyses addressing biodiversity conservation and natural resource management (e.g. Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016). Our analysis shows, however, that the distinction is not very sharp; rather, there is also overlap in decision-makers highlighting intrinsic and human benefit arguments.…”

“…We use Q-methodology (Webler et al, 2009) to explore the personal views of decision-makers representing different decision-making levels in nine European countries, as well as the collective views they perceive to dominate with a range of arguments for protecting biodiversity. Q-methodology has been previously used to identify the patterns in the arguments that represent perceived biodiversity and ecosystem service values among different conservation professionals (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016) and practitioners and organizations (Fisher and Brown, 2014) as well as in other natural resource and environmental decision-making contexts (Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Albizua and Zografos, 2014;Eyvindson et al, 2015). Q-methodology has been previously used to identify the patterns in the arguments that represent perceived biodiversity and ecosystem service values among different conservation professionals (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016) and practitioners and organizations (Fisher and Brown, 2014) as well as in other natural resource and environmental decision-making contexts (Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Albizua and Zografos, 2014;Eyvindson et al, 2015).…”

“…We use statements about biodiversity and ecosystem services derived from biodiversity conservation literature, covering a range of value arguments (Howard et al, 2013). Q-methodology has been previously used to identify the patterns in the arguments that represent perceived biodiversity and ecosystem service values among different conservation professionals (Sandbrook et al, 2011;Berry et al, 2016) and practitioners and organizations (Fisher and Brown, 2014) as well as in other natural resource and environmental decision-making contexts (Nijnik and Mather, 2008;Albizua and Zografos, 2014;Eyvindson et al, 2015). Here, we extend this work by undertaking a comparison of personal and collective values.…”

The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation

“…Callicott 1999;Hargrove 1992;Rolston 1981) and environmental and social psychology (e.g. Steg et al 2012;Stern and Dietz 1994;Stern et al 1999: Berry et al 2016; humans are supposed to relate to nature in some, often contextual, mixture of these two types of value. Environmental philosopher Muraca (2011), however, argues that the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values as made in environmental ethics is a poor one and argues for "a greater variety of axiological categories that take into account different moral intuitions about the relations between humans and the non-human world" (378), focusing especially on the recognition of eudemonic (also called relational) value.…”

Seizing opportunities to diversify conservation

“…Despite studies indicating a range of value perspectives among conservation professionals (Berry et al., ; Sandbrook, Scales, Vira, & Adams, ), most findings follow a somewhat dichotomized spectrum of anthropocentricism versus ecocentrism (Tallis & Lubchenco, ). We argue that the needed diversity of perspectives is instead multidimensional.…”