Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Values and Ethics in Conservation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conservation Biology

Abstract

Ethics and values have been foundational to conservation biology as a mission-driven discipline dedicated to a moral imperative –preserving global biodiversity. Value-based policies limit conservation success more than biological knowledge, so conservation biologists must establish the intrinsic value of nature in conservation efforts. Many conservationists have employed moral extensionism – the application of mortal standing to non-human entities – to establish nature’s value, expressed through positions based on Biophilia, Deep Ecology, the Land Ethic, Animal Rights, and others. In contrast, religious traditions establish intrinsic value through divine revelation, providing powerful arguments for biodiversity conservation expressed in a proliferation of faith-based organizations (FBOs) in conservation. Using these and other sources, conservationists must mature in their expression of ethical reasons for saving biodiversity to make conservation goals culturally persuasive

Future historians will find our century remarkable for its breadth of knowledge and narrowness of value judgments. Never have humans known so much about, and valued so little in, the great chain of being.

Holmes Rolston III 1986:114

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literature Cited

  • Abuyuan, A.T. 2006. Faith-based organizations, international development agencies, and environmental management. PhD dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alliance of Religion and Conservation. 2005. Available at www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=71. Accessed 18 November 2018.

  • Angermeier, P.L. 2000. The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 373–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • A Rocha International. 2018. Available from www.arocha.org. Accessed 17 November 2018.

  • Barry, D., and M. Oelschläger. 1996. A science for survival: Values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10: 905–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batchelor, M. 1992. Even the stones smile: Selections from the scriptures. In Buddhism and ecology, ed. M. Batchelor and K. Brown, 2–17. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhumi Project. 2018. Available from www.bhumiproject.org. Accessed 23 September 2018.

  • Brockelman, W. 1987. Nature conservation. In Thailand natural resources profile, ed. A. Arbhabhirama, D. Phantumvanit, J. Elkington, and P. Ingkasuman, 90–119. Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brungs, R.A., and M. Postiglione, eds. 1991. Some Christian and Jewish perspectives on the creation. In Proceedings of the ITEST workshop, March 15–17, 1991. Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buri, R. 1989. Wildlife in Thai culture. Culture and Environment in Thailand 22: 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J.B. 1986. On the intrinsic value of nonhuman species. In The preservation of species; the value of biological diversity, ed. B.G. Norton, 138–172. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999a. Holistic environmental ethics and the problem of ecofascism. In Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy, ed. J.B. Callicott, 59–76. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999b. Do deconstructive ecology and sociobiology undermine the Leopold land ethic? In Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy, ed. J.B. Callicott, 117–139. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Conservation values and ethics. In Principles of conservation biology, ed. M.J. Groom, G.K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll, 111–135. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvin, J. 1645. Commentaries on the first book of Moses called Genesis. Woodstock: Devoted Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carillo, J., ed. 1998. A song from sacred mountain: Lakota-Dakota and Cheyenne interviews in readings in American Indian law: Recalling the rhythm of survival. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, G. 2016. Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato Si’, global environmental risks, and the future of humanity. Quarterly Review of Biology 91: 285–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T.W. 2001. Developing policy-oriented curricula for conservation biology: Professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conservation Biology 15: 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. 2007. Available from www.coejl.org. Accessed May 2007.

  • ———. 2015. Jewish leaders join together to thank Pope Francis for championing climate. Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, Washington, DC., USA. Available from http://multi.jewishpublicaffairs.org/coejl/2015/09/jewish-leaders-join-together-to-thank-pope-francis-for-championing-climate/ Accessed 5 October 2018.

  • Colinvaux, P.A. 1973. Introduction to ecology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H.E. 1999. The lurking inconsistency. Conservation Biology 13: 693–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devall, B., and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep ecology. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, C.B. 2016. Earth stewardship and Laudato Sí. Quarterly Review of Biology 91: 271–284.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, I. 1989. Out of Africa. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubos, R. 1972. A god within. New York: Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dustin, D.L., and L.H. McAvoy. 1982. The decline and fall of quality recreational environments. Environmental Ethics 4: 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, O.P. 2000. Dharmic ecology. In Hinduism and ecology: The intersection of earth, sky, and water, ed. C.K. Chapple and M.E. Tucker, 3–22. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecological Society of America. 2015. ESA commends Pope Francis for encyclical on the Environment. Washington, DC, USA. Available from http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-the-news/esa-commends-pope-frances-for-encyclical-on-the-environment/. Accessed 5 October 2018.

  • Ehrenfeld, D. 1976. The conservation of non-resources. American Scientist 64: 648–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R. 1971. How to be a survivor. Westminster: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, P.L., P.S. White, and R.L. Leidy. 1997. The paradigm shift in ecology and its implications for conservation. In The ecological basis of conservation: Heterogeneity, ecosystems, and biodiversity, ed. S.T.A. Pickett, M. Shachak, and G.E. Likens, 78–95. New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grim, J.A. 2018. Indigenous traditions and ecology. Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology. Available from http://fore.yale.edu/relilgion/indigneous/ Accessed September 2018.

  • Guenthner, D. 1995. To till it and to keep it: New models for congregational involvement with the land. Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Land Stewardship Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinckley, A.D. 1976. Applied ecology: A nontechnical approach. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, M., and J. Young. 1994. Islam and ecology. Cross Currents 44: 180–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences. www.ifees.org. Accessed 24 May 2007.

  • James, G.A. 2000. Ethical and religious dimensions of Chipko resistance. In Hinduism and ecology: The intersection of earth, sky, and water, ed. C.K. Chapple and M.E. Tucker, 499–530. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, S.P. 2006. Buddhism and the ethics of species conservation. Environmental Values 15: 86–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabilsingh, C. 1990. Early Buddhist views on nature. In Dharma Gaia, ed. A. Hunt-Badiner, 34–53. Berkeley: Parallax Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalupahana, D.J. 1987. The principles of Buddhist psychology. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katcher, A., and G. Wilkins. 1993. Dialogue with animals: Its nature and culture. In The biophilia hypothesis, ed. S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaza, S. 1990. Towards a Buddhist environmental ethic. Buddhism at the Crossroads 1: 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Acting with compassion: Buddhism, feminism, and the environmental crisis. In Ecofeminism and the sacred, ed. C.J. Adams, 50–69. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S.R. 1986. Social and perceptual factors in the preservation of animal species. In The preservation of species: The value of biological diversity, ed. B.G. Norton, 50–73. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Japanese perceptions of wildlife. Conservation Biology 5: 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S.R., and E.O. Wilson, eds. 1993. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. 1986. Cost-benefit analysis: An ethical critique. In People, penguins, and plastic trees: Basic issues in environmental ethics, ed. D. VanDeVeer and C. Pierce, 242–249. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, M.H. 1973. What’s wrong with plastic trees? Science 179: 446–455.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laswell, H.D., and M.S. McDougal. 1992. Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science, and policy. New Haven: New Haven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1966. A sand county almanac with essays on conservation from Round River. New York: Sierra Club/Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzoor, S.P. 1984. Environment and values: The Islamic perspective. In The touch of Midas: Science, values, and environment in Islam and the West, ed. Z. Sardar, 39–54. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masri, A.B.A. 1992. Islam and ecology. In Islam and ecology, ed. F. Khalid and J. O’Brien, 1–23. London: Cassell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg, I. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City: Natural History Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, B.J., and S. Jentoft. 1998. Market or community failure? Critical perspectives on common property research. Human Organization 57: 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meine, C., M. Soulé, and R.F. Noss. 2006. “A mission-driven discipline”: The growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 631–651.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D. 1990. Conservation biology and the scientific method. Conservation Biology 4: 203–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. 1989. Ecology, community, and lifestyle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1999. Is there a special conservation biology? Ecography 22: 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 2008. Indigenous beliefs and biodiversity conservation: The effectiveness of sacred groves, taboos and totems in Ghana for wildlife and species conservation. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 2: 309–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. 1988. Capitalism, nature, socialism: A theoretical introduction. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 1: 11–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, D. 2005. Armageddon versus extinction. Conservation Biology 19: 290–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. 2018. The Bhumi Project. Available from www.ochs.org.uk/bhumi-project. Accessed 22 September 2018.

  • Palmer, M., and V. Findlay. 2003. Faith in conservation: New approaches to religion and the environment. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, B. 2006. Ethics for wildlife conservation: Overcoming the human-nature dualism. Bioscience 56: 144–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato si: On the care of our common home. [Encyclical].

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, W.F., and H.B. Underwood. 1999. Of elephants and blind men: Deer management in the US national parks. Ecological Applications 9: 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. 1986. Human preference, economics, and the preservation of species. In The preservation of species: The value of biological diversity, ed. B.G. Norton, 79–109. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K.L.S. 2000. The five great elements (Pañcamahābhūta): An ecological perspective. In Hinduism and ecology: The intersection of earth, sky, and water, ed. C.K. Chapple and M.E. Tucker, 23–38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven. P. H. 2016. Our world and pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si. Quarterly Review of Biology 91: 247–260.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H., III. 1986. Philosophy gone wild: Essays in environmental ethics. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988. Environmental ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Biophilia, selfish genes, shared values. In The biophilia hypothesis, ed. S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson. Washington. DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. A new environmental ethics: The next millennium for life on earth. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Loving nature: Christian environmental ethics. In Love and Christian ethics: Tradition, theory, and society, ed. V. Simmons and B.C. Sorrells, 313–331. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10217/181774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszak, T. 1972. Where the wasteland ends. New York: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. 2012. Environmental philosophy: From theory to practice. Malden: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorsch, I. 1992. Learning to live with less: A Jewish perspective. In Spirit and nature: Why the environment is a religious issue, ed. S.C. Rockefeller and J.C. Elder, 25–38. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sessions, G. 1985. Appendix D: Western process metaphysics (Heraclitus, Whitehead, and Spinoza). In , ed. B. Devall and G. Sessions, 236–242. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shellenberger, M., and T. Nordhaus. 2004. The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-environmental world. http:www.thebreakthrough.org. Accessed 15 May 2006.

  • Sheridan, J., and R.D. Longboat, 2006. The haudenosaunee imagination and the ecology of the sacred. Space and Culture 9 (4): 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331206292503.

  • Shepard, P., Jr. 1978. Thinking animals. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1989. Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. 1958. The religions of man. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M.E., J.A. Estes, B. Miller, and D.J. Honnold. 2005. Strongly interacting species: Conservation policy, management, and ethics. Bioscience 55: 168–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sponsel, L.E., and P. Natadecha-Sponsel. 1993. Ethics, religion, and biodiversity: Relations between conservation and cultural values. In , ed. L.S. Hamilton, 75–97. Cambridge: The White Horse Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, M.R. 2015. Inherit the holy mountain: Religion and the rise of American environmentalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C., and G. Hardin. 1974. Should trees have standing?: Toward legal rights for natural objects. Los Altos: Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, S. N., and others. 2005. Conservation theology for conservation biologists – A reply to David Orr. Conservation Biology 19: 1689–1692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarlock, A.D. 1994. The nonequilibrium paradigm in ecology and the partial unraveling of environmental law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 27: 1121–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torri, M.C., and T.M. Herrmann. 2011. Spiritual beliefs and ecological traditions in indigenous communities in India: Enhancing community-based biodiversity conservation. Nature and Culture 6: 168–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L.H. 1974. Ways not to think about plastic trees. The Yale Law Journal 83: 1315–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M.E., and J. Grim. 2016. Integrating ecology and justice: The papal encyclical. Quarterly Review of Biology 91: 261–270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tzu Chi. 2006. www.tzuchi.org/global/services/environ.html. Accessed 24 May 2006.

  • United Nations Environment. 2018. Faith for Earth – An ethical approach to global challenges. Available at https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/faith-earth-ethical-approach-global-challenges. Accessed 30 October 2018.

  • Van Dyke, F. 2005. Teaching ethical analysis in environmental management decisions: A process-oriented approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 11: 659–669.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Between heaven and earth: Christian perspectives on environmental protection. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt Disney World. 2018. Disney’s Wilderness Lodge. Available at https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/resorts/wilderness-lodge-resort/. Accessed 18 November 2018.

  • Walton, J.H. 2001. Genesis: The NIV application commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wersal, L. 1995. Islam and environmental ethics: Tradition responds to contemporary challenges. Zygon 30: 451–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. 1967. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155: 1203–1207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Edward O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaidi, I.H. 1991. On the ethics of man’s interactions with the environment: An Islamic approach. Environmental Ethics 3: 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Au Sable Institute, Mancelona, MI, USA

    Fred Van Dyke

  2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Rachel L. Lamb

Authors
  1. Fred Van Dyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel L. Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred Van Dyke .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Dyke, F., Lamb, R.L. (2020). Values and Ethics in Conservation. In: Conservation Biology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39534-6_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation