Naturalness and principle pluralism in conservation.
Autonomía
autonomy
ecosistema
ecosystem
equilibrio reflexivo
ethics
integridad
integrity
reflective equilibrium
resilience
resiliencia
ética
Journal
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
ISSN: 1523-1739
Titre abrégé: Conserv Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9882301
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
05
06
2023
received:
13
10
2022
accepted:
08
06
2023
medline:
11
12
2023
pubmed:
28
6
2023
entrez:
28
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The concept of naturalness in biodiversity conservation remains polysemic, hampering decision-making. Although some conservationists claim ecosystem naturalness should be primarily determined by composition (integrity), others argue it should be determined by the extent of freedom from anthropogenic influence (autonomy). Problems arise when deciding how to treat affected ecosystems. Although the integrity school promotes benchmark-based active restoration, the autonomy school advocates a hands-off policy, making these 2 approaches contradictory. Moreover, expected global changes have promoted advocacy for ecosystem resilience, further complicating the debate. We argue that autonomy, integrity, and resilience are all morally valid. The conflict between them is contained by recognizing that full naturalness is an unattainable goal; restoration and rewilding processes are not an act of curation, but a contrary-to-duty obligation; principle pluralism can accommodate integrity, resilience, and autonomy as pro tanto principles in a case-specific approach; and naturalness, as an overarching value, gives unity to the plurality of principles. Naturalidad y pluralismo de principios en conservación Resumen El concepto de naturalidad en la conservación de biodiversidad continúa polisémico, lo cual limita la toma de decisiones. Mientras algunos conservacionistas afirman que la naturalidad de los ecosistemas debe ser determinada primariamente por la composición (integridad), otros argumentan que debe ser determinada por la extensión de libertad de la influencia antropogénica (autonomía).Cuando se decide cómo tratar ecosistemas afectados surgen problemas. Mientras la corriente de integridad promueve restauración activa a partir de un punto de referencia, la corriente de autonomía defiende políticas de no intervención, dos enfoques contradictorios. Además, los cambios globales esperados han promovido propugnar por la resiliencia ecosistémica, lo cual complica el debate aún más. Argumentamos que tanto la autonomía, la integridad y la resiliencia son moralmente válidas. El conflicto entre ellas es atajado mediante el reconocimiento de la naturalidad total es una meta inalcanzable; los procesos de restauración y resilvestración no son un acto de curación, sino una obligación contraria al deber; el pluralismo de principios puede acomodar a la integridad, la resiliencia y la autonomía como principios pro tanto en un caso específico; y la naturalidad, como un valor general, proporciona unidad a la pluralidad de principios.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(spa)
Naturalidad y pluralismo de principios en conservación Resumen El concepto de naturalidad en la conservación de biodiversidad continúa polisémico, lo cual limita la toma de decisiones. Mientras algunos conservacionistas afirman que la naturalidad de los ecosistemas debe ser determinada primariamente por la composición (integridad), otros argumentan que debe ser determinada por la extensión de libertad de la influencia antropogénica (autonomía).Cuando se decide cómo tratar ecosistemas afectados surgen problemas. Mientras la corriente de integridad promueve restauración activa a partir de un punto de referencia, la corriente de autonomía defiende políticas de no intervención, dos enfoques contradictorios. Además, los cambios globales esperados han promovido propugnar por la resiliencia ecosistémica, lo cual complica el debate aún más. Argumentamos que tanto la autonomía, la integridad y la resiliencia son moralmente válidas. El conflicto entre ellas es atajado mediante el reconocimiento de la naturalidad total es una meta inalcanzable; los procesos de restauración y resilvestración no son un acto de curación, sino una obligación contraria al deber; el pluralismo de principios puede acomodar a la integridad, la resiliencia y la autonomía como principios pro tanto en un caso específico; y la naturalidad, como un valor general, proporciona unidad a la pluralidad de principios.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14137Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
Références
Abrams, J., Greiner, M., Schultz, C., Evans, A., & Huber-Stearns, H. (2021). Can forest managers plan for resilient landscapes? Lessons from the United States national forest plan revision process. Environmental Management, 67, 574-588.
Anderson, J. E. (1991). A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness. Conservation Biology, 5, 347-352.
Angermeier, P. L. (2000). The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology, 14, 373-381.
Angermeier, P. L., & Karr, J. R. (1994). Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience, 44, 690-697.
Aplet, G. H., & Cole, D. N. (2010). The trouble with naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness goals. In D. N. Cole & L. Yung (Eds.), Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change (pp. 12-29). Island Press.
Bayles, M. D. (1986). Mid-level principles and justification. Nomos, 28, 49-67.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty (pp. 118-172). Oxford University Press.
Birnbacher, D. (2019). Naturalness. In T. Kirchhoff (Ed.), Online encyclopedia philosophy of nature. Online Lexikon Naturphilosophie. https://doi.org/10.11588/oepn.2019.0.65607
Bleich, V. C. (2016). Wildlife conservation and wilderness: Wishful thinking? Natural Areas Journal, 36, 202-206.
Callicott, J. B. (1999). Intrinsic value in nature: A metaethical analysis. In J. B. Callicott (Ed.), Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 239-261). State University of New York Press.
Callicott, J. B., Crowder, L. B., & Mumford, K. (1999). Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology, 13, 22-35.
Callicott, J. B., Crowder, L. B., & Mumford, K. (2000). Normative concepts in conservation biology: Reply to Willers and Hunter. Conservation Biology, 14, 575-578.
Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S., Beyers, R., Eagle, A., Kun, Z., Van Maanen, E., Cao, Y., Fisher, M., Edwards, S. R., Nelson, C., Gann, G. D., Shurter, S., Aguilar, K., Andrade, A., Ripple, W. J., Davis, J., Sinclair, A., Bekoff, M., … Soulé, M. (2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology, 35, 1882-1893.
Clewell, A. F. (2000). Restoring for natural authenticity. Restoration Ecology, 18, 216-217.
Cole, D. N., Yung, L., Zavaleta, E. S., Aplet, G. H., Chapin, R. S., III, Graber, D. M., Higgs, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., Landres, P. B., Millar, C. I., Parsons, D. J., Randall, J. M., Stephenson, N. L., Tonnessen, K. A., White, P. S., & Woodley, S. (2008). Naturalness and beyond: Protected area stewardship in an era of global environmental change. The George Wright Forum, 25, 36-56.
Corlett, R. T. (2016). Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 453-462.
Czech, B. (2004). A chronological frame of reference for ecological integrity and natural conditions. Natural Resources Journal, 44, 1113-1136.
Deplazes-Zemp, A. (2022). Are people part of nature? Yes and no: A perspectival account of the concept of ‘nature’. Environmental Ethics, 44, 99-119.
Douven, I. (2021). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction
Ehrenfeld, D. (2000). War and peace and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 14, 105-112.
Elliot, R. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, 56, 167-198.
Gotmark, F. (1992). Naturalness as an evaluation criterion in nature conservation: A response to Anderson. Conservation Biology, 6, 455-458.
Heath, J. (2021). The failure of traditional environmental philosophy. Res Publica, 28(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-021-09520-5
Heller, N. E., & Hobbs, R. J. (2014). Development of a natural practice to adapt conservation goals to global change. Conservation Biology, 28, 696-704.
Henley, K. (1993). Abstract principles, mid-level principles, and the rule of law. Law and Philosophy, 12, 121-132.
Hobbs, R. J., Cole, D. N., Yung, L., Zavaleta, E. S., Aplet, G. H., Chapin, F. S., Landres, P. B., Parsons, D. J., Stephenson, N. L., White, P. S., Graber, D. M., Higgs, E. S., Millar, C. I., Randall, J. M., Tonnessen, K. A., & Woodley, S. (2010). Guiding concepts for park and wilderness stewardship in an era of global environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 8(9), 483-490.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.
Holmes, G., Marriott, K., Briggs, C., & Wynne-Jones, S. (2020). What is rewilding, how should it be done, and why? A Q-method study of the views held by European rewilding advocates. Conservation & Society, 18, 77-88.
Hunter, M., Jr. (1996). Benchmarks for managing ecosystems: Are human activities natural? Conservation Biology, 10, 695-697.
Hunter, M. L., Jr. (2000). Refining normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology, 14, 573-574.
Jordan, W. R. (2005). Autonomy, restoration, and the law of nature. In T. Heyd (Ed.), Recognizing the autonomy of nature: Theory and practice (pp. 189-205). Columbia University Press.
Katz, E. (1992). The big lie: Human restoration of nature. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12, 231-241.
Keel, L. (2020). Winter. Frenemies John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Humanities, 41(1), 12-15.
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Gray, J., & Taylor, B. (2018). The ‘future of conservation’ debate: Defending ecocentrism and the Nature Needs Half movement. Biological Conservation, 217, 140-148.
Lackey, R. T. (2001). Values, policy, and ecosystem health. Bioscience, 51, 437-443.
Landres, P. (2010). Let it be: A hands-off approach to preserving wildness in protected areas. In D. Cole & L. Yung (Eds.), Beyond naturalness: Rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change (pp. 88-105). Island Press.
Landres, P., Brunson, M. W., & Merigliano, L. (2000). Naturalness and wildness: The dilemma and irony of ecological restoration in wilderness. Wild Earth, 10(4), 77-82.
Lee, K. (2005). Is nature autonomous. In T. Heyd (Ed.), Recognizing the autonomy of nature: Theory and practice (pp. 55-74). Columbia University Press.
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac: And sketches here and there. Oxford University Press.
Leopold, A. (1953). Round river. Oxford University Press.
Lupp, G., Konold, W., & Bastian, O. (2013). Landscape management and landscape changes towards more naturalness and wilderness: Effects on scenic qualities-The case of the Müritz National Park in Germany. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21, 10-21.
Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243-253.
Massenberg, J. R., Schiller, J., & Schröter-Schlaack, C. (2023). Towards a holistic approach to rewilding in cultural landscapes. People and Nature, 5, 45-56.
Mceuen, A. B., & Styles, M. A. (2019). Is gardening a useful metaphor for conservation and restoration? History and controversy. Restoration Ecology, 27, 1194-1198.
McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. Random House.
Mcnellie, M. J., Oliver, I., Dorrough, J., Ferrier, S., Newell, G., & Gibbons, P. (2020). Reference state and benchmark concepts for better biodiversity conservation in contemporary ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 26, 6702-6714.
Minteer, B. A., & Corley, E. A. (2007). Conservation or preservation? A qualitative study of the conceptual foundations of natural resource management. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 20, 307-333.
Oliver, T. H., Heard, M. S., Isaac, N. J. B., Roy, D. B., Procter, D., Eigenbrod, F., Freckleton, R., Hector, A., Orme, C. D. L., Petchey, O. L., Proença, V., Raffaelli, D., Suttle, K. B., Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., Woodcock, B. A., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 673-684.
Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10, 430.
Potts, S. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H. T., Aizen, M. A., Biesmeijer, J. C., Breeze, T. D., Dicks, L. V., Garibaldi, L. A., Hill, R., Settele, J., & Vanbergen, A. J. (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature, 540, 220-229.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Ridder, B. (2007). The naturalness versus wildness debate: Ambiguity, inconsistency, and unattainable objectivity. Restoration Ecology, 15, 8-12.
Sarkar, S. (1999). Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation-keeping divergent goals distinct. Bioscience, 49, 405-412.
Schulte to Bühne, H., Pettorelli, N., & Hoffmann, M. (2022). The policy consequences of defining rewilding. Ambio, 51, 93-102.
Scott, J. M., Goble, D. D., Haines, A. M., Wiens, J. A., & Neel, M. C. (2010). Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation. Conservation Letters, 3, 91-97.
Seddon, P. J. (2010). From reintroduction to assisted colonization: Moving along the conservation translocation spectrum. Restoration Ecology, 18, 796-802.
Seddon, P. J., Griffiths, C. J., Soorae, P. S., & Armstrong, D. P. (2014). Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world. Science, 345, 406-412.
Siipi, H. (2004). Naturalness in biological conservation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 457-477.
Siipi, H. (2008). Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics and the Environment, 13, 71-103.
Siipi, H. (2011). Non-backward-looking naturalness as an environmental value. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 14, 329-344.
Society for Conservation Biology. (2019). Sustainable event policy: Organizational values, Item 1. https://conbio.org/conferences/about-scb-meetings/scb-sustainable-event-policy/#:~:text=There%20is%20intrinsic%20value%20in,of%20natural%20ecosystems%20are%20unacceptable
Sylvan, R. (1998). Mucking with nature. In E. Morscher, O. Neumaier, P. Simons (Eds.), Applied ethics in a troubled world (pp. 57-86). Philosophical Studies Series, Vol 73. Springer, Dordrech.
Tomberlin, J. E. (1981). Contrary-to-duty imperatives and conditional obligation. Noûs, 15, 357-375.
Vogel, S. (2003). The nature of artifacts. Environmental Ethics, 25, 149-168.
Vogel, S. (2015). Thinking like a mall: Environmental philosophy after the end of nature. MIT Press.
Waldron, J. (2021). The rule of law as an essentially contested concept. Public Law Research Paper 21-15. New York University School of Law.
Weise, H., Auge, H., Baessler, C., Bärlund, I., Bennett, E. M., Berger, U., Bohn, F., Bonn, A., Borchardt, D., Brand, F., Chatzinotas, A., Corstanje, R., De Laender, F., Dietrich, P., Dunker, S., Durka, W., Fazey, I., Groeneveld, J., Guilbaud, C. S. E., … Grimm, V. (2020). Resilience trinity: Safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts. Oikos, 129, 445-456.
White, P. S., & Bratton, S. P. (1980). After preservation: Philosophical and practical problems of change. Biological Conservation, 18, 241-255.
World Health Organization. (2020). Basic documents: Forty-ninth edition (including amendments adopted up to 31 May 2019). Author.