The New Conservation Debate: Ethical foundations, strategic trade-offs, and policy opportunities

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The "parks vs. people" debate - i.e., the dispute over whether conservation projects and policies should prioritize biodiversity and landscape protection or poverty alleviation and human livelihood improvement - should be quite familiar to most conservation scientists and policy scholars today. Yet, it is clearly a more expansive debate than the argument over whether a particular conservation project should emphasize biodiversity protection or development: it is also a wider disagreement about the proper value and ethical foundations of biological conservation in the age of sustainability, as well as the wisdom and consequences of making complex trade-offs among rivalrous conservation goals in practice. This essay introduces a special section of Biological Conservation focused on this larger dispute, what we are calling the "New Conservation Debate" to distinguish it from the historical debate in the US between "wise use" conservationists and preservationists at the turn of the 20th century. Articles in this special section explore the normative and ethical dimensions of the debate, as well as more pragmatic considerations relating to trade-off analysis and decision-making in real-world conservation plans and projects that impact both biodiversity and human well-being. Collectively, the papers in this section clarify many of the ethical and strategic divisions in the New Conservation Debate, while also revealing opportunities for reconciliation and principled compromise among advocates of strong nature protection and human welfare in the conservation community.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)945-947
Number of pages3
JournalBiological Conservation
Volume144
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

biodiversity
landscape management
poverty
livelihood
decision making
policy
landscape protection
poverty alleviation
trade-off
sustainability
project

Keywords

  • Conservation philosophy
  • Conservation policy
  • Park-people debate
  • Trade-off analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

@article{e11232e7dac3433795c4f195cda30d5c,
title = "The New Conservation Debate: Ethical foundations, strategic trade-offs, and policy opportunities",
abstract = "The {"}parks vs. people{"} debate - i.e., the dispute over whether conservation projects and policies should prioritize biodiversity and landscape protection or poverty alleviation and human livelihood improvement - should be quite familiar to most conservation scientists and policy scholars today. Yet, it is clearly a more expansive debate than the argument over whether a particular conservation project should emphasize biodiversity protection or development: it is also a wider disagreement about the proper value and ethical foundations of biological conservation in the age of sustainability, as well as the wisdom and consequences of making complex trade-offs among rivalrous conservation goals in practice. This essay introduces a special section of Biological Conservation focused on this larger dispute, what we are calling the {"}New Conservation Debate{"} to distinguish it from the historical debate in the US between {"}wise use{"} conservationists and preservationists at the turn of the 20th century. Articles in this special section explore the normative and ethical dimensions of the debate, as well as more pragmatic considerations relating to trade-off analysis and decision-making in real-world conservation plans and projects that impact both biodiversity and human well-being. Collectively, the papers in this section clarify many of the ethical and strategic divisions in the New Conservation Debate, while also revealing opportunities for reconciliation and principled compromise among advocates of strong nature protection and human welfare in the conservation community.",
keywords = "Conservation philosophy, Conservation policy, Park-people debate, Trade-off analysis",
author = "Ben Minteer and Thaddeus Miller",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "945--947",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The New Conservation Debate

T2 - Ethical foundations, strategic trade-offs, and policy opportunities

AU - Minteer, Ben

AU - Miller, Thaddeus

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The "parks vs. people" debate - i.e., the dispute over whether conservation projects and policies should prioritize biodiversity and landscape protection or poverty alleviation and human livelihood improvement - should be quite familiar to most conservation scientists and policy scholars today. Yet, it is clearly a more expansive debate than the argument over whether a particular conservation project should emphasize biodiversity protection or development: it is also a wider disagreement about the proper value and ethical foundations of biological conservation in the age of sustainability, as well as the wisdom and consequences of making complex trade-offs among rivalrous conservation goals in practice. This essay introduces a special section of Biological Conservation focused on this larger dispute, what we are calling the "New Conservation Debate" to distinguish it from the historical debate in the US between "wise use" conservationists and preservationists at the turn of the 20th century. Articles in this special section explore the normative and ethical dimensions of the debate, as well as more pragmatic considerations relating to trade-off analysis and decision-making in real-world conservation plans and projects that impact both biodiversity and human well-being. Collectively, the papers in this section clarify many of the ethical and strategic divisions in the New Conservation Debate, while also revealing opportunities for reconciliation and principled compromise among advocates of strong nature protection and human welfare in the conservation community.

AB - The "parks vs. people" debate - i.e., the dispute over whether conservation projects and policies should prioritize biodiversity and landscape protection or poverty alleviation and human livelihood improvement - should be quite familiar to most conservation scientists and policy scholars today. Yet, it is clearly a more expansive debate than the argument over whether a particular conservation project should emphasize biodiversity protection or development: it is also a wider disagreement about the proper value and ethical foundations of biological conservation in the age of sustainability, as well as the wisdom and consequences of making complex trade-offs among rivalrous conservation goals in practice. This essay introduces a special section of Biological Conservation focused on this larger dispute, what we are calling the "New Conservation Debate" to distinguish it from the historical debate in the US between "wise use" conservationists and preservationists at the turn of the 20th century. Articles in this special section explore the normative and ethical dimensions of the debate, as well as more pragmatic considerations relating to trade-off analysis and decision-making in real-world conservation plans and projects that impact both biodiversity and human well-being. Collectively, the papers in this section clarify many of the ethical and strategic divisions in the New Conservation Debate, while also revealing opportunities for reconciliation and principled compromise among advocates of strong nature protection and human welfare in the conservation community.

KW - Conservation philosophy

KW - Conservation policy

KW - Park-people debate

KW - Trade-off analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951809677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951809677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.027

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.027

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79951809677

VL - 144

SP - 945

EP - 947

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

IS - 3

ER -