4.7 Review

The role of social values in the management of ecological systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 67-72

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013

关键词

Social values; Value orientations; Assigned values; Ecosystems; Conservation; Management

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions
  2. Australian Government's National Environmental Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of value is central to the practice and science of ecological management and conservation. There is a well-developed body of theory and evidence that explores concepts of value in different ways across different disciplines including philosophy, economics, sociology and psychology. Insight from these disciplines provides a robust and sophisticated platform for considering the role of social values in ecological conservation, management and research. This paper reviews theories of value from these disciplines and discusses practical tools and instruments that can be utilised by researchers and practitioners. A distinction is highlighted between underlying values that shape people's perception of the world (e.g. altruistic or biospheric value orientations), and the values that people assign to things in the world (e.g. natural heritage, money). Evidence from numerous studies has shown that there are multiple pathways between these values and attitudes, beliefs and behaviours relevant to ecological management and conservation. In an age of increasing anthropogenic impacts on natural systems, recognising how and why people value different aspects of ecological systems can allow ecological managers to act to minimise conflict between stakeholders and promote the social acceptability of management activities. A series of practical guidelines are provided to enable social values to be better considered in ecosystem management and research. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据