Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On diversity of human-nature relationships in environmental sciences and its implications for the management of ecological crisis

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decision makers addressing the ecological crisis face the challenge of considering complex ecosystems in their socioeconomic decisions. Complementary to ecological sciences, other scientific frameworks, grouped under the umbrella term environmental sciences, offer decision makers the opportunity to pursue sustainable paths. Because the environmental sciences are drawn from different branches of science, environmental ethics must go beyond the legacy of ecology and the life sciences to describe the contribution of scientific knowledge to addressing the ecological crisis. In this regard, I analyze and compare three environmental sciences based on their seminal articles: Conservation Biology, Sustainability Science, and Sustainability Economics. My analysis shows that conservation biology and sustainability economics share strong similarities despite their different disciplinary backgrounds (life versus social sciences). Both seek to contrast a biocentric and an anthropocentric perspective. The goal of sustainability is therefore understood as a balance that must be found between these two perspectives. If the issue of balancing human and non-human interests is still relevant to sustainable science, it is more likely to take place in an ecocentric perspective based on alternative ontological and normative prescriptions. Based on this analysis, I distinguish between ‘proscriptive value-based’ scientific work that cannot be used for policy advice but is flexible to different value systems, and ‘prescriptive value-based’ scientific work that can be used for policy advice but is fixed within a given value system. Conflicting recommendations from environmental scientists therefore result from the coexistence of multiple ‘prescriptive value-based’ scientific approaches based on different conceptions of the relationship between humans and nature.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. No precision is provided by the author, but I will comment this concept in the following section.

  2. The concept is not specified in the seminal article and can be interpreted in different directions by sustainability economists

  3. CAP is the European policy with the highest budget allocated by the European Union

References

  • Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2001). Harnessing complexity. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batavia, C., & Nelson, M. P. (2017). For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biological Conservation, 209, 366–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, S., & Quaas, M. (2010). What is sustainability economics? Ecological Economy, 69(3), 445–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, C. (2006). The human actor in ecological economics: Philosophical approach and research perspectives. Ecological Economics, 60, 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Doubleday.

  • Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D., Newig, J., Reinert, Fl., Abson, D., & von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland. (1988). Notre avenir à tous. Tech. Rept. Commission Mondiale sur l’Environnement et le Developpement de l’ONU.

  • Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science, 368, 1164–1169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J. B. (1986). The metaphysical implications of ecology. Environmental Ethics, 8, 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R. S., Diaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services : Beyond the Millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305–1312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casetta, E., Marques da Silva, J., & Vecchi, D. (2019). From assessing to conserving biodiversity. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Ja, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8086–8091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheaib, A., Badeau, V., Boe, J., Chuine, I., Delire, C., & Dufrêne, E. (2012). Climate change impacts on tree ranges: Model intercomparison facilitates understanding and quantification of uncertainty. Ecology Letters, 15(6), 533–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiras, D. (2010). Environmental science, eighth edition. John and Bartlett Publishers.

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1952). Resource conservation: Economics and policies. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W.C., Crutzen, P.J., & Schellnhuber, H.J. (2005) Science for global sustainability: Toward a new paradigm working papers center for international development. Working Papers - Center for International Development at Harvard University, 120 (March).

  • Clark, C. (2007). Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(6), 1737–1738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8059–8061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corlett, R.T. (2015). The anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Evolution, 30(1), 36–41.

  • Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburd, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., et al. (2019). IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Tech. Rept.

  • Daily, G. (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependance on natural ecosystems. Island Press

  • Dasgupta, P. (2007). Nature in economics. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delord, J. (2014). La biodiversité: Imposture scientifique ou ruse épistémologique? In Elena Casetta et Julien Delord (eds). La biodiversité en question. Enjeux philosophiques, éthiques et scientifiques. Les Editions Matériologiques.

  • Descola, P. (2005). Pardel à nature et culture. Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (1998). Justice and the environment. Conceptions of environmental sustainability and dimensions of social justice. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., & Heath, M. F. (2001). Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 268(1462), 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F. C. (1956). Ecosystems as the basic unit in ecology. Science, 123, 1126–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferré, F., & Hartel, P. (1994). Ethics and environmental policy. Theory meets practice. The University of Georgia Press

  • Figueiredo, J., & Pereira, H. M. (2011). Regime shifts in a socio-ecological model of farmland abandonment. Landscape Ecology, 26(5), 737–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasparatos, A., El-haram, M., & Horner, M. (2009). The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Accounting Forum, 33, 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. (1992). Conservation biology in the fast lane. Science, 255.

  • Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Science, 402(December).

  • Golley, F. B. (1987). Deep ecology from the perspective of ecological science. Environmental Ethics, 9, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2000). The common agricultural policy and the re-invention of the rural in the European community. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 30–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illge, L., & Schwarze, R. (2008). A matter of opinion - How ecological and neoclassical environmental economists and think about sustainability and economics. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 594–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES. (2016). The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Tech. Rept.

  • Ives, A.R., & Carpenter, S.R. (2007). Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science, 317(5834), 58–62.

  • Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics.

  • Janssen, M. (2002) Complexity and ecosystem management: The theory and practice of multi-agent systems. Edward Elgar

  • Jean, S., & Mouysset, L. (2022). Bioeconomic models for terrestrial social–ecological system management: A review. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(1), 43–92.

  • Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., Hickler, T., Hornborg, A., & Persson, J. (2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Sciences, 6, 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., & Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: Intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 187–191.

  • Kajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 2008(3), 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? BioScience, 62(11), 962–969.

  • Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., & Lowe, I. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, J. (2009). Advancing sustainability science: Report on the international conference on sustainability science (ICSS 2009). Sustainability Science, 4.

  • Klaassen, G. A. J., & Opschoor, J. B. (1991). Economics of sustainability or the sustainability of economics: Different paradigms. Ecological Economics, 4, 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., & Gilissen, N. (2001). Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature, 413(6857), 723–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Sciences, 1, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles and challenges. Sustainability Sciences, 7, 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, W. M. (2014) Living planet report 2014: Species and spaces, people and places, R. McLellan, L. Iyengar, B. Jeffries, and N. Oerlemans (Eds.). Tech. Rept. WWF.

  • Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D. U., Huston, M. A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., & Wardle, D. A. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), 1558–1560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclaurin, J., & Sterelny, K. (2008) What is biodiversity? The University of Chicago Press.

  • Maguire, L. A., & Justus, J. (2008). Why intrinsic value is a poor basis for conservation decisions. BioScience, 58(10), 910–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maris, V. (2016). Philosophie de la biodiversité - petite éthique pour une nature en péril (seconde édition revue et augmentée). Collection edn.

  • Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: Science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2(1), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, A. J., Butler, C. D., & Folke, C. (2003). New visions for addressing sustainability. Science, 302, 1919–1920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meine, C. (2006). A mission-driven discipline: The growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 20(3), 631–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.T., & Spoolman, S.E. (2016). Environmental science, Fifteenth edition. Cengage Learning.

  • Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Sciences, 9, 239–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouysset, L. (2014). Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable? Ecological Economics, 102.

  • Norberg, J., & Cumming, G. (2008). Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press.

  • Noss, R. (1999). Is there a special conservation biology? Ecography, 22(2), 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Special Issue: Reflections on the New Production of Knowledge, 41, 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T. 2014. Environmental science for environmental management, second edition. Routledge.

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analysing sustainability of socio-ecological systems. Science, 419(2009), 419–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peer, G., Dicks, L. V., Visconti, P., & Arlettaz, R. (2014). EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science, 344(6188), 1090–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, H. M., & Leadley, P. W. (2010). Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 330(6010), 1496–1501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, C. (2011). Our uncommon heritage: Biodiversity change, ecosystem services, and human wellbeing. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzey, J.C.V., & Toman, M.A. 2002. The economics of sustainability.

  • Raworth, K. 2012. A safe and just space for humanity. Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Papers, 1–26.

  • Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., & Lee, Y. T. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330, 916–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. (2009) Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 472–475.

  • Ropke, I. (2005). Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. Ecological Economics, 55, 262–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (2009). Intrinsic value: A reply to Justus et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20742.

  • Schlapfer, F., & Schmid, B. (1999). Ecosystem effects of biodiversity: A classification of hypotheses and exploration of empirical results. America, 9(3), 893–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobodkin, L. B. (2003). A citizen’s guide to ecology. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soderbaum, P. S. (2007). Towards sustainability economics: Principles and values. Journal of Bioeconomics, 9, 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35(11), 727–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. E. (1987a). History of the society for conservation biology: How and why we got here. Conservation Biology, 1(1), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. E. (1987b). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. H. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38(3), 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C.L. 1997. Ethics and environmental attitudes with implications for economic valuation. Journal of Environmental Management, 403–416.

  • Steffen, W. 2004. Global change and the earth system.

  • Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14, 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes biodiversity: Perspectives. Ecology, 80(5), 1455–1474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D. (2001). Functional diversity. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 3, 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., & Siemann, E. (1997). The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 277(5330), 1300–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. K., Paa, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., & Jessamy, V. (2003). Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, 46, 493–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vucetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., & Nelson, M. P. (2015). Evaluating whether nature’s intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 321–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors and the anonymous referees, as well as Simon Jean and Baptiste Parent for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS, UMR 8568, Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement, CIRED, 45 Bis Avenue de La Belle Gabrielle, 94136, Nogent-sur-Marne Cedex, France

    L. Mouysset

  2. CNRS, UMR 8590, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, IHPST, 16 rue du four, 75006, Paris, France

    L. Mouysset

Authors
  1. L. Mouysset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Mouysset.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mouysset, L. On diversity of human-nature relationships in environmental sciences and its implications for the management of ecological crisis. HPLS 45, 20 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00575-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00575-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation