Christopher D. Ives

The role of social values in the management of ecological systems.

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 peoples 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.

Leverage points for sustainability transformation

Despite substantial focus on sustainability issues in both science and politics, humanity remains on largely unsustainable development trajectories. Partly, this is due to the failure of sustainability science to engage with the root causes of unsustainability. Drawing on ideas by Donella Meadows, we argue that many sustainability interventions target highly tangible, but essentially weak, leverage points (i.e. using interventions that are easy, but have limited potential for transformational change). Thus, there is an urgent need to focus on less obvious but potentially far more powerful areas of intervention. We propose a research agenda inspired by systems thinking that focuses on transformational ‘sustainability interventions’, centred on three realms of leverage: reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of sustainability. The notion of leverage points has the potential to act as a boundary object for genuinely transformational sustainability science.

The ethics of offsetting nature

Biodiversity offsetting is transforming conservation practice around the world. Development activities that degrade or destroy biodiversity at one location are now increasingly acceptable because of compensatory environmental gains generated elsewhere. This change represents a major shift in how nature is protected, and yet its philosophical justification has received little attention. We argue that biodiversity offsetting aligns most easily with a utilitarian ethic, where outcomes rather than actions are the focus. However, offsetting schemes often neglect to account for the multiple values that people assign to biodiversity – including unique, place-based values. Furthermore, the implications of defining nature as a tradeable commodity may affect our sense of obligation to protect biodiversity. Ironically, offsetting may exacerbate environmental harm because it erodes ethical barriers based on moral objections to the destruction of biodiversity. By failing to consider the ethical implications of biodive...

A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems

Existing frameworks for analysing interactions between social and natural systems (e.g. Social-Ecological Systems framework, Ecosystem Services concept) do not sufficiently consider and operationalize the dynamic interactions between peoples values, attitudes and understandings of the human-nature relationship at both individual and collective levels. We highlight the relevance of individual and collective understandings of the human-nature relationship as influencing factors for environmental behaviour, which may be reflected in natural resource management conflicts, and review the diversity of existing social-cultural concepts, frameworks and associated research methods. Particular emphasis is given to the context-sensitivity of social-cultural concepts in decision-making. These aspects are translated into a conceptual model aiming not to replace but to expand and enhance existing frameworks. Integrating this model into existing frameworks provides a tool for the exploration of how social-cultural concepts of nature interact with existing contexts to influence governance of social-ecological systems.

Characterizing spatial uncertainty when integrating social data in conservation planning

Recent conservation planning studies have presented approaches for integrating spatially referenced social (SRS) data with a view to improving the feasibility of conservation action. We reviewed the growing conservation literature on SRS data, focusing on elicited or stated preferences derived through social survey methods such as choice experiments and public participation geographic information systems. Elicited SRS data includes the spatial distribution of willingness to sell, willingness to pay, willingness to act, and assessments of social and cultural values. We developed a typology for assessing elicited SRS data uncertainty which describes how social survey uncertainty propagates when projected spatially and the importance of accounting for spatial uncertainty such as scale effects and data quality. These uncertainties will propagate when elicited SRS data is integrated with biophysical data for conservation planning and may have important consequences for assessing the feasibility of conservation actions. To explore this issue further, we conducted a systematic review of the elicited SRS data literature. We found that social survey uncertainty was commonly tested for, but that these uncertainties were ignored when projected spatially. Based on these results we developed a framework which will help researchers and practitioners estimate social survey uncertainty and use these quantitative estimates to systematically address uncertainty within an analysis. This is important when using SRS data in conservation applications because decisions need to be made irrespective of data quality and well characterized uncertainty can be incorporated into decision theoretic approaches.

The coexistence of amenity and biodiversity in urban landscapes

Abstract Amenity is a long-standing component of town planning and municipal governance. Biodiversity is a far more recent concept, yet interpreting the conservation mandate in a local context is a significant challenge for landscape and urban planners. This article explores the concepts of amenity and biodiversity and investigates their compatibility in an urbanising world. Their historical expression in law and urban planning is considered, and empirical research on the links between human well-being, green environments and biodiversity is reviewed. We argue that amenity is an underutilised vehicle for achieving biodiversity goals in line with new urban greening paradigms because of its long-standing currency with planning professionals. However, conflict between biodiversity and amenity can arise in practice, depending on a city’s social–ecological context. These challenges can be overcome through setting clear objectives, utilising scientific evidence, engaging with local communities and ensuring landscape policy is sufficiently flexible to accommodate local needs and characteristics.

Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making

Conservation decisions increasingly involve multiple environmental and social objectives, which result in complex decision contexts with high potential for trade-offs. Improving social equity is one such objective that is often considered an enabler of successful outcomes and a virtuous ideal in itself. Despite its idealized importance in conservation policy, social equity is often highly simplified or ill-defined and is applied uncritically. What constitutes equitable outcomes and processes is highly normative and subject to ethical deliberation. Different ethical frameworks may lead to different conceptions of equity through alternative perspectives of what is good or right. This can lead to different and potentially conflicting equity objectives in practice. We promote a more transparent, nuanced, and pluralistic conceptualization of equity in conservation decision making that particularly recognizes where multidimensional equity objectives may conflict. To help identify and mitigate ethical conflicts and avoid cases of good intentions producing bad outcomes, we encourage a more analytical incorporation of equity into conservation decision making particularly during mechanistic integration of equity objectives. We recommend that in conservation planning motivations and objectives for equity be made explicit within the problem context, methods used to incorporate equity objectives be applied with respect to stated objectives, and, should objectives dictate, evaluation of equity outcomes and adaptation of strategies be employed during policy implementation.

Troubled waters - an examination of the disconnect between river science and law

A of perspectives and practicalities often cloud and erode the beneficial nexus between environmental science, policy development and legal definitions of natural resources. In particular, arguments over water resources, such as those relating to the definition of a ‘stream’ or ‘river’, have and continue to plague U.S. and Australian landowners, judges, policy and lawmakers, resource managers, and scientists. 3 Similar to the U.S. context described byDoyle and Bernhardt, Australian lawmakers have been unable to resolve the seemingly obvious question of what is a “river” or “stream”. 4 Australia is the driest inhabited continent, with most of the nation’s inland rivers being ephemeral. However, in Australian law, English definitions and understandings of natural resources (including rivers) have been adopted as a result of the doctrine of reception, following British settlement in Australia in 1788. Given the vast biogeophysical differences between England and Australia, it is unsurprising that significant confusion and litigation has been generated surrounding the definition of a river. 4 Australian common-law decisions have defined rivers as requiring “bed, banks and water” and “continuity, permanence and unity”. However, for the vast majority of Australia’s ephemeral rivers, these thresholds are frequently notmet, as these systems do not display the geomorphic features of watercourses from more humid regions. Ephemeral flow regimes influence significantly the form, function and appearance of small tributary streams in the upper parts of catchments. In many cases these systems have no defined banks or bed and are discontinuous in form. Given that these tributaries comprise a large proportion of the stream network, they form an important component of a catchments habitat, water quality and quantity controls, and the geomorphic and hydrological dynamics of the system as a whole. However, these smaller tributaries often fail to be defined legally as “protected land” (broadly equivalent to U.S. jurisdictional waters) under relevant Australian acts. As in theU.S., this ambiguity results in arguments over what is, and is not a river because it influences what activities can be undertaken in and adjacent to these features. In Australia, like the U.S., no prescribed method exists for determining whether or not a watercourse is a river under law. In light of this, Taylor and Stokes developed a “9 part test” based largely on field observations as way of determining whether or not a watercourse could be considered to be a river. It was subsequently employed in litigation over proposed development adjacent to an urban system (Silva, Nelson v Ku-ring-gai Council [2009] NSWLEC 1060, 6 March 2009). In another, ongoing, legal dispute (Department of The Environment, Climate Change and Water v November Foxtrot Pty Ltd. 2011 NSW Local Court, Armidale), the NSWGovernmentOffice ofWater Principal Geomorphologist argued the method for deciding whether or not to place a “blue line” (demarking a river) on a topographic map was made by a cartographer using the following unpublished “rules”: 1 Is there a linear pattern of vegetation along a valley bottom that is different from adjacent areas (responding to the wetter conditions caused by flow)? And; 2 Is there a channel or channels with banks (seen as linear depressions bounded by roughly parallel low, steep slopes)? If not; 3 Is there a bed or beds with flow paths (seen as linear depressions only)? Of greatest concern is that decisions about the placement of ‘blue lines’ are not based upon the field observations of a scientist, but on the opinion of a cartographer, supported by limited field verification. The blue lines created by this flawed process are used regularly by public authorities, lawyers and land developers to determine whether or not a river exists according to law. This produces similar contentions and challenges to those experienced in the U.S., as indicated in Doyle and Bernhardt

Local Assessment of Melbourne: The Biodiversity and Social-Ecological Dynamics of Melbourne, Australia

Melbourne, Australia is a city rich in biodiversity. It contains a high proportion of open space and supports a large number of flora and fauna species, both indigenous to the region and introduced from around the world. The high levels of biodiversity are partly the result of historical planning decisions that did not deliberately consider biodiversity yet inadvertently favoured many plants and animals. However, Melbourne is currently at a tipping point whereby continued urban growth is likely to result in a loss of biodiversity if it is not explicitly and carefully considered in planning, policy and management. Enhancing biodiversity into the future will be aided by a reconciliation of underlying tensions between (1) growth and conservation and (2) the management of ‘native’ and ‘exotic’ vegetation that are currently embedded in a range of governance structures and public attitudes. This would enable the implementation of urban design that promotes biodiversity across the city as a whole.

Reconnecting with nature for sustainability

Calls for humanity to ‘reconnect to nature’ have grown increasingly louder from both scholars and civil society. Yet, there is relatively little coherence about what reconnecting to nature means, why it should happen and how it can be achieved. We present a conceptual framework to organise existing literature and direct future research on human–nature connections. Five types of connections to nature are identified: material, experiential, cognitive, emotional, and philosophical. These various types have been presented as causes, consequences, or treatments of social and environmental problems. From this conceptual base, we discuss how reconnecting people with nature can function as a treatment for the global environmental crisis. Adopting a social–ecological systems perspective, we draw upon the emerging concept of ‘leverage points’—places in complex systems to intervene to generate change—and explore examples of how actions to reconnect people with nature can help transform society towards sustainability.