Valuing nature in context: the contribution of common-good approaches

We draw on a number of empirical studies undertaken in the UK to show how residents and farmers come to contest scientific approaches to valuing nature as the basis for adjudicating conflicts over protected natural areas. The findings of these studies suggest that a widening of the knowledge base on which the goals and practices of nature conservation are founded, and a more deliberative process of decision making about what nature is important locally, is required if effective conservation partnerships are to be sustained. We offer a common good approach to valuing nature as a means of addressing this problem. A common good approach is based on ethical and moral concerns about nature and expresses these values through a social and political process of consensus building. We illustrate how this common good approach can be used to prioritise issues in a Local Environment Agency Plan. When linked with a method of Stakeholder Decision Analysis this common good approach is capable of building coalitions and a measure of consensus between different interests. It achieves this through a transparent and deliberate process of debate and systematic analysis of values that makes explicit the foundation of different knowledge claims about nature.

[1]  David Hulme,et al.  Communities, wildlife and the 'new conservation' in Africa , 1999 .

[2]  Carolyn Harrison,et al.  Respondents' evaluations of a contingent valuation survey: a case study based on an economic valuation of the wildlife enhancement scheme, Pevensey Levels in East Sussex , 1998 .

[3]  R. Chambers,et al.  Rural Development: Putting the last first , 1983 .

[4]  J Clark,et al.  Discounted knowledges: farmers» and residents» understandings of nature conservation goals and policies , 1998 .

[5]  Robin Mearns,et al.  The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment , 1998 .

[6]  Juan J. Armesto,et al.  Three levels of integrating ecology with the conservation of South American temperate forests: the initiative of the Institute of Ecological Research Chiloé, Chile , 2000, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[7]  M. Pimbert,et al.  Social change and conservation , 1996 .

[8]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Respondents' evaluations of a CV survey: a case study based on an economic valuation of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme, Pevensey Levels in East Sussex , 1998 .

[9]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Social Constructions of Nature: A Case Study of Conflicts over the Development of Rainham Marshes , 1994 .

[10]  G. Wilson Assessing the environmental impact of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme: a case for using farmers’ environmental knowledge? , 1997 .

[11]  Martin R.J. Battershill,et al.  New Approaches to Creative Conservation on Farms in South-west England , 1996 .

[12]  Carolyn Harrison,et al.  Capturing values for nature: ecological, economic and cultural perspectives , 1999 .

[13]  David L. Hawksworth,et al.  Biodiversity and Conservation , 2007, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[14]  Kristin Shrader-Frechette,et al.  How the Tail Wags the Dog: How Value Judgments Determine Ecological Science , 1994, Environmental Values.

[15]  F.W.J. Keulartz,et al.  Engineering the Environment: The Politics of Nature Development , 1999 .

[16]  Jacquelin Burgess,et al.  Prioritising the issues in Local Environment Agency Plans through consensus building with stakeholder groups , 1998 .

[17]  M. Pimbert,et al.  Social change and conservation: environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. , 1997 .

[18]  D. B. Dalal-Clayton,et al.  Whose Eden ? : an overview of community approaches to wildlife management , 1994 .

[19]  C A Conte,et al.  Colonial Science and Ecological Change: Tanzania's Mlalo Basin, 1888–1946 , 1999, Environmental History.