Towards a better understanding of values in sustainability transformations: ethical perspectives on landscape stewardship. Issue 1 (1st January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bieling, Claudia; Eser, Uta; Plieninger, Tobias
• Is Part Of: Ecosystems and people. Volume 16:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 188
• Page End: 196
• Publication Date: 2020-01-01
• Subjects: Jacqueline Loos; Land management -- motivation -- reasoning -- prudence -- justice -- good life -- human-nature relationships -- leverage points; Ecosystem management -- Periodicals; Biotic communities -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Ecosystem management; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1786165
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2639-5908

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Values are considered an essential but ill-defined element in sustainability transformations. This perspective article explores: What kinds of values guide thinking and action in the context of caring for nature and engaging for landscape sustainability? How do these different values relate to each other? To frame our study, we discuss three basic principles in ethical reasoning. Prudence highlights the instrumental values of nature. Justice puts general moral obligations at the center. The Good Life focusses on relational values that are important to people in terms of personal life-goals. We show that all three types of values are expressed in landscape stewardship conceptualizations. As two case studies demonstrate, the relevance of these ethical claims may diverge among actors, which can lead to different goals and pathways. It is therefore crucial to develop multifaceted strategies that are tailored to the complexity of values at stake. A lack of communication on ethical claims may result in conflict and blockade of sustainability initiatives. For harnessing the full potential of values for sustainability transformations, the specific ethical dimensions of reasoning need to be made explicit and partial interests and common goods and rights need to be distinguished as arguments with different levels of legitimacy and power.