Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K.
Conserv Biol. 2019 Jun;33(3):554-560. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13260. Epub 2018 Dec 20.
We examined how, from the point of view of justice, the burdens of paying for conservation should be shared. I resisted simple answers to the question of who should pay for conservation that lean on a single moral principle. I identified 3 relevant principles that relate to who causes conservation challenges, who has greater capacity to carry burdens, and who stands to benefit from conservation. I argue for a distinctive pluralist framework for allocating conservation burdens that grants a proper role to all 3 principles. A multistep process can be used to put the framework into practice. First, identify cases in which conservation is necessary. Second, consider whether people knew or could have been expected to anticipate the consequences of their activities and whether they had reasonable alternatives to acting the way they did. Third, turn to facts about benefits; when no culprit for conservation challenges can be found, ask who benefits from acts of conservation. In the second and third stages, consideration must also be given to ability to pay.
我们研究了从公正的角度来看，应该如何分担保护的负担。我抵制了那些简单地依靠单一道德原则来回答谁应该为保护买单的问题。我确定了 3 个相关原则，这些原则涉及到谁导致了保护方面的挑战、谁有更大的能力承担负担，以及谁将从保护中受益。我主张为分配保护负担采用一种独特的多元主义框架，给予所有 3 个原则适当的地位。可以采用多步骤的过程将框架付诸实践。首先，确定需要保护的情况。其次，考虑人们是否知道或可以预期到他们的活动的后果，以及他们是否有合理的替代方案来采取他们的行动方式。第三，转向关于利益的事实；当无法找到保护挑战的罪魁祸首时，要问谁从保护行为中受益。在第二和第三阶段，还必须考虑支付能力。
