Centre for Compassionate Conservation, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2019 Oct;33(5):1002-1013. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13298. Epub 2019 Mar 26.
Questions around how to conserve nature are increasingly leading to dissonance in conservation planning and action. While science can assist in unraveling the nature of conservation challenges, conservation responses rely heavily on normative positions and constructs to order actions, aid interpretations, and provide motivation. However, problems can arise when norms are mistaken for science or when they stymy scientific rigor. To highlight these potential pitfalls, we used the ethics-based tool of argument analysis to assess a controversial conservation intervention, the Pelorus Island Goat Control Program. The program proponents' argument for restorative justice was unsound because it relied on weak logical construction overly entrenched in normative assumptions. Overreliance on normative constructs, particularly the invocation of tragedy, creates a sense of urgency that can subvert scientific and ethical integrity, obscure values and assumptions, and increase the propensity for flawed logic. This example demonstrates how the same constructs that drive biodiversity conservation can also drive poor decision making, spur public backlash, and justify poor animal welfare outcomes. To provide clarity, a decision-making flowchart we devised demonstrates how values, norms, and ethics influence one another. We recommend practitioners follow 3 key points to improve decision making: be aware of values, as well as normative constructs and ethical theories that those values inform; be mindful of overreliance on either normative constructs or ethics when deciding action is justified; and be logically sound and transparent when building justifications. We also recommend 5 key attributes that practitioners should be attentive to when making conservation decisions: clarity, transparency, scientific integrity, adaptiveness, and compassion. Greater attention to the role of norms in decision making will improve conservation outcomes and garner greater public support for actions.
关于如何保护自然的问题越来越导致保护规划和行动的不一致。虽然科学可以帮助揭示保护挑战的本质，但保护反应严重依赖于规范立场和结构来组织行动、辅助解释和提供动力。然而，当规范被误认为是科学，或者当规范阻碍科学严谨性时，就会出现问题。为了突出这些潜在的陷阱，我们使用基于伦理的论证分析工具来评估有争议的保护干预措施——佩洛鲁斯岛山羊控制计划。该计划的支持者提出的恢复性司法论点是站不住脚的，因为它依赖于逻辑结构薄弱，过于依赖规范假设。过度依赖规范结构，特别是援引悲剧，会产生一种紧迫感，这种紧迫感可能会破坏科学和伦理的完整性，掩盖价值观和假设，并增加逻辑缺陷的倾向。这个例子表明，推动生物多样性保护的相同结构也可能导致决策失误、引发公众反弹，并为不良动物福利结果辩护。为了提供清晰性，我们设计了一个决策流程图，展示了价值观、规范和伦理如何相互影响。我们建议从业者遵循 3 个关键点来改善决策：意识到价值观，以及规范结构和价值观所依据的伦理理论；在决定行动是否合理时，要注意不要过度依赖规范结构或伦理；在构建理由时要具有逻辑性和透明度。我们还建议从业者在做出保护决策时应注意 5 个关键属性：清晰性、透明度、科学完整性、适应性和同情心。更多地关注规范在决策中的作用将改善保护成果，并为行动赢得更多公众支持。
