Naturalness and principle pluralism in conservation

Area of Science:

• Conservation Biology
• Environmental Ethics
• Ecosystem Management

Background:

• The concept of naturalness in biodiversity conservation is ambiguous, leading to conflicting approaches.
• Two main viewpoints exist: naturalness defined by ecosystem composition (integrity) versus freedom from human influence (autonomy).
• Global changes and the concept of ecosystem resilience further complicate conservation strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address the polysemic nature of naturalness in conservation.
• To reconcile the conflicting approaches of integrity and autonomy in ecosystem management.
• To integrate resilience as a valid principle in conservation debates.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of conservation principles.
• Examination of conflicting viewpoints on ecosystem naturalness.
• Development of a principle pluralism framework for conservation.

Main Results:

• Autonomy, integrity, and resilience are identified as morally valid principles in conservation.
• Full naturalness is recognized as an unattainable ideal.
• Restoration and rewilding are framed as contrary-to-duty obligations.

Conclusions:

• Principle pluralism offers a framework to accommodate integrity, resilience, and autonomy in a case-specific manner.
• Naturalness, as an overarching value, can unify diverse conservation principles.
• A nuanced, case-by-case approach is essential for effective biodiversity conservation decision-making.