Caught between personal and collective values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making

Eeva Primmer; Mette Termansen; Yennie Bredin; Malgorzata Blicharska; Marina García-Llorente; Pam Berry; Tiina Jääskeläinen; Györgyi Bela; Veronika Fabok; Nicoleta Geamana; Paula A. Harrison; John R. Haslett; Georgia Lavinia Cosor; Anne H.K. Andersen

doi:10.1002/eet.1763

Caught between personal and collective values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making

Eeva Primmer^*, Mette Termansen, Yennie Bredin, Malgorzata Blicharska, Marina García-Llorente, Pam Berry, Tiina Jääskeläinen, Györgyi Bela, Veronika Fabok, Nicoleta Geamana, Paula A. Harrison, John R. Haslett, Georgia Lavinia Cosor, Anne H.K. Andersen

^*Corresponding author for this work

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value- and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision-making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision-making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.

Original language	English
Journal	Environmental Policy and Governance
Volume	27
Issue number	6
Pages (from-to)	588-604
Number of pages	17
ISSN	1756-932X
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1763
Publication status	Published - Nov 2017
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

biodiversity conservation
decision-making
dissonance
ecosystem services
policy
Q-methodology
value

Access to Document

10.1002/eet.1763

Cite this

Primmer, E., Termansen, M., Bredin, Y., Blicharska, M., García-Llorente, M., Berry, P., Jääskeläinen, T., Bela, G., Fabok, V., Geamana, N., Harrison, P. A., Haslett, J. R., Cosor, G. L., & Andersen, A. H. K. (2017). Caught between personal and collective values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 588-604. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1763

Primmer, E, Termansen, M, Bredin, Y, Blicharska, M, García-Llorente, M, Berry, P, Jääskeläinen, T, Bela, G, Fabok, V, Geamana, N, Harrison, PA, Haslett, JR, Cosor, GL & Andersen, AHK 2017, 'Caught between personal and collective values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making', Environmental Policy and Governance, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 588-604. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1763

@article{809161edbc4a4fafa684536932d1e783,

title = "Caught between personal and collective values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making",

abstract = "Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value- and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision-making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision-making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.",

keywords = "biodiversity conservation, decision-making, dissonance, ecosystem services, policy, Q-methodology, value",

author = "Eeva Primmer and Mette Termansen and Yennie Bredin and Malgorzata Blicharska and Marina Garc{\'i}a-Llorente and Pam Berry and Tiina J{\"a}{\"a}skel{\"a}inen and Gy{\"o}rgyi Bela and Veronika Fabok and Nicoleta Geamana and Harrison, {Paula A.} and Haslett, {John R.} and Cosor, {Georgia Lavinia} and Andersen, {Anne H.K.}",

year = "2017",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1002/eet.1763",

language = "English",

volume = "27",

pages = "588--604",

journal = "Environmental Policy and Governance",

issn = "1756-932X",

publisher = "JohnWiley & Sons Ltd",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Caught between personal and collective values

T2 - Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making

AU - Primmer, Eeva

AU - Termansen, Mette

AU - Bredin, Yennie

AU - Blicharska, Malgorzata

AU - García-Llorente, Marina

AU - Berry, Pam

AU - Jääskeläinen, Tiina

AU - Bela, Györgyi

AU - Fabok, Veronika

AU - Geamana, Nicoleta

AU - Harrison, Paula A.

AU - Haslett, John R.

AU - Cosor, Georgia Lavinia

AU - Andersen, Anne H.K.

PY - 2017/11

Y1 - 2017/11

N2 - Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value- and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision-making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision-making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.

AB - Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value- and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision-making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision-making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.

KW - biodiversity conservation

KW - decision-making

KW - dissonance

KW - ecosystem services

KW - policy

KW - Q-methodology

KW - value

U2 - 10.1002/eet.1763

DO - 10.1002/eet.1763

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85038234602

SN - 1756-932X

VL - 27

SP - 588

EP - 604

JO - Environmental Policy and Governance

JF - Environmental Policy and Governance

IS - 6

ER -

Caught between personal and collective values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this