Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals - Wiley Online Library

Contributed Paper

Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals CHRIS SANDBROOK,∗ IVAN R. SCALES,† BHASKAR VIRA,∗ AND WILLIAM M. ADAMS∗ ∗

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EN, United Kingdom †St. Catharine’s College, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RL, United Kingdom

Abstract: Debate on the values that underpin conservation science is rarely based on empirical analysis of the values conservation professionals actually hold. We used Q methodology to investigate the values held by international conservation professionals who attended the annual Student Conference in Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 2008 and 2009. The methodology offers a quantitative means of examining human subjectivity. It differs from standard opinion surveys in that individual respondents record the way they feel about statements relative to other statements, which forces them to focus their attention on the issues they believe are most important. The analysis extracts the diverse viewpoints of the respondents, and factor analysis is used to reduce the viewpoints to a smaller set of factors that reflect shared ways of thinking. The junior conservation professionals attending the conference did not share a unifying set of core values; rather, they held a complex series of ideas and a plurality of opinions about conservation and how it should be pursued. This diversity of values empirically challenges recent proposals for conservation professionals to unite behind a single philosophy. Attempts to forge an artificial consensus may be counterproductive to the overall goals conservation professionals are pursuing. Keywords: attitudes to conservation, conservation policy, conservation values, Q methodology, strategies for conservation science Pluralidad de Valores entre Profesionales de la Conservaci´ on

Resumen: El debate sobre los valores que sustentan a la ciencia de la conservación raramente se basa en el an´ alisis emp´ırico de los valores que tienen los profesionales de la conservaci´ on. Utilizamos la metodolog´ıa Q para investigar los valores sostenidos por profesionales internacionales de la conservaci´ on que asistieron a la Conferencia Anual de Estudiantes de Ciencia de la Conservaci´ on en la Universidad de Cambridge (R. U.) en 2008 y 2009. La metodolog´ıa ofrece medios cuantitativos para examinar la subjetividad humana. Difiere de las encuestas de opini´ on est´ andar debido a que los encuestados registran la manera en que sienten las afirmaciones en relaci´ on con otras afirmaciones, lo que los fuerza a que concentren su atenci´ on en los temas que consideran m´ as importantes. El an´ alisis extrae los diversos puntos de vista de los encuestados, y se utiliza an´ alisis de factores para reducir los puntos de vista a un conjunto m´ as peque˜ no de factores que reflejan formas de pensar compartidas. Los profesionales de la conservaci´ on m´ as j´ ovenes que asistieron a la conferencia no compartieron un conjunto unificador de valores centrales; m´ as bien, tuvieron una serie de ideas complejas y una pluralidad de opiniones sobre la conservaci´ on y la manera en que debe practicarse. Esta diversidad de valores emp´ıricamente desaf´ıa las propuestas recientes para que los profesionales de la conservaci´ on se unan detr´ as de una sola filosof´ıa. Los intentos para forjar un consenso artificial puede ser contraproducente para las metas globales que persiguen los profesionales de la conservaci´ on.

Palabras Clave: actitudes hacia la conservación, estrategias para la ciencia de la conservación, metodolog´ıa Q, pol´ıtica de conservaci´ on, valores de conservaci´ on

Address correspondence to B. Vira, email [email protected] Paper submitted February 23, 2010; revised manuscript accepted June 16, 2010.

285 Conservation Biology, Volume 25, No. 2, 285–294 C 2010 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01592.x

Value Plurality in Conservation

286

Introduction Conservation biology has been called a crisis science and a mission-driven discipline (Soulé 1985; Naess 2005). Both the mission, and its urgency, seem clear, and there has been a substantial increase in activities intended to address the rapid decline in the variety of life on Earth at all levels of biological organization (structure, composition, and function). Nevertheless, there are tensions within the field about the values that underpin the conservation mission (Takacs 1996), particularly concerning the nature and singularity of these values and the role of values when conservation professionals try to inform or influence policy (Chan 2008). Recently, the values held by conservation professionals themselves have been debated (Norton 2003; Robinson 2010). Conservation professionals often refer to both instrumental values (the usefulness of nature for humans) and noninstrumental or intrinsic values (Emerton 2001; McCauley 2006; McShane 2007), and there may be an element of opportunism when they do so. Thus, although some may privately base the positions they hold on intrinsic values, they may espouse use-value arguments in public, adapting arguments to the interests of their audience. Some call for conservation scientists to return to a conservation ethic derived from intrinsic values (Collar 2003; Ehrenfeld 2008; Child 2009). Child (2009) argues the need for a single “overarching ideal” to unify conservation. In reply, Fisher et al. (2009) propose a more pragmatic engagement with material values of nature in their focus on what they see as the “hard socioeconomic realities in real-world conservation problems.” The environmental philosophy of pragmatism (e.g., Light & Katz 1996; Norton 2003), with its acceptance of both intrinsic and instrumental values of nature (Minteer 2006), is the hallmark of adaptive management (Robinson 2010). Debate about the role of conservation professionals in shaping policy turns in part on the tension between the passion of a mission-driven discipline of scientific advocates (Jepson & Canney 2003; Meine et al. 2005) and the policy leverage derived from the presumed impartiality of evidence-based science (Sutherland et al. 2004). There have been calls for scientists to play a stronger advocacy role (Maguire 1996; Shrader-Frechette 1996; Noss 2006) in public policy and in the process to make the values they hold more explicit (e.g., Barry & Oelschlaeger 1996; Maguire 1996; Odenbaugh 2003). Others argue that conservation science should focus on producing scientific knowledge and avoid getting involved in advocacy and policy decisions (Murphy 1990; McCoy 1996). Tensions over the practice of science and the role of ethics, morals, and values in conservation science are clearly and vigorously represented in the literature. Nevertheless, most papers are based on philosophical or principled arguments or on personal experience. Relatively few studies have investigated such tensions empirically.

Conservation Biology Volume 25, No. 2, 2011

Those that do have typically investigated particular issues in conservation, often in specific localities, such as carnivore conservation and human–wildlife conflict (Mattson et al. 2006), sustainable forestry (Swedeen 2006), and management of protected areas (Malan 2008) and watersheds (Webler et al. 2003). We undertook a less context-specific empirical analysis of the values held by conservation professionals. A number of studies of values in conservation of biological diversity have used Q methodology, an approach designed for research into human subjectivity (Dryzek & Berejikian 1993; Addams 2000). We applied the method to the values held by conservation professionals outside the context of particular local issues. We explored the full range of conservation issues, from the practical to the philosophical, embedded in the current debate over the wider purpose and role of conservation activities. Without real evidence on what conservation professionals think, the debate over what conservation science is or should be is reduced to simplistic binary positions, such as those that contrast anthropocentric versus biocentric values and use or sustainable use versus nonuse or strict preservationist perspectives. Such discussions leave little room for a more complex set of ethical positions that could potentially offer opportunities for less emotional and polarized discussions over proposed conservation actions. We used Q methodology to assess whether a group of junior conservation professionals share a set of core conservation values and the extent of disagreement over these values within this community. The group was composed of participants in the 2008 and 2009 Student Conference on Conservation Science (hereafter conference). The conference is held annually at the University of Cambridge. We sought to understand how and why these participants believe biodiversity should be conserved and in particular to assess the associated values they hold.

Methods Q Methodology Understanding people’s opinions about a particular issue is difficult. Attempts have been made to understand conservation attitudes through either quantitative methods with large numbers of respondents, such as attitudes surveys (Winter et al. 2005), or through qualitative methods that focus on an analysis of key discourses in the field (Nelson 2007). Both approaches have caveats, the former because it can fail to capture the complexities inherent in the way people think and the viewpoints of the individual (Brown 1996), and the latter because the number of respondents is typically small. Use of Q methodology provides a systematic and rigorous way to examine human subjectivity (Brown 1996). The method originated in

Sandbrook et al.

psychology (Stephenson 1953), but has been increasingly used by social scientists to investigate the way people think about issues such as environmental policy and management (e.g., Barry & Proops 1999; Addams & Proops 2000; Woolley & McGinnis 2000). Its relevance to studies of rural economies and societies is noted by Previte et al. (2007). In Q methodology subjectivity is defined as a person’s point of view on any matter of social or personal importance. These subjective viewpoints are considered communicable, which makes them amenable to objective analysis (McKeown & Thomas 1988). A form of factor analysis is used to carry out the objective analysis, which typically identifies shared viewpoints about a range of statements that address a person’s thinking on a particular issue. Some Q studies also use other stimuli (such as images), particularly with young children, to trigger respondent reactions (Taylor et al. 1994). The use of Q methodology differs from standard opinion surveys in that individual respondents record the way they feel about each statement relative to other statements, rather than providing an absolute level of agreement with each statement. This forces respondents to focus their attention on the issues that are most important to their viewpoint. By comparing patterns of opinion across the respondent group, the method systematically identifies groups of individuals with common attitudes. Creating these clusters of opinions may help identify shared viewpoints and may reveal underlying differences in social perspectives. Data Collection In Q methodology an individual respondent is presented with a deliberately sampled set of stimuli, called a Q sample, and asked to rank order these statements according to a specific instruction, for example according to those she or he most agrees or disagrees with. This set of ranked statements constitutes the Q sort. From the entire set of Q sorts, each conducted by a different respondent, factor analysis is used to reduce the diverse viewpoints to a smaller set of factors that reflect shared ways of thinking. Researchers then interpret the factors to determine the social perspectives of the respondents. The Q sample is derived from a wider set of opinions that people may hold about an issue, often called a concourse (Brown 1980; McKeown & Thomas 1988; Addams 2000). The goal is to generate a comprehensive set of statements that reflect the diversity of opinions that are held about the subject. The sources for these statements may be varied and include interviews, reviews of popular and academic literature, and participant observation. With a set of participants identified a priori, naturalistic sources (derived from semistructured interviews with participants) have been used to generate the concourse (e.g., Addams 2002). Some researchers use a wider variety

287

of review material from a range of sources to construct the initial set of statements (Brown 1993; Barry & Proops 1999). We based our concourse on our collective engagement with professional networks, the literature, and correspondence on listservs, all of which reflected our cumulative experience with conservation research and policy making in the United Kingdom, Africa, and South Asia. Each author produced a list of possible statements, which we merged to create an initial list of 76 statements. In a series of meetings, we then refined this set of statements with respect to completeness (given our own knowledge about debates within the field) and possible sources of ambiguity. This procedure of iterative dialogue among the authors allowed us to address possible omissions due to researcher bias and helped us ensure the statements were comprehensible. To reduce the concourse to a final set of sample statements to present to participants, we used a structured approach. We recognized four separate dimensions within which opinions on conservation had been expressed within the surveyed concourse and within the literature on conservation: (1) values (Why people care?), (2) priorities (How should conservation priorities be set?), (3) geographic strategies (Where should conservation take place?), and (4) actions (How should conservation be done?). In all statements, we used the term biodiversity to refer to the object of conservation concern. We recognize the complexity of this term (Takacs 1996), but believe it is widely used among conservation professionals (so was familiar to our respondents) and that it is less open to complexities of interpretation than alternatives such as nature or wildlife. The final Q sample contained 32 statements, eight from each category (Table 1). We selected each statement to capture a particular issue that might divide opinion within the professional conservation community, and we tried to avoid multiple statements on the same issue. We pilot tested the statements with a group of colleagues in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge (academic staff, postdoctoral researchers, doctoral and master’s students) and modified our instructions and the wording of some statements to improve clarity. Participants The respondents, participants at the 2008 and 2009 Student Conferences on Conservation Science, represent a cohort of junior conservation professionals who may have been affected by recent teachings and debates in conservation science. This conference attracts about 170 participants each year, self-defined as interested in and professionally engaged in conservation science. Most delegates are postgraduate students. In 2008 and 2009 there were 200 participants from 60 countries and 210 participants from 69 countries, respectively.



288

Table 1. List of Q statements, score and rank associated with each factora , and Eigenvalues in an analysis of values held by conservation professionals.b Factor 1 Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

score

All species have a right to exist. The value of biodiversity does not depend on its usefulness to people. Humans have a moral duty to conserve biodiversity. Conservation should prevent the human-caused extinction of species. Biodiversity should be conserved because of potential future values. Biodiversity should be conserved because of the beauty of nature. Biodiversity should be conserved because of its cultural and spiritual value. Biodiversity should be conserved because it sustains ecosystem function. Biodiversity should be conserved to ensure human survival. Science should be used to determine and not simply inform policy and management decisions affecting biodiversity. Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places. Conservation priorities should be set by the people most affected by them. To be effective, conservation planning must be done locally. The best way to understand what works in conservation is through the systematic comparative analysis of multiple cases or experiments. The best way to understand what works in conservation is the in-depth study of individual cases. Effective conservation planning must be based on geographic information science. Conservation priorities should reflect the need to protect globally important species and ecosystems. Conservation planning should concentrate on key priorities, instead of spreading effort across all locations. Conservation action should be focused on areas where they can be most cost-effective. Conservation effort should be focused on creating protected areas of high biological diversity. There should be conservation areas free from any human influence. Conservation action is needed in areas extensively modified by human activity. Conservation success demands the decarbonization of the global economy. Conservation success demands significant changes in human population growth. Conservation success demands dramatic changes in life-styles of the world’s rich. Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation. People should be made to change their behavior to conserve species and ecosystems. People should be offered incentives to change their behavior to conserve species and ecosystems. Long-term residents should not be displaced from protected areas. Conservation must do no harm to human communities. It is not the job of conservation to address poverty alleviation. Successful conservation demands the strict enforcement of regulations and laws. Eigenvalues

a A factor represents a complex viewpoint. b Values that define statements for each factor


2 rank

score

3 rank

4

score

rank

score

rank

1.09 1.84∗

1 2∗

1.31 0.05∗

1 0∗

2.42∗ −0.65∗

2∗ −1∗

−0.68∗ −1.57∗

−1∗ −2∗

1.16 1.07

1 1

0.66∗ 1.42∗

0∗ 2∗

1.40 0.90

2 1

−0.52∗ 0.17∗

0∗ 0∗

−1.32∗ −0.38 −0.75

−1∗ 0 −1

−0.25 −0.18 0.09

0 0 0

0.99∗ −0.16 −0.06

1∗ 0 0

−0.12 −1.05∗ −0.90

0 −1∗ 1

0.24∗

0∗

1.04

1

2.30∗

2∗

1.23

0

−2.32∗ 0.52

−2∗ 0

−0.91∗ −1.29∗

−1∗ −1∗

0.94∗ −0.09∗

1∗ 0∗

−0.05∗ 0.47

0∗ 1

1.00∗

1∗

2.36∗

2∗

0.05∗

0∗

1.84∗

2∗

0.15

0

−0.91

−1

−0.10

0

−0.14 −0.26

0 0

−1.00∗

−1∗

−0.89

−1

−0.15 −0.37

0 0

0.96∗ −0.77∗

1∗ −1∗

−0.18 −0.16

0 0

−0.30

0

−0.10

0

−0.56

−1

−1.32

−2

−1.43

−2

−0.37∗

0∗

−0.95∗

−1∗

0.09

0

−0.16

0

0.89∗

1∗

0.41

1

−0.42

−1

−1.30∗

−1∗

−0.40

−1

−0.58

0

−0.03∗

0∗

−1.02∗

−1∗

−1.47∗

−2∗

−0.38

0

−1.39∗

−2∗

0.52∗

1∗

−0.36

0

0.74 −0.41

1 −1

−1.18 −0.07

−1 0

0.66 −0.28

1 0

0.18 −0.71

0 −1

0.27

0

−0.50∗

0∗

0.00

0

0.31

0

1.88∗

2∗

0.19

0

0.17

0

2.28∗

2∗

0.87∗

1∗

1.44∗

2∗

−0.91∗

−1∗

1.93∗

2∗

−1.25∗

−1∗

0.80∗

1∗

−1.77∗

−2∗

−0.65∗

−1∗

1.26

2

0.07

0

0.44

1

1.41

1

0.02

0

0.80∗

1∗

−0.25

0

1.21∗

1∗

−0.35 −1.50 −0.68∗ 0.76

0 −2 −1∗ 1

0.91∗ 0.69∗ −1.43 −0.96∗

1∗ 1∗ −2 −1∗

−0.72 −1.30 −1.74 0.31∗

−1 −1 −2 0∗

16.1948

5.7368

are marked with an asterisk. All scores are significant at p = 0.5.

4.8329

0.42∗

−0.21 −1.39 −1.37 0.77 3.9246

1∗

0 −2 −2 1

Sandbrook et al.

We selected the final set of respondents through a nonrandom internet-based self-selection process. Logan (2007) used a similar online Q methodology survey with self-selecting respondents in a study of attitudes about health literacy. In March–April 2009, participants from the 2008 to 2009 conferences were invited to participate in the study. We contacted participants from the 2008 conference by email, using a list provided by the conference organizing committee. We announced the survey in a plenary session at the 2009 conference, and subsequently contacted the 2009 participants by email. The statements were converted to a web-based interface with Web-Q (http://www.lrzmuenchen.de/˜schmolck/qmethod/webq/). The html code generated by Web-Q randomizes the list of statements and allows respondents to create a “Q sort” of the statements according to strength of feeling. The survey was launched for the target respondents and left open between 13 March and 27 April 2009. The survey can be viewed at http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ bv101/cons01wq.htm. After completing the ranking exercise the Web-Q code generated an email requesting respondents to submit their Q sort to a dedicated email account. Respondents were also asked to provide in the email their age, gender, nationality, whether they were registered students, and their organizational affiliation (university, governmental organization, nonprofit organization, other). Respondents were asked to place the 32 statements into five categories, each associated with an integer value, from agree the least (−2) to agree the most (+2). Because our survey was conducted online, we kept the range of responses narrow to make it easier for respondents to undertake the exercise without having to distinguish between a wider scale of agreement or disagreement with the statements. In face-to-face implementations of Q methodology, a wider range of responses can be recorded because it is possible for the researcher to verbally explain differences between the integer values associated with each response category. We also asked respondents to allocate three statements to each of the + 2 and −2 categories, seven to each of the +1 and −1 categories, and 12 to the 0 category. This forced normal distribution of statements is critical to the method because respondents must weigh their feelings about each statement relative to other statements, rather than independently, thereby revealing the issues about which they feel most strongly. The midpoint of the distribution is not necessarily considered a point of neutrality on the subject in question because it is not always possible to design the Q sample so that all respondents place the same number of statements on either side of their point of neutrality (Webler et al. 2009:19–21). Some respondents may agree or disagree with all statements, yet vary in their relative strength of feeling across statements.

289

Data Analyses We removed responses that had not been completed correctly and responses from people who did not participate in the SCCS conference in 2008 or 2009. We used SPSS (version 15.0) to summarize the characteristics of the sample. We carried out our analysis of the data in PQMethod, a software tool for Q-methodology research that is available for free (http://www.lrzmuenchen.de/˜schmolck/qmethod/downpqx.htm). The Q analysis had three stages: correlation, factor analysis, and computation of factor scores. First, each Q sort was correlated with all other Q sorts. Second, we analyzed factors in the correlation matrix (i.e., extracted factors with either principal components analysis or the centroid method). Eigenvalues and percent variation explained for each factor were calculated with PQMethod. Each factor represented a distinct pattern of responses for a particular viewpoint. Third, a number of factors were rotated, and a “model” Q sort for each factor was generated from a weighted average of the Q sorts that defined each factor. The model Q sort listed all statements that were significant in defining the factor and the score of the statements (from −2 to +2). This allowed comparison and interpretation of each factor. The PQMethod output also identified defining, individual Q sorts that loaded significantly (either positively or negatively) onto each factor. The number of factors to rotate and analyze in Q methodology is selected by the researcher. Several statistical and theoretical criteria can be used to determine the significance of a factor, which lends the process an element of subjectivity (Brown 1980, 1993; Addams 2000). In our case, the amount of variation explained leveled off after four factors; thus, we selected a 4-factor analytical model. We used a Varimax rotation implemented within PQMethod to maximize variance explained by each of the selected factors while maintaining orthogonal axes. The program PQMethod constructs model factors and generates defining statements for each factor. To confirm that the final selection of four factors yielded groups of viewpoints that were meaningful, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of results with 3, 4, 5, and 6 factors. The sensitivity analysis included an examination of Eigenvalues and the number of defining sorts and statements in each factor and our personal judgment of the meaning of each factor and the extent to which the factors were associated with recognizable positions in the conservation debate. The Eigenvalues and the percentage of explained variation began to level off at four factors (Table 1), which suggests that including more than four factors would capture little further variation in viewpoints about conservation. With four rotated factors, each factor had at least nine defining Q sorts, at least 10 defining statements, and at least one statement drawn from each of the statement categories. Within the



290

4-factor rotation, four statements were not defining for any factor (statements 7, 12, 22, 27; Table 1), but all other statements were associated with at least one factor. We therefore used the 4-factor rotation to interpret results because each factor could be well defined, represented a reasonably widely held viewpoint, and included statements from each of the four dimensions that we used to organize the survey responses. The research team discussed and interpreted the results of the Q analysis. To interpret the model Q sort for each factor, it is necessary to construct meaningful perspectives from a series of disparate statements. We discussed each set of statements and what it might collectively represent in terms of an identifiable position within the conservation debate. We did not have access to the additional qualitative perspectives from respondents that might have been available had we conducted the Q survey in person.

Results Sixty-four respondents completed the survey (17% of those invited). Of these 27 were delegates at the 2008 conference, and 37 participated in the 2009 conference. This is a reasonably large set of respondents for a Q study, which typically uses a smaller set of respondents than more traditional survey methods. The mean age of our respondents was 28.4 years. Seventy percent of respondents were female and 66% were students. Sixtyfour percent stated their home continent was Europe, and over 23% were from Asia, South America, and Africa combined. We did not have access to comparable data on the characteristics of the population from which our sample was drawn, so it was not possible to test for selection bias. We based our interpretation of the factors on our understanding of current debates about conservation. Each factor represents a complex position, but our interpretation suggested that these positions do correspond to recognizably different viewpoints in these debates.

Factor 1 (Table 2) reflected the view that the value of biodiversity does not depend on its current usefulness to humans (statement 2), potential future values to humans (5), or its importance to human survival (9). Therefore, the view represented in this factor was that the value of biodiversity is biocentric. In terms of strategies and actions for conservation, the factor focused on global issues, such as changing human population growth rate (24) and to a lesser extent changing the consumption levels of the wealthy (25). More specific approaches were not present or were rejected (e.g., trade in wild species [26]). At the local level the factor did not express that conservation has a role in addressing poverty alleviation (31) and considered it important to understand how people and nature interact in particular places (11), which suggests respondents considered that livelihoods of the poor as well as the rich are linked to biodiversity conservation. Because the focus of this factor was human population size and resource consumption, respondents appeared to be influenced by the concept of carrying capacity. Factor 2 (Table 3) reflected a preservationist viewpoint, that conservation should prevent the humancaused extinction of species (statement 4). Nevertheless, the views in this factor emphasized social issues in the practice of conservation, particularly understanding how people and nature interact in places (11) and to a lesser extent ensuring that conservation does no harm to human communities (30) and does not displace long-term residents (29). This emphasis and the fact that sciencedriven approaches to priority setting were rejected (14, 10), suggests that this factor represents the viewpoint that conservation is mainly a political rather than a scientific endeavor. In terms of practical strategies, those that adhered to this factor do not believe conservation should focus on protected areas (20), involve strict law enforcement (32), or keep areas free from human influence (21). Rather, adherents to this factor strongly supported changes in consumption by the rich (25), which are actions far removed from the local level of protected areas. At the same time, the factor does not suggest the sole purpose of conservation is human survival (9). The

Table 2. Statements that comprise factor 1 in Q analysis of values held by conservation professionals. No.

Statement

24 2 11 25 8 19 31 26 5 9

Conservation success demands significant changes in human population growth. The value of biodiversity does not depend on its usefulness to people. Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places. Conservation success demands dramatic changes in life-styles of the world’s rich. Biodiversity should be conserved because it sustains ecosystem function. Conservation action should be focused on areas where they can be most cost-effective. It is not the job of conservation to address poverty alleviation. Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation. Biodiversity should be conserved because of potential future values. Biodiversity should be conserved to ensure human survival.


Rank 2 2 1 1 0 0 −1 −1 −1 −2

Sandbrook et al.

291

Table 3. Statements that comprise factor 2 in Q analysis of values held by conservation professionals. No. 11 25 4 13 29 26 28 30 3 2 23 14 9 32 19 21 10 18 20

Statement

Rank

Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places. Conservation success demands dramatic changes in life-styles of the world’s rich. Conservation should prevent the human-caused extinction of species. To be effective, conservation planning must be done locally. Long-term residents should not be displaced from protected areas. Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation. People should be offered incentives to change their behavior to conserve species and ecosystems. Conservation must do no harm to human communities. Humans have a moral duty to conserve biodiversity. The value of biodiversity does not depend on its usefulness to people. Conservation success demands the decarbonization of the global economy. The best way to understand what works in conservation is through the systematic comparative analysis of multiple cases or experiments. Biodiversity should be conserved to ensure human survival. Successful conservation demands the strict enforcement of regulations and laws. Conservation action should be focused on areas where they can be most cost-effective. There should be conservation areas free from any human influence. Science should be used to determine and not simply inform policy and management decisions affecting biodiversity. Conservation planning should concentrate on key priorities, instead of spreading effort across all locations. Conservation effort should be focused on creating protected areas of high biological diversity.

factor also reflects a deep engagement in pragmatic and economic approaches to conservation action. Thus, the viewpoint expressed by this factor was that conservation planning must be local (13), can involve trade-based strategies (26), and can use incentives (28). This factor also showed there was an interest in holistic solutions, that conservation should not be confined to key priorities or areas (18) and conservation actions should not be focused only where they are most cost-effective (19). Factor 3 (Table 4) reflected a viewpoint that emphasized the diverse values of biodiversity, particularly the right of all species to exist (1) and the role of species in sustaining ecosystem functions (8). Other values were recognized to a lesser extent, including future values (5) and usefulness of biodiversity to people (9, 2). Less tangible aesthetic and cultural values of nature were not included. The notions that trade in wild species can be

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −2

a tool for conservation (26) and that conservation action should prioritize cost-effectiveness (19) were strongly rejected. Instead, priority was given to conservation of species and ecosystems (17), and the belief was that they should be conserved through implementation of protected areas (20). Little attention was given to the context and complexities of the practice of conservation, and there was a sense of disconnection between people and their environment at a variety of spatial scales, as evidenced by the focus on protected areas, little emphasis (relative to the other discourses) on understanding how people and nature interact (11), and rejection of any connection between conservation and consumption by the rich (25). Overall, this factor emphasized reasons biodiversity should be conserved, but gave little attention to mechanisms for achieving this goal.

Table 4. Statements that comprise factor 3 in Q analysis of values held by conservation professionals. No.

Statement

Rank

1 8 5 9 17 20 32 11 10 16 2 25 19 26

All species have a right to exist. Biodiversity should be conserved because it sustains ecosystem function. Biodiversity should be conserved because of potential future values. Biodiversity should be conserved to ensure human survival. Conservation priorities should reflect the need to protect globally important species and ecosystems. Conservation effort should be focused on creating protected areas of high biological diversity. Successful conservation demands the strict enforcement of regulations and laws. Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places. Science should be used to determine and not simply inform policy and management decisions affecting biodiversity. Effective conservation planning must be based on geographic information science. The value of biodiversity does not depend on its usefulness to people. Conservation success demands dramatic changes in life-styles of the world’s rich. Conservation action should be focused on areas where they can be most cost-effective. Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation.

2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 −1 −1 −2 −2



292 Table 5. Statements that comprise factor 4 in Q analysis of values held by conservation professionals. No.

Statement

24 25 11 28 19 21 4 9 3 26 1 16 15 6 2

Conservation success demands significant changes in human population growth. Conservation success demands dramatic changes in life-styles of the world’s rich. Conservation planning needs to understand how people and nature interact in particular places. People should be offered incentives to change their behavior to conserve species and ecosystems. Conservation action should be focused on areas where they can be most cost-effective. There should be conservation areas free from any human influence. Conservation should prevent the human-caused extinction of species. Biodiversity should be conserved to ensure human survival. Humans have a moral duty to conserve biodiversity. Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation. All species have a right to exist. Effective conservation planning must be based on geographic information science. The best way to understand what works in conservation is the in-depth study of individual cases. Biodiversity should be conserved because of the beauty of nature. The value of biodiversity does not depend on its usefulness to people.

Factor 4 (Table 5) reflected a view that biodiversity is useful to people (2), rejecting notions that biological diversity should be conserved for its beauty (6) and that all species have a right to exist (1). It emphasized the importance of connections between people and the environment, arguing that conservation success requires substantial changes in both human population growth (24) and consumption by the rich (25). Conservation planning was seen to require detailed place-specific knowledge of human–environment interactions (11) and not less-grounded patterns generated through tools such as GIS (16); however, this perspective also considered case study research unimportant (15). The position expressed in this factor on economic tools was cautious: incentives are needed (28) and cost-effectiveness is important (19), but trade in wild species and products was not considered a useful tool for biodiversity conservation (26).

Discussion The four factors revealed by the Q-method analysis suggest that among the people sampled, there were strongly divergent ways of thinking about conservation. Although respondents were mostly postgraduate students from Europe in their late 20s, the sample included several individuals from every other continent, and over one-quarter of the sampled individuals were not currently students. Respondents were overwhelmingly female, which we believe reflects quite closely the gender ratio of participants at the SCCS, although these data were not available for comparison. We acknowledge that the distinct characteristics of the viewpoints we identified are not necessarily representative of positions held by those outside our sample. There is inevitably some subjectivity associated with the way in which results from Q methodology are interpreted. Indeed, we encourage readers to draw their own interpre-


Rank 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −2

tations from the model Q-sorts (Table 1). Our four factors, however, are not meant to represent all viewpoints on biodiversity conservation; this was not the purpose of our exercise. Our results demonstrate that the junior conservation professionals in this sample held widely divergent views on conservation values, priorities, strategies, and actions. This is illustrated by the fact that eight statements were ranked positively by one factor, but negatively by another (statements 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, 20, 25, and 26). Furthermore, although 20 of the 64 respondents were aligned with the first factor, each of the other factors was associated with a significant number of respondents (13 for factor 2, 9 for factor 3, and 12 for factor 4). This suggests that each factor represented a commonly held view and was not the dissonant perspective of a minority. The analysis also yielded no consensus statements that were held in common across our four factors, which confirmed the lack of convergence of opinions in this group. Our results suggest there was no dominant viewpoint, goals, methods, or mission within conservation science to which all respondents adhered. This finding is consistent with the observations of Norton (1991) and Robinson (2010) on the plurality of values in environmentalism. That conservation professionals hold contrasting views may appear obvious, but our results provide an empirical challenge to the portrayal of conservation as a monolithic activity, driven by a convergent set of Western values, implicitly denying the possibility of differences in viewpoints about conservation at many spatial and temporal scales (e.g., Chapin 2004). The monolithic conception of conservation is based on an assumption that conservation professionals share a core set of values and goals, regardless of the social and economic contexts in which they are embedded and the experiences that have shaped their conservation interests. In reality, most conservation professionals draw on a range of values, from the intrinsic values of species to the use values of nature to humans. We consider it likely that such diverse views exist across

Sandbrook et al.

a wide range of individuals and organizations involved in conservation, as suggested by previous Q methodology studies into more specific aspects of conservation practice (e.g., Mattson et al. 2006; Malan 2008; Rutherford et al. 2009). The existence of widely divergent views among conservation professionals may mean that it is inappropriate to call for them to unite behind a single “resounding philosophy” (Child 2009). Values are central to conservation, as many have pointed out (e.g., Jepson & Canney 2003; Noss 2007; Chan 2008), and conservation science is inherently value laden (Odenbaugh 2003). Different values (e.g., instrumental and noninstrumental rationales for conservation) may underpin shared policy strategies in one set of circumstances, but when circumstances change, these values may lead conservation professionals to adopt different strategies (Owens 2008). Child (2009) argues that a “patchwork approach to conservation synergizes its ineffectiveness.” We disagree. We believe conservation science and practice should not try to create a consensus under which conservation professionals can unite and instead acknowledge the diversity of opinions in the field. By acknowledging different viewpoints, we believe conservation actors can build more honest and ultimately effective relationships with each other and the wider public.

Acknowledgments We thank the organizers of the Student Conference on Conservation Science for their support with this project, especially R. Trevelyan, S. Green, A. Balmford, and R. Green. M. Walpole and members of the Department of Geography Political Ecology Group helped refine the list of statements and pilot the survey. C.S. was supported by an Economic and Social Research Council postdoctoral research fellowship, grant number PTA-026–27-1787. We thank reviewers and the editors for their comments. Literature Cited Addams, H. 2000. Q-methodology. Pages 14–40 in H. Addams and J. Proops, editors. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q-methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom. Addams, H. 2002. Application of Q methodology to the assessment of attitudes to the environment. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Keele, Keele, United Kingdom. Addams, H. and J. Proops, editors. 2000. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom. Barry, D., and M. Oelschlaeger. 1996. A science for survival. Conservation Biology. 10:905–911. Barry, J., and J. Proops. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28:337–345. Brown, S. R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Brown, S. R. 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16:91–138.

293

Brown, S. R. 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6:561–567. Chan, K. M. A. 2008. Value and advocacy in conservation biology: crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conservation Biology 22:1–3. Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch 17: 17–32. Child, M. F. 2009. The Thoreau ideal as a unifying thread in the conservation movement. Conservation Biology 23:241–243. Collar, N. J. 2003. Beyond value: biodiversity and the freedom of the mind. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:265–269. Dryzek, J. S., and J. Berejikian. 1993. Reconstructive democratic theory. American Political Science Review 87:48–60. Ehrenfeld, D. 2008. Neoliberalization of conservation. Conservation Biology 22:1091–1092. Emerton, L. 2001. The nature of benefits and the benefits of nature: why wildlife conservation has not economically benefited communities in Africa. Pages 208–226 in D. Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey, Oxford, United Kingdom. Fisher, B., K. Bolt, R. B. Bradbury, T. A. Gardner, J. M. H. Green, D. G. Hole, and R. Naidoo. 2009. Two cultures of conservation. Conservation Biology 23:1069–1071. Jepson, P., and S. Canney. 2003. Values-led conservation. Global Ecology and Biodiversity 12:271–274. Light, A. and E. Katz, editors. 1996. Environmental pragmatism. Routledge, London. Logan, R. A. 2007. Clinical, classroom or personal education: attitudes about health literacy. Journal of the Medical Library Association 95:127–137. Maguire, L. A. 1996. Making the role of values in conservation explicit: values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10:914– 916. Malan, L. C. 2008. Beyond the debate: exploring the underlying values and assumptions of biodiversity conservation in protected areas. PhD dissertation. Antioch University, Keene, New Hampshire. Mattson, D. J., K. L. Byrd, M. B. Rutherford, S. R. Brown, and W. Clark. 2006. Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives. Environmental Science and Policy 9:392–405. McCauley, D. J. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27–28. McCoy, E. D. 1996. Advocacy as part of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10:919–920. McKeown, B. F. and D. B. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California. McShane, K. 2007. Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: why should we care? Environmental Values 16:169–185. Meine, C., M. Soulé, and R. F. Noss. 2005. ‘‘A mission-driven discipline’’: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:631–651. Minteer, B. A. 2006. The landscape of reform: civic pragmatism and environmental thought in America. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Murphy, D. D. 1990. Conservation biology and the scientific method. Conservation Biology 4:203–204. Naess, A. 2005. Deep ecology and conservation biology. Pages 325–328 in H. Glasser and A. Drengson, editors. The selected works of Arne Naess: deep ecology of wisdom. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Nelson, R. H. 2007. The gospel according to conservation biology. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 27:10–16. Norton, B. G. 1991. Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford University Press, London. Norton, B. G. 2003. Searching for sustainability: interdisciplinary essays in the philosophy of conservation biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Noss, R. F. 2007. Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 21:18–20.


294 Odenbaugh, J. 2003. Values, advocacy and conservation biology. Environmental Values 12:55–69. Owens, S. E. 2008. Why conserve marine environments? Environmental Conservation 35:1–4. Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47: 135–147. Robinson, J. G. 2010. Ethical pluralism, pragmatism and sustainability in conservation practice. Biological Conservation DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.017. Rutherford, M. B., M. L. Gibeau, S. G. Clark, and E. C. Chamberlain. 2009. Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada. Policy Sciences 42:163–187. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1996. Throwing out the bathwater of positivism, keeping the baby of objectivity: relativism and advocacy in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10:912–914. Soulé, M. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727–734. Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sutherland, W. J., A. S. Pullin, P. M. Dolman, and T. M. Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:305–308.


Value Plurality in Conservation Swedeen, P. 2006. Post-normal science in practice: a Q-study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological Economics 57:190–208. Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Taylor, P., D. J. Delprato, and J. R. Knapp. 1994. Q-methodology in the study of child phenomenology. The Psychological Record 44:171–183. Webler, T., S. Tuler, I. Shockey, P. Stern, and R. Beattie. 2003. Participation by local government officials in watershed planning. Society and Natural Resources 16:105–121. Webler, T., S. Danielson and S. Tuler. 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield Massachusetts. Available from http://www.serius.org/pubs/Qprimer.pdf (accessed June 2010). Winter, S. J., K. J. Esler, and M. Kidd. 2005. An index to measure the conservation attitudes of landowners towards Overberg Coastal Renosterveld, a critically endangered vegetation type in the Cape Floral Kingdom, South Africa. Biological Conservation 126:383–394. Woolley, J. T., and M. V. McGinnis. 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources 13:339–357.