Work

Conservation for nature and wildlife’s sake: the effects of (non-)anthropocentric ethical justifications on policy acceptability

Year: 2024

Type: article

Abstract: We conduct a survey experiment testing the causal link between ethical justifications and acceptability towards two environmental policies: conservation area expansion and wildlife infrastructure. In a 2 × 3 experiment with American participants ( n = 1604), we test two ethical justifications – anthropocentric justification (nature as instrumentally valuable) and a non-anthropocentric justification (nature as intrinsically valuable) compared to a control group. We find partial support that non-anthropocentric justification increases policy acceptability compared to no justification. Contrary to expectations, non-anthropocentric justification leads to higher policy acceptability than anthropocentric justification. These results are robust to individual differences in political orientation and environmental concern. Additionally, participants in the non-anthropocentric experimental condition respond that similar conservation policies generally are, and should be, passed to benefit wildlife and ecosystems compared to control group participants. Likewise, participants given the anthropocentric justification report that similar policies are, and should be, passed for humans and society compared to the control group.

Source: Journal of Public Policy

DOI: 10.1017/s0143814x24000266

Authors: Lauren Yehle, Patrik Michaelsen, Niklas Harring, Sverker C. Jagers

Institutions: University of Gothenburg, Linköping University, Uppsala University

Language: English

Topic: Environmental Philosophy and Ethics

Subfield: Nature and Landscape Conservation

Field: Environmental Science

Domain: Physical Sciences

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $3,450

Funders: University of Cambridge, Vetenskapsrådet, Göteborgs Universitet