DOCSLIB.ORG

Structuring Ethical Interpretations of the Sustainable Development Goals—Concepts, Implications and Progress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structuring Ethical Interpretations of the Sustainable Development Goals—Concepts, Implications and Progress sustainability Article Structuring Ethical Interpretations of the Sustainable Development Goals—Concepts, Implications and Progress Martina Keitsch Faculty of Architecture and Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] Received: 31 December 2017; Accepted: 10 March 2018; Published: 15 March 2018 Abstract: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), like the sustainable development (SD) concept itself, are open to multifaceted interpretations, and the same is true for their ethical implications. While SDG values are widely accepted as universal, the ethical structure of the SDGs is complex, with differing interpretations and ideas, e.g., on how to regard and value nature. This article is a conceptual attempt to clarify and structure ethical interpretations based on an environmental ethics framework consisting of two branches: anthropocentrism and biocentrism. The aim is to provide an overview of SDG positions and locate them in the wider field of environmental ethics, addressing the human–nature relationship as a recurring topic in the SDGs. Section 1 of this article presents environmental ethics and briefly discusses anthropocentrism and biocentrism. Section 2 outlines ethical similarities of SD and the SDGs and locates representative SDG interpretations within the environmental ethics framework. Section 3 summarizes findings and suggests a possibility of integrating biocentrism and anthropocentrism with regard to the further interpretation and discussion of SDG ethics. Insights from this article will aid researchers in adopting a better overview on ethical positions in the SDG debate. Keywords: environmental ethics; SDG interpretations; nature experience 1. Introduction to Environmental Ethics The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a future development agenda for 2015–2030 meant to encourage the international community to move toward a global sustainable future in the next few decades. Against this backdrop, SDG interpretations raise ethical issues in the human–nature relationship directly, in terms of sustainable resource use and/or within the limits of ecosystems [1], or indirectly, in terms of just distribution or equal opportunities [2]. The human–nature relationship is also the focus of interest for environmental ethics. The following article aims to shed light on some ethical SDG interpretations by analyzing and locating them within an environmental ethics framework. Most of the ethical SDG interpretations refer to anthropocentric positions, but some comprise biocentric or eco-centric aspects. However, the latter often remain implicit. Following the introduction, Section2 of this article discusses the ethical foundations of anthropocentrism and biocentrism, with a focus on teleological, eudemonistic and virtue ethics. Further, ethical interpretations of SDGs are analyzed with regard to both branches and their subordinated ethical approaches. Section3 attempts to revisit the biocentric intrinsic value of nature from an anthropocentric perspective and describe it as a social and cultural value. The aim of this attempt is to exemplify and include non-instrumental values of nature in the debate of the SDGs. The following section briefly introduces ethics, environmental ethics, and the two branches of biocentrism and anthropocentrism. In ethics, one can roughly distinguish between teleological and deontological approaches. The fundamental difference between these elementary moral philosophical Sustainability 2018, 10, 829; doi:10.3390/su10030829 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, 829 2 of 9 positions arises among others from their interpretations of morally correct action. Teleological ethics are utilitarianism, eudaemonistic ethics, ethics of responsibility and virtue ethics. They see the “good” as the ultimate goal. Morally correct actions have the maxim: “Act in such a way that the stated (moral) goal is achieved.” Deontological ethics such as ethics of duty refer to moral motivation and specific rules, which are independent of the consequences of action, and have the maxim: “Do the good for its own sake” [3]. Historically, questions concerning appropriate behavior toward the environment permeate European culture from Antiquity to Modernity. Noteworthy is Plato’s critique of deforestation [4], and Aristotle’s classification of animals and humans in the Nicomachean Ethics: “Life is defined in the case of animals by the power of perception in that of man by the power of perception or thought; and a power is defined by reference to the corresponding activity, which is the essential thing; therefore life seems to be essentially the act of perceiving or thinking [5].” Later, e.g., Seneca [6], Agricola [7], and Malthus [8] criticized the human exploitation of nature. Referring to the Greek words “oikos” (house) and “logos” (teaching), Ernst Haeckel introduced the concept of “ecology” as a “science of the natural balance” in 1866 [9]. Even if past centuries are not necessarily depicting a harmonious human–nature relationship, environmental problems had limited geographical impact. This changed with the growing awareness in the 1960s that, besides depleting local ecosystems, accumulated effects of human activities can cause global catastrophes. Carson’s “Silent Spring” [10], Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” [11], and, in particular, the Club of Rome’s report “Limits of Growth” [12] are often referred to as being the trigger for contemporary environmental philosophy and ethics. Some authors also claim that the environmental discourse had been fueled by the fact that the exhaustion of natural ecosystems had shown severe consequences not only for nature but also for humans and society itself. Changes in the natural environment placed the social environment under pressure to change [13]. Replying to the increased awareness of a connection between environmental problems and human society, environmental ethics emerged as new and more radical concept of ethics in the early 1970s [14]. Ecological or environmental ethics is a part of bioethics, which also includes medical ethics, animal ethics, gene ethics, and population ethics. It can be understood as a systematic attempt to examine human interventions in ecosystems and nature with regard to ethical justifications and to evaluations of whether prerequisites and consequences of actions are appropriate or not. Systematically, one can roughly differentiate between two environmental ethics branches, biocentrism (including eco-centrism), and anthropocentrism. These two branches diverge fundamentally. Biocentrism grounds maxims on the intrinsic value of all living beings, while anthropocentrism grounds maxims on human values. The epistemic background for biocentrism is the perception of a biotic community as an interdependent, functioning system. The evolution of life in this system is represented through various forms of living beings, while the simplest forms of beings are still parts of the most complex ones. Even the most complex beings, i.e., humans, cannot exist outside of this system. In this respect, humans are a part of nature; they have not created it but have developed in the same way as all other natural beings in the system. Ethical core values of the biocentric position are the “auto-telos” (self-purpose) and the intrinsic value of living beings. The auto-telos as aim of all living beings to grow and realize their natural purpose is the main argument to constitute their value as moral objects. As moral objects, they have rights, and moral maxims are directed toward them. The main maxim of biocentrism, dependent on which being or system has rights, is that humans have to preserve and protect other living beings, ecosystems, or nature as a whole. Within the overarching ethical framework, one can also distinguish between deontological and teleological positions in biocentrism. Deontic positions justify rights from the pure existence of living beings, ecosystems, or the whole of nature as a reason to prescribe maxims to humans. Teleological positions derive moral obligations from the purposiveness or the interests of living beings, ecosystems, or nature as a whole. The epistemic background for anthropocentrism is the perception of nature as the human habitat, shaped and maintained according to humans’ needs and desires. Nature has to be protected as part of Sustainability 2018, 10, 829 3 of 9 the human environment, both for present and future generations. This position implies a hetero-telos (other-purpose, as opposed to self-purpose) of nature and living beings as a basis for teleological or deontological arguments. The maxim to preserve nature and its beings exists only insofar that they have an instrumental value as a resource, or non-instrumental value as objects of contemplative, theoretical, religious, or aesthetic activities. Teleological anthropocentricism establishes moral action by referring to human interests, while non-rational living beings are assumed to have no interests, desires, and hopes. Their value is assigned to them by humans if they become an object of interest, i.e., are regarded as valuable or as leading to something that is considered valuable. Because of this interest, humans have rights e.g. to use nature resources as effectively and sparingly as possible because resource depletion affects human life quality. Yet, teleological anthropocentricism is different from a pure management strategy, e.g., in its claims for economic viability and social inclusion. Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Food Forests: Their Services and Sustainability
    Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online https://foodsystemsjournal.org Food forests: Their services and sustainability Stefanie Albrecht a * Leuphana University Lüneburg Arnim Wiek b Arizona State University Submitted July 29, 2020 / Revised October 22, 2020, and February 8, 2021 / Accepted Febuary 8, 2021 / Published online July 10, 2021 Citation: Albrecht, S., & Wiek, A (2021). Food forests: Their services and sustainability. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 10(3), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.103.014 Copyright © 2021 by the Authors. Published by the Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems. Open access under CC-BY license. Abstract detailed insights on 14 exemplary food forests in Industrialized food systems use unsustainable Europe, North America, and South America, practices leading to climate change, natural gained through site visits and interviews. We resource depletion, economic disparities across the present and illustrate the main services that food value chain, and detrimental impacts on public forests provide and assess their sustainability. The health. In contrast, alternative food solutions such findings indicate that the majority of food forests as food forests have the potential to provide perform well on social-cultural and environmental healthy food, sufficient livelihoods, environmental criteria by building capacity, providing food, services, and spaces for recreation, education, and enhancing biodiversity, and regenerating soil, community building. This study compiles evidence among others. However, for broader impact, food from more than 200 food forests worldwide, with forests need to go beyond the provision of social- cultural and environmental services and enhance a * Corresponding author: Stefanie Albrecht, Doctoral student, their economic viability.
    [Show full text]
  • The Greifswalder Theory of Strong Sustainability and Its Relevance for Policy Advice in Germany and the EU
    Sustainability Science – The Greifswalder Theory of Strong Sustainability and its relevance for policy advice in Germany and the EU Ralf Döring* , Barbara Muraca 1 *Johann Heinrich von Thünen - Federal Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Germany Abstract The Greifswald approach was developed over many years in the co-operation of environmental philosophers and ecological economists. The theory combines normative arguments on our responsibilities for current and future generations (intra- and intergenerational justice), the conceptual debate on weak vs. strong sustainability, a new concept for natural capital with practical applications in three sectors: fisheries, agriculture and climate change policy. It was developed as an answer to the increasingly vague understanding of the sustainability concept in the political arena, which gives politicians the possibility of subsuming under it all sorts of different programs and strategies. A sharper definition of the concept is needed that offers a non-arbitrary orientation ground for action to end the further loss of essential parts of natural capital without becoming too rigid and exclusive of differences. In this paper we give firstly a short overview about the philosophical background of the theory and about the conceptual debate on weak and strong sustainability. Secondly, we depict our concept of Natural Capital, which draws on Georgescu-Roegen’s systematic framework of fund, stock, services, and flows and focuses on a central characteristic of nature: its (re)productivity. Accordingly, natural capital consists of living funds, non-living funds, and stocks. This differentiation offers a helpful ground for identifying specific preservation goals for the different parts of natural capital and can be successfully employed in the advice for policy makers (as it has been the case with the German Advisory Council for the Environment over a decade).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics
    Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics Brian G. Wolff University of Minnesota Conservation Biology Program,100 Ecology Building 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108 Email: [email protected] Abstract: Environmental ethicists have focused much attention on the limits of utilitarianism and have generally defined “environmental ethics” in a manner that treats utilitarian environmental ethics as an oxymoron. This is unfortunate because utilitarian ethics can support strong environmental policies, and environmental ethicists have not yet produced a contemporary environmental ethic with such broad appeal. I believe educators should define environmental ethics more broadly and teach utilitarian ethics in a non-pejorative fashion so that graduates of environmental studies and policy programs understand the merits of utilitarian arguments and can comfortably participate in the policymaking arena, where utilitarian ethics continue to play a dominant role. Keywords: Environmental Education, Environmental Studies, Environmental Ethics, Utilitarianism, Utilitarian Ethics Introduction an antipathy for utilitarian ethics. To prepare graduates of environmental science courses for The current generation of college students is participation in the policy process, it is important that expected to witness a dramatic decline in environmental biologists teach the strengths, as well biodiversity, the continued depletion of marine as the weaknesses, of utilitarian ethics in a non- fisheries, water shortages, extensive eutrophication of pejorative fashion, and the limitations, as well as the freshwater and marine ecosystems, a dramatic decline strengths, of competing theories. in tropical forest cover, and significant climatic It must be appreciated that the training given warming (Jenkins 2003, Pauly et al. 2002, Jackson et most biologists seldom includes rigorous courses in al.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Stewardship: Toward an Agapeic Environmental Ethic
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Beyond Stewardship: Toward an Agapeic Environmental Ethic Christopher J. Vena Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Ethics in Religion Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Vena, Christopher J., "Beyond Stewardship: Toward an Agapeic Environmental Ethic" (2009). Dissertations (1934 -). 16. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/16 BEYOND STEWARDSHIP: TOWARD AN AGAPEIC ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC by Christopher J. Vena, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2009 ABSTRACT BEYOND STEWARDSHIP: TOWARD AN AGAPEIC ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC Christopher J. Vena, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2009 One of the unfortunate implications of industrialization and the rapid expansion of global commerce is the magnification of the impact that humans have on their environment. Exponential population growth, along with growing technological capabilities, has allowed human societies to alter their terrain in unprecedented and destructive ways. The cumulative effect has been significant to the point that the blame for widespread environmental degradation must be pinned squarely on human shoulders. Because of our dependence on these systems for survival, the threat to the environment is a threat to human life. The root of the ecological crisis is found in human attitudes and behaviors. In the late 1960’s it was suggested that Christianity was a key source of the problem because it promoted the idea of human “dominion” over creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Ethics Anthropocentrism
    Environmental Ethics Anthropocentrism Introduction Anthropcentrism is the world view that places human beings as the center of the cosmos Five Interconnected Themes: 1) natural order has a grand hierarchy (a “Great Chain of Being) 2) the ontological divide between human and nonhuman nature 3) nature as a machine 4) only humans beings have intrinsic value/nature has only instrumental value 5) the moral community is limited to human beings Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) The Summa Contra Gentiles develops the ethical implications of the Great Chain of Being humans are closest to the likeness of God rational creatures exercise free will God bestows intrinsic value on rational creatures “Accordingly intellectual creatures are ruled by God, as though He cared for them for their own sake, while other creatures are ruled as being directed to rational creatures” (63) other creatures are slaves to their environment their actions casually determined by the environment thus human beings alone are morally considerable only human beings have freedom “he is free who is cause of himself . intellectual nature alone is free” human beings have the right to subjugate other beings below on the hierarchy “Hereby is refuted the error of those who said it is sinful for man to kill dumb animals: for by divine providence they are intended for man’s use in the natural order” (64) anticipating Kant, the only danger in killing dumb animals is that such behavior might lead to cruelty to human beings Francis Bacon (1561-1626) The Great Instauration focus of knowledge should be practical the improvement of the human condition knowledge is power over nature “the roads to human power and to human knowledge lie close together, and are nearly the same” this view of knowledge as power is stated more clearly in New Organon (1620) Title refers to Aristotle’s logical and methodological works known collectively as the Organon this will be a new organon, thus a new scientific method “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges for Integration of Sustainability Into Engineering Education
    AC 2012-4565: CHALLENGES FOR INTEGRATION OF SUSTAINABIL- ITY INTO ENGINEERING EDUCATION Dr. Qiong Zhang, University of South Florida Qiong Zhang is an Assistant Professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of South Florida (USF). She received a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Michigan Tech. Prior to joining the faculty at USF in 2009, she served as the Operations Manager of the Sustainable Future Institute at Michigan Tech. Dr. Linda Vanasupa, California Polytechnic State University Dr. James R. Mihelcic, University of South Florida James R. Mihelcic is a professor of civil and environmental engineering and state of Florida 21st Century World Class Scholar at the University of South Florida. He directs the Peace Corps master’s international program in civil and environmental engineering (http://cee.eng.usf.edu/peacecorps). Mihelcic is a Past President of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP), a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board, and a board-certified member and Board Trustee of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers (AAEE). He is lead author for three textbooks: Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering (John Wiley & Sons, 1999); Field Guide in Environmental Engineering for Development Workers: Water, Sanitation, Indoor Air (ASCE Press, 2009); and, Environmental Engineer- ing: Fundamentals, Sustainability, Design (John Wiley & Sons, 2010). Dr. Julie Beth Zimmerman, Yale University Simona Platukyte, University of South Florida Page 25.294.1 Page c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Challenges for Integration of Sustainability into Engineering Education Abstract Due to the relative novelty of the subject of sustainability in the engineering community and its complexity, many challenges remain to successful integration of sustainability education in engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Ethics - Syllabus
    ENVS 345 - Environmental Ethics - Syllabus Environmental Ethics ENVS 345 Fall Term 2015 – University of Oregon Instructor: Nicolae Morar Syllabus 1. Course Description Why should I really care about the environment? What makes environmental issues genuine moral issues? Imagine yourself in the following situation: you are in a room where you can press a button that says “If you press it, the Grand Canyon will be blown away”. What philosophical/ethical reasons would you have to refrain from pressing that button? Are there any such reasons? Is it morally wrong to destroy something we (humans) deem beautiful? Some philosophers believe that there is no moral value without a valuator. So, what if you were the last person on Earth and you would not care about the Grand Canyon, would it still be wrong to press the button? And even if you were not the last person, would it suffice to appeal to the idea that you might deprive future generations from experiencing such ineffable scenery? Imagine the button says, “it you press it, the Grand Canyon will be blown away, but in doing so, you save x human lives.” How many lives would justify blowing away the Grand Canyon? What if those lives are the lives of some people you will never know/meet with? Does it have to be a human life? What about a non-human animal life? What about an ecosystem? This course will attempt to answer some of the questions above and to conceptualize central notions in environmental ethics. We will focus on defining what it means to have moral standing or to be a (moral) person.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sustainability of Waste Management Models in Circular Economies
    sustainability Article The Sustainability of Waste Management Models in Circular Economies Carmen Avilés-Palacios 1 and Ana Rodríguez-Olalla 2,* 1 Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería de Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, c/José Antonio Novais 10, 28040 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] 2 Departamento Economía de la Empresa (ADO), Economía Aplicada II y Fundamentos Análisis Económico, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Paseo de los Artilleros s/n, Vicálvaro, 28032 Madrid, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-910671632 Abstract: The circular economy (CE) is considered a key economic model to meet the challenge of sustainable development. Strenous efforts are focused on the transformation of waste into resources that can be reintroduced into the economic system through proper management. In this way, the linear and waste-producing value chain problems are solved, making them circular, and more sustainable solutions are proposed in those chains already benefiting from circular processes, so that waste generation and waste are reduced on the one hand, and on the other, the non-efficient consumption of resources decreases. In the face of this current tide, there is another option that proposes a certain nuance, based on the premise that, although circular systems promote sustainability, it does not mean that they are in themselves sustainable, given that, in the first place, the effects of CE on sustainable development are not fully known and, on the other hand, the CE model includes the flow of materials, with only scant consideration of the flow of non-material resources (water, soil and energy).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Worldviews, Ethics, and Sustainability 25
    Environmental Worldviews, Ethics, and Sustainability 25 Biosphere 2—A Lesson in Humility C O R E C A S E S TUDY In 1991, eight scientists (four men and four women) were sealed sphere’s 25 small animal species went extinct. Before the 2-year inside Biosphere 2, a $200 million glass and steel enclosure period was up, all plant-pollinating insects went extinct, thereby designed to be a self-sustaining life-support system (Figure 25-1) dooming to extinction most of the plant species. that would add to our understanding of Biosphere 1: the earth’s Despite many problems, the facility’s waste and wastewater life-support system. were recycled. With much hard work, the Biospherians were A sealed system of interconnected domes was built in the also able to produce 80% of their food supply, despite rampant desert near Tucson, Arizona (USA). It contained artificial ecosys- weed growths, spurred by higher CO2 levels, that crowded out tems including a tropical rain forest, savanna, and desert, as well food crops. However, they suffered from persistent hunger and as lakes, streams, freshwater and saltwater wetlands, and a mini- weight loss. ocean with a coral reef. In the end, an expenditure of $200 million failed to maintain Biosphere 2 was designed to mimic the earth’s natural chemi- this life-support system for eight people for 2 years. Since 2007, cal recycling systems. Water evaporated from its ocean and other the University of Arizona has been leasing the Biosphere 2 facility aquatic systems and then condensed to provide rainfall over the for biological research and to provide environmental education tropical rain forest.
    [Show full text]
  • ANGELICA CAREY Focus: Urban Sustainability a Native from Lynn
    Meet Our Students! PATRICK KELLEY JEREMY PRICE Focus: Environmental Quality Focus: Renewable Energy and Efficient Design I completed my undergraduate degree at Hampshire College with a concentration in environmental After completing his undergraduate studies at UMass,(B.S. Sustainable Community Development), and wildlife science. My thesis explored the usage of bird feathers as bioindicators of environmental Jeremy sought to strengthen his ability to effectively facilitate change, and enrolled in the Department ANGELICA CAREY contamination using mass spectrometry in the Cape Cod area. I love the environment and everything of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning’s (LARP) Master of Regional Planning Program. Jeremy Focus: Urban Sustainability that comes with it- wildlife, sunshine, hiking, swimming, and most of all, the beautiful, encouraging is the Peer Undergraduate Advisor/Mentor within LARP and also holds a Graduate Certificate in Climate A native from Lynn, Massachusetts, I attended UMass Amherst for my undergraduate degree in feeling of curiosity that it bestows. I like to think of the environment as the canvas to humankind’s Change and Green infrastructure Planning. Anthropology and Civic Environmentalism, a self-designed major from the BDIC program. After epic masterpiece. To put it simply, there’s really no way to paint without it, and that’s sort of where Looking to further explore the intersection between the environment, planning, and energy, he was graduating in 2012, I was accepted to teach K-5 General Music and 6-8 Choir with Teach for America, sustainability and environmental quality interests me. admitted to the MS3 program where he will concentrate in Renewable Energy and Efficient Design; in the small town of Palestine, Arkansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Ethics
    Environmental ethics 1 .Environmental Ethics Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human contents. This entry covers: (1) the challenge of environmental ethics to the anthropocentrism (i.e., human-centeredness) embedded in traditional western ethical thinking; (2) the early development of the discipline in the 1960s and 1970s; (3) the connection of deep ecology, feminist environmental ethics, animism and social ecology to politics; (4) the attempt to apply traditional ethical theories, including consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, to support contemporary environmental concerns; (5) the preservation of biodiversity as an ethical goal; (6) the broader concerns of some thinkers with wilderness, the built environment and the politics of poverty; (7) the ethics of sustainability and climate change, and (8) some directions for possible future developments of the discipline 2 . Deep Ecology “Deep ecology” was born in Scandinavia, the result of discussions between Naessand his colleagues Sigmund Kvaløy and Nils Faarlund (see Næss 1973 and 1989; also see Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999 for a historical survey and commentary on the development of deep ecology). All three shared a passion for the great mountains. On a visit to the Himalayas, they became impressed with aspects of “Sherpa culture” particularly when they found that their Sherpa guides regarded certain mountains as sacred and accordingly would not venture onto them. Subsequently, Næss formulated a position which extended the reverence the three Norwegians and the Sherpas felt for mountains to other natural things in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Biosphere Reserves' Management Effectiveness—A Systematic
    sustainability Review Biosphere Reserves’ Management Effectiveness—A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda Ana Filipa Ferreira 1,2,* , Heike Zimmermann 3, Rui Santos 1 and Henrik von Wehrden 2 1 CENSE—Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, NOVA College of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; [email protected] 2 Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability and Center for Methods, Leuphana University, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany; [email protected] 3 Institute for Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +351-21-294-8397 Received: 10 June 2020; Accepted: 2 July 2020; Published: 8 July 2020 Abstract: Research about biosphere reserves’ management effectiveness can contribute to better understanding of the existing gap between the biosphere reserve concept and its implementation. However, there is a limited understanding about where and how research about biosphere reserves’ management effectiveness has been conducted, what topics are investigated, and which are the main findings. This study addresses these gaps in the field, building on a systematic literature review of scientific papers. To this end, we investigated characteristics of publications, scope, status and location of biosphere reserves, research methods and management effectiveness. The results indicate that research is conceptually and methodologically diverse, but unevenly distributed. Three groups of papers associated with different goals of biosphere reserves were identified: capacity building, biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. In general, each group is associated with different methodological approaches and different regions of the world. The results indicate the importance of scale dynamics and trade-offs between goals, which are advanced as important leverage points for the success of biosphere reserves.
    [Show full text]