On the Virtues of a Philosophically Pragmatic Reorientation in Environmental Ethics: Adaptive Co-management as a Laboratory by Christopher A. Rojas A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved April 2019 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Ben A. Minteer, Chair Candice Carr Kelman Ann Kinzig Michael Schoon ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2019 ©2019 Christopher A. Rojas All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT With global environmental systems under increasing Anthropogenic influence, conservationists and environmental managers are under immense pressure to protect and recover the world’s imperiled species and ecosystems. This effort is often motivated by a sense of moral responsibility, either to nature itself, or to the end of promoting human wellbeing over the long run. In other words, it is the purview of environmental ethics, a branch of applied philosophy that emerged in the 1970s and that for decades has been devoted to understanding and defending an attitude of respect for nature, usually for its own sake. Yet from the very start, environmental ethics has promoted itself as contributing to the resolution of real-world management and policy problems. By most accounts, however, the field has historically failed to deliver on this original promise, and environmental ethicists continue to miss opportunities to make intellectual inroads with key environmental decisionmakers. Inspired by classical and contemporary American philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty, I defend in this dissertation the virtues of a more explicitly pragmatic approach to environmental ethics. Specifically, I argue that environmental pragmatism is not only commensurate with pro-environmental attitudes but that it is more likely to lead to viable and sustainable outcomes, particularly in the context of eco-social resilience-building activities (e.g., local experimentation, adaptation, cooperation). In doing so, I call for a recasting of environmental ethics, a project that entails: 1) a conceptual reorientation involving the application of pragmatism applied to environmental problems; 2) a methodological approach linking a pragmatist environmentalism to the tradition and process of adaptive co-management; and 3) an empirical study of stakeholder values and i perspectives in conservation collaboratives in Arizona. I conclude that a more pragmatic environmental ethics has the potential to bring a powerful set of ethical and methodological tools to bear in real-world management contexts and, where appropriate, can ground and justify coordinated conservation efforts. Finally, this research responds to critics who suggest that, because it strays too far from the ideological purity of traditional environmental ethics, the pragmatic decision-making process will, in the long run, weaken rather than bolster our commitment to conservation and environmental protection. ii DEDICATION To Keiko, Alexis, Danny and the rest of my family whom I love dearly. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This intellectual and personal journey was enabled by countless individuals to whom I wish to express my deepest and most sincere gratitude. Dr. Ben Minteer has remained a pillar in my development as a thoughtful academic and most importantly, an engaged and optimistic—although wavering at times—citizen. For many years, he has balanced the challenging task (just ask him) of proffering encouragement and advice, helping me to navigate through this extraordinary time of self-doubt and uncertainty. Joining him in the ranks of key mentors are Jane Maienschein, whom with I should have talked more; Rick Creath, who always had time for an inspiring story; Matt Chew, who gave me courage to forge my own path; Charles Perrings and Ann Kinzig, who, together, were relentlessly reassuring and kind; Karin Ellison, who always had patience for questions I should have known answers to; Mike Schoon, who agrees that the Cubs are just the worst; Candice Carr Kelman, who reliably provided support and was a constant source of confidence. Leaving a mark just as indelible as the faculty, have been the numerous, positive interactions with fellow travelers in my graduate cohort. In chronological order of encounter (not of importance): Yawen Zou, who was my first office mate and friend; Sean Cohmer, who shared TA responsibilities with me in the Global Classroom—a formative experience; Tong Wu, who is both an intellectual role model and friend; Michelle Sullivan Govani, who has been my trusted compatriot under the tyrannical rule of Dr. Minteer; Airoena Raschke, whose perspective on life was refreshing in an otherwise stressful and cutthroat environment; Ken Aiello, who I consider a great friend, was supportive and appropriately critical of this work to its improvement; Melanie Sturm iv and David Shanafelt, who were both tremendous mentors early on; Ernest Nkansah- Dwamena, who conveyed the importance of doing research where your home is; Ryan Davila, who should be acknowledged for building a sense of community in our lab; Tracy Lorenzo; who always asked rigorous questions and whose sarcasm will be fondly remembered; and Mahmoud Hashemi, who always reminded me to stay on task. Others who I wish to acknowledge, and would do so more comprehensively if space permitted, include Ashley Camhi, Nick Rogers, Ute Brady, Sechindra Vallury, and the rest of the 4E, Biology and Society, and Co-management Lab groups. None of this would be possible, of course without the dedicated staff that enables students to ask silly questions and develop serious answers. These incredible people include Jessica Ranney, Andrea Cottrell, Wendi Simonson, Amina Hajdarovic, and all those that have since come and gone. Lastly, as the first member of my family to attend college let alone pursue a graduate education, this is all for us. We did it! v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER PART I: Philosophical Argument ....................................................................................... 1 1. APPRAISING ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS .............................................................. 2 A Computational Complement .................................................................................... 7 Topic Modeling. ...................................................................................................... 11 Methods................................................................................................................... 15 Results. .................................................................................................................... 17 Future Directions. ................................................................................................... 20 Concluding Thoughts ................................................................................................ 21 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: PROMISE AND PROBLEMS ................................. 24 Foundationalism in Environmental Ethics ................................................................ 30 A Pragmatic Alternative ............................................................................................ 40 The Pragmatic Commitments. ................................................................................ 51 Pragmatism as an Environmental Ethics? ............................................................... 55 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 59 PART II: Methodological Argument ................................................................................ 63 3. CONTEXTUALIZING ADAPTIVE COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT ........... 64 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................... 65 History..................................................................................................................... 66 vi CHAPTER PAGE Theory. .................................................................................................................... 70 Collaborative Management........................................................................................ 81 History..................................................................................................................... 82 Theory. .................................................................................................................... 86 Adaptive Co-Management ......................................................................................... 97 The Blend. ............................................................................................................. 100 Challenges. ............................................................................................................ 109 Challenge 1: Wrangling with the Plurality of Values. ....................................... 110 Challenge 2: Resolving Conflicts and Engendering a Democratic Process. ..... 111 Challenge 3: Relieving the Anxiety of Management with Uncertainty. ........... 115 Conclusion ........................................................................................................