IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v2y2012i4p291-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resurrecting the conservation movement

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle Marvier
  • Hazel Wong

Abstract

Conservationists are losing the battle to protect nature because they are failing to connect with the hearts, anxieties, and minds of a large segment of the American public. If conservationists are to move beyond their current base of support, they must reach out and connect to new audiences across the political, economic, and social spectra. Here, we present data from two national surveys examining attitudes about the protection of nature. These surveys show that the public does not believe a tradeoff necessarily exists between the health of the economy and the health of the environment. Moreover, certain groups, including those who do not identify themselves as environmentalists, find benefits to people to be a convincing rationale for protecting nature, and a better rationale than the intrinsic value of nature. Based on these findings, we recommend conservationists vigorously challenge claims that environmental protection will damage the economy. We also recommend a new message frame that emphasizes the value of protecting nature in terms of benefits to people, and to highlight the connection between protecting land and water and preserving their immediate quality of life and their children’s quality of life. Copyright AESS 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle Marvier & Hazel Wong, 2012. "Resurrecting the conservation movement," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 2(4), pages 291-295, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:2:y:2012:i:4:p:291-295
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-012-0096-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-012-0096-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-012-0096-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    2. Chelsea Batavia & Michael Paul Nelson, 2017. "Heroes or thieves? The ethical grounds for lingering concerns about new conservation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(3), pages 394-402, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes, 2020. "Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    2. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    3. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    4. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    5. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    6. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    7. Florian V Eppink & Matthew Winden & Will C C Wright & Suzie Greenhalgh, 2016. "Non-Market Values in a Cost-Benefit World: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Alec Foster, 2021. "Volunteer Urban Environmental Stewardship, Emotional Economies of Care, and Productive Power in Philadelphia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.
    9. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovac, M., 2019. "The economic value of tourism and recreation across a large protected area network," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    12. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    13. Guido Franco & Daniel Cayan & Susanne Moser & Michael Hanemann & Myoung-Ae Jones, 2011. "Second California Assessment: integrated climate change impacts assessment of natural and managed systems. Guest editorial," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Sandra Waddock, 2020. "Reframing and Transforming Economics around Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Teo Xin Yi Belicia & Md Saidul Islam, 2018. "Towards a Decommodified Wildlife Tourism: Why Market Environmentalism Is Not Enough for Conservation," Societies, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Anna Salomaa & Riikka Paloniemi & Janne S Kotiaho & Marianne Kettunen & Evangelia Apostolopoulou & Joanna Cent, 2017. "Can green infrastructure help to conserve biodiversity?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 265-288, March.
    17. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.
    18. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    19. Nelson Grima & Lisa Ringhofer & Simron J. Singh & Barbara Smetschka & Christian Lauk, 2017. "Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development Practice: Can the Concept of PES Deliver?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 17(4), pages 267-281, October.
    20. Juerges, Nataly & Arts, Bas & Masiero, Mauro & Başkent, Emin Z. & Borges, José G. & Brodrechtova, Yvonne & Brukas, Vilis & Canadas, Maria João & Carvalho, Pedro Ochôa & Corradini, Giulia & Corrigan, E, 2020. "Integrating ecosystem services in power analysis in forest governance: A comparison across nine European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:2:y:2012:i:4:p:291-295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.