Literature DB >> 33465097

Public support for restoration: Does including ecosystem services as a goal engage a different set of values and attitudes than biodiversity protection alone?

Virginia Matzek1, Kerrie A Wilson2.   

Abstract

The ecosystem services concept has come into wide use in conservation and natural resource management, partly due to its appeal as an anthropocentric rationale for protecting and restoring nature. Proponents of the ecosystem services concept expect that presenting these arguments alongside biodiversity arguments should lead to a broader base of support for conservation. This raises the question of whether support for activities that ensure ecosystem service provision relates to different sets of core values, or environmental attitudes, than support for biodiversity protection. We surveyed adult Australians to evaluate the influence of values and attitudes on willingness to pay for different habitat restoration outcomes. We hypothesized that when restoration is framed with an anthropocentric rationale (such as ecosystem service provision), support for restoration would align more strongly with anthropocentric or self-centered values and attitudes. Specifically, we tested if preference for ecosystem service benefits over biodiversity attributes, as indicated by willingness to pay in different restoration scenarios, is more strongly associated with self-enhancing (Egoistic) than self-transcending (Altruistic and Biospheric) values, and more associated with a pro-use attitude towards nature (Utilization) than an anti-use attitude (Preservation). We found that support for habitat restoration is generally based on ecocentric values and attitudes, but that positive associations between pro-environmental behavior and Egoistic values emerge when emphasis is placed on ecosystem service outcomes. Individuals scoring higher on Egoistic/Utilization metrics were also more likely to anticipate disservices from restoration. Attitudes predicted behavioral intention (willingness to pay) better than core values. Our results support the notion that the ecosystem services concept garners nontraditional backers and broadens the appeal of ecological restoration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33465097      PMCID: PMC7815106          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  15 in total

1.  Motivations for the restoration of ecosystems.

Authors:  Andre E Clewell; James Aronson
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 6.560

2.  Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation.

Authors:  P R Armsworth; K M A Chan; G C Daily; P R Ehrlich; C Kremen; T H Ricketts; M A Sanjayan
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 6.560

3.  Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  José M Rey Benayas; Adrian C Newton; Anita Diaz; James M Bullock
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Saving nature under the big tent of ecosystem services: a response to Adams and Redford.

Authors:  Matt Skroch; Laura López-Hoffman
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 6.560

5.  Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves.

Authors:  Adrian Treves; Lisa Naughton-Treves; Victoria Shelley
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 6.560

6.  Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior.

Authors:  Taciano L Milfont; Isabel Richter; Chris G Sibley; Marc S Wilson; Ronald Fischer
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2013-06-24

7.  Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory.

Authors:  Christina C Hicks; Joshua E Cinner; Natalie Stoeckl; Tim R McClanahan
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 6.560

8.  Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options.

Authors:  Rebecca L Goldman; Heather Tallis; Peter Kareiva; Gretchen C Daily
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents' support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains.

Authors:  Arjen E Buijs
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 6.789

10.  Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value.

Authors:  Martin Dallimer; Dugald Tinch; Nick Hanley; Katherine N Irvine; James R Rouquette; Philip H Warren; Lorraine Maltby; Kevin J Gaston; Paul R Armsworth
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-12-26       Impact factor: 6.560

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.