THE HUMAN NATURAL WORLD RELATIONSHIP

Environmental Ethics

70

community, live as part of that community, put aside domination and reject the view that

nature is an economic resource.

Existing ecological damage according to Norton (1991) could not be reversed even if humans

changed their behaviour today. In support of this statement, he asks, “Would we be willing

to reject modern industrialised society, even at the expense of human needs? Blow up the

dams, release domestic [and caged] animals and go back to the state of nature?” (p. 156).

Both Norton and Leopold agree that these actions would not reverse the damage inflicted on

wilderness, and humans cannot create new wilderness. However, Leopold (1974) believes

that existing areas can be protected through the designation of protected zones. Additionally,

Thomas McNamee (in Norton, 1991) optimistically considers national parks to “encompass

vast tracts of magnificent wild country, and in them alone [he questions] is it possible to

make the conservation of nature the dominant value?” (p. 156). Rolston (in Stenmark, 2002)

is more optimistic and believes that it may be possible to restore some areas to their natural

state.

Community

Considering that, “sustainability is a concept that rests on ethical arguments” (Eriksson

2004, p. 12), the involvement of community in conservation and management of protected

areas requires an understanding of their environmental ethics. By understanding the

environmental ethics of community, managers are able to target communication strategies

that will improve relationships with these groups (Johansson 2004), as well as identify

those most suitable for involvement in conservation and management.

According to Benson (2000), an environmental ethic can shape a person’s response to

environmental problems and is based on their view of the moral status afforded to the

natural world, a consideration for protected area managers in seeking ways to address

environmental issues. Environmental issues are perceived differently by individuals based

on their environmental orientation (Benson, 2000) as shown in Table 8.

Environmental Ethics

71

Table 8: Views on addressing environmental issues

WORLDVIEW Environmental Orientation

Light Green Environmentalism ANTHROPOCENTRIC

Deep Green Environmentalism BIOCENTRIC/ECOCENTRIC

Views on moral status and intrinsic value

Only human beings have independent moral status, and any protection afforded to non humans is a consequence of their mattering to humans, and this is the only protection it makes sense to demand

Living things and natural systems (at least those that contain living things) matter in themselves: that is they have independent moral status.

Perceived environmental problem

Environmental problems are identified that pose a danger to human health, comfort or survival.

Environmental problems are identified that pose danger to anything within the restricted area.

Approach to addressing problem

If changes can be controlled, any human has reason to act to avert harm such as changes in personal behaviour and supporting collective adoptive measures.

Action to prevent these dangers requires that human agents recognise duties much more extensive than those recognised by traditional moralities which accord independent moral status only to humans.

Source: Adapted from Benson (2000, p. 17)

A study by Arnocky, Stroink and DeCicco (2007) found that people most likely to protect

nature were those who considered themselves part of nature. The link between

environmental behaviour and feeling connected to nature (moral status and nature values),

has been borne out in many studies in psychology and environment research such as those

conducted on two communities and three groups of undergraduate students (Mayer &

Frantz, 2004) and in two studies of undergraduate students (Schultz et al., 2004). These

studies concurred with studies done by ecopsychologists that confirmed, “connection to

nature is a predictor of ecological behaviour” (Mayer & Frantz, 2004, p. 503). Therefore

those with ecocentric value orientations are more likely to be pro-environmental (Barr,

2003).

Understanding the environmental ethics of a community will allow park management to

identify those most suited for involvement in aspects of park management, and assist in

Environmental Ethics

72

approaches that build community knowledge and support for strategy that preserve biotic

communities. Decisions about natural areas should be based on a “sound appreciation of

people’s values” (Winter, Lockwood & Morrison, 2003, p. 33).

An understanding of environmental views can assist management to educate users on

management zones and resource use and assist in conflict resolution amongst users, while

developing effective policies, programs and implementation strategies (Tarrant, Cordell &

Green, 2003). Further strategies and uses for integrating environmental ethics into park

management are proposed in Table 9.

Table 9: Environmental Ethics and Protected Area Management

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS & PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT Outcomes Strategies Uses

Identify community views and values

Identify volunteers, donors, board members, fee supporters Plan and manage community involvement Empower community

Identify the diversity of views and values

Assist with conflict resolution Accommodate diversity Inform staff Educate community

Inform Park Management

Plan Landscapes Planners consider environmental ethic of community in allocating management zones and resource use

Community Benefit

Build knowledge and respect for biotic communities & resource use

Foster environmentally responsible behaviour Enhance respect for community diversity

Source: Adapted from Tarrant, Cordell and Green (2003)

Environmental Policy

Understanding environmental values can also be extended to policy makers as many

important environmental decisions can be influenced by an organisation’s internal climate

(Flannery & May, 2000). Political governance was examined in a review of both the Kennett

and Brack’s governments in Victoria from 1992, which revealed anthropocentric approaches

(Coffey, 2001). This approach refers to nature as a commodity and can dictate priorities

under which park agencies must operate. However, an anthropocentric approach is common

amongst governments, corporations and business communities (Macbeth, 2005). In

considering tourism in protected areas Worboys and De Lacy (2003), have called for

Environmental Ethics

73

government leadership in conservation. Forest management in the United States traditionally

held anthropocentric views, but a shift in the values base from economic to non-economic

values has occurred. According to Tarrant, Cordell and Green (2003), this shift was

prompted by changes in community views of forests and their management. Additionally,

“the recognition of the importance of public involvement in management decisions” (p. 25)

was also noted. Most people want to be involved in environmental solutions, and Kaplan

(2000) deems that those that show disinterest in environment have distanced themselves due

to feeling helpless to contribute and affect change. Conservation management in national

parks in New Zealand found that their “people-parks relationship” (McClave, Espiner &

Booth, 2006, p. 547), was complex and involved views about the environment, social and

cultural attachments and expectations of conservation management (McCallum & Hughey,

2007).

The influence of environmental ethics on protected area policy and management decisions

(Eriksson, 2004) has highlighted diverse approaches to policy development. Stenmark

(2002) proposes that goals of environment policymaking as well as policy development are

affected by the environmental ethic stance held by agencies as set out in Table 10.

Table 10: Environmental Policy Making

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS PERSPECTIVE

GOAL POLICY WILDERNESS POLICY

INTERGENERATIONAL ANTHROPOCENTRIC

Well being of human progress and survival

To ensure that natural resources are used in an efficient and a farsighted way so that the needs of present and future generations can be satisfied.

Preserve 12 percent of landscape wilderness for future generation of humans to use

BIOCENTRIC

Well being of animals and plants

To ensure that humans in their treatment of nature do not violate the rights of other living things to be left alone and to flourish.

ECOCENTRIC

Well being of biotic community and its individual parts

To ensure that humans in their use of nature do not violate the integrity and stability of the biotic community and its individual members.

Preserve remaining

landscape wilderness for plants and animals

to use

Source: Adapted from Stenmark (2002, p. 140)

Environmental Ethics

74

Consequently, these views will not only influence policy, but also the selection of community

members, and subsequent strategies. The influence of varied ethical positions within

government and policy decision makers is brought to our notice by Macbeth (2005) who also

calls for a “sophisticated and reflective understanding of ethical issues by policy makers,

planners and developers… critics and commentators” (p. 980).

Confusion in understanding the concept of environmental values within protected area

management has been highlighted in a study by Reser and Bentrupperbaumer (2005). The

researchers consider that the confusion over values is a result of the language used in

multidisciplinary environmental area management and have called for this to be addressed.

They suggest that understanding value concepts in environmental ethics is an important and

necessary element in developing policy for conservation outcomes. Considering

environmental values and incorporating these into policy and planning will shift the focus

towards healthy ecosystems, appease environmental activists and ensure that values of other

interested communities are considered. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of

environmental values as well as the values held by community is an essential factor in

managing the resource for conservation outcomes.

The role of environmental values in management requires “value to be placed on the integrity

and autonomy of systems to function independently of human control (Norton 1991, p. 157).

Values are believed to drive attitudes and influence behaviour (Winter, Lockwood &

Morrison, 2003) and are fundamental to rational decision making in management

(Lockwood, 1999).

Environmental Ethics and User Groups

User groups may be active recreational users, who use protected areas for sport related

activities; passive users, who use the area for picnics or family gatherings; or users that rely

on the resource for their livelihood such as businesses, graziers, farmers and local

community. Furthermore, knowledge of the environmental orientation of a community can

Environmental Ethics

75

provide insight into their attitude or behaviour towards the resource, towards management

decisions, conservation activities and other matters. An examination of studies relevant to

protected area management that include recreation users, occupational users and community

follows. This section examines the environmental ethics of user groups establishing their

environmental ethics and its effect on environmental behaviour.

Recreational Users

Recreational users are those who use the resource for formal or informal sports activities,

such as hiking, boating, fishing, bush walking, rock climbing, horse riding and similar

activities.

Conservation Behaviour

Recreational boaters were the subject of a study by Cottrell (2003), who found a correlation

between knowledge of environmental issues, environmental concern and verbal commitment

to environmental behaviour. Previous results from studies of outdoors recreation users has

shown varied levels of concern towards the environment, and Schuett and Ostergren (2003)

believe that further study is needed. For instance, some early studies by Dunlap and

Heffernan (in Schuett & Ostergren, 2003, p. 30) showed that those undertaking passive

activities such as hiking, photography and camping “had a higher level of concern than

participants in consumptive activities such as fishing and hunting”. Participation in outdoor

recreation was found “not to be a predictor of environmental concern” (p. 31), due to the

variety of recreational activities, which Jackson (in Schuett & Ostergren, 2003) categorises as

appreciative, consumptive or mechanised behaviours, which are shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Outdoor Recreational User Behaviour

Behaviour Outdoor Recreational Users

Appreciative Behaviour (non consumptive behaviour)

Cross country skiing, hiking, photography, walking, camping, and bird watching, canoeing, sea kayaking

Consumptive Behaviour Hunting, angling, sea fishing Mechanised Behaviour Motor boats, snow mobiles, off road vehicles, mountain bikes Source: Adapted from Schuett and Ostergren (2003) and Crick-Furman and Prentice (2000)

Environmental Ethics

76

Jackson’s study of users in the three categories found that those displaying appreciative

behaviours were more ecologically focused than those in other categories. These findings

were supported by Nord, Luloff and Bridger (1998) who concluded that users displaying

consumptive and mechanised behaviour were “less environmentally active” (in Schuett &

Ostergren 2003, p. 31) than those displaying appreciative behaviour. Consumptive and

mechanised behaviour users however, prefer to be involved in planning processes as a way of

protecting their recreation activity, and therefore are likely to join voluntary associations

where their membership is represented in resource planning (Ewert, 1999).

A study in the USA on the membership base of two voluntary organisations’, one for

recreational cyclists and the other for off road vehicle users, suggested that the recreational

cyclists identified more with environmental activism than the off road vehicle users (Schuett

& Ostergren, 2003). The study supported the findings mentioned previously that users

displaying mechanised behaviours are less environmentally active than those displaying

appreciative behaviours.

A study of the environmental attitude of skiers undertaken in Scotland by Holden (1998;

2000), within an ecological significant region revealed that most skiers were more concerned

with the thrill of skiing than with ecological damage. This result led the researchers to the

conclusion that conflict would remain between the conservation groups and skiers.

Management was therefore limited in their options to address conservation issues, and was

restricted to technology and interpretative measures in addressing ecological problems.

The value of wetlands and forests to farmers, environmentalist and the public, was examined

in an Australian study by Winter (2005). The study showed that use through farming aligned

with instrumental values and high levels of protection by the environmentalists aligned with

intrinsic values. The public displayed a mixture of values. A New Zealand study of eco

tourists by Higham, Carr and Gale (2001) revealed ecocentric values. An earlier study by

Blayney and Braithwaite (1997) used a social values approach to segment potential eco

tourists and non-eco tourists. Potential eco tourists were determined as those that answered

Environmental Ethics

77

yes to the question “Would you like to spend some of your holidays in the next twelve

months increasing your understanding and appreciation of nature?” (p. 34). The study

discovered that “potential eco tourists do not necessarily have green values” (p. 29), which

may indicate that knowledge is a contributing aspect to ecological behaviour. The role of

education in conservation management has been explored in zoological settings (Patrick,

Matthews, Ayers, Tunnicliffe, 2007) through “persuasive communication” techniques where

the tourist can be “emotionally engaged” in the wildlife encounter and build on their

knowledge about impacts on wildlife, through subtle conservation messages (Ballantyne,

Packer, Hughes & Dierking, 2007, p. 367).

The studies highlight that those displaying appreciative behaviours are more ecologically

focused and environmentally active than those undertaking consumptive or mechanised

activities. However, those displaying consumptive and mechanised behaviours are likely to

be involved in planning to protect their activities. Additionally, knowledge of the

environment can contribute to conservation behaviour.

Occupational Users

Occupational users are those reliant on the resource for their livelihood. These users may be

landowners, business owners such as tourism operators, graziers, farmers, local or indigenous

community, and national park employees.

Environmental Policy

Environmental attitude was the subject of a study undertaken by Deng, Ryan and Moutinho

(1992) of hoteliers in Canada. Results of the study showed that hoteliers agreed with

environmental protection policies, which were independent of financial decisions. A similar

study was conducted by Kirk (1998) in Edinburgh in Scotland. Both studies indicated that a

formal environmental policy did not necessarily reflect pro environmental practices.

Cunningham (2005) conducted a similar study on the accommodation sector of Chichijima

Island, Japan. The study showed a high level of concern for the environment; however, this

Environmental Ethics

78

was over shadowed by a conflict of views towards tourism development and conservation.

The study also highlighted that the practical application and knowledge required to

implement sustainable practices in the businesses was not generally understood. This lack of

knowledge to the practical application of policies on the environment was also highlighted in

a previous study by Horobin and Long (1996) on small tourism businesses. Dewhurst and

Thomas (2003) studied a selection of small tourist businesses in a national park in the United

Kingdom. The study revealed that respondents viewed environmental protection as the

responsibility of large firms, while economic goals presented as a more pressing issue for the

small tourist business and took precedent over ecology. The presence of an environmental

policy and expressions of environmental concern in these studies is not necessarily an

indicator of pro environmental behaviour. Furthermore, education on the practical

application of pro environmental policies and practices may also be necessary. A case study

conducted in New Zealand amongst Department of Conservation stakeholders, supported the

view that lack of education and information was a factor that inhibited involvement in

conservation, however a strong motivation to be involved was nonetheless evident (James,

2001).

Views and Values

A perception that those reliant on a resource for their livelihood generally hold

anthropocentric values is borne out in a number of studies. For instance, a Norwegian study

by Bjerke and Kaltenborn (2002), of sheep farmers, wildlife managers and research biologists

examined the values held towards large carnivores. Sheep farmers showed higher

anthropocentric values than the wildlife managers or research biologists. Similarly, a study

by Winter, Lockwood and Morrison (2003) segmented the community based on common

values. The results confirmed that environmentalists were biocentric, farmers

anthropocentric, while the public displayed moderate values towards their recreation use,

which ranged from weak anthropocentric to biocentric. A further study in Nebraska

examined small and large farms and consumers. Although all were aware and concerned

Environmental Ethics

79

about land ethics, the large farms were less concerned than the other groups (Schneider &

Francis, 2006).

Community Ethics

The complexity of environmental ethics and community is evident through Corral-Verdugo

and Armendariz (2000) study of a Mexican community. Two ethical positions were put to

the residents “natural balance in nature” a biocentric view and the alternative “control over

nature” (p. 25) an anthropocentric view. Although the result was in favour of natural balance,

the subjects did not see these two positions as being mutually exclusive. Some researchers

are of the view that natural balance has existed for a long time in non-western, indigenous

and non-industrialised societies. Furthermore according to Bechtel (in Corral-Verdugo &

Armendariz, 2000), industrialised societies such as America see the world as holding either

one position or the other, either nature balance or nature control, whereas for Brazil [and

Mexico] “there is no conflict in holding both positions” (p. 26). Views such as these, while

embedded in culture, can shift, and research has shown that over a period, settlers will take on

views more consistent with their new community (Schultz, Unipan & Gamba, 2000).

A study into the different environmental views held by foreign and United States born Latino

Americans and Anglo Americans supported this notion. The study highlighted the different

views on nature (Schultz, Unipan & Gamba, 2000). The traditional Latino view that

“humans are part of nature”, and the Anglo view of “humans as protectors or consumers” (p.

23), can change after assimilation. Subsequently, the views held by the new culture may be

adopted, particularly if the person has access to technologies and affluence. However, the

fundamental cultural beliefs that drive environmental ethics can also be a major difficulty in

adopting another culture’s views (Duffin, 2004).

An earlier study that examined the ethics of African Americans to Anglo Americans found

that although there were differences, there were not marked differences about concern for the

environment. The differences were the result of complex economic and life issues that took

Environmental Ethics

80

precedent over concern for nature (Sheppard, 1995). A study conducted in Turkey by

Furman (1998), found that concern for the environment was not confined to industrialised

societies and that developing countries shared such concerns. These concepts have led

Duffin (2004) to conclude that practicing environmental ethics is more important that arguing

over which principle is the most effective. A Swedish study that examined the relationship

between environmental ethics and social background did not establish a link between social

background and environmental ethics in its municipality (Johansson, 2004).

Views and Values

A number of researchers have studied forest values. Manning, Valliere and Minteer (1999),

discovered forests need to be managed to provide a variety of non-material benefits, to cater

for varied environmental orientations. Tarrant, Cordell and Green (2003) conducted a study

of forest values amongst the public. The results of this study highlighted the importance that

urban residents placed on non-economic values of forests and that protecting the environment

was more pronounced in women, and younger residents. However, an earlier study by

Furman (1998) did not find a strong relationship between age and environmental concern.

Similarly, residents, which included members of an environmental group, were subjects of a

study in England by La Trobe and Ascott (2000). While the majority of participants provided

pro environment responses, the environmental group expressed “a much stronger pro

environment response” (p. 16) than other residents.

Residents in the historic world heritage town of Roros in Norway were studied by Kaltenborn

& Bjerke (2002b), who uncovered a general responsiveness to ecocentric views amongst their

surveyed group. The town economy relied on agriculture and mining, fishing, hunting and

forestry. The result signified a positive opportunity for managers who had the task of

presenting development and conservation plans to the residents. Consequently,

environmental concern and ecocentric points of view were used in communicating with the

residents. The study also highlighted that those with an ecocentric orientation preferred

wilderness and cultural landscapes while those with an anthropocentric orientation preferred

Environmental Ethics

81

farm environments, which correlated with instrumental use, which is often associated with

anthropocentric views. Kaltenborn and Bjerke (2002b) also noted that a mixture of

ecocentric and anthropocentric values was evident within some groups. Manning, Valliere

and Minteer (1999) found a similar result amongst forest users in their study.

A similar conclusion was reached by Brown, Reed and Harris (2002) in fourteen forest

communities in Alaska. The study examined the potential link between community

attachment and specific environment values such as aesthetic, economic, intrinsic and others.

The study also considered if people live near places where they feel safe and therefore are

likely to value the environment near where they live. The results were inconclusive.

However, Brown, Reed and Harris (2002) concluded that communities cannot be perceived

as being all the same, and different values are perceived as important by each different

community.

3.4 CONCLUSION

The relevance of environmental ethics to community participation in protected area

management lies in understanding community views and values. Nature views and values

guide our view of nature and determine our environmental orientation (Stern 2000), which

influences the way that people perceive and respond to environmental issues.

Worldviews can range from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism and the academic community

continues to debate moral status attributed to nature. The difference between ethics,

environmental ethics and environmental concern is stated. Ethics is an applied process while

environmental ethics consists of a person’s belief system and their principles and values,

while environmental concern is a physical response.

Studies of user groups have shown connection between environmental behaviour and

environmental orientation and values, and many studies have shown that those with

“biocentric views are generally pro environmental” (Bar, 2003, p. 229). Knowledge of

Environmental Ethics

82

environmental issues, expressions of concern and commitment to environmental behaviour

were also positively correlated. Consequently, our perceptions and values determine our

environmental ethic and our reaction to what are acceptable and non-acceptable recreational

activities. Therefore, environmental values incorporated into management plans may shift

the focus towards a commitment to healthy ecosystems, appease environmental activists and

ensure that values of other interested groups are considered. The environmental orientation

of user groups is generally divided into anthropocentric or biocentric orientation.

Occupational users such as hotels, businesses and farmers, researchers and wildlife managers

commonly displayed an anthropocentric orientation, although tempered to varying degrees.

Recreational users and the public however, displayed a diverse range of views from

anthropocentric to ecocentric, depending on the activity that they were involved in.

Cultural differences may also explain the range of environmental orientations across

communities. While the majority of communities recognise intrinsic value in nature, more

pressing issues such as economic and life issues take precedent. However, social background

was not established as relevant to environmental ethics values and worldview. Differences

are evident in community environmental worldviews. For instance, natural balance, a

biocentric view is held in many non-western, indigenous and non-industrialised societies,

while control of nature, an anthropocentric view is expressed by western, industrialised

nations. However, some communities such as in Brazil and Mexico accept a mixture of both

these views. Views such as these, while embedded in culture, can shift, and research has

shown that in time settlers will take on the views of their new community.

While environmental ethics helps to explain environmental orientation and values, place

attachment refers to the attachments people have to places. Place attachment can be an

emotional, symbolic or functional attachment, which connects a person to a place for

particular reasons, which will be explored in the following chapter.

Place Attachment

83

C h a p t e r 4

PLACE ATTACHMENT

“Birds continue to sing and greet the day, plants grow… but I also realise that the pleasure of

the experience builds relationships to places and means I care about them. This carries a

feeling of responsibility to ensure they survive…and all the living beings that are a part of it”.

Respondent 161.

Figure 7: Chapter 4

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter discussed environmental ethics and familiarised the reader with the

concepts of environmental worldview and values in relation to community and park

management. This chapter will introduce the reader to the concept of place attachment and to

the literature that is most relevant to the management of parks and protected areas as shown

in Figure 7.

According to Williams and Stewart (1998, p. 19), place attachment is “the collection of

meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a

particular locality”. Place attachment, the connection people have with places, such as parks

and protected areas is examined in this chapter. The historic summary of humans and

environment outlined in the previous chapter, illustrates that attention has focused on

environmental issues at times when human existence is threatened. When considered in this

context, many people deem that the natural environment is once again in crisis (Mebratu,

Chapter 4 Place Attachment

Introduction Concept of Place Attachment

Place Identity Place Dependence Conclusion

Place Attachment

84

1998). The Human Natural World Relationship views, theories and concepts discussed in

Chapter 2 may indicate place attachment within their themes as summarised in Table 12.

Table 12: HNWR views influencing place attachment

View, Theory or Concepts Attitude to PLACE ATTACHMENT

1755 Noble Savage Concept (Rousseau, 1755)

Humans in their natural state see value in nature (place dependence & place identity)

1858 Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin, 1858)

Nature as part of human self (place identity) & Nature as object (place dependence)

1962 Social Ecology (Bookchin, 1962)

Humans as part of nature but possessing a second nature, a human nature and free will (place dependence)

1968 Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

1969 GAIA Hypothesis (in Lovelock, 1979)

Humans as part of a self regulating organism (place dependence)

1972 Deep Ecology (Naess, 1972, 1973)

Interconnectedness of humans and non-humans. Human spiritual & physical wellbeing linked to wellbeing of planet (place identity)

1972 Sustainability (Strong, 1972)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

1974 Ecofeminism (D'Eaubonne, 1974)

Interconnectedness of humans and non humans (place dependence) Advocate a reconnection with nature (place identity)

1975 Animal Liberation (Singer, 1975)

Animals have absolute rights. Respect for humans and non humans (place identity)

1977 Bioregionalism (Berg & Dasmann, 1977)

Recognises humans as part of nature. Must reconnect with their place in nature, for human wellbeing (place identity)

1979 Eco-Socialism (Morris, 1979b)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

1984 Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984)

Humans evolved deeply interconnected with nature. Aversion to nature (Biophobia) due to modern societies (place identity).

1992 Ecopsychology (Roszak, 1992)

Nature is part of self. Sense of place is beneficial to human wellbeing. Separation can lead to suffering for both the environment and humans (place identity)

1996 Ecotheology (Berry, 1996)

Humans and non-humans as a single integrated community. Mutual benefits coming from reverence for nature (place dependence and place identity)

1999 Natural Capitalism (Hawkins, Lovins & Lovins, 1999)

Humans reliant on nature (place dependence)

Societal factors influencing change in the 21st Century and requiring consideration in

protected area management practices are outlined in Table 13.