i

School of GeoSciences

Dissertation

For the degree of

MSc in Environment, Culture and Society

Researching Environmental Value Pluralism in Theory and Practice

Kendra A. White

August 2011

ii

I hereby declare that this dissertation has been composed by me and is based

on my own work.

Date: ______________ Signature:_____________________________

Kendra A. White

iii

Abstract

Environmental ethics has been rising in popularity in literature steadily over

recent years. With many challenges facing humans by way of endangered

species, climate change, etc, environmental ethics and moral reasoning has

become more important than ever. There are countless environmental

philosophies to choose from and understand, and each one typically tries to

claim itself as the best and only option.

In order to have environmental ethics and philosophy have a better chance of

being put into practice, I argue that one must draw strengths from numerous

theories. This dissertation focuses on the key points of several environmental

philosophies, including topics such as various theories of intrinsic value,

intrinsic versus instrumental value, aesthetics and scientific knowledge. After

a succinct and critical account of these theories, value pluralism and

pragmatism are discussed and link together the many philosophies in

environmental ethics in a way that can be used in practice. I argue that it

should not matter if one values the environment strictly according to a single

theory as long as an ethical decision is made in the end. In today’s society, it

is not practical to expect a single environmental theory to cover all of the

issues humans face, and therefore, a pragmatic approach to value pluralism is

crucial. In order to illustrate how value pluralism and pragmatism are

imperative to putting theory into practice, a case study of residents on Fair

Isle, Scotland is included.

iv

Acknowledgments

It is a rare gift to be able to study and work on a degree that fulfills one’s

emotional, mental and academic growth. This dissertation has allowed me to

explore my own environmental values, travel to and explore a peaceful

paradise known as Fair Isle, and not only educate others on environmental

ethics, but learn from them as well.

I would like to thank the following people for being my support, inspiration,

and strength during the many long hours that went into writing this

dissertation.

Nancy and Robert White: Your continued support in all of my endeavors has

never ceased to amaze me. Your sense of pride motivates me to do well in all

that I set out to accomplish, and without you, I wouldn’t be where I am today.

Lindsay, Carla and Brittany White: To this day I am hard pressed to find four

sisters that care for and support each other the way in which we do. The

ocean separating us has nothing on the strength of our bond, and I feel the

three of you wishing me well every day. Thank you for each of your unique

ways of inspiring me.

Diana Neil and Craigencalt Farm: Without your generosity two years ago, I

never would have found the passion I have for environmental ethics, or

realized my love for Scotland. Thank you for the many days and nights you

have let me stay with you. Before and after this degree, Craigencalt was and

always will be a second home to me.

Finally, thank you to the many people who made this dissertation possible

academically:

Emily Brady, Nick Riddiford and all of the Fair Isle residents, the staff at Fair

Isle Bird Observatory and The National Trust for Scotland.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments……………………………………………………..……..iii

Introduction……………………………………………………………..…......1

Chapter 1: Theories of Intrinsic Value………………………………..……….3

Chapter 2: Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Value…………………….………...7

Chapter 3: Aesthetics and Scientific Knowledge………………..…………...13

Chapter 4: Pragmatism and Value Pluralism……………………..………….17

Chapter 5: Fair Isle Case Study……………………………………..……….24

5.1: The Human-Nature Relationship……………………………………..…27

5.2: Intrinsic and Instrumental Value……………………………………...…28

5.3: Aesthetics and Science……………………………………………….….31

Conclusion………………………………………………………………..….36

List of Figures

Figure 5.1: The Gully, Fair Isle…….......……………………….........……...32

Figure 5.2 Sheep Rock, Fair Isle….…………………………………..….......34

Appendices

Appendix I: Margo Murray’s Poetry…………………………………..….…37

Appendix II: List of Participants………...…………………………...………39

Appendix III: Sample Field Notes……………………………………….…..40

Appendix IV: Discussion Group Transcription……………………………...42

Appendix V: Sample Interview Transcription………...……………………..52

1

Introduction

Debates on the proper way to value the environment have stretched across

numerous fields in today’s society. Scientists, conservationists, philosophers

and the general public have all started to try and form views on how and why

society should value nature. From arguing that all forms of life should be

valued, even the non-sentient, to what is considered morally good in choosing

what to conserve, the amount of literature based on these questions has been

steadily increasing. While an increasing amount of literature on these subjects

is indeed a positive step forward for environmental ethics, it also creates a

problem when theories conflict with one another.

Understandably, each environmental ethics theory that exists typically

attempts to show why it should be implemented and how it sets itself above

the rest. From anthropocentric to nonanthropocentric theories, to instrumental

to intrinsic values, most publications on environmental ethics argue very

heavily to one side. It is this type of one-sided philosophical debate that

prevents environmental ethics from gaining the credibility it needs if it is to be

useful in every day life by scientists, politicians, and even the general public.

As I discuss in detail later, only if we can draw strengths from various theories

will they be more likely to put theory into practice.

It is necessary to work through various theories of values in

environmental philosophy to highlight the key values of the environment, and

by extension, crucial points from each theory. I am not writing this dissertation

in order to merely criticize various philosophers; rather, my aim is to draw on

the most important and useful aspects of their work. Through understanding

key ideas from these theories, it will be possible to understand, as I shall

argue, how and why value pluralism is imperative to putting theory into

practice. I illustrate this approach through a small case study of residents on

Fair Isle, Scotland.

It is worth mentioning that this case study is not the primary focus of

the dissertation, but helps to support the arguments of the dissertation in

practice. It is my hope that the case study will highlight the types of

environmental valuing that occur ‘on the ground’, whilst showing that it is

nearly impossible for someone to strictly value the environment in one way

2

and along the lines of a single theory. Through interviews, field notes and a

discussion group, my work on Fair Isle shows how people hold a plurality of

environmental values, and the role of those values for living an environmental

and ethically sound lifestyle.

Through an analysis of various environmental philosophies, a thorough

discussion of how and why value pluralism is effective, and finally showing

theory put into practice on Fair Isle, this dissertation will forward the

credibility of environmental ethics and render it more applicable to every day

life, science and politics.

3

Chapter 1: Theories of Intrinsic Value

Intrinsic value dominates the majority of debates in environmental ethics.

There are many different perspectives on what it means for something to have

intrinsic value, and best starting point for exploring this concept is John

O’Neill’s influential essay, “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value” (O’Neill 2003).

While O’Neill discusses his own approach to intrinsic value, here, my interest

is only in the distinctions he makes in the first section of his paper, in order to

give a backdrop for my discussion.

Quite correctly, O’Neill differentiates between three basic and

commonly used varieties of intrinsic value. The first type is described “as a

synonym for non-instrumental value” , where “An object has instrumental

value insofar as it is a means to some other end. An object has intrinsic value

if it is an end in itself” (O’Neill 2003: 131). For example, an ape contains

intrinsic value because it is an end in itself and strives to live and flourish,

where as a rock contains instrumental value because it is a means to some

other end, such as making a stone wall. This type of intrinsic value is quite

vague and simplistic, making it arguably the most basic of the three varieties

O’Neill defines, however this difference between intrinsic and instrumental

value opens up debate about what has an end in itself. Does a flower contain

intrinsic value because it strives to bloom, or is it of instrumental value

because it provides enjoyment when people gaze upon it? The second variety

of intrinsic value that O’Neill defines seeks to help answer questions such as

the ones I’ve just asked.

The second variety of intrinsic value, as defined by O’Neill, is intrinsic

value “…used to refer to the value an object has solely in virtue of its

‘intrinsic properties’” (O’Neill 2003: 131). The ‘intrinsic properties’

mentioned are further defined as an object’s non-relational properties. This

variety of intrinsic value is again, very basic, but due to the addition of non-

relational properties, it clarifies that the value non-human beings have

“…depends solely on their non-relational properties” (O’Neill 2003: 132).

O’Neill further clarifies non-relational properties as either the properties an

object has “…regardless of the existence or non-existence of other objects

(weak interpretation),” or “The non-relational properties of an object are those

4

that can be characterized without reference to other objects (strong

interpretation)” (O’Neill 2003: 134). This type of intrinsic value is extremely

difficult to clearly define in an object, and therefore is not as commonly used

as the first and third varieties.

The third variety is intrinsic value that is “…used as a synonym for

‘objective value’ i.e., value that an object possesses independently of the

valuation of valuers” (O’Neill 2003: 132). For example, a beetle that has not

yet been discovered by humans still possesses intrinsic value because it is an

end in itself and does not need humans as valuers.

All three intrinsic value varieties can be found in several

environmental philosophy theories. O’Neill states that the first and third

varieties are often used interchangeably, and he is absolutely correct in this

argument. One of the problems for intrinsic value is its’ vagueness when used

in certain theories, so it is imperative to understand these three basic

definitions of it before trying to understand the theories which make the

concept central.

Paul Taylor relies very heavily on intrinsic value for his life-centered

theory in “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”. Focusing on the good of a being

and the inherent worth of a being, Taylor’s life-centered theory is arguably

one of the best examples of strictly intrinsic value in an environmental ethic.

To expand on the good of a being, Taylor writes,

Every organism, species population, and

community of life has a good of its own which

moral agents can intentionally further or damage by

their actions. To say that an entity has a good of its

own is simply to say that, without reference to any

other entity, it can be benefited or harmed. (Taylor

1986: 199)

This passage explains that an entity that has a good of its own, or intrinsic

value, is worth including in a life-centered theory. An entity does not need to

have sentience in order to have a good of its own, and can be harmed or

helped by our actions. For example, a flower experiences advantages when

given sun and water to grow, while it is disadvantaged if its petals are picked

off or if it is crushed. Notice also that Taylor refers to an entity having a good

5

of its own without reference to any other entity, which is directly linked with

O’Neill’s second type of intrinsic value.

Taylor’s explanation of inherent worth states that there are two main

principles: moral consideration and intrinsic value. An entity deserves moral

consideration simply because it is a part of the “community of life” (Taylor

1986: 203). In other words, an entity deserves to be treated ethically because it

is part of the living world. Taylor further explains inherent worth when he

gives his personal definition of intrinsic value. He writes,

Insofar as we regard any organism, species

population, or life community as an entity having

inherent worth, we believe that it must never be

treated as if it were a mere object or thing whose

entire value lies in being instrumental to the good of

some other entity. The well-being of each is judged

to have value in and of itself. (Taylor 1986: 201)

Taylor argues that an entity that is a member of the “Earth’s community of

life” deserves to be treated as an end in itself, or in other words, intrinsically,

and never strictly instrumentally. These criteria for a life-centered theory are

easily linked to a second key aspect of his theory; a biocentric outlook on

nature.

A biocentric outlook on nature is another prime example of intrinsic

theories, and Taylor does an excellent job giving a succinct definition. In order

to have a biocentric outlook on life, Taylor argues four main points, which I

paraphrase: (1) Earth’s community of life extends to all entities, including

non-humans. (2) All ecosystems are connected and reliant on one another. (3)

Individual organisms are conceived as a teleological center of life with its own

good. (4) The claim that humans are superior to all other entities must be

rejected and is an anthropocentric and bias claim.1

This biocentric outlook is heavily associated with intrinsic valuing, and

strongly opposes the idea of human superiority as an anthropocentric, and

ultimately instrumental way of viewing nonhuman animals and entities. The

intrinsic valuing of nonhuman entities is key for both the life-centered theory

and the biocentric outlook, and both paint anthropocentrism, as well as

instrumental valuing, in a negative light,.

1 For the full explanation of all four points, see Taylor 1986: 206

6

It is Eugene Hargrove’s “Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value” that

shows instrumental valuing as having more to it than the common

misconception of being strictly anthropocentric, as Taylor and O’Neill

describe it. Hargrove introduces the notion of weak anthropocentric intrinsic

value, “…the view, as I define it, that anthropocentric does not simply mean

instrumental” (Hargrove 2003: 180) and that there is indeed a version of

intrinsic valuing which can still be weakly anthropocentric.

As Taylor argues for a strictly nonanthropocentric intrinsic value,

Hargrove justly points out, “It is almost as if there is a competition between

various conceptions of intrinsic value such that the recognition of one kind of

intrinsic value, anthropocentric intrinsic value, somehow damages the other,

nonanthropocentric intrinsic value” (Hargrove 2003: 178). It is difficult to

follow an ethic that is so one sided and biased, however theories like Taylor’s

are necessary to add to the greater picture, and therefore many theories of

intrinsic value should be explored and understood.

Intrinsic value cannot be separated so distinctly from instrumental

value, as the next chapter will explain. Hargrove puts a reasonable spin on

intrinsic value when he writes,

…anthropocentric intrinsic value judgements, rather

than being in competition with nonanthropocentric

intrinsic values, are absolutely essential if humans

are to muster any environmental concern about

nonhuman living centers of purpose (as well as

many other natural entities) objectively existing in

the world. (Hargrove 2003: 178)

It is the competitive feeling that many theories place on intrinsic and

instrumental values that deters from their argument. As Hargrove explains, it

is necessary to understand that anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism,

intrinsic and instrumental values are all intertwined and cannot be put above

one another in such clear cut ways. While there are many different arguments

of what intrinsic value means, understanding numerous varieties of its

definition allows for a deeper understanding in how the instrumental and

intrinsic can be much more similar than many theorists give them credit for.

7

Chapter 2: Intrinsic versus Instrumental Value

One of the most successful theorists to link intrinsic and instrumental values is

Holmes Rolston III in Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the

Natural World. As I have previously stated, while many ethicists argue one

type of value is more essential than another, Rolston’s work discusses the

ways in which both sets of values should and can by used by humans in

relation to valuing the environment. Rolston is able to break down different

value sets, which provides useful, support for working toward value pluralism.

The first value system Rolston defines is known as “Life-Support

Value,” which describes valuing nature because of the resources and

ecosystems that make all life possible. This type of value is seemingly

instrumental as it places emphasis on the uses of the environment, however

Rolston argues, “…that Earth is valuable would mean that Earth is able to

produce value and has long been doing so as an evolutionary ecosystem”

(Rolston 1988: 4), thus making the ecosystems intrinsically valuable without

humans or non-humans using it.

The second type of value is referred to as “Economic Value,” which

would again seemingly lean towards instrumental value. Rolston writes about

resources, “The sense of the prefix re- in resource is that nature can be

refitted, turned to use by human labor, and only the latter can give it value.

Valuing is a kind of labouring” (Rolston 1988: 5). This quote shows how

blurred the line truly is between intrinsic and instrumental valuing of the

environment, and it is not so easy to say that one is better than another.

Rolston delves further into economic value when he argues, “Any

living thing makes its environment into a resource. A squirrel hides a cache of

acorns; a bird builds a nest. But these activities still involve ecologies, hardly

yet economies…” (Rolston 1988: 5). Humans and nonhuman entities are

constantly refitting the environment for their needs, however it does not mean

that the object in use does not still contain intrinsic value. Acorns still have

intrinsic value in that they can flourish and grow, even though a squirrel relies

on acorns instrumentally as a food source.

The third type of value is “Recreational Value,” which speaks to the

pleasure of the outdoors. While many will automatically consider recreational

8

value instrumental valuing of the environment for the use of things such as

white water rafting or camping, Rolston cleverly explains that this is not the

case, and it is indeed intrinsic valuing as well. He states,

People like to recreate in the great outdoors because

they are surrounded by something greater than

anything they find indoors…When persons enjoy

watching wildlife and landscapes, though this may

take considerable skill, the focus is on nature as a

wonderland full of eventful drama and a bizarre

reparatory, a rich evolutionary ecosystem where

truth is stranger than fiction. Persons come to own

all these recreational values, but sometimes what

they seem to be valuing is creation more than

recreation. (Rolston 1988: 7).

It is true that by using a river for white water rafting, humans are using it

instrumentally for their athletic activities, but as this passage so eloquently

explains, in many cases it is just as much, if not more, about valuing creation

rather than recreation. It is imperative to understand that even something such

as recreational value, which is so easily categorized as instrumental valuing,

can be cross categorized as intrinsic valuing as well.

“Scientific Value” is another prime example of the link between

intrinsic and instrumental value. “Like music and the fine arts, natural science

is an intrinsically worthwhile activity, but scientists find this difficult to say

and, sometimes with much ingenuity, sell their study short by retreating to

some utilitarian subterfuge” (Rolston 9). While science is primarily done for

the benefit of humans and our understanding of the environment, it is foolish

for any theory to look down on scientific work as strictly instrumental when

without it we would not know that certain entities have teleological rights, and

therefore be apt to value them intrinsically.

Finally, Rolston touches on “Historical Value” which again, would

seem largely instrumental. Many theorists would argue that historical value

does not have any correlation with intrinsic value as it is strictly for human

purposes and instrumental to our culture, not life support. This argument is

unacceptable, as it is easily disproved in the following passage:

Using nature as a museum of natural history, a teaching

place, doubtless makes nature of instrumental value, but

here the living museum and the historical reality are,

9

although in small part, one and the same. When we treasure

the living museum instrumentally, we may also come to

recognize intrinsic value in the natural processes that still

survive in remnant wild and rural areas. (Rolston 1988: 14)

True, history is a part of human culture, but as Hargrove explained previously,

a weak anthropocentric intrinsic valuing in nature is still indeed intrinsic. By

valuing the environment instrumentally through natural history, we are able to

value it intrinsically as well.

The idea of using and valuing the environment instrumentally in order

to value it intrinsically is one that Ted Benton’s “Environmental Values and

Human Purposes” argues with great fervour. To preface this argument, Benton

comments on the undervaluing of the instrumental as being incorrect. Citing

Alan Holland’s work on intrinsic and instrumental values, I agree with Benton

in his idea that the majority of the human-nature interaction is “…need-

meeting, and to denigrate this in the name of intrinsic value in non-human

nature is to risk being able to reunite legitimate human claims to secure

livelihoods with a proper regard for nature” (Benton 2008: 211). As has been

proven by Rolston, the intrinsic and instrumental values cannot be separated

so easily, nor should they be. To undervalue the instrumental is to be naïve in

the understanding of the natural occurrences in the environment not just

between humans and non-humans, but also between all life forms.

Benton furthers his argument for the consideration of instrumental

value by using Holland’s work as an example of using the environment in

order to intrinsically value it. He quotes,

…the value and dignity of work; the challenge and

satisfaction of the exercise of craft and the

application of skill; and, in the case of gardening

and farming especially, the rewarding and

productive engagement with other life forms and

the opportunities to exercise virtues of nurture and

care. (Holland qtd. by Benton 2008: 211)

The working of the land for farming or gardening not only sustains the needs

of humans instrumentally, but it can allow for the intrinsic valuing of the

environment through being close to it. Seeing a flower or landscape flourish

can potentially lead the farmer or gardener to act ethically toward it for a

combination of intrinsic and instrumental worth. Again, this shows how the

10

two sets of values can work together to achieve a morally good environmental

ethic instead of being in competition with one another.

Plotting instrumental and intrinsic values against one another instead

of linking them for a successful ethic will not help environmental philosophy

in the long run. Benton articulates this idea when he states,

To value nature, and opportunities to engage with it,

for its aesthetic, spiritual or symbolic contribution

to a fulfilled human life is therefore implicitly to

acknowledge the importance of a non-

anthropocentric orientation to the world. There is no

contradiction, therefore, in valuing something for

what it is and valuing it as something whose

existence enhances a human life. (Benton 2008:

219)

While many could say Benton (and myself for agreeing with him) is

anthropocentric in his argument, it is this passage that shows that being mildly

anthropocentric in valuing the environment and nature for its uses to humans

can ultimately lead to valuing it intrinsically.

Finally, Riyan J.G. Van Den Born further demonstrates the ability to

contain both intrinsic and instrumental value, separately and/or together, in her

four images of the human-nature relationship. Van Den Born explains,

The Master over nature stands above nature. In his

interactions with nature he is not restricted by moral

constraints or knowledge about nature’s fragility.

Economic growth and technology are expected to provide

answers to his problems. (Van Den Born 2008: 88)

This relationship with nature is largely anthropocentric and instrumental

and the Master over nature would not particularly consider other entities to

have intrinsic value. The Master over nature is a Kantian take on the

human-nature relationship and is not in line with any of the environmental

philosophies that have been previously mentioned, however it is still a

common view for the general public.

The second relationship Van Den Born addresses is much more in

line with the likes of Rolston’s environmental ethic. Van Den Born

defines, “The Steward of nature also stands above nature, but manages

nature. Nature is not owned by the Steward, but entrusted to him. The

steward owes responsibility to God or future generations” (Van Den Born

11

2008: 88). This human-nature relationship introduces the idea of

sacredness in the environment, which can be linked to intrinsic valuing, as

well as instrumental valuing as a duty to future generations. The Steward

of nature is arguably the most common human-nature relationship in

today’s society as climate change threatens to take away vital resources

for generations to come.

The third relationship Van Den Born presents is the best example

of linking intrinsic and instrumental values into one ethic. In a seemingly

biocentric manner, Van Den Born explains, “The Partner with nature

stands side by side with nature. Humans and nature are considered to be of

equal value. Humans should work together with nature with the aim that

this interaction will benefit both” (Van Den Born 2008: 88). This

relationship with nature easily fits in with Rolston’s environmental ethic,

but can also be applied to Taylor’s criteria for a biocentric outlook. The

Partner with nature combines the ability to value non-human entities for

their intrinsic value, but also allows enough freedom to value them

instrumentally as they can benefit humans as well as themselves.

Lastly, the fourth human-nature relationship explained is largely in

line with Taylor’s life-centered outlook. Van Den Born describes,

The Participant in nature is part of nature, not just

biologically, but also on the spiritual level.

Although humans are a (small) part of nature, they

are active participants. For the Participant, the bond

between self and nature is very important; it co-

constitutes the self. (Van Den Born 2008: 88)

This is an ecocentric relationship that does not leave any real room for

instrumental valuing, but values nature for nature’s sake. The Participant

in nature is comparable to the likes of Arne Naess’ deep ecological

philosophy, and too extreme to allow for both instrumental and intrinsic

valuing in one ethic.

All four human-nature relationships described by Van Den Born

are succinct ways to understand one’s ability to value intrinsically and/or

instrumentally through relationships. It is unfortunate, however, that Van

Den Born does not touch more upon how and where science and aesthetics

12

would fit into any of these four relationships, as they too can help define

the valuing of nature intrinsically and instrumentally.

Thus far, varieties of intrinsic value have been explained, as well

as how and why they should not be plotted against one another, or against

instrumental value, as it is possible to intertwine them. Valuing an entity

with a biocentric or a life-centered theory does not change that the same

entity can also be valued instrumentally, and as I have explained, in some

cases, instrumental value can lead to intrinsic value. The previous two

chapters have laid the groundwork for understanding basic value

pluralism, however pluralism will be stretched even further as the next

chapter begins to explore scientific and aesthetic valuing of the same

entities.

13

Chapter 3: Aesthetics and Scientific Knowledge

Aesthetic valuing of nature is arguably one of the most immediate ways of

respecting and valuing the environment. Beautiful landscapes designated

as scenic areas, national parks that attract so many tourists each year, or

where one decides to live, are all largely based on the aesthetic beauty of

the environment. In Emily Brady’s essay “Aesthetics, Ethics and

Environmental Conservation,” the argument that aesthetics goes beyond

beauty or prettiness and connects to ethics is one that deserves to be

mentioned. However, it is Brady’s argument that aesthetics go hand in

hand with ethics that is what makes her essay relevant to this dissertation.

The quarrel between scientists devaluing intrinsic value and

philosophers devaluing instrumental value is one that seemingly has no

end. Brady acknowledges this and defends the inclusion of aesthetics

when she writes,

On the one hand, aesthetics is absolutely central to

valuing environments. It might even be said that it

forms the basis of all other environmental values,

such as valuing biodiversity or respecting the life of

a species. On the other hand, aesthetic value is not

taken very seriously in environmental conservation

generally speaking. (Brady 2003: 225)

Here, Brady has already highlighted how aesthetics can link science and

their love of instrumental value with many environmental ethicists’ love

for the intrinsic. Aesthetics has every right to be considered for ecological

or scientific value, as for example, an aesthetically pleasing panda bear is

much more likely to be conserved than a slimy and alien looking insect.

Perhaps, an even better example of the link between aesthetics,

science, and conservation is where humans would choose to conserve: a

rainforest or a marshland? Quite obviously, the rainforest is aesthetically

pleasing with its rich biodiversity of colourful flora and fauna, where a

marshland is largely looked at as aesthetically unpleasing due to its lack of

colour.

14

For those such as Rolston who have a Kantian take on

environmental ethics, Brady points out, “For Kant, beauty becomes a

symbol of morality, that is, the activity of aesthetic experience of beauty

gives us the opportunity to experience the kind of freedom we discover in

the autonomous act of moral choice” (Brady 2003: 256). In other words,

positive aesthetic value can lead to morally good decisions. I agree with

Brady in linking aesthetics to moral choices, however it is important to

state that it is not permissible to only value the aesthetics of an

environment because it brings personal joy.

In Yuriko Saito’s essay, “Appreciating Nature on Its Own Terms,”

the idea that nature should not be aesthetically appreciated for just

personal gains, or even strictly pictorially is discussed. Saito explains,

“Listening to nature as nature, I believe, must involve recognizing its own

reality apart from us. It includes acknowledging that a natural object has

its own unique history and function independent of the…significance

given by mankind…” (Saito 1998: 141). Just as art must be appreciated in

and of itself, so should nature. It is the intrinsic worth of nature that allows

for the aesthetic appreciation, but it should not only be in sight that it is

appreciated.

When one perceives the environment or nature, it is not strictly

through sight. Saito justly points out,

…this exclusive attention to its pictorial surface

falsifies nature’s aesthetic value. First, the pictorial

appreciation neglects the diverse nonvisual means

by which nature speaks to us; through the fragrance

of the lily of the valley, the gentle song of a lark in

early spring, and the refreshing coldness of a

stream. The predominantly visual experience of

nature thus can be characterized as our selective

hearing in comparison with the richness of nature’s

gift to us. (Saito 1998: 137)

It takes numerous senses to fully experience the environment. Sight, smell,

hearing and touch all play a role in the aesthetic appreciation one has

when out in nature. A pond next to a loud and busy highway is much less

aesthetically pleasing than one that is deep within a forest in a quiet and

secluded clearing. Hearing nature brings about just as much appreciation

15

as seeing it, as many ornithologists could argue when they hear many

different birds in one place without actually seeing any of them.

It is through scientific and ecological knowledge that aesthetic

appreciation can be found, as well. While it is not necessary to have either

type of knowledge, it must be noted that something such as ecological

knowledge can add a different type of aesthetic appreciation than someone

with none at all. It could also be argued, however, that too much scientific

or ecological knowledge can detract from aesthetic valuing of the

environment. Saito states,

On the one hand, we have to concede that indeed

some scientific information does lead us away from

the actual experience from nature. For example, the

molecular structure of a rock or the medicinal value

of a spring seems too removed from our immediate

perceptual arena to be realizable on the sensuous

surface. (Saito 1998: 144)

An ecologist walking along a path may miss the grand landscape and

beauty of openness as he or she is focused on some small part of it, such

as an insect he or she is studying. If too reliant on scientific or ecological

knowledge, the greater picture can potentially be lost. Furthermore, too

much attention to scientific or ecological knowledge can deter from the

intrinsic value of the entity or landscape, as the instrumental value to

humans becomes too heavily considered in comparison.

While that may be the case at times, it could also be argued that the

same ecologist is aesthetically appreciating something that could have been

completely overlooked by the tourist, who is taking photographs of only the

vast landscape.

For example, “the geological origin of a mountain, the anatomical

structure of an animal, or the camouflage phenomenon of and insect, is

embodied or manifested in the observable features of the object…” and

are valued for their own means through scientific or ecological knowledge

(Saito 1998: 45). This type of valuing showcases the ability for ecological

or scientific knowledge to aid in appreciating nature for what it is; whether

it is an entity’s remarkable ability to camouflage, or how a sea creature

16

breathes under water, having ecological or scientific knowledge breeds

appreciation and valuing.

It is this link between science and aesthetics that Aldo Leopold is

so well known for advocating. In A Sand County Almanac Leopold’s

writings echo his great appreciation for ecological knowledge for the

proper valuing of nature and aesthetics. Leopold argues that in order for

one to understand “the song of the river,” and “speech of the hills”

(Leopold 2001: 158), one must have an understanding of evolution and

ecology, thus linking science and aesthetics.

The aesthetic appreciation of nature should not be just for what

creates a picturesque photograph, and Leopold admits, “Education, I fear,

is learning to see one thing by going blind to another” (Leopold 2001:

158). For example, a marshland is being ignored as an aesthetically

pleasing environment because a field of wild flowers is nearby and

overshadowing it. It is this value of the environments that sustain many

different ecosystems that Leopold hopes education will benefit;

environments such as marshes, or moorland.

The link between ecological knowledge, aesthetics and ethics is

demonstrated by Leopold’s writings, and what makes his environmental

philosophy one that is a staple in current theory, as it is referenced in

countless essays. Aesthetic values, as demonstrated in this chapter, can sit

alongside other values, such as intrinsic, scientific, or any ethical values,

without creating conflict or degrading said values. Having a link between

science and aesthetics, and intrinsic and instrumental valuing, is

something that makes an environmental ethic more likely to be put into

practice, which is, after all, the aim of so many theorists’ work. It is my

hope that it is becoming clear how easily numerous value theories can be

found in one person’s value system. It is impossible to separate any of the

aforementioned value theories into neat little sections, as they are all

intertwined and can work with one another to help make ethical decisions.

17

Chapter 4: Pragmatism and Value Pluralism

Thus far many aspects of environmental philosophy have been covered:

Intrinsic value theories, the need to understand the correlation between

instrumental and intrinsic values, as well as their differences, the human-

nature relationship, and the link between aesthetics, science and ethics.

Each one of the previous chapters has been written with the hope of

highlighting how they can all work together to make a practical, accessible

and realistic environmental ethic.

Do not misunderstand this for a single environmental ethic filled

with rules and guidelines, but instead, understand the previous chapters

and arguments as potential pieces to a constantly changing puzzle. The

points that I have argued through the use of other theorists’ environmental

philosophies are set in place to provide the basis of understanding how

many different values can be used together to act ethically and practically.

Rolston’s openness in his argument for the valuing of nature

allows him to understand the benefits of both instrumental and intrinsic

value, as well as aesthetics via scientific knowledge. The philosophy he

sets forth in Environmental Ethics is one that coincides with my position

that value pluralism is central to a practical environmental ethics, and that

pluralism is relevant in so far as different people, cultures, and beliefs are

all going to require different variations of ethics. Rolston expresses this

well:

An ethic, it may be insisted, has to be formal,

general, universal, applicable without regard to time

and place, true all over Earth, true on all planets

where there are moral agents…An ethic too has an

environment, a niche to inhabit. Like a species, it is

where it is. Ethics evolve, as do species, and have

storied development. (Rolston 1988: 342)

An environmental ethic does not have to be one set of specific rules,

because as Rolston and I agree, ethics evolve with the changing times and

species. It is necessary to understand many sets of values so that the

18

evolution is made smoother and consistent, no matter which cultural niche

it is fitting into.

It is imperative for environmental philosophy to take a pragmatic

approach to ethics whilst linking it to value pluralism if there is any hope

for putting theory into practice. Environmental pragmatism attempts to

give humans the ability to make ethical decisions based on a theory in a

practical way. Instead of focusing on a heavy philosophical side,

environmental pragmatism focuses on practicality and open mindedness.

In “Beyond Intrinsic Value; Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics,”

Anthony Weston recognizes this: “The important questions for

pragmatism are the ones posed by specific situations, and while the

answers across different situations will probably bear a strong family

resemblance, they will not always be the same” (Weston 2003: 338).

Different people, cultures, and circumstances require a flexible

environmental ethic. While many different values can be explored for a

common goal of treating the environment ethically, they do not all

resemble one another.

It is unreasonable for the likes of Arne Naess’ deep ecology2 to

make it past theoretical debate due to the overly strict rules and arguably

extreme approach to ethics. Extreme and monistic philosophies will not be

adapted in the real world, as people do not all share in the same values of

the environment. Weston writes,

Pragmatism, indeed, celebrates a wide-open and

diverse culture; it is the prerequisite of all the

central Deweyan virtues: intelligence, freedom,

autonomy, growth. What we have yet to accept is its

inconclusiveness and open-endedness, its demand

that we struggle for our own values without being

closed to the values and the hopes of others.

(Weston 2003: 339)

2 Arne Naess’ deep ecology is an arguably radical environmental philosophy

which states that every entity (including rocks, rivers, etc) should be included

in the moral sphere. Naess calls for understanding the “Self,” in which the

valuer sees all other entities in themselves (as opposed to the lower cased

“self,” in which the valuer does not and is not a deep ecologist). There are a

set of eight guidelines that must be strictly followed in order to keep with deep

ecology. For a list of the criterion, as explained by Naess, see Naess 1986:

189.

19

It is crucial for an environmental ethic to be open to understanding many

sets of values, which leaves the likes of Taylor and other monistic

theorists at a disadvantage. A successful environmental philosophy will

have looked at many different values and theories and will be open enough

to intertwining them in order to be practical enough for every day use.

While value pluralism is necessary for a pragmatic environmental

ethic, containing several sets of values raises a problem that must be

addressed. It could indeed be argued by skeptics that multiple sets of

values can conflict, contradict one another and create confusion. While

this is a reasonable criticism, it can be addressed by applying Andrew

Brennan’s sentiments in his essay, “Moral Pluralism and the

Environment.” Brennan suggests that by ordering where one views each

type of value in a sort of hierarchy, it becomes easier to utilize many

values in one ethical decision. For each situation that calls for an

environmental ethic, Brennan argues that by having a semi-hierarchical

order to values pertaining to the issue, the ability to make the correct

decision is less complicated.

In other words as J. Baird Callicott explains, “…we take our many

moral ‘maps,’ ‘planes,’ and ‘frameworks’ (our polyglot ethical systems or

theories), lay them out over the ‘territory’ (the problem, quandary, or

conundrum) and, if they jibe, fine. If they don’t, then we prioritize them”

(Callicott 2003: 209). In this quote, Callicott is paraphrasing Christopher

Stone’s moral pluralism, and is questioning its validity, however it is

actually an acceptable theory. If one prioritizes the several theories at

hand, each theory will ultimately lead to one sort of ethical decision, but

since different situations call for different theories, a value (or moral)

pluralist will be able to make the most fitting ethical decision for that

particular problem by combining approaches. Having flexibility should

not be frowned upon so much as celebrated, for it allows a bit of breathing

room and therefore makes environmental theory much more realistic.

I am not saying that prioritizing values means one must choose a

single theory over another. Instead, what I am trying to convey is that

20

prioritizing to a certain extent helps to utilize the most relevant theories.

Callicott further demonstrates this idea when he explains,

I suggest that we graphically represent the

expansion of our moral sensibilities from narrower

to wider circles, not as Peter Singer would have us

represent it, like the expansion of the circumference

of a balloon, but like the annular growth rings of a

tree. In such a figure the inner rings remain visible

and present and the outer are added on, each more

remote from the center, from the moral heartwood.

(Callicott 2003: 216)

Imagining different sets of values as separate rings in a tree trunk is an

excellent way to illustrate what I mean by prioritizing values. It is not to

say that one philosophy is better than another, as they are all part of the

greater whole, however some are further away from the center of the

trunk, or in an ethical dilemma, a theory is further away from the problem.

By still containing many sets of values, a value pluralist will be able to

approach an issue with many “rings” and use the strongest ones to solve

the ethical dilemma.

The many values one person can hold is well demonstrated in

Callicott’s argument. Callicott explains,

Moral pluralism…invites us to adopt…a fourth

[theory] to express the concern we feel for future

generations, a fifth to govern our relationship with

nonhuman animals, a sixth to bring plants within

the purview of morals, a seventh to tell us how to

treat the elemental environment, an eighth to cover

species, ecosystems, and other environmental

collectives, and perhaps a ninth to explain our

obligations to the planet, Gaia, as a whole and

organically unified living thing. (Callicott 2003:

205)

Within this single quote, various values that have been discussed thus far

can be seen. For instance, relations with other people and duties to future

generations are anthropocentric values, bringing plants into the moral

sphere matches Taylor’s call for a biocentric or life-centered theory, and

“our obligations to the planet” echo the sentiments of Rolston’s idea of

duty and respect. Although Callicott argues for a monistic approach to

21

environmental ethics, in his aforementioned paragraph, numerous value

sets have been illustrated as working together for a value pluralism based

theory.

While it can be argued that many people search for consistency in

their personal philosophies, it can also be argued that many people feel

pulled in several directions when it comes to the environment. One person

could easily describe the pleasure of recreating in the outdoors, the

appreciation for the colors of a flower in bloom, or the valuing of fresh

water to drink, but does this make them wrong for containing more than

one set of values? Within these three different sets of values, intrinsic,

aesthetic and instrumental values are all described, proving how easy it is

for value pluralism to be accepted and practiced. As Brennan writes,

By adopting the pluralistic stance, we not only start

to do justice to the complexity of real situations, but

we also can start to look for ways by which

environmental ethics can be linked up with other

modes of valuing and ways of responding to our

surroundings. (Brennan 1992: 30)

It is true that most situations requiring environmental ethics will be complex

and not easily categorized with one theory. For instance, a conservationist

who wants to save wildlife may have to kill other forms of wildlife in order to

do so. The questions can then be asked, how can one decide what is worth

saving, is it for anthropocentric reasons that one nonhuman animal is deemed

more valuable than another, is one more aesthetically pleasing than another?

These are all very real sets of values that can potentially come into play when

trying to make an ethical decision, making value pluralism and pragmatism of

the utmost importance. Understanding how aesthetics can be linked to ethics,

how intrinsic value can be reached through instrumental value, and so on, all

inevitably lead to a stronger ethic in the end result.

In Andrew Light’s “The Case for Practical Pluralism,” the idea that

having a practical approach to moral pluralism is one that is well argued.

Light argues,

The kind of pluralism I embrace…argues that as

long as our different moral frameworks are oriented

toward the same environmental priorities, we can

ignore for the time being many of the issues of the

22

truth about which reason for valuing nature is

actually right… The point to focus on practically is

that the differing theoretical bases of these views

need not be resolved further for the pluralist so long

as they offer reasons for achieving the same policy

end: protecting old growth forests and the habitat of

the owls. (Light 2003: 235)

What Light is arguing is that it is not how we get to the end result of making

an ethical decision; it does not matter which specific theory we choose to

follow, only that we end up making the morally right decision in the end. Any

environmental ethicist, even ones against value pluralism, cannot deny that in

the end the most important part of environmental ethics (and the whole point

of it) is to treat nature and the environment with care.

Arguably, the largest difference between monist and pragmatic

pluralist theories are the approaches to handling environmental problems.

While monist theories largely try to prove themselves as the best option for

ethics, pragmatic pluralist theories are more focused on getting to the correct

ethical decision at a faster pace. Light explains,

For the monist our goal should be theoretical

agreement all the way down, from policy ends to

ethical foundations. For my version of practical, or

“pragmatic pluralism,” the fact that the

environmental problems we face are so pressing

provides a warrant for setting aside agreement on

ethical foundations when possible. (Light 2003:

235)

My arguments in this dissertation fit very well into Light’s pragmatic

pluralism. Ethical decisions are too complex to wade through the mass

amount of environmental philosophies to find the correct or most appropriate

theory for the situation; if one did indeed exist. It is unrealistic to expect

anyone outside of philosophers to put that much time and effort into sifting

through theories before making a decision. As long as an ethical decision that

benefits the environment or nature is reached, it should not matter if it is

anthropocentric or for nonathropocentric reasons, especially since it is nearly

impossible to stick to one particular theory in a complex dilemma.

Taking bits and pieces from any of the theories I have previously

discussed in earlier chapters will allow a pragmatic approach to value

23

pluralism to be successful. At any given time, intrinsic value can be mixed

with aesthetics, aesthetics can be linked with science and instrumental value,

and a human can use these links to form an ethical opinion or decision. If

environmental philosophy is to be used in practice, value pluralism is the best

option, as demonstrated by my case study on Fair Isle.

24

Chapter 5: Fair Isle Case Study

Being one of the most remote and uninhabited isles in Scotland, Fair Isle

exemplifies what it means to value nature in a variety of ways. A world-

renowned nesting ground for seabirds, Fair Isle was bought by the National

Trust for Scotland (NTS) and declared a Special Protection Area (SPA), and in

1999 requested to make its surrounding waters a Marine Protected Area

(MPA) (Wheeler 1999). Today, the Fair Isle community focuses on the Fair

Isle Bird Observatory (FIBO), the Fair Isle Marine Environment and Tourist

Initiative (FIMETI) and NTS’ work to conserve bird life and the marine life

that sustains both nature and the community’s needs.

The residents of Fair Isle, Scotland have diverse and colourful

backgrounds. While some people living on the island have just moved there

within the last few years, others have moved there over thirty years ago, and a

select few are native to the most remote inhabited isle in the United Kingdom.

Although their professional lives and upbringings vary greatly, the entire

community on Fair Isle relies heavily on the environment for economic and

personal (and for some, spiritual) development, making their sets of

environmental values and ethics of crucial importance, and an excellent

choice for a case study.

The three methods used in the case study were field notes, four ‘go-

along’ one-on-one interviews, and finally a discussion group held in FIBO

with six residents. Due to the small size of Fair Isle, coupled with the high

levels of community participation in environmental sustainability, utilizing

three methods of qualitative studies allowed the environmental values of select

Fair Isle residents to be highlighted and understood. The community is

extremely tight knit and once I gained contact with a few residents, word

spread about my work and people were more than happy to recommend others

for interviews.

The field notes taken during my nine day stay on Fair Isle were a way for

me to consider the many values I appreciate in the same environment as my

participants. Fortunately, my accommodation was at the Fair Isle Bird

Observatory Lodge (FIBOL), where I could observe both conservation

workers and residents interact with the environment on a daily basis, and since

25

I was there June 7th

-16th

, I was there just as many birds were starting to nest on

the Isle. By having access to the grounds and research facilities surrounding

FIBO, my own experience of the natural environment aided in understanding

why the wardens at the FIBO work so diligently to save it, and provided me

with an inside look on why residents support FIBO as heavily as they do. The

residents knew that I was doing the study based on the community on Fair

Isle, as did FIBO staff, however the staff did not realize that I also took into

account their daily actions. This “under cover” approach to my field notes

made sure that the wardens and researchers did not hold back their opinions in

front of me, and while I did not interview any of them, my experiences in the

field with them as a participant proved invaluable, as will be discussed later.

For one-on-one interviews, a relatively recent method was used known

as a ‘go-along’, which is an excellent way to break the uncomfortable setting

of a sit down interview. While a go-along can be done in many ways, such as

going for a drive in the car, I asked Fair Isle residents to take a walk with me

to their favourite spot on the island. The go-along combined with participant

observation and discussion groups allowed for a deeper understanding of

participant values as, “ethnographers are able to observe their informants’

spatial practices in situ while accessing their experiences and interpretations at

the same time” (Kusenbach 2003: 463). Recording the conversation and taking

pictures of the final destination made field notes and analysis exponentially

better, and the participant benefited from being able to speak about an

environment they were comfortable and confident in. The interviewees chosen

were two men and two women, however, due to inclement weather, both

female participants’ interviews had to be performed indoors in their own

homes. This did not change the outcome of the information gathered in the

interviews, as I still asked them the same questions and made them aware of

what we would have done if we had been able to go on a walk together.

Lastly, “The use of once-only groups is valuable for qualitative research

because they provide a forum in which people can share and test out their

views with others rather than responding in an isolated interview” (Burgess

1988: 311). By leading a focus group, which I refer to as a discussion group,

Fair Isle residents were able to articulate their values with the comfort of

community members instead of speaking to a complete stranger one on one.

26

By listening to each others’ take on environmental values and ethics,

discussion group participants were be able to better define what they agree and

disagree with in ways they wouldn’t have the opportunity to when answering

questions on their own.

Participants of the discussion group were inevitably difficult to group

into categories of education level, age, etc, due to the small population size on

Fair Isle (approximately 70). Every attempt was made to involve participants

in equal numbers of male and females, age, occupation (environmental versus

non-environmental), and the amount of time spent living on the island. The

group was kept small to be able to gain trust among members at a rapid pace.

“Theoretically, the small group mirrors relationships in the real-world; people

are not isolated individuals but social beings living in webs of cultural

significance through participation in their linguistic communities” (Foulke as

qtd. by Burgess 1988: 457). Thus, by keeping the discussion group small, the

intention was for participants not to feel isolated, however the group was not

too big where someone did not feel they could participate. In the end, six

community members participated; two women and four men, all between the

ages of thirty-five and eighty-five.

While some may question the thought process behind choosing Fair Isle

as the case study location, it was an excellent choice due to the approachable

nature of its community, as well as the reliance on the environment they

inevitably inhabit. In terms of being over exposed to scientific research as a

small island with world renowned bird breeding sites, some may assume the

community would have been closed off from more research being conducted,

or perhaps even well rehearsed in what information they pass on to

researchers. Over exposure to research on a small island was in no way an

obstacle for this study, as my research is on the human-nature relationship,

which has not been done on the Isle before, and actually peaked interest in

many of the islanders curiosity about my work. As one islander, Margo

Murray3, wrote to me after doing a one on one interview, “What I liked about

3 Margo later sent me a copy of her poem, “Red Cow with Snow Buntings,” in

order to show how nature has inspired her poetry. This poem can be found in

Appendix I.

27

it was that you found yourself happily answering questions that you had never

asked yourself.”

Although the Fair Isle residents were so close to nature on a daily basis,

asking themselves questions about their relationship with it, or how and why

they value it, is not something they found themselves having done. One of the

participants, David Wheeler, mentioned to me, “I’m just rather quite

intrigued, and I found that last night [the night the discussion group was held]

was quite an interesting night how it got the islanders, the few of us there,

talking on a different level that I actually quite miss; a philosophical level.” It

took some time in the discussion group and interviews to show that

environmental ethics was a valid set of ideas that the islanders should think

about. It is very easy for humans to realize the scientific and socio-economic

reasons that they value the environment, however, linking those with questions

of aesthetics, intrinsic and instrumental value, and the human-nature

relationship eventually helped Fair Isle residents understand that philosophy

can apply to their every day life.

5.1 The Human-Nature Relationship

As previously discussed, the human-nature relationship as explained by Van

Den Born can be viewed as the Master, the Steward, the Partner and the

Participant. Before analyzing this case study into sections relating to value

theories, it is important to showcase how some of the participants described

their own relationships with nature, as it will give preliminary insight into

their valuing of nature. During the discussion group, P54 stated, “Well, the

fourth would be nice but the reality would be one of the first other two,”

highlighting how more extreme theories, such as deep ecology, are much less

likely to be applicable in the real world.

The need for a pragmatic philosophy that feels accessible to people

outside of the philosophical and academic world is demonstrated again by one

4 P1 stands for “Participant 1,” P2 stands for “Participant 2,” and so on. This is

not applicable to the interviews or field notes, where names are used. Some

participants are named while others are not due to requests of confidentiality.

A full list of participants can be found in Appendix II.

28

discussion group participant’s (P3) statement, “I think on a philosophical level

we all agree we are part of nature, and purely philosophically we are just

another species, but we are a very special species. We have to accept that

about ourselves, we do have intellect, and that makes us humans.” This

statement by P3 links in with the Steward, where P3 is verbalizing his

superiority over nonhuman animals, however he also realizes we are part of

nature, and therefore insinuates we must treat it ethically.

Although P6 did not comment in the discussion group, during her

interview with me, she stated,

I think we’re very much stewards of nature now, in

the life and times that we live in, and that’s very

much how we run our croft; we’re stewarding our

environment in a way. On the other hand we’re also

partners with the environment, walking in

stewardship with it you also have to have an

understanding, a more intimate understanding of

the environment; and I think in that sense you’re

also walking in partnership with it a bit more.

This opinion from P6 shows how value pluralism directly affects the human-

nature relationship. While P6 thinks humans are stewards, she also realizes we

have the ability to partner with nature, showing her appreciation for nature

itself.

Lastly, understanding how easily humans can fluctuate between the

Master and Steward relationships with nature is illustrated in M4’s statement,

“But the other thing is we want to be empowered. We’re asking to be

empowered…We want stewardship, but we want to have the empowerment

that says, ‘Give us the stewardship.’” This perfectly highlights how one

person can feel many different value sets, as P4 is trying to explain his

inclusion of humans in both the Master and Steward relationships with nature.

It is very difficult to fit neatly into one relationship with nature, just as it is

difficult to fit neatly into one environmental philosophy, or side wholly with

intrinsic or instrumental valuing.

5.2 Intrinsic and Instrumental Value

29

Intrinsic value is notoriously difficult to bring out in every day conversation

involving the environment, while instrumental value is typically verbalized

quite readily outside of the philosophical world (Van Den Born 2008). In

speaking to participants during interviews and in the discussion group, both

intrinsic and instrumental values were discussed, and in most cases, the

participant would express both values.

During the discussion group and again in each interview, the basic

ideas behind intrinsic and instrumental values were explained to participants.

In short, intrinsic value was described as having many different theories, but

for the purpose of this study, was the theory that the environment, nature,

nonhuman entities, etc, all have the right to flourish regardless of their use to

humans, and contain value in and of themselves. Instrumental value was

defined as viewing any of the aforementioned things as valuable to humans as

a resource aesthetically, economically, emotionally, etc.

Most participants either did not fully understand what it meant to value

nature intrinsically, or demonstrated feelings of both instrumental and intrinsic

valuing. For example, during my interview with David Wheeler, he explained,

“I mean, it’s seeing nature for what it is, admiring it, wanting to enjoy it, but

not wanting to harm it or destroy it any way because in doing so you lose it.”

While David is trying to say that he values the environment intrinsically, he

also mentions losing it, which could be understood as instrumental valuing,

since he could be referring to losing it as a resource for humans. On the other

hand, David could also be implying that nature strictly has intrinsic value, and

in losing it, it loses its own value, such as the last of a species being lost.

During a separate interview, Elizabeth Riddiford did well in

articulating her understanding of both values by responding to my question of

whether nature has intrinsic value. Elizabeth commented,

Man is part of the environment; we need the environment to

survive ourselves. So, from that point of view we’re being

selfish because we’re thinking about it like that. But also,

from a nature point of view, we like to say everything in

nature has a right to be there, and to continue, and not to

be used up and disappear; if you’re looking at it from that

point of view as well.

30

This idea that nature has a right to be there and continue clearly fits into the

definition of intrinsic value, however Elizabeth also recognized that humans

need the environment to survive, and therefore must use it instrumentally. This

echoes Benton’s theory that in using and valuing the environment

instrumentally, one can then value it intrinsically as well. Elizabeth’s

comments also correlate with Rolston’s open-minded approach to linking the

intrinsic and instrumental together. Containing both intrinsic and instrumental

value philosophies has not deterred Elizabeth from making ethical choices,

and has allowed her to understand that nature has a right to be there just as

much as she does.

Another example of valuing the environment intrinsically by using it

instrumentally is suggested when during the discussion group, P2 stated,

Where did that value come in? I’m thinking back to

hunter-gatherers. They didn’t actually value their

environment. They appreciated it, they appreciated

what it meant to them, but it’s hard to think that

way. I think we start to value things when we begin

to realize what it would be like without them.

This quote is in response to my question of whether the group thought nature

had intrinsic or instrumental value. Very clearly, P2 believes in both values,

and believes that in order to value nature intrinsically for what it is, people

must also appreciate its worth instrumentally.

In the interview with Margo Murray, I asked her if she thought nature

was important. Margo responded, “I suppose here you have a relationship

with nature. Just walking you have a relationship with the flowers… if you’re

close to things, as you are on an island, you create a relationship.” She then

later added, “I think we get a feeling of well being from nature. You know,

anything from the sea, and animals, we get something.” In these two quotes

Margo expresses intrinsic value first in appreciating a relationship with nature

because it is there separate from us, but close to us, while in the second quote,

Margo hints at gaining something (whether it be spiritually or emotionally)

from nature, which could be argued as either intrinsic or instrumental.

Not all participants view nature as having both intrinsic and

instrumental value, as one person verbalized during the discussion group.

Valuing the environment instrumentally is quite easy to do on Fair Isle, as the

31

community is so dependent on it as a socio-economic resource. In response to

P1 stating that the environment contains value without humans there to value

it, P2 argues, “… a bird doesn’t value a tree where it’s getting its feed from. It

needs the feed, but it itself doesn’t give a value to it. You only start to

introduce the value aspect when humans start to think cash.” P2’s explanation

of instrumental value as being directly linked to cash is in line with many

theories in environmental philosophy, including Taylor’s. It was helpful to

have P2 stress their point of view on instrumental value, as it allowed the

other group members to feel comfortable disagreeing with one another.

5.3 Aesthetics and Science

Speaking about intrinsic and instrumental value led the discussion group into

a discussion about aesthetics and how it is also involved in valuing the

environment. In trying to work through how they value the environment, P2

stated, “When I see a fine landscape, or a view of the effects of light and

shadow and think, ‘Brilliant. Photograph.’ I don’t actually put a value on it, I

appreciate it.” To which P5 responded, “Yes, your value is to appreciate it,

and your hobby comes out of your enjoyment.” In the appreciating the

aesthetics of the landscape, P2 believes there is a difference between valuing

and appreciating, where P5 puts it into perspective by saying appreciation is

value. This idea can be linked with Saito or Brady in that by valuing the

environment or a landscape for its own aesthetics, one is still valuing it and is

more inclined to make an ethical decision about it.

In keeping with Leopold’s idea that ecological knowledge and

aesthetic appreciation go hand in hand, Nick Riddiford’s interview is a perfect

example. Being an ecologist, Nick has a wealth of knowledge about flora and

fauna, not only on Fair Isle, but the world. When asked if he thought his

ecological knowledge had an impact on the way he sees beauty, Nick

responded,

Living on a tiny island you think you’ve seen it

all…under different lights, and different seascapes,

and different skyscapes as well. So, you know, I do,

I’m one of those people who although, obviously

32

working in a scientific field, have a very strong

emotional and aesthetic bond with it as well.

Nick’s ecological knowledge allows him to look at the Isle in a completely

different way than other residents. While many residents told me their favorite

spot was a specific cliff, or stretch of beach, Nick took me to the gully (the

location of a bird trap) with the view looking out into the North Sea, pictured

below:

Figure 5.1 The gully, Fair Isle. Photo taken by Kendra White

The gully was beautiful to me because it had a small waterfall, and the bright

green mosses against the crisp blue water as a backdrop, however that is not

why Nick brought me there. It was because of the lichen and ferns that Nick

considers this a favorite spot; the rarity value is of the utmost importance to

him. For Nick, rarity is a thing of beauty, and the uncommon species of fern

growing on the island were aesthetically pleasing to him. In my field notes, I

reflected on the walk Nick and I took together after the interview:

To the average person, myself included, walking

around Fair Isle is certainly a scenically beautiful

treat. The dramatic cliffs and constant chattering of

33

birds easily draws your attention to scan the

landscape on a wide scale. It was during my time

with Nick that I realized just how much of the

environment I was missing on a small scale. The

rare mosses and tasty grass were things I never

would have noticed, or thought to eat, for that

matter. Nick’s ecological knowledge allowed him,

and myself, to gain a closer appreciation for nature.

Even looking at some lichen, Nick knew the island

history and facts about lichens well enough to know

that they were around 150 years old on the

stonewalls stretching next to the road. I had passed

that same lichen dozens of times and had not

thought for a moment how old it could possibly be.

It does not mean that Nick is able to value the

environment more, but it does mean that he has a

unique value system and understanding of value in

rarity.

Nick’s appreciation of the environment stems directly from his ecological

knowledge, and his idea of aesthetic beauty is completely different than any of

the other participants. As Leopold suggests, understanding “the song of the

river” is possible through ecological knowledge, and Nick’s appreciation of

the gully is a prime example of this.

Although not every resident on Fair Isle has ecological knowledge,

each person still has a certain idea of beauty. As P4 stated in the discussion

group, “But that’s a very individual thing, isn’t it. I can say something is

beautiful and everybody else could say, ‘What on earth is he looking at?’”

While Nick echoes Leopold’s sentiments of ecological knowledge leading to

aesthetic appreciation, other participants in the interviews related with Saito

more in appreciating the aesthetics because of all of their senses. As Elizabeth

said in her interview,

Well, if you’re out in the wind and you’re sort of

having to stand at a forty-five degree angle just to

stay on your feet because otherwise the wind would

blow you over, and you have this tremendous

strength of the wind, and the noise, and the sea, and

yes, just the whole thing really is pretty awe

inspiring, I think.

The impact nature has on all of her senses is what leads Elizabeth back to her

favorite cliffs on the Isle, in conjunction with “…the form of the cliffs…it’s

34

just scenically very pretty.” Speaking about the form of cliffs and the

prettiness of the scenery quite obviously demonstrates Elizabeth’s aesthetic

valuing of the environment and specifically the cliffs on Fair Isle.

Figure 5.2 Sheep Rock, Fair Isle. Photo taken by Kendra White

The form of Sheep Rock is what draws so many tourists and Isle

residents alike to the shores of North Haven beach, which looks out on the

now abandoned grazing site. The dramatic nature of Sheep Rock is agreed by

many as being aesthetically pleasing, however when given the example of

choosing a waterfall or a bog as one being more aesthetically pleasing than the

other, Elizabeth responded, “It’s a bit maybe like first impressions…You

know, if you saw a beautiful field of flowers, ‘Oh yes, that’s fantastic,’ but

then, as I say, if you get down and dirty, and start looking at a bog which isn’t

immediately beautiful, then you find that there’s more underneath that’s worth

looking at.” Elizabeth does not have a profession based on ecology, and yet

still aesthetically appreciates a bog for its inner-workings just as much as a

waterfall for its beauty, again linking her to Saito by appreciating the bog for

what it is.

35

All of the participants’ responses in explaining their favorite spot on

the Isle, or whether they would choose a bog over a waterfall were linked to

aesthetics and further linked them to want to treat the Isle’s nature ethically.

Brady’s idea that aesthetic appreciation can potentially lead to environmental

ethics is demonstrated by each one of their responses and their eco-friendly

lifestyles.

That same idea was demonstrated on a walk with a warden on my last

day on Fair Isle. I wrote in my field notes,

We started walking along a stonewall that had

numbers painted in white at certain points. Carrie

explained they were markers for where Starling

nests were hidden in the wall, but that the islanders

requested they stop marking them in that way as it

takes away from the aesthetics of the wall and

landscape. It was interesting that the islanders put

their foot down about something that would help the

scientists, and clearly exhibited their appreciation

for the aesthetics of the Isle.

Research is one of the most popular reasons for people to come to Fair Isle,

and yet the islanders value aesthetics so much, they stood their ground and

changed the way scientific research is conducted on Isle. Additionally, not just

one person could have stopped the researchers from using painted numbers;

many islanders must have stepped forward in order to accomplish this,

demonstrating the idea that aesthetics can lead to action, and at times, ethical

action.

36

Conclusion

After having looked at the many theories of intrinsic value, instrumental

value, science and aesthetics, the words and actions of Fair Isle participants

quite clearly connect with numerous environmental philosophies. While some

responses fit in with Taylor’s view of intrinsic value, other responses

incorporate Rolston’s idea that the intrinsic and instrumental can be found one

in the same. The same participants from the discussion group and interviews

expressed an aesthetic appreciation of the environment, but also recognized

their need for socio-economic gains, and nature’s right to be there for itself.

Individuals in the Fair Isle community truly hold several different values for

the environment, highlighting the idea that many different values can work

together to create a pluralistic ethic.

Fair Isle residents believe very much in being pragmatic, as they

expressed numerous times that they wish to live a sustainable lifestyle, but

realize they rely on the environment for their socio-economic benefits,

emotional well-being, and they also appreciate the right nature on the Isle has

to flourish for itself. Keeping a pragmatic approach to value pluralism allows

for Fair Isle to hold an environmental ethic that works across the community,

where each resident is able to value the environment in many different ways.

While many theorists believe that one environmental philosophy must

be the core of ethics, I have taken aspects of many philosophies, argued for

pragmatic value pluralism, and demonstrated this approach in the case study

of Fair Isle. In order to treat the environment ethically, a philosophy that

allows for many values is the only way forward, and it works, as demonstrated

by the ethical decisions of Fair Isle residents. Whether someone values the

environment for anthropocentric reasons such as future generations, or

whether they value it because they believe it has a right to flourish for itself,

or for many people, for both reasons, pragmatic value pluralism is necessary

to get what every environmental philosopher desires: the ethical treatment of

the environment.

37

Appendix I: Margo Murray’s Poetry

After conducting an interview with Margo, she told me about a poem she had

once written about a cow she could see from her bedroom window. Margo

explained that she watched the cow every morning, and that upon its death,

she realized the value it contained outside of being food. The following poem

is an example of Margo’s intrinsic and instrumental valuing of the red cow.

Red Cow with Snow Buntings

Each morning, as soon as the light

is enough, I see it, a red cow

standing alone on the brow

of a humped backed brae.

Today she warms her buttocks,

on a rising sun, whilst snow

buntings, pretending to be a winter

flurry, scan the girse at her feet.

Even from where I spy

I can see it’s niggardly

and the woman with the white

bucket has not yet delivered.

The sun-rise is brief so

the red cow hunkers down

to wait. She hears the drone

of the pickup, lifts her hulk

expectantly, but the vehicle moves on.

A small boy hurries by on his way

to school. A turn of the head says

he’s not the woman with

the white bucket.

When the bucket does materialise

the snow buntings, in their scintillating

play of swerve on sway,

will re-appear, then, as the bucket’s

contents pepper the sparse girse

they’ll tilt in-by the red cow,

form a shared table.

On a different day

38

there’s a distinct nip in the air

as I watch the red cow eye

a gray horse-box, that has drawn

up at the foot

of the humped back brae.

The red cow gambols

a bit, when approached, not in the way

of the douce calf she once

was, but it only takes a handful

of oats, proffered by the orange-clad

man, to halter and lead

her to the gray box.

She enters peacefully.

Perhaps the white bucket is already there.

It is true, man can’t live by bread alone,

though the red cow was innocent

as the white bucket, pure as

the snow bunting that now fly past.

39

Appendix II: List of Participants

Some participants wished to remain anonymous or did not give permission for

their name to be publicized. Included are a list of participants and their

occupation.

Discussion Group:

- Anonymous, Fisherman

- David Wheeler, Meteorologist, Photographer

- Anonymous, B&B owner

- Nick Riddiford, Ecologist, Co-ordinator Fair Isle Marine Environment &

Tourism Initiative (FIMETI)

- Anonymous

- Elizabeth Riddiford, Community-Conservation Initiative (Kenya)

One-On-One Interviews

All participants of the interviews have lived on Fair Isle for over twenty-five

years and are over the age of forty.

-Nick Riddiford

-Elizabeth Riddiford

-David Wheeler

-Margo Murray, B&B owner, Photographer, Poet

40

Appendix III: Sample Field Notes

The following is a single entry from the field notes taken whilst on Fair Isle.

Saturday 6/11/11

This morning I had my first interview and went for a walk with Nick

Riddiford. He was kind enough to come to FIBO to meet me, instead of me

making the trip out to his house in the south. The interview, transcribed

separately from this, was incredibly interesting. After the recorder had been

turned off, Nick made a few comments about how he thinks people forget

about the landscape and it’s importance on Fair Isle, highlighting his aesthetic

valuing of the environment.

We then walked around as he showed me different species of grasses and

explained to me how each would taste and whether or not sheep liked it. He

explained, “What we wouldn’t like to eat because of the texture or taste, sheep

don’t like either.” We sampled a few different blades of grass and I was

astonished by the accuracy in which he described what each would taste like.

Nick was putting himself on the same level as the sheep, and was actively

trying to link human and non-human tastes together so that people would give

sheep more credit. He explained to me that they do not just wander around

eating anything they can get, but that they too have tastes and preferences. I

could not help but recall Arne Naess’ plea for humans to include all life forms

in their moral sphere, or Taylor’s argument that any life-centered entity be

valued intrinsically. Nick was doing just that, as he bent down and chewed on

grass for several minutes.

Since Nick is the guide for the nature walks on Fair Isle, focused on the flora

and fauna, we spent the next forty-five minutes looking at ferns, grass and

lichens. Nick was passionate about each and explained to me that he had to

beg FIBO not to try and grow trees or interfere with the gully (where our

interview was taking place) in any way because of the rare ferns that were

growing there. On an island that is famous for and so dedicated to the

41

preservation of birds, Nick is taking the time to include other natural entities in

the conservation scheme, and values each one of them, even though they are

non-sentient.

To the average person, myself included, walking around Fair Isle is certainly a

scenically beautiful treat. The dramatic cliffs and constant chattering of birds

easily draws your attention to scan the landscape on a wide scale. It was my

time with Nick that I realized just how much of the environment I was missing

on a small scale. The rare mosses and tasty grass were things I never would

have noticed, or thought to eat, for that matter. Nick’s ecological knowledge

allowed him, and myself, to gain a closer appreciation for nature. Even

looking at some lichen, Nick knew the island history and facts about lichens

well enough to know that they were around 150 years old on the stonewalls

stretching next to the road. I had passed that same lichen dozens of times and

had not thought for a moment how old it could possibly be. It does not mean

that Nick is able to value the environment more, but it does mean that he has a

unique value system and understanding of value in rarity.

42

Appendix IV: Discussion Group Transcription

The following discussion group took place at the Fair Isle Bird Observatory.

Six community members participated in an hour-long discussion group led by

Kendra White.

Kendra: The discussion group is going to start out a little bit philosophical

with broad questions that hopefully you can just work off each other and see if

there are any differences with what your views are. Then, from there, work

into more specific questions about Fair Isle. It should last just about an hour.

The first question is how would you define nature?

P5: You start over there and we’ll work our way around.

Group laughs, unsure of what to say.

P5: No, I would say, are humans part of it?

Kendra: That’s actually the second question: are humans are part of it?

P5: They’re a part of it.

P1: Well, nature is all that’s around you.

P2: The biosphere.

P1: Well, the biosphere, but yes, it’s what humans grow up with, the plants,

and the birds, and the flowers, and the fish, and….

P2: But then there would be no nature on the moon. I mean, would nature

extend…

Group all start talking at once.

P3: My definition of nature would actually include everything.

P6: Are we talking about living things alone, or are we talking about geology

as well?

P3: Cosmology is a part of nature.

P2: Mhmm.

P5: We’ve gone to the outer whatever, haven’t we?

Group laughs.

43

Kendra: I know. I definitely wasn’t expecting the moon to be mentioned. To

further the discussion, do you think nature is important?

P2: You have to take in the whole cosmos, because without that you wouldn’t

have nature.

P5: That’s what defines earth, isn’t it? What’s out there defines what we are.

P6: Do they not say that we’re all stardust?

P2: Yeah, mhmm.

P5: Yeah, but I mean, we are only defined by what’s round us, which is the

sun; primarily it’s our source. It does include everything then, doesn’t it? We

wouldn’t be without it.

P4: You must define ‘important’ because one could argue that the whole

cosmos is important intellectually, but nature which brings us the food we eat

is probably important to survival. So, there might be different levels

depending on how you classify important.

Kendra: Say, we’re defining nature in this question as the immediate nature on

Fair Isle. Why is the environment, or nature, important on Fair Isle?

P1: We rely on it for so much; for our food and well-being.

P4: And rights to the socio-economics on the island. If people didn’t come to

see our environments, which is what draws a lot of people to this island, then

the likes of P5 would be complaining that we didn’t have enough money going

through the shop, the planes that come regularly, the transport to the island

would be much more limited, the incentive then to live here for people would

be that much lower as well, it’s just endless, really.

P3: Yeah, and we’d have two less people in this discussion, hah.

P4: How nature sort of underwrites so much, so many elements of the island.

P5: Stewarts comment about well-being, that’s individual well-being, your

own soul, or whatever it is, to collective well-being as a community, that’s

relying on the environment. I would say well-being is quite a strong factor for

why people would be here.

P4: Yes, the quality of the air.

P6: The eco-systems.

P2: Then you see different people would be at home in different environments.

I would be, I think, quite happy living in a mountain, in snow, and ice, as long

as I had supplies, you see. So what for one person is an acceptable

environment, is not necessarily the same for everybody.

44

Kendra: I’m going to explain to you two different theories about valuing the

environment. The first is intrinsic valuing of the environment. There are

different levels to it that are being discussed in environmental ethics, but for

the sake of this discussion group I’m going to define it as nature and wildlife

having value whether or not humans are there to value it. For example, birds

have value whether or not their a resource for the economy, for tourists to

come in, and whether or not there were humans on the island, they would still

contain value. Instrumental value, again, has different levels to it, but for this,

we’ll say instrumental value is strictly valuing the environment, wildlife,

nature, for resources only, what they can provide for the humans race. That

being said, do you think that they can contain value without humans present?

P3: Well, that’s what I’m wondering. Can it possibly contain value without

humans? We’re the ones who give value. I would say no. From a

philosophical point, without humans, we’ve had millions of species in the past

and we can’t say they are valuable, in many ways it’s only because we say it’s

valuable, whether it’s a thing of beauty, or of economic importance, it’s we

who give the value, so without humans, you can’t give it value.

P6: I disagree., because taking a holistic approach, everything will have value

within the environment, within the ecosystem, without one thing leading to

something else, then the whole thing is going to crash and so forth. So, we

don’t need to be there to value it, it’s going to be valuable whether we’re there

or not.

P2: No, because a bird doesn’t value a tree where it’s getting its feed from. It

needs the feed, but it itself doesn’t give a value to it. You only start to

introduce the value aspect when humans start to think cash.

P5: You could value the view for your own sake without it meaning cash.

P2: They’ve only just started doing this in the UK, being able to work what

value a house has based on its view, as such.

P4: You can link it back to cash flow, but I wouldn’t I wouldn’t agree it

necessarily means cash, because there are aesthetic values, for instance, a good

view can be an aesthetic value, but not necessarily if you’re just passing

through an area, but it is definitely an intellectual concept and only an animal

that has the capacity to have intellectual concepts

P5: Which is man.

P4: Which is man.

P2: When I see a fine landscape, or a view of the effects of light and shadow

and think “brilliant, photograph,” I don’t actually put a value on it, I appreciate

it.

45

P5: Yes, your value is to appreciate it, and your hobby comes out of your

enjoyment.

P3: It can be a thing of beauty. I would like to go back for a moment to P6’s

point, I think just because a thing has a place and an importance in an

ecosystem, I don’t think that means it has a value. I think value is something

we place on it.

P4: Except that you could argue that with ecosystems, that one element of the

ecosystem clearly relies on the elements of that ecosystem, therefore that

ecosystem in good condition has a value for the individual parts of it, even if

they don’t appreciate it themselves.

P6: Well, that’s what I was trying to say. Values vary culturally as well.

P2: Where did that value come in? I’m thinking back to hunter-gatherers.

They didn’t actually value their environment. They appreciated it, they

appreciated what it meant to them, but it’s hard to think that way. I think we

start to value things when we begin to realize what it would be like without

them.

P3: I think a lot of humans, even as hunter-gatherers, they value…

P2: Yeah, but they didn’t go around picking their fruit thinking ‘Oh, I better

leave some of this.”

P1: Well, that’s not always the case. Feral cats, cats that had gone wild, and

generally speaking they didn’t feed near their own den area. They went away

and brought the rabbits back, and whether or not that was them thinking

‘We’ll leave these ‘til the weather’s bad.’

P4: Birds of prey do that, again, for the same hypothesis. A lot of other birds

nest close to the birds of prey because they know they’ll get protection.

P6: The American Indians, from a cultural point of view, would have looked

after their environment, so that they wouldn’t have taken more than they

needed, and they wouldn’t have destroyed or damaged their local

environment. They would have always made sure that it was…

P2: Yeah, but Easter Island inhabitants didn’t. They just removed all the trees

and removed everything.

P3: In the fact of paleontology, you take the arrivals of humans right around

the time big mammals disappeared.

P6: Are we talking just islands here, or nature in general?

P2: General.

46

P6: Easter Island is an island situation where they don’t have the space to

move around, so unless they look after their resources they’re going to lose

them

P2: But initially they had a very good environment, with trees, and animals,

seabirds, and everything.

P6: How long was the society there?

P2: It was short, it was very short.

P6: Over millennia, presumably, communities and so forth would have

realized that if they didn’t look after their environment that they would lose it,

and hunter-gatherers if they were nomadic and moving around, they would

automatically be moving from one area to another. If you’re in an island

situation and you don’t learn over a period of time that if you don’t take care

of what you have you’re going to lose it, if you’ve got people going in there

who haven’t got that experience and that knowledge going historically and so

forth, they go in and just use what’s there, then they might well use it all up in

a space of time because they don’t have that historical experience, if you like,

of what happens when you use all your resources up.

P1: Well, again, that takes you back to the fact that our lifestyle of plenty, and

that you didn’t have to use it sustainably, where as in some case you couldn’t,

you just had to eat what was there, and then you had to move on.

P2: Have you got plenty of something you don’t bother to think and use it

sustainably.

P4: That’s the example of the fish thing, of fishing.

P5: Of whaling, as well.

P2: Until it’s gone. Until you realize it’s too late and there’s nothing you can

do about it.

P6: If I could put forward, when I’m working in Kenya, I’m working with

community groups out there, with the Massai, a case in point, nomadic

communities used to taking their livestock and moving them vast distances

looking for grazing and so forth, usually following the rains. When whites

moved into the area, set up ranches, fenced it all, it meant that the nomadic

existence couldn’t carry on in the way that it used to, but because for

generations they had as many livestock as they could manage and they did

certain things within their environment, the elders within the community

didn’t realize that if they didn’t reduce their livestock within this confined

area, they were going to end up with overgrazing, they were going to end up

with health problems, they were going to end up with all sorts of other issues.

It’s the young Massai now, that are actually teaching the elders about set

asides where they would actually set aside areas where they would exclude

animals for grazing so they could produce hay for when there is a drought or

47

something like that. They’re actually having to teach the elders new ways of

working their livestock because, as they say, the elders will say “ well for

generations we’ve done it this way, this is how we’ve always done it”, but if

they continue it that way, their lifestyle is not going to continue because it’s

not sustainable, so they’re actually having to change a traditional style of life

to something different to cope with changed circumstances.

P5: So they had to change when the white man came.

P6: They had to because prior to that there were no barriers so they would just

roam huge distances with their livestock. Now, they’re basically fenced in,

they’re living on an island surrounded by fences, so they don’t have that

freedom to go vast differences, so the youngsters are actually teaching the

elders.

Kendra: In terms of conservation efforts on the island, do you think that there

would still be the amount of effort going into marine and bird conservation if

there weren’t any human benefits from it, economic, or aesthetic, any kind of

benefits whatsoever?

P5: I think there would still be some.

P4: I think a lot is driven by cultural heritage as much as anything else, in the

sense that fishing, and just maritime issues still run very thickly through the

blood of Fair Islanders, as P1 is probably a very good example of that.

P1: Well, the economy often told the first world war was mainly fish, then

after that period it became extremely different for locals to catch the fish, for

various reasons, not just because there were trawls coming into our ground,

but because there was no market for salted and dried fish, because we couldn’t

export them fresh. So, there were a whole lot of reasons why the fishing

industry declined. Certainly, in my lifetime, we could always get enough fish

to salt and dry for ourselves for the winter, but that’s no longer the case.

You’re very lucky if you get any white fish at all nowadays. We’ve had few

occasions where we’ve had reasonable catches in the last sort of two or three

years. Prior to that you couldn’t catch anything.

Kendra: So, do you think that there would still be a fair amount of effort being

done, because cultural gains is still in line with humans, so…

P1: Well, we’re seeing the degradation of our environment through that

because the fish are at the bottom of the food chain, and everything, the

seabirds rely on fish to live on, we rely on the fish and the birds to a certain

extent, but we also rely very much on the people who come to see it. If the

birds themselves are protected and the fishing’s not, then the whole

environment collapses.

P5: I think regardless of the monetary gains we have from people coming here

to see the birds, I think there were always people out there who were intrigued

48

by the different species and stuff, so that’s what drives them to come here in

the first place.

Kendra: So, it’s all interconnected, then, between the marine environment, and

birds, and tourism…

P5: Yeah, because we all have our different likes, but for here, it’s a bird

sanctuary.

Kendra: On the island, the primary school is an eco-school, and it’s so

interesting to see the board behind you where the kids are obviously very in

tune with the scientific aspect of living on the island, do you think…

P4: People have a read pride in their environment and they also enjoy it

without necessarily knowing what the various bits and pieces are, but actually

people do know a lot more than you think, that people here have learnt over

the years.

P2: And you have to ask why are the children so keen and interested and

knowledgeable on the environment, and it’s the teaching yes, but you’ve got

the likes of P4 there, who’s really actively encouraging and educating the

children.

P4: And children are natural enthusiasts, and I got interested because as a

youngster I lived in a rural situation where I was surrounded by wildlife, and

when you’re a child you’re closer to the ground and you notice these things

and you enjoy them, and the children here are just the same. I mean, P1 here

was a child once, if you can believe it…

Group laughs

P4: He has a very working knowledge of the environment, and very often I go

to him if I find an insect or a water bug, so I go to him, because we get these

new things because of climate change, so I go to him as a memory he will

know because he would have got his feet wet as a child, and he’ll know

whether I’ve overlooked it or if it’s a new arrival. So, we’re just carrying on a

tradition, really. Don’t you think?

P5: Well, you’re enhancing it. That’s probably what it is.

P4: Well, if you’re a child at heart that’s sixty-two.

P2: The other fact is that we’ve only got one island, and it’s only five

kilometers by two, and we’re living on it, and we need to continue to live on

it. So, we’re well aware of hopefully of what we’re doing to the island, or not

doing to the island, and what we would like to see being done to improve

things.

P4: People here will bend over backwards to do what they think is right for the

environment, and I think that it’s just a natural pride and a recognition of the

49

link between the history and the cultural heritage of the island and the

environment.

Kendra: For the people who do have environmental backgrounds, and for the

kids who are learning about the environment, due to their more scientific

knowledge of it, do you think that they are able to appreciate the environment,

or value the environment and nature at a deeper level?

P2: I think particularly these days we’re able to leave the island and go off and

see other parts of, for the kids, Shetland and the rest of the country, and then

come back to Fair Isle, I think they appreciate what there is here a great deal

more.

P3: As an example, I saw all of these small children on the island this morning

discussing with the warden of the observatory, about a blue finch he’d seen in

the garden. The children are very aware of what’s going on around them.

Kendra: One of the theorists that I’ve looked at, has said that due to scientific

knowledge, you could have a bog, and you can have a waterfall or something

nearby, and most people would look at the waterfall and say that that’s more

aesthetically pleasing, however, the bog sustains more wildlife. Would you

consider the bog to be more beautiful because of the biodiversity that it

contains, or the waterfall?

P5: I think it depends on the weather at the time.

Group laughs.

P3: But often the bog is a thing of beauty, but in December it’s not a thing of

beauty. I’m not saying it’s not interesting; it’s certainly more interesting than a

waterfall.

P4: The waterfall space in the gully is fantastic.

P5: Yeah, in the gully. I’m also thinking the knock off of that is attaching

value. The mills, and the systems that were organized and built to sustain

people, and that was related specifically to food. Without that, that wouldn’t

be the case.

P4: But that’s a very individual thing, isn’t it. I can say something is beautiful

and everybody else could say, “What on earth is he looking at?”

Kendra: I’m going to explain four different human-nature relationships. You

don’t all have to answer if you don’t feel comfortable, but if you do, please tell

me which one you think you would qualify yourself as having.

There’s the master over nature, which views humans above animals; you can

do whatever you want to the environment, to wildlife, in order to have

economic gains and the economy and technology are expected to be able to

remedy any situation.

50

There’s the stewardship with nature, where it’s humans above animals, but

they manage nature because it’s been entrusted to them, and it’s for future

generations. It’s not that they own nature, but that they manage.

There’s the partner with nature, who stands side by side with nature and view

themselves as equal with wildlife and landscapes.

And then there’s the much more holistic viewpoint, which is the participant of

nature, which states that people are linked to nature biologically and

spiritually, and the bond between self and nature is what constitutes the self.

So, there’s the master, the steward, the partner and the participant in nature.

P5: Well, the fourth would be nice but the reality would be one of the first

other two.

P1: I would say the steward.

P4: In the various bits and pieces I write in trying to persuade politicians that

we need a marine protected area, I use the word stewardship, and it’s also used

by The Council of Europe which has given us the diploma for man living in

harmony with his environment. Everything I see here which is nature is

shaped by man and his animals. It’s hard to find anything on Fair Isle, it’s one

of the more natural systems that you’re likely to find, but nevertheless it’s

been largely shaped by man, and you’d have to go to Antarctica to find uh,

and even there you’ve got fall out from various, uh… there’s fall out in the air

from nitrates, and all sorts of stuff even in the Antarctic, so man does still have

an effect. So, as much as I would like to say the others, stewardship is what I

usually use.

P3: I think on a philosophical level we all agree we are part of nature, and

purely philosophically we are just another species, but we are a very special

species. We have to accept that about ourselves, we do have intellect, and that

makes us humans.

P4: I would say that all four apply in the sense that the lot of, generally, man

thinks he is in power to take control of nature and do what he likes with it, and

that’s still the driving force politically.

P5: But the other thing is we want to be empowered. We’re asking to be

empowered. Whilst it creates problems in other areas, we’re actually in our

stewardship words and what we’re trying to present, we’re asking for

empowerment because we want to say what’s going on. It’s two sides there.

We want stewardship, but we want to have the empowerment that says, “Give

us the stewardship.”

P2: This is actually looking at it on a local level, but if one takes it on a much,

much broader scale, then I think that human beings, mankind, has got to be

number one. If the human race is to survive, then we’ve got to take control,

51

because if we don’t, those who’ve not got control are just going to trust the

system.

P4: Well, yeah, I know what you’re saying, but I would argue that because

man thinks he’s master of universe then he is destroying things because he

thinks he can do whatever he likes and it’s God’s gift to man that he can use

every resource that’s available in an unsustainable way, which was your

number one. So, yes, man needs to take control, but with a stewardship

approach.

Kendra: Well, for the partner approach, it does say that where there is equal

value, it’s working together with nature with the aim that this action will

benefit both. So, would you say that maybe you’re a little bit a mixture?

P3: Nope, on a local level, with P4 there, it’s stewardship, isn’t it?

P4: I think so, yeah. ‘Cause I manage the croft to get maximum environmental

value, which isn’t popular with everybody because my crops are much wetter

than other areas, we’ve got orchids, we’ve had quail breeding, and so on, and

so we manage it for that. So, you could argue that that’s kind of a partnership

approach in one way because grass and fungi benefit from it, ‘cause we

actually target these things, but at the same time we’re still controlling it,

through how we move our sheep around…

P6: It’s through our activity that it happens.

P4: It’s through activities it happens, so it’s still a basic control situation.

Kendra: I think that’s a good note to end on, actually. We’re just about to hit

the hour mark.

Discussion group ends.

52

Appendix V: Sample Interview Transcription

Interviewee: Elizabeth Riddiford (E.R.)

Performed by: Kendra White (K.W.)

13/6/11

The following interview took place indoors due to inclement weather.

K.W.: Like I said before, what we would have been doing if the weather

hadn’t been so horrible is going for a brief walk to somewhere you think is

special on the island. So, if you had to describe one of the places you would

consider to be your favorite, do you have one?

E.R.: Yes, probably. I enjoy going down towards South Light and then looking

back across towards The Holmes. Do you know where that is?

K.W.: I do.

E.R.: That’s the cliff area that you’re looking out towards if you stand at the

lighthouse and look northwest.

K.W.: What about that area makes it special?

E.R.: I love the form of the cliffs there, and it’s just scenically very pretty. It’s

exhilarating when the sea is very rough when you’ve got a gale on, and the

waves are breaking and so on. It’s a lovely walk to go up there when you have

the sea pinks, and the puffins, and you can sit on the tops of the cliffs at The

Holmes and look across to the stacks and see all of the seabirds across there.

So, I enjoy looking at it from afar and I enjoy the walk going up there and

maybe looking back down across the Isle. Yeah, I think that’s my favorite

place, probably.

K.W.: What about Fair Isle as a whole compared to other places that you’ve

traveled. Is there anything in particular that makes you appreciate it as your

home?

E.R.: Well, scenically it’s beautiful, obviously. If you like islands, and both

Charlie and I enjoy islands very much. I think the main thing here is the

community, and the community spirit that we have here on the island, which is

very special. Living on an island can be a very pleasant experience, but it can

also be a very stressful one. Living somewhere as remote as this, trying to earn

a living, being remote from family and friends, not being able to travel, and

doing all of those sorts of things. The winter months, with the very long, dark,

stormy winters, which I don’t cope with very because I have sad, so I really

struggle with that. So, yes, having a really good community spirit here really

do help you get through all of that.

K.W.: I can imagine winter being quite difficult to get through for anyone.

53

E.R.: It’s the darkness, really. When we get such short daylight hours, and if

it’s overcast as well, and obviously it’s far more oppressive and very difficult.

K.W.: And I’m sure it’s more difficult to get off the island in the winter as

well.

E.R.: Yes, it’s very difficult to get off in the winter, because you know the

boat can be storm bound, or the plan can be storm bound, and you can be stuck

for periods of time. But again, if you’re dressed for the weather, it can be very

exhilarating to be out in the storm, depending on the frame of mind that you’re

in at the time. You know, that’s very exciting as well.

K.W.: What would you say about it that makes it exhilarating?

E.R.: Well, if you’re out in the wind and you’re sort of having to stand at a 45

degree angle just to stay on your feet because otherwise the wind would blow

you over, and you have this tremendous strength of the wind, and the noise,

and the sea, and yes, just the whole thing really is pretty awe inspiring, I think.

K.W.: In terms of what we had spoken about in the discussion group, most

people said that they thought that man was above nature or wildlife in general.

Do you think that having storms likes that and feeling the strength of…

E.R.: It’s certainly very humbling to be, I guess the term is, to be at the mercy

of the weather, or whatever the term is. I don’t necessarily take the view that

man is above all of that. I think we’re part of it. Yes, we do, these days, have a

stewardship over it, but at one point in man’s history we would have been a

partner; a part of the natural environment. Over time, we became more

stewards of the environment as we were managing the environment to provide

our food, and so forth, we became agriculturalists rather than hunter-gatherers,

and all that type of thing. But certainly, we are very much at the mercy of the

weather here; we might think we’ve tamed it, but we haven’t. We tried to get

our seeds sown and so forth this spring, and then we get this weather which

has been very stormy, you know, it can blast the seeds or the young chutes out

of the ground, it can blacken any crops that are above the ground here, the salt

spray and the strength of the wind can kill off vegetation very quickly

overnight, almost. So, we can’t be self sufficient in that way any longer, and

even in poly-tunnels the plastic can get blown away and that sort type of thing.

So, yeah, and you know, the boats and the planes don’t go if the weather’s

poor, and that type of thing. So, you know, as we say, on the one hand we

think we have tamed everything, but on the other hand, as it’s been shown sort

of in the states recently with the tornadoes and the earthquakes, and all these

other things that go on, and maybe, sort of, if you have epidemics of illness or

something like that, then that really does make you realize that we don’t

necessarily control everything, that we are maybe a little less controlling than

we think we are.

K.W.: So of those four types of valuing that I had described before, you would

say that you personally consider yourself a partner with nature?

54

E.R.: Um…

K.W.: I know it’s a difficult question.

E.R.: It is a difficult one. I think we’re very much stewards of nature now, in

the life and times that we live in, and that’s very much how we run our croft;

we’re stewarding our environment in a way. On the other hand we’re also

partners with the environment, walking in stewardship with it you also have to

have an understanding, a more intimate understanding of the environment, and

I think in that sense you’re also walking in partnership with it a bit more.

Certainly when I’m working in Kenya with the community groups and so forth

out there, who are living up country, and living very much hand to mouth, and

living very close to the land, and don’t have a lot of money, and that type of

thing. I think it strips away the sophistication that we have it in the third

world, and sort of takes you right back to the fact that you haven’t been

vaccinated against everything, you could get sick one day, you’re dead the

next day, you might starve because your crops fail, you don’t have money to

put fertilizer on, you don’t have the right seeds, you know, all that type of

thing. I think because you’re so much closer to the way nature works at that

point, you know, it’s certainly a different feeling about things there than

perhaps here, where you can, well, we don’t put fertilizer on our land, but you

know, we have access to things like that more easily, and ploughs, and

agricultural equipment, and all of that type of thing, and you know, if the

crops fail, well ok, but you can get by. When you’re living in a situation where

if there is something that doesn’t work, your life is on the line type of thing,

and it’s a very different situation.

K.W.: Do you think that as far as living a more sustainable lifestyle out here,

and working in partnership with nature, it should be done for nature’s sake, for

it’s own sake? I know we touched on this in the discussion group, but do you

think it’s more so because of future generations that you’re trying to take care

of?

E.R.: I think it’s future generations that we’re looking to take care of, in a

way. From a human point of view, in the future we would like our people

coming after us to be able to continue the cultural and traditional things that

they have been able to do in the past, that the environment is there for them to

be able to live in partnership, where they’ll live in stewardship with, if you

like, and in a sustainable way, so that it’s an ongoing thing, rather than it’s

something that’s used up in a short space of time with a very selfish,

shortsighted view of things. “Oh it’s there today, we’ll use it today, we’ll not

worry about tomorrow.” But I think also, taking it from a holistic point of

view, as I said before, man is part of the environment; we need the

environment to survive ourselves, so from that point of view we’re being

selfish because we’re thinking about it like that. But also, from a nature point

of view, we like to see everything in nature has a right to be there, and to

continue, and not to be used up and disappear, if you’re looking at it from that

point of view as well. I don’t know if I’m making much sense.

55

K.W.: No, you are! It’s difficult.

E.R.: It’s difficult to express all of these different things. So, you have the sort

of individualistic point of view, you know, ‘what can nature do for me?” and

for the future generations of humans, if you like, but then, you also take into

account the fact that for nature to continue on it’s own account, it needs to be

looked after, it needs to be able to given the chance to continue either by man

stepping out of the scene, or if man is going to be involved in the environment,

that man is stewarding in such a way that it can continue.

K.W.: Do you think it would be more out of a respect for nature or a duty to

nature that you would be living in partnership?

E.R.: A respect for. From a personal point of view, it’s a respect for nature.

And there is a sense of duty to there, in a sense as well; that if you are in a

stewardship situation that if you’re responsible for something then you have a

duty to care, so that’s where I suppose the duty would come in. But if you

have a partnership sense, then you have a sense of respect.

K.W.: I know that you’re not in an environmental field per se, but you did

mention that you have interest in the environment. What exactly interests you

about it? How did that interest get peaked?

E.R.: Again, it’s a holistic interest in the environment, and seeing how

everything interacts. You know, how a plant is dependent on a particular

insect, or a group of insects to survive, and how those insects might be

dependent on another group of insects, or a particular habitat, or whatever. So,

I think it’s the interaction of everything that I find fascinating, and the variety

of different species within a family. I just find that very interesting.

K.W.: As far as valuing species, and again, we did discuss this a little bit on

Saturday night, but one of the theorists I’ve looked at believes that there is a

hierarchy in everything; that it’s based on intelligence and what not. On the

opposite side of that scale, there is the belief that everything contains the same

amount of value, so, you know, a squirrel and a gorilla have the same amount

of value. Do you think that you would fit somewhere in-between with that, or

that you…

E.R.: Well, taking a holistic approach, then everything is important, and I

don’t think it would be possible to say that one thing has an importance over

another. But, um, I guess we tend to empathize more perhaps with gorillas,

because we maybe see a little bit of ourselves in them, and it might be easier

to do that than to empathize with an ant, for example. You know, you’re more

likely to squish an ant than you are a gorilla, that type of thing.

But standing back and looking back at the environment as a whole, or an

ecosystem as a whole, then I would say personally that every species within

that ecosystem is of equal value because each one has a reliance on the other

for something. If you take away something from within the chain then it’s

going to have a chain reaction, it’s going to affect something else, which may

56

have an affect on something else, and so on. You know, if you take away the

lion, the top predator, then that’s obviously is going to have an affect on all the

other species down the food chain, and vice versa, if you take something from

the middle, or whatever. So, I think from that point of view. I mean, if

something looks pretty, then I guess you tend to be a little bit more

empathetic, again, towards something that looks pretty or looks beautiful, than

towards something that looks ugly. I guess that’s maybe human nature as well;

it just depends on what sort of standpoint you’re taking at the time, and how

you’re really sort of looking at things.

K.W.: And that goes back to the question that I asked before in the discussion

about whether or not, I don’t remember the exact example, but a bog and the

beautiful fields of orchids that you guys have. If they were both to be

conserved which one people would probably go towards? And most times,

most people have responded that it would be…

E.R.: It would probably be the field of the orchids because it looks pretty,

where as the bog is incredibly important. I mean, once you get down, wet and

dirty, and start looking at it, you’ll find there’s an awful lot of interesting

things within the bog, as well. It’s maybe a little bit like first impressions.

When people meet, it’s the first impression you have, and that’s the one that

makes people react the way they do towards somebody. You know, if you saw

a beautiful field of flowers, “Oh yes that’s fantastic,” but then, as I say, if you

get down, wet and dirty, and start looking at a bog which isn’t immediately

beautiful, then you find that there’s more underneath that’s worth looking at.

K.W.: And that has something to do with scientific knowledge as well.

E.R.: And scientific knowledge as well, probably. But if you have an inquiring

mind you can get down, wet and dirty, and not know what you’re looking at,

but you can still be fascinated by what you’re seeing.

K.W.: Do you think that the kids in the school here, because it’s an eco-

school, and because they’re so…

E.R.: Well it became an eco-school because of the interest in the activities of

the children and the teachers. It didn’t just become an eco-school, it wasn’t

just called an eco-school and because it’s an eco-school it’s therefore going to

do all these activities. It gained the title of an eco-school because of what it

was doing. So it’s the other way around.

K.W.: Oh, ok. Thank you!

K.W. and E.R. laugh

K.W.: Do you think though, that the kids here on Fair Isle would see the

environment differently than kids in, say, Edinburgh?

E.R.: Yes, I think so, because they’re living so much closer to it. They’re born

and brought up on an island where they’re living so much closer to nature;

57

we’ve got agriculture here, small-scale agriculture here. They’ll be out helping

their mums and dads in the garden, or out sowing seeds, or helping with

harvest, helping with lambing, with carving, with all of those different aspects

from the agricultural point of view. They’re also very much aware of the

seasons here, from a nature point of view. You know, the migration of birds,

the Passerines, or whether it’s the seabirds coming back for breeding, or

whether they’re seeing killer whales off shore, or they’re going fishing, or

they’re going down onto the seashore and they’re discovering things at the

beach, or whatever. So, it’s very much a hands on experience from a very

young age, and a lot of the young children, well, maybe so much the young

ones at the moment because they’re maybe too small, but perhaps the

teenagers now, who will remember larger numbers of breeding seabirds than

we have at the present time for example, and more fishing being caught,

because of the changes of fish stocks and the changes in the numbers of birds

coming back to breed. So you know, that age group will have a different

perspective and different understanding of things as well.

You know, and having Nick on the island, as well, he’s a natural enthusiast

and enthuses everybody once he gets going, once he sort of shows them

something you can’t help but be enthused by it. I think, as Fiona said at the

discussion the other evening, we’re so lucky to have Nick here to take

people’s interest further forward so that the likes of Henry who has a natural

inquisitiveness like his dad, they’re very often knocking on the door saying

‘Hey! I’ve just found something,” and Tom will come and do the same, you

know, the kids will come see Nick, and Susanna rang from the observatory

last night, “We’ve got a couple of insects. Can you come and identify?” and

all those sorts of things. So, the fact that you’ve got somebody knowledge

about that living in your community as well can actually educate people, and

inspire, and take their own knowledge and interest further forward as well.

And the observatory has obviously had a ranger service on the island as well

for the last few years, and the ranger has had a role with working with the

school children doing different projects and things, as well. And we have the

wildlife club that Nick runs, that adults, children on the island, and visitors can

participate as well, and that’s looking at all different aspects and habitats of

the environment and ecology and so on. So yes, it works at all levels, really.

K.W.: After hearing the definition of intrinsic and instrumental value from the

discussion group, do you want me to repeat what they were?

E.R.: Yes, please.

K.W.: Ok. Intrinsic value, I had previously stated has different degrees to it in

current theory, but for this I was just saying that intrinsic value would mean

that the environment and nature, wildlife, all have value in and of themselves

regardless of whether or not humans are here to value them or are gaining any

kind of economic, or cultural gains at all. Instrumental value would be, you

know, that it would be a resource, it’s value is as a resource for humans,

whether that be culturally or economically. Do you think that you would agree

that the environment and nature have intrinsic value?

58

E.R.: Yes. Nature has an intrinsic value. There was something I was listening

to on the World Service a few weeks ago, in the middle of the night, where

some aborigines had just taken some Australian researchers into a very remote

part of, I think it was northwest Australia or something like that, and these

researchers have just now discovered a large number of new species for

science; mammals, and insects, and amphibians, and so forth, that just had

never been seen by man, or new to science, or whatever. I think, you know,

that underlies that, whether it’s intrinsic or instrumental, because intrinsically

that remote area was very important to all those species that were living there,

and also to the aborigines that have probably sort of been aware of it and

appreciated over those generations and thousands of years, prior to these

species having been discovered and now being given names and all of that

type of thing. I think, yeah, there is an importance to something even if it

hasn’t been discovered, or if man hasn’t had an input in someway, I think so.

K.W.: Wonderful. Ok, do you have anything that you want to add to it?

E.R.: No, this is fascinating!

K.W. and E.R. laugh

K.W.: It really is!

E.R.: It’s very interesting, and actually sort of, trying to get us to vocalize and

verbalize what we feel about something like this, it’s…

K.W.: It’s difficult.

E.R.: Tis difficult, actually, but, yeah, it’s interesting. Ok.

K.W.: Thank you!

End of interview.

59

References

Benton, Ted. "Environmental Values and Human Purposes." Environmental

Values 17.2 (2008): 201-20. Print.

Berkes, Fikret. "Rethinking Community-Based Conservation." Conservation

Biology 18.3 (2003): 621-30. Web.

Brady, Emily. "Aesthetics, Ethics and Environmental Conservation."

Aesthetics of the Natural Environment. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP,

2003. 224-67. Print.

Brennan, Andrew. "Moral Pluralism and the Environment." Environmental

Values 1.1 (1992): 15-33. Print.

Burgess, J., M. Limb, and C. M. Harrison. "Exploring Environmental Values

through the Medium of Small Groups: 1. Theory and Practice."

Environment and Planning A 20.3 (1988): 309-26. Print.

Burgess, J., M. Limb, and C. M. Harrison. "Exploring Environmental Values

through the Medium of Small Groups: 2. Illustrations of a Group at

Work." Environment and Planning A 20.4 (1988): 457-76. Print.

Hepburn, R. "Nature Humanised: Nature Respected." Environmental

Values 7.3 (1998): 267-79. Print.

Callicott, J. Baird. "The Case Against Moral Pluralism." Environmental

Ethics: An Anthology. By Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. 203-19. Print.

Carpiano, R. "Come Take a Walk with Me: The “Go-Along” Interview as a

Novel Method for Studying the Implications of Place for Health and

Well-being." Health & Place 15.1 (2009): 263-72. Print.

Hargrove, Eugene, Andrew Light, and Holmes Rolston III. "Weak

Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value." Environmental Ethics: An

Anthology. By Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Pub., 2003. 175-90. Print.

Justus, James, Mark Colyvan, Helen Regan, and Lynn Maguire. "Buying into

Conservation: Intrinsic Value versus Instrumental Value." Trends in

Ecology and Evolution 24.4 (2009): 187-91. Web.

Kusenbach, Margarethe. "Street Phenomenology: The Go-Along as

Ethnographic Research Tool." Ethnography 4.3 (2003): 455-85. Print.

60

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: with Essays on Conservation. New

York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

Leopold, Aldo. The Land Ethic. People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees: Basic

Issues in Environmental Ethics. By Christine Pierce and Donald

VanDeVeer. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1995. Print.

Light, Andrew. "The Case for a Practical Pluralism." Environmental Ethics:

An Anthology. By Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Pub., 2003. 229-48. Print.

Milton, K. "Nature Is Already Sacred." Environmental Values 8.4 (1999): 437-

49. Print.

Naess, Arne. "The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects."

Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology.

3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1986. 185-203. Print.

Norton, Bryan G. "Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism."

Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. By Andrew Light and Holmes

Rolston III. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. 163-74. Print.

Ojala, Maria. "What Lies Beneath? A Case Study of Citizens' Moral

Reasoning with Regard to Biodiversity." Environmental Values 20

(2011): 217-37. Print.

O'Neill, John. "The Varieties of Intrinsic Value." Environmental Ethics: An

Anthology. By Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Pub., 2003. 131-42. Print.

Rolston, Holmes. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural

World. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1988. Print.

Saito, Yuriko. "Appreciating Nature on Its Own Terms." Web.

<www.umweltehik.at>.

Taylor, Paul. "The Ethics of the Respect for Nature." Respect for Nature: A

Theory of Environmental Ethics. Vol. 3. Princeton UP, 1986. 197-218.

Web. <www.umweltethik.at/download.php?id=391>.

Van Den Born, Riyan J.G. "Rethinking Nature: Public Visions in the

Netherlands." Environmental Values 17.1 (2008): 83-109. Print.

Weston, Anthony. Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. By Andrew Light and

Holmes Rolston. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. 307-18. Print.

61

Wheeler, David. "Case for a Marine Protected Area in Fair Isle Waters." Fair

Isle Home Page. 1999. Web. 04 Mar. 2011.

<http://www.fairisle.org.uk/FIMETI/Reports/Managing_the_Sea/appe

ndix2.html>.