Compassionate conservation in practice: A values-driven, interdisciplinary, pluralistic, and deliberative community
Conservation biology's purported remit is conserving nature by protecting species, habitats, and ecosystems. Because of this the field has historically given short shrift to the wellbeing of individual animals themselves and their role in nature protection. This approach ignores substantial scientific and ethical evidence showing that many animals are sentient, sapient and social beings who have intrinsic value and individual wellbeing. Compassionate conservation (CC) is an emergent paradigm of conservation arising to redress this absolute or relative dismissal of wild lives. Noting that the practice of CC is not well characterized, we used a modified Delphi method to explore the meaning and significance of such practices. Contrary to the stereotypes of critics, CC is not a “do nothing” but a “do better and do right” approach to working in the field. Recognizing that all science is value-laden, CC is self-consciously guided by a bounded pluralism of ethical values that inform its practice. We characterize these values as a commitment to the intrinsic moral value of people, animals and nature, and an ethics of care for their wellbeing. CC emphasizes the alignment of values and practice, coexistence as an overall goal, cooperation in the sense of working with and not against nature, honesty about the competing demands of individuals and groups in ecological and social communities, humility about the extent of our knowledge, restraint in undertaking interventions that lack efficacy, and strict scrutiny of both the ethical and scientific justifications for actions affecting animal wellbeing. • Compassionate conservation (CC) is an emergent paradigm of conservation. • The values of CC are characterized by a bounded pluralism. • Practitioners embrace a wide body of established conservation practices. • CC embraces the wellbeing of individual animals and the community of life. • CC practice is typified by: Alignment, Honesty, Coexistence, Humility, Deliberative, Restraint, Co-operation, Strict scrutiny
Authors
- William S. Lynn (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4957-426X)
- Amaroq E. Weiss
- William T. Borrie (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3788-5220)
- Paul Cryer
- Kristen Walker (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9789-3903)
- Shelley M. Alexander
- Liv Baker (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2680-3114)
- Adam P. A. Cardilini (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1032-3466)
- Francisco J. Santiago‐Ávila (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4233-9128)
- Gavin T. Bonsen
- Tristan Derham (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7712-849X)
- Christine M. Reed
- Oded Keynan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0943-0889)
- Simon Coghlan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6021-9878)
- Sophie Riley (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8079-7069)
- Erin Ryan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8292-7488)
- Nadia Xenakis
Institutions
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Clark University (US)
- The Wildlife Society (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Deakin University (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- FloDesign (United States) (US)
- Dead Sea and Arava Science Center (IL)
- African Conservation Centre (KE)
- Office of Diversity and Inclusion (US)
- Sarah Lawrence College (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Biological Conservation
- Published
- 2025-02-07
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111002
- Citations
- 7
- Primary Topic
- Conservation Techniques and Studies
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 43.03