Quantifying the Diversity of Normative Positions in Conservation Sciences

What elements of nature do people involved in conservation projects seek to protect, and why? How do they identify and relate to nature? Answers to such fundamental questions are shaped by normative assumptions that can result in distinct conservation strategies and practices. Despite their importance, normative assumptions are rarely explicitly stated in conservation sciences, possibly because an epistemology of modern science suggests that normative backgrounds are not relevant to the production of objective knowledge, or because researchers and practitioners are unaware of the diversity of positions that exist. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, we created a catalogue of existing normative positions in conservation literature and described their key characteristics. We described 72 distinctive normative positions about human–nature relationships. Each position was characterized by unique combinations of value-states belonging to one or more of the following five dimensions: ontology (the positionality of human with respect to nature), axiology (value systems and ethical frameworks), pragmatism (extent of human interventions), epistemology (knowledge sources), and agency (agents of change). We then scored each position in terms of its alignment (support, opposition, or neutrality) with respect to all value-states within each dimension. A fuzzy correspondence analysis revealed that the field of conservation is heterogeneous beyond the conventional gradient of intrinsic–instrumental–relational values. The frequency and circumstances under which stakeholders adopt different normative positions are unknown, but the list of dimensions and associated values provided in this study may serve as a checklist for scoping this diversity. Consideration of values stemming from alternative normative positions may help broaden support for conservation actions.