Environmental Values and Comprehensive Environmental Assessment

  • Konrad Ott
Part of the Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 19)


There are hard conflicts about patterns of land use, the fair access to scarce natural resources and other environmental affairs to be expected in years to come. Environmental concerns and long-term conservation strategies will compete with different kinds of economic interests and objectives. It is by no means clear how such conflicts can be resolved reasonably since the underlying concepts of rationality, utility, acceptability or “weighing goods” will be contested as well. “Wise-useguidelines” will be a first step toward normative orientation but they won’t be able to resolve the more harder problems. This holds true also for international environmental declarations (“soft law”). Even the concept of “sustainable development” is — despite of its merits — typically an “umbrella concept” which may mask conflicts if it will not be given a decisive interpretation.


Natural Capital Environmental Ethic Moral Standing Strong Sustainability Environmental Conflict 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Attfield R, Dell K (1998) Values, conflict and the environment. AldershotGoogle Scholar
  2. Attfield R (1999) The Ethics of the Global Environment. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Baier K (1958) The Moral Point of View. A Rational Basis for Ethics. IthacaGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaikie P, Brookfield H (1987) Land Degradation and Society. LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumer KR (1999) Phänomenologie der Achtung — Grundlagen einer Ethik für Tierversuche. Nova Acta Leopoldina, Band 82, No. 315, p. 185–203Google Scholar
  6. Broome J (1991) Weighing Goods. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. CATAD (1997) Introduction of a Participatory and Integrated Development Process (PIDEÖ) in Kalomo District, Zambia, Vol. II, Manual for Trainers and Users of PIDEPGoogle Scholar
  8. Callicott JB (ed) (1987) Companion to A Sand County Almanac. MadisonGoogle Scholar
  9. Costanza R et al. (1997) The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, Ecological Economics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper DE (1992) The Idea of Environment. In: Cooper DE, Palmer JA (eds) The Environment in Question. pp 165–180, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Daly HE (1996) The Economics of Sustainable Development. BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dol M et al. (eds) (1997) Animal Consciousness and Animal Ethics. AssenGoogle Scholar
  13. Dower N (1994) The Idea of the Environment. In: Attfield R, Belsey A (eds) Dower N. p. 143–156, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards P, Abivardi C (1998) The Value of Biodiversity: Where Ecology and Economy Blend. Biological Conservation, Vol. 83, pp 238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorke M (1999) Artensterben. StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  16. Habermas J (1998) Richtigkeit vs. Wahrheit. Zum Sinn der Sollgeltung moralischer Urteile und Normen. DZPhil Berlin 46, Heft 2, pp 179–208Google Scholar
  17. Hampicke U (1999) Das Problem der Verteilung in der Neoklassischen und in der Ökologischen Ökonomie. In: Beckenbach F et al. (eds) Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik Band 1, pp 153–188, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare RM (1987) Moral Reasoning about the Environment. Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 4, p. 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jamieson D (1998) Sustainability and beyond. Ecological Economics Vol. 24, pp 183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson LE (1991) A Morally Deep World. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Kellert SR (1993) The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO (eds) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Kellert SR, Wilson EO (eds) (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Kellert SR (1997) Kinship to Mastery. Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  24. Kleymeyer CD (1994) Cultural Traditions and Community-based Conservation. In: Western D et al. (eds) Natural Connections, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. Krebs A (1999) Ethics of Nature. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs A (2000) Das teleologische Argument in der Naturethik. In: Ott K, Gorke M (eds) Krebs A. p. 67–80, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  27. Kühl S (1998) Wenn Partizipation zum Problem wird. In: PERIPHERIE Nr. 72, p. 51–70, Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
  28. Mackie JL (1977) Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong. HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  29. Naess A (1989) Ecology, community and lifestyle. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Neumayer E (1999) Weak versus Strong Sustainability. CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  31. Norton BG (1987) Why preserve natural Variety? New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  32. Norton BG (1992) Waren, Annehmlichkeiten und Moral: Die Grenzen der Quantifizierung bei der Bewertung biologischer Vielfalt. In: Wilson EO (ed) Ende der biologischen Vielfalt. pp 222–228, Heidelberg, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Riordan T (1997) Valuation as Revelation and Reconciliation. Environmental Values Vol. 6, pp 169–183, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Ott K (1998) Ethik und Wahrscheinlichkeit: Zum Problem der Verantwortbarkeit von Risiken unter Bedingungen wissenschaftlicher Ungewißheit. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 77, Nr. 304, pp 111–128Google Scholar
  35. Picket STA, Ostfeld RS, Shachak M, Likens GE (1997) The Ecological Basis of Conservation. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Prior M (1998) Economic Valuation and Environmental Values. Environmental Values, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 423–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rawls J (1972) A Theory of Justice. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Rehmann-Sutter C (1998) Involving Others: Towards an Ethical Concept of Risk. Health, Safety * Environment 119, pp 119–136Google Scholar
  39. Rolston H (1988) Environmental Ethics. PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  40. Rolston H (1989) Philosophy Gone Wild. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Seiler T (2000) Deep Ecology. In: Ott K, Gorke M (eds) Seiler T. p. 147–189, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  42. Sober E (1995) Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism. In: Elliot R (ed) Sober E, pp 226–247, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevens S (1997) Lessons and Direction. In: Stevens S (ed) Stevens S. p. 265–298, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Takacs D (1996) The Idea of Biodiversity. Philosophies of Paradise. LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor PW (1986) Respect for Nature. New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  46. von der Pfordten D (2000) Eine Ökologische Ethik der Berücksichtigung anderer Lebewesen. In: Ott K, Gorke M (eds) von der Pfordten D. pp 41–65, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  47. von Wright GH (1963) The Logic of Preference. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  48. Warburton D (ed) (1998) Community and Sustainable Development. LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Weidner H (ed) (1998) Alternative Dispute Resolution. In: Environmental Conflicts. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. Wiggins D (2000) Nature, Respect for Nature, and the Human Scale of Values. In: Proceedings of The Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. C, Part 1, p. 1–32, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Zerner C (1999) Justice and Conservation New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konrad Ott

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations