Quantifying the Diversity of Normative Positions in Conservation Sciences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is a valuable contribution to understanding the assemble normative positions about human-nature relationships and typologies found in conservation scientific literature. I consider that it has been solidly developed, and its reading is pleasant and clear. However, before publication, the authors should better explain some aspects and consider others in their discussion.

First of all, who do you consider experts? How many were there? What nationalities and areas of knowledge were they from? This is important because it can create a bias in the interpretation of the topic being discussed.

Second, you should mention the agents and factors that are generating the current global environmental crisis, to better contextualize the analysis.

Third, there is no mention of which areas of knowledge predominated in the literature reviewed. Nor is there any mention of whether there were gaps or absences in other areas of knowledge or perspectives on the topic (for example, from non-Western philosophies or worldviews other than the predominant one).

Fourth, it would be helpful if you could explain why most of the literature comes from the Social Sciences, given that it's a topic that has received the most interest from the Natural Sciences.

Fifth, and perhaps the most important aspect to consider, given that an ontological perspective often prevails, it should be noted that probably most (if not all) of the literature consulted comes from Western philosophy, which precludes the possibility of understanding how other cultures and worldviews interpret the relationship between humans and nature (Amerindian, Asian, African, for example). I suggest exploring this aspect in more depth.

Sixth, and related to the above, the Darwinian view that spread throughout Western science (particularly in the social sciences linked to neoliberalism) omitted, on the one hand, that "the survival of the fittest" does not correspond to Darwin's true theory, and on the other, that there were other theories, such as the predominance of mutualism and cooperation in nature (Kropotkin), were largely silenced. Therefore, the authors should bear in mind that the review of the existing literature partly responds to this conceptual bias.

Minor comments:

- I think eleven should be numbered (line 222).

- If Figure 4 could be improved (it's not easy to understand and the font is very small).

- I'm not sure if a Figure 5 (result) should be included in the Discussion.

- More than an interest (line 402), I think it's a concern about environmental impacts that motivates conceptualizing the human-nature relationship.

- In relation to the above, would the authors be encouraged to outline an idea of ​​what normative positions or visions could contribute most to avoiding the environmental collapse toward which we seem headed?

Author Response

General comment

This work is a valuable contribution to understanding the assemble normative positions about human-nature relationships and typologies found in conservation scientific literature. I consider that it has been solidly developed, and its reading is pleasant and clear. However, before publication, the authors should better explain some aspects and consider others in their discussion.

Reply to general comment

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript and for highlighting areas that could benefit from further elaboration.

Specific comment 1

First of all, who do you consider experts? How many were there? What nationalities and areas of knowledge were they from? This is important because it can create a bias in the interpretation of the topic being discussed.

Reply to specific comment 1

In our study, we use the term "experts" to refer to both researchers and practitioners with demonstrated experience in fields relevant to human–nature relationships, including conservation biology, ecology, ethnobotany, environmental science, philosophy, anthropology, environmental ethics, etc. We consulted about 15 experts from diverse geographic regions, including Western Europe (Switzerland, France), Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Kenya, South Africa), and Asia-Pacific (Australia, Indonesia). Additional feedback came from participants in the session “An Interdisciplinary Discourse on Biodiversity Values” at the World Biodiversity Forum 2022 in Davos (26 June–1 July), where we presented and discussed our preliminary findings. Session participants represented Western and Central Europe (Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany), North America (United States), South America (Venezuela), and Oceania (Australia).

We recognize the potential for interpretive bias, given the historical predominance of Western ontologies in discourses and studies of human–nature relationships. That is why, from the outset, we intentionally sought voices from multiple world regions and many disciplinary traditions to broaden our epistemic base. We are aware that our effort for inclusion might not be sufficient to capture the diversity of worldviews at this step. As a next step, we are designing a global survey to test whether stakeholders from a wider range of cultural contexts and professional backgrounds converge with or challenge the proposed taxonomy.

 

Specific comment 2

Second, you should mention the agents and factors that are generating the current global environmental crisis, to better contextualize the analysis.

Reply to specific comment 2

We fully acknowledge the importance of situating our analysis within the broader socio-economic and political context that underlies the current environmental crisis. Accordingly, we revised the introduction section to highlight the following these drivers as following:

“Recognizing and appreciating the full gamut of these views normative positions and values is integral to attaining a more sustainable society because it ensures that nature-based values important to different stakeholders are prioritized in conservation planning [9-12]. This inclusive approach is especially critical given that the current environmental crisis stems from human actions and behaviors (unsustainable consumption, fossil fuel use, industrial agriculture, and anthropocentric worldviews), reinforced by powerful political-economic interests [7, 9, 13]. Addressing these systemic drivers requires a fundamental rethinking of human–nature relationships grounded in pluralistic normative positions.”

Specific comment 3

Third, there is no mention of which areas of knowledge predominated in the literature reviewed. Nor is there any mention of whether there were gaps or absences in other areas of knowledge or perspectives on the topic (for example, from non-Western philosophies or worldviews other than the predominant one).

Reply to specific comment 3

We fully agree on the need to highlight the dominant knowledge areas and potential gaps in the literature we reviewed. In response, we have added a paragraph in the discussion to explicitly indicate that the sample (studies and experts consulted) is numerically weighted toward western scientific paradigms and practices, particularly in conservation biology, ecosystem services, and environmental economics, environmental ethics, etc. We have attempted to balance this systemic bias in the literature by consulting experts from other cultural regions (Africa and Asia), thus incorporating non-western worldviews, indigenous knowledge systems and alternative ontologies. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our sample does not capture the full spectrum of global perspectives.

Below is the paragraph added to the discussion section to make explicit the abovementioned observations

"Our sample remains numerically weighted toward Western experts and studies, which may lead to an overrepresentation of Western perspectives, particularly those grounded in scientific rationalism, dualism, and anthropocentrism. This dominant western philosophy, rooted in a misinterpretation of Darwin's theory, may have overlooked alternative ecological perspectives that emphasize mutualism and cooperation in human–nature relationships. To account for these biases, we incorporated alternative worldviews in the study based on literature and expert’s opinion. These perspectives often emphasize monism, reciprocity, and the relational value of nature, contrasting with the dominant western philosophy that tend to instrumentalize nature for human benefit [44, 74-76]. We recognize that certain specific, less-documented ontologies and value systems from both western and non-western regions remain underrepresented, subsumed into broader categories, or entirely absent from our sample. This limitation might narrow the scope of the proposed taxonomy and reduce its cross-cultural relevance. In the next step of this research project, we are preparing to test whether stakeholders from a broader range of cultural contexts, knowledge systems, and professional backgrounds converge with or challenge the proposed taxonomy. Feedback from this next step will be instrumental in guiding revisions to ensure the taxonomy reflects a more pluralistic, inclusive, and globally relevant understanding of human–nature relationships."

Specific comment 4

Fourth, it would be helpful if you could explain why most of the literature comes from the Social Sciences, given that it's a topic that has received the most interest from the Natural Sciences.

Reply to specific comment 4

The composition of the literature resulted from the systemic review on human-nature relationships. We have also been surprised to notice a dominance of the literature from social sciences on the issue of human-nature relationships. Based on the discussions with experts, we understood that while the natural sciences have long studied human impacts on ecosystems, the debate on human–nature relationships as a values-based and ontological issue has primarily been developed in the social sciences and humanities. Today, the field is increasingly interdisciplinary, with a growing recognition that understanding human–nature relationships requires integrating biophysical knowledge with social, cultural, ethical, and political insights.

Specific comment 5

Fifth, and perhaps the most important aspect to consider, given that an ontological perspective often prevails, it should be noted that probably most (if not all) of the literature consulted comes from Western philosophy, which precludes the possibility of understanding how other cultures and worldviews interpret the relationship between humans and nature (Amerindian, Asian, African, for example). I suggest exploring this aspect in more depth.

Reply to specific comment 5

See replies to comment 1 and 3.

Thank you for this important observation. We fully agree that the dominance of Western philosophy traditions in literature limits the inclusion of diverse worldviews. While the reviewed literature is indeed weighted toward western perspectives, we made efforts to incorporate non-Western alternatives, such as Gaia Pachama, or aggregating some into Indigenous perspectives. However, we acknowledge that these inclusions remain insufficient to fully reflect the diversity of global ontologies. This study forms part of a broader postdoc research project, and in the next phase aims to engage stakeholders from a wider range of cultural contexts, knowledge systems, and professional backgrounds to assess whether they converge with or challenge the proposed taxonomy. This step will be crucial for making the framework more inclusive and globally representative.

Specific comment 6

Sixth, and related to the above, the Darwinian view that spread throughout Western science (particularly in the social sciences linked to neoliberalism) omitted, on the one hand, that "the survival of the fittest" does not correspond to Darwin's true theory, and on the other, that there were other theories, such as the predominance of mutualism and cooperation in nature (Kropotkin), were largely silenced. Therefore, the authors should bear in mind that the review of the existing literature partly responds to this conceptual bias.

Reply to specific comment 6

Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully agree that the dominance of Darwinian interpretations has contributed to a conceptual bias in Western scientific and socio-political thought, often reinforcing competitive and individualistic paradigms aligned with neoliberal ideologies. This framing not only misrepresents Darwin’s original theory, but also obscures alternative ecological perspectives in natural and human systems such as those advanced. We acknowledge that this conceptual legacy may have influenced the literature we reviewed and, by extension, the contours of the proposed taxonomy. In the new paragraph added to the discussion section, we explicitly recognize this potential bias.

“…….This dominant western philosophy, rooted in a misinterpretation of Darwin's theory, may have overlooked alternative ecological perspectives that emphasize mutualism and cooperation in human–nature relationships.……… We recognise that certain specific, less-documented ontologies and value systems from both western and non-western regions remain underrepresented, subsumed into broader categories, or entirely absent from our sample. This limitation might narrow the scope of the proposed taxonomy and reduce its cross-cultural relevance.”

Specific comment 7

I think eleven should be numbered (line 222).

Reply to specific comment 7

We now numbered eleven

Specific comment 8

If Figure 4 could be improved (it's not easy to understand and the font is very small).

Reply to specific comment 8

Figure 4 is now improved for more clarity. See the revised manuscript and attached file.

Specific comment 9

I'm not sure if a Figure 5 (result) should be included in the Discussion.

Reply to specific comment 9

This has been a lengthy discussion, and since the figure represents our interpretation, we have decided to retain it in the Discussion section rather than in the Results, which are intended to report solely on the findings of the review.

Specific comment 10

More than an interest (line 402), I think it's a concern about environmental impacts that motivates conceptualizing the human-nature relationship.

Reply to specific comment 10

The sentence is now reformulated as following:

“…Over these last 30 years, the escalating environmental crisis has driven growing interest in how human–nature relationships are conceptualized and described both in biological conservation and social sciences.”

Specific comment 11

In relation to the above, would the authors be encouraged to outline an idea of ​​what normative positions or visions could contribute most to avoiding the environmental collapse toward which we seem headed?

Reply to specific comment 11

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. Our initial intention was to remain neutral and avoid taking an advisory role by suggesting which normative positions are better or worse. We aimed, instead, to illustrate the diversity of worldviews and support stakeholders in reflecting and positioning themselves. The most important is to be aware of these plural views and take them into account in policymaking and interventions. Even among the co-authors, differing normative views led to rich and, at times, intense internal discussions.

That said, we acknowledge that along the continuum of normative positions, those aligned with “One with nature” and in a moderate way those aligned with “Nature protection” and “Green economy” are more likely to foster transformative change, help avert environmental collapse, and support a sustainable future.

We have added a sentence in the conclusion to emphasize this point as following: “While our initial aim is to evidence a plurality of perspectives in human-nature relationships, we recognize that normative positions emphasizing deep relationships with nature, such as 'One with nature,' and to a lesser extent, 'Nature protection' and 'Green economy', offer the most promise for fostering transformative change and averting environmental collapse.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You did a great job of establishing a unifying language across the literature review (like values and worldview), but I wish you would have applied the same method to defining the word normative in this context to ensure that we were all interpreting each phrase using 'normative' in the same manner. However, you do apply this approach to 'normative position' which does ground everyone, but it comes a bit later in the reading when questions surrounding that term have already appeared. 

Overall, it is a very well-written and constructed paper. Where I think improvements could be made would be adding a sub-section in the Discussion section where you could expand the final paragraph a bit more. I would like to see more of a discussion on the limitations of your model, but what are the next steps in the area of application either in discourse for conservation managers and policy makers or for researchers. It would help close out your initial argument of need that is set forth in the beginning of the paper. 

Overall, I think it is a great addition to the literature and a much needed analysis for the current body of work. 

Author Response

General comment

You did a great job of establishing a unifying language across the literature review (like values and worldview), but I wish you would have applied the same method to defining the word normative in this context to ensure that we were all interpreting each phrase using 'normative' in the same manner. However, you do apply this approach to 'normative position' which does ground everyone, but it comes a bit later in the reading when questions surrounding that term have already appeared. 

Overall, it is a very well-written and constructed paper. Where I think improvements could be made would be adding a sub-section in the Discussion section where you could expand the final paragraph a bit more. I would like to see more of a discussion on the limitations of your model, but what are the next steps in the area of application either in discourse for conservation managers and policy-makers or for researchers. It would help close out your initial argument of need that is set forth in the beginning of the paper.

Overall, I think it is a great addition to the literature and a much needed analysis for the current body of work. 

Reply to general comment

Thank you very much for your feedback and constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to include a concise definition of normative in the introductory section, as following:

“Humans perceive and interact with nature in various, contrasting, and sometimes conflicting ways [1-4], indicating various conceptions of nature and hence plural normative positions. In this study normative positions refer to value-laden orientations that inform how individuals or institutions perceive the relationship between humans and nature, and what outcomes are deemed desirable or appropriate.”

We have now added a new paragraph in the discussion section that discusses the limitations of the study, such as potential biases in the reviewed literature, underrepresentation of non-western ontologies, and disciplinary imbalances.

“Our sample remains numerically weighted toward Western experts and studies, which may lead to an overrepresentation of Western perspectives, particularly those grounded in scientific rationalism, dualism, and anthropocentrism. This dominant western philosophy, rooted in a misinterpretation of Darwin's theory, may have overlooked alternative ecological perspectives that emphasize mutualism and cooperation in human–nature relationships. To account for these biases, we incorporated alternative worldviews in the study based on literature and expert’s opinion. These perspectives often emphasize monism, reciprocity, and the relational value of nature, contrasting with the dominant western philosophy that tends to instrumentalize nature for human benefit [44, 74-76]. We recognize that certain specific, less-documented ontologies and value systems from both western and non-western regions remain underrepresented, subsumed into broader categories, or entirely absent from our sample. This limitation might narrow the scope of the proposed taxonomy and reduce its cross-cultural relevance. In the next step of this research project, we are preparing to test whether stakeholders from a broader range of cultural contexts, knowledge systems, and professional backgrounds converge with or challenge the proposed taxonomy. Feedback from this next step will be instrumental in guiding revisions to ensure the taxonomy reflects a more pluralistic, inclusive, and globally relevant understanding of human–nature relationships.”

The above paragraph also elaborates on the next step of the research project, in addition to future research directions identified in the previous paragraph, which have been improved (see below).

Future research will need to clarify how values vary across cultures and within a given person, depending on context, cultural norms, new learning experiences, emotions, and mental growth [71, 72]. This work also responds in part to the numerous calls to widen the range of values considered within the field of conservation [11, 12]. What remains to be clarified are the consequences of considering multiple value systems on global biodiversity goals. For example, the CBD aims to set aside 30% of terrestrial and marine surfaces for biodiversity. Can surfaces that have some human activities, but also provide numerous relational and instrumental values and unique species communities (for example, adapted to traditional farmlands) count towards such goals [73]? Making intellectual space for a great diversity of worldviews and types of human-nature relationships will potentially generate greater support for the protection of nature but also come with the risk of creating divergent nature-based strategies and tactics. We also anticipate that the proposed framework will prompt researchers to critically reflect on their own normative orientations and consider how these positions may influence the formulation of research questions, methodological choices, data interpretation, and the framing of conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for the manuscript ‘"Quantifying the diversity of normative positions in conservation sciences"

 

Congratulations, this is interesting, innovative and substantial work! In fact, the inclusion of the broadest possible range of human-nature relationships and values, which are somehow present in every individual, will promote a broad reflection in nature conservation strategies and thus their support. The sheer number of scanned 650 documents (universe of papers) is proof of your diligent endeavour. Your evaluation leads to Table 2, which still appears complex, but it is probably not appropriate to summarise further here. The greatest possible simplification is your graphical overview in Figure 5. In this way, you provide the reader with a great deal of assistance in gaining access to and understanding of this complex topic.

Perhaps it could also be addressed whether and how the various world views are themselves exposed to tensions with the ever-increasing demand for land for the decentralised production of renewable energies, which not least promises climate protection. Just as you do at the end of the discussion regarding the goal of the Convention on Biological Diversity to place 30% of all terrestrial and marine areas under protection, where you also point out a possible challenge in the allocation. In this context, I would be interested to know how you would categorise my perspective that certain biodiversity solar parks can act as “fortresses for livestock” (https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10522) and thus change the term “fortress conservation” (your Lines 68-70:) somewhat. That would make me very happy.

The most serious deficits currently exist in the references, see my notes for this part.

 

Introduction

Lines 41-43: Prioritising economic values from providing ecosystem services. And neglecting other nature-based values. What do you mean by the latter? Could you please give two examples?

Lines 49-52: This statement seems central and plausible.

 

Results

Line 228-230, Figure 1: The ordinate does not show the number of typologies used, but the number of new typologies added. Perhaps this should be made clearer.

 

Discussion

Line 345: There is no reference [86] in the reference list.

Line 394: CBD must not only appear as an abbreviation, but must also be written out as Convention on Biological Diversity.

 

References

The reference numbers from 66 to 80 are not included in the text.

Line 428 and following: The reference list does not yet correspond to the format specifications, for example line 570.

Lines 43, 61, 360, 380: In lines 43 and 360 the names of the authors and reference numbers are given (Pascual, Balvanera [3]; Martin, Gomez-Baggethun [10]), but in lines 61 and 380 only the reference numbers are given ([16]; [4]). Should it be standardised?

 

Character errors

Lines 154, 287, 407, 410: Probably double spaces.

Author Response

General comment

Congratulations, this is interesting, innovative and substantial work! In fact, the inclusion of the broadest possible range of human-nature relationships and values, which are somehow present in every individual, will promote a broad reflection in nature conservation strategies and thus their support. The sheer number of scanned 650 documents (universe of papers) is proof of your diligent endeavour. Your evaluation leads to Table 2, which still appears complex, but it is probably not appropriate to summarise further here. The greatest possible simplification is your graphical overview in Figure 5. In this way, you provide the reader with a great deal of assistance in gaining access to and understanding of this complex topic.

Perhaps it could also be addressed whether and how the various world views are themselves exposed to tensions with the ever-increasing demand for land for the decentralised production of renewable energies, which not least promises climate protection. Just as you do at the end of the discussion regarding the goal of the Convention on Biological Diversity to place 30% of all terrestrial and marine areas under protection, where you also point out a possible challenge in the allocation. In this context, I would be interested to know how you would categorise my perspective that certain biodiversity solar parks can act as “fortresses for livestock” (https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10522) and thus change the term “fortress conservation” (your Lines 68-70:) somewhat. That would make me very happy.

 Reply to general comment

Thank you for this thoughtful and engaging comment. We fully agree that worldviews are exposed to real-world tensions and, at times, are also sources of friction. This is precisely why we consider normative positions to be context-dependent, dynamic, and best understood through a political economy lens that accounts for competing interests and values.

Regarding your perspective, we find your example of biodiversity solar parks particularly compelling. Such multifunctional land-use models challenge and exemplify how traditional paradigms such as “fortress conservation” can evolve into hybrid approaches that seek to reconcile, rather than compete, conservation, agriculture, and renewable energy production. By bridging anthropocentric and ecocentric orientations, your example aligns likely with the “Green economy” position in our taxonomy.

That said, we also note that in many such models, biodiversity conservation may remain a secondary objective or a positive externality of land-use decisions primarily driven by production goals. As highlighted by Zaplata (2023), while biodiversity gains from solar parks are promising, they are still under-researched, so may result at the end in mixed or inconclusive results.

This study is part of a postdoc research project. In the next step, we will incorporate emerging tensions (e.g. high demand for land, climate change, etc.) as co-variables to explain how normative positions can evolve or be negotiated in practice.

Thank you again for this valuable contribution

Zaplata, M. K. (2023). Solar parks as livestock enclosures can become key to linking energy, biodiversity and society. People and Nature, 5(6), 1457–1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10522

 

Specific comment 1

The most serious deficits currently exist in the references, see my notes for this part.

Reply to comment 1

The references in the manuscript, both in the text and in the list, have been fully checked and revised, and missing references in the text have been added. We have revised the references and made sure the references in numbering style in the text correspond to the references in the reference list.

 Specific comment 2

Introduction

Lines 41-43: Prioritising economic values from providing ecosystem services. And neglecting other nature-based values. What do you mean by the latter? Could you please give two examples?

 Reply to specific comment 2

Other nature-based values” refer to non-economic and non-anthropocentric ways of valuing nature, such as relational values (cultural identity, sense of place), intrinsic values (nature’s worth in itself), spiritual and aesthetic values, and ecological functions like climate regulation or pollination.

Specific comment 3

Lines 49-52: This statement seems central and plausible.

Reply to specific comment 3

Thank you

Specific comment 4

Results

Line 228-230, Figure 1: The ordinate does not show the number of typologies used, but the number of new typologies added. Perhaps this should be made clearer.

 

Specific comment 5

Discussion

Line 345: There is no reference [86] in the reference list.

Reply to specific comment 5

See reply to comment 1

 

Specific comment 6

Line 394: CBD must not only appear as an abbreviation, but must also be written out as Convention on Biological Diversity.

Reply to specific comment 6

We now define the acronym CBD as Convention on Biological Diversity

 

Specific comment 7

References

The reference numbers from 66 to 80 are not included in the text.

Reply to specific comment 7

See reply to comment 1

Specific comment 8

Line 428 and following: The reference list does not yet correspond to the format specifications, for example line 570.

Reply to specific comment 8

See reply to comment 1

 

Specific comment 9

Lines 43, 61, 360, 380: In lines 43 and 360 the names of the authors and reference numbers are given (Pascual, Balvanera [3]; Martin, Gomez-Baggethun [10]), but in lines 61 and 380 only the reference numbers are given ([16]; [4]). Should it be standardised?

Reply to specific comment 9

See reply to comment 1

 

Specific comment 10

Character errors

Lines 154, 287, 407, 410: Probably double spaces.

Reply to specific comment 10

Yes, there are double spaces, now fixed in the revised manuscript. We proofread the document to double-check and fix similar errors.