Abstract

In this paper I argue that the value attributed to coral reefs drives the characterisation of evidence for their regeneration or degradation. I observe that regeneration and degradation depend on an understanding of what an ecosystem looks like when undegraded (a baseline), and that many mutually exclusive baselines can be given for any single case. Consequently, facts about ecological processes are insufficient to usefully and non-arbitrarily characterise changes to ecosystems. By examining how baselines and the value of reefs interact in coral and algal reef examples, I argue that considering the value of an ecosystem is a necessity when describing processes like regeneration and degradation. This connects value as studied in socio-ecological and economic research with values as discussed in the philosophy of science literature. It also explains why such a broad range of processes may be considered regenerative, including those which introduce significant novelty, as well as pointing towards ways to mediate related debates, such as those surrounding novel and ‘pristine’ ecosystems.

Highlights

  • Not all of these will be included in regeneration or degradation claims, and there may be some aspects of ecosystems which it is difficult to restore or prioritise

  • I suggested that baselines consist of an undegraded ecosystem state, a set of characteristics and entities representative of this state, and a spatiotemporal scale

  • By looking at how advocates of different baselines presented their arguments, I argued we can see a role for the value of aspects of the system being described, in driving which entities/characteristics and timescales are included, and in making some baselines more reasonable or legitimate

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Value plays an important role here, driving the inclusion of some things (and some kinds of thing) and not others into baselines, with descriptions of degradation and regeneration thereby partly contingent upon the value attributed to reefs, i.e. not purely factual This explains why algal domination is typically considered degradation, and why there is disagreement over this. It helps explain the prevalence of notions of purely factual baselines in coral science despite simultaneous recognition of the comparatively great value accorded to baseline states. I highlight some avenues for mediation between different perspectives on regeneration that this account suggests

Values in coral science
Algal domination and baselines
Algal reefs as degraded
Alternative baselines
The debate over algal reefs: degraded or different?
Anything goes?
Baselines and value
Value drives baseline choice
Arbitrariness and value
Implications
Perspective and life‐worlds
Regeneration and novelty
Conclusion
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call