Understandings of Environmental Quality: Ambiguities and Values Held by Environmental Professionals

FORUMUnderstandings of Environmental Quality:Ambiguities and Values Held by EnvironmentalProfessionalsR. BRUCE HULL*DAVID RICHERTERIN SEEKAMPDAVID ROBERTSONGREGORY J. BUHYOFFCollege of Natural ResourcesVirginia TechBlacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA

ABSTRACT / The terms used to describe and negotiate envi-ronmental quality are both ambiguous and value-laden. Stake-holders intimately and actively involved in the management of

forested lands were interviewed and found to use ambiguous,tautological, and value-laden definitions of terms such ashealth, biodiversity, sustainability, and naturalness. This con-fusing language hinders public participation efforts and pro-duces calls to regulate and remove discretion from environ-mental professionals. Our data come from in-depth interviewswith environmental management professionals and otherstakeholders heavily vested in negotiating the fate of forestedlands. We contend that environmental science and manage-ment will be more effective if its practitioners embrace andmake explicit these ambiguous and evaluative qualities ratherthan ignore and disguise them.

The philosophy guiding this journal states: “As theprincipal user of the realm of nature, humanity has amajor responsibility to ensure that its impacts on theenvironment are benign rather than catastrophic.” The“impacts” that are defined, studied, and reported onthese pages have the power to shape public discourseabout the management and thus the future of ourenvironment. As stewards of environmental knowledge,the editors and contributors to Environmental Manage-ment and related publications have an ethical obligationto acknowledge and examine the role that their knowl-edge plays in defining, negotiating, and ultimatelyshaping environmental quality. This paper addressesseveral of the challenges to meeting these obligations.Specifically, we set out to document that scientificterms used by environmental professionals are bothambiguous and value-laden when applied in the con-text of environmental management.

Terms such as health, sustainability, productivity,biodiversity, air and water quality, and ecological integ-rity exist at the interface between environmental sci-ence, policy, and management. These interface con-structs are both descriptive and prescriptive, they tell uswhat is and they tell us what ought to be. Scientists usethem to describe environmental conditions. Policy-makers use them to set management goals. Managers

use them to target and evaluate outcomes. The publicuses them to form and discuss expectations. Theseterms provide the language used to envision, negotiate,and manage environmental conditions (Eden 1996,Dunlap, 1988, Fischer 2000, Fitzsimmons, 1999, Norton1998, Peterson 1997).

It is important to recognize the values imbedded inthese interface terms because doing so allows us torecognize how our science can be used to advancecompeting political agendas. People are empowered ordisadvantaged depending upon whether they have ascientific language with which to express their agendas.For example, environmental science prior to the 1960sdeveloped concepts and understandings that served themanagement agenda of minimizing waste and maximiz-ing efficiency. During and after the 1960s, however, thelanguage and logic of ecology empowered a manage-ment agenda that emphasized nutrient cycles, carryingcapacity, and biodiversity (e.g., Dunlap 1988, Worster1994, Sagoff 1988). That is, the science of ecologyprovided a new language with which to envision andevaluate environmental quality and reconceptualize thegoals of environmental management.

It is important that we also recognize the ambiguityof these interface terms. Ambiguity in the languageused to define and negotiate environmental quality isproblematic. Public participation in environmentalplanning is trivialized if different terms mean the samething and similar terms mean different things. Thisambiguity leaves the public understandably skeptical ofenvironmental professionals.

KEY WORDS: Ecological buzzwords; Public perceptions; Communica-tion; Forest planning; Normative knowledge

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2812-6

Environmental Management Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1–13 © 2003 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

The intent of this case study is to document theambiguity and value-laden qualities of environmentalterms used to describe forest environmental quality. Wedo this by interviewing people informed about forestedenvironments and analyzing the ambiguity and valuesembedded in the language and logic these stakeholdersuse to define and discuss the environmental quality offorests.

Literature Review

Ambiguous Constructs

Ecological scientists, like other scientists, constantlyoperationalize, test, and redefine their constructs. Sev-eral hundred years ago the scientific literature was rifewith debate about the definition and classification ofspecies [e.g., Linnaeus versus Buffon (Worster 1994)].Community, energy flow, and ecosystem were all topicsof heated debate in the early and mid-part of the 20thcentury. As we will illustrate through this literaturereview, debates continue in the scientific literature.Theoretical, empirical, logical, and emotional argu-ments defend and critique competing definitions ofbiodiversity, ecological integrity, environmental health,sustainability, and other measures of environmentalquality.

Health. Many competing definitions of forest andecosystem health exist. Forest health has been defined,clearly with an economic motivation, as the degree towhich commercially valuable trees are threatened byrisk factors such as insect, disease, and fire (e.g., USDAForest Service 2001). Similarly, ecosystem health hasbeen defined as the system’s ability to provide a steadyflow of goods and services to meet human needs (Rap-port and others 1998). And with considerably less eco-nomic focus, health has been defined as the ability ofan ecosystem to maintain its functional, structural, orhistoric components (Mageau and others 1995, Rossand others 1997). Some definitions of health use termssuch as “homeostasis,” “diversity,” “complexity,” “stabil-ity,” “resilience,” and “balance” (Costanza 1992), whileothers argue that these qualities do not exist, contend-ing that health is not a useful concept for characteriz-ing open and dynamic systems such as ecosystems(Fitzsimmons 1999, Suter 1993, Wicklum and Davies1995).

Natural. Nature, natural, and naturalness are amongthe most contested terms in the English language(Everndon 1992, Glacken 1967). Because so many dif-ferent definitions exist, it has been argued that natureand naturalness are too subjective to serve as meaning-ful land management goals (Hull and Robertson 2000,

Schrader-Frechette and McCoy 1993). Paleoecologyand environmental history document that nature isconstantly changing and many different and possiblenatural conditions exist—from the rocks and ice thatdominated Earth some 5 billion years ago to the birthof organic life some billion years later to the warmthand lushness of the Jurrasic era to the ice ages of severalthousand years ago. Angermeler (2000) summarizessome of the debate over developing a scientific defini-tion of naturalness. He defines naturalness not as anall-or-nothing quality, but as the degree of changealong four dimensions: (1) the degree that conditionschange outside the range of natural variability, (2) theduration the change is expected to last with and with-out inputs of cultural energy, (3) the spatial extent overwhich the change occurs, and (4) the abruptness withwhich the change occurs [see Anderson (1991) andPovilitis (2000) for related but competing definitions].

Sustainability. Most definitions of environmental sus-tainability are similar in that they appeal to intergen-erational equity for justification; that is, we have needsto meet today but we must respect that others will haveneeds to meet in the future. However, the definitionsoften do not agree on what will be sustained, for howlong, and for whom. Sustainable forestry, for example,typically refers to concerns about the sustained yield ofmerchantable timber from forested lands (Salwasser1990). Other definitions focus on sustaining environ-mental capital so as to ensure the continued ability toproduce not just timber, but recreation, water, or otheras yet undefined goods and services that future gener-ations may desire (Noss 1995). Another definition em-phasizes the sustainability of small towns, economies,cultures, and lifestyles that depend upon distributed,rural, agricultural, extractive industries, i.e., the Jeffer-sonian ideal of an agricultural democracy (Burkhardt1989, Gale and Cordray 1994). Less anthropocentricdefinitions emphasize sustaining all biological entitiesregardless of their utilitarian values (Callicott andMumford 1997, Noss 1995). Not surprisingly, sustain-able development, the predominant buzzword in globalenvironmental discourse, has been described by nu-merous authors as an ambiguous contradiction ofterms (Lele and Norgaard 1996, Peterson 1997).

Integrity and biological diversity. Integrity is often de-fined as an environmental condition that exhibits littleor no human influence, maintaining the structure,function, and species composition present, prior to,and independent of human intervention [i.e., integrityis closely associated with ideas of naturalness, particu-larly the notion of pristine wilderness (Angermeier andKarr 1994, Callicott and others 1999)]. Regier (1993)provides a rare exception, defining integrity as compat-

2 R. B. Hull and others

ible with human settlement (including not only “prim-itive” but also modern societies). Species compositionand biodiversity are key parts of most definitions ofintegrity. While biodiversity is a term that evokes nearlyunanimous support as an indicator of environmentalquality, there remains considerable debate about itsjustification and definition (Takacs 1996). There alsoexist unresolved disputes over the connections betweenbiodiversity, stability, resilience, fragility, integrity,health, and other ecological quality constructs (Westraand Lemons 1995). Biodiversity is often defined as thediversity and distribution of native species present atsome presettlement time, but it can be extended tosmaller units of nature such as diversity of geneticmaterial within a species or to larger units of naturesuch as diversity of ecosystem structures and functions(Heywood 1995, Noss 1995). There seems some agree-ment that integrity is the “highest order” construct ofenvironmental quality—an ecosystem with integrity isnecessarily healthy, sustainable, and relatively biodi-verse, when compared to a system with less integrity.There also seems general agreement that human inter-vention can produce healthy and sustainable ecosys-tems, but that such systems are less likely to have integ-rity.

Based on this review, we see that environmentalquality is often defined in terms whose definitions areinterwoven, complex and sometimes tautological: a sus-tainable system is healthy, a healthy system is diverse, adiverse system is natural, naturalness is sustainable. In-tegrity represents the highest level of environmentalquality, but its characterization of humans as apart fromnature rather than as a part of nature make it a difficultgoal for environments that are actively managed toproduce goods and services.

Embedded Values

Applied environmental sciences, like medical sci-ences, are, for the most part, goal driven (Eden 1996,Robertson and Hull 2001, Sagoff 1985, 1988, Scha-rader-Frechette and McCoy 1993, Worster 1994). Theyseek to improve or reduce damage to valued units ofnature such as ecosystems, species, humans, crops, andcommunities. Forest ecologists, for example, study for-est dynamics with an eye towards improving the effi-ciencies of timber production. Conservation biologists,as another example, study habitats so as to enablespecies protection. For both of these sciences thereexists a purpose behind the research that emerges instark relief when one compares the topics and justifica-tions of articles published in their leading journals

(e.g., Forest Science and Conservation Biology). The termsused by these scientists reflect their purposes.

Numerous studies document the values embeddedin ecological constructs. For example, Lele and Nor-gard (1996) show how sustainability cannot be definedwithout imposing values. Takacs (1996) examines thehistory of biodiversity and shows that in many applica-tions it merely cloaks romantic values associated withwilderness appreciation. Scarce (1999) shows howsalmon biology tends to serve the interest of scientists’affiliation (i.e., hydroelectric industry or US Fish andWildlife Service). Shrader-Frechette (1995) critiquesthe partially disguised and poorly defended ethical as-sumptions embedded in definitions of ecological integ-rity. Hull and Robertson (2000) examine the valuesembedded in health, integrity, and naturalness. Wor-ster (1994) provides a very readable history of ecology,showing how ecological theories and constructs havebeen accepted, rejected, and modified in response tochanging cultural influences and expectations.

Before analyzing the values evidenced in our inter-views, we developed a framework for organizing peo-ple’s values. It is based on public interviews and surveysby Kempton and others (1995) and on basic environ-mental ethics texts (e.g., Botzler and Armstrong 1998,Hargrove 1989, Rolston 1988). Five basic value systemswere identified, each with their own implications fordefinition and management of environmental quality:biocentric, ecocentric, utilitarian, aesthetic, and spiri-tual.

Biocentric and ecocentric perspectives grant moralstanding or rights to nonhuman units of nature. Froma biocentric perspective individual organisms hold rightsthat must be respected. These rights are intrinsic orgranted because the organism is conscious, feeling,and/or purposeful. A range of rights can be granted,including the right to life, freedom, and pain-free ex-istence. Obviously, there is ample room for negotiationabout the types of organisms that quality for rights andwhich rights they deserve. Environmental quality de-fined from a biorights perspective focuses on the well-being of organisms (i.e., their health, happiness, pain).The ecocentric perspective is slightly broader. Rights aregranted to systems of nature larger than the individualorganism, such as species, communities, populations,ecosystems, and biomes. Environmental quality definedfrom an ecocentric perspective focuses on the integrity,stability, and existence of these larger units of nature.

Anthropocentric values for environmental qualityfocus on concerns that revolve around human wel-fare and comfort. Human rights and concerns dom-inate the rights of nature. Utilitarian values empha-size those pieces of nature that directly serve humans

Public Understandings of Environmental Quality 3

as economic resources or commodities (water, wood,game species of wildlife, recreation, etc.). Enlight-ened self-interest values are closely related. It is insociety’s self-interest to minimize environmental con-ditions that adversely impact human health and eco-nomic productivity. Enlightened self-interest valuesextend to ecosystem services on which society de-pends and currently uses free of charge, such aswater and air purification, oxygen production, soilgeneration, and protection from ozone. Environ-mental quality defined from these anthropocentricperspectives emphasizes the production of valuedecosystem services and the maximization of humanhealth and comfort now and into the future.

Somewhat less tangible anthropocentric values forthe environment derive from the aesthetic qualities ofnature and the experiences they produce. Nature’svastness and unpredictability provide experiences thatare not just scenic but also inspire insights into thehuman condition. By experiencing and studying na-ture, some people profess to learn lessons about life’strue values and real meanings. These often romanti-cally inspired values are deeply embedded in NorthAmerican culture and reflected in the writings anddeeds of environmental icons such as Henry DavidThoreau, John Muir, and Aldo Leopold, and EdwardAbbey. Environmental quality motivated by these valuesbecomes defined in terms of scenic beauty and out-standing opportunities for seclusion, solitude, andprimitive experiences.

Considerably less tangible, but still anthropocentric,are spiritual reasons to value the environment. Themajor world religions speak about a god’s creation of orrelationship with nature. There is active debate aboutthe type of environmental ethic that organized reli-gions do or should promote (Oelschlaeger 1994).Kempton and others (1995) found that a majority ofpeople used religious arguments to justify a more cau-tious and caring land ethic (i.e., to “care for God’sCreation”). A related and equally popular value fornature is the heightened sensitivity, self-awareness, orconnectivity to spiritual insight provided by nature-based experiences. Recreationists frequently reportfinding god in nature or being more aware of theirspirituality when they experience vast, wild places thatmake them feel small and humble. There are manydefinitions of environmental quality that result fromthis perspective, ranging from protecting/preserving“God’s Creation” to minimizing any interventions thatwould interfere with nature serving as a conductor ofdivinity.

Methods

We asked people to define and explain environmen-tal quality. We intentionally kept our initial questionsvague so as to let participants introduce the terms theydeemed relevant. Once introduced, we asked specificquestions designed to elicit detailed definitions of andvalues for each term.

Participants

We identified (first from our own contacts and thenthrough snow-balling) 44 persons intimately involved invarious aspects of forestry in the southwest Virginiaportion of the Southern Appalachian Ecosystem. Wepurposely sought to represent a broad range of values,concerns, and understandings of the environment heldby people within the forestry community and present indiscussions about forest management. By interviewingpeople from different interest groups, we hoped tohear a diversity of perspectives and agendas. Elevenparticipants were or had been associated with theUSDA Forest Service. Ten people were leaders or veryactive members in environmental organizations influ-encing forest management and planning. Eight peoplespecialized in offering advice to forest landowners—three extension foresters, three independent consult-ing foresters, and two industrial foresters. Four peopleearned their living harvesting/logging trees. Five peo-ple were scientists and professors employed by or re-tired from two major universities. We interviewed sixadditional people because they owned forested land.However, during the interviews we learned that at leasthalf of the 44 respondents owned forested land of sometype.

We were particularly interested in how the languageof environmental quality shapes public negotiations, soalmost half of our participants were selected because oftheir involvement in the on-going planning process of anational forest. Ten of the Forest Service personnel and12 other interviewees (scientists and environmental or-ganization leaders) were heavily involved in variousaspects of the Forest Service planning process.

Procedure

Based upon our ongoing work on this subject anddetailed discussions with natural resource professionals,we developed a semistructured interview guide designedto reveal assumptions and understandings about the en-vironment. The interview began with general questionsabout the person’s involvement with natural resourcemanagement. The next question asked people how theydefined and understood the environmental quality ofspecific forested settings with which they were familiar. In


their responses, people mentioned a variety of terms,including soil quality, productivity, sustainability, biodiver-sity, naturalness, and forest/ecological health. We thenasked that they explain the reasoning behind their defi-nitions. We probed with specific questions about eachterm, forcing interviewees to define how their particulardefinition of environmental quality produced environ-mental quality and to explain why it mattered or why itwas valued. Finally, we asked questions about how natureworks and whether human management could improveupon the environmental quality nature produces.

Interviews lasted 20–90 min. All but one interviewwas tape recorded, and each of these was transcribedverbatim as its own document and imported into QSRNUD*IST (1997), a qualitative data analysis computersoftware program that we used to organize our analysis.Approximately 238,000 words were transcribed to formthe database for this study.

Analysis of the interview data sought to identify discur-sive themes and patterns. The analytical process was iter-ative. Theme identification evolved through repeatedanalysis of the original transcripts. A coding scheme forthe interview data was developed and refined over severalmonths. The interviews were coded into NUD*IST, aprogram that facilitates organizing and summarizing tex-tual units into a structure such as that presented below.Intermediate results were presented to forestry profes-sionals and also mailed to half the participants as a mem-ber check. Responses to these presentations were used tomodify our organization and understanding of the discur-sive themes. While our method of data collection andanalysis are guided by the work of numerous discoursescholars, a valuable reference text is the work of socialpsychologists Potter and Wetherell (1987). Publicationswith similar purpose and methods include Peterson’s(1997) work on sustainable development, Takacs’ (1996)work on biodiversity, and Scarce’s (1999) work on salmon.

We use quotes from the interviews and provide re-lated insights from the literature. Direct quotes fromthe interviews are denoted with quotation marks. Thelengthier quotes are attributed to a specific respondent(i.e., Environmentalist 1, Landowner 3, etc.). Where anellipsis occurs in a direct quote, it is because the re-spondent paused, repeated a word, or stuttered. Dele-tions, insertions, or the addition of emphasis to the textare noted with brackets (i.e., [insertion]).

Results

Ambiguous Definitions of Environmental Quality

While most respondents for this study are respectedand accomplished environmental experts with consid-

erable first-hand experience managing forests, theynevertheless had difficulty answering our query: “Whatis good environmental quality of a forest?” After somegeneral discussion each respondent introduced one ormore interface terms such as health, naturalness, biodi-versity, productivity and sustainability. These termswere typically used interchangeably and tautologically.For example, “. . . This sort of helps define . . . what Iwould define as a natural system. The, especially whenyou get to larger scales, the natural systems, the envi-ronmental quality, and . . . health of a system that cansustain itself, I think is . . . is dependent upon diversity[Forest advisor 2].

The interviewees struggled when asked to definetheir terms more precisely. One of our primary conclu-sions is that enormous ambiguity and tautology exists inthe ways people use terms to describe environmentalquality. The same term means many different thingsand different terms are used to define similar environ-mental conditions. Readers may dismiss this finding asirrelevant, arguing that precise language should be ex-pected only in a scientific context, such as in journalpublications. However, the formal context of our inter-views (where researchers from a university were askingquestions about terms central to participants’ profes-sional expertise) seems as plausible or appropriate asother contexts to evoke precise, reasoned, and profes-sional responses. We argue that there is no reason toexpect less precision in our interviews than would befound in equally (and often less) formal public partic-ipation efforts in which environmental experts influ-ence environmental decision-making.

Health. When people mentioned “health” as a way todefine environmental quality, we then asked them todefine the concept in more detail. Many definitionswere offered. Some definitions focused on the produc-tivity and merchantability of trees using terms such as“vigorous,” “growing,” “reproducing,” and “producingfiber.” Similar definitions focused on minimizingthreats to tree productivity from “pest,” “disease,” “par-asites,” and other stressors that “degraded” tree health.Other definitions applied a broader geographical andtemporal scale, focusing not just on trees but also onlarger units of nature such as “ecosystems” and “for-ests.” Health was defined as the system’s “resilience.”Healthy forests and ecosystems could “spring back” or“snap back fairly quickly” from disturbances such as“insects, disease, fire, wind storms, ice,” “hurricane or aflood” because they are “stable” and “have a betterchance of long-term viability.” Health also was associ-ated with a system’s “diversity.” Healthy forests andecosystems had “all their pieces,” “all forms of naturewere there.”


A healthy condition also was defined as a “natural”condition. It is the “normal” or “historic” condition thatwould exist “without any human intervention.” Such acondition had “native” species, and is characterized by“old growth” and “climax” conditions. Finally, healthwas associated with “clean water” and “clean air.”“Clean” reflected anthropocentric concerns aboutdrinking water (i.e., factors that “pollute your wells”).“Clean” also reflected ecocentric concerns such as theimpact of air and water on the whole “terrestrial system,diversity, variety of life . . . productivity and . . . thehealth of the elements and components in the systemthat’s dependent upon that water.”

Thus, definitions of health generated by our ques-tions reflected the full range of definitions found in theliterature and were tautological in that health was de-fined using other interface terms (e.g., naturalness,water quality, diversity, productivity, sustainability).

Natural. When our respondents mentioned “na-ture,” “natural,” or “naturalness” as a way to defineenvironmental quality, we asked them to define theirintended meaning in more detail. Some definitions ofnatural conditions referenced “normal” conditions orconditions that “belong” and are “suppose to be.” Byrefusing or being unable to be more specific, respon-dents merely made a rhetorical switch of one ambigu-ous term for another—normal for natural. Other defi-nitions tautologically defined naturalness as thecharacteristic of places where there occur “natural”disturbances (e.g., “fire,” “insects,” “disease”) and “nat-ural” processes (“water,” “nitrogen,” “energy,” “life,”“food chain”).

Very few definitions of naturalness employed thepristine myth. Terms such as “pristine,” “virgin,” “orig-inal,” and “authentic” were used infrequently (4, 2, 3,and 0 times, respectively). Most people seemed to rec-ognize that humans had heavily modified the forest. Afew people commented about the impacts of NativeAmericans, but suggested that these impacts were mi-nor and acceptable. Somewhat more common, but stillinfrequently mentioned, naturalness was defined as acondition unconstrained by human activities, manage-ment, and/or manipulation (e.g., “trees living on theirown”). “Wild” was used to describe this condition ofnature that is relatively free from current human con-trol. A forest previously manipulated by humans couldregain its wildness if people left it alone. For mostrespondents naturalness also implied limited percep-tual “evidence of humans” currently controlling orpresent in the landscape. A natural place is character-ized by the absence of contemporary humans, theiranthropogenic structures, sounds, smells, and regimes.Naturalness also implies the absence of ecological pro-

cesses humans have set in motion (e.g., “free of exot-ics”), as well as the absence of humans living in thelandscape. Following this reasoning, naturalness wasmost frequently defined by referencing the antonym“artificial.”

Many elaborate reasons were offered to explain whynaturalness promotes environmental quality. Eventhough the reasons are presented below as distinctcategories, people typically used multiple reasons intheir explanation for why nature knows best. Somepeople explained that a supernatural force created na-ture and that “God,” “Gaia,” or “Mother Nature” set inmotion a perfect system. Some people explained thatnatural conditions possess high environmental qualitybecause species and systems of nature produced by“evolution” are assumed right or “best” for an area.“Natural selection” has “improved” them. These naturalconditions were necessarily of high quality because theyhad survived the “test” of time.

About half of our sample group argued that naturalconditions were likely better than human-producedconditions because history had shown that human tech-nology often does more harm than good. They arguedthat the environment is “incredibly complex,” that hu-mans “lack . . . control over natural influences” domi-nating environmental change, and that “unpredictabil-ity” of disturbance and evolutionary events makesforecasting future conditions difficult or impossible.Others suggested that nature was “balanced” or in “har-mony” and that there exists an “equilibrium” in naturedue to “forces” that “heal,” “improve,” and guide na-ture. It was suggested that an ecosystem functioned likean organism with “self-perpetuating,” “self-maintain-ing” processes that allow it to “heal itself.” Intervieweesexplained that nature’s balance results from the inter-connections among environmental factors, species,populations, ecosystems, and eventually the biosphere.That is, the complex interconnections in the “web” oflife produce some force that holds things together andcreates a semblance of balance.

Our questions generated definitions of nature andnaturalness that reflect the full range of definitionsfound in the literature. Furthermore, naturalness wastautologically defined using other interface constructs(e.g., health, diversity, resilience).

Biodiversity. The people we interviewed also men-tioned “diversity” or “variety of life” as a way to defineenvironmental quality. When they did so we asked themto define these ideas in more detail. Many definitionswere offered. Some definitions focused on the “varietyof species” or “species richness,” primarily focusing onplant and animal species. Other definitions of diversityfocused on the temporal and spatial distribution of


living material in the ecosystem. In particular thesedefinitions focused on trees as the dominant species.Greater “age-class” variety, for example, was desired bysome. Conversely, stands of uniformly old or youngtrees located in large contiguous areas were bad. Hu-mans could manage this type of diversity through forestsilviculture. Another definition of diversity focused onthe variety in forest “structure.” Environmental qualitywas higher in forests that had variety in vertical struc-ture (i.e., “five-layer canopy,” lots of “under story” and“layers in the forest” as well as “big trees”). Interest-ingly, biodiversity was not defined as being healthy,natural, or sustainable. However, the reverse did occur(i.e., people defined health, naturalness, and sustain-ability as conditions possessing biodiversity). We con-clude that biodiversity is viewed by our participants as amore specific term. Nonetheless, there remains multi-ple definitions and ample ambiguity.

Productivity and sustainability. People also mentionedforest productivity and sustainability. The detailed def-initions offered by respondents for these two termswere similar enough that we lumped them togetherinto a single category. Most definitions emphasize theability of the forest to sustain a production of goods andservices valued by humans. High environmental qualitywas defined as a condition that could produce a highdegree of commodity benefits for a long time. Somedefinitions focused specifically on resources such as“timber,” “wildlife,” and “water,” but other definitionsfocused on the underlying “regenerative capacity” ofthe ecosystem or the long-term “productivity of thesoil.” “Health,” “diversity,” and even “naturalness” wereused to describe the conditions that would ensure sus-tainability, making it very difficult to define sustainabil-ity independently of these other constructs. As such,sustainability and productivity, just like the others, aredefined tautologically with the other terms.

Water quality. Water quality, more than air or soilquality, was frequently and specifically mentioned as away to define environmental quality. It, too, had mul-tiple definitions. High water quality could be “clear”water, “clean” water, “normally occurring” water, orwater free of “erosion” and “siltation,” making this def-inition almost as vague as the others. Likewise, thisconstruct was used interchangeably with other terms:healthy, sustainable, diverse forests had good waterquality.

Other interface constructs. Other terms such as “native”and “exotic” were mentioned frequently but usuallywithin the context of explaining one of the other con-structs, hence we folded them into those definitions.Ecological integrity, to our surprise, was explicitly iden-tified only once and was defined as a forest possessing

“the full complement of structures and componentsfunctioning as they should in a healthy manner.” Giventhat integrity is a term increasingly found in the theo-retical literature, we had thought it might be moreprevalent in our discussions with environmental practi-tioners.

Values Imbedded in Definitions of EnvironmentalQuality

The following lengthy quote provides a striking ex-ample of how different values create different defini-tions of environmental quality and how these imbed-ded values are believed by some to confuse and derailnegotiations about forest environmental quality. A self-described “tree-hugging” environmental activist arguedthat the environmental qualities of two nearly identicalforest sites—one cleared by burning, the other clearedby a timber harvest—were interpreted as possessingdifferent environmental qualities because one site wasevaluated economically and the other one ecocentri-cally. He explained that forestry professionals with util-itarian values had described the burned forest as “de-stroyed” because the burned trees were “wasted.” Hesaid these same professionals described the nearby tim-bered forest as “regenerating” and of acceptable envi-ronmental quality. In contrast, the interviewee, whovalued forests for aesthetic and ecocentric reasons, be-lieved the burned forest had higher environmentalquality than the logged area because the fire recycledrather than removed nutrients and because soil was notcompressed by harvesting equipment. This person as-tutely noted that these different assessments of environ-mental quality for essentially the same piece of landwere the result of different values:

You can ride up there on [interstate] 64 up on Afton mountain and ifyou [are] headed east there is 400 acres up there that got hit [by afire.] [Delete two lines.] And that area looks so much nicer than thearea right across on the . . . I guess the western side of I64, . . . [where]they just logged the hell out of it. [Delete 5 lines.] [They] told us those400 acres were destroyed, but yet if you have those same foresters they’lllook down on those clear-cuts and say that’s a regenerating forest. Andaesthetically the burned area is much more aesthetically pleasing andbiologically it is much more intact because the biomass hasn’t beenremoved, the soils aren’t compacted, the salamanders haven’t beensmashed, the snakes are still there. Sure you’ll get turtles that will diebut turtles have been around fire probably a lot longer than humanshave been around fire. They can deal with it. They’ve dealt with it formillions of years. They can deal with it for millions more if we couldleave them alone. Again, [how] all this ties in is that a forester says thatarea of the fire destroyed that area because he wants to get in and log it.And then that area that he gets in and logs, that’s reforestation he’sdoing there. Reforestation with a chain-saw [Public Informant 9, em-phasis added in italics].


In this section we document the values embedded invarious definitions of environmental quality. After ask-ing people to define environmental quality we askedthem to tell us why it mattered that the environmentpossessed the qualities they just described. The purposebehind this question was to expose the values, reasons,and agendas that lie behind the use of each definition.Regardless of the difficulty people had defining envi-ronmental quality, they clearly placed high value on it.All respondents assumed that promoting or protectingenvironmental quality was good, while degrading envi-ronmental quality was bad. However, they differed inhow they defined environmental quality and why theycared about it. We categorized people’s reasons forvaluing environmental quality following the schemeused by Kempton and others (1995) introduced in theliterature review.

Biocentric and ecocentric values. Biocentric values in-clude the rights (to life, to pain-free existence, etc.) ofeach living organism, while ecocentric values apply tothe rights of collectives of living things (i.e., species andecosystems). Despite a very vocal animal rights lobby atthe national and global levels, not one of our respon-dents explicitly argued for granting rights to individualliving organisms. One person came close, arguing theneed to protect “. . . all other living creatures in theworld besides ourselves,” but even this person was notexplicit about granting rights to individual organisms.However, the ecocentric value system was mentionedfrequently. Interviewees attributed value to environ-mental systems that do not “directly support” or im-prove the quality of life of humans. People argued thatthere is “value in a system even if it’s not directlysupporting what I’m doing,” that it is good for “all ofnature to survive,” desirable to “protect” species from“extinction,” and to minimize harm to “whatever usedto live there.” Several people specifically expressed frus-tration with management strategies focused solely ongenerating hunting revenues from game species such as“bear or deer or turkey” at the expense of nongamespecies. Ecocentric values were associated with defini-tions of environmental quality found in health, natu-ralness, and biodiversity. Even the definition of forestproductivity that emphasized sustaining the “regenera-tive capacity” of the ecosystem was justified at least onceusing ecocentric arguments concerned with the abilityof all species, not just timber species, to survive.

Anthropocentric more than ecocentric or biocentricvalues dominated peoples’ justifications for environ-mental quality. Values ranged from the income gener-ated by timber to less quantifiable and more diffuse“ecosystem services.” Also mentioned were the manyaesthetic, spiritual, and recreational benefits people

derive from nature, regardless of whether these bene-fits can be assigned economic value.

Enlightened self-interest. All respondents seemed tovalue the flow of ecosystem services on which humanlife depends, explaining that it is in our own self-inter-est to sustain “our life support system.” In addition tospecific examples (“breathable air,” “drinkable” water,and prevention of “fire, floods, and landslides”) somejustifications noted that “the long-term survival of ourspecies” was inextricably linked to environmental qual-ity. For example, there was the “need to keep youngtrees growing” for the “oxygen” that they “give off.”Several justifications specifically noted links betweenenvironmental quality and human health by noting thatif we degrade environmental quality we might “end uphurting ourselves.” Enlightened self-interest valueswere associated with all of the interface constructs. Thatis, definitions of health, naturalness, biodiversity, sus-tainability–productivity, and water quality were justifiedusing enlightened self-interest reasons.

Utilitarian. Most respondents mentioned generaland specific economic values that flow from nature.The language of multiple use was quickly and confi-dently introduced to describe why environmental qual-ity mattered: “wood,” “water,” “range,” “recreation,”“wildlife” for “hunting,” and “forage.” These resourceswere valued because they were directly or indirectlyconsumed by humans and, more specifically, becausethey provided “money in your pocket.” A few justifica-tions reasoned that it was “wasteful” not to take fulladvantage of the resources nature provides: “just likeyour vegetables in your garden, if you don’t pick yourtomatoes when they’re ripe, they rot, and they go towaste, same thing with the trees.” Not all utilitarianvalues were focused on the current generation or oneconomic returns. Several justifications explicitly men-tioned the “duty” to future generations to keep “theenvironment in at least as good a shape as there is now.”The “educational” value of high environmental qualitywas also noted, both as a source for scientific study andas a learning experience for young people.

Utilitarian arguments used by our interviewees wereassociated with all the interface terms, but especiallyproductivity and sustainability: Valued environmentalqualities were those that sustained the economic pro-ducing potential of the land. We found numerous in-stances where people expressed explicit concern aboutmaintaining soil and water quality for this very reason.Management practices that erode soil or pollute waterwere unacceptable because they degrade the ability togenerate income from working the land. Likewise,events such as forest fires or insect and disease out-


breaks were all viewed negatively from the standpointthat they damage the economic value of the forests.

Aesthetic, spiritual, recreational values for nature. Manyof the people we interviewed justified their definition ofenvironmental quality by telling us that high-qualityenvironments create high-quality amenity experiences.American society has a long tradition of valuing natu-ral-appearing landscapes and wild, primitive, nature-based experiences. People value the “scenery” and “rec-reation,” but also value the “contrast” to civilization andthe respite from “stresses” of urban living where onecan “relax, or get out of the hustle bustle.” Naturalenvironments were also valued as a “place of power”where one finds spiritual fulfillment and moral lessons:a place to repair the “hole in people” caused by mo-dernity’s production–consumption culture.

Aesthetic, spiritual, and recreational values were as-sociated with all definitions of environmental quality,but those conditions that minimized human interven-tion were more highly valued for these reasons. Somehuman modification or “development” degrades scenicvistas and wild experiences, and human crowding de-grades primitive experiences and solitude. Likewise,“manicured” and “manipulated” settings and builtstructures that “keep bringing you back to society”hinder the escapist/contrast recreation opportunitiesthat some people value.

Several conclusions can be drawn from our analysisof the reasons people used to justify their definitions ofenvironmental quality. First, an individual typically ex-pressed multiple values. For example, someone ex-plaining the utilitarian benefits of a managed nature inone part of the interview might later justify environ-mental quality using ecocentric values. A second impor-tant conclusion is that most environmental qualityterms were justified using multiple values. Differentpeople valued the same environmental quality for dif-ferent reasons, often expecting different outcomes.Health provides an example. Health valued for utilitar-ian reasons emphasized environmental conditions thatminimized threats (e.g., fire and insect) to trees thatwould decrease merchantability. Health valued for en-lightened self-interest reasons emphasized environ-mental conditions that ensured long-term reproductivecapacity of ecosystem services. Health valued for eco-centric reasons emphasized environmental conditionsthat provided diverse and available habitat for wildlife.Finally, health valued for aesthetic reasons emphasizedenvironmental conditions that have big, old trees. Weconclude from these findings that different values mayproduce different desire outcomes for the same term.Stated in different words, the values motivating thedefinition matter almost as much as the definition in

determining the precise characteristics of environmen-tal quality implied by the term.

Discussion and Implications

Environmental decision-making is a tournament ofcompeting agendas. Some values and beliefs are heldup and exalted, others are dismissed and ignored, andstill others are implicit and unnoticed. Stakeholderscompete in this contest of meaning and interpretationto advance their agendas through the science they ad-vocate, through the terms they use to define environ-mental quality, and through the management goalsthey champion. To compete successfully in this tourna-ment, participants must recognize the values and am-biguities of the language used to discuss and describenature. Of particular importance are the terms used todescribe ecological conditions because they may be-come the goals for policies and management.

Our results demonstrate that terms used to describeand negotiate environmental quality are both ambigu-ous and value-laden. We base this conclusion on twosources of evidence: (1) competing definitions are be-ing debated in the scientific and professional literatureand (2) experts intimately and actively involved in en-vironmental management on forested lands provideambiguous and tautological definitions of these terms.The same term (e.g., health) is defined such that it candescribe and prescribe many different environmentalconditions. There is so much ambiguity within eachenvironmental quality buzzword that people champion-ing the same term could value it for very differentreasons and expect very different management out-comes.

Implications of Ambiguity

The ambiguous definitions of environmental qualitymay deceive and obscure negotiations. Peterson(1995), for example, found paralyzing conflict betweenenvironmental regulators and the landowners beingregulated. The conflict was attributable, in part, todifferences between the groups’ definitions and valuesof soil quality. They agreed on the need to protect soilquality but differed in precisely what quality they wouldprotect and in why they would protect it.

During the course of our study we attended manypublic meetings being conducted as part of US ForestService planning efforts. An instance during one suchmeeting illustrates how problems with language canderail environmental negotiations. At the beginning ofthe meeting the facilitator wrote on a board eight issuesthat summarized the “common ground” that had beenidentified over the previous months of planning: “pro-


vide clean water; help threatened and endangered spe-cies; conserve biodiversity; maintain scenic quality; pro-tect Appalachian Trail and Blue Ridge Parkwayexperiences; provide for a variety of recreation oppor-tunities; promote forest health; [and] continue multi-ple use.” The facilitator reviewed these goals and madeseveral observations relevant to this study. It was ex-plained that at least two very different definitions ofbiodiversity had been discussed: (1) the diversity ofspecies such as deer and grouse that can tolerate dis-turbances and (2) the diversity of species such assalamanders and migratory songbirds that cannot tol-erate disturbances. It was stated that no consensus ex-isted regarding which definition to adopt. The speakerproceeded to describe the near universal acceptance offorest health as a goal, but admitted that “nobodyknows what it means.” None of the attendees objectedto these conclusions. Moreover, no subsequent discus-sion about these two environmental qualities occurredthat night. Instead, the meeting focused on how theForest Service plan should respond to the other issues.Thus, health and biodiversity were essentially removedfrom negotiation because stakeholders lacked a suffi-cient language to talk about them. One of the leadersof an environmental group active in the planning pro-cess expressed his frustration with this situation duringa private interview:

The most vexing is the term forest health. When they started the forestplanning process, they had this process by which we had these meet-ings with all these diverse publics and we talked in broad, sweepinggeneralities. No one talked about anything specific in these meetings.They [the Forest Service] were looking for where the common groundin all the forest stakeholders were, and one of the few things thateveryone could agree is that everyone wanted a healthy forest . . .. Itjust meant completely different things to different people [Environ-mental organization leader 1].

Other people involved in the Forest Service plan-ning effort were even more explicit regarding theirconcerns about ambiguity because they feared thatpublic participation was made meaningless by it. Inessence, these people worried that whoever imple-mented the plan might not interpret the terms with thesame intent as the plan’s negotiators. Forest Servicepersonnel recognize this challenge when they definedmanagement prescriptions for particular pieces of theforest:

In some cases yes, there needs to be some standardization. Of coursenobody trusts the Forest Service. I shouldn’t say nobody. It’s just somind-boggling, because you’re dealing with your committee of scien-tists, you’re dealing with all these upper levels in this whole grandscheme of things and we try to apply that stuff down on the ground,go to a public meeting, it’s very difficult to try to get everybody talking

the same language. Pick any of these prescriptions at random, setup . . . [a meeting among two active public stakeholders], the locallandowners, the adjacent landowners and you would get a differentinterpretation on what . . . [the management prescriptions] mean. Weare getting down to arguing about words, because a word can changethe flavor of an entire prescription [Forest Service informant 3].

Because of these concerns about ambiguity severalof our interview participants (both within and outsidethe Forest Service) advocated removing “as much discre-tion as possible” from those charged with implement-ing the plan. These participants specifically advocatedtightening and controlling the language that definedenvironmental quality.

I can read a term and think it means one thing and somebody else willlook at it and think it means something else. . . . If the languagedoesn’t say precisely what they [Forest Service] can do and what theyare restricted from doing, then my experience has been that they willdo things that you didn’t think they were going to be doing becauseyou interpreted something one way and they’re going to interpret itsomething entirely another way . . . [delete several lines that providedan example]. That’s why I’m saying we need to take as much discretionaway from that agency as possible to make it very clear to them and thepublic what indeed they are going to do out here [Environmentalorganization leader 10].

Obviously, for some people, the ambiguity in theseterms makes suspect the decisions made by environ-mental professionals. A possible response to a loss ofconfidence or trust in a profession or agency is torestrict its discretion. For example, regulations thatgreatly restrict or entirely prohibit the practice of for-estry have been imposed as the public loses confidencein the forestry profession’s ability and commitment tomaintain forest quality (Martus et al. 1995).

Implications of Values in Definitions of EnvironmentalQuality

Two major issues deserve discussion: (1) values existin the technical language used to define environmentalquality, despite persistent claims that scientific knowl-edge is value-neutral and objective; and (2) these valuesare both appropriate and necessary. Our finding ofvalues imbedded in the language of environmentalquality is consistent with claims made by scholars whohave long argued that applied ecological science isnecessarily normative (Eden 1996, Sagoff 1985, 1988,Scharader-Frechette and McCoy 1993, Worster 1994).Rather than challenge these claims of normativity, orattempt to purge their language of values, environmen-tal professionals should admit that these values existand act accordingly (Norton 1998). Environmental pro-fessionals are in a powerful position because their statusas experts gives them extra influence over the language


used to describe and negotiate environmental quality.Controlling the language gives them the power toshape environmental negotiations by limiting the ideasthat are considered legitimate and open for consider-ation (Peterson 1997).

Again, USDA Forest Service planning provides anexample. Some stakeholders in our study implied thatthe Forest Service exercised unfair power in the forestplanning process by controlling the language of envi-ronmental quality. The professional and scientific(technocratic) approach to Forest Service planningtends to dismiss some people’s understandings of theforest because they are deemed to be “emotional” and“nonscientific.” If the public introduces concerns thatthe Forest Service cannot translate into its language of“objective” environmental qualities and multiple uses,then the Forest Service rejects those concerns. Issuesthat are not “technical” are considered “opinions” be-yond or outside the scope of issues that the planningeffort can or should deal with. Without the power of arecognized language, people cannot have their issuesheard, let alone have them included in the negotia-tions.

Our suggestion that values are both appropriate andnecessary merits further discussion. To be effective,terms that exist at the interface between science andpolicy cannot be free of social value or contextualrelevance. To function in their prescriptive roles theymust reflect the values, norms, and goals of the societyfor which the environment is being managed. If a termfails to reflect the environmental qualities society un-derstands and cares about, it is likely to be ignored orineffective in influencing environmental decisions, re-gardless of how scientifically precise, reliable, and the-oretically rigorous a measure might be. Forest manage-ment decisions, for example, are decisions that requirelandowners and vested stakeholders to make trade-offsamong a variety of potential benefits and costs such asshort- and long-term economic return on investment,regional water quality, habitat for hunting, intrinsicrights of wildlife, biodiversity, and the like. To be effec-tive in informing these trade-offs, the terms describingforest conditions must correspond to conditions valuedby stakeholders and motivating negotiations about landuse. There exists a growing literature directed towardsenvironmental management and science arguing for amore open and explicitly normative language (e.g.,Bergquist and Bergquist 1999, Fischer 2000, Norton1998, Robertson and Hull 2001)

The challenge, then, to environmental science andmanagement, is to develop constructs that are not justdescriptively precise (hence powerful scientifically atdescribing situations) but also evaluatively thick (hence

powerful politically at making decisions that involvetrading off one value for another). Scientists and man-agers receive a great deal of assistance defining envi-ronmental qualities that serve anthropocentric values(Sagoff 1985). Social, political, and economic systemsidentify environmental qualities such as drinkable wa-ter, profitable timber, carbon storage, scenic beauty,and huntable species that are valued by society. Envi-ronmental sciences then produce knowledge that al-lows managers to describe and control the environmentin ways that maximize and sustain production of thesequalities. In contrast, environmental scientists andmanagers face a more difficult challenge defining en-vironmental qualities that serve ecocentric values. Statedcrudely, environmental professionals rather than thesocial–economic–political process define the qualitiesof nature that matter. These environmental profession-als are put in a position where they must speak fornature. As experts about the environment, scientistsand managers are expected to help society both iden-tify and define the environmental qualities that haverights deserving protection. It is typically the languageand logic of ecology that is used to select these qualities,not the language or logic of economics or politics.Sagoff (1985) calls this the “two tasks of ecology.” En-vironmental professionals have a dual role: they iden-tify the ecologically significant units and develop themeans to describe and control the qualities of thoseunits. For definitions of environmental quality that re-flect utilitarian values, scientists and managers receivefeedback from social–political–economic systems as towhether their measures and theories about environ-mental quality are targeting valued social needs. Thatfeedback loop is weaker for the ecocentrically-moti-vated definitions. While there are members of the pub-lic who try to speak for the environment, they haveconsiderably less power than do environmental profes-sionals at developing the language of nature. This dualrole of environmental science and management createsimportant ethical responsibilities. Executing these re-sponsibilities is especially challenging because the sci-ences and scientists are generally unwilling to evenacknowledge the value-laden, prescriptive componentof their language let alone actively engage in a processthat makes these values explicit.

Not only should environmental professionals striveto make the values more explicit to and representativeof stakeholders, they also should be sensitive to thepossibility that values hidden in the terms they develophinder and paralyze participation in negotiations aboutenvironmental quality. It is common in professionalenvironmental management journals to find pleas thatthe public be educated because, presumably, once ed-


ucated, the public will more likely agree with the con-clusions of the professionals. The professional forestmanagement literature is full of suggestions that links“good” forest management with “scientific” forest man-agement. Environmental professionals rarely questionthe ability of science to guide environmental manage-ment. Suppose, however, that it is not ignorance ofscience that the professional environmental commu-nity is battling, but rather that the public holds differ-ent values than environmental professionals and cur-rent environmental science lacks a language to describethe environmental qualities that protect these values.

What environmental professionals may intend as ed-ucation, others may perceive as propaganda—not be-cause these nonprofessionals are uninformed or uned-ucated about environmental quality, but rather becausethey do not share the values that underlie many of thedefinitions of environmental quality used by profession-als and scientists. Repeating the message that environ-mental management (e.g., forestry) does not harm oreven enhances environmental quality may be useless inchanging public opinion if this opinion is based ondefinitions of environmental quality motivated by val-ues different than those held by the public. Failure torecognize and respect these different values may onlyfurther alienate those opposed to traditional environ-mental practices and make the public increasingly sus-picious of environmental professionals.

Conclusion

A sustainable society depends upon that society’sability to negotiate and achieve a sustainable environ-mental quality. Achieving sustainable environmentalquality is as much about setting goals as it is aboutallocating resources and implementing the manage-ment to achieve these goals. The definitions of environ-mental quality are critical because these definitionsserve as the standards, goals, and visions of desiredfuture conditions. But, as we have illustrated here, def-initions of environmental quality are ambiguous andvalue-laden. Scholars are beginning to propose meth-ods by which public understandings of environmentalquality and the discourse of environmental manage-ment might be improved through more democraticprocesses of participatory enquiry, citizen science, andcollaborative decision making (e.g., Fischer 2000, Irwin1995, Lee 1993). We contend that environmental sci-ence and management will be more effective if itspractitioners embrace and make explicit this ambiguityand normativity rather than ignore and disguise it.

Acknowledgments

This project was sponsored by the USDA Forest Ser-vice North Central Experiment Station.

Literature Cited

Anderson, J. E. 1991. A conceptual framework for evaluatingand quantifying naturalness. Conservation Biology 5:347–352.

Angermeier, P. L. 2000. The natural imperative for biologicalconservation. Conservation Biology 14:373–381.

Angermeier, P. L., and J. R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrityversus biological diversity as policy directives. BioScience 44:690–697.

Bergquist, G., and C. Bergquist. 1999. Post-decision assess-ment. Pages 285–312 in V. H. Dale and M. R. English (eds.),Tools to aid environmental decision making. Springer, NewYork.

Botzler, R. G., and S. J. Armstrong. 1998. Environmentalethics: divergence and convergence. McGraw-Hill, Boston,600 pp.

Burkhardt, J. 1989. The morality behind sustainability. Journalof Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2:113–128.

Callicott, J. B., and K. Mumford. 1997. Ecological sustainabil-ity as a conservation concept. Conservation Biology 11:32–40.

Callicott, J. B., L. B. Crowder, and K. Mumford. 1999. Currentnormative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology 13:22–35.

Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition ofhealth. In R. Costanza, B. Norton, and B. Haskell (eds.),Ecosystem health—new goals for environmental manage-ment. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Dunlap, T. R. 1988. Saving America’s wildlife: ecology and theAmerican mind, 1850–1990. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey, 222 pp.

Eden, S. 1996. Public participation in environmental policy:considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientificcontributions. Public Understanding of Science 5:183–204.

Evernden, N. 1992. The social creation of nature. The JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore, 179 pp.

Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: thepolitics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham,North Carolina, 337 pp.

Fitzsimmons, A. K. 1999. Defending illusions: federal protec-tion of ecosystems. Rowman and Littlefield; Lanham, Mary-land.

Gale, R. P., and S. M. Cordray. 1994. Making sense of sustain-ability: nine answers to “what should be sustained?”. RuralSociology 59:311–332.

Glacken, C. J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: nature andculture in Western thought from ancient times to the endof the eighteenth century. University of California Press,Berkeley, 763 pp.

Hargrove, E. C. 1989. Foundations of environmental ethics.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 165 pp.


Hays, S. P. 1987. Beauty, health, and permanence: environ-mental politics in the United States 1955–1985. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, 629 pp.

Heywood, V. (ed.). 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hull, R. B., and D. P. Robertson. 2000. The language of naturematters: We need a more public ecology. Pages 97–118 in P.Gobster and R. B. Hull (eds.), Restoring nature: perspec-tives from the social sciences and humanities. Island Press,Washington DC.

Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: a study of people, expertiseand sustainable development. Routledge, London.

Kempton, W., J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley. 1995. Environ-mental values in american culture. MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, 320 pp.

Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating scienceand politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington,DC.

Lele, S., and R. B. Norgaard. 1996. Sustainability and thescientist’s burden. Conservation Biology 10:354–365.

Mageau, M. T., R. Costanza, and R. E. Ulanowicz. 1995. Thedevelopment and initial testing of a quantitative assessmentof ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 1:201–213.

Martus, C. E. H. L. Haney, and W. C. Siegel. 1995. Local forestregulatory ordinances: trends in the eastern United States.Journal of Forestry 93(6):27–31.

Norton, B. G. 1998. Improving ecological communication: therole of ecologists in environmental policy formation. Ecolog-ical Applications 8:350–364.

Noss, R. F. 1995. Ecological integrity and sustainability:buzzwords in conflict? Pages 60–76 in L. Westra and J.Lemons (eds.), Perspectives on ecological integrity. KluwerAcademic Publishers, Boston.

Oelschlaeger, M. 1994. Caring for creation: an ecumenicalapproach to the environmental crisis. Yale University Press,New Haven, Connecticut, 285 pp.

Peterson, T. R. 1995. Rooted in the soil: how understandingthe perspectives of landowners can enhance the manage-ment of environmental disputes. The Quarterly Journal ofSpeech 81:139–166.

Peterson, T. R. 1997. Sharing the earth: the rhetoric of sus-tainable development. University of South Carolina Press,Columbia, South Carolina, 238 pp.

Povilitis, T. 2000. Toward a robust natural imperative forconservation. Conservation Biology 15:533–535.

Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psy-chology: beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage, London.

Rapport, D. J., C. Gaudet, J. R. Karr, J. S. Baron, C. Bohlen, W.Jackson, B. Jones, R. J. Naiman, B. Norton, and M. M.Polluck. 1998. Evaluating landscape health: integrating so-cietal goals and biophysical process. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 53:1–15.

Regier, H. 1993. The Notion of Natural and Cultural Integrity.Pages 3–18 in S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G. Francis (eds.),Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. St.Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Robertson, D. P., and R. B. Hull. 2001. Beyond biology: to-ward a more public ecology for conservation. ConservationBiology 15:970–979.

Rolston, H. 1988. Environmental ethics: duties to and valuesin the natural world. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Ross, N., J. Eyles, D. Cole, and A. Iannantuono. 1997. Theecosystem health metaphor in science and policy. The Ca-nadian Geographer 41:114–127.

Sagoff, M. 1985. Fact and value in ecological science. Environ-mental Ethics 7:99–116

Sagoff, M. 1988. Ethics, ecology, and the environment: inte-grating science and law. Tennessee Law Review 56:77–229.

Salwasser, H. 1990. Sustainability as a conservation paradigm.Conservation Biology 4:213–216.

Scarce, R. 1999. Who—or what—is in control here? Under-standing the social context of salmon biology. Society andNatural Resources 12:763–776.

Shrader-Frechette, K. 1995. Hard ecology, soft ecology, andecosystem integrity. Pages 125–145 in L. Westra and J. Lem-ons (eds.), Perspectives on ecological integrity. Kluwer Ac-ademic, Boston.

Shrader-Frechette, K., and E. D. McCoy. 1993. Method inecology: strategies for conservation. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, 328 pp

Suter, G. W. 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts andindexes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry12:1533–1539.

Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity—philosophies ofparadise. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 393pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Health Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/

Westra, L. and J. Lemons (eds.). 1995. Perspectives on Eco-logical Integrity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

Wicklum, D., and R. W. Davies. 1995. Ecosystem health andintegrity. Canadian Journal of Botany 73:997–1000.

Worster, D. 1994. Nature’s economy: a history of ecologicalideas, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, 507pp.


Documents

Understandings of Environmental Quality: Ambiguities and Values Held by Environmental Professionals