Search

This article focuses on the intersection of indigenous peoples, conservation, and elephant wellbeing in Cambodia. While social justice advocates emphasize the human cost of conservation in human-animal conflicts, those concerned with animal protection and rights have problematized the treatment of elephants. This critique stems from evidence that the human relationship to elephants, captive and wild, remains largely utilitarian or exploitive. In Cambodia, there is a record of wild Asian elephants coexisting with local communities, but more so a long history of elephants used for labor. This article discusses the possible areas of reconciliation between human and Asian elephant interests at a Mondulkiri elephant sanctuary in Cambodia, suggesting potential paths toward win-win scenarios for the local and indigenous people, as well as for the elephants and their habitats.

The main objective of this study is to characterize socially responsible consumption (SRC) through the lens of social welfare and degrowth proposals. The central research questions are (i) whether SRC can contribute to the realization of the foundations of a degrowth society and (ii) whether SRC fits into the critique of the economic growth paradigm. These are essential questions because SRC is often treated as an “invention” of affluent societies that seek more sophisticated methods of consumption (such as conspicuous, green, and ethical consumption) due to the prevailing cultural system. We challenge this viewpoint by drawing on studies from the intersection of social and environmental sciences. For this purpose, Talcott Parsons’ extended AGIL paradigm is introduced, referred to as AGIL+DE, as is our proposal of nature-based social welfare. Although this study is preliminary, its task is to develop new interpretative possibilities for the sociology of degrowth and innovative approaches to consumption in particular. The results suggest a change of approach in the study of the consumption phenomenon from the side of redefined social welfare, with a focus on moderate (SRC) and more radical (degrowth) solutions respecting the environmental impact. This change of approach to consumption requires rethinking and incorporating new empirical indicators.

Animal personhood research comes from different theoretical directions: animal rights, animal welfare, compassionate conservation, animal rights law, and many related disciplines. The term “personhood” is taken to lie in three main characteristics, including the capacity to act intentionally, the capacity to experience feelings, and the possession of moral worth. This division is complementary to three approaches: the perfectionist approach, the humanistic approach, and the interactive approach, with the third approach being the strongest. The basic idea is that personhood can be linked to legal rights based on recognition of intrinsic rights based on sentience or other characteristics of a living being, including personality. The move toward recognizing animal personhood in education promises to signify a return to a nonanthropocentric ethic that characterizes both the most transformative forms of education for environmental sustainability and the type of education that stresses responsibility and compassion toward all living beings. This type of education, at both the school and university levels, supports both ecocentrism and animal ethics and supports the rights to life of all living beings on Earth—including, to state the obvious, humans. Many initiatives supporting developing education for animal personhood have emerged within the literature on (sustainability) education and practice. This literature emphasizes multiple forms of education, ranging from education for sustainability, education related to ethics (anything that fits under the broad banner of sustainability, from human rights to social justice and indeed animal welfare), for example, including posthumanist education, action research, education for sustainable development, curriculum development, pedagogical studies that specifically engage with animal rights, and animal welfare education. More specifically, Animal Protection Education provides students and teachers with the information they need to understand and discuss the concept of granting legal personhood to animals.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has become influential in biodiversity conservation. Its research is published widely and has been adopted by the United Nations and the Convention for Biological Diversity. This platform includes discussion about how values relate to biodiversity conservation. The IPBES emphasizes “relational values”, connecting these with living a “good life,” and “nature's contributions to people” (NCP); building upon ecosystem services (ES), which have dominated nature valuation for 15+ years. Although the IPBES acknowledges instrumental and intrinsic natural values, they purport that by adopting relational values, conservation will become more socially- and culturally- inclusive, moving beyond the “unhelpful dichotomy” between instrumental and intrinsic values. We wholeheartedly agree that conservation should become more inclusive – it should, in fact, morally include nonhuman nature. We argue that far from being half of an unhelpful dichotomy, intrinsic natural values are incontrovertible elements of any honest effort to sustain Earth's biodiversity. We find NCP to be mainly anthropocentric, and relational values to be largely instrumental. The “good life” they support is a good life for humans, and not for nonhuman beings or collectives. While passingly acknowledging intrinsic natural values, the current IPBES platform gives little attention to these, and to corresponding ecocentric worldviews. In this paper we demonstrate the important practical implications of operationalizing intrinsic values for conservation, such as ecological justice, i.e., “peoples' obligations to nature”. We urge the IPBES platform, in their future values work, to become much more inclusive of intrinsic values and ecocentrism.

This article provides a nano (hyperlocal) view of climate change mitigation by viewing regenerative organizing through the eyes (as well as bodies and senses, etc.) of the households engaged in community-based energy projects. By showing what humans make up for in the largely absent relationship between nature and technology in these projects, we envision an incremental extension of the literature on community-based energy. The radically different contribution we aim to make is a tripartite imbrication that brings in natural agency alongside the human and the technical but specifies precisely how nano (smaller than micro) embodied practices afford mis- and realignments. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619886841 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/

In the Half-Earth vision, conservationists, scientists, and policymakers work together with local communities without compromising the interests of wildlife and ecosystems. The vision requires decolonizing nonhuman species through marshaling ecocentric philosophy, animal sentience science, and, crucially, local communities' support. While the studies of community attitudes to wildlife are accumulating, in the context of human-wildlife conflicts, there is a shortage of data on attitudes to the Half-Earth vision in countries with growing human populations and rapidly declining biodiversity, such as Nigeria. This paper aims to address this gap by exploring community attitudes to the Half-Earth vision through a pilot study of Yalwan Bongo and Kafi, the local communities living around Yankari Game Reserve, Bauchi State in Nigeria. This paper is a review of the main issues surrounding Half-Earth, with a preliminary case study that addresses some of these issues. This case study found that community representatives stand open to dialogue with local conservationists based on the mutual benefit of wildlife protection. The surveyed villagers had a greater understanding of particular species than of contributing factors in biodiversity declines, such as growing human populations, climate change, and bushmeat hunting. Educational programs that we recommend are targeted at the empowerment of individual community members to speak against poaching, but also at the development of basic literacy, numeracy, and professional skills to counter poverty and promote family planning.