Values decide the strategy: Environmental perspectives and value systems can impact the choice of conservation strategies selected by a society. Different people protect nature for different reasons, so they choose different ways of doing it.
The points to remember
- A society's environmental value system (from 1.1) shapes which conservation strategies it chooses.
- Intrinsic value: nature matters for its own sake. Instrumental value: it matters for what it gives people.
- Ecocentric: intrinsic value, so low-intervention, in situ strategies: large reserves, wilderness, rewilding.
- Anthropocentric: manage nature for people, so sustainable use, laws, community management, ecotourism.
- Technocentric: science can fix it, so zoos, captive breeding, seed and gene banks, genetic technology.
- Real societies mix views, and people with different views conflict when priorities differ.
Remember it as: Leave it, manage it, fix it.
| Perspective | Values nature for | Favours | Real example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecocentric | Its own sake | in situ reserves, rewilding | Trees for Life fences deer out and lets the forest regrow |
| Anthropocentric | What it gives people | Laws, sustainable use, ecotourism | Kenya's community conservancies earn from tourists |
| Technocentric | Resources science can save | ex situ zoos, seed banks | Svalbard Global Seed Vault stores over a million seed samples |
Real example: the Caledonian Forest of Scotland, home to wildcats, red squirrels and rare birds, was cut back to about 1% of its old area by logging, farming and grazing, and split into fragments. The charity Trees for Life takes an ecocentric approach: it fences out deer and lets native trees regrow; others would rather plant fast-growing timber.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Each approach has strengths and limits. An evaluation needs both, with a real example.
Strengths and limits of each approach
- In situ, low intervention (ecocentric): protects whole ecosystems and many species at once, cheaply per species.
- ...but it needs large areas, can clash with local livelihoods, and is too slow for species nearly gone.
- Sustainable use and ecotourism (anthropocentric): pays for itself and wins local support.
- ...but it favours charismatic species and depends on markets and tourists.
- Ex situ science (technocentric): a last resort that stores genetic diversity.
- ...but it is expensive, keeps small populations, and does not fix habitat loss.
Ecocentric: leave it
- Protects the whole forest and all its species.
- Needs land that farmers may want.
Anthropocentric: manage it
- Tourist fees pay the rangers.
- Only works while tourists come.
Technocentric: fix it
- Condors bred in zoos saved the species.
- Lead poisoning in the wild goes on.
Real example: in 1987 the last 27 California condors were taken into zoos, a technocentric last resort. Captive breeding and release have raised them to over 500, but in the wild many still die from lead in the bullets left in carcasses, so the habitat problem is not solved.
A mixed approach: Many real strategies mix views: breed a species ex situ, then return it to a protected habitat in situ. That combination often works best.
Stop wasting time on topics you know
Our AI identifies your weak areas and focuses your study time where it matters. No more overstudying easy topics.
The success of conservation and regeneration depends on a diversity of approaches, not one.
What success depends on
- Community support: people living beside wildlife must gain from it, or at least not lose.
- Adequate funding: rangers, land and monitoring cost money for decades.
- Education and awareness: people protect what they understand and value.
- Appropriate legislation: laws that fit local needs, and are enforced.
- Scientific research: knowing a species' needs, numbers and threats.
- A diversity of approaches together works better than any one alone.
Community support is hardest to win where a protected predator kills farm animals. These methods encourage farmers to support it:
Winning over farmers who lose animals to predators
- Compensation for animals killed by the predator.
- Education on the predator's role, e.g. wolves keep deer and boar in check.
- Subsidies or grants for strong fences and night enclosures.
- Demonstration projects on guard dogs, electric fences and shepherds.
- Volunteers who help farmers protect their livestock.
Real example: around Amboseli, Kenya, Maasai herders used to kill lions that took their cattle. Since 2007 the Lion Guardians project has paid young Maasai warriors to track lions, warn herders and help find lost cattle, and lion killing in the area fell sharply.
Answers that do not score: 'Use fences' only protects the livestock, it does not win support for the predator. 'Move the wolves elsewhere' and 'ban farmers from killing wolves' are not ways to encourage support.
Conservation can help or harm the people who live beside nature. Who pays, and who gains, affects whether it succeeds.
Environmental justice
- Environmental justice: the costs and benefits of conservation are shared fairly, and affected people have a say.
- Fortress conservation fenced people out of new parks, often indigenous peoples.
- Evicted people lose homes, food and culture, and may turn against the park.
- Community-based conservation gives local people rights, income and decisions.
- Fair schemes win support, so they tend to last longer.
Unjust: fenced out
- 1991: the Batwa were evicted from Bwindi and Mgahinga forests in Uganda.
- They lost their forest homes, food and culture.
- Most now live in poverty outside.
Just: people in charge
- Namibia: since 1996, communities run their own conservancies.
- They earn from tourism and wildlife.
- Elephants, lions and rhinos have increased.
Real example: Namibia now has more than 80 communal conservancies covering about a fifth of the country. Because villages keep the income from wildlife, poaching fell and wildlife numbers rose.
See how examiners mark answers
Answer exam-style questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
Ecotourism is an anthropocentric strategy: wildlife is protected because people pay to see it. A paper may ask you to evaluate its role.
Ecotourism: for and against
- For: tourists pay, funding parks, rangers and research.
- For: local jobs and ownership make living wildlife worth more than poaching or clearing.
- For: visitors learn and support conservation; flagship species attract money.
- Against: disturbance, trampling, roads, hotels, waste and pollution.
- Against: profits may leak to foreign firms; flights add carbon.
- Against: dependence on tourists: income can collapse, as in 2020.
Real example: visitors to the Galapagos Islands pay a national park fee of 200 US dollars, which funds the park. But visitor numbers rose from about 40 000 a year in 1990 to about 270 000 in 2019, bringing more boats, waste and invasive species.
Remember it as: It pays, but it treads.
Conservation happens at every scale. A paper may ask whether local or international involvement matters more.
Local and international involvement
- International bodies (IUCN, CITES, CBD, WWF, UNESCO) bring money, expertise and rules that cross borders.
- They tackle what no country can alone: trade, migratory species, global targets.
- But they can be slow, top-down, and depend on each country to enforce them.
- Local people bring knowledge, long-term presence and legitimacy, at low cost.
- But they may lack money and expertise, and cannot stop global threats alone.
- The strongest cases combine both.
Real example: in 1989 CITES banned the international ivory trade, an international measure, and elephant poaching fell in the 1990s. In Namibia, local conservancies kept poaching low in their own lands: both scales mattered.
Weigh, then judge: Give strengths and limits of both scales with a named case each, then say which matters more for this species or place, and why.
Study smarter, not longer
Most students waste 40% of study time on topics they already know. Our AI tracks your progress and optimizes every minute.
How this comes up: Paper 2 Section B (c) [9]: how values or ethics shape conservation, the role of ecotourism, or local against international involvement, marked in bands. Paper 1: one way to win farmers' support for a predator [1].
Governments, charities and local people often disagree about how best to protect a species or a habitat.
Discuss how the values of a society can influence which conservation strategies it chooses, and how successful these strategies are. Use named examples.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Name the value, then the strategy: Each paragraph: which view, which strategy it leads to, a real case, and one strength or limit.