Theoretical approaches to the study of green values
Abstract
Due to the increased scale of environmental problems, social stakeholders are taking different activities aimed at solving them. The activities that the stakeholders refer to as green or environmental, we define as green practices. The green practices are characterized by great diversity and often conflict with each other, and the subjects of green practices set different attitudes towards the use of resources, political decisions, and everyday actions. One of the most important reasons for the inconsistency of green practices is the multiplicity of values underlying them. Therefore, we turn to the consideration of the concept of “green values”. The purpose of the article is to model a graph of green values that allows you to systematize contexts, research optics and categories, demonstrate the connections between them and visualize them. The content analysis and the hermeneutical analysis of monographs and articles were used; then the graphonline. ru service was used to construct a directed graph. The analyses identified disciplinary, positional, and ideological contexts, as well as 88 green values associated with them; a graph of the categorical field of green values was modeled, which allows systematizing the contexts, research optics and categories, demonstrating and visualizing the connections between them; a tool was created to determine the value bases of environmental activities in various contexts and to identify all stakeholders. The presented conclusions contribute to theoretical research in the field of sociology, philosophy, psychology and other disciplines that deal with the values and assessments of actions affecting the natural environment. The practical significance is connected with the fact that the categorical field of green values can become a working tool for the analysis of social processes in the field of ecology.
Keywords
green practices,
green values,
oriented graph,
environmental problems,
categorical field of green values
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR and EISR according to the research project № 21-011-31463.
About the Authors
O. V. Zakharova
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
ZAKHAROVA Olga V. – Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of State and Municipal Government
Tyumen
L. G. Suvorova
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
SUVOROVA Lyudmila G. – Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Chair of Philosophy
Tyumen
T. I. Payusova
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PAYUSOVA Tatiana I. – Associated Professor, Department of Information Security
Tyumen
References
1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published Mon Jun 3, 2002; substantive revision Tue Jul 21, 2015.
2. Clark, April K., Carlisle, Juliet E. Pushing a Green Agenda: Explaining Shifting Public Support for Environmental Spending // Political Research Quarterly, 2019. Номер статьи: UNSP 1065912918817193
3. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984
4. Callicott, J. B. The Pragmatic Power and Promise of Theoretical Environmental Ethics: Forging a New Discourse. Environmental Values, 11[1], 3–25. doi:10.3197/096327102129340957
5. Tadaki, M., Sinner, J. and Chan K. M. A. Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecology and Society 22[1]:7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08999-220107
6. Jekologicheskaja situacija v Rossii: monitoring. 6 fevralja 2019 g. VCIOM. URL: http://www.wciom.ru (data obrashhenija: 20.07.2021)
7. Vam paket nuzhen? 5 ijunja 2019 g. VCIOM. URL: http://www.wciom.ru (data obrashhenija: 20.07.2021)
8. Zaharova O. V., Ahmedova I. D., Suvorova L. G., Pupysheva I. N., Zaharov A. V. Zeljonye cennosti: mnogoobrazie kontekstov obsuzhdenija. //V sbornike: Sociologija i obshhestvo: tradicii i innovacii v social’nom razvitii regionov. Sbornik dokladov VI Vserossijskogo sociologicheskogo kongressa. Otv. redaktor V. A. Mansurov. 2020. S. 4391-4408.
9. Kalof L, Satterfield T, eds. The Earthscan Readerin Environmental Values. London: Earthscan, 2005
10. Chekima, B., Wafa, S., Igau, O. A., Chekima, S., Sondoh, S. L. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? // Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016. 112. С. 3436-3450.
11. Rebetzke, G. J., Jimenez-Berni, J. A., Bovill, W. D., Deery, D. M. James, R. A. High-throughput phenotyping technologies allow accurate selection of stay-green// Journal of Experimental Botany, 2016. 67: 17. С. 4919-4924. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw301
12. Gillet, S., Aguedo, M., Petitjean, L., Morais, A. R. C., Lopes, A. M. D., Lukasik, R. M., Anastas, P. T. Lignin transformations for high value applications: towards targeted modifications using green chemistry// Green Chemistry, 2017. 19: 18. С. 4200-4233. DOI: 10.1039/c7gc01479a
13. Hejnowicz, A. P., Rudd, M. A. The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value? Sustainability, 2017, 9. С.875-850.
14. Kallis, G., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Zografos, C. To value or not to value? That is not the question. // Ecological Economics, 2013. 94:97–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.002
15. Kemmelmeier, M., Krol, G., Kim, Y. H. Values, economics, and proenvironmental attitudes in 22 societies// Cross-Cultural Research, 2002. 36: 3. С.256-285.
16. Cocklin, C. Environmental values, conflicts and issues in evaluation. Environmentalist, 1988. 8. С.93–104. doi:10.1007/BF02240274;
17. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. and Jones, R. E. Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale // Kalof L, Satterfield T, eds. The Earthscan Readerin Environmental Values. London: Earthscan, 2005. P. 172-188.
18. The World Values Survey – [Электронный ресурс] – URL: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp
19. Lea, Y. S. The Praxis of Cultural Sustainability: A Q’eqchi’ Maya Case of Cultural Autonomy and Resistance against the Monsanto Law in Guatemala// Theory in Action. 2018. № 11/4, 44-73. DOI: 10.3798/tia.1937-0237.1825;
20. Sirina A. A. Chuvstvujushhie zemlju: jekologicheskaja jetika jevenkov i jevenov // Jetnograficheskoe obozrenie. M.: 2008. № 2. S. 121–138.
21. Adaev V. N. O roli tradicionnogo mirovozzrenija narodov Severa v kachestve reguljatora rezhima prirodopol’zovanija// Jetnos i sreda obitanija. Sbornik statej po jetnicheskoj jekologii. Vyp. 5. Issledovanija sistem zhizneobespechenija / N. A. Dubova, N. I. Grigulevich, A. N. Jamskov (red.). M.: Staryj sad, 2017. 204 c. S.137-148.
22. Stålhammar, S., Thorén, H. Three perspectives on relational values of nature// Sustainability Science, 2019. 14:1201–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4
23. Bergius, M., Buseth, J. T. Towards a green modernization development discourse: the new green revolution in Africa// Journal of Political Ecology, 2019. 26, 1. С. 57-83. https://doi.org/10.2458/v26i1.22862
24. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. Value Orientations, Gender and Environmental Concern // Kalof L, Satterfield T, eds. The Earthscan Readerin Environmental Values. London: Earthscan, 2005. P. 188-207.
25. Schwartz, S. H., Bilsky, W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values // The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987. 53:550–62
26. O’Neill, J., Holland A., and Light A. Environmental values. Routledge, London, UK, 2008.
27. Guichet, J.-L. and Latouche K. The question of animal pain: the issues for debate // Advances in Animal Biosciences, 2014, 5:3, pp 285–296.
28. Norton, B. G. Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism// Environmental Ethics, 1984. 6:131–148.
29. Passmore, J. Man’s Responsibility for Nature //Philosophy, 1975. 50 [191]:106-113.
30. Zachary, B.-H., Tatsuya, A., William, S. J., Donald, P. F. Governance explains variation in national responses to the biodiversity crisis// Environmental Conservation, 2018. 45: 4. С. 407-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291700056X
31. Airo, H., Ryosuke, I. Ranking and Rating: Neglected Biases in Factor Analysis of Postmaterialist Values // International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2019. 31: 2. С. 368-381.
32. 17 Goals to Transform Our World. – (электронный ресурс) – URL: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (дата обращения: 05.06.2020).
33. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, 2015. – [Электронный ресурс] – URL: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication (дата обращения: 19.01.2020)
34. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, ed. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
35. Keitsch, M. Structuring Ethical Interpretations of the Sustainable Development Goals–Concepts, Implications and Progress // Sustainability, 2018, 10, 829; doi:10.3390/su10030829
36. Berdjaev N. A. Chelovek. Mikrokosm i makrokosm. //Russkij kosmizm: Antologija filosofskoj mysli – M.: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. – 368 s. S. 171-179.
37. Solov’ev V. S. Krasota v prirode// Sobr. soch: V 10 t./ Pod red. I s primech. S. M. Solov’eva, Je. L. Radlova. 2-e izd. – SPb., 1911-1914. T.6.
38. Vernadskij V. I. Filosofskie mysli naturalista. M.: Nauka, 1988. 522 s.
39. Haraujej D. Tentakuljarnoe myshlenie // Kramar M., Sarkisov K. (red.) Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva: Antologija. M.: V-A-C press, 2018. – 336 s. S.180-228.
40. Skandrani, Z. From “What is” to “What Should Become” Conservation Biology? Reflections on the Discipline’s Ethical Fundaments// Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2016. 29[3], 541–548. doi:10.1007/s10806-016-9608-9
41. Nolt, J. Are There Infinite Welfare Differences among Living Things? //Environmental Values, 2017. 26[1], 73–89. doi:10.3197/096327117x14809634978591
42. Brajant, L. R. Demokratija ob#ektov / L. R. Brajant; per. s angl. O. S. Myshkina. – Perm’: Gile Press, 2019. – 320 s.
43. Delanda, M. Novaja ontologija dlja social’nyh nauk//Logos, 2017.· 27: 3. 35-57.
44. Latur, B. Berlinskij kljuch // Logos, 2017. 27: 2. S.158-170.
45. Morton, T. Jekologija bez prirody// Hudozhestvennyj zhurnal, 2015. № 96. – Jelektronnyj resurs. – URL: http://moscowartmagazine.com/issue/18/article/252 (data obrashhenija: 08.01.2020).
46. Naess, A. The shallow and the deep, longrange ecology movement // Inquiry, 1973. С. 16[1-4]. С. 95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682
47. Næss, A. Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge University Press. pp. 164-65
48. Glasser, H. Naess’s Deep Ecology: Implications for the Human Prospect and Challenges for the Future // Inquiry, 2011. 54[1]. С. 52–77. doi:10.1080/0020174x.2011.542943
49. Spannring, R. Animals in environmental education research // Environmental Education Research, 2016. 23[1]. С.63–74. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1188058
50. Swanson, L. J. A. Feminist Ethic That Binds us to Mother Earth // Ethics & the Environment, 2015. Indiana University Press. 20, 2. С. 83-103
51. Macgregor S. Only Resist: Feminist Ecological Citizenship and the Post-politics of// Climate Change, 2014. 29, 3.
52. Ankersen, T. T., Regan, K. E., & Mack, S. A. Towards a bioregional approach to tropical forest conservation: Costa Rica’s Greater Osa Bioregion. Futures, 38[4]. С. 406–431. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.017
53. Turnhout E., Waterton C., Neves K., Buizer M. Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with”// Conservation Letters, 2013. 6. С.154–161. С.155. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00307.x
54. Hall, M. Beyond the human: extending ecological anarchism // Environmental Politics, 2011. 20[3]. С.374–390. doi:10.1080/09644016.2011.573360
55. Smith, M. Wild-life: anarchy, ecology, and ethics // Environmental Politics, 2007. 16[3]. С. 470–487. doi:10.1080/09644010701251714
56. Bookchin, M. Ecology and Revolutionary Thought // Antipode, 1978. 10-11[3-1]. С. 21–21. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1978.tb00113.x
57. Mason, M. Democratising Nature? The Political Morality of Wilderness Preservationists. Environmental Values, 1997. 6[3]. С.281– 306. doi:10.3197/096327197776679086
58. Platon. Fedr // Platon. Sobr. soch. : v 4 t. T. 2. M. : Mysl’, 1993.
59. Marks K., Jengel’s F. Soch. 2-e izd. T.46. Ch.2. 1968.
60. Rolston H. III, Valuing wildland // Environmental ethics, 1985. v. 7, pp. 23-48.
61. Chan, K. M., Gould, R. K., & Pascual, U. Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? //Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003
62. Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Martín-López, B. Ecological economics perspectives on ecosystem services valuation. In Handbook of Ecological Economics, 2015. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471416.00015
Review
For citations:
Zakharova O.V., Suvorova L.G., Payusova T.I. Theoretical approaches to the study of green values. Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University. Pedagogics. Psychology. Philosophy. 2023;(2):63-77. (In Russ.)
Views:
152
Email this article 