Convincing policymakers of the importance and urgency of protecting nature is a common challenge faced by ecologists and conservation scientists. The different priorities of these fields and the trade-offs associated with conservation result in scientists favouring the preservation of natural landscapes to benefit the majority of species, whereas policymakers must prioritize the species and habitat that are most crucial to protect. In response, two broad worldviews have developed in the conservation community: non-utilitarianism (which emphasizes the aesthetic, emotional, spiritual and intrinsic values of nature) and utilitarianism (which focuses on managing nature and biodiversity as biological resources and services for humans).
Loreau argued that solving the biodiversity crisis requires embracing both worldviews, as neither sufficiently captures the intricate relationship between humans and nature. The strength of the utilitarian approach is its ability to quantify and compare certain values of nature; ecosystems, water or the serenity of a walk in the forest are all viewed as utilities for humans and assigned a monetary value that people are willing to pay in exchange. However, this approach does not fully capture all of nature’s values to humans (such as emotional or spiritual values) nor can it quantify the intrinsic value of nature. By contrast, the non-utilitarian approach acknowledges the rights of nature, but lacks the capability and pragmatism to inform decision-making when trade-offs are involved.
