What can methods for assessing worldviews and broad values tell us about socio-environmental conflicts?

IF 6.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101316
Begüm Özkaynak , Roldan Muradian , Paula Ungar , Diana Morales
{"title":"What can methods for assessing worldviews and broad values tell us about socio-environmental conflicts?","authors":"Begüm Özkaynak ,&nbsp;Roldan Muradian ,&nbsp;Paula Ungar ,&nbsp;Diana Morales","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Socio-environmental conflicts are manifestations of disputes regarding nature or disagreements over the distribution of costs and benefits resulting from nature's transformation induced by human activities. These conflicts often result from divergent worldviews and broad values, which shape the way people interact with and value nature in a profound way. Interestingly, even though they are well-known in their fields, methods for assessing worldviews and broad values are not used as often when addressing sustainability challenges as they should be. By exploring the literature on worldviews and broad value assessment, this review identifies four alternative methods — consensus analysis, ethical analysis, framing analysis, and </span>worldview assessment — that can facilitate dialog in socio-environmental conflict settings. It highlights the usefulness and potential of these methods as a value-centered leverage for transformative change.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 101316"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000635","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Socio-environmental conflicts are manifestations of disputes regarding nature or disagreements over the distribution of costs and benefits resulting from nature's transformation induced by human activities. These conflicts often result from divergent worldviews and broad values, which shape the way people interact with and value nature in a profound way. Interestingly, even though they are well-known in their fields, methods for assessing worldviews and broad values are not used as often when addressing sustainability challenges as they should be. By exploring the literature on worldviews and broad value assessment, this review identifies four alternative methods — consensus analysis, ethical analysis, framing analysis, and worldview assessment — that can facilitate dialog in socio-environmental conflict settings. It highlights the usefulness and potential of these methods as a value-centered leverage for transformative change.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估世界观和广泛价值观的方法能告诉我们关于社会环境冲突的什么信息?
社会环境冲突是人类活动对自然的改造所产生的关于自然的争议或对成本和收益分配的分歧的表现。这些冲突往往源于不同的世界观和广泛的价值观,这些价值观深刻地塑造了人们与自然互动和珍视自然的方式。有趣的是,尽管它们在各自的领域都很有名,但在应对可持续发展挑战时,评估世界观和广泛价值观的方法却没有得到应有的使用。通过对世界观和广泛价值评估的文献研究,本综述确定了四种可选择的方法——共识分析、伦理分析、框架分析和世界观评估——它们可以促进社会环境冲突背景下的对话。它强调了这些方法作为一种以价值为中心的变革杠杆的有用性和潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST)" is a distinguished journal within Elsevier's esteemed scientific publishing portfolio, known for its dedication to high-quality, reproducible research. Launched in 2010, COSUST is a part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite, which is recognized for its editorial excellence and global impact. The journal specializes in peer-reviewed, concise, and timely short reviews that provide a synthesis of recent literature, emerging topics, innovations, and perspectives in the field of environmental sustainability.
期刊最新文献
The potential of social innovation to shift the limits to climate adaptation Greening container terminals through optimization: a systematic review on recent advances Advancing sustainable port development in the Western Indian Ocean region Adaptation constraints, limits and enabling conditions in small island developing states Three archetypical governance pathways for transformative change toward sustainability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1