Anything goes means everything stays: The perils of uncritical pluralism in the study of ecosystem values

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
There are two essential questions that need to be addressed by both social science researchers and public land managers: (1) What values do people assign to forest ecosystems? and (2) What is the best research strategy for understanding those values? To answer the first question, a number of contemporary definitions of value are considered, and a human preference‐based definition is advocated as the most appropriate for scientific inquiry and for guiding public environmental policy. To answer the second question, the strategies of methodological pluralism and critical multiplism are compared. Methodological pluralism risks equating opinion and fact. Critical multiplism, it is argued, provides the best strategy for understanding the multifaceted values people assign to forests. The combination of the public‐preference‐based definition and the critical multiplism strategy offers the best opportunity for the development afforest ecosystem management policies that balance facts (i.e., biophysical functions) with values (i.e., human preferences).