Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T08:48:35.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Conservation Viewpoints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Suk-han Shin
Suk-han Shin
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, College of Letters and Sciences, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington 99004, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The evolving conservation views and movements in the United States are characterized by their changing social goals and the resultant alteration of attitudes towards the physical environment. Our examination results in a six-stages classification of conservation views: (1) the naturalist view, which was based on the idea of undisturbed harmony of Nature; (2) the utilitarian view, which was highly influenced by Gifford Pinchot's conservation philosophy of ‘common goods for common men’ in natural resource use; (3) the ethical view, which resulted from an awareness that increasing consumption combined with increasing population would deplete resources and depress living standards; (4) the developmental view, or a technocratic approach to resource development, which rejected a fixed inventory of natural resources and perceived an everincreasing resource base; (5) the aesthetic view, which valued the aesthetic contribution of natural resources more than the economic contribution, i.e. amenity value versus commodity value of natural resources; and (6) the ecological view, which is based on the concept of an ecosystem wherein Man is an integral and inseparable part of the total environment and is responsible for the maintenance of the total environment.

These conservation views of the United States reflect a historical conflict between progressivist and preservationist philosophies of natural resource use. The conflict derives from changing societal concepts of resource scarcity regarding their physical, economic, or qualitative, aspects. The current ‘ecological’ view remains uncertain in terms of its concept of scarcity.

Information

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , Winter 1977 , pp. 273 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ciriacy-WANTRUP, S. V. (1952). Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies. University of California Press, Berkeley, California: [xii + ] 395 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, Hans H., Fishman, Leonard L. & Fisher, Joseph L. (1963). Resources in America's Future: Patterns of Requirements and Availabilities, 1960–2000. The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, Maryland: xx + 1,017 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Leopold, Aldo (1949). A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y.: xiii + 226 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Marsh, George P. (1965). Man and Nature (Ed. Lowenthal, David). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts: xxix + 472 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Robert (1930). The Problem of the Wilderness. Scientific Monthly, 30, pp. 141–8.Google Scholar
Ordway, Samuel H. (1953). Resources and American Dream. Ronald Press, New York, N.Y.: vii + 55 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Osborn, Fairfield (1953). The Limits of the Earth. Little, Brown, Boston, Massachusetts: x + 238 pp.Google Scholar
Pinchot, Gifford (1910). The Fight for Conservation. Doubleday Page, New York, N.Y.: vii + 152 pp.Google Scholar
President's Material POLICY Commission (1952). Foundations for Growth and Security, Resources for Freedom, 1. A Report to the President by the President's Material Policy Commission. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: vi + 184 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Rose, Harold M. (1971). Conservation in the United States. Pp. 3&17 in Conservation of Natural Resources (Ed. Smith, Guy-Harold, 4th edn rev.). John Wiley, New York, N.Y.: xiii + 685 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Sears, Paul B. (1958). Ethics, aesthetics, and the balance of nature. Pp. 106–11 in Perspectives on Conservation (Ed. Jarrett, Henry). The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, Maryland: xii + 206 pp.Google Scholar
Thoreau, Henry D. (1929). Excursions. Pp. 1–333 in Excursions and Poems. The Concord Edition, the Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts: vii + 419 pp.Google Scholar
Vogt, William (1948). Road to Survival. William Sloan Associates, New York, N.Y.: xvi + 335 pp., illustr.Google Scholar