Value Orientations and Leopold's Land Ethic

Aldo Leopold’ Land Ethic argued that humans should adopt a moral responsibility for protecting the land. These view is closely aligned with contemporary theories in social psychology. Mutualism, for example, reflects an... [ view full abstract ]

Aldo Leopold’ Land Ethic argued that humans should adopt a moral responsibility for protecting the land. These view is closely aligned with contemporary theories in social psychology. Mutualism, for example, reflects an egalitarian ideology where humans are responsible for protecting for the land. In contrast, a domination value orientation prioritizes human needs over nature and suggests that humans have a right to use land as they choose. This presentation examined the influence of general value orientations (mutualism, domination) on specific beliefs about responsibility and rights regarding land use. Based on the cognitive hierarchy, the specific beliefs were predicted to mediate the relationship between the general value orientations and Leopold’s Land Ethic. Data were obtained from a 2014 mailed survey sent to the general public in Illinois (n = 532, response rate = 18%). Domination (4 items, Cronbach’s Alpha = .75) and mutualism (4 items, Alpha = .81) were derived from previous research. The responsibility index contained two items (Alpha = .73) and the rights index contained four items (Alpha = .79). The Land Ethic was measured using eight variables (Alpha = .87) derived from direct quotes from Leopold’s writing. A regression analysis generally supported the hypothesized relationships. The Land Ethic was influenced by mutualism (beta = .53, p < .001), responsibility (beta = .25, p < .001) and rights (beta = -.25, p < .001). These three predictors accounted for 59% of the variance in the Land Ethic. Domination was not significant in this model. Additionally, mutualism and domination influenced participants’ beliefs about rights and responsibilities towards land use in the predicted direction. Mutualism was negatively related to rights (beta = -.18, p < .001) and domination positively influenced rights (beta = .46, p < .001). The two value orientations explained 25% of the variance in the rights concept and 39% of the variability in the responsibility index. For this latter regression, the strongest predictor was mutualism (beta = .62); domination was not statistically significant (beta = -.042; p = .220). The discussion will focus on the applied and theoretical implications of these findings.