Neither traditional philosophy nor current applied ethics seem able to cope adequately with the highly dynamic character of our modern technological culture. This is because they have insufficient insight into the moral significance of technological artifacts and systems. Here, much can be learned from recent science and technology studies (STS). They have opened up the black box of technological developments and have revealed the intimate intertwinement of technology and society in minute detail. However, while applied ethics is characterized by a certain "technology blindness," the most influential approaches within STS show a "normative deficit" and display on agnostic or even antagonistic attitude toward ethics. To repair the blind spots of both applied ethics and STS, the authors sketch the contours of a pragmatist approach. They will explore the tasks and tools of a pragmatist ethics and pay special attention to the exploration of future worlds disclosed and shaped by technology and the management of deep value conflicts inherent in a pluralistic society.

Valuation of nature is an important aspect of nature conservation and restoration. Understanding valuation in a broad sense may contribute to conservation strategies since it may lead to better support from society. In this article we propose a model of valuation with respect to conservation and restoration of nature. According to the model, valuation of nature can be characterized by a “valuation approach,” consisting of ecological, ethical and aesthetic perspectives. Such an approach includes scientific and normative aspects and leads to a particular claim of conservation. In this paper we discuss different perspectives, and accordingly, we sketch three main types of these valuation approaches. Political and policy issues with respect to nature conservation and restoration are considered in terms of this model.

The recent widespread shift in governance from the state to the market and to civil society, in combination with the simultaneous shift from the national level to supra-national and sub-national levels has led to a significant increase in the numbers of public and private players in nature policy. This in turn has increased the need for a common vocabulary to articulate and communicate views and values concerning nature among various actors acting on different administrative levels. In this article, we will examine the role of concepts of nature as communicative devices in public debates and political decision-making. We try to show that the now dominant functionalist approach to concepts of nature, due to its focus on interests, threatens to narrow public and political communications to purely strategic negotiations. Instead of this functionalist approach we put forward a structuralist approach, which focuses not on interests but on values.

The implementation of Natura 2000 has met with considerable resistance from farmers, fishermen, foresters, and other local residents in most European Union Member States. In response to the rural protest, the majority of governments have gradually abandoned their centralist, topdown approach and increasingly switched over to methods of participatory and interactive policy-making. However, this "democratisation" of European nature conservation policy is not without its problems and pitfalls. The inclusion of an ever-growing group of stakeholders with different and often diverging interests, ideas, views, and values will more often than not lead to conflicts over the future of nature and the landscape. The causes and consequences of these conflicts need to be examined to improve the policy process.

Coastal ecosystems are increasingly dominated by humans. Consequently, the human dimensions of sustainability science have become an integral part of emerging coastal governance and management practices. But if we are to avoid the harsh lessons of land management, coastal decision makers must recognize that humans are one of the more coastally dependent species in the biosphere. Management responses must therefore confront both the temporal urgency and the very real compromises and sacrifices that will be necessary to achieve a sustainable coastal ecosystem, one that is economically feasible, socially just, and ecologically sound.