Ecological wisdom as a guide for implementing the precautionary principle

Abstract

Many governments around the world have used the precautionary principle as the foundation in developing public policies since the late twentieth century. The principle stipulates that governments shall be obligated to restrict or ban activities that may cause serious and/or irreversible harm to human health and the environment, even without fully established scientific evidence of causal relationship. Further, the proposers of the activities must demonstrate that those activities will not cause serious harm. The precautionary principle has received criticisms, and these range from ignoring the benefits from proposed activities or overlooking the harm from inaction, having bias toward nature, to imposing an impossible burden of proof on the action proposers. Some of the debates have revealed the misuse of the principle and the need for clarification and specification. Other differences of opinion can be attributed to the uncertainties of the future since neither the proponents nor the opponents of the principle can be certain about the outcome of a proposed action. Therefore, socio-ecological practitioners need more knowledge implementation and impact research to produce actionable guidance on implementing the precautionary principle for sustaining human settlements. The recent progress of ecological wisdom has the potential to provide a fresh perspective for applying the precautionary principle. After describing ecological wisdom, this essay demands that pursuing benefits and avoiding problems are everyone's responsibility. All involved stakeholders have the same moral obligation to internalize knowledge, experience, and ethical values in decision-makings that affect humans and the environment they rely on.

When the process socio-ecological practice meets the virtue ecophronesis, the SEPR community receives benefits

“…As Frederick Steiner demonstrates cogently with examples in his 2022 essay and elsewhere (Steiner 2004 , 2016 , 2020 ; Steiner et al 2016 ), in the real-world socio-ecological practice, good results are and always have to be both morally sound and pragmatically effective; to achieve good results, therefore, reflective socio-ecological practice necessarily requires its practitioners (reflective socio-ecological practitioners, henceforth) to inter alia acquire a particular moral excellence and exercise it in their practice. This requisite is the virtue of ecological wisdom (Lu and Wang 2022 ; Forester 2019 ; Steiner 2016 , p. 108, p. 109; Wang 2019 ; Xiang 2014 ; Yang and Li 2016 ; Young 2016 ) or precisely, ecophronesis—ecological practical wisdom (Xiang 2016 ).…”

“…Moral improvisation literally means improvisation motivated, informed, and guided by socio-ecological morals. Socio-ecological morals are principles and beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad in socio-ecological practice, and about tradeoffs when rights (or goods) clash with one another or if rights come into conflict with goods (or vice versa) (Forester 2019 ; Wang 2019 ; Xiang 2016 ). In the socio-ecological morals ecophronimoi demonstrated habitually through their exemplary socio-ecological practices and inscribed inadvertently in the lasting good results their practices led to, several overarching themes are commonplace.…”

What can we learn from Julius Gyula Fábos, an admirable socio-ecological scholar-practitioner?

“…Edgar Schein defines a scholar-practitioner as a scholar who is ''dedicated to generating new knowledge that is useful to practitioners.'' (cited in Wasserman and Kram 2009, p.12) [2] Socio-ecological practice is yet another term in the nomenclature of ecopracticology that was coined, defined, and has been used by the SEPR authors (e.g., Al-Kodmany 2020; Daniels et al 2021;Douglas 2020;Forester 2020;La Rosa 2019;La Rosa et al 2021;Liao 2019;Palko 2021;Steiner 2020;Wang 2019;Xiang 2019a). As an umbrella term, socio-ecological practice refers to "the human action and social process that take place in specific socio-ecological context to bring about a secure, harmonious, and sustainable socio-ecological condition serving human beings' need for survival, development, and flourishing.…”

“…I examined these two pieces and his other pertinent scholarly works, including coauthored publications, through what may be metaphorically called "a lens of ecopracticology." This is a curated collection of constructs about ecopracticology's object of study, body of knowledge, and ways of knowing that I assembled eclectically from the works by various SEPR authors (e.g., Forester 2020Forester , 2022La Rosa et al 2021;Liao 2019;Meine 2020;Palko 2021;Steiner 2020;Wang 2019;Wang et al 2022;Xiang 2017Xiang , 2019aXiang , 2021Yan 2020). It ably allowed me to identify-in a fresh, systematic, and meaningful light-the meritorious ecopracticological characteristics of Julius Fábos' international greenway-planning scholarship that helped earn him the said recognition as an admirable socio-ecological scholar-practitioner and deserve our emulation.…”

From the land to socio-ecological systems: the continuing influence of Aldo Leopold

“…These sources importantly include indigenous and non-Western knowledge systems. It seems no accident that the manifestation of sustainability, resilience, and socio-ecological systems as organizing ideas over the last several decades has coincided with the recognition of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and ecological wisdom in the scientific community (Berkes et al 2000;Kimmerer 2011;Wang et al 2016;Wang 2019;Xiang 2014). Behind the convergence of these systems of thought is a shared need to find meaning and coherence amid the myriad data points.…”