Arts and Humanities Efforts in the US Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Understanding Perceived Values and Challenges - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 258

If arts and humanities inquiry is perceived as valuable for its ability to stimulate
empathy for the natural world, then it still functions as a means to an end, in this
case empathetic relationships. There is nothing inherently wrong with serving as a
means to an end, and this kind of indirect moral valuation does not necessarily con-
tradict direct, or intrinsic, moral valuation, in this case valuing arts and humanities
efforts in and of themselves. For example, one can value a family dog as a being
worthy of direct moral consideration and also value it for the joy it brings to one's
life as a pet. But the two kinds of valuation can confl ict when decision-making
requires prioritization. For example, if promoting arts and humanities inquiry as an
educative tool requires restrictions on this work that preclude it from manifesting
the characteristics we value as good in and of itself, then we must choose either to
facilitate arts and humanities inquiry as a means to particular end, e.g. education, or
to allow it to fl ourish in its own way.
Empathy as a means to an end might, however, enable a kind of middle ground.
Empathetic awareness of the natural world is not an outcome that serves sites or the
science directly, so the stakes are a little different than considering arts and humani-
ties as valuable for other instrumental contributions, like education or outreach. The
'end' is a new ethical relationship with the natural world in general, not just with a
specifi c place. This is quite different than an 'end' in the form of a product or a
service. Therefore arts and humanities inquiry facilitated for the development of
empathetic awareness would serve as a catalyst for sensitivity, imaginative under-
standing, and emotional engagement with the natural world, all of which might lead
us to act wisely on its behalf. This approach seems compatible with a valuation of
the work as good in and of itself.
Because empathy fi gures meaningfully in ecological sciences, arts, and both
ecology and arts education literature, it might also provide a bridge to connect inter-
disciplinary approaches to long-term inquiry about place. In ecological literature
empathy is often associated with natural history learning and knowledge. Scholars
argue that good ecological research depends on a sensitivity to natural patterns and
processes, an ability to listen to the natural world, careful description, and highly
developed skills of observation. All of these qualities refl ect an empathetic aware-
ness of the natural world and are cultivated through natural history learning about
place (Cooper 2000 ; Dayton and Sala 2001 ; Fleischner 2011 ).
The “ecology of place” (Billick and Price 2010 ), which is place-based long-term
ecological research, much like that across the LTER network, relies on a similar
appreciation of natural history. Esteemed ecologists (Pulliam and Waser 2010 ;
Pecharsky et al. 2010 ; Paine et al. 2010 ; Krebs 2010 ; Louda and Higley 2010 ) are
re-placing the value of natural history in contemporary ecological scientifi c progress
by describing its integral role in the practical and theoretical success of their work.
Understood alongside the relationship between natural history and empathy
(Cooper 2000 ; Fleischner 2011 ; Dayton and Sala 2001 ), these ecologist-authors
are affi rming the importance of empathetic relationships in the facilitation of deep
understanding of the natural world and in conservation practice. In essence, they
are arguing for an emotional, as well as an intellectual, engagement with the
natural world.