Type 1: Anthropogenic
This type of thinking is highly ecocentric. Human beings are treated
as ordinary members of an "ecological team. They perceive
an imperative to practice the ethics of stewardship with respect to
river ecosystems, considering themselves keepers or trustees, but
not owners. A key problem for them is that almost all river banks
and watersheds in the city and its suburbs are overpopulated. An important
step to solve environmental problems on the river would be to control
population growth in this area and to limit the anthropogenic load.
To help the public and policy makers understand environmental issues,
people in this category believe that "powerful" educational
efforts are needed.
Type 2: Nature Partners
showed the strongest agreement with a statement about the necessity
of protecting basic life-supporting ecosystems as our duty to ourselves.
They see nature as a holistic, sustainable system in harmonious equilibrium,
and they believe that humans should act in symbiosis or partnership
with this system. People who ascribe to this type or environmental
thinking agree with ecocentric statements, but at the same time they
do not classify human beings as ordinary members of a river ecosystem
or ecological team. Within limits, they accept that human
beings can work and develop a variety of activities in the river watershed,
while advocating that human activities should copy natural processes
in the river ecosystem. In this way they believe that people can build
sustainable relationships with the river environment. Like those in
Type 1, they believe that powerful educational efforts
are needed, so that people can understand the complexity of symbiotic
relationships in ecosystems.
Type 3: Romantics
This type may be identified with the "Deep Ecology School
of Arne Naess. We call them "Romantics", borrowing the term
from the famous Russian psychologist A. R. Luria (1979), who identified
a "Romantic Science" that differs from classical science
in its attempt to understand the complexity of life without reductionism.
In our case, Romantics admire the beauty and principles of nature
and acknowledge the complexity of ecological effects, some of which
elude economists efforts to place financial values on them.
They are sure that the most important resources and services in the
river environment are not "material", but "cultural."
Romantics are influenced by Aldo Leopold's ideas of environmental
morals and ethics. They believe humans achieve self- realization only
in the natural environment, by identifying themselves with "individuals,
species, ecosystems, and landscapes. In contrast to Type 1,
Type 3 does not adopt Malthusian ideas. In considering the moral and
ethical aspects of the human's behavior in the environment, they do
not sort positively a statement supporting control of population growth.
Type 4: Environmental
This type of thinking is anthropocentric. People of this type believe
that the ecosystems' value is related only to human needs and river
management should be based on economic factors, including the self-interest
of stakeholders. They also believe that the basis for sustainable
development of a river watershed is a civilized, well-structured market.
People of this type are sure that aquatic organisms (like fish or
benthos) cannot have "interests" or "rights" as
people do. Human beings for them are naturally more important than
ordinary members of the ecosystem, though this groups agrees with
Type I about the need to limit human population. According to this
type humans can manage nature using the polluter pays
principle. They believe that an ecosystems attributes and properties
can be assigned a monetary value, and that the impact of different
kinds of pollution can be estimated from an economic point of view.
Human helath is the main determinant of limits on pollutant concentrations
in the air, coastal water and bottom sediments. This mode of thinking
is optimistic, believing that humans can find a way out of any political,
scientific or technological difficulty.
Type 5: Nature Users
the only group that believes that species can be separated into those
that are "useful" and "useless" for human beings.
This view clearly indicates their anthropocentrism. They think that
people can rule the river ecosystem, and their goal is to manage "commercial"
species. For them, the key to sustainable watershed development is
the self-interest of stakeholders and the development of new technologies.
They also believe that environmental education plays a very important
role. This group does not consider human population growth in the
watershed to be a significant problem.
Type 6: Nature Doctors
anthropocentric, Nature Doctors consider human beings to be clever
supervisors who can help to heal and improve a sick river ecosystem.
For them, people are not ordinary members of the "ecological
team but consumers of natural resources. This was the only group
to agree with Gifford Pinchot that "there are only two things
on this material earth - people and natural resources. They
do not consider river ecosystems to have intrinsic value, except insofar
as they are a source of psychological resources for our self-realization.
Nature Doctors take a clearly optimistic view of the potential for
technology and even genetic engineering to improve life and river