Environmental Perspectives: Which One is Yours?

We all get our views from somewhere. There are many factors that could change the way we view ourselves and the planet, such as time, space, and culture. Over time, and through many groups of people and cultures, new ideas form and evolve. In turn, these new ideas turn our natural environments into completely new places for us. These ideas, new and old, form our environmental perspectives. For example, imagine two people are walking through a dark forest. The forest seems eerie and dangerous to one person, while the other sees it as the perfect campground. The forest that these two people are looking at is physically the same. However, the different “lenses” through which they each view the forest create different images. How people end up treating this forest may depend on the image that they see. Environmental perspectives act like these lenses, shaping how we look at environmental problems. They tell us who (or what) to blame, what has value, and how we should behave. 

So, what’s your environmental perspective? What comes to mind when you think of the human relationship with nature? Before we figure that out, let's look at where this concept comes from. In early European culture, religion was once the main lens through which people viewed the natural world. It was largely seen as a mystical force beyond human control. This changed during the scientific revolution, around 1500-1700 (Hendry 2020). Nature was now able to be tested and observed, even conquered (Hendry 2020). Nature became a tool for these nations to exploit. This idea shaped the thoughts of the settlers who stormed American soil, as they uprooted the wilds and built towns and farms and structures without second thought. 

The idea that humans and their needs are the only things with value is called anthropocentrism (Hendry 2020). This perspective was the most popular one among western people. They saw land untouched by people as wasted space with untapped potential. At least, until environmental movements started to pop up in the 1900s. These ideas would start to slowly shift the public’s idea of nature, resulting in the many perspectives seen today. The first of these perspectives, and the most common one, is anthropocentric reformism. Keep in mind your own values, and how you would solve environmental problems. 

Anthropocentric Reformism

Now that is a big term! While this perspective may have a tricky name, its views are quite simple: Environmental problems, like pollution and the loss of natural resources, are a result of human greed and bad planning (Miranda-Dias). People are too quick to exploit the earth without thinking of the drawbacks. Therefore, it is up to us and those in charge to help the environment and stop harmful practices. Unlike other perspectives, this one works within the systems we already have. We don't need new governments or social structures. Rather, we need to make our current systems more eco-friendly (Miranda-Dias).

                                                          (James, 2025)

         Anthropocentric reformism offers several more specific ways to go about saving the environment. Two of the major ones are conservation and preservation. Conservation calls for careful planning in the use of natural resources. It wants to make sure that we still have them for our use in the future. (Hendry 2020). It asks for rules to be put in place that ensure the fair use of wild areas and resources, as well as people to manage them. While conservation calls for the protection of nature so that it remains useful for people, preservation argues for the protection of nature so that it remains pristine. Preservation looks at the value of nature outside of its practical usage; its natural beauty, uniqueness, and rarity make it worthy of being left alone (James, 2025). These two positions are left at odds with one another. When nature is conserved instead of preserved, or when the opposite happens, at least one side is left unhappy. However, both sides are still seeing nature through common human values. Nature does not tend to care about its usefulness and beauty. What if human values weren’t a part of the picture?

Deep Ecology

Some perspectives see large social change as the best way to fix our environmental issues. These are often seen as radical, or going against our basic beliefs (Hendry 80). Deep ecology is the first of these. Unlike reformism, it seeks to shift people’s values away from humans over nature. Instead, it says that people and the environment should be valued as equals. It fronts how humans tend to destroy natural spaces, due to the massive number of people and our want for nicer living conditions. In order to correct this, deep ecologists suggest major policy and social reforms, as well as a focus on our population size under control (Khalfaoui, 2023). 

(Khalfaoui, 2023)

The movement is usually traced back to the writings of Arne Nass. His work has had a lot to say about humans’ “shallow” grasp of the environment (Khalfaoui, 2023). He noticed how even environmental actions tend to favor people over nature. People have not been able to see that they themselves are a part of nature. More thinkers have added to his ideas over time. There are even some deep ecologists who call for limits on human reproduction, an idea that has not been viewed too fondly due to ethical concerns. However, a part can’t represent its whole; it's up to you how far you take an idea!

Social Ecology
Just like how deep ecology formed as a response to mainstream movements, social ecology looks at the issues with deep ecology. It points out that blaming people as a whole for environmental problems is both not true, and not fair. People suffer from the abuse of nature, too. Plus, not every person is causing the abuse. Social ecology pins these problems on our social hierarchies, or the systems that place some people into greater positions of power than others (Miranda-Dias). Nature is viewed as a lesser being, so those in power are able to oppress both people and nature alike. 

This perspective was formed around themes of social justice. People with low financial standings, minority groups, and much more are set up to be exploited by the market systems that we still have today. People must work to power industries that make their worlds less liveable. Where’s the justice in that? It is thus argued that these current systems must go, in order to stop the abuse. As long as someone’s on the top, there will be people on the bottom. 

Ecofeminism 
And now, the last of the major radical perspectives. Unlike the previous perspective, ecofeminism does not stop at blaming oppressive social structures as the main cause of how we treat nature. It instead looks at how nature and women have been oppressed by men. People with this perspective are able to connect the poor treatment of women to the treatment of nature (Thomas, 2022). This mistreatment happens when women and nature are seen as lesser than men in a society. Harm is thus inflicted both on nature and people. Therefore, patriarchal ideas and structures must be revised if nature is to be protected.

(Thomas, 2022)

If this definition seems a bit vague, that’s because there is much more to it. Ecofeminist theories can be found in language, social justice, and with real people! The ways that we describe nature has a great effect on how we see it. Before the scientific revolution, the concept of “mother nature” let people see the tenderness of a mother in the great outdoors (Hendry 2020). Then the concept of controlling nature became more and more common. Due to this, both women and nature could be equated to possessions. These connections have inspired feminists to join in the fight for a healthy environment. In addition, women have been found to be more at risk to climate change. On average, they have higher death rates than men in natural disasters (Hendry 2020). All the more reason for women to practice climate advocacy! Although, having this perspective would not mean that you think men are bad and women are good. Everyone would benefit from a better planet! 

 

So, did you find a perspective that spoke to you? Did any reinforce any of your values, or help to define them? You may be more aligned with human values than the values of nature, or find them to be equally worth protecting. You may see environmental problems as a product of human greed, social injustice, or the patriarchy. Whatever the case, knowing your values and beliefs about the environment can help you find the best ways to contribute to a better Earth. It could dictate how you act or what you talk about. Every step towards a better planet counts!

References

Hendry, J. (2020). Communication and the Natural World (second). Strata Publishing Inc.  

James, B. (2025, August 6). Preservation vs. conservation: Environmental and sustainability differences. What is Green Living? https://whatisgreenliving.com/preservation-vs-conservation-environmental-and-sustainability-differences/ 

Khalfaoui, M. (2023, July 25). Deep Ecology: An Often Misunderstood Theory. Earth.Org. https://earth.org/deep-ecology-an-often-misunderstood-theory/ 

Miranda-Dias, C. M. (2002, January). Sustainable Development: The Anthropocentric Epistemology. Rio de Janeiro; Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. http://www.rio12.com/rio02/proceedings/pdf/201_Dias.pdf

Thomas, L. (2022, March 7). Ecofeminism Explores the Relationship Between Women and Nature. Teen Vogue. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/intersectional-environmentalist-ecofeminism