Sometimes environmental philosophers write only for other environmental philosophers, and their insights on the nature–human relationship do not reach environmental educators and adventure programmers. This article investigates one aspect of environmental philosophy and the differences between anthropocentric and ecocentric thinking, and applies it to the outdoor recreation and environmental education fields. Even some philosophers themselves believe that the anthropocentric/ecocentric debate is a theoretical discussion with few practical implications, but there are several reasons that outdoor recreation professionals and environmental educators might consider anthropocentric and ecocentric distinctions in their work. They include an appreciation of motivations behind environmental action and the practical value of discussing philosophical differences.
BatesJ. (2003). An inquiry into the nature of environmentally sound thinking. Environmental Ethics, 25, 183-197.
2.
BrownC. (2003). The real and the good: Phenomenology and the possibility of an axiological rationality. In BrownC.ToadvineT. (Eds.), Eco-phenomenology: Back to the earth itself (pp. 3-18). New York: State University of New York Press.
3.
CallicottJ. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: Essays in environmental philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
4.
CallicottJ. B. (1992). Rolston on intrinsic value: A deconstruction. Environmental Ethics, 14, 129-143.
5.
CallicottJ. B. (1996). On Norton and the failure of monistic inherentism. Environmental Ethics, 18, 219-221.
6.
CasasA. B.BurgessR. A. (2012). The practical importance of philosophical inquiry for environmental professionals: A look at the intrinsic/instrumental value debate. Environmental Practice: Journal of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, 14(3), 184-189.
7.
ClarkeN. C.McCoolD. (1985). Staking out the terrain: Power differentials among natural resource management agencies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.
9.
DiehmC. (2008). Staying true to trees: A specific look at anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism. Environmental Philosophy, 5(2), 3-16.
10.
DonnellyB.BishopP. (2007). Natural law and ecocentrism. Journal of Environmental Law, 19(1), 89-101.
11.
FrodemanR. (2004). Philosophy in the field. In FoltzB. V.FrodemanR. (Eds.), Rethinking nature: Essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 149-164). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12.
GoralnikL.NelsonM. P. (2011). Framing a philosophy of environmental action: Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the importance of community. Journal of Environmental Education, 42, 181-192.
13.
HargroveE. (2003). Weak anthropocentric intrinsic value. In LightA.RolstonH. (Eds.), Environmental ethics: An anthology (pp. 175-190). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
14.
KnappC. (2006). Book review of rethinking nature: Essays in environmental philosophy. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 45-46.
15.
KopninaH. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD): The turn away from “environment” in environmental education?Educational Education Research, 18, 699-717.
16.
KopninaH. (2013). Evaluating education for sustainable development (ESD): Using ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the Sustainable Development (EAATSD) Scale. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 607-623.
17.
KronlidD. O.ÖhmanJ. (2013). An environmental ethical conceptual framework for research on sustainability and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19(1), 21-44.
18.
LeopoldA. (1949). A sand county almanac: And sketches here and there. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
MalyK. (2004). A sand county almanac: Through anthropogenic to ecogenic thinking. In FoltzB. V.FrodemanR. (Eds.), Rethinking nature: Essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 289-301). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
20.
McDonaldH. P. (2004). John Dewey and environmental philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
McShaneK. (2007). Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: Why should we care?Environmental Values, 16, 169-185.
22.
NicolR. (2014). Entering the fray: The role of outdoor education in providing nature-based experiences that matter. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46, 449-461.
NortonB. (1986). Conservation and preservation: A conceptual rehabilitation. Environmental Ethics, 8, 195-220.
25.
NortonB. (1995). Seeking common ground for environmental change. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 10, 100-102.
26.
RolstonH. (2008). Naturalizing values: Organisms and species. In PojmanL.PojmanP. (Eds.). Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and practice (pp. 107-120). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
27.
SchultzJ.SimpsonS.ElfessiA. (2011). The environmental action and philosophy matrix: An exploratory study of the environmental attitudes of recreation management and environmental studies students. Journal of Environmental Education, 42, 98-108.
