With issues such as environmental degradation, climate change, and mass extinction looming, a growing coalition of activists, policymakers, lawyers, scholars, and everyday people are calling for the Rights of Nature to be legally recognized in order to create systemic changes in environmental policy. This thesis traces the history of the Rights of Nature movement, examining key developments around the world and analyzing the historical and ethical underpinnings of these provisions, and how the Rights of Nature can be applied to the Endangered Species Act in the United States. Evoking the language of legal rights has pragmatic value in U.S. environmental policy, explicitly stating the non-anthropocentric position of intrinsic value of nature in an effort to push for a broader value shift within a predominantly anthropocentric legal system.

The relationship between science and religion in the modern day is complex to the point that the lines between them are often blurred. We have a need to distinguish the two from each-other for a variety of practical reasons. Various philosophies, theories, and tests have been suggested on the interaction between the two and how they are subdivided. One of the sets of criteria which has been shown to work was originally introduced in the opinion of Judge Overton in the case of McLean v Arkansas. McLean v Arkansas is a pivotal case in that it gave us a useful definition of what science is and isn’t in the context of the law. It used the already established Lemon test to show what counts as the establishment of religion. Given the distinction by Judge Overton, there are questions as to whether or not there is even overlap or tension between science and religion, such as in the theory of Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). What we find in this thesis is that the NOMA principle is doubtful at best. Through the discussion of McLean v. Arkansas, NOMA, and the commentaries of Professors Larry Laudan and Michael Ruse, this thesis develops a contextualization principle that can be used as a guide to develop further theories, particularly regarding the divisions between science and religion.

The Riparian Preserve at Gilbert Water Ranch (“the Riparian”) is an urban park and water recharge facility in Gilbert, Arizona. Through interviewing several individuals involved in the process of conceptualizing. creating, and maintaining the Riparian and researching its past and present, this paper seeks to understand how the urban park came to be and how it appears today. This includes a history of groundwater management and recharge in Arizona, the voices of people who have worked on the Riparian, the current state of the preserve, and maintenance challenges to inform readers the importance of such areas and promote the creation of similar multi-faceted recharge areas. Freedom of information act requests, academic literature, town minutes, media accounts, and information from the Town of Gilbert website place the interviews into context and illustrate the multi-use nature of the park. Furthermore, through descriptions of the history, design, stakeholders, conservation and educational value, this paper seeks to demonstrate the full picture of the urban park from past to present. The Riparian Preserve and its history illustrate the importance of gazing into the future of water conservation, and how doing so could create an amenity to be enjoyed for generations to come.

Today, some modern zoos, aquariums, and similar animal-exhibiting institutions continue to shift their priorities toward a focus on the conservation of wildlife. Conservation challenges span a broad subject area. The focus that any institution chooses can vary greatly in terms of magnitude and measures of significance. Many modern zoos often choose to make global conservation a central institutional priority: conservation of biodiversity, habitat protection, species extinction, and more. Some institutions, however, set conservation priorities on a smaller scale, focusing on contributions that have a more indirect effect on wild species and habitats, such as the welfare of populations in captivity, raising public awareness of conservation missions, and conservation education. By comparing the institutional priorities of two organizations within the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and the Phoenix Zoo, I explore how each institution manages its living collections and works toward its respective conservation mission. I interviewed members of each institution and analyzed the similarities and differences between the organizations based on their management of living collections, and how different mission statements might shape their work. This included investigating the focus each institution has on animal welfare, in situ and ex situ conservation, and maintaining public interest. This also required defining what conservation and welfare mean to each institution and how that affects the management of their living collections. From a literature review and interviews with representatives from each institution, I was able to determine that despite any differences in style or in the language of respective mission statements, each institution prioritizes connecting the public and conservation of biodiversity. While they employ different approaches - one institution takes a regional interest in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem and landscape; the other takes a more global approach to its experiences, exhibits, and collections - the core values and ultimately the vision remain the same. Conservation may serve as the primary motivator for both the Museum and the Zoo, but my thesis is that this rationale could not be realized by itself for these institutions. Rather, conservation as a core value relies upon the support of other critical institutional priorities working together. In this way animal welfare, public engagement, and conservation relate to one another as institutional values and create the impact that the zoo and museum have on their local communities, as well as on conservation as a whole.

People have known about mass biodiversity loss and the human actions that drive it for decades now, and yet we have largely failed levels to change our behavior to protect the environment. What’s failing to motivate people to change? Some conservation psychologists have partially blamed the negative way we communicate about environmental issues for paralyzing audiences into doing nothing because they feel helpless to change such a big problem. Instead, many psychologists have called for using positive emotions in communication to motivate an audience, but there’s still little research showing whether that’s a more effective approach or not. To study whether positive or negative emotions are really more motivational for inspiring change, I looked at how different emotions were used in the discourse about an emerging conservation technology called de-extinction as a case study. De-extinction claims to be both a tool for fighting biodiversity loss and for inspiring more positive and inspiring narratives in conservation. In this thesis, I examine those claims by exploring five emotions that the discourse around de-extinction elicits: fear, guilt, grief, awe and hope. I examined the motivating power of those emotions and what kind of actions de-extinction discourse motivates or fails to motivate through the way it uses those emotions. I found that de-extinction discourse erases negative emotions and boosts positive ones as many conservation psychologists recommend. However, de-extinction discourse accomplishes this in misleading ways: it minimizes the sense of importance of ongoing extinctions by framing extinction as a reversible phenomenon, and it overstates the ability of technology alone to combat the extinction crisis without requiring societal change. As a result, de-extinction discourse could risk making the public less motivated to take personal action to forward conservation goals. I conclude that positivity or negativity should not be the central concerns for motivating action, but rather efficacy and honesty.