Revisiting Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic

   In 1949, a book was published that would become a staple of the environmental movement: Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac (Leopold, 1949). From his beautiful descriptions of the wilderness surrounding his sand farm in Sauk County, Wisconsin to his philosophical musings on issues of conservation and land preservation, the book is a joy to read. Leopold wrote the book while working as a professor in the University of Wisconsin’s College of Agriculture between 1933 and 1948. It wasn’t until the blossoming environmental movement of the 1960s, however, that the book truly became a classic. In a time when we seem to be losing track of ethics entirely, perhaps it is time to revisit Aldo Leopold’s classic essays for guidance.

A Sand County Almanac is divided into three sections. The first is an illustration of Leopold’s farm in Wisconsin throughout the seasons. In the second section, Sketches Here and There, Leopold describes wild places across the continent, with thoughts about how conservation is failing to protect those places. Finally, in the Upshot, Leopold lays down his philosophical ideas about conservation. By structuring the book in this way, Leopold gently coaxes the reader away from simply admiring Nature and towards a more active stance. Even Leopold acknowledged that not everyone would be receptive to his philosophical ideas, however, stating in the preface, “only the very sympathetic reader will wish to wrestle with the philosophical questions of Part III.”

Aldo Leopold’s thoughts on the future of conservation rest on the need for an “ethic” to guide the relationship between humans and the land they live on. As such, it makes sense to start with his definition of an ethic. He explains that an ethic, in philosophy, is a way of differentiating between “social” and “anti-social” conduct. In this context, anti-social conduct is any behavior that violates established societal norms or obstructs the rights of others (Poon & Raine, 2025). Leopold adapts this definition to ecology, stating that an ecological ethic is “a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence.” Philosophical and ecological ethics are similar in that they arise from the necessity for interdependent groups to find ways to cooperate. 

Humans have been establishing ethics for a long time. From the Golden Rule to the origins of democracy, we understand intuitively that we need rules, whether explicit or unspoken, to maintain the wellbeing of everyone. These ethics blossom out of the understanding that we are part of a human community. The idea that humans are part of an ecological community, however, seems to be harder to grasp, especially in western, industrialized societies. Even within the field of ecology, the “community concept” is relatively new. Attributed to Sir Arthur Tansley, the term “ecosystem” was only coined in 1935, and it took even longer for the term to become widely used in the discipline (Real & Brown, 1991). The community concept of ecology is rooted in interconnectedness and balance. The various abiotic and biotic components of an ecosystem are all connected in complex ways and cannot exist without each other. The system relies on both cooperation and competition between species. Thus, although ecosystems are dynamic and experience fluctuations, they are generally characterized by loose stability due to the balancing actions of individual members of the community. As part of this community, humans should be contributing to the overall balance of ecosystems. Leopold argues, however, that we are disrupting this balance.

Leopold attributes much of the destruction humanity has wrought on Nature to an oversimplification of the environment. He argues that the “land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.” Humanity still tends to view land as a commodity, something to conquer, sell, or dispose of as we see fit. Even ecologists frame the environment in economic terms to argue for the value of conservation (Costanza et al., 1998). Viewing land using the community concept, however, makes it clear that this approach is not only morally wrong, but self-defeating. The law of diminishing returns tells us that if we use resources as if they were limitless, we will eventually feel the consequences.

So, whose responsibility is it to implement this land ethic and protect the environment? It is, of course, everyone’s responsibility, but Leopold argued that the onus of land preservation needed to be shifted from the government to private landowners. He stated that, “there is a clear tendency in American conservation to relegate to government all necessary jobs that private landowners fail to perform.” He further notes that under this system, landowners are only motivated to make positive changes on their land if it is profitable, believing that the “economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the uneconomic parts.” From the community concept of ecology, one could argue that there are no “uneconomic” parts of the environment. Leopold argued for increased awareness on the part of landowners, along with a sense of obligation to the environment. This is more important now than ever before, as current political leaders have shown us that we certainly cannot rely on them to do what is right for the environment.

Leopold closes out his essays with emotion-laden musings on the value of wilderness and outdoor recreation. Beyond recreation, he argues for the scientific value of wilderness. Large swaths of undisturbed wilderness are also necessary for the preservation of wildlife, who have the inherent right to exist. As Leopold states, “of what use are wild areas destitute of their distinctive faunas?” 

The throughline of each of Leopold’s essays in A Sand County Almanac is the need for a deeper appreciation and love for the natural world. This is what his entire ethic hinges on. He states that “we can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in.” He stresses that the development of a land ethic is not purely intellectual, but emotional in nature. Therefore, he argues for initiatives that foster increased “consciousness of land.” Though some of his discussions of outdoor recreation are tinged with condescension, he does acknowledge that recreation is a way to foster perception and love for Nature. He states, “recreational development is a job not of building roads into lovely country, but of building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind.” 

One aspect of Leopold’s writing that might cause some readers to squirm is his insistence that a land ethic requires some measure of sacrifice on humanity’s part. If responsibility for the land is shifted more to private landowners, there are difficult adjustments that must be made. Most importantly, Leopold argues, we must initiate an “internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions.” He adds, “in our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.” In other words, we cannot rely on positive changes to simply come about. As a species, we will not feel obligated to make sacrifices for the planet if we do not feel responsibility and love for the natural world.

The fact that conservation is difficult does not make it impossible. As writer and social activist Toni Cade Bambara once said, “[…] my job is to make the revolution irresistible.” Applying this sentiment to the conservation movement, we can see that “challenging” and “irresistible” are not mutually exclusive. One only needs to look at Robin Wall Kimmerer, author of the bestselling Braiding Sweetgrass and member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, to find someone making the environmental revolution irresistible. In her books, she makes it clear that the wellbeing of the land is intrinsically tied to our own wellbeing. She also exemplifies an interdisciplinary approach to activism, which acknowledges that social and environmental issues are deeply connected. Perhaps most importantly, a sense of deep joy pervades all of Kimmerer’s work, illustrating how rewarding and life-giving conservation work can be.

In this era when conservation is under attack and ethics seem to be an afterthought, Aldo Leopold’s land ethic is a guiding principle that we can hold onto. He argues for a land-human relationship that is built on respect and appreciation. When he wrote A Sand County Almanac, the interconnectedness of humanity and land was a relatively new concept for scientists. The concept is not new to Native Americans and other indigenous people, however. They have known it for centuries. As we move forward in the conservation revolution, we would do well to learn from the example of individuals and communities that live in coherence with the earth. As Leopold states in an eloquent summary of the land ethic, “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”