In addition to consulting the manuscripts from Vladimir's library mentioned above, I suggest that you read what comes in Vikipedia regarding the concept of ecogovernmentality. it begins with the following "Ecogovernmentality (or environmentality), is the application of Foucault’s concepts of biopower and governmentality to the analysis of the regulation of social interactions with the natural world. ´The USA psychologist Peter Khan, has written a lot about humans affiliation with nature. You can take some profit from reading on my publications on Research Gate an article coauthored by him and me on the environmental values in a developmental study in Portugal. As I see it, most of the governs are more preoccupied with nature conservation because this is useful for us -- anthropocentric reasoning -- than because of the nature itself -- biocentric reasoning. Note that anthropocentric reasons has led, for instance, to the deforestation of a grand part of Amazonas Forest. It is also a sad reality that environmental education at schools is more anthropocentrically- than biocentrically-oriented. As I see it, an anthropocentrically-oriented ecological or environmental education is, in the long run, no environmental education at all.
Philosopher Hans Jonas has also written about human responsibility towards nature.
Traditionally, the filed of morality has spoken about an ethic of justice whose main injunction is that we should not treat other unfairly, and about an ethic of care whose main injunction is that we should not turn away from someone in need. These two ethics should be accompanied by a third ethic, a ethic of conservation whose main injunction is that we should protect and respect nature mainly because it has value in itself, and not only because to protect nature is useful for the humankind. Indeed, the idea that we should protect nature because of its usefulness for the humans has led to several cases of disrespect of nature.
I hope that I have got your question and that this helps,