Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment (original) (raw)
Related papers
Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment
A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and col- lective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expres- sions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches.
Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts
Ecology and Society, 2017
Debates about environmental values and valuation are perplexing, in part because these terms are used in vastly different ways in a variety of contexts. For some, quantifying human and ecological values is promoted as a useful technical exercise that can support decision-making. Others spurn environmental valuation, equating it with reducing ethics to numbers or "putting a price tag on nature." We make sense of these complexities by distilling four fundamental concepts of value (and valuation) from across the literature. These four concepts-value as a magnitude of preference, value as contribution to a goal, values as individual priorities, and values as relations-entail fundamentally different approaches to environmental valuation. Two notions of values (as magnitudes of preference or contributions to a goal) are often operationalized in technical tools, including monetary valuation, in which experts tightly structure (and thus limit) citizen participation in decision-making. This kind of valuation, while useful in some contexts, can mask important societal choices as technical judgments. The concept of values as priorities provides a way of describing individuals' priorities and considering how these priorities differ across a wider population. Finally, the concept of values as relations is generally used to foster deliberative forms of civic participation, but this tends to leave unresolved the final translation of civic meanings for decisionmakers. We argue that all forms of valuation-even those that are technical tools-constitute technologies of participation, and that values practitioners should consider themselves more as reflexive facilitators than objective experts who represent the public interest. We thus encourage debate about environmental values to pivot away from theoretical gridlock and toward a concern with citizen empowerment and environmental democracy.
The Trouble with Environmental Values
Environmental Values, 2016
If we are to assess whether our attitudes towards nature are morally, aesthetically or in any other way appropriate or inappropriate, then we will need to know what those attitudes are. Drawing on the works of Katie McShane, Alan Holland and Christine Swanton, I challenge the common assumption that to love, respect, honour, cherish or adopt any other sort of pro-attitude towards any natural X simply is to value X in some way and to some degree. Depending on how one interprets ‘value’, that assumption is, I contend, either false or vacuous. I argue that to assess the appropriateness of a person’s pro-attitudes towards a natural entity one must in some cases appeal to the concepts of status and/or bond, and not just that of value. To develop my argument, I appeal to the works of two nature writers – Robert Macfarlane and J. A. Baker.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 2005
Key Words values, environment, pro-environmental behavior ■ Abstract Values are often invoked in discussions of how to develop a more sustainable relationship with the environment. There is a substantial literature on values that spans several disciplines. In philosophy, values are relatively stable principles that help us make decisions when our preferences are in conflict and thus convey some sense of what we consider good. In economics, the term values is usually used in discussions of social choice, where an assessment of the social value of various alternatives serves as a guide to the best choice under a utilitarian ethic (the greatest good for the greatest number). In sociology, social psychology, and political science, two major lines of research have addressed environmental values. One has focused on four value clusters: self-interest, altruism, traditionalism, and openness to change and found relatively consistent theoretical and empirical support for the relationship of values to environmentalism. The other line of research suggests that environmentalism emerges when basic material needs are met and that individuals and societies that are postmaterialist in their values are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behaviors. The evidence in support of this argument is more equivocal. Overall, the idea that values, especially altruism, are related to environmentalism, seems well established, but little can be said about the causes of value change and of the overall effects of value change on changes in behavior.
PLOS ONE, 2017
Value orientations used to explain or justify conservation have been rooted in arguments about how much and in what context to emphasize the intrinsic versus instrumental value of nature. Equally prominent are characterizations of beliefs known as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), often used to help explain pro-environmental behaviour. A recent alternative to these positions has been identified as 'relational value'-broadly, values linking people and ecosystems via tangible and intangible relationships to nature as well as the principles, virtues and notions of a good life that may accompany these. This paper examines whether relational values are distinct from other value orientation and have potential to alleviate the intrinsic-instrumental debate. To test this possibility, we sought to operationalize the construct-relational values-by developing six relational statements. We ask: 1) Do the individual statements used to characterize relational values demonstrate internal coherence as either a single or multi-dimensional construct? 2) Do relational value statements (including those strongly stated) resonate with diverse populations? 3) Do people respond to relational value statements in a consistently different way than NEP scale statements? Data for this work is drawn from an online panel of residents of northeastern US (n = 400), as well as a sample of Costa Rican farmers (n = 253) and tourists in Costa Rica (n = 260). Results indicate relational values are distinct as a construct when compared to the NEP.
Human–Nature Relational Values—A Semi-Systematic Literature Review
Sustainability and Climate Change, 2024
Sustainability has historically considered the natural world in terms of instrumental value (protecting nature for humanity’s benefit) and intrinsic value (protecting nature for nature’s sake), without consideration of the other ways values are expressed and experienced. This instrumental-intrinsic dichotomy does not acknowledge the intuitive, familial, and spiritual relationships that exist between peoples and the natural world. Recognition of a third set of values—relational values—reflects the relationships between humans and nature and offers a complimentary approach to sustainability education. This semi-systematic literature review synthesizes and contextualizes the nascent construct of relational values to better understand how they can be articulated, applied, and ultimately assessed.
Chapter 2. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people
CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, 2022
An institutional lens to the analysis of power was considered important given that the IPBES conceptual framework recognizes that institutions determine how power is exercised (Díaz et al., 2015). In turn, in Chapter 1, a theory of change is depicted highlighting how power relations, institutions, and contexts modulate the influence of values and valuation on decision-making, outcomes, drivers of change, and transformations. Chapter 2 focuses on the role of institutions on the values prioritized by actors and how institutions influence valuation and decision-making processes. The latter approach is explored in detail in Chapter 3 (valuation methods) and in Chapter 4 (decisionmaking) of the values assessment.