Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people.

Full text

Chapter 2. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and
their contributions to people
1
,
2
Coordinating Lead Authors: Christopher B. Anderson (Argentina, United States of
America/Argentina), Simone Athayde (Brazil/United States of America), Christopher M. Raymond
(Australia, Netherlands/Sweden, Finland), Arild Vatn (Norway)
Lead Authors: Paola Arias-Arévalo (Colombia), Rachelle K. Gould (United States of America),
Jasper Kenter (Netherlands/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Barbara
Muraca (Italy/United States of America), Sonya Sachdeva (United States of America), Aibek
Samakov (Kyrgyzstan), Egleé Zent (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)
Fellows: Dominic Lenzi (Australia, Italy/Netherlands), Ranjini Murali (India), Ariane Amin (Côte
d’Ivoire)
Contributing Authors: Hasiyatu Abubakari (Ghana), Dana Baker (United States of America),
Sebastián Ballestas (Colombia), Thomas Beery (United States of America), Jordan Blanchard-
Lafayette (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Robert Blasiak (United States
of America), Adams Bodomo (Ghana), Marcus Briggs-Cloud (United States of America), Harry
Cross (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Bruna Franchetto (Brazil, Italy),
Lina Gutierrez-Cala (Colombia), Zuzana Harmáčkova (Czech Republic), Adam P. Hejnowicz
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Austin Himes (United States of America),
Dylan Inglis (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Hiroe Ishihara (Japan),
Samuel Issah (Ghana), Chris Ives (Australia), Jeremiah Julius (United States of America), Roope
Kaaronen (Finland), Heeseo Kwon (Republic of Korea), Alexandra Lavrillier (France), Kinga
Magdolna Mandel (Hungary), Javier Mejía Cruz (Colombia), Thais Moreno (Brazil), Gabriel
Nemogá (Colombia), Sebastian O'Connor (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
Henrik Österblom (Sweden), Nicol Dayan Pacheco Valdes (Colombia), Valentina Perdomo Nuñez
(Colombia), Lauren Prox (United States of America), Sue Ranger (United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland), James Reeves (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland), Annalee Ring (United States of America), Julian Rode (Germany), Ana Carolina
Rodríguez Alzza (Peru), Kurt Russo (United States of America), Margrét Rós Sigurjónsdóttir
(Iceland), Jane Simpson (Australia), Sanna Stålhammar (Sweden), Andrés Suárez (Colombia), Bron
Taylor (United States of America), Leah Temper (Canada), Maria Tengö (Sweden), Henrik Thoren
(Sweden), Araceli Torres Morales (Mexico), Catalina Trujillo (Colombia), Hein Van der Voort
(Netherlands), Julian Zúñiga-Barragán (Colombia)
Review Editor: Kai Chan (Canada)
Technical support unit: Mariana Cantú-Fernández
This chapter should be cited as: Anderson, C.B., Athayde, S., Raymond, C.M., Vatn, A., Arias, P.,
Gould, R.K., Kenter, J., Muraca, B., Sachdeva, S., Samakov, A., Zent, E., Lenzi, D., Murali, R.,
1
This is the final text version of Chapter 2. A laid-out version of the full assessment report will be made available in the
coming months.
2
Authors are listed with, in parentheses, their country or countries of citizenship, separated by a comma when they have
more than one; and, following a slash, their country of affiliation, if different from that or those of their citizenship, or
their organization if they belong to an international organization. The countries and organizations having nominated the
experts are listed on the IPBES website (except for contributing authors who were not nominated).

Amin, A., and Cantú-Fernández, M. (2022). Chapter 2: Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature
and their contributions to people. In: Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and
Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., and González-Jiménez, D.
(eds). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6493134
The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps used in the assessment do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. These maps have been prepared or used for the sole purpose of facilitating the
assessment of the broad biogeographical areas represented therein.

Chapter 2. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and
their contributions to people
Contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1. Scope of the chapter ............................................................................................................. 10
2.1.2. Characterizing different conceptualizations of nature’s diverse values .............................. 11
2.1.3. Assessing different conceptualizations of nature’s values................................................... 14
2.2. Towards a more inclusive understanding of the diverse values of nature........................... 16
2.2.1. Worldviews, knowledge systems and values of nature ....................................................... 18
2.2.2. Languages, values and biodiversity ..................................................................................... 22
2.2.3. Broad and specific values of nature and nature’s contributions to people .......................... 27
2.2.3.1. Broad values.................................................................................................................. 27
2.2.3.2. Specific values categorized as intrinsic, instrumental and relational values ................ 31
2.2.3.3. Policy relevance of considering diverse value types and their overlaps ....................... 36
2.2.4. Values as indicators ............................................................................................................. 38
2.3. Organizing the diverse values of nature ................................................................................. 41
2.3.1. Values-organization frameworks ......................................................................................... 41
2.3.2. Life frames of nature’s values.............................................................................................. 41
2.3.2.1. Life frame representation in environmental values literature ....................................... 43
2.3.2.2. Representing life frames in policy ................................................................................ 47
2.3.2.3. Life frames to nurture sustainability-aligned values ..................................................... 48
2.4. Values, human action and decision-making ........................................................................... 49
2.4.1. Relationships between values and behaviour ...................................................................... 49
2.4.1.1. Why do we do what we do? .......................................................................................... 49
2.4.1.2. Review of behaviour theories ....................................................................................... 50
2.4.1.3. Values as embedded in institutions ............................................................................... 53
2.4.1.4. Relations between institutions, power and conflicts ..................................................... 54
2.4.2. Values in valuation processes and different decision-making contexts............................... 56
2.4.2.1. Value expressions under different contexts .................................................................. 57
2.4.2.2. Values and valuation methods ...................................................................................... 61
2.4.2.3. Values and decision-making ......................................................................................... 64
2.5. Values formation and change as dynamic processes ............................................................. 70
2.5.1. Individual, social and socio-ecological processes of value formation and change .............. 71
2.5.2. Combining value formation and change processes for policymaking ................................. 74
2.6. Conclusions regarding the conceptualization of nature’s diverse values ............................ 77
2.6.1. Relevance for the IPBES conceptual framework................................................................. 77
2.6.2. Relevance for supporting value-plural policies ................................................................... 80
2.6.3. Relevance for the values assessment ................................................................................... 81
References ......................................................................................................................................... 83
Boxes, figures and tables
Box 2.1. Concepts used in Chapter 2 to understand nature’s diverse values..................................... 17
Box 2.2. Worldviews, religion and values ......................................................................................... 22
Box 2.3. Ecoliteracy: losing biodiversity means losing ways to value nature ................................... 27

Box 2.4. Philosophies of good living in policy and practice from around the world. ....................... 29
Box 2.5. Life-support values .............................................................................................................. 32
Box 2.6. Values and preferences in environmental economics ......................................................... 35
Box 2.7. Gross domestic product (GDP) as a macroeconomic indicator .......................................... 39
Box 2.8. The life frames and local values in marine management: the UK coast ............................. 46
Box 2.9. What are shared and social values? ..................................................................................... 59
Box 2.10. Value articulation in watershed management: Klamath River.......................................... 60
Box 2.11. Conflicting values expressed through the coal supply chain from Colombia to Türkiye . 66
Box 2.12. Conflicting values, power and justice in decision-making about mining: Niyamgiri
mountain ............................................................................................................................................ 68
Box 2.13. Human-nature interactions and value formation and change: Leopold’s wolf encounter 73
Box 2.14. Values involved in the risks and uncertainty of catastrophic events................................. 76
Box 2.15. Chapter 2’s knowledge and capacity gaps ........................................................................ 81
Figure 2.1. Value concepts addressed in Chapter 2. ........................................................................... 1
Figure 2.2. Explicit and implicit value expression and decision-making ........................................... 3
Figure 2.3. Review of the diverse values of nature ........................................................................... 12
Figure 2.4. Road map to Chapter 2 ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.5. Value concepts developed in Chapter 2 ......................................................................... 17
Figure 2.6. Worldviews and values ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.7. Worldviews detected in three literature reviews ............................................................ 20
Figure 2.8. Linguistic diversity and case studies within the chapter ................................................ 23
Figure 2.9. Insights on the complex interconnections between languages, biodiversity and values of
nature.................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 2.10. Values of and about human-nature-relationships – broad values ................................. 28
Figure 2.11. Topics and values associated with Philosophies of good living from around the world
............................................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 2.12. General visualization of nature’s multiple specific values ........................................... 31
Figure 2.13. The total economic value classification framework encompasses multiple environmental
value types ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 2.14. Key factors influencing the relative robustness and efficiency of more monistic and
more pluralistic approaches ............................................................................................................... 38
Figure 2.15. Proportion of documents coded for the life frames in the systematic review .............. 44
Figure 2.16. Different value sets within the life frames.................................................................... 45
Figure 2.17. Proportion of interview references to different life frames across marine local
knowledge projects ............................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 2.18. Relative prevalence of value-related constructs and all other constructs in theories of
behaviour............................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 2.19. Power and environmental justice dimensions in nature valuation and decision-making
contexts .............................................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 2.20. Multiple ways in which valuation methods influence value expressions ..................... 58
Figure 2.21. How valuation methods influence value expressions ................................................... 62
Figure 2.22. Decision-makers and decisions in context .................................................................... 65
Figure 2.23. Understanding value formation and change as part of a dynamic process ................... 70
Figure 2.24. Summary of the main conclusions derived from the assessment in Chapter 2 ............ 77
Table 2.1. Life frames of nature's values ............................................................................................ 6
Table 2.2. Synthesis of information provided by specialists for languages spoken in ten different
places around the world ..................................................................................................................... 26
Table 2.3. Summary of literature review findings about intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values
............................................................................................................................................................ 34

Table 2.4. The main associations found in the literature between the life frames and their relation to
nature, values, nature’s contributions to people, sustainability, and risk. ......................................... 42
Table 2.5. Quantitative assessment of value-related concept ............................................................ 52
Table 2.6. Summary of key concepts detected in the literature from diverse academic and cultural
traditions to explain value formation and change .............................................................................. 72
Supplementary material
Annex 2.1 Cross-chapter conceptualization of power dimensions in the context of the values of
nature, valuation and decision-making
Annex 2.2 Analysis of national and international policy documents related to biodiversity and
sustainability
Annex 2.3 Religion in the context of values formation and change
Annex 2.4 Spotlight on fisheries, marine and coastal governance in the UK: a community voice
approach
Annex 2.5 Niyamgiri Mountain, India
Annex 2.6 Klamath River Basin
Annex 2.7 Worldviews, policies, and knowledge systems
Annex 2.8 Interconnections between languages, biodiversity and values
Annex 2.9 Languages, values and territory among the Maskoke in the Ecovillage Community Land
Annex 2.10 Environmental value types
Annex 2.11 Diverse perspectives on fisheries
Annex 2.12 Economics, values and indicators
Annex 2.13 The life framework of nature’s values
Annex 2.14 Analysis of framing in the environmental values literature
Annex 2.15 Values and decision-making
Annex 2.16 Literature review on value formation and change
Annex 2.17 Spiritual sovereignty as a conservation strategy: the case for an indigenized framework

1
Executive summary
Humanity confronts multiple socio-environmental crises that are also a values crisis (e.g., biodiversity
loss, climate change, emergent diseases) {2.1.1; 2.1.2}. There is consensus that environmental
decision-making can be enhanced by being more inclusive of nature’s diverse values {2.1.1}. Yet,
understanding nature’s values requires grasping different conceptualizations of the ways people
interpret and experience human-nature relationships, such as worldviews informed by different
knowledge systems, cultures, languages and disciplines. Better engagement of this diversity offers
opportunities to make policies more rigorous, effective and inclusive {2.1.2}.
Chapter 2 aims to help decision-makers characterize and assess different conceptualizations of the
diverse values of nature and how they are expressed, formed and changed (Figure 2.1). It uses
scoping, systematic and critical reviews, complemented with regionally- and thematically balanced
case studies to assess academic literature, government policies and indigenous and local knowledge
(ILK). Findings provide conceptual background for subsequent chapters and insights for decision-
makers to engage, manage and incorporate the conceptual diversity of values in governance
frameworks that have impact on nature and its contributions to people (Figure 2.2).
Key messages highlight (i) concepts that help diagnose policy-relevant challenges and opportunities
and (ii) guidance to use these concepts in solutions to achieve better conceptual, practical and ethical
outcomes {2.1}.
Figure 2.1. Value concepts addressed in Chapter 2. ‘Value’ has different meanings
across academic, policy and cultural contexts. Clarifying these perspectives allows
better recognition, communication and incorporation of diverse values and
stakeholder interests into decision-making {2.1}. Core concepts in the chapter’s
values typology include worldviews {2.2.1}, language-value connections {2.2.2},
broad values {2.2.3}, specific values (i.e., instrumental, intrinsic, and relational
values) {2.2.3} and various biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural value indicators
{2.2.4}. To help organize this diversity, four life frames illustrate how particular

2
human-nature relationships prioritize certain sets of values {2.3}. Furthermore, values
are embedded in norms and rules that influence individual and collective expressions,
decisions and actions {2.4}. They form and change through individual and social
processes as well as socio-ecological interactions and experiences {2.5}. Finally, these
concepts inform broader IPBES efforts, including this assessment, and future
capacity-building that addresses knowledge and operational gaps to promote just and
sustainable futures {2.6}.
1. Predominant environmental governance frameworks have privileged instrumental values
(e.g., economic growth through markets) and contributed to the present biodiversity, climate
and health crises. Frameworks that enable the expression of other value types can support
sustainability outcomes (e.g., inclusive wealth accounting, participatory management), but
careful attention should be paid to the complexity of factors that relate values with individual
and collective behaviour (well established). Diverse values of nature exist; their incorporation into
decision-making can contribute to well-being, sustainability, and justice outcomes. Ample evidence
demonstrates that economic growth, as currently conceived and measured, contributes to the
deterioration of nature and nature´s contributions to people {Box 2.7}. However, few international
biodiversity and sustainability policies explicitly recognize that economic growth can be problematic
for biodiversity {2.1}. Almost conversely, many conservation strategies have prioritized non-human
nature, regardless of societal impacts. More nuanced and inclusive framings of human-nature
relationships can overcome these divergent understandings {2.2.1}. For example, sustainability-
aligned values (i.e., broad values like care, equity, reciprocity and justice) coincide with multiple
visions of supporting the planet’s long-term ecological integrity together with more sustainable social
outcomes {2.2.1; 2.2.3.1; 2.3.2; 2.4.2}. While certain values support these goals more than others,
multiple factors intervene when translating values into behaviours, including demographic
characteristics, feelings of self-efficacy and the physical capacity to engage. Values embedded within
social and institutional structures and biophysical contexts can promote or constrain different
behaviours {2.4; 2.5.1; 2.5.2}. To ensure governing frameworks are able to achieve desired outcomes
for people and nature, policymakers could consider the various types of values at stake (and for
whom), which valuation methods are most appropriate for the context, the power dynamics involved,
and the institutional adjustments needed for effective policy implementation {2.4.1.4; 2.4.2; Box
2.9}.
2. Value expression and prioritization are influenced by the governance frameworks in place,
including who has the power to make decisions. Strengthening participatory processes and
designing appropriate frameworks can facilitate better consideration of multiple perspectives
on instrumental, intrinsic and relational values (well established). Power influences value
expression through: (i) societal structures and institutions, including the authority to determine laws
and other rules and having rights to use natural assets and nature´s contributions to people; and (ii)
discourses that emphasize some worldviews and values over others, including the framing of
decision-making processes {2.4.1.4; Annex 2.1}. Hence, governance frameworks (i.e., the institutions
framing economic, political decision-making and socio-cultural processes) emphasize different
values and have varying capacities to express and protect nature’s diverse values (Figure 2.2)
{2.4.2.3}. Economic decision-making is largely oriented towards producing goods and services to
trade in markets, emphasizing certain instrumental values. Political decision-making, including
economic and development policies, has focused largely on facilitating market expansion, combined
with some conservation policies protecting intrinsic values. Socio-cultural decision-making (e.g.,
forming individual or collective identities) places more emphasis on relational and intrinsic values,
when prioritizing values like sense of place and relationships with more than-human species
{2.4.2.3}. Political decision-making, with its power to define societal rights and responsibilities, is
positioned to establish frameworks that can more fully incorporate the diversity of nature’s values
across decision-making contexts. Such political decisions may concern the specification of property
rights (common, private or state), the role of markets and the types of markets that are supported (e.g.,

3
global vs. local). They also concern what types of environmental regulations and incentives are
favoured. These frameworks can help activate, support or hinder the expression of values and norms
that are important to different social groups {2.4.1; 2.4.2}.
Figure 2.2. Explicit and implicit value expression and decision-making. Blue =
instrumental values; Purple = relational values; Green = intrinsic values; Blended
colours = integration between values.
3. Predominant economic policies align with a “grow first, correct afterwards” approach to
nature’s values. In a world characterized by tipping points, this strategy often erodes the values
of nature and can be costly and difficult to reverse. When developing economic policies, a more
holistic, long-term focus on environmental and social impacts could help to achieve
transformations towards environmental sustainability and social justice (well established).
General economic policies have been focused on growth (e.g., deregulating trade). Conceptually, this
has been justified by equating well-being with monetary wealth. The negative socio-environmental
impacts have often been addressed only after they have appeared. At that stage, it is very costly to
change policy direction, given existing investments and institutional structures with their embedded
interests and power relations {2.4.2.3}. Tipping points add to the challenges of maintaining the values
of nature; when mitigation is attempted, it may be too late or insufficient, as evidenced by the ongoing
climate and biodiversity crises {2.4.2.3}. Economic policies that prioritize living from nature do
attain some instrumental values (e.g., consumption of nature’s material contributions to people by
more economically and politically powerful social groups), but concomitantly have at least three
negative implications: (i) relational and intrinsic values are put at risk, (ii) the distribution of these
same instrumental values to vulnerable social groups may be compromised, and (iii) the long-term
flow of instrumental values is jeopardized {2.3.2; 2.4.2}. Sustainability is questionable in an
economic system based mainly on a short-term, narrow instrumental value-logic. Supporting the
expression of sustainability-aligned values makes it possible to consider the local and global linkages
of both social and ecological outcomes more adequately, emphasizing reduced environmental

4
impacts, ensuring equitable wealth distribution, providing prosperity and supporting ethical
management practices {Box 2.4; 2.2.3.1; 2.4.2.3}.
4. Diverse values of nature arise from diverse worldviews, cultures, knowledge systems and
languages that have developed from people’s long-term, place-based relationships with nature.
Philosophies of good living found throughout the world offer pathways to achieving collective
human-nature well-being, linking diverse values with practices, policies and institutions (well
established). Worldviews are metaphorical lenses through which individuals and social groups
perceive, think about, interpret, inhabit and modify the world. They are informed by one’s cultural
context and background, knowledge system and language {2.2.1; 2.2.2}. Many ILK-based
worldviews recognize the world as a relational sphere, where other-than-human entities like rivers or
biotic communities are subjects with rights and duties. This relational and reciprocal perspective
forms the basis for collective human-nature well-being, including concepts like Buen vivir in South
America and Ubuntu in sub-Saharan Africa, among other philosophical traditions, which have
inspired scholarly work, policies and social movements from local to global scales. Although the
academic literature reflects a polarization between those values held by indigenous peoples and local
communities, Eastern and Western knowledges and/or society, there may be considerable overlap
between some of these groups’ broad and specific values tied to Philosophies of good living and
collective human-nature well-being, which could be recognized and explored in more depth in
research and policy {2.2.1}. Emerging social norms, collectives and movements around current issues
such as mindfulness, urban nature conservation, and climate change mitigation and adaptation, may
nurture and share relational values of reciprocity, care, responsibility and interconnectedness with
nature (among others) within and across various societal groups {2.2.1; 2.5.2}. Convergences or
synergies of worldviews and values across different groups can be catalysed through decision and
policy-making, and operationalized through existing or new institutions to promote biodiversity
conservation, sustainability-aligned values and/or pro-environmental behaviour {2.2.1; 2.2.3; 2.3.1;
2.5.2; Box 2.2}.
5. While ‘value’ generally refers to what is good or important, the term is applied in different
ways in particular academic, policy and social contexts. Therefore, it can be useful to clarify
the dimension and type of value being considered to establish a common understanding across
contexts (well established). The values of nature and human-nature relationships pertain to both
broad values and specific values. Broad values express life goals or guiding principles (e.g.,
sustainability, justice, prosperity), as informed by the general beliefs emanating from worldviews
{2.2.3.1}. Those broad values associated with or supporting the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and sustainability processes can be called sustainability-aligned values
{2.2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.2}. Sustainability-aligned broad values concerning human-human relationships
(e.g., equity, unity, reciprocity, justice) are key to pathways of transformation towards more
sustainable futures (see also Chapter 5). They can foster, for example, a shift from solely
individualism, materialism and economic profit to other principles like care, unity, equity, reciprocity
and justice {2.3.2.3}. Specific values refer to how people express the importance of particular
elements of or relationships with nature in given situations and contexts {2.2.3.2}. Specific values
can be categorised according to instrumental, intrinsic and relational reasons why nature, nature´s
contributions to people and human-nature relationships matter to people. While all value typologies
have limits, making the meaning of value explicit (e.g., broad values, specific values or value
indicators), recognising diverse values and using multiple indicators are all important, particularly in
complex and contested decision-making contexts {2.2.3.3; 2.2.4}.
6. Instrumental, intrinsic and relational values are specific ways of expressing why nature,
nature´s contributions to people and human-nature relationships are important to people.
These categories provide opportunities for more conceptually rigorous, practically effective,
and ethically-based valuation policies and practices that balance different sectoral needs and
stakeholder interests (well established). Academic and policy sources have extensively debated

5
instrumental (i.e., things or processes important as means to some human end) and intrinsic values
(i.e., values of nature expressed regardless of reference to humans). Relational values have become
an increasing part of discourse and practice to express the value of desirable, meaningful and
reciprocal human relationships with nature and among people through nature {2.2.3.2}. Relational
values help express the role of contextual bonds to places or practices. Recognizing instrumental,
intrinsic and relational values as distinct ways people conceive the importance of nature and nature´s
contributions to people also helps identify the scope, appropriateness and use of particular value
indicators (e.g., biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural) and value elicitation methods. Considering
different value expressions can help understand why perspectives on nature and nature´s
contributions to people are divergent (i.e., sources of conflict, disagreement) or convergent (i.e.,
sources of collaboration, legitimation, alliances). In decision-making, specific values can be used to
(i) make visible otherwise neglected, intangible costs and benefits, thereby facilitating more inclusive
and just expression of values; (ii) clarify, reduce or avoid conflicts by fostering participation among
stakeholders; (iii) enable a more comprehensive and representative evaluation of why people value
nature differently, nature´s contributions to people and human-nature relationships; and (iv) build
common ground across different stake- and right-holders in support of biodiversity conservation and
sustainable development {2.2.3.3}.
7. The diverse values of nature and the different ways of relating to nature can be effectively
organized and communicated through ‘life frames’ of nature’s values, such as living from
nature, living with nature, living in nature and living as nature (Table 2.1). The living from
nature frame has been privileged in environmental research and policy, driving unsustainable
outcomes (well established). A more balanced representation provides multiple levers for
sustainability transformations, including different sets of sustainability-aligned values
(established but incomplete). A systematic review illustrated that these four ways of framing values
effectively encompasses diverse human-nature relationships. Living from nature emphasizes that
nature matters for its uses, goods and services to support human life, needs and prosperity. Living
with nature considers nature for its cycles, life supporting processes, and many other species, with a
right to flourish regardless of their contribution to human well-being. Living in nature illustrates that
nature matters as place and land, contributing to history, culture and meaning. Living as nature
emphasizes that nature matters because it constitutes people physically, mentally and spiritually,
experienced through relations of oneness, kinship and interdependence {2.3.2}. These frames are not
mutually exclusive; people and institutions can express and embed multiple frames. Over- or under-
emphasizing a life frame can lead to unsustainable outcomes; for example, over-emphasizing living
from nature can become living against nature, as evidenced by the over-consumption of nature’s
material contributions to people and the destruction of biodiversity {2.3.2.2}. Each life frame
emphasizes different aspects of sustainability and justice, and as such can also leverage different
sustainability-aligned values {2.3.2}. Shifting policy emphasis from living from nature to the broader
set of frames provide multiple levers for sustainability by more comprehensively establishing
relations between nature and good quality of life through a more inclusive set of policy tools and
value indicators (Table 2.1) {2.3.2}.

6
Table 2.1. Life frames of nature's values. Chapter 2 applied four life frames to
understand how certain broad and specific values are highlighted in particular
decisions related to policy outcomes.
8. Shared and social values, beyond the individual, are expressed in different ways, which has
implications for how to engage diverse groups in decision-making about nature and its
contributions to people (well established). Values are represented and enacted in society at different
scales beyond the individual, including groups, communities, societies and cultures. Social values
can in part be established by aggregating (i.e., summing up) individual values, but this is a
conceptually and ethically challenging task that can lead to social inequities, especially when values
of minority groups are masked or future generations are heavily discounted {2.4.1; Box 2.9}. Shared
values are the broad and specific values that people express collectively, in groups, communities, and
across society as a whole. They can be formed through long-term processes of value formation and
socialisation and shorter-term processes, such as group deliberations {2.5.1}. They do not relate to a

7
process of aggregation, but rather to a process of co-learning and bridging values. In deliberation,
participants can act as citizens rather than consumers, frequently drawing on values towards the
common good. This is important because there is often a mismatch between consumer preferences
and sustainability-aligned values. Shared and individually aggregated social values do not necessarily
diverge and can be used in tandem. However, shared values approaches can be more robust and
considered more legitimate when policymakers are faced with substantial uncertainty, many
constituencies and potential for conflict {2.2.4; Box 2.9}.
9. When developing policies, decision-makers encounter stakeholders who conceive the diverse
values of nature differently. Clarifying the similarities and differences between these
conceptualizations can allow better engagement of different policy domains across sectors,
academic traditions and social groups or cultures (well established). In the academic literature,
most publications about the values of nature are on biophysical topics published in life and physical
science journals. Socio-cultural topics are the second most numerous, while economics and themes
related to indigenous and local knowledge are the fastest growing {2.1.2}. The most frequently
referenced academic concept for understanding human-nature relationships was ecosystem services
(40.5% of reviewed articles) {2.3.1}. Navigating between different worldviews is critical for
engaging diverse knowledge systems, disciplines and social groups in environmental decision-
making and for better understanding how conceptualisations of value differ across knowledges and
languages {2.2.1; 2.2.2}. People express values through oral and written articulation, and also via
praxis, including embodied corporeal and spiritual experiences {2.3.2}. Understandings and
expressions of value vary within and across disciplines and between individuals and socio-cultural
groups. Anthropocentric worldviews shape individual and collective behaviours to attend to human
needs {2.2.1}. This contrasts with relational worldviews that emphasize how groups form shared
values connected to nature and integrate them into institutions, such as norms and legal rules {2.2.1}.
Bio- and ecocentric worldviews are also reflected in national biodiversity strategies & action plans
(NBSAPs) {2.1.1}, highlighting nature’s intrinsic values {2.2.1}. Interdisciplinary and intercultural
dialogues involving multiple stakeholders and perspectives can enhance opportunities for nature’s
diverse values to be recognized and addressed in more legitimate and inclusive policymaking
processes {2.2.2}.
10. Conceiving the values of nature and its contributions to people in economic terms (e.g., via
economic valuation, market value indicators, economic incentives) plays a predominant role in
many individual, corporate and governmental decisions. These approaches effectively highlight
the dependence of economies on nature, but are inadequately representing multiple value
perspectives, especially intrinsic and relational values. Including a diversity of economic
approaches and employing multiple indicators can help strengthen nature’s diverse values in
policymaking (well established). Conventional economics largely understands ‘value’ in terms of
individual preferences expressed through actual or hypothetical market transactions {2.2.4}. This
approach has made significant contributions to account for many values of nature that are not
considered in actual market transactions, thereby facilitating their incorporation into policymaking.
For example, focusing on the economic value of ecosystem services (e.g., total economic value
framework) highlights the dependence of economic development and human well-being on
ecosystems and helps decision-makers recognize a wide range of instrumental values {2.2.4}. At the
macro-economic level, indicators like inclusive wealth can reflect the importance of ecosystem
services for prosperity. While guiding policy and decisions in many situations, these approaches also
have important limitations. They do not effectively represent intrinsic and relational values, which
are more difficult to express in terms of monetary indicators. Moreover, instrumental values for
vulnerable groups tend to be underrepresented in policymaking. Addressing such limitations can
support more inclusive decisions based on different value indicators and more plural forms of
valuation and decision-making. For example, policies can broaden the set of approaches employed to
understand well-being, including ecological economics, feminist economics and ILK philosophies of
good living {2.2.4; 2.4.2}, and use indicators reflecting more plural perspectives on well-being and

8
its dimensions, such as the UNDP human development dashboard, the genuine progress indicator, or
the sustainability dashboard {2.2.4; Box 2.7}.
11. Many environmental policies seek to create or modify values of nature to affect behavioural
change. Effective policies aiming to influence values can benefit from understanding value
formation and change as interrelated individual, social and socio-ecological processes (well
established). Frequently, policies like national biodiversity strategies and action plans attempt to
directly link values and behaviour by raising awareness of biodiversity or promoting pro-
environmental attitudes {2.1.2; Annex 2.2}, but these are multi-faceted processes {2.4.1; 2.5.1}. For
example, once formed, broad values are considered relatively stable, but are more malleable at certain
development stages in an individual’s life cycle (e.g., early childhood, early adulthood) or potentially
due to major socio-ecological shifts (e.g., significant life events, political changes, natural disasters,
pandemics). Consequently, significant changes to broad values in a society often occur at inter-
generational time scales. By definition, though, specific values respond to particular contexts.
Therefore, social structures and dynamics like markets, monetary incentives, social norms, cultural
rituals and gender roles are important in forming and changing specific values. In turn, social and
socio-ecological factors can be institutionalized and create feedback between value expression and
formation {2.4.2.1; 2.4.2.2; 2.5.2}. For example, religions are practiced by most of the world’s
population, and as institutions their informal norms and formal structures shape, form and change
worldviews and associated values {2.5.1; Annex 2.3}. Further, contextual factors like age-based roles
and cultural practices not only express specific values, but they also modify them as a result of social
dynamics and socio-ecological relationships between humans and nature (e.g., environmental
education, arts, direct encounters) {2.4.1; 2.5.1}. In policymaking, it is relevant to distinguish change
in values of individuals or social groups from change in their value expression via alterations in
prioritizations. These changes also need to be considered in the context of shared and social values
{Box 2.9}. In some cases, it may be more effective and ethical for policies that aim for pro-
environmental outcomes to activate or enable existing sustainability-aligned values {2.4.1; 2.5.2}.
12. Biodiversity, languages, human-nature relationships and values are interconnected and
have been simultaneously eroded. Policies can seek to form or maintain values at risk.
Combatting biodiversity loss and nature degradation is connected to preserving knowledge
about nature (i.e., ecoliteracy) and the languages that transmit such knowledge both among
IPLCs and in broader society (established but incomplete). Languages express biocultural diversity
(i.e., the interconnections between biological, cultural and linguistic diversity), human identities and
values. Languages capture, maintain, transmit and convey knowledge, values and practices that
support biodiversity and nature´s contributions to people connected to specific places, ecosystems
and territories. Biodiversity and human languages face critical and interlinked crises: around 40% of
the world’s estimated 7151 languages are already extinct or endangered, and about half of the
languages currently spoken will likely disappear by the end of this century {2.2.2}. Language loss
has led to an erosion of indigenous and local knowledge, ecoliteracy, and associated values of nature
across diverse socio-cultural groups in both rural and urban settings. Policies seeking to value nature
or conserve biodiversity could be reinforced by better integration with knowledge, culture and
language-oriented research and policies, including intercultural and multilingual language education
and revitalization. Doing so would enhance strategies for sustainable living by being more inclusive
of diverse conceptualizations of nature’s values {2.2.2; 2.2.3}. This would also enhance policy
efficacy to conserve biocultural diversity, which includes both biodiversity and the different place-
based languages, practices and values connected to it {2.2.2; 2.2.3; Box 2.3}.
13. Values can be expressed explicitly and implicitly. In addition to the influence of worldviews,
languages, knowledge systems and power relations, value expressions are affected by the
decision-making context. Critical factors to consider include institutions, individual capacities
and biophysical conditions (well established). Explicit value expressions are those where it is
possible to identify what is considered to be important. They may include oral (e.g., deliberation) as

9
well as written expressions (e.g., stated preference surveys), values as expressed in market purchases,
and community decisions. On the other hand, implicit value expressions are tacit and embodied in
everyday practices (e.g., habits) and rituals {2.4.2}. Both forms of value expression are mediated by
institutions (i.e., norms, customs, legal rules) that promote certain values and obscure others, which
in turn influences actions and outcomes (Figure 2.2). Understanding the relationship between
institutions and values can help identify leverage points for changing values expressed in decision
outcomes. For example, environmental policies and incentives can be designed to fit local institutions,
promoting greater social acceptance and compliance {2.4.1.3}. Beyond institutions and biophysical
conditions, actions and behaviour are influenced by individual factors, such as demographics, income
and physical and cognitive capacities {2.4.1.2}. The coexistence of these individual, social and
biophysical aspects influencing action can create a gap between expressed values and observed
actions {2.4.1.2}. Therefore, strategies oriented to protect nature’s diverse values can be improved if
the relationships and conflicts between these elements are identified and addressed {2.4.1}.
14. Valuation methods are based on different rules regarding who should participate in the
valuation process, and in what form values can be expressed and conclusions drawn by
valuators. Hence, the type of method used influences which values are emphasized in valuation
processes, how they are interpreted, communicated and ultimately influence policy outcomes.
Decision-makers may enhance the quality and relevance of valuation studies by systematically
identifying the method(s) that are the best fit to the issue at hand (well established). Valuation
methods and approaches (e.g., deliberative methods, economic valuation, environmental impact
assessments and multi-criteria analyses) facilitate value visibility and expression. By defining whose
values are considered, how values can be expressed and what knowledge and value aspects become
emphasized, methods strongly influence the values elicited and the ensuing policy recommendations
{2.4.2.2}. Being more aware of these implications will increase the quality and relevance of valuation
outcomes. In such assessments, it is important to consider the type of values at stake and their framing,
how the involved stakeholders can best express these values, how value conflicts should be treated,
and how to recognize the power dynamics involved {2.4.2; Box 2.9}.
15. Addressing the knowledge gaps (e.g., research, data) and operational gaps (e.g.,
information, resources, capacities) identified by this chapter can help make decision-making
more rigorous, effective and ethical (established but incomplete). Further study of the diverse ways
nature’s values are understood can help bring to light new perspectives (e.g., Box 2.5), and highlight
how values are affected by social and power structures (e.g., gender roles, IPLC) {2.2.1; 2.4.2.2;
2.5.1}. First, new research is particularly important to take into account ways of knowing and valuing
that are not necessarily expressed in international academic databases {2.1.2; 2.2.1} to reflect the
interests of the world’s historically disadvantaged peoples {2.4.2}. This also includes coordinating
efforts to link linguistic studies and language revitalization efforts into biodiversity studies and
management plans, as well as into valuation initiatives and decisions across scales {2.2.2}. Second,
policies need more information to predict how values will respond to socio-ecological shifts (e.g.,
natural disasters, climate change, biodiversity loss) {2.5.2}. Third, bridging or balancing multiple life
frames and forming shared values require new resources and capacities to be able to identify and
manage diverse conceptualizations of nature, such as the ability to navigate between disciplines,
worldviews, cultures, knowledge systems and languages {2.2.1; 2.2.2; 2.3.2}. In particular, there are
opportunities to broaden and diversify the policy application of different values of nature.
Specifically, the relational value concept has been little operationalized in policy {2.1.2; 2.3.1}.
Finally, there is an operational need to identify institutional constraints and catalysts for integrating
diverse understandings of nature (and their associated social groups) into decision-making processes
via transformative policies (e.g., pandemic preparedness, decarbonizing and “greening” economies,
corporate governance, socio-environmental justice, and the use of plural indicators of sustainable
economic and societal goals, among others) {2.4.2; 2.5}.

10
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. Scope of the chapter
There is consensus among IPBES member-states that environmental and development decisions are
not achieving their intended values-related outcomes (IPBES/6/INF/9). This ‘values crisis’ relates
directly to humanity’s multiple socio-environmental crises, including the loss of biological and
cultural diversity, the risks associated with climate change, the emergence of pandemic diseases and
obstacles for achieving equitable, just and sustainable lifestyles (IPBES, 2019c; MEA, 2005; Pörtner
et al., 2021; United Nations, 2015; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2020). In this context, ‘values’ include life
goals, beliefs and general guiding principles. Values also can reflect judgements or measurements of
the importance of specific things in particular situations and contexts. When considering the values
of nature, one can refer to nature itself, nature’s contributions to people or the ways people express
the value of life-supporting processes, functions and systems –interrelating biophysical, spiritual or
symbolic aspects. Chapter 2 focuses on these diverse conceptualizations of nature’s values, given that
they emerge from the different ways people understand, interpret and experience human-nature
relationships.
Despite nature’s diverse values, predominant environmental and development paradigms have
prioritized a subset of ecological measures (e.g., genetic diversity, endemic species richness) and
economic growth indicators (e.g., Gross Domestic Product) (Dasgupta, 2021; Menton et al., 2020;
Otero et al., 2020). Global reviews demonstrate that international biodiversity policies and databases
lack a ‘diversity of values’ approach (Zisenis, 2009); most databases developed specifically to
implement ecosystem services policies focus on economic indicators (Schmidt & Seppelt, 2018).
Similarly, a review conducted for this chapter of national biodiversity strategies & action plans
(NBSAPs)
3
found that in both the Global North and South, national biodiversity strategies & action
plans apply the Convention for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) expansive understanding of nature’s
values in overall objectives, but continue to emphasize anthropocentric framings and biophysical and
economic indicators in their implementation activities (see Annex 2.2). Indeed, national biodiversity
strategies & action plans are mostly about vision and planning, and none of those reviewed explicitly
detailed how to treat diverse values in policy tools. Nonetheless, there are examples of socio-cultural
indicators (e.g., environmental awareness) and indigenous and local knowledge integration (e.g.,
inclusion of historically disadvantaged stakeholders) in these documents, as well as recognition of
intrinsic values and ecocentric worldviews.
This chapter aims to support improvements in decisions and policymaking by characterizing and
assessing different conceptualisations of the diverse values of nature, including human-nature
relationships, from different academic and socio-cultural traditions and perspectives
(IPBES/6/INF/9). The chapter is guided by five questions that structure its sections:
• 2.2: How may nature’s diverse values be conceived and categorized?
• 2.3: What frameworks help organize and communicate value systems?
• 2.4: What factors affect value expressions in individual actions and collective
decisions?
• 2.5: How can value formation and change be understood as dynamic processes?
• 2.6: What do this chapter’s findings offer to the IPBES, policy and this assessment
on values?
3
Analysis of national and international policy documents related to biodiversity and sustainability
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399907).

11
2.1.2. Characterizing different conceptualizations of nature’s diverse values
The recognition of nature’s diverse values is not new (Adams, 1940; Craig et al., 2019) (see 1.1.2).
Environmental research and policy communities have worked for several decades to operationalise
the ecosystem services concept and methodology to help quantify how nature positively and
negatively affects humans (e.g., ecosystem services and disservices) (Campagne et al., 2018; Gómez-
Baggethun et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010a; Vaz et al., 2017). During the 2000s, the millennium ecosystem
assessment (MEA, 2005) consolidated and globalized this approach. The United Nations-led report
conceived ecosystems as natural capital with benefits (and costs) for human societies insufficiently
reflected in market transactions and public payments. As such, nature’s instrumental and intrinsic
values (see 2.2.3) were highlighted, which allowed ecological and economic research to better inform
the biodiversity and sustainability science-policy interface (e.g., FAO, 2020; Foundation for
Sustainable Development, 2021; Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, 2020).
However, the ecosystem services framework is also critiqued from multiple perspectives; IPBES
assessments, therefore, use the broader notion of nature’s contributions for people (which considers
ecosystem services but also other ways to frame human-nature relations) to bridge these multiple
considerations (e.g., IPBES, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d, 2019). For example, when represented as
benefits using stock and flow models, ecosystem services may not capture the complexity and
uncertainty of ecological systems (Norgaard, 2010). They also may overlook indigenous and local
knowledge perspectives that present more embodied and relational understandings of human-nature
connections (Díaz et al., 2018a; Raymond et al., 2013). Furthermore, the ecosystem services
approach risks giving insufficient attention to ethics of care, reciprocity and responsibility, grounded
in the relationships between people and nature (Chan et al., 2016). At the same time, the ecosystem
services framework has multiple strengths; it can enhance communication, promote understanding of
human-nature relationships and support coordinated actions (Jax et al., 2018). However, seeking to
mainstream concepts like ecosystem services requires a commitment to considering diverse socio-
ecological contexts and place-based biocultural interactions, more diverse values like justice, as well
multiple paths and methodologies for tackling the complexities of environmental problems across
varying contexts (Jax et al., 2018).
Given the diverse ways of understanding nature’s values, Chapter 2 conducted a scoping review of
40,133 academic documents
4
published since the millennium ecosystem assessment (MEA, 2005).
While ecosystem services predominate in academic articles (see 2.3.1), research on nature’s diverse
values has increased across a range of topics (see Figure 2.3A). Most studies address biophysical
themes, but the greatest increases were registered for economic and indigenous and local knowledge
topics. These studies are mostly published in life and physical sciences journals, but a substantial
proportion is found in interdisciplinary fora (see Figure 2.3B). Studies about socio-cultural topics
were the second-most numerous, published largely in social science journals and less so in
interdisciplinary outlets. While ecosystem service reviews tend to criticize a bias towards economic
values of nature (Schröter et al., 2014) a more expansive set of search terms demonstrate the diverse
conceptualisations of nature and its values across different academic traditions. However, such more
expansive notions have had less prominence in environmental policy discourse
5
.
4
Literature review on multiple values concepts in academic literature (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396319).
5
Literature review on multiple values concepts in academic literature (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396319).

12
Figure 2.3. Review of the diverse values of nature. Chapter 2’s Stage III literature
review
6
identified 40,133 abstracts in Scopus about nature’s diverse values. Data are
presented as each analytic category’s relative frequency (%) in the entire database. (A)
An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm produced 60 categories that were manually
classified by the predominant research topics for each, resulting in 46 assessment-
relevant categories (30 biophysical, 3 economic, 6 socio-cultural, 1 ILK, and 6 'other'
that did not fit one single type of topic). (B) Journal disciplinary domain was based on
self-identified categories in Scopus: life, physical, health, social sciences or an
interdisciplinary combination. NA are journals that did not self-report a discipline.
The academic traditions are different ways of characterizing nature and its values and put emphasis
on particular dimensions of nature and human-nature relationships:
6
Literature review on multiple values concepts in academic literature (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396319).

13
• Biophysical studies mostly conceive nature’s values as stocks and flows of materials,
organisms or energy (see 2.2.4). For example, ecology investigates nature’s components
(e.g., species diversity, carbon standing stocks) and processes (e.g., hydrological cycles,
state-and-transition models) (Barton & Harrison, 2017). Foundational to ecosystem
services, this domain quantifies nature´s contributions to people from life-support
processes, including biogeochemical cycles and pollination, which underlie many material
and regulating nature´s contributions to people (Ehrlich & Mooney, 1983; Seppelt et al.,
2011).
• Economic approaches typically characterize nature’s values through individual
preferences under a utilitarian framing (e.g., willingness-to-pay) (see 2.2.4) and have been
developed for making ecosystem services trade-offs and measuring relationships to well-
being in economic terms (TEEB, 2010a). This domain provides various policy-relevant
distinctions like use and non-use values (e.g., bequest values) and has been successfully
applied to some policy instruments (e.g., environmental taxes, payments for ecosystem
services (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010) (see 2.2.3).
• Socio-cultural studies, including a broad suite of social sciences (e.g., sociology,
anthropology, political sciences) and the humanities (e.g., philosophy, history, literature)
often consider non-material nature´s contributions to people. Research has focused on
cultural ecosystem services like recreation and tourism (Plieninger et al., 2013; Scholte
et al., 2015), and studies increasingly address broad values like care, reciprocity and
responsibility (see 2.2.3.1). Understandings of value vary across research paradigms,
including social constructionism and social phenomenology. Each paradigm is guided by
different theories of value and behaviour, including those that seek to understand the
value-basis of environmental beliefs and behaviour or those that seek to understand values
as practices (see 2.2.1).
• Health is a multidisciplinary field of study, incorporating elements from biophysical (e.g.,
disease transmission), economic (e.g., disease costs due to lost productivity) and socio-
cultural (e.g., relationships between gender and disease) domains. For example, the ‘one
health’ concept spans medicine, psychology, epidemiology, economics, veterinary
sciences and ecology (Hasler et al., 2014). The linkages between environmental and
human health include physical, mental, spiritual and social benefits that can be accounted
for in the design and implementation of policies, particularly in urban areas (Hartig et al.,
2014; Tillmann et al., 2018).
• Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) studies consider nature’s values being context-
specific or place-based, rather than generalized understandings of ‘humans’ or dominant
socio-demographic groups. This domain recognizes indigenous peoples and local
communities (IPLCs) not only as ‘subjects’ of research, but also agents who produce and
validate their own knowledge(s) (Smith, 2012)
7
.
The IPBES conceptual framework recognizes that the values of nature are conceived and justified
based on multiple cultural and academic traditions (Díaz et al., 2015; IPBES-2/4). Each knowledge
tradition highlighted above gives particular concepts and analytic depth appropriate for different
situations (Díaz et al., 2018a; Pascual et al., 2017). This chapter provides guidance on how to use
different approaches to characterize nature’s diverse values, which arise from the different lenses
through which people interpret and experience human-nature relationships (i.e., worldviews). As a
result, diverse values have different meanings across knowledge systems, cultures, languages and
socio-ecological contexts (see 2.2.1, 2.2.3). Often, this diversity cannot be reduced to unidimensional
conceptualisations, but rather needs to be considered through multiple layers, such as nature’s ethical
and cultural importance. In this chapter, the reader will find typologies and frameworks to identify
and organize the diversity of values, showing areas of convergence and overlap, fuzzy conceptual
7
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).

14
boundaries and points of difference. These characterizations are grounded in the ‘relational turn’ in
environmental policy and decision-making, which recognises not only the instrumental and intrinsic
values of nature, but also principles embodied in relationships between humans and the other-than-
human world (Chan et al., 2012; Hart, 2010; Raymond et al., 2013; 2017b; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2020).
2.1.3. Assessing different conceptualizations of the values of nature
Scoping, critical and systematic review methods were used to identify, screen, select and evaluate
literature (Grant & Booth, 2009; Moher et al., 2009; Pham et al., 2014). To confront the regional-
biases in evidence, publications in languages other than English were sought. A three-staged approach
was used to obtain information (see data management reports for methodologies).
• Stage I consisted of a systematic literature evaluation of review articles about nature’s
values indexed in Scopus from 2005 to present
8
. Initial relevance screening determined
713 publications to evaluate. Delimiting this time period allowed quantification of
publication trends since the millennium ecosystem assessment (MEA, 2005), given its
pivotal academic and political role in consolidating the ecosystem services paradigm
(Larigauderie & Mooney, 2010).
• Stage II protocols incorporated earlier publications and seminal sources cited in Stage I
9
(snow-ball technique). New searches included: (i) disciplines and approaches that are
underrepresented in global databases (e.g., humanities) (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016); (ii)
individual keyword searches for specific topics (e.g., intrinsic, instrumental, relational
values; worldviews; behaviour theories; human-nature relationship frameworks; different
types of decision-making; fisheries at the global scale)
1011
,
12
,
13
,
14
; (iii) policy documents
from national biodiversity strategies & action plans and other major biodiversity reports
15
(see Annex 2.2); (iv) indigenous and local knowledge sources, obtained from academic
literature reviews and a call-for-contributions directed mainly to IPLCs and indigenous
scholars from around the world (which was used both for the values and the sustainable
use of wild species IPBES assessments)
16
,
17
,
18
and (v) contributions from values
assessment experts and contributing authors
19
.
• Stage III identified 148,082 publications by applying Stage I’s search string and date
range, but without filtering results for review articles and including agricultural studies.
Given the database’s size, abstracts were analysed with an artificial intelligence algorithm
that created 60 research topic categories. Manually coding these produced a final total of
43 categories with 40,133 abstracts
20
.
• Case studies and examples were chosen for illustrative purposes. While there are infinite
possible cases, those selected represent core concepts, span geographic regions and
address common themes. These include an assessment-wide case study on ILK-based
8
Systematic review on the conceptualizations of values (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4071755).
9
Systematic review on the conceptualizations of values (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4071755).
10
Systematic review of value types (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396289)
11
Literature review on the diverse perspectives on fisheries at the global scale (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399386).
12
Literature review on value articulating institutions (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399373).
13
Behaviour theories literature review (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399396).
14
Literature review regarding values, valuation and decision-making (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396349).
15
Analysis of national and international policy documents related to biodiversity and sustainability
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399907).
16
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).
17
Call for contributions on indigenous and local knowledge (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4390417).
18
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278)
19
Analysis on contributions on interconnections between languages, biodiversity and values
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399917).
20
Literature review on multiple values concepts in academic literature (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396319).

15
socio-political processes related to Philosophies of good living found worldwide (see Box
2.4; see 1.4.2) and three chapter-wide case studies on (a) local knowledge and coastal
fisheries management in the UK (see Box 2.8; Annex 2.4), (b) worldviews that affect land-
use decisions about mining in India (see Box 2.12; Annex 2.5) and (c) values-articulating
institutions and watershed management in the United States of America (see Box 2.10;
Annex 2.6).
Combining these strategies, this chapter builds upon previous scholarship and governance practices,
particularly the ecosystem services research-policy tradition (TEEB, 2010a), other global
assessments (IPBES, 2019c; MEA, 2005) and relevant policy documents (e.g., national biodiversity
strategies & action plans, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the draft of the targets of
the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021; United
Nations, 2015)). Using these data, the chapter’s sections (see Figure 2.4) assess different
conceptualizations of the values of nature across academic, policy and sociocultural contexts to better
recognize, communicate and incorporate diverse values in decision-making (see 2.1). A typology was
developed to introduce core concepts, including worldviews, broad values, specific values and value
indicators (see 2.2). To organize this complexity, four life frames are presented to illustrate how
particular human-nature relationships prioritize certain sets of values (see 2.3). Since multiple factors
condition value expression in individual and collective decisions and actions, detailed attention was
given to how values are embedded in the norms and legal rules that constitute social, political and
economic processes and contexts (see 2.4). Moreover, values formation and change can be understood
as a dynamic process, for which information was combined to understand these individual, social and
socio-ecological processes (see 2.5). Finally, the chapter’s findings are used to inform broader IPBES
efforts and their relevance for plural-value policies (see 2.6). The chapter’s annexes present additional
information, evidence, examples and contextualization for the diverse concepts and policy-
implications addressed in the main text.
Figure 2.4. Road map to Chapter 2. The sections of the ensuing chapter answer
specific questions and develop key concepts that enable decision-makers to more
rigorously, effectively and ethically engage nature’s diverse values in policy.

16
2.2. Towards a more inclusive understanding of the diverse
values of nature
This section explores how interacting value concepts and dimensions, categorized as worldviews,
broad values, specific values, preferences and indicators, help interpret different ways of
understanding what humans consider ‘good’ and ‘important’ in their experiences and
interconnections with nature (Box 2.1). The values typology covers the following core concepts:
• Worldviews embody different knowledge systems, languages and perspectives about
human-nature relationships (see 2.2.1). They have a critical role in shaping how values
are constructed, expressed and assessed in science and society (see 2.2.2) (Boxes 2.2, 2.3).
Worldviews also respond to changing lifestyles and the displacement or loss of local
languages as evidenced by a significant reduction in ecoliteracy globally (see 2.2.2) (Box
2.3).
• Different broad and specific values can co-exist (see 2.2.3, 2.2.4). Considering this
diversity of values can help build mutual understanding of environmental challenges;
make otherwise neglected, intangible costs and benefits more visible; facilitate a more
robust, inclusive and just articulation of values; and increase the socio-environmental
acceptability and adoption of policy interventions.
• Values can be assessed using various indicators or preferences (see 2.2.4). How
biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural indicators are assessed, combined or compared
influences whose voices are heard in development and environmental decision-making.
• Life frames of nature’s values (e.g., living from, living with, living in and living as nature)
provide a way of organizing and communicating the complexity of values and values
concepts (see 2.3). Each life frame is associated with different understandings of human-
nature relationships that often overlap and can express different sustainability-aligned
values.

17
Box 2.1. Concepts used in Chapter 2 to understand nature’s diverse values.
Figure 2.5. Value concepts developed in Chapter 2. Worldviews, broad values, specific
values, preferences and indicators relating to nature, nature’s contributions to people and
good quality of life can be depicted like the overlapping layers of an onion. Perspectives on
how to organize these values, illustrated here by spotlights, are partially determined by
one’s life frames of nature, or the ways of being/living in the world that prioritize particular
sets of values in specific valuation contexts.
Worldviews are like lenses through which individuals and social groups perceive, think about, interpret,
inhabit and modify the world. Rooted in cultural traditions and languages, they help to shape people's broad
and specific values (see 2.2.1, 2.2.3). They also guide perspectives on our conceptualization of and
relationship with nature, based on underlying value systems - a set of ethical principles and beliefs that drive
or guide individual and/or social behaviour (see 2.2.1).
Knowledge systems are cumulative bodies of knowledge, practices and beliefs, evolving and governed by
adaptive processes and handed down and across generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship
of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment.
Broad values are ‘life goals’ and ‘guiding principles’ informed by one’s worldview and general beliefs,
including what constitutes desirable human-nature relationships for a good quality of life (e.g., the desire
for sustainability and justice). Broad values span particular contexts, but originate in and arise from specific
cultural settings, languages and places that affect individuals and collectives (see 2.2.3). Often embedded in
a society’s institutions (i.e., norms, rules), these values tend to be relatively stable (see 2.5).
Specific values are ‘opinions’ or ‘judgements’ regarding the importance of things or situations expressed
in particular contexts (e.g., components of nature, human-nature relationships, aspects of well-being).
Specific values are justified as instrumental, intrinsic and relational (see 2.2.3, 2.2.4). They can be activated,
formed and changed via individual, social and socio-ecological processes.
Indicators are the ‘quantitative measures’ (e.g., money, hectares) and ‘qualitative descriptors’ (e.g.,
expressions, arguments, stories) of specific values. Value indicators are associated with valuation methods

18
and can include preference-based indicators (e.g., willingness-to-pay). Three categories are used in this
chapter: biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural. Health indicators were treated as part of biophysical,
economic or socio-cultural categories, while ILK-holistic indicators are part of the socio-cultural category
(see 2.2.4).
Preferences denote ‘stated’ or ‘revealed choices’ of one or more alternatives over others and can be
expressed in economic or sociocultural terms. Despite being considered synonyms for value in some
disciplines (e.g., economics), preferences can be understood as rankings of possible outcomes in terms of
their specific value to people (e.g., preferences related to health and good quality of life) (see 2.2.4).
Life frames of nature’s values illustrate the ways that people conceptualise, or frame, how nature matters.
The four archetypes of living from, living in, living with and living as nature are not mutually exclusive.
They offer a range of sources-of-concern for nature that can overlap or be emphasized in diverse contexts
(see 2.3.2). Life frames are similar to value systems in that they inform the order and priority that an
individual or group assigns to specific values in context.
2.2.1. Worldviews, knowledge systems and values of nature
Worldviews are forged through the dynamic interplay between individuals, social groups, and place
in both biophysical and built environments, beginning in early childhood and being configured by
situations encountered and roles enacted throughout one’s life. Multiple factors shape worldviews,
including knowledge systems, languages (see 2.2.2), and religion (see Box 2.2) (Koltko-Rivera,
2004). Worldviews can also be influenced by cultural encounters, such as through human
displacement and migrations. They are expressed through social organization and governance
structures, including norms, laws, and management systems (Gratani et al., 2016; Nemogá, 2019;
Vatn, 2015) (see 2.4). For example, the international conservation framework is dominated by
worldviews that originated in Western societies, which often have a dualistic perspective of humans
and nature, resulting in protected areas as a form of biodiversity management (Bartel et al., 2020;
Köhler et al., 2019).
The diversity of worldviews challenges decision-making processes, which often encounter opposing
or conflicting perspectives across different social actors connected to socio-environmental problems
like urban transportation, watershed protection or mining (Chuang et al., 2020). Power structures
mediate the social dynamics of groups within worldviews, determining which worldviews are most
represented in decision-making (see 2.4.2.3). For example, indigenous worldviews are often excluded
from conceptualizations of development, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
which can lead to feelings of injustice or irrelevance among indigenous peoples (van Norren, 2020).
Worldviews are foremost a cultural product, while there are also individual variations. For instance,
a farmer may see land mainly as a productive input to crop production, while a neighbour may have
a stronger symbolic connection to the land based on a long-term relationship with that specific place.
These two individuals may belong to the same culture but hold distinct worldviews and values with
regard to farming, which has implications for their decisions and actions.
Worldviews encompass and inform broad values (see 2.2.3). Broad values influence how different
specific values of nature (see 2.2.4) are expressed and prioritized, thereby structuring human-nature
interactions and influencing biodiversity outcomes. For example, certain indigenous and local food
systems are strongly rooted in gender roles and built on the broad value of reciprocity, which could
encourage sustainable production systems elsewhere (Huambachano, 2018; Mizuta & Vlachopoulou,
2017). Indeed, this link between worldviews and actions was supported by a global study from 24
different countries that found people who had worldviews with pro-environmental values were more
likely to endorse actions for mitigating global warming (Broomell et al., 2015).

19
The literature on nature’s values categorises worldviews in multiple ways. However, anthropocentric
and bio- and eco-centric are most prevalent in both academic literature and policy documents (see
Annex 2.2). While these worldviews have distinctive value orientations, there is a considerable
amount of variation and overlap within and among them (see Figure 2.6).
• Anthropocentric worldviews prioritize humans, ranging from a narrow/strong human
emphasis to weak/relational perspectives that do not deny non-human others (Hargrove,
1992; Norton, 1984). Strong/narrow anthropocentrism refers to human prioritization
or superiority over other species. Under this worldview, humans are valued above nature
(e.g., justifying the use of pesticides to increase crop yield despite costs to other species)
(Deb et al., 2010). Strong/narrow anthropocentrism is primarily associated with
instrumental values. Weak/relational anthropocentrism refers to human values, but also
recognises human dependence upon essential relationships to nature and other-than-
human beings (Bannon, 2014; Plumwood, 1993). Weak/relational anthropocentrism is
associated with both instrumental and relational values.
• Bio- and eco-centric worldviews emphasize nature’s inherent or intrinsic value, in terms
of individuals (e.g., each organism or species) and collectives (e.g., ecosystems). These
worldviews consider living beings and the interdependent web-of-life as worthy of respect
and important in decision-making (Callicott, 1989; Taylor et al., 2020).
• Pluricentric worldviews, reflecting an emerging conception that aligns with relational
values, focus on relationships between humans and other-than-human beings, as well as
nature’s elements and systemic processes, conceived as reciprocal, interdependent,
intertwined and embedded (Gould et al., 2019; Matthews, 1994; Saxena et al., 2018).
Further, what are sometimes termed cosmocentric worldviews share the relational
qualities of both biocentric and pluricentric worldviews, but emphasise the separate roles
that objects, humans, animals, land, water, and everything else plays in maintaining its
place and the world itself (Lucero, 2018).
In three literature reviews of worldviews, anthropocentric worldviews were most represented in the
values types review
21
and ILK review
22
, whereas pluricentric worldviews were most represented in
the Philosophies of good living review
23
(see Figure 2.7). Instrumental values were most closely
associated with strong anthropocentrism, while instrumental and relational values were most
associated with weak anthropocentrism. Intrinsic values were associated with bio- and ecocentric
worldviews, and relational values were most associated with pluricentric worldviews. These results
are based on reviewed literature and do not necessarily reflect the global real-world prevalence of
worldviews, as the academic literature can have several biases towards certain types of knowledges
and languages that underlie worldviews (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016).
21
Systematic review of value types (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396289).
22
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).
23
Literature review for the philosophies of good living (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544)

20
Figure 2.6. Worldviews and values. Worldviews act as lenses through which humans
perceive, conceive, inhabit and shape the natural world. Based on the literature,
human-nature worldviews can be organized in three main types: anthropocentric
worldviews (humans at the center); bio- or ecocentric worldviews (animals, plants and
other beings, ecosystems and ecological processes at the center); and pluricentric
worldviews (no center, the main focus is on relationships among human and non-
human beings, elements and processes). These worldviews can overlap and may also
be connected to broad and specific values of nature, driving human behaviour and
policy-making (see 2.2.3).
Figure 2.7. Worldviews detected in three literature reviews, referred to as value types,
ILK and Philosophies of good living. The columns are reported as relative frequency
(%) of each worldview type as a function of the total number of papers (n) for each
literature review.

21
Knowledge systems, including academic ones, are context-specific, culturally embedded, differ
intergenerationally, and are based on lived experiences. Attempts to make them universally applicable
beyond these contexts can lead to power hierarchies that privilege dominant groups or delegitimize
those less powerful (Saxena et al., 2018). Knowledge systems can also vary based on different lived
experiences and societal roles. For example, gender can affect knowledge and values through specific
interactions with the environment, which has been well established by our literature review
24
,
25
,
26
,
where 32/35 papers establish gender differences in values, attitudes, or ecological knowledge such as
that about wild plants, fish, amphibians, and agro-ecological food systems and markets.
Regarding values, an important difference among knowledge systems is whether values are seen as:
(i) distinguishable, persistent, self-existent mental constructs (as is common in economics and social
psychology) or (ii) dynamically constructed in-context (as is common in humanities, qualitative
social sciences, and indigenous peoples and local communities) (Kenter et al., 2019). Results of
survey research conducted among experts of this assessment revealed clusters with divergent views,
regarding knowledge validation and confirmation (Hakkarainen et al., 2020), which has different
implications for implementing diverse value assessments (see Annex 2.7).
The spectrum of worldviews, knowledges and values of nature represented in humanity is
multifaceted, overlapping and dynamic. Although, as noted, the academic literature reflects a
particular polarization between those values held by certain groups, such as indigenous peoples and
local communities, Eastern and Western knowledge, science and society; however, there may be
considerable overlap between these groups’ broad and specific values, which could be explored in
more depth in research and policy. Also, due to language and power barriers, philosophy and
philosophers from IPLC and the East are less widely read and cited (Ali, 2020). Taking knowledge
as one of humanity’s shared resources that does not know national, cultural and social boundaries,
there is an obvious intersection and communication of philosophical thoughts of diverse ethnicities
across the East and West (Ali, 2020). For example, emerging social norms, collectives and
movements around mindfulness (see example below), urban nature (e.g., cultivating gardens to attract
pollinators, recycling organic waste and planting food in cities) and climate change (e.g., the youth-
led movement Fridays for the Future). Each of these initiatives may nurture and share relational
values of reciprocity, care, responsibility and interconnectedness with nature (among others) within
and across various societal groups, independently of how/if they can be categorized as Eastern,
Western or IPLC. Convergences of worldviews and values across different groups, including
religions, can be catalysed through decision and policymaking to promote biodiversity conservation,
sustainability-aligned values or pro-environmental behaviour (Taylor et al., 2020) (see 2.2.3; 2.3.1;
2.5.2).
Dialogue and convergences across ILK worldviews and other knowledge systems can emphasize
overlapping themes, with special attention to how certain indigenous traditions may open different
perspectives on how diverse beings relate to one another (Whyte, 2020). Whether the beings are
understood as humans, ecological flows, fish, forests, societies, rivers, plants, whales or spirits, the
moral bond of responsibility with these beings can also unite justice and sustainability and guide
humans toward policy-options that can lead to futures where biodiversity engenders mutual well-
being across all beings (see Annex 2.17). Similarly, the Buddhist concept of mindfulness entails
intentional, non-judgmental attentiveness to the present (Wamsler, 2018) and has been adopted by
the wellness industry in western cultures as a way to live in nature (Frank et al., 2020). More broadly,
mindfulness practices in psychology, medicine, businesses and sports have been shown to contribute
to human functioning, raising awareness, emotional intelligence, and other cognitive-emotional
functions (Frank et al., 2020; Hayes et al., 2006; Niemiec, 2014), and also have the potential to
24
Systematic review of value types (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396289).
25
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).
26
Literature review for the philosophies of good living (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544)

22
support sustainability-aligned values (Fischer et al., 2017; Raymond & Raymond, 2019; Wamsler,
2018).
As an institution (i.e., a set of conventions and norms), religion also illustrates feedbacks shaping
contrasting worldviews that may either hinder or promote biodiversity conservation (see Box 2.2).
Like institutions, languages are among the factors that shape worldviews. Concepts used to refer to
human-nature relationships are expressed in languages and are often connected to the contexts and
places where these relationships take place across different human cultures. In the next section, we
discuss the connections between languages, values and biodiversity.
Box 2.2. Worldviews, religion and values
Religions are important institutions (conventions and norms) that shape and are shaped by worldviews (see
Annex 2.3). Worldviews typically include stories from science, religion or a fusion of both about how the
world came to be. Worldviews also include broad values as normative statements about what conditions and
goals are good or bad, what actions are right and wrong, and what means are permissible when pursuing
good ends or preventing bad outcomes.
Researchers increasingly maintain that religious beliefs evolve, along with emotional traits and aesthetic
sensibilities, including perceptions that nature is beautiful. These scholars argue that such characteristics
co-evolve with values and practices and are passed to future generations because they promote healthy and
resilient human-nature connections (Rappaport, 1979; Wilson, 2002). Religions can also directly promote
environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation. There is evidence, for example, that indigenous
traditions are more likely than the world’s predominant religions to express kinship with non-human
organisms and have values that promote biodiversity conservation (Berkes, 1999; Nelson & Shilling, 2018;
Taylor et al., 2016; Wilson, 2002). Meanwhile, many religious and non-religious people have developed
deep feelings of belonging to nature and inter-species kinship. Among the non-religious, such values and
perspectives may be gained through personal human-nature experiences or through the evolutionary
sciences, which demonstrate that all species are genetically related (van Horn et al., 2021).
However, research also shows that religious worldviews may often hinder societies’ ability to live
sustainably within the ecosystems they emerged from and depend upon (Taylor et al., 2016). Beliefs that
deities or divine forces control environmental systems, for example, can occlude interest in and
understanding about how such systems work. Moreover, many religions are anthropocentric, viewing
humans as morally and even spiritually superior to other species, which hinders concern for biodiversity
conservation, in part because their priority is on meeting the spiritual needs of human beings (Taylor et al.,
2016).
In contrast, there is potentially significant convergence among people and religions toward perceptions that
life on Earth is sacred and worthy of reverent care. Such views are being expressed and promoted in a host
of ways, through religious education, ceremonies and projects, as well as through the arts and sciences
(Sponsel, 2012; Taylor, 2010, 2021). The convergence toward pro-environmental worldviews via religious
institutions has potential to contribute to mitigating anthropogenic extinctions and addressing the climate
crisis.
2.2.2. Languages, values and biodiversity
Worldviews and values may be expressed through actions, attitudes and practices, as well as through
languages in sign, oral and written forms. Worldwide, languages capture, maintain, transmit and
convey values, knowledge and practices that support biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
connected to specific places and territories, species, ecosystems and landscapes (Frainer et al., 2020;
Inglis & Pascual, 2021; UNESCO & CBD, 2010). Linguistic diversity may be used as a proxy for
both cultural and values diversity (Reiter, 2018). Previous IPBES assessments (IPBES, 2018a, 2019a)
highlighted the co-occurrence of biodiversity and linguistic diversity in the world’s biocultural
regions (see Figure 2.8). Furthermore, biodiversity and human languages both face critical and

23
interlinked crises. It is estimated that around 40% of the world’s approximately 7,139 “living
languages” are extinct or endangered, and about half of the languages currently spoken will likely
disappear by the end of this century (Eberhard et al., 2021; Harrison, 2007).
Figure 2.8. Linguistic diversity and case studies within the chapter. The map from the
IPBES land degradation assessment (IPBES, 2018a) shows the global overlap
between linguistic diversity (number of spoken languages) and biodiversity (number
of mammal and bird species). The sites marked with yellow dots represent the places
where linguists, language specialists and ILK holders who contributed reviews,
focused their case studies for this chapter (see Annex 2.8).
With every disappearing language, we also lose values, ideas, concepts, ways of knowing and talking
about the world, leaving the world poorer and humanity more vulnerable to coping with uncertainty
and adapting to socio-environmental change (Frainer et al., 2020; Harmon, 2002; Harrison, 2007;
Maffi, 2002; Moseley, 2010). Importantly, this dual diversity crisis has reciprocal effects between
humans and nature, since cultural change (including language erosion or loss) can be thought of as a
form of co-evolution between cultural information and the socio-ecological environment in which
people live (Smith, 2001) (see Box 2.3). For example, in France and Spain’s Basque-speaking region,
local relationships with mountain forests were conveyed through the significance of relational values
as expressed in Euskara (Basque language) to highlight the connection between cultural identity and
place attachment (Inglis & Pascual, 2021). These findings have important implications for integrating
environmental and language policy in Spain, in connection with local values maintained by and
transmitted through the Basque language.

24
In the academic literature, more attention has been paid to the interconnections between biological,
cultural and linguistic diversity, reflected in the concept of biocultural diversity (Frainer et al., 2020;
Gorenflo et al., 2012; Maffi, 2005); than to the role of languages in shaping values of nature (Inglis
and Pascual 2021). Knowledge gaps exist regarding the connections between human languages,
values of nature and biodiversity conservation
27
,
2829
(see 2.6). Only 12.6% (19 of 150) of ILK-focused
reviewed articles directly address language as an important vehicle to teach, transmit and maintain
values associated with nature. Aiming to shed light on the specific connections between languages
and values, contributing authors from around the world were engaged to conduct complementary
reviews and indigenous peoples and local communities were consulted to provide their own sources.
These efforts resulted in policy-relevant insights on the intersections between languages, biodiversity,
and values of nature, summarized in Figure 2.9; Table 2.2; and Annexes 2.9 and 2.10.
Figure 2.9. Insights on the complex interconnections between languages, biodiversity
and values of nature. These exploratory categories emerged from literature reviews
and contributing authors. The waves represent fluid, overlapping and dynamic
relationships between these different topics.
• Languages can store and transmit broad values, social norms and/or ethical principles.
Broad values, including beliefs, taboos, and ethical principles, are found in words and
concepts that are elicited and transmitted across generations through oral and written
linguistic expressions, such as myths, stories, folktales, proverbs and sayings. Some
examples of these guiding principles are found among many indigenous groups around
the world, including the Anishinaabek, Hawai'ian groups, Maya, Quechua, Aymara,
Kichwa, Maori, Yawuru, Bemba, Mbyá guarani, Inuit, and Haudenosaunee. Among the
Anishinaabek in the United States of America, the value of ‘respect for the spirit in all
things is rooted in indigenous legal orders’, and is denoted by the expression mino-
mnaamodzawin (McGregor, 2018).
27
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).
28
Literature review for the philosophies of good living (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544).
29
Analysis on contributions on interconnections between languages, biodiversity and values
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399917)

25
• Languages can express specific values of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people. Languages are inseparable parts of people’s identities and values connected to
other than human beings, places, rivers, mountains, territories, sacred sites and landscapes.
The idea that all life or creation is interconnected and interdependent, existing as kin, was
present in 29.4% of articles (10/34 articles) analysed for the Philosophies of good living
literature review. It includes relational values like equity, reciprocity, interdependence and
intergenerational connectedness (Mohatt et al., 2011; Ullrich, 2019), expressed, for
instance, through a Bemba saying in Zambia that “the land is me”, as opposed to “the
land is mine” (Spencer, 2018). For example, the worldview of the Kichwa people from
Sarayaku, Ecuador, reflects reciprocity with and respect for the land and spiritual beings:
Kawsak Sacha is the living forest, a conscious living being who is the subject of rights
and is inhabited by Runayuk, beings that protect ecosystems, animal and plant species
(Pueblo Originario Kichwa de Sarayaku, 2018).
• Languages are also the storage of important knowledge about nature and biodiversity
including instrumental values connected to nature’s contributions to people. This includes
medicinal plants, food, and other biocultural diversity products, as well as the benefits
they provide, tied to specific biocultural contexts. Under this perspective, biocultural
diversity may be considered both a form of value and an approach to valuation, where
value is manifested as a combination of the tangible and intangible aspects of nature
(Bridgewater & Rotherham, 2019; Merçon et al., 2019). Cámara-Leret & Bascompte
(2021) found that most medicinal knowledge is linguistically unique, and that indigenous
languages are singular reservoirs of threatened medicinal knowledge. Among the Aikanã
people of Brazil, the position and social role of individuals in society may be connected
to a highly detailed lexical and medicinal knowledge of plant species (see Annex 2.8).
• Languages can provide an important channel for interaction (mediation) with nature. This
relates to ways of understanding, speaking about, interacting and communicating with
other-than-human beings and nature. It also refers to ecoliteracy, or knowledge about
nature that is not necessarily learned in schools and books, but in close contact and
experience with nature (Harrison, 2007) (see Box 2.3). For example, among the speakers
of the Warumungu language in Australia, habitat-based classification is expressed through
the suffix -warinyi. This designation has implications for interactions and relationships
between humans and other-than-human beings, since, according to this worldview, all
“dwellers” of a particular habitat (e.g., plants, animals, humans, etc.) have equal rights
(see Annex 2.8).
• Languages can convey knowledge and values across cultures and generations. Language
is an important tool for improving intercultural communication, education and
understanding within and across generations. Formal and informal intercultural
educational programs are those that develop people's abilities to think, act, discriminate
and experience cultural differences in appropriate ways (DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008). For
example, in Australia, language teachers are encouraged to design teaching programs that
assess student learning and knowledge development in using language, making linguistic
connections and moving between cultures. These objectives for language programs are to
be assessed at various stages of formal education (Moloney & Harbon, 2010).

26
Table 2.2. Synthesis of information provided by specialists for languages spoken in
ten different places around the world (see Figure 2.9 and Annex 2.8). The information
provided is applicable to most cases. Particularities are noted through the specific
designation of the language and country in which it is spoken.
The rapid loss of languages has impacts on peoples’ ecoliteracy, livelihoods, cultural and territorial
rights, and collective identities (see Box 2.3). National and international policies and legal instruments
have historically approached cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity separately (Frainer et al.,
2020). Enhanced synergies and coordination would help implement national biodiversity plans as
well as international agreements, such as the targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework,
the World Heritage Convention (WHC), the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and others (UNESCO & CBD, 2010). To address the fast-paced
disappearance of human languages and, with them, ways of knowing and valuing the world, IPLC,
governments, and other actors have undertaken actions to revitalise, safeguard, and support minority
languages, from local community-led initiatives to global policies (Pérez Báez et al., 2019; UNESCO,
2021). On February 28, 2020, participants from 50 countries, including government ministers,
indigenous leaders, and other stakeholders and experts, adopted the Los Pinos Declaration, which
establishes a Global Task Force for making 2022-2032 a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages,
placing indigenous peoples at the centre of its recommendations (UNESCO, 2021). Despite these
efforts, there are many challenges, ranging from lack of funding and institutional support to political
discourse and structural discrimination, that thwart local efforts to support living languages (see

27
Bloch & Hirsch, 2017; Dockery & Duncan, 2020; Rousseau & Dargent, 2019). A knowledge and
policy gap persists in coordinating efforts to articulate linguistic studies and language revitalization
efforts into biodiversity studies, inventories, and management plans (Frainer et al., 2020), as well as
into valuation initiatives and decisions across scales (see Box 2.15).
Box 2.3. Ecoliteracy: losing biodiversity means losing ways to value nature
Much of what humanity knows about the natural world lies outside of books, academic knowledge, libraries,
and databases, since it exists in unwritten language in people’s concepts and memories of long-term co-
existence with mountains, rivers, forests, deserts, and other ecosystems (Harrison, 2007). This combined
experiential and academic knowledge is referred to as ecoliteracy. Evidence from the literature30 shows ILK
and ecoliteracy erosion among both IPLC and the broader society (Blanco & Carrière, 2016; Genovart et al.,
2013; Schwann, 2018; Shah & Bhat, 2019; Uchida & Kamura, 2020).
Indeed, ecoliteracy is eroding broadly, including among children in urban places, as people are increasingly
distanced from nature, and biodiversity is being lost at rapid rates (Genovart et al., 2013; IPBES, 2019d;
Marouf et al., 2015; Pilgrim et al., 2009). Drastic changes in lifestyles, often triggered by processes that
result in sedentarisation and urbanisation, involve loss of livelihoods and the displacement of local
languages through substitution by national ones, eroding the conditions for a meaningful usage of
indigenous and non-indigenous languages (Harrison, 2007) (see Table 2.2, Annex 2.8). These erosion
processes take a toll on the transmission and formation of values (see 2.5), including those related to nature.
According to Beery et al. (2015), in less than two generations, people in most industrialised countries have
become increasingly disconnected from a constant experience of non-human nature as a result of
urbanisation, habitat loss, societal change, and lack of economic incentives, due to a drastically reduced
workforce in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other natural resource–based economic activities. One
cannot name and fully know or value what one does not experience: language loss ultimately means the loss
of knowledge and values about nature, which reciprocally sustain biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people around the globe (Frainer et al., 2020; Harrison, 2007; Pérez Báez et al., 2019). Ultimately, this
apparent disconnect and loss of access to nature is having an inter-generational effect on human
understanding, values, attitudes, and actions, facilitating further destruction of humans and nature altogether
(Beery et al., 2015) (see 2.5).
2.2.3. Broad and specific values of nature and nature’s contributions to people
Values are expressed by people, both individually and collectively (see Box 2.9). People conceive
and express the ways they value nature and human-nature relationships differently. Sometimes,
instead of being explicitly articulated, values are embodied in daily life actions, practices, rituals and
choices, or in material culture. They are expressed implicitly (see Annex 2.10). In the following
subsections, different types of environmental values and their relevance for policy are presented (see
Box 2.1).
2.2.3.1. Broad values
Broad values – also called ‘human values’ (Rokeach, 1973), ‘held values’ (Brown, 1984), ‘universal
values’ (Schwartz, 1994), ‘principles’ (IPBES, 2015) or ‘transcendental values’ (Kenter et al., 2015;
UK NEA, 2014) – refer to life goals and general guiding principles and orientations towards the world
that are informed by people’s worldviews (Dietz et al., 2005). Although they originate in and arise
from particular cultural settings, languages, and geographies, broad values go beyond singular
contexts. Broad values include prosperity, freedom, recognition, health, belonging, livelihood,
security, self-realisation, and justice, among others (see Figure 2.10). They influence specific values
and provide them with a general background and meaning. For example, the Oromo of Ethiopia
30
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).

28
adhere to the principle of saffuu, which guides people's lives and impels them to respect and do justice
to one’s own ayyaana (spirit) and that of other beings (Kelbessa, 2005). Because broad values are
less context-specific and can be core components of human identity (Schwartz, 1992), they tend to
be more stable over time (Anderson et al., 2018; Bardi et al., 2009; Piaget, 1952) and to only change
when triggered by challenging events that affect multiple aspects of people’s life, such as natural
disasters, pandemics, or wars (Bardi et al., 2014; Daniel et al., 2012) (see 2.5, see Box 2.14).
Figure 2.10. Values of and about human-nature-relationships – broad values.
Examples of broad values are presented that infuse and influence specific values and
practices about human-nature-relationships. While broad values, such as justice, can
apply to all aspects of life, the figure highlights those that are relevant for human-
nature-relationships.
Broad values can concern both human-human relationships and human-nature relationships. They
play an essential role to justify extending ethical and moral concern to nature and to foster
sustainability-aligned practices and policies. Different disciplines focus on different broad values.
For example, environmental ethics highlights avoidance of suffering (Singer, 1975), freedom to
pursue a life (Regan, 1983), harmony (Leopold, 2013), self-realisation (Naess, 1973), beauty
(Hettinger, 2010), care (Warren, 2000), flourishing (Cuomo, 1998), and respect (Taylor, 1986).
Economics emphasizes enhancing human welfare through efficient resource use (Mankiw & Taylor,
2014), whereas political ecology focuses on socio-environmental justice (Martínez-Alier, 2002).
Research in relational worldviews highlights relational broad values like care, stewardship, identity,
(Jax et al., 2018; Ross et al., 2018; Schröter et al., 2020; West et al., 2018), kinship responsibilities,
and gratitude to other-than-humans (de la Cadena, 2015; Knudtson & Suzuki, 2006).
Broad values are seen as an important foundation to orient environmental action, guide policy, and
motivate stakeholders and citizens towards environmental protection and sustainability (see 2.2.3.3).
For example, the Buen vivir concept and analogous Philosophies of good living and collective well-
being articulate relational worldviews and broad values that are linked with rights-of-nature
discourses and policies (see Box 2.4; Figure 2.10).

29
Box 2.4. Philosophies of good living in policy and practice from around the world.
The Spanish-language notion of Buen vivir (good living in English) is rooted in indigenous Andean
worldviews and languages (Sumak Kawsay in Kichwa, and Suma Qamaña in Aymara) in South America
and conceptualizes a good quality of life through broad values that guide human-human and human-nature
interconnections (Albó, 2018). It proposes alternatives to defining a well-being, based not on a single metric
or at the individual level (Gudynas, 2011), but rather promoting collective good quality of life, where all
life forms are seen as parts of a symbiotic whole (Huambachano, 2018, 2020; Shebell & Moser, 2019).
Despite its origins in South America, analogous concepts and associated values are widespread among IPLC
and other sociocultural groups throughout the world, as revealed from the literature (n=204 academic
articles) and this cross-assessment case-study31.
For example, Mino-bimaatisiwin (living a good life/balanced life) is a basic principle among Anishinaabe
people in North America32, which informs a set of principles and protocols in human actions that are
manifested not only in offerings, reverence, non-greed, and non-waste, but are used to make decisions
affecting community landscapes (Borrows, 2016; LaDuke, 1994). Similarly, in sub-Saharan Africa, the
relational values system of the Ubuntu philosophy focuses on reciprocity, dialogue, and collective humanity,
which are extended to nature and have been applied in development, external relations, educational and
health practices (Chibvongodze, 2016; Eze, 2019; Le Grange, 2012; Lefa, 2015; Qobo & Nyathi, 2016).
Notwithstanding important local specificities (Heikkilä, 2016), throughout the world philosophies of good
living generally promote and embody diverse values and principles existing between humans and between
humans and nature (see Figure 2.11). Many of these values are broad, and include, for instance, reciprocity,
harmony, respect, solidarity, responsibility, place-based identities, kinship with nature, and economic self-
determination (Albó, 2018; Huambachano, 2018; Whyte, 2020). Non-IPLC languages and knowledge
systems from other world regions also include comparable terms, such as the Italian concept for la dolce
vita and the Polish/Russian concept of a good life dobrobyt/ dobrobytach/благосостояние. In Bhutan, the
gross national happiness index is based on a holistic approach to well-being that includes several criteria,
such as psychological well-being, community vitality, environment diversity, and culture, which align with
some of the values shared by other Philosophies of good living (van Norren, 2020).
Philosophies of good living of indigenous peoples and local communities usually contrast with conventional
economic indicators of a good quality of life, since it is not conceived at the individual level (Gudynas,
2011). Rather, it is necessary to consider the community and its relationship with nature, requiring new
platforms for thinking, practicing, and experiencing alternative futures based on biocultural ethics (Nemogá,
2019; see 5.5.4). For example, in New Zealand, Maori relational values of good living were found to guide
instrumental values in decision-making related to business and economic activities (Härtel, 2015). Values
underpinning these philosophies have been implemented in practices and policies from local to global scales
(see 3.2.4), although with various levels of success and criticism (see 4.4). Locally, collective good quality
of life principles have been adopted in territorial management plans, agricultural practices, and customary
laws among indigenous peoples and local communities and other groups across the world (Baniwa, 2019;
Quiceno Toro, 2016). Values associated with the Buen vivir concept have been institutionalised in the
Ecuadorian and Bolivian constitutions and in other national and international policies (Quick & Spartz,
2018), albeit with significant differences from the original indigenous understanding (Cuestas-Caza, 2018;
Valladares Pasquel, 2019; Waldmüller, 2014). These philosophies also have been represented and expressed
in scholarly work, social movements, and intercultural educational policies (Rojas Martínez, 2005; see
5.5.4), and inspired global rights-of-nature policies protecting rivers, forests, and species (Acosta &
Martinez, 2011; Gudynas & Acosta, 2011). Under the aegis of the United Nations, the Harmony with Nature
initiative encapsulates ideas and values in line with those of the Philosophies of Good Living. In 2009, the
UN General Assembly also proclaimed April 22 as ‘International Mother Earth Day’ and adopted its first
resolution on Harmony with Nature. Member states recognized that it is necessary to promote the broad
value of harmony with nature to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environmental needs
of present and future generations.
31
Literature review for the philosophies of good living (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544).
32
The concept of mino-pimatisiwin is also prevalent for the Cree/Inninuwag people.

30
Figure 2.11. Topics and values associated with Philosophies of good living from around
the world. The chart shows the frequency of which these terms occurred in the Philosophies
of good living literature review (n=204 academic articles)33. These terms express values
connected to the concepts of good living, collective well-being or good quality of life rooted
in the worldviews of indigenous peoples, local communities and other social groups.
Sustainability-aligned broad values concerning human-human relationships are key to pathways of
transformation towards more sustainable futures (see Chapter 5), by fostering, for example, a shift
from individualism, materialism, and economic profit to other principles like care, unity, equity,
reciprocity, and justice, which underpin visions of more just and sustainable outcomes (e.g.,
(Ateljevic, 2013; Horlings, 2015; McPhearson et al., 2021; Ripple et al., 2019) (see Box 2.4, see
2.3.2.3, Chapter 5). Justice provides an important example of how a broad value concerning chiefly
human-human relationships illuminates specific values of/about nature and can guide sustainability-
aligned policy and practices. Justice rooted in the idea of “universal respect for human rights and
human dignity” (United Nations, 2015) is widely recognised and operationalised (e.g., in the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights) and mentioned as a central goal in major international
33
Literature review for the philosophies of good living (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544)

31
environmental fora (e.g., the Declaration of the Rio Summit on Sustainable Development in 1992,
the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, see 5.1.2.2) and in ILK literature
34
(see 2.2.1). In
environmental policy documents and scholarly literature, justice as a broad value entails different
dimensions, such as the fair distribution of benefits (including nature’s contributions to people) and
burdens across current living generations (distributional justice) and to future generations
(intergenerational justice and sustainability); the fair inclusion in decision-making processes
(procedural justice); the fair recognition of diverse values, identities, and knowledge in their own
terms (recognition justice) (see Annex 5.4). Justice as a broad value refers also to human-nature
relationships or nature as subject of rights (ecological justice) (Lamberti, 2019; Yaka, 2019).
Justice is relevant to policy and decision-making in various ways (see Annex 5.4). For example, in
the global marine fisheries literature (see Annex 2.11), justice was found to be relevant for both
industrial fishing and small-scale fisheries, but also within and among multiple governance scales:
from households (Fröcklin et al., 2013) to transboundary scales (Hanich et al., 2015). (In)justice is a
cross-cutting issue that affects multiple socio-ecological dimensions and determines power structures
that condition trajectories of resource use and human well-being (see 2.4).
2.2.3.2. Specific values categorized as intrinsic, instrumental and relational values
Specific values are opinions or judgements of the importance of specific things in particular situations
and contexts (e.g., the importance of water quality) or states of affairs (e.g., the importance of enacting
water quality regulations; see Figure 2.12). They have also been referred to as ‘assigned’ (Rokeach,
1973) or ‘contextual’ values (Kenter et al., 2015; UK NEA, 2014), or simply ‘importance’ (IPBES,
2015).
Figure 2.12. General visualization of nature’s multiple specific values. Core
definitions, examples and fuzzy boundaries are displayed for each value type.
34
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).

32
With respect to specific values, a literature review
35
of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values,
the value types that align with the conceptualisation in the IPBES global assessment (IPBES, 2019d;
Pascual et al., 2017) was conducted (see details in Annex 2.10). Before 2016, intrinsic and
instrumental values were the predominant categories in scholarly research. While other categories
exist (see Box 2.5), these value types correspond respectively to the importance of biodiversity for its
own sake, regardless of usefulness to people (Klain et al., 2017; Shanee, 2013), and the importance
of nature as a resource for humans (Raymond et al., 2013; Reyers et al., 2012; van der Ploeg et al.,
2011). Relational values emerged later to address the importance of non-instrumental human-nature
relationships. The definitions below refer to the core meaning identified in the literature review and
their policy relevance (see Table 2.3).
Box 2.5. Life-support values
A gap emerged in the literature review regarding an overlapping dimension of value that spans across the
three predominant specific values categories. This transversal dimension refers to the way people express
the value of life-supporting processes, functions, and systems – interrelating biophysical, spiritual, or
symbolic aspects – and relationships of dependence and interdependence with respect to them. It is largely
described as non-substitutable and foundational for the articulation of other environmental values and can
be linked to specific values associated with the diverse understandings of nature in IPBES-4/1. This
dimension, called here life-support values, is associated with:
• Intrinsic values related to the importance of evolutionary and ecological processes that are
independent of people’s judgments (Hattingh, 2014; IPBES, 2019d; Kahn Jr., 1997; Rolston,
1993; Shanee, 2013), but enable other values to arise (Rolston, 1988);
• Instrumental values related to the importance of supporting ecosystem services (MEA, 2005;
Rolston, 1993), functional values (Lockwood, 1999), indirect use values (Hansjürgens, 2014;
Kumar, 2011), critical natural capital (DesRoches, 2019), and regulating nature’s contributions
to people (Díaz et al., 2015) that stress the indirect function of supporting other ecosystem
services or nature’s contributions to people;
• Relational values referring to the importance of life-supporting processes that give sense to
people’s existence and identity (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Muraca, 2011, 2016; Schröter et al.,
2020).
The latter also includes the spiritual and symbolic meaning of life-giving and life-regenerating processes in
specific contexts (including contextual nature’s contributions to people), as expressed in the Andean
indigenous concept of Pachamama, referring to earth’s generative powers and to the very constitution of
life (Macas, 2010; Pacari, 2009; Silverblatt, 1987; Tola, 2018) or contextual spiritual foundations for the
regeneration of life, practices, and reciprocal relations as in the meaning for the Dongria people of the
Niyamgiri Mountains of India, which “not only provide the people with life and livelihoods, they are also
worshipped as the upholders of the Earth and the laws of the Universe” (Supreme Court of India, 1995 )
(see Box 2.12).
Intrinsic values refer to the value of other-than-human beings expressed independently of any
reference to humans as valuers (Bremer et al., 2018; Christie et al., 2019; Devos et al., 2019;
Hovardas, 2013; Pearson, 2016). This definition includes entities that are worth protecting as ends
in-and-of themselves; it is consistent with biocentric worldviews and with the understanding of values
as existing objectively in nature (Batavia & Nelson, 2017; Himes & Muraca, 2018; Piccolo, 2017;
Regan, 1986; Rolston, 1994; Taylor, 1986; van der Ploeg et al., 2011) (see 2.2.1). Intrinsic values are
considered essential to sustain and trigger people’s motivation for conservation (Batavia & Nelson,
2017; Polasky et al., 2012), in education (Zhang et al., 2013), and to articulate the agency of other-
than-human beings (e.g., Quechua communities in Perú consider Ausangate Mountain as a powerful
earth-being) (de la Cadena, 2010). Appealing to intrinsic values can help legitimise environmental
protections and improve policy success (O’Connor & Kenter, 2019). Despite intrinsic values being
35
Systematic review of value types (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396289).

33
essential to conservation success, they are not always incorporated in environmental management
(Minteer et al., 2004). For example, local fishers in England reported important intrinsic values
connected to marine biodiversity, which have not fully been incorporated in governmental
management plans and policies for marine governance (Anbleyth-Evans & Lacy, 2019) (see Box 2.8).
Intrinsic values can be expressed using biophysical indicators (Pascual et al., 2017), while social
assessment of intrinsic value requires mostly qualitative and participatory methods (O’Connor &
Kenter, 2019) (see Chapter 3).
Instrumental values refer to things and processes that are important as a means to some human end
or to satisfy human preferences (Pascual et al., 2017) and “include economic values, regardless of
whether the entity is directly or indirectly used, or not used” (IPBES, 2019d, p. 30). Nature is
important insofar as it provides (potential) utility to humans (Chan et al., 2016; Eser et al., 2014;
Weston, 1985) and supports human economic well-being and subsistence (Lau et al., 2019; Oba et al.,
2008; Pfund et al., 2011). Instrumental values can help express the importance for IPLC to access
and use nature (e.g., wild food plants or wild animals, Ghorbani et al., 2012), but also the need for
protecting it (e.g., as with the protection of crops from elephants in the Congo Basin, Ngouhouo
Poufoun et al., 2016). Because instrumental values refer to a means-to-an-end, the means might be
substitutable at least in principle, even if not always in practice (Callicott, 2009) (see Box 2.6).
Among specific values, instrumental values are the ones that lend themselves best to different types
of economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis of ecosystem services, and nature’s material (and some
regulating and non-material) contributions to people. They are conceptually and technically easier to
quantify than other value types. Because they are deemed substitutable in principle, albeit not always
in practice, they support high comparability and commensurability, which facilitates trade-off
assessments that can be articulated in monetary units. However, purely instrumental approaches to
valuation may obscure other value expressions, lead to crowding out other reasons and motivations
for environmental protection (Rico García-Amado et al., 2013), alienate stakeholders (De Vreese
et al., 2019), and misrepresent conflicts (Hattingh, 2014).
Relational values refer to the importance of desirable, meaningful, and often reciprocal human
relationships – beyond means to an end – with nature and among people through nature (Chan et al.,
2016, 2018; De Vos et al., 2018; Himes & Muraca, 2018; Schröter et al., 2020) and their significance
to a good quality of life (IPBES, 2019d, p. 30). They are often framed as context-dependent, non-
transferable, non-tradable, and therefore largely non-substitutable (Kenter et al., 2019). Relational
values highlight relationships with nature that constitute people’s individual and collective identity,
as expressed for example in the Japanese concept of fūdo, referring to interrelationships between
people and local characteristics (De Vos et al., 2018; James, 2020; May Jr, 2017), deeply rooted sense
of place (Marshall et al., 2019; Mrotek et al., 2019; Norgaard et al., 2017), spiritual meaning (Saner
& Bordt, 2016), and community cohesion. For example, in New Zealand, an agreement between the
Whanganui Iwi (Maori) people and the Crown acknowledged that the Te Awa Tupua River is
connected with the Iwi and Hapu peoples’ identity in an inalienable way; the document literally says
“I am the River and the River is me” (Te Awa Tupua Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill 2016).
Relational values also include people and nature interactions that are essential components of a
meaningful, dignified, and flourishing life (i.e., ‘eudaimonia’) (Carretero et al., 2018; Klain et al.,
2017; Nussbaum, 2011; Saxena et al., 2018; Sayer, 2011), such as mental and emotional health,
virtues and attitudes of care and responsibility towards other people and other-than-human beings
(Chan et al., 2016; De Vreese et al., 2019; IPBES, 2018a; Jax et al., 2018; Krebs, 1997; Lenzi, 2017;
Maass, 2005; Ott, 2016; Pradhan, 2018; van den Born et al., 2018; Whyte, 2016); see Box 2.4).

34
Table 2.3. Summary of literature review findings about intrinsic, instrumental, and
relational values. Bold text is used to highlight key issues or themes (see details in
Annex 2.10).
In policymaking, relational values can help articulate the idea that a specific place, a forest, a river, a
landscape, or a population are essentially important to people (individuals or communities) because
of the unique relationships, history, and traditions that bind them together (Kothari & Bajpai, 2017).
According to academic literature, relational values can benefit policies directly by accounting for
contextual nature’s contributions to people (Díaz et al., 2018b) and help operationalise broad policy
guidance from local to national scales (Kitheka et al., 2019). Relational values can catalyse
motivation and appeal to a broader audience (Stenseke, 2018; Uehara et al., 2020; Winkler & Hauck,
2019), particularly for IPLCs (Gould et al., 2019; Himes & Muraca, 2018), and increase participation
of different stakeholders (Jax et al., 2018; Kitheka et al., 2019). By stressing reciprocal relationships
tied to responsibilities, they can facilitate justice, social equity and sustainability (Diver et al., 2019;
Whyte, 2020).

35
Box 2.6. Values and preferences in environmental economics
Preferences express a widespread understanding of value in economics and social science methods, such as
multi-criteria analysis (Raymond & Kenter, 2016) (see Chapter 3). Preferences refer to subjective rankings
between choice alternatives (Engelen, 2017; Hausman, 2005, 2012) and allow values to be prioritized and
compared. The focus on preferences in environmental economics is mostly anthropocentric and
instrumental, where value is assigned to biodiversity or ecosystem services “to the extent that these fulfil
needs or confer satisfaction to humans either directly or indirectly” (Kumar, 2011, p. 187).
Preference-based approaches are useful to assess the relative importance of given scenarios through choice
(e.g., the allocation of money or time for a particular purpose). Yet to be expressed in terms of preferences,
values must be framed as directly comparable or commensurable, which means that they are often translated
into quantitative terms to facilitate trade-offs among them (TEEB, 2010b).
The total economic value (TEV) is an established environmental economics value classification framework
designed to include a wider range of values associated with benefits (or detriments) of the environment (see
Figure 2.13). The TEV approach distinguishes among use values, based on the satisfaction generated by
direct use (consumptive or non-consumptive) of natural resources or by indirect use (the conditions that
enable use and satisfaction), non-use values, and option value (generated by future use). Non-use values
refer to the utility or satisfaction generated for an individual by knowing that others will have access to
nature’s benefits, be it other people currently living (altruist value) or future generations (bequest value), or
by knowing that something exists, even if there is no direct access to or direct enjoyment of it (existence
value). In environmental economic language, the term altruism refers to individual preferences (i.e.,
individual satisfaction gained by knowing that other people might enjoy nature’s benefits or that other than
human beings exist).
TEV highlights the dependence of societal and economic development on ecosystems. It is helpful in
providing a common metric to assess and estimate a wide range of instrumental values, which, if they are
substitutable, can be ranked in terms of preferences and expressed in terms of means to an end (Kumar,
2011). By expanding the perspective to future generations, future use and others’ preferences it can dialogue
with weak anthropocentrism (see 2.2.1) and build bridges in practice with biocentric or ecocentric solutions,
albeit using a language rooted in individual satisfaction and the assumption of trade-offs and comparability.
The TEV framing is based on a broad understanding of economic values that goes beyond use of monetary
indicators (Hansjürgens, 2014) and, when applied according to TEEB criteria (TEEB, 2010b) (see 1.1.2), it
can provide policymakers with a helpful instrument to find agreement or convergence points among diverse
stakeholders regarding instrumental values of nature.
Although the total economic value is most adequate to capture instrumental values, other value types
sometimes can be indirectly identified by framing them in the language of preferences (see Figure 2.13).
When legitimate, a proxy can help identify that a preference for a value is present but cannot estimate the
strength of that preference compared to others. For example, to frame intrinsic values in terms of direct,
non-consumptive use-values or as individual preferences is a great challenge for valuation because they
typically represent something that cannot be ranked and is neither negotiable nor substitutable, as is the case
with nature’s sacred values (Dasgupta, 2021; Kumar, 2011; see 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.2). Although existence value
can be used as an indicator to represent intrinsic or spiritual values, it fails to capture their full meaning.
Environmental conflicts often arise when people implicitly or explicitly reject the reduction of values to
preferences and refuse to negotiate trade-offs or compensations for their loss (e.g., environmental conflict
in the sacred Niyamgiri Mountains of India, see Box 2.12). Similarly, the value of biotic and abiotic
components of functionally reliable and self-organizing ecosystems cannot be captured adequately by the
total economic value; these value types “are not ascertainable via individual preferences of human beings
and therefore they cannot be assessed monetarily on the basis of certain economic methods of evaluation”
(Hansjürgens, 2014, p. 79). In these cases, non-economic indicators can replace or complement the total
economic value (see 2.2.4) to better address environmental conflicts, and to support epistemic and
recognition justice.

36
Capturing values through a utilitarian approach (Keat, 1997), can be useful in many situations, but
problematic in cases (Braat, 2018; Costanza et al., 2017; Kenter, 2018), in which highly complex socio-
ecological systems with multiple ecosystems and services or deeply-rooted ethical or cultural values, or
when multiple knowledge and value systems, including ILK, are involved (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010)
(see Figure 2.13, Figure 2.14, Annex 2.12).
Figure 2.13. The total economic value classification framework encompasses multiple
environmental value types. The figure presents a spectrum between stronger and weaker
assumptions of substitutability between the objects of value. The red arrows refer to values
that can be estimated directly by applying the total economic value categories. The blue
dashed lines refer to a possible, indirect use of the total economic value categories as
proxies to identify values whose full meaning and strength cannot normally be assessed by
preference-based or monetary approaches. In such cases, the total economic value can be
replaced or complemented by other frameworks.
2.2.3.3. Policy relevance of considering diverse value types and their overlaps
Despite their distinct definitions, instrumental, intrinsic, and relational value types are not mutually
exclusive and instead often overlap (see Figure 2.12) (Himes & Muraca, 2018; Pascual et al., 2017;
Schröter et al., 2020). For example, food may simultaneously have instrumental and relational values,
depending on the meaning and local practices that govern interactions with it (Lau et al., 2019;
Whyte, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). Rather than presenting a problem, this convergence can be used by
policymakers to build common understanding across stakeholders in support of conservation or
equitable development (Berry et al., 2018; Norton & Steinemann, 2001; Saner & Bordt, 2016). For
example, agricultural policies can also consider the complex ways farmers and pastoralists identify
with landscapes, including values linked to place identity or duties of care and responsibilities
towards the land (Allen et al., 2018), which can help design more successful productive programs
that also reduce conflicts between conservationists and farmers by supporting multi-stakeholder
participation in conservation incentive programs (Chapman et al., 2020).
A review of national biodiversity strategies and action plans reveals that there is still less reference
to relational or intrinsic values than instrumental ones and, when present, these tend to occur in

37
aspirational or agenda-setting contexts (see Annex 2.2). Assessing diverse values can help
policymakers make otherwise neglected, intangible costs and benefits visible (Witt et al., 2019),
facilitate a more inclusive and just articulation of values (Himes & Muraca, 2018), clarify, reduce or
avoid conflicts by fostering co-management (García-Llorente et al., 2018) and participation among
different stakeholders (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017; Berry et al., 2018; Gale & Ednie, 2019; Reed &
Ceno, 2015), increase the acceptability of environmental interventions through better communication
(Hope & Jones, 2014; Witt et al., 2019), and enable a more comprehensive and representative
evaluation of why people value nature, nature’s contributions to people and human-nature
relationships. More pluralistic approaches help build common ground and reciprocal learning across
different stakeholders by acknowledging different reasons and motivations (Rico García-Amado
et al., 2013).
Despite its relevance to policymaking, approaches that aim at considering diverse values can be more
complex and require more resources (see Figure 2.14). It may also require institutional capacity-
building, given the complexities associated with comparing values (see Box 2.15). Some values are
directly comparable and thus rankable (Kenter, 2017; Kronenberg & Andersson, 2019) by adopting
the same indicator (e.g., monetary metrics in willingness-to-pay surveys, Pouta, 2000); or time
metrics in willingness-to-give-up-time surveys (García-Llorente et al., 2016)). In other cases, values
are only compatible because they cannot be measured by the same metrics, but it is possible to
technically join the underlying data (e.g., if they denote a similar relational aspect like geographical
coordinates or resolution) or to compare them indirectly through practical judgement and deliberation
(e.g., multi-criteria analysis or deliberative processes that form shared values) (Martinez-Alier et al.,
1998; Orchard-Webb et al., 2016; Ranger et al., 2016; Zografos & Howarth, 2010) (see 2.4.2, Box
2.9). There are also cases in which different value types are neither directly comparable nor
compatible and must be considered in-parallel by decision-making. For example, the relational value
of Niyamgiri Mountain is sacred for the local community; cost-benefit analyses cannot adequately
represent this value because it cannot be ranked, compared nor negotiated with other value types like
the economic benefits deriving from bauxite mining. In such cases, assessing diverse, parallel values
might be crucial to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the situation and to guide policy
interventions that are better informed and aware of potential lines of conflict (Munda, 2004).
Sometimes diverse, parallel value and knowledge systems can communicate through braiding
(Kimmerer, 2013; Tengö et al., 2014, 2017; Whyte, 2020).
Key situations where the assessment of diverse values is likely to lead to more robust decisions
include highly complex, uncertain or contested decision-making contexts, including diverse
stakeholders (Frame & O’ Connor, 2011) (see Figure 2.14). Approaches that draw on a single
indicator are likely to be effective in low complexity situations with limited stakeholder divergence
(Kenter et al., 2014; UK NEA, 2014).

38
Figure 2.14. Key factors influencing the relative robustness and efficiency of more
monistic and more pluralistic approaches. Figure based on (Frame & O’ Connor, 2011;
Kenter et al., 2014; UK NEA, 2014).
2.2.4. Values as indicators
Value can also refer to value indicators or measures to operationalize valuation methods (see Chapter
3). Indicators refer to the quantitative or qualitative dimensions that help directly or indirectly assess
the values people articulate (i.e., in writing or orally) or manifest (i.e., actions or behaviour). Some
indicators are more suitable to identify diverse values, while others elicit a single set of value types.
Indicators encompass biophysical, socio-cultural and economic aspects, as well as a combination or
integration of these (see 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.2). Notably, these types of indicators do not map directly onto
specific values. As such, it is possible to have socio-cultural indicators for intrinsic values, or
biophysical indicators for instrumental values. Other types of indicators are applied at a larger societal
scale and are termed macro-indicators (see Box 2.7).
Biophysical indicators encompass measurements of ecosystem stocks and flows (organisms,
material, energy) and include genetic diversity; number of rare or threatened species of fauna, fungi,
bacteria, and protists; structural and functional connectivity of habitat; proportion of population
exposed to air pollution. Biodiversity may be treated in nature’s contributions to people through the
maintenance of options to demonstrate the importance of biodiversity as variety and as aspects of
ecological integrity and resilience (Faith, 2018). Socio-cultural indicators can be quantitative (e.g.,
photo rankings, spatial densities of relational values in an area) and qualitative (e.g., ethnographic
accounts, themes in a text representing nature’s values). Monetary indicators are preference-based
and may assess subjective preferences through methods like contingent valuation, choice
experiments, or hedonic pricing. They can refer to flows (benefits derived from healthy ecosystems
and to costs caused by their depletion) and stock values of natural capital (Jones et al., 2016).
Both socio-cultural and economic value indicators can also be assessed through deliberation (e.g.,
participatory multi-criteria analysis, deliberative monetary valuation, or citizens juries) (see Box 2.9;
see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4). Furthermore, indicators can be aggregated into macro-indicators or
combined into indicator sets or dashboards. Examples of aggregated macro-indicators include gross
domestic product (GDP), the index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), the genuine progress

39
indicator (GPI) or the Sustainable Development Goals index (Cobb et al., 1995; Daly & Cobb, 1994;
Sachs et al., 2021). The newly developed planetary pressures adjusted human development index and
dashboard, and the sustainable well-being index (SWI), aligned with the SDGs, both offer an
aggregated index and a dashboard for disentangling specific dimensions of well-being (Fioramonti
et al., 2019). Macro-indicators can refer to specific aspects and assess them on a global scale for
biophysical dimensions (e.g., ecological footprint or human appropriation of net primary production)
or combine different aspects of biophysical and economic data as part of national accounting (e.g.,
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting) (see Chapter 4).
Box 2.7. Gross domestic product (GDP) as a macroeconomic indicator
Gross domestic product (GDP) is the most prominent example of an aggregated macro-indicator. It
measures the market value of goods and services produced by a national economy and is used to indicate
and compare the size of the economy within and between countries, and how the size evolves over time.
However, GDP has many, widely recognised limitations; leading economists have called for the
development of alternative indicators to better measure human well-being and social progress (e.g., Stiglitz
et al., 2009; Dasgupta 2021). In particular, GDP does not reflect the values of nature, many of which are
unpriced and outside of market evaluation. It is well established that economic growth contributes to the
deterioration of nature and this growth is often measured by GDP (IPBES, 2019d). A recent synthesis found
that economic growth strategies are predominant in national biodiversity strategy documents, despite an
absence of evidence that growth in gross domestic product is correlated with improved biodiversity
outcomes (Otero et al., 2020). Instead, gross domestic product growth is correlated with biodiversity
declines, thereby invalidating the hypothesis of automatically improved environmental outcomes at higher
levels of growth (known as the environmental Kuznets curve). According to the Dasgupta review (2021),
standard macroeconomic approaches focused upon GDP growth have radically undervalued nature's
importance for human well-being, given the absence of effective pricing or market signals for many
ecosystem services. Moreover, as gross domestic product reflects an instrumental view, nature’s value is
largely reduced to the source of raw materials needed to produce goods and services, which are themselves
of instrumental value for an improved standard of living (used as a proxy for well-being). As such, even if
current environmental externalities were internalized through more effective pricing mechanisms, gross
domestic product would still not measure the diversity of nature’s values or non-instrumental worldviews,
or human-nature relationships presented above.
Alternatives to GDP have been developed (e.g., Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, Daly, 1992),
United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting (UN SEEA, 2012), that enable different
types of nature’s contributions to people to be expressed in monetary (and sometimes non-monetary) terms
so that these contributions can be compared to other goods and services. These alternatives can be adapted
to countries' priorities and policy needs, while at the same time providing a set of common concepts. The
Dasgupta review also proposes the alternative indicator of ‘inclusive wealth’, which measures the social
worth of an economy’s total stock of capital goods, comprising produced, natural, and human capital
(Dasgupta, 2021). Unlike gross domestic product, which only attends to flows of marketed ecosystem
services, inclusive wealth implies an asset management perspective on natural capital, while recognising
that much of this natural capital is non-substitutable for other capital stocks, but complementary to them
and indispensable for economic or human activity.
These alternatives address some of the issues of gross domestic product, including providing assessments
of natures’ values that take account of human and social capital. Nonetheless, important concerns remain,
including how to account for values that are non-substitutable or how to represent the dynamic and often
highly contextual relationships between people and nature.
Based on the above information, it has been shown that (a) a spectrum of value types exists, and (b)
these values can be organized to support environmental policy in different contexts. The next section
covers the topic of values-organization frameworks. While no single overarching organization
framework captures diverse values in their entirety, understanding their conceptual and practical

40
abilities and limitations allows decision-makers to capture alternative and/or incompatible
understandings of nature’s values across cultures and contexts.

41
2.3. Organizing the diverse values of nature
2.3.1. Values-organization frameworks
A review of 284 academic articles
36
identified diverse values organization frameworks (see Annex
2.10). No framework was generally accepted across disciplines. The most widely referenced was
ecosystem services (41% of articles), referring to both its use and criticisms. A common critique
regards its anthropocentric, instrumental discourse, which can oversimplify ecological functioning to
suit a market framing (Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Norgaard, 2010) and overlook intrinsic values key to
successful conservation outcomes (Batavia & Nelson, 2017; Taylor et al., 2020). However, others
argue that ecosystem services can capture more diverse values and broaden scope for policy
consensus than intrinsic value-based paradigms (Schröter & van Oudenhoven, 2016). Ecosystem
services’ limitations in fully engaging broader social sciences, the humanities, and IPLC perspectives
was an important motivation for IPBES’ nature’s contributions to people framework (Díaz et al.,
2018a). While nature’s contributions to people explicitly considers relational values, it still uses an
anthropocentric framing, and its ability to address some of ecosystem services’ limitations is
debatable (Kadykalo et al., 2019; Kenter, 2018; Köhler et al., 2019).
A review of 150 ILK documents
37
found a substantially different emphasis on human-nature
relationships. Only 8.5% referred to ecosystem services. Biocultural approaches were most common
(25%). There was an overall diversity indicating the absence of any overarching framework.
In 49 policy documents
38
again no single framework dominated, with human-nature relationships and
underlying worldviews typically implicit. Most documents (44.9%) reflected anthropocentric
worldviews. Few expressed pluricentric and relational (14.3%) or ecocentric worldviews (10.2%).
Most policy documents did not explicitly discuss value concepts (53.1%), but many emphasized
mixed valuation methods, including biophysical, economic, and socio-cultural indicators (42.9%).
Also, there were few explicit references to relational or intrinsic values, or nature’s contributions to
people, and these tended to occur in agenda-setting contexts.
Overall, there was an absence of frameworks attending to both broad and specific values around
diverse human-nature relationships across knowledge traditions. Reflecting different epistemic
worldviews, frameworks were not easily comparable; each provides insights on certain human-nature
relationships while obscuring others.
2.3.2. Life frames of nature’s values
The previous subsections demonstrated the range of ways people conceive of and relate to nature and
its multiple values, but also the absence of interdisciplinary frameworks for organizing these. The life
frames of nature’s values (O’Connor & Kenter, 2019; O’Neill et al., 2008) help address this gap,
relating diverse human-nature relationships, worldviews, values, and nature’s contributions to people
by representing four categories: living from, living with, living in, and living as nature (see tables
2.1, 2.4). In the living from nature frame, nature is conceived as resources contributing to and
providing conditions for human sustenance and prosperity. Living with nature sees nature as other(s)
(e.g., other-than-humans, ecological processes, wild spaces) with their own interests and agency.
Living in nature emphasizes place(s) (e.g., land, landscapes). Living as nature refers to nature as self
(physically, mentally, spiritually) without separating humans and nature.
36
Systematic review of value types (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396289).
37
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).
38
Analysis of national and international policy documents related to biodiversity and sustainability
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399907).

42
The life frames are not mutually exclusive, but express different ways of being/living and ultimate
sources of concern for nature. People often harbour multiple frames (see Box 2.8), though one may
be emphasized in particular situations. For instance, a river may be seen as a useful resource for
fisheries (living from), a harbour of biodiversity (living with), integral to a cultural landscape (living
in) or an inseparable part of one’s body or community (living as) The life frames can be used to bridge
between ecosystem services, nature’s contributions to people, and non-anthropocentric worldviews,
and for organizing, communicating, assessing, deliberating, bridging, prioritising, and transforming
values, and designing valuations. Semantic variations of the frames in different United Nations
languages are exemplified in Annex 2.13.
Table 2.4. The main associations found in the literature between the life frames and
their relation to nature, values, nature’s contributions to people, sustainability, and
risk.

43
2.3.2.1. Life frame representation in environmental values literature
A systematic review
39
was conducted by screening 7,204 sources to select 499 for coding, alongside
a critical review of diverse academic, ILK and policy documents. The review investigated the life
frames’ potential to organize key sets of broad and specific values regarding nature, nature’s
contributions to people, good quality of life, and sustainability (see Table 2.4). Results showed
distinct sets of values clustered with different frames. Living from nature was dominant; living as
nature least represented (see Figure 2.15). Annex 2.13 provides a full assessment.
39
Systematic review on the conceptualizations of values (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4071755).

44
Figure 2.15. Proportion of documents coded for the life frames in the systematic
review (n=499).
Each life frame emphasized different broad and specific value sets (Figure 2.16) and nature’s
contributions to people (Table 2.4). Living from nature correlated strongly with instrumental values
(Q = 0.86, Φ = 0.53), emphasizing nature as a means to human ends and satisfaction of human needs
and preferences. Broad values emphasized included prosperity, efficiency and security. The frame
presents a spectrum from exploitationism to sustainable resource use, with the latter being
emphasized in the literature, with some consideration of equitable distribution. Common nature’s
contributions to people were food and feed (e.g., Russo et al., 2017), energy (e.g., Cameron et al.,
2012), freshwater (e.g., Arlinghaus, 2006), medicinal/genetic resources (e.g., Abensperg-Traun,
2009), pollination (e.g., Chain-Guadarrama et al., 2019), soil formation (e.g., Gomiero, 2016), and
maintenance of options (e.g., Momblanch et al., 2016). ILK values within this frame are often related
to particular subsistence or market resources with instrumental and life-support values (e.g., Dam
Lam et al., 2019; Reyes-García et al., 2019). However, such studies rarely indicated indigenous
values of living from nature without also referencing other life frames.

45
Figure 2.16. Different value sets within the life frames. Living from (up left), with
(up right), in (down left) and as (right down) nature frames. Selected values are key
examples. Spotlights emphasize different sets of values.
Living with nature correlated substantially with intrinsic values (Q = 0.62, Φ = 0.31) and moderately
with relational values (Q = 0.44, Φ = 0.22). This frame was associated with broad values like
stewardship, responsibility and duty of care, and a strong emphasis on people’s contributions to
nature. For example, a review of motivations for participation in conservation covenant programs
showed that stewardship frequently trumps profitability concerns as a primary motivation, once basic
economic needs are met (Kabii & Horwitz, 2006). In economics, existence values can partially
express this frame (Box 2.6). Living with nature can be associated with regulating nature’s
contributions to people, particularly habitat creation (e.g., Gardiner et al., 2013), maintenance of
options (e.g., Bretzel et al., 2016), air quality (e.g., Escobedo et al., 2011), climate (e.g., Czúcz et al.,
2018), ocean acid regulation (e.g., Graham et al., 2014), and hazard regulation (e.g., Cameron et al.,
2012). These nature’s contributions to people are typically valued as life-support values (Box 2.5)
benefiting humans and non-humans, including over evolutionary/long-term time scales (Sarrazin &
Lecomte, 2016).
Living in nature and relational values frequently co-occur (Q = 0.81, Φ = 0.48), with an emphasis on
specific values of place attachment and identity (e.g., Bremer et al., 2018). This frame connects
nature-as-place to broad values like belonging, enjoyment, and community. Indirect use and non-use
values (Box 2.6) can provide economic proxies for living in nature, but this is constrained by many
place-based values being non-substitutable (Apostolopoulou & Adams, 2017; Elmendorf, 2008). The
entwined relations between people-and-nature and people-and-people expressed through living in
nature exist in myriad ways, e.g., in the Japanese concepts of satoyama (里山), satoumi (里海) and
fūdo (風土 ) reflecting dynamic relationships between people, habitats, and species (Takeuchi et al.,
2014). Environmental features, such as local climates, species, mountains, or parks, and access to
them, help determine place and community (Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Pendola & Gen, 2008; see Box

46
2.8). The frame associates with mixed material and non-material nature’s contributions to people,
particularly physical and psychological experiences (e.g., Nesbitt et al., 2017), learning and
inspiration (e.g., Lintott, 2006), and identities (e.g., Poe et al., 2014), and some regulating nature’s
contributions to people like water quality (e.g., White et al., 2010) and habitats (e.g., Arkema et al.,
2017).
Living as nature sees human–nature relations as non-dual, such as in the concepts of Pachamama or
the web of life where humans and nature are seen as part of an extended community (see Box 2.4).
This emphasis supports broad values like oneness, respect, and reciprocity. Living as nature
substantially associated with relational (Q = 0.73, Φ = 0.26) and intrinsic (Q = 0.73, Φ = 0.26) values,
and negatively with instrumental values (Q = -0.59, Φ = -0.19). However, this frame also challenges
abstract value constructs, seeing them as embodied, reciprocal, and dynamic. It expresses life-support
values from a view of embeddedness and lived experience. Living as nature supports epistemic justice
by explicitly representing relational and holistic worldviews (Glaser, 2006; Strang, 2005), such as
reflected in understandings of personhood of rivers (Hutchison, 1992; Sangvai, 2002). Western
examples include deep ecology (Naess, 1973) and the land ethic (Leopold, 2013) (Box 2.13), or in
the context of affordances in psychology (Raymond et al., 2017a). The dualistic concept of nature’s
contributions to people (Kenter, 2018) is less easily applied here, but relevant nature’s contributions
to people include habitats (e.g., Lepofsky & Caldwell, 2013), companionship (e.g., Bremer et al.,
2018), identities (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 2019), and context-specific nature’s contributions to people
(e.g., Dam Lam et al., 2019).
Box 2.8. The life frames and local values in marine management: the UK coast
The sea plays an important role in many people’s quality of life, but coastal and marine ecosystems are
under many pressures (see Annexes 2.5 and 2.12). Within United Kingdom waters, though some are
recovering, many fish stocks are depleted, and their management has attracted fierce debate (Huggins et al.,
2020). Other debates focus on designation and implementation of protected areas, regeneration of coastal
communities, and equitable access to the coast. This case considers local knowledge across United Kingdom
coastal communities, based on 144 ethnographic video interviews following the Community Voice
approach (Ranger et al., 2016) sourced from diverse projects40. Each focused on different policy contexts,
which strongly influenced which life frames and associated values people emphasized (see Figure 2.17).
Blue Heart considered the coast’s meaning to communities and Living Coast aimed at marginalized
communities experiencing access barriers. Common Ground brought viewpoints from diverse stakeholders
on marine protected areas implemented by a regional fisheries management authority.
Analysis of the interviews (Annex 2.4) showed similar associations between life frames and values as the
literature (see 2.3.2.1). Three or more life frames were expressed by 54% of interviewees, 24% expressed
four. Sustainability and conservation discourses were primarily (66%) co-referenced with living with nature
and frequently highlighted the irreplaceability or basic goodness of nature. Embodied and lived experiences
of values were expressed by 32% of participants, representing 60% of living as nature references.
These cases exemplify how local people express nature’s values within multiple life frames, but also that
valuation design and framing will influence which life frames and associated values are emphasized. While
many nature’s contributions to people were expressed as important through the living from and in nature
frames, local people strongly associated sustainability with values beyond nature’s contributions to people.
They also clearly pointed to both cognitive and embodied ways of experiencing and expressing values.
Thus, if policymakers wish to identify shared values for policies (Box 2.9), and more effectively leverage
values towards sustainability transformation, the living with and as nature frames need to be attended to
alongside benefits-based framings of nature like nature’s contributions to people.
40
Data courtesy of the Marine Conservation Society, Scottish Association for Marine Science and Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology.

47
Figure 2.17. Proportion (%) of interview references to different life frames across marine
local knowledge projects.
2.3.2.2. Representing life frames in policy
The review highlighted a range of concerns regarding over- or under-emphasis of particular life
frames in policy (Annex 2.13). For example, the millennium ecosystem assessment (2005) and the
IPBES global assessment (2019a) both expressed deep concern with the historic overemphasis of
living from nature, leading to over-consumption of material nature’s contributions to people and
severe degradation of biodiversity and regulating and cultural nature’s contributions to people, which
could be seen as living against nature. However, underemphasizing living from nature can lead to
importing nature’s contributions to people and exporting ecological footprint (Fuchs et al., 2020),
rather than reducing domestic consumption of material nature’s contributions to people (e.g., through
dietary change). Furthermore, the COVID-19 crisis highlighted a major risk from underemphasizing
living with nature, when ecological degradation increases infectious disease emergence (IPBES,
2020), while overemphasis can lead to mismanagement of negative nature’s contributions to people
(i.e., ecosystem disservices, Lyytimäki & Sipilä, 2009), human-wildlife conflicts, and backlashes
from local people reliant on nature (Redpath et al., 2013). For its part, overemphasizing living in
nature risks overlooking life-support values and regulating nature’s contributions to people, such as
in unsustainable tourism (Hicks, 2011) or resistance to changing landscapes (DeSilvey & Harrison,
2020), whereas under-emphasis can lead to poor recognition of local and place-based concerns, over-
generalisation of values, exclusion, and procedural injustice. For example, plans to partially privatize
United Kingdom national forests sparked protests to protect place-based values, eventually forcing
policy reversal (Kenter et al., 2015). Finally, overemphasis of living as nature risks idealizing or
obscuring natural resource needs (De Bont, 2012; Raymond, 2007), while underemphasis bears
substantial issues of epistemic justice when experiential knowledge and embodied values are not
represented (Jackson & Barber, 2013). More broadly, increasing disconnection from nature and loss
of ecoliteracy (e.g., through urbanisation and loss of green spaces) has been identified as a major risk
to both human well-being and sustainability (Cumming, 2016) (see 2.2.2, 2.5.2).
While there is no single right balance of different frames, any decision about their prioritisation leads
to different value outcomes that create winners and losers and is intimately associated with questions
of justice and power (Kenter et al., 2019; Martínez-Alier, 2002). Explicit recognition of multiple
values and knowledges in valuation and policy enhances procedural justice and improves the quality
of more inclusive, democratic decisions (Devente et al., 2016; Tengö et al., 2014). Policymakers

48
make choices as to which frames are emphasized in valuations and decisions (Box 2.8) and shifting
framing away from a predominant living from nature focus towards inclusion of multiple frames can
support new pathways for sustainability transformations (IPBES, 2019e). For example, when the
European Union’s agri-environmental payment schemes were reframed more strongly towards living
with nature, self-identities of participating farmers gradually shifted from being producers to stewards
of the countryside (Davies & Hodge, 2012). Consideration of multiple life frames allows a more
transparent approach to include different sets of values. They provide policymakers with a
straightforward and inclusive tool for cross-sectoral communication, and alternatives to combine and
relate the diversity of values to sustainable futures (Harmáčková et al., 2021) (see 5.2.3), including
in conjunction with the Nature Futures Framework(Pereira et al., 2020) (Annex 2.13).
2.3.2.3. Life frames to nurture sustainability-aligned values
Shifts in broad values are central to sustainability transformation (see 2.2.3.1; 5.2.3). While
sustainability-aligned values can be expressed within each life frame (Table 2.4), the review found
them most explicitly associated with living with and as nature (Annex 2.13). In the United Kingdom
marine case (Box 2.8), sustainability was framed most frequently in terms of protecting biodiversity
(living with nature) rather than other understandings, such as sustainable use (living from nature).
Living as nature sources frequently consider sustainability transformation as a shift from
disconnection and dualism to oneness, such as in many forms of indigenous environmental
management based on values like reciprocity and care between people and nature (Annex 2.13).
However, broad values that align with sustainability in one context may not do so in another. Whether
a particular value manifests as being sustainability-aligned depends on many factors, such as
knowledge and awareness, personal and social beliefs and norms, degree to which basic needs are
satisfied, control (e.g., access to resources and sustainable alternatives), social networks, and
institutional arrangements, such as incentives (Everard et al., 2016).
The life frames make different aspects of justice and sustainability explicit (Table 2.4), providing
opportunities to integrate these into policy. For instance, living with nature emphasizes protecting
biodiversity to ensure interspecies justice, while living in nature emphasizes protecting cultural
landscapes, and local participation to ensure procedural justice. These interpretations can conflict but
could also be used synergistically to enhance the scope of and broaden support for sustainability
policies. Similarly, interventions like environmental education (see 2.5.2; Annex 2.13) may be most
effective if they speak to multiple life frames (Zylstra et al., 2019), such as by teaching about nature
as a resource, other species, our place, and as intimately connected to ourselves, including both
cognitive and experiential understanding.

49
2.4. Values, human action and decision-making
This section assesses relationships between values, actions and decisions. Understanding these
dynamics provides different entry points for decision-makers to target policies towards desired
outcomes regarding the protection of the values of nature and nature´s contributions to people. The
section describes key relations between values and actions (see 2.4.1) and focuses on how institutional
contexts support (or hinder) certain values to influence decisions (see 2.4.2). Hence, it documents
how value expressions and prioritizations depend on which actors have the power to decide and under
what institutional context decisions happen. The text is based on insights from several disciplines,
particularly anthropology, economics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and non-academic ways of
understanding the world (e.g., ILK, other cultural traditions).
2.4.1. Relationships between values and behaviour
2.4.1.1. Why do we do what we do?
Different disciplines understand human behaviour/action differently. This section offers a brief
overview of the main positions to provide a basis for more in-depth analyses in later sections, where
implications for value assessments and decision-making are emphasized. Two aspects are
highlighted. First, there is a divide between conceiving human behaviours as an individual
phenomenon versus as also shaped by the social environments in which people grow up and live.
Therefore, it is possible to distinguish between individually and socially focused traditions. Second,
how human motivation is understood also varies. There is emphasis on the hedonic goal of pleasure
(to feel good), gain goals (to improve one’s resources, position, etc.) and normative goals (to act
appropriately). These motivational aspects are understood differently when seen from an individually
versus a socially focused position.
The best known individually-focused model in economics has been nicknamed Homo economicus. It
sees humans as maximizing individual utility (pleasure), and value is defined as how much one is
willing to give up to get something (see 2.2.4). This perspective demands comparable values and is
basic to neoclassical economics. Moreover, preferences are considered stable characteristics of the
individual. This model is the epitome of rational choice (Becker, 1976, 1993; Hausman, 1992).
Individualist value and behaviour perspectives also have a quite strong position in political science
(e.g., Lohmann, 2008) and in some sociological writings (e.g., Hedström & Stern, 2008). These fields
are, however, less focused on hedonic goals and more oriented towards gain goals like resources,
position, etc. What is common is that behaviour is motivated by individual interests only.
In contrast, socially oriented perspectives emphasize how groups or societies form shared values and
integrate them into norms and legal rules (see 2.5.2; Box 2.9). Values and norms influence individuals
not least through forming their identities (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Burke & Stets, 2009; Scott,
2014; Searle, 2005), and they underpin the goals motivating action (Parks & Guay, 2009). In this
conception, what an individual chooses to do, not only reflects personal traits, but is influenced by
the values, norms and practices emphasized by the social context.
As an example, we all need food, and some individuals prefer e.g., sweet to savoury. Nevertheless,
socially oriented understandings emphasize that what we eat and how we eat it are influenced by
society. For example, people eat certain types of foods during a gathering or ceremony regardless of
the personal sweet/savoury preference as they share specific values and meanings of the gathering.
People reproduce the practices and values emphasized (e.g., Giddens, 1984; Shove et al., 2012).
However, people can also transform these values by deliberately or unintentionally creating new
practices based on their 'toolkits' of internalized values and meanings (Sewell Jr, 2005). For example,

50
people may deliberately refuse to cook or eat certain types of foods due to their concern for the
environment, transforming the meaning of the gathering to an environmentally friendly one.
Among the socially focused traditions there is, moreover, an emphasis on the distinction between
actions based on what is individually best (i.e., gain goal) versus what is considered appropriate; best
for the group or society (Hodgson, 2007; March & Olsen, 1995). People are not only egoistically
motivated, but able to take the interests of others into account, following norms that define “the right
thing to do”. Here, a plural understanding of rationality distinguishes between what is individually
versus socially rational (Sen, 1977; Vatn, 2015). This perspective emphasizes that our choices are
often interdependent, such as when we use a common resource like a local fish stock. In these
situations, it is rational for a community to develop rules that limit individual use to favour a better
outcome for the group (Ostrom, 1990). Consequently, acts of helping others are understood as
(socially) rational. Finally, this understanding does not assume that values must be one-dimensional,
rather emphasizing that values are diverse and typically protected by norms.
Turning finally to psychology, we return to a focus on the individual, albeit not necessarily rational.
For example, one perspective (associated with behavioural economics) emphasizes how heuristics
and various biases characterise choice –especially choice under uncertainty (Altman, 2015;
Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman et al., 1982). In contrast, social psychology is predominantly focused
on ‘social dilemmas’ (i.e., when what is individually best is collectively detrimental). It accepts that
behaviour is socially influenced, notably by what is termed social norms. Authors in this tradition
(e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000; Schwartz, 1977; Steg et al., 2017; Stern et al., 1999) highlight the role of
values and norms when understanding behaviour. A specific issue regards how individuals balance
between hedonic (i.e., individual gain) goals and appropriateness. When a normative goal of
appropriateness is strongest, people are motivated to do the right thing, even if more costly or less
pleasurable, pointing to the intrinsic motivation of pro-environmental behaviour (Steg et al., 2016).
2.4.1.2. Review of behaviour theories
This section moves from a general picture of what characterises human behaviour to a detailed
examination of how behaviour theories treat values (as defined in section 2.2). Extensive research
demonstrates that the links between values and behaviour are complex, with multiple factors
interacting to determine how we act (Fischer, 2017). Therefore, a systematic review was conducted
on how 134 theories of behaviour address value-related constructs
41
(see Figure 2.18). The review
focuses on theories found using the term “behaviour”. A wider analysis would include concepts like
“practice” and “action.” As the latter concepts are more used in socially focused theories, this review
tends to overemphasize individually focused theories (though the review includes theories such as
social practice theory) (Shove et al., 2012) and actor-network theory (Latour, 2005). Later sections
provide further insights into broader social dimensions (see 2.4.1.3; 2.4.2; 2.5.2). Theories in this
analysis come primarily from psychology (63%) and economics (13%) with roughly a quarter (24%)
from ten additional fields (e.g., sociology, political science, human ecology).
This review analyses value-related constructs in these theories defined to include (a) “values as
principles and life goals” (broad values) (see 2.2.3.1), (b) “values as importance” (specific values)
(see 2.2.3.2) and (c) constructs closely related to values (here called value-adjacent constructs;
examples include norms and motivations) (Figure 2.18). A systematic, replicable process for
including constructs in each category was created.
41
Behaviour theories literature review (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399396).

51
Figure 2.18. Relative prevalence of value-related constructs and all other constructs
in theories of behaviour. The increasing size of the cone surrounding the constructs
indicates the increasing prevalence of the type of construct (broad values, specific
values, value-adjacent constructs, and all other constructs) in the literature. Coding
produced exact counts of each, but because theories define and cluster constructs in
diverse ways, results are best understood as approximate representations of the
prevalence of various concepts.
The analysis demonstrates that values are associated with behaviour in diverse ways, and that many
other factors impact these connections. These other factors include demographic characteristics such
as income, household size (Poortinga et al., 2004), feelings of self-efficacy (Tabernero & Hernández,
2011), physical capacity to engage (Mitchie et al., 2011), social/institutional structures (Mitchie et al.,
2011) and biophysical features (Johansson et al., 2016) The extent to which values are associated
with behaviour also depends on the complexity and embeddedness of the behaviour. When a
behaviour is relatively simple, like choosing one product over another, people can more easily act on
their values to engage in the behaviour than when it is more complex and embedded in larger systems,
as in the case of choosing transportation and home heating (Balundė et al., 2019). This lack of a one-
to-one relationship between values and behaviour is sometimes labelled the ‘value-action gap’
(Babutsidze & Chai, 2018; Blake, 1999; Flynn et al., 2009). The review of behaviour theories found
that value-related concepts comprise about 29% of theoretical constructs used to explain behaviour
(see Table 2.5). This result both supports the value-action gap (71% of constructs are not clearly
value-related), but also demonstrates that values infuse many factors (29%) related to behaviour.

52
Table 2.5. Quantitative assessment of value-related concept
The evidence above was supplemented with data from literature reviews that document additional
lists of factors that impact pro-environmental behaviour specifically. In all cases, these address at
least two categories that include constructs from the analysis above. Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002)
include values, motivation and cultural norms (three of ten categories); Steg & Vlek (2009) include
moral and normative concerns (two of nine categories); and Gifford & Nilsson (2014) include values,
worldviews, norms and goals (three of 12 categories). It is notable that these proportions from reviews
of pro-environmental behaviour roughly mirror the 29% of constructs the extensive analysis of
behaviour theories identified as value-related.
In sum, analysis of theories of behaviour indicates that values are associated with behaviour in
important ways, but that many other factors are also associated with behaviour. This work thus
emphasizes the importance of considering both the different forms of values-behaviour links (e.g.,

53
how values embedded in institutions impact behaviour) and how additional factors (e.g., personality,
knowledge, physical contexts) are associated with behaviour.
2.4.1.3. Values as embedded in institutions
Institutions such as norms and legal rules are created to protect certain values. They prescribe what
may/may not or must/must not be done under certain conditions (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995; Scott,
2014; Vatn, 2005). While norms are grounded in civil society, legal rules are (also) supported by an
external power that has tangible and formal sanctions, such as the state or traditional leaders
(Crawford & Ostrom, 1995; McGinnis, 2011). Laws typically define and protect rights. This regards
rights to natural assets – property and use rights – and laws that protect biodiversity, regulate pollution
etc. The literature also shows that in societies where legal rules are consistent with the values and
norms generally held, there is higher compliance (Platteau, 2000; Tyler, 1990). In the social sciences,
norms are seen as structuring interaction (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Hodgson, 1988; Searle, 2010).
They influence both how we should treat each other and nature. When internalised during the process
of socialisation, they become part of people’s identity and form what is seen as the right thing to do.
Even if not internalised, they may be followed due to fear of sanctions/shaming from fellow
community members. So, one may avoid littering due to expected sanctions. One may, however, also
avoid such a practice as one is a person that simply does not litter. Schwartz (2012) is among those
pointing out that individuals may comply with or rebel against norms based on whether conformity
or self-direction is more important.
The distinction between norms and legal rules may be fuzzy – not least in indigenous cultures
(Eghenter, 2018; Nahuelhual et al., 2018). Spiritual practices often linked to ancestors may be
important when forming institutions (Caillon & Degeorges, 2007; Deb & Malhotra, 2001; Michon
et al., 2007; Singh, 2013), and kinship structures are typically integral to maintaining them (Tamez,
2012). For example, traditional management systems are maintained through knowledge transmission
between generations such as the women-led management system of an orchid, locally called
calaverita, in Mexico’s Chilapa region (Herrera-Cabrera et al., 2018).
In identity theory, it is standard to distinguish between person(al), social and role identity (e.g., Burke
& Stets, 2009). While personal identity refers to how the individual perceives her-/himself, social
identity deals with the function and status of a person as a member of a group or community. Role
identity regards the self as occupant of a role in an organization, firm etc. Moving between roles and
communities, we may act differently as norms form different expectations – i.e., the logic of action
changes. Life becomes “compartmentalised” (MacIntyre, 1999). Furthermore, the organization and
the community may emphasize different norms and hence values to the ones that are key to the person.
While institutions are key to forming the individual, their role in forming organizations – political,
civil as well as business-oriented ones – goes further. The character and existence of organizations
are based on the rules that define their aims and govern the activities of members/employees (Scott,
2014).
The above offers an explanation for the value-action gap (see 2.4.1.2). Following norms and practices
will support the values around which they were formed (Vatn, 2015). However, people may not
explicitly recognise the values involved, but still support them by following the norm. Moreover,
people tend to act like others (Cialdini, 2003; Demarque et al., 2015; Nolan et al., 2008), not
necessarily reflecting on what values are being supported this way.
The stage I literature database was used to review 232 publications that addressed institutions as a
key topic
42
(see 2.1.3). Studies of legal rules were more frequent, while a subset also emphasized
norms. Legal rules related to studies of international environmental agreements and economic
42
Systematic review on the conceptualizations of values (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4071755).

54
instruments. Norms focused on religion, food preparation ceremonies and farming practices. Implicit
value expressions were found in both legal rules and norms. The values emphasized tended to differ,
although the difference was not statistically significant. Relational values were most emphasized in
studies of norms, followed by intrinsic and instrumental values (equal number). In studies on legal
rules, instrumental values came first, followed by relational and intrinsic values. The analysis
indicates that norms were primarily built on values related to identity, care and human-nature
relationships, while legal rules were more strongly associated with values related to resource use and
distribution.
In the stage II literature review focused on ILK sources, instrumental and relational values were
predominantly associated with institutions
43
. To illustrate, understanding nature as a source of use
value and as sacred locations underlie the institutions for forest management in several places, as
illustrated by studies of villages in West Bengal, India (Deb & Malhotra, 2001).
Understanding the relationship between institutions and values can help identify leverage points for
change. Redefining roles and their responsibilities can bring about a change in which values become
emphasized and consequently in the type of actions that individuals and groups engage with (Abson
et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2020; Fischer & Riechers, 2019) (see 2.5.2). For example, if the expectations
implicit in professional norms imply actions that go against care for nature and nature´s contributions
to people, it is difficult for an individual to act against these expectations (MacIntyre, 1999; Vatn,
2015).
2.4.1.4 Linking institutions, power relations and socio-environmental conflicts
Power is the capacity of actors to mobilize agency, resources and discourses to achieve their goals.
An important aspect of this regards the shaping of institutions. Power analysis provides insights to
questions such as: Who makes decisions about nature / nature´s contributions to people? Who benefits
or loses from particular decisions? What types of values tend to be prioritized or marginalized through
different institutions (i.e., norms, legal rules, practices)? Power in the context of human-nature
relationships can be manifested in multiple ways/dimensions through discourses and social structures
(Bennett et al., 2018; Epstein et al., 2014; Kashwan et al., 2019; Lorenz et al., 2017; Raik et al., 2008;
Svarstad et al., 2018) (Figure 2.19). These power dimensions are not mutually exclusive. They can
reinforce or conflict with each other in multiple ways and operate at diverse temporal and spatial
scales. Power around nature/ nature´s contributions to people is constantly disputed and enforced by
actors that are part of power hierarchies. A more comprehensive assessment of power analysis and
dimensions is found in Annex 2.1. Main aspects and categories as used in this assessment are
presented below.
43
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).

55
Figure 2.19. Power and environmental justice dimensions in nature valuation and
decision-making contexts.
Discursive power is the power of discourses, narratives, or knowledge production to shape or
construct worldviews, life frames, identities, truths, and values. Dominant narratives reinforce
particular options and associated values by excluding other actors' narratives, worldviews and values
(Feindt & Oels, 2005). For example, in the implementation of payment for ecosystem services
schemes in Lima’s watersheds, discursive power (e.g., water need for the “thirsty desert city”), was
used to elevate urban stakeholders’ values and interests over those of upstream communities (Bleeker
& Vos, 2019). However, less powerful actors may have power (agency) to produce reality through
their own discourses and day-to-day practices (Bennett et al., 2018), including through forms of
artwork both written and otherwise (Garrard, 2016, 2017).
Framing power is an important form of discursive power. It regards how issues (e.g., in development
projects, education, research, valuation processes, decision-making) are understood, communicated
and discussed (see Annex 2.14, Chapter 4). This dimension highlights how these processes (and
associated tools) can, through the way they present issues, favour certain human-nature relational
models (Linnell et al., 2015; Muradian & Pascual, 2018), knowledge systems and rationalities, and
associated values (Vatn, 2009). For instance, South American delegations opposed the ecosystem
services concept in the context of the IPBES conceptual framework development, because it
conflicted with their worldviews, knowledge and values (Borie & Hulme, 2015). The framing was

56
negotiated, and the final framework (Díaz et al., 2015) recognized both ecosystem services (academic
knowledge) and Mother Earth (ILK).
Structural power works through historic-specific socio-cultural, political, and economic systems
that reproduce social positions and hierarchies among social groups and reinforce the prioritization
of certain values. Individuals exercise power over others because of their position in social structures
and their capacity to form such structures/institutions (Raik et al., 2008) such as class, race and caste
relations, or capitalistic markets (Bennett et al., 2018). For example, political ecologists have
analysed how class-based relations under capitalism drive capital accumulation through
environmental and social injustices (Bennett et al., 2018; Svarstad et al., 2018). Patron-client
relationships are also important examples of structural power (Annex 2.11) Structural power is
manifested, for example, through rule-making power and operational power.
Rule-making power is the power of actors to create institutions including the opportunity to bias
them toward their interests and values. Rule-making is a political process aimed at the establishment
of formal or informal institutions regarding access, use and responsibilities over nature/ nature´s
contributions to people (e.g., property/use rights, rules for watershed or landscape management).
Exclusion may happen in many ways, as illustrated by cases of watershed management, where
peasants are often excluded from decision-making and their relational values are therefore less
reflected in established rules (e.g., prohibition of crops; Kothari et al., 2015).
Operational power is the power of actors being offered the above-mentioned formal or informal
rights in nature/ nature´s contributions to people to determine the use of these assets and therefore
what and whose values are emphasized (Bromley, 2006). Such power also includes control and
monitoring responsibilities that ensure people’s compliance. The distribution of operational power
through specifying property and use rights to nature and nature’s contributions to people play an
important role in influencing both the distribution of income and the status of nature (Vatn, 2015).
Analysing the power relations embedded in institutions (conventions, norms and rules) is an
important step towards achieving environmental justice regarding access to nature’s contributions to
people (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2020) (Figure 2.19). Environmental decisions are contested as some actors
(including other-than-humans) are positively and others negatively impacted (McShane et al., 2011)
(Box 2.11). Thousands of socio-environmental conflicts have been documented globally between
local communities and state-led or private development and conservation projects (Temper et al.,
2015), reflecting value conflicts and power disputes over nature (Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2019, 2021). For
example, conflicts between local communities and mining companies are observed on all continents
(EJOLT, 2021) implying conflicts between – on the one hand – access to minerals (instrumental
value) and – on the other – relational and intrinsic values as well as traditional instrumental values
(e.g., food products). Powerful actors may even use media-power and / or violence to protect and
reinforce their interests and values (e.g., assassinations of environmental defenders) (Global Witness,
2020; Scheidel et al., 2020). In addition, in many cases the establishment of protected areas can
produce conflicts due to incompatible life frames, one focused on preserving nature and intrinsic and
life support values as endorsed by conservationists (living with nature), and local peoples’ seeing
their land as securing their livelihoods and place (living from and in nature), prioritising relational
and instrumental values (e.g., Cumming, 2016; De Pourcq et al., 2017).
2.4.2. Values in valuation processes and different decision-making contexts
This section develops the above insights further in a more in-depth analysis of how expressions and
prioritizations of values are influenced by institutional contexts. The section starts by looking at the
different ways values can be expressed under various contexts. Next it looks more specifically at how
valuation methods frame values expression - i.e., the implicit or explicit articulation of values by

57
actors and institutions. The last section analyses what type of values are and can be emphasized in
decision-making processes of different kinds.
2.4.2.1. Value expressions under different contexts
Valuation and decision-making regarding nature/ nature´s contributions to people are framed by
institutions. Procedures for valuing nature’s contributions to people, rules structuring decision-
making as in a community assembly or firm, procedures regarding the formulation of an
environmental management plan are all examples of this. The rules define (a) what type of actors
should participate (politicians, representatives of industry, experts, citizens, etc.) with their associated
knowledge systems and worldviews; (b) how they can participate (e.g., verbal exchange, written
forms, in a group-based or individual-based formats); (c) the form information should take (e.g.,
qualitative, quantitative), and (d) the appropriate process to reach a conclusion (e.g., voting,
deliberation and consensus, statistical aggregation). All these rules ultimately define what values of
nature can be accounted for in nature / nature’s contributions to people valuation and decision-
making. Valuation and decision-making processes are therefore not neutral but reflect inherent power
relations (e.g., framing power, rule-making power).
The above understanding points towards several questions that need to be evaluated when organizing
valuation and decision-making processes: What knowledge systems, worldviews or values are at
stake in a given context? Which values can be taken into account and which ones will be excluded?
What are the sustainability and justice implications of including/excluding certain knowledge
systems, worldviews or values? What possible conflicts can emerge due to the inclusion and
exclusion of certain knowledge systems, worldviews or values? How can valuation and decision-
making be transformed so that the rules regarding the integration of values become more transparent?
Figure 2.20 indicates how valuation and decision-making processes may influence value expression
in different ways. People’s values (see Box A) cover instrumental, relational and intrinsic dimensions
that further may relate to different worldviews and life frames. Actors may express values explicitly
or implicitly. Explicit value expressions take oral or written forms (Box B). They may be value
expressions by communities/IPLCs (e.g., a community assembly stating what values to prioritize in
their forest management plan); pricing in markets (commodities); procedures in public decision-
making (where there are rules explicitly defining what to prioritise) and valuation using valuation
methods (e.g., nature, behaviour and statement-based methods) including integrated valuation
methods (see 3.2.2.4).

58
Figure 2.20. Multiple ways in which valuation methods influence value expressions.
Valuations inform decision-making and action contexts (see Box C) (Gómez-Baggethun & Martín-
López, 2015; Kenter et al., 2015). As seen from Figure 2.20, the form of explicit value expression
influences what types of values are emphasized (e.g., market information is dominantly focused on
instrumental values, while community valuation may facilitate expression also of relational and
intrinsic values). Furthermore, some values may be excluded by explicit valuations (due to the rules
and assumptions behind them) and may not inform decision-making (see Figure 2.20; arrow: values
that ‘lose out’). Finally, while values are important, we remember from Section 2.4.1.2 that decision-
making is influenced also by many other factors – a fact that Figure 2.20 does not cover.
So, what values are expressed, how they are expressed, and which values are excluded from the
process, will depend on how the valuation is framed and undertaken. Both disciplinary and non-
academic knowledge systems play important roles regarding how to frame and carry out valuations.
The behavioural model of mainstream economics understands values as individually-based –
represented by how much one is willing to give up to get something and therefore expressed through
a common scale or metric, typically money. Moreover, markets are seen as the ideal institutional
structure for valuing. If values cannot be traded – turned into commodities – this approach favours
simulating hypothetical markets to elicit the willingness-to-pay. The ‘values of society’ – also called
‘social values’ – are then aggregations of individual value expressions. Socially focused academic
fields emphasize the importance of institutions for value expression (see 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.3).
Worldviews, life frames and values are embedded in the institutions of a society, which in turn are
internalized by actors (e.g., individuals, social groups). They see values as cultural phenomena
creating intersubjective meaning acquired through social interactions. From this perspective, values
are not framed as purely individual, but rather seen as shared (Kenter et al., 2015). Shared values
typically regard common goods, such as nature and nature´s contributions to people and are formed
through social processes (Box 2.9).

59
Box 2.9. What are shared and social values?
Shared and social values are diffuse terms that have different meanings across different disciplines. They
have been defined based on the concept of value (broad or specific), who provides them (societies, cultures,
communities, groups or individuals), their scale (value to society or individual), their intention (other-
regarding or self-regarding), and their process of expression (through social processes or individual
elicitation; Kenter et al., 2015). In general, shared values refer to the values that people express collectively,
in groups, communities, and across society as a whole. The term social values has been used in many ways,
e.g., as broad values that influence specific values and behaviour in relation to nature conservation
(Manfredo et al., 2017), as sustainability aligned values embedded in religions (Ives & Kidwell, 2019) or
that drive sustainability behaviour of companies (Fordham & Robinson, 2019), or as shorthand for
sociocultural value indicators (Kronenberg & Andersson, 2019; see 2.2.4).
Especially in economics, social values often refer to specific values and indicators at a social scale, which
can either be established by analytically aggregating individual values, or through social processes (shared
social values; Kenter et al., 2015). Developing effective approaches for assessing social values is one of the
most significant challenges of environmental valuation (Parks & Gowdy, 2013). Aggregation from
individual to social values is a conceptually and ethically challenging task. Values to be aggregated must be
assumed commensurable, which can be highly problematic. Furthermore, aggregate social values may differ
depending on whether everyone is considered equally or whether some are privileged. For example, the
value of flood regulating nature’s contributions to people may be highest near expensive houses. If this
value is used to guide investment in nature-based solutions, this could lead to inequitable decisions. This
can be addressed by equity weighting values (which accounts for that the wellbeing associated with a single
unit of money is inversely related to income) (Ebert, 1986), but ultimately a decision needs to be made about
what particular distribution is fair (Martens, 2011). Similarly, a decision needs to be made as to how to
(dis)count future values against the present, and how to account for risk and uncertainty, which have been
matters of fierce debate (Stern, 2021). Finally, the values of minority groups may be masked by aggregation
(Howarth & Wilson, 2006). As such, how values are aggregated depends on a set of meta-values that are
embedded in valuation institutions (Kenter et al., 2016a). The way these normative questions are addressed
in methods such as cost-benefit analysis is as much based on past practice, political forces, and bureaucratic
pragmatism as theory (Hockley, 2014).
Shared values can be formed through long-term processes of value formation and socialisation, and shorter-
term processes, particularly group deliberation. Long-term formation of shared sustainability-aligned values
involves recursive interaction between individuals, groups and culture (Ishihara, 2018), and progressive
rippling out of values from niches to broader society through social learning and cross-sectoral
institutionalisation (Everard et al., 2016). In terms of shorter-term processes, individualism has dominated
in Western valuation contexts. However, in many non-Western contexts, group-based decision-making is
common, often involving formal or informal deliberation (Christie et al., 2012; Gould et al., 2019; Kenter
et al., 2011). Deliberation is a process of learning, discussion, and consideration of options to form reasoned
opinions (Kenter et al., 2016c). Deliberative valuations can form shared social values whilst navigating
conflicts between different values (Hansjürgens et al., 2017; Irvine et al., 2016). They include increasingly
diverse approaches, from established deliberative methods (e.g., Renn et al., 1995) applied to economic
valuation (Lienhoop et al., 2015; Spash, 2008), to ethnographic and arts-based approaches that emphasize
local knowledge and place (Edwards et al., 2016; Kohn, 2013; Ranger et al., 2016). Scholars endorsing these
perspectives highlight the need for valuation to be more transformative (Kenter, 2016), normative
(Ravenscroft, 2019) and democratic (Lo & Spash, 2012), moving beyond self-interested instrumental
rationality (Hansjürgens et al., 2017; Massenberg, 2019).
In deliberation, participants can act as citizens rather than consumers, frequently drawing on values towards
the common good (Dietz et al., 2009; O’Neill et al., 2008; Vatn, 2009). This is important because there is
often a mismatch between consumer preferences and sustainability-aligned values (Norgaard, 2010; Sagoff,
1986). Deliberative valuation methods do not assume that diverse values can be commensurated into
monetary indicators. However, monetary shared social values can be deliberated directly to reflect socially
desired allocations of resources (Orchard-Webb et al., 2016). Justice questions in terms of who wins and

60
who loses out from policies can be considered explicitly. Whilst such processes do not necessarily lead to
consensus, they may lead to greater acceptance and legitimacy of solutions (Lo, 2014; Ranger et al., 2016).
Some empirical studies suggest that shared values may be more robust than non-deliberated values; are
preferred by valuation participants for policy (Clark et al., 2000; Kenter et al., 2014; 2016b); and facilitate
uptake in decisions (see 4.6.6). These potential benefits are contingent on the inclusiveness of the process.
However, shared and individually aggregated social values do not necessarily diverge and can also be used
in tandem (Brouwer et al., 1999; Raymond et al., 2014). Shared values approaches are most salient when
faced with substantial uncertainty, many constituencies and potential for conflict (Ainscough et al., 2018;
Clark et al., 2000; UK NEA, 2014).
Values can also be expressed implicitly through actions like everyday practices (Figure 2.20, arrow:
implicit value expression). Examples may include a person’s decision to buy organic food –
expressing an intrinsic value (see also 2.2.3; Honkanen et al., 2006); classification of edible species
by indigenous communities oriented by their instrumental value (Balakrishnan et al., 2017); and ritual
offerings to Pachamama performed by IPLC expressing a relational value of care (Salvucci, 2015).
Actions such as habits can be a value expression even if people do not consciously think about them
(e.g., filling up the washing machine before using it) (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Martínez-Espiñeira
et al., 2013). Watershed management also exemplifies that values are often implicitly expressed, as
when some rules around land use favour more powerful actors and their values over less powerful
ones (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017) (see 2.4.1.4, Annex 2.1). The value prioritizations implicit in water
management regimes may become a source of visible conflicts over water use, as in the case of the
Klamath River in the Unites States of America (see Box 2.10; Annex 2.6).
Values can also be transformed or constructed through socio-ecological processes (arrow: socio-
ecological encounters) (see 2.5.1). Values may moreover change as an effect of the value expressions
and decision-making procedures themselves (illustrated in Figure 2.20 by the feed-back arrow: value
formation and change) (see 2.5.1). Both explicit and implicit value expressions are influenced by
power relations and the more general institutions within a society (see 2.4.1.4). Also, valuation and
decision-making procedures may differ in how they deal with value conflicts and their assumptions
regarding value comparability and compatibility (see 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.3).
In sum, Figure 2.20 highlights that efforts to analyse and transform values toward sustainability and
justice require not only facilitating the use of valuation methods, but also analysing and transforming
the institutions that influence human action more at large (e.g., markets, public decision-making
procedures, practices) requiring a broad understanding of human motivation and action. The next two
subsections will expand on the understanding of valuation methods and decision-making as
institutionalized forms of value expressions.
Box 2.10. Value articulation in watershed management: Klamath River.
The Klamath River is the United States of America’s fourth largest. It spans two states, five Indian
reservations and the Yurok and Taruk tribal nations, hosts productive spawning grounds for threatened
Pacific salmon and is one of the most biodiverse regions in western North America (Mucioki et al., 2021).
There are indigenous communities that depend on water from Klamath: the Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk
Tribes, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, Resighini Rancheria, Shasta Indian Nation and the Klamath
Tribes (Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 2019).
During the 20th century, the federal government built dams and drainage infrastructures to ensure water
availability, support irrigation and produce energy. These projects provided affordable, renewable electricity
and transformed large areas into arable land. However, infrastructures blocked salmon passage and reduced
water quality. This impacted indigenous peoples’ way of life, commercial fishing off the Pacific coast
(relational and instrumental values) and threatened fish and wildlife populations (intrinsic values). In 2001,
conflict ignited when a federal agency withheld irrigation water to protect endangered fish, resulting in

61
>$200 million agricultural losses. Thousands protested publicly, and some people illegally diverted water
to crops. The media branded it a “water war” of “fish vs. farmers”. Subsequently, the federal government
stopped withholding water from agriculture, resulting in record-high fish kills, costing fishers >$80 million
and threatening indigenous cultural continuity and food security (Chaffin et al., 2014; Sarna-Wojcicki et al.,
2019).
In 2006, Klamath dam licenses expired and protests from indigenous and environmental groups led the
operating company to launch a collaborative process to negotiate conflicting values and decide the river’s
future (Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 2019). More than 140 stakeholder groups participated to produce the Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement, which includes the removal of some dams and maintenance of higher water
levels to satisfy multiple stakeholders’ needs and values (Biondini, 2017). Unfortunately, the Agreement
was never funded and conflict over water in the Klamath basin continues today.
The crisis in the Klamath basin revealed conflicting worldviews and values across stakeholders. Further,
the divergent perspectives were inequitably expressed in the management rules (approaches and governing
policies) because of power asymmetries. Treaties between indigenous peoples and the federal government
ran counter to traditional ways of relating to nature as implicit value expressions. The investments in
physical infrastructure along the Klamath also implied creation of organizations like the Bureau of
Reclamation, managing the watershed based on a worldview aimed at regulating nature to increase
economic output. As public environmental perceptions shifted in the 1970s, new laws like the Endangered
Species Act provided institutional leverage points to counter the values embodied in such productivist
systems, opening to more diverse life frames.
This conflict manifests fundamental paradoxes – i.e., the conflicting values and life frames underlying the
irrigation projects, the Endangered Species Act and federal-indigenous treaties. The socio-environmental
crisis reflected in the context provided an opportunity to create collaborative, bottom-up decision-making
bodies (e.g., transient “collaborative” forums aimed at dam relicensing) that allowed diverse values and
worldviews, including ILK, to be expressed. As a result, a viable solution arose that had the potential to
deescalate the conflict if it had been funded (Chaffin et al., 2014).
2.4.2.2. Values and valuation methods
Valuation methods are procedures aimed at recognizing or measuring values (see Chapter 3). They
are ‘value articulating institutions’ based on rules defining which values can be expressed and in what
form (Cook et al., 2020; Kallis et al., 2013; Šunde et al., 2018; Tadaki & Sinner, 2014; Vatn, 2009).
They are therefore not neutral devices (see 2.4.1.4; Annex 2.14). Important rules regard: (i) who
should participate and in what role, (ii) the form of the valuation process, (iii) what is considered data,
(iv) treatment of value conflicts and issues around comparability/compatibility of values and (v) how
recommendations should be made (Jacobs, 1997; Vatn, 2009) (Figure 2.21). Here examples
regarding how valuation methods influence value expressions. Regarding the relevance and
robustness of these and other examples, see Chapter 3.

62
Figure 2.21. How valuation methods influence value expressions. While people’s
values may cover a spectrum of all value types, the choice of a valuation method will
influence which values are expressed.
Participants and roles: Valuation methods define who can participate and according to what role
and competence (e.g., as consumers, citizens or experts) (Cook et al., 2020; Martín-López et al.,
2014; Vatn, 2009) – influencing what human-nature relationships (life frames) and rationalities (e.g.,
self-interest, reciprocal, other-related) are emphasized (Vatn, 2009). For example, in contingent
valuation studies, participants are assumed to participate as consumers and expected to express
willingness-to-pay (instrumental value) for the marginal provision of the commodity at stake (Martín-
López et al., 2014). Other approaches, such as social multicriteria evaluation, may emphasize
individuals’ participation as stakeholders (Šunde et al., 2018), facilitating the expression of diverse
(even conflicting) views on human-nature relationships and values (Saarikoski et al., 2016). Experts
also express values when constructing biodiversity indicators reflecting their adherence to the
intrinsic value of species or ecosystems (Duelli & Obrist, 2003). Deliberative processes typically
emphasize the role of the citizen and social rationality (Dietz et al., 2009; O’Neill et al., 2008).
Valuation process: Valuation methods define how participants should contribute – individually
and/or as part of a group, in writing or orally. Important issues regard if communication between
participants is possible/facilitated; if values are seen as fixed or as changeable; how complexity and
uncertainty should be addressed. For example, willingness-to-pay is expressed by individuals
assuming stable preferences/values (Vatn, 2009). Individual-based non-monetary methods such as
interviews, may focus on capturing diverse life frames and values. In some deliberative group-based
valuation methods, participant focus is on the possibility to construct shared values (Box 2.9)
acknowledging complexity and conflicts (Jacobs et al., 2018; Popa & Guillermin, 2015; Ravenscroft,

63
2019; Šunde et al., 2018; Vatn, 2009), assuming that values are not fixed (Gasparatos & Scolobig,
2012; Tadaki & Sinner, 2014). For example, in a choice experiment, Kenter et al. (2011) found that
in contrast to initial individual-based responses, after deliberation participants were unwilling to
trade-off nature´s contributions to people against money.
Data: Valuation methods frame what counts as valid data; what worldviews and knowledge systems
form the basis. This regards issues like how data are produced and communicated and what form
value-based information should take (e.g., as prices, weights, arguments, statements). Valuation
methods frame both value inputs and outputs by emphasizing the validity of certain knowledge
systems, worldviews and life frames. IPLCs, industry, citizens, scientists and policymakers may
emphasize different knowledge systems, worldviews and thus values (Cook et al., 2020; Kallis et al.,
2013). The choice of measures and indicators also influence outcomes (Šunde et al., 2018; Tadaki &
Sinner, 2014). The non-monetary indicator of willingness-to-allocate-time for nature´s contributions
to people conservation may exclude the values of social groups with high time restrictions, such as
women reinforcing gender inequalities (Medina & Arche, 2015; Tilahun et al., 2015). Because
willingness to pay is affected by income distribution, low-income groups will state low economic
values even if attributing high importance to nature. Weighting to correct for income distribution
have been proposed (Adler, 2016; Boardman et al., 2018).
Value conflicts and comparability: Valuation methods define if values are assumed to be
comparable, compatible or to be used in parallel (see 2.2.3.3). Key issues regard to what extent value
conflicts can be acknowledged and how they may be treated. Valuation methods handle value
conflicts and the (im-)possibility to translate multiple value dimensions into a single value
measurement differently (Gasparatos & Scolobig, 2012; Martín-López et al., 2014; Vatn, 2009).
Economic valuation assumes that declined consumption of one good (attribute) can be compensated
by increased consumption of another (Hanley & Czajkowski, 2019). However, people can reject the
expression of the value of nature in monetary terms and the trade-offs that such translation entails
(Temper & Martinez-Alier, 2013) (Box 2.6). Assuming that diverse values can be compared and
ranked by a common unit or standard may be problematic when diverse worldviews with diverse
values coexist (Jacobs et al., 2018; Tadaki & Sinner, 2014) (see 2.2.3.3). Valuation methods based
on participation and deliberation (e.g., participatory scenario planning, social multi-criteria
evaluation) may foster mediation of value conflicts (Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2019).
Recommendations: Valuation methods frame how conclusions are reached and what role different
participants play in that process. A key question regards whether conclusions are based on statistical
aggregation of individual values or on participants’ evaluation and exchange of arguments. Some
deliberative approaches are aimed at consensus; in others, conclusions are reached through voting.
However, this would not necessarily resolve value conflicts. In cost-benefit analysis,
recommendations are based on the net present value. However, there is disagreement among
economists on the choice of the proper discount rate (Beckerman & Hepburn, 2007; Davidson, 2015),
which highly influences net present value measurements.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, Unites States of America in 1989 illustrates the issues raised
above (Fourcade, 2011). Contingent valuation was used to litigate a claim for the loss of non-use
values. A survey among the English-speaking United States population showed that the aggregate
monetary loss of non-use values ranged from 2.8 to 7.2 billion (1990) dollars (Carson et al., 2003).
On the other hand, a ‘talking circle’ (a traditional institution), was established with members of the
Inuit communities (Centemeri, 2015; Picou, 2000). The talking circle was aimed at addressing the
social and cultural impacts (shared instrumental and relational values) caused by the oil spill (i.e.,
decline in social relations, livelihoods, health; post-traumatic disorders) (Palinkas et al. 1993).
Participants showed expressions of sorrow and apology for all beings affected by the disaster,
developing cultural rituals aimed at healing intrinsic values of nature (Centemeri, 2015). Contingent
valuation was instrumental in establishing compensation levels and seems to have influenced the

64
reduction of large oil spills in the United States of America (Carson et al., 2003). However, this
method was not able to capture the worldviews and values of the Inuit communities concerned. For
them the talking circle was a better way to express the diverse values involved (Centemeri, 2015).
To conclude, the choice of a valuation method is not neutral. Scholars in sustainability science have
made a call to reflect on how valuation methods emphasize / exclude knowledge systems, worldviews
and values emphasizing the sustainability and justice implications of such choices (Popa &
Guillermin, 2015). This seems an important point for policymakers when commissioning valuation
studies. Power issues implicit in valuation methods go beyond framing and may interact with other
forms of power (see 2.4.1.4) as is the case when powerful actors influence the selection of
representatives in participatory valuation approaches (Šunde et al., 2018) or when facilitators may
affect results by how they mediate between conflicting interests (Drennon & Cervero, 2002; Heron,
1999).
2.4.2.3. Values and decision-making
The problems we face for maintaining the values of nature/ nature´s contributions to people are the
result of decisions that humans make (see Chapter 1). As we have seen, decisions are sometimes
based on explicit valuation, sometimes the valuation is implicit or follow rules defined for the specific
decision. This section is focused on what values dominate different types of decision-making and
how this influences sustainability and justice outcomes.
As outlined in Section 2.4.1.3, values are often implicit in the rules (institutions) defined for specific
types of decision-making and / or the role that individual or collective decision-makers operate under.
Hence, there are rules for what a politician, chief executive officers of firms or community leaders
are expected to do. These rules are defined to protect certain values underlying the kind of decisions
involved. What values that are protected, vary across types of decision-making. Moreover, what
power different decision-makers have that allows them to influence nature as well as the decisions of
others vary (see 2.4.1.4). The aim of this section is to clarify key aspects of these complex issues. A
more developed and thoroughly referenced analysis of the issues covered here is found in Annex 17.
Since we share natural environments, maintaining the values of nature and sustainable deliveries of
nature’s contributions to people demands coordinating actions at multiple geographical scales and
across social groups. In principle, each single decision regarding nature influences the conditions and
the values of nature for others. This is understood differently across the literature (e.g., concepts like
external effects, side-effects, cost shifting) (Field, 2016; Kapp, 1971). However, all
conceptualizations emphasize that what is best for the individual decision-maker – be it individuals,
households or firms – may add up to intolerable situations for the collective. Moreover, actors may
have an incentive to ‘free-ride’ since reducing negative side-effects of one’s actions is costly, and the
gains thereof are spread across all implicated actors. Even when actors have internalized values of
care for nature, it may be demanding to know when one does something that is harmful and how to
avoid the harm. Further, human interactions with nature are mediated by power relations (see 2.4.1.4)
implying both differentiated environmental responsibilities and distribution of environmental benefits
and costs. Hence, ensuring conditions for collectively realizing the broad values of justice,
sustainability and care is demanding.
2.4.2.3.1. Different values are underpinning different types of decision-making
So, what types of values are promoted under different contexts of decision-making? Building on the
assessment-wide decision-making typology (see 1.2.3, Annex 1.3), it is possible to make some general
assessments. This typology distinguishes between political, economic and socio-cultural decision-
making. In parallel to that, a distinction is made between political and economic actors and civil
society. Political actors have rule-making power and define the institutions – named resource regimes

65
in Figure 2.22 – under which economic actors operate. Political decisions are themselves governed
by constitutional and collective choice rules also defined by political processes (Ostrom, 1990).
Constitutional rules typically define broad values important for the society as well as basic rights of
citizens including what powers policymakers have in relation to its citizens. Collective choice rules
regard how political decisions should be made. The resource regimes offer economic actors the rights
to manage, use and possibly trade resources from nature producing goods / income but also waste
(operational power). That happens given the characteristics of these resources and existing
technologies and infrastructures. Both political and economic decisions are to a larger or lesser extent
embedded within the wider social and cultural context of civil society. Taken together, the
institutional framing of specific economic, political decision-making and socio-cultural processes of
relevance to the governance of human-human and human-nature relationships are termed governance
frameworks. The different relations described above are captured in Figure 2.22.
Figure 2.22. Decision-makers and decisions in context. Source: Vatn (2021,
translated).
Mainstream economics divides economic actors into producers and consumers. They are assumed to
be self-interested, aimed at maximizing profits and utility respectively (e.g., Mankiw & Taylor,
2014). Notably, mainstream production and consumption theory emphasize values that can be traded
in markets (i.e., foremost instrumental values that can be valued in monetary terms).
Understanding firms as profit-making entities is a highly relevant perspective. The rules established
favours the values of owners. Still, the focus on profits is a more relevant description for corporations
than for family firms, IPLCs and community-owned firms. Regarding the latter, broader quality of
life considerations may also be important, such as landscape and community relational values
(Burton, 2004; Gasson, 1973). This is not least an aspect featuring strongly in the literature on
indigenous peoples and local communities (Dominguez et al., 2012; Herrera-Cabrera et al., 2018). At
the same time, it is also observed that the more integrated such producers are into markets, the
stronger role do instrumental values, as embedded in commodities, tend to play (e.g., Farfán-Heredia
et al., 2018) and cooperative structures may erode (Annex 2.11). Similarly, integration in international
markets both increases the distance between actions and their effects on nature values between
different social groups across geographical scales. Moreover, it breaks the links between local
ecological capacities and the flow of matter across the globe following commodity chains raising a
series of issues regarding which values become prioritized. This is illustrated in Box 2.11. At the same
time, a burgeoning literature on sustainable entrepreneurship / eco-social businesses indicates that it
is possible to establish companies where values of nature are explicitly accounted for in the aims of
the business (Johanisova & Fraňková, 2017; Muñoz & Cohen, 2018).

66
Box 2.11. Conflicting values expressed through the coal supply chain from Colombia to Türkiye
Conflicting values at different geographical scales and across social groups can be identified in commodity
chains. One approach to map the connections between nature´s contributions to people, stakeholders at
different levels, value conflicts, justice issues and power dynamics affecting sustainability is through
commodity chain analysis (Robbins, 2014). Such analyses cover the provision of natural resources, implied
externalities like contamination, as well as the social dynamics crucial to understanding the socio-
environmental conflicts and issues of distributive justice arising along these chains (Conde & Kallis, 2012)
(see Chapter 1). For example, analysing the coal chain requires the identification both of its market and
physical components (Wilde-Ramsing et al., 2012) and the diverse and conflicting values involved in the
socially and ecologically unequal exchanges between the countries involved (Cardoso, 2018; Ciccantell &
Smith, 2009; Hornborg & Martinez-Alier, 2016; Talbot, 2002).
An analysis of the coal chain between Colombia and Türkiye shows that a growing industry implies
increased socio-environmental impacts producing conflicts at various scales (Cardoso & Turhan, 2018)
Conflicts between and within the countries and regions involved, arise from clashing worldviews regarding
relations with nature / nature´s contributions to people as well as the unequal distribution of impacts along
the chain (distributive justice). Concerns include reduced public health following air pollution and loss of
identity and sense of place values associated with relocation and displacement of local communities.
Additionally, there are concerns about the loss of intrinsic values due to ecosystem degradation (diversion
of rivers and coastal ecosystems) and climate change. Decisions at one scale or one position in the chain
percolates through the whole chain illustrating the political ecology of coal as a macro-level project of
resource extraction and trade (Bebbington, 2015). The injustices produced may result in claims for
compensation, remediation (retributive justice) and cessation (Zografos & Rodríguez, 2014). They may be
expressed in plural valuation languages, besides economic compensation (Martínez-Alier, 2002).
The market only captures the monetary (instrumental) value of coal. Local indigenous and Afro-Colombian
communities bear heavy social and environmental costs and associated value losses (Cardoso, 2015; Pérez-
Rincón, 2014), and in Türkiye the combustion of coal affects the public health of communities in the areas
surrounding the coal-fired power plants. In addition, the coal chain impacts climate, which itself affects
intrinsic, relational and instrumental values across the planet in unequal ways (Richards & Boom, 2015).
The multiple components of the coal chain and the lack of transparency throughout the system enable
companies to disregard their socio-environmental harms (Harris et al., 2016).
Grassroots movements across cultures and borders can be linked to better account for the plurality of values
(costs and benefits) across the supply chain. However, how actors’ valuation languages and their own
worldview of coal and nature are defended and handled is affected by their power within the chain and their
relationship with the territory where coal is extracted and burned (Cardoso, 2018). Assessing and comparing
the coal chain from a value pluralist perspective enables better comprehension of the issues that underlie
conflicts and may better embrace the valuation languages deployed by each actor, in each country and local
territory.
Also, consumers may act beyond self-interest and - to the extent affordable – “buy green”. Still, that
is a rather marginal phenomenon if we look at the entire market for goods and services (e.g., Vatn,
2015). Nevertheless, consumers may pressurize firms to act more environmentally friendly (Klooster,
2006; Skjærseth & Skodvin, 2001). Pressure from civil society through non-governmental
organizations represents a similar trend (e.g., Pattberg, 2005). This has delegitimized the one-sided
focus on monetary instrumental values by corporations, resulting in the concept of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) to enhance business legitimacy. Taking the concept of social responsibility
seriously may not imply loss of profits as civil society reactions are avoided (Gatti et al., 2019;
Walker & Wan, 2012). Still, the large literature on ‘greenwashing’ shows that genuine corporate
protection of the diverse values of nature is more the exception than the rule (de Freitas Netto et al.,
2020; Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Pizzetti et al., 2021).

67
Given these observations, it is not expected that economic actors can solve the challenges faced
themselves. While they operate under resource regimes defined by political actors, it is, however, not
a given that these actors are neither able nor willing to change the regimes in ways that favour the
maintenance of the diverse values of nature. The literature is quite split on what motivates political
actors. The public choice literature emphasizes that policymakers also act on self-interest (e.g.,
Dearlove, 1989). Other parts of the literature are more concerned with the specific characteristics of
democratic governance, where a key aspect regards forming the role of the politician and the
administrator as serving society (e.g., March & Olsen, 1995). While politicians are typically under
strong influence by powerful economic actors, this understanding opens space for changes in resource
regimes making it possible to protect the nature's diverse values.
While policymaking has largely been seen as driven by interest and interest conflicts, it is also
acknowledged that it is fundamentally about choosing the broad values on which societies should be
based (Fukumoto & Bozeman, 2019; Stewart, 2009). This may happen through explicit decisions
when making budgets and laws. It may, however, also be implicit in the designated
mandates/responsibilities and rules defining what should be accounted for when ministries and
agencies make their decisions (e.g., March & Olsen, 1995). Notably, these actors are formed around
a key (and often conflicting) set of values, interests and knowledge (Movik & Stokke, 2015; Thomas,
1997). Moreover, it is important to note that general economic policies are as important for the
capacity to maintain the diverse values of nature as the more specific policies for protecting them (see
2.4.2.3.2).
Figure 2.22 emphasizes that both political and economic decision-making is embedded in civil
society. Certainly, by making markets the dominant institution for resource allocation, the link
between civil society and economic action is weakened, and many civil society actors may align with
the value prioritization of economic actors (e.g., some social media) (Stutzer et al., 2021). As
emphasized above, civil society forces – especially through the activity of social movements and
NGOs – nevertheless impact upon economic and political decision-making by advocating the
acknowledgement of nature's diverse values. First, civil society and socio-cultural processes form the
value base of societies and political action would – at least in democracies – reflect that (e.g., Schill
et al., 2019) Second, socio-cultural actions are broad in their focus, with emphasis not only on
instrumental values, but also on relational and intrinsic values (Chan et al., 2016; Comberti et al.,
2015) (see 2.2). It reflects the experiences of people as they encounter each other and nature and is
the case whether we talk of industrialized societies or indigenous peoples and local communities.
Certainly, sustainable human-nature relationships may feature less prominently in the former case
(Dawson et al., 2021). The role that civil society can play vis a vis political and economic decision-
making is moreover influenced by the respect given to human and civil rights (Ahmad, 2018; Deva
& Birchall, 2020).
2.4.2.3.2. The conflict between values in policymaking
As noted, the role of policymakers is to prioritize between values when they decide on the more
formal institutions of a society. The period after World War II has been characterized by strong
economic growth, measured with gross domestic product, a monetary instrumental value indicator
(Steffen et al., 2015). Economic growth became a key political goal - reaching the status of a broad
value - in many countries from around 1950 and onwards, and gross domestic product became the
main measure of success underpinning many policies (Box 2.7) (Coyle, 2014; Purdey, 2009;
Schmelzer, 2015). Liberalizing markets and ensuring stable currencies were important institutional
aspects fostering its realization (Steil, 2013). Except for a short period in the 1970s (Gómez-
Baggethun & Naredo, 2015), there has been no serious emphasis on the conflict between economic
growth and maintaining the diverse values of nature. Rather a win-win discourse prevailed (Otero
et al., 2020).

68
Research shows that increased global gross domestic product drives increased use of natural resources
(Krausmann, 2017). In recent periods, even a 1:1 relationship is observed (Hickel & Kallis, 2020).
Such extractive policies have created immediate loss of multiple nature values at different
geographical and social scales, disproportionately affecting indigenous and local communities
(Temper et al., 2018). The Niyamgiri case (Box 2.12) illustrates the power issues and value conflicts
between economic development projects and indigenous peoples and local communities. Over time,
effects have also become global and threaten the functioning of the whole earth system by crossing
key planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015). Certainly, due to a loss of nature’s values following
this development, international treaties and national policies – e.g., regulations and price incentives -
have been instituted in an attempt to overcome the various types of free-rider and power issues
involved (Chasek & Downie, 2020). However, the field of environmental policy is more characterized
by failure than success (e.g., biodiversity loss and climate change) (IPBES, 2019a; IPCC, 2021).
Box 2.12. Conflicting values, power and justice in decision-making about mining: Niyamgiri mountain
The socio-environmental conflict that emerged due to mining near Niyamgiri mountain (Odisha, India),
which is conceived as sacred by local indigenous peoples (Temper, 2019), elucidates the role of worldviews,
values, power and justice in decision-making. It also illustrates how political actors who define the rules for
resource use often also define relevant forms of valuation.
In 2003, the mining company Vedanta Resources received approval to build a refinery (which did not require
forest clearance). In 2004, Vedanta then requested approval to clear forest for a mine, citing the existence
of the refinery as rationale. Niyamgiri provides habitat for diverse species and supports livelihoods for the
Dongria Kondh and Kutia Kondh indigenous peoples, who regard Niyamgiri as sacred and see their survival
as dependent on its ecosystem’s integrity (Temper, 2019).
In 2004 environmentalists petitioned the Indian Supreme court to not allow the mine permit (CEC, 2005;
Sahu, 2008). For nuanced reasons (Annex 2.5), the court approved the mine and associated forest clearance.
This verdict resulted in mass-scale demonstrations. In 2013, India’s Supreme court reversed the earlier
decision, ordering that the Dongria Kondh’s right to worship their sacred mountain must be “protected and
preserved” and that those with religious and cultural values associated with the area must be included in the
decision-making process. It allowed the affected tribal villages to decide on the project via local referenda
(Tatpati et al., 2016; Temper & Martinez-Alier, 2013). The affected villages held referenda and
unanimously rejected the mining project. In 2014, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
upheld the decision to disallow forest clearance.
The case includes a range of valuation approaches: the firm’s bottom-line considerations, cost-benefit
analysis (focusing on instrumental values), portrayals of ecological (intrinsic) values, and evidence of
(relational) cultural values of indigenous peoples. In this case, the power to make decisions influence which
values were prioritized and which valuation methods were deemed appropriate.
The case also exemplifies how different valuation logics succeed or fail in representing different life frames
and sets of values. The first court decision was largely based upon prioritising economic development (living
from frame), emphasizing industrialization (Lele, 2012). Cost-benefit analysis, which focused on
instrumental values (e.g., employment income; infrastructure expenses, profits) and thus supported
Vedanta’s interests, was central to this decision (Padel & Das, 2010). Yet conservation activists (who largely
aligned with a living with frame) conducted an alternate cost-benefit analysis and submitted it to the court;
this cost-benefit analysis was associated with biophysical evaluation (e.g., evidence of rare species) and
represented the project’s biophysical externalities (CEC, 2005). These same activists also submitted a writ
petition that emphasized the intersections between cultural and biodiversity values and the rights of local
communities to define their livelihoods (Supreme Court of India, 1995). They highlighted a relational
worldview (living as and living in frames). The latter two ways of approaching the issue intertwined, as
both incorporated an intact Niyamgiri ecosystem as a core value. Yet cost-benefit analysis, even when
employed by conservationists and including extensive analysis of the biophysical impacts of the mining

69
operation, was unable to represent the cultural, spiritual and territorial values that were most important to
local indigenous people (Temper & Martinez-Alier, 2013).
There are several reasons for this. Environmental regulations generally do not engage with the drivers.
They rather focus on effects (IPBES, 2019a). The institutions established to foster market expansion,
international trade and economic expansion are generally left unchanged or even strengthened.
Policies for economic growth are often put in place as if they will not create serious threats to nature
values. When such problems are encountered, regulations may be put in place to reduce negative
impacts on these values (e.g., Vatn, 2015). There are several serious issues encountered when using
such a ‘grow first – regulate afterwards’ strategy. It produces interests that typically act against
policies that are later proposed to protect the natural values involved (Union of Concerned Scientists,
2007). Moreover, in a natural world of tipping points, the delays caused by such a strategy are highly
problematic. Creating institutions that integrate economic and environmental policies to protect
sustainability and justice values, that focus up-front on avoiding serious future impacts on nature and
nature’s contributions to people and make people less dependent on economic expansion, especially
in rich countries, may be important strategies to handle the challenges humanity faces.

70
2.5. Values formation and change as dynamic processes
Environmental policies often seek to directly or indirectly create or modify values. For example,
almost all national biodiversity strategies and action plans promote greater awareness and concern
for biodiversity (see 2.1.2, Annex 2.2). Decision-makers thus need to understand value formation and
change processes to effectively and ethically engage them in policymaking, including anticipating
their relative stability/malleability in the face of specific policies (see 1.3). Here, scoping and
systematic literature reviews (Pham et al., 2014) were used to explore how values form and change
as individual, social and socio-ecological processes (Kendal & Raymond, 2019) that depend on value
type (e.g., broad versus specific), context (e.g., institutional setting) and scale (e.g., spatial and
temporal) (Horlings, 2015) (Annex 2.16, Figure 2.23). These processes can operate simultaneously
and can feedback to value expression (see 2.4). This subsection spotlights particular concepts to
facilitate reflexive decision-making that better tailors policies for desired outcomes.
Figure 2.23. Understanding value formation and change as part of a dynamic process
provides various 'entry points' for decision-makers to tailor policies toward specific
levels (e.g., individual, social and socio-ecological) in light of desired outcomes of
value expression (e.g., actions, decisions, see section 2.4).

71
2.5.1. Individual, social and socio-ecological processes of value formation and
change
Diverse concepts from multiple academic and non-academic traditions relate to value formation and
change (Table 2.6). ‘Value formation’ refers to how values develop in the first place. ‘Value change’
describes the modification of broad values or altering the prioritization of specific values in
individuals or social groups. Though these are fundamentally related processes, values formation
scholarship rarely considers what was there before (e.g., Schwartz, 1992), whereas values change
studies mostly focus on shifts in sets of values or the organization of values hierarchies over time
(e.g., within an individual’s life, between generations) (Kendal & Raymond, 2019; Manfredo et al.,
2017).
A critical insight for policy-making is to recognize the pivotal role of social dynamics (e.g., gender
roles) and social context (e.g., institutions through which decisions are made) of values formation /
change whereby collective meaning is constructed regarding what is good or bad and right or wrong
within specific situations over time (Bourdieu, 1990; Cooper et al., 2016; Dumont, 1980, 1986;
Graeber, 2001; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Levi-Strauss, 1973). This constructivist perspective applies
explicitly to social and socio-ecological processes and implicitly to some aspects of individual
processes. For example, while a child’s individual cognitive development may underlie her value
formation process (Gilligan, 1993), she is also infused by social dynamics and is always a member
of many communities (Bardi et al., 2009; Norton, 2005). As such, values are embedded in social
dynamics and institutions like gender roles and rituals (see 2.4.1) that emphasize what is expected to
be important. Therefore, these social contexts can promote, activate or hinder certain values at both
individual and societal levels (Amel et al., 2017).
Consequently, policy-settings constitute an important arena whereby individual, social and socio-
ecological processes combine (e.g., collective discussion, deliberation) regarding what matters via
decision-making. These processes also interrelate in forming shared values (Irvine et al., 2016) (Box
2.9). On the one hand, broad values like justice or responsibility can form due to social dynamics
(e.g., family roles, intergenerational exchange) or become embedded in and perpetuated by
institutional contexts (e.g., norms, rules) (Aldridge, 2007; Dewey, 1922; Habermas, 1991; Saroglou
et al., 2004; Schwartz & Huismans, 1995) (Annex 2.3, Box 2.2). Subsequently, individuals may
adhere to these values in different ways and to different degrees. What is considered individual value
formation, therefore, may actually be the expression of shared values at the individual level. Policies
can engage with values formation at the individual level via internalized (or rejected) through
socialization (e.g., by exposure to new belief systems, religions or markets that impact the values that
individuals either hold or express) (Hwang & Bowles, 2011) (Annex 2.3). At the same time, feedback
from ecosystems often informs social value processes (i.e., information from and about nature is used
as a primary input) (Berkes, 2008; Bieling et al., 2014; Rappaport, 1979; Satz et al., 2013).

72
Table 2.6. Summary of key concepts detected in the literature from diverse academic
and cultural traditions to explain value formation and change. Concepts (bolded in text
below) are organized by their focus as (i) individual, (ii) social or (iii) socio-
ecological. These are not mutually exclusive categories and may operate
simultaneously (see Annex 2.16).

73
Finally, this socio-constructivist perspective helps interpret value stability. Stability depends largely
upon the type and dimension of value being considered. A broad value may remain constant in the
individual after formative life stages or within social groups in a given place or time due to stable
social dynamics and contexts. However, specific values have numerous mediating factors that affect
the final expression of a particular principle or preference in a given situation. Nonetheless, even
broad values can shift in the face of significant life events or changing socio-ecological contexts, but
this topic requires further research (see Boxes 2.13 and 2.14).
Box 2.13. Human-nature interactions and value formation and change: Leopold’s wolf encounter
Aldo Leopold (USA, 1887-1948), considered a founder of ecology and environmental ethics, exemplifies
how the senses, sciences and arts can be fused in activating, forming and changing values. In A Sand County
Almanac (Leopold, 2013), Leopold advanced what he called the ‘land ethic’, arguing, “that the individual
is a member of a community of interdependent parts”, adding that humans gradually broadened their moral
concern to larger communities through “a process in ecological evolution” (Leopold, 2013, p. 171). Leopold
then reasoned that moral concern ought to be extended “to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or
collectively: the land” (Leopold, 2013, p. 172), which would mean an environmental decision “is right when
it tends to preserve the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (Leopold, 2013, p. 188).
Leopold acknowledged that Darwin influenced his understanding that we “are only fellow-voyagers with
other creatures in the odyssey of evolution”. This realization can lead us to “a sense of kinship with fellow-
creatures; a wish to live and let live; a sense of wonder over the magnitude and duration of the biotic

74
enterprise” (Leopold, 2013, p. 97). Leopold did not, however, arrive at his ethics exclusively through
science. His perspective was kindled by a personal, sensory, eye-to-eye encounter with a wolf. As a 22-
year-old forester, Leopold was hired to survey public lands in New Mexico. In Thinking like a mountain, he
recalled the day he and a co-worker had the now-famous wolf encounter:
“We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its
way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white
water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realised our error:
it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all
joined in a welcoming mêlée of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a
pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were
pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy; how to aim a steep
downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and
a pup was dragging a leg into impassable side-rocks.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch the green fire dying in her eyes. I realised then,
and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something
known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought
that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise.
But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed
with such a view” (Leopold, 2013, pp. 114-115).
Seeing the “green fire” die in the wolf’s eyes did not suddenly lead Leopold to value predators. Nor did it
alone precipitate his land ethic. Indeed, for years, Leopold embraced government efforts to exterminate
wolves and mountain lions from North American wildlands to increase the availability of deer and elk for
hunters. Rather, the wolf haunted Leopold. She became his muse. Eventually, when combined with
Leopold’s growing ecological understanding, this emotionally-wrenching experience helped him to
understand the socio-ecological importance of predators to flourishing ecosystems. Decades later, he came
to see the effects of deer and elk overpopulation on vegetation and soil erosion. The experience also led to
regret, contributed to his feelings of kinship with other organisms and perceptions that we have ethical
obligations to the entire community of life.
Leopold was aware that people from diverse times, places and cultures have had such feelings. But as a man
whose professional life spanned the first half of the 20th century, he was keenly aware that such broad values
were not prevalent in his country’s decision-making. Indeed, Leopold recognised that too often “we abuse
land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us” (Leopold, 2013, p. 4). Through the art-craft of
writing –telling stories about his own, emotionally-moving experiences, and describing the wonders and
beauties of nature both aesthetically and scientifically– Leopold sought to awaken humankind’s ability to
care, because, “when we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love”
(Leopold, 2013, p. 4).
2.5.2. Combining value formation and change processes to enhance policymaking
Value formation and change are dynamic processes with multiple components and mechanisms that
allow policy engagement. An important insight for decision-makers is that targeting value-related
outcomes (e.g., pro-environmental behaviour) (see 2.4.1) can be achieved by forming and changing
values (e.g., via environmental education) (see Annex 2.16), but also attention to institutional
structures and decision-making contexts that can activate or hinder existing values (see 2.4.2). Based
on this assessment, policies oriented towards value formation and change can consider the following
topics to be more rigorous, effective and inclusive:
• Relatively stable broad values can adapt at certain points in the life cycle. Shifts can occur
when (i) major life events like parenthood or maturation (Kendal & Raymond, 2019;
Milfont et al., 2016), (ii) people’s values are seriously challenged (Bardi & Goodwin,

75
2011), (iii) one’s life is threatened (Gailliot et al., 2008; Greyson, 1983, 1993; Joireman
& Duell, 2005) or (iv) one encounters significant life changes (e.g., migration, Lönnqvist
et al., 2011);
• Engaging value formation and change is an inherently ethical issue. It is important to not
only ‘change’ others values, but also avoid altering desirable cultural expressions
(institutions, languages, knowledges) that protect nature’s values (see 2.2.1, 2.2.2, Annex
2.1)
44
. Consequently, policy instruments can acknowledge and engage with other
knowledge and value systems (e.g., epistemic and recognitional justice). Doing so would
help prevent inappropriate value impositions or manipulations (e.g., Heberlein, 2012);
• Likewise, it can be both more ethical and effective to concentrate policy on building upon
existing value structures and encouraging collective reflection to promote desirable
attitudes, norms and behaviours (Manfredo et al., 2017). For example, rather than calls to
transform established religious traditions (White, 1967), it can be more appropriate to
reinforce values shared by world religions (e.g., reverence, respect, restraint, reciprocity,
redistribution, responsibility and renewal) (Grim & Tucker, 2014). Facilitating
intentionality and self-reflection (e.g., via deliberation) within decision-making can aid
individuals and social groups to activate or reprioritise values that are needed for
sustainability solutions (Raymond & Raymond, 2019).
• Desired specific values can be formed, but also activated or prioritised (see objective 20
from the working document of the targets of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework
proposes: Foster diverse visions of a good quality of life and unleash values of
responsibility, to effect by 2030 new social norms for sustainability) by (1) supporting or
creating arenas where stakeholders can communicate about value priorities in their
societies; (2) strengthening educational programs and language revitalization efforts,
spreading knowledge and fostering reflection over societal values; and (3) changing the
institutional contexts under which decisions are made –both at individual and socio-
political levels– to shift what values get emphasized (Bowles, 1998; Dewey, 1922;
Habermas, 1991).
• Long-term change of broad values occurs slowly, even over generations, but can also
occur when: (i) major life transitions involve multiple alterations (e.g., natural disasters,
urbanization), or; (ii) there are significant alterations in the socio-ecological context (e.g.,
society’s evolving values regarding environmental conservation) (Manfredo et al., 2017,
2020). There is a need for new knowledge directed at understanding better how values
change in the face of socio-ecological regime shifts, such as amidst the risks and
uncertainties of natural or human-made catastrophes and hazards (Kendal & Raymond,
2019) (see Box 2.14).
• While broad values generally form in childhood or early adulthood and remain relatively
stable across one’s lifetime (Dietz et al., 2005; Rokeach, 1973), at the societal level, broad
and specific values may shift due to long-term changes in the ways people relate to the
natural world (Greenfield, 2009) or based on shifting group composition (i.e., the socio-
demographic structure of societal groupings). In response to these altered social contexts,
an individual’s values can be activated (Maio et al., 2009). For example, economic
incentives and other institutional structures can modify how an individual or group
attributes importance to nature (Dixon & Pagiola, 2001). In sub-Saharan Africa, some
studies show that nature was more valued in formal land-use decisions when it was linked
with tourism and international monetary transfers for conservation that benefited local
communities (Barnes et al., 2002) or the state (Amin, 2016). However, integration into
global markets and other economic institutions can also erode local values and institutions
(Al-Ubaydli et al., 2013; Bowles, 1998; Macy & Sato, 2002) (see 2.3.2.3).
44
Systematic review of indigenous and local knowledge and philosophies (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4396278).

76
• Inter-generational time scales are important policy considerations, not only to change
values, but also maintain them (Manfredo et al., 2017). For example, broader socio-
cultural change (e.g., migration, educational attainment) can weaken knowledge
transmission and value formation from older to younger generations (Tefft, 1968; Traub
& Dodder, 1988) or decrease resilience to new value systems (e.g., assimilation) (Bruner,
1956). Plus, “shifting baseline syndrome” (i.e., becoming accustomed to a degraded
world) has been shown to affect younger people’s knowledge and perceptions of nature,
which may ultimately determine their attitudes and values (a phenomenon known as
‘generational amnesia’) (Jones et al., 2020). The issue of inter-generational value changes
is particularly evident in the loss of ILK and associated values, as well as erosion of nature
knowledge or ecoliteracy connected to biodiversity loss (see 2.2.2) (Berkes, 2008;
Genovart et al., 2013; Pilgrim et al., 2007; Schwann, 2018).
Box 2.14. Values involved in the risks and uncertainty of catastrophic events
Research indicates an increased frequency and severity of natural and human-made hazards, particularly
those driven by climate change (Coronese et al., 2019; IPCC, 2012; UNDRR & ISC, 2020). Consequently,
policy-makers from defence, economy, environment, health and transportation sectors are searching for
ways to manage the risk and uncertainty associated with these catastrophic events (e.g., Asian Development
Bank: Thomas & López, 2015; IUCN: Monty et al., 2016; insurance industry: Hoeppe, 2016). Nature-based
solutions (e.g., supporting ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction) harness the ability of biodiversity and
ecosystems to provide multiple contributions to people across development sectors, ranging from
infrastructure and territorial planning to health and business (WHO: Wisner et al., 2002, IUCN: Monty et al.,
2017). These policies not only improve biophysical measures of nature, such as hectares of mangroves, but
also indicators of human well-being related to economics like reduced cost of road construction and
maintenance and health outcomes like fewer lives lost. Valuation efforts have been made to estimate market
and non-market values of the social, economic and health costs of natural disasters and the benefits derived
from mitigation investments; these studies indicate that even when cost-benefit analyses are not feasible,
due to insufficient information or incommensurable values (e.g., mental health, cultural heritage), it is
prudent to account for diverse values when prioritizing decisions or use non-economic methods, such as
consultative or deliberative processes (Rogers et al., 2019).
Decision-making regarding natural hazard risk management is a complex process integrating multiple
‘facts’ and ‘values’ in the assessment of both the disaster’s effects and its underlying causes (Aven, 2016).
Consequently, effective natural-disaster preparedness accounts for nature’s instrumental (e.g., crops,
timber), intrinsic (e.g., species, ecosystems) and relational (human health, sense of place, recreation) values
(ECLAC, 2003; Graham et al., 2013). Furthermore, certain social groups are more vulnerable to such
catastrophes, as in the case of women having a lower life expectancy than men in response to natural
disasters due to their socio-economic status, rather than biological or physiological reasons, (Neumayer &
Plümper, 2007). Scholarship has shown that integration of ILK (Kuruppu, 2009; Rai & Khawas, 2019),
attention to cultural values (Jogia et al., 2013) and consideration of social institutions (e.g., religion,
Hiwasaki et al., 2014) are not only requisite to achieve equity and inclusion, but also ensure community
preparedness and resilience, resulting in improved conditions for recovery.
As socio-ecological processes, catastrophic events make nature’s diverse values more evident. For example,
in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of 'one health' has led policymakers to reconsider the
value of the link between human and environmental health (Rampa, 2020; UNEP & IRLI, 2020). Such
‘encounters’ also demonstrate that: (i) the acknowledgement of diverse values is necessary to respond
effectively to socio-ecological risks and uncertainty, and (ii) the solutions employed to mitigate or recover
from such crises can themselves modify social values (Ramanujam et al., 2012). These insights can be
applied to other policy challenges where wholescale socio-ecological regime shifts occur at slower time
scales, such as the land use transformations involved in dams, monoculture plantations and urbanization.
However, more research is needed to better anticipate not just the values at stake in the face of extreme
events, but also how these disturbances can change values in the long-term like placing greater importance
on green infrastructure. In particular, it is clear also that the policies and structures created to manage these

77
phenomena themselves are value articulating institutions that will express and also form values into the
future (see 2.4.1; see also Ford et al., 2019).
2.6. Conclusions regarding the multiple conceptualizations of
nature’s diverse values
Based on three stages of literature review and ILK dialogues and submissions, Chapter 2 authors
characterized and assessed different conceptualizations of nature, nature’s contributions to people
and human-nature relationships and how these diverse ways of understanding affect peoples’
attitudes, behaviour and decisions. This process brought to light knowledge and capacity gaps (Box
2.15, see Chapter 6). To conclude, the chapter’s findings are brought into perspective as insights to
the IPBES conceptual framework (IPBES 2/4) (see 2.6.1), to the science-policy interface (see 2.6.2)
and to this assessment’s subsequent chapters (see 2.6.3).
2.6.1. Relevance for the IPBES conceptual framework
Chapter 2’s main concepts and their interrelations are visualized in Figure 2.24; red numbers refer
to pathways that complement and enhance the IPBES conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2015;
IPBES-2/4).
Figure 2.24. Summary of the main conclusions derived from the assessment in
Chapter 2. Red numbers indicate places where the chapter’s work complements or
enhances the IPBES conceptual framework. Descriptions of each are provided in the
text.

78
1. In the context of previous IPBES assessments, ‘nature’ refers to the “nonhuman world,
including co-produced features, with particular emphasis on living organisms, their diversity,
their interactions among themselves and with their environment” (IPBES, 2019b) However,
the concept of nature itself varies among cultures, knowledge systems and traditions.
Within the context of predominant environmental science and policy perspectives, nature is
often conceived in terms of biodiversity, ecosystems, evolution, the biosphere, humankind’s
shared evolutionary heritage, and biocultural diversity. Within the context of other knowledge
systems, however, it includes more holistic, relational concepts such as Mother Earth and
systems of life. Indeed, in the worldviews and / or languages of many sociocultural groups
(both IPLCs and others), there is no separation between humans and nature, but rather a
context-specific understanding of the symbolic, spiritual and physical connectedness between
people and places (see Chapter 1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, Annex 2.8).
2. Different worldviews shape one’s adoption of broad values with regard to nature and a
good quality of life. Worldviews are forged through the dynamic interplay between
individuals, social groups, and place, in both biophysical and built environments (see 2.2.1).
Multiple factors shape worldviews including knowledge systems, languages and religion.
Worldviews can also be shaped or modified through cultural encounters, such as in human
displacement and migrations, as well as through coping with natural and human-made
disasters (Box 2.14). Different types of worldviews are recognized in the literature including
anthropocentric, bio- and eco-centric, and pluricentric. Philosophies of good living held by
many indigenous peoples and local communities and other human groups promote and
embody diverse broad values between humans and between humans and nature, including
reciprocity, responsibility, place-based identities, kinship with nature and self-determination.
Some of these values have been articulated in different policies and governance systems from
local to global scales (see Box 2.4)
45
.
3. IPBES’ conceptual framework focuses attention on institutions and governance systems as
underlying causes of environmental change that are exogenous to the ecosystem in question.
This chapter reinforces this conceptualisation by recognising that institutions (e.g.,
conventions, norms and legal rules) shape and are shaped by worldviews and broad values.
These processes are both formal and informal and influenced by existing power structures.
For example, different understandings of fairness, equity and responsibility will shape
different systems of property rights, economic policy, legislative arrangements, norms and
conventions, which significantly influence how people make decisions and act in relation to
nature. Thus, through worldviews and institutions, broad values shape direct anthropogenic
drivers affecting nature.
4. The IPBES conceptual framework and global assessment discuss the importance of
harnessing values for sustainability. This chapter reveals the complexity associated with
changing values to achieve just and sustainable futures, providing conceptual clarity to
support the other chapters, as well as policy options. Values can change slowly or quickly,
depending on the value dimension at play and the broader socio-institutional context (4).
Broad values typically form in childhood and early adulthood (see 2.5.1) but can be modified
subsequently based on major life changes or through deliberative processes (see 2.5.2).
Specific values (i.e., instrumental, intrinsic and relational values) are more malleable and also
overlapping; they often depend upon context-specific situations, including institutions that are
amenable to policy interventions (Annex 2.16; see 2.5.2). Pathways of formation and change
vary according to social dynamics and socio-ecological settings. For example, specific values
as expressed in political, economic and socio-environmental decision-making can obstruct
changes in broad values. Similarly, how values are expressed can be affected by valuation
45
Literature review for the philosophies of good living (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4399544)

79
approaches used and power dynamics. Changing the institutional contexts under which
decisions are made (e.g., whether they emphasize individual or collective interests, economic
growth or broader notions of well-being) help shift what values get emphasized (see 2.4.2,
2.5.2).
a. The change in institutions over time corresponds with changes in and formation of
broad values (horizontal orange arrow) through a dynamic relationship. Value
expressions, including behaviour and actions, are mediated by power relations and
manifest in institutions affecting which values are prioritized in decision-making, as
well as how values are formed and activated. Institutions influence decision-making
in different ways. They define who has the power to influence or make certain
decisions and on the basis of what values and knowledge (see 2.4.1.4). They influence
how / which values can be expressed in decision-making (see 2.4.2.1). The methods
used for valuing nature and nature’s contributions to people are based on rules like
who can participate (connecting with procedural, epistemic and recognition justice)
(see Chapters 1, 4 and 5) and in what capacity, what are considered valid value
expressions and how value expressions can be aggregated as social values or
deliberated as shared values (see 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2). Institutions, moreover, play a role
in forming individuals and collective actors. Decisions made by political, economic
and civil society actors are based on different institutionalized logics (e.g., human and
environmental rights and regulations, democratic rule / voting, cost-benefit analysis,
bottom line considerations, deliberation) (see 2.4.2.3).
5. Specific values are diverse and mediate between nature, nature’s contributions to people
and good quality of life. Despite their distinct definitions, specific values are not mutually
exclusive and can overlap (see 2.2.3.3). For example, food may simultaneously have
instrumental and relational values, depending on the measure. Broad values inform people’s
understanding of what a good (quality of) life consists of. Under the umbrella of this general
understanding, specific values express the particular ways in which nature’s contributions to
people can contribute to a good life. Some of the relationships between broad values and good
quality of life can be considered objectively (e.g., disease incidence and life expectancy),
while others depend on what life frames matter most or are prioritized in a given context, and
the broad values associated with these framings.
6. The life frames link different subsets of broad and specific values, including with regard
to nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life, but also in terms of how
nature is framed as important more broadly. Life frames can be used as a tool to mediate
between ways that people relate to nature, or to why nature is important (see 2.3.2). Life
frames are not mutually exclusive overarching framings of human-nature relationships.
Rather, they can be seen as different sources of concern for the natural world. Both individuals
and collectives can harbour multiple frames, though one or more may be emphasized in
particular situations.
7. Specific values can be assessed using biophysical, economic and socio-cultural
indicators. Indicators can be qualitative or quantitative. Some indicators are more suitable to
identify diverse values, while others elicit a single set of value types. Value indicators can be
comparable or compatible, but direct comparison is often not possible due to their different
conceptual or ethical underpinnings or technical characteristics (see 2.2.3.3). Recognising and
operationalising value plurality through multiple indicators is particularly important for
complex and contested policy questions (see 2.2.3.3); in these cases, it is also key to bridge
diverse values and indicators through deliberative shared values approaches, rather than
aggregation into single measures of social value (see 2.4.2.1). This assessment recognizes that
certain groups, under specific contexts, wish for their values not to be compared, or indeed

80
the underlying assumptions associated with certain values are so different that they need to
be used in parallel.
8. Cultures, languages and geographies affect all aspects of human-nature relationships,
including the way that nature and its contributions to good quality of life are conceived of (see
2.2.2), the degree to which different life frames are emphasized (see 2.3.2), and the way that
broad and specific values are conceptualised, expressed and operationalized through
behaviours and decisions (see 2.4.1, 2.4.2).
2.6.2. Relevance for supporting value-plural policies
Many international environmental and development policies recognize nature’s diverse values,
enunciating a range of broad values (e.g., sustainability, justice, equity) and specific values (e.g.,
intrinsic, instrumental, relational). However, a review of national biodiversity strategies and action
plans found a predominance of instrumental values. None of those reviewed explicitly detailed how
to treat diverse values in policy tools. Incorporating a dynamic and relational understanding of values
would help move these policies beyond the extant dichotomy between people and nature (or people
versus nature) that is part of the predominant anthropocentric worldview behind a central
prioritization of economic growth and instrumental values, often to the detriment of other values.
This chapter demonstrates that people recognise not only material, non-material and regulating
nature´s contributions to people, but also values that express meaningful and often reciprocal
relationships with nature, and values for nature beyond its importance to people (see 2.2.3.2, Box
2.4). Drawing on nature’s diverse values can make otherwise neglected, intangible costs and benefits
visible in environmental policy, and at the same time, enable representation of diverse voices in
decision-making, thus supporting a more inclusive and legitimate process, as well as a better
understanding of the sources of environmental conflicts. For example, drawing upon relational values
can facilitate justice, social equity and sustainability outcomes (see 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3), including the
attainment of international policies and agreements, such as the SDGs. The chapter also recognises
alternative and / or incompatible understandings of values across cultures and contexts. Yet objects
or subjects of value can be important across more than one value type (and life frame). This potential
convergence can be used to build common understanding across stakeholders in support of
conservation, justice and/or sustainability (see 2.2.3.3).
Value-related outcomes can be achieved by forming and/or changing values through individual and
social processes (see 2.5.1), but also by giving attention to institutional structures and decision-
making contexts that can activate or hinder certain values (see 2.4.2). Many environmental and
development policies are oriented towards changing values within the individual to support
sustainability (see 2.4.1, 2.5.1). Social dynamics (e.g., gender roles, intergenerational equity) and
social context (e.g., institutions structuring decisions) also influence how values are constructed over
time. The same regards socio-ecological processes (Table 2.6). Furthermore, value articulating
institutions have a powerful role in shaping value expression. Institutions rely on different forms of
power (e.g., framing power, structural power, rule-making power) and define which values of nature
can be integrated into environmental policy and decision-making (see 2.4.1.4; 2.4.2). For example,
the UK fisheries and Niyamgiri case studies reveal that the policy focus and valuation design will
influence which life frames and associated values are emphasized (see Boxes 2.8 and 2.12, Annexes
2.5 and 2.6).
Policy settings can support justice and sustainability by drawing on this more inclusive understanding
of the diverse values of nature. Practices that can encompass this more inclusive understanding
include: (a) engaging diverse values and knowledge systems (see 2.2); (b) seeking to activate values,
attitudes, beliefs and norms that are likely to support pro-environmental behaviour (to the extent that
values influence behaviour; see 2.4.2, 2.5.2); (c) encouraging collective reflection and allowing for
expression of multiple value structures through institutions (see 2.4.2); and (d) changing the

81
institutions that manage and impact specific economic, political decision-making and socio-cultural
processes (see 2.4.2.3.1).
However, sustainability is not a single homogenous value, but relates to diverse broad values that are
different depending on what life frames are emphasized. Examples include fair distribution of
resources within and between generations (living from nature) and achieving sustainable relations of
harmony and connectedness (living as nature). Decision-making contexts can activate sustainability-
aligned values (see 2.4.2, Chapter 5). By choosing which life frames to emphasize in specific
contexts, multiple sets of sustainability-aligned values can be balanced, embedded in institutions, and
harnessed for sustainability transformation, while negative values arising from overemphasis of any
single frame can be avoided or minimized (see 2.3.2).
2.6.3. Relevance for the values assessment
This chapter provides the conceptual basis for the assessment’s subsequent chapters. Chapter 3
expands on the findings from section 2.2 regarding indicators and preferences, distinguishing
methods families based on nature-based, statement-based, behaviour-based and integrated valuation
approaches for assessing broad and specific values in plural decision-making contexts, including
valuation as practiced by indigenous peoples and local communities. Chapter 4 expands on the
different forms of values expression and institutions developed in section 2.4 to examine valuation
uptake for public information, decisive project appraisal, policy instrument design and legal dispute
resolution purposes. Chapter 5 explores how sustainability-aligned values (see 2.2.3) can be
encouraged by different policy interventions or planning processes that can shift values (or their
expression or prioritization) by removing barriers to or creating favourable context (see 2.5). To
support Chapter 6’s mission of developing capacity for assessing and integrating the nature's diverse
values into decision-making, Chapter 2 offers a set of knowledge and capacity gaps to be addressed
in future research and practice (see Box 2.15).
Box 2.15. Chapter 2’s knowledge and capacity gaps
This chapter identified knowledge and capacity gaps in the understanding and operationalization of diverse
values between different cultural groups, academic disciplines, social roles and policy domains. ILK and
western philosophies of good living (see 2.2.1) are often presented in a polarised way in the literature. Future
research would benefit from presenting how diverse local communities in the global north and global south
draw upon or are guided by different philosophies. The value types have been considered primarily from an
ethical and social science perspective, but less so from a biogeographical perspective. For example, what
kinds of biophysical features lead to particular human-nature relationships that in-turn support particular
kinds of values expressions? There is an important need to further study life support values, including the
way people express the value of life-supporting processes, functions, and systems, which cut across
instrumental, relational and intrinsic values (see Box 2.5). Future research would also benefit by comparing
and contrasting diverse understandings of human-nature relationships and life frames across disciplines and
knowledge systems, and explicitly relate them to different broad and specific values or use them to bridge
instrumental, relational values, and intrinsic values (see 2.3.1). Also, how values are represented at the
societal scale requires further investigation, including more systematic comparison between social values
from individual aggregation and shared social values in different contexts.
While there is ample study of negative drivers on biodiversity and ecosystems (e.g., research on
environmental degradation or conservation conflicts), there could be a more explicit treatment of the role of
negative values (e.g., living against nature, living disconnected from nature) compared with the positive
orientation and / or on trade-offs between different frames, often connoted with general values theory and
policy frameworks.
There is a need to continue creating new information regarding the relationship between social roles and
power structures (e.g., gender, ethnicity, race, colonial legacies) and how values are expressed in decision-
making. One way to address such dynamics would be via systematic comparison of different

82
institutionalized logics (e.g., economic incentives and governance structures that emphasize instrumental
values) and how they operate given different contexts (e.g., community, markets) and affect different
stakeholders (e.g., business, consumers, citizens) (see 2.4.2). Finally, while it is common for environmental
policies to seek to modify values (e.g., education, awareness campaigns), more study is needed on how
values are affected by conservation interventions (e.g., community engagement, deliberation, environmental
education, ecological restoration) and shifting linked socio-ecological baselines (e.g., languages and
ecoliteracy loss and species extinction, pandemics, natural disasters, climate change; see 2.2.2, 2.5.1, 2.5.2).
It is also clear that relationships between values and behaviour and human action are extremely complex
(see 2.4.1). More research that focuses specifically on these complex relationships would help better
understand the multi-faceted implications of values.
These diverse conceptualizations of nature and its values also require enhancing certain capacities. Many
conceptual issues have direct implications for the practical management of decision-making processes
drawing on the diverse values of nature. Such decision-making implies the ability to recognize and validate
knowledge developed by indigenous peoples and local communities (i.e., legitimacy, procedural and
recognition justice), thereby connecting worldviews, values and policymaking in IPLC contexts and
applying them to environmental management not only of local areas and indigenous territories, but also
more broadly (see 2.2.1, 2.2.2). This need includes specialized training for decision-makers on IPLCs
worldviews and governance structures to properly engage with and articulate ILK-based values in
policymaking (see 2.2.1, 2.2.2). Furthermore, the capacity to integrate strategies for cultural and biological
diversity implies such abilities as the creation of in situ language revitalization programs that could produce
fluent speakers connected to their environment or participatory environmental education that is inclusive of
diverse social groups (see 2.2.2). Conversely, historically disadvantaged groups need greater abilities to
have agency and overcome power dynamics to articulate their own values in their own terms (see 2.4.1).
The concept of relational values seems to be mostly used by academics, but there is also a need to
operationalize this concept in environmental policy (e.g., environmental impact assessments) and corporate
governance (e.g., accounting; environmental, social and governance criteria). As such, mainstreaming
diverse values into new forms of corporate and civil governance (e.g., legal instruments, technical training)
means developing the capacity, time and resources to shift the focus from solely material well-being to
wider goals of reciprocity, care and justice that are grounded in different socio-cultural groups and languages
(see 2.2.1; 2.2.2; 2.2.3). It also requires building capacity to consider decisions from the perspective of
multiple life frames (see 2.3). Enhancing the conceptual proficiency of decision-makers is inextricable from
the practical applications they carry out, such as conducting risk assessments that consider the risks of under-
or over-emphasis of specific values (e.g., instrumental, relational, intrinsic) or ways of organizing values
(e.g., specific life frames). Finally, training is necessary to also make practitioners aware of how different
value articulating institutions may allow or resist value and behaviour change and affect outcomes of
sustainability policies (see 2.4.2). Building these capacities would allow participatory valuation processes
that ensure diverse values are supported.

83
REFERENCES
Abensperg-Traun, M. (2009). CITES, sustainable use of wild species and incentive-driven
conservation in developing countries, with an emphasis on southern Africa. Biological
Conservation, 142(5), 948-963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.034
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H.,
Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for
sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-
0800-y
Acosta, A., & Martinez, E. (2011). La Naturaleza con derechos de la filosofía a la política.
Ediciones Abya-Yala.
Adams, C. (1940). Introductory Note. Ecological Monographs, 10(3), 309-310. JSTOR.
Adler, M. D. (2016). Benefit-cost analysis and distributional weights: An overview. Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2), 264-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew005
Ahmad, D. N. (2018). The role of civil society institutions in environmental governance in India:
Post-colonial context and human rights challenges in the environmental justice. 24.
Ainscough, J., Wilson, M., & Kenter, J. O. (2018). Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of
science. Ecosystem Services, 31, 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.021
Ainsworth, G. B., Kenter, J. O., O’Connor, S., Daunt, F., & Young, J. C. (2019). A fulfilled human
life: Eliciting sense of place and cultural identity in two UK marine environments through
the Community Voice Method. Ecosystem Services, 39, 100992.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100992
Albó, X. (2018). Suma Qamaña or Living Well Together: A Contribution to Biocultural
Conservation. En R. Rozzi, R. H. May, F. S. Chapin III, F. Massardo, M. C. Gavin, I. J.
Klaver, A. Pauchard, M. A. Nuñez, & D. Simberloff (Eds.), From Biocultural
Homogenization to Biocultural Conservation (Vol. 3, pp. 333-342). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_21
Aldridge, A. (2007). Religion in the contemporary world: A sociological introduction. Polity Press ;
Blackwell Publishers.
Ali, F. (2020). Connecting East and West through Modern Confucian Thought. Asian Studies, 8(3),
63-87. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2020.8.3.63-87
Allen, K. E., Quinn, C. E., English, C., & Quinn, J. E. (2018). Relational values in agroecosystem
governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 108-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026
Altman, M. (2015). Handbook in Contemporary Behavioural Economics: Foundations and
developments. Routledge.
Al-Ubaydli, O., Houser, D., Nye, J., Paganelli, M., & Pan, X. (2013). The Causal Effect of Market
Priming on Trust: An Experimental Investigation Using Randomized Control. PloS one, 8,
e55968. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055968
Amel, E., Manning, C., Scott, B., & Koger, S. (2017). Beyond the roots of human inaction:
Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science, 356(6335), 275-279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012091560-6/50013-5
Amin, A. (2016). Exploring the role of economic incentives and spillover effects in biodiversity
conservation policies in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 127, 185-191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.018
Anbleyth-Evans, J., & Lacy, S. N. (2019). Feedback between fisher local ecological knowledge and
scientific epistemologies in England: Building bridges for biodiversity conservation.
Maritime Studies, 18(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-019-00136-3

84
Anderson, N., Ford, R. M., Bennett, L. T., Nitschke, C., & Williams, K. J. H. (2018). Core values
underpin the attributes of forests that matter to people. Forestry: An International Journal of
Forest Research, 91(5), 629-640. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpy022
Apostolopoulou, E., & Adams, W. M. (2017). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: Reframing
nature to save it. ORYX, 51(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000782
Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., & Pérez-Rincón, M. (2018). Widening
the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation
methods. Environmental Values, 27(1), 29-53.
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513
Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic,
instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems.
Ecology and Society, 22(4). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443
Arkema, K. K., Griffin, R., Maldonado, S., Silver, J., Suckale, J., & Guerry, A. D. (2017). Linking
social, ecological, and physical science to advance natural and nature-based protection for
coastal communities: Advancing protection for coastal communities. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1399(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13322
Arlinghaus, R. (2006). Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery
resources, with emphasis on central Europe. Environmental Conservation, 33(1), 46-59.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906002700
Ateljevic, I. (2013). Transmodernity: Integrating perspectives on societal evolution. Futures, 47,
38-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.01.002
Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their
foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023
Babutsidze, Z., & Chai, A. (2018). Look at me Saving the Planet! The Imitation of Visible Green
Behavior and its Impact on the Climate Value-Action Gap. Ecological Economics, 146,
290-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.017
Balakrishnan, V., Anil Kumar, N., & Ratheesh Narayanan, M. K. (2017). Ethnic Knowledge in
Classification and Conservation: A Case Study of Wild Yam in Western Ghats. En S.
Abdulhameed, N. S. Pradeep, & S. Sugathan (Eds.), Bioresources and Bioprocess in
Biotechnology (pp. 303-328). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3573-
9_13
Balundė, A., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2019). The Relationship Between People’s
Environmental Considerations and Pro-environmental Behavior in Lithuania. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 2319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02319
Baniwa, A. F. (2019). Bem Viver e Viver bem: Segundo o Povo Baniwa no Noroeste Amazônico
Brasileiro (1a edição). Editora UFPR.
Bannon, B. (2014). From Mastery to Mystery. A Phenomenological Foundation for an
Environmental Ethic. Ohio University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book.28509
Bardi, A., Buchanan, K. E., Goodwin, R., Slabu, L., & Robinson, M. (2014). Value stability and
change during self-chosen life transitions: Self-selection versus socialization effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 131-147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034818
Bardi, A., & Goodwin, R. (2011). The dual route to value change: Individual processes and cultural
moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 271-287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396916
Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Soutar, G. (2009). The structure of intraindividual
value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 913-929.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016617

85
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and Behavior: Strength and Structure of Relations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1220.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602
Barnes, J. I., Macgregor, J., & Chris Weaver, L. (2002). Economic Efficiency and Incentives for
Change within Namibia’s Community Wildlife Use Initiatives. World Development, 30(4),
667-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00134-6
Bartel, R., Hine, D. W., & Morgan, M. (2020). Human engagement in place-care: Back from the
wilderness. En Rethinking Wilderness and the Wild (pp. 145-164). Routledge.
Barton, D. N., & Harrison, P. (2017). Integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services.
Guidelines and experiences. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable, D 3.3. & D 4.4.
Batavia, C., & Nelson, M. P. (2017). For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we
care? Biological Conservation, 209, 366-376. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003
Bebbington, A. (2015). Political ecologies of resource extraction: Agendas pendientes. ERLACS,
0(100), 85. https://doi.org/10.18352/erlacs.10121
Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. The University of Chicago
Press.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior. Journal of
Political Economy, 101(3), 385-409.
Beckerman, W., & Hepburn, C. (2007). Ethics of the Discount Rate in the Stern Review on the
Economics of Climate Change. 8(1), 26.
Beery, T., Jönsson, K., Elmberg, J., Beery, T., Jönsson, K. I., & Elmberg, J. (2015). From
Environmental Connectedness to Sustainable Futures: Topophilia and Human Affiliation
with Nature. Sustainability, 7(7), 8837-8854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078837
Bennett, M. T., Gong, Y., & Scarpa, R. (2018). Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice
Experiments to Assess «Eco-compensation» for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China.
Ecological Economics, 154, 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.016
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Books.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management
(Vol. 203). Taylor & Francis.
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology (2nd ed). Routledge.
Berry, P. M., Fabók, V., Blicharska, M., Bredin, Y. K., Llorente, M. G., Kovács, E., Geamana, N.,
Stanciu, A., Termansen, M., Jääskeläinen, T., Haslett, J. R., & Harrison, P. A. (2018). Why
conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments
for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(7), 1741-1762. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1173-z
Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and
human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics,
105, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
Biondini, L. D. (2017). Salmon pluralities: The politics of commercial fishing on the Hoopa Valley
Reservation. 95.
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between
national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599
Blanco, J., & Carrière, S. M. (2016). Sharing local ecological knowledge as a human adaptation
strategy to arid environments: Evidence from an ethnobotany survey in Morocco. Journal of
Arid Environments, 127, 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.10.021

86
Bleeker, S., & Vos, J. (2019). Payment for ecosystem services in Lima’s watersheds: Power and
imaginaries in an urban-rural hydrosocial territory. Water International, 44(2), 224-242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1558809
Bloch, A., & Hirsch, S. (2017). The educational experiences of the second generation from refugee
backgrounds. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(13), 2131-2148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1286972
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Concepts and Practice (5.a ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235594
Borie, M., & Hulme, M. (2015). Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and
ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 487-496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.009
Borrows, J. (2016). Freedom and Indigenous Constitutionalism. University of Toronto Press.
https://utorontopress.com/us/freedom-and-indigenous-constitutionalism-4
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2804264
Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous Preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other
economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 75-111.
Braat, L. C. (2018). Five reasons why the Science publication “Assessing nature's
contributions to people” (Diaz et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in Ecosystem
Services. Ecosystem Services, 30, A1-A2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.002
Bremer, L. L., Brauman, K. A., Nelson, S., Prado, K. M., Wilburn, E., & Fiorini, A. C. O. (2018).
Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed Payment for
Ecosystem Services: A review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 116-
123. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Bretzel, F., Vannucchi, F., Romano, D., Malorgio, F., Benvenuti, S., & Pezzarossa, B. (2016).
Wildflowers: From conserving biodiversity to urban greening—A review. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening, 20, 428-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.008
Bridgewater, P., & Rotherham, I. D. (2019). A critical perspective on the concept of biocultural
diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation. People and Nature, 1(3),
291-304. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10040
Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic
Institutions. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rhhm
Broomell, S. B., Budescu, D. V., & Por, H. H. (2015). Personal experience with climate change
predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, 67-73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.001
Brouwer, R., Powe, N., Turner, R. K., Bateman, I. J., & Langford, I. H. (1999). Public attitudes to
contingent valuation and public consultation. Environmental Values, 8(3), 325-347.
Brown, T. C. (1984). The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation. Land Economics, 60(3), 231.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3146184
Bruner, E. M. (1956). Primary Group Experience and the Processes of Acculturation. American
Anthropologist, 58(4), 605-623. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1956.58.4.02a00030
Burke, P., & Stets, J. (2009). Identity Theory. Oxford University Press.
Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: A
socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 359-371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001
Caillon, S., & Degeorges, P. (2007). Biodiversity: Negotiating the border between nature and
culture. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(10), 2919-2931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
007-9149-7

87
Callicott, J. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: Essays in environmental philosophy. State
University of New York Press.
https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=R___rHZceUsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q
&f=false
Callicott, J. B. (2009). The convergence hypothesis falsified: Implicit intrinsic value, operational
rights, and de facto standing in the endangered species act. En Nature in Common?:
Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy (pp. 142-
166). Scopus. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84899692606&partnerID=40&md5=4c175c7927a5511ec669d30fbbfcffe7
Cámara-Leret, R., & Bascompte, J. (2021). Language extinction triggers the loss of unique
medicinal knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(24),
e2103683118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103683118
Cameron, R. W. F., Blanuša, T., Taylor, J. E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A. J., Henricot, B., &
Thompson, K. (2012). The domestic garden—Its contribution to urban green infrastructure.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(2), 129-137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.002
Campagne, C. S., Roche, P. K., & Salles, J. M. (2018). Looking into Pandora’s Box: Ecosystem
disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 30,
126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.005
Cardoso, A. (2015). Behind the life cycle of coal: Socio-environmental liabilities of coal mining in
Cesar, Colombia. Ecological Economics, 120, 71-82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.004
Cardoso, A. (2018). Valuation Languages Along the Coal Chain From Colombia to the Netherlands
and to Turkey. Ecological Economics, 146, 44-59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.012
Cardoso, A., & Turhan, E. (2018). Examining new geographies of coal: Dissenting energyscapes in
Colombia and Turkey. Applied Energy, 224, 398-408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.096
Carretero, A. M. H., Burgui, M., De Castro, F. V., & Vázquez, J. M. C. (2018). Do textbooks
respond to the requirements of Environmental Education? An analysis in Secondary
Education. Boletin de la Asociacion de Geografos Espanoles, 2018(77), 80-110. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.21138/bage.2535
Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S., Ruud, P. A., & Hanemann, M. (2003).
Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.
Environmental and Resource Economics, 25(257-286), 30.
CEC, C. E. C. (2005). Report in IA no. 1324 regarding the Alumina Refinery Plant being set up by
M/S Vedanta Alumna Limited at Lanjigarh in Kalahandi District, Orissa. Central
Empowered Committee.
Centemeri, L. (2015). Reframing Problems of Incommensurability in Environmental Conflicts
Through Pragmatic Sociology: From Value Pluralism to the Plurality of Modes of
Engagement with the Environment. Environmental Values, 24(3), 299-320.
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327114X13947900181158
Chaffin, B. C., Craig, R. K., & Gosnell, H. (2014). Resilience, adaptation, and transformation in the
Klamath River Basin social-ecological system. IDAHO LAW REVIEW, 51, 37.
Chain-Guadarrama, A., Martínez-Salinas, A., Aristizábal, N., & Ricketts, T. H. (2019). Ecosystem
services by birds and bees to coffee in a changing climate: A review of coffee berry borer
control and pollination. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 280(December 2018), 53-
67. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2019.04.011
Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B.,

88
Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016).
Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462-1465.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R., Olmsted,
P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O., Singh, G. G., Sumaila, R., Ngo, H. T., Boedhihartono, A.
K., Agard, J., Aguiar, A. P. D., Armenteras, D., Balint, L., Barrington‐Leigh, C., …
Brondízio, E. S. (2020). Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People
and Nature, 2(3), 693-717. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10124
Chan, K. M. A., Gould, R. K., & Pascual, U. (2018). Editorial overview: Relational values: What
are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35,
A1-A7. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003
Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A.,
Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B. S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B.,
Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are Cultural and
Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. BioScience,
62(8), 744-756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
Chapman, M., Satterfield, T., Wittman, H., & Chan, K. M. (2020). A payment by any other name:
Is Costa Rica’s PES a payment for services or a support for stewards? World Development,
129. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104900
Chasek, P., & Downie, D. (2020). Global Environmental Politics. Routledge.
https://www.routledge.com/Global-Environmental-Politics/Chasek-
Downie/p/book/9780367227623
Chibvongodze, D. T. (2016). Ubuntu is Not Only about the Human! An Analysis of the Role of
African Philosophy and Ethics in Environment Management. Journal of Human Ecology,
53(2), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2016.11906968
Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary
and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem
services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics, 83, 67-
78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012
Christie, M., Martín-López, B., Church, A., Siwicka, E., Szymonczyk, P., & Mena Sauterel, J.
(2019). Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: Insights
from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Sustainability Science, 14(5),
1267-1282. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00716-6
Chuang, F., Manley, E., & Petersen, A. (2020). The role of worldviews in the governance of
sustainable mobility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(8), 4034-4042.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916936117
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8721.01242
Ciccantell, P., & Smith, D. A. (2009). Rethinking Global Commodity Chains: Integrating
Extraction, Transport, and Manufacturing. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,
50(3-4), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715209105146
Clark, J., Burgess, J., & Harrison, C. M. (2000). I struggled with this money business: Respondents’
perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 45-62.
Cobb, C. W., Halstead, T., & Rowe, J. (1995). The genuine progress indicator: Summary of data
and methodology. https://iucat.iu.edu/iupui/1091826
Comberti, C., Thornton, T. F., Wyllie de Echeverria, V., & Patterson, T. (2015). Ecosystem
services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between

89
humans and ecosystems. Global Environmental Change, 34, 247-262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007
Conde, M., & Kallis, G. (2012). The global uranium rush and its Africa frontier. Effects, reactions
and social movements in Namibia. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 596-610.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.007
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2021). First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework (p. 12). United Nations Environment Programme.
Cook, D., Malinauskaite, L., Davíðsdóttir, B., Ögmundardóttir, H., & Roman, J. (2020). Reflections
on the ecosystem services of whales and valuing their contribution to human well-being.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 186, 105100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105100
Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H., & Bryce, R. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems:
Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’.
Ecosystem Services, 21, 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014
Coronese, M., Lamperti, F., Keller, K., Chiaromonte, F., & Roventini, A. (2019). Evidence for
sharp increase in the economic damages of extreme natural disasters. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 116(43), 21450-21455.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907826116
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., &
Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far
do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Coyle, D. (2014). GDP: A brief but affectionate history. Princeton University Press.
Craig, M. P. A., Stevenson, H., & Meadowcroft, J. (2019). Debating nature’s value: Epistemic
strategy and struggle in the story of ‘ecosystem services’. Journal of Environmental Policy
& Planning, 21(6), 811-825. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1677221
Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science
Review, 89(3), 582-600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082975
Cuestas-Caza, J. (2018). Sumak Kawsay is not Buen Vivir. Alternautas, 5(1), 51-66.
Cumming, G. S. (2016). The relevance and resilience of protected areas in the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene, 13, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.03.003
Cuomo, C. J. (1998). Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing. Routledge.
Czúcz, B., Arany, I., Potschin-Young, M., Bereczki, K., Kertész, M., Kiss, M., Aszalós, R., &
Haines-Young, R. (2018). Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of
ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosystem Services, 29,
145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.018
Daly, H. E. (1992). Steady-state Economics. Island Press. https://islandpress.org/books/steady-state-
economics
Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J. B. (1994). For The Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward
Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (2nd,Updated edition). Beacon
Press.
Dam Lam, R., Gasparatos, A., Chakraborty, S., Rivera, H., & Stanley, T. (2019). Multiple values
and knowledge integration in indigenous coastal and marine social-ecological systems
research: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100910
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M., Costanza, R.,
Elmqvist, T., Flint, C. G., Gobster, P. H., Gret-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker,
M., Ribe, R. G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., … von der
Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda.

90
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812-8819.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_dat
a/file/962785/The_Economics_of_Biodiversity_The_Dasgupta_Review_Full_Report.pdf
Davidson, M. D. (2015). Climate change and the ethics of discounting: Climate change and the
ethics of discounting. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(4), 401-412.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.347
Davies, B. B., & Hodge, I. D. (2012). Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated
Q analysis and the stability of preference structures. Ecological Economics, 83, 51-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.013
Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E. J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N. D., Wongbusarakum,
S., Sangha, K. K., Scherl, L. M., Phan, H. P., Zafra-Calvo, N., Lavey, W. G., Byakagaba, P.,
Idrobo, C. J., Chenet, A., Bennett, N. J., Mansourian, S., & Rosado-May, F. J. (2021). The
role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation.
Ecology and Society, 26(3), art19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319
De Bont, R. (2012). Dieren zonder grenzen—Over wetenschap en internationale
natuurbescherming, 1890-1940. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 125(4), 520-535.
https://doi.org/10.5117/TVGESCH2012.4.BONT
de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. da L. (2020). Concepts
and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1),
19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3
de la Cadena, M. (2010). Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual reflections beyond
«politics». Cultural Anthropology, 25(2), 334-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-
1360.2010.01061.x
de la Cadena, M. (2015). Earth Beings. Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds. Duke
University Press.
De Pourcq, K., Thomas, E., Arts, B., Vranckx, A., Léon-Sicard, T., & Van Damme, P. (2017).
Understanding and Resolving Conflict Between Local Communities and Conservation
Authorities in Colombia. World Development, 93, 125-135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.026
De Vos, A., Joana, C. B., & Dirk, R. (2018). Relational values about nature in protected area
research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 89-99. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.018
De Vreese, R., Van Herzele, A., Dendoncker, N., Fontaine, C. M., & Leys, M. (2019). Are
stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem
service concept? Ecosystem Services, 37. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911
Dearlove, J. (1989). Neoclassical politics: Public choice and political understanding. Review of
Political Economy, 1(2), 208-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538258900000016
Deb, D., Engel, B. A., Harbor, J., Hahn, L., Jae Lim, K., & Zhai, T. (2010). Investigating Potential
Water Quality Impacts of Fungicides Used to Combat Soybean Rust in Indiana. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollution, 207(1-4), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-009-0135-4
Deb, D., & Malhotra, K. C. (2001). Conservation Ethos in Local Traditions: The West Bengal
Heritage. Society and Natural Resources, 14(8), 711-724.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920152524909
DeJaeghere, J. G., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among US
American teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence.
Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980802078624

91
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management
Review, 54(1), 64-87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
Demarque, C., Charalambides, L., Hilton, D. J., & Waroquier, L. (2015). Nudging sustainable
consumption: The use of descriptive norms to promote a minority behavior in a realistic
online shopping environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 166-174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.008
DeSilvey, C., & Harrison, R. (2020). Anticipating loss: Rethinking endangerment in heritage
futures. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(1), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1644530
DesRoches, C. T. (2019). On the Concept and Conservation of Critical Natural Capital.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 32(3-4), 207-228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1788347
Deva, S., & Birchall, D. (2020). Research Handbook on Human Rights and Business. Edward Elgar
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786436405
Devente, J., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Valente, S., & Newig, J. (2016). How does the context and
design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from
sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology and Society, 21(2), art24.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08053-210224
Devos, Y., Munns, W. R., Forbes, V. E., Maltby, L., Stenseke, M., Brussaard, L., Streissl, F., &
Hardy, A. (2019). Applying ecosystem services for pre‐market environmental risk
assessments of regulated stressors. EFSA Journal, 17, N.PAG-N.PAG. Academic Search
Premier.
Dewey, J. (1922). Democracy and education. Courier Corporation.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.
R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M.,
Figueroa, V. E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES
Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 14, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.
M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie,
A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S.,
… Shirayama, Y. (2018a). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science (New York,
N.Y.), 359(6373), 270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.
M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie,
A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S.,
… Shirayama, Y. (2018b). There is more to Nature’s Contributions to People than
Ecosystem Services – A response to de Groot et al. Science Letters, 359(6373).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270/tab-e-letters
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 30, 335-372.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Dan, A. (2009). How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for
Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment. Land Economics, 85(2), 329-347.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.2.329
Diver, S., Vaughan, M., Baker-Medard, M., & Lukacs, H. (2019). Recognizing «reciprocal
relations» to restore community access to land and water. International Journal of the
Commons, 13(1), 400-429. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.881

92
Dixon, J. A., & Pagiola, S. (2001). Local Costs, Global Benefits: Valuing Biodiversity in
Developing Countries. En OECD (Ed.), Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits. Selected Studies.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Dockery, M. (2020). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and the superannuation
system (p. 89) [BCEC Research Report]. Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and UniSuper.
Dominguez, P., Bourbouze, A., Demay, S., Genin, D., & Kosoy, N. (2012). Diverse Ecological,
Economic and Socio-Cultural Values of a Traditional Common Natural Resource
Management System in the Moroccan High Atlas: The Aït Ikiss Tagdalts. Environmental
Values, 21(3), 277-296. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327112X13400390125939
Drennon, C. E., & Cervero, R. M. (2002). The Politics of Facilitation in Practitioner Inquiry
Groups. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3), 193-209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713602052003003
Duelli, P., & Obrist, M. K. (2003). Biodiversity indicators: The choice of values and measures.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98(1-3), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
8809(03)00072-0
Dumont, L. (1980). Homo hierarchicus: The caste system and its implications. ((trans. M.
Sainsbury, L. Dumont, B. Gulati).). The University of Chicago Press.
Dumont, L. (1986). Essays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective.
University of Chicago Press.
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fenning, C. D. (2021). Ethnologue: Languages of the World.
wenty-fourth edition. https://www.ethnologue.com/
Ebert, U. (1986). Equity and distribution in cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Economics, 46(1), 67-
78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03051786
ECLAC. (2003). Handbook of estimating socio-economic and environmental effects of natural
disasters.
Edwards, D. M., Collins, T. M., & Goto, R. (2016). An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and
cultural values of ecosystems. Ecosystem Services, 21, 319-328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.018
Eghenter, C. (2018). Indigenous effective area‐based conservation measures: Conservation
practices among the Dayak Kenyah of North Kalimantan. Parks, 24(SI), 69-78.
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PARKS-24-SICE.en
Ehrlich, P. R., & Mooney, H. A. (1983). Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services.
BioScience, 33(4), 248-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/1309037
EJOLT. (2021). EJAtlas—Global atlas of environmental justice. Environmental Justice Atlas.
https://ejatlas.org/
Elmendorf, W. (2008). The importance of trees and nature in community: A review of the relative
literature. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 34(3), 152-156.
Engelen, B. (2017). A new definition of and role for preferences in positive economics. Journal of
Economic Methodology, 24(3), 254-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2017.1286026
Epstein, G., Bennett, A., Gruby, R., Acton, L., & Nenadovic, M. (2014). Studying Power with the
Social-Ecological System Framework. En M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, A. Rechkemmer, &
E. A. Duke (Eds.), Understanding Society and Natural Resources: Forging New Strands of
Integration Across the Social Sciences (pp. 111-135). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8959-2_6
Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., & Wagner, J. E. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation:
Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, 159(8-9), 2078-
2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010
Eser, U., Albrecht, M., Neureuther, A. K., & Seyfang, H. (2014). Prudence, justice and the good
life: A typology of ethical reasoning in selected European national biodiversity strategies.

93
Everard, M., Reed, M. S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). The ripple effect: Institutionalising pro-
environmental values to shift societal norms and behaviours. Ecosystem Services, 21(B),
230-240.
Eze, C. (2019). The Aesthetics of Proximity and the Common Good. The Cambridge Journal of
Postcolonial Literary Inquiry, 6(2), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1017/pli.2018.42
Faith, D. P. (2018). Avoiding paradigm drifts in IPBES: Reconciling nature’s contributions to
people, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 23(2), art40.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10195-230240
FAO. (2020). Biodiversity Integrated Assessment and Computation Tool | B-INTACT (p. 2). Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Farfán-Heredia, B., Casas, A., Moreno-Calles, A. I., García-Frapolli, E., & Castilleja, A. (2018).
Ethnoecology of the interchange of wild and weedy plants and mushrooms in Phurépecha
markets of Mexico: Economic motives of biotic resources management. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 14(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-018-0205-z
Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental
policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161-173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080500339638
Field, B. C. (2016). Natural Resource Economics: An Introduction, Third Edition (3rd edition).
Waveland Press, Inc.
Fioramonti, L., Coscieme, L., & Mortensen, L. F. (2019). From gross domestic product to
wellbeing: How alternative indicators can help connect the new economy with the
Sustainable Development Goals. The Anthropocene Review, 6(3), 207-222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619869947
Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2017). Mindfulness and
sustainable consumption: A systematic literature review of research approaches and
findings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 544-558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.007
Fischer, J., & Riechers, M. (2019). A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and
Nature, 1(1), 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13
Fischer, R. (2017). From Values to Behavior and from Behavior to Values. En S. Roccas & L.
Sagiv (Eds.), Values and Behavior (pp. 219-235). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_10
Flynn, R., Bellaby, P., & Ricci, M. (2009). The ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Public Attitudes towards
Sustainable Energy: The Case of Hydrogen Energy. The Sociological Review, 57(2), 159-
180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01891.x
Ford, R. M., Rawluk, A., & Williams, K. J. H. (2019). Managing values in disaster planning:
Current strategies, challenges and opportunities for incorporating values of the public. Land
Use Policy, 81, 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.029
Fordham, A. E., & Robinson, G. M. (2019). Identifying the social values driving corporate social
responsibility. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1409-1424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
019-00720-w
Foundation for Sustainable Development. (2021). Ecosystem Services Valuation Database 1.0,.
https://www.esvd.net/
Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and Sensibility: Economic Valuation and the Nature of “Nature”.
American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721-1777. https://doi.org/10.1086/659640
Frainer, A., Mustonen, T., Hugu, S., Andreeva, T., Arttijeff, E. M., Arttijeff, I. S., Brizoela, F.,
Coelho-de-Souza, G., Printes, R. B., Prokhorova, E., Sambou, S., Scherer, A., Shadrin, V.,
& Pecl, G. (2020). Opinion: Cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated pillars
of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(43), 26539-26543.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019469117

94
Frame, B., & O’ Connor, M. (2011). Integrating valuation and deliberation: The purposes of
sustainability assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(1), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.009
Frank, P., Fischer, D., & Wamsler, C. (2020). Mindfulness, education and the Sustainable
Development Goals. En W. Leal Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, P. G. Özuyar, & T. Wall
(Eds.), Quality Education (pp. 545-555). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5
Fröcklin, S., de la Torre-Castro, M., Lindström, L., & Jiddawi, N. S. (2013). Fish Traders as Key
Actors in Fisheries: Gender and Adaptive Management. AMBIO, 42(8), 951-962.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0451-1
Fuchs, R., Brown, C., & Rounsevell, M. (2020). Europe’s Green Deal offshores environmental
damage to other nations. Nature, 586(7831), 671-673. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-
02991-1
Fukumoto, E., & Bozeman, B. (2019). Public Values Theory: What Is Missing? The American
Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 635-648.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018814244
Gailliot, M. T., Stillman, T. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Maner, J. K., & Plant, E. A. (2008). Mortality
Salience Increases Adherence to Salient Norms and Values. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 993-1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316791
Gale, T., & Ednie, A. (2019). Can intrinsic, instrumental, and relational value assignments inform
more integrative methods of protected area conflict resolution? Exploratory findings from
Aysén, Chile. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2019.1633336
García-Llorente, M., Harrison, P. A., Berry, P., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Iniesta-Arandia,
I., Montes, C., García del Amo, D., & Martín-López, B. (2018). What can conservation
strategies learn from the ecosystem services approach? Insights from ecosystem assessments
in two Spanish protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(7), 1575-1597. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1152-4
García-Llorente, M., Rossignoli, C., Di Iacovo, F., & Moruzzo, R. (2016). Social Farming in the
Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas. Sustainability,
8(12), 1238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121238
Gardiner, M. M., Burkman, C. E., & Prajzner, S. P. (2013). The Value of Urban Vacant Land to
Support Arthropod Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Environmental Entomology,
42(6), 1123-1136. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN12275
Garrard, G. (2016). Conciliation and Consilience: Climate Change in Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight
Behaviour. En H. Zapf (Ed.), Handbook of Ecocriticism and Cultural Ecology (pp. 295-
312). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110314595-017
Garrard, G. (2017). Environmental humanities: Notes towards a summary for policymakers. En The
Routledge Companion to the Environmental Humanities. Routledge.
Gasparatos, A., & Scolobig, A. (2012). Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment
tool. Ecological Economics, 80, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.005
Gasson, R. (1973). Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(3), 521-
542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1973.tb00952.x
Gatti, L., Seele, P., & Rademacher, L. (2019). Grey zone in – greenwash out. A review of
greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary-mandatory transition of CSR.
International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-019-0044-9
Genovart, M., Tavecchia, G., Enseñat, J. J., & Laiolo, P. (2013). Holding up a mirror to the society:
Children recognize exotic species much more than local ones. Biological Conservation, 159,
484-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.028

95
Ghorbani, A., Langenberger, G., & Sauerborn, J. (2012). A comparison of the wild food plant use
knowledge of ethnic minorities in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve,
Yunnan, SW China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(1), 17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-17
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of
California Press.
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental
concern and behaviour: A review: PERSONAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS THAT
INFLUENCE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR. International Journal of
Psychology, n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard
University Press.
Glaser, M. (2006). The social dimension in ecosystem management: Strengths and weakness of
human-nature mind maps. Human Ecology Review, 13(2), 122-142.
Global Witness. (2020). Defending tomorrow. The climate crisis and threats against land and
environmental defenders. (p. 52). Global Witness.
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defending-tomorrow/
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem
services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment
schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1209-1218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Martín-López, B. (2015). Ecological economics perspectives on
ecosystem services valuation. En J. Martinez-Alier & R. Muradian (Eds.), Handbook of
Ecological Economics (pp. 260-282). Edward Elgar.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Naredo, J. M. (2015). In search of lost time: The rise and fall of limits to
growth in international sustainability policy. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 385-395.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0308-6
Gomiero, T. (2016). Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: Reviewing a complex
challenge. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030281
Gorenflo, L. J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R. A., & Walker-Painemilla, K. (2012). Co-occurrence
of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity
wilderness areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8032-8037.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117511109
Gould, R. K., Pai, M., Muraca, B., & Chan, K. M. A. (2019). He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a
recognizing of the right thing): How one indigenous worldview informs relational values
and social values. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1213-1232. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9
Graeber, D. (2001). Toward an antrhopological theory of value The false coin of our own dreams.
Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780312299064
Graham, S., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Hurlimann, A., Mortreux, C., & Waters, E. (2013). The social
values at risk from sea-level rise. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 45-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.02.002
Graham, W. M., Gelcich, S., Robinson, K. L., Duarte, C. M., Brotz, L., Purcell, J. E., Madin, L. P.,
Mianzan, H., Sutherland, K. R., Uye, S. I., Pitt, K. A., Lucas, C. H., Bøgeberg, M., Brodeur,
R. D., & Condon, R. H. (2014). Linking human well-being and jellyfish: Ecosystem
services, impacts, and societal responses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(9),
515-523. https://doi.org/10.1890/130298
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

96
Gratani, M., Sutton, S. G., Butler, J. R. A., Bohensky, E. L., & Foale, S. (2016). Indigenous
environmental values as human values. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 1185811-1185811.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1185811
Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of
human development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 401-418.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014726
Greyson, B. (1983). Near-death experiences and personal values. American Journal of Psychiatry,
140(5), 618-620. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.140.5.618
Greyson, B. (1993). Varieties of Near-Death Experience. Psychiatry, 56(4), 390-399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1993.11024660
Grim, J., & Tucker, M. E. (2014). Ecology and Religion (3rd edition). Island Press.
Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441-447.
https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.86
Gudynas, E., & Acosta, A. (2011). La renovación de la crítica al desarrollo y el buen vivir como
alternativa. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 53, 71-83.
Habermas, J. (1991). A Reply. En A. Honneth & H. Joas (Eds.), Communicative action: Essays on
Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of communicative action. The MIT Press.
Hakkarainen, V., Anderson, C. B., Eriksson, M., van Riper, C. J., Horcea-Milcu, A., & Raymond,
C. M. (2020). Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in
epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science. Environmental Science & Policy, 105,
11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003
Hanich, Q., Campbell, B., Bailey, M., & Molenaar, E. (2015). Research into fisheries equity and
fairness—Addressing conservation burden concerns in transboundary fisheries. Marine
Policy, 51, 302-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.011
Hanley, N., & Czajkowski, M. (2019). The role of stated preference valuation methods in
understanding choices and informing policy. Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy, 13(2), 248-266. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez005
Hansjürgens, B. (2014). Ecosystem services and their economic valuation in the focus of politics
and resarch in Germany. Natur und Landschaft, 89(2), 56-60.
https://doi.org/10.17433/2.2014.50153254.56-60
Hansjürgens, B., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Berghöfer, A., & Lienhoop, N. (2017). Justifying social
values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem
Services, 23, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.003
Hargrove, E. C. (1992). Weak Anthopocentric intrinsic value. The Monist, 75(2), 183-207.
Harmáčková, Z. V., Blättler, L., Aguiar, A. P. D., Daněk, J., Krpec, P., & Vačkářová, D. (2021).
Linking multiple values of nature with future impacts: Value-based participatory scenario
development for sustainable landscape governance. Sustainability Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00953-8
Harmon, D. (2002). In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us
Human. Smithson. Inst. Press. https://scholarlypress.si.edu/store/anthropology-
archeology/light-our-differences-how-diversity-nature-culture/
Harris, A., Hall, S., Brown, K., & Munnion, O. (2016). Ditch Coal The Global Mining Impacts of
the UK’s Addiction to Coal. The Coal Action Network (CAN).
Harrison, K. D. (2007). When Languages Die: The Extinction Of The World’s Languages And The
Erosion Of Human Knowledge. When Languages Die, 20.
Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous Worldviews, Knowledge, and Research: The Development of an
Indigenous Research Paradigm. Indigenous Coices in Social Work, 1(1), 16.
Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies. (2020). BlueValue Resource Database for
Ecosystem Services. https://www.bluevalue.org/

97
Härtel, C. E. J. (2015). Indigenous Management Styles. En International Encyclopedia of the Social
& Behavioral Sciences (pp. 784-787). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-
8.22026-6
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and Health. Annual Review of
Public Health, 35(1), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
Hasler, B., Cornelsen, L., Bennani, H., & Rushton, J. (2014). A review of the metrics for One
Health benefits: -EN- A review of the metrics for One Health benefits -FR- Examen des
méthodes de mesure des bénéfices de l’approche « Une seule santé » -ES- Estudio sobre la
cuantificación de los beneficios derivados de «Una sola salud». Revue Scientifique et
Technique de l’OIE, 33(2), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.2.2294
Hattingh, J. (2014). Protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity. En Handbook of
Global Bioethics (pp. 225-250). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_80
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge University
Press.
Hausman, D. M. (2005). Sympathy, commitment, and preference. Economics and Philosophy,
21(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267104000379
Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(4), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.43
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
44(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006
Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford University Press.
Hedström, P., & Stern, C. (2008). Rational choice and sociology. En The New Palgrave Dictionary
of Economics (Second Edition). Palgrave.
Heikkilä, L. (2016). Welfare services in enhancing good life for the Sámi: A reflection on
conducting ethically responsible research and developing an improved sense of culture.
International Social Work, 59(5), 653-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872816646819
Heron, J. (1999). The complete facilitator’s handbook. Kogan Page.
Herrera-Cabrera, B. E., Campos Contreras, J. E., Macías-Cuéllar, H., Delgado-Alvarado, A., &
Salazar-Rojas, V. M. (2018). Beyond the traditional home garden: A circa situm
conservation experience of Laelia anceps subsp. dawsonii f. chilapensis Soto-Arenas
(Orchidaceae). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(3), 1913-1927.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0270-4
Hettinger, N. (2010). Animal Beauty, Ethics, and Environmental Preservation: Environmental
Ethics, 32(2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201032215
Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469-486.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
Hicks, C. C. (2011). How do we value our reefs? Risks and tradeoffs across scales in «biomass-
based» economies. Coastal Management, 39(4), 358-376.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2011.589219
Himes, A., & Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: The key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem
services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a Dormant Concept. Annual Review of
Sociology, 30(1), 359-393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640
Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., Syamsidik, & Shaw, R. (2014). Process for integrating local and indigenous
knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation in coastal and small island communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 10, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.007

98
Hockley, N. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis: A decision-support tool or a venue for contesting
ecosystem knowledge? Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 32(2), 283-
300. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1384j
Hodgson, G. (1988). Economics and Institutions. Cambridge Polity Press.
Hodgson, G. (2007). The Revival of Veblenian Institutional Economics. Journal of Economic
Issues, XLI(2), 325-340.
Hoeppe, P. (2016). Trends in weather related disasters – Consequences for insurers and society.
Weather and Climate Extremes, 11, 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.10.002
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., & Olsen, S. O. (2006). Ethical values and motives driving organic
food choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 420-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.190
Hope, A. L. B., & Jones, C. R. (2014). The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental
issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study.
Technology in Society, 38, 48-59. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003
Horlings, L. G. (2015). The inner dimension of sustainability: Personal and cultural values. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 163-169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.006
Hornborg, A., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2016). Ecologically unequal exchange and ecological debt.
Journal of Political Ecology, 23(1), 328. https://doi.org/10.2458/v23i1.20220
Hovardas, T. (2013). A Critical Reading of Ecocentrism and Its Meta-Scientific Use of Ecology:
Instrumental Versus Emancipatory Approaches in Environmental Education and Ecology
Education. Science and Education, 22(6), 1467-1483. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9493-1
Howarth, R. B., & Wilson, M. A. (2006). A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation:
Aggregation by Mutual Consent. Land Economics, 82(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.1.1
Huambachano, M. (2018). Enacting food sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru:
Revitalizing Indigenous knowledge, food practices and ecological philosophies.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(9), 1003-1028.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1468380
Huambachano, M. (2020). Indigenous good living philosophies and regenerative food systems in
Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru. En Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Regenerative
Food Systems (pp. 38-49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429466823-4
Huggins, C., Connolly, J., McAngus, C., & Zwet, A. van der. (2020). Brexit and the Uncertain
Future of Fisheries Policy in the United Kingdom: Political and Governance Challenges.
Ocean Yearbook Online, 34(1), 20-42. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004426214_003
Hutchison, A. (1992). The Whanganui River as a Legal Person. Legal Service Bulletin
Cooperative.
https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=751757041552283;res=IELHSS
Hwang, S.-H., & Bowles, S. (2011). A note on optimal incentives with state-dependent preferences.
20.
Inglis, D., & Pascual, U. (2021). On the links between nature’s values and language. People and
Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10205
IPBES. (2015). Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature
and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3
(d)). IPBES Secretariat. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-
13_EN.pdf
IPBES. (2018a). Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and
restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat.
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/spm_3bi_ldr_digital.pdf

99
IPBES. (2018b). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services for Africa of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat.
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/spm_africa_2018_digital.pdf
IPBES. (2018c). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat.
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/spm_asia-pacific_2018_digital.pdf
IPBES. (2018d). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES. (2018e). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services for the Americas of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat. www.ipbes.net
IPBES. (2019a). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES
Secretariat. 978-3-947851-13-3
IPBES. (2019b). Glossary of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. En Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (p. 64).
IPBES Secretariat.
IPBES. (2019c). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat. 978-3-947851-13-3
IPBES. (2019d). The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Chapter 1.
Assessing a planet in transformation: Rationale and approach of the IPBES Global
Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (p. 69).
IPBES. (2019e). The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Chapter 5.
Pathways towards a Sustainable Future (p. 157).
IPBES. (2020). Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4147317
IPBES-2/4. (s. f.). Decision IPBES-2/4: Conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES.
IPBES-4/1. (s. f.). Work programme of the Platform. IPBES.
IPBES/6/INF/9. (s. f.). Information on the scoping for the methodological assessment regarding the
diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity
and ecosystem services (deliverable 3 (d)). IPBES.
IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (C. B. Field,
V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, & Q. Dahe, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245
IPCC. (2021). Summary for Policymakers. En V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L.
Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K.
Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, &
B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(p. 40).

100
Irvine, K. N., O’Brien, L., Ravenscroft, N., Cooper, N., Everard, M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., &
Kenter, J. O. (2016). Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values. Ecosystem Services,
21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.001
Ishihara, H. (2018). Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: How can sociology
contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services? Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 35, 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
Ives, C. D., & Kidwell, J. (2019). Religion and social values for sustainability. Sustainability
Science, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00657-0
Jackson, S., & Barber, M. (2013). Recognition of indigenous water values in Australia’s Northern
Territory: Current progress and ongoing challenges for social justice in water planning.
Planning Theory & Practice, 14(4), 435-454.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.845684
Jacobs, M. (1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making
institutions. En Valuing Nature? (pp. 223-243). Routledge.
Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Kelemen, E., Saarikoski,
H., Termansen, M., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Kopperoinen, L., Luque,
S., Palomo, I., Priess, J. A., Rusch, G. M., Tenerelli, P., Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R.,
Hauck, J., … Smith, R. (2018). The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated
valuation in practice. Ecosystem Services, 29, 515-528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011
James, S. P. (2020). Legal rights and nature’s contributions to people: Is there a connection?
Biological Conservation, 241. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108325
Jax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, K. M., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B., O’Brien, L., Potthast, T.,
Voget-Kleschin, L., & Wittmer, H. (2018). Caring for nature matters: A relational approach
for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 35, 22-29. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009
Jogia, J., Kalatunga, U., & Yates. (2013). Culture and the psychological impacts of natural
disasters: Implications for disaster management and disaster mental health.
Johanisova, N., & Fraňková, E. (2017). Eco-Social Enterprises. En C. L. Spash (Ed.), Routledge
Handbook of Ecological Economics (1.a ed., pp. 507-516). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315679747-59
Johansson, M., Sternudd, C., & Kärrholm, M. (2016). Perceived urban design qualities and
affective experiences of walking. Journal of Urban Design, 21(2), 256-275.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1133225
Joireman, J., & Duell, B. (2005). Mother Teresa Versus Ebenezer Scrooge: Mortality Salience
Leads Proselfs to Endorse Self-Transcendent Values (Unless Proselfs Are Reassured).
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 307-320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271593
Jones, B. A., Berrens, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Carlson, D. E., Ripberger, J. T.,
Gupta, K., & Carlson, N. (2016). Valuation in the Anthropocene: Exploring options for
alternative operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resources and Economics, 14, 13-
30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2016.02.003
Jones, L. P., Turvey, S. T., Massimino, D., & Papworth, S. K. (2020). Investigating the implications
of shifting baseline syndrome on conservation. People and Nature, 2(4), 1131-1144.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10140
Kabii, T., & Horwitz, P. (2006). A review of landholder motivations and determinants for
participation in conservation covenanting programmes. Environmental Conservation, 33(1),
11-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892906002761

101
Kadykalo, A. N., López-Rodriguez, M. D., Ainscough, J., Droste, N., Ryu, H., Ávila-Flores, G., Le
Clec’h, S., Muñoz, M. C., Nilsson, L., Rana, S., Sarkar, P., Sevecke, K. J., & Harmáčková,
Z. V. (2019). Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’.
Ecosystems and People, 15(1), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713
Kahn Jr., P. H. (1997). Children’s moral and ecological reasoning about the Prince William Sound
oil spill. Developmental psychology, 33(6), 1091-1096. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1091
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kallis, G., Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Zografos, C. (2013). To value or not to value? That is not the
question. Ecological Economics, 94, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.002
Kapp, K. W. (1971). The social cost of private enterprise. Schocken Books.
Kashwan, P., MacLean, L. M., & García-López, G. A. (2019). Rethinking power and institutions in
the shadows of neoliberalism. World Development, 120, 133-146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.026
Keat, R. (1997). Values and preferences in neo-classical environmental economics. En J. Foster
(Ed.), Valuing Nature? Economics, ethics and environment. Routledge.
Kelbessa, W. (2005). The Rehabilitation of Indigenous Environmental Ethics in Africa. Diogenes,
52(3), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192105055167
Kendal, D., & Raymond, C. M. (2019). Understanding pathways to shifting people’s values over
time in the context of social-ecological systems. Sustainability Science, 14(5).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0648-0
Kenter, J. O. (2016). Editorial: Shared, plural and cultural values. Ecosystem Services, 21, 175-183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.010
Kenter, J. O. (2017). Deliberative Monetary Valuation. En C. L. Spash (Ed.), Routledge Handbook
of Ecological Economics. Routledge.
Kenter, J. O. (2018). IPBES: Don’t throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater; Put people’s
values central, not nature’s contributions. Ecosystem Services, 33, 40-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.08.002
Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K. N., Fazey, I., O’Brien, L.,
Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C. M., Reed, M. S., Tett, P., & Watson, V.
(2016a). Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions. Ecosystem Services,
21, 358-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006
Kenter, J. O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). The importance of deliberation in valuing
ecosystem services in developing countries—Evidence from the Solomon Islands. Global
Environmental Change, 21(2), 505-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.001
Kenter, J. O., Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Irvine, K. N., Christie, M., & Bryce, R. (2016b). The
impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for
ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosystem
Services, 21, 270-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.006
Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., Reed, M. S.,
Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Evely, A., Everard,
M., Fish, R., Fisher, J. A., Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., … Williams, S. (2015). What are
shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
Kenter, J. O., Raymond, C. M., Van Riper, C. J., Azzopardi, E., Brear, M. R., Calcagni, F., Christie,
I., Christie, M., Fordham, A., Gould, R. K., Ives, C. D., Hejnowicz, A. P., Gunton, R.,
Horcea-Milcu, A. I., Kendal, D., Kronenberg, J., Massenberg, J. R., O’connor, S.,
Ravenscroft, N., … Thankappan, S. (2019). Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and

102
conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1439-1461. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.28608.79367
Kenter, J. O., Reed, M. S., & Fazey, I. (2016c). The deliberative value formation model. Ecosystem
Services, 21, 194-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.015
Kenter, J. O., Reed, M. S., Irvine, K. N., O’Brien, E., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Church,
A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Hockley, N., Fazey, I., Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., Orchard-
Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Ryan, M., & Watson, V. (2014). UK National Ecosystem
Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 6: Shared, Plural and Cultural Values of
Ecosystems. (N.o 2075805385; pp. 160-160). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2003.08.003
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community: New
Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313-
340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the
Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions.
Kitheka, B. M., Baldwin, E. D., & Larson, L. R. (2019). Romanticism in urban landscapes: Parks,
tourism, and the rebirth of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Tourism Geographies. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1618904
Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly
and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLOS
ONE, 12(8), e0183962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962
Klooster, D. (2006). Environmental Certification of Forests in Mexico: The Political Ecology of a
Nongovernmental Market Intervention. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 96(3), 541-565.
Knudtson, P., & Suzuki, D. (2006). Wisdom of the Elders: Native and scientific ways of knowing
about nature. (Second edition). Stoddart.
https://books.google.com.mx/books/about/Wisdom_of_the_Elders.html?id=6yxs214hdhcC
&redir_esc=y
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino,
F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K.,
Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., … Wells, P. (2019). An
agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Kohn, E. (2013). How Forests Think. UCPress.
https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520276109.001.0001
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3),
239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The Psychology of Worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1),
3-58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3
Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism.
Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1228-1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002
Kothari, A., & Bajpai, S. (2017). We Are the River, the River Is Us. 37, 8.
Kothari, A., Cooney, R., Hunter, D., MacKinnon, K., Muller, E., Nelson, F., Oli, K. P., Pandey, S.,
Rasheed, T., & Vavrova, L. (2015). Managing Resource Use and Development. En G. L.
Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, & I. Pulsford (Eds.), Protected Area
Governance and Management (1.a ed.). ANU Press.
https://doi.org/10.22459/PAGM.04.2015.25
Krausmann, F. (2017). Social Metabolism. En Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics.
Routledge.

103
Krebs, A. (1997). Naturethik: Grundtexte der gegenwärtigen tier- und ökoethischen Diskussion (1.
Aufl). Suhrkamp.
Kronenberg, J., & Andersson, E. (2019). Integrating social values with other value dimensions:
Parallel use vs. combination vs. full integration. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1283-1295.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00688-7
Kumar, P. (Ed.). (2011). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Economics-of-Ecosystems-and-
Biodiversity-Ecological-and-Economic-Foundations/Kumar/p/book/9780415501088
Kuruppu, N. (2009). Adapting water resources to climate change in Kiribati: The importance of
cultural values and meanings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 799-809.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.005
LaDuke, W. (1994). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Futures. Colorado
Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 5(127).
Lamberti, A. M. (2019). Rights of nature and intergenerational ecological justice. Prometeica, 18,
13-23. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.24316/prometeica.v0i18.245
Larigauderie, A., & Mooney, H. A. (2010). The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for
biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1-2), 9-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.006
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford
University Press.
Lau, J. D., Hicks, C. C., Gurney, G. G., & Cinner, J. E. (2019). What matters to whom and why?
Understanding the importance of coastal ecosystem services in developing coastal
communities. Ecosystem Services, 35, 219-230. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.012
Le Grange, L. (2012). Ubuntu, ukama , environment and moral education. Journal of Moral
Education, 41(3), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2012.691631
Lefa, B. J. (2015). The African Philosophy of Ubuntu in South African Education. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 16.
Lele. (2012). Economic incentives for forest management. En Deeper Roots of Historical Injustice.
Trends and Challenges in the Forests of India. (pp. 101-124). Rights Resources.
Lenzi, D. (2017). Relativism, Ambiguity and the Environmental Virtues. Environmental Values,
26(1), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14809634978636
Leopold, A. (2013). A Sand County Almanac & Other Writings on Ecology and Conservation.
Library of America.
Lepofsky, D., & Caldwell, M. (2013). Indigenous marine resource management on the northwest
coast of North America. Ecological Processes, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-12
Levi-Strauss, C. (1973). Structuralism and ecology. Social Science Information, 12(1), 7-23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847301200101
Lienhoop, N., Bartkowski, B., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Informing biodiversity policy: The role of
economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation.
Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 522-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.007
Linnell, J. D. C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N., & Boitani, L. (2015). Framing
the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation:
Relationship Between People and Nature. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 978-985.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12534
Lintott, S. (2006). Toward eco-friendly aesthetics. Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 57-76.
https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200628139

104
Lo, A. Y. (2014). More or Less Pluralistic? A Typology of Remedial and Alternative Perspectives
on the Monetary Valuation of the Environment. Environmental Values, 23(3), 253-274.
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327114x13947900181716
Lo, A. Y., & Spash, C. L. (2012). Deliberative monetary valuation: In search of a democratic and
value plural approach to environmental policy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(4), 768-
789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00718.x
Lockwood, M. (1999). Humans valuing nature: Synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology
and economics. Environmental Values, 8(3), 381-401. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327199129341888
Lohmann, S. (2008). Rational Choice and Political Science. En Palgrave Macmillan (Ed.), The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (pp. 1-9). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2341-1
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., & Verkasalo, M. (2011). Personal Values Before and After
Migration: A Longitudinal Case Study on Value Change in Ingrian–Finnish Migrants.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 584-591.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611402362
Lorenz, D., Dent, P., & Kauko, T. (2017). Value in a Changing Built Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119073666
Lucero, L. J. (2018). A Cosmology of Conservation in the Ancient Maya World. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 74(3), 327-359. https://doi.org/10.1086/698698
Lyytimäki, J., & Sipilä, M. (2009). Hopping on one leg – The challenge of ecosystem disservices
for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 309-315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003
Maass, P. (2005). The cultural context of biodiversity conservation. En Valuation and Conservation
of Biodiversity (p. 28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27138-4_15
Macas, L. (2010). El Sumak Kawsay. Revista Yachaykuna, 13, 13-39.
MacIntyre, A. (1999). Social Structures and their Threats to Moral Agency. Philosophy, 74, 311-
329.
Macy, M. W., & Sato, Y. (2002). Trust, cooperation, and market formation in the U.S. and Japan.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 3), 7214-7220.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082097399
Maffi, L. (2002). Endangered languages, endangered knowledge. International Social Science
Journal, 54(173), 385-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00390
Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology,
34(1), 599-617. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437
Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W. Y., & Rees, K. J. (2009). Changing, Priming, and Acting on
Values: Effects via Motivational Relations in a Circular Model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97(4), 699-715. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016420
Manfredo, M. J., Bruskotter, J. T., Teel, T. L., Fulton, D., Schwartz, S. H., Arlinghaus, R., Oishi, S.,
Uskul, A. K., Redford, K., Kitayama, S., & Sullivan, L. (2017). Why social values cannot be
changed for the sake of conservation. Conservation Biology, 31(4), 772-780.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12855
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Berl, R. E. W., Bruskotter, J. T., & Kitayama, S. (2020). Social value
shift in favour of biodiversity conservation in the United States. Nature Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00655-6
Mankiw, N. G., & Taylor, M. P. (2014). Microeconomics (3rd edition). Cengage Learning EMEA.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic governance. Free Press.
Marouf, M., Batal, M., Moledor, S., & Talhouk, S. N. (2015). Exploring the Practice of Traditional
Wild Plant Collection in Lebanon. Food, Culture & Society, 18(3), 355-378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2015.1043103

105
Marshall, N., Adger, W. N., Benham, C., Brown, K., I Curnock, M., Gurney, G. G., Marshall, P., L
Pert, P., & Thiault, L. (2019). Reef Grief: Investigating the relationship between place
meanings and place change on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sustainability Science,
14(3), 579-587. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00666-z
Martens, K. (2011). Substance precedes methodology: On cost–benefit analysis and equity.
Transportation, 38(6), 959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9372-7
Martínez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and
valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation
for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26(3), 277-286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1
Martínez-Espiñeira, R., García-Valiñas, M. A., & Nauges, C. (2013). Households’ pro-
environmental habits and investments in water and energy consumption: Determinants and
relationships. Journal of Environmental Management, 133, 174-183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.002
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014). Trade-offs
across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37, 220-228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
Massenberg, J. R. (2019). Social values and sustainability: A retrospective view on the contribution
of economics. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00693-w
Matthews, F. (1994). The Ecological Self. Routledge.
May Jr, R. H. (2017). Pachasophy: Landscape Ethics in the Central Andes Mountains of South
America. Environmental Ethics, 39(3), 301-319. Academic Search Premier.
McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A
Simple Guide to a Complex Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169-183.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x
McGregor, D. (2018). Mino-Mnaamodzawin. Environment and Society, 9(1), 7-24.
https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090102
McPhearson, T., Raymond, C. M., Gulsrud, N., Albert, C., Coles, N., Fagerholm, N., Nagatsu, M.,
Olafsson, A. S., Soininen, N., & Vierikko, K. (2021). Radical changes are needed for
transformations to a good Anthropocene. Npj Urban Sustainability, 1(1), 5.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x
McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B.,
Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. V., Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Peter
Brosius, J., Coppolillo, P., & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs
between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3),
966-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill 2016, Digest No. 2352 (2016).
https://www.parliament.nz/ en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-digests/document/ 51PLLaw23521/te-
awa-tupua-whanganui-river- claims-settlement-bill-2016.
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis.
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
Medina, M. A. P., & Arche, J. G. (2015). The value of flood risk reduction in selected communities
near the Pulangui river in Bukidnon, Philippines. 6(3), 8.
Menton, M., Larrea, C., Latorre, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Peck, M., Temper, L., & Walter, M. (2020).
Environmental justice and the SDGs: From synergies to gaps and contradictions.
Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00789-8
Merçon, J., Vetter, S., Tengö, M., Cocks, M., Balvanera, P., Rosell, J. A., & Ayala-Orozco, B.
(2019). From local landscapes to international policy: Contributions of the biocultural

106
paradigm to global sustainability. Global Sustainability, 2, e7.
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.4
Michon, G., de Foresta, H., Levang, P., & Verdeaux, F. (2007). Domestic Forests: A New Paradigm
for Integrating Local Communities’ Forestry into Tropical Forest Science. Ecology and
Society, 12(2), art1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02058-120201
Milfont, T. L., Milojev, P., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Values Stability and Change in Adulthood: A 3-
Year Longitudinal Study of Rank-Order Stability and Mean-Level Differences. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 572-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216639245
Minteer, B. A., Corley, E. A., & Manning, R. E. (2004). Environmental ethics beyond principle?
The case for a pragmatic contextualism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
17(2), 131-156. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017392.71870.1f
Mitchie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method
for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science,
6(42), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Mizuta, D. D., & Vlachopoulou, E. I. (2017). Satoumi concept illustrated by sustainable bottom-up
initiatives of Japanese Fisheries Cooperative Associations. Marine Policy, 78, 143-149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.01.020
Mohatt, N. V., Fok, C. C. T., Burket, R., Henry, D., & Allen, J. (2011). Assessment of awareness of
connectedness as a culturally-based protective factor for Alaska native youth. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 444-455.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025456
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7).
Moloney, R., & Harbon, L. (2010). Making intercultural language learning visible and assessable.
Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference, 1, 281-303.
http://cercll.arizona.edu/ICConference2010
Momblanch, A., Connor, J. D., Crossman, N. D., Paredes-Arquiola, J., & Andreu, J. (2016). Using
ecosystem services to represent the environment in hydro-economic models. Journal of
Hydrology, 538, 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.019
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A
comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-
1765-5
Monty, F., Murti, R., & Furuta, N. (2016). Helping nature help us: Transforming disaster risk
reduction through ecosystem management. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of
Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.15.en
Monty, F., Murti, R., Miththapala, S., & Buyck, C. (2017). Ecosystems protecting infrastructure
and communities: Lessons learned. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature.
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH..2017.14.en
Moseley, C. (2010). Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. UNESCO.
Movik, S., & Stokke, K. B. (2015). Contested knowledges, contested responsibilities: The EU
Water Framework Directive and salmon farming in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift -
Norwegian Journal of Geography, 69(4), 242-255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2015.1061049
Mrotek, A., Anderson, C. B., Valenzuela, A. E. J., Manak, L., Weber, A., Van Aert, P., Malizia, M.,
& Nielsen, E. A. (2019). An evaluation of local, national and international perceptions of
benefits and threats to nature in Tierra del Fuego National Park (Patagonia, Argentina).
Environmental Conservation. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000250
Mucioki, M., Sowerwine, J., Sarna-Wojcicki, D., Lake, K., & Bourque, S. (2021). Conceptualizing
Indigenous Cultural Ecosystem Services (ICES) and Benefits under Changing Climate

107
Conditions in the Klamath River Basin and Their Implications for Land Management and
Governance. Journal of Ethnobiology, 18.
Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational
consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662-677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2
Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2018). Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking
ahead: Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research. Business Strategy and the Environment,
27(3), 300-322. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000
Muraca, B. (2011). The map of moral significance: A new axiological matrix for environmental
ethics. Environmental Values, 20(3), 375-396.
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327111X13077055166063
Muraca, B. (2016). Relational Values: A Whiteheadian Alternative for Environmental Philosophy
and Global Environmental Justice. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 8(1), 19-38.
Muradian, R., & Pascual, U. (2018). A typology of elementary forms of human-nature relations: A
contribution to the valuation debate. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35,
8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.014
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary∗. Inquiry,
16(1-4), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682
Nahuelhual, L., Saavedra, G., Henríquez, F., Benra, F., Vergara, X., Perugache, C., & Hasen, F.
(2018). Opportunities and limits to ecosystem services governance in developing countries
and indigenous territories: The case of water supply in Southern Chile. Environmental
Science & Policy, 86, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.012
Nelson, M. K., & Shilling, D. (Eds.). (2018). Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from
Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability (1.a ed.). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108552998
Nemogá, G. (2019). Indigenous Agrobiodiversity and Governance. En K. Zimmerer & S. Haan
(Eds.), Agrobiovidersity: Intergrating Knowledge for a Sustainable Future (pp. 241-264).
MIT Press.
Nesbitt, L., Hotte, N., Barron, S., Cowan, J., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2017). The social and economic
value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review
and suggestions for future research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 103-111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005
Neumayer, E., & Plümper, T. (2007). The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of
Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 97(3), 551-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8306.2007.00563.x
Ngouhouo Poufoun, J., Abildtrup, J., Sonwa, D. J., & Delacote, P. (2016). The value of endangered
forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape. Ecological
Economics, 126, 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.004
Niemiec, R. M. (2014). Mindfulness and character strengths: A practical guide to flourishing.
Hogrefe Publishing. https://www.hogrefe.com/us/shop/mindfulness-and-character-strengths-
67484.html
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative
Social Influence is Underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-
923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691
Norgaard, K. M., Reed, R., & Bacon, J. M. (2017). How Environmental Decline Restructures
Indigenous Gender Practices: What Happens to Karuk Masculinity When There Are No
Fish? Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 4(1), 98-113.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217706518

108
Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder.
Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1219-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics,
6(2).
Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management (J. O’Neill,
Ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.2980/1195-
6860(2006)13[565:SAPOAE]2.0.CO;2
Norton, B. G., & Steinemann, A. C. (2001). Environmental Values and Adaptive Management.
Environmental Values, 10(4), 473-506. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327101129340921
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard
University Press.
Oba, G., Byakagaba, P., & Angassa, A. (2008). Participatory monitoring of biodiversity in East
African grazing lands. Land Degradation & Development, 19(6), 636-648.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.867
O’Connor, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2019). Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of
the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustainability Science,
14(5), 1247-1265. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00715-7
O’Neill, J., Holland, A., & Light, A. (2008). Environmental values. Routledge.
Orchard-Webb, J., Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., & Church, A. (2016). Deliberative democratic monetary
valuation to implement the ecosystem approach. Ecosystem Services, 21, 308-318.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.005
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge university press.
Otero, I., Farrell, K. N., Pueyo, S., Kallis, G., Kehoe, L., Haberl, H., Plutzar, C., Hobson, P.,
García‐Márquez, J., Rodríguez‐Labajos, B., Martin, J. L., Erb, K. H., Schindler, S., Nielsen,
J., Skorin, T., Settele, J., Essl, F., Gómez‐Baggethun, E., Brotons, L., … Pe’er, G. (2020).
Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation Letters, 13(4).
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713
Ott, K. (2016). On the Meaning of Eudemonic Arguments for a Deep Anthropocentric
Environmental Ethics. New German Critique, 43(2 128), 105-126.
https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033X-3511895
Pacari, N. (2009). Naturaleza y territorio desde la mirada de los pueblos indigenas. En A. Acosta &
E. Martínez (Eds.), Derechos de la naturaleza: El futuro es ahora (pp. 31-37).
Padel, F., & Das, S. (2010). Out of This Earth: East India Adivasis and the Aluminium Cartel (0
edition). Orient Blackswan.
Palinkas, L., Downs, M., Petterson, J., & Russell, J. (1993). Social, Cultural, and Psychological
Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Human Organization, 52(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.52.1.162688w475154m34
Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47(7), 675-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002
Parks, S., & Gowdy, J. (2013). What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review
essay. Ecosystem Services, 3, e1-e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.002
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak
Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H.,
Adlan, A., Ahn, S. E., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., … Yagi, N. (2017).
Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Pattberg, P. (2005). What Role for Private Rule-Making in Global Environmental Governance?
Analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics, 5(2), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-005-0951-y

109
Pawlowska-Mainville, A. (2022). ‘Stored in Bones’: Safeguarding Indigenous Intangible Cultural
Heritages. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press., Forthcoming.
Pearson, R. G. (2016). Reasons to Conserve Nature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 31(5), 366-
371. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.005
Pendola, R., & Gen, S. (2008). Does “Main Street” Promote Sense of Community? A Comparison
of San Francisco Neighborhoods. Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 545-574.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507301399
Pereira, L. M., Davies, K. K., Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson‐Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim, H., Kuiper, J.
J., Okayasu, S., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G., Sathyapalan, J., Schoolenberg,
M., Alkemade, R., Carvalho Ribeiro, S., Greenaway, A., Hauck, J., King, N., Lazarova, T.,
… Lundquist, C. J. (2020). Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios
using the Nature Futures Framework. People and Nature, 2(4), 1172-1195.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146
Pérez Báez, G., Voguel, R., & Patolo, U. (2019). Global Survey of Revitalization Efforts: A mixed
methods approach to understanding language revitalization practices. Language
Documentation, 13, 68.
Pérez-Rincón, M. A. (2014). Conflictos ambientales en Colombia: Inventario, caracterización y
análisis (DOCUMENTO DE TRABAJO (Cali, IV/2014)). UNIVALLE/CINARA/EJOLT.
Pfund, J. L., Watts, J. D., Boissière, M., Boucard, A., Bullock, R. M., Ekadinata, A., Dewi, S.,
Feintrenie, L., Levang, P., Rantala, S., Sheil, D., Sunderland, T. C., & Urech, Z. L. (2011).
Understanding and Integrating Local Perceptions of Trees and Forests into Incentives for
Sustainable Landscape Management. Environmental Management, 48(2), 334-349.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9689-1
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014).
A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the
consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123
Piaget, J. (1952). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piccolo, J. J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful
dichotomy? Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 8-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.007
Picou, J. S. (2000). The «Talking Circle» as Sociological Practice: Cultural Transformation of
Chronic Disaster Impacts. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied
Sociology, 2(2), 77-97.
Pilgrim, S., Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F., de Athayde, S., Dudley, N., Hunn, E., Maffi, L.,
Milton, K., Rapport, D., Robbins, P., Stolton, S., Sterling, E., Tsing, A., & Vintinnerk, E.
(2009). The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity:Towards
Integration. Conservation & Society, 7(2), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-
4923.58642
Pilgrim, S., Smith, D., & Pretty, J. (2007). A CROSS-REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
FACTORS AFFECTING ECOLITERACY: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND
PRACTICE. Ecological Applications, 17(6), 1742-1751. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1358.1
Pizzetti, M., Gatti, L., & Seele, P. (2021). Firms Talk, Suppliers Walk: Analyzing the Locus of
Greenwashing in the Blame Game and Introducing ‘Vicarious Greenwashing’. Journal of
Business Ethics, 170(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2
Platteau, J.-P. (2000). Institutions, Social Norms, and Economic Development. Psycology Press.
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and
quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118-129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. Routledge.

110
Poe, M. R., Norman, K. C., & Levin, P. S. (2014). Cultural Dimensions of Socioecological
Systems: Key Connections and Guiding Principles for Conservation in Coastal
Environments: Cultural dimensions of coastal conservation. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 166-
175. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12068
Polasky, S., Johnson, K., Keeler, B., Kovacs, K., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., Plantinga, A. . J., &
Withey, J. (2012). Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem
services aligned? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(1), 139-163. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grs011
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental
Behavior: A Study into Household Energy Use. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70-93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251466
Popa, F., & Guillermin, M. (2015). Reflexive Methodological Pluralism: The Case of
Environmental Valuation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815610250
Pörtner, H. O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L.,
Cheung, W. L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla,
M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., … Ngo, H. (2021). IPBES-
IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change (Versión 2).
Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4782538
Pouta, E. (2000). Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in
Finland. Forestry, 73(2), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/73.2.119
Pradhan, K. (2018). Exploration and Extrapolation of Extension Strategy for Promotion of Spice
Production and Processing in India. En A. B. Sharangi (Ed.), Indian Spices (pp. 421-438).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75016-3_16
Pueblo Originario Kichwa de Sarayaku. (2018). Declaración Kawsak Sacha—Selva Viviente, Ser
Vivo y Consciente, Sujeto de Derechos.
Purdey, S. J. (2009). Economic Growth, the Environment and International Relations: The Growth
Paradigm (1st edition). Routledge.
Qobo, M., & Nyathi, N. (2016). Ubuntu, public policy ethics and tensions in South Africa’s foreign
policy. South African Journal of International Affairs, 23(4), 421-436.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2017.1298052
Quiceno Toro, N. (2016). Vivir Sabroso. Luchas y movimientos afroatrateños, en Bojayá, Chocó,
Colombia. Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
Quick, J., & Spartz, J. T. (2018). On the pursuit of good living in highland Ecuador: Critical
indigenous discourses of Sumak Kawsay. Latin American Research Review, 53(4), 757-769.
https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.132
Rai, P., & Khawas, V. (2019). Traditional knowledge system in disaster risk reduction: Exploration,
acknowledgement and proposition. Jàmbá Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i1.484
Raik, D., Wilson, A., & Decker, D. (2008). Power in Natural Resources Management: An
Application of Theory. Society & Natural Resources, 21(8), 729-739.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801905195
Ramanujam, R. V., Singh, S. J., & Vatn, A. (2012). From the Ashes into the Fire? Institutional
Change in the Post-Tsunami Nicobar Islands, India. Society & Natural Resources, 25(11),
1152-1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.669516
Rampa, F. (2020). One Health and COVID-19: Global leadership, territorial investment and food
systems. European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM).
Ranger, S., Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Cumming, G., Dapling, T., Lawes, E., & Richardson, P. B.
(2016). Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-

111
democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosystem Services, 21, 344-357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.016
Rappaport, R. A. (1979). Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. North Atlantic Books.
Ravenscroft, N. (2019). A new normative economics for the formation of shared social values.
Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1297-1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0652-4
Raymond, C., Giusti, M., & Barthel, S. (2017a). An embodied perspective on the co-production of
cultural ecosystem services: Toward embodied ecosystems. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300
Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., Geneletti, D., &
Calfapietra, C. (2017b). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of
nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 15-24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
Raymond, C. M., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Transcendental values and the valuation and management
of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.018
Raymond, C. M., Kenter, J. O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N. J., & Alexander, K. A. (2014).
Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social
values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 107, 145-156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033
Raymond, C., Singh, G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J., Levine, J., Nelson, H., Turner, N., Norton,
B., Tam, J., & Chan, K. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors
to understand human–environment relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536-546.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7
Raymond, H. (2007). The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate. Annual Review of Anthropology,
36(1), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123321
Raymond, I. J., & Raymond, C. M. (2019). Positive psychology perspectives on social values and
their application to intentionally delivered sustainability interventions. Sustainability
Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00705-9
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A.,
Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A., & Gutierrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and
managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(2), 100-109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
Reed, M. S., & Ceno, J. S. D. (2015). Mediation and conservation conflicts: From top-down to
bottom-up. En Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions (pp. 226-239).
Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139084574.017
Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
Regan, T. (1986). The case for animal rights. En M. Fox & L. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal
welfare science (p. 12). The Humane Society of the United States.
Reiter, B. (2018). Introduction. En B. Reiter (Ed.), Constructing the Pluriverse. The Geopolitics of
Knowledge (pp. 1-18). Duke University Press.
https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/PubMaterials/978-1-4780-0016-7_601.pdf
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8
Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H. A., & Larigauderie, A. (2012). Finding common
ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience, 62(5), 503-507. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12
Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, A., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Wilson, S. J., &
Brondizio, E. S. (2019). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to
ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894
Richards, J.-A., & Boom, K. (2015). Who pays the real costs of Big Oil, Coal and Gas? 24.

112
Rico García-Amado, L., Ruiz Pérez, M., & Barrasa García, S. (2013). Motivation for conservation:
Assessing integrated conservation and development projects and payments for
environmental services in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological
Economics, 89, 92-100. Academic Search Premier.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Arias-Arévalo, P., & Clavijo-Romero, M. (Eds.). (2021). Visiones, avances y
retos en América Latina. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Arias-Arévalo, P., Núñez Hernández, J. M., Cotler, H., Aguado Caso, M., Meli,
P., Tauro, A., Ávila Akerberg, V. D., Avila-Foucat, V. S., Cardenas, J. P., Castillo
Hernández, L. A., Castro, L. G., Cerón Hernández, V. A., Contreras Araque, A.,
Deschamps-Lomeli, J., Galeana-Pizaña, J. M., Guillén Oñate, K., Hernández Aguilar, J. A.,
Jimenez, A. D., … Waldron, T. (2019). Applying integrated valuation of ecosystem services
in Latin America: Insights from 21 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2019.100901
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., & Moomaw, W. R. (2019). World Scientists’
Warning of a Climate Emergency. Bioscience, 5, 969. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Robbins, P. (2014). Cries along the chain of accumulation. Geoforum, 54, 233-235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.007
Rogers, A. A., Dempster, F. L., Hawkins, J. I., Johnston, R. J., Boxall, P. C., Rolfe, J., Kragt, M. E.,
Burton, M. P., & Pannell, D. J. (2019). Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural
hazards. Natural Hazards, 99(2), 1131-1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03761-7
Rojas Martínez, A. A. (2005). ¿Qué pasaría si la escuela...? 30 años de construcción de una
educación propia. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 48.
https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.7724
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
Rolston, H. I. (1988). Human values and natural systems. Society & Natural Resources, 1(1), 269-
283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941928809380658
Rolston, H. I. (1993). Rights and responsibilities on the home planet. Zygon®, 28(4), 425-439.
Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1993.tb01047.x
Rolston, H. I. (1994). Environmental Ethics: Values in and Duties to the Natural World. En
Reflecting on Nature: Readings in Environmental Philosophy.
Ross, H., Witt, K., & Jones, N. A. (2018). Stephen Kellert’s development and contribution of
relational values in social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 35, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.007
Rousseau, S., & Dargent, E. (2019). The Construction of Indigenous Language Rights in Peru: A
Language Regime Approach. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 11(2), 161-180.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X19866527
Russo, A., Escobedo, F. J., Cirella, G. T., & Zerbe, S. (2017). Edible green infrastructure: An
approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban
environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 242, 53-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.026
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D. N., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E.,
Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., & Santos, R. (2016). Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated
valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 22, 238-249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2016.10.014
Sachs, J. D., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2021). Part 2. The SDG Index and
Dashboards. En Sustainable development report 2021. The Decade of Action for the

113
Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/97811089922411
Sagoff, M. (1986). Values and Preferences. Ethics, 96(2), 301-316.
Sahu, G. (2008). Mining in the Niyamgiri Hills and Tribal Rights. 3.
Salvucci, D. (2015). Intimacy and Danger. Ritual Practices and Environmental Relations in
Northern Andean Argentina. Indiana, 65-84.
Saner, M. A., & Bordt, M. (2016). Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement.
Ecological Economics, 130, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.019
Sangvai, S. (2002). The river and life: People’s struggle in the Narmada Valley. Earthcare Books
Mumbai.
Sarna-Wojcicki, D., Sowerwine, J., & Hillman, L. (2019). Decentring Watersheds and
Decolonising Watershed Governance: Towards an Ecocultural Politics of Scale in the
Klamath Basin. 12(1), 26.
Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of
studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 721-734.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005
Sarrazin, F., & Lecomte, J. (2016). Evolution in the Anthropocene. Science, 351(6276), 922-923.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad6756
Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S.,
Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The Challenges of
Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Environmental Assessment. AMBIO, 42(6),
675-684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6
Saxena, A. K., Chatti, D., Overstreet, K., & Dove, M. R. (2018). From moral ecology to diverse
ontologies: Relational values in human ecological research, past and present. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 54-60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.021
Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511734779
Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., Liu, J., Navas, G., Mingorría, S., Demaria, F., Avila, S., Roy, B., Ertör,
I., Temper, L., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2020). Environmental conflicts and defenders: A global
overview. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104
Schill, C., Anderies, J. M., Lindahl, T., Folke, C., Polasky, S., Cárdenas, J. C., Crépin, A.-S.,
Janssen, M. A., Norberg, J., & Schlüter, M. (2019). A more dynamic understanding of
human behaviour for the Anthropocene. Nature Sustainability, 2(12), 1075-1082.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0419-7
Schmelzer, M. (2015). The growth paradigm: History, hegemony, and the contested making of
economic growthmanship. Ecological Economics, 118, 262-271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.029
Schmidt, S., & Seppelt, R. (2018). Information content of global ecosystem service databases and
their suitability for decision advice. Ecosystem Services, 32, 22-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.007
Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural
perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods.
Ecological Economics, 114, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
Schröter, M., Başak, E., Christie, M., Church, A., Keune, H., Osipova, E., Oteros-Rozas, E.,
Sievers-Glotzbach, S., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Balvanera, P., González, D., Jacobs, S.,
Molnár, Z., Pascual, U., & Martín-López, B. (2020). Indicators for relational values of
nature’s contributions to good quality of life: The IPBES approach for Europe and Central

114
Asia. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 50-69. Scopus.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E., van Oudenhoven, A., Remme, R., Serna-Chavez, H., de Groot,
R., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of
Critique and Counter-Arguments: Ecosystem services as a contested concept. Conservation
Letters, 7(6), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
Schröter, M., & van Oudenhoven, A. (2016). Ecosystem Services Go Beyond Money and Markets:
Reply to Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 333-334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.001
Schwann, A. (2018). Ecological wisdom: Reclaiming the cultural landscape of the Okanagan
Valley. Journal of Urban Management, 7(3), 172-180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.05.004
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 10, 221-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 25(C), 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human
Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value Priorities and Religiosity in Four Western
Religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787148
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th editio).
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Searle, J. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford
University Press.
Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000020
Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6(4), 317-344.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C., Eppink, F., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review
of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead: Priorities for
ecosystem service studies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 630-636.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
Sewell Jr, W. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. University of
Chicago Press.
Shah, S., & Bhat, J. A. (2019). Ethnomedicinal knowledge of indigenous communities and
pharmaceutical potential of rainforest ecosystems in Fiji Islands. Journal of Integrative
Medicine, 17(4), 244-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joim.2019.04.006
Shanee, N. (2013). Campesino justification for self-initiated conservation actions: A challenge to
mainstream conservation. Journal of Political Ecology, 20(1).
https://doi.org/10.2458/v20i1.21754
Shebell, E., & Moser, S. (2019). Planning for the Buen Vivir: Socialism, decentralisation and
urbanisation in rural Ecuador. International Development Planning Review, 41(4), 473-494.
https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2019.16
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and
how it changes. Sage.
Silverblatt, I. M. (1987). Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and
Colonial Peru. Princeton University Press.

115
Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. Harper Collins Publishers.
Singh, R. K. (2013). Ecoculture and subsistence living of Monpa community in the eastern
Himalayas: An ethnoecological study in Arunachal Pradesh. 12(3), 13.
Skjærseth, J. B., & Skodvin, T. (2001). Climate Change and the Oil Industry: Common Problems,
Different Strategies. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 43-64.
https://doi.org/10.1162/152638001317146363
Smith, E. A. (2001). On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and biological diversity. En L. Maffi
(Ed.), On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment (pp. 95-
117). Smithsonian Institution Press.
Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies. Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
Spash, C. L. (2008). Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory.
Land Economics, 84(3), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.3.469
Spencer, B. (2018). Culture-Based Metaphors in Traditional Bemba Narratives: Relevance for
African Teaching Contexts. Language Matters, 49(2), 62-79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2018.1467958
Sponsel, L. E. (2012). Spiritual Ecology: A Quiet Revolution. ABC-CLIO.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R.,
Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M.,
Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Steg, L., Keizer, K., Buunk, A. P., & Rothengatter, T. (2017). Applied Social Psychology:
Understanding and Managing Social Problems. Cambridge University Press.
Steg, L., Lindenberg, P., & Keizer, K. (2016). Intrinsic Motivation, Norms and Environmental
Behaviour: The Dynamics of Overarching Goals. International Review of Environmental
and Resource Economics, 9(1-2), 179-207. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000077
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and
research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Steil, B. (2013). The battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the
making of a new world order. Princeton University Press.
Stenseke, M. (2018). Connecting «relational values» and relational landscape approaches. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 82-88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.025
Stern, N. (2021). A time for action on climate change and a time for change in economics.
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper, 370,
1-42.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm
Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology
Review, 6(2), 81-97.
Stewart, J. (2009). Public Policy Values (2009th edition). Palgrave Macmillan.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of
economic performance and social progress. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.f
Strang, V. (2005). Knowing me, knowing you: Aboriginal and European concepts of nature as self
and other. Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion, 9(1), 25-56.
https://doi.org/10.1163/1568535053628463
Stutzer, R., Rinscheid, A., Oliveira, T. D., Loureiro, P. M., Kachi, A., & Duygan, M. (2021). Black
coal, thin ice: The discursive legitimisation of Australian coal in the age of climate change.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 178.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00827-5

116
Šunde, C., Sinner, J., Tadaki, M., Stephenson, J., Glavovic, B., Awatere, S., Giorgetti, A., Lewis,
N., Young, A., & Chan, K. (2018). Valuation as destruction? The social effects of valuation
processes in contested marine spaces. Marine Policy, 97, 170-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.024
Supreme Court of India. (1995). Writ Petition No. 549 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union
Of India & Ors (Case No. Writ Petition 202). https://leap.unep.org/countries/in/national-
case-law/tn-godavarman-thirumulkpad-vs-union-india-ors
Svarstad, H., Overå, R., & Benjaminsen, T. (2018). Power theories in political ecology. Journal of
Political Ecology, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.23044
Tabernero, C., & Hernández, B. (2011). Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation Guiding
Environmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658-675.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510379759
Tadaki, M., & Sinner, J. (2014). Measure, model, optimise: Understanding reductionist concepts of
value in freshwater governance. Geoforum, 51, 140-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.11.001
Talbot, J. M. (2002). Tropical commodity chains, forward integration strategies and international
inequality: Coffee, cocoa and tea. Review of International Political Economy, 9(4), 701-734.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969229022000021862
Tamez, M. (2012). The Texas-Mexico border wall and ndé memory: Confronting genocide and
state criminality, beyond the guise of «impunity». En Beyond Walls and Cages: Prisons,
Borders, and Global Crisis.
Tatpati, M., Kothari, A., & Mishra, R. (2016). The Niyamgiri Story: Challenging the Idea of
Growth without Limits? En N. Singh, S. Kulkarni, & N. Broome (Eds.), Ecologies of Hope
and Transformation (p. 42).
Taylor, B. (2010). Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. University
of California Press.
Taylor, B. (2021). Kinship through the Senses, Sciences, and Arts. En G. van Horn, R. W.
Kimmerer, & J. Hausdoerffer (Eds.), Kinship: Belonging in a World of Relations (Vol. 1).
Center for Humans and Nature.
Taylor, B., Chapron, G., Kopnina, H., Orlikowska, E., Gray, J., & Piccolo, J. J. (2020). The need
for ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 34(5), 1089-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13541
Taylor, B., Van Wieren, G., & Zaleha, B. D. (2016). Lynn White Jr. And the greening-of-religion
hypothesis. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology,
30(5), 1000-1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12735
Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University
Press.
TEEB. (2010a). Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions
and recommendations of teeb (UNEP, Ed.). UNEP.
TEEB. (2010b). TEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers.
Tefft, S. K. (1968). Intergenerational value differentials and family structure among the Wind River
Shoshone. 330-333.
Temper, L. (2019). Blocking pipelines, unsettling environmental justice: From rights of nature to
responsibility to territory. Local Environment, 24(2), 94-112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1536698
Temper, L., Del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of
global environmental justice: The EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 255.
https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21108
Temper, L., Demaria, F., Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2018). The Global
Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas): Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for

117
sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-
0563-4
Temper, L., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2013). The god of the mountain and Godavarman: Net Present
Value, indigenous territorial rights and sacredness in a bauxite mining conflict in India.
Ecological Economics, 96, 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.011
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting
diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence
base approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., &
Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons
learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 17-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
Thomas, C. W. (1997). Public Management as Interagency Cooperation: Testing Epistemic
Community Theory at the Domestic Level. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 7(2), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024347
Thomas, V., & López, R. (2015). Global Increase in Climate-Related Disasters. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2709331
Tilahun, M., Vranken, L., Muys, B., Deckers, J., Gebregziabher, K., Gebrehiwot, K., Bauer, H., &
Mathijs, E. (2015). Rural Households’ Demand for Frankincense Forest Conservation in
Tigray, Ethiopia: A Contingent Valuation Analysis. Land Degradation & Development,
26(7), 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2207
Tillmann, S., Tobin, D., Avison, W., & Gilliland, J. (2018). Mental health benefits of interactions
with nature in children and teenagers: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 72(10), 958-966. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-210436
Tola, M. (2018). Between Pachamama and Mother Earth: Gender, Political Ontology and the
Rights of Nature in Contemporary Bolivia. Feminist Review, 118(1), 25-40.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41305-018-0100-4
Traub, S. H., & Dodder, R. A. (1988). Intergenerational conflict of values and norms: A theoretical
model. Adolescence, 23(92), 1975-1989.
Tyler, T. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press.
Uchida, K., & Kamura, K. (2020). Traditional Ecological Knowledge Maintains Useful Plant
Diversity in Semi-natural Grasslands in the Kiso Region, Japan. Environmental
Management, 65(4), 478-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01255-y
Uehara, T., Sakurai, R., & Tsuge, T. (2020). Cultivating relational values and sustaining socio-
ecological production landscapes through ocean literacy: A study on Satoumi. Environment
Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1599-1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-
0226-8
UK NEA. (2014). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-
WCMC.
Ullrich, J. S. (2019). For the love of our children: An Indigenous connectedness framework.
AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(2), 121-130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180119828114
UN SEEA (Ed.). (2012). System of environmental-economic accounting 2012: Central framework.
United Nations.
UNDRR, & ISC. (2020). Hazard definition and classification review. United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction International Science Council.
UNEP, U. N. E. P., & IRLI. (2020). Preventing the Next Pandemic Zoonotic diseases and how to
break the chain of transmission.

118
UNESCO. (2021). Global action plan of the international decade of indigenous languages (2022-
2032). Information document. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/idil2022-
2032/globalactionplan
UNESCO & CBD. (2010). A proposed joint programme of work on biological and cultural
diversity lead by the secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity and UNESCO.
International Conference on Biological and Cultural Diversity: Diversity for Development-
Development for Diversity.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/development/icbcd/official/icbcd-scbd-unesco-en.pdf
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007). Smoke, mirrors & hot air. How ExxonMobil uses big
tobacco’s tactics to manufacture uncertainty on climate science. Union of Concerned
Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/smoke-mirrors-hot-air
United Nations. (2009). Harmony With Nature. http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(A/RES/70/1; p. 41). United Nations. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02
Valladares Pasquel, A. C. (2019). (Re)territorializaciones en tiempos de ‘revolución ciudadana’:
Petróleo, minerales y derechos de la naturaleza en el Ecuador. Estudios Atacameños.
https://doi.org/10.22199/issn.0718-1043-2019-0030
van den Born, R. J. G., Arts, B., Admiraal, J., Beringer, A., Knights, P., Molinario, E., Horvat, K.
P., Porras-Gomez, C., Smrekar, A., Soethe, N., Vivero-Pol, J. L., Ganzevoort, W., Bonaiuto,
M., Knippenberg, L., & De Groot, W. T. (2018). The missing pillar: Eudemonic values in
the justification of nature conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 61(5-6), 841-856. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1342612
van der Ploeg, J., Cauillan-Cureg, M., van Weerd, M., & Persoon, G. (2011). ‘Why must we protect
crocodiles?’ Explaining the value of the Philippine crocodile to rural communities. Journal
of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 8(4), 287-298. Academic Search Premier.
van Horn, G., Kimmerer, R. W., & Hausdoerffer, J. (Eds.). (2021). Kinship: Belonging in a World
of Relations (Vol. 1-5). Center for Humans and Nature.
van Norren, D. E. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals viewed through Gross National
Happiness, Ubuntu, and Buen Vivir. International Environmental Agreements: Politics,
Law and Economics, 20(3), 431-458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09487-3
Vatn, A. (2005). Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar Pub.
Vatn, A. (2009). An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecological
Economics, 68(8-9), 2207-2215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.005
Vatn, A. (2015). Environmental governance. Institutions, policies and actions. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Vaz, . S., Kueffer, C., Kull, C. A., Richardson, D. M., Vicente, J. R., Kühn, I., Schröter, M., Hauck,
J., Bonn, A., & Honrado, J. P. (2017). Integrating ecosystem services and disservices:
Insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Services, 23, 94-107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017
Waldmüller, J. M. (2014). Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay, «Good Living»: An Introduction and
Overview. Alternautas, 1(1), 13.
Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The Harm of Symbolic Actions and Green-Washing: Corporate
Actions and Communications on Environmental Performance and Their Financial
Implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
011-1122-4
Wamsler, C. (2018). Mind the gap: The role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and
climate change. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1121-1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
017-0524-3
Warren, K. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on what it is and why it
Matters. Rowman & Littlefield. https://books.google.de/books?id=HsNM29FGblgC

119
West, S., Haider, L. J., Masterson, V., Enqvist, J. P., Svedin, U., & Tengö, M. (2018). Stewardship,
care and relational values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008
Weston, A. (1985). Beyond intrinsic value: Pragmatism in environmental ethics. Environmental
Ethics, 7(4).
White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203-1207.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
White, P. C. L., Godbold, J. A., Solan, M., Wiegand, J., & Holt, A. R. (2010). Ecosystem Services
and Policy: A Review of Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Services and an Efficiency-Based
Framework for Implementing the Ecosystem Approach. 23.
Whyte, K. (2016). Food Justice and Collective Food Relations. En A. Barnhill, M. Budolfson, & T.
Doggett (Eds.), Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings (pp. 122-
134). Oxford University Press. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2555303
Whyte, K. (2018a). Food sovereignty, justice, and indigenous peoples: An essay on settler
colonialism and collective continuance. En The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372263.013.34
Whyte, K. (2018b). Settler Colonialism, Ecology, and Environmental Injustice. Environment and
Society. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2018.090109
Whyte, K. (2018c). Critical Investigations of Resilience: A Brief Introduction to Indigenous
Environmental Studies & Sciences. Daedalus, 147(2), 136-147.
https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00497
Whyte, K. (2020). Indigenous environmental justice: Anti-colonial action through kinship. En B.
Coolsaet (Ed.), Environmental Justice: Key Issues. (p. 14). Taylor & Francis.
Wilde-Ramsing, J., Steinweg, T., Racz, K., & Scheele, F. (2012). The Black Box—Obscurity and
Transparency in the Dutch Coal Supply Chain. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2028884
Wilson, D. (2002). Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. University
of Chicago Press.
Winkler, K. J., & Hauck, J. (2019). Landscape stewardship for a German UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve: A network approach to establishing stewardship governance. Ecology and Society,
24(3), 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10982-240312
Wisner, B., Adams, J., & World Health Organization (Eds.). (2002). Environmental health in
emergencies and disasters: A practical guide. World Health Organization.
Witt, K., Ross, H., Shaw, S., Jones, N., Rissik, D., & Pinner, B. (2019). How do Local People
Value Rural Waterways? A Study in the Upper Catchments of South East Queensland’s
Rivers. Society & Natural Resources, 32(6), 638-656.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1578910
Yaka, Ö. (2019). Rethinking Justice: Struggles For Environmental Commons and the Notion of
Socio-Ecological Justice. Antipode, 51(1), 353-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12422
Zafra-Calvo, N., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Merçon, J., Martín-López, B., van Noordwijk, M.,
Mwampamba, T. H., Lele, S., Ifejika Speranza, C., Arias-Arévalo, P., Cabrol, D., Cáceres,
D. M., O’Farrell, P., Subramanian, S. M., Devy, S., Krishnan, S., Carmenta, R., Guibrunet,
L., Kraus-Elsin, Y., … Díaz, S. (2020). Plural valuation of nature for equity and
sustainability: Insights from the Global South. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115
Zhang, X., Yu, X., Zhang, Z., Xu, Z., Xu, S., & Xu, B. (2013). Ecosystem service values of
wetlands of the national wetland park of Wu river, Northern China. Forestry Chronicle,
89(2), 147-152. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2013-031

120
Zisenis, M. (2009). To which extent is the interdisciplinary evaluation approach of the CBD
reflected in European and international biodiversity-related regulations? Biodiversity and
Conservation, 18(3), 639-648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9530-1
Zografos, C., & Howarth, R. B. (2010). Deliberative Ecological Economics for Sustainability
Governance. Sustainability, 2(11), 3399-3417. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113399
Zografos, C., & Rodríguez, B. (2014). Economic tools for evaluating liabilities in environmental
justice struggles. The EJOTL experience (EJOLT Report No. 16; p. 75). EJOTL.
http://www.ejolt.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/EJOLT_Report_16.pdf
Zylstra, M., Esler, K., Knight, A., & Le Grange, L. (2019). Integrating multiple perspectives on the
human-nature relationship: A reply to Fletcher 2017. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 50(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2018.1497582