References

¹In this esssay, nature, living nature and biodiversity are used broadly as synonyms for the sake of simplicity, based on S. Díaz et al. 2019 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, Bonn, Germany and Díaz S et al. 2019 Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science, 366, eaax3100. It includes all levels of life on Earth, from genes to the living components of ecosystems. 

²Díaz S et al. 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)

³Pascual U et al. 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)

⁴O’Connor S and Kenter JO. 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. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00715-7)

⁵Butler WF and Acott TG. 2007 An Inquiry Concerning the Acceptance of Intrinsic Value Theories of Nature. Environmental Values, 16(2), 149–168. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30302251

⁶Arias-Arévalo P, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B and Pérez-Rincón M. 2018 Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values, 27(1). (https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513)

⁷Pascual U et al. 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)

⁸Himes A and Muraca B. 2018 Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7. (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005)

⁹O'Neill J. 2017 Life beyond capital. CUSP essay series on the Morality of Sustainable Prosperity, No.6. University of Manchester (https://www.cusp.ac.uk/themes/m/m1-6/#1475182667098-0328ae0f-4bcbf2c7-159ee609-9652)

¹⁰Allsopp MH, de Lange WJ and Veldtman R. 2008 Valuing Insect Pollination Services with Cost of Replacement. PLoS ONE, 3(9), e3128. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003128)

¹¹Brander L, Brouwer R and Wagtendon A. 2013 Economic valuation of regulating services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes: A meta-analysis. Ecological Engineering, 56, 89–96. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.104)

¹²Ghermandi A, Van Den Bergh JCJM, Brander LM, De Groot HLF and Nunes PALD. 2010 Values of natural and human-made wetlands: A meta-analysis. Water Resources Research, 46(12). (https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009071)

¹³Quintas-Soriano C et al. 2016 Ecosystem services values in Spain: A meta-analysis. Environmental Science and Policy, 55. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.001)

¹⁴Schild JEM, Vermaat JE, de Groot RS, Quatrini S and van Bodegom PM. 2018 A global meta-analysis on the monetary valuation of dryland ecosystem services: The role of socio-economic, environmental and methodological indicators. Ecosystem Services, 32(2018), 78–89. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.06.004)

¹⁵Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M and 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)

¹⁶Himes A and Muraca B. 2018 Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7. (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005)

¹⁷Chan KMA et al. 2016 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)

¹⁸Chan KMA, Gould R and Pascual U. 2018 Relational values: What are they and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35:A1-A7.

¹⁹Knippenberg L, de Groot WT, van den Born RJG, Knights P and Muraca B. 2018 Relational value, partnership, eudaimonia: a review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 39–45. (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.022)

²⁰Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B and Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017 Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). (https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443)

²¹Gould RK, Pai M, Muraca B and Chan KMA. 2019 He Ê»ike Ê»ana 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. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9)

²²Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA and 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)

²³Forest Peoples Programme, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network. (2020). Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. A complement to the fifth edition of Global Biodiversity. Retrieved from www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net

²⁴Chan KMA et al. 2016 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)

²⁵Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B and Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017 Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). (https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443)

²⁶Himes A and Muraca B. 2018 Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7. (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005)

²⁷Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B and Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017 Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). (https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443)

²⁸The contribution of the watershed to a good quality of life can be understood in terms of both relational and instrumental values. It can refer to relational values when the relationship with the watershed matters to people because this relationship contributes to a life that is meaningful and worth living (i.e. eudaimonic relational values; Pascual et al., 2017); but it can also refer to instrumental values when the watershed is conceived as a means to an end, for example, as a source of medicines and food.

²⁹Chan KMA et al. 2016 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)

³⁰Himes A and Muraca B. 2018 Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7. (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005)

³¹Arias-Arévalo P, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B and Pérez-Rincón M. 2018 Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values, 27(1). (https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513)

³²Himes A and Muraca B. 2018 Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7. (https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005)

³³Mace GM. 2014 Whose conservation? Science, 345, 1558-1558.

³⁴Díaz S. 2019 Why care about nature? A pluralistic agenda for biodiversity. Seeds of Change: Provocations for a New Research Agenda, Biodiversity Revisited Symposium Conference Proceedings, 11-13 September 2019, Vienna, Austria.

³⁵Ibid

³⁶Jacobs S et al. 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)

³⁷Pascual U et al. 2012 The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. (https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775489)

³⁸Pearce DW and Moran D. 1994 The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Retrieved from https://books.google.de/books/about/The_Economic_Value_of_Biodiversity.html?id=nIIfAQAAIAAJ&pgis=1

³⁹The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

⁴⁰Kumar P. 2010 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Earthscan.

⁴¹Mandle L et al. 2020 Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nature Sustainability. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y)

⁴²Tallis H and Lubchenco J. 2014 Working together: A call for inclusive conservation. Nature, Vol. 515, pp. 27–28. (https://doi.org/10.1038/515027a)

⁴³Gómez-Baggethun E and Ruiz-Pérez M. 2011 Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 35(5), 613–628. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708)

⁴⁴Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R and Mermet L. 2013 Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 119, pp. 208–219. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008)

⁴⁵Ruckelshaus M et al. 2015 Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics, 115, 11–21. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009)

⁴⁶Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B and Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017 Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). (https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443)

⁴⁷But see Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA and 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)

⁴⁸Jacobs S et al. 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)

⁴⁹Arias-Arévalo P, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B and Pérez-Rincón M. 2018 Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values, 27(1). (https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513)

⁵⁰Pascual U et al. 2014 Social Equity matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services. Bioscience 64(11): 1027-1036

⁵¹Zafra-Calvo N et al. 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)

⁵²Jacobs S et al. 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)

⁵³Zafra-Calvo N et al. 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)

⁵⁴Mandle L et al. 2020 Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nature Sustainability. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y)

⁵⁵James SP. 2020 Legal rights and nature’s contributions to people: Is there a connection? Biological Conservation, Vol. 241, p. 108325. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108325)

⁵⁶Zafra-Calvo N et al. 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)