Skip to content

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 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. (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)

 
Was this page useful?
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback. Please help us improve this page by taking our short survey.