Three perspectives on relational values of nature

被引:0
作者
Sanna Stålhammar
Henrik Thorén
机构
[1] Lund University,Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies
[2] University of Helsinki,Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science
来源
Sustainability Science | 2019年 / 14卷
关键词
Relational value; Intrinsic value; Environmental values; Environmental valuation; Socio-cultural valuation; Ecosystem services value;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Relational value (RV) has recently been introduced as a third class of values for understanding values of nature and are thought to sit alongside more familiar axiological categories such as instrumental and intrinsic value. The concept has quickly gained ground in and promises to better capture how people and collectives perceive of their wellbeing and make choices that involve the natural world. While the idea of relational value is not without merits, its initial and current conceptualization raises questions about how it relates to existing value concepts. Here, we start from an interdisciplinary perspective and delineate how the concept can contribute to addressing problems in three fields that deal with environmental values in different ways: environmental ethics; ecosystem services valuation; and environmental psychology. We provide an overview of value concepts in each field and show how relational value has been described or applied. Our analysis shows that value concepts are used to solve different problems in the three fields, and these differences have implications for how relational value can be framed and situated in values theory. These differences involve e.g., the descriptive question of how people value nature versus the normative questions of why nature should be valued. We show how the concept can be seen as solving the problem of narrow conceptualizations of intrinsic and instrumental value in ecosystem services valuation and suggest that RV can be conceived of as an epistemological framing rather than a values concept. The concept also has potential to function as a ‘boundary object’ to provide cross-fertilization of disciplinary perspectives.
引用
收藏
页码:1201 / 1212
页数:11
相关论文
共 262 条
  • [1] Arias-Arévalo P(2017)Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems Ecol Soc 22 43-53
  • [2] Martín-López B(2018)Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods Environ Values 27 29-A2
  • [3] Gómez-Baggethun E(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 Ecosyst Serv 30 A1-269
  • [4] Arias-Arévalo P(1984)The concept of value in resource allocation Land Econ 60 231-18
  • [5] Gómez-Baggethun E(2016)Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services Ecosyst Serv 21 258-1465
  • [6] Martín-López B(2012)Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values Ecol Econ 74 8-A7
  • [7] Pérez-Rincón M(2016)Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment Proc Natl Acad Sci 113 1462-158
  • [8] Braat Leon C(2018)Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35 A1-28
  • [9] Brown T(2014)Changes in the global value of ecosystem services Glob Enviro Change 26 152-272
  • [10] Bryce R(2009)Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver Front Ecol Environ 7 21-61