Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Opinion

Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment

Kai M. A. Chan, Patricia Balvanera, Karina Benessaiah, Mollie Chapman, Sandra Díaz, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Rachelle Gould, Neil Hannahs, Kurt Jax, Sarah Klain, Gary W. Luck, Berta Martín-López, Barbara Muraca, Bryan Norton, Konrad Ott, Unai Pascual, Terre Satterfield, Marc Tadaki, Jonathan Taggart, and Nancy Turner
  1. aInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4;
  2. bInstituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia Michoacán 58190 Mexico;
  3. cSchool of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287;
  4. dInstituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de Argentina, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina;
  5. eNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Oslo 0412, Norway;
  6. fEnvironmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom;
  7. gRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
  8. hLand Assets Division, Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, HI 96813;
  9. iDepartment of Conservation Biology, UFZ Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany;
  10. jInstitute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia;
  11. kInstitute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany;
  12. lSchool of History, Religion, and Philosophy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331;
  13. mSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332;
  14. nDepartment of Philosophy, Kiel University, 24118 Kiel, Germany;
  15. oIkerbasque Basque Foundation for Science, 48013 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain;
  16. pBasque Centre for Climate Change, 48008 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain;
  17. qDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2;
  18. rSchool of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 2Y2

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS February 9, 2016 113 (6) 1462-1465; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Kai M. A. Chan
aInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kaichan@ires.ubc.ca
Patricia Balvanera
bInstituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia Michoacán 58190 Mexico;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karina Benessaiah
cSchool of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mollie Chapman
aInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra Díaz
dInstituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de Argentina, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik Gómez-Baggethun
eNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Oslo 0412, Norway;
fEnvironmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachelle Gould
gRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil Hannahs
hLand Assets Division, Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, HI 96813;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kurt Jax
iDepartment of Conservation Biology, UFZ Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Klain
aInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary W. Luck
jInstitute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Berta Martín-López
kInstitute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara Muraca
lSchool of History, Religion, and Philosophy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bryan Norton
mSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Konrad Ott
nDepartment of Philosophy, Kiel University, 24118 Kiel, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Unai Pascual
oIkerbasque Basque Foundation for Science, 48013 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain;
pBasque Centre for Climate Change, 48008 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Terre Satterfield
aInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Tadaki
qDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Taggart
aInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy Turner
rSchool of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 2Y2
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches.

Defining Relational Values

Few people make personal choices based only on how things possess inherent worth or satisfy their preferences (intrinsic and instrumental values, respectively). People also consider the appropriateness of how they relate with nature and with others, including the actions and habits conducive to a good life, both meaningful and satisfying. In philosophical terms, these are relational values (preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships, both interpersonal and as articulated by policies and social norms). They include “eudaimonic” values, or values associated with a good life (Fig. 1; also see dataset for additional references throughout, available at dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5146.0560). Relational values are not present in things but derivative of relationships and responsibilities to them (Fig. 2). In this sense, an individual preference or societal choice can be questioned or reframed based on its consistency with core values, such as justice, care, virtue, and reciprocity.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

The difference between the instrumental and intrinsic value framings that dominate environmental literatures and relational values. Whereas intrinsic values (A) pertain only to the value inherent in an object, and instrumental values (A) pertain to the value of the object for a person, relational values (B) pertain to all manner of relationships between people and nature, including relationships that are between people but involve nature (e.g., a relationship of impact via pollution, which is mediated by a watershed).

Relational notions of values are prominent across a wide swath of humanity, including classic (e.g., Aristotelian), contemporary Western, Indigenous (e.g., Tsawalk, Sumak kawsay), feminist (e.g., care ethics), and Eastern philosophies (e.g., Confucian, Buddhist). Notions of a good life rooted in relationships are expressed in diverse worldviews, including Ubuntu in South Africa, the Gandhian Economy of Permanence in India, Buen Vivir in several Latin American countries, and North American “back to the land” movements. Moreover, the five “moral foundations” common to many people—purity/sanctity, authority/respect, in-group/loyalty, fairness/reciprocity, and harm/care (2)—are better understood through lenses of relationships and a good life than through instrumental or intrinsic values. Pope Francis’s widely reported encyclical On Care for Our Common Home was abundant in its expression of relational values (3).

It matters little that in theory intrinsic and instrumental values might be stretched to include relational considerations if—as we argue—the usual framings of instrumental and intrinsic values fail to resonate with many lay-people and decision-makers. In social contexts of all kinds—including friendship, marriage, partnerships, parenting, extended family, community, and teams—many people naturally think of what is appropriate for that relationship, not only what benefits them, others, or nature. Of course, we may derive (and provide) considerable benefits, sometimes deciding that a focus on the relationship itself helps realize such benefits. However, we may resist arguments that rely only on instrumental or intrinsic logic, and be motivated more by the relationship as an end in itself.

Relational Values and Nature

Relational values also apply to interactions with nature. Some people’s identities are rooted in long-term care and stewardship, such as volunteer stream-keepers and urban or rural farmers. Some people and social organizations hold worldviews that encompass kinship between people and nature, including many indigenous and rural societies, and the many who subscribe even partly to the notions of “Mother Nature,” “Mother Earth,” Gaia, and so forth. Many people believe that their cultural identity and well-being derive from their relationships with human and nonhuman beings, mediated by particular places (Fig. 2 B and C, dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5146.0560). Caring for and attending to places can be essential for perpetuating cultural practices and core values (e.g., their proyecto de vida (4)—a collective vision for a self-determined and sustainable life in the community). According to these views, the value of the land is not independent of humans (i.e., not intrinsic). Moreover, it may be treacherously reductionist, if not offensive, to suggest that nature exists to provide (instrumental) utility to humans. Such views are not limited to indigenous people: when asked about benefits from land or seascapes, many people of diverse backgrounds describe intimate kin and stewardship relationships with them (5, 6).

Although intrinsic and instrumental values are critical to conservation, thinking only in these terms may miss a fundamental basis of concern for nature. Whereas intrinsic and instrumental values are often presented as stark alternatives, many important concerns may be better understood as relationships with both aspects. Consider a tree or grove deemed sacred, associated with collective histories, ancestors, or sustenance of many kinds. Is it valuable intrinsically (independent of human valuation) or instrumentally (for preference satisfaction)? Whereas the former might feel sterile or dismissively quaint, the latter seems to mistake symptom for cause: satisfaction does not produce sacredness, but rather is produced by the sacrosanct collective relationship. Thus, relational values link and enliven intrinsic and instrumental considerations.

Beyond Instrumental Values

Certain baggage accompanies instrumental notions of value. As a means (instrument) to something else, a thing is potentially replaceable. Money, as the universal equivalent, is the most common metric of that substitutability. Although instrumental values include concerns about life and livelihood-sustaining services, Although intrinsic and instrumental values are critical to conservation, thinking only in these terms may miss a fundamental basis of concern for nature.instrumental and commercial values can easily become blurred, as in market-centric ideologies and conservation programs involving some measure of commodification of nature and privatization of rights (7). Although seminal writings about ecosystem services pertained broadly to human well-being and not just monetary values (8, 9), powerful institutions have prominently promoted a neoliberal notion of ecosystem services focused on their implementation in markets and transactions, payment schemes, and cost-benefit analyses (10). In contrast, relational approaches might motivate conservation without putting a “price tag” on nature, bypassing such controversies and unintended consequences.

Recognizing relational values may also solve the dilemma that cultural ecosystem services are both everywhere and nowhere (11). Cultural ecosystem services, as nature’s contribution to nonmaterial benefits derived through human–ecosystem interactions, are everywhere because they are inextricably intertwined with regulating and provisioning services in relationships of material and extramaterial benefits (Fig. 2D). Cultural services are thus better understood as the filters of value through which other ecosystem services and nature derive importance (12). Conversely, they are “nowhere” in that many cultural ecosystem services are missing from assessments and resulting policies. Cultural considerations fit poorly into the instrumental framing of ecosystem services because they are inherently relational: cultural services are valued in the context of desired and actual relationships (Fig. 1).

Reflections on “a good life” offer a partial defense against runaway consumerism, a fundamental driver of ecological degradation. Whereas instrumentalism considers value as derived from the satisfaction of preferences whatever they are, the relational notion of eudaimonia (“flourishing”) entails reflection on the appropriateness of preferences, emphasizing that value is derived from a thing’s or act’s contribution to a good life, including adhering to one’s moral principles and maintaining the roots of collective flourishing (13). Although the term is abstruse, the longstanding idea of eudaimonia brings attention to relationships between people and nature, and to the foundations of well-being (e.g., trust in neighbors, empathy, mindfulness, and purpose, rather than an accumulation of things). An instrumental view would generally consider self-limitation of consumption as a loss to be avoided. In contrast, a relational/eudaimonic perspective might welcome or instigate self-motivated limitation—for example, deemphasizing consumer gift-giving in favor of convivial shared experiences—as a shift toward more meaningful lives.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Examples of relational values. (A) A young water bird (Charadrius sp.) in a human hand illustrates stewardship of nature. In the parlance of relational values, regardless of a thing's current state, what matters most is humans' responsibilities, which stem from our relationships with that thing. (B) Transhumant shepherds and sheep dogs on their annual migration on the Iberian Peninsula. The relationship goes beyond management for human benefit, reinforcing cultural identity through active ritual care. (C) Ancient olive tree on Aigina Island, Greece, 1,500–2,000 years old. The tree is no longer harvested but has great symbolic significance for island people. Image courtesy of Henri-Paul Coulon (photographer). (D) Salmon fishing on the west coast of North America is particularly rich in relational values due to benefits and values such as sustenance, identity, and strengthening of social ties.

Policy Applications

Environmental policy and management should always consider the kinds of relationships people already have with nature, and how these might be engaged to lessen the negative effects of human lifestyles on ecosystems and enhance positive ones. To be more than mere marketing, environmental management must reflect on and possibly rethink conservation in the context of local narratives and struggles over a good life. Five examples follow.

First, restoration or conservation activities can enable widespread participation in planning and implementation (14, 15) to strengthen locally owned “cultures of nature” (15). Such people-centric activities might be perceived as more legitimate and more broadly inviting by engaging relationships with nature, with people through nature, and vice versa.

Conservation is still often thought of as something imposed on local peoples by outsiders; it must instead be seen as something we all negotiate collectively as good stewardship. For example, many payments for ecosystem services are tightly constrained payments for particular actions decided centrally (e.g., offering compensation per tree or per hectare, advancing the commodification of nature). Such programs can be redesigned to foster existing relationships among landowners and with the land, engaging landowners and communities to undertake stewardship actions of their design through cost-sharing and collective action (e.g., via a grant- or reverse-auction model). Such cost-sharing for community-based or locally designed conservation should mitigate widespread concerns about fairness associated with the prevailing market-based approach to payments for ecosystem services (16), and enable more effective and creative conservation.

Second, including relational values could help conservation planning integrate approaches rooted in both Western scientific and local knowledge traditions. Doing so would give appropriate priority to existing ways of “knowing” landscapes and seascapes, perhaps increasing local appreciation for systematic science-based approaches (17), and vice versa.

Third, environmental initiatives could solidify and adapt home-grown stewardship by leveraging social relationships. The bond between parent or mentor and child can serve as a conduit for social norms of respect for, knowledge of, and passion about nature, via activities including fishing and hunting, foraging or gardening, hiking, or bird-watching. It is also possible to cultivate values and relationships through prolonged and repeated experiences with peer groups, via laboring on the land or outdoor adventure. Bonding is facilitated by explicit disarming of defenses as through play, struggling and suffering together, and celebrating (18). In rural resource-based communities, which are generally experiencing substantial out-migration but have historically featured social ties to the land, the task may be to enable the continuation of such practices in environmentally sustainable ways.

Fourth, using relational values might extend care for our places into care for other people’s places (e.g., via the Golden Rule, a foundational relational principle, “Do unto others …”). The importance of social relationships for nature applies equally—but differently—to rural communities as to urban ones. All relationships with nature pertain here: the tangible relationships of food producers, the imaginary ones of arm-chair wilderness lovers, and especially the material relationships with degradation we all have via consumption of natural resources delivered through global supply chains. Perhaps by cultivating relationships with organizations, and culturally sensitive relationships with faraway places, nongovernmental organizations might jumpstart a movement that takes real responsibility for the roles we play as complicit actors in market-driven environmental impacts (e.g., paying to mitigate impacts via the aforementioned reverse auctions or grants). Contrast the ingredients for lasting bonds (above: struggling, suffering, celebrating together) with the social gatherings typical of some conservation organizations: formal donor dinners and receptions where interpersonal connections may often be fleeting.

Fifth, more sustainable relationships with nature might come in part from more responsible relationships to the products that are increasingly fixtures of “modern” life. Planned obsolescence of many products fosters ephemeral and purely utilitarian relationships. Cultivating lasting relationships with things—for example, through fixer or do-it-yourself workshops—might counteract disposable mentalities and also reduce environmental impacts associated with resource extraction and manufacturing.

A relational values approach cannot eliminate trade-offs, but the strategies above should yield broadly viable approaches to sustainability, in part by transcending the unhelpful dichotomy of sustaining either human well-being or nature for its own sake.

A culture change in environmental policy and practice may be necessary. Any plan to foster relational values yields protests that it detracts from “real” conservation as can be measured numerically, for ease of performance evaluation. Investments in relationships and identities should not need justification based on short-term outcomes for biodiversity or human well-being. Without investing in human–nature relationships and broadly shared values, the proenvironment community may soon find that the relational values that have always propelled it are rapidly deteriorating. Fortunately, relational-value resurgences from other sectors might be leveraged for environmental protection (e.g., the “care economy,” connected parenting, and farmer’s markets movements).

Relational and eudaimonic values are finally receiving attention in governmental circles, including the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (19). If activists, researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and private-sector leaders internalize this message, perhaps environmental decisions will better account for our relationships with nature and many notions of a good life. Attending to such values is key to the genuine inclusion of diverse groups in environmental stewardship and to achieving social–ecological relationships that yield fulfilling lives for present and future generations.

Acknowledgments

We thank Peter Singer, Nathan Bennett, and Heather Tallis for comments on earlier drafts; and Allison Thompson for help throughout. K.M.A.C. is supported in part by the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation Leaders Opportunity Fund (F07-0010), and Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (435-2013-2017).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: kaichan{at}ires.ubc.ca.
  • Author contributions: K.M.A.C., P.B., K.B., M.C., S.D., E.G.-B., R.G., N.H., K.J., S.K., G.W.L., B.M.-L., B.M., B.N., K.O., U.P., T.S., M.T., J.T., and N.T. wrote the paper.

  • Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Tallis H,
    2. Lubchenco J
    (2014) Working together: A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515(7525):27–28
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Haidt J
    (2007) The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316(5827):998–1002
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Francis P
    (2015) Encyclical Letter Laudato Sí: On Care for Our Common Home (Vatican Press, Rome, The Vatican)
    .
  4. ↵
    1. Escobar A
    (2008) Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes (Duke Univ Press, Durham, NC), p 435
    .
  5. ↵
    1. Gould RK, et al.
    (2015) A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv Biol 29(2):575–586
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Berghöfer U,
    2. Rozzi R,
    3. Jax K
    (2010) Many eyes on nature: Diverse perspectives in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve and their relevance for conservation. Ecol Soc 15(1):18
    .
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Gómez-Baggethun E,
    2. Ruiz-Pérez M
    (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):613–628
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Daily GC
    , ed (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island Press, Washington, DC), p 392
    .
  9. ↵
    1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
    (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Island Press, Washington, DC), p 137
    .
  10. ↵
    1. Wegner G,
    2. Pascual U
    (2011) Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Glob Environ Change 21(2):492–504
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Chan KMA, et al.
    (2012) Where are ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ in ecosystem services: A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 6(8):744–756
    .
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Chan KMA,
    2. Satterfield T,
    3. Goldstein J
    (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Muraca B
    (2011) The map of moral significance: A new axiological matrix for environmental ethics. Environ Values 20(3):375–396
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Higgs E
    (2003) Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), p 341
    .
  15. ↵
    1. Platt RH
    1. Light A
    (2006) Ecological citizenship: The democratic promise of restoration. The Humane Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st-Century City, ed Platt RH (Univ of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA), pp 169–182
    .
  16. ↵
    1. Pascual U, et al.
    (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64(11):1027–1036
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Ban NC,
    2. Picard CR,
    3. Vincent ACJ
    (2009) Comparing and integrating community-based and science-based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conserv Biol 23(4):899–910
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Cialdini RB
    (2007) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Harper Paperbacks, New York), p 336
    .
  19. ↵
    1. Díaz S,
    2. Demissew S,
    3. Joly C,
    4. Lonsdale WM,
    5. Larigauderie A
    (2015) A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol 13(1):e1002040
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Relational values and the environment
Kai M. A. Chan, Patricia Balvanera, Karina Benessaiah, Mollie Chapman, Sandra Díaz, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Rachelle Gould, Neil Hannahs, Kurt Jax, Sarah Klain, Gary W. Luck, Berta Martín-López, Barbara Muraca, Bryan Norton, Konrad Ott, Unai Pascual, Terre Satterfield, Marc Tadaki, Jonathan Taggart, Nancy Turner
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2016, 113 (6) 1462-1465; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Relational values and the environment
Kai M. A. Chan, Patricia Balvanera, Karina Benessaiah, Mollie Chapman, Sandra Díaz, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Rachelle Gould, Neil Hannahs, Kurt Jax, Sarah Klain, Gary W. Luck, Berta Martín-López, Barbara Muraca, Bryan Norton, Konrad Ott, Unai Pascual, Terre Satterfield, Marc Tadaki, Jonathan Taggart, Nancy Turner
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2016, 113 (6) 1462-1465; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 113 (6)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Defining Relational Values
    • Relational Values and Nature
    • Beyond Instrumental Values
    • Policy Applications
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
Cave in coastal Kenya with tree growing in the middle.
Journal Club: Small, sharp blades mark shift from Middle to Later Stone Age in coastal Kenya
Archaeologists have long tried to define the transition between the two time periods.
Image credit: Ceri Shipton.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490