Conceptualising the role of values in environmental governance and management: an analytical framework

Figures & data

Table 1. Categories of principle values associated with how humans relate to one another (human-human) and the natural environment (human-nature).

Human-human principle values

Human-nature principle values

Egoistic: focus on the costs and benefits a choice has on someone’s resources, and on power or achievement (Stern et al. 1998; Bouman et al. 2018) Altruistic: concern for the welfare and fair treatment of other human beings (Stern et al. 1998; Bouman et al. 2018). Includes the following aspects: Equity: the equitable distribution of the goods and services derived from the environment and costs and benefits associated with management (e.g. access) Diversity requires recognition of (and respect towards) the diversity of socio-cultural groups and related rights, needs, livelihoods, lifestyles, and knowledge Democracy or social inclusivity which focuses on participation, representation, transparency, and the distribution of power (Saunders et al. 2020)

Intrinsic: (nature-centred or ecocentric) values or ethical principles embracing concerns about nonhuman entities (Norton 2000) Instrumental: (human-centred or anthropocentric) values espousing the importance of natural entities for serving human beings (Chan et al. 2016) Relational (reciprocal): principles and virtues associated with relationships between humans and the environment, underpinned by reciprocity which emphasises mutual dependence and responsibility e.g. stewardship or care (Chan et al. 2018; Gould et al. 2019) (see section 2.3)

Table 2. Categories of relational value.

Relational principle values (about nature)	Relational contextual values (of nature)	Process-relational values (interrelationships between biotic, abiotic and human entities)
Responsibility/stewardship/care: responsibility to manage or steward the environment, both for plants and animals and for future people Kinship: Plants and animals, as part of the interdependent web of life, as ’kin’ or family to an individual Community: The environment as a reflection of a community or people Identity: feelings about and views towards nature as a part of an individual’s identity and how they live their life (Klain et al. 2017)	Eudaimonic values - multi-faceted contribution that relating to a natural entity or place contributes to a good life: connecting one to nature or place attachment maintaining traditions relaxing and contemplative activity (Chan et al. 2018) capabilities that tie people to their environment and the challenge of their work (e.g. fishing) (Kaltenborn et al., 2017)	Ecological processes and functions (underpin the persistence of habitats and species or ecological resilience) Interactions between organisms Formation of biophysical habitats Natural disturbance regimes Movements of organisms and connectivity Hydrological processes Climatic processes (Bennett et al. 2009) Social-ecological relationships and interdependencies (support social and ecological sustainability or resilience) Social or cultural practices or customs which support sustainable resource use Biocultural interactions or cultural landscapes (e.g. indigenous fire regimes) Social factors that provide resilience in social-ecological systems e.g. adaptive capacity – flexibility, social organization, and agency (Cinner & Barnes, 2019; Ojeda et al. 2022).

Figure 1. Broad interrelationship between the different aspects of environmental governance, management and values.

Figure 2. How values underpin decision making processes and management goals.

Figure 3. The relationship between human-nature principle values, environmental management goals and management approaches.

Figure 4. How values underpin the empirical aspects of management.

Figure 5. The role of values in the applied aspect of management.

Figure 6. A conceptual framework of the role of values in environmental governance and management in the context of government policy making and implementation.

Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. 1998. A brief inventory of values. Educ Psychol Meas. 58(6):984–1001. doi: 10.1177/0013164498058006008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bouman T, Steg L, Kiers HAL. 2018. Measuring values in environmental research: a test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire [original research]. Front Psychol. 9:9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saunders F, Gilek M, Ikauniece A, Tafon RV, Gee K, Zaucha J. 2020. Theorizing social sustainability and justice in marine spatial planning: democracy, diversity, and equity. Sustain. 12(6):2560. doi: 10.3390/su12062560.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Norton BG. 2000. Biodiversity and environmental values: in search of a universal earth ethic. Biodivers Conserv. 9(8):1029–1044. doi: 10.1023/A:1008966400817.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 113(6):1462–1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U. 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr Opin Sust. 35:A1–A7. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gould RK, Pai M, Muraca B, 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 Sci. 14(5):1213–1232. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Zia A. 2017. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the new ecological paradigm. PLOS ONE. 12(8):e0183962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183962.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JDC, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lindhjem H, Thomassen J, Chan KM. 2017. Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecol Econ. 140:166–176. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bennett AF, Haslem A, Cheal DC, Clarke MF, Jones RN, Koehn JD, Lake PS, Lumsden LF, Lunt ID, Mackey BG. 2009. Ecological processes: a key element in strategies for nature conservation. Ecol Manage Restor. 10(3):192–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00489.x.

 Google Scholar

Cinner JE, Barnes ML. 2019. Social dimensions of resilience in social-ecological systems. One Earth. 1(1):51–56. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.003.

 Google Scholar

Ojeda J, Salomon AK, Rowe JK, Ban NC. 2022. Reciprocal contributions between people and nature: a conceptual intervention. BioSci. 72(10):952–962. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biac053.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar