The Importance of Recognizing Plural Values of Nature for Environmental Decision-Making

In a world where international agreements like the Sustainable Development Goals aim to create a sustainable future within planetary boundaries, it is crucial to recognize and respect the various ways in which nature is valued. However, disagreements often arise about how best to achieve these goals, leading to conflicts and inaction. A recent study led by the University of East Anglia delves into this issue by examining four distinct approaches to addressing environmental crises: Nature Protection, Green Economy, Earth Stewardship and Biocultural Diversity, and Degrowth and Post-growth.

One of the key findings of the research is the clear differences in how each approach values nature. While Nature Protection prioritizes the intrinsic value of nature, seeing it as valuable in and of itself, the Green Economy approach focuses more on the instrumental values of nature, viewing it as valuable for society. Earth Stewardship and Biocultural Diversity recognize a combination of these values and emphasize the relational values of nature, highlighting its importance to society as a whole. On the other hand, the Degrowth approach prioritizes sufficiency and redistribution, straddling different types of values.

The study highlights how these differing views on the value of nature can be a major obstacle to reaching consensus on environmental issues. Lead author Adrian Martin points out that people often have a tendency to stick to their own beliefs and dismiss ideas from other perspectives. This reluctance to consider alternative viewpoints makes it challenging to create a unified movement towards solving climate and biodiversity crises. However, Martin also emphasizes that by understanding the basis for these disagreements, it becomes possible to move towards a more inclusive and transformative environmentalism that acknowledges and respects the diversity of values placed on nature.

The research paper suggests three key ways to bridge the gap between differing perspectives on nature. Firstly, it recommends making plural values of nature more visible and usable in decision-making processes. By incorporating a variety of value systems into environmental discussions, it becomes easier to reach common ground. Secondly, the paper proposes reforming institutions related to laws, land tenure, and economic incentives to ensure that diverse values of nature are integrated into practical solutions. Lastly, the study calls for addressing power imbalances that currently favor the green economy pathway, advocating for the mobilization of civil rights movements to promote a more equitable approach to environmental decision-making.

By shedding light on the role that values play in shaping environmental perspectives, the study aims to break down barriers and promote greater mutual understanding. Professor Martin emphasizes the need for transparency about values and methods that respect the diversity of ways in which nature is valued. This shift towards a more inclusive environmental movement could pave the way for transformative change and a sustainable future for all.