Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Islar, Mine LU ; Pascual, Unai ; Balvanera, Patricia ; Gomez Baggethun, Erik ; Anderson, Christopher B. ; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca ; Christie, Michael ; González-Jiménez, David ; Martin, Adrian and Raymond, Christopher M. , et al. (2022) In Nature 620. p.813-823
Abstract
Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies... (More)
Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Nature
volume
620
pages
10 pages
publisher
Nature Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • pmid:37558877
  • scopus:85167358387
ISSN
0028-0836
DOI
10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
project
Changing social and cultural values of nature: Exploring plural values of human-nature relationships in glacierized environments
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
01215fdf-4d9b-49d8-9853-8c09fa754d8e
date added to LUP
2023-11-17 20:52:52
date last changed
2023-11-27 04:01:48
@article{01215fdf-4d9b-49d8-9853-8c09fa754d8e,
  abstract     = {{Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.}},
  author       = {{Islar, Mine and Pascual, Unai and Balvanera, Patricia and Gomez Baggethun, Erik and Anderson, Christopher B. and Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca and Christie, Michael and González-Jiménez, David and Martin, Adrian and Raymond, Christopher M. and Termansen, Mette and Vatn, Arild and Athayde, Simone and Baptiste, Brigitte and Barton, David N. and Jacobs, Sander and Kelemen, Eszter and Kumar, Ritesh and Lazos, Elena and Mwampamba, Tuyeni H. and Nakangu, Barbara and O'Farrell, Patrick and Subramanian, Suneetha M. and van Noordwijk, Meine and Ahn, SoEun and Amaruzaman, Sacha and Amin, Ariane M. and Arias-Arévalo, Paola and Arroyo-Robles, Gabriela and Cantú-Fernández, Mariana and Castro, Antonio J. and Contreras, Victoria and de Vos, Alta and Dendoncker, Nicolas and Engel, Stefanie and Eser, Uta and Faith, Daniel P. and Filyushkina, Anna and Ghazi, Houda and Gomez-Baggethun, Erik and Gould, Rachelle K. and Guibrunet, Louise and Gundimeda, Haripriya and Hahn, Thomas and Harmáčková, Zuzana V. and Hernández-Blanco, Marcello and Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana and Huambachano, Mariaelena and Lutti Hummel Wicher, Natalia and İskender Aydın, Cem and Koessler, Ann-Kathrin and Kenter, Jasper O. and Kosmus, Marina and Lee, Heera and Leimona, Beria and Lele, Sharachchandra and Lenzi, Dominic and Lliso, Bosco and Mannetti, Lelani M. and Merçon, Juliana and Monroy-Sais, Ana Sofía and Mukherjee, Nibedita and Muraca, Barbara and Muradian, Roldan and Murali, Ranjini and Nelson, Sara H. and Nemogá-Soto, Gabriel R. and Ngouhouo-Poufoun, Jonas and Niamir, Aidin and Nuesiri, Emmanuel and Nyumba, Tobias O. and Özkaynak, Begüm and Palomo, Ignacio and Pandit, Ram and Pawłowska-Mainville, Agnieszka and Porter-Bolland, Luciana and Quaas, Martin and Rode, Julian and Rozzi, Ricardo and Sachdeva, Sonya and Samakov, Aibek and Schaafsma, Marije and Sitas, Nadia and Ungar, Paula and Yiu, Evonne and Yoshida, Yuki and Zent, Eglee}},
  issn         = {{0028-0836}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{07}},
  pages        = {{813--823}},
  publisher    = {{Nature Publishing Group}},
  series       = {{Nature}},
  title        = {{Diverse values of nature for sustainability}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9}},
  doi          = {{10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9}},
  volume       = {{620}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}