Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1187–1200 | Cite as

Exploring multiple dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for mapping and translating values for social-ecological research and practice

  • Andrea RawlukEmail author
  • Rebecca Ford
  • Nerida Anderson
  • Kathryn Williams
Special Feature: Original Article Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

Abstract

Social values underpin complex social-ecological challenges, such as sustainability. However, there are many ways of conceptualising values and valuing, and this divergence limits conversations across research disciplines, hindering the practical incorporation of values into sustainability decision making. We identify two key tensions in the disparate and fragmented ways of understanding the nature of values: context dependence and level of abstractness. We consider how these tensions apply across a breadth of concepts relevant to understanding the importance of socio-ecological systems to people, including valued attributes and assets, cultural values, and connection to place. We propose a conceptual framework structured by these tensions to orient multiple value concepts in relation to each other. We present the conceptual framework as being ontologically plural, and epistemologically flexible, providing a framework for mapping value concepts across different levels of abstractness and context dependency. The framework offers a means to span the breadth of value concepts and acts as a starting point for fostering cross-disciplinary conversations. We discuss the implications of the framework for researchers engaging with multiple theoretical traditions, as well as for practitioners grappling with how to make sense of what is important to the communities.

Keywords

Social values Valuing Ontology Interdisciplinarity Theory Social-ecological 

References

  1. Anderson N et al (2018) Core values underpin the attributes of forest that matter to people. Int J Forest Res 91(5):629–640Google Scholar
  2. Beilin R, Reid K (2015) It’s not a ‘thing’ but a ‘place’: reconceptualising ‘assets’ in the context of fire risk landscapes. Int J Wildland Fire 24:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bracken LJ, Oughton EA (2006) What do you mean? The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31(3):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Soc Nat Resour 8:381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ 60:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown G (2005) Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc Nat Resour 18(1):17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown G, Donovan S (2012) Measuring change in place values for environmental and natural resource planning using public participation GIS (PPGIS): results and challenges for longitudinal research. Soc Nat Resour 27(1):36–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunson MW, Baker MA (2016) Translational training for tomorrow’s environmental scientists. J Environ Stud Sci 6:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryce R, Irvine K, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO (2016) Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services Ecosyst Serv 21(B):258–269Google Scholar
  10. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 9:1462–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaudhary S, McGregor A, Houston D, Chettri N (2015) The evolution of ecosystem services: a time series and discourse-centered analysis. Environ Sci Policy 54:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christie M, Martín-López B, Church A, Siwicka E, Szymonczyk P, Keune H, Sauterel JM, Kretsch C (2019) Inclusive valuation of natures contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  13. Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crotty M (1998) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  15. Daily GC, Ellison K (2002) The new economy of nature. the quest to make conservation profitable. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Dart J, Davies R (2003) A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: the most significant change technique. Am J Eval 24:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Datler G, Jagodzinski W, Schmidt P (2013) Two theories on the test bench: internal and external validity of the theories of Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz. Soc Sci Res 42:906–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2011) Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  19. Dovers S (2005) Clarifying the imperative of integration research for sustainable environmental management. J Res Prac 1(2):1–19Google Scholar
  20. Fish R, Church A, Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement Ecosyst Serv 21(B):208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher AJ (2017) Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. Int J Soc Res Method 20:181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford RM, Anderson NM, Nitschke CR, Bennett LT, Williams KJH (2017) Psychological values and cues as a basis for developing socially relevant criteria and indicators for forest management. For Policy Econ 78:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford RM, Rawluk A, Williams KJH (2019) Managing values in disaster planning: current strategies, challenges and opportunities for incorporating values of the public. Land Use Policy 81:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freitag RC, Abramson DB, Chalana M, Dixon M (2014) Whole community resilience: an asset-based approach to enhancing adaptive capacity before a disruption. J Am Plan Assoc 80:324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Gómez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Pérez M (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):613–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graeber D (2001) Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graham S, Barnett J, Fincher R, Hurlimann A, Morteux C, Waters E (2013) The social values at risk from sea-level rise. Environ Impact Assess Rev 41:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graham S, Barnett J, Fincher R, Mortreux C, Hurlimann A (2015) Towards fair local outcomes in adaptation to sea-level rise. Clim Change 130:411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1998) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 195–220Google Scholar
  31. Harré R (2012) Approaches to realism. Studia Philosophica Estonica 5(2):23–35Google Scholar
  32. Inglehart R (1977) The silent revolution: changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. IPBES (2018) Natures contributions to people. In: IPBES consultation and
capacity building workshop. Bonn, Germany, 4–6 June 2018 
Google Scholar
  34. Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manage 144:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ives C, Kidwell J (2019) Religion and social values for sustainability. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  36. Justus J et al (2009) Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends Ecol Evol 24(4):187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendal D, Ford RM, Anderson NM, Farrar A (2015) The VALS: a new tool to measure people’s general valued attributes of landscapes. J Environ Manag 163:224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenter JO (2018) IPBES: don’t throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater; put people’s values central, not nature’s contributions. Eco Serv 33(A):40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kenter JO et al (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T (2017) Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the new ecological paradigm. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kronenberg J, Andersson E (2019) Integrating social values with other value dimensions: parallel use vs. combination vs. full integration. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  42. Kruger TM, Beilin R (2014) A ‘responsibility for place’ - firefighter deployment, local knowledge and risk. Int J Wildland Fire. 23:577–584Google Scholar
  43. MacMynowski DP (2007) Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecol Soc 12:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL, Fulton D, Schwartz SH, Arlinghaus R, Oishi S, Uskul AK, Redford K, Kitayatna S, Sullivan L (2017) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Markauskaite L, Goodyear P (2016) Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  46. McIntyre N, Moore J, Yuan M (2008) A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian Crown lands. Soc Nat Res 21:657–670Google Scholar
  47. Milcu A, Abson DJ, Apetrei C, Riechers M, Dușe I-A, Dorninger C, Lam D, Freeth R, Lang DJ (2019) Values in transformational sustainability science: four discourses for change. Sust Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  48. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moon K, Blackman D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv Biol 82:1167–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Connor S, Kenter J (2019) Making intrinsic values work; a communicative approach to integrating intrinsic values of non-human nature with ecosystem services. Sust Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  52. O’Neill SJ, Handmer J (2012) Responding to bushfire risk: the need for transformative adaptation. Environ Res Let 7:1–7Google Scholar
  53. Phoenix C, Osborne NJ, Redshaw C, Moran R, Stahl-Timmins W, Depledge MH, Fleming LE, Wheeler BW (2013) Paradigmatic approaches to studying environment and human health: (Forgotten) implications for interdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 25:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rawluk A, Ford RM, Williams KJ (2018) Value-based scenario planning: exploring multifaceted values in natural disaster planning and management. Ecol Soc 23(4):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rawluk A, Ford RM, Neolaka FL, Williams KJ (2017) Public values for integration in natural disaster management and planning: a case study from Victoria. Aust J Environ Manage 185:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raymond CM, Kenter J (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315Google Scholar
  58. Redford KH, Adams WM (2009) Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv Biol 23:785–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reed P, Brown G (2003) Values suitability analysis: a methodology for identifying and integrating public perceptions of ecosystem values in forest planning. J Environ Plann Manag 46(5):643–658Google Scholar
  60. Reid K, Beilin R (2015) Making the landscape “home”: narratives of bushfire and place in Australia. Geoforum 58:95–103Google Scholar
  61. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwartz SH (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. On Read Psych Culture 2:1–18Google Scholar
  64. Stålhammar S, Thorén H (2019) Three perspectives on relational values. Sustain Sci (in review) Google Scholar
  65. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stedman R (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Res 16:671–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc and Urban Plan 84:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stewart J (2006) Value conflict and policy change. Rev Policy Res 23:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stolte JF, Fender S (2007) Framing social values: an experimental study of culture and cognition. Soc Psych Quart 70:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tadaki M, Sinner J, Chan KMA (2017) Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol Soc 22(1):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trainor S (2006) Realms of value: conflicting natural resource values and incommensurability. Environ Values 15:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Riper CJ, Thiel A, Penker M, Braito M, Landon AC, Thomsen J, Tucker CM (2018) Incorporating multilevel values and the governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 23(3):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van Riper C, Winkler-Schor S, Stamberger L, Keller R, Braito M, Raymond C, Eriksson M, Golebie E, Johnson D (2019) Integrating multi-scale values and pro-environmental behavior in a protected area (in review) Google Scholar
  75. Williams KJ, Ford RM, Rawluk A (2017) Strategies and tools for incorporating values of the Victorian public in strategic bushfire risk decision making. University of Melbourne, Melbourne AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams KJH, Ford R, Rawluk A (2018) Values of the public at risk of wildfire and its management. Int J Wild Fire (in review) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Rawluk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rebecca Ford
    • 1
  • Nerida Anderson
    • 1
  • Kathryn Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Ecosystem and Forest SciencesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations