Improving biodiversity conservation outcomes with relational value

In this short but powerful piece, PhD scholar and ANZSOG researcher Patrick Lucas (@paustinlucas) discusses how nature is valued in very different ways by different social groups, and how current policy frameworks struggle to account for this diversity. He explores the emerging framework of “relational values” and its potential to lead to more equitable and just outcomes in biodiversity conservation.

There is a considerable gap between how biodiversity is valued in policy and economic modelling and how nature is valued by different groups in practice. The focus on the former leads to many groups being excluded from sharing their voice in how nature is conserved.

The justification for biodiversity conservation is underpinned by two foundational ideas. The first is that nature has value in and of itself. This is intrinsic value and is identified as one of the “normative postulates” of conservation biology (Soulé 1985). The position has been further articulated and defended by ethicists (Rolston 1986), gained support in international organisations (UN 1992) and achieved broad public acknowledgement (van den Born et al. 2018). It is also central to the Society for Conservation Biology, with their first organizational value stating, “there is intrinsic value in the natural diversity of organisms, the complexity of ecological systems, and the resilience created by evolutionary processes”.

Biodiversity is also valuable as it supports human wellbeing, known as instrumental value. This type of value is generally prioritised in biodiversity conservation policy. Scholars and policymakers heavily draw on instrumental value to validate claims for conservation  in environmental economics (Dasgupta 2021) and more recently in ecological economics and ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 2014). Valuing nature within the ecosystem services framework has become the central  focus for international (Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission) 2021; IPBES 2019) and national governments and organisations (Australia’s Environment Report 2020). Appealing to people’s self-interest has taken primacy over appealing to nature’s intrinsic value, which was more prevalent in the environmental movements pre-1980s (Sagoff 2008). As such, instrumental values for nature now “dominate public discourse” (van den Born et al. 2018, 842).

These two foundational ideas inform both the normative base of conservation (why it is worth pursuing) and the development of interventions (how to create effective policies for conservation). Conservation policy and research rests on the idea that landholders and society can be motivated to conserve nature by underscoring its instrumental or intrinsic value. Meanwhile, biodiversity in Australia (Australia State of the Environment 2020) and around the world (IPBES 2019) continues to decline and “in spite of all hopes, these two values do not appear to trigger enough committed action in individuals and governments” (van den Born et al. 2018, 843).  

Research insights from land management practice, conservation and sustainability sciences reveal that nature’s value also derives from the relationships with nature and our responsibilities towards it (Chan, Gould, and Pascual 2018; Himes and Muraca 2018). Instead of the value of nature being held either by people or within nature itself, the objects of value are the ongoing relationships between people and nature and people for nature. These values reflect kinship and connection with other living things and can be expressed through identity, belongingness, care, responsibility, and support ideas around living a ‘good life’ (Chan, Gould, and Pascual 2018).

This approach is distinct from, but interconnected with, intrinsic and instrumental pillars of value. Those pillars compartmentalise people and nature and present value as being held by one or the other. Relational approaches position value as dependent on relationships with and towards nature. It takes a pluralist approach to account for the complexity of value systems in policy design. Underpinning this is the assumption that when people make decisions, they generally consider fulfilling elements of their relationships with nature as opposed to the personal benefits they derive from it, or its inherent worth (Muradian and Pascual 2018). Given this, there is a growing chorus that nature conservation policy should be grounded in three, not two, foundational values – intrinsic, instrumental, and relational (Pascual et al. 2017). 

Relational values have garnered attention as a way to rethink how human-nature relations can be valued  (Himes and Muraca 2018). The  Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has taken steps to integrate relational values with traditional instrumental and intrinsic valuations (Pascual et al. 2017). It aims to improve the interface between science and policy, while recognising that people perceive and judge nature in a multitude of ways. Critical to this approach is accounting for the diversity of values of nature and its contributions to people’s quality of life, which is associated with different worldviews and cultural and institutional contexts. Challenges abound in implementing this conceptual framework into practice, including addressing systemic power imbalances between groups. Identifying the values of social groups and individuals is challenging, but failing to do so will undermine many of the objectives of biodiversity conservation.

Works cited

Australia State of the Environment. 2020. ‘Key Findings’. Other. Australia State of the Environment Report. Australia State of the Environment Report. 2 March 2020. https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/biodiversity/key-findings.

Australia’s Environment Report. 2020. ‘Australia’s Environment Report’. Australia’s Environment Report. 2020. https://www.wenfo.org/aer/.

Born, Riyan J.G. van den, B. Arts, J. Admiraal, A. Beringer, P. Knights, E. Molinario, K. Polajnar Horvat, et al. 2018. ‘The Missing Pillar: Eudemonic Values in the Justification of Nature Conservation’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (5–6): 841–56.

CBD High-Level Panel. 2014. ‘Resourcing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An Assessment of Benefits,  Investments and Resource Needs for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.’ Second Report of the High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for Implementing  the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/doc/CBD-HLP-FullReport-EN.pdf.

Chan, Kai MA, Rachelle K Gould, and Unai Pascual. 2018. ‘Editorial Overview: Relational Values: What Are They, and What’s the Fuss about?’ Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 (December): A1–7.

Costanza, Robert, Rudolf de Groot, Paul Sutton, Sander van der Ploeg, Sharolyn J. Anderson, Ida Kubiszewski, Stephen Farber, and R. Kerry Turner. 2014. ‘Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services’. Global Environmental Change 26 (May): 152–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

Dasgupta, Partha. 2021. ‘The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review: Abridged Version’. London: HM Treasury.

Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission). 2021. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives. LU: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/677548.

Himes, Austin, and Barbara Muraca. 2018. ‘Relational Values: The Key to Pluralistic Valuation of Ecosystem Services’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 (December): 1–7.

IPBES. 2019. ‘Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat.

Muradian, Roldan, and Unai Pascual. 2018. ‘A Typology of Elementary Forms of Human-Nature Relations: A Contribution to the Valuation Debate’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 (December): 8–14.

Pascual, Unai, Patricia Balvanera, Sandra Díaz, György Pataki, Eva Roth, Marie Stenseke, Robert T Watson, et al. 2017. ‘Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open issue, part II, 26–27 (June): 7–16.

Rolston, Holmes. 1986. Philosophy Gone Wild: Essays in Environmental Ethics. Prometheus Books.

Sagoff, Mark. 2008. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment. Second edition. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Sandler, Ronald. 2012. ‘Intrinsic Value, Ecology, and Conservation’. Nature Education Knowledge 3 (10): 4.

Soulé, Michael E. 1985. ‘What Is Conservation Biology?’ BioScience 35 (11): 727–34.

UN, United Nations. 1992. ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.

Wintle, Brendan A., Natasha C. R. Cadenhead, Rachel A. Morgain, Sarah M. Legge, Sarah A. Bekessy, Matthew Cantele, Hugh P. Possingham, et al. 2019. ‘Spending to Save: What Will It Cost to Halt Australia’s Extinction Crisis?’ Conservation Letters 12 (6): e12682.

Moderator: Laura Davy