Diverse values of nature for sustainability

The paper addresses how to recognize and integrate the diverse values of nature into decision-making to help overcome the biodiversity crisis and related socio-environmental challenges. It synthesizes evidence from the IPBES assessment and wider literature to clarify how and why nature is (under)valued, proposing an inclusive typology of values (worldviews and knowledge systems, broad values, specific values, and value indicators). It examines how different value types are prioritized through life frames (living from/in/with/as nature), and explores barriers—such as market-dominated norms, property rights and power asymmetries—that shape whose values count. The purpose is to guide valuation and policy processes that more fairly and effectively incorporate instrumental, relational and intrinsic values to advance just and sustainable futures.

Drawing on more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources assessed by IPBES, the paper situates current valuation practices within a long history of ecosystem services research and critiques of market-centric approaches. It reviews conceptual developments distinguishing worldviews, broad values (for example, justice, stewardship, responsibility), and specific values (instrumental, relational, intrinsic), as well as value indicators (biophysical, monetary, socio-cultural). It discusses the Life Framework of Values and diverse philosophies of good living (for example, Buen vivir, Ubuntu, Satoyama). Prior classifications of valuation methods, especially those from environmental economics, are extended into cross-disciplinary families, and evidence on policy uptake and participation is synthesized. The review also covers scenario literature (460 scenarios), protected area impact evaluations, PES program outcomes, and infrastructure case studies to highlight how values integration influences justice and sustainability outcomes.

- Evidence synthesis: IPBES assessment of >50,000 sources (scientific literature, policy documents, Indigenous and local knowledge) to characterize values of nature and valuation methods. - Development of an inclusive values typology with four layers: worldviews/knowledge systems, broad values, specific values (instrumental, relational, intrinsic), and value indicators (biophysical, monetary, socio-cultural), connected via life frames (living from/in/with/as nature). - Global mapping and sampling of valuation studies: 48,781 peer-reviewed studies with geo-referenced information; a stratified random sample of studies (2010–2020) yielded 1,163 studies for in-depth characterization (goals, method families, life frames, indicators, participation, scale, habitats). - Valuation method classification into four families by information source: nature-based, statement-based, behaviour-based, integrated; assessment of maturity and integration potential (including dynamic feedbacks among values, behaviour and biophysical outcomes). - Case study analysis: in-depth examination of Chilika Lagoon restoration (India) to illustrate application of plural valuation, comparability/compatibility/incommensurability of values, and governance arrangements accommodating diverse worldviews. - Policy process lens: mapping valuation entry points across the policy cycle (agenda setting, formulation, adoption/decision, implementation, evaluation) and alignment with different purposes (inform, design, decide). - Impact evidence synthesis: meta-analyses and reviews of protected areas (more than 8,000 assessments from over 3,000 sites; meta-analysis of 171 studies; systematic review of 169 publications), PES and agroecosystems to evaluate outcomes when local and Indigenous values are included. - Scenario review: analysis of 460 scenarios to assess whether and how values are incorporated and which value types dominate. - Analysis of barriers: examination of participation rates, policy uptake (<5% documented), resource and robustness constraints, relevance to decision contexts, timing, and power asymmetries affecting representation of values.

- Valuation landscape and trends: Peer-reviewed valuation studies increased ~10% annually over three decades. Of 48,781 geo-referenced studies, a stratified sample of 1,163 (2010–2020) shows nature-based methods most common, followed by statement-based, behaviour-based, and integrated methods; integrated approaches are least mature for capturing dynamic feedbacks. - Value types and indicators: Instrumental values are elicited more often than relational or intrinsic values. Biophysical indicators dominate in policy practice; monetary indicators are used to a lesser extent; socio-cultural indicators are underused. - Participation and uptake: 62% of studies—especially nature-based—do not involve stakeholder participation. Fewer than 5% of peer-reviewed studies document uptake of valuation into decisions, a rate that has not increased in three decades. - Geographic and habitat coverage: Studies concentrate in Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific; fewer in Africa and Central Asia. Only ~10% of studies focus on marine environments despite oceans covering >70% of Earth’s surface. Most studies are at subnational scales; very few consider cross-regional/cross-national decisions or explicitly reference IPLC rights/territories. - Justice focus: Valuation aimed at improving the state of nature is prevalent; explicit attention to distributive justice is rare. Recognition and procedural justice are unevenly addressed. - Case evidence: Chilika Lagoon restoration shifted from narrow instrumental or strict intrinsic focuses to a plural-values approach, employing biophysical, monetary, and socio-cultural indicators and establishing an authority to represent diverse worldviews and broad values (for example, stewardship), improving legitimacy and reconciling value clashes. - Incommensurability: Many specific values cannot be compared or aggregated via standard trade-off tools; decision processes should recognize incommensurability and use deliberative principles and parallel treatment rather than forced aggregation. - Decision cycle entry points: Valuation can inform agenda setting, policy design (for example, pricing, standards, PES), decision support (for example, cost-benefit, participatory processes), implementation adjustments, and retrospective evaluation, increasing uptake when tailored to purpose and timed to policy needs. - Outcomes with inclusion of local values: Community involvement and recognition of local/Indigenous values correlate with better ecological and social outcomes in protected areas (more than 8,000 assessments from >3,000 PAs; meta-analysis of 171 studies; systematic review of 169 publications). PES programs that account for relational values avoid motivational crowding-out and enhance conservation. - Scenarios: Of 460 scenarios reviewed, only about half mention/incorporate values; of those co-developed with stakeholders, 94% are underpinned by instrumental values. Scenarios that integrate instrumental, relational and intrinsic values are judged more likely to achieve just and sustainable futures. - Leverage points: Four values-centred leverage points are identified—undertake broader valuation; embed value information in decision-making; reform institutions (rights, rules, metrics) to normalize diverse values; and shift social norms and goals—acting cumulatively and interactively to catalyse transformative change.

Findings show that current decision-making prioritizes a narrow, often market-based subset of nature’s values, marginalizing relational and intrinsic values and the worldviews of IPLCs and local communities. This underpins barriers to addressing biodiversity loss, climate change and social inequities. The inclusive typology clarifies the layers at which values operate and how life frames shape priorities, guiding more comprehensive valuation designs. Evidence that uptake remains low (<5%) and participation limited (62% without stakeholders) explains why valuation often fails to influence policy. Demonstrated improvements in conservation and social outcomes when local values are included strengthen the case for plural valuation and participatory, deliberative approaches that explicitly handle incommensurability and power asymmetries. Positioning valuation at strategic points in the policy cycle, tailoring methods to decision purposes and employing multiple indicators (biophysical, monetary, socio-cultural) can increase relevance and legitimacy. Structural reforms—securing IPLC rights, adjusting property rights and accountability, integrating ecosystem accounts into fiscal mechanisms (for example, ecological fiscal transfers), and broadening progress metrics beyond GDP—are essential to normalize diverse values. Shifts in social norms and goals can cascade through institutions and policy instruments, embedding justice and sustainability into decision-making across sectors.

The study synthesizes extensive evidence to demonstrate that recognizing and integrating nature’s diverse values is essential for transformative change toward just and sustainable futures. It contributes an inclusive values typology, a cross-disciplinary classification of valuation methods, evidence on current practice and gaps (participation, uptake, justice), and a framework of four values-centred leverage points to guide action. Key implications include: broaden valuation beyond instrumental values; embed plural value information in policy design and decisions across the full policy cycle; reform institutions, rights and metrics to normalize diverse values; and shift societal norms and goals linking justice and sustainability. Future research and practice should advance integrated valuation methods that capture dynamic feedbacks, co-develop scenarios that explicitly incorporate plural values and trade-offs, expand valuation in underrepresented geographies and marine systems, and strengthen participatory, rights-based approaches that address power asymmetries and incommensurability.

- Data and coverage biases: Valuation studies are geographically skewed toward Europe, the Americas and Asia-Pacific; Africa and Central Asia and marine systems are underrepresented, limiting generalizability. - Limited participation and uptake: Most studies lack stakeholder participation and few document policy uptake, constraining insights into real-world effectiveness. - Methodological maturity: Integrated methods that capture dynamic interactions among values, behaviours and biophysical outcomes are less mature; socio-cultural indicators remain underused. - Incommensurability and aggregation: Many values cannot be meaningfully compared or aggregated; standard trade-off tools may misrepresent value pluralism. - Power and process risks: Participatory processes can be manipulated; power asymmetries may suppress certain values, especially those of IPLCs, affecting the validity and fairness of outcomes. - Knowledge integration constraints: Limited academic understanding and documentation of IPLC valuation methods and challenges in integrating diverse knowledge systems can lead to partial representations. - Timing and resource constraints: Valuation often misaligns with decision timelines and resource availability, reducing relevance and feasibility.