Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenKommentare / Debatten / BerichteForschung

Standard

Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. / Chan, Kai M A; Balvanera, Patricia; Benessaiah, Karina et al.

in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Jahrgang 113, Nr. 6, 09.02.2016, S. 1462-1465.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenKommentare / Debatten / BerichteForschung

Harvard

Chan, KMA, Balvanera, P, Benessaiah, K, Chapman, M, Díaz, S, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Gould, R, Hannahs, N, Jax, K, Klain, S, Luck, GW, Martín-López, B, Muraca, B, Norton, B, Ott, K, Pascual, U, Satterfield, T, Tadaki, M, Taggart, J & Turner, N 2016, 'Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Jg. 113, Nr. 6, S. 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

APA

Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Vancouver

Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). 2016 Feb 9;113(6):1462-1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Bibtex

@article{58000974407a443f8e8f6eea100caa97,
title = "Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment",
abstract = "A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans{\textquoteright} sake (instrumental values) or for nature{\textquoteright}s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches.",
keywords = "Sustainability Science, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, CONSERVATION",
author = "Chan, {Kai M A} and Patricia Balvanera and Karina Benessaiah and Mollie Chapman and Sandra D{\'i}az and Erik G{\'o}mez-Baggethun and Rachelle Gould and Neil Hannahs and Kurt Jax and Sarah Klain and Luck, {Gary W} and Berta Mart{\'i}n-L{\'o}pez and Barbara Muraca and Bryan Norton and Konrad Ott and Unai Pascual and Terre Satterfield and Marc Tadaki and Jonathan Taggart and Nancy Turner",
year = "2016",
month = feb,
day = "9",
doi = "10.1073/pnas.1525002113",
language = "English",
volume = "113",
pages = "1462--1465",
journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)",
issn = "0027-8424",
publisher = "National Academy of Sciences",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment

AU - Chan, Kai M A

AU - Balvanera, Patricia

AU - Benessaiah, Karina

AU - Chapman, Mollie

AU - Díaz, Sandra

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik

AU - Gould, Rachelle

AU - Hannahs, Neil

AU - Jax, Kurt

AU - Klain, Sarah

AU - Luck, Gary W

AU - Martín-López, Berta

AU - Muraca, Barbara

AU - Norton, Bryan

AU - Ott, Konrad

AU - Pascual, Unai

AU - Satterfield, Terre

AU - Tadaki, Marc

AU - Taggart, Jonathan

AU - Turner, Nancy

PY - 2016/2/9

Y1 - 2016/2/9

N2 - A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches.

AB - A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches.

KW - Sustainability Science

KW - ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

KW - CONSERVATION

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957900465&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1525002113

DO - 10.1073/pnas.1525002113

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

C2 - 26862158

VL - 113

SP - 1462

EP - 1465

JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)

JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)

SN - 0027-8424

IS - 6

ER -

DOI