Relational versus instrumental perspectives on values of nature and resource management decisions

IF 6.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Pub Date : 2023-10-18 DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101374
Meine van Noordwijk , Grace B Villamor , Gert Jan Hofstede , Erika N Speelman
{"title":"Relational versus instrumental perspectives on values of nature and resource management decisions","authors":"Meine van Noordwijk ,&nbsp;Grace B Villamor ,&nbsp;Gert Jan Hofstede ,&nbsp;Erika N Speelman","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Instrumental and relational values of nature to people affect what is considered and portrayed as rational and aligned with moral foundations. Decision-making on natural resources involves individuals, collectives, and their modes of communication. Effective science-policy interfaces — to change the game and transform development trajectories — need to speak to both instrumental and relational rationality. It requires salient, credible, and legitimate syntheses of knowledge on recognized (or emerging) issues for public concern. Beyond the ‘instrumental’ aspects of avoidable harm (nature as protector) and cost-effective care provided to people by nature-based solutions, ‘relational values’ invoke further foundations of morality and of human priorities beyond physiological needs and primary security. Effective communication in issue-attention and policy decision cycles involves acknowledging the plurality of value perspectives and (associated) decision-making modes. We propose hypotheses on how the interaction of values and decision-making modes can be further understood and used.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"65 ","pages":"Article 101374"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523001215/pdfft?md5=d50891aecba4b5adc304328dd0414dda&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343523001215-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523001215","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Instrumental and relational values of nature to people affect what is considered and portrayed as rational and aligned with moral foundations. Decision-making on natural resources involves individuals, collectives, and their modes of communication. Effective science-policy interfaces — to change the game and transform development trajectories — need to speak to both instrumental and relational rationality. It requires salient, credible, and legitimate syntheses of knowledge on recognized (or emerging) issues for public concern. Beyond the ‘instrumental’ aspects of avoidable harm (nature as protector) and cost-effective care provided to people by nature-based solutions, ‘relational values’ invoke further foundations of morality and of human priorities beyond physiological needs and primary security. Effective communication in issue-attention and policy decision cycles involves acknowledging the plurality of value perspectives and (associated) decision-making modes. We propose hypotheses on how the interaction of values and decision-making modes can be further understood and used.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关系与工具的观点对价值的自然和资源管理决策
对人们来说,自然的工具性和关系性价值影响着什么被认为是理性的,什么被描绘成符合道德基础的。关于自然资源的决策涉及个人、集体及其沟通方式。有效的科学-政策界面——改变游戏规则和转变发展轨迹——需要兼顾工具理性和关系理性。它需要对公众关注的公认(或新出现的)问题进行显著的、可信的和合法的知识综合。除了可避免的伤害(自然作为保护者)的“工具”方面和基于自然的解决方案为人们提供的具有成本效益的护理之外,“关系价值”还唤起了超越生理需求和基本安全的道德和人类优先事项的进一步基础。在问题关注和政策决策周期中,有效的沟通涉及到承认价值观点和(相关的)决策模式的多样性。我们就如何进一步理解和使用价值观和决策模式的相互作用提出了假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST)" is a distinguished journal within Elsevier's esteemed scientific publishing portfolio, known for its dedication to high-quality, reproducible research. Launched in 2010, COSUST is a part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite, which is recognized for its editorial excellence and global impact. The journal specializes in peer-reviewed, concise, and timely short reviews that provide a synthesis of recent literature, emerging topics, innovations, and perspectives in the field of environmental sustainability.
期刊最新文献
The potential of social innovation to shift the limits to climate adaptation Greening container terminals through optimization: a systematic review on recent advances Advancing sustainable port development in the Western Indian Ocean region Adaptation constraints, limits and enabling conditions in small island developing states Three archetypical governance pathways for transformative change toward sustainability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1