Why nature matters: A systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values

Abstract

In this article, we present results from a literature review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature conducted for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature. We identify the most frequently recurring meanings in the heterogeneous use of different value types and their association with worldviews and other key concepts. From frequent uses, we determine a core meaning for each value type, which is sufficiently inclusive to serve as an umbrella over different understandings in the literature and specific enough to help highlight its difference from the other types of values. Finally, we discuss convergences, overlapping areas, and fuzzy boundaries between different value types to facilitate dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and improve the methods for valuation of nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, to inform policy and direct future research.

Keywords: assessments; biodiversity; philosophy; policy, ethics; sustainability.

Figure 1.

The process and workflow of systematic literature review for intrinsic, instrumental, and relational specific values. For further information and data management report, see Muraca and Gould (2022).

Figure 2.

The annual number of publications from 1985 to 2019 that focus on specific values of nature. The callouts indicate pivotal framework publications, posited to affect research on the values of nature, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2010), and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ conceptual framework (Díaz et al. 2015). Many of the papers referred to more than one value type, so the cumulative number of publications (the dashed line) is less than the sum of each specific value (the columns).

Figure 3.

A map showing the geographic distribution of reviewed publications (N = 239) on intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature; ecosystem services; and nature's contributions to people, based on the country of the first author's primary institution address. The United States had the largest number of publications (n = 63).

Figure 4.

The number of reviewed publications that address intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values considering the contributions that were reviews, perspectives, or empirical studies for each value type.

Figure 5.

The categories of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values may not adequately explain all values, and all three are underpinned by life-support values. The different core meanings are represented as layers or dimensions of each value type to illustrate the different ways each value type is represented in the literature and emphasize that the core meanings are not mutually exclusive categories but overlapping aspects of each value concept. Different types of specific values span value types; for instance, aesthetic values are described in the literature using all three specific value types.

Figure 6.

The total economic value classification framework encompasses multiple environmental value types. The figure presents a spectrum between stronger and weaker assumptions of substitutability between the objects of value. Source: The figure was adapted from the values assessment's chapter 2 (Anderson et al. 2022).

Figure 7.

Fundamental values of nature. Those more associated with intrinsic values to the left, relational values in the center and instrumental values to the right.