• Energy Research

Values have been recognized as critical leverage points for sustainability transformations. However, there is limited evidence unpacking which types of values are associated with specific types of sustainable and unsustainable futures, as described by future scenarios and other types of futures-related works. This paper builds on a review of 460 future scenarios, visions, and other types of futures-related works in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Values Assessment, synthesizing evidence from academia, private sector, governmental and non-governmental strategies, science-policy reports, and arts-based evidence, to identify the types of values of nature that underlie different archetypes of the future. The results demonstrate that futures related to dystopian scenario archetypes such as Regional Competition, Inequality, and Breakdown are mostly underpinned by deeply individualistic and materialistic values. In contrast, futures with more sustainable and just outcomes, such as Global Sustainable Development and Regional Sustainability, tend to be underpinned by a more balanced combination of plural values of nature, with a dominant focus on nature's contribution to societal (as opposed to individual) aspects of well-being. Furthermore, the paper identifies research gaps and illustrates the key importance of acknowledging not only people's specific values directly related to nature, such as instrumental, intrinsic, and relational human-nature values and relationships, but also broad values and worldviews that affect the interactions between nature and society, with resulting impacts on Nature's Contributions to People and opportunities for a good quality of life

Modern environmental thought has always involved normative claims about the values needed for sustainability. This has often played out in debates between proponents of anthropocentric and ecocentric ways of valuing nature. More recently, there has been a flourishing of interest in relational and pluricentric ways of valuing nature, coinciding with a “turn to values” in the sustainability literature. In this paper we explore the meaning and use of the term “sustainability-aligned values.” Following the 2022 IPBES Values Assessment we consider these as values that are crucial for shaping decisions that will help bring about sustainability. Our characterization of sustainably-aligned values assumes inherent pluralism because of diverse interpretations of sustainability and of pathways toward it. Nevertheless, a review of three bodies of literature suggests that there is considerable agreement about the kinds of values that align with sustainability. In particular, the nurturing of certain relational values is now widely seen as supportive of sustainability, including values regarding what matters in human interactions with nature (such as stewardship), and values regarding relationships between humans (such as collectivism). We proceed to pose critical questions about the proposition that certain values support sustainability. We ask whether this emerging body of thought is consistent with pluralist requirements to foster values diversity, whether an agenda to nurture values aligned with sustainability is actionable, and how mobilizing sustainability-aligned values entails addressing power imbalances.

AbstractTwenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.