Valuing the Invaluable: An Investigation of Outdoor Recreation Behavior, Perceived Values of Ecosystem Services, and Biophysical Conditions on Channel Islands National Park

Impacts on parks and protected areas are modifying ecosystems that provide benefits to sustain human health and well-being. Compelling evidence of ecological and economic values has been gathered to better understand the implications of these changing social-ecological conditions; however, social values have received considerably less attention. There is a strong need to integrate disciplinary perspectives on the value concept and illustrate the full value of nature experienced through outdoor recreation activities. My dissertation drew from theoretical frameworks in psychology, economics, and ecology to better understand the multiple values of Channel Islands National Park (CINP), California, U.S. Specifically, I examined “held” value orientations, “assigned” values of ecosystem services, and ecological values of the CINP. In first of three papers, I tested the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism to determine the psychological processes driving low-impact behavior among outdoor recreationists. I observed that behavioral engagement was more strongly related to biospheric-altruistic held values than egoistic concerns. Also, moral norm activation was a direct antecedent to behaviors that minimized the spread of invasive species, degradation of archeological artifacts, and overfishing in marine protected areas. In the second paper, I investigated how environmental worldview shaped the spatial dynamics of assigned values for ecosystem services on Santa Cruz Island within the CINP. Using Public Participation Geographic Information Systems methods, I found that held value orientations (i.e., biocentrism, anthropocentrism) manifested different values ascribed to marine and terrestrial environments. In the third paper, I compared assigned biodiversity values to spatially-explicit measures of ecosystem structure and function using a Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) mapping application and Maximum Entropy modeling. My results showed that distance to features relevant for park management, carbon sequestration, species richness, elevation, vegetation density, and several categories of land cover predicted the locations and intensity of preferences for biodiversity on Santa Cruz

Editorial overview : theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

This special feature provides an impression of the plurality of social values for sustainability, taking into account theoretical traditions within mainstream and heterodox economics; positive, social and environmental psychology; human geography; anthropology; sociology; religious and indigenous studies and business management. Papers in this issue respond to questions of: how do we conceptualise social values; how do we integrate or share social values; what are processes for learning about and mechanisms for forming and changing social values; and what are the associations between social values and behaviour or well-being? Consistent with post-normal science, we suggest that there is no one correct way of conceptualising, assessing, integrating or activating social values for sustainability. We present five arguments: (1) the plurality of social values can be conceptualised along many different dimensions, with reference to value, epistemic and procedural lenses; (2) values are nested in different hierarchies, resulting in the potential for different forms of value articulations and pathways of value expression; (3) not all social values are pre-formed and readily drawn upon, instead needing pathways of deliberation or intervention to be activated; (4) social values may change through different processes or pathways of intervention, and; (5) power matters in the formation and assessment of social values. We discuss the tensions that arise when attempting to integrate different perspectives and introduce the notion of ‘navigation’ to begin to address these tensions. Navigation requires scholars to adopt a more critical and reflexive approach to value enquiry than is currently espoused in sustainability science and practice.Non peer reviewe

Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science

This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in the first author meeting (FAM) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’s Values Assessment, and how they shape understandings of the multiple values of nature. We draw from survey data collected from 94 experts attending the FAM. Respondents self-report the tendencies and aims they bring to the assessment (i.e. motivation), the type and amount of evidence they require for knowledge to be valid (i.e. confirmation) and their epistemic worldviews (i.e. objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond to Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist and Transformative epistemic worldviews. This result clarifies how different knowledge claims are represented in science-policy processes. Despite the proportionately higher number of social scientists in the Values Assessment, compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found that fewer experts have Constructivist or Transformative worldviews than Pragmatist or Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance that may influence the types of values and valuation perspectives emphasised in the assessment. We also detected a tension regarding what constitutes valid knowledge between Post-Positivists, who emphasised high levels of agreement, and Pragmatists and Constructivists, who did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists did not align with relational values and were more diverse in their views regarding definitions of multiple values of nature compared to other clusters. Pragmatists emphasized relational values, while Constructivists tended to consider all value types (including relational values) as important. We discuss the implications of our findings for future design and delivery of IPBES processes and interdisciplinary research.This study identifies and analyses the underlying assumptions of experts involved in the first author meeting (FAM) of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)'s Values Assessment, and how they shape understandings of the multiple values of nature. We draw from survey data collected from 94 experts attending the FAM. Respondents self-report the tendencies and aims they bring to the assessment (i.e. motivation), the type and amount of evidence they require for knowledge to be valid (i.e. confirmation) and their epistemic worldviews (i.e. objectivity). Four clusters emerged that correspond to Pragmatist, Post-Positivist, Constructivist and Transformative epistemic worldviews. This result clarifies how different knowledge claims are represented in science-policy processes. Despite the proportionately higher number of social scientists in the Values Assessment, compared with previous IPBES assessments, we still found that fewer experts have Constructivist or Transformative worldviews than Pragmatist or Post-Positivist outlooks, an imbalance that may influence the types of values and valuation perspectives emphasised in the assessment. We also detected a tension regarding what constitutes valid knowledge between Post-Positivists, who emphasised high levels of agreement, and Pragmatists and Constructivists, who did not necessarily consider agreement crucial. Conversely, Post-Positivists did not align with relational values and were more diverse in their views regarding definitions of multiple values of nature compared to other clusters. Pragmatists emphasized relational values, while Constructivists tended to consider all value types (including relational values) as important. We discuss the implications of our findings for future design and delivery of IPBES processes and interdisciplinary research.Peer reviewe

Social learning as a link between the individual and the collective: evaluating deliberation on social values

The role of social learning in deliberative processes is an emerging area of research in sustainability science. Functioning as a link between the individual and the collective, social learning has been envisioned as a process that can empower and give voice to a diverse set of stakeholder viewpoints, contribute to more adaptive and resilient management decisions and foster broader societal transformations. However, despite its widespread use in the context of participatory management of natural resources, the empirical properties of social learning remain understudied. This paper evaluates the role of social interaction and social capital in achieving transformative learning in discussions about social values. We employ a longitudinal design involving three consecutive surveys of 25 participants of an expert workshop focused on social values, as well as approximately 12 hours of transcribed audio and video recordings of participant interactions. Our mixed methods approach demonstrates the potential of using changes in social networks and definitions of social values that emerge from qualitative coding as indicators of social learning. We find that individuals with a weaker conceptual understanding of social values are more likely to change their definitions of the concept after deliberation. Though slight, these changes display a shift towards definitions more firmly held by other group members.Peer reviewe

Words matter: a systematic review of communication in non-native aquatic species literature

How scientists communicate can influence public viewpoints on invasive species. In the scientific litera-ture, some invasion biologists adopt neutral language, while others use more loaded language, for example by emphasizing the devastating impacts of invasive species and outlining consequences for policy and practice. An evaluation of the use of language in the invasion biology literature does not exist, preventing us from understanding which frames are used and whether there are correlations between message framing in scientific papers and local environmental impacts associated with invasive species. Thus, we conducted a systematic literature review of 278 peer-reviewed articles published from 2008-2018 to understand communication styles adopted by social and natural scientists while reporting on aquatic non-native spe-cies research. Species-centered frames (45%) and human-centered frames (55%) were adopted to nearly equal degrees. Negative valence was dominant in that 81.3% of articles highlighted the negative risks and impacts of invasive species. Additionally, the use of terminology was found to broadly align with the stage of invasion, in that "invasive" was most commonly used except when the research was conducted at early stages of invasion, when "non-native" was most commonly used. Terminology use therefore enables readers of scientific papers to infer the status and severity of ongoing invasions. Given that science communication within the peer-reviewed literature affects public understanding of research outcomes, these findings provide an important point of reflection for researchers

Incorporating Sociocultural Phenomena into Ecosystem-Service Valuation: The Importance of Critical Pluralism

Ecosystem-services scholarship has largely focused on monetary valuation and the material contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. Increasingly, research is calling for a deeper understanding of how less tangible, nonmaterial values shape management and stakeholder decisions. We propose a framework that characterizes a suite of sociocultural phenomena rooted in key social science disciplines that are currently underrepresented in the ecosystem-services literature. The results from three example studies are presented to demonstrate how the tenets of this conceptual model can be applied in practice. We consider the findings from these studies in light of three priorities for future research: (1) complexities in individual and social functioning, (2) the salience and specificity of the perceived benefits of nature, and (3) distinctions among value concepts. We also pose a series of questions to stimulate reflection on how ecosystem-services research can adopt more pluralistic viewpoints that accommodate different forms of knowledge and its acquisition

Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework : Tensions and prospects

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)The draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework commits to achievement of equity and justice outcomes and represents a “relational turn” in how we understand inclusive conservation. Although “inclusivity” is drawn on as a means to engage diverse stakeholders, widening the framing of inclusivity can create new tensions with regard to how to manage protected areas. We first offer a set of tensions that emerge in the light of the relational turn in biodiversity conservation. Drawing on global case examples applying multiple methods of inclusive conservation, we then demonstrate that, by actively engaging in the interdependent phases of recognizing hybridity, enabling conditions for reflexivity and partnership building, tensions can not only be acknowledged but softened and, in some cases, reframed when managing for biodiversity, equity, and justice goals. The results can improve stakeholder engagement in protected area management, ultimately supporting better implementation of global biodiversity targets.Peer reviewe

Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability

This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of ‘lenses’ and ‘tensions’ to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the ‘mess’ of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.Peer reviewe