Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4 SPECIAL FEATURE: OVERVIEW ARTICLE Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability Jasper O. Kenter1 · Christopher M. Raymond2,3,4 · Carena J. van Riper5 · Elaine Azzopardi1 · Michelle R. Brear6,7 · Fulvia Calcagni8 · Ian Christie9 · Michael Christie10 · Anne Fordham11 · Rachelle K. Gould12 · Christopher D. Ives13 · Adam P. Hejnowicz14 · Richard Gunton15 · Andra‑Ioana Horcea‑Milcu16 · Dave Kendal17 · Jakub Kronenberg18 · Julian R. Massenberg19 · Seb O’Connor20 · Neil Ravenscroft21 · Andrea Rawluk22 · Ivan J. Raymond23 · Jorge Rodríguez‑Morales24 · Samarthia Thankappan1 Received: 17 May 2019 / Accepted: 9 August 2019 / Published online: 24 August 2019 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical tradi- tions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We intro- duce 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. Keywords Shared values · Relational values · Environmental values · Knowledge brokering · Epistemology · Interdisciplinarity · Ecosystem services · Nature’s contributions to people Introduction of Sustainability Science that has brought together a broad range of these traditions. We seek to build bridges across Social values inquiry draws upon a rich range and depth of these traditions, considering their diverse social value lenses theoretical traditions, each with its own assumptions related and areas of tension between them. We embrace the ‘mess’ to how values are conceptualised, elicited and related to of diversity, yet also bring an innovative framing to this mess other constructs. This paper concludes a Special Feature to support and encourage active transdisciplinary collabora- tion for social values as a key concern of the environmental social sciences (Chan et al. 2018, Ives and Kendal 2014; Handled by Osamu Saito, United Nations University Institute for Kenter et al. 2014a, 2015, 2016a; Kronenberg 2014; Pascual the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Japan. et al. 2017; Parks and Gowdy, 2013; Rawluk et al. 2017; * Jasper O. Kenter Raymond et al. 2014, 2019; Scholte et al. 2015; van Riper jasper.kenter@york.ac.uk et al. 2017). * Christopher M. Raymond Researchers and practitioners conceptualise social val- christopher.raymond@helsinki.fi ues in ways that connect to particular understandings of Extended author information available on the last page of the article the world based on history, culture, geography, experience, 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 1440 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 Fig. 1  Social values as lenses on what matters: what is or should be ues guiding specific, contextual values and their indicators. While important to us, about, in and as the world, with two types of meta- value lenses and objects of worthiness are depicted as separate enti- lenses: the epistemic lens and procedural lens, and the dimensions ties, whether they are assumed separable will differ per epistemic lens (Table 1) of value associated with the three types of lenses. The (hence porous boundary of value lens) value lens is depicted in two parts, with broad, transcendental val- and embodiment (Williams 2014). This means that no sin- social values research and practice. Central to this frame- gle disciplinary framework can fully integrate the many work is a consideration of social values as lenses of worthi- understandings of social values. We adopt a post-normal ness: lenses of what is considered to matter. Underpinning view grounded in epistemic pluralism that suggests there these lenses sit diverse meta-lenses, which explain how val- is no ‘one correct way’ of conceptualising social values; ues are conceived and assessed. We highlight two key types each provides a limited perspective to be scrutinised in of meta-lens; the epistemic lens and the procedural lens democratic debate and decision-making (Funtowicz and (Fig. 1). We identify fourteen dimensions along which the Ravetz 1993; Ainscough et al. 2018). Post-normal sci- different social value lenses and meta-lenses of diverse theo- ence addresses complex, wicked problems, where facts are retical traditions can be discriminated (Table 1). Armed with uncertain, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent. Today’s this framework, we then investigate central areas of tension deeply challenging environmental sustainability issues pro- between different social value theoretical traditions, identify- vide a prime example. Here, the choices about what and how ing key avenues for future research. These tensions emerged we research are inherently normative, because all problem from a deliberative global expert workshop in York, UK, in descriptions partially result from the value lenses through June 2018 (Box 1; also see Eriksson et al. 2019), to which which issues are viewed. Different lenses give rise to com- authors representing each of the papers within this Feature peting knowledge claims, which can be addressed through were invited. The papers were submitted in response to an deliberative processes of knowledge co-production that open call for contributions (Raymond et al. 2018). They extend peer review from expert-only to a transdisciplinary draw on a wide variety of theoretical bases, highlighting the community also involving practitioners, policy makers and importance of social values as a boundary concept (Kenter citizens (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Strand 2017). 2016a; Steger et al. 2018). In this paper, we develop a novel transdisciplinary con- This is the first paper to present a comprehensive frame- ceptual framework to help navigate the messy reality of work for drawing together knowledge across the wide 13 Table 1  Key dimensions of values that serve to differentiate value lenses and meta-lenses of diverse knowledge traditions, with where applicable reference to the section of this paper where they are further discussed in relation to tensions between different traditions Value dimension Key question Description and categories Relevance to transcendental and/ Further discussion or contextual values and indica- tors Value lens Value concept What does one mean by ‘values’? Transcendental values: broad, overarch- N/A Section “Social value lenses and dimen- ing life goals and principles; not asso- sions of social values” ciated with particular context-specific objects of value Contextual values: specific opinions about importance, which are dependent Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 on a context-specific object of value and hence contextual and attitudinal Value indicators: an indicator of the importance of something specific (e.g. monetary, non-monetary and biophysi- cal measures, qualitative indicators such as a ‘verdict’ from a citizens’ jury) (Scale of) value provider At what scale are values being Values are expressed by individuals or Both Section “Scales and aggregation: the expressed? by ‘social’ or collective valuing agents, relations between individual and social at the scale of groups, communities, values” cultures or societies as a whole Scale of values What is the scale of the values being Values can be expressed at the individual Both Section “Scales and aggregation: the expressed? scale (e.g. how much does something relations between individual and social benefit an individual?) or at aggregated values” or pre-aggregated social scales such as value to society (e.g. how much does something benefit the people of Mato Grosso?). Values may also be expressed at different temporal scales (e.g. in economics, the net present value over a 20-year vs 100-year timespan). With regard to transcenden- tal values, people may have different values in relation to different scales, e.g. one might value a varied life for oneself, but in relation to society other values such as fairness or responsibility might be more important 13 1441 Table 1  (continued) 1442 Value dimension Key question Description and categories Relevance to transcendental and/ Further discussion or contextual values and indica- 13 tors Value intention Who is being regarded with the expres- People may harbour values with regard Both Section “Normativity and intention: valua- sion of values? to themselves (self-regarding values), tion as descriptive vs normative” others (other-regarding values, or both (reciprocal values). Intention of values may differ depending on the role and context in which values are expressed (e.g. as consumers, in public policy contexts, in relationships of care). This dimension can apply to interpretations of the content of value and to concep- tual assumptions (e.g. the assump- tion that values are self-regarding in neoclassical economics) Value frame What frame of the (natural) world does People live from the world in that they Both Section “Value justifications and frames: the value express? gain their sustenance from it, in the shared, social and relational values and world as their home and stage of life, our relationship with the natural world” with the world as the natural backdrop of life beyond us, and as the world in terms of oneness between people and nature, such as experienced through kinship, embodiment and spirituality. These perspectives can relate to the content of values but also to whether people–nature relations are conceived of through a subject–object dichotomy, or a nondual or relational perspective Value justification How are values justified? The way that values are justified, where Contextual values Section “Value justifications and frames: objects of value are substitutable means shared, social and relational values and to a human end (instrumental values), our relationship with the natural world” constitutive of non-substitutable mean- ingful relationships to people (rela- tional values), or ends in themselves without reference to people as valuers (intrinsic values) Epistemic lens Abstractness What degree of abstraction are values Values can be abstract and generalisable Both Section “Abstractness and constructed- conceived of? (e.g. monetary values, the Schwartz ness: social values as discrete and pre- system of transcendental values), or formed vs embedded and constructed” concrete, place-based and idiosyncratic Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 Table 1  (continued) Value dimension Key question Description and categories Relevance to transcendental and/ Further discussion or contextual values and indica- tors Constructedness Are values pre-formed and stable or situ- Values can be assumed as: (1) enti- Both Sections “Abstractness and constructed- ationally constructed and changeable? ties that are ‘held’, ‘pre-formed’ and ness: social values as discrete and pre- stable, or (2) partially pre-constructed formed vs embedded and constructed”, as proto-values that are activated and “Constructedness and value change: become formed in a situation, or (3) social values as stable vs changeable” fully situationally constructed when manifested in life and in particular valuation contexts, and thus changeable Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 according to situations Normativity Is assessment of values seen as objective Whether the understanding of social Both Section “Normativity and intention: valua- and value-neutral, or normative? values is perceived as a critical, eman- tion as descriptive vs normative” cipatory, and potentially transformative affair or as an objective, empirical exercise, which may nonetheless include the observation of transforma- tive social values Rationality How is rationality conceived of? Rather than relating to ethical justifica- Contextual values Section “Value integration and rationali- tion, this dimension points to assump- ties” tions around the validity of values with regard to rationality. Examples of different perspectives include instru- mental, communicative and bounded rationality Procedural lens Elicitation What process is used to elicit values? Values may be elicited through a non- Both Section “Abstractness and constructed- deliberative process (stated values) ness: social values as discrete and pre- or through an individual, dialectic or formed vs embedded and constructed” social deliberative process (deliberated values), or values may be expressed through, manifested in and elicited from behaviour (revealed, lived and embodied values) Aggregation How are values aggregated? To achieve values at the social scale they Contextual values Section “Scales and aggregation: the may be either pre-aggregated or aggre- relations between individual and social gated from individuals. This dimension values” also points to the meta-values used that inform the aggregation procedure or function 13 1443 Table 1  (continued) 1444 Value dimension Key question Description and categories Relevance to transcendental and/ Further discussion or contextual values and indica- 13 tors Integration To what degree are values seen as com- The degree to which values can be inte- Contextual values Section “Value integration and rationali- mensurable and compatible? grated depends on their (1) commen- ties” surability—the degree to which values can in principle be characterised using the same measure, or at least meaning- fully compared with each other; and (2) compatibility, the degree to which they practically address the same thing. Where values are entirely incommensu- rable and/or incompatible, integration is not possible and values can only be considered in parallel Power How are conflict, power and justice The degree to which researchers and Both Section “Values, conflict and power” considered in the articulation and elici- practitioners consider the institutional tation of value? nature of value conflicts—conflicts between values, as well as concepts of values and their underpinning epistemic assumptions—and account for differentials in power associated with multiple values and value lenses and meta-lenses. Values may be treated as power-neutral or as reflecting power differences. This dimension also highlights the degree to which different forms of justice (distributive, retributive, recognition, procedural) are considered in dealing with conflict Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1445 range of traditions that consider social values of sustain- The first day of the workshop involved five sessions, each ability, from more realist to more relativist, from positivist containing three paper presentations and 45 min discussion. to diverse interpretivist and critical approaches. However, At the conclusion of each session, workshop participants rather than rehash well-known spectra of ontology and epis- added their individual reflections to an online interface. The temology, we identify specific tensions to more precisely co-editors distilled these insights into five sets of topics: investigate key pinch points in relation to social values and (1) value scales and hierarchies; (2) integration, plurality valuation. While we focus on environmental sustainability, and conflict; (3) values and value-activation; (4) power and our contribution may also benefit other fields where social value change; and (5) overall conceptualisation of social values are a key concern, such as energy and health. values. The following day, participants deliberated on these The exploration of tensions between theoretical tradi- topic sets in small subgroups over the course of two dis- tions is an opportunity for personal and collective growth cussion sessions facilitated by the co-editors, allowing each and a means for advancing scholarship, not least because participant to engage with two sets in detail and learn from it highlights different understandings of and approaches to the group’s insights. Each subgroup focused on identify- social values that may not be self-evident when those from ing areas of tension between different knowledge traditions different backgrounds collaborate. Tensions and lenses need and their lenses, and future directions for research. A final to be explicitly and rigorously considered if the goal is to plenary session further refined tensions, and identified key incorporate a diversity of worldviews into environmental conclusions and cross-linkages. Following the workshop, decision-making, as proposed by, for example, the Inter- reports from each subgroup were prepared, which were governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and further elaborated into mini-articles by subgroups of the Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Pascual et al. 2017; Díaz et al. authors through collaboration and discussion via email and 2018; Christie et al. 2019b). The Intergovernmental Panel on videoconference. The lead author (JK) and co-editors then Climate Change has long been heavily dominated by natu- iteratively reorganised the partially overlapping content of ral science worldviews, but also here there are demands for these outputs into the structure of lenses, dimensions and a more diverse knowledge base and challenging implicit tensions as presented here. social value lenses (Hulme 2011; Ford et al. 2016). Through a mutual recognition of differences, viewing sustainability issues through different lenses of social values provides a Social value lenses and dimensions of social richer and more comprehensive picture and can offer a more values inclusive and more relevant value-evidence basis for sustain- ability transformation. Thus, we clarify issues at the frontier There are many understandings of social values. Central of social values for sustainability in the light of these ten- understandings include values as overarching principles, sions, providing a forward-looking and constructive agenda values pertaining to a common good or society as a whole, for transdisciplinary engagement with sustainability science. and values that become shared through processes of sociali- sation, including deliberation and internalisation (Kenter Box 1: Deliberation process within the author team et al. 2015; van Riper et al. 2018; Ishihara 2018). Diverse knowledge and appraisal traditions each harbour one or more An open call for Special Feature abstracts was publicised social value lenses. These lenses articulate both what values in February 2018 in Sustainability Science (Raymond et al. are focused upon and how their sociality is envisioned. The 2018). Forty-seven submissions were received, of which 18 lenses of diverse traditions can be characterised and differ- were selected by the co-editors (CR, AR, CvR, DK, JK) entiated along multiple dimensions of social values, such as based on criteria including academic quality from peer the scale of values or the process by which they are elicited review of abstracts, disciplinary and geographic diversity, (Table 1). For example, a research tradition may focus on and gender balance. An author from each paper was invited values at the societal scale, expressed by a social unit larger to attend a workshop at the University of York, UK, funded than an individual (e.g. a local community) and/or through by the Valuing Nature Programme. The goals of the work- a social process (e.g. a group workshop). In addition, dif- shop were to identify linkages across papers, facilitate delib- ferent traditions harbour meta-lenses (Fig. 1), comprising eration on broader social values knowledge across diverse specific theories and bodies of scientific or local and indig- disciplines, and synthesise this new knowledge in a collec- enous knowledge that articulate different perspectives on tive article. A diversity of perspectives were represented, social valuation, with their own epistemologies and explicit including environmental science and ecology, human geog- or implicit meta-values: values about values, for example, raphy, sociology, psychology, ecological and mainstream about how values should be aggregated (Kenter et al. 2016a). economics, anthropology, philosophy, and business and Meta-lenses thus frame the social perspective and position religious studies. of the viewer with respect to how social values and their 13 1446 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 dynamics are perceived and expressed. We consider social example, what constitutes harmony, nature, and harmony value lenses and meta-lenses to be a dynamic medium of with nature might be conceived of quite differently between perception, articulation and understanding through which different cultures. In practice, transcendental and contextual the world is interpreted and evaluated: they are therefore values can be closely entwined, particularly where transcen- open, reflexive and responsive, and not fixed, unidirectional dental values are strongly embedded in particular relation- or unchanging. ships (including with non-humans) and not meaningfully Meta-lenses also help us understand how social value separable from the importance ascribed to those relation- lenses are associated with and applied to different purposes, ships (Gould et al. 2019). exemplified by the diverse papers in this Special Feature. This nomenclature extended research by Rokeach (1973) Some meta-lenses focus on understanding relations between that differentiated ‘held’ values (i.e. guiding principles and values and behaviour (van Riper et al. 2019), others are life goals) and ‘assigned’ values (i.e. opinions on the values geared towards value formation and co-construction (Kenter of particulars), where the first were thought to predict the et al. 2016c; Calcagni et al. 2019); lived values (Brear and latter, both through the process of deduction and a relational Mbonane 2019); values embedded in cultural institutions realm of felt experiences (Schroeder 2013). However, Kenter (Gould et al. 2019; Ives and Kidwell 2019; Christie et al. et al. (2015) noted that opinions on the values of particu- 2019b); or value-awareness and activation in relation to lars could semantically be both held and assigned, and that wellbeing and sustainability (Raymond and Raymond 2019). values might thirdly refer to measures and other indicators. Other meta-lenses are critical and emancipatory (O’Connor Further, the terms held and assigned have come to be asso- and Kenter 2019; Ravenscroft 2019). Finally, some are them- ciated with a particular knowledge tradition, which makes selves associated with studying how meta-lenses are adopted implicit epistemic assumptions that values are pre-formed, in valuation institutions (Rawluk et al. 2019; Horcea-Milcu discretely observable mental entities. These assumptions are et al. 2019; Massenberg 2019). shared by some but contested by other traditions (we will While a complete discussion of the knowledge paradigms discuss this further in the next section). Thus, transcenden- embedded within differing meta-lenses of diverse tradi- tal and contextual should not just be seen as new terms for tions is beyond the scope of this paper, the teleological or Rokeach’s old concepts, but along with indicators as a way purposeful nature of social value lenses can be explained by to distinguish between the three main meanings of the word two key types of meta-lens: the epistemic and procedural value that does not seek to prejudice towards the implicit meta-lens (Fig. 1), or, for brevity, simply epistemic lens and epistemic assumptions associated with the idea that values procedural lens. The epistemic lens considers how we har- can be held or assigned. bour, create and know ‘value’, as well as the philosophical Kenter et al. (2015) also discriminated between different orientation of knowledge traditions that guides researchers’ types of shared and social values along dimensions of value social value lenses. The procedural lens describes the types provider, scale, intention, and elicitation process. To pro- of processes used to attain and explain social values. vide for a framework that can tackle knowledge of a broader To help understand similarities and tensions between multidisciplinary nature, such as reflected in this feature and different social value traditions, we consider a range of other important recent knowledge developments in the field dimensions of their value, epistemic and procedural lenses (e.g. a special issue of Current Opinion on Environmental (Table 1). Here we build on foundational work by Kenter Sustainability on relational values; Chan et al. 2018), we et al. (2014a, 2015), who developed a framework for differ- add further dimensions and organise them in relation to the entiating between types of social values according to how value, epistemic and procedural lenses (Fig. 1; Table 1). We they have been conceived in different traditions. At the basis add two dimensions associated with the value lens: value of this lies differentiation between broad, transcendental and frame and value justification. These dimensions categorise specific, contextual values and their indicators. Transcen- values in relation to framings of how the world matters to dental values are broad notions of what is important in life; people and differentiate between intrinsic, relational and they are not attached to a context-specific object of value instrumental values. Within the epistemic lens, abstractness, and serve to guide specific, contextual values. For example, constructedness, normativity and rationality denote whether a broad desire for harmony with nature might lead us to values are considered abstract or place-based, pre-formed or express context-specific opinions of value around conserv- constructed, descriptive or normative, and which conception ing a particular habitat, which may be assessed in terms of of rationality justifies them. Associated with the procedural quantitative or qualitative indicators through some form of lens, the closely related dimensions of aggregation, inte- valuation. It is important to note that transcendental values, gration and power denote differences in the way that value while they transcend the specific contexts where we ascribe plurality and conflict are perceived and managed. importance to particular things, are by definition generalis- As an example of the relations among value, epis- able or divorced from cultural contexts more broadly. For temic and procedural lenses, and some of their associated 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1447 dimensions, in this feature O’Connor and Kenter (2019) meta-lens underpinning it, such as in terms of what value investigated a particular type of social values, ‘articulated justifications are considered and how questions of value intrinsic values’, focusing on marine ecosystems employ- aggregation and power are addressed. ing ethnographic stakeholder interviews. The social value We discuss seven key areas of tension. We focus on the lens was the worthiness of the ‘more-than-human’ world, following, gradually shifting emphasis from ontology of reflecting other-regarding values on the dimension of inten- social values to their application: (1) social values as aggre- tion, individual and communal values in terms of scale, and gated from the individual scale vs being pre-aggregated at intrinsic values in relation to justification (Table 1). The a social scale (related to the value provider, scale of values, underpinning epistemic lens in this research was interpre- and aggregation dimensions); (2) social values as discrete, tivist and perspectivist. This lens characterised values as pre-formed and held vs being embedded, implicit, and con- place-based and situationally constructed on the dimensions structed through their manifestation in deliberation and of abstractness and constructedness, and the dimension of action; and (3) values as static or changeable (both related to normativity highlights an epistemic lens that seeks to eman- the constructedness dimension); (4) social values through a cipate the more-than-human world. The authors deployed descriptive vs normative lens (intention and normativity); (5) a procedural lens along the dimensions of elicitation and the relations between social, shared, relational, intrinsic and aggregation that highlighted the purpose of the exercise as instrumental values (frame and justification dimensions); (6) feeding into a deliberative democratic process that should be tensions relating to value integration; and (7) tensions in the used to weigh and aggregate the different values expressed. degree to which power is acknowledged in navigating value The procedural lens thus emphasised meta-values of par- conflict (power dimension). ticipation, deliberation and, in relation to the power dimen- sion, fairness in terms of procedural and recognition justice, through which the social value lens of articulated intrinsic Tensions in the theory and practice of social values was considered. values We do not claim this new set of dimensions fully and finally articulates all possible lenses and meta-lenses across Scales and aggregation: the relations the vast diversity of social values literature. However, it between individual and social values reflects a substantial extension and evolution of understand- ing from Kenter et al. (2015), which was largely grounded The first area of tension arises from a basic question: what in ecological economics, to a much more comprehensive makes social values social? Although interpreted differ- interdisciplinary underpinning. ently, essentially the idea of values being social relates to Combining and comparing social values across theoreti- society. This raises the question of how society and its val- cal traditions can lead to tensions, because these traditions ues are represented, particularly whether societal values are utilise different social value lenses and meta-lenses reflect- considered an independent construct or an aggregation of ing differences in the way values are conceived, elicited and individual values. Thus far, most lenses have either focused applied. Following Goldstein (2015), a commitment to con- on individualistic or collective indicators, and there is only ceptual and theoretical openness in interdisciplinary teams limited understanding of the relations between them (Kenter generates conceptual tension at various levels, to diverse et al. 2014a). degrees, and to variable effects. In turn, tension and conflict Some social values cannot be reduced to the individual open up established theories and concepts for dialogue and scale of expression. As an example, take the UK Marine revision. Lenses and tensions are closely related, because Policy Statement, which formalises a “shared vision” of lenses can be seen as a key source of tension, or conversely, “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse are themselves characterised by one’s position in areas of oceans and seas”.1 This signifies shared social values across tension. Thus, the notion of lenses and tensions across dif- value lens dimensions: the statement was made by govern- ferent dimensions provide a useful means of scaffolding to ments to represent society as a whole and express transcen- ‘frame the mess’ of diversity in the broad field of social dental values at the social scale, established through a social values. process. Individuals are socialised: therefore all individual Tensions can arise at the level of the content of values, values reflect social values to a certain degree (Kenter et al. value lenses, and meta-lenses. For example, a typical con- 2015). Individuals may also experience, represent and enact flict between pro-development and pro-conservation values shared values such as expressed by the policy statement is not just a matter of valuing different things, as what values are included will be different depending on the dimensions of the value lens used, such as its scale (e.g. individual, 1 https​ : //www.gov.uk/gover​ n ment​ / publi​ c atio​ n s/uk-marin​ e -polic​ communal, societal), and on the epistemic and procedural y-state​ment. 13 1448 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 Fig. 2  Different ways of conceiving the relation between social val- a subset of the aggregate of individual values; c social values as (par- ues (as value to society in terms of contextual values, and as values tially) predicting individual values; d social values as (partially) pre- in relation to society in terms of transcendental values) and individual dicted by individual values; and e social values in dynamic interplay values: as a distinct but overlapping sets of values; b social values as with individual values above. However, how can individual values be aggregated 2001). The second perspective is that of a nested diagram to form social values? (Fig. 2b), which indicates that any method of aggregating The relationship between individual values and social values, whether through analytical approaches or delibera- values at a societal scale (i.e. as value to society in terms tive processes, is bound to exclude some, typically because of contextual values, and as values in relation to society of power relations (Ernstson 2013; Hockley 2014; Orchard- in terms of transcendental values), can be thought of in at Webb et al. 2016). Under this model, social values are least five ways, which inform different social value lenses always a subset of the pool of individual values and rarely (Fig. 2). In Fig. 2a, at the contextual value level, the aggre- approximate the totality of pooled values. The third and gate of individual and social values are different but may fourth figures (Fig. 2c, d) depict a causal relationship, where overlap, while at the transcendental level people may express either social values predict individual ones or vice versa multiple sets of potentially overlapping and clashing val- (e.g. van Riper et al. 2019). This reflects the view that indi- ues (e.g. consumer values vs citizen values; Kenyon et al. viduals represent their society, but consider it through their 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1449 Fig. 3  Conceptual model showing there are multiple levels of or dampen the relationships of values and the boundaries between value providers—including individual, group, community, and cul- them, which are permeable. Internalisation and socialisation are the tural—that have different configurations of individual and aggre- key processes that facilitate the scaling up and down of values within gated values as reflected by the multi-coloured units within each hierarchies of value providers sphere. The different levels interact through feedbacks that amplify individual perceptions and experiences. The fifth (Fig. 2e) that accommodate interactions within these hierarchies. In is a dynamic view of causal relationships, whereby indi- line with arguments that values ‘scale up’ to higher lev- vidual values and shared social values can be seen as situ- els (Kendal and Raymond, 2019), the values expressed by ated within a dynamic interplay where values ‘transfer’ from groups are in part an aggregate of individuals’ values but various social to individual provider levels and vice versa may also be entirely new ‘emergent’ phenomena (Fig. 3). In (e.g. Fordham and Robinson 2019). addition to this ontological tension between individual val- Further research on the interrelations between individual ues and values of larger social units, there are practical ten- and social values is needed within and across each of the sions between values that exist at different provider levels. five models in Fig. 2. Also, comparative research between This tension is generated by value hierarchies in finding sus- the overlapping, nested, causal, and dynamic perspectives tainability solutions, as well as processes for aligning values will be of particular value in considering what factors influ- across multiple scales such as the need for decision-making ence the difference between (aggregate) individual and (pre- processes to prioritise between the values of smaller versus aggregated) social values, and how values transfer between larger collectives. This is further complicated by different these levels. Moreover, the use of more than one model will procedural lenses on the commensurability and compatibil- likely provide added insight into complex and contested ity of values and lenses (see section “Constructedness and issues, as investigation of shared values is particularly sali- value change: social values as stable vs changeable”), and on ent in situations of social conflict and disagreement among how to navigate conflict and address power issues (see sec- interest groups (Kenter et al. 2014b). All of these models tion “Value integration and rationalities”). are sensitive to the differences between aggregate individual We distinguish two mechanisms by which values are and social values, and as such, it is important for policy transferred between levels. The first is socialisation, and it and practice to recognise what might influence degrees of occurs over extended periods of time (Ishihara 2018) as well difference, and how these differences relate with associated as when values are formed in shorter-term social processes, lenses used to assess values. Greater understanding of the such as group deliberation (Kenter et al. 2016c; Kendal and differences between aggregated individual values and social Raymond 2019). The values that emerge from socialisation values will also enable researchers to identify appropriate can be solidified through social learning and social norms methods for establishing a more comprehensive perspective. that regulate practices within a collective (Irvine et al. Extending the ontological tension between (aggregated) 2016). The second is internalisation. Over time, individuals individual and social values, we further complicate this observe interpersonal dynamics and adjust their orientations relationship and distinguish social values across multiple to align with a group (Calcagni et al. 2019, van Riper et al. levels of value providers. Relationships between individual 2018). This is grounded in personal reflections and intra- and social values function within complex systems can be individual deliberation. Together, these mechanisms can organised hierarchically (van Riper et al. 2018). Previous yield changes in systemic understanding of others’ values, research has identified and grouped values provided at the improved capacity for individuals to recognise their own ori- individual, group (extended) community, and whole culture entations, and knowledge of why changes in values occur at and society levels (Manfredo et al. 2014; Kenter et al. 2015) different levels of social organisation (Kenter et al. 2016c). 13 1450 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 Future research should explore how values are shifted Some synthesis between the two positions is possible when moving across different hierarchical levels. This is par- through the concept of proto-values (Kenter et al. 2016a), ticularly relevant in light of sustainability transitions because where people neither hold fully formed values nor are they the scaling up and down of values reflects the continuously an evaluative tabula rasa. Proto-values mediate between the changing conditions in society and offers an opportunity to transcendental (broad) and contextual (specific) concepts of ensure the incorporation of multiple values into decision- values, and between the abstract and pre-formed and con- making (also see Fordham and Robinson 2019). structed and situated. They are not fully formed values but exist as a broad value-inclination or attitude that becomes Abstractness and constructedness: social more moulded by and embedded within context through a values as discrete and pre‑formed vs embedded key set of institutional and contextual process factors, which and constructed can include the lens and meta-lenses of the particular social values tradition. Proto-values provide an avenue for allowing An in important tension between different epistemic lenses some generalisation, whilst acknowledging valuation as a revolves around whether values are believed to exist as dis- process of value formation that is highly context-dependent. crete entities, pre-formed and held by people, or as only However, the concept is in need of further development and coming into existence when manifested, including in delib- empirical exploration. eration (Ravenscroft 2019) and as ‘lived values’ in indi- Constructedness and embeddedness also raise questions vidual and collective behaviour (Brear and Mbonane 2019, about the social and spatiotemporal scales within which Gould et al. 2019). In terms of contextual values, valuation this embedding is situated. Scales influence how research researchers have pointed out these are frequently poorly is conducted and looking through differing spatiotemporal formed in unfamiliar environmental contexts (Jobstvogt value lenses can yield conflicting perspectives on sustain- et al. 2014a, b; Urama and Hodge 2006). However, there is ability solutions (Gunton et al. 2014). Future research should also a tension in the conception of transcendental values as: be sensitive to the effects of spatial and temporal variation (1) held as, (a) relatively singular and stable across a human in values and focus on mechanisms that can bridge mul- lifespan, or (b) multiple sets of contextually activated values; tiple spatiotemporal lenses. Deliberative and interpretive or (2) not held but constructed and manifested in response participatory mapping exercises could consider how spa- to individual, group and social–ecological context. This ten- tially explicit social values are culturally and institutionally sion also relates to the dimension of abstractness associated embedded. This approach could also provide insight on how with epistemic lenses and discussed in more detail by Raw- values map onto the geographies of relevant environmental luk et al. (2019). This dimension clarifies whether values conditions, evaluate how group deliberation can synthesise are seen to be: (1) distinctly isolated as an abstract, discrete values across a range of spatiotemporal scales, and reconcile entity (e.g. in this feature van Riper et al. 2019; Christie mismatches between scales of people’s values and ecosystem et al. 2019a); or (2) not abstractable from broader cultural processes. Furthermore, the degree to which values are seen constructs such as worldviews, cosmologies or narratives, as isolatable from the contexts of place, time and culture and, in relation to specific values, places, without losing will influence the types of interventions that are considered: meaning (e.g. in this feature Gould et al. 2019; O’Connor whether it makes sense to develop generalised interventions and Kenter 2019; Ives and Kidwell 2019). focused specifically on encouraging pro-environmental val- The tension between epistemic lenses that see social val- ues, or whether they should be highly situated and place- ues as abstract, discrete and held vs embedded, situation- based, or focus on a value formation process that is geared ally constructed and manifested has important implications towards activation and translation of proto-values to par- for social valuation: from the first perspective, associated ticular contexts. with for example social psychology, conventional econom- ics and public participation GIS, values are considered as Constructedness and value change: social values self-existing mental entities that can be isolated and interro- as stable vs changeable gated. In other perspectives, associated with humanities and deliberative ecological economics, values are understood as A further tension related to the epistemic dimension of con- embedded in cultural and institutional contexts. Here the structedness is whether values are perceived as stable or language of value ‘capture’ becomes inappropriate (Raven- changeable. This is of particular importance and increasing scroft 2019). These latter perspectives are also less likely to debate within the sustainability field, because the degree to see values within a power vacuum, rather considering them which values are pre-formed and stable will more generally as part of an institutional setup shaped by discursive struc- determine the usefulness of interventions targeting values tures of power and knowledge—we will return to questions (e.g. mindfulness or targeted deliberations) as a strategy of power in “Value integration and rationalities”. for sustainability transformation. This debate within the 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1451 context of pro-environmental value and behaviour change a catalyst for changes in values (O’Brien and Wolf 2010). is most relevant to consideration of transcendental values. Crisis triggered by natural hazards shortens even more the These are generally seen as more stable than contextual val- feedbacks between values as drivers and outcomes. As such, ues (Schwartz et al. 2012), yet they are expressed to differ- the opportunity space for responses to risks is delineated and ent degrees depending on the salience of issues (Trope and shaped by deliberated, reconciled societal, communal and Liberman 2010) and centrality to the evaluator’s identity group values, but at the same time, crisis may be the most (Stets and Burke 2000). Both across and within traditions rapid trigger for radical changes in our principles and life such as social psychology, deliberative ecological eco- goals, and this in turn is likely to affect contextual values. nomics and sociology, different procedural and epistemic When the consequences of environmental changes become lenses conflict in terms of their perceptions on how easily evident for people, they may become more aware of the transcendental values can be changed (e.g. Manfredo et al. diverse values of nature, compared to ‘normal’ times. Cri- 2017; Raymond and Kenter 2016; Everard et al. 2016; Ives ses of natural resources or climate change thus can become and Fischer 2017). Others argue that a notable gap between opportunities to form and (re-)connect to shared values transcendental values and actions (Kollmuss and Agyeman of nature if the focus is on how to think and act together 2002) makes this mission irrelevant. That is, while values towards these values. may activate certain behavioural intentions, constraints Further research is needed that considers to what degree posed by people’s environments limit their expression. In and how rapidly transcendental values can change, why a contrast, the positive psychology literature (Raymond and focus on contextual factors and values may not be sufficient Raymond 2019) does not focus on value change but instead (IPBES 2019), how does value change ‘ripple out’ (Everard on individuals acting congruently with their values, with et al. 2016) to the societal and cultural level, what interven- congruence associated with higher wellbeing and psycho- tions are most effective at achieving such change, and to logical health. This literature brings a strong focus to how what degree value change acts as a precursor to or an effect values are operationalised and behaviourally manifested of changing behaviour. There is also a need for interdisci- in different contexts and to awareness raising processes to plinary scholars to reconcile the approaches of value change deliberate on and express values within context, including and value congruence, notably if wellbeing as a construct is specific decision-making processes. Drawing on Bardi and considered as much a process as an outcome, and to relate Goodwin (2011), awareness raising represents a ‘priming’ individualistic processes such as mindfulness more strongly process for value change and/or expression. Awareness to social values, socialisation processes and social outcomes. raising processes can be considered across two pathways: a healthy values pathway whereby certain value types are associated with healthy outcomes for the individual, and Normativity and intention: valuation as descriptive a value activation pathway which considers whether self- vs normative identified values are congruently expressed (Raymond and Raymond 2019). Mindfulness, operationalised as (1) aware- The next tension relates to whether the formation and ness (‘what is mindfulness’), (2) skill (mindful awareness understanding of social values is perceived as teleologi- of values in decision-making) and (3) mindset (mindful cally normative: a critical, emancipatory, and potentially orientation), is a way to promote wellbeing and sustainable transformative affair (e.g. in this feature O’Connor and behaviour through the pathway of value activation. Mindful- Kenter 2019; Brear and Mbonane 2019; Horcea-Milcu ness has thus emerged as an important process variable to et al. 2019; Ravenscroft 2019), or as descriptive: an objec- understand the elicitation and expression of values (Wamsler tive, empirical exercise (e.g. Christie et al. 2019b; Raymond et al. 2018) with clear relevance for sustainability science. and Raymond 2019), which nonetheless may include the However, thus far the value lens of positive psychology has observation of transformative social values (e.g. Fordham almost solely focused on internalisation with individuals. To and Robinson 2019). Through a critical meta-lens, (shared) act as mediator for value change at the communal, cultural social values can be seen as a (shared) understanding of and societal level, mindfulness also needs to be linked to the common good. The ethical and political considerations socialisation processes. of this critical meta-lens beg questions about how conclu- Sustainability science is increasingly focused on the sions are drawn and knowledge might be advanced, and to causes and effects of change, and values can be conceived what degree deliberation should be grounded in democratic of as both a driver and an outcome of that change. Societal ideals (Ravenscroft 2019) or derived from people’s lived values form the foundation of institutional rules and knowl- experience (Brear and Mbonane 2019). However, this raises edge systems that are part of managing and governing natu- important questions of procedural and recognition justice, ral resources (Gavin et al. 2018). At the same time, complex of what, and whose perspectives should be included within environmental change such as climate change can become consideration of the common good and by what criteria 13 1452 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 this can be validated. Though the emancipatory tradition environmental sustainability and social justice, are impor- typically focuses on maximising inclusion (Lo and Spash tant in the sense that they are seen as ends that steer those 2012; Orchard-Webb et al. 2016), this does not mean that processes and that play an important role in contextual value all individual values should be included or aggregated, for formation, but they are not generally the primary objective example where they do not serve society as a whole (Sagoff of study. There is a goal of providing evidence for inter- 1986), or are incompatible with sustainability (Menzel and ventions, but the social valuation itself can also be seen Green 2013). as an intervention to transform values and/or behaviour Interestingly, a similar tension between descriptive and or challenge existing institutions. In contrast, descriptive normative exists with regard to relational values, that can be meta-lenses more typically focus on either social values as discussed as a matter for observation (Calcagni et al. 2019; aggregated individual values, or social values in the sense of Klain et al. 2017) or an agenda for inclusion and emancipa- transcendental values, mostly by individual providers, and tion of non-scientific knowledge (Gould et al. 2019; Stål- the relations between transcendental and contextual values hammar and Thorén 2019). However, while relational values and behaviour to provide evidence for exogenous interven- are not generally put forward as ‘better’ than instrumental tions. In a small number of studies, the two approaches have ones, the normative tradition clearly advocates social values been successfully combined where descriptive approaches as more desirable than individual ones for the purpose of inform or are integrated with consequent deliberation on the decision-making, as long as the conditions of procedural common good (Kenter 2016b; Kenter et al. 2016b; Raymond and recognition justice are reasonably satisfied (Howarth and et al. 2014; Raymond and Kenter 2016; Borsuk et al. 2019). Wilson 2006; Irvine et al. 2016; Kenter et al. 2016b; Raven- Martino et al. (2019) illustrate that the need for descrip- scroft 2019; Zografos and Howarth 2010). This relates also tive vs normative valuation also depends on endogenous to the dimension of intention on the value lens: when valua- characteristics of different environmental goods, and how tion is seen as transformative, it is unlikely that this purpose these characteristics interact with social institutions. Fur- seeks values to be more self-regarding. Rather, social values ther research may consider more deeply when descriptive are seen as oriented towards more other-regarding perspec- and normative approaches are most appropriate and when tives and the consideration of society as a whole (and which combinations of both add particular value. There is also a may also include non-humans; O’Connor and Kenter 2019; need for more explicit evaluations of recognition and proce- Gould et al. 2019). From this perspective, the individual dural justice in critical social valuation, and to what degree, self-regarding preferences associated with market decisions and under which conditions, the transformative objectives should not be transferred to the social value domain of the of social valuations are met. group, or public policy (Mauss 1954; Lo and Spash 2012; Kenter et al. 2014a; Irvine et al. 2016; Ravenscroft 2019). Value justifications and frames: shared, social As Sagoff (1986, p303) put it: “Why is it good in itself that a and relational values and our relationship person who wants a Mercedes succeed in getting one? Hav- with the natural world ing a preference is a reason for the person who has it to try to satisfy it. Why should it be a goal of public policy, however In recent years, the increasing emphasis on social values to satisfy that preference?”. within the sustainability field has arisen in parallel with However, the clear division of self-regarding consumer vs increased attention to relational values, particularly with more other-regarding citizen values is seen by some lenses regard to ecosystem assessment (e.g. Chan et al. 2018, as an abstraction, such as in care ethics and relational axi- 2016; Muraca 2016; IPBES 2016; Christie et al. 2019b). ology, where identities and values are seen as defined by Several contributions to this feature have considered rela- embodied, reciprocal relationships and values, and where tional values and their relation with shared, social, instru- self and other are not discretely separated as different objects mental and intrinsic values (Calcagni et al. 2019; Stålham- of regard (Held 2006; Muraca 2016; Gould et al. 2019). mar and Thorén 2019; Gould et al. 2019; O’Connor and The tension relating to the intention and normativity Kenter 2019). Both relational and social strands of think- dimensions of value and epistemic lenses can in part be ing evolved, at least in relation to ecosystem assessment resolved by recognising that different positions along these and valuation, from increasing recognition of the limita- dimensions typically correspond to differences at value lens tions of mainstream economic valuation and its instrumen- dimensions of scale, provider and concept and the proce- tal value assumptions. This opened up a fuzzy field of non- dural lens dimension of process. Normative meta-lenses monetary, social, cultural or sociocultural values, largely are particularly focused on shared and social values in the associated with the study of cultural ecosystem services sense of value to society, formed through a shared social and to some degree indigenous and local knowledge sys- process, and/or expressed by non-individual value-provid- tems, that used a wide array of methods but without much ers. Transcendental values, particularly those relating to attention to underpinning value, epistemic and procedural 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1453 lenses (Raymond et al. 2014; Scholte et al. 2015). Two interventions signalled different directions: Kenter et al. (2014a, 2015) focused on clarifying the concept, dimen- sions and types of shared and social values as critiques of the pre-formed, individualist and self-regarding assump- tions of mainstream valuation. While shared and social values were considered largely synonymous, social values tended to emphasise social scales whereas shared values tended to refer to social value providers and the outcomes of collective value formation. This discourse (further developed in a special issue of Ecosystem Services, October 2016, mostly by authors associated with the UK National Ecosystem Assessment follow-on; Kenter, 2016a) articulates strongly the social nature of values and the long and short-term processes for socialisation and internalisa- tion of values, with particular regard for integrating delib- Fig. 4  The Life Value Framework, and the relation between its four erative and interpretive approaches as a preferred method- frames and instrumental, relational and intrinsic value justifications ology for assessing shared values (e.g. Orchard-Webb et al. (adapted from O’Connor and Kenter 2019). ES ecosystem services, NCP nature’s contributions to people 2016; Edwards et al. 2016; Ranger et al. 2016). Relational values, in the sense of values pertaining to meaningful, non-substitutable relationships between people and their Relational values as a boundary concept has thus stra- environment, were considered, but primarily from a per- tegically focused on the dimension of justification. In con- spective of their shared-ness within groups, communities, trast, the challenges posed by shared and social values to cultures and societies. instrumental values are not resolved by developing a non- In a different intervention, Chan et al. (2016) defined rela- instrumental concept, but by pointing to the importance of tional values as preferences, principles, and virtues pertain- the collective level, understanding the intersubjectivity of ing to relationships. They argue that in practice the instru- values, and development of pluralistic boundary concepts mental and intrinsic value concepts central to environmental and processes for sharing, aggregating and integrating val- ethics did not capture what matters most to people, and that ues that are inclusive of multiple value justifications. As a distinct bridging concept was needed. This concept has such, shared and social values, and relational values, are since been elevated to central importance in IPBES (Pascual complementary constructs both essential for inclusive valu- et al. 2017; Díaz et al. 2018; Christie et al. 2019b). As with ation. Furthermore, the two are closely related; it is hard social values, the scope of relational values is broad and to imagine any relational values that are not in one dimen- fuzzy (Stålhammar and Thorén 2019). Relational values can sion or another shared or social (Ishihara 2018), and rela- refer to the ethical nature of value as being anthropocentric, tionships with nature and place are central in environmen- yet non-instrumental, in the sense of not open to trade-off tal social value formation processes (Kenter 2016a; Ranger (Díaz et al. 2015; Himes and Muraca 2018); or it can relate et al. 2016; Edwards et al. 2016; Ainsworth et al. 2019; to the content of transcendental or contextual values as Calcagni et al. 2019; Gould et al. 2019). pertaining to relationships (Klain et al. 2017; Gould et al. An altogether different approach to inclusively communi- 2019); or it can refer to a ‘relational field’ as the source of cating values is presented by O’Connor and Kenter (2019), value, rather than the value object or subject (Muraca 2011, who build on O’Neill et al. (2008) to develop the Life 2016). Importantly, while the dichotomy between intrinsic Framework of Value, which moves beyond value justifica- and instrumental is typically conveyed as a major tension in tions to consider valuation in terms of different frames. Here, environmental debates, Stålhammar and Thorén (2019) point values are presented simply as what matters, and in relation out that these value types are somewhat caricatured, and that to the environment this can be framed as living from, with, environmental ethics has long had more nuanced interpreta- in and as the world (Fig. 4). Living from reflects the value tions of instrumental and intrinsic values that are inclusive of the world as a resource, providing for our sustenance and of relational value justifications (e.g. Naess 1973). As such, livelihoods. Living in the world points to its role as place, the ambition of the relational intervention is perhaps more as the stage for our lives. Living with the world points to pragmatic than theoretical, in advancing recognition of the non-human nature as the other, with whom we co-exist, and relational nature of how people talk and think about values which has its own purposes, patterns and cycles. Living as (Chan et al. 2018). the world points to more-than-human nature as self, with nature and non-humans constitutive of our bodies, psyche 13 1454 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 and spirit individually and collectively, through for exam- economic, aesthetic, jural, sensory, symbolic), to be com- ple kinship, embodiment, and non-dual spiritual experience pared with different stakeholder groups and across different (O’Connor and Kenter 2019). types of places. These frameworks point to the difference Importantly, while relational values may be particularly between concept and method integration (Kronenberg and associated with living in and as frames, and intrinsic and Andersson 2019; Guerrero et al. 2018), although arguably instrumental values with the with and from frames, the method integration needs to be underpinned by conceptual different justifications straddle the frames, pointing to the integration, at least if one wishes to avoid unconscious prag- entwinement of multiple ethical categories in our common matism where no attention is given to how tensions along experience. For example, a farmer clearing forest for shift- different lenses are resolved (Raymond et al. 2014). Most ing cultivation may be seen through a living from frame, but social values for sustainability papers do not discuss the his livelihood is also likely to be the source of meaningful, interface between conceptual and methodological integra- non-substitutable relational values, and his clearing activi- tion, and this is an important avenue for future research. ties could support the intrinsic good of biodiversity (e.g. Value integration can achieve different levels or purposes. Bayliss-Smith et al. 2003). The authors note that “O’Neill’s Kronenberg and Andersson (2019) distinguished full inte- way of phrasing values in relation to ‘living’ intuitively gration through a single measure, comparison of results from imbues a sense of egalitarianism between different values” selected combinations of methods, and parallel use where and “its elegance incites a natural inclination towards includ- there are multiple difficult to compare sets of values. The ing each of the categories [in valuations and decision-mak- level of value integration achievable will depend on the ing]” (p. × 2). Differentiating between value frames may be degree to which values and value dimensions are deemed an easier way of communicating nature’s values to a broad logically and axiologically commensurable and value indica- audience than through more abstract value justifications. tors and valuation methods technically compatible. However, further research and debate is needed to bet- Different integration levels tend to be informed by dif- ter align the need to communicate values effectively in a ferent epistemic lens perspectives, including with regard to way that resonates with citizens and policy makers, such as rationality. Full integration and its demands for commensu- through the Life Framework and relational values, with rig- rability is strongly tied to instrumental rationality (Lock- orous explanation of the relationships between different cat- wood 2005). Here the focus is on the choice of suitable indi- egories. Further, research is needed that builds on discourses cators where different values are traded-off in the search for and approaches associated with shared and social values to an optimal outcome. Values are treated as commensurable find ways of resolving practical tensions in sustainability by looking to measure them according to a common scale practice between different value justifications and frames, and thus aggregated into a single value indicator, such as enabling more effective value integration. through monetisation and many forms of multi-criteria analysis. More limited combination approaches can be linked with bounded rationality, where doing well enough Value integration and rationalities rather than optimising choices is inevitable in many contexts (Simon 1984). Here, incommensurable values may be com- Different forms of value integration were presented in this pared ordinally or nominally (e.g. improvement vs degrada- Special Feature. Papers examined the integration of different tion). Values from different methods can also be brought types of values, including for example across different scales together on the basis of communicative rationality, where of values (van Riper et al. 2019) and provider (Kendal and values are weighted on the basis of the force of argument Raymond 2019; Fordham and Robinson 2019) and across rather than analytical criteria, and the realisation of ideals different value justifications (Christie et al. 2019b; O’Connor of non-coercion and inclusivity determines to what degree and Kenter 2019; Kronenberg and Andersson 2019). Inte- outcomes are rational (Habermas 1984). Here, plural val- gration becomes more complex when aligning between ues may be thought of as weakly comparable, which means epistemic lenses that differ in terms of abstractness and they should only be compared in terms of practical judge- constructedness (Rawluk et al. 2019), for example between ment, rather than on a common scale (Martínez-Alier et al. values that are lived or embodied, where value is seen as 1998). For example, O’Connor and Kenter (2019) propose dynamically situated (Raymond et al. 2017) and more objec- the integration of intrinsic, instrumental and relational val- tive approaches where values are seen as stable across situa- ues through discussion structured according to the multi- tions. Such questions point to an urgent need to consider new ple Life Frames, where people are invited to reflect on how forms of value integration. Gunton et al. (2017) argued that different policy scenarios might affect both people and the we need value frameworks that can integrate the place of more-than-human world. Irvine et al. (2016), Kenter (2016a) interest and the scale and subject of interest. They proposed and Ravenscroft (2019) point out philosophical challenges a suite of considerations for valuing ecosystems (e.g. social, around deliberative value integration, relating to how much 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1455 different representations and value criteria count, and urging scientific, etc.) of particular groups (e.g. different social further empirical investigation of how deliberative valua- classes) will be favoured in policy and decision-making tions can act as new democratic spaces for integration based through exercise of power, for example through privileging on social learning and communicative rationality. of economic value above all else (Demaria 2010). In con- Given these different value integration rationalities, how trast, lenses and languages of valuation, and consequently can policymakers recognise the diverse values of nature? values, associated with indigenous and local knowledge sys- Here, we need to accept the rationality of ‘value pluralism’ tems are often ignored in decision-making (Martinez-Alier in that value diversity is an outcome itself. Diverse authors 2009; Christie et al. 2019b). Further, meta-values encapsu- (e.g. Larmore 1987; Kekes 1993) have argued that con- lated in dominant lenses, including ideas of social memory flicts between values are not always resolvable. The notion and how the future should be (Rawluk and Curtis 2016), of moral conflict (Stocker 1990) suggests that ethics need can cause people to silence values that don’t match expec- not always be action guiding. Instead, respecting plurality tations, including in deliberative processes (Orchard-Webb involves recognition of diverse pathways of policy formation et al. 2016; Lo and Spash 2012). and implementation. This will require a shift in the culture of There are many ways in which power can be exer- policy making and associated capacity building to promote cised in order to direct, control or regulate the conduct awareness of diverse value traditions and practice in grap- of people, in overt and subtle ways (Foucault and Rabi- pling with multiple value lenses and meta-lenses. In terms now 1997), for example, through discursive strategies of of deliberation, the principal outcome sought may not be power–knowledge embedded in different ‘governmen- the kind of consensus solutions associated with Haberma- talities’, such as Sovereignty, Discipline, Neoliberalism sian ideals, but providing a forum for plurality, capacity and and Truth, as an art of government (Foucault et al. 2008). trust-building. Furthermore, even where values cannot be According to different technologies of power exerted in a agreed, it may still be possible to agree on shared meta-val- historical context, these governmentalities affect the val- ues around how to deal with divergent or conflicting values ues that people are able to adopt in their lives. Given that and lenses. values are crucial aspects of the choices, decisions, and behaviours of people related to sustainability, the interplay Values, conflict and power between how power is exercised, the values that people adopt, and the construction of individuals’ identities is key The consideration of plural values and the challenges of to understand environmental governance and its outcomes integrating them with each other and into decisions raises (Agrawal et al. 2005; D’Alisa and Kallis 2016). key questions of power in navigating such conflicts. Despite While ontological and epistemological differences can real consequences, the interplay between values and power be a source of contestation (Rawluk et al. 2019), tensions continue to be neglected, especially in empirical valuation around power inevitably arise in relation to any form of studies. This is in part due to the multifaceted nature of social values assessment in practice, though are often not both values and power. Power can be both overt and almost acknowledged. In particular, there is a need for more atten- imperceptible and exercised through hegemonically privileg- tion to power relations in diverse processes of value forma- ing certain lenses and meta-lenses (Foucault 1980; Lukes tion, socialisation and internalisation, such as by Calcagni 2005). Power dynamics can influence whose values are et al. (2019) who consider the impact of communication expressed or recognised, and which values emerge in con- and market strategies influencing value creation on social texts, though this is not necessarily transparent. Research- media. Even in deliberative value formation character- ers and practitioners of sustainability science must become ised by ideals of non-coercive communicative rationality, attuned to recognising and navigating power as expressed such ideals can only be approximated, as in the real-world, through values and the lenses by which we examine them. unconscious power relations cannot be fully ironed out The interplay between social values and power can occur (Orchard-Webb et al. 2016; Kadlec and Friedman 2007). in many ways. A dominant scientific framing of sustain- Intractable controversies inevitably remain, demand- ability privileges one way of knowing, which can depoliti- ing specific, contextual answers at the level of practice cise inherently political challenges (Sletto 2008). Exam- (Pellizzoni 2001). Further, in sustainability practice, an ples include the concepts of the Anthropocene (Haraway important barrier for realising pro-sustainability social et al. 2015) and sustainability itself (Ferreira 2017), which values are people’s limited power and control to change homogenise social drivers apolitically. Consciously or their unsustainable practices resulting from unmet wellbe- unconsciously privileging one set of social value lenses over ing-related needs (Brear and Mbonane 2019; Huxley and others can manifest in social–ecological injustices (Collard Yiftachel 2000). et al. 2018). Certain values (e.g. economic, moral, religious, Thus, sustainability that manifests social–ecological justice requires centring on both social values and power. 13 1456 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 If other-regarding transcendental values that underpin 9. More explicit evaluations of recognition and proce- the ethos of sustainability, such as equity, generosity and dural justice in critical social valuation, and under care, are to be promoted, there is a precursory requirement which conditions transformative objectives of social to transparently observe diversities of values and needs valuations are met; alongside privileging mechanisms of power. In the field of 10. The interplay between how power is exercised and the valuation, scholars may need to become more comfortable values that people adopt across different institutions with relational and post-structuralist meta-lenses, since and contexts; power is observed more easily through these (Foucault 11. The development of new languages of valuation that 1980). In line with Geels et al. (2017), Smith et al. (2005) are better reflective of relational, constructivist and and Everard et al. (2016), considering values through poststructuralist perspectives; multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses is critical 12. Understanding mechanisms whereby certain lenses are because socio-technical transition pathways towards sus- privileged over others in different decision-contexts, tainable systems imply necessarily value-oriented govern- and capacity building for understanding and drawing ance systems, which are affected by the interplays between on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses in technologies of power, the institutional system, and the decision-making. processes of pro-sustainability value socialisation. The large number of dimensions of values to which these questions point reflect that sustainability issues are by and Conclusions large complex and wicked problems. Addressing such issues requires us to navigate transcendental and contextual values In this paper, we have considered key theoretical and prac- at multiple spatiotemporal scales, between individuals and tical tensions in the burgeoning field of social values of collectives, across different potentially conflicting value jus- sustainability. These tensions relate to important dimen- tifications, frames and rationalities, and with close attention sions of values that characterise the lenses and epistemic to power relations in such conflicts, both within and between and procedural meta-lenses through which different tradi- different value articulating institutions. Effective navigation tions conceive and perceive these values. Key avenues for requires charts, beacons and experience. This paper has future research relating to these tensions include: sought to scout the terrain providing a multidimensional interpretation of the messy social values landscape. Such 1. Exploration of relations between collective and indi- a map is crucial in communicating with fellow travellers vidual values, and the dynamic internalisation and where one is, in the sense of what values one is articulating socialisation processes by which values transfer up and and from which vantage point. Understanding of tensions down between individuals and multiple social scales of provides beacons to shed light on crucial areas of conflict, value provider; where we need to pay particular attention in our journeys of 2. Investigation of crisis-triggers for pro-sustainability sustainability science and practice. At these points, experi- value-change and levers for ‘rippling out’ changes; ence of engaging not just with the landscape and its map 3. Conceptual development and empirical exploration of but with fellow travellers becomes vital, as the terrain is proto-values; too challenging for any tradition to tackle on its own. Cru- 4. Application of interventions based on value awareness, cially, all values around sustainability have a social dimen- activation and congruence within sustainability con- sion. A juxtaposition between individual instrumental values texts and their upscaling from individualistic to social; and social, shared, cultural, non-instrumental or relational 5. Evaluation of values-based interventions that take a values is thus not helpful—rather we must help each other generalised vs place-based perspective; understand what dimensions of the value landscape we are 6. Further development of the Life Framework as a novel viewing and through what lens. At these junctions, by lov- way of organising and communicating why the natural ing the mess and enjoying the thrill of exploration, conflict world matters; can become a space of creative dynamism where new con- 7. The interface between value, conceptual and methodo- cepts, methods and approaches can be born. The mess does logical pluralism, value integration and comparative not need resolving but engaging with. This requires build- and combined use of multiple rationalities for valua- ing capacity with researchers and practitioners: learning to tion; navigate and learning to love, by embracing the plurality of 8. Deliberative mechanisms to address conflicts between how we conceive and articulate values in research, decision values at different spatiotemporal and social scales, mechanisms and boundary spaces—all are ultimately social between different value justifications and Life Frames processes of valuation. and between different value and epistemic lenses; 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1457 Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Valuing Collard R-C, Harris LM, Heynen N, Mehta L (2018) The antinomies Nature Programme funded by the UK Natural Environment Research of nature and space. Environ Plann E Nat Space 1(1–2):3–24 Council (NERC) under grant reference NE/M005410/1. D’Alisa G, Kallis G (2016) A political ecology of maladaptation: insights from a Gramscian theory of the State. Global Environ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- Change 38:230–242 tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat​iveco​ Demaria F (2010) Shipbreaking at Alang–Sosiya (India): an eco- mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- logical distribution conflict. Ecol Econ 70:250–260. https​://doi. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate org/10.1016/j.ecole​con.2010.09.006 credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosus​t.2014.11.002 Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contribu- tions to people. Science 359:270–272. https​://doi.org/10.1126/ scien​ce.aap88​26 References Edwards DM, Collins TM, Goto R (2016) An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems. Ecosyst Serv 21:319–328. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.09.018 Agrawal A, Gupta A, Hathaway M, Narotzky S, Raffles H, Skaria A Eriksson ME, van Riper CJ, Leitschuh B, Bentley-Brimer A, Rawluk et al (2005) Environmentality: community, intimate government, A, Raymond CC, Kenter JO (2019) Social learning as a link and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. between the individual and the collective: evaluating a delibera- Curr Anthropol 46(2):161–190 tion of social values. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​ Ainscough J, Wilson M, Kenter JO (2018) Ecosystem services as a 5-019-00725​-5 post-normal field of science. Ecosyst Serv 31:93–101. https​:// Ernstson H (2013) The social production of ecosystem services: a doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2018.03.021 framework for studying environmental justice and ecological Ainsworth GB, Kenter JO, O’Connor S, Daunt FJH, Young JC (2019) complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann A fulfilled human life: sense of place and cultural identity in the 109(1):7–17 marine environment. Ecosyst Serv (In press) Everard M, Reed MS, Kenter JO (2016) The ripple effect: institutional- Bardi A, Goodwin R (2011) The dual route to value change: individual ising pro-environmental values to shift societal norms and behav- processes and cultural moderators. J Cross Cult Psychol 42:271– iours. Ecosyst Serv 21:230–240. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​ 287. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00220​22110​39691​6 r.2016.08.001 Bayliss-Smith T, Hviding E, Whitmore T (2003) Rainforest composi- Ferreira F (2017) Critical sustainability studies: a holistic and vision- tion and histories of human disturbance in Solomon Islands. J ary conception of socio-ecological conscientization. Journal of Hum Environ 32:346–352 Sustainability Education 13 (online) Borsuk M, Mavrommati G, Samal N, Zuidema S, Wollheim W, Rogers Ford JD, Cameron L, Rubis J et al (2016) Including indigenous knowl- S, Thorn A, Lutz D, Mineau M, Grimm C, Wake C, Howarth edge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat Clim R, Gardner K (2019) Deliberative multiattribute valuation of Chang 6:349–353. https​://doi.org/10.1038/nclim​ate29​54 ecosystem services across a range of regional land-use, socio- Fordham A, Robinson G (2019) Identifying the social values driv- economic, and climate scenarios for the upper Merrimack River ing corporate social responsibility. Sustain Sci. https​://doi. watershed, New Hampshire. USA. Ecol Soc 24:11. https​://doi. org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00720​-w org/10.5751/ES-10806​-24021​1 Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other Brear MR, Mbonane BM (2019) Social values, needs, needs-fulfil- writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York ment practices and sustainable water-energy-food resource use: Foucault M, Rabinow P (1997) Essential works of Foucault, 1954– a rural Swazi case study. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ 1988. Ethics 742 subjectivity and truth. Gallimard s1162​5-019-00717​-5 Foucault M, Davidson A, Burchell G (2008) The birth of biopolitics: Calcagni F, Amorim Maia AT, Connolly JJT, Langemeyer J (2019) lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Springer, New Digital co-construction of relational values: understanding the York role of social media for sustainability. Sustain Sci. https​://doi. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00672​-1 Futures 25:739–755 Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Opinion: why Gavin MC, McCarter J, Berkes F et al (2018) Effective biodiversity protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based Natl Acad Sci USA 113:1462–1465. https​://doi.org/10.1073/ approaches. Sustainability 10:1846. https​://doi.org/10.3390/ pnas.15250​02113​ su100​61846​ Chan KMA, Gould RK, Pascual U (2018) Editorial overview: relational Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) Socio- values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about?”. Curr Opin technical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science Environ Sustain 35:A1–A7 357(6357):1242–1244 Christie I, Gunton RM, Hejnowicz AP (2019a) Sustainability and the Goldstein LJ (2015) Conceptual tension: essays on kinship, politics and common good: catholic social teaching and “integral ecology” individualism. Lexington Books, London as contributions to a framework of social values for sustainabil- Gould R, Pai M, Muraca B, Chan KMA (2019) He ʻike ʻana ia i ka ity transitions. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019- pono (It is a recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous 00691​-y worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustain Christie M, Martin-Lopez B, Church A et al (2019b) Understanding the Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00721​-9 diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights Guerrero AM, Bennett NJ, Wilson KA, Carter N, Gill D, Mills M, Ives from the IPBES assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Sustain CD, Selinske MJ, Larrosa C, Bekessy S, Januchowski-Hartley Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00716​-6 FA, Travers H, Wyborn CA, Nuno A (2018) Achieving the promise of integration in social-ecological research: a review 13 1458 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 and prospectus. Ecol Soc 23(3):38. https​://doi.org/10.5751/ areas (MPAs). Ecosyst Serv 10:97–110. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j. ES-10232​-23033​8 ecose​r.2014.09.006 Gunton R, Klenke R, Paloniemi R, Gavish Y, Marsh C, Kunin W, Kadlec A, Friedman W (2007) Deliberative democracy and the prob- Henle K (2014) The meaning of “scale”. Scaling in ecology and lem of power. J Public Deliberat 3(1), Article 8 biodiversity conservation. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, pp 19–22 Kekes J (1993) The morality of pluralism. Princeton University Press, Gunton RM, van Asperen EN, Basden A et al (2017) Beyond ecosys- Princeton tem services: valuing the invaluable. Trends Ecol Evol 32:249– Kendal D, Raymond C (2019) Understanding pathways to shifting val- 257. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002 ues over time in the context of social-ecological systems. Sustain Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, volume I. Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-018-0648-0 Beacon, Boston, MA Kenter JO (2016a) Editorial: shared, plural and cultural values. Ecosyst Haraway D, Ishikawa N, Gilbert SF et al (2015) Anthropologists are Serv 21:175–183. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.10.010 talking—about the anthropocene. Ethnos 81:535–564. https​:// Kenter JO (2016b) Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, sys- doi.org/10.1080/00141​844.2015.11058​38 tems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared val- Held V (2006) The ethics of care: personal, political, and global. In: ues of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:291–307. https:​ //doi. Copp D (ed) The Oxford handbook of 937 ethical theory. Oxford org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.06.010 University Press, Oxford Kenter JO, Reed MS, Irvine KN, O’Brien L, Brady E, Bryce R, Christie Himes A, Muraca B (2018) Relational values: the key to pluralistic M, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Hockley N, Fazey I, Jobst- valuation of ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain vogt N, Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Ryan M, 35:1–7. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosus​t.2018.09.005 Watson V (2014a) UK national ecosystem assessment follow- Hockley N (2014) Cost-benefit analysis: a decision-support tool or a on phase. Work Package Report 6: shared, plural and cultural venue for contesting ecosystem knowledge? Environ Plann C values of ecosystems. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. https​://doi. 32:283–300. https​://doi.org/10.1068/c1384​j org/10.13140​/rg.2.1.1275.6565 Horcea-Milcu A, Abson D, Apetrei C et al (2019) Values in trans- Kenter JO, Reed MS, Everard M, Irvine KN, O’brien EA, Molloy C, formational sustainability science: four perspectives for change. Bryce R, Brady E, Christie M, Church A, Collins T, Cooper Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00656​-1 N, Davies A, Edwards D, Evely A, Fazey I, Goto R, Hockley Howarth RB, Wilson MA (2006) A theoretical approach to deliberative N, Jobstvogt N, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Ryan M, Wat- valuation: aggregation by mutual consent. Land Econ 82:1–16. son V (2014b) UK national ecosystem assessment follow-on https​://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.1.1 shared, plural and cultural values: a handbook for decision- Hulme M (2011) Meet the humanities. Nat Clim Change 1:177–179. makers. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://doi.org/10.13140​/ https​://doi.org/10.1038/nclim​ate11​50 RG.2.1.4683.5281 Huxley M, Yiftachel O (2000) New paradigm or old Myopia? Unset- Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN, tling the communicative turn in planning theory. J Plann Educ Reed MS, Christie M, Brady E, Bryce R, Church A, Cooper N, Res 19:333–342. https​://doi.org/10.1177/07394​56X00​01900​402 Davies A, Evely A, Everard M, Fish R, Fisher JA, Jobstvogt N, IPBES (2016) Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualisation of Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ranger S, Ryan M, Watson V, Wil- multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity liams S (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? and ecosystem functions and services. IPBES-4-INF-13-EN-1. Ecol Econ 111:86–99 IPBES Secretariat, Bonn Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment Fazey I, O’Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Raymond report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergov- CM, Reed MS, Tett P, Watson V (2016a) Shared values and ernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 21:358– services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn. https​://www.ipbes​.net/sites​/ 371. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.10.006 defaul​ t/files/​ downlo​ ads/spm_unedit​ ed_advanc​ e_for_postin​ g_htn. Kenter JO, Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Irvine K, Christie M, Bryce R pdf. Accessed 1 June 2019 (2016b) The impact of information, value-deliberation and Irvine KN, O’Brien L, Ravenscroft N, Cooper N, Everard M, Fazey group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem ser- I, Reed MS, Kenter JO (2016) Ecosystem services and the vices: integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytell- idea of shared values. Ecosyst Serv 21:184–193. https​://doi. ing. Ecosyst Serv 21:270–290. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​ org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.07.001 r.2016.06.006 Ishihara H (2018) Relational values from a cultural valuation perspec- Kenter JO, Reed MS, Fazey I (2016c) The deliberative value forma- tive: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem tion model. Ecosyst Serv 21:194–207. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. services? Curr Opin Environ Sustain. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecose​r.2016.09.015 cosus​t.2018.10.016 Kenyon W, Hanley N, Nevin C (2001) Citizens’ juries: an aid to envi- Ives CD, Fischer J (2017) The self-sabotage of conservation: reply ronmental valuation? Environ Plann C 19:557–566. https​://doi. to Manfredo et al. Conserv Biol 31:1483–1485. https​://doi. org/10.1068/c4s org/10.1111/cobi.13025​ Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T (2017) Relational Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instru- of ecological systems. J Environ Manage 144:67–72. https​://doi. mental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS One org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2014.05.013 12:e0183962. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01839​62 Ives CD, Kidwell J (2019) Religion and social values for sustainability. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00657​-0 environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental Jobstvogt N, Hanley N, Hynes S et al (2014a) Twenty thousand ster- behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260 ling under the sea: estimating the value of protecting deep-sea Kronenberg J (2014) What can the current debate on ecosystem ser- biodiversity. Ecol Econ 97:10–19. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.ecole​ vices learn from the past? Lessons from economic ornithol- con.2013.10.019 ogy. Geoforum 55:164–177. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geofo​ Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Kenter JO (2014b) Looking below the surface: rum.2014.06.011 the cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected Kronenberg J, Andersson E (2019) Integrating social values with other value dimensions: parallel use vs. combination vs. full 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1459 integration. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019- Parks S, Gowdy J (2013) What have economists learned about valu- 00688​-7 ing nature? A review essay. Ecosyst Serv 3:e1–e10. https​://doi. Larmore C (1987) Patterns of moral complexity. Cambridge University org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2012.12.002 Press, Cambridge Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contribu- Lo AY, Spash CL (2012) Deliberative monetary valuation: in search tions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. of a democratic and value plural approach to environmen- https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosus​t.2016.12.006 tal policy. J Econ Surv 27:768–789. https​://doi.org/10.111 Pellizzoni L (2001) The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation 1/j.1467-6419.2011.00718​.x and reason. Br J Sociol 52:59–86. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00071​ Lockwood M (2005) Integration of natural area values: conceptual 31002​00230​37 foundations and methodological approaches. Australas J Environ Ranger S, Kenter JO, Bryce R et al (2016) Forming shared values Manag 12:8–19. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14486​563.2005.97251​ in conservation management: an interpretive-deliberative-dem- 00 ocratic approach to including community voices. Ecosyst Serv Lukes S (2005) Power: a radical view, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, 21:344–357. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.09.016 Basingstoke Ravenscroft N (2019) A new normative economics for the formation of Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Gavin MC, Fulton D (2014) Considerations in shared social values. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​ representing human individuals in social-ecological models. In: 5-018-0652-4 Manfredo M, Vaske J, Rechkemmer A, Duke EA (eds) Under- Rawluk A, Curtis A (2016) Reconciling contradictory narratives standing society and natural resources: forging new strands of of landscape change using the adaptive cycle: a case study integration across the social sciences. Springer, New York, pp from southeastern Australia. Ecol Soc 21(1):17. https​://doi. 137–158 org/10.5751/ES-08245​-21011​7 Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL et al (2017) Why social values Rawluk A, Ford RM, Neolaka FL, Williams KJ (2017) Public values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol for integration in natural disaster management and planning: a 31:772–780. https​://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12855​ case study from Victoria, Australia. J Environ Manage 185:11–20 Martinez-Alier J (2009) Social metabolism, ecological distribution Rawluk A, Ford R, Anderson N, Williams K (2019) Exploring multiple conflicts, and languages of valuation. Capital Nat Soc 20(1):58– dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for 87. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10455​75090​27273​78 mapping and translating values for social-ecological research and Martínez-Alier J, Munda G, O’Neill J (1998) Weak comparability practice. Sustain Sci. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s11625​ -018-0639-1 of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ Raymond CM, Kenter JO (2016) Transcendental values and the valu- 26:277–286. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0921​-8009(97)00120​-1 ation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv Martino S, Tett P, Kenter JO (2019) The interplay between econom- 21:241–257. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecose​r.2016.07.018 ics, legislative power and social influence examined through a Raymond I, Raymond CM (2019) Positive psychology perspectives social-ecological framework for marine ecosystems services. Sci on social values and their application to intentionally delivered Total Environ 651:1388–1404. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​ sustainability interventions. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ tenv.2018.09.181 s1162​5-019-00705​-9 Massenberg JR (2019) Social values and sustainability: a retrospective Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turner NJ, Alexander KA view on the contribution of economics. Sustain Sci. https​://doi. (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00693​-w underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosys- Mauss M (1954) The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic tem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. societies, 2000 edn. W. W. Norton & Company, New York ecole​con.2014.07.033 Menzel S, Green TL (2013) Sovereign citizens and constrained con- Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S (2017) An embodied perspective sumers: why sustainability requires limits on choice. Environ on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward Values 22(1):59–79. https​://doi.org/10.3197/09632​7113X​13528​ embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plann Manage 1:1–22. https​:// 32879​8273 doi.org/10.1080/09640​568.2017.13123​00 Muraca B (2011) The map of moral significance: a new axiological Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Kendal D, van Riper C, Rawluk A (2018) matrix for environmental ethics. Environ Value 20:375–396. Call for papers for “Theoretical traditions in social values for https​://doi.org/10.3197/09632​7111X​13077​05516​6063 sustainability”. Sustain Sci 13:269–271. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ Muraca B (2016) relational values: a whiteheadian alternative for envi- s1162​5-018-0537-6 ronmental philosophy and global environmental justice. Balkan J Raymond CM, Kenter JO, van Riper C, Rawluk A, Kendal D (2019) Philos 8:19–38. https​://doi.org/10.5840/bjp20​16813​ Editorial overview: theoretical traditions in social values for Naess A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology move- sustainability. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019- ment. Inquiry Interdiscip J Philos 16:95–100 00723​-7 O’Brien K, Wolf J (2010) A values-based approach to vulnerability Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New York and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Sagoff M (1986) Values and preferences. Ethics 96:301–316 Change 1:232–242 Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio- O’Connor S, Kenter J (2019) Making intrinsic values work: integrat- cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review ing intrinsic values of more-than human nature through the Life of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78. https​://doi. Framework of Values. Sustain Sci. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s1162​ org/10.1016/j.ecole​con.2015.03.007 5-019-00715​-7 Schroeder H (2013) Sensing value in place. In: Stewart W, Williams D, O’Neill J, Holland A, Light A (2008) Environmental values. Routledge, Kruger L (eds) Place-based conservation: perspectives from the Abingdon social sciences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131–155 Orchard-Webb J, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Church A (2016) Deliberative Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, Davidov E, Fischer R, Bei- democratic monetary valuation to implement the ecosystem erlein C, Ramos A, Verkasalo M, Lönnqvist J-E, Demirutku K approach. Ecosyst Serv 21:308–318. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2012) Refining the theory of basic individual values. J Pers Soc ecose​r.2016.09.005 Psychol 103:663 Simon HA (1984) Models of bounded rationality, volume 1: economic analysis and public policy. MIT Press Books, Cambridge 13 1460 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 Sletto B (2008) The knowledge that counts: institutional identities, Incorporating socio-cultural phenomena into ecosystem ser- policy science, and the conflict over fire management in the Gran vice valuation: the importance of critical pluralism. Bioscience Sabana, Venezuela. World Dev 36(10):1938–1955 67(3):233–244 Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable van Riper C, Thiel A, Penker M, Braito M, Landon A, Thomsen J, socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34(10):1491–1510 Tucker C (2018) Incorporating multilevel values into the social- Stålhammar S, Thorén H (2019) Three perspectives on relational values ecological systems framework. Ecol Soc 23:art25. https​://doi. of nature. Sustain Sci. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s11625​ -019-00718​ org/10.5751/es-10047​-23032​5 -4 van Riper CJ, Winkler-Schor S, Stamberger L et al (2019) Integrating Steger C, Hirsch S, Evers C, Branoff B, Petrova M, Nielsen-Pincus multi-scale values and pro-environmental behavior in a protected M, Wardropper C, van Riper CJ (2018) Ecosystem services as area. Sustain Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1162​5-019-00677​-w boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecol Econ Wamsler C, Brossmann J, Hendersson H, Kristjansdottir R, McDon- 143:153–160 ald C, Scarampi P (2018) Mindfulness in sustainability science, Stets JE, Burke PJ (2000) Identity theory and social identity theory. Soc practice, and teaching. Sustain Sci 13(1):143–162. https​://doi. Psychol 63:224–237. https​://doi.org/10.2307/26958​70 org/10.1007/s1162​5-017-0428-2 Stocker M (1990) Plural and conflicting values. Clarendon Press, Williams DR (2014) Making sense of “place”: reflections on plural- Oxford ism and positionality in place research. Landscape Urban Plann Strand R (2017) Post-normal science. In: Spash CL (ed) Routledge 131:74–82. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu​rbpla​n.2014.08.002 handbook of ecological economics: nature and society. Rout- Zografos C, Howarth RB (2010) Deliberative ecological economics ledge, Abington for sustainability governance. Sustainability 2010:3399–3417 Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117:440 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Urama KC, Hodge I (2006) Participatory environmental education jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Econ 82:542–561 van Riper CJ, Landon A, Kidd S, Bitterman P, Fitzgerald LA, Granek EF, Ibarra S, Iwaniec D, Raymond CM, Toledo D (2017) Affiliations Jasper O. Kenter1 · Christopher M. Raymond2,3,4 · Carena J. van Riper5 · Elaine Azzopardi1 · Michelle R. Brear6,7 · Fulvia Calcagni8 · Ian Christie9 · Michael Christie10 · Anne Fordham11 · Rachelle K. Gould12 · Christopher D. Ives13 · Adam P. Hejnowicz14 · Richard Gunton15 · Andra‑Ioana Horcea‑Milcu16 · Dave Kendal17 · Jakub Kronenberg18 · Julian R. Massenberg19 · Seb O’Connor20 · Neil Ravenscroft21 · Andrea Rawluk22 · Ivan J. Raymond23 · Jorge Rodríguez‑Morales24 · Samarthia Thankappan1 1 10 Department of Environment and Geography, University Aberystwyth Business School, Aberystwyth University, of York, York, UK Aberystwyth, UK 2 11 Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 12 Environmental Program and Rubenstein School 3 Ecosystems and Environment Research Program, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 13 School of Geography, University of Nottingham, 4 Department of Environmental and Resource Economics, Nottingham, UK Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, 14 Department of Biology, University of York, York, UK Helsinki, Finland 15 5 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Leeds, UK Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 16 Urbana‑Champaign, USA Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, 6 Lüneburg, Germany Faculty of Education and Afromontane Research 17 Unit, University of the Free State-Qwaqwa Campus, School of Technology, Environments and Design, University Phuthaditjhaba, South Africa of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 7 18 Global Public Health Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Department of Regional Economics and the Environment, Australia University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland 8 19 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Department of Economics, Helmholtz Centre Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain for Environmental Research, UFZ, Leipzig, Germany 9 20 Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Studies, of Surrey, Guildford, UK University of Leeds, Leeds, UK 13 Sustainability Science (2019) 14:1439–1461 1461 21 23 School of Real Estate and Land Management, Royal Life Buoyancy Institute, Adelaide, Australia Agricultural University, Cirencester, UK 24 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden 22 School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia 13