The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services
Abstract
Multiple frameworks have recently been proposed adopting relational values as a new domain of value articulation distinct from the dichotomy of intrinsic and instrumental values that has dominated environmental ethics for decades. In this article, we distinguish between the innate relationality of all evaluative process and relational values as the content of valuation which is a new and fruitful category for expressing the importance of specific relationships people hold with non-human nature. We examine the concept of relational values used in recent frameworks and propose a simple conceptualization with clear distinctions between relational, instrumental, and intrinsic (inherent moral) values. We argue that as a new category of value articulation, relational values provide conceptual and empirical insights that the intrinsic/instrumental value dichotomy fails to deliver. Finally, we draw on theoretical and empirical research to show why a clear distinction between instrumental and non-instrumental relational values is important for environmental conservation, sustainability, and social justice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Women and human development: the capabilities approach
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-0369 · Cited by 3,704
Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-4645 · Cited by 2,846
The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., et al. (2015) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 · Cited by 2,617
Being alive essays on movement, knowledge and description
Ingold, T. (2011) · Cited by 2,306
Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment
Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113 · Cited by 1,766
Self-citationValuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., et al. (2017) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 · Cited by 1,747
The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4110 · Cited by 1,287
Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism
Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002 · Cited by 840
Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O'Neill, J. (1998) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(97)00120-1 · Cited by 783
Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World
Rolston, H. (1987) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 754
Cited by
Making the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a Social-Ecological Endeavour
Fischer, J., Riechers, M., Loos, J., Martin-Lopez, B., & Temperton, V. M. (2021) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.018 · Cited by 462
Anguelovski, I., Brand, A. L., Connolly, J. J. T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., Baró, F., et al. (2020) · Annals of the American Association of Geographers · doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579 · Cited by 309
Anderson, E. P., Jackson, S., Tharme, R. E., Douglas, M., Flotemersch, J. E., Zwarteveen, M., Lokgariwar, C., Montoya, M., Wali, A., Tipa, G. T., et al. (2019) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1381 · Cited by 303
Pineda-Pinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Nygaard, C. A. (2022) · Ambio · doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01553-7 · Cited by 155
The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification
Riechers, M., Balázsi, Á., Betz, L., Jiren, T. S., & Fischer, J. (2020) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Himes, A., & Muraca, B.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 35
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 1877-3435 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2897969130
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005
- The paper
- Himes, A., & Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
