Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources

Ken Wallace, Milena Kiatkoski Kim, Abbie Rogers, Mark Jago

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Understanding how values interact is fundamental to planning the conservation and use of natural resources. However, practitioners who apply value classifications use a diversity of approaches. Does this matter? In answering this question, we propose that well-constructed classifications contribute to planning by: clarifying definitions and underlying concepts; providing a basis for assessing synergies and trade-offs; explaining some ethical constraints, including aspects of governance and power; and providing a framework for cross-cultural analysis. To test these propositions we develop complementary value classifications for end state values and principles together with supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria. The proposed classifications are then compared with alternatives including those based on ‘needs’, ‘capabilities’, and total economic value. We find that the alternatives fail against key criteria and this hampers their capacity to fulfil the four roles proposed above. Therefore, we conclude that although value classifications are important and may vary depending on purpose, they need to be well-constructed – that is, supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria should be explicit.
Original languageEnglish
Article number109955
JournalJournal of Environmental Management
Volume256
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Feb 2020

Fingerprint

natural resource
planning
economics

Cite this

Wallace, Ken ; Kiatkoski Kim, Milena ; Rogers, Abbie ; Jago, Mark. / Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 2020 ; Vol. 256.
@article{08b8d8ab35ac430c9d034114dca0b20b,
title = "Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources",
abstract = "Understanding how values interact is fundamental to planning the conservation and use of natural resources. However, practitioners who apply value classifications use a diversity of approaches. Does this matter? In answering this question, we propose that well-constructed classifications contribute to planning by: clarifying definitions and underlying concepts; providing a basis for assessing synergies and trade-offs; explaining some ethical constraints, including aspects of governance and power; and providing a framework for cross-cultural analysis. To test these propositions we develop complementary value classifications for end state values and principles together with supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria. The proposed classifications are then compared with alternatives including those based on ‘needs’, ‘capabilities’, and total economic value. We find that the alternatives fail against key criteria and this hampers their capacity to fulfil the four roles proposed above. Therefore, we conclude that although value classifications are important and may vary depending on purpose, they need to be well-constructed – that is, supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria should be explicit.",
author = "Ken Wallace and {Kiatkoski Kim}, Milena and Abbie Rogers and Mark Jago",
year = "2020",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955",
language = "English",
volume = "256",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Management",
issn = "0301-4797",
publisher = "Academic Press",

}

Wallace, K, Kiatkoski Kim, M, Rogers, A & Jago, M 2020, 'Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources' Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 256, 109955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955

Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources. / Wallace, Ken; Kiatkoski Kim, Milena; Rogers, Abbie; Jago, Mark.

In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 256, 109955, 15.02.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources

AU - Wallace, Ken

AU - Kiatkoski Kim, Milena

AU - Rogers, Abbie

AU - Jago, Mark

PY - 2020/2/15

Y1 - 2020/2/15

N2 - Understanding how values interact is fundamental to planning the conservation and use of natural resources. However, practitioners who apply value classifications use a diversity of approaches. Does this matter? In answering this question, we propose that well-constructed classifications contribute to planning by: clarifying definitions and underlying concepts; providing a basis for assessing synergies and trade-offs; explaining some ethical constraints, including aspects of governance and power; and providing a framework for cross-cultural analysis. To test these propositions we develop complementary value classifications for end state values and principles together with supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria. The proposed classifications are then compared with alternatives including those based on ‘needs’, ‘capabilities’, and total economic value. We find that the alternatives fail against key criteria and this hampers their capacity to fulfil the four roles proposed above. Therefore, we conclude that although value classifications are important and may vary depending on purpose, they need to be well-constructed – that is, supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria should be explicit.

AB - Understanding how values interact is fundamental to planning the conservation and use of natural resources. However, practitioners who apply value classifications use a diversity of approaches. Does this matter? In answering this question, we propose that well-constructed classifications contribute to planning by: clarifying definitions and underlying concepts; providing a basis for assessing synergies and trade-offs; explaining some ethical constraints, including aspects of governance and power; and providing a framework for cross-cultural analysis. To test these propositions we develop complementary value classifications for end state values and principles together with supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria. The proposed classifications are then compared with alternatives including those based on ‘needs’, ‘capabilities’, and total economic value. We find that the alternatives fail against key criteria and this hampers their capacity to fulfil the four roles proposed above. Therefore, we conclude that although value classifications are important and may vary depending on purpose, they need to be well-constructed – that is, supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria should be explicit.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955

M3 - Article

VL - 256

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

M1 - 109955

ER -

Wallace K, Kiatkoski Kim M, Rogers A, Jago M. Classifying human wellbeing values for planning the conservation and use of natural resources. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020 Feb 15;256. 109955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109955

Access to Document