Exploring multiple dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for mapping and translating values for social-ecological research and practice

Rawluk, Andrea; Ford, Rebecca M.; Anderson, Nerida M.; Williams, Kathryn

doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0639-1

Cited by 68 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some papers explore concepts across both disciplines and theoretical traditions. (Rawluk et al 2018a), for example, explore the underlying ontological positioning of values. They identify tensions between the level of abstractness of values (locatable, tangible objects or places vs. abstract ideas or principles) and contextualisation of values (stable and generalizable vs. continually and situationally constructed).…”

Section: How Do We Conceptualise Social Values?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial overview: theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: How Do We Conceptualise Social Values?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial overview: theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent review, Blicharska et al identified a framework for understanding CES that involves the consideration of rigor in identifying CES, identifying the ecosystem elements that underpin CES, the beneficiaries of CES and how they value the benefits delivered by CES, as well as how CES may vary in space and time [27]. Additionally, there is emerging literature on relational values as a way of framing cultural ecosystem services [28,29] including reframing as nature's contributions to people [30]. For example, in Hawaii, workshops identified a preference for relational values between indigenous people and places rather than concepts such as services or benefits [31].…”

Section: Cultural Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the benefits received from urban greenspace is critical for planning and decision-making. The benefits of parks can be challenging to measure and evaluate, which calls for the development of novel methods. Crowdsourced data from social media can provide a platform for measuring and understanding social values. However, such methods can have drawbacks, including representation bias, undirected content, and a lack of demographic data. We compare the amount and distribution of park benefits elicited from (1) tweets on Twitter about Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York (n = 451) with park benefits derived from (2) broad (n = 288) and (3) directed (n = 39) questions on two semi-structured interview protocols for park users within Prospect Park. We applied combined deductive and inductive coding to all three datasets, drawing from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s (MEA) cultural ecosystem services (CES) framework. All three methods elicited an overlapping set of CES, but only the Twitter dataset captured all 10 MEA-defined CES. All methods elicited social relations and recreation as commonly occurring, but only the directed question interview protocol was able to widely elicit spiritual values. We conclude this paper with a discussion of tradeoffs and triangulation opportunities when using Twitter data to measure CES and other urban park benefits.

show abstract

“…Other meta-lenses are critical and emancipatory (O'Connor and Kenter 2019; Ravenscroft 2019). Finally, some are themselves associated with studying how meta-lenses are adopted in valuation institutions (Rawluk et al 2019;Horcea-Milcu et al 2019;Massenberg 2019).…”

Section: Social Value Lenses and Dimensions Of Social Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) held as, (a) relatively singular and stable across a human lifespan, or (b) multiple sets of contextually activated values; or (2) not held but constructed and manifested in response to individual, group and social-ecological context. This tension also relates to the dimension of abstractness associated with epistemic lenses and discussed in more detail by Rawluk et al (2019). This dimension clarifies whether values are seen to be: The tension between epistemic lenses that see social values as abstract, discrete and held vs embedded, situationally constructed and manifested has important implications for social valuation: from the first perspective, associated with for example social psychology, conventional economics and public participation GIS, values are considered as self-existing mental entities that can be isolated and interrogated.…”

Section: Abstractness and Constructedness: Social Values As Discrete mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Exploring multiple dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for mapping and translating values for social-ecological research and practice

Cited by 68 publications

References 56 publications

Editorial overview: theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

Editorial overview: theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About