Intrinsic values and the life framework of values: why we should go back to basics—comment to O’Connor and Kenter (2019)

Abstract

The IPBES Framework aims to allow room for a plurality of values and recently proposed a move from `Ecosystem Services’ to `Nature’s Contributions to People’. O’Connor and Kenter (2019) argue that both approaches still disregard nature as an end in itself. Therefore, they propose a new conceptualisation of `intrinsic value’ and a new approach, labelled the `Life Framework of Values’. This work is highly relevant, but we argue that there are some fundamental conceptual problems with their current account, in particular with the conceptualisation of intrinsic value, relational value, and their category of `living as’. We argue that the changes made to the underlying framework of O’Neill add more confusion than clarification, that it is better to return to the original framework and to focus energy on making that framework applicable.

The Life Framework of Values and living as nature; towards a full recognition of holistic and relational ontologies

“…In this paper, we respond to these comments, and in doing so re-instate the salience of the Life Framework as a straightforward way of organising environmental values compatible with diverse conceptual frameworks, including ecosystem Services (ES) and nature's contributions to people (NCP), whilst at the same time seeking to move beyond their ethical and ontological limitations in terms of anthropocentrism and dualism (Jax et al 2013;Silvertown 2015;Cooper et al 2016;Kopnina et al 2018;Kenter 2018;Kolinjivadi 2019;Muradian and Gómez-Baggethun 2021). Neuteleers et al (2020) acknowledge these critiques and are generally supportive of the introduction of the Life Framework as an organisational framework for valuing nature, which they describe as "promising" (p. 313). In particular, the authors commend its solid conceptual foundations in environmental philosophy, its transition away from a one-directional flow of benefits and services from nature to people; and the way the Life Framework creates space for the inclusion of intrinsic values.…”

“…Whilst empirical work applying the framework has recently started appearing (O'Connor and Kenter 2019;Reed et al 2020;Harmáčková et al 2021;Kelly-Quinn et al 2022;Azzopardi et al 2022), Neuteleers et al (2020) have opened debate about how the framework was evolved from the original three frames described by O'Neill et al (2008) and how we interpreted intrinsic and relational values when defining the framework. In this paper, we respond to these comments, and in doing so re-instate the salience of the Life Framework as a straightforward way of organising environmental values compatible with diverse conceptual frameworks, including ecosystem Services (ES) and nature's contributions to people (NCP), whilst at the same time seeking to move beyond their ethical and ontological limitations in terms of anthropocentrism and dualism (Jax et al 2013;Silvertown 2015;Cooper et al 2016;Kopnina et al 2018;Kenter 2018;Kolinjivadi 2019;Muradian and Gómez-Baggethun 2021).…”

“…Whilst the discussion of intrinsic and relational value definitions is somewhat independent of the basic merits of the Life Framework, their clarification also helps to elucidate how the Life Framework can be applied as a way to practically recognise plural values of, for and in relation to nature, or the morethan-human world. Finally, the fifth section will address concerns by Neuteleers et al (2020) around the practicality and operationalisation of the framework by outlining its key functions and purposes for research and policy.…”

“…These sources of concern include the sustainability of our resource use (living from), the cultural significance of our environments (living in), and nature as an object of conservation, including as a direct object of value (living with). Neuteleers et al (2020) see this framework as a way to intuitively communicate the trifecta of value justifications of instrumental, intrinsic and relational values, which could be straightforwardly mapped to them. Consequently, introduction of the living as nature frame would overcomplicate things.…”

‘Societal Relationships with Nature’: A framework for understanding nature‐related conflicts and multiple values

“…There is, however, considerable disagreement over the extent to which NCPs add to the ecosystem services approach or improve practical conservation policies (Kadykalo et al, 2019; Kenter, 2018; Peterson et al, 2018). Other conceptualizations such as the ‘Life Framework of Values’ are now being proposed (O’Connor & Kenter, 2019), and are again subject to academic controversy (Neuteleers et al, 2020).…”