Figure 1. The thirteen other papers of the special issue, and their substantial engagements with concepts, theory, data, and practice (connecting lines). Papers are denoted by the first author’s surname and coloured according to their primary contribution, as identified by the authors of this editorial.

By Kai M.A. Chan, Rachelle K. Gould, Cecily Maller, Robert Fish, Rosemary S. Hails, Kevin J. Gaston.

Read the full paper here.

The value of nature goes beyond economics. This recognition has sparked a field of research into the multiple values of nature, represented by the diverse contributions in the special issue that this editorial introduces. The field has long positioned itself against purely economic valuations, resulting in a rich, if sometimes ‘messy’, array of perspectives.

In introducing the special issue articles, we highlight a gap in the broader field: limited engagement with a cohesive theory of value that could both explain and guide human action. Both the special issue articles and the broader field engage principally with ‘utility theory’, which underlies economic valuation—a theory that the field loves to hate. This raises a question: If we seek to move beyond economics in policy and practice, do we need a unified, alternative theory of value that encompasses not only nature but all aspects of life?

We argue that such a theory of value could bring substantial benefits. It could create conceptual coherence, enable hypothesis testing to deepen our understanding, and clarify the contributions of different disciplines and methods. We outline what a relational theory of value might look like, highlighting how it could address problematic assumptions in utility theory.

Perhaps research on the multiple values of nature can transform broader understandings of what truly matters, and why.