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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 313-316 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Sustainability Science |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 6 Jun 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2021 |
Keywords
- NATURES CONTRIBUTIONS
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Intrinsic values and the life framework of values: why we should go back to basics -comment to O'Connor and Kenter (2019)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver