Conceptualizing irreconcilable disagreements in the nature futures framework over intrinsic and instrumental values

1. The nature futures framework (NFF) is a tool, adopted by IPBES, used to design scenarios which explicitly trade-off three ways of valuing nature: instrumental, intrinsic, and relational. In its current format, the NFF is depicted as a triangle, with each value perspective occupying the extreme corner node, and a smooth continuum of potential perspectives along each edge. 2. In this paper I question whether a continuum/gradient is the proper way to understand the relationship between these value-perspectives. Looking specifically at the axis between the Intrinsic and Instrumental value nodes, this paper looks in depth at debates and insights from the environmental philosophy and ethics literature and gives three reasons for thinking that a continuum does not adequately capture how these irreconcilable values are thought to relate. 3. Additionally, I argue that graduated depiction in the NFF has been made plausible through a contestable translation of the discussion from “values” to “policy/scenario preferences” that relies heavily on a presumed immutable connection between value and preference. This can run the risk of scenario designers making problematic revealed preference assumptions. 4. Recognizing the incommensurability of these values has implications for how we employ the NFF. I consider two methods for revising the NFF in light of these critiques, including a three-step framework using the NFF for eliciting value-preference connections that can be used in scenario design.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Values
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09632719261437695
Primary Topic
Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conceptualizing irreconcilable disagreements in the nature futures framework over intrinsic and instrumental values

Elliott Woodhouse
Environmental Values
Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
article

Conceptualizing irreconcilable disagreements in the nature futures framework over intrinsic and instrumental values

Elliott Woodhouse
article en

Abstract

1. The nature futures framework (NFF) is a tool, adopted by IPBES, used to design scenarios which explicitly trade-off three ways of valuing nature: instrumental, intrinsic, and relational. In its current format, the NFF is depicted as a triangle, with each value perspective occupying the extreme corner node, and a smooth continuum of potential perspectives along each edge. 2. In this paper I question whether a continuum/gradient is the proper way to understand the relationship between these value-perspectives. Looking specifically at the axis between the Intrinsic and Instrumental value nodes, this paper looks in depth at debates and insights from the environmental philosophy and ethics literature and gives three reasons for thinking that a continuum does not adequately capture how these irreconcilable values are thought to relate. 3. Additionally, I argue that graduated depiction in the NFF has been made plausible through a contestable translation of the discussion from “values” to “policy/scenario preferences” that relies heavily on a presumed immutable connection between value and preference. This can run the risk of scenario designers making problematic revealed preference assumptions. 4. Recognizing the incommensurability of these values has implications for how we employ the NFF. I consider two methods for revising the NFF in light of these critiques, including a three-step framework using the NFF for eliciting value-preference connections that can be used in scenario design.

Environmental Values
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
HORIZON EUROPE Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.