Martin, A., P. Balvanera, C. M. Raymond, E. Gómez-Baggethun, U. Eser, R. K. Gould, L. Guibrunet, Z. V. Harmáčková, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, A.-K. Koessler, R. Kumar, D. Lenzi, J. Merçon, A. Nthenge, P. J. O’Farrell, U. Pascual, J. Rode, Y. Yoshida, and N. Zafra-Calvo.

Modern environmental thought has always involved normative claims about the values needed for sustainability. This has often played out in debates between proponents of anthropocentric and ecocentric ways of valuing nature. More recently, there has been a flourishing of interest in relational and pluricentric ways of valuing nature, coinciding with a “turn to values” in the sustainability literature. In this paper we explore the meaning and use of the term “sustainability-aligned values.” Following the 2022 IPBES Values Assessment we consider these as values that are crucial for shaping decisions that will help bring about sustainability. Our characterization of sustainably-aligned values assumes inherent pluralism because of diverse interpretations of sustainability and of pathways toward it. Nevertheless, a review of three bodies of literature suggests that there is considerable agreement about the kinds of values that align with sustainability. In particular, the nurturing of certain relational values is now widely seen as supportive of sustainability, including values regarding what matters in human interactions with nature (such as stewardship), and values regarding relationships between humans (such as collectivism). We proceed to pose critical questions about the proposition that certain values support sustainability. We ask whether this emerging body of thought is consistent with pluralist requirements to foster values diversity, whether an agenda to nurture values aligned with sustainability is actionable, and how mobilizing sustainability-aligned values entails addressing power imbalances.

Rachelle K. Gould, Yolanda Jimenez Naranjo & Patricia Balvanera.

The W.E.I.R.D. acronym refers to populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. The concept emerged with scholars’ realizations that much psychological research makes universal claims based on work with WEIRD participants, despite the fact that WEIRD cultures are globally unusual. We note a related trend in sustainability science and practice: WEIRD psychological tendencies (and related institutions and assumptions) tend to dominate in global sustainability policy/practice. In this paper, we explore one set of potential implications of this dominance via a focus on psychological differences that relate to an emerging focal interest in sustainability science: relationality. We show that many non-WEIRD psychological tendencies are more relational than their WEIRD counterparts. We then assess how these differences relate to seven key features of sustainability. We identify how non[1]WEIRD relationality is likely to contribute to sustainability in unique ways and discuss research gaps that preclude full understanding of the implications of a WEIRD (and therefore less relational) focus. To illustrate connections between non-WEIRD psychological tendencies and sustainability, we offer the example of the perspective of comunalidad, of the original peoples of Oaxaca, Mexico. This perspective is reflected in a new Oaxacan regional university. Our analysis overall suggests that a focus on WEIRD psychology (even, or perhaps especially, if implicit) omits or underplays many forms of more relational thinking, which are likely associated with sustainability.