The role of religion in shaping the values of nature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental discourse frequently understands the values of nature as being instrumental, intrinsic, or relational and measured in biophysical, sociocultural, or monetary terms. Yet these specific values and value indicators are underpinned by worldviews, knowledge systems, and broad values that orient people towards nature in different ways and can be shared (or diverge) across spatio-temporal and social scales. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) <em>Values Assessment</em> emphasized the need for decision-making to embrace a plural-values approach that encompasses these diverse meanings of value to catalyze outcomes based on sustainability-aligned broad values like care, unity, reciprocity, and justice. Navigating these diverse values also highlights the salience of religion and its complexity in real-world scenarios as a force that shapes how people conceive the values of nature. For example, proposed modes of plural-value deliberation to reform institutions and shift social norms toward justice and sustainability need to be able to bridge sacred–secular policy divides. This article evaluates how religion interacts with nature’s values by building upon reviews conducted for the IPBES <em>Values Assessment</em>. We present different conceptualizations of religion and explore how these relate to various understandings of social-ecological change. Further, we delineate how religion interacts with values based on three interrelated forms of agency: personal, social, and more-than-human processes. Upon this foundation, we discuss how to better engage religion in environmental policy and research, considering four modes of mobilizing sustainability-aligned values: (1) enabling, (2) including, (3) reflecting, and (4) shifting values and two analytical axes regarding religion’s (1) social scale (individual versus collective) and (2) dynamic continuum (religion as stable versus changeable). Our assessment provides conceptual and practical tools to help consider religion in the processes and practices that shape, reinforce, or impede sustainability-aligned values for more inclusive and effective conservation decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it