In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.

在环境评估中，虽然众所周知，方法的选择会严重影响结果，但对于现有评估方法实际上如何得出不同价值的了解很少。通过评估现实生活中对自然价值评估的应用，本研究追踪了21种价值评估方法对11种价值类型的适用性，并评估了其实现的方法学要求。我们发现，不同的估值方法具有不同的适用性来引发不同的价值类型。有些方法比其他方法更专业，但是每种方法都有盲点，这意味着存在决策偏差的风险。我们根据三个价值维度总结了不同的价值类型：非以人为本，关系性和工具性。没有任何一种估值方法能够捕捉到自然界的全部价值。要涵盖所有价值维度，就需要仔细选择其他评估方法。这项研究还表明，执行这样的综合估值并不一定需要更多的资源，因为对于每个价值维度，都可以使用中低运营要求的方法。通过这项研究，我们旨在为选择一套互补的评估方法提供指导，以便在实践中发展将所有利益相关者的价值纳入环境决策的综合评估。对于每个价值维度，都可以使用中低操作要求的方法。通过这项研究，我们旨在为选择一套互补的评估方法提供指导，以便在实践中发展将所有利益相关者的价值纳入环境决策的综合评估。对于每个价值维度，都可以使用中低操作要求的方法。通过这项研究，我们旨在为选择一套互补的评估方法提供指导，以便在实践中发展将所有利益相关者的价值纳入环境决策的综合评估。