Understanding how values interact is fundamental to planning the conservation and use of natural resources. However, practitioners who apply value classifications use a diversity of approaches. Does this matter? In answering this question, we propose that well-constructed classifications contribute to planning by: clarifying definitions and underlying concepts; providing a basis for assessing synergies and trade-offs; explaining some ethical constraints, including aspects of governance and power; and providing a framework for cross-cultural analysis. To test these propositions we develop complementary value classifications for end state values and principles together with supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria. The proposed classifications are then compared with alternatives including those based on 'needs', 'capabilities', and total economic value. We find that the alternatives fail against key criteria and this hampers their capacity to fulfil the four roles proposed above. Therefore, we conclude that although value classifications are important and may vary depending on purpose, they need to be well-constructed - that is, supporting theory, assumptions, and criteria should be explicit.

中文翻译：

---

对人类福祉价值进行分类，以规划自然资源的保护和利用。

理解价值相互作用是规划自然资源保护和利用的基础。但是，应用价值分类的从业人员使用了多种方法。这有关系吗？在回答这个问题时，我们建议结构合理的分类可以通过以下方式为规划做出贡献：澄清定义和基本概念；为评估协同作用和权衡取舍提供基础；解释一些道德约束，包括治理和权力方面；并提供跨文化分析的框架。为了测试这些命题，我们针对最终状态值和原理以及支持的理论，假设和标准开发了互补的价值分类。然后将提议的分类与备选方案进行比较，包括基于“需求”，“能力”，和总经济价值。我们发现，替代方案违反了关键标准，这妨碍了它们履行上述四个角色的能力。因此，我们得出结论，尽管价值分类很重要，并且可能会根据目的而有所不同，但是它们必须结构合理-也就是说，支持性理论，假设和标准应该明确。