Development: One pawn == three moves
That's one example, if those are the kind of things you're looking for.
But there's another issue in this as well. What do you play well? I've known players who turn down activity for material because they're more comfortable maneuvering in tight positions than attacking, and they do it well enough that many attackers will fall short against them, despite the fact that "objectively" they should have taken the other path.
Merely being told that a pawn is worth three moves doesn't help if you're not comfortable being down a pawn, or if you can't find three moves you think are good enough, so your own capacities have to play into that sort of calculation.
It's why the common answer to this sort of question is that through game experience you develop an "intuition" about those sort of equivalences.
If you're looking for more details like this, Alburt and Lawrence's book "Chess Rules of Thumb" is a possible source. IIRC, Chess.com has a page on them as well. And there's an old book by Horowitz and Mott-Smith called "Point-Count Chess" that tries to turn these sorts of things into numbers. If you're looking for a more recent reference, Gambit has published a couple of books by Erik Kislik that touch in this area, taking advantage of Al Lawrence's new suggested piece values to create a logical structure for reasoning about advantages and disadvantages in chess.
In one sense, your question might boil down to "Rules to Play Winning Chess," and chess, at the moment, doesn't have that sort of quick path to winning consistently. There's too much variety, both in the game and in the players, to make that really possible. But if we're to learn anything from the recent rise of AlphaZero and Leela it's that smallish differences in material don't mean as much as we traditionally thought they did. So learn what it is you play well (and badly) and use that to guide these sorts of decisions.