Abstract
Relational values have been gaining increasing attention in recent years, overcoming the dichotomy of intrinsic and instrumental values, and allowing more pluralistic perspectives in evaluating nature and nature’s contributions to people. Although various theoretical and qualitative studies on relational values have been published, studies based on empirical evidence are limited. Building on the conceptual framework presented by Chan et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(6):1462–1465, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113), which included several constructs of relational values, this study aimed to quantitatively explore the structure of relational values. A questionnaire was developed based on a review of existing quantitative studies on the preferences, principles, and virtues associated with the human–nature relationship that are included in the framework. The sample consisted of a total of 1862 residents of the Greater Tokyo Area in Japan. Exploratory factor analysis (n = 931) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 931) were conducted to explore and validate the structure of relational values. Results supported a six-factor model that was mostly in line with the conceptual framework based on Chan et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(6):1462–1465, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113): individual identity, satisfaction from local stewardship (place-based stewardship eudaimonic), satisfaction from being eco-friendly (general stewardship eudaimonic), worldview, social responsibility, and social cohesion. This finding suggests that the relational values proposed by Chan et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(6):1462–1465, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113) are likely to be present over a wide age range. Satisfaction factors were highly correlated with each other yet extracted as individual factors. The results suggest that except for stewardship eudaimonic, people are unlikely to distinguish between relational values about place-based nature and nature in general.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Modified from Markus and Kitayama (1991), page 226. a Demonstrates people of “independent-self” who recognize themselves as independent from others’ thoughts, feelings, and actions (Markus and Kitayama 1991). b Demonstrates people of “interdependent-self”, who view themselves on the relationships with others therefore its structure is dependent on each social context (Markus and Kitayama 1991)
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 22(4):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443
Bandalos DL, Finney SJ (2018) Factor analysis exploratory and confirmatory. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO (eds) The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York, pp 98–122. https://www.taylorfrancis.com. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649-8
Basu M, Hashimoto S, Dasgupta R (2020) The mediating role of place attachment between nature connectedness and human well-being: perspectives from Japan. Sustain Sci 15(3):849–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00765-x
Bennett NJ, Whitty TS, Finkbeiner E, Pittman J, Bassett H, Gelcich S, Allison EH (2018) Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ Manag 61(4):597–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2
Britto dos Santos N, Gould RK (2018) Can relational values be developed and changed? Investigating relational values in the environmental education literature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.019
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, Luck GW, Martín-López B, Muraca B, Norton B, Ott K, Pascual U, Satterfield T, Tadaki M, Taggart J, Turner N (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(6):1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U (2018) Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:A1–A7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003
Chapman M, Satterfield T, Chan KMA (2019) When value conflicts are barriers: can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Policy 82:464–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017
Cundill G, Bezerra JC, De Vos A, Ntingana N (2017) Beyond benefit sharing: place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities. Ecosyst Serv 28:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.011
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Shirayama Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science (New York, N. Y.) 359(6373):270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Flint CG, Kunze I, Muhar A, Yoshida Y, Penker M (2013) Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landsc Urban Plan 120:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
Greenwald A, McGhee D, Schwartz J (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(6):1464–1480
Himes A, Muraca B (2018) Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ishihara H (2018) Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, Laudan J, Barthel S, Abernethy P, Martín-López B, Raymond CM, Kendal D, von Wehrden H (2017) Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005
Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T (2017) Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the new ecological paradigm. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962
Kleespies MW, Dierkes PW (2020) Exploring the construct of relational values: an empirical approach. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00209
Knippenberg L, de Groot WT, van den Born RJ, Knights P, Muraca B (2018) Relational value, partnership, eudaimonia: a review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.022
Kobau R, Sniezek J, Zack MM, Lucas RE, Burns A (2010) Well-being assessment: an evaluation of well-being scales for public health and population estimates of well-being among US adults. Appl Psychol Health Well Being 2(3):272–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01035.x
Komiya A, Karoji Y, Ogihara Y, Goto T (2016) Implicit cultural self-construals and preference for cooperative and competitive goals with close others. Res Soc Psychol 32(2):133–140
Lau JD, Hicks CC, Gurney GG, Cinner JE (2019) What matters to whom and why? Understanding the importance of coastal ecosystem services in developing coastal communities. Ecosyst Serv 35:219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.012
Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self. Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev 98(2):224–253
Matsumoto D (1999) Culture and self: an empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian J Soc Psychol 2(3):289–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00042
Muhar A, Raymond CM, van den Born RJG, Bauer N, Böck K, Braito M, Buijs A, Flint C, de Groot WT, Ives CD, Mitrofanenko T, Plieninger T, Tucker C, van Riper CJ (2018) A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems. J Environ Plan Manag 61(5–6):756–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327424
Muradian R, Pascual U (2018) A typology of elementary forms of human–nature relations: a contribution to the valuation debate. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.014
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav 41(5):715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
Park J, Uchida Y, Kitayama S (2016) Cultural variation in implicit independence: an extension of Kitayama et al. (2009). Int J Psychol 51(4):269–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12157
Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V, Quaas M, Subramanian SM, Wittmer H, Adlan A, Ahn S, Al-Hafedh YS, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Yagi N (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Raymond CM, Brown G, Weber D (2010) The measurement of place attachment: personal, community, and environmental connections. J Environ Psychol 30(4):422–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002
Restall B, Conrad E (2015) A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. J Environ Manag 159:264–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022
Schröter M, Başak E, Christie M, Church A, Keune H, Osipova E, Oteros-Rozas E, Sievers-Glotzbach S, van Oudenhoven APE, Balvanera P, González D, Jacobs S, Molnár Z, Pascual U, Martín-López B (2020) Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosyst People 16(1):50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039
Schulz C, Martin-Ortega J (2018) Quantifying relational values—why not? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.015
Stenseke M (2018) Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape approaches. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.025
2019 WHITE PAPER on Information and Communications in Japan (WHITE PAPER No. 47; p. 13) (2020) Economic Research Office, ICT Strategy Policy Division, Information and communications Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan. https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2019/chapter-3.pdf#page=13
Yoshida Y, Flint CG, Dolan MK (2018) Farming between love and money: US Midwestern farmers’ human–nature relationships and impacts on watershed conservation. J Environ Plan Manag 61(5–6):1033–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1327423
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-15 Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services [PANCES]) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and ‘Research and Social Implementation of Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction as Climate Change Adaptation in Shrinking Societies’ of the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Japan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by Moinul Islam, Kyushu University, Japan.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saito, T., Hashimoto, S. & Basu, M. Measuring relational values: do people in Greater Tokyo appreciate place-based nature and general nature differently?. Sustain Sci 17, 837–848 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00898-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00898-4