Sustainability has historically considered the natural world in terms of instrumental value (protecting nature for humanity’s benefit) and intrinsic value (protecting nature for nature’s sake), without consideration of the other ways values are expressed and experienced. This instrumental-intrinsic dichotomy does not acknowledge the intuitive, familial, and spiritual relationships that exist between peoples and the natural world. Recognition of a third set of values—relational values—reflects the relationships between humans and nature and offers a complimentary approach to sustainability education. This semi-systematic literature review synthesizes and contextualizes the nascent construct of relational values to better understand how they can be articulated, applied, and ultimately assessed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramD. (2010). Becoming animal. Green Letters, 13(1), 7–21.
2.
AbramD. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: perception and language in a more-than-human world. Pantheon Books.
3.
AikenheadG., & MichellH. (2011). Bridging cultures: Indigenous and scientific ways of knowing nature. Pearson.
4.
AlldredP., & FoxN. J. (2019). Assembling citizenship: Sexualities education, micropolitics and the becoming-citizen. Sociology, 53(4), 689–706.
5.
AllenK. E., QuinnC. E., EnglishC, & QuinnJ. E. (2018). Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 108–115; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026
6.
AndersonC. B., AthaydeS., RaymondC. M., VatnA., AriasP., et al.Chapter 2: Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people. In BalvaneraP., PascualU., ChristieM., BaptisteB., and González-JiménezD (Eds). Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany; 2022. 10.5281/zenodo.6493134
7.
Arias-ArevaloP., Martin-LopezB., & Gomez-BaggethunE. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4)
8.
AronA., AronE. N., & SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
9.
ArrowsF. (2016). The CAT-FAWN connection: Using metacognition and Indigenous worldview for more effective character education and human survival. Journal of Moral Education, 45(3), 261–275; doi: https://doi.org.ezproxyles.flo.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1167026
10.
BangM., CurleyL., KesselA., MarinA., SuzukovE. S.III, & StrackG. (2014). Muskrat theories, tobacco in the streets, and living Chicago as Indigenous land. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 37–55; doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.865113
11.
BarkleyJ. R., & KrugerL. E. (2013). Place meanings as lived experience. In: Place-based conservation: Perspectives from the social sciences (pp. 89–98). Springer.
12.
BarnaudC., & AntonaM. (2014). Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum, 56, 113–123.
13.
BarraganJ. G., de MazancourtC., ParmesanC., SingerM. C., & LoreauM. (2022). Human–nature connectedness as a pathway to sustainability: A global meta‐analysis. Conservation Letters, 15(1), e12852–7; doi: https://doi.org.ezproxyles.flo.org/10.1111/conl.12852
14.
BelshawC. (2014). Environmental philosophy: Reason, nature and human concern. Routledge.
15.
BerkesF. Sacred Ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management (2nd edition). Routledge; 2008.
16.
BerkesF. (1993) Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In InglisJ. T. (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases (pp. 1-9). Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.
17.
BerkesF., ColdingJ., & FolkeC. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262.
18.
BerryS. L., CroweT. P., & DeaneF. P. (2012). Preliminary development and content validity of a measure of Australian Aboriginal cultural engagement. Ethnicity & Health, 17(3), 325–336; doi: 10.1080/13557858.2011.645157
19.
BielingC., EserUTA., PlieningerT. (2020). Towards a better understanding of values in sustainability transformations: ethical perspectives on landscape stewardship. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 188–196; doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1786165
20.
BinghamG., BishopR., BrodyM., BromleyD., ClarkE., et al. (1995). Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics, 14(2), 73–90.
21.
BögelP. M., & UphamP. (2018). Role of psychology in sociotechnical transitions studies: Review in relation to consumption and technology acceptance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 28, 122–136.
22.
BohlmeijerE. T., FrielingsdorfL., KraissJ. T., de Jager-MeezenbroekE., VisserA., & ten KloosterP. M. (2023). Spirituality in the context of well-being. Evaluation of the psychometric properties and added value of the spiritual attitude and involvement list short form (SAIL-SF). Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(3), 1169–1190; doi: 10.1007/s10902-023-00640-8
23.
BonnettM. (2002). Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 9–20; doi: 10.1080/13504620120109619
24.
BradleyJ., WaliczekT., & ZajicekJ. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17–21; doi: 10.1080/00958969909601873
BrehmJ. M., EisenhauerB. W., & StedmanR. C. (2013). Environmental concern: Examining the role of place meaning and place attachment. Society & Natural Resources, 26(5), 522–538; doi: 10.1080/08941920.2012.715726
BromleyD. W. (2012). Environmental governance as stochastic belief updating: Crafting rules to live by. Ecology & Society, 17, Article 14.
29.
BrownT. C. (1984). The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics, 60(3), 231–246.
30.
BullJ., SuttleK., GordonA., SinghN., & Milner-GullandE. (2013). Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx, 47(3), 369–380; doi: 10.1017/S003060531200172X
31.
CapraF., & LuisiP. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press.
32.
ChanK. M. A., BalvaneraP., BenessaiahK., ChapmanM., DíazS., et al. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(6), 1462–1465; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113
33.
ChanK. M., GouldR. K., & PascualU. (2018). Editorial overview: Relational values: What are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, A1–A7; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003
34.
ChanK. M. A, GuerryA. D., BalvaneraP, KlainS, SatterfieldT, et al. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756.
35.
ClaytonS. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In ClaytonS., & OpotowS. .(Eds.). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3644.001.0001
36.
ConstableP., & KuasirikunN. (2018). Gifting, exchange and reciprocity in Thai annual reports: Towards a Buddhist relational theory of Thai accounting practice. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 54, 1–26.
37.
CummiskeyD., & HamiltonA. (2017). Dependent Origination, Emptiness, and the Value of Nature. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 24.
38.
CurryP. (2011). Ecological ethics: An introduction (2nd edition). Polity Press.
39.
DarwinC. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection (1st ed.). Murray.
40.
DattaR. (2015). A relational theoretical framework and meanings of land, nature, and sustainability for research with Indigenous communities. Local Environment, 20(1), 102–113; doi: 10.1080/13549839.2013.818957
41.
de GrootW. T. (1992). Environmental science theory: Concepts and methods in a problem-oriented, one-world paradigm. Elsevier.
42.
de Jager MeezenbroekE., GarssenB., van den BergM., van DierendonckD., VisserA., & SchaufeliW. B. (2012). Measuring spirituality as a universal human experience: A review of spirituality questionnaires. Journal of Religion and Health, 51(2), 336–354; doi: 10.1007/s10943-010-9376-1
43.
Der-Lan YehT. (2006). The way to peace: A Buddhist perspective. International Journal of Peace Studies, 11(1), 91–112.
44.
DíazS., DemissewS., CarabiasJ., JolyC., LonsdaleM., et al. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
45.
DíazS., PascualU., StensekeM., Martín-LópezB., WatsonR. T., et al. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6373), 270–272; doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826
46.
DiverS., VaughanM., Baker-MédardM., & LukacsH. (2019). Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water. International Journal of the Commons, 13(1), 400–429.
47.
DoherrD. (2015). Alexander von Humboldt's Idea of interconnectedness and its relationship to interdisciplinarity and communication. Journal on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 13(6).
48.
DoherrD., & BaronF. (2011). Humboldt Digital Library and Interconnectedness. The Environmentalist, 32(3), 271–277; doi: 10.1007/s10669-011-9369-y
49.
DonaldD. T. (2009). Forts, curriculum, and Indigenous métissage: Imagining decolonization of Aboriginal-Canadian relations in educational contexts. First Nations Perspectives, 2(1), 1–24.
50.
DoucetA. (2018). Shorelines, seashells, and seeds: Feminist epistemologies, ecological thinking, and relational ontologies. In: The Palgrave Handbook of relational sociology (pp. 375-391). Springer.
51.
Drouin-GagnéM. E. (2021). Beyond the “Indigenizing the academy” trend: Learning from Indigenous higher education land-based and intercultural pedagogies to build trans-systemic education. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 7(1), 45–65.
52.
DunlapR. E., Van LiereK. D., MertigA. G., & JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442; doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
53.
DutcherD. D., FinleyJ. C., LuloffA. E., & Buttolph JohnsonJ. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474–493; doi: 10.1177/0013916506298794
54.
EckersleyR. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. State University of New York Press.
55.
Ecopsychology Roundtable. (1994). Statement of purpose for an ecopsychology conference. [Unpublished draft]. Center for Psychology & Social Change at Harvard Medical School.
56.
EliotC. H. (2018). Ecological interdependence via constraints. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 1115–1126; doi: 10.1086/700600
57.
FengG. F., & EnglishJ. (1973). Ching Tao Te: A new translation. Wildwood House.
58.
FergussonL., WellsG., & KettleD. (2018). The personal, social and environmental sustainability of Jainism in light of Maharishi Vedic Science. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1627–1649; doi: 10.1007/s10668-017-9957-1
59.
FischerJ., & RiechersM. (2019). A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and Nature, 1(1), 115–120; doi: 10.1002/pan3.13
60.
FishR., ChurchA., & WinterM. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217.
61.
FrancisP. (2015). Laudato si: On care for our common home. Our Sunday Visitor.
62.
FrandyT. (2018). Indigenizing sustainabilities, sustaining indigeneities: Decolonization, sustainability, and education. Journal of Sustainability Education, 18.
GoddenN. J. (2021). Community work, love and the indigenous worldview of buen vivir in Peru. International Social Work, 64(3), 354–370; doi: 10.1177/0020872820930254
65.
Gómez-BaggethunE, de GrootR, LomasP. L, & MontesC. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1209–1218; doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
66.
GouldR. K., PaiM., MuracaB., & ChanK. M. (2019). He ‘ike ‘ana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): How one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1213–1232.
67.
GrahamM., & MaloneyM. (2019). Caring for country and rights of nature in Australia—a conversation between Earth jurisprudence and aboriginal law and ethics. In La FolletteC. & MaserC. (Eds.). Sustainability and the rights of nature in practice (pp. 385–400). CRC Press.
68.
GreeneJ. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93–98.
69.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.
70.
HaidtJ. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science (New York, N.Y.), 316(5827), 998–1002.
71.
HamelP., & BryantB. P. (2017). Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: Seven challenges and practical responses. Ecosystem Services, 24, 1–15; doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.008
72.
HaqS. N. (2003). Islam and ecology: toward retrieval and reconstruction. In FoltzR. C., DennyF. M., & BaharuddingA.. (Eds.). Islam and Ecology: A bestowed trust (pp. 121–154). Harvard University Press.
73.
HassounN. J., & WongD. B. (2015). Conserving nature; preserving identity. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 42(1–2), 176–196.
74.
HaveH., & Patrão NevesM. (2021). Ecocentrism. In: Dictionary of global Bioethics (p. 449). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-54161-3_76.
75.
HejnowiczA., & RuddM. (2017). The value landscape in ecosystem services: Value, value wherefore art thou value? Sustainability, 9(5), 850; doi: 10.3390/su9050850
76.
HelneT, & HirvilammiT. (2015). Wellbeing and sustainability: A relational approach. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 167–175; doi: 10.1002/sd.1581
77.
HettingerN., & ThroopB. T. (1999). Refocusing ecocentrism: De-emphasizing stability and defending wildness. Environmental Ethics, 21(1), 3–21.
78.
HibbardW. (2003). Ecopsychology: A review. The Trumpeter, 19(2)
79.
HimesA., & MuracaB. (2018). Relational values: The key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7.
80.
HimesA., MuracaB., AndersonC. B., AthaydeS., BeeryT., et al. (2023). Why nature matters: A systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values. Bioscience, 74(1), 25–43; doi: 10.1093/biosci/biad109
81.
HironsM., CombertiC., & DunfordR. (2016). Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 545–574.
82.
HishinumaE. S., AndradeN. N., JohnsonR. C., McardleJ. J., MiyamotoR. H., et al. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Hawaiian Culture Scale–adolescent version. Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 140–157.
83.
HodgsonG. M. (2017). Karl Polanyi on economy and society: A critical analysis of core concepts. Review of Social Economy, 75(1), 1–25.
84.
Horcea-MilcuA. (2022). Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: Two pathways for transformation research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 57, 101205; doi: https://doi.org.ezproxyles.flo.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101205
85.
IngoldT. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge.
86.
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat.
87.
IshiharaH. (2018). Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: How can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 61–68.
88.
IvesC. D., AbsonD. J., Von WehrdenH., DorningerC., KlanieckiK., & FischerJ. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1389–1397.
89.
IvesC. D, FischerJ, AbsonD. J, KlanieckiK, DorningerC, et al. (2017). Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 106–113; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005
90.
JacobsD. T, & NarváezD. (2022). Restoring the kinship worldview: indigenous voices introduce 28 precepts for rebalancing life on planet Earth. North Atlantic Books.
91.
JamesS. P. (2003). Zen Buddhism and the intrinsic value of nature. Contemporary Buddhism, 4(2), 143–157; doi: 10.1080/1463994032000162965
92.
JaxK., CalestaniM., ChanK. M. A, EserU., KeuneH., et al. (2018). Caring for nature matters: A relational approach for understanding nature's contributions to human well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 22–29.
93.
JonesN. A., ShawS., RossH., WittK., & PinnerB. (2016). The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 21(1).
94.
JonesK., & TobinD. (2018). Reciprocity, redistribution and relational values: Organizing and motivating sustainable agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 69–74.
95.
JukierR. (2005). Where law and pedagogy meet in the transsystemic contracts classroom. McGill Law Journal, 50, 791–808.
96.
JukierR. (2018). The untapped potential of transsystemic thinking. In EmerichY. & PlanteM. A.. (Eds). Repenser les paradigmes: Approches transsystémiques du droit (pp. 1–30). Yvon Blais.
97.
KahnP. H.Jr, & HasbachP. H. (Eds.). (2012). Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species. MIT Press.
98.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books.
99.
KeaulanaS., Kahili-HeedeM., RileyL., ParkM. L. N., MakuaK. L., et al. (2021). A scoping review of nature, land, and environmental connectedness and relatedness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5897; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115897
100.
KellertS. R, WilsonE. O. (eds). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
101.
KellertS. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human–nature connection. Island Press.
102.
KellertS. R. (2012). Birthright: People and nature in the modern world. Yale University Press.
103.
KellertS. R. (1996). The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press.
104.
KenigerL. E., GastonK. J., IrvineK. N, & FullerR. A. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(3), 913–935.
105.
KenterJ. O., HydeT., ChristieM., & FazeyI. (2011). The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries-evidence from the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 505–521; doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.001
106.
KenterJ. O, O’BrienL, HockleyN, RavenscroftN, FazeyI, et al. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86–99; doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
107.
KimmererR. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass. Tantor Media, Inc.
108.
KnippenbergL., de GrootW. T., van den BornR. J., KnightsP, & MuracaB. (2018). Relational value, partnership, eudaimonia: A review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 39–45; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.022
109.
KnudtsonP., & SuzukiD. (1992). Wisdom of the elders. Allen and Unwin.
110.
KothariA., DemariaF., & AcostaA. (2014). Buen vivir, degrowth and ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the green economy. Development, 57(3-4), 362–375; doi: 10.1057/dev.2015.24
111.
KullC. A., Arnauld de SartreX., & Castro-LarrañagaM. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum, 61, 122–134.
112.
LangeE. A. (2018). Transforming transformative education through ontologies of relationality. Journal of Transformative Education, 16(4), 280–301; doi: 10.1177/1541344618786452
113.
LeopoldA. (1949). A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press.
114.
Little BearL. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In BattisteM. (Ed.). Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77–85). UBC Press.
115.
LejanoR.P. (2019). Relationality and socio-ecological systems: Going beyond or behind sustainability and resilience. Sustainability, 11:2760. doi: 10.3390/su11102760
116.
LumberR, RichardsonM, & SheffieldD. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PloS One, 12(5), e0177186.
117.
MackayC. M. L, & SchmittM. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101323; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323
118.
MattijssenT. J. M., GanzevoortW., van den BornR. J. G., ArtsB. J. M., BremanB. C., et al. (2020). Relational values of nature: Leverage points for nature policy in Europe. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 402–410; doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926
119.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515.
McphieJ., & ClarkeD. A. G. (2019). A walk in the park: Considering practice for outdoor environmental education. In RingroseJ., WarfieldK., & ZarabadiS.. (Eds.). Feminist posthumanisms, new materialisms and education (pp. 148–168). Routledge.
122.
MeadowsD. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute.
123.
MohattN. V, FokC. C. T., BurketR., HenryD., & AllenJ. (2011). Assessment of awareness of connectedness as a culturally-based protective factor for Alaska native youth. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 444–455; doi: 10.1037/a0025456
124.
MommaersP. (2004). Hadewijch—Writer, beguine, love mystic. Peeters.
125.
MoranU. C., HarringtonU. G., & SheehanN. (2018). On country learning. Design and Culture, 10(1), 71–79.
126.
MugumbateJ. R., & ChereniA. (2020). Editorial: Now, the theory of ubuntu has its space in social work. African Journal of Social Work, 10(1)
127.
MuracaB. (2011). The map of moral significance: A new axiological matrix for environmental ethics. Environmental Values, 20(3), 375–396.
128.
MuracaB. (2016). Relational values: A Whiteheadian alternative for environmental philosophy and global environmental justice. Balkan Journal of Philosophy, 8(1), 19–38.
129.
MuroveM. F. (2014). Ubuntu. Diogenes, 59(3-4), 36–47.
130.
MuroveM. F. (2009). African bioethics: an exploratory discourse. In African Ethics: An anthology of comparative and applied ethics (pp. 157–77). University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
131.
NaessA. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95–100.
132.
Nagarjuna. (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika. (Translated and commentary by GarfieldJL.) Oxford University Press.
133.
NetherwoodK., BuchananJ., StockerL., & PalmerD. (2006). Values education for relational sustainability: A case study of Lance Holt School and friends. In WooltortonS.. & MarinovaD.. (Eds.). Sharing Wisdom for Our Future: Environmental Education in Action (pp. 249–259). Australian Association of Environmental Education.
134.
NichternE. (2007). One city: A declaration of interdependence. Wisdom Publishing.
135.
NisbetE. K. L., ZelenskiJ. M, & MurphyS. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and. Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740; doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748
136.
NorgaardR. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1219–1227.
137.
O’NeilJ. K. (2018). Transformative sustainability learning within a material-discursive ontology. Journal of Transformative Education, 16(4), 365–387; doi: 10.1177/1541344618792823
OnwuegbuzieA. J., & FrelsR. (2016). Seven steps to a comprehensive literature review: A multimodal and cultural approach. SAGE Publications.
140.
PanelliR. (2010). More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and other possibilities. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), 79–87; doi: 10.1177/0309132509105007
141.
PolanyiK. (1957). The economy as instituted process. In PolanyiK., ArensbergC. M., & PearsonH. W.. (Eds.). Trade and Market in the Early Empires. The Free Press.
142.
PolaskyS., TallisH., & ReyersB. (2015). Setting the bar: Standards for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(24), 7356–7361; doi: 10.1073/PNAS.1406490112
143.
PoseyD. A. (ed.). (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.
144.
RappaportR. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge University Press.
145.
RaymondC. M., SinghG., BenessaiahK., BernhardJ. R., LevineJ, et al. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546; doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7
146.
ReserJ. P., & BentrupperbäumerJ. M. (2005). What and where are environmental values? Assessing the impacts of current diversity of use of ‘environmental’ and ‘World Heritage’ values. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 125–146.
147.
RiechersM., BalázsiÁ., García-LlorenteM., & LoosJ. (2021). Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 215–221; doi: 10.1080/26395916.2021.1912830
148.
RiechersM., Martín-LópezB., & FischerJ. (2022). Human–nature connectedness and other relational values are negatively affected by landscape simplification: Insights from lower Saxony, Germany. Sustainability Science, 17(3), 865–877; doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-00928-9
149.
RockefellerS. C. (2017). Laudato Si’ and the Earth Charter. In JimenezA. & VilelaM. (Eds.). Voices of the Earth Charter Initiative responding to encyclical Laudato Si’ (pp. 31–38). Universidad Técnica Nacional.
150.
RohanM. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255–277; doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4
RossH, WittK, & JonesN. A. (2018). Stephen Kellert’s development and contribution of relational values in social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 46–53.
153.
RoszakT. (1992b). The voice of the earth: Discovering the ecological ego. The Trumpeter, 9(1).
154.
RoszakT. (1992a). The voice of the earth. Simon & Schuster.
155.
SaidE. (1993). Culture and imperialism. Chatto & Windus.
156.
SaidA. A., & FunkN. C. (2003). Peace in Islam: An ecology of the spirit. In FoltzR. C., DennyF. M.. & BaharuddingA.. (Eds.). Islam and Ecology: A bestowed trust (pp. 155–183). Harvard University Press.
157.
SalazarG, MonroeM. C, JordanC, ArdoinN. M, & BeeryT. H. (2021). Improving assessments of connection to nature: A participatory approach. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8; doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.609104
158.
SalmónE. (2000). Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human–nature relationship. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1327–1332.
159.
SchroederH. (2013). Sensing value in place. In Place-based conservation: Perspectives from the social sciences (pp. 73-87). Springer.
160.
SchröterM, BaşakE, ChristieM, ChurchA, KeuneH, et al. (2020). Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: The IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 50–69; doi: 10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039
161.
SchultzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339; doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
162.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In Psychology of Sustainable Development (pp. 61–78). Springer.
163.
SchulzC., & Martin-OrtegaJ. (2018). Quantifying relational values—Why not? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 15–21; doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.015
164.
SchwartzS. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
165.
SchwartzS. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.
166.
ScottJ, & MarshallG. (2009). A dictionary of sociology, 3rd edition revised. Oxford University Press.
SkubelR. A, Shriver-RiceM., & MarantoG. M. (2019). Introducing relational values as a tool for shark conservation, science, and management. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 53.
171.
SmithM. (2014). Deep ecology: What is said and (to be) done? The Trumpeter, 30(2), 141–156.
172.
SmithG., & StevensonR. (2017). Sustaining education for sustainability in turbulent times. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(2), 79–95; doi: 10.1080/00958964.2016.1264920
173.
SnowshoeA, CrooksC. V, TremblayP. F, & HinsonR. E. (2017). Cultural connectedness and its relation to mental wellness for First Nations youth. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 38(1-2), 67–86; doi: 10.1007/s10935-016-0454-3
174.
SnyderH. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
175.
SogaM., & GastonK. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101.
176.
StålhammarS, & ThorénH. (2019). Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1201–1212.
SuzukiD., & KnudtsonP. (1992). Wisdom of the Elders: Honouring Sacred Visions of Nature. Bantam Books.
179.
TadakiM., SinnerJ., & ChanK. M. A. (2017). Making sense of environmental values. Ecology and Society, 22(1) http://www.jstor.org/stable/26270108
180.
TaylorA., & Pacini-KetchabawV. (2019). Learning with children, ants, and worms in the Anthropocene: Towards a common world pedagogy of multispecies vulnerability. In RingroseJ., WarfieldK., & ZarabadiS.. (Eds.). Feminist posthumanisms, new materialisms and education (pp. 125–147). Routledge.
181.
ThiermannU. B., & SheateW. R. (2020). Motivating individuals for social transition: The 2-pathway model and experiential strategies for pro-environmental behaviour. Ecological Economics, 174, 106668.
182.
ThompsonJ. (2018). Joyfully living an integral ecology: Indigenous narratives and their contribution to the dialogue on well-being. The Heythrop Journal, 59(6), 969–982; doi: 10.1111/heyj.13019
183.
TobinD. (2022). Towards quantifying relational values: Crop diversity and the relational and instrumental values of seed growers in Vermont. Agriculture and Human Values, 40(3), 1137–1152.
184.
ToddZ. (2016). An indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: ‘Ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1), 4–22.
185.
TrentelmanC. K. (2009). Place attachment and community attachment: A primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Society & Natural Resources, 22(3), 191–210.
186.
TrommsdorffG. (2010). Teaching and learning guide for: Culture and development of self‐regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 282–294.
187.
TutuD. (1999). No future without forgiveness. Random House.
188.
UeharaT., SakuraiR., & HidakaT. (2022). The importance of relational values in gaining people’s support and promoting their involvement in social-ecological system management: A comparative analysis. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 1001180.
VakilJ. R. (2021). Psychological direction of the formation of multicultural values. Revista on Line de Política e Gestão Educacional, 25(esp.1), 620–637; doi: 10.22633/rpge.v25iesp.1.15003
191.
van den BornR. J. G. (2008). Rethinking Nature: Public Visions in the Netherlands. Environmental Values, 17(1), 83–109.
192.
van der WaltJ. L. (2010). Ubuntugogy for the 21st century. Journal of Third World Studies, 27, 249–266.
193.
VeselyS., MassonT., ChokraiP., BeckerA. M., FritscheI., et al. (2021). Climate change action as a project of identity: Eight meta-analyses. Global Environmental Change, 70, 102322.
194.
VetlesenA. J. (2019). Cosmologies of the Anthropocene: panpsychism, animism, and the limits of posthumanism. Routledge.
195.
von HumboldtA. (1803–1804). Tagebücher der Amerikanischen Reise IX. Varia: Obs. astron. de Mexico a Guanaxuato, Jorullo, Toluca, Veracruz, Cuba, Voy. de la Havane à Philadelphia. Geologie de Guanaxuato, Volcans de Jorullo et de Toluca. Voyage de la Veracruz à la Havane et de la Havane à Philadelphie. Available from: https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN779884841.
196.
WalshZ., BöhmeJ, & WamslerC. (2020). Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio, 50(1), 74–84.
197.
WangH. (2013). A nonviolent approach to social justice education. Educational Studies, 49(6), 485–503.
198.
WashingtonH. (2019). Justice for nature. Animal Sentience, 4(27), 2.
199.
WashingtonH. (2015). Demystifying sustainability: Towards real solutions. Routledge.
200.
WashingtonH., TaylorB., KopninaH., CryerP., & PiccoloJ. J. (2017). Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability. The Ecological Citizen, 1, 35–41.
WestS., HaiderL. J., StålhammarS., & WoronieckiS. (2020). A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 304–325; doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417
203.
WhitburnJ, LinklaterW, & AbrahamseW. (2019). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 34(1), 180–193; doi: 10.1111/cobi.13381
204.
WilliamsL. (2013). Deepening ecological relationality through critical onto-epistemological inquiry: Where transformative learning meets sustainable science. Journal of Transformative Education, 11(2), 95–113.
205.
WongD. B. (2009). Identifying with nature in early Daoism. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 36(4), 568–584.
206.
Zafra-CalvoN., PascualU., BrockingtonD., CoolsaetB., Cortes-VazquezJ. A., et al. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, 134–141.
