Visions of nature are defined as public views on what nature is, what values are carried by nature and what is the appropriate relationship between humans and nature. They were studied in Lubelski region, Poland. With respect to the first, respondents expressed that human influence and naturalness do not exclude each other. One result of the values survey was that respondents acknowledged nature's intrinsic value. The study into the relationship between humans and nature showed that the respondents adhered strongly to a steward type of relationship, and that more ecocentric images were adhered to for a lesser, but substantial degree.
ArcuryT.A.1990. ‘Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge’. Human Organization49(4): 300–304.
2.
BielaA.1984. Stres psychiczny w sytuacji kryzysu ekologicznego. Lublin, Poland: TN KUL.
3.
BerenguerJ., CorralizaJ.A. and MartinR.. 2005. ‘Rural – urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions’. European Journal of Psychological Assessment21(2): 128–138.
4.
BuijsA.E. and FiliusP.. 1998. Natuurbeelden in de praktijk. De invloed van natuurbeelden en natuurvisies op gedrag en mening over het beleid. (Rep. No. 623). Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University and Research Center Publications.
5.
BuijsA.E. and VolkerC.M.. 1997. Publiek draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid. (Rep. No. 546). Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University and Researchcenter Publications.
6.
ButlerW.F. and AcottT.G.. 2007. ‘An inquiry concerning the acceptance of intrinsic value theories of nature’. Environmental Values16: 149–168.
7.
CampagnaC. and FernándezT.. 2007. ‘A comparative analysis of the vision and mission statements of international environmental organisations’. Environmental Values16 (3): 369–398.
8.
Central Statistical Office and Dmochowska H. (ed.).2008. Concise Statistical Yearbook of Poland 2008. Warszawa: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych (.pdf file available on: www.stat.gov.pl).
9.
De GrootW.T.1992. Environmental Science Theory: Concepts, and Methods in Problem-Oriented, One-World Paradigm. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
10.
De GrootW.T. and Van den BornR.J.. 2003. ‘Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in the Netherlands’. Landscape and Urban Planning63: 127–138.
11.
De GrootW.T., Van den BornR.J. and LendersR.H.. 2006. ‘Visions of Nature: An Introduction’, in Van den BornR.J., De GrootW.T. and LendersR.H. (eds.), ‘Visions of Nature’ (Berlin: Lit Verlag), pp. 9–17.
12.
De GrootW.T. and ZwaalN.. 2007. ‘Storytelling as a medium for balanced dialogue on conservation in Cameroon’. Environmental Conservation34 (1): 45–54.
13.
DietzT., SternP.C. and GuagnanoG.A.. 1998. ‘Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern’. Environment and Behavior30: 450–471.
14.
DunlapR.E. and Van LiereK.. 1978. The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education9: 10–19.
15.
DunlapR.E., Van LiereK., MertingA. and JonesR.E.. 2000. ‘Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale’. Journal of Social Issues3: 425–442.
16.
EbenreckS.1983. ‘A partnership farmland ethic’. Environmental Ethics5(1): 33–46.
17.
FabrigarL.R., WegenerD.T., MacCallumR.C. and StrahanE.J.. 1999. ‘Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research’. Psychological Methods4(3): 272–299.
18.
GuilfordJ.P.1936. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
19.
PaulJohnII.1989. ‘Peace With God the Creator, Peace With All of Creation. The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility’. Message for the celebration of The World Day of Peace, January 1, 1990 (http://conservation.catholic.org/ecologicalcrisis.htm).
20.
KahnP.H.Jr.2002. ‘Children's affiliations with nature: structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia’, in KahnP.H.Jr. and KellertS.R. (eds.), Children and Nature. Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press), pp. 93–116.
21.
LockwoodM.1999. ‘Humans valuing nature: synthesising insight from philosophy, psychology and economics’. Environmental Values8: 381–401.
22.
NęckiZ.2004. Formowanie się postaw wobec otoczenia – od niewiedzy do nazwy, in Ekologia społeczna – psychologiczne i środowiskowe uwarunkowania postaw. Preceedings of the Conference: Ekologia społeczna – psychologiczne i środowiskowe uwarunkowania postaw (Kraków, Poland: Stowarzyszenie Ekopsychologia).
23.
OlaczekR., 1996. Ochrona przyrody w Polsce. Warszawa: Liga Ochrony Przyrody.
24.
OlaczekR., 2000. Kilka dat z historii ochrony przyrody w Polsce. In: ZbiorowaPraca (eds.), Ochrona przyrody i srodowiska w Polsce oraz udzial w niej organizacji społecznych. Warszawa: Liga Ochrony Przyrody, pp. 49–56.
25.
OszlányiJ., GrodzińskaK., BadeaO. and ShparykY.. 2004. ‘Nature conservation in Central and Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the Carpathian Mountains’. Environmental Pollution130: 127–134.
26.
PassmoreJ.1974. Man's Responsibility for Nature. Ecological Problems and Western Tradition. London: Duckworth.
27.
RoschE.H. and MervisC.B.. 1975. ‘Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structures of categories’. Cognitive Psychology7: 573–605.
28.
RoschE.H., MervisC.B., GrayW.D., JohnsonD.M. and Boyes-BraemP.. 1976. ‘Basic objects in natural categories’. Cognitive Psychology8: 382–439.
29.
RyżakZ.1992. Postawy wobec środowiska. Kraków: Department of Psychology, Jagiellonian University.
30.
SchultzP.W. and ZeleznyL.. 1999. ‘Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries’. Journal of Environmental Psychology19: 255–265.
31.
SchultzP.W., ShriverC., TabanicoJ.J. and KhazianA.M.. 2004. ‘Implicit connections with nature’. Journal of Environmental Psychology24: 31–42.
32.
ThompsonS. and BartonM.. 1994. ‘Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment’. Journal of Environmental Psychology14: 149–157.
33.
Van den BergA.E., De VriesD.H. and VlekC.A. 2006. ‘Images of nature, environmental values, and landscape preference. exploring their interrelationships’, in Van den BornR.J., De GrootW.T. and LendersR.H. (eds.), Visions of Nature (Berlin: Lit Verlag), pp. 43–60.
34.
Van den BornR.J.G.2006. ‘Implicit philosophy: images of the relationship between humans and nature in Dutch population’, in Van den BornR.J., De GrootW.T. and LendersR.H. (eds.), Visions of Nature (Berlin: Lit Verlag), pp. 61–83.
35.
Van den BornR.J.G.2007. Thinking Nature. Everyday Philosophy of Nature in the Netherlands.Nijmegen, Radboud University Nijmegen. PhD thesis.
36.
Van den BornR.J.G.2008. ‘Rethinking nature: visions of nature of a Dutch public’. Environmental Values17: 83–109.
37.
Van den BornR.J., LendersR.H., De GrootW.T. and HuijsmanE.. 2001. ‘The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries’. Environmental Conservation28(1): 65–75.
38.
Van der WindtH.J., SwartJ.A.A. and KeulartzJ.. 2007. ‘Nature and landscape planning: Exploring the dynamics of valuation, the case of the Netherlands’. Landscape and Urban Planning79: 218–228.
39.
Van LiereK.D. and DunlapR.E.. 1980. ‘The social bases of environmental concern: A review on hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence’. Public Opinion Quarterly44: 181–197.
40.
WróblewskiZ.2004. ‘Człowiek i przyroda. Filozofia harmonii współistnienia’, in ChmielewskiT. (ed.), Nowa jakość krajobrazu: ekologia - kultura – technika (Zeszyty Naukowe Komitetu ‘Człowiek i Środowisko’ PAN 36), pp. 11–22.
41.
WróblewskiZ.2006. ‘Przyroda jako norma działania. O ontologicznych podstawach etyki ekologicznej’. ICF Diametros9, ISSN 1733-55566.
