Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Perspective Essay

Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships

and linkages to the ecosystem services concept
Courtney G. Flint a,∗ , Iris Kunze b , Andreas Muhar c , Yuki Yoshida d , Marianne Penker e
a
Department of Sociology, Social Work, & Anthropology, Utah State University, 0730 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, United States
b
Doctoral School of Sustainable Development, BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria
c
Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria
d
Global Diversity Foundation, United States
e
Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria

h i g h l i g h t s

• Positionality, character of bond, and understanding of nature are three dimensions of perceived human–nature relationships.
• Empirical human–nature relationship typologies are found in English and German, but not in Japanese language literature.
• The anthropocentric and utilitarian ecosystem services framework contrasts with the diversity of human–nature perceptions.
• Context-specific human–nature relationships can help operationalize the ecosystem service concept for planning processes.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The ways people relate to their environment are recognized as relevant to landscape sustainability efforts
Received 19 February 2013 and policies. Contemporary human–nature relationship concepts have historical and philosophical roots
Received in revised form 2 September 2013 and frame empirical explorations. An increasingly dominant paradigm guiding landscape assessment
Accepted 4 September 2013
and management is the notion of ecosystem services, describing benefits humans obtain from ecosys-
Available online 2 October 2013
tems. This paper reviews literature in multiple languages (English, German, and Japanese) on empirically
grounded types of human–nature relationships. The dominant dimensions used to differentiate various
Keywords:
types are highlighted, particularly those related to positionality of humans and nature with respect to each
Human–nature relationships
Ecosystem services
other, character of the bond between humans and nature, and perspectives on understanding of nature.
Landscape management Empirical explorations of human–nature relationships follow both deductive and inductive reasoning, use
Literature review both quantitative and qualitative methods, and reveal wide variation in typologies. Ecosystem services
Typologies as a theoretical concept is linked to dimensions of empirically grounded human–nature relationships
concepts. The ecosystem services concept is situated quite clearly in the nexus of anthropocentric and
utilitarian dimensions of human–nature relationships with notions of nature as separate from humans,
though more inclusion of cultural perspectives and intrinsic values are emerging. More explicit atten-
tion to broader, diverse interpretations from local stakeholders may inform the operationalization of the
ecosystem services concept for landscape planning processes. Context matters greatly, as people may
hold multiple, even competing perspectives on their relationship with or role in nature, and they may
change across different circumstances or time. Further research is needed to understand communication
and mobilization strategies for sustainable action within landscapes.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction resource management strategies. Concomitant with this landscape

The sustainability of landscapes and their natural and cultural
elements is increasingly the focus of environmental policies and
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 435 797 8635.
E-mail addresses: courtney.flint@usu.edu (C.G. Flint), iris.kunze@boku.ac.at
(I. Kunze), andreas.muhar@boku.ac.at (A. Muhar), yyoshida@alumni.middlebury.edu
(Y. Yoshida), marianne.penker@boku.ac.at (M. Penker).
emphasis has been a shift in natural resource management thinking
toward the notion that people within ecosystems should be inte-
grated into planning and management (Schroeder, 2007). In other
words, how people relate to the natural environment is increas-
ingly recognized as relevant to landscape sustainability efforts and
policies.
The ways in which people relate to and engage with the
natural environment are diverse and “embedded in daily life”
(MacNaughton & Urry, 1998, p. 2). While this heterogeneity is

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
philosophically and theoretically appreciated, more clarity is
needed to empirically understand the array of human–nature
relationships (HNR) and to assess their implications for environ-
mental actions in general and landscape-oriented activities more
specifically. Our literature review focuses on empirically grounded
human–nature relationship concepts, while recognizing key link-
ages to the realm of values, attitudes, concerns, and worldviews
dominating contemporary environmental literature (Schultz et al.,
2005). The empirical HNR concepts are also distinct from the
vast work on images of nature (Buijs, 2009; Thompson, Ellis, &
Wildavsky, 1990). We link our inquiry into empirically grounded
typologies of human–nature relationships with the contemporary
theoretical framework of ecosystem services to explore implica-
tions for resource management and landscape engagement.
Throughout Western history, various cultural perspectives on
human–nature relationships have dominated, from the pursuit
of mastery over nature in the quest to “tame” wild nature, to
notions of idealized or “Edenic” visions of nature, and the sense
of stewardship responsibilities guided by religious doctrine or
other ethical directions (Bourdeau, 2004; Simmons, 1993). The
history of these and other social constructions of nature over time
and their landscape or environmental management implications
are summarized elsewhere (c.f. Cronon, 1996; Glacken, 1967;
MacNaughton & Urry, 1998; Schama, 1995) and provide important
background for examining contemporary human–nature rela-
tionship perspectives. In these historical narratives about nature,
landscape and culture, there is a tendency to focus on shifts within
societies from one relationship with nature to another (White,
1967). Yet the question emerges, are various historical notions
of human–nature relationships represented among people in
contemporary society? And, what role do the various relationships
people may have with nature in general or in specific places play in
the actions of people and social groups (Gosling & Williams, 2010)?
We posit that not only are there multiple ways people relate to
nature, some of which harken back centuries, but that people
may hold multiple or even competing relationships and they
may change in dynamic ways across landscapes and time-space
contingencies.
Today, an increasingly dominant paradigm guiding global to
local decisions about managing human relationships with the envi-
ronment is the notion of Ecosystem Services (ES) that are described
as the benefits that humans directly or indirectly receive from
ecosystems (Dick, Smith, & Scott, 2011; MEA, 2003). The concept is
based on the framing of ecosystems as “service providers” of ben-
efits for the well-being of humans and society. This metaphor of
nature as a stock of benefits flowing toward humans was devel-
oped purposely to address a perceived “total lack of appreciation of
societal dependence upon natural ecosystems” (Daily, 1997, p. xv)
and to guide policy decision making and ecosystem management
(Daily et al., 2000). While the ecosystem services framework was
explicitly designed with the intention to mobilize conservation and
management to improve environmental conditions as well as land
management and to justify nature conservation (Ghazoul, 2007),
this concept has been applied and interpreted in multiple and often
contested ways. ES is a concept to quantify the value of ecosystems
for human use or at least to raise awareness of their economic value
(Braat & de Groot, 2012; Costanza et al., 1997). It is not clear from
extant literature how this concept fits with other perspectives on
human–nature relationships available in contemporary empirical
literature. In this paper, we review literature in multiple languages
on HNR typologies derived from empirical research and assess the
dominant dimensions differentiating their various types. We situ-
ate the ES concept within this array of HNR typologies and initiate
discussion of the application of HNR research toward mobilization
or engagement of citizenry in landscape sustainability or manage-
ment efforts.
209
2. Review of contemporary human–nature relationship
typologies
2.1. Scope and methods
The literature on HNR covers a spectrum from highly philo-
sophical and ethical perspectives to more empirically oriented
social scientific investigations based on primary data collection
with individuals or on discourse analysis of policies or other
archives. We distinguish our review of empirical exploration
of individual citizens’ perspectives from scientific theories of
human–environmental systems (c.f. Scholz & Brand, 2011) or man-
agement oriented frameworks and metaphors (c.f. Raymond et al.,
2013). For our review of the literature, we included works in which
empirical research with primary data (e.g. from interviews, sur-
veys, focus groups, or policy and news documents) were analyzed
and organized into distinct categories of human–nature relation-
ship typologies. Furthermore, we were interested in the dimensions
used or discussed in analyzing the empirical data and differen-
tiating the types. Previously published literature overviews on
human–nature relationship typologies (c.f. van den Born, 2007)
focused on congruencies between typologies but did not specifi-
cally compare such analytical dimensions.
Works from academic literatures written in three languages
were included: English, German, and Japanese. These languages are
spoken by members of our research team and allow for inclusion
of perspectives across English speaking countries, Central Europe,
and a portion of East Asia. Research from these regions and beyond
is often published in international English language journals; how-
ever, HNR seems to be a field where publication in the respective
local language is still quite common. In other words, while this
inquiry was not intended to be a cross-cultural comparison per se,
the inclusion of work written in multiple languages allows for a
broader exploration than might otherwise be the case with works
in just one language. The literature search was guided by both key-
word and citation searches using databases of scholarly literature
in the three languages. Online databases such as Scopus or Web of
Science were helpful, but classical library catalog search and per-
sonal referral by colleagues and experts were also necessary, as a
significant part of the research had been published in books, often
with low circulation and not included in electronic databases. We
included works by the same authors as long as the pieces were
based on different empirical contexts or data sources. The ultimate
listing of 19 works discussed below is not meant to be exhaustive
as there is no way to ensure complete coverage of this topic.
We selected empirical works where nature is understood as nat-
ural environment and where the explicit focus is on relationship
between humans and nature rather than on perceptions, images,
or values of nature. Hence we sought to exclude literature from the
non-empirical philosophical and environmental ethics domains,
religious traditions, and environmental social science on values,
attitudes and worldviews that did not explicitly articulate typolo-
gies of human–nature relationships. However, these terms are
blurry (see Fig. 1), and there is overlap in terminology that compli-
cated the inquiry. It is symptomatic that one of the most frequently
cited typologies of human–nature relationship concepts (Kellert,
1996) actually uses the term “values” to describe the types. We also
sought to exclude prescriptive notions of what human–nature rela-
tionships should be, including notions of preferred landscapes that
may be part of national identity or ideology. Theoretical approaches
from developmental psychology in Germany and the US were also
excluded for this reason (e.g. Esbjörn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009;
Hoff, 1999). However, there is often a certain normative orien-
tation to this domain and it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to
isolate purely empirical inquiry from mission-oriented perspec-
tives. There is also a very close connection between concepts of
210 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
Fig. 1. Domains of literature around HNR concepts.
nature and concepts of the human–nature relationship. While our
review focused on the latter, it is clear that these two aspects are
closely intertwined, as a person’s view of their own role in the inter-
action between society and nature is often related to their particular
understanding of nature (Buijs, Fischer, Rink, & Young, 2008).
2.2. Findings from the literature review
2.2.1. Overview
Our literature review was a circuitous path through hundreds
of journal articles and book chapters. On the basis of the criteria
mentioned above, we ultimately selected nineteen pieces repre-
senting empirically grounded typologies. These typologies either
resulted from surveys and interviews with structured question-
naires involving sets of predefined statements on human–nature
relationships generally derived from literature (ten papers), or
more qualitative, inductive explorations of emergent typologies
through semi-structured interviews, focus groups or document
analysis (seven papers). In two cases, a combination of inductive
and deductive processes was simultaneously employed and dis-
cussed.
These empirically derived research works were found in English
and German language sources. In contrast, the Japanese language
literature did not yield empirically derived typologies. Therefore,
we did not include the Japanese literature in the analysis but have
added a brief excursus on notable findings on human–nature rela-
tions as discussed in Japanese language articles.
2.2.2. Categorizing the main literature pieces
Typologies of human–nature relationship found in the litera-
ture draw upon a diverse array of highly descriptive theoretical
and philosophical foundations (c.f. Barbour, 1980; Passmore, 1974;
Zweers, 2000) as well as large bodies of social scientific litera-
ture in the realm of environmental values, attitudes, and behaviors
(c.f. Dunlap, van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Schultz et al., 2005;
Thompson & Barton, 1994; Xu & Bengston, 1997). The more deduc-
tive approaches take frameworks from these previous theoretical
works, operationalize them, and apply them in the pursuit of under-
standing contemporary human–nature relationships. The more
inductive approaches derive HNR types by clustering results of
either quantitative survey data or qualitative interviews. Quan-
titative surveys asked attitudinal or experience-based questions.
For example, respondents were asked about their moral stand-
point on whether humans should interfere with nature, whether
they like animals or sitting under a tree, and if economic devel-
opment is more important than nature (e.g. Kleinhückelkotten &
Nietzke, 2010). Other inductive qualitative studies derive typolo-
gies from interviews by interpreting and clustering similar issues
(Berghöfer, Rozzi, & Jax, 2008; Fischer & Young, 2007; Meske,
2011). In these more qualitative pieces, emphasis was placed upon
exploring emergent dimensions regarding particular places and
issues. We also included two examples of human–nature relation-
ship typologies from media and policy document analysis (Gill,
2003; Osherenko, 1992) to highlight the value of existing docu-
mentation in addition to direct research with stakeholders. Quite
a few of the typologies represented in our review were generated
from specific projects or local contexts, while others represented
human–nature relationship concepts from the general public of
various countries. Two pieces of literature focused on perspectives
of children (Bögeholz, 1999, 2001, 2006; Meske, 2011).
Table 1 shows the resulting nineteen pieces of literature we
have chosen to highlight human–nature relationship typologies
from English and German language sources. We make no claim
that our search was exhaustive and encourage further exploration
and discussion of human–nature relationships. For each study, the
table includes the context, analytical method, whether the mode
of reasoning was deductive, inductive or both, dimensions articu-
lated as influencing the resulting categories or types, and resulting
typology.
2.2.3. Analytical dimensions
We were initially drawn to human–nature relationship typolo-
gies oriented around anthropocentric-ecocentric perspectives
(Dunlap et al., 2000; Thompson & Barton, 1994) and instrumental-
intrinsic value dimensions (Xu & Bengston, 1997), which have been
common themes in recent decades of environmental discourse.
However, through our quest it became apparent that there are
many other dimensions of human–nature relationships differen-
tiating people within local and national societies. For each piece of
literature, we noted the dimensions authors used to differentiate
categories within their typologies. We interpreted this full array
of dimensions as falling within three distinct domains. As shown
in Table 2, we organized the dimensions of human–nature rela-
tionships under these three domain headings and indicated the
associated pieces of literature. The discussion below is organized
around the analytical dimensions and highlights a few representa-
tive typologies and how they relate to each other.
The first domain of dimensions falls under the heading of posi-
tionality which includes the anthropocentric-ecocentric polarity,
the hierarchical relation of humans above nature or vice versa,
and the notion of humans as part of or separate from nature. The
second domain of dimensions, character of bond, covers a vari-
ety of dimensions including the intentions underlying humans’
interaction with nature, biophilia vs biophobia, responsibilities
for nature and rights of nature, preferred roles of technology in
nature, spirituality or religiosity, instrumental to intrinsic val-
ues, and a gradient from connectedness (also termed belonging,
sense of home, authenticity, identification, relatedness, and root-
edness) to apathy which refers to a distance from or lack of
attention to nature. This last dimension of connection and apa-
thy has some similarities to the dimension of separation from
nature in the first domain, but is more an indicator of affinity or
attachment to nature rather than a cognitive or perceived struc-
tural differentiation of humans and nature as separate or not. We
term the third domain of HNR dimensions understanding of nature
to include dimensions related to notions of nature as fragile or
resilient, the predictability of nature and modes of learning (includ-
ing experiential and scientific learning). This domain fringes on
images of nature, but contains only those aspects that address
how these images are associated with HNR categories. Addition-
ally, certain characteristics from different analytical dimensions
are closely correlated. For example, an emotional bond between
humans and nature is often correlated with the understanding
of man being a part of nature; however, the understanding of
man standing above nature can lead to either a justification for a
 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217 211

Table 1
Empirical studies on human–nature relationships with dimensions and typologies.

Code Publication Context and analysis D/Ia Dimensions Typology

A Kleinhückelkotten and Survey (N = 2015), D/I Positionality Master of nature

Nietzke (2010) Germany, Factor A/E Partner of nature
(German) Analysis H/N above Nature is superior
Part of/separate from
Character of bond Conservation Oriented
Importance of Nature Unconcerned
Responsibilities/Rights Nature Connected
Role of Technology Use Oriented
Instrumental/Intrinsic Uninterested
Connectedness/Apathy Distanced
Understanding
Fragility/resilience

B de Groot and van den
Born (2003) (English)
Survey (N = 172), Netherlands, Factor Analysis D Positionality Man the adventurer and exploiter
of nature
A/E Man responsible for nature
Character of bond Man the participant in nature
Instrumental/intrinsic

C van den Born (2006)
(English)
Survey (N = 913), Netherlands, Factor Analysis D Positionality Master over nature
A/E Steward of nature
Part of/separate from Active partner with nature
Character of bond Romantic partner with nature
Spirituality Participant in nature
Instrumental/intrinsic

D de Groot and de Groot
(2009) (English)
Interviews (N = 12) & Surveys (N = 423), D Positionality
Netherlands, Qualitative Analysis, Factor A/E
Analysis, Regression H/N above
Character of bond
Instrumental/intrinsic
Master over nature
Guardianship of nature
Companionship with nature
Participant in nature

E de Groot, Drenthen, Survey, France (N = 483), Netherlands (N = 614) D Positionality Master

and de Groot (2011) Germany (N = 714), Factor Analysis A/E Guardian
(English) H/N above Partner
Character of bond Participant
Spirituality
Instrumental/intrinsic

F Hunka, de Groot and
Biela (2009)
Survey (N = 179) & Interviews (N = 26), Poland, D Positionality Conqueror of nature
Factor Analysis, Qualitative Analysis A/E Steward of nature
Character of bond Spiritual participant in nature
Importance of nature
Instrumental/intrinsic
Connectedness/apathy

G Bauer et al. (2009) Surveys (N = 1536), Switzerland, Cluster D Positionality
(English) Analysis A/E
Character of bond
Biophilia/biophobia
Connectedness/apathy
Nature-connected users
Nature-sympathizers
Nature controllers
Nature lovers

H Zheng and Yoshino
(2003) (English)
Surveys, Japan, US, Europe, Cohort & D Character of bond Man must follow nature
Correspondence Analysis, Frequencies Intention of action Man must make use of nature
Biophilia/biophobia Man must conquer nature
Responsibility/rights
Role of technology
Instrumental/intrinsic

I Kellert (1980, 1996) Multiple surveys, US, Descriptive Statistics D Character of bond Utilitarian
(English) Importance of nature Naturalistic
Biophilia/biophobia Ecologistic-scientific
Connectedness/apathy Esthetic
Symbolic
Humanistic
Moralistic
Dominionistic
Negativistic
Neutralistic

J Teel and Manfredo Survey, US, Factor Analysis, Cross-tabs D Positionality Traditionalist (Mastery)
(2010) (English) H/N above Pluralist (domination + mutualism)
Character of bond Mutualist (egalitarian)
Connectedness/apathy Distanced

K Bögeholz (1999, 2001), Surveys with Children (N = 1243), Germany, D/I Character of bond Esthetic
(German) 2006 Frequencies, Regression Intention of action Social
(English) Instrumental/intrinsic Instrumental-scientific
Understanding Ecological-scientific
Mode of learning (investigative)
212 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217

Table 1 (Continued )

Code Publication Context and analysis D/Ia Dimensions Typology

L van den Born (2008) Interviews (N = 31), Netherlands, Qualitative D/I Positionality Master over nature
(English) Analysis H/N above Partner with nature
Part of/separate from Steward of nature
Character of bond Participant in Nature
Responsibility/rights
Spirituality
Instrumental/intrinsic

M van den Born and de Interviews (N = 30), Netherlands, Qualitative D/I Positionality Master over nature
Groot (2009) (English) Analysis A/E Steward of nature, partner with
nature
Character of bond Participant in nature
Role of technology
Instrumental/intrinsic
Connectedness/apathy

N Meske (2011) Interviews with Children (N = 60), Germany, I Positionality
(German) Qualitative Analysis A/E
Part of/separate from
Understanding
Fragility/resilience
Biocentric nature conservists
Nonreflected nature unionists
Unsure esthets
Family affected heritage of nature
perception
Media oriented nature-dissociates

O Gill (2003) (German) Discourse analysis, German and UK media and I Positionality Identity discourse
politics Part of/separate from Utilitarian discourse
Character of bond Alternative discourse
Role of technology
Spirituality
Instrumental/intrinsic
Connectedness/apathy
Understanding
Predictability

P Berghöfer et al. (2008)
(English)
Participant observation, Interviews (N = 67), I Character of bond
Focus Groups, Cape Horn Region, Qualitative
Analysis Instrumental/intrinsic
Connectedness/apathy
Understanding
Mode of learning
Embedded relationship with
nature
Cultivating relationship
Changing relationship
Resource-use relationship
Intellectual relationship
No direct relationship
Esthetic relationship

Q Fischer and Young
(2007) (English)
Focus Groups (8, N = 43), Scotland, Qualitative I Positionality Humans as potential enemies of
Analysis nature
Part of/separate from Humans as users of nature
Character of bond Humans as active managers of
nature
Responsibility/rights
Understanding
Fragility/resilience

R Osherenko (1992) Arctic policy review I Positionality Conquest and colonization

(English) H/N above Balanced development
Part of/separate from Sustainable development
Rational ecology
Ecofeminism
Indigenous perspectives

S Buijs et al. (2008) Focus Groups (19, N = 95), Netherlands, I Positionality Humans as part of nature
(English) Scotland, Germany, Qualitative Analysis Part of/separate from . . .as participants in nature
. . .as responsible managers
Humans as separate from nature
. . .as stewards
. . .as enemies
. . .as users and engineers
a
D/I refers to deductive, inductive or both as modes of reasoning in reviewed papers.
A/E refers to anthropocentric and ecocentric.
H/N refers to humans or nature positioned above the other.

mastership and domination over nature or to a sense of moral obli-
gation to protect nature.
The literature following more deductive or quantitative
approaches to research consistently used factor analysis of sur-
vey data to assess clusters of statements about humans and nature
which tended to emphasize positionality dimensions. Specifically,
anthropocentric-ecocentric distinctions between human needs or
those of nature and the hierarchical positions of humans over or
dominating nature (or vice versa) were prominent. Of the character
of the bond dimensions, connectedness (or apathy) and instru-
mental versus intrinsic values were highlighted multiple times.
The more qualitative pieces of work, including those that were
theoretically framed with an established typology but sought a
more inductive approach to evaluation, covered a wide variety of
 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
Table 2
Human–nature relationship dimensions and frequencies in the 19 works analyzed
(see Table 1).
Dimensions of human–nature relationships Total number of papers
articulating dimension(s)
Positionality dimensions 15
Anthropocentric/ecocentric 9 and vulnerability to nature. Terada (1948) described the notion
Humans/nature above 7
Humans part of/separate from nature 9
Character of bond dimensions 16
Intention of action 2
Biophilia/biophobia 3
Responsibility/rights 4 tiful and gentle, yet extremely treacherous at other times. Such
Role of technology 4 notions of connectedness, rootedness or embeddedness was found
Spirituality 4 elsewhere in Japanese descriptions of human–nature relationships
Instrumental/intrinsic 11
Connectedness/apathy 8
Understanding of nature dimensions 6 Japanese appreciation of a traditional cultural landscape embody-
Mode of learning 2
Fragility/resilience 3
Predictability of nature 1 responsibilities and rights is addressed in discussions of the need to
dimensions. The most dominant theme in the qualitatively oriented
literature was that of humans being part of or separate from nature.
It should be noted that a number of the literature pieces cited in
Table 1 are connected to each other. Literature codes B-F and L-M
are from a group of Dutch researchers around Wouter de Groot who
richly explored in the Netherlands and other European countries
what they refer to as Visions of Nature, which includes values of
nature and landscape preferences as well as images people have of
human–nature relationships. Their typologies have evolved over
time and investigations utilized variations on the same set of state-
ments known as the Humans and Nature Scale (de Groot & van den
Born, 2003). This work has generally come to emphasize a 4-part
typology along a spectrum from human dominance over nature
(Master) to a sense of spiritual oneness of humans and nature (Par-
ticipant). Between these two extremes lie two additional types. In
one, humans are seen as standing above nature but responsible
for its care (Steward). In the other, humans and nature are seen as
equals that mutually benefit each other (Partner). In many of these
empirical studies from the Visions of Nature group, no statistical dif-
ference was found between measures of Steward and Partner types.
Two additional typologies were also related. Stephen Kellert’s
(1996) Values of Nature typology was used as a conceptual frame-
work for Bauer, Wallner and Hunziker’s (2009) interpretation of
attitudes toward rewilding in Switzerland. Interestingly, Kellert’s
original typology from 1980 included a “neutralistic” type which
was excluded in subsequent works. In Bauer et al.’s (2009, p. 2918)
analysis, they discovered in addition to anthropocentric and eco-
centric orientations a group of nature sympathizers which they
claimed were “environmentally less concerned.” This group was
close to the apathetic type found by Thompson and Barton (1994)
and supported Kellert’s (1980) earlier work. The rich qualitative
pieces exploring human–nature relationships arrived at typologies
with little resemblance to others in terminology, but that reveal
commonalities in dimensions.
2.2.4. Excursus on Japanese literature
In the reviewed Japanese literature we did not find explic-
itly articulated typologies of HNR from empirical investigations.
However, we describe a few interesting findings that emerged
from this exploration to illustrate the potential for further cross-
cultural comparisons in the future. Strong parallels can be seen
in Japanese language literature with the dimensions found in the
English and German language literatures, such as in comparisons
of traditional, ecocentric views in Japan and the anthropocen-
tric views of the modern west (e.g. Masaki, 1996). The notion
213
of humans as separate from nature was found to be mostly
absent from the Japanese HNR. Rather, according to the Buddhist
philosophy, humans and nature are seen as inseparable (Takemura,
2008), and originally there actually was not a term for “nature” in
the Japanese language (Watanabe, 2003). In terms of hierarchical
position, emphasis was often placed on human reliance on nature
of nature as a beneficent mother cradling humans, but also as a
strong, stern father. Yoshida (2011) further observed that rever-
ence for nature did not come from theoretical contemplation, but
from intimate interaction with a natural environment usually beau-
(Ou, 2005; Tada, 2003), including the notion of satoyama which as
a combination of village (sato) and mountain (yama) stresses the
ing harmony of man and nature (Takeuchi, 2003). The notion of
collaborate with nature, as well as of caretaking as a prerequisite for
receiving benefits (Terada, 1948; Yuhki, 2008). Spirituality is also
found as a dimension within Japanese discussions of human–nature
relationships, with references to nature as “God (Kami)” (Yuhki,
2008). In contrast to the western view of nature as a manifestation
of a supernatural God, the life force of nature is viewed as coming
from nature itself (Yoshida, 2011).
Japanese scholars contemplate the implications of relationship
to nature. For example, Hatakenaka (2003) reflects on Japan’s his-
tory of rampant environmental destruction and cautions against
“Japanese eco-nationalism,” whereby eastern ideologies regarding
nature are viewed as the solution to today’s environmental prob-
lems. Others question whether the sense of unity with nature has
allowed oblivion to its destruction and an absence of the initiative
to control the destruction of a nature seen as a machine (Masaki,
1996; Nobuo, 2000).
This brief analysis of Japanese literature shows cultural causes
for the differences between HNR concepts. It could further be
expanded to indigenous notions of human–nature relationships
worldwide, which often view both humans and nature as part
of an “extended ecological family” that shares ancestry and ori-
gins (Berkes, 2008; Salmon, 2000). Authors in this discourse have
pointed to a need to reconcile conflicting cultural HNR concepts in
order to address today’s environmental issues (Hosokawa, 2005;
Masaki, 1996). In the following sections we focus on Western cul-
tural concepts and contexts of landscape planning.
3. Ecosystem services as a human–nature relationship
concept?
The focal question here is, whether the Ecosystem Services con-
cept can be seen as a kind of HNR concept, and how it relates to
the existing HNR concepts and dimensions described above. Sur-
prisingly, we could not find any explicit discussion of ES as a type
or kind of HNR as understood in the reviewed literature. In the
following section we scan the literature for connections between
the ES concept and aspects of HNR dimensions and categories to
explore the extent to which the ES concept operates from HNR
types.
3.1. Reference publications for the ES concept
There is not a single authoritative document defining the ES con-
cept that we could relate our discussion too. As described in detail
by Braat and de Groot (2012), and Gómez-Baggethun and de Groot
(2010), the concept evolved over a period of about two decades with
214 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
a number of differently worded, though largely overlapping defini-
tions. Now established as a mainstream framework, the volume of
publications referring to ES is growing at an exponential rate
(Hubacek & Kronenberg, 2013). While publications such as
Gretchen Daily’s book Nature’s Services (Daily, 1997) prepared the
ground for the diffusion of the ES concept, there were two major
collaborative processes that boosted its popularity and recogni-
tion, namely the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) under
the umbrella of the United Nations and The Economics of Ecosys-
tems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project initiated by various European
organizations in cooperation with the United Nations Environ-
mental Program (UNEP). Both processes involved a large number
of researchers and resulted in numerous publications targeting
a wide range of different readerships. Therefore, central pub-
lications from these processes (MEA, 2003, 2005; TEEB, 2010)
can be regarded as reference points for the discussion of the ES
concept.
3.2. Reflections in literature
Most definitions refer to ecosystem services as the “benefits
people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA, 2005). However, it should
be noted that the ES framework originates from an academic or
scientific vantage point, rather than as an articulation of how
people in societies view their relationship with nature. The clear-
est parallel between the ES concept and the HNR dimensions as
perceived by stakeholders relates to the notion of positionality. With
its focus on benefits for people or human well-being, it has been
said that the ES framework is based on an assumption of human
separateness from nature (McKibben, 1989; Rees, 1998) or of
human activities as external disturbances rather than participants
in ecosystems (O’Neill, 2001; Sagoff, 2011). Yet the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005, p. 3) explicitly stated, “Humans are
an integral part of ecosystems,” indicating differences of opinion
in the positionality dimension of the ES concept. Some commen-
tators point at its strong focus on monetization and market-based
approaches to motivating conservation behavior (Chan, Satterfield
& Goldstein, 2012; Gómez-Baggethun, de Groot, Lomas, & Montes,
2010; McCauley, 2006), which leads this framework to emphasize
more utilitarian and anthropocentric perspectives of what people
“get” from nature (Polasky & Segerson, 2009; Raymond et al., 2013).
Regarding the character of the bond dimension, the ES lit-
erature focuses strongly on valuation and commodification of
nature (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010). The movement toward
payment for ecosystem services as a policy strategy for natural
resource management and conservation raises questions about
the appropriateness of valuation procedures reducing interactions
with nature to monetary terms (Kinzig et al., 2011; Kosoy &
Corbera, 2010; van Hecken & Bastiaensen, 2010). While Polasky and
Segerson (2009) are more optimistic about the capacity for collab-
oration among different perspectives within the context of ES, they
acknowledge the potential for irreconcilable differences between
ecologists prioritizing intrinsic values of nature and economists
focused on maximizing social well-being. Farley (2012) refers to
the debate between “weak” and “strong” sustainability disputing if
natural and human made capital can be seen as substitutable.
Regarding the understanding of nature dimensions, critics have
also raised concern about what they see as a common assumption
in the ES paradigm that nature is benign (Redford & Adams, 2009)
or benevolent in that it “provides us with useful services and pro-
tects us from malevolent abiotic forces such as hurricanes, floods
and rising temperatures” (McCauley, 2006, p. 27). In this sense,
these observers claim that the ES paradigm is not conceptually ori-
ented to allow for perspectives about controlling natural elements
which have negative or neutral implications for human well-being
(McCauley, 2006).
The ES focus on single-scales or dimensions at a time for val-
uation, research and policy is quite different from alternative,
holistic views of complex interrelationships of humans within
ecosystems (Raymond et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2003). Reflec-
tion on the ES concept and proposed strategies for developing a
common framework for assessment and valuation mainly focus
on biophysical data and formally educated experts (e.g. Busch,
la Notte, Laporte, & Erhard, 2012; de Groot, Wilson, & Boumans,
2002; Dick et al., 2011; MEA, 2003; TEEB, 2010). Concepts about
human well-being remain abstract, general, and static and projects
often involve people and their actual values very late in the pro-
cess. The constructivist debate is not yet well integrated into ES
research (Menzel & Teng, 2010). Furthermore, the ES concept has
been criticized as disregarding complex ecological understanding
(Norgaard, 2010), insufficiently addressing multi-scale interactions
and tradeoffs (Ghazoul, 2007; Hein, van Koppen, de Groot, & van
Ierl, 2006), and overly relying on standardization and valuation
(Gatto & Leo, 2000; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010). The economically ori-
ented ES framework is seen by some to exclude perspectives of
nature as having intrinsic value and of conservation as a moral
imperative detached from human wellbeing (McCauley, 2006). This
critique by McCauley refers to the practical application of the ES. In
theory, the MEA (2003) states that ecosystems also have an intrinsic
value:
“The conceptual framework for the MEA places human well-
being as the central focus for assessment, while recognizing that
biodiversity and ecosystems also have intrinsic value and that
people take decisions concerning ecosystems based on consid-
erations of well-being as well as intrinsic value” (MEA, 2003,
p. 5).
What this literature about ecosystem services hardly discusses
is how its position along certain HNR dimensions resonates with
non-scientific or non-academic stakeholders and decision-makers.
Menzel and Teng (2010) appeal that ES research should include the
human dimensions such as values and needs, particularly of local
users, to motivate the public and to achieve a higher acceptance
and quality of decisions. They argue that the ES concept as it is
used today can inhibit communication.
The mixed interpretations of the ES framework suggest poten-
tial tension over the compatibility of this approach to conservation
and sustainable resource management with the diverse ways in
which people relate to nature. Tuvendal and Elmqvist (2011) and
Hein et al. (2006) highlight the potential difficulty in valuating
ecosystem goods and services across groups with differing world-
views or at multiple scales resulting in varying interpretations of
the appropriate management strategies and policies. “Value” is a
concept discussed in detail in the ES community (e.g. Chan et al.,
2012; Farber, Costanza, & Wilson, 2002; TEEB, 2010). The ES frame-
work implicitly operates from a user or utilitarian perspective (e.g.
Braat & de Groot, 2012) or that of an active beneficiary, but there is
little explicit discussion or reflection on the theoretical implications
of this emphasis (McCauley, 2006) in comparison to the diversity
and quantity of application oriented papers (Lamarque, Quétier,
& Lavorel, 2011). Relating ecosystem services to human–nature
relationship typologies and dimensions reviewed above, it seems
that the predominant articulation of ES fits in the nexus of anthro-
pocentrism, utilitarianism, and notions of nature as separate from
humans. This emphasis is clearer in research and practice which
focuses on standardizing and monetizing values or benefits of
nature. While the dimension of cultural ecosystem services the-
oretically allows for inclusion of non-material ways in which
people benefit from nature, these elements have often been ignored
(Daniel et al., 2012; Jax et al., 2013). On the other hand, however,
some authors point to the potential of the broader ES framework
to include cultural and intrinsic motivations for conservation (Chan
 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
et al., 2012; Daniel et al., 2012; Farley, 2012; Gómez-Baggethun &
de Groot, 2010; Plieninger, Dijks, Oteros-Rozas, & Bieling, 2013;
Schaich, Bieling, & Plieninger, 2010).
4. Conclusions for landscape planning processes
4.1. HNR can help to set ES in perspective
We conclude that there are several reasons why the ES con-
cept cannot be easily identified as a specific type of HNR. While
the ES concept ambitiously attempts to integrate different values
and hence aspects of HNR (e.g. resource use and cultural values of
nature), the empirical works on HNR types suggest possible con-
tradictions within the overarching ES framework that cannot be
simultaneously or easily met.
This situation remains unclear. It may be that the ES concept is
contradictory and interpreted differently by authors according to
their (disciplinary) perspectives and interests. In other words, con-
sensus on how or where the ES concepts lies in terms of human
relationships with nature has not yet been established in the ES
community. The question of whether there is a chance that the
ES concept could indeed provide a framework to integrate differ-
ent HNR concepts into a common understanding of how humans
(and the economy) interact with nature is still unanswered. To
achieve such a unifying framework, the reviewed literature sug-
gests making implicit norms more explicit as well as thinking
beyond existing paradigms about ecosystems and human–nature
relationships.
On one hand, there may be a conceptual problem on the side
of the empirically based HNR typologies we reviewed. Many
attempted to categorize HNR by asking individuals about atti-
tudes and intentions of immediate action in a concrete context.
However, ES operates on societal, political and ecosystem levels
rather than on an individual level. On the other hand, these
empirical papers on HNR at the individual level are rooted in
philosophical commentary on societal relations with nature. The
individual-focused inquiry may thus be applicable to broader
social processes. Likewise, the ecosystem services concept is
increasingly applied in specific contexts, and assessments incor-
porate local and individual perspectives on benefits or services
received from natural processes. Despite differences between
individual and structural perspectives in the literature, we recom-
mend that research findings from HNR studies be used to better
understand different perspectives through which the ES concept is
operationalized.
4.2. Context matters
The literature strongly suggests that HNR and ES relationships
are contextual and that the landscape setting and the individual
role of the human have impacts (Biel & Nilsson, 2005; Daugstad,
Svarstad, & Vistad, 2006; Norgaard, 2010; Schroeder, 2007). In their
study of national park management in Norway, Daugstad et al.
(2006) highlighted how the nuances of local debate and conflict res-
olution were more illustrative of the social constructions of nature
within resource management than traditional stereotypes repre-
senting polarization. Peoples’ perspectives on their relationship
with or role in nature also seem to change over time (Schroeder,
2007; Skår, 2010) and people are likely to hold multiple, and even
competing HNR concepts (Teel & Manfredo, 2010; van den Born,
2007). As van den Born (2008, p. 103) found, people tend to feel
part of nature and responsible for nature at the same time. Along
these lines, Schroeder (2007) also wrote,
“There is no a priori reason to assume that these different ways
of experiencing the human and natural aspects of places are
215
mutually exclusive. The same person might experience them
all in different places at different times, or perhaps even in the
same place at the same time” (pp. 294–295).
An individual’s HNR concept in a particular context might
be quite different at a later time or under other circumstances.
As a consequence, we consider it crucial for landscape related
management, planning, and governance processes to investigate
stakeholders’ HNR concepts in their relevant locational and social
contexts, and to communicate and discuss with the community the
opportunities and challenges of having a plurality of HNR concepts
represented in such a process (Raymond et al., 2013). We also have
to acknowledge that HNR are not always recognized or important at
all to some people (Chan et al., 2012), as is indicated by our finding
of typologies including apathetic or disconnected notions.
The consideration of the participants’ HNR concepts can then
eventually help to better operationalize the ES concept in a
planning process, e.g. when selecting a suitable contextual defi-
nition and classification of services (see Costanza, 2008; Wallace,
2007), clarifying and respecting various values, or identifying
possible conflicts and trade-offs (Jax et al., 2013). The discussion
of diverging HNRs within local communities can socially ground
ecosystem service assessments, so that resulting management
decisions will not only be backed up with scientific rationality but
hopefully also with relevance, legitimacy and credibility (Potschin
& Haines-Young, 2013).
4.3. More empirical exploration of these relationships is needed
The above two sections indicate that ecosystem services may
cover only partial aspects of the broad human–nature relationship
spectrum and that individuals may hold multiple HNR concepts in
different contexts. On the one hand, this multiplicity and context-
specificity pose a considerable challenge for empirical research. On
the other hand, new implications for mobilization and engagement
strategies in landscape management might emerge. There are a few
key implications of our review for both research and practical use.
More context-sensitivity is needed in future empirical human–
nature relationship research. None of the analyzed research was a
repetitive study where the same people were interviewed at differ-
ent points of time or in different situations. Furthermore, empirical
and experimental research is needed to better understand how
contextual clues can activate particular human–nature relation-
ship concepts that encourage engagement in sustainable landscape
activities. We advocate a mixed methods approach, incorporating
elements of both deductive and inductive reasoning into research
designs in order to capture unique human–nature relationships
and dimensions while also making possible systematic comparison
and generalizations across populations.
Additionally, in our review, we found little empirically based
research on the link between human–nature relationships and
landscape management and none on the role of activation or how
HNRs catalyze behavior. Before we have a better understanding of
these interconnections, landscape and natural resource managers
might be advised to be aware that the ES concept dominating con-
temporary environmental management policy and practice may
only cover a narrow segment of the broad human–nature relation-
ship spectrum. Research on pro-environmental behavior strongly
suggests that a utilitarian framing of landscape engagement as
is often done with the ES concept could crowd out more affec-
tive, moralistic, intrinsic or social motivations and thus impede
broader and/or longer landscape commitment (Banerjee & Shogren,
2012; Gosling & Williams, 2010). Their review together with
our positioning of the ES concept along different HNR dimen-
sions provide indications that communication and mobilization
strategies going beyond a narrow utilitarian ES perspective may
216 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
help activate broader motivations to better support members,
donors, volunteers or voters to engage in the sustainability of their
landscapes.
Acknowledgements
The authors from Austria participated in this publication pro-
cess in the context of the BOKU Doctoral School of Sustainable
Development (dokNE), jointly funded by BOKU University of Nat-
ural Resources and Life Sciences, the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Science and Research, the Federal Provinces of Vienna and Lower
Austria, the Eco-Social Forum Vienna and BILLA. The authors from
the United States were supported by funds from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Office of International Programs in
the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences
and the European Union Center where two of the authors were
affiliated when the research was conducted.
References
Banerjee, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2012). Material interests, moral reputation, and crowd-
ing out species protection on private land. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 63(1), 137–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.05.008
Barbour, I. G. (1980). Technology, environment and human values. New York: Praeger.
Bauer, N., Wallner, A., & Hunziker, M. (2009). The change of European land-
scapes – Human–nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding,
and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. Journal
of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2910–2920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2008.01.021
Berghöfer, U., Rozzi, R., & Jax, K. (2008). Local versus global knowledge – Diverse per-
spectives on nature in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Ethics,
30(3), 273–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200830333
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred ecology. New York: Routledge.
Biel, A., & Nilsson, A. (2005). Religious values and environmental concern – Harmony
and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 178–191. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00297.x
Bögeholz, S. (1999). (Qualities of childhood nature experiences and their relationship
with environmental knowledge and action) Qualitäten primärer Naturerfahrung
und ihr Zusammenhang mit Umweltwissen und Umwelthandeln. Opladen:
Leske + Budrich.
Bögeholz, S. (2001). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von “empirischen” Natur-
erfahrungstypen in der Umweltbildung. In G. D. Haan, E.-D. Lantermann, V.
Linneweber, & F. Reusswig (Eds.), Typenbildung in der sozialwissenschaftlichen
Umweltforschung (pp. 243–259). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Bögeholz, S. (2006). Nature experience and its importance for environmen-
tal knowledge, values and action – Recent German empirical contributions.
Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 65–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13504620500526529
Bourdeau, P. (2004). The man−nature relationship and environmental ethics.
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 72(1–2), 9–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/s0265-931x(03)00180-2
Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda – Bridging
the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development,
and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011
Buijs, A. E. (2009). Lay people’s images of nature: Comprehensive frameworks of val-
ues, beliefs, and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 417–432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920801901335
Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Rink, D., & Young, J. C. (2008). Looking beyond
superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodi-
versity. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 4, 65–80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3843/Biodiv.4.2:1
Busch, M., La Notte, A., Laporte, V., & Erhard, M. (2012). Potentials of quantitative and
qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 21,
89–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.010
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services
to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74(0), 8–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630),
253–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are
needed. Biological Conservation, 141(2), 350–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biocon.2007.12.020
Cronon, W. (1996). Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. New
York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Daily, G. C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., et al.
(2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289(5478), 395–396.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5478.395
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A.,
et al. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services
agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Daugstad, K., Svarstad, H., & Vistad, O. I. (2006). A case of conflicts in conservation
– Two trenches or a three-dimensional complexity? Landscape Research, 31(1),
1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390500448450
de Groot, M., & de Groot, W. T. (2009). “Room for river” measures and public
visions in the Netherlands – A survey on river perceptions among riverside
residents. Water Resources Research, 45(7), W07403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2008wr007339
de Groot, M., Drenthen, M., & de Groot, W. T. (2011). Public visions of
the human/nature relationship and their implications for environmen-
tal ethics. Environmental Ethics, 33(1), 25–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/
enviroethics20113314
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for
the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods
and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-8009(02)00089-7
de Groot, W. T., & van den Born, R. J. G. (2003). Visions of nature and landscape type
preferences – An exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning,
63(3), 127–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00184-6
Dick, J. M., Smith, R. I., & Scott, E. M. (2011). Ecosystem services and associated
concepts. Environmetrics, 22(5), 598–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/env.1085
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes – Measuring endorsement of the New Eco-
logical Paradigm – A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Esbjörn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. E. (2009). Integral ecology – Uniting multiple
perspectives on the natural world. Boston/London: Integral Books.
Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological con-
cepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375–392.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5
Farley, J. (2012). Ecosystem services – The economics debate. Ecosystem Services,
1(1), 40–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002
Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiver-
sity – Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological
Conservation, 136(2), 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.024
Gatto, M., & Leo, G. A. D. (2000). Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services –
The never-ending story. BioScience, 50(4), 347–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/
0006-3568(2000)050[0347:pbaest2.3.co;2]
Ghazoul, J. (2007). Recognising the complexities of ecosystem management and the
ecosystem service concept. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society,
16(3), 215–221.
Gill, V. B. (2003). (Clashes on nature – Worldviews in technological and environmental
conflicts) Streitfall Natur – Weltbilder in Technik- und Umweltkonflikten. Wies-
baden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Glacken, C. J. (1967). Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and culture in Western
thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & de Groot, R. S. (2010). Natural capital and ecosystem services
– The ecological foundation of human society. Issues in Environmental Science and
Technology, 30, 105–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/9781849731058-00105
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. S., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The his-
tory of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice – From early
notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
Gosling, E., & Williams, K. J. H. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attach-
ment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among
farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 298–304. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005
Hatakenaka, K. (2003). Shukyou to Shizenkankyouhakai: Dentouteki shukyou wa
genzai no Kankyoukiki ni dou kakawaruka [Religion and environmental cri-
sis: How are traditional religions related to the modern environmental crisis].
Hiroshima University Bulletin of the Graduate School of Eduction, Part II. Arts and
Science Education, 51, 23–32.
Hosokawa, K. (2005). Ibunka ga tou seitou to seitou: Senjyuminzoku no shizenkan
wo tegakari ni kankyouseigi no chihei wo hirogeru tame no shiron (<Tokushuu>
Kankyou wo meguru seitousei/seitousei no ronri/jikan/rekishi/kioku) [Rethink-
ing legitimacy and justice in conservationism: Indigenous views of nature and
a deeper perspective of environmental justice (<Special Issue> A logic of justice
and legitimacy about environment)]. Kankyoushakaigakukenkyu, 11, 52–69.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stake-
holders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2),
209–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Hoff, E. H. (1999). Kollektive Probleme und individuelle Handlungsbereitschaft – Zur
Entwicklung von Verantwortungsbewußtsein. In M. Grundmann (Ed.), Konstruk-
tivische Sozialisationsforschung: Lebensweltliche Erfahrungskontexte, individuelle
Handlungskompetenzen und die Konstruktion sozialer Strukturen (pp. 240–266).
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hubacek, K., & Kronenberg, J. (2013). Synthesizing different perspectives on the
value of urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 1–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010
Hunka, A. D., de Groot, W. T., & Biela, A. (2009). Visions of nature in Eastern Europe:
A Polish example. Environmental Values, 18(4), 429–452. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3197/096327109x12532653285777
 C.G. Flint et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 208–217
Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., et al.
(2013). Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics, 93, 260–268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008
Kellert, S. R. (1980). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An
update. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1(2), 87–119.
Kellert, S. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Kinzig, A. P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F. S., Polasky, S., Smith, V. K., Tilman, D., et al. (2011).
Paying for ecosystem services – Promise and peril. Science, 334(6056), 603–604.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1210297
Kleinhückelkotten, S., & Nietzke, H. P. (2010). Umfrage Naturbewusstsein: Abschluss-
bericht (Survey on Nature Consciousness: Final Report) (Förderkennzeichen
3508 82 1200). Hannover: ECOLOG-Institüt für sozial-ökologische Forschung
und Bildung. Retrieved from http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/
themen/gesellschaft/Wissenschaftlicher Abschlussbericht Naturbewusstsein
2009.pdf
Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity
fetishism. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1228–1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2009.11.002
Lamarque, P., Quétier, F., & Lavorel, S. (2011). The diversity of the ecosystem
services concept and its implications for their assessment and manage-
ment. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334(5–6), 441–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.crvi.2010.11.007
MacNaughton, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested natures. London: Sage.
Masaki, H. (1996). Nihonjin no Shizenkan to Kankyou Rinri [Conceptions of nature
and environmental ethics of the Japanese]. Nagasaki Daigaku Kyouyoubu Kiyou
Jinmonkagakuhen, 37(2), 97–114.
McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443(7107), 27–28. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/443027a
McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. New York: Random House.
Menzel, S., & Teng, J. (2010). Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept
for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 907–909. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01347.x
Meske, M. (2011). (“Nature is the world for me”: Children’s images of nature impressed
by their environment) “Natur ist für mich die Welt” – Lebensweltlich geprägte
Naturbilder von Kindern. Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being
– A framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being
– Current state and trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nobuo, T. (2000). Shizenkan to Kokusaikankyouseisaku: Nichibei Kokuritsukouen no
hikaku wo toushite [Outlook on nature and international environmental policy:
Through a comparison of Japanese and U.S. national parks]. Sougouseisaku, 2(1),
1–16.
Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services – From eye-opening metaphor
to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1219–1227. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
O’Neill, R. V. (2001). Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (with
full military honors of course!). Ecology, 82, 3275–3284. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[3275:IITTBT2.0.CO;2]
Osherenko, G. (1992). Human/nature relations in the Arctic – Changing perspectives.
Polar Record, 28(167), 277–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S003224740002800X
Ou, F. (2005). Wa” no kankyo gaku – Wa no genri wa ika ni shite nihon no shakai to
shizen wo tsukuttaka [The environmental study of “wa” – How the principle of
“wa” created Japan’s society and nature]. Nihon Bunka, 19, 86–96.
Passmore, J. A. (1974). Man’s responsibility for nature – Ecological problems and west-
ern traditions. New York: Scribner.
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and
quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33,
118–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Polasky, S., & Segerson, K. (2009). Integrating ecology and economics in the study of
ecosystem services – Some lessons learned. Annual Review of Resource Economics,
1, 409–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144110
Potschin, M., & Haines-Young, R. (2013). Landscapes, sustainability and the place-
based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1053–1065.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x
Raymond, C. M., Singh, G. G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J. R., Levine, J., Nelson,
H., et al. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors
to understand human–environment relationships. BioScience, 63(7), 536–546.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7
Redford, K. H., & Adams, W. M. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services
and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 785–787.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x
Rees, W. E. (1998). How should a parasite value its host? Ecological Economics, 25,
49–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00015-9
Sagoff, M. (2011). The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological
Economics, 70(3), 497–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.006
Salmon, E. (2000). Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human–nature
relationship. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1327–1332. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT2.0.CO;2]
Schaich, H., Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2010). Linking ecosystem services with
cultural landscape research. Gaia, 19(4), 269–277.
Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and memory. London: Harper Collins.
Scholz, R. W., & Brand, F. (2011). Comparing the HES framework with alternative
approaches. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Environmental literacy in science and society
(pp. 509–521). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
217
Schroeder, H. W. (2007). Place experience, gestalt, and the human–nature rela-
tionship. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 293–309. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.07.001
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk,
M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and
conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
Simmons, I. G. (1993). Interpreting nature: Cultural constructions of the environment.
London: Routledge.
Skår, M. (2010). Forest dear and forest fear – Dwellers’ relationships to
their neighbourhood forest. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 110–116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.017
Tada, M. (2003). Kankyou shinri kara mita ningen to shizen no kankei (Tokubetsu
kikaku youjiki to shizen) [The relationship between humans and nature as seen
from environmental psychology (Special feature on infancy and nature)]. Hat-
tatsu, 24(96), 58–63.
Takeuchi, K. (2003). The nature of Satoyama landscapes. In K. Takeuchi, R. D. Brown,
I. Washitani, A. Tsunekawa, & M. Yokohari (Eds.), Satoyama – The traditional rural
landscape of Japan (pp. 9–40). Tokyo: Springer.
Takemura, M. (2008). Shiriizu Oufuku shokan “Seimei e no toi” – Bukkyou to kagaku
no setten wo motomete (5) Bukkyou ga teiji suru ningen to shizen no kankei-
sei [Correspondence Series “Questions for Life” – Seeking the contact point of
Buddhism and science (5) – The relationship between humans and nature that
Buddhism indicates]. Shuushun, 497, 19–22.
TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the eco-
nomics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations
of TEEB. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/
Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20
report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf
Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2010). Understanding the diversity of pub-
lic interests in wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 128–139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01374.x
Terada, T. (1948). (Japanese people’s conception of nature) Nihonjin no Shizenkan.
Tokyo: Iwanami bunko.
Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes
toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), 149–157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, W. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003). Valu-
ing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics,
46(3), 493–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(03)00189-7
Tuvendal, M., & Elmqvist, T. (2011). Ecosystem services linking social and ecological
systems: River brownification and the response of downstream stakeholders.
Ecology and Society, 16(4.) http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04456-160421
van den Born, R. J. G. (2006). Implicit philosophy – Images of relationships between
humans and nature in the Dutch population. In R. J. G. van den Born, R. H. J.
Lenders, & W. R. de Groot (Eds.), Visions of nature. A scientific exploration of peo-
ple’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom (pp. 63–83). Berlin: LIT Verlag.
van den Born, R. J. G. (2007). Thinking nature – Everyday philosophy of nature in
the Netherlands. Arnhem: Radboud Universiteit, Drukkerij Roos en Roos (PhD)
Retrieved from http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/2066/55991/1/55991.pdf
van den Born, R. J. G. (2008). Rethinking nature: Public visions in the
Netherlands. Environmental Values, 17(1), 83–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/
096327108X271969
van den Born, R. J. G., & de Groot, W. T. (2009). The authenticity of nature: An
exploration of lay people’s interpretations in the Netherlands. In M. Drenthen, J.
Proctor, & J. Keulartz (Eds.), New visions of nature (pp. 47–66). New York: Springer
Science + Business Media B.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2611-8 4
van Hecken, G., & Bastiaensen, J. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in
Nicaragua – Do market-based approaches work? Development and Change, 41(3),
421–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01644.x
Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solu-
tions. Biological Conservation, 139(3–4), 235–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biocon.2007.07.015
Watanabe, M. (2003). Nihonjin no shizenkan – Seiyou to no hikaku [Japanese concep-
tions of nature – A comparison with the west]. Jinmonshakaikagaku Kenkyuusho
Nenpou, 1, 11–34.
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767),
1203–1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
Xu, Z., & Bengston, D. N. (1997). Trends in national forest values among forestry
professionals, environmentalists, and the news media, 1982–1993. Society and
Natural Resources, 10(1), 43–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941929709381008
Yoshida, K. (2011). Kagaku Gijyutsu Bunmei to Nihonjin no Shizenkan [Technolog-
ical civilization and nature conceptions of the Japanese]. Ningen to kankyou, 2,
2–20.
Yuhki, T. (2008). Nouson no kurashi to GNH – Nouson no Ojichan Obachan ni man-
abu. In G.N.H. (Ed.), GNH—Mou hitotsu no “yutakasa” he, 10 nin no teian (GNH:
Towards another “wealth”, suggestions from 10 people) (pp. 185–208). Tokyo:
Ootsuki shoten.
Zheng, Y., & Yoshino, R. (2003). Diversity patterns of attitudes toward nature
and environment in Japan, USA, and European nations. Behaviormetrika, 30(1),
21–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2333/bhmk.30.21
Zweers, W. (2000). Participating with nature – Outline for an ecologization of our world
view. Utrecht: International Books (J. Taylor, Trans.).