Abstract
AbstractHuman–nature relationships are in a critical state, characterized by increasing environmental problems caused by humans. Thus, it is essential to know how to motivate people for environmental protection. Motivation can arise from intrinsic, instrumental or relational perceptions of why nature is valuable. The present study investigates empirically how university students differ in their view of nature’s value. For this purpose, students from 13 different majors across Germany as well as students engaged in the environmental protection organization Health-for-Future (HfF) were surveyed via an online survey (N = 1885). The majors were divided into four thematic groups (environmental, people-aligned, structures-exploring as well as economics and political science). While all groups showed high levels of agreement with intrinsic and instrumental values, the groups differed strongly in their relational perception of nature. Environmental disciplines were characterized by a stronger relational view, followed by people-aligned disciplines, while disciplines not directly associated with either people or nature agreed less with relational and also intrinsic values. HfF as a conservation organization showed the highest level of agreement in all three value components. Further we found that gender plays a role in value perception, with women holding stronger intrinsic and relational values than men. The study concludes that among students in Germany, regardless of major, there is a pluralistic understanding of values: ecosystem services (instrumental values) and the intrinsic value of nature are both appreciated, whereas relational values appear to be more group specific. Since students will be future decision-makers of society, relational values have special significance for the understanding of conservation.
Funder
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Sociology and Political Science,Ecology,Geography, Planning and Development,Health (social science),Global and Planetary Change
Reference66 articles.
1. Admiraal JF, van den Born RJ, Beringer A, Bonaiuto F, Cicero L, Hiedanpää J, Knights P, Knippenberg L, Molinario E, Musters CJ, Naukkarinen O, Polajnar K, Popa F, Smrekar A, Soininen T, Porras-Gomez C, Soethe N, Vivero-Pol JL, de Groot WT (2017) Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe. Environ Conserv 44(2):148–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291700008X
2. Amel E, Manning C, Scott B, Koger S (2017) Beyond the roots of human inaction: fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Science 356(6335):275–279. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1931
3. Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443
4. BMU [Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety] (Ed.) (2021) Jugend-Naturbewusstsein 2020: Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt
5. Brady E, Prior J (2020) Environmental aesthetics: a synthetic review. People Nat 2(2):254–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10089
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献