Affiliation:
1. The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
2. Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
3. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
Abstract
A social–ecological system is a highly connected organization of biophysical and social actors that interact across multiple scales, share resources, and adapt to the actors’ changes. The ways in which humans and nature interact have traditionally been characterized and influenced by competing intrinsic and utilitarian values. However, recently, relational values and relational models have been used to unpack the myriad of values society assigns to nature and create general typologies of nature–human relationships. Here, we investigate the spectrum of environmental values that exist in the San Marcos River (SMR)—a social–ecological system (SES) in which a spring-fed river flows through an urban environment in central Texas (USA) including a university campus that attracts regional and international tourists. Recognizing that scholars have struggled to identify a nuanced understanding of environmental values and how these values shape nature–human relationships in SES, we use the SMR case study to capture the nature–human relational models that exist among social and user groups of the blue space. Analyzing different groups of visitors and stakeholders of the SMR (n = 3145), this study serves as a pilot to apply relational models using a variety of metrics to build a framework for understanding models of nature–human relationships, beyond ecosystem services and dualistic valuations. In our sample, most respondents were classified under the stewardship model (59%). The utilization model (34%) was the second most common, followed by wardship (6%). We found that patterns of place identity emerged to support the development of relational models beyond utilization. Despite the differences among perceptions, values, and some variation in relational models, one commonality was the innate, ubiquitous preference to protect natural habitat, water quality, and the river’s aquifer water source. Our study contributes to the growing literature around relational values and is a pathway to integrate ecosystem services, environmental values, and human–environment interactions into a more holistic approach to environmental valuation.
Reference83 articles.
1. Mulder, M.B., and Coppolillo, P. (2005). Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture, Princeton University Press. [1st ed.].
2. What is Conservation?;Sandbrook;Oryx,2015
3. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?;Muradian;Ecol. Econ.,2021
4. Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystems services;Kubiszewski;Ecosyst. Serv.,2023
5. Millennium ecosystem assessment (MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Island Press.
Cited by
3 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