IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i20p7593-d431022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Human–Nature Connections Through Landscape Socialization

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Pei Peng

    (Department of Bio-Industry Communication and Development, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

Understanding the landscape socialization underpinning the human–nature relationship is essential because it can contribute to assisting us to reconnect with nature. Reconnecting to nature is increasingly recognized as positively contributing to health and well-being. This study aimed to understand people’s connections with nature through landscape socialization under different land use policies. The study assumed that social values, as perceived by residents, facilitates their landscape socialization. Using a questionnaire measuring sense of community and the Social Values for Ecosystem Services application as analytical tools, the study assessed how residents with varying educational attainment, sense of community, and grounded occupation differ in identifying with conservation- and recreation-oriented policy interventions. The results demonstrated the role of landscape socialization in how people connect with nature, and the landscape socialization as a result of long-term policy interventions may exert substantial effects on residents’ social values across various spatial scales. The results deepen the general understanding of system leverage points for creating inner connections to nature which can aid sustainability transformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Pei Peng, 2020. "Understanding Human–Nature Connections Through Landscape Socialization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7593-:d:431022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7593/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7593/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alison Pritchard & Miles Richardson & David Sheffield & Kirsten McEwan, 2020. "The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 1145-1167, March.
    2. Dwayne Baker & Robert Palmer, 2006. "Examining the Effects of Perceptions of Community and Recreation Participation on Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 395-418, February.
    3. Joy R. Petway & Yu-Pin Lin & Rainer F. Wunderlich, 2019. "Analyzing Opinions on Sustainable Agriculture: Toward Increasing Farmer Knowledge of Organic Practices in Taiwan-Yuanli Township," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Li-Pei Peng & Yeu-Sheng Hsieh, 2015. "Settlement Typology and Community Participation in Participatory Landscape Ecology of Residents," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 593-609, July.
    5. Sherrouse, Benson C. & Semmens, Darius J. & Ancona, Zachary H. & Brunner, Nicole M., 2017. "Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 431-444.
    6. Wood, Sylvia L.R. & Jones, Sarah K. & Johnson, Justin A. & Brauman, Kate A. & Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca & Fremier, Alexander & Girvetz, Evan & Gordon, Line J. & Kappel, Carrie V. & Mandle, Lisa & Mullig, 2018. "Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 70-82.
    7. Andreas Muhar & Christopher M. Raymond & Riyan J.G. van den Born & Nicole Bauer & Kerstin Böck & Michael Braito & Arjen Buijs & Courtney Flint & Wouter T. de Groot & Christopher D. Ives & Tamara Mitro, 2018. "A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(5-6), pages 756-777, May.
    8. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Tindale, Sophie & Vicario-Modroño, Victoria & Gallardo-Cobos, Rosa & Hunter, Erik & Miškolci, Simona & Price, Paul Newell & Sánchez-Zamora, Pedro & Sonnevelt, Martijn & Ojo, Mercy & McInnes, Kirsty & , 2023. "Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Bingjie Song & Guy M. Robinson & Douglas K. Bardsley, 2020. "Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Fatih Terzi & Handan Türkoğlu & Fulin Bölen & Perver Baran & Tayfun Salihoğlu, 2015. "Residents’ Perception of Cultural Activities as Quality of Life in Istanbul," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 211-234, May.
    6. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    7. Tobias Wulfert & Robert Woroch & Gero Strobel & Thorsten Schoormann & Leonardo Banh, 2024. "E-commerce ecosystems as catalysts for sustainability: A multi-case analysis," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 34(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Rodriguez Soto, Clarita & Scarano, Fabio R., 2021. "Strategies to reach global sustainability should take better account of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. John C. Boik, 2020. "Science-Driven Societal Transformation, Part I: Worldview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-28, August.
    11. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    12. Elaine Aparecida Rodrigues & Maurício Lamano Ferreira & Amanda Rodrigues de Carvalho & José Oscar William Vega Bustillos & Rodrigo Antonio Braga Moraes Victor & Marcelo Gomes Sodré & Delvonei Alves de, 2022. "Land, Water, and Climate Issues in Large and Megacities under the Lens of Nuclear Science: An Approach for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG11)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Wittman, Hannah & Chan, Kai M.A., 2020. "A payment by any other name: Is Costa Rica’s PES a payment for services or a support for stewards?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Anjinho, Phelipe da Silva & Barbosa, Mariana Abibi Guimarães Araujo & Costa, Carlos Wilmer & Mauad, Frederico Fábio, 2021. "Environmental fragility analysis in reservoir drainage basin land use planning: A Brazilian basin case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Kaiwen Su & Jie Ren & Chuyun Cui & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2022. "Do Value Orientations and Beliefs Play a Positive Role in Shaping Personal Norms for Urban Green Space Conservation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Chenxi Li & Zhihong Zong & Haichao Qie & Yingying Fang & Qiao Liu, 2023. "CiteSpace and Bibliometric Analysis of Published Research on Forest Ecosystem Services for the Period 2018–2022," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Yang Bai & Thomas O. Ochuodho & Jian Yang & Domena A. Agyeman, 2021. "Bundles and Hotspots of Multiple Ecosystem Services for Optimized Land Management in Kentucky, United States," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    19. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7593-:d:431022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.