Intrinsic, instrumental and relational values behind nature’s contributions to people preferences of nature visitors in Germany

References

• Agresti A. 2001. Exact inference for categorical data: recent advances and continuing controversies. Stat Med. 20(17–18):2709–17. doi: 10.1002/sim.738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarado MR, Lovell R, Guell C, Taylor T, Fullam J, Garside R, Zandersen M, Wheeler BW. 2023. Street trees and mental health: developing systems thinking-informed hypotheses using causal loop diagraming. Ecol Soc. 28(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-14013-280201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ament JM, Moore CA, Herbst M, Cumming GS. 2017. Cultural ecosystem services in protected areas: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv Lett. 10(4):440–450. doi: 10.1111/conl.12283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli M, Barbieri G, Donelli D. 2019. Effects of forest bathing (shinrin-yoku) on levels of cortisol as a stress biomarker: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Biometeorol. 63(8):1117–1134. doi: 10.1007/s00484-019-01717-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aragon TJ. 2020. Epitools: epidemiology tools (Version R Package Version 0.5-10.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epitools.
   Google Scholar
• Arias-Arévalo P, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Pérez-Rincón M. 2018. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environ Values. 27(1):29–53. doi: 10.3197/096327118X15144698637513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arias-Arevalo P, Martin-Lopez B, Gomez-Baggethun E. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 22(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-09812-220443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badman T, Bomhard B. 2008. World heritage and protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; p. 22.
   Google Scholar
• Balmford A, Green JMH, Anderson M, Beresford J, Huang C, Naidoo R, Walpole M, Manica A. 2015. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol. 13(2):e1002074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benetti S, Langemeyer J. 2021. Ecosystem services and justice of protected areas: the case of Circeo national park, Italy. Ecosyst People. 17(1):411–431. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2021.1946155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenguer J, Corraliza JA, Martín R. 2005. Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. Eur J Psychol Assess. 21(2):128–138. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergeret A, Lavorel S. 2022. Stakeholder visions for trajectories of adaptation to climate change in the Drôme catchment (French Alps). Reg Environ Change. 22(1):33. doi: 10.1007/s10113-022-01876-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [BExIS] Biodiversity Exploratories Information System. 2022. Borders of all three exploratory regions. [accessed 2022 Nov 29]. https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de.
   Google Scholar
• Bieling C. 2014. Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany). Ecosyst Serv. 8:207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biodiversity Exploratories. n.d. Exploratorium Hainich-Dün. Biodiversitäts-Exploratorien. [accessed 2023 Jul 15]. https://www.biodiversity-exploratories.de/de/regionen/hainich-duen/.
   Google Scholar
• Biosphärengebiet Schwäbische Alb. n.d. Biosphärengebiet Schwäbische Alb: UNESCO Modellregion. [accessed 2023 Jul 15]. https://www.biosphaerengebiet-alb.de/.
   Google Scholar
• Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin. n.d. Steckbrief Schorfheide-Chorin—Biosphärenreservat—Biosphärenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin. [ accessed 2023 Jul 15]. https://www.schorfheide-chorin-biosphaerenreservat.de/biosphaerenreservat/steckbrief-schorfheide-chorin/.
   Google Scholar
• Boeraeve F, Dendoncker N, Jacobs S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Dufrêne M. 2015. How (not) to perform ecosystem service valuations: pricing gorillas in the mist. Biodivers Conserv. 24(2):427–427. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0796-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrie WT, Armatas CA. 2022. Environmental values and nature’s contributions to people: towards methodological pluralism in evaluation of sustainable ecosystem services. In: Misiune I, Depellegrin D, Vigl LE, editors. Human-nature interactions. Springer, Cham: Springer International Publishing; p. 13–23. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-01980-7_2.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. 2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 10(1):456. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Britto dos Santos N, Gould RK. 2018. Can relational values be developed and changed? Investigating relational values in the environmental education literature. Curr Opin Sust. 35:124–131. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brück M, Schultner J, Negash BB, Damu DF, Abson DJ. 2023. Plural valuation in southwestern Ethiopia: disaggregating values associated with ecosystems in a smallholder landscape. People Nat. 6(1):91–106. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10555.
   Google Scholar
• Buckley R. 2009. Parks and Tourism. PLOS Biol. 7(6):e1000143. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 113(6):1462–1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U. 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr Opin Sust. 35:A1–A7. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I. 2005. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Phil Trans R Soc B. 360(1454):443–455. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman M, Deplazes-Zemp A. 2023. ‘I owe it to the animals’: the bidirectionality of Swiss alpine farmers’ relational values. People Nat. 5(1):147–161. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10415.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman M, Satterfield T, Chan KMA. 2019. When value conflicts are barriers: can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Policy. 82:464–475. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng X, Van Damme S, Luyuan L, Uyttenhove P. 2020. Taking “social relations” as a cultural ecosystem service: a triangulation approach. Urban For Urban Greening. 55:126790. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie M, Martín-López B, Church A, Siwicka E, Szymonczyk P, Mena Sauterel J. 2019. Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES assessment of Europe and central Asia. Sustainability Sci. 14(5):1267–1282. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00716-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements HS, Cumming GS. 2017. Manager strategies and user demands: determinants of cultural ecosystem service bundles on private protected areas. Ecosyst Serv. 28:228–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M, Dittrich A, Hermans-Neumann K, Kaim A, Lienhoop N, Locher-Krause K, Priess J, Schröter-Schlaack C, et al. 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv. 28:264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouzat E, De Frutos A, Grescho V, Carver S, Büermann A, Carvalho-Santos C, Kraemer R, Mayor S, Pöpperl F, Rossi C, et al. 2022. Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings. Ecosyst Serv. 53:101395. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daněk J, Blättler L, Leventon J, Vačkářová D. 2023. Beyond nature conservation? Perceived benefits and role of the ecosystem services framework in protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Serv. 59:101504. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Sust. 14:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson R, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan K, Baste I, Brauman K, et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science. 359(6373):270–272. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudley N. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en.
   Google Scholar
• Esri Deutschland GmbH. 2018. Bundesländergrenzen 2014 mit Einwohnerzahl. [ accessed 2022 Nov 11]. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/esri-de-content:bundesländergrenzen-2014-mit-einwohnerzahl/about.
   Google Scholar
• Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero- Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín FA. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PloS One. 10(7):e0132232. doi: 10.1175/1371/journal.pone.0132232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Llamazares Á, Cabeza M. 2018. Rediscovering the potential of Indigenous storytelling for conservation practice. Conserv Lett. 11(3):e12398. doi: 10.1111/conl.12398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S, Hänsel F, Hemp A, Hessenmöller D, Weisser WW. 2010. Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the biodiversity exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol. 11(6):473–485. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2010.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster RH, McBeth MK. 1996. Urban-rural influences in U.S. environmental and economic development policy. J Rural Stud. 12(4):387–397. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(96)00051-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia Rodrigues J, Villasante S, Sousa Pinto I. 2022. Non-material nature’s contributions to people from a marine protected area support multiple dimensions of human well-being. Sustainability Sci. 17(3):793–808. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01021-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould RK, Klain SC, Ardoin NM, Satterfield T, Woodside U, Hannahs N, Daily GC, Chan KM. 2015. A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv Biol. 29(2):575–586. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross M, Pearson J, Arbieu U, Riechers M, Thomsen S, Martín-López B. 2023. Tourists’ valuation of nature in protected areas: a systematic review. AMBIO. 52(6):1065–1084. doi: 10.1007/s13280-023-01845-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubert E. 2018. Relational values in environmental assessment: the social context of environmental impact. Curr Opin Sust. 35:100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansjürgens B, Schröter-Schlaack C, Berghöfer A, Lienhoop N. 2016. Reprint: justifying social values of nature: economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosyst Serv. 22:228–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig T, van den Berg AE, Hagerhall CM, Tomalak M, Bauer N, Hansmann R, Ojala A, Syngollitou E, Carrus G, van Herzele A, et al. 2011. Health benefits of nature experience: psychological, social and cultural processes. In: Nilsson K, Sangster M, Gallis C, Hartig T, de Vries S, Seeland K, Schipperijn J, editors. Forests, trees and human health. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 127–168. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1_5.
   Google Scholar
• Hatton MacDonald D, Bark R, MacRae A, Kalivas T, Grandgirard A, Strathearn S. 2013. An interview methodology for exploring the values that community leaders assign to multiple-use landscapes. Ecol Soc. 18(1):29. doi:10.5751/ES-05191-180129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks CC, Cinner JE, Stoeckl N, McClanahan TR. 2015. Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory: ecosystem services and human values. Conserv Biol. 29(5):1471–1480. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill R, Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Molnár Z, Van Velden J. 2021. Nature’s contributions to people: weaving plural perspectives. One Earth. 4(7):910–915. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.009.
   Google Scholar
• Himes A, Muraca B. 2018. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr Opin Sust. 35:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huddart-Kennedy E, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S. 2009. Rural-urban differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural Sociol. 74(3):309–329. doi: 10.1526/003601109789037268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martín-López B. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ. 108:36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvine KN, O’Brien L, Ravenscroft N, Cooper N, Everard M, Fazey I, Reed MS, Kenter JO. 2016. Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values. Ecosyst Serv. 21:184–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaac R, Kachler J, Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia M. 2022. Fieldwork protocol effects of land management on the supply and distribution of ecosystem services (ESuDis). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24291.84006.
   Google Scholar
• IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC. x + 261pp. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/1994-007-En.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ives CD, Kendal D. 2014. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manage. 144:67–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, McGrath FL, Vierikko K, Geneletti D, Sevecke KJ, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv. 22:213–220. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones NA, Shaw S, Ross H, Witt K, Pinner B. 2016. The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 21(1):15. doi:10.5751/ES-07977-210115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadykalo AN, López-Rodriguez MD, Ainscough J, Droste N, Ryu H, Ávila-Flores G, Le Clec’h S, Muñoz MC, Nilsson L, Rana S, et al. 2019. Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’. Ecosyst People. 15(1):269–287. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T. 2017. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the new ecological paradigm. PLOS ONE. 12(8):e0183962. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klain SC, Satterfield TA, Chan KMA. 2014. What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. Ecol Econ. 107:310–320. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotera Y, Richardson M, Sheffield D. 2022. Effects of Shinrin-Yoku (Forest Bathing) and nature therapy on mental health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Ment Health Addict. 20(1):337–361. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00363-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreitzman M, Chapman M, Keeley KO, Chan KMA. 2022. Local knowledge and relational values of Midwestern woody perennial polyculture farmers can inform tree-crop policies. People Nat. 4(1):180–200. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10275.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiper JJ, van Wijk D, Mooij WM, Remme RP, Peterson GD, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen S, Mooij CJ, Leltz GM, Pereira LM. 2022. Exploring desirable nature futures for Nationaal Park Hollandse Duinen. Ecosyst People. 18(1):329–347. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2065360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Provost G, Schenk NV, Penone C, Thiele J, Westphal C, Allan E, Ayasse M, Blüthgen N, Boeddinghaus RS, Boesing AL, et al. 2023. The supply of multiple ecosystem services requires biodiversity across spatial scales. Nat Ecol Evol. 7(2):2. doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01918-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Provost G, Thiele J, Westphal C, Penone C, Allan E, Neyret M, van der Plas F, Ayasse M, Bardgett RD, Birkhofer K, et al. 2021. Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity. Nat Commun. 12(1):1. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23931-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis JL, Sheppard SRJ. 2005. Ancient values, new challenges: Indigenous spiritual perceptions of landscapes and forest management. Soc Natur Resour. 18(10):907–920. doi: 10.1080/08941920500205533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowman MD, Sinu PA. 2017. Can the spiritual values of forests inspire effective conservation? BioScience. 67(8):688–690. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Managi S, Islam M, Saito O, Stenseke M, Dziba L, Lavorel S, Pascual U, Hashimoto S. 2022. Valuation of nature and nature’s contributions to people. Sustainability Sci. 17(3):701–705. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01140-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-López B. 2021. Plural valuation of nature matters for environmental sustainability and justice. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/plural-valuation-of-nature-matters-for-environmental-sustainability-and-justice/.
   Google Scholar
• Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLOS ONE. 7(6):e38970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masao CA, Prescott GW, Snethlage MA, Urbach D, Torre-Marin Rando A, Molina-Venegas R, Mollel NP, Hemp C, Hemp A, Fischer M. 2022. Stakeholder perspectives on nature, people and sustainability at Mount Kilimanjaro. People Nat. 4(3):711–729. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10310.
   Google Scholar
• Mayring P, Fenzl T. 2019. Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N Blasius J, editors. Handbuch methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer Fachmedien; pp. 633–648. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42.
   Google Scholar
• Methorst J, Bonn A, Marselle M, Böhning-Gaese K, Rehdanz K. 2021. Species richness is positively related to mental health – a study for Germany. Landsc Urban Plan. 211:104084. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Methorst J, Rehdanz K, Mueller T, Hansjürgens B, Bonn A, Böhning-Gaese K. 2021. The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. Ecol Econ. 181:106917. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuteleers S, Hugé J. 2021. Value pluralism in ecosystem services assessments: closing the gap between academia and conservation practitioners. Ecosyst Serv. 49:101293. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neyret M, Fischer M, Allan E, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Krauss J, Le Provost G, Peter S, Schenk N, et al. 2021. Assessing the impact of grassland management on landscape multifunctionality. Ecosyst Serv. 52:101366. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neyret M, Peter S, Le Provost G, Boch S, Boesing AL, Bullock JM, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Krauss J, et al. 2023. Landscape management strategies for multifunctionality and social equity. Nat Sustain. 6(4):4. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-01045-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’hara R, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E, Wagner H, et al. 2022. Vegan: community Ecology Package (Version R Package Version 2.6-4). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
   Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Balvanera P, Anderson CB, Chaplin-Kramer R, Christie M, González-Jiménez D, Martin A, Raymond CM, Termansen M, Vatn A, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature. 620(7975):813–823. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Dessane EB, Islar M, Kelemen E, et al. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Sust. 26–27:7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedraza S, Sanchez A, Clerici N, Ospina L, Quintero A, Escobedo FJ. 2020. Perception of conservation strategies and nature’s contributions to people around Chingaza National Natural Park, Colombia. Environ Conserv. 47(3):158–165. doi: 10.1017/S037689292000020X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter S, Le Provost G, Mehring M, Müller T, Manning P. 2022. Cultural worldviews consistently explain bundles of ecosystem service prioritisation across rural Germany. People Nat. 4(1):218–230. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10277.
   Google Scholar
• Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Wolff F. 2013. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol Soc. 18(3): 18(3. doi: 10.5751/ES-05802-180339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell RA, Single HM. 1996. Focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 8(5):499–504. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratson DF, Adams N, Gould RK. 2023. Relational values of nature in empirical research: a systematic review. People Nat. 5(5):1464–1479. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10512.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2021. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Riechers M, Balázsi Á, Engler J-O, Shumi G, Fischer J. 2021. Understanding relational values in cultural landscapes in Romania and Germany. People Nat. 3(5):1036–1046. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10246.
   Google Scholar
• Riechers M, Betz L, Gould RK, Loch TK, Lam DPM, Lazzari N, Martín-López B, Sala JE. 2022. Reviewing relational values for future research: insights from the coast. Ecol Soc. 27(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-13710-270444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell R, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Gould RK, Basurto X, Chan KMA, Klain S, Levine J, Tam J. 2013. Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 38(1):473–502. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmón E. 2000. Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecol Appl. 10(5):1327–1332. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1327:KEIPOT]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt TM, Riebl R, Martín-López B, Hänsel M, Koellner T. 2022. Plural valuation in space: mapping values of grasslands and their ecosystem services. Ecosyst People. 18(1):258–274. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2065361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan DF, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Lin BB, Dean J, Barber E, Fuller RA. 2016. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci Rep. 6(1):1. doi: 10.1038/srep28551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stålhammar S, Thorén H. 2019. Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustainability Sci. 14(5):1201–1212. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenseke M. 2018. Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape approaches. Curr Opin Sust. 35:82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A. 2014. The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 109:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tadaki M, Sinner J, Chan KMA. 2017. Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol Soc. 22(1):7. doi: 10.5751/ES-08999-220107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tauro A, Gã3mez-Baggethun E, García-Frapolli E, Chavero EL, Balvanera P. 2018. Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 23(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-10457-230411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topp EN, Loos J, Martín-López B. 2021. Decision-making for nature’s contributions to people in the Cape Floristic Region: The role of values, rules and knowledge. Sustainability Sci. 17(3):739–760. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00896-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trainor SF. 2006. Realms of value: conflicting natural resource values and incommensurability. Environ Values. 15(1):3–29.
   Google Scholar
• Tribot A-S, Deter J, Mouquet N. 2018. Integrating the aesthetic value of landscapes and biological diversity. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 285(1886):20180971. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis. n.d. Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis—Der Nationalpark Hainich. [ accessed 2023 Jul 15]. https://www.unstrut-hainich-kreis.de/index.php/der-nationalpark-hainich.
   Google Scholar
• Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M. 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature. 515(7525):67–73. doi: 10.1038/nature13947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West S, Haider LJ, Masterson V, Enqvist JP, Svedin U, Tengö M. 2018. Stewardship, care and relational values. Curr Opin Sust. 35:30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska A, Vaznonienė G, Vaznonis B. 2022. Who cares for nature in rural areas? Exploration of Relationships between people’s socio-economic characteristics and the perception of nature as a value in Poland and Lithuania. Sustainability. 14(16):16. doi: 10.3390/su141610048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Rodriguez-Gomez G, Fuenzalida L, Mendoza K, Díaz MJ, Cornejo M, Llanos-Ascencio J, Campos F, Zamorano Miranda J, Flores D, et al. 2023. How do protected areas contribute to human well-being? Multiple mechanisms perceived by stakeholders. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2618073/v1.
   Google Scholar