Digging for nature: human-nature relations in the context of growing plants

References

• Allen KE, Quinn CE, English C, Quinn JE. 2018. Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Curr Opin Sust. 35:108–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong K. 2022. Sacred nature: how we can recover our bond with the natural world. London (NY): Bodley Head.
   Google Scholar
• Bain P, Vaes J, Kashima Y, Haslam N, Guan Y. 2012. Folk conceptions of humanness: beliefs about distinctive and core human characteristics in Australia, Italy, and China. J Cross Cult Psychol. 43(1):53–58. doi: 10.1177/0022022111419029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braito MT, Böck K, Flint C, Muhar A, Muhar S, Penker M. 2017. Human-nature relationships and linkages to environmental behaviour. Environ Values. 26(3):365–389. doi: 10.3197/096327117X14913285800706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodt S, Klonsky K, Tourte L. 2006. Farmer goals and management styles: implications for advancing biologically based agriculture. Agric Syst. 89(1):90–105. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown C, Kovács E, Herzon I, Villamayor-Tomas S, Albizua A, Galanaki A, Grammatikopoulou I, McCracken D, Olsson JA, Zinngrebe Y. 2021. Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy. 101:105136. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs AE, Fischer A, Rink D, Young JC. 2008. Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 4(2):65–80. doi: 10.3843/Biodiv.4.2:1.
   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 USA. 113(6):1462–1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, 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
• Chapman M, Desplazes-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
• Country B, Wrigth S, Suchet-Pearson S, Lloyd K, Burarrwanga L, Ganambarr R, Ganambarr-Stubbs M, Ganambarr B, Maymuru D, Sweeney J. 2016. Co-becoming Bawaka: towards a relational understanding of place/space. Prog Hum Geogr. 40(4):455–475. doi: 10.1177/0309132515589437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darnhofer K. 2020. Farming from a process-relational perspective: making openings for change visible. Sociol Ruralis. 60(2):505–528. doi: 10.1111/soru.12294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta Review. London: HM Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• De la Cadena M. 2015. Earth beings: ecologies of practice across Andean worlds. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer A. 2010. On the role of ideas of human nature in shaping attitudes towards environmental governance. Hum Ecol. 38(1):123–135. doi: 10.1007/s10745-009-9281-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer A, Marshall K. 2010. Framing the landscape: Discourses of woodland restoration and moorland management in Scotland. J Rural Stud. 26(2):185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher A, Young JC. 2007. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conserv. 136(2):271–282. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flint CG, Kunze I, Muhar A, Yoshida Y, Penker M. 2013. Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landsc Urban Plan. 120:208–217. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Antúnez O, Lindgaard JL, Olafsson AS, Stahl Olafsson A. 2023. Gardening for wildlife: a mixed-methods exploration of the factors underlying engagement in wildlife-friendly gardening. People Nat. 5(2):808–825. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10450.
   Google Scholar
• Gould RK, Merrylees E, Hackenburg D, Marchina T. 2023. “My place in the grand scheme of things”: perspective from nature and sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 18(4):1755–1771. doi: 10.1007/s11625-023-01339-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall M. 2011. Plants as persons - a philosophical botany. Albany (USA): State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey M. 2005. Animism - respecting the living world. London, (UK): Hurst & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hertz T, Mancilla-Garcia M, Schlüter M, Muraca B. 2020. From nouns to verbs: how process ontologies enhance our understanding of social-ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems. People Nat. 2(2):328–338. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10079.
   Google Scholar
• Hoelle J, Gould RK, Tauro A. 2022. Beyond ‘desirable’ values: expanding relational values research to reflect the diversity of human–nature relationships. People Nat. 5(6):1–12. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10316.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes G, Marriott K, Briggs C, Wynne-Jones S. 2019. What is rewilding, how should it be done, and why? A Q-method study of the views held by European rewilding advocates. Conserv Soc. 18(2):77–88. doi: 10.4103/cs.cs_19_14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isacs L, Kenter JO, Wetterstrand H, Katzeff C. 2023. What does value pluralism mean in practice? An empirical demonstration from a deliberative valuation. People Nat. 5(2):384–402. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10324.
   Google Scholar
• Kealiikanakaoleohaililani K, Giardina CP. 2016. Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustainability Sci. 11(1):57–67. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenter JO, Raymond CM, van Riper CJ, Azzopardi E, Brear MR, Calcagni F, Christie I, Christie M, Fordham A, Gould RK, et al. 2019. Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain Sci. 14(5):1439–1461. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancilla García M, Hertz T, Schlüter M. 2020. Towards a process epistemology for the analysis of social-ecological systems. Environ Values. 29(2):221–239. doi: 10.3197/096327119X15579936382608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Ortega J, Waylen KA. 2018. PES what a mess? An analysis of the position of environmental professionals in the conceptual debate on payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 154:218–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzocchi F. 2020. A deeper meaning of sustainability: insights from indigenous knowledge. Anthropocene Rev. 7(1):77–93. doi: 10.1177/2053019619898888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian R, Gomez-Baggethun E. 2021. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecol Econ. 185:107038. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian R, Pascual U. 2018. A typology of elementary forms of human-nature relations: a contribution to the valuation debate. Curr Opin Sust. 35:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olvera-Hernandez S, Martin-Ortega J, Mesa-Jurado MA, Novo P, Holmes G, Borchi A, Walsh A. 2023. Can theatre be used in environmental governance? The view of environmental professionals in Mexico. Environ Sci Policy. 149:103559. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plumwood V. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London, (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Puig de la Bellacasa M. 2017. Matters of care. Minneapolis (USA): University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pungas L. 2022. Who stewards whom? A paradox spectrum of human–nature relationships of Estonian dacha gardeners, innovation. Eur J Social Sci Res. 35(3):420–444. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2022.2095990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond CM, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Martin-Lopez B, Plieninger T. 2016. The farmer as a landscape steward: comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions. AMBIO. 45(2):173–184. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0694-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roundtree K. 2012. Neo-paganism, animism, and kinship with nature. J Contemp Religion. 27(2):305–320. doi: 10.1080/13537903.2012.675746.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon 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
• Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Perlaviciute G. 2014. An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J Environ Psychol. 38:104–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tronto JC. 1993. Moral boundaries - a political argument for an ethic of care. London, (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Turnaturi G. 2007. Betrayals – the unpredictability of human relations. Chicago (USA): University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vining J, Merrick MS, Price EA. 2008. The distinction between humans and nature: human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Res Hum Ecol. 15:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts S, Stenner P. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: theory, methods & interpretation. London, (UK): Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Weber A. 2019. Enlivenment: toward a poetics for the anthropocene. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• West S, Beilin R, Wagenaar H, Watkins C. 2019. Introducing a practice perspective on monitoring for adaptive management. People Nat. 1(3):387–405. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10033.
   Google Scholar
• West S, Haider LJ, Stalhammar S, Woroniecki S. 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst People. 16(1):304–325. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabala A. 2014. qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. R J. 6(2):163–173. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2014-2/zabala.pdf.
   Google Scholar