Explore the vast range of titles available.

The development of societies, including spiritual development, is closely connected to forests. The larger interrelations among changing societies, transforming forest landscapes, and evolving spiritual values related to forests have yet to be extensively considered. Addressing this research gap is important to avoid the neglect of spiritual values in forest policy and management. Our exploratory study investigates spiritual values of forests from European and Asian perspectives, assessing 13 countries. Based on expert knowledge from 18 interdisciplinary experts, we first define forest spiritual values (forest spirituality). We then elaborate on the idea that forest spirituality evolves as societies and landscapes change, and propose a transition hypothesis for forest spirituality. We identify indicators and drivers and portray four stages of such a transition using country-specific examples. We find that during a first stage (“nature is powerful”), forest spirituality is omnipresent through the abundance of sacred natural sites and practices of people who often directly depend on forests for their livelihoods. An alternative form of spirituality is observed in the second stage (“taming of nature”). Connected to increasing transformation of forest landscapes and intensifying land-use practices, “modern” religions guide human–nature interrelations. In a third stage (“rational management of nature”), forest spirituality is overshadowed by planned rational forest management transforming forests into commodities for the economy, often focusing on provisioning ecosystem services. During a fourth stage (“reconnecting with nature”), a revival of forest spirituality (re-spiritualization) can be observed due to factors such as urbanization and individualizing spirituality. Our core contribution is in showing the connections among changing forest perceptions, changing land-use governance and practices, and changing forest spirituality. Increasing the understanding of this relationship holds promise for supporting forest policy-making and management in addressing trade-offs between spiritual values and other aspects of forests.

Reciprocal relations underscore the mutual caretaking obligations held between nature and society, as intertwining entities that are co-constituted with one another. In this paper, we draw from scholarship on human-nature relations, which emphasizes the intrinsic value and agency of non-human beings and the landscape. Building on this literature, we investigate the practice of reciprocal relations for exemplar communities in Hawaiʻi, British Columbia (Canada), the Appalachian mountain region (U.S.), and Madagascar that are all actively cultivating stewardship of natural resources in the face of economic, political, and ecological pressures. Our cases illustrate the diverse ways individuals and communities enact reciprocal relations and examine how these acts may increase community access to land and water. We show how communities mobilize reciprocal relations through both formal governance actions (e.g. management planning and legislation) and informal avenues (e.g. daily human-environment interactions). Our findings expand upon Ribot and Peluso’s theory of access by considering the multi-directional flows of benefits and responsibilities between people and places exemplified by reciprocal relations. By reframing environmental governance around mutual responsibilities, we hope to increase recognition of existing reciprocal place-based relationships, and facilitate greater community access to land, water, and resources.

People’s support and involvement are critical to the sustainable use and conservation of social-ecological systems (SESs). Integrating people’s values into management decisions is pivotal. Without proper integration, the resulting SES may not align with their desires and may not be supported by people. Furthermore, values can be a deep leverage point within a system that is difficult to change, as people may be more willing to be involved in activities that support what they value. Recent studies have illustrated the importance of relational values as the third value class (in addition to instrumental and intrinsic). Relational values are preferences, principles, and virtues associated with human-nature relationships. Although studies on relational values are available, empirical studies, particularly studies about the usefulness of relational values in promoting pro-SES behavior, are rare. Consequently, our study administered questionnaires to residents in three SESs in Japan (N = 864, 1136, and 1000, respectively) to understand how relational values impact people’s support and involvement in SES management as measured by pro-SES behavior scales. In addition, due to the lack of pro-SES behavior measurements, we developed measurement items and a development guideline. Our findings support previous theoretical discussions positing that relational values are critical as a single value class or as part of the plural values and need to be integrated into SES management decisions to gain people’s support. Furthermore, our study demonstrated that cultivating relational values could promote pro-SES behavior to realize a desirable state of SES. Although from the viewpoint of residents, relational values overlapped with instrumental and intrinsic values; however, as per theoretical discussions, the results indicated that relational values were important in their own right as they were well associated with pro-SES behavior scales. The findings were similar across the three SESs, with different social-ecological characteristics. In summary, managers must integrate relational values into management decisions to gain people’s support and should cultivate relational values to promote pro-SES behavior, in order to realize a desirable state of SES.

Sound management of social-ecological systems should reflect diverse values; otherwise, the systems may inadvertently lead to neither fair nor desirable states. Relational values are one of three primary value domains of these diverse values. Since they may strongly motivate care for nature, nurturing these values could be a useful management measure for people involved in management (e.g., policy makers and nonprofit organizations) to realize a desirable state of social-ecological systems. To test this hypothesis, we studied ocean literacy programs at a district junior high school in Hinase District, Okayama, Japan. The district is known as a Satoumi (Japanese coastal socio-ecological production landscape). First, we measured the significance of relational values in the district. Second, we assessed the effect of the ocean literacy programs on cultivating relational values. Third, to test the feasibility of the ocean literacy programs as management measures to cultivate relational values, we used a contingent valuation method, developed in environmental economics, to measure residents’ willingness to support the programs. Our study reveals that relational values are a critical component of Satoumi. Students are promising supporters of Satoumi given the declining and aging population of guardians, a result of the decline in revenues from fishery; moreover, the programs cultivate relational values in students. Residents support the ocean literacy programs, and their willingness to pay for them is connected with relational values. Therefore, ocean literacy can be an effective and feasible management measure for sustaining Satoumi through cultivation of relational values.

In addition to the management of marine protected areas, the management of non‐protected areas is integral to sustainable use and conservation of coastal zones. The human–nature connection has drawn increasing attention in the Western society because the disconnect from nature is a root cause of ecological crises and unsustainability. Re‐connecting is a promising avenue. We propose satoumi creation as an approach for the sustainable use and conservation of coastal zones by re‐connecting people to nature. Satoumi is a Japanese term describing a desirable state of coastal zones with enhanced biodiversity and productivity realized by active human intervention. Although satoumi is promising, previous discussions have been narrowly focused on ecosystems. We reconsidered satoumi from a social‐ecological system (SES) perspective to elucidate the full spectrum of its key features. The human–nature connection is an integral part of satoumi. Satoumi engenders relational values in addition to instrumental and intrinsic values. Satoumi as a state is one thing and its creation another. We cannot merely transplant a successful satoumi to other locations. Furthermore, because coastal SESs are complex, systemic transformation into satoumi requires identifying deep leverage points. We propose a certain marine education at schools that could function as a deep leverage point. The education corresponds to the three realms of deep leverage for sustainability transformation: re‐structure, re‐connect and re‐think. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. Foreign Language 概要 海洋保護区の管理に加えて, 保護区に指定されていない沿岸域の持続的利用と保全が求められている． 人と自然のつながりの断絶が生態系の劣化や持続不可能性の根本的な原因と考えられることから, 西洋では人と自然のつながりに対する関心が高まっている．したがって, つながりの回復が, 沿岸域の持続的利用と保全を実現するための効果的な方法であると考えられている． そこで, 本稿では沿岸域を里海にすることによって, 人と自然のつながりを回復することを提案する．里海は人手を加えることによって生物生産性と生物多様性を高めた望ましい沿岸域を指す日本の概念である． 里海は人と自然のつながりを回復する手がかりとなる可能性があるものの, これまでの里海の議論では, 狭く生態系に焦点が当てられており，人と自然のつながりに関する十分な議論がなされてこなかった．そこで本稿ではより広く, 社会生態系の視点から里海を再考する．人と自然のつながりは里海の核をなすものであり, 里海は道具的価値, 本質的価値に続く第三の価値である関係価値を醸成している． ただし, 里海が望ましい状態であるということと, 里海を創成することは全く別の話であり, 望ましいからといって里海の成功例を単純に他の場所に移植することはできない．複雑な社会生態系である沿岸域にシステミックな変化をもたらし, 里海を創成するためには, いわゆるディープ・レバレッジ・ポイントを特定することが有効であると考えられる．そこで本稿では, 教育機関が実施する特定の海洋学習がディープ・レバレッジ・ポイントとして機能する可能性を提案する．こうした教育は持続可能な変革をもたらすディープ・レバレッジ・ポイントの三つの類型, 再構成, 再接続, そして再考に呼応するものである．

Pathways to sustainability require a broader and fuller representation of the multiple values of nature in policy and practice. In this People and Nature special feature entitled ‘The Multiple Values of Nature’, researchers interpreted all three key words differently: multiple, values and nature. The articles also engaged variously with concepts, theory, practice and data. In the face of this diversity, some see a burgeoning field and others see a mess. In this editorial, we characterize the diversity of these contributions and consider whether the field is poised to become mainstream. Specifically, we ask what might be limiting its efforts to unsettle the dominance of economic valuation. Like the broader field, the articles engage little with theory, and only one paper engaged with a theory of value (the dominant ‘utility theory’, rejecting a component of it). All articles thus seemed dissatisfied or disengaged with existing theories of value; this suggests that popular theories of value cannot properly account for the diversity of ways that people value and relate to nature. Perhaps there is a fundamental lack in how we understand value in any context (not just nature). As this fledgling field matures, we argue that building theory is key. Specifically, there is a need to articulate a theory of value to accommodate the multiple values of nature, which relates the various concepts to empirics, and which serves as a foundation to guide practice. To facilitate this theory development, we outline a set of ways that a new theory of value would need to differ from the dominant economic (utility) theory of value in order to explain what is known about the multiple values of nature. Whether by illustrating and enlivening an existing alternative theory of value or by inspiring a new theory, perhaps this fledgling field of the multiple values of nature is poised to disrupt much broader understandings of what matters to people and why. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Modern environmental thought has always involved normative claims about the values needed for sustainability. This has often played out in debates between proponents of anthropocentric and ecocentric ways of valuing nature. More recently, there has been a flourishing of interest in relational and pluricentric ways of valuing nature, coinciding with a “turn to values” in the sustainability literature. In this paper we explore the meaning and use of the term “sustainability-aligned values.” Following the 2022 IPBES Values Assessment we consider these as values that are crucial for shaping decisions that will help bring about sustainability. Our characterization of sustainably-aligned values assumes inherent pluralism because of diverse interpretations of sustainability and of pathways toward it. Nevertheless, a review of three bodies of literature suggests that there is considerable agreement about the kinds of values that align with sustainability. In particular, the nurturing of certain relational values is now widely seen as supportive of sustainability, including values regarding what matters in human interactions with nature (such as stewardship), and values regarding relationships between humans (such as collectivism). We proceed to pose critical questions about the proposition that certain values support sustainability. We ask whether this emerging body of thought is consistent with pluralist requirements to foster values diversity, whether an agenda to nurture values aligned with sustainability is actionable, and how mobilizing sustainability-aligned values entails addressing power imbalances.

Nature‐based Solutions (NbS) have rapidly been gaining traction across the research, policy and practice spheres, advocated as transformative actions to jointly address biodiversity loss and climate change. However, there are multiple, alternative ways to conceptualize NbS across those three spheres. To inform the NbS discourses in research, policy and practice, we critically reflect on the prevailing framing of NbS. Although the concept links environmental health to human well‐being, we argue that its current dominant framing reinforces a dichotomy between people and nature by highlighting one, external nature working for the benefit of society. For the NbS concept to support transformation, we believe it must embody a reframing of human–nature relationships towards regenerative relationships between humans and nature. To support the transformative aspirations of NbS, we propose a novel core framing of NbS making explicit the co‐dependence of people and nature, which underpins human well‐being and environmental health. We highlight how such a framing can support a transformation through influencing beliefs and normative values, and second, through the communication and application of the NbS concept in research, policy and practice. We then elaborate on how such a framing is key to support inclusivity and collaboration between diverse research perspectives, policy objectives across scales and implementation practices to deliver just and successful NbS. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of ‘lenses’ and ‘tensions’ to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the ‘mess’ of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.