100
subtypes ‘nature concern’ and ‘social concern’ (Bauer 2016). The subtype ‘nature
concern’ can be described as including ideas concerning ‘unity with nature’, ‘protecting the environment’ and a ‘world of beauty’ and can be seen as a basic human
value with different dimensions. In the empirical literature on protected areas,
‘human–nature relationship’ is used as a term for this value. The human–nature
relationship, with its different dimensions (e.g. biocentric, ecocentric, biophobic),
influences the more concrete attitudes.
7.3.2 Basic Environmental Value Orientations
There are some studies that address the relationship between the general public and
nature, and many of these result in typologies of value orientations that differ in
respect of types, focus (e.g. the feeling towards nature or the quality of the relationship) and content. Wilson (1993) defines two elementary value orientations that
focus on the feelings of humans towards nature: biophilia, the love of all that lives
and its antithesis and biophobia, the tendency for people to be afraid of nature.
Stern and Dietz (1994) define three basic environmental value sets that describe
the relationship: the egoistic, the altruistic and the biospheric value orientations.
And Thompson and Barton (1994) proposed an anthropocentric attitude type, an
ecocentric attitude type and an environmentally apathetic type. Kaltenborn and
Bjerke (2002) found that the anthropocentric value orientation correlated positively
with a preference for farmlands, while the ecocentric orientation correlated with a
preference for wild lands (Schultz et al. 2004; Swart and Van Der Windt 2005;
Stenmark 2002).
In the empirical literature, ‘human–nature relationship’ is often used as a synonym for ‘nature concern’ or other environmental values (Bauer 2016). Especially
relevant within our context is the typology of Kellert (1980, 1993). On the basis of
a survey concerning attitudes towards wildlife, Kellert makes assumptions concerning the general human–nature relationship with nine dimensions: (1) the utilitarian
dimension, (2) the naturalistic dimension, (3) the ecological scientific dimension,
(4) the aesthetic dimension, (5) the symbolic dimension, (6) the humanistic dimension, (7) the moralistic dimension, (8) the dominating dimension and (9) the negative dimension.
In these dimensions, the concepts of biophilia and its converse, biophobia, are
clearly apparent, although not all of Kellert’s dimensions can be assigned to the two
concepts. The dimensions reflect the tendency to consider specific values as being
especially relevant, and the human–nature relationship of a person can be described
by more than one of the dimensions. Further exploration of human–nature relationship types (e.g. Flint et al. 2013) has led to an impressive variety of different typologies within the last 15 years.
N. Bauer et al.
subtypes ‘nature concern’ and ‘social concern’ (Bauer 2016). The subtype ‘nature
concern’ can be described as including ideas concerning ‘unity with nature’, ‘protecting the environment’ and a ‘world of beauty’ and can be seen as a basic human
value with different dimensions. In the empirical literature on protected areas,
‘human–nature relationship’ is used as a term for this value. The human–nature
relationship, with its different dimensions (e.g. biocentric, ecocentric, biophobic),
influences the more concrete attitudes.
7.3.2 Basic Environmental Value Orientations
There are some studies that address the relationship between the general public and
nature, and many of these result in typologies of value orientations that differ in
respect of types, focus (e.g. the feeling towards nature or the quality of the relationship) and content. Wilson (1993) defines two elementary value orientations that
focus on the feelings of humans towards nature: biophilia, the love of all that lives
and its antithesis and biophobia, the tendency for people to be afraid of nature.
Stern and Dietz (1994) define three basic environmental value sets that describe
the relationship: the egoistic, the altruistic and the biospheric value orientations.
And Thompson and Barton (1994) proposed an anthropocentric attitude type, an
ecocentric attitude type and an environmentally apathetic type. Kaltenborn and
Bjerke (2002) found that the anthropocentric value orientation correlated positively
with a preference for farmlands, while the ecocentric orientation correlated with a
preference for wild lands (Schultz et al. 2004; Swart and Van Der Windt 2005;
Stenmark 2002).
In the empirical literature, ‘human–nature relationship’ is often used as a synonym for ‘nature concern’ or other environmental values (Bauer 2016). Especially
relevant within our context is the typology of Kellert (1980, 1993). On the basis of
a survey concerning attitudes towards wildlife, Kellert makes assumptions concerning the general human–nature relationship with nine dimensions: (1) the utilitarian
dimension, (2) the naturalistic dimension, (3) the ecological scientific dimension,
(4) the aesthetic dimension, (5) the symbolic dimension, (6) the humanistic dimension, (7) the moralistic dimension, (8) the dominating dimension and (9) the negative dimension.
In these dimensions, the concepts of biophilia and its converse, biophobia, are
clearly apparent, although not all of Kellert’s dimensions can be assigned to the two
concepts. The dimensions reflect the tendency to consider specific values as being
especially relevant, and the human–nature relationship of a person can be described
by more than one of the dimensions. Further exploration of human–nature relationship types (e.g. Flint et al. 2013) has led to an impressive variety of different typologies within the last 15 years.
N. Bauer et al.