IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgeogr/v3y2023i2p12-245d1105552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nature–Human Relational Models in a Riverine Social–Ecological System: San Marcos River, TX, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Christina W. Lopez

    (The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA)

  • Madeline T. Wade

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA)

  • Jason P. Julian

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA)

Abstract

A social–ecological system is a highly connected organization of biophysical and social actors that interact across multiple scales, share resources, and adapt to the actors’ changes. The ways in which humans and nature interact have traditionally been characterized and influenced by competing intrinsic and utilitarian values. However, recently, relational values and relational models have been used to unpack the myriad of values society assigns to nature and create general typologies of nature–human relationships. Here, we investigate the spectrum of environmental values that exist in the San Marcos River (SMR)—a social–ecological system (SES) in which a spring-fed river flows through an urban environment in central Texas (USA) including a university campus that attracts regional and international tourists. Recognizing that scholars have struggled to identify a nuanced understanding of environmental values and how these values shape nature–human relationships in SES, we use the SMR case study to capture the nature–human relational models that exist among social and user groups of the blue space. Analyzing different groups of visitors and stakeholders of the SMR (n = 3145), this study serves as a pilot to apply relational models using a variety of metrics to build a framework for understanding models of nature–human relationships, beyond ecosystem services and dualistic valuations. In our sample, most respondents were classified under the stewardship model (59%). The utilization model (34%) was the second most common, followed by wardship (6%). We found that patterns of place identity emerged to support the development of relational models beyond utilization. Despite the differences among perceptions, values, and some variation in relational models, one commonality was the innate, ubiquitous preference to protect natural habitat, water quality, and the river’s aquifer water source. Our study contributes to the growing literature around relational values and is a pathway to integrate ecosystem services, environmental values, and human–environment interactions into a more holistic approach to environmental valuation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina W. Lopez & Madeline T. Wade & Jason P. Julian, 2023. "Nature–Human Relational Models in a Riverine Social–Ecological System: San Marcos River, TX, USA," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-49, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgeogr:v:3:y:2023:i:2:p:12-245:d:1105552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7086/3/2/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7086/3/2/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason P. Julian & Graham S. Daly & Russell C. Weaver, 2018. "University Students’ Social Demand of a Blue Space and the Influence of Life Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-30, September.
    2. Paulo Anciaes, 2022. "Revealed preference valuation of beach and river water quality in Wales," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 75-94, January.
    3. Wessel Ganzevoort & Riyan J. G. van den Born, 2019. "Exploring place attachment and visions of nature of water-based recreationists: the case of the longitudinal dams," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 149-161, February.
    4. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christina W. Lopez & Evgenia Spears & Tyler C. Hartwick & John C. Killough & Michael A. Schuett, 2024. "Redefining Absentee: Towards Understanding Place Attachment and Stewardship in Non-Residential Landowners in Texas, USA," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Madeline T. Wade & Jason P. Julian & Kevin S. Jeffery & Sarah M. Davidson, 2023. "A Participatory Approach to Assess Social Demand and Value of Urban Waterscapes: A Case Study in San Marcos, Texas, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-39, May.

    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. Madeline T. Wade & Jason P. Julian & Kevin S. Jeffery & Sarah M. Davidson, 2023. "A Participatory Approach to Assess Social Demand and Value of Urban Waterscapes: A Case Study in San Marcos, Texas, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-39, May.
    2. John E. Quinn & Karen E. Allen, 2021. "Governance, Values, and Conservation Processes in Multifunctional Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-6, May.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Martí, Pablo & García-Mayor, Clara & Nolasco-Cirugeda, Almudena & Serrano-Estrada, Leticia, 2020. "Green infrastructure planning: Unveiling meaningful spaces through Foursquare users’ preferences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Nicole V. DeVille & Linda Powers Tomasso & Olivia P. Stoddard & Grete E. Wilt & Teresa H. Horton & Kathleen L. Wolf & Eric Brymer & Peter H. Kahn & Peter James, 2021. "Time Spent in Nature Is Associated with Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Hanaček, Ksenija & Langemeyer, Johannes & Bileva, Tatyana & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2021. "Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    13. Chien, Herlin & Saito, Osamu, 2021. "Evaluating social–ecological fit in urban stream management: The role of governing institutions in sustainable urban ecosystem service provision," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Sinclair, Michael & Ghermandi, Andrea & Signorello, Giovanni & Giuffrida, Laura & De Salvo, Maria, 2022. "Valuing Recreation in Italy's Protected Areas Using Spatial Big Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    15. Marjolein C. J. Caniëls & Wim Lambrechts & Johannes (Joost) Platje & Anna Motylska-Kuźma & Bartosz Fortuński, 2021. "50 Shades of Green: Insights into Personal Values and Worldviews as Drivers of Green Purchasing Intention, Behaviour, and Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Argyro Anna Kanelli & Margarita Kokkinaki & Marios-Dimitrios Sinvare & Chrisovalantis Malesios & Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos & Olga-Ioanna Kalantzi, 2023. "Keep Calm and Go Out: Urban Nature Exposure, Mental Health, and Perceived Value during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Matthew L. Richardson & Ashley D. Milton & Elgloria Harrison, 2020. "People with Different Educational Attainment in Washington, DC, USA have Differential Knowledge and Perceptions about Environmental Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Ciesielski, Mariusz & Stereńczak, Krzysztof, 2021. "Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    19. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Gema Parra & Luis Joaquin Garcia-Lopez & José A. Piqueras & Roberto García, 2022. "Identification of Farmers’ Barriers to Implement Sustainable Management Practices in Olive Groves," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, May.

    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:jgeogr:v:3:y:2023:i:2:p:12-245:d:1105552. 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.