Advertisement

Understanding pathways to shifting people’s values over time in the context of social–ecological systems

  • Dave Kendal
  • Christopher M. Raymond
Special Feature: Original Article Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

Abstract

Despite rich theorisation on the structure and content of people’s values and great interest in the concept of value change, there is currently little coordinated understanding of how people’s values might shift over time. This paper draws upon different value traditions in a multi-level framework that articulates possible pathways of value change within individuals and groups and within a social–ecological context. Individual- and group-level values may change in response to events over an individual’s life course or changes in the social–ecological context that people are living in. Group-level values may also change as the composition of individuals within a social group change. These pathways are likely to act differently on values conceived as guiding principles (transcendental values) and values that people assign to people, places, or things around them (contextual values). We present a research agenda to develop a better understanding of these pathways: assessing the associations between value change and demographic change in a highly mobile world; developing a theoretical and empirical basis for understanding value shifts associated with social–ecological and land-use change; clearer identification of the groups of people that are subject to proposed mechanisms explaining value shifts; and bridging psychological framing of values to other more embodied understandings that may be better placed to explain value shift in the context of social–ecological change.

Keywords

Value shift Value change Social–ecological systems Regime shift Environmental change Adaptation 

References

  1. Abramson PR, Inglehart R (1995) Value change in global perspective. University of Michigan Press, MichiganCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardi A, Goodwin R (2011) The dual route to value change: individual processes and cultural moderators. J Cross Cult Psychol 42:271–287.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardi A, Lee JA, Hofmann-Towfigh N, Soutar G (2009) The structure of intraindividual value change. J Pers Soc Psychol 97:913–929.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardi A, Buchanan KE, Goodwin R et al (2014) Value stability and change during self-chosen life transitions: self-selection versus socialization effects. J Pers Soc Psychol 106:131–147.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengston DN, Webb TJ, Fan DP (2004) Shifting forest value orientations in the United States, 1980–2001: a computer content analysis. Environ Values 13:373–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder CR, Bots PWG, Hinkel J, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05551-180426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ 60:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown G, Donovan S (2014) Measuring change in place values for environmental and natural resource planning using public participation GIS (PPGIS): results and challenges for longitudinal research. Soc Nat Resour 27:36–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.840023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown G, Fagerholm N (2014) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv. 1:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown G, Weber D (2012) Measuring change in place values using public participation GIS (PPGIS). Appl Geogr 34:316–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryan BA, Nolan M, McKellar L et al (2016) Land-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy scenarios: trajectories for Australia to 2050. Glob Environ Chang 38:130–152.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2016.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson DB, Carson DA (2014) Local economies of mobility in sparsely populated areas: cases from Australia’s spine. J Rural Stud 36:340–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng AS, Kruger LE, Daniels SE (2003) “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research Agenda. Soc Nat Resour 16:87–104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P et al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cuppen E (2012) Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sci 45:23–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9141-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior—how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40:330–354.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill KA et al (2015) Public values for energy system change. Glob Environ Chang 34:59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denhardt R, Denhardt J (2000) The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Adm Rev 60:549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The new environmental paradigm. J Environ Educ 9:10–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer R, Boer D (2016) Values: the dynamic nexus between biology, ecology and culture. Curr Opin Psychol 8:155–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer R, Milfont TL, Gouveia VV (2011) Does social context affect value structures? Testing the within-country stability of value structures with a functional theory of values. J Cross Cult Psychol 42:253–270.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford RM, Williams KJH, Bishop ID, Webb T (2009) A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 90:196–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garcia-Martin M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C et al (2017) Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landsc Ecol 32:2133–2150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0531-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodwin R, Polek E, Bardi A (2012) The temporal reciprocity of values and beliefs: a longitudinal study within a major life transition. Eur J Pers 26:360–370.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gouveia VV, Vione KC, Milfont TL, Fischer R (2015) Patterns of value change during the life span. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 41:1276–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215594189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A, Andersson E, Banzhaf E, Baró F, Brenck M, Fischer LK, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Krellenberg K, Kremer P, Kronenberg J, Larondelle N, Mathey J, Pauleit S, Ring I, Rink D, Schwarz N, Wolff M (2017) Greening cities –To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int 64:41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halasz JR (2018) The super-gentrification of Park Slope, Brooklyn. Urban Geogr.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1453454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrington C, Curtis A, Black R (2008) Locating communities in natural resource management. J Environ Policy Plan 10:199–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080801928469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hegazy IR, Kaloop MR (2015) Monitoring urban growth and land use change detection with GIS and remote sensing techniques in Daqahlia governorate Egypt. Int J Sustain Built Environ 4:117–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSBE.2015.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hughes TP, Carpenter S, Rockström J et al (2013) Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries. Trends Ecol Evol 28:389–395.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inglehart R (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Inglehart R, Baker W (2000) Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am Sociol Rev 61:19–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ives CD, Fischer J (2017) The self-sabotage of conservation: reply to Manfredo. Conserv Biol 31:1483–1485.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ives CD, Kendal D (2013) Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 34:80–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kendal D, Ford RM, Anderson NM, Farrar A (2015) The VALS: a new tool to measure people’s general valued attributes of landscapes. J Environ Manage.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendal D, Dobbs C, Gallagher RV et al (2018) A global comparison of the climatic niches of urban and native tree populations. Glob Ecol Biogeogr.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N et al (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kenter JO, Reed MS, Fazey I (2016) The deliberative value formation model. Ecosyst Serv 21:194–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitayama S, Conway LG III, Pietromonaco PR et al (2010) Ethos of independence across regions in the United States: the production-adoption model of cultural change. Am Psychol 65:559–574.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knafo A, Schwartz SH (2001) Value socialization in families of israeli-born and soviet-born adolescents in Israel. J Cross Cult Psychol 32:213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032002008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuczynski L, Marshall S, Schell K (1997) Value socialization in a bidirectional context. In: Grusec JE, Kuczynski L (eds) Parenting and children’s internalization of values: a handbook of contemporary theory. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, US, pp 23–50Google Scholar
  43. Lehmann IJ, Payne IK (1963) An exploration of attitude and value changes of college freshmen. Pers Guid J 41:403–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lönnqvist J-E, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Verkasalo M (2011) Personal values before and after migration. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2:584–591.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611402362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Henry KL (2009) Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Soc Sci Q 90:407–427.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 30:287–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL et al (2017) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31:772–780.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mann J (2012) The introduction of multiculturalism in Canada and Australia, 1960s–1970s. Nations Natl 18:483–503.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2012.00553.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McPhearson T, Pickett STA, Grimm NB et al (2016) Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. Bioscience 66:198–212.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mendham E, Curtis A, Millar J (2012) The natural resource management implications of rural property turnover. Ecol Soc 17:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Milfont TLTL, Milojev P, Sibley CGCG (2016) Values stability and change in adulthood: a 3-year longitudinal study of rank-order stability and mean-level differences. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 42:572–588.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216639245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) More input–better output: does citizen involvement improve environmental governance? In: Blühdorn I (ed) In search of legitimacy: policy making in Europe and the challenge of complexity. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 205–224Google Scholar
  54. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2015.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pratt MW, Hunsberger B, Pancer SM, Alisat S (2003) A longitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: correlates of a moral self-ideal in late adolescence. Soc Dev 12:563–585.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467.9507.00249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quastel N (2009) Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geogr 30:694–725.  https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.30.7.694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Radford D (2016) ‘Everyday otherness’—intercultural refugee encounters and everyday multiculturalism in a South Australian rural town. J Ethn Migr Stud 42:2128–2145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1179107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raymond CM, Kenter JO (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:241–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raymond CM, Kenter J, Turner N, Alexander K (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S (2018) An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plan Manag 61:778–799.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G et al (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15:r1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robinson OC (2013) Values and adult age: findings from two cohorts of the European Social Survey. Eur J Ageing 10:11–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-012-0247-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values—theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65Google Scholar
  64. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartz SH (2005) Validity and applicability of the theory of values. In: Tamayo A, Porto JB (eds) Valores e comportamentos nas organizações. Editora Vozes, Petrópolis, pp 56–95Google Scholar
  66. Schwartz SH (2006) A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comp Sociol.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schwartz SH, Bardi A, Bianchi G (2000) Value adaptation to the imposition and collapse of communist regimes in East-Central Europe. Political Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Seymour E, Curtis A, Pannell DJ et al (2011) Same river, different values and why it matters. Ecol Manag Restor 12:207–213.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00605.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shove E (2010) Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A 42:1273–1285.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smetana JG, Robinson J, Rote WM (2014) Socialization in adolescence. In: Handbook of socialization, second edition : theory and research (2nd Edn). Pro Quest Ebook Central, pp 60–84Google Scholar
  72. Sortheix FM, Parker PD, Lechner CM, Schwartz SH (2017) Changes in young europeans’ values during the global financial crisis. Soc Psychol Personal Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E, Lurvink J (2014) The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ Behav 46:163–192.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) The new ecological paradigm in social–psychological context. Environ Behav 27:723–743.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano G (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97Google Scholar
  77. Stokols D (2018) Social ecology in the digital age: solving complex problems in a globalized world. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Straka TM, Kendal D, Van Der Ree R (2016) When ecological information meets high wildlife value orientations: influencing preferences of nearby residents for urban wetlands. Hum Dimens Wildl.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1198851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thorp JH, Flotemersch JE, Delong MD et al (2010) Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation, and river hydrogeomorphology. Bioscience 60:67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.1.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tulviste T, Mizera L, De Geer B (2012) Socialization values in stable and changing societies. J Cross Cult Psychol 43:480–497.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111401393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P et al (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46:493–510.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00189-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. UN Habitat (2013) State of the world’s cities 2012/13, Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. van Riper CJ, Thiel A, Penker M, Braito M, Landon AC, Thomsen JM, Tucker CM (2018) Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework. Ecol Soc 23(3)Google Scholar
  84. Vecchione M, Schwartz S, Alessandri G et al (2016) Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: an 8-year longitudinal study. J Res Pers 63:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wallace KJ, Wagner C, Smith MJ (2016) Eliciting human values for conservation planning and decisions: a global issue. J Environ Manage 170:160–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Welzel C (2014) Evolution, empowerment, and emancipation: how societies climb the freedom ladder. World Dev 64:33–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Welzel C, Inglehart R, Kligemann H-D (2003) The theory of human development: a cross-cultural analysis. Eur J Polit Res 42:341–379.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Williams DR, Stewart SI (1998) Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. J For 96:18–23. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:8498529Google Scholar
  89. Wright G, Rowe G (2011) Group-based judgmental forecasting: an integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda. Int J Forecast 27:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Technology, Environments and DesignUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, Faculty of Biological and Environmental SciencesFaculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations