Pluralizing environmental values for urban planning: How to uncover the diversity of imaginaries about socio-natures from Vitoria-Gasteiz (Basque Country, Spain)

1262 | People and Nature. 2023;5:1262–1283.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3 Received: 18 January 2023 | Accepted: 14 May 2023 DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10506 RESEARCH ARTICLE Pluralizing environmental values for urban planning: How to uncover the diversity of imaginaries about socionatures from VitoriaGasteiz (Basque Country, Spain) Julia Neidig1,2 | Isabelle Anguelovski1,3 | Bosco Lliso2,4 | Unai Pascual2,5,6 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2023 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. 1Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 2Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain; 3Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Spain; 4World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 5Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain and 6Centre for Environment and Development (CDE), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Correspondence Julia Neidig Email: [email protected] Funding information City of VitoriaGasteiz— Convene "REVALUE"; Department of Education of the Basque Government, Grant/ Award Number: PIBA190096; María de Maeztu Excellence Accreditation 20182022, Grant/Award Number: MCIN/ AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ Handling Editor: Priscilla Wehi Abstract 1. Cities have pushed forward renaturing initiatives in local planning agendas. Discourses and rationales for such interventions tend to follow instrumental framings often narrowed down to the economic, health and ecological benefits of nature's contributions to people (NCP). Yet, diverse urban residents often connect to other socionature framings that are associated with a plurality of values held for nature, including relational, intrinsic, and instrumental values. 2. Focusing mostly on urban NCP, we used Qmethodology to explore the perspectives and expressions of urban residents' diversity of values for urban greenery and broader humannature relationships. We explore the role of both instrumental and relational values, as well as certain potential disvalues of urban NCP. In light of the recent IPBES values assessment (IPBES, 2022) we follow a call for empirical studies and methodologies to explore, elicit and visibilize plural values about nature. 3. We base our study in the Basque city of VitoriaGasteiz, Spain (2012 European Green Capital) where we identify four distinct perspectives, all of which relate to a diversity of values about urban nature. Urban residents mostly perceive positive values for NCP as directly connected to their wellbeing. Yet, NCP that impact social bonds within their social community, expressed for instance through communityrelated values, are perceived differently across the four perspectives. 4. We conclude that planners and decisionmakers should pay scrutiny to include the four, partly differing, perspectives about the plural values of (urban) NCP in policymaking processes to assure just and inclusive outcomes. Here, intersectional and participatory approaches are needed beyond dominating framings of NCPs and related values, especially those that can take into account the needs and preferences of marginalized social groups. Special emphasis should be put | 1263 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. 1 | INTRODUCTION As cities are facing a socioenvironmental crisis, urban greening interventions (UGI) are increasingly presented in urban planning theory and practice as winwin solutions to multiple challenges affecting human wellbeing (Melanidis & Hagerman, 2022). With mainstreaming of UGI in daytoday planning practice, nature has turned into a core element of a contemporary green planning orthodoxy (Connolly, 2019). Thereby, UGI are dominantly presented through their multifunctionality and the multiple social, economic and environmental benefits they add to urban habitats (Angelo, 2019a; PinedaPinto et al., 2022). Despite the diverse benefits of UGI, their framings and justifications in policymaking processes often follow a universally applied yet simplified definition of nature's contributions that in reality support a process of commodification of urban greening (Anguelovski & Corbera, 2022; GarcíaLamarca, Anguelovski, & Venner, 2022; Neidig et al., 2022). UGI are increasingly presented as part of a universal social imaginary portraying urban nature as a hegemonic “onesizefitsall” approach with purely positive impacts across diverse geographical, cultural and economic urban contexts (Angelo, 2019b; Tozer et al., 2020; Wachsmuth & Angelo, 2018). The potential benefits of UGI thereby tend to be narrowed down to their (often market related) instrumental contributions to people, including the increased competitiveness of cities by improving their air, water and soil quality (Baró et al., 2019; Haase et al., 2014); fostering a growing tourism and real estate sector (GarcíaLamarca, Anguelovski, Cole, et al., 2022); or their impact on mental and physical health while reducing healthcare expenditures (BerdejoEspinola et al., 2021; Capaldi et al., 2015; Labib et al., 2022). Yet, focusing on nature's utility to humans expressed through only instrumental framings reduces the more complex societynature relationships, including those in cities, to unidirectional and uniform relations (Muradian & Pascual, 2018). Recent discourses and imaginaries around nature's integration into urban environments show a tendency to become coopted by a neoliberal rationale (Anguelovski & Corbera, 2022; Kotsila et al., 2021; Tozer et al., 2020; Tzoulas et al., 2021). For instance, critical research on the concepts of ecosystem services and naturebased solutions, both widely permeated urban planning theory and practice, exhibits the often marketdriven logic for implementing UGI (see e.g. Babí Almenar et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2012; Kiss et al., 2021; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). These narrow instrumental framings of urban nature's benefits may hence accelerate an increasing rift between the often antagonistically portrayed concepts of society and nature (Gandy, 2018) and more concretely to an amplification of the citynature binary (Angelo, 2017). To overcome this conceptional antagonism of society and nature, in his seminal essay “The city as a hybrid”, Swyngedouw (1996) proposed the concept of “socionatures” to shift urban theory towards acknowledging cities as socioecological systems. He described the chaotic entanglements of society and nature, wherein (humans' relationships with and valuations of) nature is the outcome of social practices and processes. He writes: Social relations operate in and through metabolizing the "natural" environment through which both society and nature are transformed, changed, or altered and new socionatural forms are produced. While nature provides the foundation, the dynamics of social relations produce nature's and society's history. (ibid, p. 68) Since then, there are increasingly calls for including morethanhuman thinking in urban planning theory and practice to move beyond the intellectual divide of society and nature (Armstrong et al., 2022; Maller, 2021; PinedaPinto et al., 2022). For instance, Hinchliffe and Whatmore (2006) argued for shifting conceptualizations of the city that depict (human- )built environments as opposite to the “wild”, “country”, “nonhuman” (ibid, p. 124) towards visions of living cities. Human and nonhuman elements are thus convivial, coexisting, and codependent in diverse kinds of socionatures. Houston et al. (2018) and Wiesel et al. (2020) go even further in advocating for a posthuman planning theory and practice. Here, morethanhuman thinking should be a core component of designing and building cities prioritizing intimate societynature relationships and practices of responsibility and care for nature. Using these calls for alternative imaginaries about urban socionatures as our starting point, our objective here is to explore different imaginaries and perspectives surrounding nature hold by urban residents. We show different forms of socionatures in the case study of the city of VitoriaGasteiz, the 2012 European Green Capital located in the Basque Country, Spain. We hereby draw on a framework of plural values about nature that integrates the concept of relational values and hence supports conceptualizing nature's added value to urban areas beyond instrumental and positive framings of nature's benefits (IPBES, 2022). on integrating relational values as nourishing such values through planning can play an important role in creating placerooted connections with local urban landscapes and the community. KEYWORDS inclusive greening, plural values about nature, Qmethod, relational values, socionatures, urban environmental planning, VitoriaGasteiz 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1264 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. 1.1 | The notion of relational values for urban planning As a core component of the Values Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2022), the notion of relational values has gained prominence recently. It helps expand the understanding of nature's benefits by means of the more encompassing concept of nature's contributions to people (NCP; Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017); that is, a more nuanced description of societynaturerelationships, including multiple positive and negative values of nature affecting humans' quality of life (Díaz et al., 2018; Kadykalo et al., 2019; Lliso et al., 2022; Pascual et al., 2017). So far, in western cultures values of nature have traditionally been conceptualized dichotomously: as being either instrumental or intrinsic. Instrumental values typically emphasize nature's social and economic value through an anthropocentric lens, prioritizing ideas such as natural capital and ecosystem services with specific NCP being largely or partially substitutable (DeplazesZemp & Chapman, 2021; Himes & Muraca, 2018; Tadaki et al., 2017). By contrast, intrinsic values derive from biocentric worldviews and generally refer to the inherent worth of nature for its own sake (DeplazesZemp & Chapman, 2021; O'Connor & Kenter, 2019; Piccolo, 2017). They thus express the notion that nature has rights to exist and thrive irrespective of whether it is (instrumentally) useful to humans; its protection is associated with moral obligations. These values can be found in early nature conservation thinking, such as Arne Naess' deep ecology (Naess, 2008). However, intrinsic values are receiving relatively little attention in today's environmental (humancentred) policies given their as abstract and philosophical perceived conceptualization of nature (O'Connor & Kenter, 2019). Relational values count as a pragmatic approach to overcome the instrumentalrelational values dichotomy and its critique of being an oversimplification of complex symbiotic multidirectional relationships between society and nature (Britto dos Santos & Gould, 2018; Kleespies & Dierkes, 2020; PinedaPinto et al., 2022). They concern notions of a good life, that is eudemonia, and more concretely refer to “preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships, both interpersonal and as articulated by policies and social norms.” (Chan et al., 2016, p. 1462). Relational values offer different ontological and counterhegemonic ways to describe meaningful societynature relationships (IPBES, 2022; Jacobs et al., 2020) articulated both collectively and individually through for example, notions of care, justice, kinship, sense of place, reciprocity or individual and collective identity (Calcagni et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2018; Himes & Muraca, 2018). Firmly linked to local landscapes (Stenseke, 2018) and local knowledge systems (Díaz et al., 2018), they help strengthening a sense of place and belonging to the local community and natural environments, thus creating multiple forms of socionatures. 1.2 | Just positive (urban) socionatures? The consideration of value plurality, specifically through integrating relational values, bears a lot of potential for achieving more equitable urban planning processes. Yet, current dominant framings of nature's values as universally positive held by urban planners may risk undermining the possible negative impacts of UGI, specifically on marginalized and vulnerable communities (Birch et al., 2020; Rishbeth & Birch, 2020) or the conflicting perceptions residents might express about nature. A growing body of literature in critical urban planning research shows how certain UGI contribute to increasing social inequality and sociocultural exclusion, exemplified for instance through green gentrification and displacement of vulnerable groups (Anguelovski et al., 2022; Gould & Lewis, 2017; Rigolon & Németh, 2019). That is, despite the tendency to depict nature's contributions as merely beneficial to humans (Hoelle et al., 2022), urban renaturing programs may not always be welcomed positively. A more holistic view on urban nature must also consider its “disvalues” (Lliso et al., 2022) or “tradeoffs” (Haase et al., 2017). For example, UGI may translate into displacement because of rising property prices, real estate speculation and tourismcentred developments (GarcíaLamarca, Anguelovski, Cole, et al., 2022; GarcíaLamarca, Anguelovski, & Venner, 2022). This in turn typically results in both an economic loss, that is, instrumental disvalue, for those being pricedout of their neighbourhoods and a diminishing sense of community and loss of placespecific culture and local traditions, that is, relational disvalues (Lliso et al., 2022). It is therefore essential to not only consider positive but also potential negative values in planning processes for new naturecentred programs to better capture the complex scope of urban societynature relationships. Plural values approaches can serve as a “technology of participation” (Tadaki et al., 2017) when planning UGI. If correctly implemented, they may leverage urban planning processes towards achieving equity and inclusivity by acknowledging, eliciting, and including throughout the different planning phases a diversity of, sometimes diverging, values about nature held by multiple stakeholders (Mansur et al., 2022). Carefully implemented plural valuation approaches can also shed light on power dynamics that underpin socioenvironmental conflicts as they allow for decolonialized interpretations of NCP based on different worldviews and knowledge systems (Díaz et al., 2018; IPBES, 2022; Jacobs et al., 2020; Tozer et al., 2020). For example, UGI have been shown to accelerate or produce environmental injustices in material practices and immaterial discourses around greening through the exclusion of marginalized voices (with their own associated values and needs; Anguelovski et al., 2020; Kabisch & Haase, 2014; Pérez del Pulgar et al., 2020; TrigueroMas et al., 2021). In contrast, a decolonized reading of NCP opens space for a careful consideration of those oftenoverlooked values that may be affected by UGI (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020; Tozer et al., 2020). 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1265 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. 1.3 | The aim of the study Since the call to shift towards pluralizing valuations of nature is still recent (IPBES, 2022), empirical studies offering methodological tools to explore plural values, specifically in urban areas, are relatively few (Termansen et al., 2022). We draw on empirical data from our case study of VitoriaGasteiz, a former European Green Capital, which has been praised for the ambition of its greening mission and projects (Neidig et al., 2022), with a twofold objective: first, to elicit plural and contextspecific values about nature held by urban residents in the case study context using a Qmethodology approach. Second, to inform decisionmaking and implementation of UGI, drawing on a placespecific understanding of nature's values and recognizing the diversity of urban dwellers' perspectives about UGI. We therefore ask: (a) What are the plural values (instrumental, intrinsic or relational) urban residents hold in regard to urban greenery and the broader idea of nature? (b) Do urban NCP tend to be perceived as a positive impact on wellbeing or may aspects of nature also be negatively valued by urban residents? and (c) How do plural, partly diverging, values about nature impact urban policymaking processes? In the following, we introduce the context of our case city VitoriaGasteiz. We then turn to a detailed description of the Qmethodological approach used to identify collective patterns of how urban residents respond to, rank and/or compare a mixture of relational, instrumental, and intrinsic values about urban greening. This will be followed by the description of the results, focusing on four elicited, distinct, perspectives on the values of nature we found in the urban context of VitoriaGasteiz, and on additional qualitative findings. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the findings for planning UGI more generally. 2 | CONTEXTUALIZING VITORIAGASTEIZ’ URBAN TRAJECTORY AND GREENING AMBITIONS We base our study in VitoriaGasteiz, Basque Country, Spain, a 250.000 resident midsized city that grew rapidly during the industrialization period from the 1950s to 1970s with a fivefold increase of the population (from 40.000 to 190.000 residents), attracting people from rural and deprived areas of Spain. In VitoriaGasteiz, this shifted the urban identity and workforce from the agricultural sector with strong connections to local landscapes to an industrial production centred around the automotive sector (Gonzaléz de Langarica Mendizábal, 2007; PérezÁlvarez, 2020). As of 2021, only around half of the city's residents were born in VitoriaGasteiz with an additional 11% born in the Basque Country, while 23% came from the rest of Spain and 14% immigrated from other countries (most of whom from Colombia, Morocco, and Algeria; Ayuntamiento de VitoriaGasteiz, 2021). Through the 2010s, VitoriaGasteiz has received broad international recognition for its longterm political commitment to greening and sustainability and has, inter alia, been awarded as the 2012 European Green Capital and the 2019 UNESCO Global Green City for its urban greening efforts. The city's green transformation started in the early 1990s with an ecological and social rationale to redevelop contaminated brownfields to recreational green amenities. As global narratives of green policies changed over time, environmental projects became the embodiment of depoliticized discourses dominated by ecomodernist and economist framings (Neidig et al., 2022). In terms of its natural environment, the city counts on diverse types of urban and periurban landscapes ranging from green corridors, parks, gardens, wetlands, riversides, to forests. These spaces are connected through a holistic green infrastructure network mostly known for its emblematic periurban 35 km Green Belt (Aznarez et al., 2022). This belt sets a spatial limit to prevent further urban and industrial expansion and separates the city from its surrounding agricultural land (40% of the municipality's surface). In addition, two mountain ranges in the west and south of the city, zones of special environmental protections, make up another 40% of the cityowned land (Orive & Dios Lema, 2012; Figure 1). In sum, the city's urban development history, including the longterm green and sustainability trajectory with shifting rationales for greening, and the access to diverse types of urban and periurban natural landscapes make VitoriaGasteiz an emblematic case to study diverse types of plural values about nature and its different embodiments in the city. 3 | METHODOLOGY: QMETHOD We used Qmethod, a semiquantitative methodological approach to investigate a diversity of perspectives on specific, often conflicted, topics (Sneegas et al., 2021). Originating from psychology, Qmethod has been used to shed light on opinions and perspectives by experts and policymakers or lay people around a specific environmental topic that then can be integrated in the policy design and implementation (Barry & Proops, 1999; Watts & Stenner, 2012; Zabala et al., 2018). The strength of this approach lies in clustering individual responses and opinions into social discourses, that is, understand timeand contextspecific patterns in the way people relate to the discussed research question by examining nuanced differences and communalities between perspectives on the conflicted discourse (Maniatakou et al., 2020). Unlike other quantitative (positivist) methodologies, Qmethod follows an explicit normative approach (Nielsen et al., 2019), as the researcher is urged to take an interpretative and reflective role at every step of the iterative phases of research design, data collection and data analysis (Zabala et al., 2018).1 Until now, only few studies used Qmethod to elicit local plural values about nature through statementor imagebased valuations building upon the categorization of NCP through instrumental, relational and intrinsic values (IPBES, 2022). For example, Maniatakou et al. (2020) studied the perceived importance of wetlandbased 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1266 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. ecosystem services through these three different value dimensions; Inglis and Pascual (2021) focused on the role of languages in the valuation of forest benefits, including a series of relational values linked to Euskara (Basque language) and relationships to forests in the Basque Country; and Holmes et al. (2022) used imagebased Q methodology to better grasp contested relational discourses around rural landscape changes. In the following, we describe in greater detail the research design based on the Qmethod, particularly the creation of the Qconcourse and the Qset and the selection of participants. We then turn to a description of the data collection and analysis (for a summary for the research process, see Figure 2). 3.1 | Research design 3.1.1 | The Qconcourse The Qconcourse describes the set of statements that convey the full scope of perspectives about the research topic in the study context (Robbins & Krueger, 2000). In this paper, it describes the diversity of perceptions and values about (urban) NCP in the cultural, linguistic and placespecific context of VitoriaGasteiz. For this end, we consulted diverse types of statement sources, that is, eight structured interviews with residents, posts on social media, local media articles and previous scientific studies. This was further complemented by statements purposively created by the authors referring to themes not covered by any of the above statement sources (for a detailed description of each of these statement sources, consult Table 1). From these sources, we retrieved the Qconcourse used in this study, a total of 284 statements that described the different perspectives and values associated with NCP, referring to both urban greenery, either with links to specific places in VitoriaGasteiz or with emphasis on urbanspecific NCP, and to nature as a broader socially constructed concept. 3.1.2 | The Qset From the Qconcourse we selected a representative sample of statements, the socalled Qset, that was then used during the ranking of statements, that is the Qsort (see Section 3.2). The selection process of those representative statements consisted of an iterative coding process where each statement of the Qconcourse was labelled as either associated with relational, instrumental, and intrinsic FIGURE 1 Map of urban, periurban and rural green infrastructure network of the municipality of VitoriaGasteiz. Source: Centro de Estudios Ambientales de VitoriaGasteiz, 2023. 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1267 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. values, or broader humannature relational models (as in Muradian & Pascual, 2018). Next, each statement received a tag that expressed an associated notion of nature's value, related to for example health, sense of community, care, fear of nature, economic benefits, boredom or detachment. Throughout six iteratives rounds of coding, we reduced the Qconcourse to a Qset of 40 statements representing the heterogeneity of perspectives about values of nature in the study context (Sneegas, 2020). After a pilot study with 10 experts and lay residents from VitoriaGasteiz to test the statements for clarity and comprehensibility, we reduced the final Qset to 39 statements that expressed a diverse and nuanced notion of the plural values of urban nature applicable in the context of VitoriaGasteiz (for the full list of statements, see Table 2). Of this final Qset, a relatively large number of statements (#1– #13) express positive notions of nature's relational values. These FIGURE 2 Synthesis of the research process, including research design, data collection and data analysis using Qmethodology. 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1268 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. statements refer to NCP expressing a positive relational bond between individuals and nature necessary for a good life, for example, through eudaimonia (#1), care (#4), reciprocity (#5), or harmony (#7) or between humans within their social communities through nature, expressed for instance by their sense of community (#8), collective identity (#9), or care for present (#12) or future (#13) generations. Statements #14– #20 are associated with relational disvalues (i.e. negative relational values). They refer to a negative relational, often emotional, bond between individuals and nature hindering achieving a “good life”, for example, through the dislike of specific features of (urban) nature such as insects, rats or pigeons (#15) or the emotion of fear of nature (#16). They can also describe negative relational bonds between humans within their social communities through nature, such as perceptions of insecurity in parks (#19) or the dislike of having to share urban greenery with people different to oneself (#20). Other statements (#21– #29) express positive framings of the instrumental value of NCP. Nature is perceived as a means to achieve a higher quality of life. It is not the relationship with nature per se that is valued but nature as the means to deliver tangible benefits for wellbeing, that is, revenues through green tourism (#21), local food production (#22), a place for recreation (#25 and #29), or access to better air quality (#27). Statements that reflect instrumental disvalues (#30– #34) describe individuals' preferences or prioritization of other (nongreenbased) experiences over experiences in nature or associated with specific NCP. Urban residents may therefore prefer substituting urban greenery and its related NCPs for, for example, going to the cinema (#34). This may also lead to a preference of fewer public funds for UGI (#31) and instead dedicated to other urban planning priorities, such as housing (#33). The instrumental disvalue may also be reflected in framings that describe a unidirectional negative impact on people's wellbeing, such as negative impacts on recreation of a park perceived dirty and full of mosquitos (#30). The original Qconcourse showed a dominantly anthropocentric framing of societynature relationships with only few statements expressing an ecocentric perspective on the values of nature. We therefore included mainly statements referring to relational and instrumental aspects of NCP into the final Qset; only statement #35 (“I do not think that the main function of nature is to serve for humans.”) and #36 (“Animals deserve to have rights of their own.”) express some form of intrinsic value of nature held by people. Lastly, based on the “extinction of experience” hypothesis referring to a lack of direct and meaningful experiences with nature, especially in urban environments, that may lead to an emotional, physical, spiritual or intellectual alienation from nature (Miller, 2005; Soga & Gaston, 2016), the final Qset also contains statements expressing ideas of human separation from nature. Here, we used Muradian and Pascual's (2018) typology of humannature relational models, specifically those models relevant in an urban environment furthering antienvironmental behaviour: utilization of nature (#37), domination of nature (#38) and detachment from nature (#39). Throughout the full set of 39 statements, we paid attention to include both placebased statements, that is, with reference to TABLE 1 Types of statement sources consulted for creating the Qconcourse of 284 statements. Types of statement sources for the Qconcourse Rationale (objectives) of using different sources of the statements Interviews with residents To include statements that express individual values about nature prevalent in the casestudy context: We conducted eight structured interviews in November 2020 of 45– 60 min in Spanish around individuals' understandings of the term ‘nature’ and related associations. These included questions about uses of urban greenery, the perceived impacts on physical and mental wellbeing, and practices of care with nature. Interviewees were purposively selected through snowball sampling and resided in VitoriaGasteiz for at least 1 year with different sociodemographic backgrounds (i.e. age, gender and place of origin) Social media posts To include statements that express individual values about nature prevalent in the casestudy context: We searched for posts on the social media platforms Twitter and Instagram that were posted under the hashtags “Green Belt”, “Nature”, “VitoriaGasteiz” and “Green Capital” combined with geotags of specific urban parks in VitoriaGasteiz (e.g. “Olarizu”, “Armentia”, or “Salburua”) Local media articles To include statements that expressed the local public discourses about nature: We reviewed articles from local newspapers and local online media outlets. These were, for example, articles referring to specific parks or urban green initiatives, to the importance of public green spaces especially during the COVID19 pandemic, or articles that dealt with broader environmental topics Previous scientific literature To include statements expressing notions of societynature relationships building on the state of art of the scientific literature: We reviewed previous empirical statementbased studies, focusing on, for example (cultural) ecosystem services, humans' connection to nature, the new environmental paradigm, and relational and plural values Statements purposively created To include statements expressing notions of disvalues about nature, detachment from nature, or urbanspecific understandings of nature: We created and added statements that we could not find in any of the above sources yet considered relevant for the guiding research questions 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1269 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. TABLE 2 Qset and statement descriptions. Statement no. Statement (English translation) Statement tag Placespecific?a Statement sourceb Positive relationship between individuals and nature (relational value) #1 When I connect with the nature of VG I have a sense of tranquillity, I am happier. It helps me to live a fulfilled and good life Eudaimonia Yes Interview #2 The green spaces of VitoriaGasteiz (VG), such as the Green Belt, are important for my mental health Mental health Yes Interview #3 I feel that the nature and landscapes of VG are an important part of my identity, of who I am as a person Personal identity Yes Interview #4 Caring for nature helps me lead a more fulfilled life Care No Literature #5 Nature gives me so much more than I can give her. If I treat her well, she returns it to me Reciprocity No Interview #6 I think that nature is the origin of humankind, where we came from. Nature is like our big house Kinship No Interview #7 There are places in nature that give me a sensation of harmony Harmony No Interview Positive relationship between humans within their social communities through nature (relational value) #8 The green spaces of VG are contributing to a stronger sense of community Sense of community Yes Local media #9 Nature is part of our collective identity as the city of VG Collective identity Yes Interview #10 The parks of VG are places where I can share experiences with people who are very different from me Community diversity Yes Purposively created #11 If nature is well, we are well too. The health of our community depends on the state of nature Health of community No Interview #12 We are responsible for the impacts we have on the environment because they can harm other people Care for present generations No Interview #13 We have an obligation to take care of nature for future generations Care for future generations No Literature Negative relationship between individuals and nature (relational disvalue) #14 Many of us humans are losing our connection with nature Disconnection No Interview #15 Natural spaces in cities are attracting dirt, insects, rats and pigeons. I do not like that Dislike of nonhuman Others No Purposively created #16 There are aspects of nature that scare me Fear of nature No Purposively created #17 I do not need to spend time in nature to feel good Antieudaimonia No Purposively created Negative relational bond between humans within their social communities through nature (relational disvalue) #18 Now that the green spaces in VG are more crowded because of the pandemic, you have to go further away to be alone. This is not good Lack of solitude Yes Interview #19 At night I do not usually walk in the parks of VG. I try to avoid them because I do not feel very safe Perceived insecurity Yes Interview #20 I do not go to some parks in VG because they are usually full of people I do not like Dislike of human Others Yes Interview (Continues) 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1270 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. Statement no. Statement (English translation) Statement tag Placespecific?a Statement sourceb Positive framing of the instrumental value of NCP (instrumental value) #21 The Green Belt contributes to generating tourism and economic benefits for the city Economic benefit (tourism) Yes Local media #22 The neighbourhood gardens and urban agriculture of VG are important places to produce healthy and local food Natural resources (food) Yes Purposively created #23 The protection of nature in VG is symbolic of the quality of life for the citizens of this city Quality of life Yes Social media #24 The urban and periurban parks of VG are contributing to a healthy environment. They have a positive impact on our physical health Physical health Yes Interview #25 The parks of VG are spaces where I can go for a run, take the bike, or skate. They make me feel very active Recreation (physical) Yes Literature #26 Protecting nature will help us prevent future economic crises caused by species loss and climate change Economic benefit (health) No Local media #27 Nature makes a significant contribution to improving air quality Natural resources (air) No Local media #28 Protecting nature will help us reduce the risk of new pandemics and other public health emergencies Public health No Local media #29 I like natural spaces to relax. They are spaces where I can spend many hours Recreation (mental) No Purposively created Negative framing of instrumental values of NCP (instrumental disvalue) #30 I do not like the Green Belt because I think its parks are dirty and full of mosquitos Unpleasant nature Yes Interview #31 I think VG spends too much public money on nature conservation programs Wasted expenses Yes Literature #32 I think the parks in the city and its surroundings are very boring. They do not have much value for me Boredom Yes Interview #33 I think that parts of the Green Belt should be used to build new cheap housing for the residents of VG Tradeoffs Yes Purposively created #34 I usually prefer to watch a movie with a good friend than take a walk in nature with that same friend Disinterest No Purposively created Intrinsic value of nature #35 I do not think that the main function of nature is to „serve for humans”. Nature has value in itself Intrinsic worth No Interview #36 Animals deserve to have rights of their own Intrinsic rights No Literature Humannature relational models #37 It's okay if we lose forests and wetlands, as long as we keep enough for humans Utilization No Literature #38 We human beings have the right to use nature the way we want Domination No Literature #39 I prefer living in an urban environment to a rural environment Detachment No Purposively created Note: The original statements in Spanish can be found in the Appendix (Table A1). aPlacespecific? Yes: statements refer to aspects of urban nature specific to VitoriaGasteiz. No: statements express notions of nature as a social or biophysical entity beyond urban boundaries. bStatement source: indicates the source the statements were retrieved from, that is, interviews, social media, local media, (previous scientific) literature, (statements) purposively created (for description of each statement source, see Table 1). TABLE 2 (Continued) 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1277 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. nature, may be a starting point to create placespecific connections to urban landscapes and the local community. Out of the four perspectives, only the Precarious and Communitydriven Newcomer shows a more utilitarian approach to urban greenery that is especially valued for the opportunity of its use as a social meeting and communitybuilding asset. This perspective gives insights into how historically marginalized residents in the city, such as recent immigrants, appreciate urban nature, in particular accessible urban public parks, as a substitute for the lack of other meeting spaces. Urban greenery may hence turn into a vehicle to create a localized sense of place and of belonging to the new community. This perspective mirrors findings from previous studies (see e.g. Birch et al., 2020; Ono et al., 2021; Rishbeth & Birch, 2020) that describe urban nature as important socializing places that can help newcomers and migrants to build a connection and adapt to the new cultural and social context, they find themselves in. Further, as highlighted in prior studies on gardening and collective efficacy (Teig et al., 2009) and gardening and place building (Anguelovski, 2014; Hartwig & Mason, 2016; Truong et al., 2022), urban green spaces offer newcomers and immigrants spaces for practices of care and stewardship, that, while reconnecting to memories to their home country, also help develop and strengthen placebased relational values. In this regard, green planners should keep funding and building greenspaces that can support such social activities in nature and sustain the positive links different groups form with each other and with greenspaces. We argue that especially the Green Individualist and the Precarious and Communitydriven Newcomers' perspectives about (urban) NCP may require special attention in planning renaturing initiatives and UGI. The diverse perspectives about communityrelated values in connection to urban nature suggest that the contribution of UGI to humanhuman relationships within the local community may be perceived as disvalues (Lliso et al., 2022) by some residents— contrary to the inherently beneficial assumptions that permeate dominating political green(ing) discourses (Angelo, 2019a). Urban residents' needs and perceptions thus differ in relation to both the material green space and the intangible relational bonds between culturally diverse residents that may affect members of the community negatively. Formulating a social imaginary of urban nature that can be more inclusive of the multiple (placespecific) forms of urban socionatures requires urban planners to pay closer attention to why and how those disvalues arise and manifest. We here call for an intersectional planning approach, for example, in the form of carefully implemented participatory processes, that emphasizes these differences based on the multiples identities and bodies that perceive (urban) NCP and their integration through nature within different social communities (Anguelovski et al., 2020). Understanding and embracing residents' plurality in regard to design, maintenance, and use of urban green spaces is therefore key to support residents in safely negotiating and contesting dominant prevalent values associated with UGI. The Relationalists' and Green Citizens' perspectives on the value of urban NCPs are more in tune with dominating urban greening discourses as they regard NCP as a purely positive contribution to human wellbeing. Especially the Relationalist's perspective shows a much more nuanced and localized understanding of (urban) NCP consisting of plural positive values about nature as it could have been found in VitoriaGasteiz’ early local environmental political discourses in the 1980s/1990s that drew upon an intrinsic ecological conservation rationale. Over time, nature became presented as a winwin strategy for both the environment and the local economy (Temenos & McCann, 2012; While et al., 2004), a framing that mirrors recent international urban discourses around the Green(est) City (Rosol et al., 2017). With that, the social imaginary replicated in VitoriaGasteiz’ environmental political discourse shifted towards ecomodernist understandings that envision a smart carbonneutral city and that depicts nature's benefit through a dominantly utilitarian, instrumental framing (Neidig et al., 2022). Especially since the recent IPBES Values Assessment Report (IPBES, 2022), the conceptualization of plural valuation approaches is gaining visibility in highlevel policymaking. Yet so far, only few policymaking processes actually use valuation approaches to consider diverse perceptions of nature in environmental planning (IPBES, 2022). To implement and apply them in local decisionmaking, an operationalizing of relational values is needed which could serve as a tool to “integrate issues of justice into assessments of multifunctionality” (PinedaPinto et al., 2022). This could further steer urban environmental planning towards understanding socioecological systems through multiple forms of socionatures (Swyngedouw, 1996). Our study has drawn on Qmethodology to elicit, formulate, and visibilize the multiplicity of values about nature held by diverse residents which has allowed us to identify diverse socionature in the urban context. Qmethodology shows promise as an exploratory approach within a multimethod approach to meaningfully integrate plural values of nature throughout the policymaking process, especially of those urban residents who remain most invisible or excluded in policy and planning. The research design phase, and more specifically conveying the full range of the local discourses, is a rather timeintensive process since the Qconcourse should mirror comprehensive placespecific notions about nature. However, the methodology's main advantages lie, first, in the relatively small sample size needed as it can already allow deriving key insights into the full depths of purposively sampled perspectives present in any given local context, including those often overlooked and marginalized. Second, the Qsorting process contains a playfulness in its setup that respondents expressly enjoyed. We consider it a useful first step to define the starting base of a longer iterative and participatory plural valuation approach. 6 | CONCLUSION Our research on eliciting and identifying plural values about nature that urban residents hold towards (urban) NCP in the case context of the midsized city VitoriaGasteiz showed that people hold diverse, partly contradicting, forms of socionatures that can be neither reduced to instrumental nor relational framings of NCP. The integration of a plurality of values throughout decisionmaking processes hence requires a careful examination of prevalent values and specifically those undermined by dominating institutional discourses. 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1278 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. Attention should be paid to understanding whose values are being put forward, what is the underlying rationale for emphasizing specific values over others, and how can those valuation approaches target specifically socially vulnerable groups whose needs and perceptions regarding urban nature may differ from mainstream political framings. Future research will have to dissect how people with differing values contest and negotiate their needs and necessities in a daytoday basis to be able to better adapt urban planning processes towards their existing and often conflicting identities (Oscilowicz et al., 2023). This will require an intersectional approach to put emphasis on the plurality of needs that differ across intersecting groups, such as women, immigrants, children or elderly residents. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Julia Neidig, Bosco Lliso and Unai Pascual conceived the ideas and designed methodology; Julia Neidig collected the data; Julia Neidig analysed the data; Julia Neidig wrote the original draft, Julia Neidig, Isabelle Anguelovski, Bosco Lliso and Unai Pascual reviewed and edited the manuscript substantially. All authors contributed critically to the manuscript and gave final approval for publication. Unai Pascual obtained funding to carry out the research. ACKNO WLE DGE MENTS We thank Aitor Albaina and Aiora Zabala for their feedback throughout the design and data collection phase and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. We also thank the Centro de Estudios Ambientales VitoriaGasteiz for the time and effort of sharing documents and their knowledge about the study context. This work was supported by the Department of Education of the Basque Government (PIBA190096), the City of VitoriaGasteiz (and the Centro de Estudios Ambientales) and by the María de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2018– 2022 (Ref. MDM20170714), funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no conflict of interest. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Dryad Digital Repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qnk98 sfnj (Neidig et al., 2023). ORCID Julia Neidig https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6560-9664 Isabelle Anguelovski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6409-5155 Bosco Lliso https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2460-4322 Unai Pascual https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-236X ENDNOTES 1 For a detailed description of the different methodological steps of Qmethodology, see for example Watts and Stenner (2012) or McKeown and Thomas (2013). 2 This is also in line with Watts and Stenner's (2012) rule of thumb of extracting one factor for every six to eight Qsorts. 3 Factors loadings of each Qsort can be found in Table A2. Those loadings express the association of each Qsort with each of the four extracted factors. 4 The numbers in the brackets indicate the statement number and the score it would receive in an archetypical Qsort that would load 100% on the respective perspective. For example, for perspective A, statement #6 received a score of +4. The archetypical types of Qsorts for each perspective can be found in Figure 4. REFERENCES Angelo, H. (2017). From the city lens toward urbanisation as a way of seeing: Country/city binaries on an urbanising planet. Urban Studies, 54(1), 158– 178. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420 98016 629312 Angelo, H. (2019a). Added value? Denaturalizing the “good” of urban greening. Geography Compass, 13(8), 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ gec3.12459 Angelo, H. (2019b). The greening imaginary: Urbanized nature in Germany's Ruhr region. Theory and Society, 48(5), 645– 669. https:// d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 1 8 6 - 0 1 9 - 0 9 3 6 1 - 5 Anguelovski, I. (2014). Neighborhood as refuge: Community reconstruction, place remaking, and environmental justice in the City. MIT Press. Anguelovski, I., Brand, A. L., Connolly, J. J. T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., GarciaLamarca, M., TrigueroMas, M., Cole, H., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., del Pulgar, C. P., Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., & Argüelles Ramos, L. (2020). Expanding the boundaries of justice in urban greening scholarship: Toward an emancipatory, Antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 4452, 1– 27. https://doi. org/10.1080/24694 452.2020.1740579 Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Cole, H., GarciaLamarca, M., TrigueroMas, M., Baró, F., Martin, N., Conesa, D., Shokry, G., del Pulgar, C. P., Ramos, L. A., Matheney, A., Gallez, E., Oscilowicz, E., Máñez, J. L., Sarzo, B., Beltrán, M. A., & Minaya, J. M. (2022). Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nature Communications, 13(1), 3816. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 4 6 7 - 0 2 2 - 3 1 5 7 2 - 1 Anguelovski, I., & Corbera, E. (2022). Integrating justice in naturebased solutions to avoid natureenabled dispossession. Ambio, 52, 45– 53. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 3 2 8 0 - 0 2 2 - 0 1 7 7 1 - 7 Armstrong, A., Bulkeley, H., Tozer, L., & Kotsila, P. (2022). Border troubles: Urban nature and the remaking of public/private divides. Urban Geography, 1– 21, 1– 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723 638.2022.2125669 Ayuntamiento de VitoriaGasteiz. (2021). Informe de poblacion de VitoriaGasteiz 2021. Fuente: Padrón Municipal de habitantes, VitoriaGasteiz Gabinete de Estudios. Aznarez, C., Svenning, J.- C., Taveira, G., Baró, F., & Pascual, U. (2022). Wildness and habitat quality drive spatial patterns of urban biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228(April), 104570. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landu rbplan.2022.104570 Babí Almenar, J., Elliot, T., Rugani, B., Philippe, B., Navarrete Gutierrez, T., Sonnemann, G., & Geneletti, D. (2021). Nexus between naturebased solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges. Land Use Policy, 100, 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu sepol.2020.104898 Baró, F., CalderónArgelich, A., Langemeyer, J., & Connolly, J. T. T. (2019). Under one canopy? Assessing the distributional environmental justice implications of street tree benefits in Barcelona. Environmental Science & Policy, 102(1), 54– 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2019.08.016 Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 28(3), 337– 345. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 5 3 - 6 BerdejoEspinola, V., SuárezCastro, A. F., Amano, T., Fielding, K. S., Oh, R. R. Y., & Fuller, R. A. (2021). Urban green space use during a time of stress: A case study during the COVID19 pandemic in 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1279 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. Brisbane, Australia. People and Nature, 3(3), 597– 609. https://doi. org/10.1002/pan3.10218 Birch, J., Rishbeth, C., & Payne, S. R. (2020). Nature doesn't judge you— How urban nature supports young people's mental health and wellbeing in a diverse UK city. Health and Place, 62(February), 102296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healt hplace.2020.102296 Britto dos Santos, N., & Gould, R. K. (2018). Can relational values be developed and changed? Investigating relational values in the environmental education literature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 124– 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.019 Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press. Calcagni, F., Amorim Maia, A. T., Connolly, J. J. T., & Langemeyer, J. (2019). Digital coconstruction of relational values: Understanding the role of social media for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1309– 1321. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 6 2 5 - 0 1 9 - 0 0 6 7 2 - 1 Capaldi, C., Passmore, H.- A., Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Dopko, R. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449 Chan, K. M., Gould, R. K., & Pascual, U. (2018). Editorial overview: Relational values: What are they, and what's the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, A1– A7. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003 Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., GómezBaggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., MartínLópez, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(6), 1462– 1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15250 02113 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8– 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecole con.2011.11.011 Connolly, J. J. T. (2019). From Jacobs to the just City: A foundation for challenging the green planning orthodoxy. Cities, 91, 64– 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.05.011 DeplazesZemp, A., & Chapman, M. (2021). The ABCs of relational values: Environmental values that include aspects of both intrinsic and instrumental valuing. Environmental Values, 30(6), 669– 693. https:// d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 1 9 7 / 0 9 6 3 2 7 1 2 0 X 1 5 9 7 3 3 7 9 8 0 3 7 2 6 Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., MartínLópez, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270– 272. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.aap8826 Gandy, M. (2018). Cities in deep time: Biodiversity, metabolic rift, and the urban question. City, 22(1), 96– 105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604 813.2018.1434289 GarcíaLamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H. V. S., Connolly, J. J. T., PérezdelPulgar, C., Shokry, G., & TrigueroMas, M. (2022). Urban green grabbing: Residential real estate developers discourse and practice in gentrifying global north neighborhoods. Geoforum, 128, 1– 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geofo rum.2021.11.016 GarcíaLamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., & Venner, K. (2022). Challenging the financial capture of urban greening. Nature Communications, 13, 7132. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 4 6 7 - 0 2 2 - 3 4 9 4 2 - x Gonzaléz de Langarica Mendizábal, A. (2007). La ciudad revolucionada: Industrialización, inmigración, urbanización (Vitoria, 1946– 1965). Ayuntamiento de VitoriaGasteiz. Gould, K., & Lewis, T. (2017). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/97813 15687322 Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., Brenck, M., Fischer, L. K., 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 International, 64, 41– 48. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.habit atint.2017.04.005 Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., GomezBaggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Kremer, P., Langemeyer, J., Rall, E. L., McPhearson, T., Pauleit, S., Qureshi, S., Schwarz, N., Voigt, A., … Elmqvist, T. (2014). A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio, 43(4), 413– 433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1328 001405040 Hartwig, K. A., & Mason, M. (2016). (2016). Community gardens for refugee and immigrant communities as a means of health promotion. Journal of Community Health, 41(6), 1153– 1159. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 9 0 0 - 0 1 6 - 0 1 9 5 - 5 Himes, A., & Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: The key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1– 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005 Hinchliffe, S., & Whatmore, S. (2006). Living cities: Towards a politics of conviviality. Science as Culture, 15(2), 123– 138. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 9 5 0 5 4 3 0 6 0 0 7 0 7 9 8 8 Hoelle, J., Gould, R. K., & Tauro, A. (2022). Beyond ‘desirable’ values: Expanding relational values research to reflect the diversity of human– nature relationships. People and Nature, 1– 12. https://doi. org/10.1002/pan3.10316 Holmes, G., Clemoes, J., Marriot, K., & WynneJones, S. (2022). The politics of the rural and relational values: Contested discourses of rural change and landscape futures in west Wales. Geoforum, 133(May), 153– 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geofo rum.2022.05.014 Houston, D., Hillier, J., MacCallum, D., Steele, W., & Byrne, J. (2018). Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and ‘becomingworld’ in planning theory. Planning Theory, 17(2), 190– 212. https:// doi.org/10.1177/14730 95216 688042 Inglis, D., & Pascual, U. (2021). On the links between nature's values and language. People and Nature, 5, 326– 342. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pan3.10205 IPBES. (2022). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental sciencepolicy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. (U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. GonzálezJiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, R. ChaplinKramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O'Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, … A. Vatn, Eds.). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392 Jacobs, S., ZafraCalvo, N., GonzalezJimenez, D., Guibrunet, L., Benessaiah, K., Berghöfer, A., ChavesChaparro, J., Díaz, S., GomezBaggethun, E., Lele, S., MartínLópez, B., Masterson, V. A., Merçon, J., Moersberger, H., Muraca, B., Norström, A., O'Farrell, P., Ordonez, J. C., PrieurRichard, A.- H., … Balvanera, P. (2020). Use your power for good: Plural valuation of nature— The Oaxaca statement. Global Sustainability, 3(2020), e8. https://doi. org/10.1017/sus.2020.2 Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin. Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122(2014), 129– 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu rbplan.2013.11.016 Kadykalo, A. N., LópezRodriguez, M. D., Ainscough, J., Droste, N., Ryu, H., ÁvilaFlores, G., Le Clec'h, S., Muñoz, M. C., Nilsson, L., Rana, S., Sarkar, P., Sevecke, K. J., & Harmáčková, Z. V. (2019). Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature's contributions to people’. Ecosystems and People, 15(1), 269– 287. https://doi. org/10.1080/26395 916.2019.1669713 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1280 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Citizen participation in the governance of naturebased solutions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2022, 1– 28. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1987 Kleespies, M. W., & Dierkes, P. W. (2020). Exploring the construct of relational values: An empirical approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(March), 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00209 Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., & Connolly, J. T. (2021). Naturebased solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature's neoliberalisation processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(2), 252– 274. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148 48620 901437 Labib, S. M., Browning, M. H. E. M., Rigolon, A., Helbich, M., & James, P. (2022). Nature's contributions in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: A narrative review of evidence during COVID19. Science of the Total Environment, 833(January), 155095. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scito tenv.2022.155095 Langemeyer, J., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2020). Weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem services research and practice. Environmental Science and Policy, 109, 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021 Lliso, B., Lenzi, D., Muraca, B., Chan, K. M., & Pascual, U. (2022). Nature's disvalues: What are they and why do they matter? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 56, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2022.101173 Maller, C. (2021). Reorienting naturebased solutions with morethanhuman thinking. Cities, 113(January), 103155. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103155 Maniatakou, S., Berg, H., Maneas, G., & Daw, T. M. (2020). Unravelling diverse values of ecosystem services: A sociocultural valuation using Q methodology in Messenia. Greece. Sustainability, 12(24), 1– 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122 410320 Mansur, A. V., McDonald, R. I., Güneralp, B., Kim, H. J., de Oliveira, J. A. P., Callaghan, C. T., Hamel, P., Kuiper, J. J., Wolff, M., Liebelt, V., Martins, I. S., Elmqvist, T., & Pereira, H. M. (2022). Nature futures for the urban century: Integrating multiple values into urban management. Environmental Science and Policy, 131, 46– 56. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.01.013 McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Melanidis, M. S., & Hagerman, S. (2022). Competing narratives of naturebased solutions : Leveraging the power of nature or dangerous distraction? Environmental Science and Policy, 132, 273– 281. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.028 Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(8), 430– 434. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 Muradian, R., & Pascual, U. (2018). A typology of elementary forms of humannature relations: A contribution to the valuation debate. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 8– 14. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.014 Naess, A. (2008). Ecology of wisdom (A. Drengson & B. Devall, Eds.). Pinguin Random House UK. Neidig, J., Anguelovski, I., Albaina, A., & Pascual, U. (2022). “We are the green capital”: Navigating the political and sustainability fix narratives of urban greening. Cities, 131, 103999. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103999 Neidig, J., Anguelovski, I., Lliso, B., & Pascual, U. (2023). Data from: Pluralizing environmental values for urban planning: How to uncover the diversity of imaginaries about socionatures from VitoriaGasteiz (Basque Country, Spain). Dryad Digital Repository. https:// doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qnk98 sfnj Nielsen, J., de Bremond, A., Chowdury, R. R., Friss, C., Metternich, G., Meyfroidt, P., Murnoe, D., Pascual, U., & Thomson, A. (2019). Toward a normative land system science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38, 1– 6. O'Connor, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2019). Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the morethanhuman world through the life framework of values. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1247– 1265. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 6 2 5 - 0 1 9 - 0 0 7 1 5 - 7 Ono, A. J., Boyd, D. R., & Chan, K. M. A. (2021). Acculturation as an ecosystem service? Urban natural space supports evolving relational values and identity in new female migrants. People and Nature, 5, 313– 325. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10188 Orive, L. A., & Dios Lema, R. (2012). From urban greenbelt to regional green infrastructure. In T. Beatly (Ed.), Green cities of Europe: Global lessons on green urbanism (pp. 1– 234). Island Press. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 5 8 2 2 / 9 7 8 - 1 - 6 1 0 9 1 - 1 7 5 - 7 Oscilowicz, E., Anguelovski, I., Garcia Lamarca, M., Cole, H., Shokry, G., Perez de Pulgar, C., Arguelles Ramos, L., & Connolly, J. J. (2023). Grassroots mobilization for a just, green urban future: Building community infrastructure against green gentrification and displacement. Journal of Urban Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352 166.2023.2180381 Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S. E., AlHafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., … Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26– 27, 7– 16. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 Pérez del Pulgar, C., Anguelvoski, I., & Connolly, J. (2020). Toward a green and playful city: Understanding the social and political production of children's relational wellbeing in Barcelona. Cities, 96(2020), 102438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102438 PérezÁlvarez, G. (2020). Historias de vidas obreras en el polo industrial de Vitoria (País Vasco): del “milagro español” a la caída del franquismo (1959– 1976). Izquierdas, 49, 892– 909. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 4 0 6 7/ s 0 7 1 8 - 5 0 4 9 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 7 Piccolo, J. J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 8– 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.007 PinedaPinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Nygaard, C. A. (2022). The potential of naturebased solutions to deliver ecologically just cities: Lessons for research and urban planning from a systematic literature review. Ambio, 51(1), 167– 182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1328 00210 1 5 5 3 - 7 Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2019). Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Studies, 57(2), 402– 420. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 0 0 4 2 0 9 8 0 1 9 8 4 9 3 8 0 Rishbeth, C., & Birch, J. (2020). Urban nature and transnational lives. Population, Space and Place, 27, e2416. https://doi.org/10.1002/ psp.2416 Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 6 3 6 – 6 4 8 . https://doi.org/10.1111/00330124.00252 Rosol, M., Béal, V., & Mössner, S. (2017). Greenest cities? The (post- )politics of new urban environmental regimes. Environment and Planning A, 49(8), 1710– 1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/03085 18X17 714843 Sneegas, G. (2020). Making the case for critical Q methodology. The Professional Geographer, 72(1), 78– 87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330 124.2019.1598271 Sneegas, G., Beckner, S., Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., Lee, K., & Seghezzo, L. (2021). Using Qmethodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Ecological Economics, 180, 106864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecole con.2020.106864 Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of humannature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94– 101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1281 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. Stenseke, M. (2018). Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 82– 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.025 Swyngedouw, E. (1996). The city as a hybrid: On nature, society and cyborg urbanization. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 7(2), 65– 80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455 75960 9358679 Tadaki, M., Sinner, J., & Chan, K. M. A. (2017). Making sense of environmental values: A typology of concepts. Ecology and Society, 22(1):7. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 5 7 5 1 / E S - 0 8 9 9 9 - 2 2 0 1 0 7 Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health & Place, 15(4), 1115– 1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healt hplace.2009.06.003 Temenos, C., & McCann, E. (2012). The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environment and Planning A, 44(6), 1389– 1406. https://doi. org/10.1068/a44314 Termansen, M., Jacobs, S., Mwampamba, T. H., Ahn, S., Castro, A., Dendoncker, N., Ghazi, H., Gundimeda, H., Huambachano, M., Lee, H., Mukherjee, N., Nemogá, G. R., Palomo, I., Pandit, R., Schaafsma, M., Ngouhouo, J., Choi, A., Filyushkina, A., HernándezBlanco, M., … GonzálezJiménez, D. (2022). Chapter 3: The potential of valuation. In P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, & D. GonzálezJiménez (Eds.), Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental sciencepolicy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (pp. 1– 170). IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6521298 Tozer, L., Hörschelmann, K., Anguelovski, I., Bulkeley, H., & Lazova, Y. (2020). Whose city? Whose nature? Towards inclusive naturebased solution governance. Cities, 107, 102892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2020.102892 Truong, S., Gray, T., & Ward, K. (2022). Enhancing urban nature and place-making in social housing through community gardening. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 72(2022), 127586. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127586 TrigueroMas, M., Anguelovski, I., GarcíaLamarca, M., Argüelles, L., PerezdelPulgar, C., Shokry, G., Connolly, J. J. T., & Cole, H. V. S. (2021). Natural outdoor environments' health effects in gentrifying neighborhoods: Disruptive green landscapes for underprivileged neighborhood residents, Social Science & Medicine. Volume, 279(2021), 113964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsc imed.2021.113964 Tzoulas, K., Galan, J., Venn, S., Dennis, M., Pedroli, B., Mishra, H., Haase, D., Pauleit, S., Niemelä, J., & James, P. (2021). A conceptual model of the social– ecological system of naturebased solutions in urban environments. Ambio, 50(2), 335– 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s 1 3 2 8 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 1 3 8 0 - 2 Wachsmuth, D., & Angelo, H. (2018). Green and gray: New ideologies of nature in urban sustainability policy. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(4), 1038– 1056. https://doi. org/10.1080/24694 452.2017.1417819 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. SAGE Publications Ltd. While, A., Jonas, A. E. G., & Gibbs, D. (2004). The environment and the enterpreneurial city: Searching for the urban “sustainability fix” in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 549– 569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.03091317. 2004. 00535.x Wiesel, I., Steele, W., & Houston, D. (2020). Cities of care: Introduction to a special issue. Cities, 105(June), 102844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2020.102844 Zabala, A. (2014). Qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163– 173. https://journ a l . r - p r o j e c t . o r g / a r c h i v e / 2 0 1 4 - 2 / z a b a l a . p d f Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185– 1194. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.13123 How to cite this article: Neidig, J., Anguelovski, I., Lliso, B., & Pascual, U. (2023). Pluralizing environmental values for urban planning: How to uncover the diversity of imaginaries about socionatures from VitoriaGasteiz (Basque Country, Spain). People and Nature, 5, 1262–1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pan3.10506 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 1282 | People and Nature NEIDIG et al. APPENDIX TABLE A1 Original statements in Spanish. Item no. Original statement in Spanish Positive relationship between individuals and nature (relational value) #1 Cuando conecto con la naturaleza de VitoriaGasteiz tengo una sensación de tranquilidad, soy más feliz. Me ayuda vivir una vida plena y buena #2 Los espacios verdes de VitoriaGasteiz, como el Anillo Verde, son importantes para mi salud mental #3 Siento que la naturaleza y los paisajes de VitoriaGasteiz constituyen una parte importante de mi identidad como persona #4 Cuidar de la naturaleza me ayuda a llevar una vida más plena #5 La naturaleza me da muchísimo más de lo que yo le puedo dar a ella. Si la trato bien, ella me lo devuelve #6 Pienso que la naturaleza es el origen del hombre, de donde vinimos. La naturaleza es como nuestra gran casa #7 Hay entornos naturales que me producen una sensación de armonía Positive relationship between humans within their social communities through nature (relational value) #8 Los espacios verdes de VitoriaGasteiz ayudan a mejorar el sentido de comunidad #9 La naturaleza es parte de nuestra identidad como ciudad de VitoriaGasteiz #10 Los parques de VitoriaGasteiz son lugares donde puedo compartir experiencias con personas que son muy diferentes de mi #11 Si la naturaleza está bien, nosotros también estamos bien. La salud de nuestra comunidad depende del estado de la naturaleza #12 Somos responsables de los impactos que generamos en el medio ambiente porque pueden perjudicar a otras personas #13 Tenemos la obligación de cuidar de la naturaleza para las generaciones futuras Negative relationship between individuals and nature (relational disvalue) #14 La mayoría de las personas estamos perdiendo nuestra conexión con la naturaleza #15 Los espacios naturales dentro de las ciudades atraen suciedad, insectos, ratas y palomas. Esto no me gusta #16 Hay aspectos de la naturaleza que me dan miedo #17 No necesito pasar tiempo en espacios naturales para sentirme bien Negative relational bond between humans within their social communities through nature (relational disvalue) #18 Ahora que los espacios verdes de VitoriaGasteiz están más llenos de gente debido a la pandemia, tienes que irte más lejos para estar solo. Esto no está bien #19 Por la noche normalmente no paseo por los parques de VitoriaGasteiz. Intento evitarlos porque no me siento muy seguro/a #20 No voy a algunos parques de VitoriaGasteiz por que suelen estar llenos de gente que no me gusta Positive framing of the instrumental value of NCP (instrumental value) #21 El Anillo Verde contribuye a generar turismo y beneficios económicos para la ciudad #22 Los huertos de los barrios y la agricultura urbana de VitoriaGasteiz son importantes para una alimentación sana y de proximidad #23 La preservación de la naturaleza de VitoriaGasteiz es sinónimo de calidad de vida para los ciudadanos de esta ciudad #24 Los parques urbanos de VitoriaGasteiz ayudan a generar un entorno saludable. Tienen un impacto positivo en nuestra salud corporal #25 Los parques de VitoriaGasteiz son espacios que me ofrecen la oportunidad de hacer ejercicio como correr, andar en bicicleta, o patinar. Me hacen sentir muy activo/a #26 Proteger la naturaleza nos ayudará a prevenir futuras crisis económicas causadas por la pérdida de especies y el cambio climático #27 La naturaleza contribuye de forma notable a mejorar la calidad del aire #28 Proteger la naturaleza nos ayudará a reducir el riesgo de nuevas pandemias y otras emergencias de salud pública #29 Los espacios naturales me gustan para relajarme. Son espacios donde puedo pasar muchas horas Negative framing of instrumental values of NCP (instrumental disvalue) #30 No me gusta el Anillo Verde porque siento que está sucio y llenos de mosquitos #31 Creo que VitoriaGasteiz se gasta demasiado dinero publico en programas para conservar la naturaleza #32 Pienso que los parques en el centro y en las afueras de VitoriaGasteiz son un aburrimiento. No tienen demasiado valour para mi #33 Creo que parte del Anillo Verde debería de usarse para construir viviendas más baratas para la gente de VitoriaGasteiz #34 Por lo general prefiero ver una película con un buen amigo que dar un paseo por la naturaleza con ese mismo amigo Intrinsic value of nature #35 No creo que la función principal de la naturaleza sea servir a los humanos. La naturaleza tiene valour en si misma #36 Los animales se merecen tener derechos 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 1283 People and Nature NEIDIG et al. TABLE A2 Factor loadings for each Qsort and factor. Number Qsort Qsort loadings on each factor Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Q1 0.8236a0.4065 0.1799 0.1714 Q2 0.5196 0.6880a0.1696 0.1180 Q3 0.7939a0.4251 0.0146 0.2215 Q4 0.2791 0.6965a0.1906 0.2882 Q5 0.1956 0.6064a0.0115 0.5384 Q6 0.6765a0.3432 0.3236 0.2864 Q7 0.6281a0.4577 0.3747 0.0773 Q8 0.2019 0.5723a0.3140 0.3919 Q9 0.1540 0.0845 0.7229a−0.1978 Q10 0.7136a0.3678 0.2203 0.1934 Q11 0.7466a0.3894 0.2302 0.2760 Q12 0.5343 0.7080a0.1920 0.0235 Q13 0.7173a0.3769 0.2472 0.1183 Q14 0.1249 0.8964a−0.0191 0.0727 Q15b0.5115 0.5913 0.4186 0.0956 Q16 0.7030a−0.0521 0.0016 −0.1436 Q17 0.3338 0.6893a0.2048 0.2088 Q18 0.6843a0.4219 0.0656 0.3069 Q19 0.2436 0.1863 0.7315a0.3847 Q20 0.3547 0.5606a0.2821 0.0880 Q21b0.3322 0.6333 0.5405 −0.1005 Q22 0.2760 0.4866 −0.0888 0.6132a Q23 0.1096 0.0549 0.0276 0.8752a Q24 0.3867 0.7020a0.1251 0.2027 Q25 0.3956 0.6477a0.2690 0.1352 Q26 0.6607a0.2567 0.5322 0.2078 Q27 0.7752a0.4476 0.2623 0.1040 Q28 0.5556a0.2825 0.2428 0.2186 Q29 0.7283a0.3745 0.3587 0.2223 Number of loading Qsorts ∑ = 27 13 10 2 2 Percentage of explained variance ∑ = 73.63 28.95 25.73 10.10 8.85 Factor EIgenvalue 8.40 7.46 2.93 2.57 aThe flagged Qsorts for each factor. bCofounded Qsorts (they loaded significantly on more than one factor). Item no. Original statement in Spanish Humannature relational models #37 No pasa nada si perdemos bosques y humedales, si mantengamos lo suficiente para los humanos #38 Los seres humanos tenemos el derecho a usar la naturaleza de la manera que queramos #39 Prefiero vivir en un entorno urbano a un entorno rural TABLE A1 (Continued) 25758314, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10506 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [15/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License