# A Five-Culture Validation of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale: A Measure of Instrumental, Intrinsic, and Relational Environmental Values

Michael L Lengieza, Janet K Swim, Jamie Decoster, Joseph G Guerriero, Osamu Saito, Philippe Le Coent, Lisa Sella, Herlin Chien, Cécile Hérivaux, Francesca Silvia Rota, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Michael L Lengieza, Janet K Swim, Jamie Decoster, Joseph G Guerriero, Osamu Saito, et al. A Five-Culture Validation of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale: A Measure of Instrumental, Intrinsic, and Relational Environmental Values. Sustainability, 2025, 17 (22), pp.10102. 10.3390/su172210102 hal-05372473

HAL Id: hal-05372473

https://brgm.hal.science/hal-05372473v1

Submitted on 19 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# A Five-Culture Validation of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale: A Measure of Instrumental, Intrinsic, and Relational Environmental Values

Michael L. Lengieza <fnref n="1" />,* ID, Janet K. Swim <fnref n="2" /> ID, Jamie DeCoster <fnref n="3" /> ID, Joseph G. Guerriero <fnref n="2" /> ID, Osamu Saito <fnref n="4" />,† ID, Philippe Le Coent <fnref n="5" />,<fnref n="6" />,† ID, Lisa Sella <fnref n="7" />,† ID, Herlin Chien <fnref n="8" />,† ID, Cécile Hérivaux <fnref n="5" />,<fnref n="6" />,‡ ID, Francesca Silvia Rota <fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="9" />,‡ ID and Elena Ragazzi <fnref n="7" />,‡ ID

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

Academic Editor: Flavio Boccia

Received: 29 September 2025

Revised: 31 October 2025

Accepted: 5 November 2025

Published: 12 November 2025

**Citation:** Lengieza, M.L.; Swim, J.K.; DeCoster, J.; Guerriero, J.G.; Saito, O.; Le Coent, P.; Sella, L.; Chien, H.; Hérivaux, C.; Rota, F.S.; et al. A Five-Culture Validation of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale: A Measure of Instrumental, Intrinsic, and Relational Environmental Values. *Sustainability* 2025, 17, 10102.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210102

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Previous research identified three reasons for valuing nature (i.e., the *basis* for seeing nature as valuable and important): (1) valuing nature for what it gives to humans (instrumental), (2) valuing nature for its own sake (intrinsic), and (3) valuing nature because of the relationship between people and nature (relational). Of these, relational value-bases have been less studied, especially in non-Western cultures. Using a large sample (n = 2618), with participants from five distinct cultural regions (Japan, Taiwan, Italy, France, USA), the present research tests whether a three-factor framework of environmental value-bases generalizes to other cultures. Our findings demonstrate the configural and metric invariance of the recently validated Environmental Value-Bases Scale, indicating that the latent constructs generalize across sub-samples of the five regions and that the measure can be used to test associations between the value-bases and outcomes across cultures. However, we only found partial scalar invariance, suggesting (a) that caution is needed when comparing scale means *between* cultures and (b) that such tests are most appropriately performed using latent means. This research further contributes to the growing value-basis literature by comparing the latent means for each value-basis between and within each of the five regions and by demonstrating their associations with place attachment.

**Keywords:** environmental values; intrinsic values; relational values; instrumental values; place attachment; nature as community; nature for people; nature for nature; value-bases

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA; jswim@psu.edu (J.K.S.); jgg5264@psu.edu (J.G.G.)</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA; jamied@virginia.edu</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama 240-0115, Japan; o-saito@iges.or.jp</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ BRGM, University of Montpellier, 34000 Montpellier, France; p.lecoent@brgm.fr (P.L.C.); c.herivaux@brgm.fr (C.H.)</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ G-EAU, AgroParisTech, BRGM, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, University of Montpellier, 34000 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ CNR Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth, 10135 Torino, Italy; lisa.sella@cnr.it (L.S.); francesca.rota@unito.it (F.S.R.); elena.ragazzi@cnr.it (E.R.)</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ College of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Neipu, Pingtung 912, Taiwan; hchien@mail.npust.edu.tw</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Department of Economics and Statistics “Cognetti de Martiis”, University of Turin, 10124 Torino, Italy</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: michael.l.lengieza@durham.ac.uk</footnote>

<footnote>† These authors contributed equally to this work.</footnote>

<footnote>‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Given the many environmental crises challenging the sustainability of the planet—including climate change, excess plastic waste, and biodiversity loss [1]—understanding predictors of pro-environmental outcomes is a global priority. One well-studied category of predictors of pro-environmental behavior is environmental values (see [2,3]). Values are overarching ideals or principles that transcend circumstance in guiding a variety of human behaviors and decision-making processes [2,4,5]. Environmental values, specifically, are the ideals or principles that an individual holds in reference to the health, status, and importance of the natural environment. Individuals endorsing pro-environmental values recognize the natural environment as important and valuable, and such endorsements predict pro-environmental outcomes (e.g., [6]).

However, there is nuance in the relationship between valuing the natural environment and pro-environmental outcomes [7]. Research has consistently shown that the reasons underlying people's valuing of nature—dubbed environmental value-bases (VBs)—uniquely influence pro-environmental intentions and behavior (see [8]). Reviews of the literature and discourse surrounding the reasons people value nature have revealed at least three bases for valuing nature (see [9–15]): (1) valuing nature for its benefits to people based upon anthropocentric, means-to-an-end, or people-based reasons (i.e., an *instrumental* basis for valuing nature; Instrumental VBs); (2) valuing nature for its own sake based upon biocentric and ethical reasons or based upon its inherent value (i.e., an *intrinsic* basis for valuing nature; Intrinsic VBs); and (3) valuing nature as a participating member of the human-nature relationship or for cultural, collective, or community-oriented reasons (i.e., a *relational* basis for valuing nature; Relational VBs; see [8]).

Despite its long history (e.g., [5]), much of the quantitative research on VBs and many of the empirical measures that capture the different reasons for valuing the environment have neglected Relational VBs (see [8]). Even so, recent conceptual work has stressed the importance of relational reasons for valuing nature (see [16]), and global policy has begun to recognize the importance of the relationship between people and nature. For example, in 2020, the UN Secretary-General ended his speech on the state of the planet by stating, “Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world” [17], and land-mark policy documents, such as the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [18] and the recent IPBES Transformative Change Assessment [19], have emphasized the role of people’s relationship with nature and place in addressing environmental crises (see [20] for a review of similar policy interest). Thus, there is growing recognition that relational elements of the human-nature relationship—including Relational VBs—are an important sustainability target [20]. There is also a clear need to include Relational VBs in quantitative investigations, since the way we relate to nature is central to why and how different cultures encourage sustainable practices [21]. For example, knowing which VBs different communities endorse is relevant to successfully matching policies to communities’ reasons for valuing nature, which may enhance the effectiveness of those policies in that the given community [22]. This matching inherently requires ways of documenting which VBs are most important in different contexts. Finally, beyond trends in the discourse and practical considerations for informing policy, empirical research using a recently validated measure of the three VBs has highlighted Relational VBs as an essential pro-environmental predictor [8]. Thus, additional investigations into the role of Relational VBs in predicting pro-environmental outcomes are well-warranted, especially in non-Western contexts where Relational VBs might be a more prevalent basis for valuing nature [13].

The primary purpose of this research is to facilitate such investigations by testing whether the three VBs manifest similarly in a globally diverse sample. Specifically, we aim to test whether the three-factor framework for understanding environmental VBs general-
izes outside of the US context in which it was quantitatively validated. Accordingly, we test
whether the latent constructs captured by the Environmental Value-Bases Scale are invari-
ant across five cultural regions: two from Eastern cultures (Japan and Taiwan) and three
from Western cultures (Italy, France, and the USA). The cultural variability across these re-
gions (e.g., differences in collectivism, which is found more frequently in Eastern than in
Western countries [23,24]) allows us to robustly test whether the three-factor framework of
environmental VBs generalizes under conditions of considerable cultural variability which
may contribute to fundamental differences in the empirical structure of VBs. Thus, demon-
strating the validity of this framework, which distinguishes between these three VBs, in
regions with vastly different values fills two research gaps: (1) it documents, for the first
time, the consistency of such distinctions across cultural regions and (2) advances our prac-
tical capacity to study these three VBs by allowing the common use of a single measure
in different cultures, making research more comparable across contexts. With regard to
the first gap, knowing whether environmental VBs can be treated as reflecting the same
three underlying factors, even when using a diverse sample, is an important theoretical
contribution that supports further investigating into the potential universality of such a
three-factor framework. With regard to the second gap, we demonstrate how a common
measure across different regions can be used to answer other research questions, includ-
ing comparisons of the relative endorsement of the three VBs within and between different
cultural regions. Additionally, building upon the considerable work demonstrating that
people's relationship with place [25] and planet [26] are important targets for sustainabil-
ity [18–20], we also test whether and how environmental VBs predict place attachment.

1.1. Overview of Environmental Value-Bases (VBs)

In general, environmental VBs are the underlying reasons for individuals perceiving
the environment as valuable, important, and ultimately worthy of protection (see [8]).

1.1.1. Instrumental Bases for Valuing Nature (Instrumental VBs)

One of the most commonly endorsed and frequently studied reasons for seeing nature
as important is valuing nature because of its benefits to people [2, 5, 7, 27, 28]. This reason for
valuing nature has gone by several terms, including anthropocentrism [29,30], enlightened
self-interest [31], and the instrumental value of nature [9,11,12]. With their focus on how
nature benefits people, Instrumental VBs are consistent with valuing nature for utilitarian
reasons (as something useful) or as a means to an end, implying nature is an object that,
therefore, can (a) be used by people and (b) can be replaced with other “means” so long as
the same end is achieved (see [10–12]).

In the quantitative empirical literature, Instrumental VBs are largely consistent with
constructs such as egoistic values [2] and egoistic concern for the environment [28], both
of which involve valuing or caring about the environment because of self-centered con-
cerns. Instrumental VBs are also captured by altruistic values [2] and altruistic concern for
the environment [28] because both are rooted in valuing or caring about the environment
because of people-centered concerns (see [8]).

1.1.2. Intrinsic Bases for Valuing Nature (Intrinsic VBs)

Another commonly endorsed and well-studied reason for seeing nature as important
is valuing nature because of its inherent value [2,5,7,9,27,28]. This reason for valuing nature
has most notably been discussed in terms of non-anthropocentrism (e.g., [8]), the inherent
value of nature [12], and the rights of nature [32]. Intrinsic VBs are also consistent with
valuing nature as an end in and of itself—implying that nature is irreplaceable [11]. This
characterization often leads to Intrinsic VBs being portrayed as the foil to Instrumental
VBs [11].
In the quantitative empirical literature, Intrinsic VBs are largely consistent with constructs such as biocentric values [2] and biospheric concern for the environment [28]. Both biocentric values and biospheric concern involve valuing or caring about the environment because of nature-focused concerns (i.e., for reasons that have little to do with people; see [8]).

### 1.1.3. Relational Bases for Valuing Nature (Relational VBs)

Finally, an increasingly recognized (but understudied) reason for seeing nature as important is valuing nature because of its role as a participating member of the community and the relationships that people and cultures form with it [9,13,14,33,34]. This reason for valuing nature is consistent with ideas such as the Land Ethic [31] or the Partnership Ethic [35]. Because Relational VBs focus on the *relationship* between people and nature, nature is irreplaceable from this perspective [12], similar to Intrinsic VBs; that is, if nature were to be replaced, the relationship would change, meaning the value would change (see [10,11]). However, the focus on the relationships between nature and *people* also means that Relational VBs are anthropocentric because they do have a focus on *people* [10]—at least through a purely philosophical lens (see [8] for empirical evidence that suggests Relational VBs are more associated with non-anthropocentrism than anthropocentrism). Thus, one could argue that Relational VBs are also similar, at least philosophically, to Instrumental VBs.

In the empirical literature, Relational VBs have only recently been quantified (see [8]). They have, however, been gaining increasing recognition in the field (e.g., “Nature as Culture” from the IPBES Nature Futures Framework [36], and other relational environmental value constructs; [37–39]). There have been some attempts to validate scales capturing such VBs. However, these existing attempts to measure Relational VBs have either (a) neglected to demonstrate predictive validity [12,40,41], (b) have not tried to measure all three VBs simultaneously [40], or (c) have had concerning flaws (e.g., treating clearly instrumental items—such as “Humans have the right to use nature any way we want” —as measuring Intrinsic VBs [41]). For these reasons, we believe it is fair to say that there had not been an empirically validated measure of the three VBs until recently.

Indeed, in the absence of validated scales, some researchers (e.g., [40]) have even taken an approach that implies that Relational VBs can be approximated with other measures (i.e., connection to nature [42]). Such measures fall short in three ways, however. First and foremost, the approximate measures were not designed to explicitly capture the relational basis for valuing nature (i.e., they were not intended to explain *why* people value nature). Second, they were not designed in concert with the other two VBs, thereby hindering comparisons among the three VBs (e.g., to determine which of the three VBs are most predictive of pro-environmental outcomes). Third, and perhaps most decisively, the current evidence suggests that the three most common measures of nature connectedness do not measure the same latent construct as Relational VBs (see [8]). Fortunately, these limitations were recently addressed by the measure that was designed to capture all three VBs and was subsequently validated in three US samples [8]. This scale was specifically designed to capture all three VBs so that they can be tested simultaneously to assess their distinct contributions to other outcomes.

## 1.2. Associations Between Environmental VBs and Pro-Environmental Outcomes

Empirical investigations into the relationship between environmental VBs and pro-environmental outcomes suggest that different reasons for valuing nature have unique effects on pro-environmental outcomes. When tested simultaneously with Instrumental VBs, Intrinsic VBs (e.g., biospheric concern, biocentric values) frequently have a significant,
positive association with pro-environmental outcomes [43–48]. In contrast, when tested si-
multaneously with Intrinsic VBs, measures of Instrumental VBs focusing on the self (e.g.,
egoistic environmental concern, egoistic environmental values) frequently show a nega-
tive [43,47,48] or non-significant [44–46,48] association with pro-environmental outcomes.
Moreover, measures of Instrumental VBs focusing on other people (e.g., altruistic environ-
mental concern, altruistic environmental values) show inconsistent associations with the
same outcomes. Specifically, in some studies, altruism-based measures of Instrumental
VBs show non-significant associations [43,44,47,48], while others show negative [46,48] or
even positive effects [43,45]. Thus, the literature generally indicates that (a) Intrinsic VBs
are a strong, positive predictor of pro-environmental outcomes and (b) Instrumental VBs
are, at best, an inconsistent predictor of pro-environmental outcomes.

Possibly because there had not been an empirically validated measure of Rela-
tional VBs until recently, only one paper has reported the association between Rela-
tional VBs and pro-environmental outcomes. In this study, Relational VBs demon-
strated a consistent positive association with pro-environmental outcomes across all three
studies—even when tested alongside Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs [8]. In contrast,
in the same models, Instrumental VBs showed a consistent negative association with pro-
environmental outcomes, and Intrinsic VBs demonstrated an inconsistent association with
pro-environmental outcomes [8]. Thus, these recent results not only reaffirm the differ-
ential effects of pro-environmental VBs (i.e., *why* we value nature matters), but also high-
light that Relational VBs—which accounted for more than double the variance captured by
Intrinsic VBs [8]—may be especially important pro-environmental VBs worthy of future
study, including in other cultures. Accordingly, understanding whether the extant mea-
sures can be used to capture the same latent constructs across multiple cultural contexts is
vital to supporting such research.

1.3. *Primary Research Questions*

While the Environmental Value-Bases Scale was developed in the US, the three VBs have been of interest across countries and cultures [9,13,14,33]. Yet, any time there is cross-cultural interest in a construct that has been validated in only one culture, there is the necessary question of whether that construct generalizes to other cultures or is merely idiosyncratic to the culture in which it was validated (see the early work on basic human values; [4,49]). This is no less true in this instance.

While some of the founding conceptual work proposing these three distinct VBs im-
plies that they are globally applicable (see [9,14]), there are arguments that relational val-
ues, in particular, are inherently place-based and culturally bound—and therefore would
not manifest similarly across cultures (see [50]). Furthermore, while distinguishable into
relatively discrete conceptual categories, the three VBs exist on a continuum. Thus, in prac-
tice, their boundaries may not be as sharp as implied by the three-factor framework—even
given the statistical evidence that they are [8]. This may be especially true across cultures
with vastly different values. It therefore becomes necessary to confirm that these three fac-
tors remain distinguishable in diverse cultural contexts if one wishes to propose that these
three ways of valuing nature apply globally. At present, however, no work has considered
(a) whether the three-factor structure of environmental VBs implied by the conceptual lit-
erature (see [51]) exists in contexts other than the US, let alone (b) whether the *same* three-
factor structure that applies to the US likewise applies to other vastly different cultural
contexts (e.g., non-Western cultures).

Here, we address this gap and focus on whether the three-factor framework validated
in the US extends to a more diverse sample of cultural regions: Japan, Taiwan, Italy, France,
and the USA. Specifically, we investigate whether the three VBs can be captured effectively
and with the same latent structure across different cultural regions by using multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the extent to which the latent constructs captured by Relational VBs, Intrinsic VBs, and Instrumental VBs remain invariant across the sampled cultural regions [52–55] (see [56]). We consider three types of measurement invariance: configural, metric, and scalar invariance (see [55]).

Configural invariance indicates that scale items form the same set of factors across different groups (i.e., all groups have the same number of factors comprised of the same sets of items). In our case, configural invariance would suggest that the items measure similar constructs across cultural regions [53,55] because, much like the evidence used to claim that Schwartz's Basic Human Values are universal [4,49], all of the items tend to be situated in the same general structure across sub-samples. A failure to find configural invariance suggests that the Environmental Value-Bases Scale has a different factor structure in at least one cultural region and does not measure similar constructs [53]. For example, we would not likely find configural invariance if some regions reflected the expected three-factor structure while others reflected a one-factor structure where the three VBs are not distinguishable. Such a failure to find configural invariance would preclude further tests of invariance [55] and would also potentially suggest that the VBs employed outside the US are qualitatively different from the established three-factor framework. Conversely, evidence of a three-factor structure that is present across all regions would be largely consistent with the notion that these values are applicable to a wide range of contexts.

**Research Question 1:** Does the Environmental Value-Bases Scale form the same three factors across cultural regions?

Metric invariance indicates that item loadings are similar enough across different groups that they can be treated as equivalent (i.e., constrained to be equal). Thus, not only would each factor have the same set of items across cultural regions (which would be established via the test of configural invariance), but metric invariance further implies that each factor is reflected by those items in an effectively identical manner because they have the same factor loadings in all groups [52,53]. This type of invariance is a prerequisite for comparing regression slopes [52,54] because it indicates that the latent construct is measured the same way in each group [53]. Put colloquially, whereas configural invariance points to the factor distinctions being shared across groups, metric invariance indicates that each of those factors has the same “shape” across groups. A failure to find metric invariance would suggest that the latent constructs assessed by the Environmental Value-Bases Scale are reflected differently in at least one cultural region. A failure at this step precludes any further tests of invariance [55]. Importantly, this test of metric invariance holds not only methodological and practical value but also represents an important theoretical question. That is, in conjunction with configural invariance, metric invariance represents a test of whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the same three latent constructs are captured similarly across groups and with the same structure. In other words, this analysis tests whether the latent constructs of Relational, Instrumental, and Intrinsic VBs generalize to contexts beyond the US.

**Research Question 2:** Do the items forming the three factors have invariant loadings across cultural regions?

Finally, scalar invariance indicates that the scale item intercepts are similar enough across groups to be treated as equivalent—meaning that observed item scores are influenced by the same degree of response bias in each group (see [52]). This type of invariance is necessary for making mean comparisons between groups [54], especially when comparing observed composite means [52]. A failure at this step means that any detected group-mean differences across cultural regions might be due to artifacts such as cultural
differences in systematic response biases rather than differences in the underlying latent construct [52]. In other words, a lack of scalar invariance would make it difficult to know whether any given mean differences among cultural regions are due to meaningful varia-tions in the latent constructs or if they are, instead, due to some systematic bias (e.g., the way one culture uses scale points or methodological differences [52,54]). In the event of a failure to produce evidence of full scalar invariance, researchers can pursue partial scalar invariance by allowing some intercepts to be estimated freely [52,55]. However, it is im-important to note that, even with partial scalar invariance, comparing the observed mean (i.e., based on composites of observed variables) differences between groups is ill-advised, and more advanced comparisons using SEM—in order to compare differences using la-tent variables—are likely necessary if one wishes to interpret mean differences without concerns about the influence of systematic response biases (see [52]).

**Research Question 3:** Do the items forming the three factors also have invariant intercepts across cultural regions?

Together, these three research questions represent the first test of whether Rela-
tional, Instrumental, and Intrinsic VBs remain distinguishable across cultural contexts, and
whether they manifest similarly between Eastern and Western cultures. Based on the ini-
tial validation of this scale (see [8]) and the state of extant research (see [33]), we expect
the same three-factor structure to emerge across sub-samples despite their vast cultural
differences. Thus, this research presents a critical theoretical step toward understanding
the potential universality of environmental VBs (c.f., Schwartz's investigations of the uni-
versality of human values; [4]). However, this research also fills a second, more practical
gap in the literature. Specifically, a lack of common measurement is one of the factors
identified as contributing to the lack of coherence that has been noted within the study
of valuing nature (see [57] for a discussion of this gap). Thus, by potentially providing a
measure of all three VBs that can be used across a wide range of cultural contexts, we fill
this practical gap, thereby advancing the study of relational and pluralistic VBs toward a
more coherent theoretical framework.

1.3.1. Contingent Research Questions

The above research questions test the theoretically and practically important question of whether the latent constructs reflecting Relational, Instrumental, and Intrinsic VBs are generalizable to contexts outside of the US. However, assuming we find evidence of measurement invariance, we have two additional areas of interest: (1) cross-cultural variation in endorsements of the VBs and (2) the relationship between the VBs and place attachment.

Cross-Cultural Variation

While quantitative cross-cultural comparisons in the endorsements of Relational, In-
trinsic, and Instrumental VBs have not yet been explored, there is reason to expect the
three VBs to vary both between and within cultures. First and foremost, just as there are
cross-cultural variations in the importance of human values (e.g., [4,58]), there may be
cross-cultural differences in the importance of environmental VBs. For example, focusing
on Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs (i.e., the instrumental–intrinsic dichotomy; [34]) to
the exclusion of Relational VBs has been the prominent approach in Western cultures [8].
In contrast, the Nature Futures Framework [15,59]—which was derived from a global anal-
ysis of discourses surrounding valuing nature that deliberately incorporated the perspec-
tives of indigenous communities—includes a relational perspective alongside the tradition-
ally Western Instrumental and Intrinsic VB perspectives (see also [13–15,59]). The very fact
that relational reasons for valuing nature have only emerged when considering a diverse
representation of people across cultures and countries implies that there may be cultural
variation in the relative importance attributed to the three VBs. That is, in the West, Instru-
mental and Intrinsic VBs seem to have been so important as to dominate the entirety of
the Western discourse. In contrast, Relational VBs were important enough in other parts
of the world that they were identified by a global review of the reasons that people value
nature [9,13,14].

Second, in addition to conceptual reasons to expect variation in VB endorsements, em-
pirical research provides both direct and indirect evidence to support cross-cultural varia-
tions. For example, a qualitative analysis of environmental values in Colombia indicated
that relational values were far more prevalent amongst Colombian participants than either
instrumental or intrinsic values, which were exceptionally low [34]. This provides direct
evidence that relational values are more important in some cultures than others (and also
that they may be differentially important within cultures, as noted below). Indirectly, re-
search suggests that factors routinely differing between cultures, such as collectivism, are
associated with endorsements of a broad range of values (e.g., [60]); if collectivism varies
between cultures, then values likely will as well. Similarly, self-construals, which are like-
wise routinely recognized as culturally bound, are also significantly correlated with envi-
ronmental values specifically (e.g., [61]). It therefore stands to reason that there may be
cultural differences in the environmental VBs as well. Accordingly, assuming that we can
establish invariance (i.e., partial or full scalar invariance), we planned to explore whether
there were between-culture differences in the endorsements of Relational VBs, Instrumen-
tal VBs, and Intrinsic VBs.

Additionally, as implied above, the long-standing neglect of Relational VBs in West-
ern science until the perspective of non-Western cultures was considered suggests that the
relative importance of Relational VBs may be stronger in non-Western cultures (e.g., in our
samples, Taiwan and Japan relative to the United States, France, and Italy). For example,
collectivism, which tends to be higher in Eastern cultures [62], is more strongly associated
with relational orientations than individualism [58], which tends to be higher in Western
cultures [62]. Such a pattern, while indirect, suggests that Eastern cultures might more
strongly endorse relational environmental VBs than other environmental VBs, whereas
Western cultures might show a different within-culture pattern. Practically, if there are
cultural differences in the endorsements of environmental VBs, policies—or more general
persuasive appeals—emphasizing certain reasons for valuing nature might be accepted dif-
ferently across cultures [22]. Therefore, understanding whether and how cultures differ in
their endorsements of VBs (both at the between and within levels) is critical for informing
how such values should be situated in national and international policy. Thus, assuming
measurement invariance, we also plan to explore cross-cultural variations in the within-
culture relative endorsements of the VBs.

*Research Question 4:* Are there cross-cultural differences in endorsements of the VBs be-
tween (requires scalar invariance) and within cultures (requires metric invariance)?

While we anticipate the structure of the environmental VBs to hold across sub-
samples, we expect mean differences across countries, with Relational VBs being higher
in Eastern cultures (where collectivism is more prominent, as outlined above).

Place Attachment

Although Relational VBs are quantitatively underexplored, there are related constructs that have been examined more extensively. One such example is place attachment—the bond between people and the places with which they engage [63]—which is a popular topic of study within environmental social sciences and correlates robustly with pro-environmental behavior (see [25] for a meta-analysis evidencing the robust place attachment–pro-environmental behavior association). While there is no extant evidence
linking place attachment to environmental VBs directly, given that place attachment is associated with a variety of pro-environmental constructs—including pro-environmental attitudes [64] and concern for the environment [65]—it is reasonable to expect measures of environmental VBs to predict place attachment.

Moreover, there is reason to expect Relational VBs to be more closely related to place attachment than Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs. First, both Relational VBs and place attachment explicitly focus on the *relationship* between humans and the environment, whereas Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs are more narrowly focused on either humans or the environment, respectively. Furthermore, based upon the association between VBs and constructs similar to place attachment (e.g., other place-self relationship constructs), there is also indirect evidence that Relational VBs and place attachment should be strongly associated. For example, past research has identified differential associations between the three VBs and nature connectedness—the closeness of one’s relationship with nature based upon the extent to which nature is included in one’s sense of self [20,66,67]. Specifically, while the original validation of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale showed that nature connectedness and Relational VBs are, indeed, distinct constructs, Relational VBs had a particularly strong association with nature connectedness—one that happened to be the strongest out of the three VBs [8]. Accordingly, to the extent that place attachment and nature connectedness represent similar environment-self constructs, we anticipate Relational VBs will be a stronger predictor of place attachment than Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs.

Place attachment, however, is a multidimensional construct with two of its more commonly recognized dimensions being *place identity*—the affective attachment one has formed with a place—and *place dependence*—one’s sense that the place is able to support one’s achievement of goals and needs (see [68]). While we generally expect Relational VBs to be associated with both dimensions of place attachment, there might be differences across the dimensions. For example, the affective attachment emphasized in place identity is more similar to the notion of relationships with nature and might be more strongly associated with Relational VBs. In contrast, the emphasis on the achievement of goals and needs found in place dependence may reflect an underlying focus on how nature benefits oneself, which would be more consistent with Instrumental VBs.

Regardless of the ultimate nature of the associations, knowing whether and how place attachment and environmental VBs are related is relevant for both policy and theory. For one, in light of the growing recognition that the relationship between people and nature is a critical target for sustainability (see [20] for a review of policy documents with such emphasis; see also [17,18]), these analyses represent an important test of whether and how environmental VBs shape our relationship with place and the planet. Additionally, they will inevitably inform the discourse surrounding Relational VBs, given that a key conceptual assertion of the proponents of recognizing Relational VBs is that they are inherently place-based (e.g., [16]). To the extent that this assertion is true, one would expect particularly strong associations between Relational VBs and place attachment. Thus, assuming we can establish the necessary evidence of invariance, we explore whether there are unique associations between the three VBs and the two dimensions of place attachment.

**Research Question 5:** How are the three VBs related to the two dimensions of place attachment? Are there particularly strong relationships with Relational VBs?

## 2. Materials and Methods

The data for this paper were collected as part of a larger, funded project focused on land-use change in five cultural regions (Japan, Taiwan, Italy, France, and the USA). Specifically, this broader project was a funded collaboration between social and natural scientists
partially meant to understand how land-use decisions can affect the natural environment, as documented by natural scientists who have been tracking changes to the natural environment in the regions represented in the present study. Because of the natural science component, the research activities were tied to specific geographic sites suited for making geographic comparisons. This was a partial determinant of the regions selected. Thus, these specific cultural regions were chosen based on their fit with the larger project and not solely for the purposes of this paper. Still, they represent critical variations in geographic regions that differ in cultural beliefs and heritages represented across the world. Specifically, with two non-English-speaking Western cultures (Italy and France) and two non-English-speaking Eastern cultures (Taiwan and Japan), these cultural regions vary greatly in the degree of similarity to the US context where the scale was originally validated. Accordingly, their diversity allows us to test whether the three latent factors exist even under conditions of considerable cultural diversity.

## 2.1. Participants

A total of 2790 participants were recruited from the five cultural regions (see Table 1 for the breakdown of the final sample sizes and exclusions by cultural region). Researchers in each cultural region aimed to obtain a minimum sample size needed for CFAs within their region. General recommendations suggest that 200 to 300, or a 10:1 ratio of people per item, would be sufficient for our measure [69]. Variations in sample size per cultural region resulted from differences in resources and researchers using the broader survey for other purposes.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Exclusions by cultural region.</caption><thead><tr><td>Cultural Region</td><td>Final N</td><td>Straight-Lined</td><td>Incomplete VBs</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Taiwan</td><td>919</td><td>31</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>602</td><td>69</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>533</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>273</td><td>14</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>291</td><td>2</td><td>15</td></tr></tbody></table>

In Japan, Taiwan, France, and the US, participants were recruited through existing online panels where respondents complete various surveys in exchange for money or shopping reward points. Japanese respondents were recruited from Hokkaido, Miyagi, Tochigi, Niigata, and Ichikawa prefectures in Northern Japan. French respondents were recruited from the Gard and Hérault provinces in South France. Taiwanese respondents were recruited from Taipei and New Taipei City. US respondents were recruited from the South-east of New Hampshire. In Italy, respondents were directly recruited from the Alpine region via social media, flyers posted in local businesses and clubs, and visits to these organizations in order to reach hard-to-reach populations in the Alpine region that are often excluded from research due to their location.

A total of 118 participants were excluded for straight-lining on all three subscales (i.e., providing identical non-midpoint responses on all items for a given subscale, including the reverse-coded item). Given the focus on invariance analyses in this paper, we also excluded 54 participants who had missing responses on any of the scale items. The final total sample comprised 2618 participants. The descriptive statistics by cultural region can be found in Table 2.
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Demographics by cultural region.</caption><thead><tr><th>Cultural Region</th><th>Proportion Men</th><th>Mean Age</th><th>(SD)</th><th>Median Education</th><th>(Range)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Taiwan</td><td>0.38</td><td>37.4</td><td>(12.2)</td><td>3</td><td>(1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>0.58</td><td>49.8</td><td>(12.0)</td><td>4</td><td>(1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>0.62</td><td>50.5</td><td>(14.2)</td><td>4</td><td>(1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>0.48</td><td>52.0</td><td>(16.5)</td><td>4</td><td>(1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>0.55</td><td>58.2</td><td>(14.6)</td><td>4</td><td>(2–5)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Education was coded using region-specific equivalents according to the following: 1—Less than High School; 2—High School Degree; 3—Some College; 4—College Degree; 5—Post-Graduate Degree.

## 2.2. Materials and Procedures

Surveys were approved by the necessary ethics board as required in each region and were administered online in all five cultural regions. The measures for the present study were among other measures included for the purposes of the larger project. Specifically, for the larger project, participants were directed to think about the area where they lived and, reflecting on that area, consider their perceptions of and preferences among land-use types and the state of the natural environment. In this survey, participants completed measures for the other research questions about land preference for different types of use (which are beyond the scope of the present study). After completing these measures, they completed the Environmental Value-Bases Scale [8] and the place attachment measure—the focal measures for this manuscript—and provided demographics.

### 2.2.1. Environmental Value-Bases Scale

The Environmental Value-Bases Scale contained 23 items plus 3 reverse-coded items not included in analyses but used to identify straight-line responders (see [8]). The scale had three subscales: Instrumental VBs (e.g., “Plants and animals are valuable because of the benefits they provide to people”), Intrinsic VBs (e.g., “Plants and animals are important because they are parts of a thriving ecosystem”), and Relational VBs (e.g., “Ecosystems are important because they are part of our community, like neighbors”). All items were individually standardized before being used in analyses. All three scales showed strong reliability ($\alpha$s $\ge$ 0.95).

The scale was translated into each target language by members of the broader research team and back-translated to identify possible areas of mistranslation. Any such potential issues, however, were carefully discussed to preserve the original meaning of the items in the source language while ensuring that meaning was effectively conveyed in the target language, as is recommended practice [70]. The versions of the scale used in each cultural region can be found in Appendix A.

### 2.2.2. Place Attachment

To capture the two dimensions of place attachment, we used a six-item scale that has been validated across cultures [68], rated on a five-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” (–2) to “Strongly Agree” (2). Three items assessed place identity (e.g., “I identify strongly with the [region-specific focal area]”), and three items assessed place dependence (e.g., “I would not live anywhere else than in the [region-specific focal area]”). Both scales showed strong reliability ($\alpha$s $\ge$ 0.86).

## 2.3. Analytic Approach

### 2.3.1. Tests of Invariance

#### Factor Structure

The originally validated scale had a three-factor structure, with the Intrinsic VB factor formed by two latent sub-factors (see [8]). However, given the complexity of the planned
analyses in the present investigation, here, we tested a simplified three-factor structure applied across the five cultural regions (note that substantive conclusions regarding invariance tests were corroborated using the original factor structure). We compared this three-factor model to a one-factor model and three two-factor models that tested alternative pairings of subfactors: (1) Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs forming one factor and Relational VBs forming a second, (2) Relational VBs and Intrinsic VBs forming one factor and Instrumental VBs forming a second, and (3) Relational VBs and Instrumental VBs forming one factor and Intrinsic VBs forming a second. These two-factor models were examined to ensure the complete set of possible combinations of factors was tested.

## Multi-Group CFA

To test for the three types of invariance, we conducted a series of multi-group CFAs with varying constraints in the R package lavaan (version 0.6-18) [71] using robust estimation (“MLM” in lavaan). Because the chi-square test is known to be overly sensitive to non-meaningful differences, we instead used changes in fit indices to determine the meaningfulness of differences between invariance models, as is currently the suggested practice [54]. Sample weights were used in these analyses (see Section 2.3.3).

## Fit Standards

Configural invariance is demonstrated by acceptable fit—CFI ≥ 0.90 [72,73], SRMR ≤ 0.08 [73], and RMSEA < 0.10 [72,74]—of the unconstrained model in a multi-group CFA [55]. Metric invariance is demonstrated by a non-meaningful change (ΔCFI ≤ −0.010; ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015; ΔSRMR ≤ 0.030) when comparing the unconstrained model to a model where item loadings are forced to be constant across groups (see [54,55]). Scalar invariance is demonstrated by a non-meaningful change (|ΔCFI| ≤ 0.010; ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015; ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010) when comparing the loading-constrained model to a model where both item loadings and intercepts are forced to be constant across groups (see [54]).

### 2.3.2. Testing the Three VBs Simultaneously

As noted in the original validation of this scale (see [8]), when testing associations between the VBs and other constructs, it is essential to pay attention to the unique associations between a given value-base and other constructs when controlling for the other VBs. This necessity is because scores on any measure of Instrumental VBs, for example, can be represented by the following symbolic equation:

$$ \text{InstrumentalVB} = VN_{gen} + VN_{\text{Instrumental}} $$

where $VN_{gen}$ is valuing nature, generally, and Instrumental VBs are valuing nature specifically for its benefits to people. Since both sources of variance are conflated in the aggregate measure, a significant raw correlation between Instrumental VBs and some outcome could be because the outcome correlates with the Instrumental VB’s variance, but it could also be entirely correlated with—and only with—the $VN_{gen}$ variance. Thus, it is necessary to remove the effect of $VN_{gen}$ in order to detect the unique effect of $VN_{Instrumental}$. This detection can be achieved when all three VBs are included in the same model, since the Type III sum of squares eliminates shared variance before assigning estimates to individual terms in the model (i.e., it statistically removes $VN_{gen}$, leaving us with only $VN_{Instrumental}$). For this reason, we test all three VBs simultaneously.
### 2.3.3. Weighting

Because the samples from each cultural region had different sizes, the data were weighted so that each region had an equal influence in the analyses. This weighting was performed by dividing the intended proportion for each sample (0.20) by the observed proportion in the sample for a given region. These values were supplied to both the *lavaan*, *lmer*, and ordinary regression analyses. The weights were also used in the calculation of all means and standard deviations where standardization was used.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Configural Invariance (Research Question 1)

The configural model—which tested the unconstrained three-factor model—assessed whether the same factor structure was appropriate in all five cultural regions. The model fit the data well. The other models fit significantly worse compared to the three-factor configural model (ps < 0.001; see Table 3 for all model fits), further indicating that the configuration (i.e., factor structure) was invariant across cultural regions. This comparison provides strong evidence of configural invariance, suggesting that the broad factor structure is consistent across the regions.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Comparison of models.</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>df</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th><th>CFI</th><th>SRMR</th><th>RMSEA</th><th>90% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Configural Three-Factor</td><td>1135</td><td>2583.76</td><td>0.924</td><td>0.049</td><td>0.071</td><td>[0.067, 0.074]</td></tr><tr><td>Metric Three-Factor</td><td>1215</td><td>2779.34</td><td>0.917</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.072</td><td>[0.068, 0.075]</td></tr><tr><td>Partial Scalar Three-Factor</td><td>1259</td><td>3064.16</td><td>0.907</td><td>0.071</td><td>0.074</td><td>[0.071, 0.078]</td></tr><tr><td>Scalar Three-Factor</td><td>1295</td><td>3565.47</td><td>0.887</td><td>0.076</td><td>0.081</td><td>[0.078, 0.084]</td></tr><tr><td>Relatl. vs. Instru./Intrin.</td><td>1145</td><td>3763.14</td><td>0.853</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.098</td><td>[0.095, 0.102]</td></tr><tr><td>Instru. vs. Relatl./Intrin.</td><td>1145</td><td>4223.98</td><td>0.839</td><td>0.071</td><td>0.103</td><td>[0.099, 0.106]</td></tr><tr><td>Intrin. vs. Relatl./Instru.</td><td>1145</td><td>4234.73</td><td>0.829</td><td>0.076</td><td>0.106</td><td>[0.103, 0.109]</td></tr><tr><td>One-Factor</td><td>1150</td><td>5254.42</td><td>0.766</td><td>0.086</td><td>0.124</td><td>[0.120, 0.127]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. As a reminder for the reader, Instrumental VBs were captured using items such as “Plants and animals are valuable because of the benefits they provide to people”; Intrinsic VBs were captured using items such as “Plants and animals are important because they are parts of a thriving ecosystem”; and Relational VBs were captured by items such as “Ecosystems are important because they are part of our community, like neighbors”. CFI = Confirmatory Fit Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

### 3.2. Metric Invariance (Research Question 2)

The metric model—where loadings were constrained to be equal across cultural regions—tested whether the same latent constructs were captured in each cultural region. This model fit well (see Table 3). More importantly, it showed a non-meaningful change in fit (ΔCFI = -0.007; ΔRMSEA = 0.001; ΔSRMR = 0.02) compared to the configural model. This comparison provides strong evidence of metric invariance, suggesting that the latent constructs are captured in the same way across the regions.

### 3.3. Scalar Invariance (Research Question 3)

The scalar model—where loadings and intercepts were constrained to be equal across cultural regions—tested whether the latent constructs were influenced by the same amount of systematic bias across cultural regions. This model fit acceptably (see Table 3). However, fit indices from the comparison to the metric model showed inconsistent evidence of scalar invariance (ΔCFI = -0.030; ΔRMSEA = 0.009; ΔSRMR = 0.007). That is, two (RMSEA and
SRMR) out of the three fit indices changed negligibly. One fit index (CFI), however, surpassed the threshold (<-0.010). Accordingly, we attempted to identify a model in which we could achieve partial invariance by releasing some intercepts in the model to be freely estimated for each cultural region rather than fixed to be the same.

To pursue partial invariance, we considered the items with the greatest variability (as determined by the interquartile range of each item intercept across groups) in the freely estimated intercepts from the metric model. In other words, we looked for items where the intercepts were notably different across cultural regions when allowed to vary freely (see Table 4; inspection of the sub-samples with the most invariance for these items is reported in Supplemental Materials). From this information, we selected three items at a time (one from each factor) that had the highest variation in intercepts and iteratively released them either until the model reached the invariance threshold or until we had released more than half of the items for a given latent factor (i.e., when a majority of items were variant; see [52]). In the end, we released a total of nine items (noted in the Appendix A) and were able to identify a model that both (a) fit the data to standards (see Table 3) and (b) resulted in a negligible drop in fit (ΔCFI > -0.001; ΔRMSEA = 0.003; ΔSRMR = 0.003). Thus, we found partial scalar invariance, suggesting that, while there may be some systematic bias captured within raw means, the latent variables are comparable using SEM.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Items with notably deviant intercepts based on scalar model.</caption><thead><tr><th>Subscale</th><th>Item</th><th>IQR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Ecosystems are valuable because they contribute to modern medicine.</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Nature is important because it strengthens our community.</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Nature is important because it benefits people.</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>Forests are important because they provide habitats for plants and animals.</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>Plants and animals are important because they are parts of a thriving ecosystem.</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Ecosystems are important because they are part of our community, like neighbors.</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>Ecosystems are valuable because they support healthy lives for plants and animals.</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Ecosystems are valuable because they are like family members.</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Nature is valuable because it improves our quality of life.</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Nature is important because of the relationships people form with it.</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>Nature is valuable for its own sake.</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>The environment has the right to flourish.</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Plants and animals are valuable because of the benefits they provide to people.</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Nature is important because it provides us with resources.</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>Nature deserves to be healthy.</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Plants and animals are important because they can teach people many lessons.</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Nature is important because it is part of human spirituality.</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Nature is important because it is inspirational.</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Relational</td><td>Nature is important because it is embedded in people's traditions.</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>The environment is important because it ensures human wellbeing.</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic</td><td>Ecosystems have the right to exist.</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Biological processes in nature are valuable because they help clean water and air for people.</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental</td><td>Nature is important because it provides us with food and water.</td><td>0.03</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. For those interested in using the scale, the Appendix A contains full details for implementing them. Bolded items here were allowed to be free in the partial scalar model.

### 3.4. Between- and Within-Culture Differences (Research Question 4)

Because we found evidence of partial scalar invariance, it was possible to test the mean differences across cultural regions. However, in cases of partial scalar invariance, it is only appropriate to compare latent means (rather than observed composites—i.e., averages of the raw observed variables; see [52]). Therefore, latent scores for each participant were exported from the fitted partial scalar model (using *lavPredict*) from *lavaan*) and subsequently used in a multi-level regression. The scores for each latent VB were standardized to allow for comparisons both between and within cultures. Thus, we conducted a multi-
level analysis (with random intercepts clustered by participant) predicting standardized VB endorsements from cultural regions and VB types, as well as their interaction. Both categorical variables were dummy-coded.

The first-order model revealed an omnibus main effect of cultural region, *F*(4, 2497) = 19.24, *p* < 0.001. The nuanced comparisons with full statistics are reported in the Supplemental Materials. However, the simple pattern was that Taiwan, Italy, and the US tended to value nature (for any reason) the most, while France valued nature slightly less but much more than Japan, which valued nature the least. All three VBs were standardized individually, which gave them the same sample-level mean (i.e., zero), so the main effect of the VB type is uninformative and not reported here.

More informatively, the second-order model revealed a significant omnibus interaction between the value type and cultural region, *F*(8, 5272) = 59.82, *p* < 0.001 (see Figure 1). Table 4 displays the full collection of simple effects. In brief, for Relational VBs, Taiwan had the strongest endorsements, followed by Italy, the US, and France (which had similar endorsements), while Japan had dramatically weaker endorsements than all other cultural regions. For Instrumental VBs, the US had the strongest endorsements, followed by Italy, Taiwan, and France (which had similar endorsements), while Japan had dramatically weaker endorsements than all other cultural regions. For Intrinsic VBs, Italy had the strongest endorsements, followed by the US, France, and Taiwan (which had similar endorsements), while Japan had dramatically weaker endorsements than all other cultural regions. We explore the possible cultural explanations for these patterns in Section 4.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Relative differences in the three VBs both between and within each cultural region. Note. Bars represent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Because each value-basis was standardized prior to this analysis, the sample mean for each value-basis is zero. Therefore, any bar with a 95% CI that does not eclipse the dashed line is significantly different from the average.</figcaption></figure>

For the within-culture comparisons (see Table 5), given the degrees of freedom and the likelihood of obtaining significance even for trivial effects (|β| < 0.10), we based our interpretation on effect sizes rather than statistical significance. In Taiwan, Relational VBs were stronger than Instrumental VBs, which were stronger than Intrinsic VBs. In Japan,
Relational VBs were stronger than Intrinsic VBs, which were stronger than Instrumental VBs. In Italy, Intrinsic VBs were stronger than Instrumental VBs and Relational VBs, the latter two of which were similar. In France, Instrumental VBs were slightly stronger than Relational VBs and Intrinsic VBs, which were both similar. Finally, in the US, Instrumental VBs were stronger than Intrinsic VBs, which were stronger than Relational VBs.

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Between-culture differences in endorsements of the three VBs.</caption><thead><tr><th>Comparison</th><th>β</th><th>df</th><th>t</th><th>SE</th><th>95% CI</th><th>p</th><th>Adj. p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Relational VBs</strong></td></tr><tr><td>TWN-JPN</td><td>1.17</td><td>4520</td><td>23.64</td><td>0.05</td><td>[1.07, 1.26]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-ITL</td><td>0.34</td><td>4338</td><td>6.78</td><td>0.05</td><td>[0.24, 0.44]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-FRN</td><td>0.44</td><td>3430</td><td>7.30</td><td>0.06</td><td>[0.32, 0.55]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-USA</td><td>0.42</td><td>3506</td><td>7.10</td><td>0.06</td><td>[0.30, 0.53]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-ITL</td><td>-0.82</td><td>3951</td><td>-15.34</td><td>0.05</td><td>[-0.93, -0.71]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-FRN</td><td>-0.73</td><td>3266</td><td>-11.70</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.85, -0.61]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-USA</td><td>-0.75</td><td>3326</td><td>-12.21</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.87, -0.63]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>ITL-FRN</td><td>0.09</td><td>3213</td><td>1.47</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.03, 0.22]</td><td>0.142</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>ITL-USA</td><td>0.07</td><td>3269</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.05, 0.20]</td><td>0.236</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>FRN-USA</td><td>-0.02</td><td>2928</td><td>-0.27</td><td>0.07</td><td>[-0.16, 0.12]</td><td>0.784</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Instrumental VBs</strong></td></tr><tr><td>TWN-JPN</td><td>1.13</td><td>4520</td><td>22.96</td><td>0.05</td><td>[1.04, 1.23]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-ITL</td><td>-0.02</td><td>4338</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.05</td><td>[-0.12, 0.08]</td><td>0.722</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-FRN</td><td>0.02</td><td>3430</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.10, 0.14]</td><td>0.731</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-USA</td><td>-0.13</td><td>3506</td><td>-2.24</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.25, -0.02]</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.253</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-ITL</td><td>-1.15</td><td>3951</td><td>-21.44</td><td>0.05</td><td>[-1.26, -1.05]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-FRN</td><td>-1.11</td><td>3266</td><td>-17.82</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-1.24, -0.99]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-USA</td><td>-1.26</td><td>3326</td><td>-2.60</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-1.39, -1.14]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>ITL-FRN</td><td>0.04</td><td>3213</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.09, 0.16]</td><td>0.544</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>ITL-USA</td><td>-0.11</td><td>3269</td><td>-1.82</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.24, 0.01]</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.693</td></tr><tr><td>FRN-USA</td><td>-0.15</td><td>2928</td><td>-2.17</td><td>0.07</td><td>[-0.30, -0.02]</td><td>0.030</td><td>0.302</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Intrinsic VBs</strong></td></tr><tr><td>TWN-JPN</td><td>0.88</td><td>4520</td><td>17.79</td><td>0.05</td><td>[0.78, 0.98]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-ITL</td><td>-0.36</td><td>4338</td><td>-7.11</td><td>0.05</td><td>[-0.46, -0.26]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-FRN</td><td>-0.01</td><td>3430</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.13, 0.11]</td><td>0.849</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>TWN-USA</td><td>-0.13</td><td>3506</td><td>-2.19</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-0.24, -0.01]</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.288</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-ITL</td><td>-1.24</td><td>3951</td><td>-23.05</td><td>0.05</td><td>[-1.34, -1.13]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-FRN</td><td>-0.89</td><td>3266</td><td>-14.25</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-1.01, -0.77]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>JPN-USA</td><td>-1.01</td><td>3326</td><td>-16.39</td><td>0.06</td><td>[-1.13, -0.89]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>ITL-FRN</td><td>0.35</td><td>3213</td><td>5.49</td><td>0.06</td><td>[0.22, 0.47]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>ITL-USA</td><td>0.23</td><td>3269</td><td>3.71</td><td>0.06</td><td>[0.11, 0.35]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>FRN-USA</td><td>-0.12</td><td>2928</td><td>-1.67</td><td>0.07</td><td>[-0.25, 0.02]</td><td>0.095</td><td>0.951</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Some *βs* are greater than 0 because the dummy-coded variables were not standardized; the slopes represent the literal standardized difference between two cultural regions (vs. a true standardized regression coefficient). Adjusted *p*-values are reported using a Bonferroni correction to account for the 10 dependent tests. Controlling for age and gender does not change substantive conclusions (based on effect size and adjusted *p*-values) regarding this table or the presence of the interaction.

### 3.5. Place Attachment (Research Question 5)

We tested the associations among the three VBs and two dimensions of place attachment—place identity and place dependence. As shown in Table 6, all measures were positively associated. All VIFs, however, were less than 5, suggesting that multicollinearity was not a concern.

Of interest were the unique associations between the VBs and each place attachment dimension (see Table 7 for correlations). To test the unique associations, we conducted linear regressions predicting place identity and place dependence from the three VBs when controlling for cultural region (see Table 8). The regression predicting place identity from the three VBs when controlling for region revealed that Relational VBs were the strongest predictor of place identity. Specifically, place identity was positively predicted by Instrumental VBs and Relational VBs but *not* predicted by Intrinsic VBs. The effect of Relational VBs on place identity was roughly twice as strong as the effect of Instrumental VBs. The regression predicting place dependence also revealed that Relational VBs were the strongest predictor. Specifically, place dependence was positively predicted by Instrumental VBs
and Relational VBs and negatively predicted by Intrinsic VBs. Like place identity, the effect of Relational VBs on place dependence was roughly twice as strong as the effect of Instrumental VBs.

<table><caption>**Table 6.** Within-culture differences in endorsements of the three VBs.</caption><thead><tr><th>Comparison</th><th>β</th><th>df</th><th>t</th><th>SE</th><th>95% CI</th><th>p</th><th>Adj. p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>TWN</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Instrumental</td><td>-0.13</td><td>5272</td><td>-4.23</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.18, -0.07]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Relational</td><td>-0.40</td><td>5272</td><td>-13.42</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.46, -0.34]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental-Relational</td><td>-0.27</td><td>5272</td><td>-9.19</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.33, -0.21]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>JPN</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Instrumental</td><td>0.13</td><td>5272</td><td>4.39</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.07, 0.19]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Relational</td><td>-0.11</td><td>5272</td><td>-3.66</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.17, -0.05]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental-Relational</td><td>-0.24</td><td>5272</td><td>-8.05</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.30, -0.18]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ITL</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Instrumental</td><td>0.22</td><td>5272</td><td>7.33</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.16, 0.28]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Relational</td><td>0.31</td><td>5272</td><td>1.35</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.25, 0.36]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental-Relational</td><td>0.09</td><td>5272</td><td>3.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.03, 0.15]</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.008</td></tr><tr><td><strong>FRN</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Instrumental</td><td>-0.09</td><td>5272</td><td>-3.15</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.15, -0.04]</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Relational</td><td>0.05</td><td>5272</td><td>1.71</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.01, 0.11]</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.260</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental-Relational</td><td>0.14</td><td>5272</td><td>4.87</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.09, 0.20]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>USA</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Instrumental</td><td>-0.13</td><td>5272</td><td>-4.33</td><td>0.03</td><td>[-0.19, -0.07]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic-Relational</td><td>0.15</td><td>5272</td><td>5.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.09, 0.21]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental-Relational</td><td>0.28</td><td>5272</td><td>9.35</td><td>0.03</td><td>[0.22, 0.34]</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. As with other tables, the dummy-coded variables comparing value type were not standardized. Thus, slopes represent the standardized difference between two VBs. Adjusted *p*-values are reported using a Bonferroni correction to account for the three dependent tests within each country.

<table><caption>**Table 7.** Pseudo-correlations between values and place attachment when controlling for cultural region.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>1.</th><th>2.</th><th>3.</th><th>4.</th><th>5.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Value-Bases</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Relational VBs</td><td>—</td><td>0.72 **</td><td>0.71 **</td><td>0.12 **</td><td>0.21 **</td></tr><tr><td>2. Intrinsic VBs</td><td>0.69 **</td><td>—</td><td>0.80 **</td><td>0.04 *</td><td>0.14 **</td></tr><tr><td>3. Instrumental VBs</td><td>0.65 **</td><td>0.76 **</td><td>—</td><td>0.08 **</td><td>0.17 **</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Place Attachment</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. Place Dependence</td><td>0.12 **</td><td>0.04 *</td><td>0.08 **</td><td>—</td><td>0.64 **</td></tr><tr><td>5. Place Identity</td><td>0.23 **</td><td>0.16 **</td><td>0.20 **</td><td>0.67 **</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. * *p* < 0.05; ** *p* < 0.01. The cells of this table are standardized coefficients from a regression predicting each variable in the pair when controlling for cultural region. Therefore, the matrix is not perfectly symmetric. These pseudo-correlations were chosen rather than typical correlations expressly to highlight the comparison noted in Section 4.4.1. A similar correlation table is provided for each country in the Supplemental Materials.

<table><caption>**Table 8.** The unique association between each value-basis and the two dimensions of place attachment.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>β</th><th>df</th><th>t</th><th>SE</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Place Identity</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Relational VBs</td><td>0.20</td><td>2594</td><td>6.96</td><td>0.03</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental VBs</td><td>0.10</td><td>2594</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic VBs</td><td>-0.06</td><td>2594</td><td>-1.81</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.070</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Place Dependence</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Relational VBs</td><td>0.17</td><td>2594</td><td>5.83</td><td>0.03</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental VBs</td><td>0.07</td><td>2594</td><td>2.13</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic VBs</td><td>-0.13</td><td>2594</td><td>-3.87</td><td>0.03</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 4. Discussion

## 4.1. Invariance (Research Question 1–3)

The primary purpose of this research was to test whether a three-factor framework for understanding environmental VBs generalizes outside of the US context in which it was validated quantitatively (see Table 9 for a summary of findings). Overall, we found evidence that the Environmental Value-Bases Scale captures the same latent constructs in each cultural region, suggesting that treating Relational, Instrumental, and Intrinsic VBs as three separate constructs may indeed generalize outside of the US to non-English-speaking countries and non-Western countries. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative evidence to suggest that the distinction between these VBs is shared across vastly different cultural regions. That is, while qualitative and conceptual work has asserted that these three VBs are shared across the globe (e.g., [9,13]), there have not yet been any investigations empirically documenting this assertion. Thus, until now, it was unclear whether the three VBs have a degree of shared structure across any cultures. We, however, demonstrate that the same set of items can be used to adequately capture the underlying latent constructs and, more importantly, that those latent constructs manifest in a common, comparable manner. The analyses here provide evidence suggestive of a shared structure across cultural regions and is a first step toward understanding the potential universality of these three VBs.

<table><caption>**Table 9.** Summary of research findings.</caption><thead><tr><td>Research Question</td><td>Finding</td><td>Implication</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Does the Environmental Value-Bases Scale form the same three factors across cultural regions?</td><td>Evidence of configural invariance implies that environmental VBs do form the same three factors across cultural regions.</td><td>The broad distinction between the three reasons for valuing nature seem to apply even across a great deal of cultural diversity.</td></tr><tr><td>Do the items forming the three factors have invariant loadings across cultural regions?</td><td>Evidence of metric invariance implies that the environmental VBs are reflected by the same underlying latent constructs across cultural regions.</td><td>The underlying (latent) construct reflecting each of the three VBs seems to take the same shape even within culturally diverse samples.</td></tr><tr><td>Do the items forming the three factors also have invariant intercepts across cultural regions?</td><td>Evidence of partial scalar invariance implies that intercepts are invariant enough for latent means to be modeled accurately by SEM analyses.</td><td>It is possible to compare latent means between countries, so long as one uses appropriate modeling techniques.</td></tr><tr><td>Are there cross-cultural differences in endorsements of the VBs between and within culture?</td><td>Yes, the cultural sub-samples vary in both their absolute endorsements of each VB (i.e., between cultures) and their endorsements of each VB relative to each other (i.e., within a culture).</td><td>While the three VBs may take the same shape and have the same structure across cultural contexts, their endorsements vary from one culture to the next—and within cultures.</td></tr><tr><td>How are the three VBs related to the two dimensions of place attachment? Are there particularly strong relationships with Relational VBs?</td><td>As expected, Relational VBs seem to be more related to place attachment than the other VBs.</td><td>Place attachment and Relational VBs are distinct but related constructs. Place attachment should not be used as a proxy for Relational VBs.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Ultimately, in demonstrating the cross-cultural generalizability of the latent constructs captured by this scale, this research paves the way for rigorous investigations into both the magnitude of environmental VBs across the globe—similar to recent investigations looking at which cultures are most disconnected to nature and which are
most connected [75]—and the ways in which environmental VBs shape pro-environmental outcomes—similar to the original validation of this scale. Given Relational VBs’ clear relevance to sustainability [8,9,13,76], this is a valuable step forward, one which corroborates the primary assertion of the major qualitative reviews of the environmental values discourse [9,14]: there are at least three distinguishable reasons that people value nature across the globe. Moreover, given the clear variation in VB endorsements within each cultural region, this research provides an important tool to measure and assess the three VBs (as discussed in Section 4.4).

## 4.2. Differences in VBs Between and Within Cultures (Research Question 4)

We tested whether there were differences in the endorsements of the three VBs both between and within the cultural regions included in our sample. Most notably, we found that Relational VBs were endorsed most strongly in the Taiwanese sample (one of the two Eastern cultures) and least strongly in the Japanese sample (the other Eastern culture). At first, this may seem surprising, as one might have expected Japanese participants and Taiwanese participants to have similar (and high) endorsements of Relational VBs given that they both come from Eastern regions. However, a recent analysis of global levels of nature connectedness has shown that Taiwan has comparatively high levels of nature connectedness, whereas Japan was toward the bottom of the sample, which included more than 60 countries [75]. In light of this finding, the pattern observed here is less surprising.

Moreover, it is worth considering the low Relational VBs in the Japanese sample in light of the other VBs, which were likewise low. That is, it was not just that the Japanese sample scored low on *only* Relational VBs, but rather on *all* VBs. It is, therefore, potentially useful to consider distinctions in other cultural dimensions beyond individualism/collectivism that may explain the low VB endorsements overall. For example, some research suggests that, compared to France [23,77] or the USA [23], Japan tends to more strongly endorse masculine cultural values. Such masculine cultural values are potentially inconsistent with endorsing environmental values of any kind because of the stereotype of environmentalism as a primarily feminine concern (see [78]). Thus, this dimensions of Japanese culture (rather than collectivism), may explain the overall low environmental VBs in the Japanese sample. Accordingly, given the within-culture pattern observed in the Japanese sample, it seems that the low Relational VBs are potentially a byproduct of other cultural processes driving down overall VB endorsements, making the within-culture comparisons more informative.

Indeed, upon closer inspection, the within-culture pattern is more consistent with our initial expectations, with *both* the Taiwanese and Japanese samples being the only two cultural regions where Relational VBs were rated the highest relative to the other VBs. Thus, even though the Japanese sample's absolute level of endorsement for Relational VBs was the lowest across cultural regions, it still showed a stronger relative orientation toward Relational VBs in comparison to the other two VBs, more in line with what one might have expected of participants from an Eastern culture. Even so, the findings from the Japanese sample do highlight an important point: researchers may want to carefully consider the validity of prevailing assumptions regarding cross-cultural environmental values—and, more importantly, be mindful of relying on stereotypes to make predictions about other cultures.

It is also informative to consider the other two VBs as well. Instrumental VBs—which are a notoriously problematic (i.e., often negative) predictor of pro-environmental outcomes (see [8] for a brief review)—were highest in the US sample. Incidentally, they were also the strongest VBs endorsed amongst US participants. Thus, not only did the US sample seem to endorse this problematic VB the most, but it also seemed to dominate the VB hierarchy in this cultural context. It is also interesting that Intrinsic VBs were endorsed only
slightly less than Instrumental VBs in both the US sample and the French sample (which
also endorsed Instrumental VBs the most). Both patterns are consistent with the noted
presence of an instrumental–intrinsic dichotomy that has dominated Western environmen-
tal psychology and academic discourse [8,34]. Both patterns are also consistent with the
strong emphasis on individualism within both cultures [23,24,77] which is a strong driver
for utilitarian-consistent orientations toward power and achievement values [60]. Such val-
ues (i.e., power and achievement) may very well be important predictors of seeing nature
as valuable mostly for its instrumental benefits.

Finally, it is interesting to note that, of all the cultural regions, Intrinsic VBs were high-
est in the Italian sample and were also these participants’ strongest VB. However, given that
Italy used a different sampling strategy relative to the other cultural regions, it is possible that
this effect is due to a self-selection bias (whereby more environmentally inclined individuals—
who ostensibly show a greater appreciation for nature’s intrinsic values—were more likely to
participate in the survey). For this reason, we avoid over-interpreting this finding and recom-
mend further investigation with a non-convenie-nce sample.

4.3. *The Association Between VBs and Place Attachment (Research Question 5)*

We tested whether the three VBs were differentially associated with two dimensions of place attachment: place identity and place dependence. We found that all three VBs were uniquely associated with both dimensions of place attachment. However—as one might expect given the shared emphasis on human–environment relationships found in Relational VBs and place attachment—Relational VBs showed the strongest positive association with place identity and place dependence. Yet the strength of the Relational VB–place attachment association (which was small by typical standards) indicates that the two constructs are distinct but related. This is an important theoretical observation—as past research has attempted to use place attachment as a proxy for Relational VBs (see [16])—and is largely consistent with the evidence in the original validation of the scale showing that nature connectedness and Relational VBs are related but distinct constructs [8]. Thus, while both Relational VBs and place attachment reflect one’s relationship with their surroundings, they are different constructs and should not be used interchangeably.

Like Relational VBs, Instrumental VBs were also positively associated with place at-
tachment, yet this relationship was quite weak. It makes sense that people's relationships
with place would be influenced by instrumental considerations. For one, as noted in the
introduction, place dependence emphasizes the benefits a place has for oneself [68]. Thus,
the association between Instrumental VBs and place dependence is not surprising. How-
ever, it was not just place dependence that was associated with Instrumental VBs; Instru-
mental VBs were also associated with place identity, which is less obviously aligned with
self-focused reasons for attachments to place [68]. Yet this still makes sense given (a) the
literature on relationships between people and nature (see [20,76]) and (b) that place iden-
ty focuses on the affective attachment one has to a place [68]. For example, drawing on
the parallel between human-nature relationships and interpersonal relationships [20,76],
research shows that people often form relationships with those they feel will help them
improve themselves, and people often come to identify with those with whom they form
relationships (see [79] for discussions of both). Thus, recognizing the instrumental value
of nature might contribute to our attachment to both place dependence and place identity
as two dimensions of our relationship with place.

While the association between Instrumental VBs and place attachment can be partly
explained, the unexpected association between Intrinsic VBs and place attachment is more
puzzling. While Intrinsic VBs were positively associated with both dimensions of place
attachment on their own (i.e., only controlling for cultural region), they showed no asso-
ciation with place identity and a negative association with place dependence after con-
trolling for Instrumental VBs and Intrinsic VBs. One possible explanation for this unex-
pected association, however, may be that Intrinsic VBs are non-anthropocentric to such
a degree as to become anti-anthropocentric. That is, because we ultimately found that
higher endorsements of values that fail to acknowledge people (i.e., Intrinsic VBs) were
associated with feeling less dependent on place, these findings are largely in line with sug-
gestions that Intrinsic VB-based and rights-based arguments about nature might reify a
separation between people and nature [8,80,81]. To rely on a human-nature relationships-
as-relationships analogy [20,76], solely valuing the benefits that one's relationship partner
receives *without* acknowledging the benefits that one receives oneself or that the relation-
ship receives itself is not likely to promote an attachment to the relationship. Likewise,
focusing on the benefits that nature receives from being healthy without acknowledging
one's own benefits from nature or the benefits to one's *relationship* with nature is not likely
to promote attachment to the planet or place.

Even so, it should still be noted that the pattern we have observed is still largely inconsistent with the literature, which has shown strong associations between nature connectedness and Intrinsic VBs [8,27,28]. Yet the present effect was demonstrated in a large multicultural sample, suggesting that it might generalize to other cultural contexts, although this finding should be confirmed in future research. Thus, if nothing else, the present findings suggest that, despite their conceptual similarities, nature connectedness and place attachment are dissimilar in how they relate to Intrinsic VBs.

4.4. *Recommended Usage of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale*

The present research provides four new versions of the Environmental Value-Bases
Scale in Traditional Chinese, Japanese, French, and Italian. This, hopefully, will make it
possible for more researchers to make use of the scale and will contribute to rectifying
the lack of coherence within the literature (see [57]). Therefore, we provide a handful of
recommendations below considering the present findings.

4.4.1. Testing All Three VBs Simultaneously

The analyses with place attachment presented in Section 3.5 also serve to highlight
the usefulness of a scale specifically designed to capture the three environmental VBs si-
multaneously. Specifically, as noted in the data analysis section, this is because one should
always control for the three VBs to ensure that any uncovered associations are unique to the
value-basis of interest and not just a general valuing of the environment. The distinction
of specific VBs is important both when VBs are the outcome and when they are predictors
(see [8]). This necessity is illustrated well by the comparison between the associations re-
ported in Table 6 (which reports the effects without controlling for the other two VBs) and
Table 7 (which reports the effects when controlling for the three VBs simultaneously): had
we not deliberately tested the unique associations, we would have erroneously concluded
that Intrinsic VBs were positively associated with place attachment because of their sig-
nificant bivariate association with place attachment. Accordingly, the fact that this scale
not only adequately captures Relational VBs across five separate cultural regions but also
captures Instrumental and Intrinsic VBs as well makes it a valuable tool for studying these
phenomena globally. Given the above considerations, even if only one VB is of interest, fu-
ture researchers using the scale should be sure to include all three VB subscales and control
for them in any analyses to properly isolate the construct of interest.

4.4.2. Implications of Configural Invariance

The test of configural invariance indicates that future researchers can reasonably rely
on the three-factor framework tested here when using any one of the five scale versions
included in the present paper. While this simplified factor structure represents a minor
deviation from the original validation of the scale, it will hopefully make the scale easier
for researchers to implement.

4.4.3. Implications of Metric Invariance

Given that the test of metric invariance supported the metric model, the scale can be
used as one would any other scale (i.e., by creating composites through simply averaging
raw item scores for a given subscale) so long as the researcher is not using the scale to
make between-country comparisons. In other words, for simple cases of using regressions
and similar analyses to (a) predict outcomes from the VBs or (b) predict one of the VBs
from continuous variables (or non-country categorical variables such as gender), there is
no need for latent variable modeling. That is, the evidence presented here suggests that the
scale can be used to compare *associations* between the VBs and other constructs across cul-
tural regions [52–54]. Thus, researchers can test for (in)consistency in associations across
cultural regions and be confident that the differences in associations are meaningful and
not due to different latent constructs being captured in each cultural region.

4.4.4. Implications of Partial Scalar Invariance

Given the partial scalar invariance, however, one cannot currently use simple compos-
ites to compare differences between cultures or countries [52]. This is because the partial
scalar invariance indicates that scores on those composites *partly* reflect meaningful differ-
ences in the latent construct and *partly* reflect some degree of systematic response bias not
attributable to the latent construct. Therefore, using such composites would run the risk
of two groups with identical *latent* scores appearing significantly different simply because
they have different *response biases*. That is, any significant differences in observed means
could easily be due to systematic artifacts (e.g., some cultures tending to avoid answering
with extreme values; [82–84]) rather than differences in the latent construct. In light of
this, it is instead necessary to use latent variable modeling, which has been shown to be able
to still estimate the latent construct largely accurately even under conditions of partial invari-
ance (see [52]). Future research, however, could investigate whether changes to the scale items
could achieve full scalar invariance while maintaining metric invariance—although, with the
many latent variable modeling tools presently available, this is not especially necessary.

4.5. *Broader Implications*

The evidence presented here suggests, first and foremost, that there do seem to be
three distinguishable reasons people tend to value nature and which share enough simi-
larity across cultures that they were supported even when using a culturally diverse sam-
ple. Until now, such evidence had not been documented. Given that past research has
shown how policy success and acceptability are critically influenced by their match with
individuals’ reasons for valuing and caring about nature [22], this research highlights that
future policy and practice will benefit from considering the level of VB endorsements of
stakeholders (e.g., constituents). Policies and practices centered around Relational VBs
will likely be more successful in places where they serve as the primary basis for valuing
nature. Conversely, policies and practices centered around Instrumental VBs will likely be
poorly received in places where nature is valued on a primarily relational basis. This, of
course, requires policy-makers (and those informing policy-makers) to have a clear under-
standing of which VBs communities hold. Fortunately, the measure presented here seems
to hold the potential to serve that very purpose given its utility despite this wide range of
cultural contexts.

Additionally, policies—and global entities such as the UN [17]—have recently begun
emphasizing improving the human-nature relationship as a concrete policy target (see [20]
for a review of this trend; [1,18,19,85,86]). Given that Relational VBs are an inherent part
of the human-nature relationship [76], it is likely that policies and grass-roots campaigns
aimed at promoting such VBs will likely begin to emerge (see [87] for an example of a sim-
ilar campaign). It will, therefore, become necessary to evaluate the impact of such policies
and campaigns. This can only be performed with valid, generalizable quantitative scales.
Fortunately, again, the Environmental Value-Bases Scale represents a useful tool for such
evaluation efforts.

4.6. Limitations and Future Directions

4.6.1. Pro-Environmental Behavior

Although we would have liked to reassess the relationship of our Environmental Value-Bases Scale with a measure of pro-environmental behavior, there was no such measure in the present study. The current analyses were performed on data collected as part of a larger project investigating land-use change as part of a funded grant, thereby limiting the number of questions that could be placed in the survey. However, in the original validation of this measure, Relational VBs consistently predicted pro-environmental behavior in three US samples, indicating that Relational VBs had the strongest positive effect on pro-environmental behavior, followed by Instrumental VBs, whereas Instrumental VBs had a consistent negative effect [8]. This previously demonstrated predictive validity, alongside the present research showing that environmental VB subscales capture the same latent constructs across our five samples, suggests that similar associations with behaviors should, in theory, be found across the cultural regions—and, if they are not found, it would simply mean that the association between Relational VBs and pro-environmental behavior depends on the cultural context (since we found strong evidence of metric invariance here). Put simply, a scale that measures the same latent constructs in multiple cultural regions is not invalidated by potential cross-cultural differences in the relationship between that latent construct and the given outcomes, so long as there is at least one cultural context where a meaningful relationship exists (which has already been demonstrated). Given this fact, the absence of a measure of pro-environmental behavior in this dataset does not limit the value of the present findings or the utility of the scale.

4.6.2. Methodological Considerations

Item Presentation

There are a few methodological limitations to consider. First, considering the length of
the overall survey, we chose not to randomize all the items presented as part of the Environ-
mental Value-Bases Scale. Instead, unlike the original validation of the scale, we presented
the items as blocks to limit participant fatigue. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that
this arrangement of items may have created artificially weaker correlations between items
from different scales. The correlations between factors, however, were like those found in
the original validation, suggesting that presenting the items in blocks did not contribute
to a noticeable difference in the degree of separation (or overlap) between factors (see also
the correlation tables in the Supplemental Materials).

Sampling Strategy

Second, because this data was collected as part of a larger funded project bringing
together natural and social scientists (which created strict geographical requirements), the
samples collected were not selected to represent the larger culture regions in which they
were located. Therefore, the samples may not generalize to their broader cultures. Even
so, these analyses still hold cross-cultural value. Additionally, with these geographical
requirements, it was also necessary for some sub-samples (i.e., Italy) to be recruited us-
ing more active means in order to recruit hard-to-reach samples. This means that there were differences in recruitment strategies which may have resulted in artificial differences between Italy and the other countries (as noted above). Thus, this could be one explanation for the notable difference in the relative pattern of Intrinsic VBs for the Italian sample. All other mean comparisons, however, are not attributable to recruitment differences, as the remaining sub-samples all used comparable recruitment methods. Still, the samples we used do require generalizing from subregions to the entire culture. Thus, it would be valuable for future research to test for variations within these cultural regions.

Despite these two methodological limitations, this research still holds great value. While there is considerable interest in research on values across academic fields, the quantitative research on relational environmental VBs is in its infancy. The present findings, therefore, provide a useful first step toward investigating these phenomena cross-culturally. Specifically, while the Japanese sub-sample might not be perfectly representative of all of Japan as a culture, it is both (a) more representative of Japanese culture than a sub-sample from outside of Japan and (b) less representative of the Western cultures frequently found in quantitative research. And yet, even when including this sub-sample, we found metric invariance. In other words, the three-factor structure of environmental VBs in four non-US and non-English speaking samples is *consistent* with the notion that such values are potentially globally generalizable (granted this evidence is not in any way meant to be framed as conclusive). That is, if the true reflection of reality had been that the three distinct latent constructs could not be generalized, we would not have found metric invariance. Thus, the evidence of metric invariance is a promising—even if only preliminary—indication that these VBs may generalize across diverse cultural regions. Therefore, while this research is limited to the specific regions in which these sub-samples were collected, the present findings suggest that further cross-cultural investigations of the three VBs are well-warranted and, in fact, needed. The test of metric invariance indicates, as noted throughout this paper, that the latent constructs reflecting the three VBs are applicable across a culturally diverse set of sub-samples, suggesting that the three-factor framework is, indeed, useful outside of Western, English-speaking countries such as the US. That said, there are numerous other cultures and cultural dimensions worthy of study in future research seeking to confirm the globality of these three VBs. Furthermore, as seen here, there is a clear variability in the endorsements of the VBs both across and within cultural regions, suggesting that such heterogeneity is likely in other contexts, including possible within-cultural differences (e.g., differences in these values between rural and urban populations, which were not considered in the present research).

**5. Conclusions**

With the rapid increase in publications on relational values [9,13,14,33] and with global policies increasingly referencing a desire to improve the human-nature relationship (e.g., [1,18,85]; see [20]), it is necessary to understand whether such Relational VBs are culturally bound—and therefore idiosyncratic to each culture—or, instead, if they have a degree of common structure across cultures. Supporting the latter, the present research offers preliminary evidence to suggest that Relational, Instrumental, and Intrinsic VBs are each formed by a latent construct that is shared even across five culturally distinct sub-samples. This not only provides a valuable theoretical insight—that these environmental VBs *might* generalize cross-culturally—but also paves the way for future cross-cultural research investigating the nature of environmental VBs. For example, here we show that relative endorsements of the three VBs vary across countries and have distinct associations with place attachment. Thus, the multi-group validation of the Environmental Value-Bases Scale provides a useful tool that allows for cross-cultural investigations of the relationship
between relational values for pro-environmental outcomes and for gauging the effectiveness of global efforts to improve the human-nature relationship.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su172210102/s1, Table S1. Mean deviation of free intercepts between subsamples. Table S2. Between-culture Differences in endorsements of general valuing nature (averaging the bases into a single score). Table S3. USA correlations. Table S4. France correlations. Table S5. Italy correlations. Table S6. Taiwan correlations. Table S7. Japan correlations.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.L.L. and J.K.S.; methodology, J.K.S., O.S., P.L.C., L.S. and H.C.; formal analysis, M.L.L. and J.D.; investigation, J.K.S., O.S., P.L.C., L.S., H.C., C.H., F.S.R. and E.R.; data curation, J.G.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.L.; writing—review and editing, M.L.L. and J.K.S.; visualization, M.L.L.; supervision, J.D.; project administration, J.K.S.; funding acquisition, J.K.S., O.S., P.L.C., L.S. and H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF 2129402), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JPMJBF2102), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-21-Soil), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (B55F21001440006), and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 110-2116-M-002-022-MY3).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** This study is waived for ethical review as the research met the criteria for exempt research according to the policies of this institution and the provisions of applicable federal regulations by The Pennsylvania State University, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and Meta Survey Marketing Research Co., Ltd. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by Institution Committee due to Legal Regulations (https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2018/1/31/18G00019/sg) and (http://ansm.sante.fr/Activites/Essais-cliniques/Recherches-impliquant-la-personne-humaine-RIPH/).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The original data presented in the study are openly available in OSF (https://osf.io/wyk9j/?view_only=3d4cb64f2ed6439999370c1e8a6e92d2).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## Appendix A

Environmental Value-Bases Scale in five languages
Items are scored using the following scheme:

<table><caption>**Table A1.** Scoring scheme for each language.</caption><thead><tr><th>English</th><th>Traditional Chinese</th><th>Japanese</th><th>Italian</th><th>French</th><th>Score</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>非常不同意</td><td>まったくそう思わない</td><td>Molto in disaccord</td><td>Pas d'accord du tout</td><td>-3</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>不同意</td><td>そう思わない</td><td>In disaccordo</td><td>Pas d'accord</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td>不太同意</td><td>あまりそう思わない</td><td>Abbastanza in disaccordo</td><td>Plutôt pas d'accord</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat agree</td><td>有點同意</td><td>ややそう思う</td><td>Abbastanza d'accordo</td><td>Plutôt d'accord</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>同意</td><td>そう思う</td><td>D'accordo</td><td>D'accord</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>非常同意</td><td>とてもそう思う</td><td>Molto d'accordo</td><td>Tout à fait d'accord</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>
Note: *s on the English items indicate items with intercepts that were allowed to be free across cultural regions. Bolded items are not meant to be included in the final score calculation. They serve only to detect straight-lining.

## English

### Relational Value-Basis

Please consider your thoughts about nature when answering the following questions. By nature, we mean plants, animals, the landscape, and other features of the earth. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.

1. Nature is important because it is inspirational.

2. Ecosystems are important because they are part of our community, like neighbors. *

3. Plants and animals are important because they can teach people many lessons.

4. Nature is important because of the relationships people form with it.

5. Ecosystems are valuable because they are like family members. *

6. Nature is important because it strengthens our community. *

7. Nature is important because it is part of human spirituality.

8. Nature is important because it is embedded in people's traditions.

9. Nature is like a stranger to me.

### Intrinsic Value-Basis

Please continue to consider your thoughts about nature when answering the following questions. By nature, we mean plants, animals, the landscape, and other features of the earth. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.

1. The environment has the right to flourish.

2. Ecosystems have the right to exist.

3. Nature is valuable for its own sake.

4. Forests are important because they provide habitats for plants and animals.*

5. Ecosystems are valuable because they support healthy lives for plants and animals.*

6. Plants and animals are important because they are parts of a thriving ecosystem.*

7. Nature deserves to be healthy.

8. Giving legal rights to nature is extreme.

### Instrumental Value-Basis

Please continue to consider your thoughts about nature when answering the following questions. By nature, we mean plants, animals, the landscape, and other features of the earth. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.

1. Nature is important because it benefits people.*

2. Plants and animals are valuable because of the benefits they provide to people.

3. Nature is important because it provides us with resources.

4. The environment is important because it ensures human wellbeing.

5. Nature is valuable because it improves our quality of life.*

6. Nature is important because it provides us with food and water.

7. Ecosystems are valuable because they contribute to modern medicine.*

8. Biological processes in nature are valuable because they help clean water and air for people.

9. Nature does not provide resources that are of use to people.

## Traditional Chinese

### Relational Value-Basis

在回答以下問題時，請考慮您對大自然的看法。所謂大自然，是指物理世界的總稱，包括植物、動物、景觀和地球的其他地貌，但不包括人類或人類創造物。請指出您對於以下敘述同意或不同意的程度。
1. 大自然鼓舞人心，所以很重要。

2. 生態系統是我們社區的一部分，就像鄰居一樣，所以很重要。

3. 動植物讓我們學到很多東西，所以它們很重要。

4. 人們與自然建立的深厚關係，所以大自然很重要。

5. 生態系統是人類群體的一部分，就像家庭成員一樣，所以它很重要。

6. 大自然能夠增進社區發展，所以它很重要。

7. 大自然是由人類靈魂的一部份，所以它很重要。

8. 大自然融入了人們的傳統文化中，所以它很重要。

9. **大自然對我來說很陌生。**

## Intrinsic Value-Basis

在回答以下問題時，請繼續考慮您對大自然的看法。所謂大自然，是指物理世界的總稱，包括植物、動物、景觀和地球的其他地貌，但不包括人類或人類創造物。請指出您對於以下敘述同意或不同意的程度。

1. 環境有權蓬勃發展。

2. 生態系統有權利存在。

3. 自然本身就有價值。

4. 森林為動植物提供棲息地，所以很重要。

5. 生態系統支持植物和動物的健康生活，所以它們很有價值。

6. 動植物是繁榮的生態系統的一部份，所以很重要。

7. 自然應該是健康的。

8. **將大自然賦予法律權利是過於極端的作為。**

## Instrumental Value-Basis

在回答以下問題時，請繼續考慮您對大自然的看法。所謂大自然，是指物理世界的總稱，包括植物、動物、景觀和地球的其他地貌，但不包括人類或人類創造物。請指出您對於以下敘述同意或不同意的程度。

1. 大自然對人們有益，所以它很重要。

2. 動植物為人們提供了好處，所以它有其價值。

3. 大自然為我們提供了資源，所以它很重要。

4. 環境確保人類福祉，所以它很重要。

5. 自然提高了我們的生活品質，非常寶貴。

6. 自然為我們提供食物和水，所以它很重要。

7. 生態系統有助於現代醫學，所以它很有價值。

8. 自然界中的生物過程很有價值，因為它們有助於為人們清潔水和空氣。

9. **大自然並沒有提供對人類有用的資源。**

## Japanese

### Relational Value-Basis

以下の設問には、自然についてのご自分の考えを踏まえて回答してください。ここでいう「自然」とは、植物、動物、景観、その他地球上に存在するもの全般を含めた物理的世界をいいます。また「生態系」とは、ある一定の空間における生物と非生物的環境とを含めた総合的なシステムのことをいいます。

以下のそれぞれ考え方(文章)に対する賛否のレベルを6つの選択肢からお選び下さい。(それぞれひとつずつ)

1. 自然はインスピレーションを与えてくれるから大切だ。

2. 生態系は、隣人と同じで人間のコミュニティの一員だから大切だ。

3. 植物や動物は、人間に多くの教訓を与えてくれるから大切だ。

4. 人間と自然の間には絆があるから、自然は大切だ。

5. 生態系は、家族と同じだから価値がある。

6. 自然は、人間のコミュニティを強化してくれるから大切だ。
7. 自然は、人間の精神性の一環を成すものだから大切だ。

8. 自然は、人間の伝統と深く結びついているから大切だ。

9. 自然は自分には馴染みがない(自然はよそ者のような存在である)。

## Intrinsic Value-Basis

以下の設問には先ほどと同様、自然についてのご自分の考えを踏まえて回答してください。ここでいう「自然」とは、植物、動物、景観、その他地球上に存在するもの全般を含めた物理的世界をいいます。また「生態系」とは、ある一定の空間における生物と非生物的環境とを含めた総合的なシステムのことをいいます。

以下のそれぞれ考え方(文章)に対する賛否のレベルを6つの選択肢からお選び下さい。(それぞれひとつずつ)

1. 環境には豊かになる権利がある。

2. 生態系には存在する権利がある。

3. 自然にはそれ自体価値がある。

4. 森林は、植物や動物に生息地を提供するから大切だ。

5. 生態系は、植物や動物の健康的な生活を支えるから価値がある。

6. 植物や動物は、健康な生態系を構成する要素だから大切だ。

7. 自然を健全に保つべきである。

8. 自然に法的権利を与えるのは行き過ぎだ。

## Instrumental Value-Basis

以下の設問には先ほどと同様、自然についてのご自分の考えを踏まえて回答してください。ここでいう「自然」とは、植物、動物、景観、その他地球上に存在するもの全般を含めた物理的世界をいいます。また「生態系」とは、ある一定の空間における生物と非生物的環境とを含めた総合的なシステムのことをいいます。

以下のそれぞれ考え方(文章)に対する賛否のレベルを6つの選択肢からお選び下さい。(それぞれひとつずつ)

1. 自然は人間に利益をもたらすから大切だ。

2. 植物や動物は、人間に利益をもたらすから価値がある。

3. 自然は人間に資源をもたらすから大切だ。

4. 環境は人間を幸福にしてくれるから大切だ。

5. 自然は人間の生活の質 (QOL) を改善するから価値がある。

6. 自然は人間に食物や水をもたらすから大切だ。

7. 生態系は現代医学に貢献するから価値がある。

8. 自然界の生物学的プロセス(生物が生きるために行う活動やその機能)は、人間に清浄な水と大気をもたらすから価値がある。

9. 自然は人間に役立つ資源を提供しない。

## Italian

### Relational Value-Basis

Per rispondere alle seguenti tre domande (Relational-VBs, Intrinsic-VBs, Instrumental-VB), pensa alla natura. Per natura intendiamo l'intero mondo fisico, che comprende piante, animali, paesaggi e altre caratteristiche della Terra, ma non l'uomo e/o i suoi manufatti.
Cosa pensi delle seguenti affermazioni?

1. La natura è importante perché fonte di inspirazione.

2. Gli ecosistemi sono important perché fanno parte della nostra comunità, come i vicini di casa.

3. Piante e animali sono important perché possono insegnare molto alle persone.

4. La natura è importante per le relazioni che le persone creano con essa.

5. Gli ecosistemi hanno valore perché fanno parte della nostra collettività, come i membri della famiglia.
6. La natura è importante perchè rafforza la nostra comunità.

7. La natura è importante perchè fa parte della spiritualità umana.

8. La natura è importante perchè è radicata nelle tradizioni delle persone.

9. **La natura mi è estranea.**

### Intrinsic Value-Basis

Cosa pensi delle seguenti affermazioni?

1. L'ambiente ha il dritto di prosperare.

2. Gli ecosistemi hanno il dritto di esistere.

3. La natura ha valore di per sè.

4. Le foreste sono importanti perché forniscono habitat per piante e animali.

5. Gli ecosistemi sono preziosi perché favoriscono la vita sana di piante e a animali.

6. Piante e animali sono importanti in quanto parti di un ecosistema florido.

7. la natura merita di essere sana.

8. **Dare dritti legali alla natura è eccessivo.**

### Instrumental Value-Basis

Cosa pensi delle seguenti affermazioni?

1. La natura è importante perchè porta benefici alle persone.

2. Piante e animali sono preziosi per i benefici che portano alle persone.

3. La natura è importante perchè ci fornisce risorse.

4. L'ambiente è importante perchè garantisce il benessere dell'uomo.

5. La natura è preziosa perchè migliora la qualità della nostra vita.

6. La natura è importante perchè ci fornisce cibo e acqua.

7. Gli ecosistemi sono preziosi perchè contribuiscono alla medicina moderna.

8. I processi biologici in natura sono preziosi perchè aiutano a ripulire acqua e aria per le persone.

9. **La natura non provvede risorse utili per le persone.**

### French

Veuillez tenir compte de vos opinions sur la Nature lorsque vous répondrez aux questions suivantes. Par Nature, nous entendons les plantes, les animaux, le paysage et les autres éléments de la Terre. Veuillez indiquez votre niveau d'accord ou de désaccord sur les affirmations suivantes.

### Relational Value-Basis

1. La Nature est importante parce qu'elle est source d'inspiration.

2. Les écosystèmes sont importants parce qu'ils font partie de notre communauté, comme des voisins.

3. Les plantes et les animaux sont importants car ils peuvent enseigner de nombreuses leçons aux gens.

4. La Nature est importante en raison des relations que les gens nouent avec elle.

5. Les écosystèmes sont précieux car ils sont comme des membres de la famille.

6. La Nature est importante parce qu'elle renforce notre communauté.

7. La Nature est importante car elle fait partie de la spiritualité humaine.

8. La Nature est importante parce qu'elle est ancrée dans les traditions des gens.

9. **La Nature est comme un étranger pour moi.**

### Intrinsic Value-Basis

Veuillez tenir compte de vos opinions sur la Nature lorsque vous répondrez aux questions suivantes. Par Nature, nous entendons les plantes, les animaux, le paysage et les autres éléments de la Terre. Veuillez indiquez votre niveau d'accord ou de désaccord sur les affirmations suivantes.
1. L'environnement a le droit de s'épanouir.

2. Les écosystèmes ont le droit d'exister.

3. La Nature est précieuse pour elle-même.

4. Les forêts sont importantes car elles fournissent des habitats pour les plantes et les animaux.

5. Les écosystèmes sont précieux parce qu'ils favorisent une vie saine pour les plantes et les animaux.

6. Les plantes et les animaux sont importants car ils font partie d'un écosystème florissant.

7. La Nature mérite d'être en bonne santé.

8. **Donner des droits légaux à la nature est extrême.**

Instrumental Value-Basis

Veuillez tenir compte de vos opinions sur la Nature lorsque vous répondrez aux questions suivantes. Par Nature, nous entendons les plantes, les animaux, le paysage et les autres éléments de la Terre. Veuillez indiquez votre niveau d'accord ou de désaccord sur les affirmations suivantes.

1. La Nature est importante parce qu'elle fournit des bénéfices aux gens.

2. Les plantes et les animaux sont précieux en raison des avantages qu'ils procurent aux gens.

3. La Nature est importante car elle nous fournit des ressources.

4. L'environnement est important car il assure le bien-être humain.

5. La Nature est précieuse car elle améliore notre qualité de vie.

6. La Nature est importante car elle nous fournit de la nourriture et de l'eau.

7. Les écosystèmes sont précieux car ils contribuent à la médecine modern.

8. Les processus biologiques dans la Nature sont précieux car ils aident à purifier l'eau et l'air pour les humains.

9. **La Nature ne fournit pas de ressources utiles pour les gens.**

References

1. UNEP. *Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Emergencies*; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Nairobi, Kenya, 2021.

2. Steg, L.; de Groot, J.I.M. Environmental Values. In *The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology*; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 81–92.

3. Swim, J.K.; Cruz, S.M.; Aviste, R. Environmental Attitudes, Values, and Worldviews: A Review and Critique. In *Handbook of Environmental Psychology*; Walker, I., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, in press.

4. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology*; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992; Volume 25, pp. 1–65.

5. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. *J. Soc. Issues* **1994**, *50*, 65–84. [CrossRef]

6. Martin, C.; Czellar, S. Where Do Biospheric Values Come from? A Connectedness to Nature Perspective. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2017**, *52*, 56–68. [CrossRef]

7. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency across 14 Countries. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **1999**, *19*, 255–265. [CrossRef]

8. Lengieza, M.L.; Aviste, R.; Swim, J.K. Nature as Community: An Overlooked Predictor of pro-Environmental Intentions. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2023**, *91*, 102127. [CrossRef]

9. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing Nature's Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* **2017**, 26–27, 7–16. [CrossRef]

10. O'Connor, S.; Kenter, J.O. Making Intrinsic Values Work; Integrating Intrinsic Values of the More-than-Human World through the Life Framework of Values. *Sustain. Sci.* **2019**, *14*, 1247–1265. [CrossRef]

11. Neuteleers, S. A Fresh Look at Relational Values in Nature: Distinctions Derived from the Debate on Meaningfulness in Life. *Environ. Values* **2020**, *29*, 461–479. [CrossRef]

12. Feucht, V.; Dierkes, P.W.; Kleespies, M.W. The Different Values of Nature: A Comparison between University Students' Perceptions of Nature's Instrumental, Intrinsic and Relational Values. *Sustain. Sci.* **2023**, *18*, 2391–2403. [CrossRef]
13. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Anderson, C.B.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Christie, M.; González-Jiménez, D.; Martin, A.; Raymond, C.M.; Termansen, M.; Vatn, A.; et al. Diverse Values of Nature for Sustainability. *Nature* **2023**, *620*, 813–823. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting Nature and People. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. **2015**, *14*, 1–16. [CrossRef]

15. Pereira, L.M.; Davies, K.K.; den Belder, E.; Ferrier, S.; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.; Kim, H.; Kuiper, J.J.; Okayasu, S.; Palomo, M.G.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Developing Multiscale and Integrative Nature–People Scenarios Using the Nature Futures Framework. *People Nat.* **2020**, *2*, 1172–1195. [CrossRef]

16. Pratson, D.F.; Adams, N.; Gould, R.K. Relational Values of Nature in Empirical Research: A Systematic Review. *People Nat.* **2023**, *5*, 1464–1479. [CrossRef]

17. UN Climate Change News. UN Secretary-General: "Making Peace with Nature Is the Defining Task of the 21st Century". Available online: https://unfccc.int/news/un-secretary-general-making-peace-with-nature-is-the-defining-task-of-the-21st-century (accessed on 11 September 2024).

18. UNEP. *Convention on Biological Diversity*. *Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework*; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2022.

19. O'Brien, K.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Agrawal, A.; Bennett, E.; Biggs, R.; Calderón Contreras, R.; Carr, E.R.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gosnell, H.; Gurung, J.; et al. *IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary Policymakers*; Zenodo: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025.

20. Lengieza, M.L.; Aviste, R.; Richardson, M. The Human-Nature Relationship as a Tangible Target for Pro-Environmental Behaviour—Guidance from Interpersonal Relationships. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, 12175. [CrossRef]

21. Kashima, Y. Cultural Dynamics for Sustainability: How Can Humanity Craft Cultures of Sustainability? *Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.* **2020**, *29*, 538–544. [CrossRef]

22. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Reframing Environmental Messages to Be Congruent with American Values. *Human. Ecol. Rev.* **2003**, *10*, 126–136.

23. Taras, V.; Steel, P.; Kirkman, B.L. Improving National Cultural Indices Using a Longitudinal Meta-Analysis of Hofstede's Dimensions. *J. World Bus.* **2012**, *47*, 329–341. [CrossRef]

24. Minkov, M.; Kaasa, A. Do Dimensions of Culture Exist Objectively? A Validation of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture with World Values Survey Items and Scores for 102 Countries. *J. Int. Manag.* **2022**, *28*, 100971. [CrossRef]

25. Daryanto, A.; Song, Z. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Place Attachment and pro-Environmental Behaviour. *J. Bus. Res.* **2021**, *123*, 208–219. [CrossRef]

26. Barragan-Jason, G.; de Mazancourt, C.; Parmesan, C.; Singer, M.C.; Loreau, M. Human-Nature Connectedness as a Pathway to Sustainability: A Global Meta-analysis. *Conserv. Lett.* **2022**, *15*, e12852. [CrossRef]

27. Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franěk, M. Values and Their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. *J. Cross Cult. Psychol.* **2005**, *36*, 457–475. [CrossRef]

28. Schultz, P.W. The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other People, and the Biosphere. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2001**, *21*, 327–339. [CrossRef]

29. Keulartz, J. The Emergence of Enlightened Anthropocentrism in Ecological Restoration. *Nat. Cult.* **2012**, *7*, 48–71. [CrossRef]

30. Milfont, T.L.; Duckitt, J. The Environmental Attitudes Inventory: A Valid and Reliable Measure to Assess the Structure of Environmental Attitudes. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2010**, *30*, 80–94. [CrossRef]

31. Leopold, A. *A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River*; Ballantine Books: New York, NY, USA, 1949; ISBN 0345345053.

32. Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature [GARN] Rights of Nature. Available online: https://www.garn.org/rights-of-nature/ (accessed on 11 October 2023).

33. Himes, A.; Muraca, B.; Anderson, C.B.; Athayde, S.; Beery, T.; Cantú-Fernández, M.; González-Jiménez, D.; Gould, R.K.; Hejnowicz, A.P.; Kenter, J.; et al. Why Nature Matters: A Systematic Review of Intrinsic, Instrumental, and Relational Values. *Bioscience* **2023**, *74*, 25–43. [CrossRef]

34. Arias-Arévalo, P.; Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Exploring Intrinsic, Instrumental, and Relational Values for Sustainable Management of Social-Ecological Systems. *Ecol. Soc.* **2017**, *22*, 12. [CrossRef]

35. Merchant, C. Partnership Ethics: Business and the Environment. *Ruffin Ser. Bus. Ethics* **2000**, *7*, 7–18. [CrossRef]

36. IPBES. *The Nature Futures Framework, a Flexible Tool to Support the Development of Scenarios and Models of Desirable Futures for People, Nature and Mother Earth, and Its Methodological Guidance*; Version July 2023; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2023. [CrossRef]

37. Saito, T.; Hashimoto, S.; Basu, M. Measuring Relational Values: Do People in Greater Tokyo Appreciate Place-Based Nature and General Nature Differently? *Sustain. Sci.* **2022**, *17*, 837–848. [CrossRef]

38. Shaikh, S.F.E.A.; Hamel, P. Identifying Nature-Positive Futures in New Cities: An Application of the Urban Nature Futures Framework. *Sustain. Sci.* **2023**, *1–12*. [CrossRef]

39. Kenter, J.O.; O'Connor, S. The Life Framework of Values and Living as Nature; towards a Full Recognition of Holistic and Relational Ontologies. *Sustain. Sci.* **2022**, *17*, 2529–2542. [CrossRef]
40. Kleespies, M.W.; Dierkes, P.W. Exploring the Construct of Relational Values: An Empirical Approach. *Front. Psychol.* **2020**, *11*, 209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

41. Klain, S.C.; Olmsted, P.; Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T. Relational Values Resonate Broadly and Differently than Intrinsic or Instrumental Values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. *PLoS ONE* **2017**, *12*, e0183962. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

42. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals' Feeling in Community with Nature. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2004**, *24*, 503–515. [CrossRef]

43. Swim, J.K.; Becker, J.C. Country Contexts and Individuals' Climate Change Mitigating Behaviors: A Comparison of US versus German Individuals' Efforts to Reduce Energy Use. *J. Soc. Issues* **2012**, *68*, 571–591. [CrossRef]

44. van Riper, C.; Winkler-Schor, S.; Foelske, L.; Keller, R.; Braito, M.; Raymond, C.; Eriksson, M.; Golebie, E.; Johnson, D. Integrating Multi-Level Values and pro-Environmental Behavior in a US Protected Area. *Sustain. Sci.* **2019**, *14*, 1395–1408. [CrossRef]

45. Joireman, J.A.; Lasane, T.P.; Bennett, J.; Richards, D.; Solaimani, S. Integrating Social Value Orientation and the Consideration of Future Consequences within the Extended Norm Activation Model of Proenvironmental Behaviour. *Br. J. Soc. Psychol.* **2001**, *40*, 133–155. [CrossRef]

46. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Value Orientations. *Environ. Behav.* **2008**, *40*, 330–354. [CrossRef]

47. Steg, L.; de Groot, J.I.M.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W.; Siero, F. General Antecedents of Personal Norms, Policy Acceptability, and Intentions: The Role of Values, Worldviews, and Environmental Concern. *Soc. Nat. Resour.* **2011**, *24*, 349–367. [CrossRef]

48. de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Relationships between Value Orientations, Self-Determined Motivational Types and pro-Environmental Behavioural Intentions. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2010**, *30*, 368–378. [CrossRef]

49. Schwartz, S.H. Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? *J. Soc. Issues* **1994**, *50*, 19–45. [CrossRef]

50. Kenter, J.O.; Raymond, C.M.; van Riper, C.J.; Azzopardi, E.; Brear, M.R.; Calcagni, F.; Christie, I.; Christie, M.; Fordham, A.; Gould, R.K.; et al. Loving the Mess: Navigating Diversity and Conflict in Social Values for Sustainability. *Sustain. Sci.* **2019**, *14*, 1439–1461. [CrossRef]

51. Chan, K.M.A.; Balvanera, P.; Benessaiah, K.; Chapman, M.; Díaz, S.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Gould, R.; Hannahs, N.; Jax, K.; Klain, S.; et al. Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **2016**, *113*, 1462–1465. [CrossRef]

52. Steinmetz, H. Analyzing Observed Composite Differences across Groups: Is Partial Measurement Invariance Enough? *Methodology* **2013**, *9*, 1–12. [CrossRef]

53. Steinmetz, H.; Schmidt, P.; Tina-Booh, A.; Wieczorek, S.; Schwartz, S.H. Testing Measurement Invariance Using Multigroup CFA: Differences between Educational Groups in Human Values Measurement. *Qual. Quant.* **2009**, *43*, 599–616. [CrossRef]

54. Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. *Struct. Equ. Model.* **2007**, *14*, 464–504. [CrossRef]

55. Putnick, D.L.; Bornstein, M.H. Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research. *Dev. Rev.* **2016**, *41*, 71–90. [CrossRef]

56. Tam, K.P.; Chan, H.W.; Clayton, S. Climate Change Anxiety in China, India, Japan, and the United States. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2023**, *87*, 101991. [CrossRef]

57. Chan, K.M.A.; Gould, R.K.; Maller, C.; Fish, R.; Hails, R.S.; Gaston, K.J. The Multiple Values of Nature Show the Lack of a Coherent Theory of Value—In Any Context. *People Nat.* **2025**, *7*, 1272–1285. [CrossRef]

58. Schwartz, S.J.; Weisskirch, R.S.; Hurley, E.A.; Zamboanga, B.L.; Park, I.J.K.; Kim, S.Y.; Umaña-Taylor, A.; Castillo, L.G.; Brown, E.; Greene, A.D. Communalism, Familism, and Filial Piety: Are They Birds of a Collectivist Feather? *Cultur. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol.* **2010**, *16*, 548–560. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

59. Kim, H.; Peterson, G.D.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Ferrier, S.; Alkemade, R.; Arneth, A.; Kuiper, J.J.; Okayasu, S.; Pereira, L.; Acosta, L.A. Towards a Better Future for Biodiversity and People: Modelling Nature Futures. *Glob. Environ. Change* **2023**, *82*, 102681. [CrossRef]

60. Cukur, C.S.; De Guzman, M.R.T.; Carlo, G. Religiosity, Values, and Horizontal and Vertical Individualism—Collectivism: A Study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. *J. Soc. Psychol.* **2004**, *144*, 613–634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

61. Duff, H.; Vignoles, V.L.; Becker, M.; Milfont, T.L. Self-Construals and Environmental Values in 55 Cultures. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2022**, *79*, 471–495. [CrossRef]

62. Hofstede, G. *Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values*; Sage: Tyne, UK, 1984; Volume 5, ISBN 0803913060.

63. Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M.C.; Ruiz, C. Theoretical and methodological aspects of research on place attachment. In *Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications*, 2nd ed.; Manzo, L.C., Devine-Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 95–110.
64. Budruk, M.; Thomas, H.; Tyrrell, T. Urban Green Spaces: A Study of Place Attachment and Environmental Attitudes in India. *Soc. Nat. Resour.* **2009**, *22*, 824–839. [CrossRef]

65. Brehm, J.M.; Eisenhauer, B.W.; Krannich, R.S. Community Attachments as Predictors of Local Environmental Concern: The Case for Multiple Dimensions of Attachment. *Am. Behav. Sci.* **2006**, *50*, 142–165. [CrossRef]

66. Lengieza, M.L.; Swim, J.K. The Paths to Connectedness: A Review of the Antecedents of Connectedness to Nature. *Front. Psychol.* **2021**, *12*, 763231. [CrossRef]

67. Schultz, P.W. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of Human-Nature Relations. In *Psychology of Sustainable Development*; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 61–78.

68. Boley, B.B.; Strzelecka, M.; Yeager, E.P.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Aleshinloye, K.D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Mimbs, B.P. Measuring Place Attachment with the Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS). *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2021**, *74*, 101577. [CrossRef]

69. Kyriazos, T.A. Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General. *Psychology* **2018**, *9*, 2207–2230. [CrossRef]

70. Douglas, S.P.; Craig, C.S. Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to Back Translation. *J. Int. Mark.* **2007**, *15*, 30–43. [CrossRef]

71. Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. *J. Stat. Softw.* **2012**, *48*, 1–36. [CrossRef]

72. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. *Struct. Equ. Model.* **1999**, *6*, 1–55. [CrossRef]

73. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. *Psychol. Bull.* **1980**, *88*, 588. [CrossRef]

74. Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. *Sociol. Methods Res.* **1992**, *21*, 230–258. [CrossRef]

75. Swami, V.; White, M.P.; Voracek, M.; Tran, U.S.; Aavik, T.; Ranjbar, H.A.; Adebayo, S.O.; Afhami, R.; Ahmed, O.; Aimé, A.; et al. Exposure and Connectedness to Natural Environments: An Examination of the Measurement Invariance of the Nature Exposure Scale (NES) and Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) across 65 Nations, 40 Languages, Gender Identities, and Age Groups. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2024**, *99*, 102432. [CrossRef]

76. Lengieza, M.L.; Aviste, R. Relationships between People and Nature: Nature Connectedness and Relational Environmental Values. *Curr. Opin. Psychol.* **2025**, *62*, 101984. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

77. Hirokawa, K.; Vannieuwenhuysé, B.; Dohi, I.; Miyata, Y. Comparison of French and Japanese Individuals with Reference to Hofstede's Concepts of Individualism and Masculinity. *Psychol. Rep.* **2001**, *89*, 243–251. [CrossRef]

78. Swim, J.K.; Gillis, A.; Hamaty, K.J. Gender Bending and Gender Conformity: The Social Consequences of Engaging in Feminine and Masculine Pro-Environmental Behaviors. *Sex. Roles* **2020**, *82*, 363–385. [CrossRef]

79. Aron, A.; Lewandowski, G.W., Jr.; Mashek, D.; Aron, E.N. The Self-Expansion Model of Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships. In *The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships*; Oxford Library of Psychology; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 90–115, ISBN 0-19-539869-6 (Hardcover); 978-0-19-539869-4 (Hardcover).

80. Cronon, W. The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. *Environ. Hist. Durh. N. C* **1996**, *1*, 7–28. [CrossRef]

81. Langton, M. What Do We Mean by Wilderness?: Wilderness and Terra Nullius in Australian Art [Address to The Sydney Institute on 12 October 1995.]. *Syd. Pap.* **1996**, *8*, 10–31.

82. Harzing, A.-W. Response Styles in Cross-National Survey Research. *Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag.* **2006**, *6*, 243–266. [CrossRef]

83. Chen, C.; Lee, S.; Stevenson, H.W. Response Style and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Rating Scales Among East Asian and North American Students. *Psychol. Sci.* **1995**, *6*, 170–175. [CrossRef]

84. Bennett, M. Response Characteristics of Bilingual Managers to Organisational Questionnaires. *Pers. Psychol.* **1977**, *30*, 29–36. [CrossRef]

85. EEA. *Exiting the Anthropocene? Exploring Fundamental Change in Our Relationship with Nature*; European Environment Agency (EEA): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2022.

86. Natural England. Building Partnerships for Nature's Recovery. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-england-building-partnerships-for-natures-recovery/building-partnerships-for-natures-recovery (accessed on 30 May 2023).

87. Richardson, M.; Cormack, A.; McRobert, L.; Underhill, R. 30 Days Wild: Development and Evaluation of a Large-Scale Nature Engagement Campaign to Improve Well-Being. *PLoS ONE* **2016**, *11*, e0149777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.