TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 08 December 2022
DOI 10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

OPEN ACCESSEDITED BY

Sebastian Villasante,
University of Santiago de Compostela,
Spain
REVIEWED BY

Kate Mulvaney,
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, United States
Helen Ross,
The University of Queensland,
Australia
Jennifer Leigh Bailey,
Norwegian University of Science andTechnology, Norway*CORRESPONDENCE

Takuro Uehara
takuro@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp

The importance of relational
values in gaining people’s
support and promoting theirinvolvement in social-ecologicalsystem management: A
comparative analysis
Takuro Uehara 1*, Ryo Sakurai 1 and Takeshi Hidaka 2
1
College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Ibaraki, Japan, 2 Faculty of Humanity-Oriented
Science and Engineering, Kindai University, Iizuka, Japan

SPECIALTY SECTION

This article was submitted toMarine Affairs and Policy,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science
RECEIVED 22 July 2022
ACCEPTED 11 November 2022
PUBLISHED 08 December 2022
CITATION

Uehara T, Sakurai R and Hidaka T(2022) The importance of relational
values in gaining people’s support andpromoting their involvement in socialecological system management: A
comparative analysis.
Front. Mar. Sci. 9:1001180.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180
COPYRIGHT© 2022 Uehara, Sakurai and Hidaka.
This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License(CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums ispermitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s)are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does
not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Marine Science

People’s support and involvement are critical to the sustainable use andconservation of social-ecological systems (SESs). Integrating people’s values
into management decisions is pivotal. Without proper integration, the resulting
SES may not align with their desires and may not be supported by people.
Furthermore, values can be a deep leverage point within a system that is
difﬁcult to change, as people may be more willing to be involved in activities
that support what they value. Recent studies have illustrated the importance ofrelational values as the third value class (in addition to instrumental andintrinsic). Relational values are preferences, principles, and virtues associatedwith human-nature relationships. Although studies on relational values areavailable, empirical studies, particularly studies about the usefulness ofrelational values in promoting pro-SES behavior, are rare. Consequently, ourstudy administered questionnaires to residents in three SESs in Japan (N = 864,
1136, and 1000, respectively) to understand how relational values impact
people’s support and involvement in SES management as measured by proSES behavior scales. In addition, due to the lack of pro-SES behavior
measurements, we developed measurement items and a development
guideline. Our ﬁndings support previous theoretical discussions positing that
relational values are critical as a single value class or as part of the plural values
and need to be integrated into SES management decisions to gain people’s
support. Furthermore, our study demonstrated that cultivating relational values
could promote pro-SES behavior to realize a desirable state of SES. Althoughfrom the viewpoint of residents, relational values overlapped with instrumental
and intrinsic values; however, as per theoretical discussions, the results
indicated that relational values were important in their own right as they
were well associated with pro-SES behavior scales. The ﬁndings were similar
across the three SESs, with different social-ecological characteristics. In
summary, managers must integrate relational values into management

01

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

decisions to gain people’s support and should cultivate relational values topromote pro-SES behavior, in order to realize a desirable state of SES.
KEYWORDS

instrumental value, plural value, Pro-SES behavior, relational value, social-ecologicalsystem, satoumi

Introduction

Accordingly, attention to plural values associated withnature, to overcome this intrinsic/instrumental dichotomy, hasbeen increasing as relational values can be a promising bridge forthe dichotomy toward a plural value approach (Gu andSubramanian, 2014; Jones et al., 2016; Arias-Aré valo et al.,2017; Pascual et al., 2017; Himes and Muraca, 2018).
Relational values are the third value class of nature, in
addition to instrumental and intrinsic values (Chan et al.,2016). Relational values are “preferences, principles, andvirtues about human-nature relationships (Chan et al., 2018,
A1).” We gain from nature (instrumental), live for nature(intrinsic), and live in nature (relational) (Himes and Muraca,2018). Contrary to instrumental values, a relationship withnature matters more than a means to an end for relational
values (Chan et al., 2018). There have been theoretical
discussions regarding delineating relational values fromvarious perspectives [e.g., a special issue on relational values in
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, edited by
Pascual, Gould and Chan, (2018)]. Himes and Muraca (2018)
have argued that while instrumental values are substitutable(e.g., the place where people swim does not matter as long as
people can swim), relational values are non-substitutable (e.g.,
the place to swim matters, insofar as people value theirconnection to the place). While relational values refer tohuman-nature relationships, intrinsic values are ends inthemselves, regardless of people’s relationship with nature.
Chan et al. (2018) conceptualized relational values withassigned values, moral values, and held values, indicating thatthey ﬁll a gap between instrumental and intrinsic values.
Muradian and Pascual (2018) proposed human-nature
relational models to discuss the role of relational values inenvironmental decision-making. Jax et al. (2018) and Westet al. (2018) discussed attention to nature as a relational value.
Knippenberg et al. (2018) claimed that relational values arecentral to religious thoughts and include constitutive andintrinsic values.
Furthermore, relational values overlap with other, wellstudied, concepts. For example, Riechers et al. (2021b) haveargued that relational values are closely related to human-natureconnectedness, indicating its usefulness as a solution to thedisconnect with nature. The sense of a place, for instance, is apart of relational values (Chan et al., 2016; Arias-Aré valo et al.,People’s support and involvement are critical to thesustainable use and conservation of social-ecological systems(SESs). An SES is a type of complex adaptive system thatembraces the dynamics of people and nature (Folke et al.,2005; Fischer et al., 2015). In general, the system embraces
three characteristics: elements, interconnections, and afunction or purpose (Meadows, 2008). The management of
SESs requires that the two major, and often conﬂicting
objectives, i.e., the advancement of human well-being and theconservation of ecosystem integrity, are balanced (Fischer et al.,2015). Considering the signiﬁcant impact of people’s behavior
and interaction on the state of SES, people need to have a sharedunderstanding of management goals for successful SES
management. Moreover, people are involved in SES
management, both directly (e.g., conservation activities) andindirectly (e.g., lifestyle elements, such as the use of nature),
aimed at realizing the sustainable use and conservation of SES,
when they understand and agree with the purpose of SES. Thus,
SES management is people management (Berkes andFolke, 1998).
To gain people’s support and promote their involvement in
SES management, its management and purpose should bealigned with people’s values (Jones et al., 2016), indicating thepotential need for reﬂecting people’s plural values. Relevant
values must be articulated. In particular, it is critical tointegrate the plurality of values into SES management (Joneset al., 2016; Arias-Aré valo et al., 2017; Pascual et al., 2017). When
SES management does not reﬂect people’s values or fails to shapethem, either the management outcome (i.e., the state of SES andcorresponding beneﬁts) lacks public support, or the result isbiased as people with neglected values are ignored or negatively
impacted (Himes and Muraca, 2018). A previous empirical study
showed that different value domains are connected to different
ecosystem services (Martı́n-Ló pez et al., 2014). Using the
Schwartz human-values theory, certain studies have revealed
that different marine ecosystem services are closely related todifferent value domains (Hicks et al., 2015; Uehara et al., 2019b).
Therefore, the negative impact on people with neglected values
may be aggravated by trade-offs between ecosystem services(Cord et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2019).

Frontiers in Marine Science02

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

pro-SES behavior. However, pro-environmental behavior scales
may not be perfectly suitable for SES management as their
purposes may not be the same. While pro-environmental
behavior scales focus on behaviors for avoiding and mitigating
the negative impact of human activities on the environment(Markle, 2013; Lange and Dewitte, 2019), its sustainable use is a
critical purpose of pro-SES behavior, contributing to humanwell-being. However, in the SES literature, this point is notalways explicit.
To ﬁll these research gaps, this study aimed to empiricallyinvestigate how relational values contribute to people’s support
for and willingness to become involved in SES management (i.e.,
pro-SES behavior) in comparison with the other value classes.
Five research questions (RQs) were formulated.
RQ1. How are relational values different from othervalue classes?
RQ2. What factors explain relational values?
RQ3. What are the characteristics of pro-SES behavior scales?
RQ4. How are relational values related to pro-SES behavior?
RQ5. How do answers to RQ1 to RQ4 differ in a socialecological context?
RQ1 asks whether relational values are important as a single
value class or as an addition to plural values. RQ2 provides
insights into the cultivation of relational values. RQ3 reveals thecharacteristics of pro-SES behavior, which contribute to therealization of the desired SES. RQ4 asks whether higher
relational values lead to pro-SES behavior. RQ5 investigates if
the varied roles of relational values in pro-SES behavior in the
management of the three SES are different or the same.

2017; Allen et al., 2018; Himes and Muraca, 2018). It describes
the importance of a place to one’s sense of self (Allen et al., 2018)
and provides a theoretical perspective to articulate themotivation for stewardship (West et al., 2018). In addition, it
is a part of relational values as individuals identify andadminister the principle/virtue, respectively (Chan et al., 2016).
Although empirical studies on relational values are required
as an input to SES management in practice (Jones et al., 2016;
Arias-Aré valo et al., 2017; Uehara et al., 2020), the number of
empirical studies remains limited (Kleespies and Dierkes, 2020a;
See et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021b). In particular, quantitative
research lacks, though it beneﬁts the advancement of relational
value studies (Schulz and Martin-Ortega, 2018). Further,empirical studies can corroborate the theoretical discussion ofrelational values and contribute to SES management in practice.
For example, empirical ﬁndings on the relationship between
intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values have been mixed(See et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021a).
In addition to understanding the characteristics of relational
values, it is important to explore how they are related to people’s
involvement in SES management. While the signiﬁcance ofvalues as a foundation of attitudes and behavior is not new(Stern, 2000; Schwartz, 2012; Jones et al., 2016), there is growing
discussion about the sustainability transformation of SES thatsheds light on values as a deep leverage point (Abson et al., 2017;
Fischer and Riechers, 2019; West et al., 2020; Davelaar, 2021). A
leverage point is an effective intervention point in a system(Meadows, 2008). As opposed to a shallow leverage point, a deep
leverage point is difﬁcult to change; however, it is likely to enable
a fundamental change to the system (Fischer andRiechers, 2019).
Although certain studies assert that relational values are apromising deep leverage point (Chan et al., 2020; Uehara et al.,2020; Riechers et al., 2021b) as they are connected to proenvironmental behavior and attitudes and promote sustainable
SES use (Jones et al., 2016; Van den Born et al., 2017; Kleespies
and Dierkes, 2020a), empirical studies are, once again, limited(Uehara et al., 2019a; Shin et al., 2022). Klain et al. (2017)
suggested the potential contribution of relational values to thevalue-belief-norm theory to better understand proenvironmental behavior; however, most empirical studies ofrelational values focus on understanding its compositions,latent traits (Klain et al., 2017; Kleespies and Dierkes, 2020a;
See et al., 2020; Uehara et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021a; Saito
et al., 2021), and predictors (Arias-Aré valo et al., 2017; Kleespies
and Dierkes, 2020b; See et al., 2020; Shishany et al., 2020;
Riechers et al., 2021a).
Another point worth noting is the lack of studies on pro-SES
behavior scales that could assist in empirically investigating thecontribution of relational values to SES management. Empiricaland theoretical literature on pro-environmental behavior isavailable (Steg and Vlek, 2009; Lange and Dewitte, 2019; Grilli
and Curtis, 2021) and can be a good foundation for explaining

Frontiers in Marine Science

Materials and methods
Cases
This study investigates three SESs surrounding the Seto InlandSea, the largest inland sea in Japan (Figure 1 and Table 1). We
labeled these SESs as Kobe-Hanshin, Harima, and Kagawa. EachSES needs an appropriate system boundary to elicit management
implications and comparison. However, deﬁning a systemboundary for SESs is not simple (Klauer, 1999; Uehara et al.,2016; Uehara and Mineo, 2017). An SES needs to embrace
appropriate ecological systems whose management can maintainthe key biophysical structures or processes, and thereby provide
ecosystem services (Potschin-Young et al., 2017) and social systems,
such as people and administrative entities. While landscapes andseascapes are conceptually relevant spatial boundaries (Gu andSubramanian, 2014; Matzdorf and Meyer, 2014), choosing theiractual boundary is not easy in practice due to a variety ofmismatches (e.g., between supply and demand of ecosystemservices and between ecological systems and administrative
jurisdictions) (Cumming et al., 2013; Geijzendorffer et al., 2015;
Loft et al., 2015). In addition, we often face data availability issues.

03

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

FIGURE 1(A) Locations of the SESs and (B) their positions in Japan. (A) shows Geographical boundaries of the SESs. A darker green area in the SES
indicates a higher altitude. Blue lines are major rivers, comprising the Yodo river basin.

dealing with governance (Berkes et al., 2002). Municipalities andprefectures may be the main governing entities, thoughcommunities and non-proﬁt organizations play importantroles in SES management as well. Kobe-Hanshin and Harima
face the Osaka Bay and Harima Sea, respectively (Figure 1). This
study covers four out of twelve areas comprising the Seto Inland
Sea (Ministry of the Environment). While corresponding
landscapes are in Hyogo Prefecture, the region’s northboundary is approximately along the drainage divide of the
Seto Inland Sea. The landscapes are further split into KobeHanshin and Harima regions, following the administrative
boundaries of Hyogo Prefecture. However, as expected, someFor example, ofﬁcial statistics, collected by administrative
jurisdiction, may not be consistent with the SES boundary.
The system boundaries in the three cases were delineatedprimarily based on the units of sea and administrative
jurisdiction, in consultation with public ofﬁcials in Hyogo andKagawa prefectures. Municipalities can be used to delineatesocial system boundaries of the SESs, as in Martı́n-Ló pez et al.
(2017), which proposed a method for delineating the systemboundaries of the SES. Although administrative boundaries may
not perfectly capture the SES boundaries, it may be a practical
approach for SES management to capture the importantelements of the SES. Social systems of SES may include people
TABLE 1 The primary characteristics of the three SESs.

SES
Kobe-Hanshin

HarimaHyogo Prefecture

Hyogo Prefecture

Kagawa Prefecture

Osaka Bay

Harima Sea

Harima Sea, Bisan Seto, Bingo Sea

Sea area (km2)

1,447

3,426

5,262

Land area (km2)

1,207

3,594

1,877

3,280,063

1,798,528

950,244

Municipal Government
Sea

Population (person)
Population Density (persons/km2)
Water quality*

Kagawa

2,717

500

506

T-N (mg/L)

0.226[0.12, 0.62]

0.169[0.11, 0.26]

0.189[0.11, 0.28]

T-P (mg/L)

0.026[0.015, 0.072]

0.023[0.014, 0.048]

0.024[0.014, 0.048]

COD (mg/L)

2.230[1.4, 4.8]

1.972
[1.3, 3.6]

1.988
[1.2, 3.6]

Sources: Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
*Water quality data are the mean values of multiple monitoring points in each sea with the minimum and maximum values in “[]” for 2020. The data were collected by the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, (n.a.). Bingo Sea is not included in the estimates of water quality owing to lack of data. T-N (total nitrogen); T-P (total phosphorus); COD (chemical
oxygen demanded).

Frontiers in Marine Science04

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

areas (Kobe City and Osaka Prefecture). The population densityof Kobe-Hanshin is more than ﬁve times that of either Harimaor Kagawa. Furthermore, the Yodo River, ﬂowing into Osaka
Bay, is connected to Kyoto City, another big metropolitan area
(Figure 1). Coupled with limited management capacity, Osaka
Bay’s water quality is characterized by higher chemical oxygen
demand (COD), less transparency, and higher total nitrogen(T-N) (Table 1). However, lower T-N and total phosphorus(T-P) are not always preferable because these poor nutrients may
have negative impacts on the ﬁsheries (e.g., Japanese sand lance(Ammodytes personatus), bivalves (asari clam, Ruditapes
philippinarum), and aquaculture (e.g., seaweed farming) (Diaz,
2001; Miyoshi et al., 2012; Hyogo Prefecture Environmental
Council, 2019; Fujiwara et al., 2020). The poor nutrients may
decrease the primary production of phytoplankton and algae inmarine ecosystems, which may be a limiting factor for the
economic performance of ﬁsheries (Tanda, 2011; Marshak and
Link, 2021). Hence, Hyogo Prefecture set the lower bounds ofT-N (0.2 mg/L) and T-P (0.02 mg/L) to maintain the sea’s
productivity (Hyogo Prefecture, 2019). To the best of ourknowledge, this is the ﬁrst attempt in Japan, and in the world,
to increase nutrients through nutrient management, as opposedto the standard practice of using nutrient management to reduce
nutrients (Sherwood et al., 2016).

survey respondents answered that they felt they were living
closer to another sea (i.e., living in Kobe-Hanshin; however,Harima Sea is closer or living in Harima; however, Osaka Bay iscloser); hence, they were treated as respondents in the SES
related to the sea they considered closer to them. All regionsin Kagawa Prefecture were included in Kagawa, as they were
inside the drainage divide facing the Seto Inland Sea. Hence, theland area of Kagawa is at a prefectural level, whereas KobeHanshin and Harima are collections of towns and cities.
Social and ecological systems are connected reciprocally(Binder et al., 2013). Coastal zones are important for socioeconomic activities (e.g., ﬁshery, manufacturing industries, andleisure). A study revealed that people in Hyogo Prefecture
demanded a variety of ecosystem services (Uehara et al., 2021).
An opinion poll showed that people in Kagawa desired abeautiful and clean sea with abundant ﬁsh and places forleisure and arts (Kagawa Prefecture, 2021b). Mismanaged
plastic waste from rivers entering seas has a negative impact(Kagawa Prefecture, 2021c). Nutrients entering the seas fromland (e.g., sewage) inﬂuence the water quality, which further
inﬂuences ﬁsheries (Hyogo Prefecture, 2016).
There are certain similarities and differences between thethree SESs. First, those managing them must abide by the “Acton Special Measures concerning Conservation of theEnvironment of the Seto Inland Sea,” which pursues
sustainable use and conservation of the Seto Inland Sea.
Speciﬁcally, the Act intends to realize satoumi, the Japaneseconcept of socio-ecological production landscapes andseascapes (SEPLS) in which human interaction with natureenhances diverse natural beneﬁts (e.g., ecosystem services)while conserving nature (Duraiappah et al., 2012; Yanagi,
2012; Berque and Matsuda, 2013; Gu and Subramanian,
2014; Uehara and Mineo, 2017; Ministry of the Environment
Japan, 2019a). In other words, satoumi and SEPLS are thedesirable states of SES. In Japanese, satoumi means the sea area(“umi”) where people live (“sato”) (Ministry of theEnvironment Japan, 2019a). The satoumi concept is unique
because active human involvement and enhancing the beneﬁts
from nature for human well-being, rather than leaving nature
to be pristine and purely pursuing the conservation of nature,are key. Therefore, the pro-environmental behavior concept
may be insufﬁcient to address the behaviors that promote
satoumi. Furthermore, because a state of satoumi, or adesirable state of SES, may vary from place to place (Uehara
and Mineo, 2017), it makes it critical to compare several SESs
to elicit management implications.
Second, since the Act stipulates that the prefectures draw
management plans by reﬂecting the characteristics of each sea orbay, Hyogo Prefecture and Kagawa Prefecture, which target
different seas, have separate management plans. Third, thewater quality of Osaka Bay differs from the other two, which isone of the major reasons for splitting Hyogo Prefecture into two
SESs for this study. Osaka Bay is surrounded by big metropolitan

Frontiers in Marine Science

Data collection
Two online questionnaires were administered to the SES
residents. One for the residents in Kobe-Hanshin and Harima in
November 2021 and the other in Kagawa in January 2022. The
respondents were selected through a survey company where
potential respondents registered (Cross Marketing Inc.), and sex
ratios and age distributions were considered. Shopping points
were given as tokens of participation. All the data are available in
the Supplementary Material (SM).
While all the respondents of Kagawa (N = 1000) lived in the
Kagawa Prefecture (Figure 1), the respondents of Kobe-Hanshin
and Harima did not live in the corresponding areas, thereby
demonstrating the difﬁculty of drawing an SES system boundary.
Considering the relative population size, we obtained 1300
respondents living in Kobe-Hanshin and 700 respondents in
Harima (Figure 1). However, 122 out of 1300 respondents living
in Kobe-Hanshin answered that the Harima Sea was closer thanOsaka Bay. This was true of respondents residing in Harima as
well. As the connection to the sea is more important than theadministrative and geographical area shown in Figure 1, we
included 1136 respondents in Kobe-Hanshin and 864
respondents in Harima based on the sea closer to them. Before
the surveys, pretests were conducted with 100 respondents who
were not included in the main surveys. Informed consent was
obtained from all the respondents.

05

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

The two questionnaires had the same basic structure (see S1 in
SM for the full set of questions for both surveys). They included
socio-demographic information (e.g., gender and age),
relationship with the sea (e.g., years lived in the area, frequencyof visiting the sea, frequency of eating local seafood), opinions
about environmental issues, the value statements of instrumental,
relational, and intrinsic values of the sea, and pro-SES behaviors.
We prepared two sets of questionnaires (one for Kobe-Hanshin
and Harima, the other for Kagawa) because questions regarding
pro-SES behaviors for Kagawa needed to be different from theones for Kobe-Hanshin and Harima. To maintain data quality, we
included a trap question (Liu and Wronski, 2018). Respondents
who failed to answer the trap question correctly were excluded.
The nine items for opinions about environmental issues wereadopted from a survey conducted by the Ministry of Environment
Japan (2016).

relative importance. To make the value statement items concise,
we chose the four most important ecosystem services (Uehara
et al., 2021). To date, there seems to be no establishedquantitative scale of relational values agreed upon amongscholars (Kleespies and Dierkes, 2020a; Riechers et al., 2021a).
Hence, we adopted the value statements developed by Uehara
et al. (2020) for an area that surrounded the Seto Inland Sea but
was outside the current study areas, whose items were drawn
from Chan et al. (2016). As relational values are highly contextdependent (Himes and Muraca, 2018; West et al., 2020), it was
desirable to adapt a scale tested in a similar context. The intrinsic
value statements were drawn from See et al. (2020) and Riechers
et al. (2021a). An unbalanced, small number of items for
intrinsic values is not desirable (See et al., 2020). However, wechose previously tested items from similar studies rather thanproposing untested items, because the development of new items
to capture the intrinsic value concept was not the purpose ofthis study.

Value statements

Pro-SES behavior

Table 2 shows the value statements of instrumental,
relational, and intrinsic values. The order of value statements
was randomized to avoid bias. Respondents chose the extent towhich each statement applied to them using a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree).
The value statements for instrumental values can be derived
from ecosystem services (Klain et al., 2017; See et al., 2020). In
our study, the instrumental value statements were obtained froma survey by Uehara et al. (2021) who studied marine ecosystemservices in the Harima Sea, which is part of the current study.
They identiﬁed 19 marine ecosystem services based on thegeneric marine ecosystem services developed by Hattam et al.
(2015) and Böhnke-Henrichs et al. (2013) and analyzed their

To the best of our knowledge, there is neither a standard nor
widely utilized scale for pro-SES behavior or a guideline for its
development. We developed the guidelines drawn on Markle (2013)
who developed the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS).
Although the PEBS is not a scale for pro-SES behavior because
their purposes are not the same, the development of scales for proSES behavior can share this basic notion, as they overlap.
We propose ﬁve criteria to develop a scale for pro-SES behavior:
empirically derived, comprehensive, concise, relevant to policy
targets, and theoretically or conceptually founded. Since thesecriteria are related, we need to consider their suitability. For
example, empirical data may not necessarily be consistent with atheoretical or conceptual base. A set of desirable behaviors

Questionnaires

TABLE 2 Value statements of instrumental, relational, and intrinsic values.

Value class
Instrumental

Statement
The marine ecosystem of the sea is important to me because it provides me with food such as ﬁsh and shellﬁsh
The marine ecosystem of the sea is important to me as a means for preventing and mitigating disasters, such as ﬂoods, tsunamis, and typhoons
The marine ecosystem of the sea is important to me because it puriﬁes the seawater
The marine ecosystem of the sea is important to me because it maintains the food chain of plants and animals

Relational

The sea is an important location for me
The sea is an important location for local residents
I am able to connect with others through my relationship to the sea
Caring for the sea leads to caring for the people of the present and future
We have a moral responsibility to protect the sea and its creaturesProtecting the sea ﬁlls me with a sense of contentment and enables me to lead a good life
Keeping the sea healthy is the right thing to do

Intrinsic

All creatures in the sea have the right to live
The sea should be protected for the sake of nature itself

Frontiers in Marine Science06

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

considered the items regarding expected behaviors for satoumi
creation, used in the public opinion poll by Kagawa Prefecture, asa base (Kagawa Prefecture, 2021b). We made several changes to theitems based on the following four criteria. First, we added the basic
principles. Citizens need to share the basic principles and support
the desirable state of SES (Kagawa Prefecture, 2016). Second, we
considered the interaction of people with the ocean and seaside as it
expresses a key desirable state of the relationship between the Seto
Inland Sea (Kagawa) and the citizens, which is missing from theitems in Kagawa Prefecture’s public opinion poll (Kagawa
Prefecture, 2013; Kagawa Prefecture, 2016). Third, we added an
item for the consumption of local seafood (Kagawa Prefecture,2021a). Lastly, as the public opinion poll includes 22 items, we madethem concise by excluding and merging some of the items.

contributing to policy targets may not necessarily make sense
statistically. The scale needs to be comprehensive yet concise.
Comprehensiveness means that items sufﬁciently cover policy
targets and their theoretical or conceptual base. Items should
cover behaviors with signiﬁcant impacts (Stern, 2000; Markle,
2013; Lange and Dewitte, 2019). Therefore, it is possible to retain
items that do not contribute to the internal consistency of a scale
based on Cronbach’s alpha. Markle (2013) asserted that previous
studies on pro-environmental behavior scales used behaviors whose
contributions to environmental problems are dubious. In this study,
the purpose of developing pro-SES behavior measures is to identify
items to capture behaviors that contribute to the management ofspeciﬁc SESs; hence, policy relevancy is particularly important.
We developed two scales for three study areas: one for KobeHanshin and Harima and the other for Kagawa (Table 3). We used
the same scale for Kobe-Hanshin and Harima, as Hyogo Prefecture
manages both. As shown in Table 3, the main difference between
pro-environmental behavior and pro-SES behavior is that the latter
explicitly includes items about sustainable use (such as theconsumption of seafood and use of beaches) and active humaninteraction with nature. Such economic activities can beincreasingly seen as part of sustainability solutions (Blewitt, 2018).
Furthermore, Hyogo Prefecture intends to maximize the beneﬁts
derived from seas for human well-being, while conserving their
biological diversity and productivity (Hyogo Prefecture, 2015). In
developing these scales, we used policy documents (e.g., ordinancesand plans) and the satoumi concept (Duraiappah et al., 2012;
Yanagi, 2012; Uehara et al., 2016; Uehara and Mineo, 2017) andconsulted the public ofﬁcials involved in the coastal zone
management of both prefectures to conﬁrm the appropriatenessand comprehensiveness of the scales.
Hyogo Prefecture stipulates what citizens should do byordinance, stating, “Responsibilities of the citizens of theprefecture. The citizens of the prefecture must deepen theirunderstanding of the basic principles and strive to revitalize therichness and beautifulness of the Seto Inland Sea through theirown lives and community activities” (Hyogo Prefecture, 2015).
The basic principles are related to satoumi, a desirable state of
SES. There are three types of scale items: 1) basic principles, 2)
lifestyles, and 3) community activities. These are in line with thefollowing three of the four types of environmentally signiﬁcantbehavior acknowledged by Stern (2000): “Nonactivist publicsphere behaviors,” “Private-sphere behaviors,” and “Activism.”
For comprehensiveness, the items cover the four key measures torecover the Seto Inland Sea (Hyogo Prefecture), as stipulated by
the ordinance (Hyogo Prefecture, 2015).
We adopted the same three categories for Kagawa to make theirscales comparable. However, while Hyogo Prefecture focuses on thesea, Kagawa Prefecture includes mountains, rivers, and towns aspart of the SES management, as they are a uniﬁed system (Kagawa
Prefecture, 2013). In selecting question items, we reﬂected on theirdifferent approaches to the realization of satoumi and maintained
the policy relevancy of the selected items for each SES. We

Frontiers in Marine Science

Data analysis
Following See et al. (2020), we employed three methods—
Cronbach’s alpha, exploratory factor analysis, and correlation
analysis—to assess how relational values differ from other value
classes for the SES (RQs 1 and 5). Alpha examines the internalconsistency of a scale, and exploratory factor analysis investigates its
latent traits and dimensionality; alpha and exploratory factor
analysis demonstrate the reliability of a scale to measure a
concept or construct (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). For
dimensionality, based on the most commonly used criteria, we
adopted an eigenvalue > 1 (Henson and Roberts, 2006). We appliedthem to the whole set of value classes (instrumental, relational, andintrinsic) as well as to each value class, as a separate concept. As theinclusion of a large number of items inﬂates the value of alpha andalpha is intended to test the reliability of a concept, it should be
calculated for each concept (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011; Field et al.,2012). However, we computed alpha for the whole set of the threevalue classes to explore the importance of the relational value classfrom a practical perspective; this was in relation to the other twovalue classes and the whole set of values. There could be a conceptthat covers these value classes as a single construct [e.g., Nature’sContributions to People (Pascual et al., 2017)]. Therefore, theexploratory factor analysis was conducted to the whole set as wellas the three value classes. Prior studies have used the exploratory
factor analysis has been used to investigate if relational values relate
to different latent traits than ones for instrumental and intrinsic
values (See et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021a). The correlation
coefﬁcients among the three value classes demonstrated how
respondents’ valuation of each class related (or differed) (Seeet al., 2020). The conﬁdence intervals of the correlation coefﬁcientwere estimated using bootstrap sampling and estimation methods
along with their point estimates.
We applied the beta regression to investigate factors addressing
relational values (RQs 2 and 5) by following Riechers et al. (2021a).
The beta regression can address issues concerning skewness andheteroskedasticity (Smithson and Verkuilen, 2006). Since it uses a

07

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

TABLE 3 Pro-SES behavior scales for the three SESs.

Kobe-Hanshin and Harima
Category

Item

Relevancy to policy
targets

KagawaCategory

Item

Relevancy to policy targets
Place

Four key measures torecover the SIS ((a)(d)) (Hyogo Prefecture)1) The basic
principle

Satoumi_1: Osaka
Bay (Harima Sea)should be an“abundant sea(satoumi)” with anappropriate balance
between water quality(transparency) andﬁshing1) The basic
principle

Satoumi_k_1: Both the sea and land of the SIS (Kagawa
Prefecture) should be considered as one whole
integrated area. Through appropriate human
involvement, we should aim to maintain a healthy sea
inhabited by diverse organisms and realize an“abundant sea” that offers not only ﬁshery resources
but also many other beneﬁts, such as scenery,recreational areas, food culture, and tourism

General2) Lifestyles

Satoumi_2: I try toparticipate in events
related to the sea inthe coastal areas of
Osaka Bay (HarimaSea) and visit
aquariums andswimming beaches

2) Lifestyles

Satoumi_k_2: I try to participate in environmental
education activities

General3) Community
activities

Satoumi_3: When I
buy seafood, I try tochoose seafood from
Osaka Bay (HarimaSea)d) Ensuring sustainable
use of ﬁshery resources

Satoumi_k_3: I try to take time to enjoy the mountains
and the trees

Mountains

Satoumi_4: I try todispose plastic waste
properly (e.g., follow
the designatedseparation method,
and avoid littering)c) Conservation ofnatural and culturallandscapesSatoumi_k_4: I try to use chopsticks and other items
made from timber removed in forest thinning

Mountains

Satoumi_5: I
contribute to theconservation ofseaweed beds andtidal ﬂats (either as
an individual or as agroup)a) Conservation,
restoration, andcreation of the coastal
environment, b)
conservation andmanagement of water
quality, d) ensuring
sustainable use ofﬁshery resources

Satoumi_k_5: When I buy seafood, I try to choose
seafood from the SIS (Kagawa Prefecture)

Sea

Satoumi_6: I
contribute to beachdebris cleanup efforts(either as anindividual or as agroup)c) Conservation ofnatural and culturallandscapesSatoumi_k_6: I try to ensure that I have opportunities
for interaction and leisure at the ocean and seaside

Sea

Satoumi_k_7: I grow ﬂowers, trees, and other greeneryin my home and community

Town

Satoumi_k_8: I conserve water by using the correct
amounts of detergent and soap, saving water, and not
pouring oil or solids down the drain

Town

Five important
issues of the
Seto Inland Sea(1-5) (Kagawa
Prefecture)

5. Diluting therelationshipbetween people
and the sea

1. No tendency
to improveorganic
contamination,
2. Imbalance ofnutrient
circulation(Continued)

Frontiers in Marine Science08

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

TABLE 3 Continued

Kobe-Hanshin and Harima

Kagawa3)
Community
activities

Satoumi_k_9: I make efforts to dispose waste properly,
such as avoiding littering and implementing the 3Rs(reduce, reuse, recycle)

Town

Satoumi_k_10: I contribute to research andconservation activities pertaining to the ﬂora and faunathat live in the mountains, as well as tree planting andthinning

Mountains 2. Imbalance ofnutrient
circulation

Satoumi_k_11: I contribute to cleanup efforts in themountains

Mountains

Satoumi_k_12: I try to participate in cleanup activities
of rivers and waterways

River

Satoumi_k_13: I try to participate in river water quality
surveysRiver

Satoumi_k_14: I try to participate in research andconservation activities for creatures that live in the river

River

Satoumi_k_15: I try to participate in research andconservation activities for creatures that live in the SIS(Kagawa Prefecture)

Sea

Satoumi_k_16: I contribute to the cleanup of foreigndebris in the SIS (Kagawa Prefecture) (either as anindividual or as a group)Sea

4. Marine
debris problem
that needs tobe dealt withurgently

Satoumi_k_17: I contribute to the conservation ofseaweed beds and tidal ﬂats in the SIS (Kagawa
Prefecture) (either as an individual or as a group)Sea

3. Increasing
but still few
seagrass beds

Satoumi_k_18: I try to participate in water quality
surveys about the SIS (Kagawa Prefecture)Sea

To investigate the association between relational values andpro-SES behavior in comparison with other value categories (RQs 4
and 5), we ran the beta regression for the reason mentioned above.
The dependent variables were pro-SES items, derived in theprevious section. The explanatory variables were relational,
instrumental, intrinsic, instrumental + intrinsic, and pooled(which included all three value categories). We did not add othervariables to focus on how each value category explained the pro-SES
items. The models were compared according to the BIC for model
selection (Smithson and Verkuilen, 2006). A model that minimizes
the BIC is considered the best model (Smithson andVerkuilen, 2006).
For data analysis, we used STATA 17.0 (https://www.stata.
com). All the data required to replicate this paper’s results areavailable as Supplementary Materials.

dependent variable with an open unit interval (0, 1), we carried out
a linear transformation of scales for relational values by following
the formula proposed by Smithson and Verkuilen (2006). Eachscore y is transformed by y’= [((y – a)/(b – a))*(N – 1) + 1/2]/N inwhich a and b are the smallest and highest possible scores with asample size N: a = 1, and b = 5 in our study. The models cover thethree categories set by Riechers et al. (2021a) who explored thevariables explaining relational values in Germany and Romania:
personal characteristics of the respondent (gender and education),
nature-based variables (years to having lived in the current place,
distance to the sea, conservation volunteer experience, local ﬁsheating habit, and environmental attitudes), and landscape types(SES). The model was evaluated as per the Bayesian information
criterion (BIC), as suggested by Smithson and Verkuilen (2006).
In exploring the characteristics of the pro-SES behavior items(RQs 3 and 5), we computed Cronbach’s alpha by type and SES tosee if some items could be used as a construct representing
multiple items. As discussed before, we did not drop the items
that did not contribute to internal consistency; a low contribution
to the alpha of an item does not imply low policy importance inthis context. These items were treated as individual items insteadof being integrated into a composite scale.

Frontiers in Marine Science

4. Marine
debris problem
that needs tobe dealt withurgently

Results and discussion
This section addresses RQs 1 to 4. The results and discussion
for each RQ are followed by its comparison by SES (i.e., RQ5).

09

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

relational, and intrinsic values among the SESs, environmental
attitude does not show signiﬁcant differences. As theenvironmental attitude items were not speciﬁc to each SES but
rather to general environmental issues, the results indicate that
respondents’ opinions about environmental issues, in general, did
not differ by the SES.

Characteristics of respondents by SES
Table 4 shows the characteristics of the respondents (see S1 forthe full set of questions). The gender ratios and distributions weresimilar to those of the represented populations. Respondents in
Kagawa believed that they were closest to the sea, either in a
subjective (their personal belief) or objective (how long it actuallytakes to reach the sea) sense, followed by Harima and KobeHanshin. The recognition of the water quality partially matched
the water quality data in Table 1; the current water quality of theseas in Kagawa is superior to that of Kobe-Hanshin, whichcorresponds with the respondents’ answers. However, there was astark difference in the knowledge of satoumi between the SES in
Hyogo Prefecture (10.4% for Kobe-Hanshin and 10.8% for Harima)
and Kagawa Prefecture (21.0%). Interaction with the sea in Kagawa
was frequently expressed through eating local ﬁsh and opportunities
to go to the sea for leisure or participate in conservation activities.
Interestingly, contrary to the differences regarding instrumental,

Difference between relational values andother value classes (RQ1)
Table 5 illustrates the difference between relational values
and other value classes measured by Cronbach’s alpha, mean,and standard deviation for each value class and the SES. All
scales indicated the reliability of the items (the lowest alpha was
0.804). The means of the instrumental, relational, and intrinsic
values were highest in Kagawa, followed by Harima and KobeHanshin (see Table 5).

TABLE 4 Characteristics of the respondents by SES.

Kobe-Hanshin

N

HarimaPopulation*(Kobe-Hanshin &Harima)Kagawa Population*(Kagawa)

1,136

864

4,490,953

1,000

Male

48.9%

46.5%

47.5%

47.0%

47.4%

Female

51.1%

53.5%

52.5%

53.0%

52.6%

20s

10.8%

11.5%

11.0%

10.0%

10.1%

30s

13.6%

16.0%

14.0%

14.0%

14.0%

40s

19.4%

17.9%

18.0%

17.6%

16.4%

50s

15.8%

14.9%

15.0%

15.8%

14.6%

60s and above

40.4%

39.7%

41.0%

42.6%

44.9%

Distance from the
sea

Close

44.8%

55.3%

70.6%

Distance from thesea

Mean (min)

35.7

28.8

19.9

SD(min)

30.7

24.3

15.7

Recognition of thesea water quality

Clean (1. Strongly disagree, … 5. Strongly
agree)

2.61

3.08

3.19

Knowledge ofsatoumi

Yes

10.4%

10.8%

21.0%

Eat local ﬁsh

1. less than once a month, … 5. More than
three times a week

2.32

2.59

3.00

GenderAge% of don’t know

83.2%

60.3%

33.8%

Opportunity to go
to the sea on
leisure1. no opportunity, …, 5. once a week

1.36

1.46

1.63

Participation inconservation
activities

1. Never 2. Have participated 3. Participate
periodically

1.05

1.05

1.17

Environmental
attitude**Composite scale comprising ninestatements (1. Strongly disagree, … 5.
Strongly agree)

3.92

3.90

3.96

789,372*Population data were obtained from the Statistics Bureau of Japan.
**Cronbach’s alpha is 0.938 (Kobe-Hanshin), 0.948 (Harima), and 0.931 (Kagawa).

Frontiers in Marine Science

10

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

the same patterns: the instrumental and relational values werethe most strongly correlated, while the instrumental andintrinsic values were the least correlated. In comparing theSESs, all combinations in Kagawa were most correlated.
Speciﬁcally, the lower bounds of conﬁdence intervals of thethree correlations for Kagawa did not overlap the upper boundsof the conﬁdence intervals of the three correlations for KobeHanshin. Two of the lower bounds for Harima did not overlap
with the ones for Kobe-Hanshin; however, the conﬁdence

The exploratory factor analysis, which was conducted for thepooled items to explore the dimensionality and latent traits,
showed mixed results (see S2 in SM for detail). While there
seems to be a single factor (unidimensional) for Harima andKagawa, there were two factors for Kobe-Hanshin.
Figure 2 demonstrates the correlations between the value
classes by SES. Overall, they were positively correlated (from0.604 for Instrumental vs. Intrinsic in Kobe-Hanshin to 0.868 forInstrumental vs. Relational in Kagawa). All three SESs showed

TABLE 5 Cronbach’s alpha, mean, and SD by value class and SES.

Pooled (13 items)

Instrumental values (4 items)

Relational values (7 items)

Intrinsic values (2 items)

Kobe-Hanshin

HarimaKagawa
0.951

Alpha

0.942

0.956

Mean

3.69

3.78

3.99

SD

0.624

0.662

0.612
0.867

Alpha

0.903

0.914

Mean

3.69

3.81

3.95

SD

0.698

0.712

0.649

Alpha

0.902

0.922

0.912

Mean

3.62

3.70

3.98

SD

0.660

0.690

0.629
0.804

Alpha

0.866

0.879

Mean

3.96

3.96

4.14

SD

0.737

0.742

0.686

SD, Standard Deviation.

FIGURE 2

Correlation coefﬁcients by value class and SES.

Frontiers in Marine Science

11

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

instrumental and intrinsic, and 0.55 between relational andintrinsic). The order of correlation (i.e., how much value
classes overlap) was different from See et al. (2020). Our study
found the strongest differentiation between instrumental andintrinsic values, while their study found the strongest
differentiation between relational and intrinsic values. Ourﬁndings are in line with the recent theoretical arguments.
Instrumental, relational, and intrinsic values overlap to somedegree (Chan et al., 2018; Himes and Muraca, 2018). For
example, while instrumental and relational values refer tohuman-nature relationships, intrinsic values do not, andrelational and intrinsic values are not substitutable, as opposed
to instrumental values (Himes and Muraca, 2018; Hoelle et al.,2022). Chan et al. (2018) argued that instrumental and intrinsic
values are conceptually less overlapping, while referring toassigned values (mostly related to instrumental values) andmoral values (mostly related to intrinsic values). These
theoretical discussions by Himes and Muraca (2018) and Chanet al. (2018) (i.e., human-nature relationships vs. substitutability
or assigned values vs. moral values) could explain our empiricalﬁndings, but our study lacks enough data to verify this point.

intervals of the coefﬁcient between instrumental and relational
values slightly overlap (0.816 vs. 0.813) (see S3 in SM forthe values).
Two points are worth discussing to answer RQ1 (howrelational values are different from other value classes). First,
Cronbach’s alpha (Table 5) and the exploratory factor analysis
showed mixed results regarding whether the three value classes
can be treated as distinguishable classes and then be compared.
This means that, overall, the three value classes may not be
distinguishable according to these two analyses. Previous studies
reported mixed results as well, indicating the need for further
study. Using the exploratory factor analysis, See et al. (2020)
found only one factor, that is, one common factor can explain all
three value classes. However, Riechers et al. (2021a) found that
relational values and instrumental values were explained bydifferent factors. See et al. (2020) argued that relational andinstrumental values essentially measure similar things; they arenearly indistinguishable for the respondents in the survey. One
possible explanation was that the participants could not clearly
distinguish the values because of the wording of the items. Our
results demonstrated that relational values and intrinsic values
were nearly indistinguishable, except for Kobe-Hanshin whose
distinction was not as clear as that by Riechers et al. (2021a).
There may be two explanations for these ﬁndings. First, it iscontext-dependent (Uehara and Mineo, 2017; Preiser et al.,2018). As a complex adaptive system, an SES varies with place
and time (Preiser et al., 2018); for example, human-nature
relationships vary with place and time. Accordingly, what andhow things are valued may differ according to the context.
Second, although it is “exploratory,” there are steps in theanalysis where researchers make a series of choices thatinﬂuence the ﬁnding, characterizing the indeterminacy of theanalysis (e.g., choosing hypotheses and questionnaire items)(Henson and Roberts, 2006). While the main difference isascribed to the context, it may be due to the framing of thevalue statements. Statements for instrumental values used by
Riechers et al. (2021a) connoted nature’s sacriﬁce (e.g., We
humans have the right to use nature as we like), in contrast to
the statements used by See et al. (2020) (e.g., “This green space
can mitigate climate change”). Although trade-offs can happen
due to the instrumental use of the environment, it may not be a
key component of instrumental values in the discussion
regarding the distinction between relational and instrumental
values (Chan et al., 2018; Himes and Muraca, 2018).
Second, all three value classes were correlated but not
perfectly, indicating that relational values were different fromother value classes though they overlapped to some degree.
Furthermore, relational values were more similar to
instrumental values than to intrinsic values. These ﬁndings arein line with See et al. (2020); however, all correlation coefﬁcients
except for the correlation between instrumental and intrinsic for
Kobe-Hanshin, were mostly higher than their study (0.75
between relational and instrumental, 0.66 between

Frontiers in Marine Science

Comparison of differences between
relational and other value classes
by SES (RQ5)
Although the degrees of correlations among the three value
classes differ by the SES, the order of their combinations (e.g.,
relational and instrumental values vs. relational and intrinsic
values) was the same across the SESs (Figure 2); thus, theoverlap of relational and intrinsic values was lower than theoverlap of relational and instrumental values. At a respondentlevel, stronger correlations could indicate that the more a
respondent values one type of value class (e.g., relational
values), the more they value another value class (e.g.,
instrumental values). Since the overlap of relational values
with the other two value classes was the highest for Kagawa,
respondents in Kagawa were more appreciative of plural values
those in the other two SESs. However, we do not have enoughdata to explore why the respondents in Kagawa appreciate
plural values more than the respondents in the other two SESs.
Furthermore, we are not aware of empirical studies conducting
similar comparative research, which could provide insights todeepen the discussion of this study’s results, including thereason for the difference. Although there are studies claimingthat relational values and SESs differ by context (Himes andMuraca, 2018; Preiser et al., 2018; West et al., 2020), studies on
why they differ, which can help interpret empirical results, arelacking. The understanding of how people appreciate pluralvalues under the potential trade-offs between ecosystem

12

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

were not associated with relational values, indicating that living
close to the sea for much longer did not automatically nurture
relational values. The ﬁnding regarding “Distance” was in linewith Riechers et al. (2021a). It was a surprise that a degree ofparticipation in volunteer activities related to the conservation of
the sea (“Volunteer”) was not associated with relational values.
One of the reasons could be that there were only a small numberof people who volunteered regularly (0.4% in Hanshin-Kobe andHarima, and 1.4% in Kagawa). In line with the frequent use ofnatural goods by Riechers et al. (2021a), visiting frequency(“Leisure”) and eating local ﬁsh were positively associated withrelational values in some SESs. This is reasonable as visiting theplace and eating local ﬁsh could improve human–nature
relationships with a particular sea that is not substitutable withother seas (Himes and Muraca, 2018). In addition, it could be a
medium to reconnect people with nature (Ives et al., 2018).
Water quality perception was positively associated withrelational values, except for Kagawa. Interestingly, this did notcorrespond with the measurements of water quality. Riechers
et al. (2021b) argued that landscape simpliﬁcation could
negatively inﬂuence relational values. In our study, this was
the case for Kobe-Hanshin and Harima, but not for Kagawa.
This indicates that it is important to investigate the role ofperceptions in forming relational values in addition to the stateof SES. This needs further investigation to reveal how the state of
SES is associated with relational values. The environmental
attitude was positively related to relational values, which was
in line with Riechers et al. (2021a). The attitude toward theenvironment constitutes relational values; for example, “Moral
responsibility to non-humans” and “Stewardship principle/
virtue” are two of the seven aspects of relational values (Chanet al., 2016, Figure 1).

services may be associated with different values (Martı́n-Ló pez
et al., 2014); why they differ by the SES is critical for SES
management, and further studies are awaited in this ﬁeld.

Comparison of factors explaining
relational values by SES (RQ2 and RQ5)
The factors associated with relational values differ in all the
SESs (Table 6), wherein the estimates of the beta regression
explain relational values by the SES. The frequency of leisure on
the beach and environmental attitude were statisticallysigniﬁcant for all the three SESs. Gender was statisticallysigniﬁcant, except for Harima, where males appreciatedrelational values more than the males in Kobe-Hanshin and
Kagawa. Eating local ﬁsh was statistically signiﬁcant, except for
Harima. Water quality perception was statistically signiﬁcant,
except for Kagawa.
Mixed results about gender (i.e., the difference was found in
Kobe-Hanshin and Kagawa) were in line with previous studies.
Kleespies and Dierkes (2020b) found that females appreciatedrelational values more as they had a stronger environmental
attitude than males. However, studies by Riechers et al. (2021a)
in Germany and Romania and Duong and Van den Born (2019)
in Vietnam did not show any signiﬁcant gender-based
differences. Education level (the ﬁnal degree earned) was not
associated with relational values in this study. However, since
this study considered the general educational level, the ﬁnding
does not disprove the effectiveness of environmental education
to nurture relational values (dos Santos and Gould, 2018; Ives
et al., 2018; Uehara et al., 2020). “Years to live” and “Distance”
TABLE 6 Estimates of beta regression to explain relational values by SES.

Kobe-Hanshin

HarimaKagawa

Coef.

SE

Coef.

SE

Coef.

SE

Gender

-0.138***0.049-0.0890.056-0.102*

0.051

Education-0.0070.023-0.0250.024-0.0200.023

Years lived

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.001

Distance-0.0040.049-0.0460.057-0.0830.056

Volunteer

0.068

0.100

0.058

0.119

-0.007

0.066

Leisure0.064*

0.035

0.095***

0.035

0.101***

0.030

Local ﬁsh

0.101***

0.024

0.024

0.019

0.047***

0.016

Water quality
perception

0.057**

0.025

0.062**

0.028

0.034

0.025

Environmental Attitude

0.993***

0.039

1.214***

0.043

1.240***

0.044

Constant-3.287***0.226-4.018***0.240-3.689***

0.224

N

1,003

733

970

BIC

-1031

-1006

-1612

SE, Standard Error.
*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Frontiers in Marine Science

13

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

behavior. Overall, the basic principles were well supported(3.73 (Satoumi_k_1) to 3.96 (Satoumi_1) for Kobe-Hanshin);however, the involvement in community activities was limited in
all the SESs (2.47 for Kagawa to 2.67 for Harima). Satoumi_4 forKobe-Hanshin and Harima were exceptionally high (4.21 for
Kobe-Hanshin and 4.16 for Harima). There may be two reasonsfor it. First, Satoumi_4 is not a sea-speciﬁc issue, but a general
concern about environmental issues. The environmental attitude
was strong, irrespective of the SES (from 3.90 for Kobe-Hanshin
to 3.96 for Kagawa in Table 4). Second, the proper disposal ofplastic waste has been a critical policy target in Japan and various
policy measures have been implemented to change people’s
behavior at multiple levels (Ministry of the Environment
Japan, 2019b, Ministry of the Environment Japan, 2021). It
should be noted that, as described in Table 3, since the items
used for Kagawa were different from those for Kobe-Hanshin
and Harima, we compared the same categories; however, they
comprised different items to reﬂect their corresponding contexts.

Characteristics of pro-SES behavior
scales (RQ3)
Table 7 shows the characteristics of pro-SES items by SES,
while the development of pro-SES behavior items, in Table 3,conceptually characterizes pro-SES behavior items based on thesatoumi concept, policy documents, and consultation with
policymakers. All the items, except for Satoumi_4 (“I try todispose of plastic waste properly”), were integrated into acomposite scale by category, based on the acceptable lower
bound of Alpha (0.70) (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). Thismeans that overall, the items developed in this study measure
their belonging categories (i.e., principle, lifestyle, andcommunity activity). As discussed in the Materials andMethods section, we did not exclude Satoumi_4 for its low
contribution to alpha. The purpose of calculating alpha was toreduce items by category to answer RQ4 (How are relational
values related to pro-SES behavior)? and RQ5 (how answers to
the RQs differ by SES) in a manageable manner (i.e., therelationship between pro-SES behavior and relational values).
Satoumi_4 is an important pro-SES behavior for Kobe-Hanshin
and Harima. In summary, while pro-SES behaviors for Kagawa
can be characterized by three categories (i.e., principle, lifestyle,and community activity), those for Kobe-Hanshin and Harimacan be characterized by four categories (i.e., principle, lifestyle,
Satoumi_4, and community activity).

Association of relational values with
pro-SES behavior by SES (RQ4)
Table 8 shows how relational values related to pro-SES
behavior, measured by the BIC of beta regression models ofvalue classes, regressed on pro-SES behavior scales. A shaded
BIC was the best ﬁt model (i.e., the smallest BIC) for each proSES behavior scale. It showed that four out of eleven pro-SES
behavior scales were best explained by relational values and four
were best explained by pooled values, including relational values;
however, three were best explained by a value or a pooled valuethat did not include relational values.

Comparison of characteristics of pro-SES
behavior scales by SES (RQ5)
The mean values in Table 7 indicate how much the
respondents in each SES support each category of pro-SES

TABLE 7 Characteristics of pro-SES items by SES.

Kobe-Hanshin
Category

Item

Mean

SD

Harima
Alpha

Mean

SD

Alpha

Principle

Satoumi_1

3.96

0.754

–

3.98

0.756

–

Lifestyle

Satoumi_2 and _3

2.82

0.932

0.812

3.07

0.894

0.755

Satoumi_4

4.21

0.819

–

4.16

0.866

–

Satoumi_5 and _6

2.52

1.050

0.955

2.67

1.036

0.950

N

1,136

Community activity

864

KagawaCategory

Item

Mean

SD

Alpha

Principle

Satoumi_k_1

3.73

0.912

–

Lifestyle

Satoumi_k_2 to Satoumi_k_9

3.17

0.730

0.858

Community activity

Satoumi_k_10 to Satoumi_k_18

2.47

0.943

0.969

N

1,000

Frontiers in Marine Science

14

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

TABLE 8 BIC for beta regression models by SES.

Kobe-Hanshin (N = 1136)
Principle

Lifestyle

Satoumi_1

Satoumi_2 and _3

Satoumi_4

Satoumi_5 and_6-2043.0-364.3-3694.2-1033.4

Instrumental-1919.5-310.9-3673.5-991.5Intrinsic-2111.6-102.9-3796.6-920.9Instrumental + intrinsic-2107.8-244.3-3755.0-965.7

Pooled-2138.8-327.7-3739.3-1007.4

Relational

Community activity

Harima (N = 864)
Principle

LifestyleCommunity activity

Satoumi_1

Satoumi_2 and _3

Satoumi_4

Satoumi_5 and_6

Relational-1782.3-361.1-2611.9-510.3

Instrumental-1785.8-260.0-2658.2-468.3Intrinsic-1739.9-113.2-2725.9-424.1

Instrumental + intrinsic-1876.9-232.3-2737.1-455.9Pooled-1888.3-321.2-2688.3-488.3

Kagawa (N = 1000)
Principle

LifestyleCommunity activity

Satoumi_k_1

Satoumi_k_2-9

Satoumi_k_10-18

Relational-1286.3-520.2-396.2

Instrumental-1201.1-508.8-402.4Intrinsic-1234.2-410.0-374.5

Instrumental + intrinsic-1251.8-498.5-386.9Pooled-1292.0-524.4-392.7All values are statistically signiﬁcant at a 1% level (see S4 in Supplementary Material for the model details). A shaded BIC was the best ﬁt model (i.e., the smallest BIC) for each pro-SES
behavior scale.

not cooperate with a management whose target is not aligned with
their values. Furthermore, the resulting SES may ignore people
who hold relational values and negatively impact some of thembecause of the trade-offs between ecosystem services (Martı́nLó pez et al., 2014; Cord et al., 2017; Himes and Muraca, 2018; Elliset al., 2019).
A possible explanation for why a model including relational
values is the best ﬁt model overall, though our study did not havesufﬁcient data to validate this point, is that relational values canbe place-based values (Himes and Muraca, 2018). Therefore, inpractice, relational values can contribute uniquely andmeaningfully to understanding pro-SES behavior, thereby
eliciting management implications. Understandably, a pooled
scale best explained the basic principles of satoumi, irrespectiveof the SES, because the desirable state of SES realizes pluralvalues. Satoumi_4 was best explained by scales including
intrinsic values because it is about respect for the sea.
Given the overall importance of relational values for models
explaining pro-SES behavior, including understanding the basic

Comparison of association ofrelational values with pro-SES
behavior by SES (RQ5)
Comparing the three SESs, overall relational values wererelated to pro-SES behavior because eight out of eleven pro-SES
behavior scales were best explained by relational values or pooled
values, including relational values. Lifestyle (Satoumi_4) was notbest associated with relational values or pooled values, including
relational values in Kobe-Hanshin and Harima; pro-SES
community activity behavior was not best associated withrelational values or pooled values, including relational values.
These empirical ﬁndings support the importance of relational
values as a single scale and as an addition to instrumental andintrinsic values in capturing the plural values toward the sea,particularly in their relation to pro-SES behaviors. As discussions
on plural values assert (Jones et al., 2016), a failure to integrate
relational values into management decisions may lead to shaping
SESs that are not aligned with people’s values because people may

Frontiers in Marine Science

15

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

and enhance relational values (Riechers et al., 2021b). Although
the general education level was not statistically signiﬁcant,environmental education is a promising factor to cultivate
relational values as environmental attitude was statisticallysigniﬁcant. These ﬁndings were robust across the three SESs
compared in this study. Second, in answering RQ3 (What are thecharacteristics of pro-SES behavior scales)?, we developed proSES behavior scales and a development guideline. While pro-SES
behaviors for Kagawa can be characterized by three categories(i.e., principle, lifestyle, and community activity), those for
Kobe-Hanshin and Harima can be characterized by four
categories (i.e., principle, lifestyle, Satoumi_4, and community
activity). This shows the need for developing pro-SES behavior
scales tailored to each SES.
There are three limitations to this study. First, this study
applied a simple beta regression analysis using each value classor their composition as a single explanatory variable to explore
their relationship with pro-SES behaviors. The relationshipneeds to be further investigated by employing theoreticalmodels. Theoretical models advanced in pro-environmental
behavior literature (e.g., value-belief-norm theory (VBN) andtheory of planned behavior) may be a good starting point.
Second, there is an absolute lack of research on pro-SES
behavior measurements. Although studies on proenvironmental behavior and their measurement items are
instructive, they are not necessarily aligned with pro-SES
behavior. We produced the development guideline; however,it needs to be tested in other studies. This study did not intend
to develop new measurement items that could be widely
applied to other SESs. Given the context-dependency of SES,
the development of generic pro-SES behavior items may not bemeaningful in the ﬁrst place. However, general guidelines todevelop a context-speciﬁc scale for pro-SES behavior could be
useful. Furthermore, studies on the characteristics (e.g.,
behavioral types and latent traits) must be advanced for thetheoretical development and practical use of pro-SES behavior
items. Third, although our ﬁndings of the relationship between
relational values and pro-SES behavior indicate that relational
values could be a deep leverage for transforming SES into a
desirable state through pro-SES behavior, our study did notverify this point. However, it is critical to empiricallyinvestigate whether cultivating relational values transforms
SES into a desirable state by promoting people’s support forand potential for involvement in SES management throughpro-SES behavior.

principle of the desired state of SES, lifestyles, and community
activities, relational values have the potential of being deep
leverage points toward the realization of desirable SESs
through people’s understanding and involvement in SES
management. Although it may not be easy to cultivate
relational values, it is possible, for example, throughenvironmental education (dos Santos and Gould, 2018; Uehara
et al., 2019a; Uehara et al., 2020). Furthermore, there is room toimprove relational values as their mean values are 3.62, 3.70, and3.98 out of 5 (Table 5). Cultivating relational values may taketime; however, it could have a signiﬁcant impact on SES
management through people’s understanding and involvement.

Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate empirically how relational
values could contribute to the promotion of people’s support forand involvement in SES management. This study was conductedin three SESs in Japan in which a realization of satoumi, a desired
state of SES in which human interaction with nature enhances
diverse beneﬁts from nature (e.g., ecosystem services) was being
targeted as part of management strategy while conserving
nature. They abided by the Act on Special Measuresconcerning Conservation of the Environment of the Seto
Inland Sea. This empirical study corroborates previous
theoretical and conceptual arguments that relational values areimportant, from a practical perspective, as a single value classand as part of plural values integrated into management
decisions to gain people’s support for SES management, whichanswered RQ1 (How are relational values different from othervalue classes)?. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that
relational values or pooled values, including relational values,
best address pro-SES behaviors, indicating that the cultivation ofrelational values could promote pro-SES behaviors to realize adesirable state of SES, which answered RQ4 (How are relational
values related to pro-SES behavior)?. The results are similar
across SESs, which answered RQ5 (similarities and differences by
SES). Therefore, our study provides justiﬁcations forincorporating relational values in SES management that aims
to realize an SES reﬂecting plural values.
In addition to the main contributions of this study about theimportance of relational values in their connection to pro-SES
behavior that indicates the people’s support for and potential for
involvement in SES management, there are two ﬁndings related
to RQs 1, 2, and 3 and their similarities and differences by SES(RQ5). First, in answering RQ2 (What factors explain relational
values)?, this study revealed the factors explaining relational
values. Beta regression models for relational values provided
some clues about cultivating relational values. For example,
increasing the frequency of leisure on the beach could be agood candidate. It could tighten human–nature connectedness

Frontiers in Marine Science

Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study areincluded in the article/Supplementary Material. Further
inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

16

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

Ethics statement

Acknowledgments

Ethical review and approval were not required for the study
on human participants in accordance with the local legislationand institutional requirements. The patients/participants
provided their written informed consent to participate inthis study.

We thank the policymakers in Hyogo Prefecture and Kagawa
Prefecture for their constructive comments on the surveys.

Conﬂict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or ﬁnancial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conﬂict of interest.

Author contributions
TU: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis,
funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, resources, software, supervision, validation,
visualization, roles/writing - original draft, writing - review &editing. RS: Conceptualization, methodology, validation,
writing - review & editing. TH: Conceptualization, funding
acquisition, validation, writing - review & editing. All authors
contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent those of their afﬁliated organizations,or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any productthat may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material
Funding
The Supplementary Material for this article can be foundonline at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fmars.2022.1001180/full#supplementary-material

This work was supported by the Japan Society for The
Promotion of Science [Grant/Award Number: 18H03432].

References
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U.,
et al. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39.
doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Dı́az, S., Gó mezBaggethun, E., et al. (2016). Opinion: why protect nature? rethinking values and theenvironment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 1462–1465. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Allen, K. E., Quinn, C. E., English, C., and Quinn, J. E. (2018). Relational values
in agroecosystem governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 108–115.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026

Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., et al.
(2020). Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People Nat. 2 (3),693–717. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10124

Arias-Aré valo, P., Martı́n-Ló pez, B., and Gó mez-Baggethun, E. (2017).
Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable
management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc 22, 43. doi: 10.5751/ES09812-220443

Chan, K. M. A., Gould, R. K., and Pascual, U. (2018). Editorial overview:
relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 35, A1–A7. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003
Cord, A. F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K.,
Kaim, A., et al. (2017). Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs
and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst. Ser. 28, 264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2002). Navigating social-ecological systems:
Building resilience for complexity and change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511541957
Berkes, F., and Folke, C. (1998). “Linking social and ecological systems forresilience and sustainability,” in Linking social and ecological systems: Management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Eds. F. Berkes and C. Folke(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 13–20.

Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., Chapin, F. S., and Holling, C. S. (2013). Resilience,experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landsc.
Ecol. 28, 1139–1150. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4
Davelaar, D. (2021). Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points
approach. Sustain. Sci. 16, 727–747. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0

Berque, J., and Matsuda, O. (2013). Coastal biodiversity management inJapanese satoumi. Mar. Policy 39, 191–200. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.013

Diaz, R. J. (2001). Overview of hypoxia around the world. J. Environ. Qual. 30,
275–281. doi: 10.2134/jeq2001.302275x

Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W. G., and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparisonof frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc 18, art26.
doi: 10.5751/ES-05551-180426
Blewitt, J. (2018). Understanding sustainable development. 3rd edition (Oxford,
UK: Routledge).

dos Santos, N. B., and Gould, R. K. (2018). Can relational values be developed
and changed? investigating relational values in the environmental education
literature. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 124–131. doi: 10.1016/
j.cosust.2018.10.019

Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Baulcomb, C., Koss, R., Hussain, S. S., and de Groot, R. S.
(2013). Typology and indicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning andmanagement. J. Environ. Manage. 130, 135–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.027

Duong, N. T. B., and Van den Born, R. J. G. (2019). Thinking about nature in the
East: an empirical investigation of visions of nature in Vietnam. Ecopsychology 11,
9–21. doi: 10.1089/eco.2018.0051

Frontiers in Marine Science17

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

Kagawa Prefecture (2021c). 3rd kagawa prefecture coastal debris measures
promotion plan (Takamatsu).

Duraiappah, A. K., Nakamura, K., Takeuchi, K., Watanabe, M., and Nishi, M.
(2012). Satoyama-satoumi ecosystems and human well-being (Tokyo, Japan: United
Nations University Press).
Ellis, E. C., Pascual, U., and Mertz, O. (2019). Ecosystem services and nature’s
contribution to people: negotiating diverse values and trade-offs in land systems.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.001

Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., and Satterﬁeld, T. (2017). Relational
values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the
new ecological paradigm. PloS One 12, e 01839 62. d oi: 10.13 71/
journal.pone.0183962

Field, A., Miles, J., and Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using r (London,
UK: Sage Publications Ltd).

Klauer, B. (1999). Deﬁning and achieving sustainable development. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 6, 114–121. doi: 10.1080/13504509909470000

Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.,et al. (2015). Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecologicalsystems perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 144–149. doi: 10.1016/
j.cosust.2015.06.002

Kleespies, M. W., and Dierkes, P. W. (2020a). Exploring the construct ofrelational values: an empirical approach. Front. Psychol. 11. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00209

Fischer, J., and Riechers, M. (2019). A leverage points perspective on
sustainability. People Nat. 1, 1–6. doi: 10.1002/pan3.13

Kleespies, M. W., and Dierkes, P. W. (2020b). Impact of biological education andgender on students’ connection to nature and relational values. PloS One 15, 1–18.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242004

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance ofsocial-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473. doi: 10.1146/
annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Knippenberg, L., de Groot, W. T., van den Born, R. J. G., Knights, P., andMuraca, B. (2018). Relational value, partnership, eudaimonia: a review. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 35, 39–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.022

Fujiwara, T., Higuchi, K., and Fujii, T. (2020). Minimum nutrient concentrations
for sustaining marine ecosystem productivity: measurement during in situ growthexperiments of bivalve and sessile organisms. J. Jpn. Soc Water Environ. 43, 175–
182. doi: 10.2965/jswe.43.175

Lange, F., and Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior:review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 63, 92–100. doi: 10.1016/
j.jenvp.2019.04.009
Liu, M., and Wronski, L. (2018). Trap questions in online surveys: results fromthree web survey experiments. Int. J. Mark. Res. 60, 32–49. doi: 10.1177/
1470785317744856

Geijzendorffer, I. R., Martı́n-Ló pez, B., and Roche, P. K. (2015). Improving theidentiﬁcation of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments. Ecol. Indic. 52,
320–331. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016

Loft, L., Mann, C., and Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Challenges in ecosystem services
governance: multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst. Serv 16, 150–
157. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.002

Grilli, G., and Curtis, J. (2021). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviours: a
review of methods and approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110039.
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110039

Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: does it matter how it’smeasured? development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale(PEBS). Hum. Ecol. 41, 905–914. doi: 10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8

Gu, H., and Subramanian, S. M. (2014). Drivers of change in socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes: implications for better management. Ecol. Soc 19, 41.
doi: 10.5751/ES-06283-190141

Marshak, A. R., and Link, J. S. (2021). Primary production ultimately limits
ﬁsheries economic performance. Sci. Rep. 11, 12154. doi: 10.1038/s41598-02191599-0

Hattam, C., Atkins, J. P., Beaumont, N., Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A.,
Burdon, D., et al. (2015). Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to theirclassiﬁcation. Ecol. Indic. 49, 61–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.026

Martı́n-Ló pez, B., Gó mez-Baggethun, E., Garcı́a-Llorente, M., and Montes, C.
(2014). Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol.
Indic. 37, 220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003

Henson, R. K., and Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in
published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66, 393–416. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282485

Martı́n-Ló pez, B., Palomo, I., Garcı́a-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Castro, A.
J., Garcı́a Del Amo, D., et al. (2017). Delineating boundaries of social-ecologicalsystems for landscape planning: A comprehensive spatial approach. Land. Use
Policy 66, 90–104. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.040

Hicks, C. C., Cinner, J. E., Stoeckl, N., and McClanahan, T. R. (2015). Linking
ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1471–1480.
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12550

Matzdorf, B., and Meyer, C. (2014). The relevance of the ecosystem services
framework for developed countries’ environmental policies: a comparative casestudy of the US and EU. Land. Use Policy 38, 509–521. doi: 10.1016/
j.landusepol.2013.12.011

Himes, A., and Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: the key to pluralistic
valuation of ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/
j.cosust.2018.09.005
Hoelle, J., Gould, R. K., and Tauro, A. (2022). Beyond ‘desirable’ values:
expanding relational values research to reﬂect the diversity of human–nature
relationships. People and Nature 1–12. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10316

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Ed. D. Wright (Vermont:
Chelsea Green Publishing).

(2015). Ordinance on environmental conservation and creation (Kobe City:
Hyogo Prefecture).

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (n.a) Seto inland Sea
comprehensive water quality survey website. Available at: https://www.pa.cgr.mlit.
go.jp/suishitu/index.html (Accessed September 2022).

(2016). Hyogo plan for the conservation of the seto inland Sea (Kobe City: Hyogo
Prefecture). Available at: https://www.kankyo.pref.hyogo.lg.jp/ﬁles/5014/7696/
7418/03_.pdf.

Ministry of the Environment Japan (2016) Environmentally friendly lifestylesurvey: Results of national survey 2016. Available at: https://www.env.go.jp/policy/
kihon_keikaku/lifestyle/h2904_01.html (Accessed February 14, 2022).

Hyogo Prefecture (2019). Notiﬁcation that deﬁnes the desired nutrient
concentration. 1.

Ministry of the Environment Japan (2017) Setouchi net. Available at: https://www.env.go.jp/water/heisa/heisa_net/setouchiNet/seto/ (Accessed July 22, 2022).

Hyogo Prefecture Environmental Council (2019) About measures for further
promoting the regeneration of the rich and beautiful seto inland Sea (conservationand management of water quality). Available at: https://www.kankyo.pref.hyogo.lg.
jp/download_ﬁle/view/11276/19945 (Accessed September 9, 2022).

Ministry of the Environment Japan (2019a) What is Sato-umi? Available at:
http://www.env.go.jp/water/heisa/satoumi/en/01_e.html (Accessed March 10,2019).

Ives, C. D., Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Dorninger, C., Klaniecki, K., andFischer, J. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 13,
1389–1397. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9

Ministry of the Environment Japan (2019b) Plastic resource recycling strategy.
Available at: https://www.env.go.jp/press/106866.html (Accessed February 5,2022).

Jax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, K. M. A., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B., et al.
(2018). Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s
contributions to human. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 22–29. doi: 10.1016/
j.cosust.2018.10.009

Ministry of the Environment Japan (2021). Roadmap for bioplastic introduction:
For the sustainable use of plastics (Tokyo: Ministry of the Environment).
Miyoshi, J., Takahashi, S., and Mishima, Y. (2012). Relationship between
damage to nori culture and nutrient transport in bisan-seto, Japan. Jpn. J.
Limnol. 73, 199–206. doi: 10.3739/rikusui.73.199

Jones, N. A. A., Shaw, S., Ross, H., Witt, K., and Pinner, B. (2016). The study ofhuman values in understanding and managing social-ecological. Ecol. Soc 21, 5.
doi: 10.5751/ES-07977-210115

Muradian, R., and Pascual, U. (2018). A typology of elementary forms ofhuman-nature relations: a contribution to the valuation debate. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 35, 8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.014

Kagawa Prefecture (2013). Kagawa “Satoumi” creation vision (Takamatsu).
Kagawa Prefecture (2016). Kagawa prefectural plan for environmental
conservation of the seto inland Sea (Takamatsu).
Kagawa Prefecture (2021a). 4th kagawa food education action plan (Takamatsu).

Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Dı́az, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al. (2017).
Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 26–27, 7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Kagawa Prefecture (2021b). Kagawa prefectural government public opinion poll
(Takamatsu).

Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., andSchleyer, C. (2017). Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading

Frontiers in Marine Science18

frontiersin.org

Uehara et al.

10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

Tanda, M. (2011). 5. the actual situation of the oligotrophy in the seto inland Sea
and its measures: in search of various nitrogen sources-. Nippon. Suisan. Gakkaishi.
77, 115. doi: 10.2331/suisan.77.115.

the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyt. Serv. 29, 428–440. doi: 10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.015
Preiser, R., Biggs, R., De Vos, A., and Folke, C. (2018). Social-ecological systems
as complex adaptive systems. Ecol. Soc 23, 46. doi: 10.5751/ES-10558-230446
Riechers, M., Balá zsi, Á ., Engler, J. O., Shumi, G., and Fischer, J. (2021a).
Understanding relational values in cultural landscapes in Romania and Germany.
People Nat. 1–11, 1036–1046. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10246

Tavakol, M., and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. Int. J.
Med. Educ. 2, 53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Uehara, T., Hidaka, T., Matsuda, O., Sakurai, R., Yanagi, T., and Yoshioka, T.
(2019a). Satoumi: Re-connecting people to nature for sustainable use andconservation of coastal zones. People Nat. 1, 435–441. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10047

Riechers, M., Martı́n-Ló pez, B., and Fischer, J. (2021b). Human–natureconnectedness and other relational values are negatively affected by landscape
simpliﬁcation: insights from lower Saxony, Germany. Sustain. Sci. 17 (3), 865–877.
doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-00928-9

Uehara, T., Hidaka, T., Tsuge, T., Sakurai, R., and Cordier, M. (2021). An
adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystemservice improvements. Ecosyst. Serv. 50, 101312. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101312

Saito, T., Hashimoto, S., and Basu, M. (2021). Measuring relational values: dopeople in greater Tokyo appreciate place-based nature and general nature
differently? Sustain. Sci. 17 (3), 837–848. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00898-4

Uehara, T., and Mineo, K. (2017). Regional sustainability assessment framework
for integrated coastal zone management: Satoumi, ecosystem services approach,and inclusive wealth. Ecol. Indic. 73, 716–725. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.031

Schulz, C., and Martin-Ortega, J. (2018). Quantifying relational values — why
not? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.015
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values.
Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2, 11. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Uehara, T., Niu, J., Chen, X., Ota, T., and Nakagami, K. (2016). A sustainability
assessment framework for regional-scale integrated coastal zone management(ICZM) incorporating inclusive wealth, satoumi, and ecosystem services science.
Sustain. Sci. 11, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0373-5

See, S. C., Shaikh, S. F. E. A., Jaung, W., and Carrasco, L. R. (2020). Are relational
values different in practice to instrumental values? Ecosyst. Serv. 44, 101132.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101132

Uehara, T., Sakurai, R., and Tsuge, T. (2020). Cultivating relational values andsustaining socio-ecological production landscapes through ocean literacy: a study
on satoumi. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 1599–1616. doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0226-8

Sherwood, E. T., Greening, H. S., Janicki, A. J., and Karlen, D. J. (2016). Tampa
Bay estuary: monitoring long-term recovery through regional partnerships. Reg.
Stud. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2015.05.005

Uehara, T., Tsuge, T., and Onuma, A. (2019b). Applying three distinct metrics tomeasure people’s perceptions of resilience. Ecol. Soc 24, 22. doi: 10.5751/ES-10903240222

Shin, S., van Riper, C. J., Stedman, R. C., and Suski, C. D. (2022). The value ofeudaimonia for understanding relationships among values and pro-environmental
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 80, 101778. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101778

Van den Born, R. J. G., Arts, B., Admiraal, J., Beringer, A., Knights, P., Molinario,
E., et al. (2017). The missing pillar: eudemonic values in the justiﬁcation of nature
conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 61, 841–856. doi: 10.1080/
09640568.2017.1342612

Shishany, S., Al-Assaf, A. A., Majdalawi, M., Tabieh, M., and Tadros, M. (2020).
Factors inﬂuencing local communities’ relational values to forest protected areas in
Jordan. J. Sustain. For 41, 659–677. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2020.1847665

West, S., Haider, L. J., Masterson, V., Enqvist, J. P., Svedin, U., and Tengo, M.
(2018). Stewardship, care and relational values. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008

Smithson, M., and Verkuilen, J. (2006). A better lemon squeezer? maximumlikelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol. Meth. 11,
54–71. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.54

West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S., and Woroniecki, S. (2020). A relational
turn for sustainability science? relational thinking, leverage points andtransformations. Ecosyst. People 16, 304–325. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

Steg, L., and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an
integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

Yanagi, T. (2012). Japanese Commons in the coastal seas: How the satoumi
concept harmonizes human activity in coastal seas with high productivity anddiversity (Tokyo, Japan: Springer Science & Business Media).

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signiﬁcantbehavior. J. Soc Iss. 56, 407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175

Frontiers in Marine Science

19

frontiersin.org