Mediating Role of Relational Value in Cultural Ecosystem Services Assessment for Subjective Well-Being

Nurul Akmaniza Mohd Nasir; Zainul Mukrim Hj Baharuddin; Khalilah Zakariya; Reazul Ahsan

doi:10.21834/e-bpj.v11i35.7581

Authors

Nurul Akmaniza Mohd Nasir Kuliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia
Zainul Mukrim Hj Baharuddin Kuliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia
Khalilah Zakariya Kuliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia
Reazul Ahsan Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah, United States

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v11i35.7581

Keywords:

cultural ecosystem services, relational value, subjective well-being, sustainable development

Abstract

Rapid urbanization continues to raise concerns about environmental quality, and the concept of cultural ecosystem services (CES) is gaining global attention as a means of maintaining human well-being. This narrative review examines the mediating role of relational value between the relationship of perceived environmental spaces and cultural practices in assessing CES. Using structured qualitative screening, three themes were identified: 1) perceived environmental space as provision of CES, 2) cultural practices as expressions of human-nature relationship, and 3) relational value as a mediating mechanism in well-being. This review emphasizes relational value as a mediating mechanism offering a conceptual base for future CES evaluation studies.

References

Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443

Brill, G. C., Anderson, P. M., & O’Farrell, P. (2022). Relational values of cultural ecosystem services in an urban conservation area: The case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa. Land, 11(5), 603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050603

Brown, R. I., & Brown, I. (2005). The application of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 718 - 727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00740.x

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological indicators, 21, 17-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., ... & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 113(6), 1462-1465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Dade, M. C., Mitchell, M. G., Brown, G., & Rhodes, J. R. (2020). The effects of urban greenspace characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126641. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126641

Davern, M. T., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. A. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 429-449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9066-1

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1(20), 416-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological bulletin, 95(3), 542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 1, 110-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007

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., Lenzi, D., Murali, R., Pascual, U., Raymond, C., Ring, A., Russo, K., Samakov, A., Stålhammar, S., Thorén, H., & Zent, E. (2024). Why nature matters: A systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values. BioScience, 74(1), 25–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad109

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

Kleespies, M. W., & Dierkes, P. W. (2020). Exploring the construct of relational values: An empirical approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00209

Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social indicators research, 16(4), 347-413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00333288

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute.

Pape, T. W. (2024). Naming the unnamed: relational values as knowledge and power. Ecology and Society, 29(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15643-290415

Pedersen, E., Weisner, S. E., & Johansson, M. (2019). Wetland areas' direct contributions to residents' wellbeing entitle them to high cultural ecosystem values. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 1315-1326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.236

Pratson, D. F., Adams, N., & Gould, R. K. (2023). Relational values of nature in empirical research- a systematic review. People and Nature 5 (5)- 1464-1479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10512

Riechers, M., L. Betz, R. K. Gould, T. K. Loch, D. P. M. Lam, N. Lazzari, B. Martín-López, and J. E. Sala. (2022). Reviewing relational values for future research: insights from the coast. Ecology and Society 27(4):44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13710-270444

Su, C., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Dai, F., & Chen, X. (2025). Mediating Roles of Cultural Perception and Place Attachment in the Landscape–Wellbeing Relationship: Insights from Historical Urban Parks in Wuhan, China. Land, 14(6), 1176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061176

Stålhammar, S., & Thorén, H. (2019). Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1201-1212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4

Tajima, Y., Saito, T., Dasgupta, R., Basu, M., Nishi, M., & Hashimoto, S. (2025). Factors affecting relational values of nature: a case of the Nagara River, Japan. Sustainability Science, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01672-0

Uehara, T., Sakurai, R., & Hidaka, T. (2022). The importance of relational values in gaining people’s support and promoting their involvement in social-ecological system management- A comparative analysis. Frontiers in marine science, 9, 1001180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1001180

Ulrich, R. S. (2023). Stress reduction theory. D. Marchand, E. Pol, & K. Weiss (Eds.), 100, 143-146.

United Nations. (2018). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

van Dinter, M., Kools, M., Dane, G., Weijs-Perrée, M., Chamilothori, K., van Leeuwen, E., ... & van den Berg, P. (2022). Urban green parks for long-term subjective wellbeing: empirical relationships between personal characteristics, park characteristics, park use, sense of place, and satisfaction with life in the Netherlands. Sustainability, 14(9), 4911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094911

Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Lu, Y., & Zuo, L. (2022). Biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services: Interrelationship with environmental and human health. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 1086408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.1086408

Zoeller, K. C., & Cumming, G. S. (2024). Towards an integrated framework for understanding social-ecological interactions: nature’s contributions to people meets cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystems and People, 20(1), 2329576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2329576