On the links between nature's values and language

326 | People and Nature. 2023;5:326–342.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3 1 | INTRODUCTION Recognising and respecting value pluralism is needed for nurturing sustainable human– nature relationships and human wellbeing (IPBES, 2019; Wallace et al., 2021). Research into value pluralism provides a lens through which to better understand cognitive models about human– nature relations (Muradian & Pascual, 2018; O'Connor & Kenter, 2019) and the diversity of values about nature (Chan et al., 2016, 2018; Díaz et al. 2018; Pascual et al., 2017; ZafraCalvo et al., 2020). Recent explorations into the links between values and beliefs as related to people's personal identities (e.g. in relation to connectedness to nature, place identity and cultural identity; Kleespies & Dierkes, 2020), drawing on longterm studies of the coconstructive relations between individuals, collectives and nature (Bateson, 2000; Greider & Garkovich, 1994), promise to be a powerful lens through which to map out human– nature relations and associated value systems. The role of language in discussions about conservation of nature has been enriched by the parallels drawn between cultural and biological diversity (Pretty et al., 2009) and through research in fields such as ecolinguistics and linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 2009; Fill & Mühlhäusler, 2006). But a need for further emphasis on language Received: 10 November 2020 | Accepted: 6 March 2021 DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10205 RESEARCH ARTICLE The Multiple Values of Nature On the links between nature's values and language Dylan Inglis1 | Unai Pascual2,3,4 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2021 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society 1University of Bristol, Bristol, UK 2Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Bilbao, Spain 3Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain 4Centre for Environment and Development (CDE), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Correspondence Unai Pascual Email: [email protected] Handling Editor: Antonio J. Castro Abstract 1. Recent research into the plural values about nature is focusing on relational values as a concept through which to better understand the breadth and importance of situated human– nature relations. However, potential relevance of language as a mediating factor in relational values has not been sufficiently examined. 2. To investigate the links between language and values, we explore the influence of the ancient nonIndoEuropean Basque language (‘Euskara’) upon people's relationships with mountain forests in the Western Pyrenees of the Basque Country. 3. Results based on triangulation of data from Qmethodology, focus groups and a sociodemographic survey indicate that while relational values are highly rated in all principal viewpoints about local forests, there is an emergent perspective that emphasises Euskara's key role in relations with the forest via cultural identity and place attachment. 4. We conclude that positive relational values linked to Euskara may be seen as key levers for local sustainability transitions. 5. The fact that positive rapports with language can have a meaningful role in human– nature relations points to the need for further research into the consequential links between biological and linguistic diversity. KEYWORDS Basque language, biocultural diversity, cultural identity, environmental values, linguistic identity, relational values, sense of place | 327 People and Nature INGLIS et aL. through interdisciplinary environmental scholarship has been voiced (LeVasseur, 2015). Although recently language has been discussed in the literature on environmental values as an important variable in ethical research (Saxena et al., 2018) and has been highlighted in terms of its role in harbouring indigenous and subaltern epistemologies and worldviews (Gould et al., 2019), little attention has been paid to the potential of languages to tangibly influence people's human– human and human– nature relations (Bridgewater & Rotherham, 2019). This may be partly explained by the fact that while there is ample literature on the interlinkages between cultural identity, place and nature (Hay, 1998; Hernandez et al., 1998; Ives et al., 2017; Raymond et al., 2010), this literature has rarely focused on the role of language in shaping environmental values (Hanks, 1990). Here we set out to explore whether and in which ways language influences people's rapports with nature. More specifically, we ask the following questions: is language a salient variable in people's values about nature? And, are relational values about nature, beyond the traditional dichotomy between intrinsic and instrumental categories of values, shaped by the role of language? (and if so how?). We tackle these questions by means of an empirical study into the links between the Basque language (‘Euskara’) and the values of and about mountain forests in a multilingual region of the Western Pyrenees in the Basque Country (bordering France and Spain). Possessing a base vocabulary and syntax highly distinct from French and Spanish, Euskara is a language isolate and is widely considered as the last remnant of preIndoEuropean language in Western Europe (Hualde et al., 1996). We conduct an empirical analysis based on a mixedmethods approach using the semiquantitative Qmethodology (Zabala, 2014; Zabala et al., 2018) and qualitative methods (e.g. indepth interviews with key informants and focus group discussions) to obtain as comprehensive picture as possible of the role of language within value systems about (local) forests. In the next section, we present a conceptual framework that introduces and links key concepts about plurality of values (emphasising relational values) and language, as mediated by culture, identity and place. Section 3 presents a brief overview of nature in the case study area and provides contextual information about the Basque language. Section 4 introduces the methodological approach including the use of the Qmethod. Results are described and discussed in Sections 5 and 6, respectively, with emphasis on the links between Euskara and relational values, as reflective of meaningful relations with nature through learning and living the Basque language. We conclude by highlighting the link found been between language and relational values and call for further study into how rapports with language can act as levers for more sustainable ways of life. 2 | CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: LINKING LANGUAGE AND RELATIONAL VALUES The exploration of the links between language and values about nature (and more specifically relational values) can be facilitated by a conceptual framework that draws on different research traditions. Although relational values associated with the idea of personal flourishing (Knippenberg et al., 2018) and care (West et al., 2018) may be articulated through rapports with language, the conceptual framework that we develop here focuses mostly on relational values about nature as connected to cultural identity and place attachment, and their explicit links with language. 2.1 | Relational values Theories of relationality as regards human– nature interactions include hybrid geographies (Whatmore, 2002) and vibrant materialism (Bennett, 2010). While many social scientists call for an overhauling of the human– nature binary (see e.g. Descola, 2013; Haila, 2000), interdisciplinary sustainability science retains the broad socially recognised categories of humans/culture and nature/environment while endeavouring to raise societal awareness of complex human– nature interdependencies (Fischer et al., 2015; West et al., 2020). Nature's values tend to be understood in a simplistic binary way, that is, as either instrumental or intrinsic, and this framing dominates large tracts of the global conservation policy landscape (Pascual et al., 2021). This binary understanding of values is being broadened by explicitly recognising the diverse contributions nature makes to people's good quality of life, both individually and collectively. One way to move beyond this dichotomy is through the concept of relational values (RVs; Chan et al. 2016, 2018; Pascual et al., 2017). Relational values encompass preferences (e.g. worth and/or importance of local nature connected to otherregarding, bequest, preferences) and guiding principles (e.g. caring as the ‘right thing to do’) which to a large extent can determine human relationships with living nature (Chan et al., 2016, 2018; Díaz et al. 2018; Pascual et al., 2021). Largely informed by the treatment of human wellbeing in the social sciences, including research into indigenous and local relational ontologies (Gould et al., 2019), the concept of RVs encourages research into the importance of desirable relations with nature and among people through nature (Himes & Muraca, 2018; Klain et al., 2017). Although all values are relational in origin (values of things arise by means of relating to those things), RVs are here seen as specifically those whose worth originates in the relationships themselves with nature or with humans through nature (Chan et al., 2016, 2018). As a concept to frame the need for conservation and more desirable human– nature rapports, RVs are being researched in terms of their base concepts (Chan et al., 201), components (Jax et al., 2018), cultural roots— including local and indigenous cosmologies (Gould et al., 2019; Sheremata, 2018)— and applications in policy and practice (e.g. Bremer et al., 2018; Chapman et al., 2019). Relational values are generally seen as combining general value concepts and context specific to place and, unlike instrumental values, are not readily substitutable, in part due to incommensurability (Chan et al., 2018; Pascual et al. 2017). The emergent literature on 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 328 | People and Nature INGLIS et aL. RVs focuses on the importance of connectedness, care, responsibility, stewardship, kinship, community and identity (individual and collective) and personal flourishing (‘eudaimonia’) in connection to how people experience nature (Chan et al., 2016; dos Santos & Gould, 2018; Kleespies & Dierkes, 2020; Knippenberg et al., 2018). 2.2 | Cultural identity Cultural identity underpins RVs. It is formed out of two contested concepts. Culture denotes the ‘ways of life’ of social groups and their ongoing process, as reflected in the term's etymological link with ‘cultivation’. The term retains relevance in the social sciences as a lens through which to understand processes of social mediation and representation (Mitchell, 1995). While culture is a fluid relationally constructed concept, it still constitutes a core identity marker for individuals and communities (Eisenstadt & Giesen, 1995). Meanwhile, the notion of identity has been adapted in response to changing discursive interpretations of the human subject (Hall & Du Gay, 1996). Originally founded on humanist concepts depicting essentialised, static entities, increasing attention is now paid to the role of social processes in identity formation (Hall & Du Gay, 1996). In this vein, identity becomes a useful conceptual lens to understand discursive processes which reify new hybrid visions of self and community (Abdelal et al., 2006; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). The composite term ‘cultural identity’ is thus taken to refer to a situated way in which people interpret themselves and their position in social groups and local places. 2.3 | Place attachment, sense of place and place meanings The concept of ‘place’ comprises both an object of study and a source of meaning through which knowledge about the world is created (Cresswell, 2014). The broad concept of ‘sense of place’ refers to the meanings and attachments that individuals or communities may have towards a location (Tuan, 1977). Understanding values related to place is crucial to promote meaningful placebased human– nature interactions (Brown & Raymond, 2007; Lee, 2011; Pred, 1984; Stenseke, 2018). Within the concept of sense of place, ‘place attachment’ is a term taken from environmental psychology which emphasises the emotional (relational) ties or extent of attachment between people and place (Lewicka, 2011; Scannell & Gifford, 2010), whereas ‘place meanings’ are the significance that people attribute to a given location (Manzo, 2005). Sense of place is commonly associated with individual and collective RVs but understanding place attachment can draw from diverse and often divergent methodological and theoretical traditions (Brehm et al., 2013; Cresswell, 2014). Broadly, place studies have been pursued through quantitative methods (‘place as a locus of attachment’) or qualitative methods (‘place as a centre of meaning’; Manzo & DevineWrite, 2013). A distinction has been made between the conservative and progressive meanings of place (Lewicka et al., 2019), with early scholarship depicting a place's singularity as fixed and naturally bounded (Di Masso et al., 2019). Such essentialist (‘sedentaristic’) views of place seem to predominate among place scholarship (Malkki, 1992), but have also been challenged by the progressive theories of place as ‘relational’, ‘global’ (Massey, 2010) and defined by being in a constant state of ‘becoming’ (Cresswell, 2006; Massey, 1993). Here we consider sense of place from the perspective of ‘place as a locus of attachment’ (Entrikin, 1976; Manzo & DevineWright, 2013). 2.4 | Language Currently, over 7,000 languages are used worldwide (Eberhard et al., 2020). Spoken languages are in constant processes of evolution, and definition of what constitutes a language, rather than a dialect or variant, owes much to sociopolitical and historical factors which fully recognise some linguistic forms as ‘languages’ and stigmatise others (relegated to categories like ‘dialects’ or ‘patois’; Edwards, 2009). Beyond their communicative functions, languages also constitute crucial symbolic markers of individual and community identity, and language issues can be sources of conflict (Dwyer, 2005; Lijphart, 1979). The continued loss of linguistic diversity globally implies an irreversible loss of unique ways of knowing and dwelling (Nettle & Romaine, 2000). Language loss can indicate and reinforce socioeconomic inequalities, as unilateral power afforded to some linguistic varieties can indicate and intensify the dominance of certain social groups over others (Blanchet, 2017; Phillipson, 2012). Just as people hold a range of values about nature, we posit that attitudes towards language can also be understood through the lens of instrumental, intrinsic and relational values. The instrumental value of a language can be seen to arise from its utility as a tool of communication and comprehension and even as a vector of economic gain. The intrinsic value of language rises from the perception that it has intangible significance independent of its instrumental utility (Smeets, 2004). One can also identify a host of relational values about language, with one's preferences and attitudes towards language being inextricably linked, for instance, to individual and community identity formation and attachment to place. 2.5 | Linking nature's relational values and language Language, culture and nature (as social construct) are inextricably interrelated. Cultural and place identity can be intimately connected with the idea of RVs in so far as they are expressions of the significance that people's relations with nature (including the notion of ‘place’) can have on their own interpretation of ‘self’, the ensemble of symbols making up collective ‘culture’ and importantly, on their evaluation and attachment to the local socioecological context. In a given place, the local environment sustains people with material conditions to live and a sense of self 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 329 People and Nature INGLIS et aL. to live by. In turn, people sustain and shape the local environment through knowledge, values and practices embedded in their cultures and their languages. As a case in point, indigenous languages are immense reserves of traditional ecological knowledge (Maffi & Woodley, 2012), and thus, interesting parallels have been drawn between biological and linguistic diversity (Gorenflo et al., 2012; Maffi, 2001), generally explored under the term ‘biocultural diversity’ (Merçon et al., 2019). However, interlinks and potential crossfertilisation between language and nature conservation must guard against noncritical, sweeping and nonconsequential analogies (BastardasBoada, 2002). Linguistic specificity is linked to the concept of place. Most languages are spoken in a limited geographical area and tend to leave their mark on place, while conversely places leave their mark on language via constantly reified associations between languages and their ‘native territory’ (Myhill, 1999). For instance, it has been posited that people's relationships with place names play a significant role in connections with locality and identity construction (Helleland, 2012; MacDonald, 2017). Research in linguistics has recently focused on language and communities through the conceptual lens of place (Montgomery & Moore, 2017) while the subdiscipline of ecolinguistics places great importance on how (minority) languages interact with each other in a sociopolitical context, and how linguistic varieties, people and nature coevolve with a given place or region (Mühlhäusler, 2003; Stibbe, 2015). Language is in constant relation with human knowledge and practices associated with the use and experience of local nature. Moreover, language is a variable existing in coproductive rapport with cultural identity and thereby potentially influences people's attachment to place. Given that cultural identity is largely defined by positive disassociation from the ‘other’, in contexts where speakers of different languages are in close interaction, language may emerge as a key identity symbol and thus constitute a core component of value systems (AbdelJawad, 2006; Tajfel, 1978). Strong relations between people's identity, local nature and language can also be reflected through place attachment (Ramkissoon et al., 2012). Similarly, place names in local languages also often carry social histories and consequently, languages— particularly, but not only, those transmitted mainly orally— can constitute a connection between place and memory (Basso, 1996; Berg & Kearns, 1996). It is nonetheless important to note that individualand communitylevel rapports between place and cultural identity, language and local nature are plural and dynamic and are further complexified by the uneven spatial impacts of changes in language use over time. We can take the example of local forests. People may see local forests in terms of either (intrinsic) valueinthemselves (independent of the valuer) or in terms of the benefits they derive from them, that is, as a means to an end (instrumental values; links 1 and 2 in Figure 1). Yet, many of the values of local forests also arise through FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework linking language and relational values about nature. Language here is understood as the local vernacular of a region, whereas nature refers to all biotic and inanimate beings that constitute the environment, here represented by a local forest. The main reasons why people may care about local forests can be understood in terms of forests (i) providing a means to an end (e.g. economic benefits) to people (‘instrumental values’: link 1), (ii) having ‘intrinsic worth’ independent of valuers (link 2) and (iii) providing the opportunities for valued relations with people and among people (‘relational values: link 3). In a similar vein, any language can also be associated with instrumental values (link 4), intrinsic values (link 5) and relational values (link 6). The vertical (thick) arrow (link 3) suggests that language and relational values coevolve in rapport with individual and collective human relations. The conceptual framework emphasises how language shapes RVs about nature (downward link between language and relational values) 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 330 | People and Nature INGLIS et aL. specific, situated human– nature relationships that cannot be reduced to substitutable values (link 3). Here, we mainly focus on how RVs linked to people's cultural identity (link 3a) and place attachment (link 3b) are shaped and expressed through relationship with language. While human relationships with a given part of nature, such a local forest, can shape one's cultural identity, the importance of language as an identity symbol can also influence values about nature (link 3a). Similarly, people's relations with local nature are fundamentally connected to their emotional ties to place, with strong connections to local language and nature thus invariably linked to place attachment (link 3b). Although not the focus of this study, eudaimonia related to nature may also be articulated through prolonged engagement with language as a critical link to local histories and identities, which can, in turn, foster meaningful ways of living through deepening human– nature connections (link 3c). Another important bundle of RVs, including values of care, stewardship and responsibility for local nature, may be reinforced by longterm protection of language as this may carry specific and embedded meanings of nature and locality (link 3d). Furthermore, we posit that language itself can also be associated with three types of values (instrumental, intrinsic and relational). The instrumental value of language lies in its communicative (and by extension its economic) potential (link 4), whereas languages and linguistic diversity can also be seen as possessing intrinsic value, independent of their communicative value (link 5). The RVs framework can also be applied to people's relations with and attitudes towards language. The value of a given linguistic variety can arise through its role as a key symbol of cultural identity (link 6a) and as a core element of local geographies and sociohistorical meanings (link 6b). Languages can also be valued through relations of care and stewardship and sentiments of responsibility for the local vernacular and its significance for a sense of community (link 6c). The selfrealisation and purpose found in such lasting relations with and through threatened local languages is a good example of eudaimonia (link 6d). 3 | CASE STUDY BACKGROUND The case study was conducted in a region of the Western Pyrenees evenly divided between the French PyrénéesAtlantiques department in the north and the Spanish Autonomous Region of Navarre in the south (Figure 2), both within the historic and cultural Basque FIGURE 2 The case study region located in the Basque Country (Euskal Herria) 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 331 People and Nature INGLIS et aL. Country (‘Euskal Herria’ in Euskara, literally meaning the ‘Country of the Basque language’). This area is mostly comprised of forests, mountain pasture and small settlements and is divided between four main valleys.1 Local settlements are in close proximity to local mountain forests, namely the Arbailles and Irati, the latter being one of the largest and bestpreserved mixed beechfir forests in Europe (BourquinMignot & Girardclos, 2001). The Western Pyrenean region has been isolated from France and Spain for much of recorded history and has long been essentialised as a peripheral zone of sparsely populated wilderness, with French geographers, only a few short decades ago, calling it ‘the end of the world’ (Chadefaud & DallaRosa, 1973, p. 5). Along with pasture and smallscale agriculture, forests cover over half of the region (see Figure 2) and host numerous rare plant and animal species (Sanz, 2008, p. 23). Historically forming a crucial part of local life, the economic significance of the forest in the community has declined in recent years: while primary sector activities such as transhumance still contribute to local economies in the French valleys, the Spanish valleys in the south are more service based (Sanz, 2008, p. 178). Regional forest management plans mainly emphasise instrumental values as providers of material and nonmaterial contributions to the local people, for instance via tourism revenue (Brocas & Legaz, 2005; GDN, 1998). While French and Spanish are currently the dominant languages, Basque (Euskara) has been the main language in the region for most of documented history and is still spoken to varying extents by Basque– French and Basque– Spanish bilinguals. In the southern valleys, family transmission of the Basque language was severely repressed during Spain's fascist dictatorship (1939– 1975), but the introduction of Basquemedium schools in recent decades has ensured that most people born post1977 can speak the language (Jurío, 1997). In the northern French region, the situation is different: although Basque was still locals' predominant language of communication into the latter half of the 20th century and most middleaged and elderly people speak Euskara, the majority of young people are French monolinguals.2 Although cultural groups are far from homogeneous, we adopted the prevalent local representations used to differentiate cultures (principally Basque/Spanish/French) along historical and ethnolinguistic lines. Within the Basque cultural community, Euskara remains a core identity symbol. This is reflected in the fact that people from the region are called ‘Basque’ or euskaldun, literally meaning ‘(s)he who possesses the Basque language’. The language itself has been reinvigorated in the Basque Country thanks to largescale social mobilisation and the development a standardised form, termed ‘unified Basque’ (euskara batua), from a divergent set of dialects spoken across the Basque Country (Urla, 2012). The standard has been widely adopted as a means of education and media and is the form of Euskara known and used by younger inhabitants in the southern part of the case study area. The high variation in dialects of Euskara and varied extents of official status across the valleys presented a challenge during research. This was particularly the case in the Northern sites, where we find significantly distinct Basque dialects such as Baxenafarrera and Zuberera and less familiarity with the standardised ‘unified Basque’ (Zuazo, 2019). The linguistic profile of the researchers3 offered participants the chance to use their local vernacular, thereby generating a richer set of variables through which to explore links between language, identity and relational values. 4 | METHODS 4.1 | Fieldwork We adapted our guiding research questions to the specific context of the case study and asked (a) do relations with Euskara affect the way people in the region understand and come into relations with their local forest? and (b) if so, what form do these links take? The empirical analysis was based on fieldwork carried out between August and December 2019. Fieldwork had two principal targets: first, to FIGURE 3 Prevalence (proxied by proficiency) of Euskara in the case study region. (a) Basque proficiency among young people (18– 40) in the region (UEMA, 2020). (b) Basque proficiency among middle aged (40– 65) in the region. (c) Basque proficiency among elderly people (66+) in the region (a) (b) (c) 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 332 | People and Nature INGLIS et aL. gather information about local people's relations with the local forest and languages through key informants, focus groups and reviews of written documents; and second, to design and apply a tailored Qmethod alongside the administration of a semistructured survey. All fieldwork participants, including Qmethod participants, focus group participants and key informants agreed freely to take part in the research and they all signed an informed consent form whereby anonymity of their views and opinions would be guaranteed and were free to interrupt participation at any stage of the fieldwork. At the time of fieldwork, there was no local ethics committee nor a formal ethics protocol required by the Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) to conduct field research. Our positionality shaped the direction of the research. The authors are both Euskara speakers, share an interest in value pluralism about nature and were largely motivated by the fact that the role of language in human– nature relations was an understudied area of high importance. We set out with the idea that the role of Euskara in people's relational values about the local mountain forests could be understood through crossreferencing local perspectives (and value systems) about nature with people's linguistic characteristics. Given the lack of available templates for empirical study of links between language and RVs, we assumed an openended, iterative approach that was receptive to different possible connections between local language and nature in the Basque Country. Key informants (18) were identified via contact with local town halls and radio stations, and included historians, Basque teachers, tour guides, village mayors, farmers, local artists, officials for regional agricultural syndicates and dynamic young adults. Key informants assisted in obtaining contacts and providing relevant documents and often had exceptional knowledge of the region's history and communities. They also helped organise focus groups, where on occasions they held comediator roles, and in some cases helped locate participants for the Qmethod. Attempts were made to include a representative share of participants in terms of gender, subregion of study, age and different language profiles (Basque, Spanish and French). The vast majority of those recommended as key informants were men, with some participants attributing this gender imbalance to the belief that men were more knowledgeable about regional nature and history and others to the fact that men spend more time in the forest. In contrast, when looking for a wide variety of participants for the Qstudy, women were more likely to be suggested and attend than men. We targeted proportionally similar participation from the northern (N), French, and southern (S), Spanish, subregions, with key informants (NW: 6, NE: 5, S:6), focus groups (N:4, S:4) and the Qstudy participants (N: 25, S: 31). When we tried to get an equal division of Basque and nonBasque speakers, it transpired that even in areas with high levels of French or Spanish monolingualism, Basque speakers were more likely to participate in the study. This may have occurred due to one of the authors (DI) being a foreign Euskara speaker, a rarity that encouraged some local Basque speakers to get involved. Of the 56 Qparticipants, all spoke either French or Spanish. Most spoke Basque (82%) and nearly half of the Qparticipants' predominant language was Euskara (48%). Spanish, French, ‘unified’ Basque and two dialects of Euskara (Behenafarrera Basque and Zuberera, the Basque variant of Zuberoa) were used in the fieldwork (see Qparticipants profiles in Table A1, in the annex). Although all three languages were used in focus groups, Euskara was the most employed language during focus group discussions. The mixedmethods approach prior to the deployment of the Qmethodology lasted several months. First, based on discussion with key informants, a list of possible values about local mountain forests was drawn up, and this list was discussed and further developed by participants in focus groups. After conducting a pilot focus group, eight focus group discussions (45 participants) were held in September 2019 in six villages, (five of which were conducted in Euskara, two in Spanish and one in French). The focus groups were mediated by DI and were divided into three parts: (a) exploring participants' relationship with local nature through engaging with the list of human– forest relations, as proposed by key informants; (b) discussion of individual and community relations with Euskara and (c) inquiring about any perceived and experienced links between language and local nature. This yielded an extensive ‘concourse’ of potential statements articulating rapports with local mountain forests (n = 120) which constituted the basis of statements elected for inclusion in the final set of statements used in the application of the Qmethod. 4.2 | The Qmethod Qmethod (herein Q) is becoming increasingly popular in conservation research, where it is used to understand people's perspectives, preferences and values (Nordhagen et al., 2017, 2021; Zabala, 2014; Zabala et al., 2018). Q requires a set of statements (also known as items) from diverse data sources reflecting the multiplicity of perspectives on a given topic, usually obtained from a combination of information from secondary literature, key informants and focus groups (Brown, 1996). The statements are normally printed onto cards which are later ordered by participants onto a grid (Figure 4). Although sorting processes vary between studies, participants ultimately gradate the statements according to those which most and least reflect their point of view. This process enables an exploration of the value patterns that underpin the participants' attitudes (Ellis et al., 2007). Researcher bias and influence when designing the statements and guiding the test is a risk (Ockwell, 2008) and can be mitigated by aiming for transparency and comprehensiveness in design and clear and concise instructions during the Qexercise itself (Zabala et al., 2018). The 56 Qparticipants were varied in terms of sociodemographic profiles and came from 11 villages (four in Spain and seven in France) whose populations ranged between 126 and 584 inhabitants (see Table A1 for more details). We selected a set of 33 statements from the concourse and adapted some of them to more clearly fit with the categories of relational, intrinsic or instrumental values associated with the forest 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 333 People and Nature INGLIS et aL. (Table 1). The Qstatements were translated into French, Spanish and three Basque vernaculars. With regard to the latter, our initial translations were then checked by contacts fluent and literate in these local variants, with this correction constituting an important iterative process which on several occasions problematised the use of certain words in the original wording of the Qstatements. The Qset was designed to represent the breadth of values about the forest expressed during the focus group discussions, with an emphasis on the array of local relational values articulated. It is important to note that when designing the study, we did not put particular emphasis on statements about Euskara in the Qset itself, as we expected that any links between Euskara and forests (e.g. historical knowledge, uses of the forest, associated myths, values and any other relationships) would emerge through crossreferencing local perspectives about the forests (via the resulting perspectives through the Qmethod) with Qparticipants' language profiles (linked to a complementary structured survey). Thus, the Qset itself did not specifically focus on statements that linked value systems about nature and people's language profiles, although some statements articulating this relation were included. Most statements in the Qsample were associated with relational values about the local mountain forests (n = 24), although important instrumental values (n = 7) and intrinsic values (n = 4) were also included (Table 1). Given the fluidity between the three broad types of values, we categorised relational values following Chan et al. (2018). For instance, if according to the local perceptions and experiences the type of wellbeing obtained through specific relations with the local forest could not be replaced or attained via other activities (i.e. a nonsubstitutable relationship), such a relation with the forest was associated with a relational value. But if the benefits of a given relationship could be fully or partly obtained via other activities, this would constitute an instrumental value of the forest. In addition, some statement pairs are similar but distinct; for instance, statements #11 and #22 link the local forest with cultural identity: the former refers to a broader idea of local culture (not necessarily limited to Basque), and the latter refers specifically to Basque culture. This subtle difference enables us to evaluate the relative importance of (Basque) culture in people's value systems, a vein of analysis assisted by questions in the supplementary survey about participants' language and identity. Although the Qmethod combines the reflective capacity of qualitative methods and the empirical potential of quantitative approaches, it should be noted that the operationalising of RVs like place attachment through selfreport statements may have offered Qparticipants less opportunity to express the breadth of place meanings than may have been enabled through more qualitative methods (Brown et al., 2015; Stedman, 2002). Participants tended to initially agree with most statements, so consequent sorting of cards into further groups was undertaken through considering their relative degree of importance for the individual. Once participants had broadly graded the degree of importance through forming several piles of cards, they then transferred these onto the grid using a likerttype scale from −4 to +4 (least agree to most agree; Figure 4). Qsorting usually took participants between 30 and 60 min. The final distribution of Qsorts was photographed, transcribed and then grouped using the multivariate data reduction techniques provided by the ‘qmethod’ package in R software (Zabala, 2014). After conducting the principal component analysis (PCA), the ‘perspectives’ resultant from summary responses of participants' Qsorts, also termed ‘factors’, were interpreted. The number of factors to be extracted was decided through assessing their salience and similarity (Zabala et al., 2018). These extracted factors were then interpreted through both factor loadings (showing the extent to which individuals loaded4 onto each factor or perspective) and zscores (which indicate how well each statement fits with each of the factors extracted). The interpretation of factors is based on the statement results, that is, their salience within each of the factors and the extent of their distinctive position as compared to that of other factors. Statements that have statistically significant different scores across factors can be interpreted as being distinguishing statements. Each factor denoted a distinct viewpoint about the local forest and, taken together, the factors provided an indication of current local value systems about nature. Four factors were initially extracted, but two of these indicated very similar value systems, and drawing on Zabala et al. (2018), we limited abstraction to the three qualitatively distinct factors which still captured enough internal consistent variability of the data. To assist with identification and interpretation, each factor was given a label that reflected its key distinguishing traits. Qualitative information was also collected through recording participants' comments about the sorting process and the rationales FIGURE 4 The Qgrid 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 334 | People and Nature INGLIS et aL. behind their choices. In addition, we nuanced emergent Qfactors by crossreferencing them with a sociodemographic survey which documented the language profiles of the Qparticipants. The structured survey included demographic questions about age, gender, education and occupation; linguistic questions about languages spoken, dominant language(s), language(s) of education and home and native language; and specific questions about distance from the local forest and frequency of visits to the local forest. 5 | RESULTS Qmethod revealed three distinct value factors or typologies of people regarding the local mountain forest in the case study. We name them (a) Stewards, (b) Eudaimonians and (c) Euskarians. These three distinct perspectives are represented by the value statements that obtained the highest zscores. Figure 5 shows the main distinguishing statements used to interpret the three salient perspectives as TABLE 1 Statements used in the Qmethod in relation to different types of values No (#) Statement Valuea RV type Sourceb 1 Being in or near the forest makes me feel free RV Eudaimonia FG 2 The forest is culturally important for me as the home of the Basajaun and other mythical beings RV Cult. identity KI 3 We should be respectful of the forest RV Responsibility FG 4 Caring for the forest helps me lead a more fulfilling life RV Eudaimonia FG 5The forest should be stewarded for future generations RV Equity FG 6 The forest reflects the beauty of nature Intr. — FG 7The forest is important because it enables a sense of community RV Group identity LR 8The forest is important in people's education RV Eudaimonia FG 9 The forest is important for my identity as a person RV Indiv. identity FG 10 Caring for the forest and its different species is a moral duty RV Stewardship FG 11 The forest connects me with the culture of the region RV Cult. identity LR 12 When I am in the forest, I feel a more spiritual person RV Eudaimonia LR 13 People, plants and animals are all part of the same web of life RV Kinship FG 14 The trees of the forest have value, even if we do not have a relationship with them Intr. — LR 15 The forest is an important place to enjoy relationships with other people RV Community KI 16 Sensing wildlife in the forest makes me feel happy RV Eudaimonia FG 17 The forest is important because it is a place where I practice leisure activities RV/Inst Eudaimonia FG 18 Going to the forest is good for my health RV/Inst Eudaimonia FG 19 Human beings are responsible for the care of the forest RV Responsibility FG 20 I cannot understand my cultural identity without the forest RV Cult.identity KI 21 Reliance on the forest is a defining aspect of my lifestyle RV Indiv. identity FG 22 The forest is important to my Basque identity RV Cult. identity FG 23 Connection to the forest through Basque place names is important in helping me understand and enjoy the forest RV Cult.identity LR 24 Being in the forest gives the opportunity to enjoy and deepen relationships with friends and family RV Community KI 25 I feel deeply attached to my local forest RV Place attachment FG 26 Forest resources should be equally shared among all people in the community RV Equity FG 27 Tourism generated by the forest produces economic wellbeing in the region Inst. — FG 28 The clean air and water regulated by the forest are important for our wellbeing Inst. — LR 29 Nontimber forest products are important for the community's economy Inst. — FG 30 Timber provided by the forest is important for the community's economy Inst. — FG 31 Our forest is important for absorbing carbon and regulating climate change Inst. — LR 32 The forest has always been important in and of itself Intr. — FG 33 The living beings of the forest should be respected in all circumstances Intr. — FG aType of value: Relational value (RV), instrumental value (Inst) and intrinsic value (Intr). bMain source of information: Focus groups (FG), Literature review (LR), Key informants (KI). 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | 341 People and Nature INGLIS et aL. Montgomery, C., & Moore, E. (Eds.). (2017). Language and a sense of place. Cambridge University Press. Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of environment, environment of language: A course in ecolinguistics. Battlebridge Publications. Muradian, R., & Pascual, U. (2018). A typology of elementary forms of humannature relations: A contribution to the valuation debate. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 8– 14. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.014 Myhill, J. (1999). Identity, territoriality and minority language survival. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20(1), 34– 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434 63990 8666368 Nettle, D., & Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world's languages. Oxford University Press on Demand. Nordhagen, S., Pascual, U., & Drucker, A. (2017). Feeding the household, growing the business, or just showing off? Farmers' motivations for crop diversity choices in Papua New Guinea. Ecological Economics, 37, 99– 109. Nordhagen, S., Pascual, U., & Drucker, A. (2021). Gendered differences in crop diversity choices: A case study from Papua New Guinea. World Development, 137, 105134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.world dev.2020.105134 Ockwell, D. G. (2008). ‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: A role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York. Australia. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 263– 292. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s1107 70089066y O'Connor, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2019). Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the morethanhuman world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1247– 1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1162 501900715 - 7 Pascual, U., Adams, W. A., Díaz, S., Mace, G., & Turnhout, E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nature Sustainability, 1– 6. https://doi.org/10.17863/ CAM.65646 Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Dessane, E. B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., AlHafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., … Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 7– 16. Phillipson, R. (2012). Linguistic imperialism. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1– 7). John Wiley and Sons. Pilgrim, S., Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F., de Athayde, S. F., Dudley, N., Hunn, E., Maffi, L., Milton, K., Rapport, D., Robbins, P., Sterling, E., Stolton, S., Tsing, A., & Vintinnerk, E. (2009). The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: Towards integration. Conservation and Society, 7(2), 100– 112. https://doi.org/10.4103/ 09724923.58642 Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the timegeography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(2), 279– 297. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.14678306.1984.tb014 53.x Ramkissoon, H., Weiler, B., & Smith, L. D. G. (2012). Place attachment and proenvironmental behaviour in national parks: The development of a conceptual framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(2), 257– 276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669 582.2011.602194 Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 422– 434. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002 Sanz, E. (2008). Identidad, montaña y desarrollo: Los valles de Roncal, Salazar y Aezkoa.brocas Vitoria. Gobierno Vasco. Retrieved from htt ps://w ww.eusk a di.eus/conte nidos/ libro/ libur ua _ 2009/eu _def/ adjun tos/lib20 09.pdf Saxena, A. K., Chatti, D., Overstreet, K., & Dove, M. R. (2018). From moral ecology to diverse ontologies: Relational values in human ecological research, past and present. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 54– 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust. 2018. 10.021 Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1– 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006 Sheremata, M. (2018). Listening to relational values in the era of rapid environmental change in the Inuit Nunangat. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 75– 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust. 2018.10.017 Smeets, R. (2004). Language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage. Museum International, 56(1– 2), 156– 165. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.13500775.2004.00470.x Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from placebased cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561– 581. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00139 16502 03400 5001 Stenseke, M. (2018). Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 82– 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.025 Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge. Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press. Tarrant, M. A., & Cordell, H. K. (2002). Amenity values of public and private forests: Examining the value– attitude relationship. Environmental Management, 30(5), 692– 703. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. UEMA. (2020). UEMAAtlasa. [EUS] [online]. Retrieved from http://46.226. 108.156/UEMA/atlas.html Urla, J. (1993). Cultural politics in an age of statistics: Numbers, nations, and the making of Basque identity. American Ethnologist, 20(4), 818– 843. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1993.20.4.02a00080 Urla, J. (2012). Reclaiming Basque: Language, nation, and cultural activism. University of Nevada Press. Urla, J., Amorrortu, E., Ortega, A., & Goirigolzarri, J. (2016). Authenticity and linguistic variety among new speakers of Basque. In V. Ferreira & P. Bouda (Eds.), Language documentation and conservation in Europe (pp. 1– 12). University of Hawaii Press. Wallace, K. J., Jago, M., Pannell, D. J., & Kim, M. K. (2021). Wellbeing, values, and planning in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 277, 111447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvm an.2020.111447 West, S., Haider, L. J., Masterson, V., Enqvist, J. P., Svedin, U., & Tengö, M. (2018). Stewardship, care and relational values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 30– 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cosust.2018.10.008 West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S., & Woroniecki, S. (2020). A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 304– 325. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395 916.2020.1814417 Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. Sage. Xamar, J. C. (2018). Etxera Bidean. Pamela. Zabala, A. (2014). Qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(163), 173. https://doi.org/ 10.32614/ RJ2014032 Zabala, A., Pascual, U., & GarcíaBarrios, L. (2017). Payments for pioneers? Revisiting the role of external rewards for sustainable innovation under heterogeneous motivations. Ecological Economics, 135, 234– 245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecole con.2017. 01.011 Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 342 | People and Nature INGLIS et aL. research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185– 1194. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cobi.13123 ZafraCalvo, N., Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Merçon, J., MartínLópez, B., van Noordwijk, M., Mwampamba, T. H., Lele, S., Ifejika Speranza, C., AriasArévalo, P., Cabrol, D., Cáceres, D. M., O'Farrell, P., Subramanian, S. M., Devy, S., Krishnan, S., Carmenta, R., Guibrunet, L., KrausElsin, Y., … Díaz, S. (2020). Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: Insights from the Global South. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen vcha.2020.102115 Zuazo, K. (2019). Standard Basque and its dialects. Routledge. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: Inglis, D., & Pascual, U. (2023). On the links between nature's values and language. People Nature, 5, 326– 342. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10205 25758314, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10205 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License