‘I can hear the wind and feel it touch me on the nose’: The search for agency of the environment in the dialogue between human and nature. The case of Austin, TX 35Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.1.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (1) 35–48. Introduction In the 2021 Oscar-winning documentary ‘My Octopus Teacher’, Craig Foster says: “You are in touch with this wild place, and it’s speak- ing to you. Its language is visible”. With these words, Foster points out that not only more than human beings, but also the environment is trying to conduct a kind of dialogue with us. Of course, one may say that these words are a metaphor spoken by a documentary filmmaker and a naturalist. Nevertheless, not only film producers or artists notice that the human-oriented narrative of the world is no longer sufficient to explain the complexity of the relationship between human beings and the biotic and geographic environment (Hall, M. 2011; Castree, N. 2014; Peil, T. 2014; Esco- bar, A. 2019; Adams, P.C. and Kotus, J. 2022). Nowadays, the social construction of nature (Eder, K. 1996; Demeritt, D. 2022) goes be- yond human-centred visions (Stedman, R.C. 2003; Keskitalo, E.C.H. 2023), while recog- nizing the agency of the biotic and geographi- cal environment is an important part of build- ing interspecies interactions on our planet. As a result of these scientific considerations, in recent decades an approach has been es- tablished in social geography in which we are all “living in more-than-human world” (Whatmore, S. 2002, 159; Keskitalo, E.C.H. 2023) and ‘more-than-human cities’ (Luther, E. 2020; Perrotti, D. 2020). Especially cities and their inhabitants seem to be a very inter- esting area of research in this area (Acosta, R. et al. 2023). Adapting Beatley’s term (Beatley, T. 2016), Escobar posits that “Earth has been ‘I can hear the wind and feel it touch me on the nose’: The search for agency of the environment in the dialogue between human and nature. The case of Austin, TX Jacek KOTUS1 Abstract This study explores specific relationships between humans and nature and seeks an extended ‘social construc- tion of nature’ in the direction of place agency. The research assumes that place can be in agented action and a reciprocal relationship with human and non-human beings. The study’s main aim is to identify whether, from the perspective of contemporary city users, a partnership with the biotic and geographical environment is possible both within and outside the city. From this aim arises a research question: Does an inhabitant of a large city realize the possibility of a dialogue involving an ‘exchange of meanings’ between two entities of interaction that are often highly different (human and non-human beings)? The research uses a questionnaire survey (to recognize general quantitative opinion) and in-depth interviews with selected respondents (to look for deeper explanations). Results show that some urban respondents can see some environmental elements (in and out of the city) as agents and can describe the relationship human-environment in case of a reciprocal action called dialogue. Keywords: human, place, dialogue, agency, urban dwellers, Austin, TX Received November 2023, accepted February 2024. 1 Critical Geography Lab, Faculty of Human Geography and Planning, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland. E-mails: jacek.tusko@gmail.com, tatra@amu.edu.pl Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.36 banished from the city” (Escobar, A. 2019, 132), and consequently draws attention to the essence of the debate about the ‘re-earthing of our cities’. Urban biotic and geographic environment “afford individuals relaxation, nature enjoyment and an escape from city life. Perhaps the most significant contribu- tion is to the mental well-being of urban residents” (Budruk, M. et al. 2009, 825). It is true, nevertheless, above all the biotic and ge- ographic environment of urban settlements is an assemblage of more-than-human beings. A narrative about the biotic and geographi- cal environment as ‘a significant other’ and ‘agent’ in relations with humans may be noticed by poets or writers (Thoreau, H.D. 2017; Cavendish, M. 2019), and should be no- ticed by scholars (Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. 2013; Wright, S. et al. 2016; Escobar, A. 2019), but can it also be noticed by ordinary inhabitants in everyday urban life (Pincetl, S. and Gearin, E. 2005) where human-made structures are dominant and human-oriented thinking is permanent? What arguments are used by proponents and opponents of the thesis of dialogue with the biotic and geo- graphical environment? These questions out- line the field of discussion in this article. The specific aim of the research is to iden- tify whether, from the perspective of the contemporary ‘homo urbanus’ (Cribb, J. and Cribb, J. 2017; Carta, M. 2022), a partnership with the biotic and geographical environ- ment is possible both within and outside the city. Does an inhabitant of a large city real- ize the possibility of a dialogue involving an ‘exchange of meanings’ between two, often extremely different (human and non-human beings), entities of interaction (Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 1994; Latour, B. 2014)? To clarify the issues discussed from the perspective of ‘place agency’, I present syn- thetic definitions of basic terms used in the study: place, agency of a place, dialogue with place, and homo urbanus. I understand ‘a place‘ as a real entity consisting of an assemblage of geo-environmental components (parts of rivers, lakes, mountains, forests, or swamps) interacting with non-human beings, humans, and material elements. The place can act on its rights in the context of an extended un- derstanding of agency. ‘The agency of a place’ is an attribute of a place as a non-human be- ing. Agency understood in this way is the ability of a place as a geo-environmental en- tity to make changes and influence human and non-human beings. The place can be in continually agented action called ’A dia- logue with place.’ Such a dialog is a recipro- cal conversation between humans (or non- humans) and place. The concept of dialogue is a metaphorical description of the mutual interactions of two self-determining, agented partners (Bohm, D. 1996). In this understand- ing, dialogue is not an actual conversation but an exchange of meanings between two partners and their transformations under the influence of causative actions. I understand the acceptance of place’s agency as the per- ception of place in dialogue. A dialogue perceived in this way can be dynamic and short-lived, take place over an extended period, or be a form of bilateral re- lationship occurring continuously. In such a dialogue, human entities exercise their agency to change the environment, but envi- ronmental entities also change us and oppose humans, to some extent teaching us and shap- ing our attitudes (Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. 2016). Finally, ‘homo urbanus’ is a person permanently connected with the city: living in it (in my research) or visiting it for rest and leisure. Theoretical background With the drastically deteriorating state of our planet’s biotic and geographical environ- ment, the question of human-nature relation- ships is being asked by a growing number of scholars. It is one of the core issues of debate in many scientific disciplines (Lorimer, J. and Driessen, C. 2014; Schlottmann, Ch. et al. 2017). In the current of geographical debates on nature-human relations, especially in the area of human geography, one can find very different, often extreme, views. This 37Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48. involves different social perspectives on ap- proaches to nature and the role of humans on earth (Callicott, J.B. 1982; Smith, M.J. 2005; Selin, H. 2013; Basak, S.M. et. al. 2022), and the views and profiles of different social entities (Frost, W. 2002; Dono, J. et. al. 2010; Gifford, R. and Sussman, R. 2012; Selin, H. 2013; Majumder, R. et al. 2023). On the one hand, the continuum of discussion is closed by the widely criticized for decades (Cor- reia, D. 2013), very radical and often socially harmful theses referring to the geographi- cal determinism of the 1920s (Huntington, E. 1924; Diamond, J.M. 1999, 2002). On the other hand, there are views that are explicitly human-centred and treat nature functionally and materially (Norgaard, R.B. 2010; Dai- ly, G.C. 2013). In the bracket of these two extreme narratives, we can increasingly find approaches towards human-nature relations that note the symmetrical positions of human and environmental partners, or even environ- mental agency (Mills, W.J. 1982; Hitchings, R. 2003; Carter, B. and Charles, N. 2013, 2018; Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. 2013, 2016; Hovorka, A.J. 2018). So far, the most attention has been paid to human-animal re- lations. Researchers take up various aspects of the issue, from the historical approach (Lorimer, J. and Whatmore, S. 2009) through the relational approach (Lorimer, J. 2010) to the activist approach (Cretan, R. 2015). In recent decades, the geographical dis- cussion has evolved towards the reciprocal coexistence of humans and various animal species. This results in a redefinition of the geography of animals in favour of the more- than-human beings approach (Hovorka, A.J. 2018). The causative approach to the more- than-human world becomes so cognitively crucial that the environmental debate in this context expands to include subjective inter- pretations of other bio and geo-environmen- tal partners (Greenhough, B. 2014). Referring to the tradition of indigenous group research, researchers increasingly pay attention to the agented view of, e.g., places (Boldonova, I. 2016; Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. 2016; Wright, S. et al. 2016). In the context of the dramatic state of our planet, there is no doubt that understand- ing the depth of the human-nature relation- ship becomes a very important activity. Researchers working on this issue write that knowledge: ‘how people think, talk and write about nature is crucial for understanding the diversity of public perceptions of environ- mental issues’ (Andersen, G. et al. 2022). Social researchers use different approaches and methods to study human-nature con- tacts. However, irrespective of the adopted concepts or methods, the upper end of the scale of social attitudes is increasingly being extended, moving towards reciprocal and agency-based human-nature relationships. Buijs, A.E. (2009) looks for three components in his interviews with his subjects: values, be- liefs, and value orientations, which allow him to construct ‘images of nature’. As a result of his research, he formulates five ideal types of images: wilderness image, autonomy im- age, inclusive image, aesthetic image and functional image. The first two types refer to ‘hands-off’ attitudes, the last two are an- thropocentric attitudes. From the perspective of the topic addressed in this paper, the type separating the four categories mentioned above seems most interesting. ‘The inclusive image’ is “firmly based in inclusive notions of nature and culture. Nature and culture are interrelated and mutually dependent and all living beings, including humans, are defined as nature” (Buijs, A.E. 2009, 427). In another study, an international group of researchers (Braito, M.T. et al. 2017) for- mulates three dimensions of human-nature relations and a set of seven social attitude types: master, steward, partner, participant, user, apathy and nature distant guardian. Among the identified social attitudes, we also find distinctly human-oriented types, as well as types that describe a more sym- metrical relationship with nature. Speaking in a slightly different vein, the already cited Anderson, G.K. and colleagues (2022) note that the study of the relationship between human and nature provokes the sketching of a vision of the latter as: ‘fragile patient’ or Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.38 ‘reactive’, ‘autonomous agent’. In particular, the last two terms draw attention to a situ- ation in which the biotic and geographical environment of our planet and human live in one more-than-human world. This line of debate is directly inspired by the research of Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. (2016, 1), who claim that “place and self are co-constituted” and that “place speaks, creates and teaches” us as humans. It is this way of narrating the biotic and geographical environment that became the starting point of the research, the results of which I present in this paper. If we assume that the scale of social attitudes towards na- ture extends between ‘user’ and ‘partner’, the presented results of quantitative and qualitative research attempt to explore and concretize the essence of the human-nature partnership reduced to a mutual exchange of meanings. An exchange that takes the form of a dialogue or conversation. Methodology The research consisted of two phases, both realized in Austin, TX. In the first research activity I conducted a survey in which I asked people living in Austin the question “Is dialogue with non-human beings or objects possible? In this case, dialogue is understood as a kind of exchange of meanings between symmetrically understood partners?” This was a closed question in which respondents were asked to refer to 10 possible dialogue entities. Each time they answered yes or no to the question. A survey questionnaire was completed by 302 adults2. 2 Structure of research group N = 302. By gender: female 54.21%, male 45.79%, transgender 0.66%, non-binary/ non-conforming 0,99%, prefer not to respond 2.98%. By age: 18–24 15.23%, 24–34 22.85%, 35–45 25.83%, 46–55 18.21%, 56–65 9.60%, 66–75 4.30%, over 75 0.99%, prefer not to respond 2.98%. By education: nurs- ery school to 8th grade 0.33%, some high school 8.61%, bachelor’s degree 44.04%, master’s degree 29.14%, doctorate degree 10.93% prefer not to respond 6.95%. Each time, I personally interacted with the respondent and provided them with a QR code that redirected them to the SurveyMonkey website. On this portal, respondents filled in the survey questionnaire digitally, virtually 100 per cent using their smartphone. Out of nearly a thousand QR codes distributed us- ing this method redirecting to the survey at SurveyMonkey, I received 302 returns. In the second phase, I selected 20 citizens of Austin, TX (Table 1) for in-depth interviews from among those who participated in the first phase and agreed to take part in a fur- ther study3. The scenario for in-depth interviews involved asking one initial question around which the subsequent conversation developed. The ques- tion was ‘for what reasons do you imagine that a symmetrical exchange of meaning between you, as a human, and nature is possible or are you convinced that such a dialogue is impos- sible?’. Respondents could choose to meet face to face or via Zoom communications platform. In the text of the article, selected anonymized excerpts from the statements of coded respon- dents are presented. In one case, a third person participated in the interview, in addition to the respondent. This was the respondent’s part- ner, who also spoke from time to time during the interview. Her contribution was used in the analysis and presentation of the citations. Naturally, with the consent of the concerned parties. After conducting 20 interviews, I con- cluded that the interviews had exhausted the question and, in accordance with the principles of qualitative research methodology, I did not select any more respondents (Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985; Sandelowski, M. 1995; Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. 2019). 3 All participants of the study are protected by the code of ethics of scientific research due to rules of project UMO-2018/31/B/HS4/00059. Each participant could withdraw from the study at any stage. The partic- ipants are anonymous; after the recording of the conversation, an anonymous transcription was made, and the recordings were permanently destroyed. 39Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48. The role of nature in the city (not only): Is dialogue with non-human beings possible and how it might proceed? With whom human can have a dialogue? Looking at the answers given by the re- spondents of the quantity survey (Figure 1) it can be seen that: – among the surveyed Austin residents, there is a great deal of empathy and understand- ing for animals as entities that can dialogue with humans in a partnership exchange of meaning; – among the surveyed Austin residents, there is a sizeable – close to 50 percent – realiza- tion that environmental entities such as riv- ers, forces of nature, sand dunes and plants can be partners in dialogue with human; – according to the respondents, among the material entities of dialogue, only AI is a comparably important dialogue partner similar to environmental entities; – the rating of the individual environmental partners that make up the bio-environment and the geo-environment are correlated (Table 2), as are the ratings of the material entities that make up the world of matter (including the digital world). In contrast, there is no clearly significant correlation between the two sets. It can be argued that the social construc- tion of nature from the perspective of the surveyed residents of the Texas capital takes into account attitudes of dialogue (under- stood as an exchange of meanings) between bio-environmental and geo-environmental partners. With only the position of animals in the social assessment of the possibilities for mutual dialogue being very pronounced and differing in the ratings from the other assessed partners. I decided to seek the answer to this ques- tion about the social arguments ‘for’ or ‘against’ through in-depth interviews with selected respondents. Table 1. Encoded profiles of study participants Code/ Person Age Gender Self-declaration of mindset/ thinking Short answers to the question about human - environment dialogue P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16* P17 P18 P19 P20 47 53 35 63 32 34 35 42 52 28 17 29 40 32 34 58 35 52 35 40 Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Male Male Female Male Male artistic/humanistic mindset artistic/humanistic mindset scientific mindset artistic/humanistic mindset – scientific mindset artistic/humanistic mindset – artistic/humanistic mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset artistic/humanistic mindset artistic/humanistic mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset scientific mindset yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes no no no no yes yes Detailed answer** Detailed answer** no yes no *Partnership, the partner actively participated in the conversation. **I start to think about dialogue at the end of that interview. Source: Author’s own research. Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.40 Views of surveyed city dwellers on the possibility of dialogue with the biotic and geographical environment: an in-depth look at the nature of the relationship At the outset, it should be noted that for all my interviewees, the environment, both inside and outside the city, is important. Each inter- viewee considered the biotic and geographical environment to be a necessary world for life and spoke with concern about its state. Many expressed their fascination with what nature in and out of the city can offer human during their encounters. Many of my respondents, even those very sceptical about dialogue with environmental partners, owned a dog or cat. During each conversation, the question was asked about my interviewees’ favourite places in Austin. In most cases, respondents indicated natural areas, describing their posi- tive experiences in Buttercup Creek Forest, Batron Creek or more centrally-located parks such as Zilker or Mayfield Park and Natural Reserve. My interviewees were particularly impressed by the animals they encountered in these places. One interlocutor said: ‘Once we were walking with my entire family when we heard a sound of cracking sticks and we froze in place to start to listen where that sound was coming from and we found a fox, a mama fox that was build- ing some sort of little hatch. We were not sure why it was doing it, until we realized it had two little baby foxes. So, it was building some sort of little hatch for their family. It was amazing.’ (P_20_40_M) During the in-depth interviews, I did not doubt for a moment that the respondents had positive references to nature. And yet, the question about the possibility of dialogue with environmental entities aroused a lot of emotion and provoked different thoughts and answers. Skeptical views: The biotic and geographical environment cannot be the entity of dialogue Nearly half of the 20 interviewees said that nature above all was relaxation and they found it difficult to imagine having any dia- logue with it, apart from the relationship with animals. One interviewee noted: ‘I don’t expect inspiration from an urban natural place. Such places are for me to forget, to calm down, Fig. 1. Dialogue as a kind of exchange of meanings between symmetrically understood partners, in percent (N = 308). Source: Author’s own elaboration. with material objects with digital code with machines with AI with sand dunes with river with forces of nature as wind or rain with place with plants with animals 47.35 54.30 55.30 46.69 43.38 43.05 19.54 71.19 76.16 77.15 22.85 23.84 28.81 44.70 45.70 52.65 53.31 56.62 56.95 80.46 0 10 20 30 5040 60 70 80 90 100 No Yes 41Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48. not to talk. Places are passive and this works the other way around [from place dialogue] in my opinion. In a place such as a park, I don’t need to have any conversation, dialogue. I don’t think about being part of nature, about being in some kind of symbiosis. I rather use nature to relax, to calm down. I can’t im- agine talking with a place, plants or river. The only exception here are animals like dogs or cats. Place is constant, unchanging and that gives me security. But whether it’s dialogue and the place says something, I don’t know. This is just my perception of it. A very subjective situation.’ (P13_41_F) Another respondent spoke in a similar vein: ‘I go there (to the park) just to relax, most of the time I go there in the mornings, before I start my day, so it’s a good way to kind of put me in a good mood to start the day. I just go with an open mind, to see what I find, I’m not looking for anything particular and those are the best ones. Because then the unexpected happens.’ (P_20_40_M) In both of the interviews referenced, re- spondents emphasized that they viewed urban natural areas in Austin as places with a specific function. For them, nature is an important com- ponent of the city space, but it has its utilitarian function of recreation, rest and relaxation. Another interviewee speaks even more un- favourably about the dialogue with nature and its constituent entities: ‘Place or other living organisms can distract me. So maybe they can also talk. But I rather doubt that this is a dialogue. The bustling places, e.g., the 6th Street in Austin, are loud, bustling, lots of people, ads, smells and sounds. I can’t focus my thoughts there and I can’t see the dialogue with myself or the place at all over there. My mind is busy with other stimuli and recognizing them, defining them. Though maybe it is on the 6th Street that the place talks to me – it sends me many signals and I compare them, respond with behaviour, choices, and look for confirmation of those choices in other information from the place. For me in nature there is no clarity of message to which I can respond and interact.’ (P6_34_M) The man allows for the possibility of an interactional relationship with the built en- vironment. According to him, these types of places are overflowing with messages and even provoke an interactional relationship. He himself says he likes to listen to birds singing or the sound of trees or a flowing Ta bl e 2 . C ro ss -c or re la tio n of co rr ela tio n of th e e va lu at io ns o f t he d iff er en t t yp es o f d ia lo gu e* N = 3 02 A ni m al s Pl an ts Pl ac e N at ur al fo rc es : w in d, ra in Ri ve r Sa nd du ne s M ac hi ne s M at er ia l ob je ct s A I D ig ita l co de A ni m al s 1. 00 00 0 0. 49 93 1 0. 41 13 0 0. 34 23 9 0. 40 24 9 0. 38 49 4 0. 20 27 9 0. 18 85 7 0. 27 50 5 0. 17 76 9 Pl an ts 0. 49 93 1 1. 00 00 0 0. 68 29 1 0. 63 40 9 0. 70 24 2 0. 69 00 9 0. 27 24 5 0. 37 75 3 0. 21 67 2 0. 25 10 0 Pl ac e 0. 41 13 0 0. 68 29 1 1. 00 00 0 0. 70 76 1 0. 68 20 6 0. 68 21 7 0. 36 49 7 0. 46 03 9 0. 16 87 8 0. 25 45 1 N at ur al fo rc es : w in d, ra in 0. 34 23 9 0. 63 40 9 0. 70 76 1 1. 00 00 0 0. 82 72 8 0. 76 51 8 0. 37 54 6 0. 44 60 3 0. 18 72 8 0. 28 99 6 Ri ve r 0. 40 24 9 0. 70 24 2 0. 68 20 6 0. 82 72 8 1. 00 00 0 0. 84 33 0 0. 39 82 5 0. 46 86 9 0. 18 57 2 0. 29 71 5 Sa nd d un es 0. 38 49 4 0. 69 00 9 0. 68 21 7 0. 76 51 8 0. 84 33 0 1. 00 00 0 0. 44 39 3 0. 43 49 1 0. 23 14 4 0. 29 79 4 M ac hi ne s 0. 20 27 9 0. 27 24 5 0. 36 49 7 0. 37 54 6 0. 39 82 5 0. 44 39 3 1. 00 00 0 0. 69 87 3 0. 53 10 3 0. 57 06 8 M at er ia l o bj ec ts 0. 18 85 7 0. 37 75 3 0. 46 03 9 0. 44 60 3 0. 46 86 9 0. 43 49 1 0. 69 87 3 1. 00 00 0 0. 38 31 7 0. 54 69 2 A I 0. 27 50 5 0. 21 67 2 0. 16 87 8 0. 18 72 8 0. 18 57 2 0. 23 14 4 0. 53 10 3 0. 38 31 7 1. 00 00 0 0. 55 97 7 D ig ita l c od e 0. 17 76 9 0. 25 10 0 0. 25 45 1 0. 28 99 6 0. 29 71 5 0. 29 79 4 0. 57 06 8 0. 54 69 2 0. 55 97 7 1. 00 00 0 *p < 0 ,0 5. S ou rc e: A ut ho r’s o w n re se ar ch . Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.42 stream, but for him it is a kind of intoxicat- ing sound through which he can immerse himself in his thoughts: ‘Maybe because I’m a stricter and analytical person, I don’t see it on the basis that a place is talking to me. It seems to me more that in such quiet places, with nature, with environment, I am able more to have some kind of dialogue with myself. An internal one.’ (P6_34_M) For him, dialogue with place is the ‘poetic naming’ of a functional relationship with nature in the space of the city, in which, as he says: ‘I can sit back, relax and I can have some thoughts.’ (P6_34_M) A young high school interviewee also responds negatively to the question about opportunities for dialogue with bio-envi- ronmental and geo-environmental partners. Interestingly, this respondent recalls his childhood experience saying: ‘When I was a little kid, I imagined the place was alive. I explored every place in my neighbourhood at that time. It was something unknown and I was kind of opening another door and getting to know this place. This could be such a dialogue. When I was little, I always wanted to climb every hill and see what there was. But can you actually talk to the place or more, to the environment? I don’t think so. I can imagine that kind relations to animals but not for other elements.’ (P11_17_M) In the autobiographical view, the respond- ent points out that he remembers this type of environmental relationship from his child- hood. By getting to know his neighbourhood and areas further away, he was able to feel an interactional relationship. However, he believes this was the result of a childhood imagination that he lost as he grew older. Evolving views: it is rather difficult to imagine a dialogue between environment and human, although... During my interviews, many of those inter- viewed stressed that the topic of dialogue with nature, understood as many different entities, from animals and plants to places and the geographical environment: dunes, rivers or forces of nature, compelled deeper reflection. In two cases, respondents them- selves began to change their minds about dialogue with biotic and geographical en- vironmental entities during the interviews. There was an interesting conversation with a former marine and keen hunter. This was the only interview involving a third party – the respondent’s partner. This person de- clared himself from the beginning to be a sceptic for some kind of in-depth, reciprocal relationship between the entities of nature and himself. The respondent expressed his concern for the environment, but he said: ‘I’m probably not that deep. I’m more of a ‘black and white’ type of human. I look at the sky in my city and think it will rain, there will be a storm, the weather will change. I need to hide from the rain. When I’m at the ocean and I see huge waves I think ‘this is not a good time to swim’. I’m sure it’s no dialogue. It is rather my knowledge. When hunting, I have to watch nature. I have to listen to the silence, pay attention to the signals. To react to what I notice. I don’t call it a conversation or a dialogue. But yes, as I track game, the place tells me a lot. But I wouldn’t call it a dialogue. I recognize the signals. These are feelings and knowledge rather than a conversation. It’s the same in the city. I pay attention to certain signals and draw conclusions.’ (P16_58_M) The sentences about the signals sent by the environment and how to read them pro- voked me to develop this thread. In his story, the interviewee identifies a relationship be- tween himself and the environment based on mutual signals: ‘Yes, more than anything you just listen to. I’ve been in deer stands and you stood there, it’s very quiet and you are waiting for something to change and I don’t call it a dialogue, maybe it’s the same thing, I just call it; you’re just listening with all your senses, more with ears than anything.’ Although he is not sure whether this type of relationship can be called a dialogue. It is, ac- cording to the respondent, the ability to recog- nize certain signs in the environment. At this point, my interviewee’s partner took the floor 43Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48. and tried to look at the story from the perspec- tive of dialogue or conversation by saying: ‘It is dialogue, because you are waiting for some sig- nal, something and then if you see or hear something, then you change and respond to that. Unfortunately, your final answer is hunting them.’ (woman partic- ipate in that IDI) To which the respondent replied: ‘Sometimes no. Sometimes the animal was too close or did something. I kicked him and I said, you win. So, it was like you have an agreement with nature maybe. It’s like okay, I get my shot and missed and you’re free, kind of like a dialogue with an animal rather than with nature, or animal-nature. So maybe you’re right - this is an invisible conversation. I need to think more about this.’ The second respondent who went through an evolution of his views during the inter- view also started with a declaration of nature worship and no chance of any dialogue with place, wind or river: ‘A very difficult question and one answer comes to my mind - no. I find it hard to imagine how a place, river or wind can have a dialogue with a person. I love nature and have been involved with it since childhood. I don’t like anything about the city. If I have to say whether people and places can have a dialogue in the city, then I strongly say no. In cities I like parks, especially the wild ones. I’m happy when I see a turtle, a heron. But is it actually dialogue with place or another element of the natural world? It’s hard for me to imagine. I need green places and I go to the park to satisfy it. Nature makes an impression on me.’ (P17_35_M) The same respondent also doubts a dia- logue between human and nature and wild environment, outside the city: ‘Every person perceives a place differently and it is very subjective. If one place can say something different to everyone, does that mean it speaks dif- ferent dialogues, is in different dialogues? It’s hard for me to imagine.’ Although, when asked further about his experience of diverse relationships with the environment, he begins to cite examples that are nowhere near as clear-cut as his skeptical declarations: ‘Hm... once when I drove through the desert in Arizona, I had an impression of the vastness of space, the great impact of physical spatiality on my mind. Huge reserves of empty space. I might even call it a mystical experience. And there are a lot of these grand-scale places here in the States that make impressions on people. But is it a dialogue? Perhaps it is indeed an encounter with nature - dialogue with some natural forces or beings. I’m driving and suddenly I have to react, think about something else. Something tells me to react. It is an interesting and amazing conclusion for me’. Both respondents also declared themselves to have scientific mindset. However, in the course of the conversations they had with themselves, they noticed that they were becoming convinced of a different point of view. Perhaps they did not even change their minds about their relationship to the envi- ronment or their perception of the environ- ment as much as they began to look deeper, differently at the environment itself. Above all, on a diverse entity, made up of different entities. Secondly, the entity self-determines and compels them to respond as people. Approval views: nature can be and is a biotic and geographical dialogue partner Slightly more than half of my interviewees agreed from the outset that dialogue with na- ture or its biological and geographical com- ponents is not only possible, but takes place continuously and independently of us hu- mans. In their stories, they highlighted spe- cific examples where they see such dialogue and, somewhat contrary to my expectations, these were not examples focusing on the rela- tionship with animals. One respondent said: ‘When I am at the seaside I always have to go into the water, even if only for a moment. When I leave, I have to come to the seaside and say goodbye. If I stand on wet sand, I can feel the waves hitting my legs with varying degrees of intensity. I feel a living planet. And in this place, there can actually be a dialogue, and a materialized, concrete one at that. Maybe it’s because you feel the immediate reaction of the water in this case, the water splashing, pushing. In built places, in the city? I think it’s more difficult here.’ (P8 42_F) Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.44 The respondent actually chose a very dy- namic example that vividly illustrates the point of dialogue with the biotic and geo- graphical environment. It is not about con- versation or the communicative exchanges of ideas we know from social interaction. In the case of the respondent’s relationship, the dialogue with the sea or with the place takes place as an exchange of meanings and agency between the two subjects of the re- lationship. Some respondents made the dialogue re- lationship with environmental entities de- pendent on the characteristics of the human partner. The respondents pointed out that the perception of dialogue depends on the sensitivity, the perception of the world, the personality of the person, but also on the demographic or social profiles of the per- son, e.g., where they live or grew up. One respondent excerpted it this way: ‘It depends on the sensitivity of the person – to being able to talk to a place. If you spend a lot of time in nature you can read it and you penetrate those first layers. And then I can imagine the dialogue. I see a partner and I understand it. It’s probably similar in the city. I think that reminds me of how the level of your relationship with nature has to do with how much time you spend in it. And if you live in a city, where you are not able to do that as much, then it’s harder to develop that without ever experiencing it. You have people that maybe grow up in a way where they are really good at tracking and watching signs in nature for what has happened, what animals were just through here and they have a deeper sense of communicating with nature and understanding their surroundings. I guess that’s what it means to me.’ (15_34_F) Naturally, the term ‘dialogue with nature’ is a certain semantic simplification. The es- sence is the range of meaning behind the phrase and the kind of partnership with the environment and the recognition of its self- determining qualities. One respondent did not talk about dialogue but interaction: ‘I guess between me and environment is kind of interaction. I feel welcomed and my interaction with the area depending on which park or which section of the park I am at, or who is with me, might determine which area I am going to go and enjoy. If it’s raining and I’m out there with the dogs, we tear a path up because it’s just mud and we walk around, if there’s animals out, you can interact with them, I don’t know if that’s a dialogue with environment, place, plants, but there’s deer and it can be dialogue with this animal. So, dogs can chase the deer, go around and stuff.’ (P19_35_M) The mechanism of the processes behind these terms converge. It is a kind of agency- based activity of the partner that forces a reflection or even a conscious change in be- haviour, views and attitudes. One respond- ent explicitly calls this an ‘exchange of mean- ings’: ‘Since we are talking about Barton Springs and just having a day there when the weather is nice, every- thing is going well, just being thankful or having a sense of thanks towards the weather, experience, the atmosphere, and surroundings. To me, that’s kind of like having a conversation with the environment. The appreciation of it, acknowledging it when you are still within the experience, not later on. I can see how, translation wise, it can be a little bit difficult. Maybe the conversation is not the right words but an exchange of meanings or being in touch with nature.’ (P18_52 _F) One respondent recounts how her dia- logue with the natural environment in the city takes place: ‘In the city, the water talks to me, like another person. Water makes different sounds, and they are a repre- sentation of the state of the environment. (P7_35_F). Conclusions I wondered whether residents of a large city are able to think of the biotic and geographi- cal environment as active partners in dia- logue. The completed survey revealed sur- prisingly positive public attitudes towards animals (Basak, S.M. et. al. 2022). I must honestly admit that, knowing the reality of what has been happening for decades, the extermination of more animal species and the destruction of the environment on our planet, I feared that the opinions and views of the respondents would not be so positive. When evaluating the human-animal conver- 45Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48. sational relationship, respondents clearly de- clare the possibility of dialogue understood as a symmetrical exchange of meanings be- tween different beings. The number of posi- tive indications, accepting environmental dialogue with partners other than animals, is lower, but still surprisingly positive (An- derson, G.K. et al. 2022). In my opinion, the respondents’ positive attitude towards interpreting the relationship with environ- mental entities such as animals, but also riv- ers, plants, forces of nature or sand dunes as a dialogue is a very important signal of a change in human thinking about the envi- ronment (Buijs, A.E. 2009; Beatley, T. 2016; Braito, M.T. et al. 2017; Escobar, A. 2019). Perhaps such positive opinions and atti- tudes are related to the fact that the survey was conducted among residents of Austin, TX. The residents of Texas’ capital city are regarded as a pro-environment community, and they emphasized this very often in pri- vate conversations with me during my re- search stay. The city itself was ranked very high, 10th in 2020, in the ‘Most Dog-Friendly Cities in America’4. In this respect, the ‘city- dweller-nature’ environmental relations study carried out in Austin can be linked to the identification of pro-environmental at- titudes among a very mature community. Nevertheless, the answers to the posed ques- tion can still be interpreted in the context of the ability of contemporary ‘homo urbanus’ to build conversational relationships with environmental entities. The general questionnaire survey was deepened in interviews. From the interviews, it appears that a very important factor shap- ing the views held by my interviewees to- wards the human-nature relationship is a certain subjective level of empathy towards the environment. Supporters of the human- nature dialogue thesis point out that they have an artistic, humanistic and emotionally sensitive personality. They are able to look at the environment around them outside the 4 https://smartasset.com/mortgage/most-dog-friendly- cities-in-america-2020 usual patterns and express these emotions in conversation. They have a kind of in-depth reflection on the biotic and geographical en- vironment. At the same time, they very ra- tionally point to those situations or events that can testify to the reality of human-nature dialogue, e.g., contact with sea waves or ob- servation of vegetation over time. Very often, opponents of a peer and con- versational view of the environment say that park areas are areas of relaxation and rec- reation for them. They do not look at urban green spaces as an accumulation of living biological organisms and subject to the pro- cesses of natural forces, but as a functional design created by human for human. One of the younger interviewees indicat- ed that as a child he was able to imagine a dialogue with a place or environment. Now, however, years later, he looks at it differ- ently. This may suggest that in the process of education and socialization, instead of developing our competences of respecting other entities that make up the more-than- human world, we lose these skills and ac- quire beliefs specific to the Western World. We become human-oriented beings in the social process and we have lost awareness that we live among other living beings and geo-environmental entities. Summarizing the considerations and findings in this paper, it can be concluded that our planet – the Earth – is a living or- ganism. It is not just a metaphor, but a fact based on biological, geographical, chemical and physical evidence. This living organism co-creates a network of agency-centred links between different biotic and geographical en- tities. One of them is that the human species is shaped and equipped in this way, not in any other way. Recognizing that we are im- mersed in nature and co-creating (or destroy- ing) it. It’s a matter of being socially open to the environment and redefining its narrative by ourselves. In my opinion, changing the perception of non-human nature is the first step to understanding that other bio and geo- environmental entities can have their own agency in action. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/most-dog-friendly-cities-in-america-2020 https://smartasset.com/mortgage/most-dog-friendly-cities-in-america-2020 Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.46 Study limitations In-depth interviews were intended to clarify the opinions contained in the questionnaire survey. Quality research on a larger scale should consider differences in gender, age, and education and be with representatives of different geographical regions, cultures, and ethnic origins. However, large-scale quali- tative research is expensive and requires a large team of researchers or a long-time approach. My research includes residents of the capitol of the Texas. They are instead a voice in the discussion rather than evidence confirming particular hypotheses. Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Polish National Science Centre, grant number UMO-2018/31/B/HS4/00059 and the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange, grant number PPN/ BEK/2019/1/00026/DEC/1. I would like to thank Magdalena Szatanik-Boudni for organizing the field research in Austin, TX. REFERENCES Acosta, R., Adedeji, J.A., Barua, M., Gandy, M., Gora, L.S. and Schlichting, K.M. 2023. Thinking with urban natures. Global Environment 16. (2): 177–121. https://doi.org/10.3197/ge.2023.160202 Adams, P.C. and Kotus, J. 2022. Place dialogue. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 47. (4): 1090–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12554 Andersen, G., Fløttum, K., Carbou, G. and Gjesdal, A.M. 2022. People’s conceptions and valua- tions of nature in the context of climate change. Environmental Values 31. (4): 397–420. https://doi. org/10.3197/096327121X16328186623850 Basak, S.M., Hossain, M.S., O’Mahony, D.T., Okarma, H., Widera, E. and Wierzbowska, I.A. 2022. Public perceptions and attitudes toward urban wildlife encounters – A decade of change. Science of the Total Environment 834. 155603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2022.155603 Beatley, T. 2016. Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design. Washington, Island Press. https://doi. org/10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9 Bohm, D. 1996. On Dialogue. London, Routledge. Boldonova, I. 2016. Environmental hermeneutics: Ethnic and ecological traditions in aesthetic dia- logue with nature. Journal of Landscape Ecology 9. (1): 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlecol-2016-0002 Braito, M.T., Böck, K., Flint, C., Muhar, A., Muhar, S. and Penker, M. 2017. Human-nature relation- ships and linkages to environmental behaviour. Environmental Values 26. (3): 365–389. https://doi. org/10.3197/096327117X14913285800706 Budruk, M., Thomas, H. and Tyrrell, T. 2009. Urban green spaces: A study of place attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Society and Natural Resources 22. (9): 824–883. https://doi. org/10.1080/08941920802628515 Buijs, A.E. 2009. Lay people’s images of na- ture: Comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources 22. (5): 417–432. https://doi. org/10.1080/08941920801901335 Callicott, J.B. 1982. Traditional American Indian and Western European attitudes toward nature: An overview. Environmental Ethics 4. (4): 293–318. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1982443 Carta, M. 2022. Homo Urbanus. Rome, Donzelli Editore. Carter, B. and Charles, N. 2013. Animals, agency and resistance. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 43. (3): 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12019 Carter, B. and Charles, N. 2018. The animal challenge to sociology. European Journal of Social Theory 21. (1): 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431016681305 Castree, N. 2014. Making Sense of Nature. New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203503461 Cavendish, M. 2019. Of many worlds in this world. In Margaret Cavendish. Ed.: Robbins, M., Kindle Edition, New York, Review Books Poets, 42. Correia, D. 2013. F**k jared diamond. Capitalism Nature Socialism 24. (4): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10455752.2013.846490 Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. 2019. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. London, SAGE. Cretan, R. 2015. Mapping protests against dog cull- ing in post-communist Romania. Area 47. 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12155 Cribb, J. and Cribb, J. 2017. The Urbanite (Homo Urbanus). Surviving the 21st Century: Humanity’s Ten Great Challenges and How We can Overcome Them. Berlin, Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-41270-2 Daily, G.C. 2013. Nature’s services: societal depend- ence on natural ecosystems. In The Future of Nature. Eds.: Robin, L., Sörlin, S. and Warde, P., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300188479-039 Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 1994. What is Philosophy? New York, Columbia. Demeritt, D. 2002. What is the ‘social construction of nature’? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography 26. (6): 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph402oa https://doi.org/10.3197/ge.2023.160202 https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12554 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121X16328186623850 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121X16328186623850 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155603 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155603 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155603 https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9 https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9 https://doi.org/10.1515/jlecol-2016-0002 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14913285800706 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14913285800706 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802628515 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802628515 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802628515 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801901335 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801901335 https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1982443 https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1982443 https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12019 https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431016681305 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203503461 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490 https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12155 https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12155 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41270-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41270-2 https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300188479-039 https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph402oa https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph402oa 47Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48. Diamond, J.M. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York, W.W. Norton & Co. Diamond, J.M. 2002. Evolution, consequences and fu- ture of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418. (6898): 700–707. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01019 Dono, J., Webb, J. and Richardson, B. 2010. The relationship between environmental activism, pro- environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30. (2): 178–186. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006 Eder, K. 1996. The Social Construction of Nature: A Sociology of Ecological Enlightenment. London, SAGE. Escobar, A. 2019. Habitability and design: Radical interdependence and the re-earthing of cities. Geoforum 101. 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2019.02.015 Frost, W. 2002. Did they really hate trees? Attitudes of farmers, tourists and naturalists towards nature in the rainforests of eastern Australia. Environment and History 8. (1): 3–19. https://doi. org/10.3197/096734002129342576 Gifford, R. and Sussman, R. 2012. Environmental attitudes. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Ed.: Clayton, S.D., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 65–80. https:// doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0004 Greenhough, B. 2014. More-than-human geographies. In The SAGE Handbook of Human Geography. Eds.: Lee, R. et al., London, SAGE, 94–119. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446247617.n6 Hall, M. 2011. Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany. Albany, NY, SUNY Press. Hitchings, R. 2003. People, plants and perfor- mance: On actor network theory and the mate- rial pleasures of the private garden. Social & Cultural Geography 4. (1): 99–114. https://doi. org/10.1080/1464936032000049333 Hovorka , A.J. 2018. Animal geographies II: Hybridizing. Progress in Human Geography 42. (3): 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517699924 Huntington, E. 1924. Geography and natural selection. A preliminary study of the origin and develop- ment of racial character. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 14. (1): 1–16. https://doi. org/10.1080/00045602409356890 Keskitalo, E.C.H. 2023. Rethinking Nature Relations: Beyond Binaries. London, Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035306336 Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. 2013. A Deeper Sense of Place: Stories and Journeys of Collaboration in Indigenous Research. Corvallis, Oregon State University Press. Larsen, S.C. and Johnson, J.T. 2016. The agency of place: Toward a more-than-human geographical self. GeoHumanities 2. (1): 149–166. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003 Latour, B. 2014. Agency at the time of the Anthropocene. New Literary History 45. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1353/ nlh.2014.0003 Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. London, SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147- 1767(85)90062-8 Lorimer, J. 2010. Elephants as companion species: The lively biogeographies of Asian elephant con- servation in Sri Lanka. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35. (4): 491–506. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x Lorimer, J. and Driessen, C. 2014. Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking environ- mentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39. (2): 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12030 Lorimer, J. and Whatmore, S. 2009. After the ‘king of beasts’: Samuel Baker and the embodied his- torical geographies of elephant hunting in mid- nineteenth-century Ceylon. Journal of Historical Geography 35. (4): 668–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhg.2008.11.002 Luther, E. 2020. Between Bios and Philia: Inside the politics of life-loving cities. Urban Geography 44. (10): 2080–2097. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638. 2020.1854530 Majumder, R., Plotkina, D. and Rabeson, L. 2023. Environmentally responsible values, attitudes and behaviours of Indian consumers. Environmental Values 32. (4): 433–468. https://doi.org/10.3197/096 327122X16611552268645 Mills, W.J. 1982. Metaphorical vision: Changes in Western attitudes to the environment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 72. (2): 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1982.tb01822.x Norgaard, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69. (6): 1219–1227. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 Peil, T. 2014. The spaces of nature: Introduction. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96. (1): 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12034 Perrotti, D. 2020. Toward an agentic understand- ing of the urban metabolism: A landscape theory perspective. Urban Geography 43. (1): 1–19. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1848760 Pincetl, S. and Gearin, E. 2005. The reinvention of public green space. Urban Geography 26. (5): 365–384. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.5.365 Sandelowski, M. 1995. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health 18. 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211 Schlottmann, Ch., Jamieson, D., Jerolmack, C., Rademacher, A. and Damon, M. 2017. Environment and Society: A Reader. New York, NY University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ht4vw6 Selin, H. (ed.) 2013. Nature across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures. Vol. 4. Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2700-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.015 https://doi.org/10.3197/096734002129342576 https://doi.org/10.3197/096734002129342576 https://doi.org/10.3197/096734002129342576 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0004 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0004 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0004 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247617.n6 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247617.n6 https://doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000049333 https://doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000049333 https://doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000049333 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517699924 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517699924 https://doi.org/10.1080/00045602409356890 https://doi.org/10.1080/00045602409356890 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035306336 https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003 https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003 https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003 https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0003 https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0003 https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12030 https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2008.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2008.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2008.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1854530 https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1854530 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327122X16611552268645 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327122X16611552268645 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327122X16611552268645 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1982.tb01822.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12034 https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1848760 https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1848760 https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.5.365 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ht4vw6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2700-7 Kotus, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 35–48.48 Smith, M.J. 2005. Thinking through the Environment: A reader . London, Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203984451 Stedman, R.C. 2003. Is it really just a social construc- tion? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources 16. (8): 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309189 Thoreau , H .D. 2017 . Walden : L i f e in th e Woods . Layton, Gibbs Smith. https://doi. org/10.12987/9780300128048 Whatmore, S. 2002. Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces. Newbury Park, SAGE. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446219713 Wright, S. Suchet-Pearson, S. , Lloyd, K., Burarrwanga, L., Ganambarr, R., Ganambarr- Stubbs, M., Ganambarr, B., Maymuru, D. and Sweeney, J. 2016. Bawaka Country. Co-becoming Bawaka: Towards a relational understanding of place/space. Progress in Human Geography 40. (4): 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515589437 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203984451 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203984451 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309189 https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300128048 https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300128048 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219713 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219713 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515589437 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin Vol 73 Issue 1 (2024) Jacek KOTUS: ‘I can hear the wind and feel it touch me on the nose’: The search foragency of the environment in the dialogue between human and nature.The case of Austin, TX