Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.natural capital | scenic beauty | cultural landscapes | tourism | spiritual value

No abstract

Ecosystems provide many of the material building blocks for human well-being. Although quantification and appreciation of such contributions have rapidly grown, our dependence upon cultural connections to nature deserves more attention. We synthesize multidisciplinary peerreviewed research on contributions of nature or ecosystems to human well-being mediated through nontangible connections (such as culture). We characterize these connections on the basis of the channels through which such connections arise (i.e., knowing, perceiving, interacting with, and living within) and the components of human well-being they affect (e.g., physical, mental and spiritual health, inspiration, identity). We found enormous variation in the methods used, quantity of research, and generalizability of the literature. The effects of nature on mental and physical health have been rigorously demonstrated, whereas other effects (e.g., on learning) are theorized but seldom demonstrated. The balance of evidence indicates conclusively that knowing and experiencing nature makes us generally happier, healthier people. More fully characterizing our intangible connections with nature will help shape decisions that benefit people and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many conservation plans remain unimplemented, in part because of insufficient consideration of the social processes that influence conservation decisions. Complementing social considerations with an integrated understanding of the ecology of a region can result in a more complete conservation approach. We suggest that linking conservation planning to a social–ecological systems (SES) framework can lead to a more thorough understanding of human–environment interactions and more effective integration of social considerations. By characterizing SES as a set of subsystems, and their interactions with each other and with external factors, the SES framework can improve our understanding of the linkages between social and ecological influences on the environment. Using this framework can help to identify socially and ecologically focused conservation actions that will benefit ecosystems and human communities, and assist in the development of more consistent evidence for evaluating conservation actions by comparing conservation case studies.

No abstract