Abandoning the Concept of Cultural Ecosystem Services, or Against Natural–Scientific Imperialism

Kirchhoff, Thomas

doi:10.1093/biosci/biz007

Cited by 48 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fundamental ontological and epistemological inconsistencies can be expected between how these disciplines conceive of nature and culture versus how these have been conceptualized in ES valuation (c.f. Stålhammar and Pedersen 2017;Kirchhoff 2019). RV has nonetheless (already) contributed to an expansion of disciplinary perspectives in ES valuation, and now provides an opportunity for further cross-fertilization of perspectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three perspectives on relational values of nature

Stålhammar

Thorén

2019

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relational value (RV) has recently been introduced as a third class of values for understanding values of nature and are thought to sit alongside more familiar axiological categories such as instrumental and intrinsic value. The concept has quickly gained ground in and promises to better capture how people and collectives perceive of their wellbeing and make choices that involve the natural world. While the idea of relational value is not without merits, its initial and current conceptualization raises questions about how it relates to existing value concepts. Here, we start from an interdisciplinary perspective and delineate how the concept can contribute to addressing problems in three fields that deal with environmental values in different ways: environmental ethics; ecosystem services valuation; and environmental psychology. We provide an overview of value concepts in each field and show how relational value has been described or applied. Our analysis shows that value concepts are used to solve different problems in the three fields, and these differences have implications for how relational value can be framed and situated in values theory. These differences involve e.g., the descriptive question of how people value nature versus the normative questions of why nature should be valued. We show how the concept can be seen as solving the problem of narrow conceptualizations of intrinsic and instrumental value in ecosystem services valuation and suggest that RV can be conceived of as an epistemological framing rather than a values concept. The concept also has potential to function as a 'boundary object' to provide cross-fertilization of disciplinary perspectives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three perspectives on relational values of nature

Stålhammar

Thorén

2019

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since TEEB (2010), a wider academic and policy debate has been developing concerning how to move beyond a focus on economic values to one that also examines more diverse conceptualisations of values, valuation, and worldviews (Kenter et al 2015;Costanza et al 2017;Arias-Arevalo et al 2018;Braat 2018). This debate has also raised concerns that the ecosystem services framework predominantly focuses on the western, scientific concepts of ecosystem services, and as such often fails to account for the preferences and values associated with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems (Díaz et al 2018;Kirchhoff 2019). In developing its conceptual framework, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' (IPBES) aimed to account for these concerns.…”

Section: Theoretical Traditions In Social Values For Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessments of the value of nature (e.g., TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations, London, 2010) have tended to focus on the instrumental values of ecosystem services. However, recent academic and policy debate have highlighted a wider range of values (e.g., relational and intrinsic values), valuation methods (e.g., socio-cultural methods), and worldviews [e.g., indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems]. To account for these new perspectives, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has developed the concept of 'Nature's contributions to people' (NCP), which aims to be a more inclusive approach to understanding and accounting for the diversity of values held by different stakeholders. In this paper, we aim to critically appraise the merits of the IPBES conceptual framework by reviewing of the findings the IPBES Europe and Central Asia (ECA) assessment. Our objectives are: (1) To review and assess the instrumental and relational values of NCP in Europe and Central Asia? (2) To consider what additional insights into the value of NCP are gained through the inclusion of socio-cultural valuations and ILK? Our analysis demonstrates that the ECA assessment captures a wide range of instrumental and relational values of NCP; however, we acknowledge variation in the availability of this value evidence. We also highlight new insights that can be uncovered through the adoptions of socio-cultural valuation methods and analysis of ILK knowledge. We conclude that the NCP paradigm, with its focus on instrumental and relational values, treats values more holistically than previous assessments such as TEEB (2010). For example, by giving a 'voice' to ILK holders, we demonstrated new types of NCP such as carrion removal, along with evidence of relational values including sense of place, identity, symbolic values and sacredness. While the ECA assessments may be defined as an example of a 'Multiple evidence base' approach to valuation of ecosystem assessments, the ECA assessment fails to demonstrate how to incorporate this wider range of values in decision-making processes.

show abstract

“…At the same time, terminology within the CES space remains unsettled. As scholars have discussed extensively, the term 'Cultural Ecosystem Services' is problematic for multiple nuanced reasons (Raymond et al 2013;Kirchhoff 2019). Each of the words that comprise it carries their own-contested histories and shortcomings within environmental studies and beyond (Raymond et al 2013;Russell et al 2013;Kirchhoff 2019).…”

Section: Part I: Brief Intellectual History Of Cultural Ecosystem Sermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of this comes at a time when some within academia have called for the end of the CES concept (Kirchhoff 2019). The cultural ecosystem services concept has been something of a wayward relative of the larger ecosystem services framework since its inception; CES receive far less scholarly attention than biophysical ES categories, by many measures (Mandle et al In press).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Primary concerns include that the ES framework is too reductionist to effectively account for cultural values (Leyshon 2014); that ES are instrumental values of nature but many CES arise from not-solely-instrumental relationships between and with people and ecosystems (Comberti et al 2015;James 2016); that the focus on ecosystems (rather than pluralistic perceptions of nature, environment, etc.) constitutes scientific imperialism (Kirchhoff 2019); and that the cost-benefit tradeoff approach that pervades much ES work is inappropriate for the meanings and relationships with nature that CES represent (Winthrop 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Looking into the dragons of cultural ecosystem services

Gould

Adams

Vivanco

2020

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural ecosystem services research is in a somewhat tumultuous state. The cultural ecosystem services (CES) idea is seen simultaneously as a welcoming, expansive addition to conservation policy-making and as a strange, square-peg-in-around hole concept that should be replaced by a more appropriate metaphor or conceptual structure. This confluence of interest and skepticism suggests an opportune moment to take stock of CES, both as a concept and growing scholarly field. Here, we focus on dilemmas that characterize and constitute CES as a field of empirical inquiry and practice. We describe five tensions that characterize the field (and mirror tensions in interdisciplinary work more broadly): universalism and antiuniversalism; reductionism and non-reductionism; historical and ahistorical approaches; politicized and depoliticized approaches; and objectivity and situated knowledges. We then suggest five non-mutually-exclusive roles that CES research can (and does) play: The Convener/Illuminator; the Process Police Officer; the Translator; the Revolutionary; and the Policy In-fighter. We provide examples of each tension and role, and posit that clarity and reflexivity may help to make sense of a fertile, if sometimes confusing, interdisciplinary field. Making more sense of, and being more explicit about, the contradictions and contributions of the CES field, can, we suggest, aid decision-makers, CES researchers, and others to better include these values in environmental management.

show abstract

Abandoning the Concept of Cultural Ecosystem Services, or Against Natural–Scientific Imperialism

Cited by 48 publications

References 44 publications

Three perspectives on relational values of nature

Three perspectives on relational values of nature

Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia

Looking into the dragons of cultural ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About