Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement

Abstract

The construction of culture as a class of ecosystem service presents a significant test of the holistic ambitions of an ecosystems approach to decision making. In this paper we explore the theoretical challenges arising from efforts to understand ecosystems as objects of cultural concern and consider the operational complexities associated with understanding how, and with what consequences, knowledge about cultural ecosystem services are created, communicated and accounted for in real world decision making. We specifically forward and develop a conceptual framework for understanding cultural ecosystem services and related benefits in terms of the environmental spaces and cultural practices that arise from interactions between humans and ecosystems. The types of knowledge, and approaches to knowledge production, presumed by this relational, non-linear and place-based perspective on cultural ecosystem services are discussed and reviewed. The framework not only helps navigate more fully the challenge of operationalising ‘cultural ecosystem services’ but points to a more relational understanding of the ecosystem services framework as a whole. Extending and refining understanding through more ambitious engagements in interdisciplinarity remains important

Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats

“…It is clear that the evaluation of CES involves more complexity than the application of a single assessment method can aim to resolve. Moving forwards, use of the conceptual framework developed by Fish et al (2016) to engage with CES using pluralistic methodologies whilst maintaining interdisciplinarity could provide the means to critically evaluate the complex interactions between humans and ecosystems.…”

“…In part, the methodological challenges of assessing CES values stem from conceptual uncertainty regarding the nature of CES, and how the provision of these benefits is related to the characteristics and condition of ecosystems (Fish et al 2016). In many studies, socio-cultural values are assumed to be linked to ecological functions and structures, yet this may obscure conflicts regarding the conflation of 'nonmaterial' values with more tangible benefits of CES (Stålhammar and Pedersen 2017).…”

“…This would fail to capture the full value of places to people's lives, including historical, political, mythic and spiritual values. Furthermore, the processes and characteristics that underpin provision of CES may be difficult to observe and measure, and may not directly be linked with features of ecosystems that can be readily assessed (Fish et al 2016).…”

“…As a result of such issues, the valuation of CES presents a significant challenge to achieving a genuinely holistic ecosystems approach to decisionmaking (Fish et al 2016). The under-representation of CES in ecosystem service assessments could potentially lead to biases in landscape planning and management, in which the needs of users of a particular area are neglected (Hernández-Morcillo et al 2013).…”

Establishment and Application of Wetlands Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Ecological Evaluation Indicators

“…Ecosystem service (ES) assessments have traditionally focused on identifying the individual monetary values for each ecosystem service [12,13]. However, the lack of theoretical frameworks has led to subjective judgments and criticisms [14][15][16]. The integration of deliberate and non-monetary valuation approaches to ES valuations has increasingly been advocated as a way of revealing the wider value concepts.…”