Incorporating Sociocultural Phenomena into Ecosystem-Service Valuation: The Importance of Critical Pluralism

Riper, Carena J. van; Landon, Amanda J.; Kidd, Sarah; Bitterman, Patrick; Fitzgerald, Lee A.; Granek, Elise F.; Ibarra, Sonia; Iwaniec, David M.; Raymond, Christopher M.; Toledo, David

doi:10.1093/biosci/biw170

Cited by 69 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on Individual values has provided insight into human-wildlife interactions (Vaske and Donnelly 1999), park and protected area management (van Riper and Kyle 2014), and origins of predispositions toward nature (Kellert 1996). Finally, Assigned values are the social aggregations of beliefs (Brown 1984), which are not nested within Individual and Cultural values; rather, they are emergent preferences for landscape qualities such as aesthetics and perceived biodiversity (van Riper et al 2017). Assigned values research encompasses https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss3/art25/ ranking and trade-off analysis (Martín-López et al 2012), spatial assessments of social-ecological systems (Sherrouse et al 2011), and reflexivity achieved through the research process (Palomo et al 2014, Ramirez-Gomez et al 2015.…”

Section: Multiple Levels Of the Value Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework

Riper¹,

Thiel²,

Penker³

et al. 2018

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The social-ecological systems framework has guided investigations of complex interactions among ecosystems, society, and economies. In recent years, academics and practitioners have taken steps to strengthen this framework by calling for more systematic engagement with the cognitive and affective bases of human behavior. We suggest research that engages with multilevel values (i.e., individual, cultural, assigned) will be better positioned to understand how and why people cooperate in natural resource comanagement situations, and in turn, develop more effective strategies for mitigating and adapting to a changing world. We review three conceptualizations of the value concept operating within environmental governance regimes to offer a deeper understanding of how multilevel values fit within the social-ecological systems framework. Drawing on a conceptual model of these relationships, we share results from three example studies that demonstrate how values and governance can be more explicitly integrated in future research. We aim to stimulate a dialogue about the mutual benefits that can emerge from a fuller characterization of the relationship between values and environmental governance to manage for complexities of social-ecological systems.

show abstract

Section: Multiple Levels Of the Value Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework

Riper¹,

Thiel²,

Penker³

et al. 2018

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A range of sociocultural phenomena influence how people value ecosystem services: preferences are the result of how an individual perceives nature's benefits, which in turn is influenced by a variety of internal and external factors (such as core values and social structures) (van Riper et al, 2017). Such preferences can be measured as cultural values that are assigned to particular environmental spaces, that is, places (Garcia-Martin et al, 2017;van Riper & Kyle, 2014;van Riper et al, 2017). In particular, participatory geographic information systems (GIS) is increasingly used as a method to engage stakeholders in the mapping of ecosystem services (Brown & Fagerholm, 2015;Reilly, Adamowski, & John, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying cultural ecosystem services: Disentangling the effects of management from landscape features

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural ecosystem services are undeniably important, yet are typically neglected in land management decisions due to a suite of intractable challenges: they are highly complex, localised, and inextricably associated with landscape features. However, to incorporate the ecosystem services framework into land management, decision‐makers need the tools to disentangle the effects of land use from other factors. This is a major challenge for ecosystem services research. Forestry is a widespread land use that has considerable potential to deliver a broad range of ecosystem services, although this requires careful management planning. Additionally, modern production forestry is undergoing a period of rapid change in the face of a plethora of challenges, such as climate change and disease. To increase cultural ecosystem services delivery from forests, managers need tools to understand the implications of different management options. In this paper, we directly test how land use affects cultural ecosystem services. We use a new approach that recognises the underlying complexity of cultural ecosystem services but produces easily interpretable results that are locally relevant and directly applicable to land management. By combining participatory geographic information systems (GIS) and a novel site matching technique, we relate cultural values explicitly to land management, while accounting for the influence of landscape features. Applying this new method to a major UK forest site, we conducted a large survey to gather participatory GIS data points. We showed that land management significantly affected cultural ecosystem service values and were able to make a series of practical forest management recommendations. Notably, a greater diversity of tree species would improve cultural value, and open space is important within the forest landscape. This approach is highly flexible and can be applied to any type of landscape. It allows cultural ecosystem services to be fully integrated into land management decisions to formulate the best management strategy to maximise ecosystem service delivery. A plain language summary is available for this article.

show abstract

“…Entre los retos a los que se enfrenta el enfoque de SE se destacan: a) la comprensión profunda y holista de las contribuciones más intangibles al bienestar humano (i.e., servicios culturales [Chan et al 2012[Chan et al , 2016van Riper et al 2017]), b) la representación espacial del suministro y consumo de SE por parte de diferentes actores sociales con el fin de informar políticas de manejo y planificación del territorio (Crossman et al 2013;Laterra and Nahuelhual 2015;Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012;Nahuelhual et al 2015;Tallis and Polasky 2009;Viglizzo et al 2012), c) el análisis de los sistemas de gobernanza que favorecen la internalización del enfoque de SE a las políticas públicas, la gestión sustentable de los SE y la distribución justa y equitativa de sus beneficios entre diferentes actores sociales (Bennett et al 2015;Daw et al 2011;Fisher et http://doi.org/10.25260/EA.17.27.1.1.611 al. 2014), y d) las prácticas y tecnologías de manejo para promover la biodiversidad y los SE (Dale and Polasky 2007;Garibaldi et al 2017;Kremen and Miles 2012).…”

Section: Sección Especialunclassified