Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework

Abstract

In a recent issue of PNAS, Daniel et al. (1) attempted to advance the integration of cultural values and cultural ecosystem services (ES) into the ES framework. Although I agree with the authors that cultural values are of eminent importance, I see two flaws in their argument.The range of cultural values correlating to ecological structures and functions is much more limited than they claim. Many cultural values attaching to the natural/cultivated environment cannot be addressed in this way. An area's appropriateness for recreational activities like fishing or walking can be assessed in this way, but not its value with respect to feelings of belonging, cultural heritage, and other symbolic meanings. These essentially rely on an area's unique character; thus, only an increase in characteristic elements will augment a landscape's cultural value, whereas addition of uncharacteristic ones will diminish it. This value can be assessed only through hermeneutic approaches that determine how far an actual landscape reflects the idea of this landscape and that judge how far the given arrangement corresponds to the specific meaningful scenery expected in this geographical region by the users (2, 3). Because the assessment of elements and their arrangement relates to this specific idea, parameters cited by the authors like "species richness," "habitat diversity," and "percentage of green trees retained" are inappropriate. Although each landscape may be identifiable by a combination of general parameters, these are not suited to operationalize the assessment of its cultural meanings and values (as is true for, say, Thomas Cole's paintings).If a natural/cultivated environment has symbolic meanings, and thus is associated with emotions and moods, ecosystems are typically neither the object of these values nor do they contribute significantly to them. Ecosystems consist of an ecological community and its abiotic environment, which, together, form a system of causally interacting components. However, the objects of cultural meanings in this regard are neither ecosystems nor complexes of ecosystems but shaped phenomena like mountains, lakes, forests, and symbolic landscapes (4, 5). A lake's shimmering surface that invites us to contemplation is not an ecological object. Landscapes are basically life-worldly aesthetic unities with symbolic meanings, arrangements of symbolic objects but not systems of interacting biophysical objects. Similarly, the sense of a poem results from a meaningful arrangement of words and not from a pattern of ink on paper. Instrumental and cultural values of nature adhere to categorically different objects: the former to ecosystems and the latter to aesthetic-symbolic objects. Wood and roses are both products of ecosystems; however, although the instrumental values of wood result from properties produced by nature, this is not true of the cultural value of roses in the US national floral emblem. Admittedly, ecosystems produce the plants and animals that we perceive as parts of landscapes; however, the ob...

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Critical Assessment

“…For example, landscape photographers are able to derive inspiration from wetlands only because they are able to situate their work in relation to a specific aesthetic tradition -one in which wetlands are regarded as aesthetically valuable (cf. Kirchoff 2012). I will consider the tricky question of what exactly provides cultural services in Section 2.…”

“…5 woodland glades. Ecosystems tend to be too remote from experience to qualify as the providers of cultural services (Kirchoff, 2012).…”

Landscape experiences as a cultural ecosystem service in a Nordic context

“…Landscape experience is conditioned by culture. As pointed out by Kirchhoff (2012), the value of certain scenery will be related to the degree to which it corresponds with certain symbolic meanings attributed to it (or elements within it) by different types of users. In the Scandinavian anthropological literature we may distinguish between three basic attitudes towards nature in Scandinavia (Vacher 2011, Ween and Abram 2012, Ween and Lien 2012.…”

“…Note that after the publication by Daniel et al (2012) Kirchhoff (2012) wrote a letter where he argued that cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ES framework, illustrated by the statement that "the sense of a poem results from a meaningful arrangement of words and not from a pattern of ink on the paper". Daniel et al (2012) disagreed in principle that cultural values where disconnected from ecological and physical structures/attributes and argued that whether there are such links (and how strong they are) is an empirical question.…”

Reply to Kirchhoff: Cultural values and ecosystem services

“…We thank Thomas Kirchhoff (1) for agreeing that cultural values are important. As is explicit in our paper (2), we also agree that not all cultural values can be fit into the ecosystems services framework; however, we chose to focus on those that can.…”