The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation

Pröpper, Michael; Haupts, Felix

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.023

Cited by 57 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it has the potential to meet various recommendations previously made for implementation of the ESF, including resilience, promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration and involvement of stakeholders [11], focus on direct human encounters with ecosystems and attention to both local and off-site effects [43]. Second, the EVF should function well in non-Western cultures (often found in parts of the world of great conservation importance [38]) by downplaying the 'humans vs. nature' [44] and 'cultural vs. material' [36] dualisms typical of Western worldviews and recognising instead how people's cultural identity and well-being may be closely bound up in relationships with the non-human world [10]. Finally, the independent philosophical foundations of the EVF should give confidence in its robustness and universal validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the ubiquitous yet vague 'cultural services' category probably derives from "perceptions of culture as opposed to nature, biased towards globalized Eurocentric leisure-time concepts", etc, reflecting the captivity of Western thought to a dualism of the immaterial and the subjective vs. the material and the objective [36]. It can be argued that all ES, insofar as they motivate conservation, are psycho-socio-culturally mediated [2,34].…”

Section: Valuing Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights •Ecosystem services help itemise how we value natural places, but the concept is not robust.• A more robust framework should focus on aspects of human appreciation of places.• We propose an ecosystem valuing framework with 12 universal aspects of appreciation.• This can be unambiguously complemented by ecological analyses where necessary. AbstractThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is advantageous and widely used for itemising and quantifying ways in which humans benefit from natural places. However, it suffers from two important problems: (i) incoherence of definitions and (ii) a narrow approach to valuation, inadequate to represent the full range of human motives for conservation and the diverse interests of different stakeholders. These shortcomings can lead to a range of problems including doublecounting, blind spots and unintended consequencest. Here we propose an ecosystem valuing framework (EVF) as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems. The flawed genius of ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is a very popular approach to incentivising nature conservation, increasingly used by conservation campaigners and policy makers around the world as well as by scientists contributing to this cause. Its genius is to facilitate a multi-dimensional analysis of the benefits that humans may derive from natural places, allowing a wide range of interests and conservation concerns to be considered and integrated with a broad view of sustainable development 3 and human wellbeing. As such it supports a consequentialist ethic that can be more successful than deontological approaches (see Glossary) in securing consensus and motivating action [1]. However, criticisms of the ESF as a tool for conservation raise doubts about its effectiveness and legitimacy [2,3]. The most controversial issue is probably that of monetisation, as laid out recently by Silvertown [4]. One set of responses to such problems would continue using the ESF as a general tool for assessing habitats while recognising its multilayered structure [5], supervising it to avoid unintended consequences [6], perhaps discouraging monetisation [7], and even attempting to subjugate intrinsic value under the category of services [8]. Yet there are more profound problems with the ESF that call for a radical shift if we wish to contribute to conservation as part of a sustainable development agenda. Two outstanding issues are sufficient, in our opinion, to demand an overhaul of the ESF so radical as to require a new name. First, the definitions do not work. The fact that definitions of 'ecosystem services' (ES) and of specific categories are often vague, tautologous and/or at variance with the concepts actually employed is symptomatic of deep-seated problems, as we shall explain.Second, collapsing multiple human value judgments into one or a few numerical values is a form of devaluation. We unpack this claim by exploring the inescapably cultural foundation of ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Valuing Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cognitions have been relatively neglected and undertheorized in SES research (Jones et al 2016), but scholars are asking questions about the deeper, slower variables in social systems such as identity, core values, and worldviews (Folke et al 2010, Berkes andRoss 2013) that guide and constrain human actions (Adger et al 2009). The need to understand and assess more systematically these variables requires closer engagement with social sciences and humanities (Daniel et al 2012, Brown et al 2013, Pröpper and Haupts 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

Masterson¹,

Stedman²,

Enqvist³

et al. 2017

E&S

330

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. To develop and apply goals for future sustainability, we must consider what people care about and what motivates them to engage in solving sustainability issues. Sense of place theory and methods provide a rich source of insights that, like the socialecological systems perspective, assume an interconnected social and biophysical reality. However, these fields of research are only recently beginning to converge, and we see great potential for further engagement. Here, we present an approach and conceptual tools for how the sense of place perspective can contribute to social-ecological systems research. A brief review focuses on two areas where relation to place is particularly relevant: stewardship of ecosystem services, and responses to change in social-ecological systems. Based on the review, we synthesize specific ways in which sense of place may be applied by social-ecological systems researchers to analyze individual and social behaviors. We emphasize the importance of descriptive place meanings and evaluative place attachment as tools to study the patterned variation of sense of place within or among populations or types of places and the implications for resilience and transformative capacity. We conclude by setting out an agenda for future research that takes into account the concerns of resilience thinking such as the effects of dynamic ecology, interactions between temporal and spatial scales, and the interplay of rapid and incremental change on sense of place and place-related behaviors. This future research agenda also includes concerns from the broader sense of place literature such as the importance of structural power relationships on the creation of place meanings and how scaling up a sense of place may influence pro-environmental behavior.

show abstract

“…This problem has been discussed by several other scholars who indicate that ESs are often interlinked, and so it may be difficult for people to value them separately (Asah et al 2014;Pröpper and Haupts 2014). The collection of food may be important for subsistence, but it may also contribute towards social cohesion.…”

Section: Discussion Linking Use Awareness and Valuation Of Essmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…An improved general awareness of ESs does not necessarily have to lead to a higher appreciation of ESs. Instead, use of and experience with the ecosystem may be more important for the appreciation of certain ESs (Setten et al 2012;Pröpper and Haupts 2014).…”

Section: Discussion Linking Use Awareness and Valuation Of Essmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?

Scholte¹,

Todorova²,

Teeffelen³

et al. 2016

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fostering public support for wetland restoration is essential for long-term sustainable management and use of wetland areas. This paper explores the socio-cultural dimension of wetland restoration, by looking at the importance of wetland ecosystem services for different user groups. We try to better comprehend such values by evaluating the awareness people have of ecosystem services and the direct benefits people obtain from the ecosystems in their surroundings. In addition, we study how the values people assign to ecosystem services are related to wetland restoration attitudes. We identified four perspectives towards wetland restoration, which could partially be explained by corresponding values for ecosystem services: an eco-centric, a cultural, an economic and a negative perspective. To gather public support for wetland restoration it is important to take into account the different motivations people have to support such initiatives.

show abstract

The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation

Cited by 57 publications

References 47 publications

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About