Valuing ecological systems and services

Costanza, Robert; Kubiszewski, Ida; Ervin, David E.; Bluffstone, Randall; Boyd, James; Brown, Darrell; Chang, Heejun; Dujon, Veronica; Granek, Elise F.; Polasky, Stephen; Shandas, Vivek; Yeakley, J. Alan

doi:10.3410/b3-14

Cited by 97 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment definition of cultural ecosystem services has been criticized because it does not clearly separate, based on their connectedness to the welfare of human beneficiaries, between the above notions of services, benefits, and values (see Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Chan et al 2012. Cultural ecosystem services are frequently dependent on intermediate ecosystem services (Fisher et al 2009, Johnston andRussell 2011), and cultural benefits derive from final cultural ecosystem services combined with other forms of capital (Chan et al 2011, Constanza et al 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Milcu¹,

Hanspach²,

Abson³

et al. 2013

E&S

705

431

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Cultural ecosystem services constitute a growing field of research that is characterized by an increasing number of publications from various academic disciplines. We conducted a semiquantitative review of publications explicitly dealing with cultural ecosystem services. Our aims were: (1) to provide an overview of the current state of research, (2) to classify the diversity of research approaches by identifying clusters of publications that address cultural ecosystem services in similar ways, and (3) to highlight some important challenges for the future of cultural ecosystem services research. We reviewed 107 publications and extracted 20 attributes describing their type and content, including methods, scales, drivers of change, and trade-offs between services. Using a cluster analysis on a subset of attributes we identified five groups of publications: Group 1, conceptual focus, deals with theoretical issues; Group 2, descriptive reviews, consists mostly of desktop studies; Group 3, localized outcomes, deals with case studies coming from different disciplines; Group 4, social and participatory, deals mainly with assessing preferences and perceptions; and Group 5, economic assessments, provides economic valuations. Emerging themes in cultural ecosystem services research relate to improving methods for cultural ecosystem services valuation, studying cultural ecosystem services in the context of ecosystem service bundles, and more clearly articulating policy implications. Based on our findings, we conclude that: (1) cultural ecosystem services are well placed as a tool to bridge gaps between different academic disciplines and research communities, (2) capitalizing on the societal relevance of cultural ecosystem services could help address real-world problems, and (3) cultural ecosystem services have the potential to foster new conceptual links between alternative logics relating to a variety of social and ecological issues.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Milcu¹,

Hanspach²,

Abson³

et al. 2013

E&S

705

431

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Ecosystem Services (ES) framework, as adopted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) process of the United Nations (1), has emerged as a formal approach to describe and categorize the relationship between ecosystems and society (2-4), and it is widely accepted within the international environmental science and policy communities (e.g., [5][6][7][8][9].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

Daniel

Muhar

Arnberger

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

1,164

748

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.natural capital | scenic beauty | cultural landscapes | tourism | spiritual value

show abstract

“…In this regard, many practices have been proposed in conservation education to facilitate a re-connection between nature and young digitally dependent people (Wilson, 2012). Following a specific case study, we suggest in this commentary that, at least in some specific circumstances, non-native invasive species may have a paradoxical and positive impact in conservation education strategies, playing a role as an experiential tool, which represents a cultural ecosystem service (Costanza et al, 2011), i.e. an ecosystem service that produces cultural benefits by improving PEB in young generations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-native invasive species as paradoxical ecosystem services in urban conservation education

Battisti¹,

Fanelli

Bertolino

et al. 2018

Web Ecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Many practices have been proposed in conservation education to facilitate a re-connection between nature and the young digital generation in anthropized contexts. In this paper we suggest that, at least in some specific circumstances (urban and suburban areas), non-native invasive species may have a paradoxical and positive impact in conservation education strategies, playing a role as an experiential tool, which represents a cultural ecosystem service, i.e. an ecosystem service that produces cultural benefits by improving pro-environmental behaviours in young people.

show abstract

Valuing ecological systems and services

Cited by 97 publications

References 24 publications

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

Non-native invasive species as paradoxical ecosystem services in urban conservation education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About