Author contributions: T.C.D., A.M., A.A., O.A., J.W.B., K.M.A.C., R.C., T.E., C.G.F., P.H.G., A.G.-R., R.L., S.M., M.P., R.G.R., T. Schauppenlehner, T. Sikor, I.S., M.S., K.T., J.T., and A.v.d.D. wrote the paper.
See "Reply to Kirchhoff: Cultural values and ecosystem services" in volume 109 on page E3147.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.
Keywords: natural capital, scenic beauty, cultural landscapes, tourism, spiritual valueVarious ideologies have historically reflected and guided human attitudes and actions toward the natural environment, including humans as conquerors and dominators of nature, as beneficiaries of nature, and as stewards of nature. 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 –9).
ESs arise when an ecological structure (e.g., wood fiber) or function (e.g., filtering function of vegetation and soils) directly or indirectly contributes toward meeting a human need or want. Such services (e.g., provision of clean drinking water) generate benefits (e.g., improved human health) that contribute to overall well-being. In ecological economics (e.g., 5), human benefits derive from the combination of natural capital (a stock of ecosystems “that do not require human activity to build or maintain” that yields a flow of goods and services) along with built, social, and human capital, with ES being defined by the relative contribution of natural capital. The ES framework extends prior models by expanding the focus from individual resources to the full array of contributions ecosystems make to human well-being and by better recognizing the interconnectedness of ecosystems across the broad temporal and spatial scales over which ecosystems and humans interact.
Numerous schemes categorize the variety of ES (10 –17). Here, we use the classification offered in the MA (18): provisioning services (e.g., food, fresh water), regulating services (e.g., climate regulation, water purification), cultural services (e.g., aesthetic, spiritual, recreational experiences), and supporting services (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil formation). Basic provisioning services are widely recognized as essential for meeting human needs for nutrition, shelter, and safety. Regulating services are more complex but have been brought to public attention by discussions of climate change and recent natural disasters. Supporting services are fundamental to all other services, but their relationship to human needs can be indirect and complex. In contrast, most cultural services are directly experienced and intuitively appreciated, often helping to raise public support for protecting ecosystems (19).
All human–environment frameworks must address complements and conflicts among diverse sets of human needs because of the limited capacities of ecosystems to meet those needs sustainably. ES proponents have encouraged incorporation of economic valuation techniques to support environmental policy making (7, 9, 10, 16, 20). However, individual welfare optimization models have proven difficult to apply effectively to some important services (7, 18), and other ES may, as a matter of principle, require alternative evaluation approaches (1, 21, 22). The recent report on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) (16) acknowledges the plurality of ecosystem values and proposes a tiered approach for recognizing, demonstrating, and capturing the value of ES for policy making.
Our purpose here is to highlight the importance of cultural services, including their potential to motivate and sustain public support for ecosystem protection. We review a selection of relevant social and behavioral science that has focused on relationships between ecological structures and cultural benefits to show how this work can productively be applied more effectively to integrate cultural services into the broader ES framework.
The MA (1) defines cultural services in terms of the “nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems,” and specifically lists “cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, recreation and ecotourism” (18). Although some cultural values may have little dependence on ecosystems (e.g., those associated with historic buildings, paintings, and religious relics), cultural services, like all other ES, must demonstrate a significant relationship between ecosystem structures and functions specified in the biophysical domain and the satisfaction of human needs and wants specified in the medical/psychological/social domain.
The importance of cultural services has consistently been recognized, but in the rare instances in which there is any further consideration, they are often characterized as being “intangible,” “subjective,” and difficult to quantify in biophysical or monetary terms (18), thus retarding their integration into the ES framework. Of course, subjectivity relates to some extent to all ES: To qualify as a service, ecosystem structures and functions must contribute to meeting human needs and wants, which necessarily includes intangible and subjective aspects because the selection of ecological structures and functions, and their particular characteristics, that are considered to benefit humans changes with knowledge, technical, social, and cultural development.
The structures and functions produced and sustained by ecosystems arguably exist independent of human needs, and they are, in principle, equally concrete and quantifiable whether they are used for food or for aesthetic or spiritual purposes. The services derived from ecosystems (i.e., ES), however, cannot be defined without incorporating social constructs. Some human needs may be considered more basic and potentially definable by consensus on biological/medical requirements (e.g., the nutrients needed to sustain human life, as determined within prevailing science); however, in practice, humans consistently exhibit different preferences for how basic needs are met (e.g., not everything that is potentially nutritious is accepted everywhere as food). Although all ES must incorporate social constructs, cultural ES may depend on them to a greater degree, and in extreme cases (e.g., distinguishing a sacred from a nonsacred forest), it may be impossible to identify relevant concrete features independent of the subject culture. Nonetheless, within a given socioecological context (where, at least as a starting point, applicable cultural designations of both benefits and sources must be accepted as legitimate), some significant contribution from ecological structures and/or functions, however indirect, is required if cultural benefits are to be attributed as an ecosystem service.
A substantial body of social and behavioral research developed within prior science/policy frameworks (e.g., natural resources management) provides models, methods, and data that can effectively address cultural ES. To demonstrate the potential of this science base for better integration of cultural services into the ES framework, we specifically review research on landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance. Each area ranges widely across the social sciences, with prior reviews mostly emphasizing relationships among social and psychological factors. We focus here on work specifically addressing relationships between ecological structures/functions and human needs relevant to cultural values. We note that there can be overlap among cultural ES categories (e.g., aesthetics frequently contribute to recreational experiences), as well as between cultural and other services (e.g., the aesthetic and nutritional aspects of food preferences). Such intertwinements are simultaneously an indication of the importance of cultural services and a challenge to be addressed in their identification, assessment, and management.
Aesthetics are consistently included as an example of cultural ES (1, 18), but more specific operational definitions to guide assessments are rarely provided. The MA (1) refers to the “beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of ecosystems, as reflected in the support for parks, ‘scenic drives,’ and the selection of housing locations.” More recently, de Groot et al. (23) represent aesthetic services based on “appreciation of natural scenery,” and Chan et al. (21) link aesthetic values in rural areas with “the amount or configuration of open space in agricultural or forested (land use/land cover) types.” These conceptualizations emphasize visual landscape aesthetics, especially scenic beauty (19).
Landscape aesthetics research has examined environmental contexts ranging from cities to agricultural areas to wilderness as viewed from the perspectives of numerous cultural and stakeholder groups (24 –27). Studies addressing the aesthetic contributions of landforms, vegetative land cover, and water features emphasize natural capital, and thus are most consistent with efforts to define aesthetic services within the ES literature. For research and scientific purposes, aesthetic quality has most often been assessed by perceptual surveys, where quantitative measures of aesthetic quality are typically derived for targeted landscapes by averaging choices, ratings, or other measures across observers within statistically coherent groups (27).
Differences in aesthetic preferences across individuals, demographic, ethnic, or other groups are commonly presumed, and differences in aesthetic ideals or the importance of aesthetics relative to other values have been demonstrated, especially in the context of culturally modified landscapes (28, 29). However, perceptual assessments of predominantly natural landscapes have consistently shown consensus to be far greater than disagreement (30), and quantitative models based on biophysical landscape characteristics typically account for the largest share of variance in measures of perceived aesthetic quality within a given ecological context (31, 32).
In general, landscape aesthetic models best fit the ES concept when the landscape-characteristic variables are selected to provide a bridge to underlying ecosystem processes and conditions. Multiple regression models have related specific land cover patterns to perception-based measures of aesthetic quality (31, 33, 34). For example, Ribe (33) showed that timber harvest practices affected judgments of scenic beauty for northwestern US forest vistas; perceived beauty increased as the percentage of green trees retained in cut areas increased, so long as retained trees were evenly dispersed rather than clumped in small groups. At finer scales, research on “near-views” within forest landscapes has generally shown that densities of different species and sizes of trees, amounts of vegetative understory, and volumes of downed wood have the strongest effects on aesthetic judgments (35, 36).
Empirical models (33, 35, 37) are supported by perceptual surveys that use computer visualizations of changes in landscape features predicted by biologically based models to assess the perceived aesthetic consequences of those changes (33, 34, 38, 39). Both types of models have supported monetary evaluations (40, 41), including demonstrations of increased values for private properties with views of aesthetically desirable landscapes (42). More often, however, assessments of visual aesthetic quality are treated as relative measures (preference scales) for specified populations of landscape scenes and observers, providing a basis for evaluations through separate economic, multiattribute utility, or other tradeoff negotiation processes. Aesthetic valuations thus can fit into either the demonstrated or captured TEEB (16) category.
Natural or seminatural features of the environment are often associated with the identity of an individual, a community, or a society. They provide experiences shared across generations, as well as settings for communal interactions important to cultural ties. The MA (1) acknowledges that “many societies place high value on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes (‘cultural landscapes’) or culturally significant species.” Cultural heritage is usually defined as the legacy of biophysical features, physical artifacts, and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present, and bestowed for the benefit of future generations (43). Thus, research in this area emphasizes a broad range of biocultural relationships, extending beyond the visual/scenic focus in the preceding section. Cultural landscapes are significant constituents of cultural heritage characterized by the long-term interaction between site conditions and human influences (e.g., property distribution, cultivation, nature conservation).
In the original United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World Heritage Convention (44), cultural heritage was associated with the built environment and artifacts. The concept has subsequently expanded to include practices, myths, knowledge, and skills that do not always imply a material representation and are summarized as intangible heritage (44). Both tangible and intangible aspects are relevant to cultural heritage as ES, including visible material representations of cultural activities on the landscape (e.g., rice paddies, viticulture terraces) as well as landscapes and individual species that are linked to intangible heritage, including myths, legends, and religious practices that refer to concrete locations and ecosystem features.
Although it is often difficult to measure in ES assessments, cultural heritage values for given socioecological contexts have been concretely linked to specific ecosystem features. There are numerous instances where particular types of forests, heaths, prairies, or deserts; particular species; or even individual plants or animals are strongly associated with cultural identities, place attachments, social practices, and images (e.g., ref. 45 and the discussion in ref. 21 of salmon in the northwestern United States and taro in Hawaii). These relationships offer the opportunity to define appropriate indicators for cultural heritage services and fit clearly into the ES framework. Different cultures may have different heritage associations with the same ecosystem features; thus, understanding cultural heritage as an ES requires simultaneous consideration of both the ecological and cultural contexts (46).
Cultural heritage is inextricably linked with historical relationships between human societies and ecosystems. Cultural landscapes are vessels of cultural values and contribute to the identity of communities (47). Over time, altered or even heavily managed ecosystems can acquire cultural significance. Key examples include the classic pastoral landscapes of England (48), terraced landscapes in Portugal (49) or the Alps (50), heath lands in Northern Europe (51), and orchard meadows in the temperate regions of Central Europe (52). The Satoyama concept stands for traditional small-scale agricultural and forestry use in Japan (53). In some cases, the cultural landscape, as well as the products derived from it, may represent a whole region and act as an important trademark for touristic offers and product marketing (54). Well-known examples are the Champagne region in France, Tuscany in Italy, the Napa Valley in the United States, and the Darjeeling region in India.
Culture is not static and is often an important driver of ecosystem change (55). For example, sites managed at a small scale with traditional practices can produce specific elements, such as solitary trees, hedgerows, and terraces, that affect ecosystem resilience and productivity as well as landscape beauty (56 –58). Thus, preserving cultural heritage can have considerable synergy with preserving other ES, which is one of the motivations behind the establishment of agrienvironmental programs in the European Union and United States (59) and the recent Satoyama initiative to support the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (60).
Markets may indicate monetary values for some cultural heritage services, such as those that can be marketed to tourists, but it is questionable whether valuations are complete even in these instances. Ecological resources that contribute to cultural heritage are often common goods that are shared rather than owned. They typically lack convenient market prices as signals of value, which may be more clearly (but still imperfectly) expressed via politics. Nonmarket economic valuation techniques have been successfully applied to cultural heritage objects (61); however, valuations of some aspects, such as regional identity or sense of place, largely remain elusive (62). For effective policy and decision making more generally, it is important to identify specific ecologically based landscape features that are associated with the particular cultural heritage values of stakeholders in a given cultural context and then to assess how changes in these features would affect those values (21). This requires intensive interaction between carriers of cultural values and both social and ecological scientists. One proven approach is expertly facilitated deliberation, which can elicit and refine relevant cultural heritage values and the ecosystem features with which they are associated (63, 64), thus helping to articulate management tradeoffs and effectively capturing (16) these values for policy making, even if stopping short of monetization.
Many people engage in some form of outdoor recreation (65); thus, recreation and tourism represent a major opportunity and nexus for managing the interaction between ecosystems and people, including the development of a constituency that appreciates and supports protection of ecosystems. Recreational activities, such as walking, camping, and nature study (66), offer an opportunity for many people to experience the benefits of ES directly. This applies particularly to people living in urban environments, where contact with natural or seminatural ecosystems is often limited. Nonetheless, in the field of conservation biology, recreation and tourism have been recognized mostly as a threat to ecosystems [e.g., via wildlife disturbance and habitat fragmentation (67, 68)], and negative offsite effects are commonly attributed to traffic emissions and infrastructure developments for tourism (69, 70). However, recreation and tourism also provide many important benefits, such as physical exercise, aesthetic experiences, intellectual stimulation, inspiration, and other contributions to physical and psychological well-being (21).
In ES classifications, everyday short-term recreation in nearby green spaces, day tourism, and overnight tourism are often lumped together. Although overnight tourism seems to be recognized and integrated to some extent (66), everyday outdoor recreation in nearby green spaces is often not even mentioned. In the MA report (18), mental and physical health effects of outdoor recreation are only assumed. Meanwhile, numerous studies have shown that even short exposure to green spaces can have positive effects on human health (71 –73), thus also contributing to the economic productivity of society (74). Public green spaces are also important venues for promoting physical activities that improve health (75).
Of course, most recreation activities depend on built infrastructure, accessibility, and other factors, but the fundamental importance of ecological conditions has been widely demonstrated (76 –79). For a specific example, Fuller et al. (77) surveyed visitors to urban/suburban parks and found that psychological well-being (gauged by factors derived from park visitor’s reports, including reflection, identity, and attraction) was positively correlated with the species richness and habitat diversity in the park.
Research has used a variety of monetary and nonmonetary methods to capture the many facets of tourism and recreational experiences (66, 80). Assessing recreation and tourism services requires information about frequency and intensity of use. In support of such assessments, emerging visitor simulation models can determine the effects of changes in environmental characteristics on visitor behavior in space and time (81 –84), information that is also essential for assessments of impacts of use on affected ecosystems. Methods from social science and ecological economics can indirectly translate visitor activity measures into monetary values. For example, at the global level, O’Connor et al. (85) estimate that whale watching generated expenditures of US $2.1 billion in 2008. In the United States, national parks are reported to create a value of more than US $10 billion per year (86), and Mayer et al. (87) estimated the economic impact of six German national parks at €500 million per year.
At finer scales, assessments of particular activities at particular sites can be extended to detailed models that quantify the specific contributions of setting characteristics, such as scenic beauty or the probability of wildlife encounters (78, 88), fitting the capture tier of the model of TEEB (16). More comprehensive approaches, including qualitative and quantitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews and tape recordings, to capture immediately recalled leisure experiences (89), on-site measurements of hiking experiences via questionnaires (89), and computer-animated choice experiments for recreational trail preferences (90) can further guide and help to justify ecosystem protection policies.
Interest in spiritual and religious significance and values attributed to certain aspects of nature has been growing (91, 92), as reflected in their inclusion as a subcategory of cultural ES (18, 93, 94). Nature conservation practitioners have debated about the ways in which spiritual and religious values can be instrumental in promoting biodiversity conservation (91, 92), with some risk for underestimating the complexities of lived experiences of spirituality and religiosity. Diverse religious groups and conservationists have tried to strengthen the link between religion and environmental conservation, promoting the concept of “environmental stewardship” (92, 95, 96).
Attempts have been made to use sacred areas as a point of departure when creating protected areas (96, 97). This idea in itself is not new; for instance, during the colonial period in India, the British had to acknowledge the concept of sacred groves and land for local priests to avoid revolts (98, 99). What is new is the recent growth in translating “the sacred” into legislation or into legal institutions granting land rights (100). This requires extensive knowledge concerning the particular links between the sacred, nature, and society in a specific locale. Assigning spiritual or religious significance to certain areas or species occurs in most societies; however, how this significance is expressed varies across and within societies. Sacred areas are often marked by religious symbols (e.g., crosses or prayer flags on mountain summits, shrines along pilgrimage routes), their spatial extent may vary from a few trees to a mountain range, and boundaries may not be fixed. In some cases, access may be restricted to a few religious leaders. In other cases, sacred areas are open to the public to perform acts of worship, which may involve harvesting some of the natural resources. Sacred sites may also attract tourism, which may coincide or conflict with the religious or spiritual use of these sites, as observed at the heavily visited pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela in Spain (101). Thorough participatory assessments are required to suit local situations, needs, and expectations.
Relations between ecosystems and religion include moral and symbolic concepts but can also center around very material concerns, such as staking claim to land contested by immigrants, invading states, or development agencies (102, 103). Language is among the most powerful ways cultures map meanings through which the world is made more intelligible. For instance, the variety of names for a single site points to shared histories in an increasingly multicultural world (104, 105). Language can also operate through poetry, including the poetry of song and dance (106), to unlock the secrets of the landscape; examples range from Aborigine’s song lines and pastoralists’ oral mappings to European romantic operas. These have also been ways of placing oneself in and on the land (107, 108).
Spiritual and religious services do not generalize well across communities (100, 109), and they are difficult to value in economic or monetary terms (7, 94). However, there are more comprehensive methods for studying spiritual and religious ES, the way they are constructed and perceived, and their relation to land use and resource management. Many historical and anthropological studies demonstrate the complexities of spiritual services (103, 105, 110), and hence may contribute to policies that avoid the trap of overgeneralization and romanticization (100). Ecologists and ecological economists are increasingly adopting methods derived from history and social sciences to include spiritual and religious services in their analyses. Examples are the Integrated History and Future of People on Earth project (111) and the discourse-based valuation methods proposed by Wilson and Howarth (112). In contrast to the other examples of cultural ES discussed in this paper, efforts at monetary valuation of spiritual and religious services appear to be absent, even though the contribution these services could make to biodiversity protection has been recognized by scientists and policy makers (95).
The brief reviews of social and behavioral science related to landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual/religious significance illustrate effective approaches for operationalizing and integrating cultural services into the ES framework. Although this work was largely developed within prior science and policy frameworks, it does offer examples of socioecological models and methods that could be adapted to improve the definition, assessment, and evaluation of cultural ES. Following TEEB tiered valuation framework (16), spiritual and religious services are still largely limited to the recognition category, whereas evaluation of recreation services frequently includes some well-established monetary valuation methods. Evaluations of landscape aesthetic and cultural heritage services fall mostly in TEEB’s (16) demonstrate class but have often been able to capture value for policy-making purposes by application of deliberative, multicriterion, or monetary methods. Some specific opportunities and challenges along the path of further development of cultural ES are briefly discussed below.
Concepts and methods traditionally developed independently within the respective disciplines of ecology and social science are not sufficient to address the interrelated nature of ES (8). Within the ES community, the need for better integration of social and ecological science has mostly been framed in terms of cooperation between ecologists and economists (113); however, for cultural ES in particular, the cooperation must be extended to broader domains of environmental and social sciences (8, 22).
A range of transdisciplinary approaches (114, 115) that incorporate public involvement can be used to promote more effective understanding of cultural ES that arise from complex socioecological systems (111, 116). People draw on multiple forms of knowledge to interpret problems and possibilities within their environment, from scientific or institutional to highly contextual local or traditional knowledge forms (117, 118). To include these multiple types of knowledge within and across multiple scales, approaches that do not assume scientific primacy or exclude alternative epistemologies are more likely to be successful (119, 120). The reviewed literature provides examples of how integrating a broader range of social sciences could widen perspectives in the evaluation of publicly shared goods and services, and could enlighten collective policy and decision processes (121).
The research reviewed suggests several effective approaches for studying cultural ES within particular social and ecological systems. The capacity of a given ecosystem to contribute to a given service for a given stakeholder group may fluctuate, and social demands are also dynamic. In this context, useful biological assessment models will anticipate the relevant social contexts and provide outputs that can be useful inputs to social assessments; summary measures of biodiversity or gross productivity will generally not be sufficient. Similarly, useful social science models will allow for explicit linkages to ecological structures and functions, both to determine ecological drivers of social behaviors and outcomes and to anticipate the impacts on ecosystems (22). Innovative techniques for simulation and visualization of dynamic ecological systems (39, 90, 122) can be coupled with qualitative (e.g., focus groups, participatory scenario planning) and quantitative (e.g., formal surveys, economic valuation techniques) social science research methods to forge more explicit links between social and ecological systems and to improve the integration of knowledge from scientists, policy makers, and stakeholders. Integrated socioecological models could also be used to identify the particular ecosystem components to be used as indicators (10) for the associated cultural services, being careful to distinguish properly between the biophysical features/indicators and the values that people attach to the outcomes they support (123).
Spatially explicit simulation models have promoted better understanding of ecosystem processes, including changes at different scales over time (124). Promising spatial referencing schemes have been offered for several cultural ES (125, 126), but the object classes usually implemented in Geographic Information System (GIS) environments may not be sufficient to describe all interactions between ecosystems and social systems that define cultural services. For example, determining the cultural heritage significance of a specific ecosystem feature requires the participation of relevant stakeholder groups. Whereas mapping the location of an identified feature can be straightforward, delineating precisely the boundary of the area within which land use changes could affect the associated heritage value can be challenging. All cultural services strongly depend on perceptions and expectations of the respective stakeholders, and considerable conceptual and technical work may be needed to represent and model the complex socioecological relationships that define and constrain a given cultural ecosystem service adequately.
Ecosystems often support multiple services, and synergies and tradeoffs cannot be negotiated effectively if some services are unknown or ignored, which is likely to be the case for cultural ES (3, 74, 127, 128). Because of lack of information on interactions among services (129), many tradeoffs are still decided based on assumptions rather than facts (8), often ignoring potential synergies as well. Integrated socioecological models can provide information about tradeoffs and synergies, leading to better decisions, reducing unintended consequences, and better managing conflicts.
Divergence between stakeholder groups (130) and the need to integrate priorities for ecosystem management across spatial and temporal scales presents major challenges (23, 131). Monetary valuation schemes have traditionally provided the foundation for resolving such complex tradeoffs, and nonmarket valuation methods (132) have shown promise for monetizing benefits for some cultural services in limited circumstances. The research reviewed provides examples of other effective approaches for resolving tradeoffs among cultural ES and between cultural and other ES and policy goals, but more work is still needed in this area (16).
Visualizations can facilitate communication and improve reliability and validity of monetary valuations (122). GIS-based 3D representations of planned ecosystem changes have supported assessments of stakeholder preferences for different management strategies (133, 134). The combination of valid and intuitively accessible representations of environmental options with participatory deliberative decision methods (135), including citizen juries (136, 137), value construction (63, 138), and multicriterion decision analysis (139), offers proven tools for negotiating across preferences of multiple stakeholders and multiple scales without requiring the monetization of what many regard as intrinsically nonmonetary values.
It is common for taxonomies of ES to include a broad category labeled cultural ES. These should not be seen as a residual category after accounting for more utilitarian ES, such as water and food provision. Cultural services have value in their own right, and they have played an important role in motivating public support for the protection of ecosystems. In this paper, we have described a sample of relevant social science to show how cultural ES can be operationally defined in terms of socioecological models to enable better integration of these services within the broader ES science and policy framework.
Fig. 1 presents the cultural service categories reviewed above in terms of (i) the relevance of ecological structures and functions for their formation (the relative contribution of natural capital) and (ii) a nested set of methods for assessing human benefits consistent with the tiered approach adopted in TEEB (16). Based on the scope and assessment methods applied, we differentiate between (i) monetary assessments (2 types), (ii) quantitative (nonmonetary) assessments, and (iii) comprehensive studies of the human–nature interaction, which may include but also extend beyond the other classes. Specific examples of cultural services are represented in the 2D space by a centroid with extensions ( Fig. 1 ), indicating that particular instances within each service category may vary considerably along both dimensions, a point that is reinforced by the inclusion of two different cases for recreational services. This perspective could equally serve to represent instances of other classes of ES.
Examples of cultural services represented within an ES framework.
The current weak integration of cultural services into the ES research and policy framework presents challenges and also obstructs many opportunities. Many aspects of cultural ES that have hindered integration into the broader ES framework (e.g., subjective, intangible, difficult to evaluate) also apply to some extent to all other ES. From this perspective, research to develop socioecological models further for cultural services, along with expanded systems for evaluation and tradeoff negotiation, would not only enhance the role of cultural services but could contribute to improved assessments, modeling, and integration of all ES.
The international collaboration that produced this paper was initiated by the Kerner-von-Marilaun Workshop (November 2–6, 2009) in Lunz am See, Austria, sponsored by the US National Science Foundation, the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research, and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. We also acknowledge the support of the workshop by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and the Research Platform Eisenwurzen within the International Long-Term Ecological Research Network.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
2. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York: Random House; 1981. [Google Scholar]
3. Daily G, editor. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
4. Mooney HA, Ehrlich PR. Ecosystem services: A fragmentary history. In: Daily G, editor. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997. pp. 11–19. [Google Scholar]
5. Costanza R, et al. Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biol Rep. 2011; 3 :14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2007; 32 :67–98. [Google Scholar]
7. Daily GC, et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ. 2009; 7 :21–28. [Google Scholar]
8. Carpenter SR, et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009; 106 :1305–1312. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Daily GC, et al. Ecology. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science. 2000; 289 :395–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ. 2007; 63 :616–626. [Google Scholar]
11. Costanza R, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997; 387 :253–260. [Google Scholar]
12. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 2002; 41 :393–408. [Google Scholar]
13. Wallace KJ. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biol Conserv. 2007; 139 :235–246. [Google Scholar]
14. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68 :643–653. [Google Scholar]
15. de Groot R, et al. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P, editor. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Oxford, UK: Earthscan; 2010. pp. 9–40. [Google Scholar]
16. TEEB . In: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Kumar P, editor. Oxford, UK: Earthscan; 2010. [Google Scholar]
17. Costanza R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv. 2008; 141 :350–352. [Google Scholar]
18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
19. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol. 2007; 22 :959–972. [Google Scholar]
20. Weber JL. Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European Environment Agency. Ecol Econ. 2007; 61 :695–707. [Google Scholar]
21. Chan KMA, et al. Cultural services and non-use values. In: Kareiva P, Daily G, Ricketts T, Tallis H, Polasky S, editors. The Theory and Practice of Ecosystem Service Valuation in Conservation. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press; 2011. pp. 206–228. [Google Scholar]
22. US EPA . Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board; 2009. [Google Scholar]
23. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 2010; 7 :260–272. [Google Scholar]
24. Gobster PH. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal. 1999; 18 :54–64. [Google Scholar]
25. Nassauer JI. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecol. 1995; 10 :229–237. [Google Scholar]
26. Daniel TC, Boster RS. Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1976. [Google Scholar]
27. Daniel TC. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan. 2001; 54 :267–281. [Google Scholar]
28. Hagerhall CM. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J Environ Psychol. 2001; 21 :83–92. [Google Scholar]
29. Stahl J, Sikor T, Dorondel S. The institutionalization of property rights in Albanian and Romanian biodiversity conservation. International Journal of Agricultural Resources. Governance and Ecology. 2009; 8 :57–73. [Google Scholar]
30. Stamps AE. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature. 1999; 14 :155–175. [Google Scholar]
31. Buhyoff GJ, Wellman JD, Daniel TC. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science. 1982; 28 :827–838. [Google Scholar]
32. Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landsc Urban Plan. 2001; 56 :11–20. [Google Scholar]
33. Ribe RG. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views. The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005; 73 :277–293. [Google Scholar]
34. Ribe RG, Armstrong ET, Gobster PH. Scenic vistas and the changing policy landscape: Visualizing and testing the role of visual resources in ecosystem management. Landscape Journal. 2002; 21 :42–66. [Google Scholar]
35. Brown TC, Daniel TC. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science. 1986; 32 :471–487. [Google Scholar]
36. Ribe RG. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: The effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood. J Environ Manage. 2009; 91 :245–260. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Arnberger A, Eder R. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: A visual-based latent class approach. Landscape Research. 2011; 36 :19–40. [Google Scholar]
38. Bishop ID, Lange E, editors. Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications. London: Taylor & Francis; 2005. [Google Scholar]
39. Meitner MJ, et al. The multiple roles of environmental data visualization in evaluating alternative forest management strategies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2005; 49 :192–205. [Google Scholar]
40. Brown TC. Production and cost of scenic beauty—Examples for a Ponderosa pine forest. Forest Science. 1987; 33 :394–410. [Google Scholar]
41. Thorn AJ, Daniel TC, Orland B, Brabyn N. Managing forest aesthetics in production forests. New Zealand Forestry. 1997; 42 :21–29. [Google Scholar]
42. Benson ED, Hansen JL, Schwarz AL, Smersh GT. Pricing residential amenities: The value of a view. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. 1998; 16 :55–73. [Google Scholar]
43. Czepczynski M. Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities: Representation of Powers and Needs. Aldershot-Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2008. [Google Scholar]
44. UNESCO . Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO; 2003. [Google Scholar]
45. Garibaldi A, Turner N. Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society. 2004; 9 (3):1. [Google Scholar]
46. Verschuuren B. An overview of cultural and spiritual values in ecosystem management and conservation strategies. International Conference on Endogenous Development and Bio-Cultural Diversity: The Interplay of Worldviews, Globalization and Locality. 2006:299–325. [Google Scholar]
47. Stephenson J. The cultural values model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 2008; 84 :127–139. [Google Scholar]
48. Bignal EM, McCracken DI. Low-intensity farming systems in the conservation of the countryside. J Appl Ecol. 1996; 33 :413–424. [Google Scholar]
49. Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira H, Vicente L. Ecosystem services and human well-being: A participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecology and Society. 2005; 10 (2):14. [Google Scholar]
50. Scaramellinia G, Varotto M, editors. Terraced Landscapes of the Alps: Atlas. 1. Alpter Project. Venice, Italy: Marsilio; 2008. [Google Scholar]
51. Krzywinski K, O’Connell M, Küster H, editors. 2009. Cultural Landscapes of Europe—Fields of Demeter—Haunts of Pan (Aschenbeck Media, Bremen, Germany)
52. Herzog F. Streuobst: A traditional agroforestry system as a model for agroforestry development in temperate Europe. Agroforestry Systems. 1998; 42 :61–80. [Google Scholar]
53. Iwata Y, Fukamachi K, Morimoto Y. Public perception of the cultural value of Satoyama landscape types in Japan. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 2011; 7 :173–184. [Google Scholar]
54. Tempesta T, et al. The importance of landscape in wine quality perception: An integrated approach using choice-based conjoint analysis and combination-based permutation tests. Food Qual Prefer. 2010; 21 :827–836. [Google Scholar]
55. van Eetvelde V, Antrop M. Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes in Flanders (Belgium) Land Use Policy. 2009; 26 :901–910. [Google Scholar]
56. Bender O, Boehmer HJ, Jens D, Schumacher KP. Using GIS to analyse long-term cultural landscape change in Southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005; 70 :111–125. [Google Scholar]
57. Kapfer M, Kantelhardt J, Osinski E. 2003. Estimation of costs for maintaining landscape elements by the example of Southwest Germany. 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 16–22 2003, Durban, South Africa. Available at http://purl.umn.edu/25923. Accessed May 4, 2012.
58. Schüpbach B, Junge X, Briegel R, Lindemann-Matthies P, Walter T. Ästhetische Bewertung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturen durch die Bevölkerung. Ettenhausen, Germany: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART; 2009. [Google Scholar]
59. Baylis K, Peplow S, Rausser G, Simon L. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65 :753–764. [Google Scholar]
60. Takeuchi K. Rebuilding the relationship between people and nature: The Satoyama Initiative. Ecol Res. 2010; 25 :891–897. [Google Scholar]
61. Navrud S, Ready RC. Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2002. [Google Scholar]
62. Butler CD, Oluoch-Kosura W. Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society. 2006; 11 (1):30. [Google Scholar]
63. Gregory R, Slovic P. A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 1997; 21 :175–181. [Google Scholar]
64. Gregory R, Trousdale W. Compensating aboriginal cultural losses: An alternative approach to assessing environmental damages. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90 :2469–2479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Sievänen T, Arnberger A, Dehez J, Jensen FS. Monitoring of forest recreation demand. In: Bell S, Simpson M, Tyrväinen L, Sievänen T, Pröbstl U, editors. European Forest Recreation and Tourism. A Handbook. London: Taylor and Francis; 2009. pp. 105–133. [Google Scholar]
66. de Groot R, Ramakrishnan PS. Cultural and Amenity Services. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. pp. 455–476. [Google Scholar]
67. Reed SE, Merenlender AM. Quiet, nonconsumptive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness. Conservation Letters. 2008; 1 :146–154. [Google Scholar]
68. Liddle M. Recreation Ecology. The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997. [Google Scholar]
69. Weaver DB. Sustainable Tourism: Theory and Practice. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann; 2006. [Google Scholar]
70. Krippendorf J, editor. Für einen anderen Tourismus: Probleme, Perspektiven, Ratschläge. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Fischer–Taschenbuch; 1989. [Google Scholar]
71. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 2010; 10 :456. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J Environ Psychol. 2003; 23 :109–123. [Google Scholar]
73. Karmanov D, Hamel R. Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landsc Urban Plan. 2008; 86 :115–125. [Google Scholar]
74. Elmqvist T, Maltby E. 2010. Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations, ed Kumar P (Earthscan, Oxford, UK), pp 41–111.
75. Henderson KA, Bialeschki MD. Leisure and active lifestyles: Research reflections. Leisure Sciences. 2005; 27 :355–365. [Google Scholar]
76. Adamowicz WL, Naidoo R, Nelson E, Polasky S, Zhang J. Nature-based tourism and recreation. In: Kareiva P, Daily G, Ricketts T, Tallis H, Polasky S, editors. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. New York: Oxford Univ Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
77. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett. 2007; 3 :390–394. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Naidoo R, Adamowicz WL. Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics. 2005; 10 :159–178. [Google Scholar]
79. Naidoo R, Stuart-Hill G, Weaver LC, Tagg J, Davis A. Effect of diversity of large wildlife species on financial benefits to local communities in northwest Namibia. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2011; 48 :321–335. [Google Scholar]
80. Henderson KA, Presley J, Bialeschki MD. Theory in recreation and leisure research: Reflections from the editors. Leisure Sciences. 2004; 26 :411–425. [Google Scholar]
81. Itami RM, Gimblett HR. 2001. Intelligent recreation agents in a virtual GIS world. Complexity International 08:Paper ID: itami01. Available at http://www.complexity.org.au/ci/vol08/itami01/itami01.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2012.
82. Gimblett R, Daniel T, Cherry S, Meitner MJ. The simulation and visualization of complex human-environment interactions. Landsc Urban Plan. 2001; 54 :63–78. [Google Scholar]
83. Jochem R, Marwijk RV, Pouwels R, Pitt DG. MASOOR: Modeling the transaction of people and environment on dense trail networks in natural resource settings. In: Gimblett R, Skov-Petersen H, editors. Monitoring, Simulation and Management of Visitor Landscapes. Tucson, AZ: Univ of Arizona Press; 2008. pp. 269–293. [Google Scholar]
84. Taczanowska K, Arnberger A, Muhar A. Exploring spatial behavior of individual visitors as a basis for agent-based simulation. In: Gimblett R, Skov-Petersen H, editors. Monitoring, Simulation, and Management of Visitor Landscapes. Tucson, AZ: Univ of Arizona Press; 2008. pp. 159–174. [Google Scholar]
85. O’Connor S, Campbell R, Cortez H, Knowles T. Whale Watching Worldwide: Tourism Numbers, Expenditures and Expanding Economic Benefits, a Special Report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare Prepared by Economists at Large. Yarmouth, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare; 2009. [Google Scholar]
86. Stynes DJ. Economic significance of recreational uses of national parks and other public lands. Social Science Research Review. 2005; 5 :1–36. [Google Scholar]
87. Mayer M, Müller M, Woltering M, Arnegger J, Job H. The economic impact of tourism in six German national parks. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010; 97 :73–82. [Google Scholar]
88. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values. Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. 1998; 80 :64–75. [Google Scholar]
89. Lee Y, Dattilo J, Howard D. The complex and dynamic nature of leisure experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 1994; 26 :195–211. [Google Scholar]
90. Reichhart T, Arnberger A. Exploring the influence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer animated choice experiment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010; 96 :1–11. [Google Scholar]
91. Posey DA, editor. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: Intermediate Technology; 1999. [Google Scholar]
92. Sponsel L. Do anthropologists need religion, and vice versa? Adventures and dangers in Spiritual Ecology. In: Crumley CL, editor. New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
93. Balmford A, et al. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science. 2002; 297 :950–953. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. de Groot R. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006; 75 :175–186. [Google Scholar]
95. Dudley N, Higgins-Zogib L, Mansourian S. Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation. A Research Report by WWF, Equilibrium and The Alliance of Religions and Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: WWF; 2005. [Google Scholar]
96. Wild R, McLeod C, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas and UNESCO Programme on Man and the Biosphere (2008) Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers (IUCN, UNESCO, Gland, Switzerland)
97. Schaaf T. Environmental Conservation Based on Sacred Sites. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: Intermediate Technology; 1999. p. 341. [Google Scholar]
98. Bahuguna S. The INTACH Environmental Series 19. New Delhi: INTACH; 1992. People’s Programme for Change. [Google Scholar]
99. Subash Chandran MD. Shifting cultivation, sacred groves and conflicts in colonial forest policy in the Western Ghats. In: Grove RH, Damodaran V, Sangwan S, editors. Nature and the Orient: The Environmental History of South and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Oxford Univ Press; 2000. pp. 674–707. [Google Scholar]
100. Bhattacharya DK, et al. 2005. Cultural services. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Policy Responses. Findings of the Responses. Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ed Kanchan Chopra RL, Pushpam Kumar, Henk Simons (Island Press, Washington DC), Vol 3, pp 401–422.
101. Nolan ML. Religious sites as tourism attractions in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research. 1992; 19 :68–78. [Google Scholar]
102. Dzingrai V, Bourdillon MFC. Religious ritual and political control in Binga District, Zimbabwe. African Anthropology. 1997; 4 :4–26. [Google Scholar]
103. Spierenburg M. Strangers, Spirits, and Land Reforms: Conflicts About Land in Dande, Northern Zimbabwe. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill; 2004. [Google Scholar]
104. Moore DS. Suffering for Territory: Race, Place, and Power in Zimbabwe. Durham, NC: Duke Univ Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
105. Stiebel L, Gunner L, Sithole J. The Land in Africa: Space, Culture, History Workshop. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa. 2000; 44 :i–viii. [Google Scholar]
106. Luig U, von Oppen A. 1997. Landscape in Africa; Process and vision. An introductory essay. The Making of African Landscapes, Paideuma, Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, eds Luig U, von Oppen A (Steiner, Wiesbaden, Germany), Vol 43, pp 1– 45.
107. Coplan DB. In the Time of Cannibals: The Word Music of South Africa’s Basotho migrants. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
108. Cohen DW, Atiendo Odhiambo ES. Siaya: The Historical Anthropology of an African Landscape. Nairobi: Heinemann Kenya; 1989. [Google Scholar]
109. Harmon D, Putney AD, editors. The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. Oxford: Roman & Littlefield Publishers; 2003. [Google Scholar]
110. Ranger TO. Voices from the Rocks: Nature, Culture and History in the Matopos Hills of Zimbabwe. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
111. Hibbard K, et al. Developing an Integrated History and Future of People on Earth (IHOPE): Research Plan. IGBP Report No. 59. Stockholm: IGBP Secretariat; 2010. p. 40. [Google Scholar]
112. Wilson MA, Howarth RB. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ. 2002; 41 :431–443. [Google Scholar]
113. Heal GM, et al. Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal. 2001; 20 :333–364. [Google Scholar]
114. Pregernig M. Transdisciplinarity viewed from afar: Science-policy assessments as forums for the creation of transdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy. 2006; 33 :445–455. [Google Scholar]
115. Pohl C. Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures. 2005; 37 :1159–1178. [Google Scholar]
116. Ostrom E. A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective action problems. Solutions. 2010; 1 :27–36. [Google Scholar]
117. Irwin A. Sociology and the Environment. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]118. Berkes F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge; 2008. [Google Scholar]
119. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: The role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2009; 34 :253–278. [Google Scholar]
120. Cash DW, et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society. 2006; 11 (2):8. [Google Scholar]
121. Schläpfer F, Schmitt M, Roschewitz A. Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65 :574–589. [Google Scholar]
122. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manage. 2009; 58 :106–118. [Google Scholar]
123. Boyd J, Krupnick A. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2009. The definition and choice of environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation; pp. 9–35. [Google Scholar]
124. Costanza R, Voinov A. Landscape Simulation Modeling: A Spatially Explicit, Dynamic Approach. New York: Springer; 2004. [Google Scholar]
125. Raymond CM, et al. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68 :1301–1315. [Google Scholar]
126. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr. 2011; 31 :748–760. [Google Scholar]
127. Rodriguez JP, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society. 2006; 11 :14. [Google Scholar]
128. Scheffer M, Brock W, Westley F. Socioeconomic mechanisms preventing optimum use of ecosystem services: An interdisciplinary theoretical analysis. Ecosystems (New York) 2000; 3 :451–471. [Google Scholar]
129. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12 :1394–1404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Rambonilaza M, Dachary-Bernard J. Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc Urban Plan. 2007; 83 :318–326. [Google Scholar]
131. Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid WA. Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J Environ Manage. 2008; 89 :197–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, editors. A Primer on Non-Market Valuation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. [Google Scholar]
133. Dramstad WE, Sundli Tveit M, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006; 78 :465–474. [Google Scholar]
134. Wissen Hayek U, Halatsch J, Kunze A, Schmitt G, Grêt-Regamey A. 2010. Integrating natural resource indicators into procedural visualisation for sustainable urban green space design. Peer Reviewed Proceedings Digital Landscape Architecture 2010, eds Buhmann E, Pietsch M, Kretzler E (Wichmann, Offenbach, Germany), pp 361 369.
135. Howarth RB, Wilson MA. A theoretical approach to deliberative valuation: Aggregation by mutual consent. Land Econ. 2006; 82 :1–16. [Google Scholar]
136. Aldred J, Jacobs M. Citizens and wetlands: Evaluating the Ely citizens’ jury. Ecol Econ. 2000; 34 :217–232. [Google Scholar]
137. Brown TC, Peterson GL, Tonn BE. The values jury to aid natural resource decisions. Land Econ. 1995; 71 :250–260. [Google Scholar]
138. Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. J Policy Anal Manage. 2001; 20 :415–432. [Google Scholar]
139. Mendoza GA, Martins H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manage. 2006; 230 :1–22. [Google Scholar]
Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences
