Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to Milcu, A. (2011) GFÖ conference
Similar to Milcu, A. (2011) GFÖ conference (20)
More from JSchultner
More from JSchultner (13)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Milcu, A. (2011) GFÖ conference
- 1. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review Andra Ioana Milcu, Jan Hanspach, David Abson, Joern Fischer Fostering sustainable development in Eastern Europe Institute of Ecology Photo credits: Tibor Hartel, 2006
- 2. CES = ¼ MA Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) are “the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through: •spiritual enrichment •cognitive development •reflection •recreation •aesthetic experiences” (MA 2005 p. 40). Pictures are taken during my field study in Southern Transylvania, Romania
- 3. CES across classification systems Classification according to: Name of corresponding CES category: Constanza 1997 Cultural services Daily 1999 Life-fulfilling functions de Groot et al. 2002 Information functions Boyd and Banzhaf 2007 Amenities and fulfillment de Groot et al. 2010 Cultural and amenity services Wallace 2007 Socio-cultural fulfillment
- 4. • Palomo and Montes 2012 • Quétier et al. 2009 • Raymond et al. 2009 • Tielborger et al. 2010 The importance of CES to people: the paradox
- 5. The nature of CES Word cloud credits: http://www.wordle.net/, http://xps2pdf.co.uk/ The word cloud is not based on quantitative data
- 6. Goals 1. Characterizing the literature on “cultural ecosystem services” What is the state of the art of the literature on CES? 2. CES – the field of research How cohesive it is? What is it worth?
- 7. Methods • Search terms: “cultural ecosystem service*”, “cultural service*” and “ecosystem service*” • on: ISI-WoK, Scopus, Google Scholar and Science Direct • 104 retained publications • 20 questions protocol used for descriptive statistics “Five Ws and one H” questions Questions targeting academia trending topics: trade-offs, scale, bundles, drivers of change, etc. • 9 questions used for cluster analysis • 7 questions had non-mutually exclusive response categories
- 8. Number of publications per year. Results
- 9. First author’s disciplinary affiliation Discipline Count Biodiversity conservation and ecology 44 Environmental management and policy making 31 Others (geography, social sciences, engineering, chemistry) 10 Agriculture and forestry 9 Economics 7
- 10. The place of CES: everywhere and nowhere* • CES is a “residual category” encompassing everything that could not fit in the other classes of ecosystem services Chan et al. 2012; Daniel et al. 2012 • CES = tourism and recreation + aesthetics +/- spiritual values* *when referring to indigenous communities Liu et al. 2010; Seppelt, Dormann et al. 2011 • Where are the rest of the non-material benefits and non-use values? * after Chan et al. 2012 in BioScience
- 11. MA 2005 Public participation GIS appears adaptable in identifying […] cultural and provisioning services […] while, regulating and supporting services would appear undervalued as they have been in the economic valuation literature. Brown et al. 2011 “We examined only the first three services, because cultural services were not measured explicitly in any of the studies that we analyzed.” Benayas 2009 “It is recognized that most management focuses on the provisioning and/or cultural services and these were found to be the easiest to quantify in this study” Dick et al. 2011 “Unfortunately, cultural services have been mostly neglected within the ecosystem services framework” Schaich et al. 2010 “[…] interactions among ecosystem services, particularly those involving regulating services have generally been underappreciated; ecological management and monitoring have focused on provisioning or cultural services” Bennett et al. 2009 “…we point out that many cultural ES are overlooked in much ES research, which diminishes its applicability for decision-making” Chan 2012 Out of 16 conservation assessments that included ecosystem services, the majority included cultural (10) followed by regulatory services (8 ), provisioning (7) and supporting (2) services. Egoh et al. 2007 The place of CES: everywhere and nowhere There are many studies of ecosystem based recreation and landscape scenic beauty – but spiritual values, cultural identity, social cohesion, heritage values remain conspicuously absent…
- 12. Photo credits: Ine Dorresteijn, www.ubergizmo.com, Jacqueline Loos; Based on MA 2005 and Gee and Burkhard 2010 .
- 13. Counting what counts? Number of publications mentioning or applying the different economic techniques to value CES. Note that publications can have multiple entries. Is it adequate and/or valid? 32 papers undertook or conceptualized economic valuation of CES, often in relation to recreation and tourism. 27 papers specifically argued against monetary valuation of CES.
- 14. Clusters of papers • “Appeal for research” (n = 22) cataloguing ES • “Localized outcomes” (n = 40) advancing arguments for the conservation discussing implications of changes or management choices • “Social and participatory” (n = 17) information is provided by people assessing preferences and perceptions • “Conceptual focus” (n = 25) challenging theories building frameworks
- 17. So what? • Capitalizing information First, CES are well placed as a tool to bridge gaps between academic disciplines and research communities.
- 19. A cultural landscape in Southern Transylvania
- 20. So what? • Capitalizing information First, CES are well placed as a tool to bridge gaps between academic disciplines and research communities. • Improving utility to real life situations Second, CES can help to focus economic, social and environmental players onto a common set of concerns, thereby enhancing communication among people from a diversity of backgrounds. • Integration within conceptual constructs Third, CES have the potential to foster new conceptual links between alternative logics relating to a variety of social and ecological issues.
- 21. Acknowledgements •Thanks to David Abson for constructive comments. •We acknowledge funding by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through a Sofja Kovalevskaja Award to Professor Joern Fischer. •Thank you for listening.
Editor's Notes
- My name is Andra Milcu and I am going to talk about CES from the perspective of a literature review. The goal of the presentation is to give an overview of my work on a literature review on the subject. I would also like to acknowledge my co-authors point/look at the slide…
- CES are tipically known as one of the 4 categories of the MA which defines them as nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through.
- CES have also been included in many other typologies of ecosystem services under several classes, such as “cultural services” (Constanza, 1997), “life-fulfilling functions” (Daily, 1999), “information functions” (de Groot et al., 2002), “amenities and fulfillment” (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007), “cultural and amenity services” (de Groot et al., 2010), or “socio-cultural fulfillment” (Wallace 2007). There is not a perfect correspondence between these typologies and each one includes different sub-categories of CES. For example all typologies incluse aesthetics as a CES whereas just one of the 6 mentioned here considers existence values, namely the one by Daily.
- CES are important in a wide range of settings. Industrialized societies especially recognize CES, and often value them ahead of other types of services (Quétier et al., 2009; Raymond et al., 2009; Tielbörger et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2011; Palomo and Montes, 2011). Demand for CES is expected to further grow in industrialized societies (Carpenter et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2010; Harrison et al., 2010; Ingold and Zimmermann, 2011) due to increasing budget shares for recreation (Vandewalle et al., 2008; Tielbörger et al., 2010). Generally they are highly valued by diverse stakeholders and score high in assessments of public perceptions, but as paradox they are not as visible in decision making contexts. They are frequently sacrificed by decision-makers, both for economic and ecological reasons (Chan et al., 2011, 2012; Hendee, 2011; de Groot et al., 2005). By contrast, CES are essential for the cultural identity and survival of traditional/dependent communities (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura, 2006; Maitre et al., 2007; Voora and Barg, 2008; Brown and Neil, 2011; Vihervaara et al., 2012).
- This is a word cloud I made intuitively based on the most common characteristics of CES and most common words associated with CES in a text, usually within an introductory part. They are not based on quantitative data but I find the picture representative for the nature of CES. D exp according to TEV ad mea and use val non-consumptive A key characteristic for the appraisal of CES that is broadly agreed upon is their intangibility. Intangibility has been advanced both as an explanation for the poor appraisal of CES (Arico et al., 2005; Adekola and Mitchell, 2011; Daw et al., 2011), but also as an impetus for their better consideration in the future (Chiesura and Groot, 2003; Chan et al., 2009; Hagen, 2010; Vejre et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2011). The physical, emotional or mental health benefits produced by CES are often subtle and intuitive in nature (Kenter et al., 2011) or implicitly expressed (Anthony et al., 2009), are interlinked with regulating and supporting services (Arico et al., 2005), and are co-produced by natural as well as human capital (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Chan et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2009). The value assigned to CES therefore is individually and culturally subjective (Maass et al., 2005; Charles and Dukes, 2007; Eicken, Lovecraft, 2009; Hendee, 2011; Scullion et al., 2011) and rarely marketable (Carpenter et al., 2009; Martín-López et al., 2009; Gee and Burkhard, 2010). CES can be regarded as incommensurable (Chan et al., 2012) because they cannot readily be traded-off against other services or replaced by technology (Kenter et al., 2011). Cultural services are usually included under non-consumptive direct use values (MA, 2003) and suffer from poor quantification and integration in management plans (de Groot et al., 2005). intangible 5 health benefits 4 implicit 2 universal 1 fulfillment 2 subtle 1 intuitive 2 non-consumptive 3 individually subjective 2 non-marketable 5 incommensurable 1
- Instructions for use gather basic information about the literature in the area CES is a growing research field with people engaging from several disciplines including ecology, economics and social sciences, adopting various approaches and achieving different outcomes. But to what exetnt are all these inputs capatalised? Despite insights from multiple angles, there is broad agreement that a satisfactory level of understanding of many important facets of CES has not yet been attained (de Groot et al., 2005; Beaumont et al., 2008; Fish, 2011; Gasparatos et al., 2011). Also authors are increasingly sending signals CES are worthier of attention beyond the label of an MA category but fail to address this issue in a joint and applied manner. Against this background, we provide a semi-quantitative literature review of publications explicitly using the phrase “cultural ecosystem service”. Our goal is twofold. First, we aim to give a systematic overview of the current state of literature in the area of CES by highlighting when, where, by whom, how and why is research taking place. Second we aim to assess how cohesive this research field is by identifying clusters of papers that approach CES in different ways. We asked ourselves questions like
- Say what cluster analysis was for. Second we aim to assess how cohesive this research field is by identifying clusters of papers that approach CES in different ways. Based on our findings, we suggest steps to overcome identified shortcomings. We conducted an extensive literature search to identify existing literature on CES. We searched ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus using the search terms (1) “cultural ecosystem service*”, (2) “cultural services”, and (3) “cultural service*” AND “ecosystem service*”. In addition, two full-text searches for the search term “cultural ecosystem service*” were performed in Science Direct and Google Scholar. Publications were analyzed from 2005 (when the MA synthesis was published) to January 2012. We screened the identified articles to determine the extent to which they were relevant. We excluded articles that mentioned cultural ecosystem services only once in the context of listing other MA categories, articles in languages other than English, publications that could not be located, and conference abstracts. From this process, we retained 102 publications for in-depth analysis, to which we added two additional relevant publications, which were cited in important articles. The final selection thus included 104 papers that covered a broad and representative range of perspectives on CES (Table S1). Of each paper we asked 20 questions (Table S2). “Ws” questions sought to gather basic information about the literature in the area. Questions developed inductively and deductively from academia trending topics and from relevant acknowledged works (Table S2) tried to gain a deeper understanding of the research field, its challenges and degree of cohesion. All questions were initially tested on a subset of papers and were modified accordingly. Response categories were based on the MA and other works of reference (Table S2). For example, because some authors consider both use and non-use values of CES, including existence, bequest and option values e.g (Chan et al., 2009; Hearnshaw et al., 2010), or even the intrinsic value of ecosystems (Raymond et al., 2009; Burkhard et al., 2011; Whitfield et al., 2011), we considered them as an eleventh sub-category of CES. It should also be noted that papers could fall in multiple categories in the case of seven questions (Table S2). For example Maass et al. (2005) gathered information at all four spatial scales categories, while Seppelt et al. (2011) proposed concepts based on numerous publications and Lundy (2011) reviewed services associated with urban water bodies but analyzed the results for a single case-study location. When information relating to a question was not provided or did not apply to the text of the paper, the response was classified within the n/a category. Data were analyzed in two ways. First, we used descriptive statistics to identify how many papers fell into which categories. Second, we were interested in identifying whether there were groups or clusters of papers that approached CES in a similar way. In order to describe and visualize the data structure, we performed multivariate analyses on 9 of the 20 questions thought to best achieve our second goal of identifying group of papers (Table S2). We ran an agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis using Euclidian distances and the Wards. The strength of the identified clustering structure was described by an agglomerative coefficient of 0.9 (with 1 being the maximum). We extracted the result for four clusters (Fig. 6).
- Ascendant temporal trend The number of publications on CES has rapidly increased since 2005 (Fig. 1). Thirty-seven papers acknowledged the existence of CES in less than 5% of their total text, and forty-one papers discussed CES alongside other MA categories in 5% to 25% of text. Eleven papers devoted in between 25% and 50% of text to CES, and ten papers focused on CES in more than 50% and up to 75% of their text. Only 5 papers were entirely dedicated to CES (de Groot et al., 2005; Chan et al., 2009, 2012; Gee and Burkhard, 2010; Norton et al., 2012) The 104 papers included 84 peer-reviewed articles, two MA chapters, four conference papers, one book chapter, five PhD and Master theses, three working papers and five practitioner papers (Table S1).
- Talk about interdisciplinarity here ? With the total of papers coming from eight academic disciplines (see Table 1), Our results highlighted that the field of (cultural) ecosystem services is of interest not only to ecologists (Table 1). This proves CES is an interdisciplinary research field
- Everything “goes in” type of category. Currently, two dangerous tendencies co-occur. On the one hand, the heterogeneity and eclectic nature of CES lead researchers to think of a On the other hand, the exaggerate emphasis on recreation and tourism lead authors to dangerously assuming the latter represent this category as a whole, marginalizing the other CES and their corresponding information. Many confusions and false contradictions arise from the fact that people are seemingly talk about the same thing but in fact refer to different things. More than 10 sub categ. It is my opinion that they don’t necessarily need to be explicitly fitting with one of the 10 sub categories but if they flow from a certain space state them open eyes become aware some authors have argued that recreation and tourism should instead be classified as provisioning services (Abson and Termansen, 2011), especially for dependent communities (Rounsevell et al., 2010; Daw et al., 2011). Similarly, socioeconomic drivers are predominant in relatively poor countries (e.g. poverty, corruption) (López-Hoffman et al., 2010; Glotzbach, 2012) whereas CES in industrialized societies are often impacted by science and technology (e.g. through the development of renewable energies, agricultural intensification, or building of dams) (Bullock and Collier, 2011; Busch et al., 2011; Tompkins et al., 2011). In the context of more than half of the papers coming from Europe and North America (Fig. 2), such dichotomies applicable to developing and developed countries become problematic.
- That is how confusions arise The standard argumentation is: put Dave CES as the “poor relation” under studied and under regarded. Then the rest of the intro focusses on those difficulties always in terms of conceptualization and evaluation/appraisal. Your conclusions are broadly related to the advantages in paying more attention to CES within the ES framework so it make sense that the narrative follows this tread. It is not a real debate Basically the ones on the left are for the standard argumentation and the ones on the right against. Number of indicators for biodiversity and ecosystem services used in ecological restoration projects worldwide according to Rey Benayas et al. (2009). The fact that none of the projects considered cultural services demon- strates that these are often neglected because they are difficult to assess. For the remaining cultural services – 4. cultural diversity, 5. knowledge systems, 6. educational values, 7. inspiration, 8. social relations, 9. sense of place, and 10. cultural heritage values –, the pattern of human use and the status of the service could not be assessed from the information available (MA 2005). We believe that these two tendencies co-exist and they do not cancel each other. In fact they might agree because they refer to different sub-categories of CES Is not really a debate, some even say tourism is not a CES and egoh Aesthetic value received the most attention amongst cultural services. Egoh et al. 2007 So far, spiritual, religious, and educational services have only been assessed in small local studies, mostly because the data required for these assessments are not widely available. Gee and Burkhard, 2010 In fact they are talking about seemingly the same thing without specifying which sub categ of CES they refer to. There is a surface debate whether CES are properly considered in real decision contexts (Gee and Burkhard, 2010; Schaich et al., 2010). While many authors agree with the status-qvo of “under studied and under regarded” ES, some argue that economic valuation literature and ES planning recognises CES to a greater extent than regulating and supporting services (Carpenter et al., 2006; Egoh et al., 2007; Bennett et al., 2009; Dick et al., 2011). We believe that these two tendencies co-exist and they do not cancel each other. In fact researchers refer to different sub-categories of CES (i.e. recreation, tourism and aesthetics) and not to CES as a whole. Nearly all studies recommended to some extent to integrate ecosystem services in conservation strategies and development plans (Dominati et al., 2010; Kimmel and Mander, 2010). Only few papers agreed explicitly on the challenge to account for socio-cultural values in assessments (Raudsepp-Hearne, Peterson, Tengö, et al., 2010; Tzoulas and James, 2010) or on expanding institutional arrangements beyond the utilitarian perspective (Daily et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2011). Even fewer aknowledged the role of cultural values as stimuli for the conservation of biodiversity e.g. (M.L. Khan, 2008; Haslett et al., 2010; Everard and Kataria, 2011).
- “Recreation and ecotourism”, “Aesthetic values”, and “Spiritual and religious values” were the most important sub-categories of CES investigated (Fig. 3). An additional non-MEA sub-category, “Bequest and existence value” (Table S2), was considered by 23 of papers e.g. (Gee and Burkhard, 2010; Finnoff et al., 2011). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodologies were used across all scales and regardless of disciplines, with a general preference for mixed (n=40) and qualitative methods (n=37) rather than quantitative ones (n=17) as commensurate with the topic. Gee: In the category ‘‘existence values’’ (see also Ranganathan et al., 2008) we specifically include the intrinsic value of nature and biodiversity, which we find under- represented in the ecosystem services concept (Chee, 2004). RaymondA class capturing Bequest, Intrinsic and Existence values (not generally described as ecosystem services) was added under cultural services as these were concepts that emerged throughout the interviews. Bequest values are associated with the satisfaction from preserving a natural environment for future generations and existence values are associated with the satisfaction from knowing that a site is preserved in a certain condition irrespective of use or potential use.
- The advantages of an explicit use of qualitative methods of identifying priority benefits, ecosystem services, and associated values. Chan asta ar merge dc as avea slide cu methods Valid: willingness to contribute to a moral cause Are money an appropriate metrics? Pus referinta sau vezi categ What do people really care about The majority of CES are placed outside the methods of neoclassical economics (Hearnshaw and Cullen, 2010; Chan et al., 2012) but some researchers consider their value measurable since it is expressed in human action (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Zhang et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, the most frequently studied CES were also the easiest to quantify (Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010; Finnoff et al., 2011) deepening the gap between counting what is easy to measure and counting what counts, what matters to people what people care about. For example our review showed CES often produce benefits to human health but these are rarely quantified. The adequacy of the main economic techniques (Fig. 5) remains contested (Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Klain, 2010; Tielbörger et al., 2010), all the more they are dependent on consumers’ sovereignty but not on ecological conditions. For example, the ease of accessibility is a crucial factor typically included in the monetization of recreational services, (de Groot et al., 2010; Lautenbach et al., 2011). Moreover, CES cannot be split into discrete units for marginal valuation (Abson and Termansen, 2011) or into spatial units of actual CES “consumption” (Burkhard et al., 2011). To overcome these problems, some authors recommend describing CES via ordinal classes (Seppelt, Fath, et al., 2011), making use of descriptors, such as “charismatic landscape” or “appropriate diversity” (Norton et al., 2012), using proxies such as percentage of land under protected-area status, observations of rare species/km2, donations to conservation agencies (Rössler, 2006; Raudsepp-Hearne, Peterson, Tengö, et al., 2010), or using environmental and socio-economic indicators usually driven by their cost-effectiveness such as number of studies about an ecosystem or the number of swimmers in a river (Tompkins et al., 2011).
- The dominant of each group Ordination indicated four main groups of papers (Fig. 6). The first group, named “Appeal for research” (n=22) contained descriptive reviews that made no use of quantitative methods and assigned up to one fourth of text length to CES. These papers rarely discussed trade-offs and focused mostly on direct rather than indirect drivers of change. They typically aimed to document with literature references the range and relative importance of ecosystem services delivered in changing conditions by suppliers, typically arguing CES need more attention than they receive at present e.g. (Ljung et al., 2009; Kimmel and Mander, 2010; Kunz et al., 2011; Lundy and Wade, 2011). The second and largest group of papers, “Localized outcomes” (n=40) dealt with case-studies coming from different disciplines, using various methods including quantitative, spatial or participatory ones. These papers typically sought to advance arguments for the conservation of a particular ecosystem or area. They ranged from papers reporting the values and benefits associated with particular locations (e.g. vicinity to open spaces, uplands) e.g. (Wang et al., 2011) or ecosystems (e.g. wetlands) e.g. (Moore and Hunt, 2011) to dealing with the effects of different policies and management approaches on CES e.g. (Nainggolan et al., 2011), as well as changes in CES in response to specific threats e.g. (Chapin et al., 2006; Burgess et al., 2010; Kløve et al., 2011). Many of these publications discussed conflicting situations (Vihervaara et al., 2010; Bullock and Collier, 2011) and trade-offs between alternative development strategies (López-Hoffman et al., 2010; Zander et al., 2010), and numerous quantitative and economic assessments were included in this group (González et al., 2010; Chiabai et al., 2011). Papers that place people first were aggregated in the third group of papers, “Social and participatory” (n=17). While the first two groups were mainly concerned with conservation and development objectives, papers in this group emphasized the social aspects of case studies (Iwata et al., 2010; Kenter et al., 2011; Palomo and Montes, 2011), or considered the contribution of stakeholders to knowledge, and participatory techniques (Brown et al., 2011). These articles assessed preferences and perceptions, and most used information from other research communities (sensu question 20 in Table S2) (Norton et al., 2012). Finally, the fourth group, “Conceptual” contained purely conceptual papers (n=25). Such papers formulated recommendations or advanced theoretical frameworks on ways to account for the natural capital using (cultural) ecosystem services e.g. (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura, 2006; Carpenter et al., 2009; Daily et al., 2009; Raudsepp-Hearne, Peterson, Tengö, et al., 2010; de Groot et al., 2010; Abson and Termansen, 2011; Seppelt, Fath, et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2012). These papers typically addressed challenging concepts such as the questions of bundling in ecosystem services or the suitability of non-economic valuation techniques (Rodríguez et al., 2006; Viglizzo et al., 2011). In the same vein, this group tended to pioneer new research directions, such as regarding agricultural production as a source of cultural and utilitarian co-benefits and various ecosystem services (Swinton et al., 2007; Power, 2010). CES generate an emulation of ideas, and we may witness in the following years to a milestone point in the evolution of this research field. Based on our findings we anticipate an increase of papers in the Groups 3 and 4. Fully exploiting the potential of the ecosystem service framework could reveal that vagueness and intangibility are an asset that can actually contribute to the resolution of real-world problems (Strunz, 2012).
- Our review, and work on CES more generally, thus reflects only a subset of literature about nature’s intangible benefits to people, because parallel work is taking place in other research communities where the term “ecosystem services” is not used. Alternative phrases include landscape values (Brown, 2005; Haaland et al., 2011), cultural values (Arico et al., 2005), community values (Raymond et al., 2009), landscape scenary (Junge et al., 2011), social values (Fagerholm and Käyhkö, 2009; Bryan et al., 2010; Sherrouse et al., 2011), environmental values (Bryan et al., 2010), landscape services (Enengel et al., 2009; Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009; de Groot et al., 2010), visual qualities (Arriaza et al., 2004), experiential values (Barthel et al., 2005), and green services (Rogge et al., 2007).
- There are lots of bubbles I put just a few. Not quantitative In addition to improving interdisciplinary exchange within the field of CES, collaboration and exchange with other, closely related bodies of work will be equally important. In our review, we uncovered a range of papers whose objectives and messages partially overlapped with the concept of CES. However, many of these studies were not identified in our literaure search because they did not use the terminology associated with ecosystem services. Examples include studies on people’s sense of place (Soini et al., 2012), work on landscape preferences (Conrad et al., 2011), place attachment (Raymond and Brown, 2006; Brown and Raymond, 2007), cultural heritage (Tolentino, 2007), and traditional knowledge (Youn, 2009). For a selective review of the contributions of some parallel bodies of work, consult (Daniel et al., 2012). Among other bodies of work, the literature on the relationships of people with cultural landscapes appears particularly important (Giannecchini et al., 2007). In our sample, 41 out of 104 papers cited at least one reference from typical “landscape” journals, such as “Landscape and Urban Planning”, “Landscape Ecology”, or “Landscape Research”. The mutual recognition between the ecosystem service approach and (cultural) landscape research has been aknowledged for some time (de Groot et al., 2005) and recent work noted great potential for cross-fertilisation due to a complementarity of methods and a similarity of scopes (Schaich et al., 2010; Vihervaara et al., 2010; Hermann et al., 2011). Many CES “can be tapped by eliciting landscape values” (Gee and Burkhard, 2010).
- Build on CES should serve as a tool to bridge gaps between disciplines and research communities We have a concept what cad we use it for It receives lots of inpouts We saw it is not so cohesive plus there are these bodies of work parallel The nature of CES poses problems for conceptualization and evaluation. The clusters of papers pointed a certain degree of fragmentation within the field of CES. With a view to advance cooperation on CES within the scientific community and with practitioners and move beyond the theoretical and empirical challenges, we propose three directions: 1. coupling of existing information, 2. improving relevance to real life situations, and 3. integrating within foregoing conceptual constructs. Channel of communication
- First, CES should serve as a tool to bridge gaps between disciplines and research communities. The diversity of research on CES indicates scientific dynamism and richness, but at the same time, the lack of a solid common terminology and understanding. CES is a relatively young research field that does not wear the burden of entrenched academic traditions or paradigms. By their very nature, CES can be a vehicle to further improve interdisciplinary collaboration. Interdisciplinary studies (Group 2) tend to be more inclusive of CES than typical ecosystem service assessments (Group 1). For example, landscape research shares many objectives with research on ecosystem services; traditional social sciences sometimes use similar elicitation methods as CES research; and spatial modeling contributes to visualizing the distribution of CES. Similarly, CES are caught in between an economic valuation and a socio-psychological perspective, while in order to have a holistic understanding of human-environment relationships, one should employ. By their intrinsic nature, CES call for diverse elicitation and valuation methods across multiple scales and types of societies, thus offering opportunities for methodological exchange between different bodies of work and development of new methods. Joining efforts in order to link existing information would help counter balance a disparate and counter-productive accumulation of findings.
- The photo is highlighting A main street and typical land uses around the valley. Additional land uses further up the slopes are hay meadows, grazing pastures, and forest. This is a fascinating area because it harbours some the most precious cultural and natural heritage in Europe. This is the village of Malancrav, and it is one of several dozen so-called ‘Saxon villages’, which are scattered throughout the valleys of the region. They are called ‘Saxon villages’, because since the middle ages, for several centuries, Saxons were the dominant ethnic group in the region. Saxons originally migrated to the region in the 12th century, to support the Hungarian empire in its war against the Turks. The unusual thing about the region is that despite major changes almost everywhere else in Europe, a lot of traditional practices have persisted in these villages and their surrounds until today.
- as binding elements between social and ecological constructs. We have a concept what cad we use it for It receives lots of inpouts We saw it is not so cohesive plus there are these bodies of work parallel Second, CES can help to focus economic and environmental players onto a common set of concerns, thereby enhancing communication among people from a diversity of backgrounds (Sherren et al., 2010). Practitioners and scientists alike recognize at least some CES as dependable contributors to well-being but also envisage their role in the conservation of nature’s services. Thanks to their interdependence with other ecosystem services and their intimately rooted familiarity to ecosystems’ most important stakeholders, i.e. people, the “tacit” values of CES (Anthony et al., 2009) are an accessible and effective vehicle for conservation. Many studies have shown that the aesthetic value of a landscape is indispensable in the eyes of the broader public (Tielbörger et al., 2010), making cultural values key to raising environmental awareness and fostering collective action (Hendee, 2011; Chan et al., 2012). Studies also demonstrated how disregarding immaterial benefits when taking natural resource management decisions can be a source of public discontent (Brown et al., 2011). Hence, a conservation strategy using CES as a ”foot in the door“ tool can, if not ensure conservation success by fostering ecosystem stewardship, at least improve the legitimacy and social acceptance of conservation measures. Third, CES have the potential to link a multitude of concepts and logics. They can serve as stepping stones in today’s sea of ideas, for example, by creating congruencies between social-ecological systems theory and the ecosystem services framework. CES have the potential to trigger the evolution of the ecosystem services framework in a direction that more deeply engages people and accounts for social values (Kumar and Kumar, 2008). Thoroughly accounting for CES would help to balance primarily economic considerations (Hearnshaw and Cullen, 2010; Adekola and Mitchell, 2011) and to faciliate a more inclusive social-ecological approach, by exploring the interactions between social and ecological processes. CES can be related to well-being, biodiversity, social systems and phenology (Sparks et al., 2011) but also to NASA (Keith et al., 2010), soundscapes (Dumyahn and Pijanowski, 2011), emergy and the entertainment industry (Jepson et al., 2011). CES generate an emulation of ideas, and we may witness in the following years to a milestone point in the evolution of this research field. Based on our findings we anticipate an increase of papers in the Groups 3 and 4. Fully exploiting the potential of the ecosystem service framework could reveal that vagueness and intangibility are an asset that can actually contribute to the resolution of real-world problems (Strunz, 2012). Conceptual openness (as per group 4) may reveal solid new paths to reconnect man and nature in the 21st century (Fischer, 2012) so that the above mentioned frameworks and concepts evolve across space, time and preferences in a meaningful way.
- Our research groups Apart from the official website We also have a blog where our team writes about sustainability topics in general and specific to our case study area http://writingajournalarticle.wordpress.com/about/