TY - JOUR
T1 - Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda
AU - Daniel, Terry C.
AU - Muhar, Andreas
AU - Arnberger, Arne
AU - Aznar, Olivier
AU - Boyd, James W.
AU - Chan, Kai M.A.
AU - Costanza, Robert
AU - Elmqvist, Thomas
AU - Flint, Courtney G.
AU - Gobster, Paul H.
AU - Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne
AU - Lave, Rebecca
AU - Muhar, Susanne
AU - Penker, Marianne
AU - Ribe, Robert G.
AU - Schauppenlehner, Thomas
AU - Sikor, Thomas
AU - Soloviy, Ihor
AU - Spierenburg, Marja
AU - Taczanowska, Karolina
AU - Tam, Jordan
AU - Von Der Dunk, Andreas
PY - 2012/6/5
Y1 - 2012/6/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Cultural landscapes
KW - Natural capital
KW - Scenic beauty
KW - Spiritual value
KW - Tourism
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861909692&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1114773109
DO - 10.1073/pnas.1114773109
M3 - Review article
SN - 0027-8424
VL - 109
SP - 8812
EP - 8819
JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
IS - 23
ER -