Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value. Graves, R. A., Pearson, S. M., & Turner, M. G. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(14):3774–1779, April, 2017. ![Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Many biodiversity-ecosystem services studies omit cultural ecosystem services (CES) or use species richness as a proxy and assume that more species confer greater CES value. We studied wildflower viewing, a key biodiversity-based CES in amenity-based landscapes, in Southern Appalachian Mountain forests and asked (i) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary with components of biodiversity, including species richness?; (ii) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary across psychographic groups?; and (iii) How well does species richness perform as an indicator of CES value compared with revealed social preferences for wildflower communities? Public forest visitors (n = 293) were surveyed during the summer of 2015 and asked to choose among images of wildflower communities in which flower species richness, flower abundance, species evenness, color diversity, and presence of charismatic species had been digitally manipulated. Aesthetic preferences among images were unrelated to species richness but increased with more abundant flowers, greater species evenness, and greater color diversity. Aesthetic preferences were consistent across psychographic groups and unaffected by knowledge of local flora or value placed on wildflower viewing. When actual wildflower communities (n = 54) were ranked based on empirically measured flower species richness orwildflower viewing utility based on multinomial logit models of revealed preferences, rankings were broadly similar. However, designation of hotspots (CES values above the median) based on species richness alone missed 27% of wildflower viewing utility hotspots. Thus, conservation priorities for sustaining CES should incorporate social preferences and consider multiple dimensions of biodiversity that underpin CES supply.
@article{graves_species_2017,
title = {Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value},
volume = {114},
issn = {0027-8424},
shorttitle = {Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value},
url = {://WOS:000398159000067},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1701370114},
abstract = {Many biodiversity-ecosystem services studies omit cultural ecosystem services (CES) or use species richness as a proxy and assume that more species confer greater CES value. We studied wildflower viewing, a key biodiversity-based CES in amenity-based landscapes, in Southern Appalachian Mountain forests and asked (i) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary with components of biodiversity, including species richness?; (ii) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary across psychographic groups?; and (iii) How well does species richness perform as an indicator of CES value compared with revealed social preferences for wildflower communities? Public forest visitors (n = 293) were surveyed during the summer of 2015 and asked to choose among images of wildflower communities in which flower species richness, flower abundance, species evenness, color diversity, and presence of charismatic species had been digitally manipulated. Aesthetic preferences among images were unrelated to species richness but increased with more abundant flowers, greater species evenness, and greater color diversity. Aesthetic preferences were consistent across psychographic groups and unaffected by knowledge of local flora or value placed on wildflower viewing. When actual wildflower communities (n = 54) were ranked based on empirically measured flower species richness orwildflower viewing utility based on multinomial logit models of revealed preferences, rankings were broadly similar. However, designation of hotspots (CES values above the median) based on species richness alone missed 27\% of wildflower viewing utility hotspots. Thus, conservation priorities for sustaining CES should incorporate social preferences and consider multiple dimensions of biodiversity that underpin CES supply.},
language = {English},
number = {14},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
author = {Graves, R. A. and Pearson, S. M. and Turner, M. G.},
month = apr,
year = {2017},
keywords = {landscape, biodiversity, management, conservation, land-use, switzerland, framework, preferences, Science \& Technology - Other Topics, aesthetics, amenity-based, discrete choice, quality, scenic beauty, wildflowers},
pages = {3774--1779}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"LRxjTtL86gSvYd35q","bibbaseid":"graves-pearson-turner-speciesrichnessalonedoesnotpredictculturalecosystemservicevalue-2017","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-08-10T13:53:11.629Z","title":"Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value","author_short":["Graves, R. A.","Pearson, S. M.","Turner, M. G."],"year":2017,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://utexas.box.com/shared/static/1aa39ptglchcfuw9c04ozm0pqjlxu4rw.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value","volume":"114","issn":"0027-8424","shorttitle":"Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value","url":"://WOS:000398159000067","doi":"10.1073/pnas.1701370114","abstract":"Many biodiversity-ecosystem services studies omit cultural ecosystem services (CES) or use species richness as a proxy and assume that more species confer greater CES value. We studied wildflower viewing, a key biodiversity-based CES in amenity-based landscapes, in Southern Appalachian Mountain forests and asked (i) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary with components of biodiversity, including species richness?; (ii) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary across psychographic groups?; and (iii) How well does species richness perform as an indicator of CES value compared with revealed social preferences for wildflower communities? Public forest visitors (n = 293) were surveyed during the summer of 2015 and asked to choose among images of wildflower communities in which flower species richness, flower abundance, species evenness, color diversity, and presence of charismatic species had been digitally manipulated. Aesthetic preferences among images were unrelated to species richness but increased with more abundant flowers, greater species evenness, and greater color diversity. Aesthetic preferences were consistent across psychographic groups and unaffected by knowledge of local flora or value placed on wildflower viewing. When actual wildflower communities (n = 54) were ranked based on empirically measured flower species richness orwildflower viewing utility based on multinomial logit models of revealed preferences, rankings were broadly similar. However, designation of hotspots (CES values above the median) based on species richness alone missed 27% of wildflower viewing utility hotspots. Thus, conservation priorities for sustaining CES should incorporate social preferences and consider multiple dimensions of biodiversity that underpin CES supply.","language":"English","number":"14","journal":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Graves"],"firstnames":["R.","A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Pearson"],"firstnames":["S.","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Turner"],"firstnames":["M.","G."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"April","year":"2017","keywords":"landscape, biodiversity, management, conservation, land-use, switzerland, framework, preferences, Science & Technology - Other Topics, aesthetics, amenity-based, discrete choice, quality, scenic beauty, wildflowers","pages":"3774–1779","bibtex":"@article{graves_species_2017,\n\ttitle = {Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value},\n\tvolume = {114},\n\tissn = {0027-8424},\n\tshorttitle = {Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value},\n\turl = {://WOS:000398159000067},\n\tdoi = {10.1073/pnas.1701370114},\n\tabstract = {Many biodiversity-ecosystem services studies omit cultural ecosystem services (CES) or use species richness as a proxy and assume that more species confer greater CES value. We studied wildflower viewing, a key biodiversity-based CES in amenity-based landscapes, in Southern Appalachian Mountain forests and asked (i) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary with components of biodiversity, including species richness?; (ii) How do aesthetic preferences for wildflower communities vary across psychographic groups?; and (iii) How well does species richness perform as an indicator of CES value compared with revealed social preferences for wildflower communities? Public forest visitors (n = 293) were surveyed during the summer of 2015 and asked to choose among images of wildflower communities in which flower species richness, flower abundance, species evenness, color diversity, and presence of charismatic species had been digitally manipulated. Aesthetic preferences among images were unrelated to species richness but increased with more abundant flowers, greater species evenness, and greater color diversity. Aesthetic preferences were consistent across psychographic groups and unaffected by knowledge of local flora or value placed on wildflower viewing. When actual wildflower communities (n = 54) were ranked based on empirically measured flower species richness orwildflower viewing utility based on multinomial logit models of revealed preferences, rankings were broadly similar. However, designation of hotspots (CES values above the median) based on species richness alone missed 27\\% of wildflower viewing utility hotspots. Thus, conservation priorities for sustaining CES should incorporate social preferences and consider multiple dimensions of biodiversity that underpin CES supply.},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tnumber = {14},\n\tjournal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},\n\tauthor = {Graves, R. A. and Pearson, S. M. and Turner, M. G.},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tkeywords = {landscape, biodiversity, management, conservation, land-use, switzerland, framework, preferences, Science \\& Technology - Other Topics, aesthetics, amenity-based, discrete choice, quality, scenic beauty, wildflowers},\n\tpages = {3774--1779}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Graves, R. A.","Pearson, S. M.","Turner, M. G."],"key":"graves_species_2017","id":"graves_species_2017","bibbaseid":"graves-pearson-turner-speciesrichnessalonedoesnotpredictculturalecosystemservicevalue-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://utexas.box.com/shared/static/://WOS:000398159000067"},"keyword":["landscape","biodiversity","management","conservation","land-use","switzerland","framework","preferences","Science & Technology - Other Topics","aesthetics","amenity-based","discrete choice","quality","scenic beauty","wildflowers"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["species","richness","alone","predict","cultural","ecosystem","service","value","graves","pearson","turner"],"keywords":["landscape","biodiversity","management","conservation","land-use","switzerland","framework","preferences","science & technology - other topics","aesthetics","amenity-based","discrete choice","quality","scenic beauty","wildflowers"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["gCjo799mKWJtJmSdX"]}