Pivotal Cultural Values of Nature Cannot Be Integrated into the Ecosystem Services Framework. Kirchhoff, T. 109(46):E3146.
Pivotal Cultural Values of Nature Cannot Be Integrated into the Ecosystem Services Framework [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt] In a recent issue of PNAS, Daniel et al. (1) attempted to advance the integration of cultural values and cultural ecosystem services (ES) into the ES framework. Although I agree with the authors that cultural values are of eminent importance, I see two flaws in their argument. []The range of cultural values correlating to ecological structures and functions is much more limited than they claim. Many cultural values attaching to the natural/cultivated environment cannot be addressed in this way. An area's appropriateness for recreational activities like fishing or walking can be assessed in this way, but not its value with respect to feelings of belonging, cultural heritage, and other symbolic meanings. These essentially rely on an area's unique character; thus, only an increase in characteristic elements will augment a landscape's cultural value, whereas addition of uncharacteristic ones will diminish it. This value can be assessed only through hermeneutic approaches that determine how far an actual landscape reflects the idea of this landscape and that judge how far the given arrangement corresponds to the specific meaningful scenery expected in this geographical region by the users (2, 3). Because the assessment of elements and their arrangement relates to this specific idea, parameters cited by the authors like ” species richness,” ” habitat diversity,” and ” percentage of green trees retained” are inappropriate. [...]
@article{kirchhoffPivotalCulturalValues2012,
  title = {Pivotal Cultural Values of Nature Cannot Be Integrated into the Ecosystem Services Framework},
  author = {Kirchhoff, Thomas},
  date = {2012-11},
  journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {109},
  pages = {E3146},
  issn = {1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1212409109},
  url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13798375},
  abstract = {[Excerpt] In a recent issue of PNAS, Daniel et al. (1) attempted to advance the integration of cultural values and cultural ecosystem services (ES) into the ES framework. Although I agree with the authors that cultural values are of eminent importance, I see two flaws in their argument.

[]The range of cultural values correlating to ecological structures and functions is much more limited than they claim. Many cultural values attaching to the natural/cultivated environment cannot be addressed in this way. An area's appropriateness for recreational activities like fishing or walking can be assessed in this way, but not its value with respect to feelings of belonging, cultural heritage, and other symbolic meanings. These essentially rely on an area's unique character; thus, only an increase in characteristic elements will augment a landscape's cultural value, whereas addition of uncharacteristic ones will diminish it. This value can be assessed only through hermeneutic approaches that determine how far an actual landscape reflects the idea of this landscape and that judge how far the given arrangement corresponds to the specific meaningful scenery expected in this geographical region by the users (2, 3). Because the assessment of elements and their arrangement relates to this specific idea, parameters cited by the authors like ” species richness,” ” habitat diversity,” and ” percentage of green trees retained” are inappropriate. [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13798375,~to-add-doi-URL,controversial-monetarisation,cultural-services,ecosystem-services,multi-criteria-decision-analysis,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface},
  number = {46}
}
Downloads: 0