PERSPECTIVE

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem

services agenda
Terry C. Daniela,1, Andreas Muharb, Arne Arnbergerb, Olivier Aznarc, James W. Boydd, Kai M. A. Chane, Robert Costanzaf,
Thomas Elmqvistg, Courtney G. Flinth, Paul H. Gobsteri, Adrienne Grêt-Regameyj, Rebecca Lavek, Susanne Muharl,
Marianne Penkerm, Robert G. Riben, Thomas Schauppenlehnerb, Thomas Sikoro, Ihor Soloviyp, Marja Spierenburgq,
Karolina Taczanowskab, Jordan Tame, and Andreas von der Dunkj
a
School of Natural Resource and Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; bDepartment of Landscape, Spatial and
Infrastructure Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, A-1190 Vienna, Austria; cEvolution des Usages, Intervention
Publique et Développement des Espaces Ruraux, Irstea, Clermont-Ferrand, 63172 Aubière Cedex, France; dResources for the Future,
Washington, DC 20036; eInstitute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
V6T 1Z4; fInstitute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201; gDepartment of Systems Ecology and Stockholm
Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden; hNatural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL 61801; iNorthern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Evanston, IL 60201; jDepartment of Civil,
Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland; kDepartment of Geography,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405; lDepartment of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, University of Natural Resources and
Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria; mDepartment of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1190
Vienna, Austria; nInstitute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; oSchool of International Development,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom; pInstitute of Ecological Economics, Ukrainian National Forestry University,
Lviv 790057, Ukraine; and qFSW Department of Organisation Studies, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved April 20, 2012 (received for review September 9, 2011)

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.

natural capital | scenic beauty | cultural landscapes | tourism | spiritual value

arious ideologies have histori- ices) along with built, social, and human In contrast, most cultural services are di-

V cally reflected and guided

human attitudes and actions
toward the natural environment,
including humans as conquerors and
dominators of nature, as beneficiaries of
capital, with ES being defined by the rel-
ative contribution of natural capital. The
ES framework extends prior models by
expanding the focus from individual re-
sources to the full array of contributions
rectly experienced and intuitively appreci-
ated, often helping to raise public support
for protecting ecosystems (19).
All human–environment frameworks
must address complements and conflicts
nature, and as stewards of nature. The ecosystems make to human well-being and among diverse sets of human needs be-
Ecosystem Services (ES) framework, as by better recognizing the interconnected- cause of the limited capacities of ecosys-
adopted by the Millennium Ecosystem ness of ecosystems across the broad tems to meet those needs sustainably.
Assessment (MA) process of the United temporal and spatial scales over which ES proponents have encouraged incor-
Nations (1), has emerged as a formal ap- ecosystems and humans interact. poration of economic valuation techniques
proach to describe and categorize the re- Numerous schemes categorize the variety to support environmental policy making
lationship between ecosystems and society of ES (10–17). Here, we use the classifi- (7, 9, 10, 16, 20). However, individual
(2–4), and it is widely accepted within the cation offered in the MA (18): provisioning welfare optimization models have proven
international environmental science and services (e.g., food, fresh water), regulating difficult to apply effectively to some im-
policy communities (e.g., 5–9). services (e.g., climate regulation, water
portant services (7, 18), and other ES may,
ESs arise when an ecological structure purification), cultural services (e.g., aes-
as a matter of principle, require alterna-
(e.g., wood fiber) or function (e.g., filtering thetic, spiritual, recreational experiences),
tive evaluation approaches (1, 21, 22).
function of vegetation and soils) directly and supporting services (e.g., nutrient cy-
or indirectly contributes toward meeting cling, soil formation). Basic provisioning The recent report on the economics of
a human need or want. Such services (e.g., services are widely recognized as essential
provision of clean drinking water) generate for meeting human needs for nutrition,
Author contributions: T.C.D., A.M., A.A., O.A., J.W.B., K.M.A.C.,
benefits (e.g., improved human health) that shelter, and safety. Regulating services are R.C., T.E., C.G.F., P.H.G., A.G.-R., R.L., S.M., M.P., R.G.R.,
contribute to overall well-being. In eco- more complex but have been brought to T. Schauppenlehner, T. Sikor, I.S., M.S., K.T., J.T., and A.v.d.D.
logical economics (e.g., 5), human benefits public attention by discussions of climate wrote the paper.
derive from the combination of natural change and recent natural disasters. Sup- The authors declare no conflict of interest.
capital (a stock of ecosystems “that do not porting services are fundamental to all This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
require human activity to build or main- other services, but their relationship to 1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
tain” that yields a flow of goods and serv- human needs can be indirect and complex. tdaniel@u.arizona.edu.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 8

ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) (16) ological/medical requirements (e.g., the amount or configuration of open space in
acknowledges the plurality of ecosystem nutrients needed to sustain human life, as agricultural or forested (land use/land
values and proposes a tiered approach for determined within prevailing science); cover) types.” These conceptualizations
recognizing, demonstrating, and capturing however, in practice, humans consistently emphasize visual landscape aesthetics,
the value of ES for policy making. exhibit different preferences for how basic especially scenic beauty (19).
Our purpose here is to highlight the needs are met (e.g., not everything that is Landscape aesthetics research has ex-
importance of cultural services, including potentially nutritious is accepted every- amined environmental contexts ranging
their potential to motivate and sustain where as food). Although all ES must in- from cities to agricultural areas to wilder-
public support for ecosystem protection. corporate social constructs, cultural ES ness as viewed from the perspectives of
We review a selection of relevant social and may depend on them to a greater degree, numerous cultural and stakeholder groups
behavioral science that has focused on and in extreme cases (e.g., distinguishing (24–27). Studies addressing the aesthetic
relationships between ecological structures a sacred from a nonsacred forest), it may be contributions of landforms, vegetative
and cultural benefits to show how this work impossible to identify relevant concrete land cover, and water features emphasize
can productively be applied more effec- features independent of the subject cul- natural capital, and thus are most consis-
tively to integrate cultural services into the ture. Nonetheless, within a given socio- tent with efforts to define aesthetic serv-
broader ES framework. ecological context (where, at least as a ices within the ES literature. For research
starting point, applicable cultural desig- and scientific purposes, aesthetic quality
Cultural Services Within the ES nations of both benefits and sources must has most often been assessed by percep-
Framework be accepted as legitimate), some significant tual surveys, where quantitative measures
The MA (1) defines cultural services in contribution from ecological structures of aesthetic quality are typically derived
terms of the “nonmaterial benefits people and/or functions, however indirect, is re- for targeted landscapes by averaging
obtain from ecosystems,” and specifically quired if cultural benefits are to be at- choices, ratings, or other measures across
lists “cultural diversity, spiritual and re- tributed as an ecosystem service. observers within statistically coherent
ligious values, knowledge systems, educa- groups (27).
tional values, inspiration, aesthetic values, Scientific Foundations for Integrating Differences in aesthetic preferences
social relations, sense of place, cultural Cultural Services across individuals, demographic, ethnic, or
heritage values, recreation and ecotour- A substantial body of social and behavioral other groups are commonly presumed, and
ism” (18). Although some cultural values research developed within prior science/ differences in aesthetic ideals or the im-
may have little dependence on ecosystems policy frameworks (e.g., natural resources portance of aesthetics relative to other val-
(e.g., those associated with historic build- management) provides models, methods, ues have been demonstrated, especially in
ings, paintings, and religious relics), cul- and data that can effectively address cul- the context of culturally modified landscapes
tural services, like all other ES, must tural ES. To demonstrate the potential of (28, 29). However, perceptual assessments
demonstrate a significant relationship be- this science base for better integration of of predominantly natural landscapes have
tween ecosystem structures and functions cultural services into the ES framework, we consistently shown consensus to be far
specified in the biophysical domain and specifically review research on landscape greater than disagreement (30), and quan-
the satisfaction of human needs and wants aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor rec- titative models based on biophysical land-
specified in the medical/psychological/ reation, and spiritual significance. Each scape characteristics typically account for
social domain. area ranges widely across the social scien- the largest share of variance in measures of
The importance of cultural services has ces, with prior reviews mostly emphasizing perceived aesthetic quality within a given
consistently been recognized, but in the relationships among social and psycholog- ecological context (31, 32).
rare instances in which there is any further ical factors. We focus here on work spe- In general, landscape aesthetic models
consideration, they are often characterized cifically addressing relationships between best fit the ES concept when the landscape-
as being “intangible,” “subjective,” and ecological structures/functions and human characteristic variables are selected to
difficult to quantify in biophysical or needs relevant to cultural values. We note provide a bridge to underlying ecosystem
monetary terms (18), thus retarding their that there can be overlap among cultural processes and conditions. Multiple re-
integration into the ES framework. Of ES categories (e.g., aesthetics frequently gression models have related specific land
course, subjectivity relates to some extent contribute to recreational experiences), as cover patterns to perception-based meas-
to all ES: To qualify as a service, ecosys- well as between cultural and other services ures of aesthetic quality (31, 33, 34). For
tem structures and functions must con- (e.g., the aesthetic and nutritional aspects example, Ribe (33) showed that timber
tribute to meeting human needs and of food preferences). Such intertwinements harvest practices affected judgments of
wants, which necessarily includes intan- are simultaneously an indication of the scenic beauty for northwestern US forest
gible and subjective aspects because the importance of cultural services and a chal- vistas; perceived beauty increased as the
selection of ecological structures and lenge to be addressed in their identification, percentage of green trees retained in cut
functions, and their particular character- assessment, and management. areas increased, so long as retained trees
istics, that are considered to benefit hu- were evenly dispersed rather than clumped
mans changes with knowledge, technical, Landscape Aesthetics. Aesthetics are con- in small groups. At finer scales, research
social, and cultural development. sistently included as an example of cultural on “near-views” within forest landscapes
The structures and functions produced ES (1, 18), but more specific operational has generally shown that densities of dif-
and sustained by ecosystems arguably exist definitions to guide assessments are rarely ferent species and sizes of trees, amounts
independent of human needs, and they are, provided. The MA (1) refers to the of vegetative understory, and volumes of
in principle, equally concrete and quanti- “beauty or aesthetic value in various as- downed wood have the strongest effects
fiable whether they are used for food or for pects of ecosystems, as reflected in the on aesthetic judgments (35, 36).
aesthetic or spiritual purposes. The serv- support for parks, ‘scenic drives,’ and the Empirical models (33, 35, 37) are sup-
ices derived from ecosystems (i.e., ES), selection of housing locations.” More re- ported by perceptual surveys that use
however, cannot be defined without in- cently, de Groot et al. (23) represent aes- computer visualizations of changes in
corporating social constructs. Some human thetic services based on “appreciation of landscape features predicted by bi-
needs may be considered more basic and natural scenery,” and Chan et al. (21) link ologically based models to assess the per-
potentially definable by consensus on bi- aesthetic values in rural areas with “the ceived aesthetic consequences of those

2 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 Daniel et al.

changes (33, 34, 38, 39). Both types of ces where particular types of forests, heaths, market economic valuation techniques
models have supported monetary evalua- prairies, or deserts; particular species; or have been successfully applied to cultural
tions (40, 41), including demonstrations of even individual plants or animals are heritage objects (61); however, valuations
increased values for private properties strongly associated with cultural identities, of some aspects, such as regional identity
with views of aesthetically desirable land- place attachments, social practices, and or sense of place, largely remain elusive
scapes (42). More often, however, assess- images (e.g., ref. 45 and the discussion in (62). For effective policy and decision
ments of visual aesthetic quality are ref. 21 of salmon in the northwestern making more generally, it is important to
treated as relative measures (preference United States and taro in Hawaii). These identify specific ecologically based land-
scales) for specified populations of land- relationships offer the opportunity to define scape features that are associated with the
scape scenes and observers, providing appropriate indicators for cultural heri- particular cultural heritage values of
a basis for evaluations through separate tage services and fit clearly into the ES stakeholders in a given cultural context
economic, multiattribute utility, or other framework. Different cultures may have and then to assess how changes in these
tradeoff negotiation processes. Aesthetic different heritage associations with the features would affect those values (21).
valuations thus can fit into either the same ecosystem features; thus, under- This requires intensive interaction between
demonstrated or captured TEEB (16) standing cultural heritage as an ES requires carriers of cultural values and both social
category. simultaneous consideration of both the and ecological scientists. One proven ap-
ecological and cultural contexts (46). proach is expertly facilitated deliberation,
Cultural Heritage. Natural or seminatural Cultural heritage is inextricably linked which can elicit and refine relevant cultural
features of the environment are often as- with historical relationships between hu- heritage values and the ecosystem features
sociated with the identity of an individual, man societies and ecosystems. Cultural with which they are associated (63, 64),
a community, or a society. They provide landscapes are vessels of cultural values thus helping to articulate management
experiences shared across generations, as and contribute to the identity of commu- tradeoffs and effectively capturing (16)
well as settings for communal interactions nities (47). Over time, altered or even these values for policy making, even if
important to cultural ties. The MA (1) heavily managed ecosystems can acquire stopping short of monetization.
acknowledges that “many societies place cultural significance. Key examples include
high value on the maintenance of either the classic pastoral landscapes of England Recreation and Tourism. Many people en-
historically important landscapes (‘cultural (48), terraced landscapes in Portugal (49) gage in some form of outdoor recreation
landscapes’) or culturally significant spe- or the Alps (50), heath lands in Northern (65); thus, recreation and tourism repre-
cies.” Cultural heritage is usually defined Europe (51), and orchard meadows in the sent a major opportunity and nexus
as the legacy of biophysical features, temperate regions of Central Europe (52). for managing the interaction between
physical artifacts, and intangible attributes The Satoyama concept stands for tradi- ecosystems and people, including the
of a group or society that are inherited tional small-scale agricultural and forestry development of a constituency that appre-
from past generations, maintained in the use in Japan (53). In some cases, the cul- ciates and supports protection of ecosys-
present, and bestowed for the benefit of tural landscape, as well as the products tems. Recreational activities, such as
future generations (43). Thus, research in derived from it, may represent a whole walking, camping, and nature study (66),
this area emphasizes a broad range of bi- region and act as an important trademark offer an opportunity for many people to
ocultural relationships, extending beyond for touristic offers and product marketing experience the benefits of ES directly. This
the visual/scenic focus in the preceding (54). Well-known examples are the Cham- applies particularly to people living in ur-
section. Cultural landscapes are significant pagne region in France, Tuscany in Italy, ban environments, where contact with
constituents of cultural heritage charac- the Napa Valley in the United States, and natural or seminatural ecosystems is often
terized by the long-term interaction be- the Darjeeling region in India. limited. Nonetheless, in the field of con-
tween site conditions and human influences Culture is not static and is often an im- servation biology, recreation and tourism
(e.g., property distribution, cultivation, portant driver of ecosystem change (55). have been recognized mostly as a threat to
nature conservation). For example, sites managed at a small ecosystems [e.g., via wildlife disturbance
In the original United Nations Educa- scale with traditional practices can pro- and habitat fragmentation (67, 68)], and
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza- duce specific elements, such as solitary negative offsite effects are commonly at-
tion World Heritage Convention (44), trees, hedgerows, and terraces, that affect tributed to traffic emissions and infra-
cultural heritage was associated with the ecosystem resilience and productivity as structure developments for tourism (69,
built environment and artifacts. The con- well as landscape beauty (56–58). Thus, 70). However, recreation and tourism also
cept has subsequently expanded to include preserving cultural heritage can have con- provide many important benefits, such as
practices, myths, knowledge, and skills that siderable synergy with preserving other ES, physical exercise, aesthetic experiences,
do not always imply a material represen- which is one of the motivations behind the intellectual stimulation, inspiration, and
tation and are summarized as intangible establishment of agrienvironmental pro- other contributions to physical and psy-
heritage (44). Both tangible and intangible grams in the European Union and United chological well-being (21).
aspects are relevant to cultural heritage States (59) and the recent Satoyama ini- In ES classifications, everyday short-
as ES, including visible material repre- tiative to support the United Nations term recreation in nearby green spaces, day
sentations of cultural activities on the Convention on Biological Diversity (60). tourism, and overnight tourism are often
landscape (e.g., rice paddies, viticulture Markets may indicate monetary values lumped together. Although overnight
terraces) as well as landscapes and indi- for some cultural heritage services, such as tourism seems to be recognized and in-
vidual species that are linked to intangible those that can be marketed to tourists, but tegrated to some extent (66), everyday
heritage, including myths, legends, and it is questionable whether valuations are outdoor recreation in nearby green spaces
religious practices that refer to concrete complete even in these instances. Ecolog- is often not even mentioned. In the MA
locations and ecosystem features. ical resources that contribute to cultural report (18), mental and physical health
Although it is often difficult to measure heritage are often common goods that are effects of outdoor recreation are only as-
in ES assessments, cultural heritage values shared rather than owned. They typically sumed. Meanwhile, numerous studies have
for given socioecological contexts have lack convenient market prices as signals of shown that even short exposure to green
been concretely linked to specific ecosys- value, which may be more clearly (but still spaces can have positive effects on human
tem features. There are numerous instan- imperfectly) expressed via politics. Non- health (71–73), thus also contributing to

Daniel et al. PNAS Early Edition | 3 of 8

the economic productivity of society (74). in which spiritual and religious values can Spiritual and religious services do not
Public green spaces are also important be instrumental in promoting biodiversity generalize well across communities (100,
venues for promoting physical activities conservation (91, 92), with some risk for 109), and they are difficult to value in
that improve health (75). underestimating the complexities of lived economic or monetary terms (7, 94).
Of course, most recreation activities experiences of spirituality and religiosity. However, there are more comprehensive
depend on built infrastructure, accessibil- Diverse religious groups and conserva- methods for studying spiritual and reli-
ity, and other factors, but the fundamental tionists have tried to strengthen the link gious ES, the way they are constructed and
importance of ecological conditions has between religion and environmental con- perceived, and their relation to land use
been widely demonstrated (76–79). For and resource management. Many histori-
servation, promoting the concept of “en-
a specific example, Fuller et al. (77) sur- cal and anthropological studies demon-
vironmental stewardship” (92, 95, 96).
veyed visitors to urban/suburban parks strate the complexities of spiritual services
Attempts have been made to use sacred
and found that psychological well-being (103, 105, 110), and hence may contribute
areas as a point of departure when creating
(gauged by factors derived from park vis- to policies that avoid the trap of over-
itor’s reports, including reflection, identity, protected areas (96, 97). This idea in itself generalization and romanticization (100).
and attraction) was positively correlated is not new; for instance, during the co- Ecologists and ecological economists are
with the species richness and habitat lonial period in India, the British had to increasingly adopting methods derived
diversity in the park. acknowledge the concept of sacred groves from history and social sciences to in-
Research has used a variety of monetary and land for local priests to avoid revolts clude spiritual and religious services in
and nonmonetary methods to capture the (98, 99). What is new is the recent growth their analyses. Examples are the Inte-
many facets of tourism and recreational in translating “the sacred” into legislation grated History and Future of People on
experiences (66, 80). Assessing recreation or into legal institutions granting land Earth project (111) and the discourse-
and tourism services requires information rights (100). This requires extensive based valuation methods proposed by
about frequency and intensity of use. In knowledge concerning the particular links Wilson and Howarth (112). In contrast to
support of such assessments, emerging between the sacred, nature, and society in the other examples of cultural ES dis-
visitor simulation models can determine a specific locale. Assigning spiritual or re- cussed in this paper, efforts at monetary
the effects of changes in environmental ligious significance to certain areas or valuation of spiritual and religious services
characteristics on visitor behavior in space species occurs in most societies; however, appear to be absent, even though the
and time (81–84), information that is also how this significance is expressed varies contribution these services could make to
essential for assessments of impacts of use across and within societies. Sacred areas biodiversity protection has been recog-
on affected ecosystems. Methods from are often marked by religious symbols nized by scientists and policy makers (95).
social science and ecological economics (e.g., crosses or prayer flags on mountain
can indirectly translate visitor activity summits, shrines along pilgrimage routes), Way Forward
measures into monetary values. For ex- their spatial extent may vary from a few The brief reviews of social and behavioral
ample, at the global level, O’Connor et al. trees to a mountain range, and boundaries science related to landscape aesthetics,
(85) estimate that whale watching gener- may not be fixed. In some cases, access cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and
ated expenditures of US $2.1 billion in may be restricted to a few religious lead- spiritual/religious significance illustrate
2008. In the United States, national parks ers. In other cases, sacred areas are open effective approaches for operationalizing
are reported to create a value of more to the public to perform acts of worship, and integrating cultural services into the
than US $10 billion per year (86), and which may involve harvesting some of the ES framework. Although this work was
Mayer et al. (87) estimated the economic natural resources. Sacred sites may also largely developed within prior science and
impact of six German national parks at attract tourism, which may coincide or policy frameworks, it does offer examples
V500 million per year. conflict with the religious or spiritual use of socioecological models and methods
At finer scales, assessments of particular of these sites, as observed at the heavily that could be adapted to improve the
activities at particular sites can be extended visited pilgrimage route to Santiago de definition, assessment, and evaluation of
to detailed models that quantify the spe- Compostela in Spain (101). Thorough cultural ES. Following TEEB tiered valu-
cific contributions of setting characteristics, participatory assessments are required ation framework (16), spiritual and re-
such as scenic beauty or the probability to suit local situations, needs, and ligious services are still largely limited to
of wildlife encounters (78, 88), fitting expectations. the recognition category, whereas evalua-
the capture tier of the model of TEEB Relations between ecosystems and re- tion of recreation services frequently in-
(16). More comprehensive approaches, in- ligion include moral and symbolic concepts cludes some well-established monetary
cluding qualitative and quantitative re- but can also center around very material valuation methods. Evaluations of land-
search methods, such as in-depth inter- concerns, such as staking claim to land scape aesthetic and cultural heritage
views and tape recordings, to capture contested by immigrants, invading states, services fall mostly in TEEB’s (16) dem-
immediately recalled leisure experiences or development agencies (102, 103). Lan- onstrate class but have often been able to
(89), on-site measurements of hiking ex- guage is among the most powerful ways capture value for policy-making purposes
periences via questionnaires (89), and cultures map meanings through which the by application of deliberative, multi-
computer-animated choice experiments world is made more intelligible. For in- criterion, or monetary methods. Some
for recreational trail preferences (90) can stance, the variety of names for a single specific opportunities and challenges along
further guide and help to justify ecosystem site points to shared histories in an in- the path of further development of cul-
protection policies. creasingly multicultural world (104, 105). tural ES are briefly discussed below.
Language can also operate through po-
Spiritual and Religious Significance. Interest etry, including the poetry of song and Integration of Scientific Epistemologies.
in spiritual and religious significance and dance (106), to unlock the secrets of the Concepts and methods traditionally de-
values attributed to certain aspects of na- landscape; examples range from Aborigi- veloped independently within the re-
ture has been growing (91, 92), as reflected ne’s song lines and pastoralists’ oral map- spective disciplines of ecology and social
in their inclusion as a subcategory of cul- pings to European romantic operas. These science are not sufficient to address the
tural ES (18, 93, 94). Nature conservation have also been ways of placing oneself in interrelated nature of ES (8). Within
practitioners have debated about the ways and on the land (107, 108). the ES community, the need for better

4 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 Daniel et al.

integration of social and ecological science features/indicators and the values that nored, which is likely to be the case for
has mostly been framed in terms of co- people attach to the outcomes they sup- cultural ES (3, 74, 127, 128). Because of
operation between ecologists and econo- port (123). lack of information on interactions among
mists (113); however, for cultural ES in services (129), many tradeoffs are still
particular, the cooperation must be ex- Defining the Spatial Dimension of Cultural ES. decided based on assumptions rather than
tended to broader domains of environ- Spatially explicit simulation models have facts (8), often ignoring potential synergies
mental and social sciences (8, 22). promoted better understanding of ecosys- as well. Integrated socioecological models
A range of transdisciplinary approaches tem processes, including changes at dif- can provide information about tradeoffs
(114, 115) that incorporate public in- ferent scales over time (124). Promising and synergies, leading to better decisions,
volvement can be used to promote more spatial referencing schemes have been of- reducing unintended consequences, and
effective understanding of cultural ES that fered for several cultural ES (125, 126), but better managing conflicts.
arise from complex socioecological sys- the object classes usually implemented in Divergence between stakeholder groups
tems (111, 116). People draw on multiple Geographic Information System (GIS) (130) and the need to integrate priorities
forms of knowledge to interpret problems environments may not be sufficient to de- for ecosystem management across spatial
and possibilities within their environment, scribe all interactions between ecosystems and temporal scales presents major chal-
from scientific or institutional to highly and social systems that define cultural lenges (23, 131). Monetary valuation
contextual local or traditional knowledge services. For example, determining the schemes have traditionally provided the
forms (117, 118). To include these multi- cultural heritage significance of a specific foundation for resolving such complex
ple types of knowledge within and across ecosystem feature requires the participa- tradeoffs, and nonmarket valuation meth-
multiple scales, approaches that do not tion of relevant stakeholder groups. ods (132) have shown promise for mone-
assume scientific primacy or exclude al- Whereas mapping the location of an tizing benefits for some cultural services in
ternative epistemologies are more likely to identified feature can be straightforward, limited circumstances. The research re-
be successful (119, 120). The reviewed delineating precisely the boundary of the viewed provides examples of other effec-
literature provides examples of how in- area within which land use changes could tive approaches for resolving tradeoffs
tegrating a broader range of social scien- affect the associated heritage value can be among cultural ES and between cultural
ces could widen perspectives in the challenging. All cultural services strongly and other ES and policy goals, but more
evaluation of publicly shared goods and depend on perceptions and expectations of work is still needed in this area (16).
services, and could enlighten collective the respective stakeholders, and consider- Visualizations can facilitate communi-
policy and decision processes (121). able conceptual and technical work may be cation and improve reliability and validity
needed to represent and model the com- of monetary valuations (122). GIS-based
Assessing and Modeling Interdependent plex socioecological relationships that 3D representations of planned ecosystem
Socioecological Systems. The research re- define and constrain a given cultural eco- changes have supported assessments of
viewed suggests several effective ap- system service adequately. stakeholder preferences for different
proaches for studying cultural ES within management strategies (133, 134). The
particular social and ecological systems. Addressing Tradeoffs and Synergies Across combination of valid and intuitively ac-
The capacity of a given ecosystem to con- Multiple Value Systems. Ecosystems often cessible representations of environmental
tribute to a given service for a given support multiple services, and synergies options with participatory deliberative
stakeholder group may fluctuate, and so- and tradeoffs cannot be negotiated effec- decision methods (135), including citizen
cial demands are also dynamic. In this tively if some services are unknown or ig- juries (136, 137), value construction
context, useful biological assessment
models will anticipate the relevant social
contexts and provide outputs that can be
useful inputs to social assessments; sum-
mary measures of biodiversity or gross
productivity will generally not be suffi-
cient. 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). Inno-
vative techniques for simulation and
visualization of dynamic ecological sys-
tems (39, 90, 122) can be coupled with
qualitative (e.g., focus groups, participa-
tory scenario planning) and quantitative
(e.g., formal surveys, economic valuation
techniques) social science research
methods to forge more explicit links be-
tween 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 distin-
guish properly between the biophysical Fig. 1. Examples of cultural services represented within an ES framework.

Daniel et al. PNAS Early Edition | 5 of 8

(63, 138), and multicriterion decision relevance of ecological structures and framework presents challenges and also
analysis (139), offers proven tools for ne- functions for their formation (the relative obstructs many opportunities. Many
gotiating across preferences of multiple contribution of natural capital) and (ii) aspects of cultural ES that have hindered
stakeholders and multiple scales without a nested set of methods for assessing hu- integration into the broader ES framework
requiring the monetization of what many man benefits consistent with the tiered (e.g., subjective, intangible, difficult to
regard as intrinsically nonmonetary values. approach adopted in TEEB (16). Based on evaluate) also apply to some extent to all
the scope and assessment methods ap- other ES. From this perspective, research
Conclusions plied, we differentiate between (i) mone- to develop socioecological models further
It is common for taxonomies of ES to in- tary assessments (2 types), (ii) quantitative for cultural services, along with expanded
clude a broad category labeled cultural ES. (nonmonetary) assessments, and (iii) systems for evaluation and tradeoff nego-
These should not be seen as a residual comprehensive studies of the human–na- tiation, would not only enhance the role of
category after accounting for more utili- ture interaction, which may include but cultural services but could contribute to
tarian ES, such as water and food pro- also extend beyond the other classes. improved assessments, modeling, and in-
vision. Cultural services have value in their Specific examples of cultural services are tegration of all ES.
own right, and they have played an im- represented in the 2D space by a centroid
portant role in motivating public support with extensions (Fig. 1), indicating that ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The international col-
for the protection of ecosystems. In this particular instances within each service laboration that produced this paper was initi-
paper, we have described a sample of rel- category may vary considerably along both ated by the Kerner-von-Marilaun Workshop
(November 2–6, 2009) in Lunz am See, Austria,
evant social science to show how cultural dimensions, a point that is reinforced by sponsored by the US National Science Founda-
ES can be operationally defined in terms of the inclusion of two different cases for tion, the Austrian Ministry of Science and Re-
socioecological models to enable better recreational services. This perspective search, and the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
integration of these services within the could equally serve to represent instances We also acknowledge the support of the work-
shop by the International Council of Science
broader ES science and policy framework. of other classes of ES. (ICSU) and the Research Platform Eisenwurzen
Fig. 1 presents the cultural service cat- The current weak integration of cultural within the International Long-Term Ecological
egories reviewed above in terms of (i) the services into the ES research and policy Research Network.

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems 17. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classi- spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Sci-
and Human Well-Being. A Framework for Assessment fication systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141: ence 28:827–838.
(Island Press, Washington, DC). 350–352. 32. Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T
2. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1981) Extinction: The Causes 18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems (2001) Prediction models of landscape preferences
and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Island Press, Wash- at the forest stand level. Landsc Urban Plan 56:11–20.
(Random House, New York). ington, DC). 33. Ribe RG (2005) Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree
3. Daily G, ed (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal Depen- 19. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The retention harvests in vista views. The interaction of
dence on Natural Ecosystems (Island Press, Washing- shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landsc
ton, DC). with ecology? Landscape Ecol 22:959–972. Urban Plan 73:277–293.
4. Mooney HA, Ehrlich PR (1997) Ecosystem services: A 20. Weber JL (2007) Implementation of land and ecosys- 34. Ribe RG, Armstrong ET, Gobster PH (2002) Scenic vis-
tem accounts at the European Environment Agency. tas and the changing policy landscape: Visualizing
fragmentary history. Nature’s Services: Societal De-
Ecol Econ 61:695–707. and testing the role of visual resources in ecosystem
pendence on Natural Ecosystems, ed Daily G (Island
21. Chan KMA, et al. (2011) Cultural services and non-use management. Landscape Journal 21:42–66.
Press, Washington, DC), pp 11–19.
values. The Theory and Practice of Ecosystem Service 35. Brown TC, Daniel TC (1986) Predicting scenic beauty
5. Costanza R, et al. (2011) Valuing ecological systems
Valuation in Conservation, eds Kareiva P, Daily G, of timber stands. Forest Science 32:471–487.
and services. F1000 Biol Rep 3:14.
Ricketts T, Tallis H, Polasky S (Oxford Univ Press, Ox- 36. Ribe RG (2009) In-stand scenic beauty of variable re-
6. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007)
ford), pp 206–228. tention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific
The nature and value of ecosystem services: An over- Northwest: The effects of basal area, density, reten-
22. US EPA (2009) Valuing the Protection of Ecological
view highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Envi- tion pattern and down wood. J Environ Manage 91:
Systems and Services: A report of the EPA Science
ron Resour 32:67–98. 245–260.
Advisory Board (US Environmental Protection Agency,
7. Daily GC, et al. (2009) Ecosystem services in decision 37. Arnberger A, Eder R (2011) Exploring the heteroge-
Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC).
making: Time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28. neity of rural landscape preferences: A visual-based
23. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L
8. Carpenter SR, et al. (2009) Science for managing eco- latent class approach. Landscape Research 36:19–40.
(2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of eco-
system services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem As- 38. Bishop ID, Lange E (2005) Visualization in Landscape
system services and values in landscape planning,
sessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:1305–1312. and Environmental Planning: Technology and Appli-
management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:
9. Daily GC, et al. (2000) Ecology. The value of nature cations (Taylor & Francis, London).
260–272.
and the nature of value. Science 289:395–396. 39. Meitner MJ, et al. (2005) The multiple roles of envi-
24. Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest
10. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? ronmental data visualization in evaluating alternative
landscape management. Landscape Journal 18:54–64.
The need for standardized environmental accounting forest management strategies. Computers and Elec-
25. Nassauer JI (1995) Culture and changing landscape
units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626. tronics in Agriculture 49:192–205.
structure. Landscape Ecol 10:229–237.
11. Costanza R, et al. (1997) The value of the world’s eco- 40. Brown TC (1987) Production and cost of scenic beauty—
26. Daniel TC, Boster RS (1976) Measuring Landscape Aes-
system services and natural capital. Nature 387: Examples for a Ponderosa pine forest. Forest Science
thetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA
253–260. 33:394–410.
Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. (Rocky Moun- 41. Thorn AJ, Daniel TC, Orland B, Brabyn N (1997) Man-
12. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A ty-
tain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Col- aging forest aesthetics in production forests. New
pology for the classification, description and valua-
lins, CO). Zealand Forestry 42:21–29.
tion of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol 27. Daniel TC (2001) Whither scenic beauty? Visual land- 42. Benson ED, Hansen JL, Schwarz AL, Smersh GT (1998)
Econ 41:393–408. scape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Pricing residential amenities: The value of a view. Jour-
13. Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: Urban Plan 54:267–281. nal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 16:55–73.
Problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246. 28. Hagerhall CM (2001) Consensus in landscape prefer- 43. Czepczynski M (2008) Cultural Landscapes of Post-So-
14. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and ence judgements. J Environ Psychol 21:83–92. cialist Cities: Representation of Powers and Needs
classifying ecosystem services for decision making. 29. Stahl J, Sikor T, Dorondel S (2009) The institutional- (Ashgate, Aldershot-Burlington, VT).
Ecol Econ 68:643–653. ization of property rights in Albanian and Romanian 44. UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of
15. de Groot R, et al. (2010) Integrating the ecological biodiversity conservation. International Journal of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, Paris).
and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosys- Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8: 45. Garibaldi A, Turner N (2004) Cultural keystone spe-
tem service valuation. The Economics of Ecosystems 57–73. cies: Implications for ecological conservation and res-
and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Founda- 30. Stamps AE (1999) Demographic effects in environ- toration. Ecology and Society 9(3):1.
tions, ed Kumar P (Earthscan, Oxford, UK), pp 9–40. mental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Plan- 46. Verschuuren B (2006) An overview of cultural and
16. TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodi- ning Literature 14:155–175. spiritual values in ecosystem management and con-
versity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, ed 31. Buhyoff GJ, Wellman JD, Daniel TC (1982) Predicting servation strategies. International Conference on En-
Kumar P (Earthscan, Oxford, UK). scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western dogenous Development and Bio-Cultural Diversity:

6 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 Daniel et al.

 The Interplay of Worldviews, Globalization and Lo- 69. Weaver DB (2006) Sustainable Tourism: Theory and on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer ani-
cality, pp 299–325. Practice (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, mated choice experiment. Landsc Urban Plan 96:1–11.
47. Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: An UK). 91. Posey DA, ed (1999) Cultural and Spiritual Values of
integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc 70. Krippendorf J, ed (1989) Für einen anderen Touris- Biodiversity (Intermediate Technology, London).
Urban Plan 84:127–139. mus: Probleme, Perspektiven, Ratschläge (Fischer– 92. Sponsel L (2001) Do anthropologists need religion,
48. Bignal EM, McCracken DI (1996) Low-intensity farm- Taschenbuch, Frankfurt am Main, Germany). and vice versa? Adventures and dangers in Spiritual
ing systems in the conservation of the countryside. J 71. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS Ecology. New Directions in Anthropology and Envi-
Appl Ecol 33:413–424. (2010) A systematic review of evidence for the added ronment: Intersections, ed Crumley CL (AltaMira
49. Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira H, Vicente L (2005) Eco- benefits to health of exposure to natural environ- Press, Walnut Creek, CA).
system services and human well-being: A participa- ments. BMC Public Health 10:456. 93. Balmford A, et al. (2002) Economic reasons for con-
tory study in a mountain community in Portugal. 72. Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T serving wild nature. Science 297:950–953.
Ecology and Society 10(2):14. (2003) Tracking restoration in natural and urban field 94. de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as
50. Scaramellinia G, Varotto M (2008) Terraced Land- settings. J Environ Psychol 23:109–123. a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sus-
scapes of the Alps: Atlas. 1. Alpter Project (Marsilio, 73. Karmanov D, Hamel R (2008) Assessing the restorative tainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban
Venice, Italy). potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Be- Plan 75:175–186.
51. Krzywinski K, O’Connell M, Küster H (2009) Cultural yond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landsc Ur- 95. Dudley N, Higgins-Zogib L, Mansourian S (2005) Be-
Landscapes of Europe—Fields of Demeter—Haunts of ban Plan 86:115–125. yond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to
Pan (Aschenbeck Media, Bremen, Germany). 74. Elmqvist T, Maltby E (2010) Biodiversity, ecosystems Support Biodiversity Conservation. A Research Report
52. Herzog F (1998) Streuobst: A traditional agroforestry and ecosystem services. The Economics of Ecosystems by WWF, Equilibrium and The Alliance of Religions
system as a model for agroforestry development in and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Founda- and Conservation (WWF, Gland, Switzerland).
temperate Europe. Agroforestry Systems 42:61–80. tions, ed Kumar P (Earthscan, Oxford, UK), pp 41–111. 96. Wild R, McLeod C, IUCN World Commission on Pro-
53. Iwata Y, Fukamachi K, Morimoto Y (2011) Public per- 75. Henderson KA, Bialeschki MD (2005) Leisure and ac- tected Areas Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Val-
ception of the cultural value of Satoyama landscape tive lifestyles: Research reflections. Leisure Sciences ues of Protected Areas and UNESCO Programme on
types in Japan. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 27:355–365. Man and the Biosphere (2008) Sacred Natural Sites:
7:173–184. 76. Adamowicz WL, Naidoo R, Nelson E, Polasky S, Guidelines for Protected Area Managers (IUCN,
54. Tempesta T, et al. (2010) The importance of landscape Zhang J (2011) Nature-based tourism and recreation. UNESCO, Gland, Switzerland).
in wine quality perception: An integrated approach Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Eco- 97. Schaaf T (1999) Environmental Conservation Based on
using choice-based conjoint analysis and combina- system Services, eds Kareiva P, Daily G, Ricketts T, Sacred Sites. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiver-
tion-based permutation tests. Food Qual Prefer 21: Tallis H, Polasky S (Oxford Univ Press, New York). sity (Intermediate Technology, London), p 341.
827–836. 77. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, 98. Bahuguna S (1992) People’s Programme for Change.
55. van Eetvelde V, Antrop M (2009) Indicators for assess- Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace The INTACH Environmental Series 19 (INTACH, New
ing changing landscape character of cultural land- increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394.
Delhi).
78. Naidoo R, Adamowicz WL (2005) Biodiversity and na-
scapes in Flanders (Belgium). Land Use Policy 26: 99. Subash Chandran MD (2000) Shifting cultivation, sa-
ture-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda. En-
901–910. cred groves and conflicts in colonial forest policy in
vironment and Development Economics 10:159–178.
56. Bender O, Boehmer HJ, Jens D, Schumacher KP (2005) the Western Ghats. Nature and the Orient: The Envi-
79. Naidoo R, Stuart-Hill G, Weaver LC, Tagg J, Davis A
Using GIS to analyse long-term cultural landscape ronmental History of South and Southeast Asia, eds
(2011) Effect of diversity of large wildlife species on
change in Southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 70: Grove RH, Damodaran V, Sangwan S (Oxford Univ
financial benefits to local communities in northwest
111–125. Press, New Delhi), pp 674–707.
Namibia. Environmental and Resource Economics 48:
57. Kapfer M, Kantelhardt J, Osinski E (2003) Estimation 100. Bhattacharya DK, et al. (2005) Cultural services. Eco-
321–335.
of costs for maintaining landscape elements by the systems and Human Well-Being, Policy Responses.
80. Henderson KA, Presley J, Bialeschki MD (2004) Theory
example of Southwest Germany. 25th International Findings of the Responses. Working Group of the Mil-
in recreation and leisure research: Reflections from
Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 16–22 lennium Ecosystem Assessment, ed Kanchan Chopra
the editors. Leisure Sciences 26:411–425.
2003, Durban, South Africa. Available at http://purl. RL, Pushpam Kumar, Henk Simons (Island Press,
81. Itami RM, Gimblett HR (2001) Intelligent recrea-
umn.edu/25923. Accessed May 4, 2012. Washington DC), Vol 3, pp 401–422.
tion agents in a virtual GIS world. Complexity Inter-
58. Schüpbach B, Junge X, Briegel R, Lindemann- 101. Nolan ML (1992) Religious sites as tourism attractions
national 08:Paper ID: itami01. Available at http://
Matthies P, Walter T (2009) Ästhetische Bewertung in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research 19:68–78.
www.complexity.org.au/ci/vol08/itami01/itami01.pdf. Ac-
landwirtschaftlicher Kulturen durch die Bevölkerung 102. Dzingrai V, Bourdillon MFC (1997) Religious ritual and
cessed May 4, 2012.
(Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART, Ettenhausen, political control in Binga District, Zimbabwe. African
82. Gimblett R, Daniel T, Cherry S, Meitner MJ (2001) The
Germany). Anthropology 4:4–26.
simulation and visualization of complex human-envi-
59. Baylis K, Peplow S, Rausser G, Simon L (2008) Agri- 103. Spierenburg M (2004) Strangers, Spirits, and Land Re-
ronment interactions. Landsc Urban Plan 54:63–78.
environmental policies in the EU and United States: forms: Conflicts About Land in Dande, Northern Zim-
83. Jochem R, Marwijk RV, Pouwels R, Pitt DG (2008)
A comparison. Ecol Econ 65:753–764. babwe (Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands).
MASOOR: Modeling the transaction of people and
60. Takeuchi K (2010) Rebuilding the relationship be-
environment on dense trail networks in natural re- 104. Moore DS (2005) Suffering for Territory: Race, Place,
tween people and nature: The Satoyama Initiative. source settings. Monitoring, Simulation and Manage- and Power in Zimbabwe (Duke Univ Press, Durham, NC).
Ecol Res 25:891–897. ment of Visitor Landscapes, eds Gimblett R, Skov- 105. Stiebel L, Gunner L, Sithole J (2000) The Land in Afri-
61. Navrud S, Ready RC (2002) Valuing Cultural Heritage: Petersen H (Univ of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ), pp ca: Space, Culture, History Workshop. Transforma-
Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to His- 269–293. tion: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 44:i–viii.
toric Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts (Edward El- 84. Taczanowska K, Arnberger A, Muhar A (2008) Explor- 106. Luig U, von Oppen A (1997) Landscape in Africa; Pro-
gar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK). ing spatial behavior of individual visitors as a basis for cess and vision. An introductory essay. The Making of
62. Butler CD, Oluoch-Kosura W (2006) Linking future agent-based simulation. Monitoring, Simulation, and African Landscapes, Paideuma, Mitteilungen zur Kul-
ecosystem services and future human well-being. Management of Visitor Landscapes, eds Gimblett R, turkunde, eds Luig U, von Oppen A (Steiner, Wiesba-
Ecology and Society 11(1):30. Skov-Petersen H (Univ of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ), den, Germany), Vol 43, pp 1– 45.
63. Gregory R, Slovic P (1997) A constructive approach to pp 159–174. 107. Coplan DB (1994) In the Time of Cannibals: The Word
environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 21:175–181. 85. O’Connor S, Campbell R, Cortez H, Knowles T (2009) Music of South Africa’s Basotho migrants (Univ of
64. Gregory R, Trousdale W (2009) Compensating aborig- Whale Watching Worldwide: Tourism Numbers, Ex- Chicago Press, Chicago).
inal cultural losses: An alternative approach to assess- penditures and Expanding Economic Benefits, a Spe- 108. Cohen DW, Atiendo Odhiambo ES (1989) Siaya: The
ing environmental damages. J Environ Manage 90: cial Report from the International Fund for Animal Historical Anthropology of an African Landscape
2469–2479. Welfare Prepared by Economists at Large (Interna- (Heinemann Kenya, Nairobi).
65. Sievänen T, Arnberger A, Dehez J, Jensen FS (2009) tional Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth, MA). 109. Harmon D, Putney AD (2003) The Full Value of Parks:
Monitoring of forest recreation demand. European 86. Stynes DJ (2005) Economic significance of recreational From Economics to the Intangible (Roman & Little-
Forest Recreation and Tourism. A Handbook, eds uses of national parks and other public lands. Social field Publishers, Oxford).
Bell S, Simpson M, Tyrväinen L, Sievänen T, Pröbstl U Science Research Review 5:1–36. 110. Ranger TO (1999) Voices from the Rocks: Nature, Cul-
(Taylor and Francis, London), pp 105–133. 87. Mayer M, Müller M, Woltering M, Arnegger J, Job H ture and History in the Matopos Hills of Zimbabwe
66. de Groot R, Ramakrishnan PS (2005) Cultural and Ame- (2010) The economic impact of tourism in six German (Indiana Univ Press, Bloomington, IN).
nity Services. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Cur- national parks. Landsc Urban Plan 97:73–82. 111. Hibbard K, et al. (2010) Developing an Integrated His-
rent State and Trends. Findings of the Condition and 88. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) tory and Future of People on Earth (IHOPE): Research
Trends Working Group. Millennium Ecosystem Assess- Stated preference approaches for measuring passive Plan. IGBP Report No. 59 (IGBP Secretariat, Stock-
ment (Island Press, Washington, DC), pp 455–476. use values. Choice Experiments and Contingent Valu- holm), p 40.
67. Reed SE, Merenlender AM (2008) Quiet, nonconsump- ation. 80:64–75. 112. Wilson MA, Howarth RB (2002) Discourse-based valu-
tive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness. 89. Lee Y, Dattilo J, Howard D (1994) The complex and ation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes
Conservation Letters 1:146–154. dynamic nature of leisure experience. Journal of Lei- through group deliberation. Ecol Econ 41:431–443.
68. Liddle M (1997) Recreation Ecology. The Ecological sure Research 26:195–211. 113. Heal GM, et al. (2001) Protecting natural capital
Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism (Chap- 90. Reichhart T, Arnberger A (2010) Exploring the influ- through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environ-
man & Hall, London). ence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors mental Law Journal 20:333–364.

Daniel et al. PNAS Early Edition | 7 of 8

114. Pregernig M (2006) Transdisciplinarity viewed from tion. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper (Re- 132. Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, eds (2003) A Primer
afar: Science-policy assessments as forums for the sources for the Future, Washington, DC), pp 9–35. on Non-Market Valuation (Kluwer Academic Publish-
creation of transdisciplinary knowledge. Science and 124. Costanza R, Voinov A (2004) Landscape Simulation ers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands).
Public Policy 33:445–455. Modeling: A Spatially Explicit, Dynamic Approach 133. Dramstad WE, Sundli Tveit M, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA
115. Pohl C (2005) Transdisciplinary collaboration in envi- (Springer, New York). (2006) Relationships between visual landscape prefer-
ronmental research. Futures 37:1159–1178. 125. Raymond CM, et al. (2009) Mapping community val- ences and map-based indicators of landscape struc-
116. Ostrom E (2010) A multi-scale approach to coping ture. Landsc Urban Plan 78:465–474.
ues for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol
with climate change and other collective action prob- 134. Wissen Hayek U, Halatsch J, Kunze A, Schmitt G, Grêt-
Econ 68:1301–1315.
lems. Solutions 1:27–36. Regamey A (2010) Integrating natural resource indi-
126. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS
117. Irwin A (2001) Sociology and the Environment (Polity cators into procedural visualisation for sustainable ur-
Press, Cambridge, UK). application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying ban green space design. Peer Reviewed Proceedings
118. Berkes F (2008) Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr Digital Landscape Architecture 2010, eds Buhmann E,
Knowledge and Resource Management (Routledge, 31:748–760. Pietsch M, Kretzler E (Wichmann, Offenbach, Ger-
New York), 2nd Ed. 127. Rodriguez JP, et al. (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, many), pp 361 369.
119. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectiv- and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11:14. 135. Howarth RB, Wilson MA (2006) A theoretical ap-
ity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological 128. Scheffer M, Brock W, Westley F (2000) Socioeconomic proach to deliberative valuation: Aggregation by mu-
systems: The role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ mechanisms preventing optimum use of ecosystem tual consent. Land Econ 82:1–16.
Resour 34:253–278. services: An interdisciplinary theoretical analysis. Eco- 136. Aldred J, Jacobs M (2000) Citizens and wetlands: Eval-
120. Cash DW, et al. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: systems (New York) 3:451–471. uating the Ely citizens’ jury. Ecol Econ 34:217–232.
Governance and information in a multilevel world. 129. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Under- 137. Brown TC, Peterson GL, Tonn BE (1995) The values
Ecology and Society 11(2):8. standing relationships among multiple ecosystem jury to aid natural resource decisions. Land Econ 71:
121. Schläpfer F, Schmitt M, Roschewitz A (2008) Compet- 250–260.
services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404.
itive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for 138. Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D (2001) Decision aid-
130. Rambonilaza M, Dachary-Bernard J (2007) Land-use
public goods. Ecol Econ 65:574–589. ing, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through
planning and public preferences: What can we learn
122. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S (2009) Reducing structured environmental decisions. J Policy Anal
gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experi- from choice experiment method? Landsc Urban Plan Manage 20:415–432.
ment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Man- 83:318–326. 139. Mendoza GA, Martins H (2006) Multi-criteria decision
age 58:106–118. 131. Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid WA (2008) analysis in natural resource management: A critical
123. Boyd J, Krupnick A (2009) The definition and choice Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services review of methods and new modelling paradigms.
of environmental commodities for nonmarket valua- in an Alpine region. J Environ Manage 89:197–208. For Ecol Manage 230:1–22.

8 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 Daniel et al.