- Email: [email protected]
Managing cultural ecosystem services
Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
Managing cultural ecosystem services Mary M. Pleasant a,n,1, Steven A. Gray b, Christopher Lepczyk a, Anthea Fernandes c, Nathan Hunter a, Derek Ford a a
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA School for the Environment, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA c Biology Department, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 7 September 2013 Received in revised form 10 March 2014 Accepted 15 March 2014
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) substantially contribute to human wellbeing as the nonmaterial benefits of ecosystems. However, they remain poorly understood due to their often nonmarket and intangible nature. We analyzed management characteristics of coastal and watershed – based CES in contrast to provisioning and regulatory services from surveys of environmental managers in Hawaii. CES were the most frequently managed type of ecosystem service, a top management priority among localscale decision-makers and nongovernmental organizations, and managed for security. However, only 10% of managers could articulate specific policies they used to manage CES. Follow-up interviews with a subset of managers further revealed that half of all CES managed were considered to benefit people beyond the spatial scale in which management decisions were made. Identifying management characteristics of CES will inform the development of indicators to monitor changes in CES, and develop policies that maintain the relationship between ecosystem function, CES and human wellbeing. & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coastal watershed Cultural ecosystem service Environmental management Hawaii Human wellbeing
1. Introduction Increasing human population and subsequent alteration of ecosystems has greatly diminished the ability of the environment to provide the goods and services on which human communities depend (Vitousek et al., 1997). Consequently, environmental decision-makers are forced to balance difficult tradeoffs between societal pressures and preserving healthy ecosystem functions. The ecosystem services framework has been proposed as means to navigate these difficult decisions since it communicates, in explicit terms of feedback to human wellbeing, the costs of increasing demands on the environment (Daily, 1997). The ecosystem services framework originated in resource economics (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010), but more recently has been used to formally communicate the market and non-market value of ecosystems, thereby providing a framework for decision-making (Granek et al., 2010). The framework entered the mainstream in the 1990s (see Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997), followed by a comprehensive revision by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) which extended the framework to include relationships between categories of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulatory, cultural) and categories of human wellbeing (security, basic material n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 0115033322877. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.M. Pleasant). 1 Current address: 13315 SW Berthold St, Beaverton, OR 97005.
for good life, health, good social relations) on a global scale. Additionally, the MEA suggested the ease by which these relationships could be sustained by socioeconomic factors and, in doing so, established a set of globally relevant hypotheses about ecosystem services, human communities, and their ability to be maintained by common policy mechanisms. Although influential in the natural and social sciences, little empirical information exists about the variation in these linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing at a regional scale and place-based context. Although the MEA increased research application of the ecosystem service framework, research effort has been applied unevenly across the categories of ecosystem services (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). Specifically, research pertaining to valuing and managing cultural ecosystem services (CES) – the nonmaterial benefits of ecosystems – has fallen behind regulatory and provisioning services (Vihervaara et al., 2010) because their value is difficult to assess monetarily and biophysically, they are interrelated with other services, and there are few indicators to monitor their nontangible effects on – or direct contributions to – social systems (Atkinson et al., 2012; Daniel et al., 2012). Further, like all categories of ecosystem services, CES require a human beneficiary in order to be valued. CES benefits (and their resulting value) depend upon the individual cultural context that a person is using to perceive information provided by the structure and function of an ecosystem (Braat and de Groot, 2012). Although CES remain difficult to assess and understand within a management context, they are thought to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006 2212-0416/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
e2
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
contribute significantly to people's quality of life (Chan et al., 2012b). Several attempts have been made to incorporate CES into the broader framework of ecosystem service valuation which have relied on economic accounting methods such as stated (e.g., contingent valuation) or revealed preference (e.g., hedonic pricing). However, these accounting methods are only able to improve the quantification of a particular set of CES (e.g., aesthetic appreciation and recreation opportunity) (Daniel et al., 2012). Thus, current methods fail to address more experiential CES such as heritage, education, and spiritual services considered to have distinct contributions to humans beyond economic valuations (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). In recent years, new methods of stakeholder participation have facilitated important improvements in the integration of CES into the broader framework. Stakeholder participation methodology has been suggested as a way to begin teasing apart how ecosystems relate to cultural values by having stakeholders define the contribution of ecological structure and function to CES production, relative to other ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2012a; Daniel et al., 2012). As opposed to contingent valuation, deliberationbased valuation is a public process that is more suitable to CES since it evaluates these services as public goods and better reflects the social nature of the market (Wilson and Howarth, 2002). Identifying priority ecosystem services among the public may also play an important role in meeting publically defined management objectives (Chan et al., 2012a), as demonstrated by the Puget Sound Partnership's efforts to develop an ecosystem service-based watershed restoration plan with goals and priorities determined by the broader community. Through interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, Iceland et al. (2008) was able to determine the community's top five ecosystem priorities, among which recreation and existence services were prioritized, which helped inform management strategies. Overall, community involvement not only determines social values of ecosystem services and determines key ecosystem service management strategies, but may also help to generate public support to carry the plan into policy among government and nongovernmental agencies alike (Iceland et al., 2008). Although recent advancements in the conceptual framework and modeling techniques have improved the theory and measurement of CES (see Daniel et al., 2012), questions remain about how CES relate to the communities that rely on them (Atkinson et al., 2012), especially from a management perspective. Here, we test the hypothesized relationships of the ecosystem service framework provided by the MEA to evaluate (a) what ecosystem services are prioritized for management among different types of decisionmakers and decision-making organizations; (b) the relationships between these services and human wellbeing; and, (c) how these services are managed from the perspective of individual, on-theground environmental decision-makers. Contrasting the management of CES with other types of services may help us better understand the distinct contributions of CES to human communities and develop management plans that monitor their change over time.
Hawaii has a rich cultural history tied to unique and productive ecosystems that provide a series of cultural ecosystem services (Fig. 1). As such, other tropical islands, particularly those with strong and vibrant indigenous communities, may benefit from the results of this study. We used a survey instrument and follow-up interviews with environmental decision-makers (hereafter decision-makers) to test our hypotheses. We defined decision-makers as individuals that worked for organizations that managed, researched, monitored, made decisions about, and/or provided outreach or education about coastal or watershed ecosystem services in Hawaii. The survey contact list included a variety of job roles (e.g., scientists, managers, outreach, and education), government and nongovernment organizations (NGOs), at varying scales of management jurisdiction (e.g., state, federal, international) to represent the diversity of decisionmakers currently engaged in natural resource management in Hawaii. We allowed multiple contacts within the same organization, so long as each individual worked for different departments or on distinct programs. Where possible, we specifically targeted managers and program coordinators as points of contact as they are lead decision-makers. We developed the initial contact database from a recent study of decision-makers that managed coastal areas for conservation, preservation, or restoration throughout Hawaii (Carrier et al., 2012). An additional internet search of email contacts was guided by a state agency-developed public list of management organizations in Hawaii spanning international, federal, state, county, and municipal government; NGOs, nonprofits, and professional societies; and inter-governmental NGOs and non-profit organizations in the Asia-Pacific Region. 2.2. Survey We first administered an internet survey to address what ecosystem services were prioritized for management and why. Respondents were provided a list of 17 individual common ecosystem services (e.g., food from animals, climate regulation, recreation), which together comprised the 3 general ecosystem service categories, developed from a literature review using existing frameworks (MEA, 2005; Fisher et al., 2009). The services included in the survey were then refined through two separate focus groups with experts in ecology and resource management. We removed the supporting services category from the final list used for the survey as it is often conflated with other services (Wallace, 2007). The internet survey included 19 questions and was administered to 274 environmental decision-makers across 83 different management institutions, both governmental and nongovernmental. The distribution of organizational jurisdiction included: 51% (n ¼140) local, county, or state, 41% federal (n ¼112) and 8% (n ¼22) international. Using a multiple email contact approach (Dillman, 2007), the survey was open for three weeks. To minimize errors of commission, respondents were permitted to skip questions (Peytchev et al., 2006). Thus, the sample size for each question varied, with a maximum of 114 responses and a minimum of 78 responses. 2.3. Follow-up interviews
2. Methods 2.1. Study area and survey design We tested our hypotheses on the Main Hawaiian Islands (hereafter Hawaii) since the archipelago is geographically, culturally, and functionally bounded, and comprised of a diverse set of management agencies that are tasked with managing a range of ecosystem services for multiple and diverse stakeholder groups. Additionally,
We conducted follow-up telephone interviews with a selfselected sample of the internet survey respondents following the close of the survey. We contacted participants first by e-mail, followed by up to four telephone calls at random times during the workday. The telephone interview allowed respondents to clarify responses in the internet survey, and contained 25 questions intended to understand how ecosystem services priorities are managed.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e3
2.4. Data analysis
3. Results
Data were analyzed using Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Tests to assess differences in the expected versus observed distribution of ecosystem service priorities and Chi-Square Tests of Independence to describe the interaction between ecosystem service priorities and management characteristics with significance at the 0.05 level. We also analyzed the interaction between scale of management and scale of benefit through response agreement.
No significant differences were found between telephone and internet survey samples in terms of the job role of respondents (χ2 ¼ 2.60, P ¼0.272), organization affiliation (χ2 ¼0.06, P ¼0.801), and organization jurisdiction (χ2 ¼ 2.15, P ¼0.342). The majority of respondents from both internet (42%) and telephone interview (49%) groups worked for organizations with statewide, followed by federal jurisdictions (28%, 25%, respectively), and came from a variety of job roles, most frequently ‘other’ (38% internet; 40% telephone) and natural resource managers (27% internet; 26% telephone). Other job roles mentioned included, board member, data coordinator, “both a manager and a scientist,” and policy advocate. The majority of respondents in both surveys (71% internet; 68% telephone) worked for government organizations. In terms of overall services managed, CES were most frequently managed (45%), followed by regulatory services (34%), and provisioning services (21%; Fig. 2). The average number of ecosystem services managed per respondent was 6.9 7 4.3 (SD). The top three
2.5. Response rate Upon removal of out of date e-mail addresses (n ¼29) and out of office replies (n ¼20), the final sample size was reduced to 225. From these 225 contacts, 114 completed part or all of the survey, yielding a response rate of 51% for the internet survey. The response rate for the semi-structured (n ¼114) telephone interview was 31% (n¼ 35) based on those that self-selected themselves from the internet survey.
Fig. 1. Examples of cultural services provided by Hawaii's coastal and watershed ecosystems (A) Science and education information – Telescopes atop Mauna Kea, home to the world's largest observatory for optical, infrared, and submillimeter astronomy; (B) Recreation opportunity – Rainbow Road in Haleakala Crater; (C) Heritage/ Indigenous service – Hawaii Youth Conservation Corps restoring the ancient Hawaiian He'eia fishpond; and, (D) Aesthetic appreciation—The north shore on the island of Oahu. Photography courtesy of Rafael Bergstrom.
Fig. 2. Percent of individual ecosystem services managed by environmental decision-makers in Hawaii (N ¼664).
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
e4
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
management priorities among decision-makers were similar when evaluated by the three categories of ecosystem services (χ2 ¼2.06, P ¼0.357). For the second and third management priorities, however, CES were the most frequently reported (χ2 ¼ 19.51, Po0.001; χ2 ¼ 15.97, Po 0.001). The majority of organizations with state jurisdictions (57%, P¼ 0.003) and NGOs (65%, P¼ 0.015) managed CES as their top priority, whereas the majority of organizations with federal jurisdictions (60%) managed provisioning services as top priority. Similarly, government organizations (40%) most frequently managed provisioning services, followed by CES (33%). CES were the only ecosystem service category to be linked to all four categories of human wellbeing provided by the MEA framework (Fig. 3). However, the majority of CES were managed for
security (50%). By comparison, regulatory services were largely managed for health (64%) and provisioning services were primarily managed for basic material for good life (85%). Of the respondents with a CES as their top management priority, only 10% could articulate specific policies they used to manage CES. The policies listed were the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act which are both federal policies. By comparison, 27% of respondents could articulate policies regarding regulatory services and most respondents could clearly articulate policies regarding provisioning services (70%). All respondents agreed that CES were managed at the state level. However, the scale at which they were thought to benefit people was evenly split among the state/county/local level (50%),
Fig. 3. Relationships between top ecosystem service priorities and human wellbeing benefits as perceived by environmental decision-makers in Hawaii. To evaluate environmental decision-makers' perceptions about the relationships between ecosystem services and human wellbeing, we used the hypothesized relationships provided by the MEA (2005) (Figure A, page vi) as a framework. Respondents were asked three questions regarding (1) their top ecosystem service management priority; (2) the connection this ecosystem service has to human wellbeing; and, (3) the degree to which they thought that socioeconomic policies were effective for sustaining the connection between the service and human wellbeing. Individual ecosystem services were combined into three general ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning, regulatory, cultural) and human wellbeing benefits were aggregated into four general wellbeing categories (i.e., security, basic material for good life, health, good social relations). To determine the intensity of linkages (line width) and the degree to which socioeconomic policies were effective in mediating the connections represented (line shading) between ecosystem services and human wellbeing, each ecosystem service category was considered separately (cultural n¼ 20; regulatory n¼ 14; provisioning n¼ 20). The width of connections between service category and benefit category were determined according to the percent of responses that identified the link to generate 3 categories of intensity and the effectiveness of policy mediation was determined according to the percent of binary responses (e.g., agree effective or disagree effective) identified for each line based on questionnaire data (e.g. low, medium and high), with 0% represented by no line, 1–33% of respondents was considered weak, 34–67% was considered medium, and 467% was considered high.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
and the international community (50%; Fig. 4). Most often, the CES of heritage/indigenous and recreation were services that were managed locally, but benefitted people internationally. By comparison, regulatory services responses indicated that the management and benefits were both perceived to be distributed across scales while for provisioning services, many respondents agreed that these services were managed internationally, and the international community benefitted likely due a focus on highly migratory fish species.
4. Discussion Our results suggest that, compared to regulatory and provisioning services, CES are an important management priority in Hawaii, especially for maintaining community security. There are many threats to native Hawaiian cultural security through high rates of tourism and population increase, the high rate of invasive species introductions, and climate change threatening the coastal indigenous way of life (DBEDT, 2006; Pimentel et al., 2005; Salick and Anja, 2007). We also found that the benefits that CES generate are experienced both locally and internationally. However, even with this perceived importance, there are few policies that clearly guide the management of CES. Further, the potential effectiveness of managing CES through socioeconomic policies remains unclear.
These findings parallel other studies that have indicated that CES are consistently recognized as important, necessary, and vital contributors to human wellbeing, but lack available means to account for them (Rö nnbäck et al., 2007; Barbier et al., 2011), and there are few policies specifically in place to maintain CES. Our results indicate that these difficulties in accounting for CES extend to their management. NGOs, especially those on the local and state scale, appear to play a disproportionate role in managing CES compared to government institutions. Grassroots movements throughout the US and internationally have become well-known for setting environmental agendas, and mobilizing local community members to prevent environmental degradation, especially when governmental actions are considered to be insufficient to meet community-defined goals (Karan and Suganuma, 2008). These findings about the relationship between local NGOs and CES are particularly revealing in contrast to provisioning services which were found to be managed by federal government agencies with well-defined, formal policies. This type of informal management, especially by members of the local or state community that are outside of government institutions, is a unique characteristic of CES compared to other ecosystem services. We found evidence to support many of the relationships between ecosystem services and the categories of human wellbeing proposed by the MEA, with a few key differences that appear to be unique to Hawaii. For example, CES were the only services that were
Environmental Managers’ Perception of the Scale at which Top ES Priority is Managed
Cultural
e5
Environmental Managers’ Perception of the Scale at which Top ES Priority Benefit Humans
International
International
Federal
Federal
State
State
International
International
Federal
Federal
State
State
Regulatory
International
International
% of Environmental Decision-makers 100%
Provisioning
Federal
Federal
75% 50%
State
State
25% 0%
Fig. 4. Scale of management versus scale of beneficiaries at local/county/state, federal and Pacific region/international scales for general ecosystem service top management priorities among environmental decision-makers in Hawaii.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
e6
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
managed for every category of benefit suggested by the MEA – a reminder of their diffuse nature and interrelation with other services (Chan et al., 2012b). Additionally, there was agreement among respondents that CES were most readily linked to security (e.g., from disasters and secure resource access) likely because of the isolated nature of Hawaii and its reliance on tourism for economic security. Indeed, many tropical islands generate a considerable portion of their financial security through recreation-based activities and tourism is Hawaii's primary economic industry, generating $11.2 billion annually (DBEDT, 2011). Tourism, however, presents unique challenges for communities managing CES. Although the commoditization of culture and ecosystem amenity value can improve economic viability, it also may diminish the ecosystems' ability to produce additional profits into the future by increasing pressure on the environment (Gladstone, 2005). Given the high rate of tourism and increasing population in Hawaii, if CES are expected to be degraded, restricting access to ecosystems from which cultural services are experienced, including such practices as shifting governance and adaptive management, may be an important policy measure to sustain them into the future (Olsson et al., 2008). In addition to the more pronounced and diverse reliance on CES, when compared to the MEA projections, regulatory services were not perceived to be as tightly linked to basic material for good life (access to food and goods) and provisioning services were not perceived to be linked to categories of human wellbeing related to health. Again, the same properties that make islands culturally and ecologically unique present island populations with sustainability challenges related to limited resource availability. When these resource limitations are combined with increased pressures through tourism and increased immigration, island communities may be forced beyond the threshold of natural carrying capacity (Deschenes and Chertow, 2004) causing reliance on local ecosystem services and their relationship to human wellbeing to change, potentially intensifying or diminishing. The benefits generated from CES were thought to cross boundaries from the point in which they were managed. Notably, we found that the benefits generated by CES were considered to be exported internationally, likely due to the high rate of tourism, immigration/emigration and recreational opportunities which were either experienced directly by visitors or communicated as an idea to residents of other places who may also value the experience and existence of these services. This phenomenon of exporting the benefits of CES beyond their place of origin also appears to extend to the scale of individuals who consider themselves stakeholders of these services. For example, public comments regarding the establishment of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan drew more comments from outside of Hawaii (6311) than from inside (6015), including many international comments (NOAA, 2011). Given the non-market and non-use value of humpbacks whales, the global interest in maintaining this CES indicates that whales provide an existence value (Krutilla, 1967), and although perhaps never experienced, the benefit of these CES may exist primarily in the minds of stakeholders.
5. Conclusions The ecosystem services framework can help decision-makers explicitly consider the feedback relationships between human wellbeing and environmental pressures. However, CES present unique challenges, especially for tropical islands with high rates of tourism and areas with indigenous communities. Recognizing the trans-boundary nature of CES, the various ways in which communities relate CES and human wellbeing, and the informal practices through which CES are managed outside the traditional governmental policy frameworks, will be imperative to developing
monitoring and management actions that maintain the unique human benefits from CES. While CES in Hawaii are high management priorities, there remains question as to whether they have transitioned into the context of real decision-making. For those services where value is not readily defined by the market, as is the case for many cultural services, stakeholder-determined value may be the first step to monitoring and managing these services. In this way, public involvement may help to also engender public support to transition management plans into effective policy.
Acknowledgments We thank the University of Hawaii Water Resources and Research Center and USGS National Institute for Water Resources (Grant no. G11AP20075) for supporting this research. References Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., Mourato, S., 2012. Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 38, 22–47. Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., et al., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193. Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 4–15. Carrier, S.D., Bruland, G.L., Cox, L.J., Lepczyk, C.A., 2012. Perceptions of coastal resource managers in Hawaii: the current situation and outlook for the future. Ocean Coast. Manage. 69, 291–298. Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., et al., 2012a. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62, 744–756. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., et al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., et al., 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8812–8819. DBEDT (State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism), 2006. Planning for sustainable tourism: Project Summary Report. 〈http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/visitor-stats/sustainable-tourism-project/drafts/ STPsummary.pdf〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. DBEDT (State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism), 2011. Visitor Statistics. 〈http://Hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/visitor-stats〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. Deschenes, P.J., Chertow, M., 2004. An island approach to industrial ecology: towards sustainability in the island context. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 47, 201–217. Dillman, D.A., 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Second Edition John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. Gladstone, D., 2005. From Pilgrimage to Package Tour: Travel and Tourism in the Third World. Routledge Press, London, Great Britain Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1209–1218. Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Kappel, C.V., et al., 2010. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv. Biol. 24, 207–216. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29, 434–444. Iceland C., Hanson C., Lewis C. 2008. Identifying important ecosystem goods and services in Puget Sound. Summary of Interviews and Research for The Puget Sound Partnership. Puget Sound Partnership, Seattle. 〈http://www.psp.wa.gov/〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. Karan, P., Suganuma, U. (Eds.), 2008. Local environmental movements: A comparative study of the United States and Japan. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky Krutilla, J.V., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57, 777–786. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2011. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan Review Public Scoping Report. 〈http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hughes, T.P., 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystembased management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9489–9494.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Peytchev, A., Couper, M.P., Esteban McCabe, S., Crawford, S.D., 2006. Web survey design: paging versus scrolling. Pub. Opin. Quart. 70, 596–607. Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D., 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52, 273–288. Rö nnbäck, P., Kautsky, N., Pihl, L., et al., 2007. Ecosystem goods and services from Swedish coastal habitats–identification, valuation, and implications of ecosystem shifts. Ambio 36, 1–11. Salick, J., Anja, B., 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. Tyndall Centre Publication Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Oxford, UK
e7
Vihervaara, P., Rö nkä, M., Walls, M., 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39, 314–324. Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499. Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 139, 235–246. Wilson, M.A., Howarth, R.B., 2002. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 41, 43–443.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
Managing cultural ecosystem services Mary M. Pleasant a,n,1, Steven A. Gray b, Christopher Lepczyk a, Anthea Fernandes c, Nathan Hunter a, Derek Ford a a
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA School for the Environment, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA c Biology Department, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 7 September 2013 Received in revised form 10 March 2014 Accepted 15 March 2014
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) substantially contribute to human wellbeing as the nonmaterial benefits of ecosystems. However, they remain poorly understood due to their often nonmarket and intangible nature. We analyzed management characteristics of coastal and watershed – based CES in contrast to provisioning and regulatory services from surveys of environmental managers in Hawaii. CES were the most frequently managed type of ecosystem service, a top management priority among localscale decision-makers and nongovernmental organizations, and managed for security. However, only 10% of managers could articulate specific policies they used to manage CES. Follow-up interviews with a subset of managers further revealed that half of all CES managed were considered to benefit people beyond the spatial scale in which management decisions were made. Identifying management characteristics of CES will inform the development of indicators to monitor changes in CES, and develop policies that maintain the relationship between ecosystem function, CES and human wellbeing. & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coastal watershed Cultural ecosystem service Environmental management Hawaii Human wellbeing
1. Introduction Increasing human population and subsequent alteration of ecosystems has greatly diminished the ability of the environment to provide the goods and services on which human communities depend (Vitousek et al., 1997). Consequently, environmental decision-makers are forced to balance difficult tradeoffs between societal pressures and preserving healthy ecosystem functions. The ecosystem services framework has been proposed as means to navigate these difficult decisions since it communicates, in explicit terms of feedback to human wellbeing, the costs of increasing demands on the environment (Daily, 1997). The ecosystem services framework originated in resource economics (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010), but more recently has been used to formally communicate the market and non-market value of ecosystems, thereby providing a framework for decision-making (Granek et al., 2010). The framework entered the mainstream in the 1990s (see Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997), followed by a comprehensive revision by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) which extended the framework to include relationships between categories of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulatory, cultural) and categories of human wellbeing (security, basic material n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 0115033322877. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.M. Pleasant). 1 Current address: 13315 SW Berthold St, Beaverton, OR 97005.
for good life, health, good social relations) on a global scale. Additionally, the MEA suggested the ease by which these relationships could be sustained by socioeconomic factors and, in doing so, established a set of globally relevant hypotheses about ecosystem services, human communities, and their ability to be maintained by common policy mechanisms. Although influential in the natural and social sciences, little empirical information exists about the variation in these linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing at a regional scale and place-based context. Although the MEA increased research application of the ecosystem service framework, research effort has been applied unevenly across the categories of ecosystem services (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). Specifically, research pertaining to valuing and managing cultural ecosystem services (CES) – the nonmaterial benefits of ecosystems – has fallen behind regulatory and provisioning services (Vihervaara et al., 2010) because their value is difficult to assess monetarily and biophysically, they are interrelated with other services, and there are few indicators to monitor their nontangible effects on – or direct contributions to – social systems (Atkinson et al., 2012; Daniel et al., 2012). Further, like all categories of ecosystem services, CES require a human beneficiary in order to be valued. CES benefits (and their resulting value) depend upon the individual cultural context that a person is using to perceive information provided by the structure and function of an ecosystem (Braat and de Groot, 2012). Although CES remain difficult to assess and understand within a management context, they are thought to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006 2212-0416/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
e2
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
contribute significantly to people's quality of life (Chan et al., 2012b). Several attempts have been made to incorporate CES into the broader framework of ecosystem service valuation which have relied on economic accounting methods such as stated (e.g., contingent valuation) or revealed preference (e.g., hedonic pricing). However, these accounting methods are only able to improve the quantification of a particular set of CES (e.g., aesthetic appreciation and recreation opportunity) (Daniel et al., 2012). Thus, current methods fail to address more experiential CES such as heritage, education, and spiritual services considered to have distinct contributions to humans beyond economic valuations (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). In recent years, new methods of stakeholder participation have facilitated important improvements in the integration of CES into the broader framework. Stakeholder participation methodology has been suggested as a way to begin teasing apart how ecosystems relate to cultural values by having stakeholders define the contribution of ecological structure and function to CES production, relative to other ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2012a; Daniel et al., 2012). As opposed to contingent valuation, deliberationbased valuation is a public process that is more suitable to CES since it evaluates these services as public goods and better reflects the social nature of the market (Wilson and Howarth, 2002). Identifying priority ecosystem services among the public may also play an important role in meeting publically defined management objectives (Chan et al., 2012a), as demonstrated by the Puget Sound Partnership's efforts to develop an ecosystem service-based watershed restoration plan with goals and priorities determined by the broader community. Through interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, Iceland et al. (2008) was able to determine the community's top five ecosystem priorities, among which recreation and existence services were prioritized, which helped inform management strategies. Overall, community involvement not only determines social values of ecosystem services and determines key ecosystem service management strategies, but may also help to generate public support to carry the plan into policy among government and nongovernmental agencies alike (Iceland et al., 2008). Although recent advancements in the conceptual framework and modeling techniques have improved the theory and measurement of CES (see Daniel et al., 2012), questions remain about how CES relate to the communities that rely on them (Atkinson et al., 2012), especially from a management perspective. Here, we test the hypothesized relationships of the ecosystem service framework provided by the MEA to evaluate (a) what ecosystem services are prioritized for management among different types of decisionmakers and decision-making organizations; (b) the relationships between these services and human wellbeing; and, (c) how these services are managed from the perspective of individual, on-theground environmental decision-makers. Contrasting the management of CES with other types of services may help us better understand the distinct contributions of CES to human communities and develop management plans that monitor their change over time.
Hawaii has a rich cultural history tied to unique and productive ecosystems that provide a series of cultural ecosystem services (Fig. 1). As such, other tropical islands, particularly those with strong and vibrant indigenous communities, may benefit from the results of this study. We used a survey instrument and follow-up interviews with environmental decision-makers (hereafter decision-makers) to test our hypotheses. We defined decision-makers as individuals that worked for organizations that managed, researched, monitored, made decisions about, and/or provided outreach or education about coastal or watershed ecosystem services in Hawaii. The survey contact list included a variety of job roles (e.g., scientists, managers, outreach, and education), government and nongovernment organizations (NGOs), at varying scales of management jurisdiction (e.g., state, federal, international) to represent the diversity of decisionmakers currently engaged in natural resource management in Hawaii. We allowed multiple contacts within the same organization, so long as each individual worked for different departments or on distinct programs. Where possible, we specifically targeted managers and program coordinators as points of contact as they are lead decision-makers. We developed the initial contact database from a recent study of decision-makers that managed coastal areas for conservation, preservation, or restoration throughout Hawaii (Carrier et al., 2012). An additional internet search of email contacts was guided by a state agency-developed public list of management organizations in Hawaii spanning international, federal, state, county, and municipal government; NGOs, nonprofits, and professional societies; and inter-governmental NGOs and non-profit organizations in the Asia-Pacific Region. 2.2. Survey We first administered an internet survey to address what ecosystem services were prioritized for management and why. Respondents were provided a list of 17 individual common ecosystem services (e.g., food from animals, climate regulation, recreation), which together comprised the 3 general ecosystem service categories, developed from a literature review using existing frameworks (MEA, 2005; Fisher et al., 2009). The services included in the survey were then refined through two separate focus groups with experts in ecology and resource management. We removed the supporting services category from the final list used for the survey as it is often conflated with other services (Wallace, 2007). The internet survey included 19 questions and was administered to 274 environmental decision-makers across 83 different management institutions, both governmental and nongovernmental. The distribution of organizational jurisdiction included: 51% (n ¼140) local, county, or state, 41% federal (n ¼112) and 8% (n ¼22) international. Using a multiple email contact approach (Dillman, 2007), the survey was open for three weeks. To minimize errors of commission, respondents were permitted to skip questions (Peytchev et al., 2006). Thus, the sample size for each question varied, with a maximum of 114 responses and a minimum of 78 responses. 2.3. Follow-up interviews
2. Methods 2.1. Study area and survey design We tested our hypotheses on the Main Hawaiian Islands (hereafter Hawaii) since the archipelago is geographically, culturally, and functionally bounded, and comprised of a diverse set of management agencies that are tasked with managing a range of ecosystem services for multiple and diverse stakeholder groups. Additionally,
We conducted follow-up telephone interviews with a selfselected sample of the internet survey respondents following the close of the survey. We contacted participants first by e-mail, followed by up to four telephone calls at random times during the workday. The telephone interview allowed respondents to clarify responses in the internet survey, and contained 25 questions intended to understand how ecosystem services priorities are managed.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e3
2.4. Data analysis
3. Results
Data were analyzed using Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Tests to assess differences in the expected versus observed distribution of ecosystem service priorities and Chi-Square Tests of Independence to describe the interaction between ecosystem service priorities and management characteristics with significance at the 0.05 level. We also analyzed the interaction between scale of management and scale of benefit through response agreement.
No significant differences were found between telephone and internet survey samples in terms of the job role of respondents (χ2 ¼ 2.60, P ¼0.272), organization affiliation (χ2 ¼0.06, P ¼0.801), and organization jurisdiction (χ2 ¼ 2.15, P ¼0.342). The majority of respondents from both internet (42%) and telephone interview (49%) groups worked for organizations with statewide, followed by federal jurisdictions (28%, 25%, respectively), and came from a variety of job roles, most frequently ‘other’ (38% internet; 40% telephone) and natural resource managers (27% internet; 26% telephone). Other job roles mentioned included, board member, data coordinator, “both a manager and a scientist,” and policy advocate. The majority of respondents in both surveys (71% internet; 68% telephone) worked for government organizations. In terms of overall services managed, CES were most frequently managed (45%), followed by regulatory services (34%), and provisioning services (21%; Fig. 2). The average number of ecosystem services managed per respondent was 6.9 7 4.3 (SD). The top three
2.5. Response rate Upon removal of out of date e-mail addresses (n ¼29) and out of office replies (n ¼20), the final sample size was reduced to 225. From these 225 contacts, 114 completed part or all of the survey, yielding a response rate of 51% for the internet survey. The response rate for the semi-structured (n ¼114) telephone interview was 31% (n¼ 35) based on those that self-selected themselves from the internet survey.
Fig. 1. Examples of cultural services provided by Hawaii's coastal and watershed ecosystems (A) Science and education information – Telescopes atop Mauna Kea, home to the world's largest observatory for optical, infrared, and submillimeter astronomy; (B) Recreation opportunity – Rainbow Road in Haleakala Crater; (C) Heritage/ Indigenous service – Hawaii Youth Conservation Corps restoring the ancient Hawaiian He'eia fishpond; and, (D) Aesthetic appreciation—The north shore on the island of Oahu. Photography courtesy of Rafael Bergstrom.
Fig. 2. Percent of individual ecosystem services managed by environmental decision-makers in Hawaii (N ¼664).
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
e4
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
management priorities among decision-makers were similar when evaluated by the three categories of ecosystem services (χ2 ¼2.06, P ¼0.357). For the second and third management priorities, however, CES were the most frequently reported (χ2 ¼ 19.51, Po0.001; χ2 ¼ 15.97, Po 0.001). The majority of organizations with state jurisdictions (57%, P¼ 0.003) and NGOs (65%, P¼ 0.015) managed CES as their top priority, whereas the majority of organizations with federal jurisdictions (60%) managed provisioning services as top priority. Similarly, government organizations (40%) most frequently managed provisioning services, followed by CES (33%). CES were the only ecosystem service category to be linked to all four categories of human wellbeing provided by the MEA framework (Fig. 3). However, the majority of CES were managed for
security (50%). By comparison, regulatory services were largely managed for health (64%) and provisioning services were primarily managed for basic material for good life (85%). Of the respondents with a CES as their top management priority, only 10% could articulate specific policies they used to manage CES. The policies listed were the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act which are both federal policies. By comparison, 27% of respondents could articulate policies regarding regulatory services and most respondents could clearly articulate policies regarding provisioning services (70%). All respondents agreed that CES were managed at the state level. However, the scale at which they were thought to benefit people was evenly split among the state/county/local level (50%),
Fig. 3. Relationships between top ecosystem service priorities and human wellbeing benefits as perceived by environmental decision-makers in Hawaii. To evaluate environmental decision-makers' perceptions about the relationships between ecosystem services and human wellbeing, we used the hypothesized relationships provided by the MEA (2005) (Figure A, page vi) as a framework. Respondents were asked three questions regarding (1) their top ecosystem service management priority; (2) the connection this ecosystem service has to human wellbeing; and, (3) the degree to which they thought that socioeconomic policies were effective for sustaining the connection between the service and human wellbeing. Individual ecosystem services were combined into three general ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning, regulatory, cultural) and human wellbeing benefits were aggregated into four general wellbeing categories (i.e., security, basic material for good life, health, good social relations). To determine the intensity of linkages (line width) and the degree to which socioeconomic policies were effective in mediating the connections represented (line shading) between ecosystem services and human wellbeing, each ecosystem service category was considered separately (cultural n¼ 20; regulatory n¼ 14; provisioning n¼ 20). The width of connections between service category and benefit category were determined according to the percent of responses that identified the link to generate 3 categories of intensity and the effectiveness of policy mediation was determined according to the percent of binary responses (e.g., agree effective or disagree effective) identified for each line based on questionnaire data (e.g. low, medium and high), with 0% represented by no line, 1–33% of respondents was considered weak, 34–67% was considered medium, and 467% was considered high.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
and the international community (50%; Fig. 4). Most often, the CES of heritage/indigenous and recreation were services that were managed locally, but benefitted people internationally. By comparison, regulatory services responses indicated that the management and benefits were both perceived to be distributed across scales while for provisioning services, many respondents agreed that these services were managed internationally, and the international community benefitted likely due a focus on highly migratory fish species.
4. Discussion Our results suggest that, compared to regulatory and provisioning services, CES are an important management priority in Hawaii, especially for maintaining community security. There are many threats to native Hawaiian cultural security through high rates of tourism and population increase, the high rate of invasive species introductions, and climate change threatening the coastal indigenous way of life (DBEDT, 2006; Pimentel et al., 2005; Salick and Anja, 2007). We also found that the benefits that CES generate are experienced both locally and internationally. However, even with this perceived importance, there are few policies that clearly guide the management of CES. Further, the potential effectiveness of managing CES through socioeconomic policies remains unclear.
These findings parallel other studies that have indicated that CES are consistently recognized as important, necessary, and vital contributors to human wellbeing, but lack available means to account for them (Rö nnbäck et al., 2007; Barbier et al., 2011), and there are few policies specifically in place to maintain CES. Our results indicate that these difficulties in accounting for CES extend to their management. NGOs, especially those on the local and state scale, appear to play a disproportionate role in managing CES compared to government institutions. Grassroots movements throughout the US and internationally have become well-known for setting environmental agendas, and mobilizing local community members to prevent environmental degradation, especially when governmental actions are considered to be insufficient to meet community-defined goals (Karan and Suganuma, 2008). These findings about the relationship between local NGOs and CES are particularly revealing in contrast to provisioning services which were found to be managed by federal government agencies with well-defined, formal policies. This type of informal management, especially by members of the local or state community that are outside of government institutions, is a unique characteristic of CES compared to other ecosystem services. We found evidence to support many of the relationships between ecosystem services and the categories of human wellbeing proposed by the MEA, with a few key differences that appear to be unique to Hawaii. For example, CES were the only services that were
Environmental Managers’ Perception of the Scale at which Top ES Priority is Managed
Cultural
e5
Environmental Managers’ Perception of the Scale at which Top ES Priority Benefit Humans
International
International
Federal
Federal
State
State
International
International
Federal
Federal
State
State
Regulatory
International
International
% of Environmental Decision-makers 100%
Provisioning
Federal
Federal
75% 50%
State
State
25% 0%
Fig. 4. Scale of management versus scale of beneficiaries at local/county/state, federal and Pacific region/international scales for general ecosystem service top management priorities among environmental decision-makers in Hawaii.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
e6
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
managed for every category of benefit suggested by the MEA – a reminder of their diffuse nature and interrelation with other services (Chan et al., 2012b). Additionally, there was agreement among respondents that CES were most readily linked to security (e.g., from disasters and secure resource access) likely because of the isolated nature of Hawaii and its reliance on tourism for economic security. Indeed, many tropical islands generate a considerable portion of their financial security through recreation-based activities and tourism is Hawaii's primary economic industry, generating $11.2 billion annually (DBEDT, 2011). Tourism, however, presents unique challenges for communities managing CES. Although the commoditization of culture and ecosystem amenity value can improve economic viability, it also may diminish the ecosystems' ability to produce additional profits into the future by increasing pressure on the environment (Gladstone, 2005). Given the high rate of tourism and increasing population in Hawaii, if CES are expected to be degraded, restricting access to ecosystems from which cultural services are experienced, including such practices as shifting governance and adaptive management, may be an important policy measure to sustain them into the future (Olsson et al., 2008). In addition to the more pronounced and diverse reliance on CES, when compared to the MEA projections, regulatory services were not perceived to be as tightly linked to basic material for good life (access to food and goods) and provisioning services were not perceived to be linked to categories of human wellbeing related to health. Again, the same properties that make islands culturally and ecologically unique present island populations with sustainability challenges related to limited resource availability. When these resource limitations are combined with increased pressures through tourism and increased immigration, island communities may be forced beyond the threshold of natural carrying capacity (Deschenes and Chertow, 2004) causing reliance on local ecosystem services and their relationship to human wellbeing to change, potentially intensifying or diminishing. The benefits generated from CES were thought to cross boundaries from the point in which they were managed. Notably, we found that the benefits generated by CES were considered to be exported internationally, likely due to the high rate of tourism, immigration/emigration and recreational opportunities which were either experienced directly by visitors or communicated as an idea to residents of other places who may also value the experience and existence of these services. This phenomenon of exporting the benefits of CES beyond their place of origin also appears to extend to the scale of individuals who consider themselves stakeholders of these services. For example, public comments regarding the establishment of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan drew more comments from outside of Hawaii (6311) than from inside (6015), including many international comments (NOAA, 2011). Given the non-market and non-use value of humpbacks whales, the global interest in maintaining this CES indicates that whales provide an existence value (Krutilla, 1967), and although perhaps never experienced, the benefit of these CES may exist primarily in the minds of stakeholders.
5. Conclusions The ecosystem services framework can help decision-makers explicitly consider the feedback relationships between human wellbeing and environmental pressures. However, CES present unique challenges, especially for tropical islands with high rates of tourism and areas with indigenous communities. Recognizing the trans-boundary nature of CES, the various ways in which communities relate CES and human wellbeing, and the informal practices through which CES are managed outside the traditional governmental policy frameworks, will be imperative to developing
monitoring and management actions that maintain the unique human benefits from CES. While CES in Hawaii are high management priorities, there remains question as to whether they have transitioned into the context of real decision-making. For those services where value is not readily defined by the market, as is the case for many cultural services, stakeholder-determined value may be the first step to monitoring and managing these services. In this way, public involvement may help to also engender public support to transition management plans into effective policy.
Acknowledgments We thank the University of Hawaii Water Resources and Research Center and USGS National Institute for Water Resources (Grant no. G11AP20075) for supporting this research. References Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., Mourato, S., 2012. Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 38, 22–47. Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., et al., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193. Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 4–15. Carrier, S.D., Bruland, G.L., Cox, L.J., Lepczyk, C.A., 2012. Perceptions of coastal resource managers in Hawaii: the current situation and outlook for the future. Ocean Coast. Manage. 69, 291–298. Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., et al., 2012a. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62, 744–756. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., et al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., et al., 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8812–8819. DBEDT (State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism), 2006. Planning for sustainable tourism: Project Summary Report. 〈http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/visitor-stats/sustainable-tourism-project/drafts/ STPsummary.pdf〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. DBEDT (State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism), 2011. Visitor Statistics. 〈http://Hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/visitor-stats〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. Deschenes, P.J., Chertow, M., 2004. An island approach to industrial ecology: towards sustainability in the island context. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 47, 201–217. Dillman, D.A., 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Second Edition John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. Gladstone, D., 2005. From Pilgrimage to Package Tour: Travel and Tourism in the Third World. Routledge Press, London, Great Britain Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1209–1218. Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Kappel, C.V., et al., 2010. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv. Biol. 24, 207–216. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29, 434–444. Iceland C., Hanson C., Lewis C. 2008. Identifying important ecosystem goods and services in Puget Sound. Summary of Interviews and Research for The Puget Sound Partnership. Puget Sound Partnership, Seattle. 〈http://www.psp.wa.gov/〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. Karan, P., Suganuma, U. (Eds.), 2008. Local environmental movements: A comparative study of the United States and Japan. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky Krutilla, J.V., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57, 777–786. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2011. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan Review Public Scoping Report. 〈http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov〉. Viewed 1 January 2013. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hughes, T.P., 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystembased management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9489–9494.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i
M.M. Pleasant et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Peytchev, A., Couper, M.P., Esteban McCabe, S., Crawford, S.D., 2006. Web survey design: paging versus scrolling. Pub. Opin. Quart. 70, 596–607. Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D., 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52, 273–288. Rö nnbäck, P., Kautsky, N., Pihl, L., et al., 2007. Ecosystem goods and services from Swedish coastal habitats–identification, valuation, and implications of ecosystem shifts. Ambio 36, 1–11. Salick, J., Anja, B., 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. Tyndall Centre Publication Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Oxford, UK
e7
Vihervaara, P., Rö nkä, M., Walls, M., 2010. Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39, 314–324. Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499. Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 139, 235–246. Wilson, M.A., Howarth, R.B., 2002. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 41, 43–443.
Please cite this article as: Pleasant, M.M., et al., Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.006i