- Email: [email protected]
Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services? Hiroe Ishihara Some authors have recently suggested a broadened perspective for the ecosystem services approach to include nature’s contribution to people and relational values. This paper aims to develop the notion of relational values further by bringing in theoretical contributions from sociology: namely, the recursive relationship between structure and individual cultural practices, especially the notion of ‘habitus’ developed by Bourdieu. It argues that just as culture is shared and internalised as habitus, so too are relational values. Further, it reveals that the internalisation leads not only to the reproduction of routine cultural practices at the individual level but also to the establishment of new individual cultural practices contributing to structural change. The paper argues that symbolic power plays a key role in the sharing and internalisation process. With these sociological arguments, the paper aims to incorporate contribution from social theory, often ignored in the previous literature, and to enrich the ecosystem services literature.
has been controversial. Recently, some authors have suggested a broadened, or slightly modified perspective for ES, to be considered nature’s contribution to people (NCP) and include relational values [7–9]. This paper aims to enrich the ES literature, especially the concept of relational values, by incorporating social theory on structure and agency, and individual cultural practices. More specifically, it argues that to understand the relationship between culture, individual cultural practices, and relational values, we need to consider culture as a process of sharing knowledge and information alongside the notion of ‘habitus’: that is, individually internalised culture [10–15]. The paper reveals how relational values are shared among groups of people, enabling them to act together as a community and creating a sense of duty or belonging; and how relational values are (re)negotiated as individuals face new situations, creating tension and conflict within the community, and at times changing its power relations [16].
Address Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, the criticism of cultural ES, which led to the birth of the concept of relational values, is briefly reviewed. Section 3 presents the understanding of culture as a process of sharing and negotiating knowledge and information and introduces the notion of habitus to the ES literature. I argue that relational values, just like culture, are shared and negotiated as individuals interact with nature and among others. Section 4 reviews the literature on cultural ES and shared values that has been published in the last three years to illustrate the significance of the theoretical argument presented in Section 3.
Corresponding author: Ishihara, Hiroe ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:xx–yy This review comes from a themed issue on Sustainability challenges Edited by Unai Pascual, Kai Chan and Rachelle Gould
Received: 30 March 2018; Accepted: 24 October 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
From cultural ES to relational values
1877-3435/ã 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Since the late 1990s, ES have gained popularity as a tool to communicate the significance of ecosystems to policymakers, but it has also been criticised by many authors [1– 5]. For example, Norgaard argues that putting a dollar value on ES blinds us to the ecological, economic, and political complexity involved in assessing ES [1]. In particular, cultural ES, often defined as ‘non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems’ [17], has been harshly criticised [12,18–21]. Since covering all the criticisms is beyond the scope of this paper (for details, see Refs. [19,22,23]), the paper focuses on the following two criticisms that have led to more nuanced approaches.
Introduction Since 2005, many authors have criticised the concept of ecosystem services (ES) as presented in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework (MA) and other regional assessments [1–5]. Critics argue, among other things, that there is too much attention on the material benefits of ES and too little on non-material benefits [6]. That said, the notion of cultural ecosystem services (cultural ES), which attempts to address non-material benefits, www.sciencedirect.com
First, the monetary valuation of cultural ES focuses on recreation and tourist opportunities, hiding the complex Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
2 Sustainability challenges
interactions between nature and people [22,24]. Often, the value of cultural ES cannot be revealed as individual preferences; it comprises the often intersubjective, socially shared or socially constructed values, and the outcome of a socially constructed process through memories, norms, perceptions, and experiences [25,26]. Furthermore, the monetary evaluation often ignores the power relations involved in the production of cultural ES. As Berbes-Blazquez et al. argue, the history of protected natural areas is filled with examples of prioritising cultural ES associated with elites, that is recreation and tourism, leading to deterioration of the well-being of marginalised local residents [26]. Second, confining cultural ES to the non-material, recreational, or aesthetic aspects of nature is based on a Eurocentric epistemological dichotomy between nature and culture that often cannot be maintained in non-Western societies [27]. As many case studies from various parts of the world show, cultural ES require both the material and non-material dimensions of the human-ecosystem relationship [19,23,27,28]. Cultural ES are created through people reflecting, recognising, and perceiving the significance of nature [24,29]. Criticism of the ES framework fundamentally stems from the fact that the integration of the social sciences into ES assessment was achieved through cooperation between ecologists and economists [30]. Ecologists, who were traditionally suspicious of economists, came to realise that economic valuation can strengthen the claims of biodiversity conservation, leading them to cooperate with economists in ES assessment [1,31]. In order to address these criticisms, even before the launch of NCP, some authors developed new methods to evaluate the cultural ES by combining qualitative and quantitative methods, revealing non-monetary dimensions of cultural ES such as sense of identity, belonging, and spirituality that had occupied a marginalised position in the previous evaluation literature [22,32,33]. More recently, nuanced approaches towards ES have been suggested. NCP and relational values acknowledge the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining the values of nature or the relationship between nature and people [7–9,19,23,34]. This approach aims to incorporate different types of knowledge, including traditional local ecological knowledge, as well as different social science disciplines. Fish argues that the contribution of an ecosystem is produced through a series of cultural practices and related cognitive, non-cognitive, and embodied interactions occurring between people and nature [23]. The notion of relational values was introduced into the ES literature to take into account the fact that people act according to the appropriateness of how they relate with nature and with others [7,8]. Here, relational values are defined as values that individuals hold towards their relationship with nature and with Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
others that are constitutive of an appropriate, meaningful, and good life [34]. This paper concurs with Hiron et al. who argue that the main point of departure between the early concept of cultural ES and the more recent, nuanced approach lies in the broadening of the concept of ‘culture as a shared process’ [34]. However, the literature on relational values is still in its nascent stage and requires further elaboration, especially on how culture functions as a process.1 In particular, it is my view that if we are to accept the pervasive role of culture, it is essential to incorporate some of the contributions from sociology, more specifically from the structure-agency debate, namely, the social theory explaining the process by which individuals internalise culture or social structure, while simultaneously creating new cultural practices and changing social structures. In order to take on this task, the following section argues that culture is a process in which knowledge and information is shared and internalised [10]; it introduces Bourdieu’s notion of habitus [14] to understand how culture is shared and (re)negotiated as individuals create different cultural practices.
The contribution from sociology: culture and habitus Despite the fact that many authors argue that culture is one of the most complex and challenging concepts [13,34], it is crucial for us to define culture and understand how it functions in order to contribute to the ES literature. This is especially true considering that one of the main confusions and criticisms of cultural ES came from its lack of definition of culture [27,35–37]. Anthropologists such as Ingold define culture as a social, communicative and productive process [38]. In a similar vein, the sociologist Elder-Vass defines culture as ‘a set of shared understandings and practices’ [10]. What is significant here is that culture is considered to be a process in which information or knowledge is shared and made public. Some authors even argue ‘if it (knowledge or information) is not shared and public it is not cultural’ [39]. For sociologists, culture is a product of two interlinked processes, often referred to as a recursive relationship between structure and cultural practices [11,39]. The first process involves the sharing and internalisation of knowledge and information [14,40]. This is the process that Bourdieu refers to as ‘structured structure’ [14]. Individuals are born into a culture that provides knowledge and information regarding desirable interactions with nature and among people, that is, the ‘right’ ways of doing things [41]. If they do not adhere to these ways, they are 1 Satz et al. have briefly touched on this social construction [107]; however, they did not fully explain how the notion of ‘we’ is constructed through the sharing of information and knowledge, or how it can lead to structural change.
www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Relational value from a cultural valuation perspective Ishihara 3
ridiculed by others, punished by peer pressure, or in the worst case scenario, socially ostracised [40]. As individuals continue to interact in their socio-cultural context, they internalise the ‘right’ ways of doing things. This internalised ‘right’ way of doing things is termed as ‘habitus’2 following Bourdieu [14]. Habitus is defined as ‘the habitual, patterned way of understanding, judging, and acting which arise from our particular position as members of a certain community or society’ [42, p811]. Habitus internalisation is not a simple process of averaging out the knowledge and information of individuals in the community or society; rather, it is a process of sharing (or, in extreme cases, of imposing) specific arbitrary knowledge and information, often those of the dominant groups [43]. To this end, this process of sharing and internalisation is imbued with symbolic power, that is, the power to create and impose a certain view as the legitimate vision of the social world [44,45]. Once sharing and internalisation have occurred, individuals act without much deliberation [46], because they economise their cognitive capacity by relying on the internalised habitus. To this end, the habitus internalisation leads to reproduction of culture. However, the novelty of this notion lies in the fact that it explains not just the reproduction of culture but also cultural change. This leads us to the second process, ‘structuring structure’. The connection between habitus and cultural practice is not a straightforward one. According to Bourdieu, habitus also functions as a ‘structuring structure’, in which individuals utilise their shared knowledge and information to create new cultural practices that deviate from the ‘habit of thought’ [16,47]. Habitus is not habitude (‘habit and routines’ in French) [15]; it functions like an underlying grammar or an ‘open system of disposition that is constantly subject to experiences, and therefore constantly affected by them’, leading to cultural change [48, p133]. This is because individuals internalise different types of knowledge and information, and utilise them differently [49,50]. Individuals do not just interact with others as resource users; they also interact with others as neighbours or relatives [51]. By interacting with each other in different ways, individuals form different habitus, enabling them to intentionally or unintentionally utilise knowledge and information in a context other than that of 2 I acknowledge that there is no agreement even among Bourdieuan sociologists on how to interpret Bourdieu’s concept of habitus [108]. Some argue that habitus pre-empts his concept of agency, leading simply to routine action without deliberation [109,110]; others argue that habitus indicates the possibility of conscious deliberation and the transformation of intersubjective meaning [111–113]. This paper takes the latter position, holding that habitus leads to deliberation and the transformation of culture as well as to routine action without much thinking.
www.sciencedirect.com
the original one. Furthermore, when faced with unexpected situations, individuals have the capacity to put together different types of knowledge and information, in a manner often referred to as ‘bricolage’, to reconcile their interests and needs [14,39,52,53].3 Individuals are not ‘cultural dopes’ but shrewd manipulators who create new structure and cultural practices. To this end, habitus functions as a ‘structured structure’ as well as a ‘structuring structure’ [54]. Sociologists argue that due to these two processes — the internalisation of knowledge and information, and their utilisation — culture is both shared and (re)negotiated [10,55]. If we are to conceptualise culture as a shared process, and relational value as value that individuals hold towards their relationship with nature and with others that are constitutive of an appropriate, meaningful, and good life, it is crucial to incorporate this recursive relationship between structure and individual cultural practices discussed above. As individuals interact with nature and among themselves, they share and internalise certain relational values as habitus. Of course, not all relational values are shared or public. Some may remain at the individual level, such as personal enjoyment of tranquillity in the forest. However, even those relational values that seem to reside at a very individual level are not always immune from the influence of shared culture. One may enjoy the tranquillity of the forest because it is her family tradition, or because it is the norm for the upper social strata of her society. In this respect, relational values are often, if not always, shared at the collective level, because people often interact with nature as groups [56,57]. Thus, it is crucial to incorporate this collective level into the concept of relational values. Relational values go through two interlinked processes: sharing and (re)negotiating. When relational values are shared, and as stable interactions with nature and among people continue, some relationships are considered a duty towards nature or towards others, creating a sense of duty, belonging and identity [25,58]. As Jentoft argues, individuals who manage nature do not act as distant others but as part of a ‘we’: that is, members of a community who are committed to each other and share duties towards each other [59]. In these circumstances, individuals act habitually, without much deliberation, contributing to the reproduction of existing relational values. At the same time, individuals are not just practicing routines dictated by habitus. As they face unexpected situations, such as 3 The term ‘bricolage’ was originally used by the French anthropologist Levi-Strauss to describe how the ‘savage’ mind understands different cultures [52]; it was later developed in the context of institutions by Douglas, who argued that to economise on cognitive effort, actors borrow existing familiar institutions as a ‘frame of reference’ to understand new and ‘unfamiliar’ social phenomena [53]. This is fundamentally different from utilitarian welfare maximisers, who are guided by one principle: rationality.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
4 Sustainability challenges
ecological or economic turbulence, individuals are forced to improvise by putting different pieces of knowledge and information together to survive the situation, leading to changes in cultural practices and relational values [50,60– 62]. This may be manifested as a challenge to existing power relations between dominant and marginalised groups. This understanding of a recursive relationship developed in social theory enables us to understand relational values as processes in which they are shared within a group as well as they are renegotiated over time, creating conflict and tension.
Relational values as a shared and (Re) negotiated process from case studies What, then, is the significance of introducing these arguments? This section reviews recent literature on cultural ES case studies. A systematic literature review was conducted using Science Direct. Three sets of keywords were chosen to identify papers published between 2016 and 2018: first, ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘shared values’, second, ‘payment for ecosystem services (PES)’ and ‘ethnography’, and third, ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘bricolage’. The first set of keywords was used to find case studies that describe the sharing process in which habitus is internalised, leading to reproduction of culture through its fostering of sense of duty and belonging; while the second and third sets were used to find case studies that reveal the (re)negotiation process of relational values in which habitus contributes to the creation of new cultural practices, leading to change in culture, and at times challenges in power relations. The term PES was chosen as it is one of the major globally implemented schemes to promote the idea of ES. PES often reinforces and/or changes the relationships people have with nature and with each other by introducing monetary incentives [4,63,64]. Further, its implementation processes are well-documented not just by economists and political scientist but also by anthropologists, sociologists, and ethnographers who are more sensitive to motives, meanings and power relations [61,65,66]. Although these case studies do not use the terms ‘relational values’ or ‘habitus’ explicitly, they can be interpreted as revealing the processes of sharing and (re)negotiating relational values as people interact with nature and each other (for details of the literature review, see Appendix A). The first body of literature, collected through using the first set of keywords, centres on the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment and its follow-ups (UK NEA), as well as a couple of other ethnographical studies [24, 67–76]. For example, one case study from the Northern Devon Nature Improvement Area in the UK shows that the range of different attributes of nature (such as beauty and tranquillity) is experienced differently by individuals, leading to different cultural practices (walking, gardening, or learning outdoor survival skills) [72]. It shows Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
how the relational values that people hold with nature are internalised and reproduced in routine cultural practices. Another study by Kaltenborn et al. shows that, on the Norwegian island of Røst, even negative experiences, such as surviving in a harsh environment and enduring a meagre harvest, lead to the sharing of relational values and their internalisation, such as the formation of an identity as a ‘resilient people’ and a sense of duty towards one another that enables individuals to work together [73]. The second body of literature, collected through using the second and third set of keywords, shows how the relational values people hold towards nature and each other are (re)negotiated when PES schemes are introduced [61,68,77–84]. The introduction of PES often leads to changes in local cultural practices, such as the undermining of local norms and the local intrinsic motivation. For example, Benjaminsen and Kaarhus argue that the commodification of a forest in Zanzibar, Tanzania, has undermined local communal norms, in my argument, part of habitus [81]. Such phenomena have often been described as the crowding out of intrinsic motivation [85], but they could be interpreted as processes in which the habitus is altered or has disappeared as individuals internalise different kinds of knowledge and information, such as ‘environmental conservation for money’, as they implement PES. Many other case studies show that the original discourse of PES, payment to an ES provider from the ES consumer, is reinterpreted or amended to ‘fit’ the local habitus [61,83,84,80]. For example, Ishihara et al. argue that, in some communities, ‘habitus’ is reinforced by the implementation of PES when the leaders distribute the monetary incentive according to existing cultural norms. To this end, the local stakeholders are ‘bricoleurs’ who put different types of knowledge and information together, leading to both changes and reinforcement of relational values and cultural practices.
Conclusion This paper has incorporated the recursive relationship between structure and individual cultural practices, alongside the notion of ‘habitus’, to further develop the notion of relational values. The theoretical contribution from sociology enables us to understand the process by which relational values are socially constructed and shared, leading to a sense of belonging and duty and stable interaction among people. At the same time, I have revealed that relational values change over time, challenging the existing power relations which imposes the dominant group(s)’s vision as the legitimate world view. In addition, the literature review on the case studies of ES has revealed that relational values are both internalised as habitus and (re)negotiated, and at times reinforced. Individuals utilise their habitus differently, depending on www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Relational value from a cultural valuation perspective Ishihara 5
their socio-cultural context, leading to both the reproduction of and changes to relational values. However, further research on relational values must be developed, especially using qualitative methods, such as ethnographic case studies. Despite the fact the recent studies on ES, such as the UK’s NEA, developed a novel approach to shared values [23,25,57], they continue to depend heavily on evaluation methods based on public discussion and group work [24,70,71,86]. As the authors themselves mention, these methods base their argument on Habermasian communicative rationality and share its inherent problem [70]: Habermas presumes that the participation of equal citizens in public debate can reconcile conflicts in worldviews through persuasion and communication [87]. In most cases, however, there is a difference in power among the participants in terms of their capacity to voice their opinions and create persuasive arguments [69,70,72]. Given these power differences, public debate or group workshops may not always be the best ways to elicit relational values depending on the social context.4 It is my view that further ethnographic case studies that are more sensitive to power relations must be conducted to elucidate relational values. In this regard, some of the mapping of ES exercises conducted offer promising techniques for future ES evaluation [35,36,88–90]. These methods enable individuals to express their values without exposing them in the arena of public debate and subjecting them to the unequal power relationship. In any case, in order for the different stakeholders to express their values and voices, it is essential that the researchers conduct an in-depth research on the local social context. These studies are time-consuming and have no one-size-fit-all solutions; however, it is my sincere hope that this paper on the theoretical clarification of relational values will encourage more ethnographical case studies and the further development of new techniques for assessing ES.
Table A1 Results of literature review 1 using the keywords ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘shared values’ Number of papers
Selected references
15
See the main text
8
[91–94]
literature review or commentary
6
[95–98]
Total
29
(i) empirical or theoretical research with a description/evaluation of a shared process
empirical research without description/evaluation of a shared process
description/evaluation of a shared process, and iii) literature review or commentary. Table A1 shows the number of papers belonging to each and representative references. Only Type i) papers are mentioned in the main text. With second set of keywords, ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘ethnography’, and the third set of keywords, ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘bricolage’, 25 papers and 6 papers, respectively, were found, with the overlap of one paper. The papers were categorised under the following: i) empirical or theoretical research with a description/evaluation of a negotiated process in the relationship with nature or among people, ii) empirical research without a description/evaluation of a negotiated process, and iii) literature review, commentary, and others. For this body of literature, there were a couple of papers that analysed the role of expertise or expert knowledge that are categorised under Type iii). Table A2 shows the number of papers belonging to each and representative references. Only Type i) papers are mentioned in the main text.
Conflict of interest declaration The author confirms that there have been no involvements that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or in the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated.
Table A2 Results of literature review 2, using the keywords ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘ethnography’/‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘bricolage
Appendix A
Number of papers
Selected references
14
See the main text
11
[99–102]
[103–106]
For the first set of keywords, ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘shared values’, 29 papers were found in Science Direct. The papers were categorised under the following: i) empirical or theoretical research with a description/ evaluation of a shared process in the relationship with nature or among people, ii) empirical research without a
(i) empirical or theoretical research
4 For example, it is difficult for me to imagine utilising the methods developed through UK’s NEA in the Japanese context where I conduct my fieldwork. People, especially farmers or fishermen, who are the key stakeholders for the ecosystems, are not familiar with public debate.
literature review or commentary
5
Total
30
www.sciencedirect.com
with a description/evaluation of a shared process
empirical research without a description/evaluation of a shared process
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
6 Sustainability challenges
Acknowledgement This research was funded by JSPS Kakenhi in Japan, grant number 16H02565.
References
21. Kumar M, Kumar P: Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 2008, 64:808-819. 22. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH et al.: Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012, 109:8812-8819. 23. Fish R, Church A, Winter M: Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:208-217.
1.
Norgaard RB: Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1219-1227.
2.
Barnaud C, Antona M: Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 2014, 56:113-123.
3.
Kull CA, Arnauld de Sartre X, Castro-Larran˜aga M: The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 2015, 61:122-134.
4.
Go´mez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1209-1218.
26. Berbe´s-Bla´zquez M, Gonza´lez JA, Pascual U: Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2016, 19:134-143.
5.
Bromley DW: Environmental governance as stochastic belief updating: crafting rules to live by. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:art14.
27. Pro¨pper M, Haupts F: The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecol Econ 2014, 108:28-35.
6.
Chan KMA, Satter T, Goldstein J: Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 2012, 74:8-18.
28. Gould RK, Ardoin NM, Woodside U, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Daily GC: The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai‘i. Ecol Soc 2014, 19.
7.
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Dı´az S: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2016, 113.
8.
Dı´az S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Ba´ldi A et al.: The IPBES conceptual framework – connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015, 14:1-16.
9.
Dı´az S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martı´n-Lo´pez B, Watson RT, Molna´r Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA et al.: Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science (80-) 2018, 359:270-272.
10. Elder-Vass D: The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 11. Archer MS, Elder-Vass D: Cultural system or norm circle: an exchange. Eur J Soc Theory 2012, 15. 12. Comberti C, Thornton TF, Wylliede Echeverria V, Patterson T: Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Glob Environ Change 2015, 34:247-262. 13. Williams R: Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana Paperbacks; 1983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ 9780230373464. 14. Bourdieu P: The Logic of Practice. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 1990. 15. Swartz D: Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1997. 16. Giddens A: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1984. 17. MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington D.C: Island Press; 2003. 18. Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcı´a-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martı´n-Lo´pez B: Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ 2014, 108:36-48. 19. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS et al.: Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 2012, 62:744-756. 20. Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J: Cultural Ecosystem Services : A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Ecol Soc 2013:18. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
24. Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO: Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:258-269. 25. Cooper N, Brady E, Steen H, Bryce R: Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services.’. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:218-229.
29. Muraca B: The map of moral significance: a new axiological matrix for environmental ethics. Environ Values 2011, 20:375396. 30. Heal G, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Salzman J: Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environ Law J 2001, 20. 31. Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P: Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 2013, 11:343. 32. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM et al.: Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009, 106:1305-1312. 33. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Penker M et al.: Reply to kirchhoff: cultural values and ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012, 109:E3147. 34. Hirons M, Comberti C, Dunford R: Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2016, 41:545-574. 35. Rieprich R, Schnegg M: The value of landscapes in Northern Namibia: a system of intertwined material and nonmaterial services. Soc Nat Resour 2015, 28:941-958. 36. Schnegg M, Rieprich R, Pro¨pper M: Culture, nature, and the valuation of ecosystem services in Northern Namibia. Ecol Soc 2014, 19. 37. Schnegg M, Linke T: Living institutions: sharing and sanctioning water among pastoralists in Namibia. World Dev 2015, 68:205-214. 38. Ingold T: The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2000. 39. Patterson O: Making sense of culture. Annu Rev Sociol 2014, 40:1-30. 40. Berger P, Luckmann T: The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City N.Y: Doubleday; 1966. 41. Cleaver F: Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. Eur J Dev Res 2002, 14:11-30. 42. Bourdieu P: The force of law: toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hast LJ 1986, 38:805-853. www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Relational value from a cultural valuation perspective Ishihara 7
43. Ishihara H, Pascual U: Social capital in community level environmental governance: a critique. Ecol Econ 2009, 68:1549-1562. 44. Bourdieu P: Social space and symbolic power. Sociol Theory 1989, 7:14-25. 45. Foucault M: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage; 1977. 46. Fleetwood S: Structure, institution, agency, habit, and reflexive deliberation. J Inst Econ 2008, 4:183-203. 47. Patterson O: Taking culture seriously: a framework and a AfroAmerican illustration. In Culture Matters; How Values Shape Human Progress. Edited by Harrison LE, Huntington SP. New York: Basic Books; 2000:202-218.
ecosystem services (PES): addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecol Econ 2015, 120:117-125. 67. Raymond CM, Kenter JO: Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:241-257. 68. Reed MS, Allen K, Attlee A, Dougill AJ, Evans KL, Kenter JO, Hoy J, McNab D, Stead SM, Twyman C et al.: A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 2017, 43:92-106. 69. Kenter JO: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:291-307.
48. Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD: An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.
70. Orchard-Webb J, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Church A: Deliberative democratic monetary valuation to implement the ecosystem approach. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:308-318.
49. Nightingale AJ: Bounding difference: intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum 2011, 42:153-162.
71. Edwards DM, Collins TM, Goto R: An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:319-328.
50. Lau JD, Scales IR: Identity, subjectivity and natural resource use: how ethnicity, gender and class intersect to influence mangrove oyster harvesting in the Gambia. Geoforum 2016, 69:136-146.
72. Fish R, Church A, Willis C, Winter M, Tratalos JA, Haines-Young R, Potschin M: Making space for cultural ecosystem services: insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:329-343.
51. Schnegg M: Institutional multiplexity: social networks and community-based natural resource management. Sustain Sci 2018:1-14.
73. Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JDC, Baggethun EG, Lindhjem H, Thomassen J, Chan KM: Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘The Good life’. A case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecol Econ 2017, 140:166-176.
52. Le’vi-Strauss C: The Savage Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1966. 53. Douglas M: How Institutions Think. London: Routledge; 1986. 54. Kabeer N: Cultural dopes or rational fools? Women and labour supply in the Bangladesh garment industry. Eur J Dev Res 1991, 3:133-160. 55. Wimmer A: The making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries: a multilevel process theory. Am J Sociol 2008, 113:970-1022. 56. Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, Fazey I, O’Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N et al.: Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:358-371.
74. Favretto N, Luedeling E, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ: Valuing ecosystem services in semi-arid rangelands through stochastic simulation. Land Degrad Dev 2017, 28:65-73. 75. Bullock C, Joyce D, Collier M: An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being. Ecosyst Serv 2018, 31:142-152. 76. de la Barrera F, Reyes-Paecke S, Harris J, Bascun˜a´n D, Farı´as JM: People’s perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods. Urban For Urban Green 2016, 20:254-264.
57. Irvine KN, O’Brien L, Ravenscroft N, Cooper N, Everard M, Fazey I, Reed MS, Kenter JO: Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:184-193.
77. Van Hecken G, Merlet P, Lindtner M, Bastiaensen J: Can financial incentives change farmers’ motivations? An agrarian system approach to development pathways at the Nicaraguan agricultural frontier. Ecol Econ 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2016.12.030.
58. Ishihara H, Pascual U: Institutions and agency in creating collective action for common pool resources. Environ Econ Policy Res Discuss Pap Ser 2012, 53.
78. Osborne T, Shapiro-Garza E: Embedding carbon markets: complicating commodification of ecosystem services in Mexico’s forests. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 2017, 4452:1-18.
59. Jentoft S, McCay B, Wilson DC: Social theory and fisheries comanagement. Mar Policy 1998, 22:423-436.
79. Jespersen K, Gallemore C: The institutional work of payments for ecosystem services: why the mundane should matter. Ecol Econ 2017, 146:507-519.
60. Cleaver F: Institutional bricolage, conflict and cooperation in Usangu, Tanzania. IDS Bull 2001, 32:26-35. 61. Ishihara H, Pascual U, Hodge I: Dancing with storks: the role of power relations in payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 2017, 139:45-54. 62. Nightingale A: Fishing for nature: the politics of subjectivity and emotion in Scottish inshore fisheries management. Environ Plan A 2013, 45:2362-2378. 63. Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, Corbera E, Ezzine de Blas D, Farley J, Froger G et al.: Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv Lett 2013, 6:274-279. 64. Kosoy N, Corbera E: Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1228-1236. 65. Milne S, Adams B: Market masquerades: uncovering the politics of community-level payments for environmental services in Cambodia. Dev Change 2012, 43:133-158. 66. Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J, Windey C: Towards a powersensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for www.sciencedirect.com
80. Parks L: Challenging power from the bottom up? Community protocols, benefit-sharing, and the challenge of dominant discourses. Geoforum 2018, 88:87-95. 81. Benjaminsen G, Kaarhus R: Commodification of forest carbon: REDD+ and socially embedded forest practices in Zanzibar. Geoforum 2018, 93:48-56. 82. Massarella K, Sallu SM, Ensor JE, Marchant R: REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: the dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Dev 2018, 109:375-385. 83. Goh TY, Yanosky A: Payment for Ecosystem Services works, but not exactly in the way it was designed. Global Ecol Conserv 2016, 5:71-87. 84. Joslin AJ, Jepson WE: Territory and authority of water fund payments for ecosystem services in Ecuador’s Andes. Geoforum 2018, 91:10-20. 85. Midler E, Pascual U, Drucker AG, Narloch U, Sotof JL: Unraveling the effects of payments for ecosystemservices on motivations for collective action. Ecol Econ 2015, 120:394-405. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
8 Sustainability challenges
86. Ranger S, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Cumming G, Dapling T, Lawes E, Richardson PB: Forming shared values in conservation management: an interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:344-357. 87. Habermas J: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1991. 88. Burkhard B, Maes J: Mapping Ecosystem Services, Advanced Books. Sofia, Bulgaria: Pensoft Publishers; 2017 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3897/ab.e12837. 89. Santos-martı´n F, Plieninger T, Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Vejre H, Luque S, Rabe S, Balzan M, Czu´cz B, Amadescu CM et al.: Report on Social Mapping and Assessment Methods for Ecosystem Services. 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30102.24644. 90. Garcia-Martin M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Gounaridis D, Kizos T, Printsmann A, Mu¨ller M, Lieskovsky´ J, Plieninger T: Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landsc Ecol 2017, 32:2133-2150. 91. Kobryn HT, Brown G, Munro J, Moore SA: Cultural ecosystem values of the Kimberley coastline: an empirical analysis with implications for coastal and marine policy. Ocean Coast Manag 2018, 162:71-84. 92. Rabe SE, Gantenbein R, Richter KF, Greˆt-Regamey A: Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys – mapping recreation in the riverine zone. Ecosyst Serv 2018, 31:308-317. 93. Scharin H, Ericsdotter S, Elliott M, Turner RK, Niiranen S, Blenckner T, Hyytia¨inen K, Ahlvik L, Ahtiainen H, Artell J et al.: Processes for the sustainable stewardship of marine environments. Ecol Econ 2016, 128:55-67.
99. Ma Z, Bauchet J, Steele D, Godoy R, Radel C, Zanotti L: Comparison of direct transfers for human capital development and environmental conservation. World Dev 2017, 99:498-517. 100. Gasparatos A, Romeu-Dalmau C, von Maltitz G, Johnson FX, Jumbe CB, Stromberg P, Willis K: Using an ecosystem services perspective to assess biofuel sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 114:1-7. 101. Farrell KN, Silva-Macher JC: Exploring futures for Amazonia’s Sierra del divisor: an environmental valuation triadics approach to analyzing ecological economic decision choices in the context of major shifts in boundary conditions. Ecol Econ 2017, 141:166-179. 102. Marchant R, Richer S, Boles O, Capitani C, Courtney-Mustaphi CJ, Lane P, Prendergast ME, Stump D, De Cort G, Kaplan JO et al.: Drivers and trajectories of land cover change in East Africa: human and environmental interactions from 6000 years ago to present. Earth-Sci Rev 2018, 178:322-378. 103. Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Burgess PJ, Plieninger T: A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecol Indic 2016, 62:47-65. 104. Pasgaard M, Dawson N, Rasmussen LV, Enghoff M, Jensen A: The research and practice of integrating conservation and development: self-reflections by researchers on methodologies, objectives and influence. Glob Ecol Conserv 2017, 9:50-60. 105. Pasgaard M, Van Hecken G, Ehammer A, Strange N: Unfolding scientific expertise and security in the changing governance of Ecosystem Services. Geoforum 2017, 84:354-367. 106. Mbatu RS: REDD+ research: reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. For Policy Econ 2016, 73:140-152.
94. Bardos RP, Jones S, Stephenson I, Menger P, Beumer V, Neonato F, Maring L, Ferber U, Track T, Wendler K: Optimising value from the soft re-use of brownfield sites. Sci Total Environ 2016, 563–564:769-782.
107. Satz D, Gould RK, Chan KMA, Guerry A, Norton B, Satterfield T, Halpern BS, Levine J, Woodside U, Hannahs N et al.: The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio 2013, 42:675-684.
95. Dickinson DC, Hobbs RJ: Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst Serv 2017, 25:179-194.
108. Elder-Vass D: Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in emergent theory of action. Sociol Theory 2007, 25:325-346.
96. Martin CL, Momtaz S, Gaston T, Moltschaniwskyj NA: A systematic quantitative review of coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services: current status and future research. Mar Policy 2016, 74:25-32. 97. Small N, Munday M, Durance I: The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Change 2017, 44:57-67. 98. Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M: Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 2017, 28:1-16.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
109. DiMaggio P: Review essay: on Pierre Bourdieu. Am J Sociol 1979, 84:1460-1476. 110. Jenkins R: Pierre Bourdieu and reproduction of determinism. Sociology 1982, 16. 111. Crossley N: The phnomenological habitus and its construction. Theory Soc 2001, 30:81-120. 112. Taylor C: To follow a rule. Bourdieu Crit Perspect 1993, 6:45-60. 113. Swartz D: The sociology of habit: the perspective of Pierrer Bourdieu. Occup Ther J Res 2002, 22.
www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services? Hiroe Ishihara Some authors have recently suggested a broadened perspective for the ecosystem services approach to include nature’s contribution to people and relational values. This paper aims to develop the notion of relational values further by bringing in theoretical contributions from sociology: namely, the recursive relationship between structure and individual cultural practices, especially the notion of ‘habitus’ developed by Bourdieu. It argues that just as culture is shared and internalised as habitus, so too are relational values. Further, it reveals that the internalisation leads not only to the reproduction of routine cultural practices at the individual level but also to the establishment of new individual cultural practices contributing to structural change. The paper argues that symbolic power plays a key role in the sharing and internalisation process. With these sociological arguments, the paper aims to incorporate contribution from social theory, often ignored in the previous literature, and to enrich the ecosystem services literature.
has been controversial. Recently, some authors have suggested a broadened, or slightly modified perspective for ES, to be considered nature’s contribution to people (NCP) and include relational values [7–9]. This paper aims to enrich the ES literature, especially the concept of relational values, by incorporating social theory on structure and agency, and individual cultural practices. More specifically, it argues that to understand the relationship between culture, individual cultural practices, and relational values, we need to consider culture as a process of sharing knowledge and information alongside the notion of ‘habitus’: that is, individually internalised culture [10–15]. The paper reveals how relational values are shared among groups of people, enabling them to act together as a community and creating a sense of duty or belonging; and how relational values are (re)negotiated as individuals face new situations, creating tension and conflict within the community, and at times changing its power relations [16].
Address Graduate School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, the criticism of cultural ES, which led to the birth of the concept of relational values, is briefly reviewed. Section 3 presents the understanding of culture as a process of sharing and negotiating knowledge and information and introduces the notion of habitus to the ES literature. I argue that relational values, just like culture, are shared and negotiated as individuals interact with nature and among others. Section 4 reviews the literature on cultural ES and shared values that has been published in the last three years to illustrate the significance of the theoretical argument presented in Section 3.
Corresponding author: Ishihara, Hiroe ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:xx–yy This review comes from a themed issue on Sustainability challenges Edited by Unai Pascual, Kai Chan and Rachelle Gould
Received: 30 March 2018; Accepted: 24 October 2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
From cultural ES to relational values
1877-3435/ã 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Since the late 1990s, ES have gained popularity as a tool to communicate the significance of ecosystems to policymakers, but it has also been criticised by many authors [1– 5]. For example, Norgaard argues that putting a dollar value on ES blinds us to the ecological, economic, and political complexity involved in assessing ES [1]. In particular, cultural ES, often defined as ‘non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems’ [17], has been harshly criticised [12,18–21]. Since covering all the criticisms is beyond the scope of this paper (for details, see Refs. [19,22,23]), the paper focuses on the following two criticisms that have led to more nuanced approaches.
Introduction Since 2005, many authors have criticised the concept of ecosystem services (ES) as presented in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework (MA) and other regional assessments [1–5]. Critics argue, among other things, that there is too much attention on the material benefits of ES and too little on non-material benefits [6]. That said, the notion of cultural ecosystem services (cultural ES), which attempts to address non-material benefits, www.sciencedirect.com
First, the monetary valuation of cultural ES focuses on recreation and tourist opportunities, hiding the complex Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
2 Sustainability challenges
interactions between nature and people [22,24]. Often, the value of cultural ES cannot be revealed as individual preferences; it comprises the often intersubjective, socially shared or socially constructed values, and the outcome of a socially constructed process through memories, norms, perceptions, and experiences [25,26]. Furthermore, the monetary evaluation often ignores the power relations involved in the production of cultural ES. As Berbes-Blazquez et al. argue, the history of protected natural areas is filled with examples of prioritising cultural ES associated with elites, that is recreation and tourism, leading to deterioration of the well-being of marginalised local residents [26]. Second, confining cultural ES to the non-material, recreational, or aesthetic aspects of nature is based on a Eurocentric epistemological dichotomy between nature and culture that often cannot be maintained in non-Western societies [27]. As many case studies from various parts of the world show, cultural ES require both the material and non-material dimensions of the human-ecosystem relationship [19,23,27,28]. Cultural ES are created through people reflecting, recognising, and perceiving the significance of nature [24,29]. Criticism of the ES framework fundamentally stems from the fact that the integration of the social sciences into ES assessment was achieved through cooperation between ecologists and economists [30]. Ecologists, who were traditionally suspicious of economists, came to realise that economic valuation can strengthen the claims of biodiversity conservation, leading them to cooperate with economists in ES assessment [1,31]. In order to address these criticisms, even before the launch of NCP, some authors developed new methods to evaluate the cultural ES by combining qualitative and quantitative methods, revealing non-monetary dimensions of cultural ES such as sense of identity, belonging, and spirituality that had occupied a marginalised position in the previous evaluation literature [22,32,33]. More recently, nuanced approaches towards ES have been suggested. NCP and relational values acknowledge the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining the values of nature or the relationship between nature and people [7–9,19,23,34]. This approach aims to incorporate different types of knowledge, including traditional local ecological knowledge, as well as different social science disciplines. Fish argues that the contribution of an ecosystem is produced through a series of cultural practices and related cognitive, non-cognitive, and embodied interactions occurring between people and nature [23]. The notion of relational values was introduced into the ES literature to take into account the fact that people act according to the appropriateness of how they relate with nature and with others [7,8]. Here, relational values are defined as values that individuals hold towards their relationship with nature and with Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
others that are constitutive of an appropriate, meaningful, and good life [34]. This paper concurs with Hiron et al. who argue that the main point of departure between the early concept of cultural ES and the more recent, nuanced approach lies in the broadening of the concept of ‘culture as a shared process’ [34]. However, the literature on relational values is still in its nascent stage and requires further elaboration, especially on how culture functions as a process.1 In particular, it is my view that if we are to accept the pervasive role of culture, it is essential to incorporate some of the contributions from sociology, more specifically from the structure-agency debate, namely, the social theory explaining the process by which individuals internalise culture or social structure, while simultaneously creating new cultural practices and changing social structures. In order to take on this task, the following section argues that culture is a process in which knowledge and information is shared and internalised [10]; it introduces Bourdieu’s notion of habitus [14] to understand how culture is shared and (re)negotiated as individuals create different cultural practices.
The contribution from sociology: culture and habitus Despite the fact that many authors argue that culture is one of the most complex and challenging concepts [13,34], it is crucial for us to define culture and understand how it functions in order to contribute to the ES literature. This is especially true considering that one of the main confusions and criticisms of cultural ES came from its lack of definition of culture [27,35–37]. Anthropologists such as Ingold define culture as a social, communicative and productive process [38]. In a similar vein, the sociologist Elder-Vass defines culture as ‘a set of shared understandings and practices’ [10]. What is significant here is that culture is considered to be a process in which information or knowledge is shared and made public. Some authors even argue ‘if it (knowledge or information) is not shared and public it is not cultural’ [39]. For sociologists, culture is a product of two interlinked processes, often referred to as a recursive relationship between structure and cultural practices [11,39]. The first process involves the sharing and internalisation of knowledge and information [14,40]. This is the process that Bourdieu refers to as ‘structured structure’ [14]. Individuals are born into a culture that provides knowledge and information regarding desirable interactions with nature and among people, that is, the ‘right’ ways of doing things [41]. If they do not adhere to these ways, they are 1 Satz et al. have briefly touched on this social construction [107]; however, they did not fully explain how the notion of ‘we’ is constructed through the sharing of information and knowledge, or how it can lead to structural change.
www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Relational value from a cultural valuation perspective Ishihara 3
ridiculed by others, punished by peer pressure, or in the worst case scenario, socially ostracised [40]. As individuals continue to interact in their socio-cultural context, they internalise the ‘right’ ways of doing things. This internalised ‘right’ way of doing things is termed as ‘habitus’2 following Bourdieu [14]. Habitus is defined as ‘the habitual, patterned way of understanding, judging, and acting which arise from our particular position as members of a certain community or society’ [42, p811]. Habitus internalisation is not a simple process of averaging out the knowledge and information of individuals in the community or society; rather, it is a process of sharing (or, in extreme cases, of imposing) specific arbitrary knowledge and information, often those of the dominant groups [43]. To this end, this process of sharing and internalisation is imbued with symbolic power, that is, the power to create and impose a certain view as the legitimate vision of the social world [44,45]. Once sharing and internalisation have occurred, individuals act without much deliberation [46], because they economise their cognitive capacity by relying on the internalised habitus. To this end, the habitus internalisation leads to reproduction of culture. However, the novelty of this notion lies in the fact that it explains not just the reproduction of culture but also cultural change. This leads us to the second process, ‘structuring structure’. The connection between habitus and cultural practice is not a straightforward one. According to Bourdieu, habitus also functions as a ‘structuring structure’, in which individuals utilise their shared knowledge and information to create new cultural practices that deviate from the ‘habit of thought’ [16,47]. Habitus is not habitude (‘habit and routines’ in French) [15]; it functions like an underlying grammar or an ‘open system of disposition that is constantly subject to experiences, and therefore constantly affected by them’, leading to cultural change [48, p133]. This is because individuals internalise different types of knowledge and information, and utilise them differently [49,50]. Individuals do not just interact with others as resource users; they also interact with others as neighbours or relatives [51]. By interacting with each other in different ways, individuals form different habitus, enabling them to intentionally or unintentionally utilise knowledge and information in a context other than that of 2 I acknowledge that there is no agreement even among Bourdieuan sociologists on how to interpret Bourdieu’s concept of habitus [108]. Some argue that habitus pre-empts his concept of agency, leading simply to routine action without deliberation [109,110]; others argue that habitus indicates the possibility of conscious deliberation and the transformation of intersubjective meaning [111–113]. This paper takes the latter position, holding that habitus leads to deliberation and the transformation of culture as well as to routine action without much thinking.
www.sciencedirect.com
the original one. Furthermore, when faced with unexpected situations, individuals have the capacity to put together different types of knowledge and information, in a manner often referred to as ‘bricolage’, to reconcile their interests and needs [14,39,52,53].3 Individuals are not ‘cultural dopes’ but shrewd manipulators who create new structure and cultural practices. To this end, habitus functions as a ‘structured structure’ as well as a ‘structuring structure’ [54]. Sociologists argue that due to these two processes — the internalisation of knowledge and information, and their utilisation — culture is both shared and (re)negotiated [10,55]. If we are to conceptualise culture as a shared process, and relational value as value that individuals hold towards their relationship with nature and with others that are constitutive of an appropriate, meaningful, and good life, it is crucial to incorporate this recursive relationship between structure and individual cultural practices discussed above. As individuals interact with nature and among themselves, they share and internalise certain relational values as habitus. Of course, not all relational values are shared or public. Some may remain at the individual level, such as personal enjoyment of tranquillity in the forest. However, even those relational values that seem to reside at a very individual level are not always immune from the influence of shared culture. One may enjoy the tranquillity of the forest because it is her family tradition, or because it is the norm for the upper social strata of her society. In this respect, relational values are often, if not always, shared at the collective level, because people often interact with nature as groups [56,57]. Thus, it is crucial to incorporate this collective level into the concept of relational values. Relational values go through two interlinked processes: sharing and (re)negotiating. When relational values are shared, and as stable interactions with nature and among people continue, some relationships are considered a duty towards nature or towards others, creating a sense of duty, belonging and identity [25,58]. As Jentoft argues, individuals who manage nature do not act as distant others but as part of a ‘we’: that is, members of a community who are committed to each other and share duties towards each other [59]. In these circumstances, individuals act habitually, without much deliberation, contributing to the reproduction of existing relational values. At the same time, individuals are not just practicing routines dictated by habitus. As they face unexpected situations, such as 3 The term ‘bricolage’ was originally used by the French anthropologist Levi-Strauss to describe how the ‘savage’ mind understands different cultures [52]; it was later developed in the context of institutions by Douglas, who argued that to economise on cognitive effort, actors borrow existing familiar institutions as a ‘frame of reference’ to understand new and ‘unfamiliar’ social phenomena [53]. This is fundamentally different from utilitarian welfare maximisers, who are guided by one principle: rationality.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
4 Sustainability challenges
ecological or economic turbulence, individuals are forced to improvise by putting different pieces of knowledge and information together to survive the situation, leading to changes in cultural practices and relational values [50,60– 62]. This may be manifested as a challenge to existing power relations between dominant and marginalised groups. This understanding of a recursive relationship developed in social theory enables us to understand relational values as processes in which they are shared within a group as well as they are renegotiated over time, creating conflict and tension.
Relational values as a shared and (Re) negotiated process from case studies What, then, is the significance of introducing these arguments? This section reviews recent literature on cultural ES case studies. A systematic literature review was conducted using Science Direct. Three sets of keywords were chosen to identify papers published between 2016 and 2018: first, ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘shared values’, second, ‘payment for ecosystem services (PES)’ and ‘ethnography’, and third, ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘bricolage’. The first set of keywords was used to find case studies that describe the sharing process in which habitus is internalised, leading to reproduction of culture through its fostering of sense of duty and belonging; while the second and third sets were used to find case studies that reveal the (re)negotiation process of relational values in which habitus contributes to the creation of new cultural practices, leading to change in culture, and at times challenges in power relations. The term PES was chosen as it is one of the major globally implemented schemes to promote the idea of ES. PES often reinforces and/or changes the relationships people have with nature and with each other by introducing monetary incentives [4,63,64]. Further, its implementation processes are well-documented not just by economists and political scientist but also by anthropologists, sociologists, and ethnographers who are more sensitive to motives, meanings and power relations [61,65,66]. Although these case studies do not use the terms ‘relational values’ or ‘habitus’ explicitly, they can be interpreted as revealing the processes of sharing and (re)negotiating relational values as people interact with nature and each other (for details of the literature review, see Appendix A). The first body of literature, collected through using the first set of keywords, centres on the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment and its follow-ups (UK NEA), as well as a couple of other ethnographical studies [24, 67–76]. For example, one case study from the Northern Devon Nature Improvement Area in the UK shows that the range of different attributes of nature (such as beauty and tranquillity) is experienced differently by individuals, leading to different cultural practices (walking, gardening, or learning outdoor survival skills) [72]. It shows Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
how the relational values that people hold with nature are internalised and reproduced in routine cultural practices. Another study by Kaltenborn et al. shows that, on the Norwegian island of Røst, even negative experiences, such as surviving in a harsh environment and enduring a meagre harvest, lead to the sharing of relational values and their internalisation, such as the formation of an identity as a ‘resilient people’ and a sense of duty towards one another that enables individuals to work together [73]. The second body of literature, collected through using the second and third set of keywords, shows how the relational values people hold towards nature and each other are (re)negotiated when PES schemes are introduced [61,68,77–84]. The introduction of PES often leads to changes in local cultural practices, such as the undermining of local norms and the local intrinsic motivation. For example, Benjaminsen and Kaarhus argue that the commodification of a forest in Zanzibar, Tanzania, has undermined local communal norms, in my argument, part of habitus [81]. Such phenomena have often been described as the crowding out of intrinsic motivation [85], but they could be interpreted as processes in which the habitus is altered or has disappeared as individuals internalise different kinds of knowledge and information, such as ‘environmental conservation for money’, as they implement PES. Many other case studies show that the original discourse of PES, payment to an ES provider from the ES consumer, is reinterpreted or amended to ‘fit’ the local habitus [61,83,84,80]. For example, Ishihara et al. argue that, in some communities, ‘habitus’ is reinforced by the implementation of PES when the leaders distribute the monetary incentive according to existing cultural norms. To this end, the local stakeholders are ‘bricoleurs’ who put different types of knowledge and information together, leading to both changes and reinforcement of relational values and cultural practices.
Conclusion This paper has incorporated the recursive relationship between structure and individual cultural practices, alongside the notion of ‘habitus’, to further develop the notion of relational values. The theoretical contribution from sociology enables us to understand the process by which relational values are socially constructed and shared, leading to a sense of belonging and duty and stable interaction among people. At the same time, I have revealed that relational values change over time, challenging the existing power relations which imposes the dominant group(s)’s vision as the legitimate world view. In addition, the literature review on the case studies of ES has revealed that relational values are both internalised as habitus and (re)negotiated, and at times reinforced. Individuals utilise their habitus differently, depending on www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Relational value from a cultural valuation perspective Ishihara 5
their socio-cultural context, leading to both the reproduction of and changes to relational values. However, further research on relational values must be developed, especially using qualitative methods, such as ethnographic case studies. Despite the fact the recent studies on ES, such as the UK’s NEA, developed a novel approach to shared values [23,25,57], they continue to depend heavily on evaluation methods based on public discussion and group work [24,70,71,86]. As the authors themselves mention, these methods base their argument on Habermasian communicative rationality and share its inherent problem [70]: Habermas presumes that the participation of equal citizens in public debate can reconcile conflicts in worldviews through persuasion and communication [87]. In most cases, however, there is a difference in power among the participants in terms of their capacity to voice their opinions and create persuasive arguments [69,70,72]. Given these power differences, public debate or group workshops may not always be the best ways to elicit relational values depending on the social context.4 It is my view that further ethnographic case studies that are more sensitive to power relations must be conducted to elucidate relational values. In this regard, some of the mapping of ES exercises conducted offer promising techniques for future ES evaluation [35,36,88–90]. These methods enable individuals to express their values without exposing them in the arena of public debate and subjecting them to the unequal power relationship. In any case, in order for the different stakeholders to express their values and voices, it is essential that the researchers conduct an in-depth research on the local social context. These studies are time-consuming and have no one-size-fit-all solutions; however, it is my sincere hope that this paper on the theoretical clarification of relational values will encourage more ethnographical case studies and the further development of new techniques for assessing ES.
Table A1 Results of literature review 1 using the keywords ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘shared values’ Number of papers
Selected references
15
See the main text
8
[91–94]
literature review or commentary
6
[95–98]
Total
29
(i) empirical or theoretical research with a description/evaluation of a shared process
empirical research without description/evaluation of a shared process
description/evaluation of a shared process, and iii) literature review or commentary. Table A1 shows the number of papers belonging to each and representative references. Only Type i) papers are mentioned in the main text. With second set of keywords, ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘ethnography’, and the third set of keywords, ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘bricolage’, 25 papers and 6 papers, respectively, were found, with the overlap of one paper. The papers were categorised under the following: i) empirical or theoretical research with a description/evaluation of a negotiated process in the relationship with nature or among people, ii) empirical research without a description/evaluation of a negotiated process, and iii) literature review, commentary, and others. For this body of literature, there were a couple of papers that analysed the role of expertise or expert knowledge that are categorised under Type iii). Table A2 shows the number of papers belonging to each and representative references. Only Type i) papers are mentioned in the main text.
Conflict of interest declaration The author confirms that there have been no involvements that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or in the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated.
Table A2 Results of literature review 2, using the keywords ‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘ethnography’/‘payment for ecosystem services’ and ‘bricolage
Appendix A
Number of papers
Selected references
14
See the main text
11
[99–102]
[103–106]
For the first set of keywords, ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘shared values’, 29 papers were found in Science Direct. The papers were categorised under the following: i) empirical or theoretical research with a description/ evaluation of a shared process in the relationship with nature or among people, ii) empirical research without a
(i) empirical or theoretical research
4 For example, it is difficult for me to imagine utilising the methods developed through UK’s NEA in the Japanese context where I conduct my fieldwork. People, especially farmers or fishermen, who are the key stakeholders for the ecosystems, are not familiar with public debate.
literature review or commentary
5
Total
30
www.sciencedirect.com
with a description/evaluation of a shared process
empirical research without a description/evaluation of a shared process
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
6 Sustainability challenges
Acknowledgement This research was funded by JSPS Kakenhi in Japan, grant number 16H02565.
References
21. Kumar M, Kumar P: Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 2008, 64:808-819. 22. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH et al.: Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012, 109:8812-8819. 23. Fish R, Church A, Winter M: Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:208-217.
1.
Norgaard RB: Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1219-1227.
2.
Barnaud C, Antona M: Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 2014, 56:113-123.
3.
Kull CA, Arnauld de Sartre X, Castro-Larran˜aga M: The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 2015, 61:122-134.
4.
Go´mez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1209-1218.
26. Berbe´s-Bla´zquez M, Gonza´lez JA, Pascual U: Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2016, 19:134-143.
5.
Bromley DW: Environmental governance as stochastic belief updating: crafting rules to live by. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:art14.
27. Pro¨pper M, Haupts F: The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecol Econ 2014, 108:28-35.
6.
Chan KMA, Satter T, Goldstein J: Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 2012, 74:8-18.
28. Gould RK, Ardoin NM, Woodside U, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Daily GC: The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai‘i. Ecol Soc 2014, 19.
7.
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Dı´az S: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2016, 113.
8.
Dı´az S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Ba´ldi A et al.: The IPBES conceptual framework – connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015, 14:1-16.
9.
Dı´az S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martı´n-Lo´pez B, Watson RT, Molna´r Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA et al.: Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science (80-) 2018, 359:270-272.
10. Elder-Vass D: The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 11. Archer MS, Elder-Vass D: Cultural system or norm circle: an exchange. Eur J Soc Theory 2012, 15. 12. Comberti C, Thornton TF, Wylliede Echeverria V, Patterson T: Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Glob Environ Change 2015, 34:247-262. 13. Williams R: Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana Paperbacks; 1983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ 9780230373464. 14. Bourdieu P: The Logic of Practice. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 1990. 15. Swartz D: Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1997. 16. Giddens A: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1984. 17. MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington D.C: Island Press; 2003. 18. Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcı´a-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martı´n-Lo´pez B: Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ 2014, 108:36-48. 19. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS et al.: Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 2012, 62:744-756. 20. Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J: Cultural Ecosystem Services : A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Ecol Soc 2013:18. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
24. Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO: Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:258-269. 25. Cooper N, Brady E, Steen H, Bryce R: Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services.’. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:218-229.
29. Muraca B: The map of moral significance: a new axiological matrix for environmental ethics. Environ Values 2011, 20:375396. 30. Heal G, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Salzman J: Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environ Law J 2001, 20. 31. Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P: Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 2013, 11:343. 32. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM et al.: Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009, 106:1305-1312. 33. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Penker M et al.: Reply to kirchhoff: cultural values and ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012, 109:E3147. 34. Hirons M, Comberti C, Dunford R: Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2016, 41:545-574. 35. Rieprich R, Schnegg M: The value of landscapes in Northern Namibia: a system of intertwined material and nonmaterial services. Soc Nat Resour 2015, 28:941-958. 36. Schnegg M, Rieprich R, Pro¨pper M: Culture, nature, and the valuation of ecosystem services in Northern Namibia. Ecol Soc 2014, 19. 37. Schnegg M, Linke T: Living institutions: sharing and sanctioning water among pastoralists in Namibia. World Dev 2015, 68:205-214. 38. Ingold T: The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2000. 39. Patterson O: Making sense of culture. Annu Rev Sociol 2014, 40:1-30. 40. Berger P, Luckmann T: The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City N.Y: Doubleday; 1966. 41. Cleaver F: Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. Eur J Dev Res 2002, 14:11-30. 42. Bourdieu P: The force of law: toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hast LJ 1986, 38:805-853. www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
Relational value from a cultural valuation perspective Ishihara 7
43. Ishihara H, Pascual U: Social capital in community level environmental governance: a critique. Ecol Econ 2009, 68:1549-1562. 44. Bourdieu P: Social space and symbolic power. Sociol Theory 1989, 7:14-25. 45. Foucault M: Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage; 1977. 46. Fleetwood S: Structure, institution, agency, habit, and reflexive deliberation. J Inst Econ 2008, 4:183-203. 47. Patterson O: Taking culture seriously: a framework and a AfroAmerican illustration. In Culture Matters; How Values Shape Human Progress. Edited by Harrison LE, Huntington SP. New York: Basic Books; 2000:202-218.
ecosystem services (PES): addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecol Econ 2015, 120:117-125. 67. Raymond CM, Kenter JO: Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:241-257. 68. Reed MS, Allen K, Attlee A, Dougill AJ, Evans KL, Kenter JO, Hoy J, McNab D, Stead SM, Twyman C et al.: A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 2017, 43:92-106. 69. Kenter JO: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:291-307.
48. Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD: An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.
70. Orchard-Webb J, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Church A: Deliberative democratic monetary valuation to implement the ecosystem approach. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:308-318.
49. Nightingale AJ: Bounding difference: intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum 2011, 42:153-162.
71. Edwards DM, Collins TM, Goto R: An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:319-328.
50. Lau JD, Scales IR: Identity, subjectivity and natural resource use: how ethnicity, gender and class intersect to influence mangrove oyster harvesting in the Gambia. Geoforum 2016, 69:136-146.
72. Fish R, Church A, Willis C, Winter M, Tratalos JA, Haines-Young R, Potschin M: Making space for cultural ecosystem services: insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:329-343.
51. Schnegg M: Institutional multiplexity: social networks and community-based natural resource management. Sustain Sci 2018:1-14.
73. Kaltenborn BP, Linnell JDC, Baggethun EG, Lindhjem H, Thomassen J, Chan KM: Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘The Good life’. A case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecol Econ 2017, 140:166-176.
52. Le’vi-Strauss C: The Savage Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1966. 53. Douglas M: How Institutions Think. London: Routledge; 1986. 54. Kabeer N: Cultural dopes or rational fools? Women and labour supply in the Bangladesh garment industry. Eur J Dev Res 1991, 3:133-160. 55. Wimmer A: The making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries: a multilevel process theory. Am J Sociol 2008, 113:970-1022. 56. Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, Fazey I, O’Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N et al.: Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:358-371.
74. Favretto N, Luedeling E, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ: Valuing ecosystem services in semi-arid rangelands through stochastic simulation. Land Degrad Dev 2017, 28:65-73. 75. Bullock C, Joyce D, Collier M: An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being. Ecosyst Serv 2018, 31:142-152. 76. de la Barrera F, Reyes-Paecke S, Harris J, Bascun˜a´n D, Farı´as JM: People’s perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods. Urban For Urban Green 2016, 20:254-264.
57. Irvine KN, O’Brien L, Ravenscroft N, Cooper N, Everard M, Fazey I, Reed MS, Kenter JO: Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:184-193.
77. Van Hecken G, Merlet P, Lindtner M, Bastiaensen J: Can financial incentives change farmers’ motivations? An agrarian system approach to development pathways at the Nicaraguan agricultural frontier. Ecol Econ 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2016.12.030.
58. Ishihara H, Pascual U: Institutions and agency in creating collective action for common pool resources. Environ Econ Policy Res Discuss Pap Ser 2012, 53.
78. Osborne T, Shapiro-Garza E: Embedding carbon markets: complicating commodification of ecosystem services in Mexico’s forests. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 2017, 4452:1-18.
59. Jentoft S, McCay B, Wilson DC: Social theory and fisheries comanagement. Mar Policy 1998, 22:423-436.
79. Jespersen K, Gallemore C: The institutional work of payments for ecosystem services: why the mundane should matter. Ecol Econ 2017, 146:507-519.
60. Cleaver F: Institutional bricolage, conflict and cooperation in Usangu, Tanzania. IDS Bull 2001, 32:26-35. 61. Ishihara H, Pascual U, Hodge I: Dancing with storks: the role of power relations in payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 2017, 139:45-54. 62. Nightingale A: Fishing for nature: the politics of subjectivity and emotion in Scottish inshore fisheries management. Environ Plan A 2013, 45:2362-2378. 63. Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, Corbera E, Ezzine de Blas D, Farley J, Froger G et al.: Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv Lett 2013, 6:274-279. 64. Kosoy N, Corbera E: Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1228-1236. 65. Milne S, Adams B: Market masquerades: uncovering the politics of community-level payments for environmental services in Cambodia. Dev Change 2012, 43:133-158. 66. Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J, Windey C: Towards a powersensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for www.sciencedirect.com
80. Parks L: Challenging power from the bottom up? Community protocols, benefit-sharing, and the challenge of dominant discourses. Geoforum 2018, 88:87-95. 81. Benjaminsen G, Kaarhus R: Commodification of forest carbon: REDD+ and socially embedded forest practices in Zanzibar. Geoforum 2018, 93:48-56. 82. Massarella K, Sallu SM, Ensor JE, Marchant R: REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: the dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Dev 2018, 109:375-385. 83. Goh TY, Yanosky A: Payment for Ecosystem Services works, but not exactly in the way it was designed. Global Ecol Conserv 2016, 5:71-87. 84. Joslin AJ, Jepson WE: Territory and authority of water fund payments for ecosystem services in Ecuador’s Andes. Geoforum 2018, 91:10-20. 85. Midler E, Pascual U, Drucker AG, Narloch U, Sotof JL: Unraveling the effects of payments for ecosystemservices on motivations for collective action. Ecol Econ 2015, 120:394-405. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016
COSUST-855; NO. OF PAGES 8
8 Sustainability challenges
86. Ranger S, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Cumming G, Dapling T, Lawes E, Richardson PB: Forming shared values in conservation management: an interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosyst Serv 2016, 21:344-357. 87. Habermas J: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1991. 88. Burkhard B, Maes J: Mapping Ecosystem Services, Advanced Books. Sofia, Bulgaria: Pensoft Publishers; 2017 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3897/ab.e12837. 89. Santos-martı´n F, Plieninger T, Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Vejre H, Luque S, Rabe S, Balzan M, Czu´cz B, Amadescu CM et al.: Report on Social Mapping and Assessment Methods for Ecosystem Services. 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30102.24644. 90. Garcia-Martin M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Gounaridis D, Kizos T, Printsmann A, Mu¨ller M, Lieskovsky´ J, Plieninger T: Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landsc Ecol 2017, 32:2133-2150. 91. Kobryn HT, Brown G, Munro J, Moore SA: Cultural ecosystem values of the Kimberley coastline: an empirical analysis with implications for coastal and marine policy. Ocean Coast Manag 2018, 162:71-84. 92. Rabe SE, Gantenbein R, Richter KF, Greˆt-Regamey A: Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys – mapping recreation in the riverine zone. Ecosyst Serv 2018, 31:308-317. 93. Scharin H, Ericsdotter S, Elliott M, Turner RK, Niiranen S, Blenckner T, Hyytia¨inen K, Ahlvik L, Ahtiainen H, Artell J et al.: Processes for the sustainable stewardship of marine environments. Ecol Econ 2016, 128:55-67.
99. Ma Z, Bauchet J, Steele D, Godoy R, Radel C, Zanotti L: Comparison of direct transfers for human capital development and environmental conservation. World Dev 2017, 99:498-517. 100. Gasparatos A, Romeu-Dalmau C, von Maltitz G, Johnson FX, Jumbe CB, Stromberg P, Willis K: Using an ecosystem services perspective to assess biofuel sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 114:1-7. 101. Farrell KN, Silva-Macher JC: Exploring futures for Amazonia’s Sierra del divisor: an environmental valuation triadics approach to analyzing ecological economic decision choices in the context of major shifts in boundary conditions. Ecol Econ 2017, 141:166-179. 102. Marchant R, Richer S, Boles O, Capitani C, Courtney-Mustaphi CJ, Lane P, Prendergast ME, Stump D, De Cort G, Kaplan JO et al.: Drivers and trajectories of land cover change in East Africa: human and environmental interactions from 6000 years ago to present. Earth-Sci Rev 2018, 178:322-378. 103. Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Burgess PJ, Plieninger T: A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecol Indic 2016, 62:47-65. 104. Pasgaard M, Dawson N, Rasmussen LV, Enghoff M, Jensen A: The research and practice of integrating conservation and development: self-reflections by researchers on methodologies, objectives and influence. Glob Ecol Conserv 2017, 9:50-60. 105. Pasgaard M, Van Hecken G, Ehammer A, Strange N: Unfolding scientific expertise and security in the changing governance of Ecosystem Services. Geoforum 2017, 84:354-367. 106. Mbatu RS: REDD+ research: reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. For Policy Econ 2016, 73:140-152.
94. Bardos RP, Jones S, Stephenson I, Menger P, Beumer V, Neonato F, Maring L, Ferber U, Track T, Wendler K: Optimising value from the soft re-use of brownfield sites. Sci Total Environ 2016, 563–564:769-782.
107. Satz D, Gould RK, Chan KMA, Guerry A, Norton B, Satterfield T, Halpern BS, Levine J, Woodside U, Hannahs N et al.: The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio 2013, 42:675-684.
95. Dickinson DC, Hobbs RJ: Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst Serv 2017, 25:179-194.
108. Elder-Vass D: Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in emergent theory of action. Sociol Theory 2007, 25:325-346.
96. Martin CL, Momtaz S, Gaston T, Moltschaniwskyj NA: A systematic quantitative review of coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services: current status and future research. Mar Policy 2016, 74:25-32. 97. Small N, Munday M, Durance I: The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Change 2017, 44:57-67. 98. Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M: Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 2017, 28:1-16.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2018, 35:1–8
109. DiMaggio P: Review essay: on Pierre Bourdieu. Am J Sociol 1979, 84:1460-1476. 110. Jenkins R: Pierre Bourdieu and reproduction of determinism. Sociology 1982, 16. 111. Crossley N: The phnomenological habitus and its construction. Theory Soc 2001, 30:81-120. 112. Taylor C: To follow a rule. Bourdieu Crit Perspect 1993, 6:45-60. 113. Swartz D: The sociology of habit: the perspective of Pierrer Bourdieu. Occup Ther J Res 2002, 22.
www.sciencedirect.com
Please cite this article in press as: Ishihara H: Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016