Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem

Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Surveys

Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods Samantha S.K. Scholte ⁎, Astrid J.A. van Teeffelen, Peter H. Verburg Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 21 March 2014 Received in revised form 24 February 2015 Accepted 10 March 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Ecosystem services Socio-cultural values Social valuation Cultural ecosystem services Valuation methods Landscape values

a b s t r a c t Ecosystem service research has long been dominated by a monetary interpretation of value, neglecting other social perspectives on the importance of ecosystems for human well-being. Emphasis has been put on individual utility and rational choice, which does not adequately capture the full spectrum of social values of ecosystem services. A socio-cultural approach to value ecosystem services is increasingly advocated and is gaining more attention in the ecosystem service research agenda. The current documentation of socio-cultural perspectives on ecosystem services is, however, characterized by a conflation of the concepts of “cultural ecosystem services” and “socio-cultural values” of ecosystem services. This paper reviews (i) the concept of socio-cultural values within the ecosystem service framework, (ii) the social and ecological factors that determine socio-cultural values, and (iii) the methods by which socio-cultural values can be assessed. The clarifications of the concept of socio-cultural valuation and the structured listing of the available methods facilitate a better integration of socio-cultural values into ecosystem service assessments and help researchers to choose methods from the available portfolio. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The ecosystem service (ES) approach is gaining momentum: many scholars have reviewed the concept of ESs and the methods used to assess them (Atkinson et al., 2012; Christie et al., 2012; de Groot et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2010; Seppelt et al., 2011; van Zanten et al., 2013). To give ecosystems more weight in policy decisions and management strategies, approaches have been developed to quantify the value of ESs in monetary terms (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997). This monetization of ES values, however, has led to a lot of controversy (see Common, 2007; Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Spash and Vatn, 2006). Norton and Noonan (2007, p. 665) express the worry that the focus on economic tools has “locked the rhetoric of environmental evaluation in a very monistic, utilitarian, and economic vernacular that leaves little or no room for other social scientific methods”. There are three value-domains that are associated with ES values: the ecological, economic and socio-cultural domains (MA, 2005). Ecological values of ESs are described in terms of how the service contributes to the health of the ecosystem, using indicators such as resilience and diversity (de Groot et al., 2010). Economic and sociocultural values both reflect the relative importance of ESs to people. Socio-cultural values are distinguished from economic values, because they are not expressed in monetary terms (de Groot et al., 2010; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013). For the sake of clarity and consistency, in ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S.K. Scholte).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007 0921-8009/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

this paper we will therefore use the term monetary values instead of economic values. The monetary valuation of ESs focuses on services that can be relatively easily approached through market-based methods, whereas the less tangible services, such as aesthetic or inspirational services, are frequently dismissed as hidden externalities. The interplay between ecosystem functioning and its contributions to human welfare and wellbeing is rather complex, which is why increasingly authors suggest to take a pluralistic approach when performing ES valuations (Chan et al., 2012a,b; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Norton and Noonan, 2007; Spangenberg and Settele, 2010). To better integrate a broader set of social perspectives and valuation methodos into the ES framework, a growing group of scholars is looking at socio-cultural valuation methods to capture the value of ESs (e.g. Agbenyega et al., 2009; Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2013; Hartter, 2010; Martín-López et al., 2012). These methods do not serve as an alternative, but rather as a complement to current, monetary forms of ES valuation. Although socio-cultural values are increasingly addressed in ES assessments, little effort has been put in reviewing the concepts and methods considered in socio-cultural ES assessments. This paper aims to address this research gap by providing a thorough review of (i) what is understood by socio-cultural values, (ii) what determines socio-cultural values, and (iii) what methods are used to assess sociocultural values. As the field of socio-cultural valuation of ESs has only recently emerged, we draw from theoretical and methodological considerations in a range of research disciplines, including psychology, economics and geography, to gain a better understanding of socio-cultural

68

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

values of ESs. We explore concepts and approaches from a broad set of studies that have investigated values for the environment. In the following section we define socio-cultural values in the context of the ES framework. In the third section, we put forward a theoretical framework, presenting the different social and ecological attributes that determine socio-cultural values. In the fourth section, we assess the methods that address socio-cultural values of ESs. In the final section, we discuss future research directions and give suggestions to facilitate the integration of socio-cultural perspectives into ES valuation. 2. Socio-cultural Values Within the ES Framework There is no general apprehension of the term value in environmental research, and thus its definition and application varies across studies. Ecologists often look at functional values, that address the more technological and functional relationship within a system (Farber et al., 2002). Functional values exist regardless of whether they are recognized by social norms or individual preferences. Psychologists and sociologists are mostly concerned with studying the basis of value. Held values are conceptions about what is desirable and important within an individual, such as notions of liberty or responsibility (Lockwood, 1999). This concept of value is different from the economic concept of “valuation” that treats value as assigned values, expressing “the relative importance or worth of an object to an individual or group in a given context” (Brown, 1984, p. 236). We define socio-cultural values of ESs as the importance people, as individuals or as a group, assign to (bundles of) ESs. As such, we consider socio-cultural values of ESs to be assigned values, though we adopt an assigned value theory that explicitly takes into account the central role that held values play as determinants of assigned value (see Brown, 1984). In addition we adopt an approach that acknowledges the different dimensions of socio-cultural values. Whereas the neoclassical economic interpretation of value focuses on individual utility and rational choice, a socio-cultural interpretation of value requires a more holistic approach towards value. Socio-cultural values may be self-oriented or other-oriented: in the latter case individuals place value on objects without thinking about their own good, but by thinking about what is good for society as a whole (e.g. Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013; Wilson and Howarth, 2002). Furthermore, since information about ecosystems and their services is often lacking, individuals may not have existing, well-defined values for ESs. Instead, they might construct a response on the spot, based on their experience, beliefs and the information that is given by the valuation exercise: socio-cultural values may therefore also be transformative (Chan et al., 2012b). While increasingly scholars address cultural ESs (e.g. Daniel et al., 2012; Milcu et al., 2013), the concept of socio-cultural values of ESs still remains a serious gap in ES research (see Chan et al., 2012a,b; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013). Review of the ES literature reveals a conflation of the terms “socio-cultural value” and “cultural ecosystem service”. Costanza et al. (1997, p. 254) define “cultural values-cum-services” as “aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiritual and or scientific values of ecosystems”. De Groot et al. (2002, p.397) refer to socio-cultural value as ‘non-material well-being’ that ‘mainly relates to the Information Functions’. These information functions have been incorporated into the ES framework as cultural ESs, which The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) describes as services related to spirituality and religiosity, recreation and ecotourism, aesthetics, inspiration, education, sense of place and cultural heritage. We consider socio-cultural values to be conceptually different from cultural ESs. Whereas cultural ESs mainly reflect the non-material well-being connected to ecosystems, e.g. spirituality, aesthetic values, sense of place (see Chan et al., 2012a,b; Daniel et al., 2012; Milcu et al., 2013; Pröpper and Haupts, 2014), socio-cultural values reflect both material and immaterial well-being. As expressed by Pröpper and Haupts (2014, p. 29), the current classification of ESs and values is based on “Western dualist perceptions of a separability of material provisioning

ESs and their (monetary) values on one hand, and immaterial cultural services and their values on the other”. The benefits people obtain from ecosystems may be both material, e.g. nutrition, and immaterial, e.g. sense of place. Socio-cultural values are therefore not limited to cultural ESs alone and should be connected to the full spectrum of ESs, including provisioning, regulating and cultural ESs. In spite of the importance of ESs to many different groups of people, ESs are, to a large extent, identified and valued by experts and/or policy makers. Experts may not always be aware of all ESs as perceived by people. The crux of socio-cultural valuation is to include the values of all relevant stakeholders, including local and distant beneficiaries, and to make explicit who values what. 3. The Determinants of Socio-cultural Value Fig. 1 presents a framework that describes the potential determinants of socio-cultural values of ESs. Within the context of social– psychological theory, a diversity of models has been used to describe the different layers that shape environmental behavior (see Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Steg and Vlek, 2009). Few of these models describe the values for particular ecosystem structures or functions. Studying the forest value–attitude relationship, McFarlane and Boxall (2000) put forward a cognitive hierarchy model that describes the determinants of forest management preferences. In this model, basic values (see Schwartz, 1994) provide the foundation for value orientations, i.e. general beliefs, which again influence more specific attitudes and behavior (McFarlane and Boxall, 2000). Given its focus on specific ecosystem preferences, we have taken this model as a basis to develop a conceptual framework for the specific context of socio-cultural values of ESs. A limitation of many models that describe the determinants of environmental values and behavior, is that they focus on how individual motivations influence environmental behavior, without reviewing contextual factors (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000; Seymour et al., 2010; Steg and Vlek, 2009). McFarlane and Boxall (2000) include social influences and socio-economic variables as contextual factors in their model, but they do not include the ecosystem structures and functions, to which the values are assigned. In our framework, we explicitly include contextual factors, both ecological and social attributes, as separate components. By drawing from different research disciplines, the following sections summarize the current knowledge base on how each of these components may determine socio-cultural values of ESs. Firstly we describe which characteristics of the landscape, and the ecosystems within that landscape, may determine socio-cultural values (Section 3.1). Consequently we explain how interactions between the beneficiaries and the natural environment may determine sociocultural values (Section 3.2). Finally we address the characteristics of beneficiaries, shaped by personal and social attributes (Section 3.3). 3.1. Characteristics of the Natural Environment Landscape and ecosystem characteristics do not only depend on biophysical properties, but are often closely linked to management practices. Socio-cultural ES assessments can be useful to evaluate landscapes and/or ecosystems that have undergone different forms of management (Carvalho-Ribeiro et al., 2010; Ives and Kendal, 2013; Le Lay et al., 2013) or have been affected by different forms of disturbance (Morrison et al., 2013). Here we explain how socio-cultural values can be related to the specific landscape and/or ecosystem characteristics (Section 3.1.1) and the supply of ESs (Section 3.1.2). 3.1.1. Landscape and Ecosystem Characteristics Landscapes vary with both space and time. Past, current and future land use change are important determinants of socio-cultural values of ESs (e.g. Aretano et al., 2013; Carvalho-Ribeiro et al., 2010; Piwowarczyk et al., 2013; Roca and Villares, 2012; Swetnam et al.,

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

69

Characteristics of the natural environment Landscape characteristics: land use change configuration composition

Ecosystem characteristics type structure condition abundance

Ecosystem service supply quantity of ES supply spatial scale of ES supply temporal scale of ES supply

Interactions between beneficiaries and ESs Use

Perception

How do beneficiaries use and benefit from ESs?

Information

How do beneficiaries perceive ESs?

What do beneficiaries know about ESs?

Characteristics of beneficiaries Social context: cultural background social network institutions

Personal characteristics: value orientations, location of residence, education level, income, age, gender

Socio-cultural values of ESs

Group values

Individual values

Fig. 1. Determinants of socio-cultural values of ESs.

2011; Tengberg et al., 2012). Investigating the effect of an increase in forest plantations on socio-cultural values of ESs in Uruguay, Vihervaara et al. (2012) demonstrated that the ESs that had been affected by the increase of forest plantations, such as the provision of drinking water and pastures for free-ranging cattle husbandry, received the highest value. Ongoing and future landscape changes also influence values, because people tend to show a resistance to change (Nassauer, 1995). Changes in the landscape could threaten established cultural traditions (Nassauer, 1995). Furthermore, change often comes with uncertainty, while people may prefer stability in the landscape (Soliva et al., 2008). Different characteristics of the landscape address different aspects of valuation. Van Berkel and Verburg (2012) studied visual preferences for agricultural landscapes in the Netherlands, and found that respondents valued individual landscape elements differently from the overall landscape structure. As individual landscape elements, people appreciated forests more than agricultural fields, but when considering the overall landscape people preferred structures that contained more agricultural fields than forests. Several studies have demonstrated that people generally prefer heterogeneous landscapes, demonstrating the importance of spatial pattern for socio-cultural values (Dramstad et al., 2006; Tagliafierro et al., 2013; van Zanten et al., 2014). In the ES literature, socio-cultural values have not often been linked to specific landscape and/or ecosystem structures (López-Santiago et al., 2014). The focus is often on ecosystem functions rather than the structures and features that provide the functions. A few scholars have tried to link social cultural values of ESs with spatial attributes by

participatory mapping, which allows respondents to pinpoint the locations of ESs (e.g. Alessa et al., 2008; Plieninger et al., 2013; Raymond et al., 2009). Such studies provide insight into the location of ES supply and their associated values, from which correlations between values and attributes such as distance to specific features, e.g. water or towns, topography, and/or land cover can be inferred (Brown and Brabyn, 2012; Brown, 2013; Plieninger et al., 2013; Sherrouse et al., 2011). In many ES assessments, however, values of an entire study area, e.g. national park, town or province, are portrayed without explicitly distinguishing between the different ecosystems within that area (e.g. Allendorf and Yang, 2013; Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2011; Petrosillo et al., 2013; Sagie et al., 2013; Tengberg et al., 2012). There have been studies that focus on particular ecosystems, such as forests (e.g. Abram et al., 2013; Kijazi and Kant, 2010; Sherrouse et al., 2011), marine ecosystems (e.g. Klain and Chan, 2012; Rees et al., 2010), or wetlands (e.g. Badola et al., 2012; Dobbie and Green, 2013), but only few of these studies have explored the links between sociocultural values and specific ecosystem characteristics. Socio-cultural values have been related to ecosystem structure, e.g. species diversity (Ceperley et al., 2010; Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2010; Nassauer, 2004) or stand structure (Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett, 2011), ecosystem condition, e.g. water quality (Dobbie and Green, 2013) or air quality (Morrison et al., 2013), and the abundance of particular ecosystems in an area (Shackleton and Blair, 2013), but there is still relatively little insight into specific links between socio-cultural values of ESs and ecosystem characteristics (see Section 4.3).

70

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

3.1.2. Ecosystem Service Supply As pointed out by Martín-López et al. (2014, p. 222) “the ecosystem's capacity to supply services determines the range of potential uses by society, thereby having an influence on sociocultural and monetary values”. Socio-cultural values are, however, not only related to the quantity of ES provision (see Martín-López et al., 2014), but also to the location of ES provision (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013). Since ecological processes generally operate at specific spatial and temporal scales, ESs will be supplied differently over space and time (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013). People can benefit from ESs at a range from short-term, site level scales (e.g. amenity services) to long-term, global level scales (e.g. carbon sequestration) (Limburg et al., 2002). The scale at which ESs can be used, determines which stakeholders benefit from these services. There may be trade-offs between services and subsequent stakeholders. For example, maintaining stream water flow at watershed level may benefit downstream communities, while restricting direct access to water for local stakeholders. Spatial and temporal lags in ES provision influence which groups of stakeholders value which services most (Serna-Chavez et al., 2014).

3.2. Interactions Between Beneficiaries and Ecosystem Services The natural environment and human societies are connected through complex social–ecological systems, characterized by many interactions and feedbacks between different users and different landscapes (see Meyfroidt, 2013). It is beyond the scope of this paper to give an exhaustive review of human-environment interactions. Instead, we briefly explain, in separate sections, how use (Section 3.2.1), perception (Section 3.2.2) and information (Section 3.2.3), can shape sociocultural values of ESs, without elaborating on the relations between these different factors.

3.2.1. Use People depend on and/or use their surrounding landscape in a myriad of ways: we extract resources from it for economic purposes, we gather food and materials for subsistence purposes, and we “consume land by actively gaining access to it for recreation, or more passively by simple enjoyment of [our] everyday surroundings” (Swanwick, 2009, p. S72). There have been several studies that have demonstrated different perceptions and values for ESs between different user groups (e.g. Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett, 2011; Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2013; Martín-López et al., 2012). Maass et al. (2005) studied the values for dry tropical forests of local community members in Mexico and found that respondents firstly recognized the services on which they thought their economic activities depend: farmers perceived opportunities for raising cattle and tourism operators perceived scenic beauty as an attraction. López-Santiago et al. (2014) also report economic dependency as a driver for public attitudes towards transhumance drove roads in cultural landscapes in Spain. To understand which ESs are important to people, it is necessary to gain more knowledge about the activities ES beneficiaries undertake. Studying the value of ESs provided by home-gardens, Calvet-Mir et al. (2012) observed participants and their activities to identify important ESs, such as the provision of medicinal plants and the provision of resources for worship and decoration. Observing such activities may also provide information about the interactions between ESs, since activities may have multiple facets. As an example, Pröpper and Haupts (2014, p.32) mention the collection of food as an activity which is both connected to the provision of food and the establishment of social relations: collecting food may be ‘an activity that is explicitly not pursued in leisure time’ and rather ‘a means of sustaining livelihoods’ but ‘can nevertheless be a way of spending time with friends and experiencing beauty’.

3.2.2. Perception An extensive body of research has been devoted to perceptions of the landscape (Bell, 2012; Daniel, 2001; Nassauer, 1995; Tveit et al., 2006; Ulrich, 1986; Zube et al., 1982), because perception is a key process in the interaction between people and the natural environment (Gobster et al., 2007). Landscape and ecosystem characteristics such as ecological condition or health, as defined by experts, do not have to equal people's perceptions of such characteristics. There are different perceptions of what is considered as a “natural” or “healthy” ecosystem (Cottet et al., 2013; Lamb and Purcell, 1990; Ode et al., 2009) leading to “discrepancies between human preferences for natural resources and the ecological status of those resources” (Carvalho-Ribeiro and Lovett, 2011, p. 47). Similarly, the fact that an ecosystem may provide certain ESs, does not mean that these ESs are also perceived by beneficiaries. Perceptions are not only shaped by physical attributes but also by socially constructed conceptions of the landscape (Terkenli, 2001). Landscapes are embedded in conventions about what a certain landscape should look like, which again are linked to cultural identities and traditional values. People do not only value landscapes for their functions, but also for their form and meaning (Terkenli, 2001). Familiarity with a certain landscape may shape perceptions of that landscape (e.g. Aretano et al., 2013; Hinds and Sparks, 2008; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). People can thus assign high values to particular landscapes, because of emotional ties that relate to social relations, roots or certain experiences (Soini et al., 2012). Some scholars argue that perception and landscape preferences are not so much dependent on cultural background, but are rather based on evolutionary principles, which can be explained by our common evolutionary background (Kellert and Wilson, 1993; Ulrich, 1986; Zube et al., 1982). An argument in favor of this theory has been the observation that people from different cultures share similar preferences for certain landscapes, specifically for savannah-park landscapes (Ulrich, 1993) and/or landscapes with elements of water (Brown and Brabyn, 2012; Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002). However, in addition to the similarities that people across cultures may share, individual and intergroup differences in environmental preferences have also been demonstrated (Buijs et al., 2009; Yu, 1995). It is therefore not necessarily true that the evolutionary basis for landscape preferences outweigh differences across cultures and/or individuals (Howley, 2011). 3.2.3. Information ESs that provide direct benefits, e.g. food provision or supply of clean water, are often more visible because people easily recognize how they depend on such services. The valuation of ESs that are commonly not directly perceived, mostly regulating ESs, may require an improved understanding of such ESs (Agbenyega et al., 2009). Lack of information limits people's ability to place a value on ecosystem attributes (Bingham et al., 1995). Without information about a given ES, the service may not be perceived and consequently may not be considered important. The effect of information on preferences has been investigated in monetary valuation studies. Tisdell and Wilson (2006) found that giving respondents extra information about the degree of endangerment of particular animal species, increased their willingness to pay for the conservation of such species. Similarly, Bateman and Mawby (2004) found that additional information was correlated with higher values for woodland conservation, especially concerning less familiar issues associated with such woodlands. This suggests that information may have a particular impact on issues of which individuals have little understanding, which is the case for many ESs. The extent to which information influences value is, however, not straightforward. Studying values for coral reef, Spash (2002) demonstrated that individuals who acknowledged that they were more informed over the course of the exercise, did not change their preference due to strong underlying moral values. Furthermore, several scholars who have looked into the effect of environmental knowledge on environmental behavior suggest that information can

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

only explain a small fraction of pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2010). 3.3. Characteristics of Beneficiaries The way people interact with the natural environment is both a product of the characteristics of that environment and the characteristics of people themselves. Here we describe how different characteristics of people determine socio-cultural values of ESs. Although personal characteristics (Section 3.3.1) are embedded in the social context (Section 3.3.2), we discuss these attributes in different sections to clarify the different types of attributes, by which socio-cultural values are shaped. 3.3.1. Personal Characteristics What people consider as important is largely driven by generic principles, i.e. held values (Lockwood, 1999). Clusters of such held values lead to general beliefs, i.e. value orientations (Stern and Dietz, 1994). According to Stern and Dietz (1994), there are three value orientations for environmental concern: self-interest, humanistic altruism and bio-spheric altruism. Unlike a value orientation based on self-interest, environmental concern based on humanistic altruism widens the scope of concern from one's self to a larger, sometimes even distant, community (Dietz et al., 2005). Environmental concern based on bio-spheric altruism is directed towards other species (Dietz et al., 2005). Value orientations influence sociocultural values for the environment; for instance, bio-centric oriented individuals are more likely to support conservation and protectionoriented management strategies, while anthropocentric-oriented individuals are more likely to support management that promotes instrumental use of the ecosystem (Vaske et al., 2001). Value orientations and socio-cultural values may, in turn, be influenced by personal characteristics such as age, gender, income, living environment, political orientation or membership in environmental organizations. Yu (1995) demonstrated that location of residence (urban versus rural), education level, and occupational interests influenced landscape preferences of Chinese respondents. According to Rudzitis (1999) younger and more educated urban dwellers, place higher value on ecosystem conservation. Martín-López et al. (2012) demonstrated that rural and elderly people better acknowledged provisioning ESs, while younger people mostly acknowledged regulating services. 3.3.2. Social Context Socio-cultural values of ESs are very context and place specific, based on cultural characteristics, political and economic setting, life experiences, and the use and non-use of these particular areas (Daily, 1997). People do not live their lives autonomously and their decisions, norms and values are shaped by their surroundings (Bandura, 2002). Individual beliefs are positioned in group values and ideas, i.e. social representations. Social representations both shape and are being shaped by individual beliefs (Anderson et al., 2013; Castro, 2006; Voelklein and Howarth, 2005). Belonging to a particular social group has a large influence on how an individual perceives natural areas (Schraml and Volz, 2009). Buijs et al. (2009) demonstrated that immigrants from Islamic countries attached low values to Dutch landscapes, and valued managed landscapes higher than natural landscapes, in contrast to native Dutch respondents. This contrast could be explained by the different views on nature by both groups: immigrants expressed a more utilitarian, anthropocentric perspective, while Dutch natives took a more eco-centric perspective, stressing the independence of nature. As pointed out by Buijs et al. (2009), these perspectives are largely related to the cultural differences in the images of nature between Islamic and Christian cultures. Similar findings have been reported by Johnson et al. (2004), studying wilderness values in the US, and studies focusing on recreation (Peters et al., 2010; Jay and Schraml, 2009; Seeland et al., 2009).

71

From a social constructivist perspective, social factors construct values, rules and perceptions; values assigned by an individual are the result of a social process (Vatn, 2005). Values are, in this case, not only an expression of personal preference and self-interest, but also an expression of what is appropriate given the situation. We do not only make choices on the basis of what we want, but also on the basis of what we expect others to want from us (Bandura, 2002). Values placed upon ecosystems and/or their services are, therefore, not always consistent (Shogren and Taylor, 2008). As a consequence, responses from persons may differ depending on whether they are asked for their preferences individually or in a group setting. Group values are not necessarily equal to the aggregated individual values: interactions between individuals that compose the group may lead to certain group values, that differ from individual values. In Fig. 1 we therefore distinguish between group values and individual values. 4. Methods to Assess Socio-cultural Values of ESs For monetary valuation of ESs, a wide range of techniques has been developed (for an overview of monetary valuation methods see Chee, 2004; Christie et al., 2012; Spangenberg and Settele, 2010). In contrast, there is not such a standard set of methods available for socio-cultural valuation. Different approaches have been used to assess the various aspects of socio-cultural values. To make an inventory of methods that have been used for sociocultural valuation of ESs in recent years, we searched through ISI Web of Knowledge and Science Direct for papers between January 2010 and January 2014 which contained the following words in the full text: valuation AND (“ecosystem services” OR “landscape services”) AND (“non-monetary” OR social OR cultural OR “socio-cultural”). A focus on the period between 2010 and 2014 is justifiable since sociocultural valuation of ESs has particularly gained attention in recent years (Chan et al., 2012a). Papers that did not treat socio-cultural valuation methods empirically, were disregarded. For the remaining papers, a crude classification was made by which the methods applied in each paper were categorized. This classification method was based on a methodology common in social science research (see for instance Bryman, 2012) and a study of valuation approaches specifically by Christie et al. (2012), who evaluated both monetary and nonmonetary methods applied in developing countries. Taking an iterative approach, the categories were adapted while analyzing the papers, coming to a final classification after having analyzed the total set of studies. Since the goal was to make an inventory of all methods, methods were not treated as mutually exclusive: if different types of methods to capture socio-cultural values were used in one paper, a study was scored multiple times, once per method used. When reviewing the applied methods, we looked at (i) techniques to gather data about sociocultural values, i.e. data collection techniques (Table 1), and (ii) the approaches used to analyze the spatial dimensions of socio-cultural values, i.e., the ways in which values were linked to specific landscape or ecosystem structures. In total we analyzed 91 case studies in which sociocultural values of ESs were assessed (see Supplementary material). 4.1. Data Collection Techniques in Socio-cultural ES Assessments Fig. 2 provides an overview of the type of techniques by which sociocultural values were collected and how frequently they were applied. Questionnaires are the most frequently adopted method for assessing socio-cultural values of ESs. Of all studies that used a questionnaire as a valuation method (n = 58), 12 studies combined a structured questionnaire with qualitative approaches, by using observations (n = 1), in-depth interviews (n = 7) and/or focus groups (n = 6). Having categorized the different techniques as presented in Fig. 2, we distinguish between techniques that collect socio-cultural values by asking for people's values in a direct manner, i.e. stated values, and

▪ Low costs ▪ Possible to correct for errors after study has been performed ▪ Possible to study large time span ▪ Data availability limited ▪ Reliability and validity issues ▪ Interpretation and analysis is difficult

▪ Possible to study people in their natural environment ▪ Flexibility to adapt research during execution phase

Sagie et al. (2013) and Smith and Sullivan (2014) Edwards et al. (2012) and Tengberg et al. (2012) Ostwald et al. (2013) and Piwowarczyk et al. (2013)

▪ Outcome dependent on selection of panel participants

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Tzoulas and James (2010) and Jerneck and Olsson (2013)

▪ More thorough understanding of how people value ESs ▪ High flexibility during interviews ▪ Low costs ▪ Applicable in data poor environments ▪ Possible to use jargon

✓

▪ Small samples, not representative for large population

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Illustrative references

Limitations

Type of assessment Advantages

Sample

Common approaches

Individuals Groups Expert Qualitative Quantitative

✓ ✓

Lamarque et al. (2011) and Kelemen et al. (2013)

▪ Limited to standardized questions ▪ Little flexibility during interviews ▪ High costs Calvet-Mir et al. (2012) and Casado-Arzuaga et al. (2013)

▪ Respondents can discuss issue with group members ▪ Respondents can make well informed decisions ▪ Possible to capture shared values ▪ Polarization effect (attitudes become more extreme) ▪ High status group members may take control of group

✓

✓

▪ Structured face to face interview ▪ Q method ▪ Internet survey ▪ Mail survey ▪ Workshops ▪ Citizens juries ▪ Rapid Rural Appraisal ▪ Semi-structured ▪ Unstructured interviews ▪ Delphi survey ▪ Analyses of written texts ▪ Analyses of other media (e.g. photos and films) ▪ Participant observation ▪ Unstructured observations ▪ Structured observations

Focus groups In-depth interviews Expert based approaches Document research Observation approaches Data collection technique

Table 1 Overview of data collection techniques that have been applied in the analyzed papers (n = 91).

▪ Possible to gather a lot of data which can be analyzed quantitatively

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

Questionnaires

72

Fig. 2. Overview of the type of methods by which socio-cultural values were collected and how frequently they were applied in socio-cultural ES assessments across the 91 studies (some assessments combined different methods for which categories are not mutually exclusive).

techniques that collect socio-cultural values indirectly, e.g. by observing behavior or analyzing written texts and/or other types of media, i.e. revealed values. A similar distinction is made in monetary valuation studies, where revealed preferences are estimated by looking at actual observable choices and stated preferences are estimated by looking at intended behavior (Atkinson et al., 2012). In this paper we, therefore, define stated value methods as approaches in which respondents are directly asked for their values as opposed to revealed value methods. 4.2. Observation Approaches Observation approaches can be used to derive values, by directly looking at people's actions and behavior. As a consequence, these methods are mostly suitable for ESs that require human input, e.g. recreational activities or farming. Observation approaches have frequently been used for the assessment of cultural ESs, especially recreation. Number of visits to a national park may for instance be used to derive the recreational importance of the area. Tzoulas and James (2010) used unstructured and structured observations to identify the most important outdoor activities performed in a park. Unstructured observations allow for a qualitative approach wherein all observations can be freely noted and analyzed, whereas structured observations require the observer to categorize observations according to pre-defined groups. Given the difficulty to analyze unstructured observations, they are mostly used to inform the design of a quantitative measurement technique (e.g. Peters et al., 2010). Participant observation measures are those, where the researcher, i.e. the observer, is immersed in the life of people being studied. It is a qualitative approach whereby people are closely observed to see what actions they undertake in their natural environment. Such approaches have generally been used to identify important ESs by looking at actual use of the ecosystem. 4.3. Document Research Document research is an approach by which the values of certain individuals, groups or the wider public could be approximated by looking at texts, images, or other forms of media representations. A distinction is made between two broad approaches, namely a mechanistic approach and an interpretative approach (Beck et al., 2010). In mechanistic approaches emphasis is on the presence of specific elements, e.g. phrases. Taking this approach it becomes possible to quantitatively analyze a large sample. As an example, Everard et al. (2010) approximated the aesthetic importance of sand dunes for the public by looking at the number of photos and adverts portraying sand dunes. Mechanistic approaches, however, do not further elaborate on the quality and meaning behind certain elements. Interpretative methods take a more qualitative

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

approach, and aim at a deeper understanding of what is conveyed and how (Beck et al., 2010). In addition, it is possible to gain more information about sociocultural values by doing a systematic review of the literature. Ostwald et al. (2013) studied motivations and values for energy crop cultivation in Sweden by reviewing peer-reviewed and gray literature. A large advantage of document research is that it allows for the investigation of values over a large period of time. Taking a very long time span, Mehtälä and Vuorisalo (2010) studied Finnish newspaper articles between 1700 and 1900 to assess aesthetic values assigned to Finnish nightingales. Data availability is however a large drawback of this approach. 4.4. Expert Based Approaches Expert based approaches can be considered as both a revealed value and stated value method: experts may be asked to express their own values, i.e. stating what they find important, but they may also be asked to provide information about the values of others, i.e. revealing what others find important. Edwards et al. (2012), for instance, investigated public preferences for structural attributes of forests by asking experts in forest preference research to act on behalf of forest visitors. The advantage of using expert opinions is that experts are more familiar with complex jargon and technical issues. In the study performed by Edwards et al. (2012) this meant that attributes, such as “extent of tree cover within stand” or “visual penetration through stand”, did not have to be visualized or carefully explained as for the average visitor to understand such terms. Expert knowledge can be used in the form of a Delphi survey (see Landeta, 2006; MacMillan and Marshall, 2006). A Delphi survey consists of an expert panel that, after several rounds of investigation, comes to a certain consensus regarding the issue at hand. Expert based approaches are mostly used in data-poor environments, e.g. when there are no resources for a survey that requires representative samples of the population in the study area. Expert based values are, however, largely driven by personal experience and knowledge (MacMillan and Marshall, 2006), and may not accurately reflect the values shared by the wider community. Intangible values, e.g. sense of place, cannot easily be reflected upon by experts and so results are less robust than those produced by a survey (Edwards et al., 2012). 4.5. In-depth Interviews Unstructured or semi-structured interviews may be used to gain a deeper understanding about how and why people value ESs. Through iterative questioning, interviewers may capture information that is difficult to grasp using structured interviews or questionnaires (Christie et al., 2012). Allowing respondents to talk freely about their associations with the landscape in their own words, provides the interviewer with a better understanding of the intangible ESs, such as spirituality or cultural identity. The open nature of unstructured interviews allow for a lot of flexibility during the interviewing process. In contrast with structured interviews, questions are asked to encourage a respondent to talk freely, upon which the interviewer may again react. As such, an in depth interview is more interactive in nature, and allows for a more reflexive approach to interviewing (Alvesson, 2003). The analysis of in-depth interviews usually entails the transcription and consequently coding of the interviews. In some cases, however, an additional exercise may be given to interviewees, much like the ranking exercises present in questionnaires. Smith and Sullivan (2014) performed twenty in-depth interviews with farmers to assess the relative importance of twelve ESs. After a set of open questions, in the second part of the interview, farmers were asked to rank the twelve ESs with low, medium or high importance. In-depth interviews are also used to inform quantitative surveys, by identifying relevant ESs and assessing the local context of the study area (e.g. Calvet-Mir et al., 2012).

73

4.6. Focus Groups Focus groups give respondents the opportunity to obtain additional information and allow time for reflection and/or group deliberation (Spash, 2007). Information may be exchanged between group members, but may also be provided in a more official setting such as in a citizen's jury, in which a number of experts and other stakeholders present relevant information to a group of citizens, i.e. jury members (Kenyon et al., 2001; Straton et al., 2010). Deliberative group sessions help people construct values, instead of trying to reveal pre-existing values. Furthermore, by group deliberation people may express shared values instead of individual values. In group sessions, a facilitator helps a group of participants to structure and discuss the problem. Focus groups are not so much about getting individual responses, but rather to see how a group creates discourse on a certain topic. Discussions can consequently be transcribed and assessed with content analysis (e.g. Rawlins and Morris, 2010). In addition participants may be given an exercise during the session, e.g. cognitive mapping, which can be used to feed the discussion and from which results can be analyzed both during and after the session (Kelemen et al., 2013). Group-based participatory approaches are commonly used in regions where local communities play a large role in the management of public goods and participation of local community members could lead to a joint outcome (Goma et al., 2001). A challenge with focus groups is that they require experienced facilitators to manage the groups, so that bias, due to powerful individuals leading group discussions, can be avoided (Christie et al., 2012). Furthermore conflicts may arise between group members, leading to a polarization of opinions (Halcomb et al., 2007). The outcome of group discussions is thus very dependent on group dynamics. 4.7. Questionnaires Stated value methods based on questionnaires, usually consist of individual rankings where ESs are given a certain value, e.g. using a Likert scale, or are ranked according to importance. For example, CasadoArzuaga et al. (2013) asked people to select, from a given set of ESs, the five most important ESs and rank these according to importance. Casado-Arzuaga et al. (2013) used photos to represent ESs, but pictograms or written statements may also be used. Q methodology (see McKeown and Thomas, 1988) makes use of written statements to categorize stakeholders into groups, corresponding to certain valueorientations (e.g. Calvet-Mir et al., 2012). The use of a survey is a robust technique that allows for the gathering of a lot of data which can be analyzed quantitatively. However, the costs to perform such a study are high, especially since the valuation of ESs is often too complex to allow for self-administered questionnaires, e.g. via post or e-mail. Furthermore, the structured basis of surveys does not allow for a lot of flexibility during the interview and cannot capture underlying motivations for making certain decisions. 4.8. Approaches to Account for Spatial Factors Many methods to capture socio-cultural values of ecosystems do not consider the spatial variation in ES provision. Often respondents are asked to name the benefits of the study area at large, without differentiating between the different ecosystems present in the study area that deliver these services. Maps showing ESs and their associated values are very useful for sustainable management of ecosystems (Hauck et al., 2013). More information is necessary about which parts of the ecosystem are important to people and which particular landscape elements are tied to which values, i.e. place-based values (Brown, 2013; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2013). Most approaches to map socio-cultural values have been based on either generic feature mapping or specific place mapping (Alessa et al., 2008). Generic feature mapping focuses on preferences for certain

74

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

landscape features, while specific place mapping, i.e. participatory mapping, is used to identify locations where certain socio-cultural values can be found or experienced. In the former, respondents are asked to rank specific landscape features, e.g. by the use of photos, which are consequently linked to maps representing these features (van Berkel and Verburg, 2012). In the latter, respondents are asked to point out locations where certain values can be found, e.g. by placing dots on areas as a form of participatory mapping (Fagerholm et al., 2012). Until now, mapping approaches have mostly been used for cultural ESs. Generic feature mapping generally focuses on visual preferences, while participatory mapping asks respondents where they enjoy cultural services. People may, however, appreciate locations for the provision of services other than cultural services, which is often not addressed in spatially explicit socio-cultural valuations. Furthermore for participatory mapping spatial familiarity is necessary (van Berkel and Verburg, 2012), which may lead to a bias as places that are best known often receive the highest value. From the 91 case studies, we assessed how many studies included a spatially-explicit approach, by reviewing whether the studies explicitly linked values to landscape features or structures. Thirty-six percent of the studies related socio-cultural values to landscape features or structures, using maps or photos. Half of these studies used participatory mapping approaches. Studies that used participatory mapping assessed how socio-cultural values were related to specific locations, which resulted in value hot-spots. These value hot-spots were consequently analyzed by looking at spatial characteristics, e.g. distance to water bodies and/or distance to settlements. Linking value locations to land cover data, most of these studies also analyzed how socio-cultural values were related to particular ecosystems. Topography was only taken into account in four studies. Studies that used photo-based techniques more often addressed how socio-cultural values could be related to specific landscape features, e.g. presence of wildlife, water bodies or human infrastructures, and/or to specific ecosystem characteristics, e.g. vegetation density, stand structure or ecological condition. 5. Discussion: Advancing Socio-cultural Valuation of ESs 5.1. How Socio-cultural Valuation Methods can be Improved The overview of socio-cultural valuation methods used in the studies that we reviewed (see Fig. 2) shows a dominance of quantitative survey methods. In these, the focus lies on individual values, much like monetary valuation methods. Socio-cultural values, however, have multiple dimensions, including individual and group values, self-oriented and other-oriented values, and non-transformative values and transformative values (Chan et al., 2012b). To capture multiple dimensions of socio-cultural values it is important to adopt a deliberative approach (Christie et al., 2012; Kenter et al., 2011; Spash, 2007). Deliberative methods are usually associated with focus groups, but deliberative methods do not necessarily have to be confined to focus groups. Individual interviews could be designed so that people are given the opportunity to deliberate between questions. Furthermore questionnaires do not have to be restricted to asking for personal preferences; they can also be used to ask individuals about the importance of ESs or the environment for a larger, distant community (altruistic values) or for future generations (bequest values). Future socio-cultural valuation should look into the potential of combining deliberative methods with questionnaires to allow people to deliberate throughout the valuation exercise, for instance by providing them with additional information. A challenge with many socio-cultural valuation studies is that people are able to freely rate ESs according to their liking. Horne and Ovaskainen (2001, as cited by Horne et al., 2005) report that when asked about the importance of different services in their recreation environment, nearly all respondents stated that all of the services were important. It is rarely the case that all ESs can be provided simultaneously, but respondents may be unaware of this during the moment

of valuation. Taking a normative approach, it may be useful to allow respondents to freely express all values associated with ESs. However when a certain decision context appears and a trade-off exists between specific ES bundles, it is important to know what people would choose given that trade-off. The strength of monetary valuation methods is that individuals are presented with the notion that in order to keep a particular ES, a contribution has to be made. Money may, however, not always be the appropriate or relevant attribute for environmental trade-offs, as people are often not used to paying for ESs. In landscape research, non-monetary choice experiments, have been used to provide people with a trade-off between different landscape elements (Arnberger and Eder, 2011). Using such methods could be useful to analyze trade-offs between ESs. Our stocktaking of methods that were used for socio-cultural valuation, has shown that most studies do not adopt a spatially explicit approach, and thus provide little information about how specific landscape structures, features or ecosystem properties contribute to sociocultural values. In many of the current socio-cultural valuation studies, people are asked to rank ESs that are provided by the study area at large, without connecting these services to the different ecosystems that make up the study area. Values for ESs may change when the provision of certain services requires a change in the landscape which is not made explicit in the valuation exercise. Information about the relationship between socio-cultural values and landscape and ecosystem characteristics can help to better inform spatial planning and environmental policy. 5.2. Advancing Socio-cultural Ecosystem Service Assessments into a Decision-making Context Valuation methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in Section 4 it was shown that several studies already take a pluralistic approach by applying multiple valuation methods. Different socio-cultural valuation methods address different aspects of socio-cultural value and provide different insights. Fig. 3 presents a possible framework for combining different socio-cultural valuation methods to facilitate the inclusion of socio-cultural values of ESs in environmental decision-making. While the conditions for successful implementation and uptake of socio-cultural values in decision-making are not considered here, some suggestions are made to advance the integration of sociocultural values with monetary values and ecological assessments for decision-making. In a recent effort to demonstrate the complementary value of sociocultural valuation, monetary valuation and ecological assessments, Martín-López et al. (2014, p. 227) called for a “multi-dimensional and pluralistic methodological framework that engender multi-metric information about irreducible and incommensurable value dimensions”. To achieve such a multi-dimensional framework, the integration of monetary valuations and ecological assessments with socio-cultural valuations does not only entail adding the different parts, but also entails capturing the interactions between them (as represented by dashed arrows in Fig. 3). Ecological assessments can aid in identifying the spectrum of ESs present in an area and can provide additional ecological information to inform socio-cultural valuations. Similarly, by identifying economic benefits that are gained from ESs, monetary valuations can provide economic information that can inform socio-cultural valuations (Castro et al., 2014). Fig. 3 promotes a pluralistic approach to socio-cultural valuation, where qualitative and quantitative methods are combined to strengthen one another. The strength of quantitative methods, such as surveys, is that they provide a solid basis for integration with monetary and ecological values to better inform decision-making processes. Qualitative methods, however, offer rich information about how and why people value certain ESs. In-depth interviews, focus groups or observation approaches can be used to inform the design of quantitative valuation methods, such as surveys, by identifying the relevant ESs for valuation,

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

75

Qualitative socio-cultural valuation

Quantitative socio-cultural valuation

Monetary valuation

Ecological assessment

Decision making context environmental management design, spatial planning strategies, awareness raising

Fig. 3. A framework for the integration of socio-cultural valuation methods into a decision-making context, together with monetary values and ecological assessments.

and provide information about the social context in which these valuations take place (e.g. Calvet-Mir et al., 2012). In addition, qualitative methods can also better grasp most intangible ESs, such as cultural heritage or spirituality. These services are often not included in ES rankings because they are difficult to present in the form of a statement or picture, by which ESs are often explained in such rankings. It may however be possible to capture values for intangible ESs in quantitative surveys, when open questions are included. Combining different valuation approaches, i.e. taking a mixed-method approach, may lead to a deeper understanding of socio-cultural values. 6. Conclusions The field of socio-cultural valuation of ESs is growing by an emerging range of concepts and a portfolio of methods to measure such values. The range of methods used reflects the broad span of study objectives related to socio-cultural valuation of ESs. The ES literature, however, has focused much on ecosystem functionality which has led to a narrow view on socio-cultural values of ESs and a confounding use of sociocultural valuation and the valuation of cultural ESs. Consequently, in most ES assessments the socio-cultural aspect is limited to assessing recreational and touristic services (Plieninger et al., 2013). To integrate socio-cultural perspectives into ES valuations it is important to (i) acknowledge that socio-cultural values are not restricted to cultural ESs, and (ii) value cultural ESs beyond recreation and tourism. This paper has provided an overview of the ecological and social attributes that determine socio-cultural values and of the methods available in the literature by which such values can be measured. The review is not exhaustive; new and/or adapted methods by which socio-cultural values can be captured, appear rapidly, as is common and necessary in an emerging field. The variety of methods to capture socio-cultural values of ESs makes it difficult to categorize or even compare them in a structured manner as many methods are adapted in individual case studies for the specific questions and context at hand. By giving a broad overview of the methods that have been applied, including their characteristics, this paper provides guidance in the selection of methods. We emphasize the strength of pluralistic approaches, by which both local context can be adequately assessed and values can be properly translated into decision-making. The further development of socio-cultural valuation methods and their integration into a decision-making context, together with knowledge on ecological function and monetary aspects, can help to better design instruments and policies to safeguard ecosystems and their services. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for helping to improve the manuscript. This work was supported by the European

Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 308393 “OPERAs” and no. 265104 “VOLANTE”. Appendix A. Supplementary Data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007. References Abram, N.K., Meijaard, E., Ancrenaz, M., Runting, R.K., Wells, J.A., Gaveau, D., …, Mengersen, K., 2013. Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 116–127. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.004. Agbenyega, O., Burgess, P.J., Cook, M., Morris, J., 2009. Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26 (3), 551–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011. Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Williams, P., Barton, M., 2008. Perception of change in freshwater in remote resource-dependent Arctic communities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18 (1), 153–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.007. Allendorf, T.D., Yang, J., 2013. The role of ecosystem services in park–people relationships: the case of Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve in southwest China. Biol. Conserv. 167, 187–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.013. Alvesson, M., 2003. Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 13–33. http://dx.doi. org/10.5465/AMR.2003.8925191. Anderson, N.M., Williams, K.J.H., Ford, R.M., 2013. Community perceptions of plantation forestry: the association between place meanings and social representations of a contentious rural land use. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 121–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2013.02.001. Aretano, R., Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., Zurlini, G., 2013. People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small Mediterranean islands: a combination of subjective and objective assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 112, 63–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010. Arnberger, A., Eder, R., 2011. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: an image-based latent class approach. Landsc. Res. 36, 19–40. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/01426397.2010.536204. Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., Mourato, S., 2012. Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 28, 22–47. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/oxrep/grs007. Badola, R., Barthwal, S., Hussain, S.A., 2012. Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: a case study from the east coast of India. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 96, 188–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.11.016. Bandura, A., 2002. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Appl. Psychol. 51 (2), 269–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092. Bateman, I.J., Mawby, J., 2004. First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecol. Econ. 49 (1), 47–55. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.12.006. Beck, A.C., Campbell, D., Shrives, P.J., 2010. Content analysis in environmental reporting research: enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. Br. Account. Rev. 42 (3), 207–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2010.05.002. Bell, S., 2012. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. Routledge, p. 348. Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E. (Toby), Cooper, W., …, Suter, G., 1995. Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 14 (2), 73–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00021-Z. Brown, T.C., 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ. 60 (3), 231–246 (Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3146184?uid=41302&uid= 3738736&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=5911848&uid=41301&uid=62&sid= 21105932585153). Brown, G., 2013. The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2013.06.004.

76

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

Brown, G., Brabyn, L., 2012. An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107 (3), 317–331. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.007. Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, New York. Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., Langers, F., 2009. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91 (3), 113–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003. Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., 2012. Beyond food production: ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 74, 153–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.12.011. Carvalho-Ribeiro, S.M., Lovett, A., 2011. Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. For. Policy Econ. 13 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2010.09.003. Carvalho-Ribeiro, S.M., Lovett, A., O'Riordan, T., 2010. Multifunctional forest management in Northern Portugal: moving from scenarios to governance for sustainable development. Land Use Policy 27 (4), 1111–1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. 2010.02.008. Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2013. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Manag. 129C, 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059. Castro, P., 2006. Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern and environmental worldviews: contributions from the social representations approach. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16 (4), 247–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.864. Castro, a.J., Martín-López, B., García-LLorente, M., Aguilera, P.a., López, E., Cabello, J., 2011. Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. J. Arid Environ. 75 (11), 1201–1208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jaridenv.2011.05.013. Castro, A.J., Verburg, P.H., Martin-Lopez, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Vaughn, C.C., Cabello, J., 2014. Ecosystem services trade-offs from supply to social demand: a landscapescale spatial analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132, 102–110. Ceperley, N., Montagnini, F., Natta, A., 2010. Significance of sacred sites for riparian forest conservation in Central Benin. Bois Et Forets Des Tropiques 303 (1), 5–23 (Retrieved from http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/150431?ln=en&utm_medium=twitter&utm_ source=twitterfeed). Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Bostrom, A., …, Woodside, U., 2012a. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62 (8), 744–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio. 2012.62.8.7. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011. Chee, Y.E., 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 120 (4), 549–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028. Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Kenter, J.O., 2012. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 83, 67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012. Common, M., 2007. The dangers of extended, but incomplete, accounting for measures of economic performance in a world of imperfect knowledge. Ecol. Econ. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.014. Corraliza, J.a, Berenguer, J., 2000. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a situational approach. Environ. Behav. 32 (6), 832–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 00139160021972829. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., …, van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630), 253–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0. Cottet, M., Piégay, H., Bornette, G., 2013. Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? J. Environ. Manag. 128, 1012–1022 (Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479713004659). Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC. Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (1–4), 267–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01692046(01)00141-4. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.a., von der Dunk, A., 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 (23), 8812–8819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.a., Boumans, R.M., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (3), 393–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7. De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., …, Shmelev, S., 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London. Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., Shwom, R., 2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 (1), 335–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504. 144444. Dobbie, M., Green, R., 2013. Public perceptions of freshwater wetlands in Victoria, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110, 143–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11. 003. Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (4), 465–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006.

Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., …, Weiss, G., 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a panEuropean perspective. For. Policy Econ. 19, 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2011.07.006. Everard, M., Jones, L., Watts, B., 2010. Have we neglected the societal importance of sand dunes? An ecosystem services perspective. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 20 (4), 476–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1114. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., 2012. Community stakeholders' knowledge in landscape assessments — mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol. Indic. 18, 421–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004. Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.a., 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (3), 375–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09218009(02)00088-5. Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C., Fry, G., 2007. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 22 (7), 959–972. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x. Goma, H., Rahim, K., Nangendo, G., Riley, J., Stein, a., 2001. Participatory studies for agroecosystem evaluation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 87 (2), 179–190. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0167-8809(01)00277-8. Halcomb, E.J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., Davidson, P.M., 2007. Literature review: considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. J. Clin. Nurs. 16 (6), 1000–1011. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x. Hartter, J., 2010. Resource use and ecosystem services in a forest park landscape. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23 (3), 207–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920903360372. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., 2013. “Maps have an air of authority”: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 25–32. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.11.003. Hinds, J., Sparks, P., 2008. Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2), 109–120. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001. Horne, P., Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., 2005. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For. Ecol. Manag. 207 (1–2), 189–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026. Howley, P., 2011. Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 72 (0), 161–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.09.026. Ives, C.D., Kendal, D., 2013. Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 34 (0). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. 2013.02.003. Jay, M., Schraml, U., 2009. Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants — uses, perception and integrative potential. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (4), 283–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.07.003. Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., 2013. More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: insights from narrative walks in Kenya. J. Rural. Stud. 32 (0), 114–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.04.004. Johnson, Cassandra, Y., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, J.C., Cordell, K.H., 2004. Wilderness values in America: does immigrant status or ethnicity matter? Soc. Nat. Resour. 17 (7), 611–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920490466585. Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59 (1), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kelemen, E., Nguyen, G., Gomiero, T., Kovács, E., Choisis, J.-P., Choisis, N., …, Balázs, K., 2013. Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity: lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study. Land Use Policy 35 (0), 318–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2013.06.005. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Kenter, J.O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries—evidence from the Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21 (2), 505–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011. 01.001. Kenyon, W., Hanley, N., Nevin, C., 2001. Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation? Environ. Planning C: Govt. Pol. 19 (4), 557–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c4s. Kijazi, M.H., Kant, S., 2010. Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. For. Policy Econ. 12 (5), 357–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010. 02.007. Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M.A., 2012. Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 82, 104–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2012.07.008. Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2010. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior? pp. 37–41 (November 2013) Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1228–1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002. Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 64 (4), 808–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05. 008. Lamarque, P., Tappeiner, U., Turner, C., Steinbacher, M., Bardgett, R.D., Szukics, U., …, Lavorel, S., 2011. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg. Environ. Chang. 11 (4), 791–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0. Lamb, R.J., Purcell, A.T., 1990. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 19 (4), 333–352. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/0169-2046(90)90041-Y.

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78 Landeta, J., 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73 (5), 467–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2005.09.002. Le Lay, Y.-F., Piégay, H., Rivière-Honegger, A., 2013. Perception of braided river landscapes: implications for public participation and sustainable management. J. Environ. Manag. 119 (0), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006. Limburg, K.E., O'Neill, R.V., Costanza, R., Farber, S., 2002. Complex systems and valuation. Ecol. Econ. 41 (3), 409–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00090-3. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., Matthies, D., 2010. The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 143 (1), 195–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003. Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Troy, A., 2010. Valuing ecosystem services: theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1185, 54–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05167.x. Lockwood, M., 1999. Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economics. Environ. Values 8, 381–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/ 096327199129341888. López-santiago, C.A., Oteros-rozas, E., Martín-lópez, B., Plieninger, T., Martín, E.G., José, A., 2014. Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2). MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being — synthesis. World Health Vol. 5. Island Press, Washington DC (Retrieved from http:// www.who.int/entity/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys.pdf). Maass, J.M., Balvanera, P., Castillo, A., Daily, G.C., Mooney, H.A., Ehrlich, P., …, Ayala, R., 2005. Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: insights from long-term ecological and social research on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Ecol. Soc. 10 (1). MacMillan, D.C., Marshall, K., 2006. The Delphi process? An expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Anim. Conserv. 9 (1), 11–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2005.00001.x. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D.G., …, Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7 (6), e38970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0038970. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., Montes, C., 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 37 (0), 220–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003. McFarlane, B.L., Boxall, P.C., 2000. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: the case of the Foothills Model. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13 (7), 37–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920050121927. McKeown, B., Thomas, D., 1988. Q Methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Mehtälä, J., Vuorisalo, T., 2010. High aesthetic valuation of urban thrush nightingales in 19th century Helsinki. Landsc. Urban Plan. 98 (2), 117–123. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.018. Meyfroidt, P., 2013. Environmental cognitions, land change and socio-ecological feedbacks: an overview. J. Land Use Sci. 8, 341–367. Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., Fischer, J., 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10. 5751/ES-05790-180344 (art44). Morrison, E.H.J., Upton, C., Pacini, N., Odhiambo-K'oyooh, K., Harper, D.M., 2013. Public perceptions of papyrus: community appraisal of wetland ecosystem services at Lake Naivasha, Kenya. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 13 (2), 135–147. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecohyd.2013.03.008. Nassauer, J., 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 10 (4), 229–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129257. Nassauer, J.I., 2004. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24 (4), 756–765. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0756:MTSOMW]2.0.CO;2. Norton, B.G., Noonan, D., 2007. Ecology and valuation: big changes needed. Ecol. Econ. 63 (4), 664–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.013. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., Miller, D., 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (1), 375–383. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013. Ostwald, M., Jonsson, A., Wibeck, V., Asplund, T., 2013. Mapping energy crop cultivation and identifying motivational factors among Swedish farmers. Biomass Bioenergy 50, 25–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.058. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., González, J.a., Plieninger, T., López, C.A., Montes, C., 2013. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social– ecological network. Reg. Environ. Chang. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-0130571-y. Peters, K., Elands, B., Buijs, A., 2010. Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 9 (2), 93–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug. 2009.11.003. Petrosillo, I., Costanza, R., Aretano, R., Zaccarelli, N., Zurlini, G., 2013. The use of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital support residents' quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecol. Indic. 24, 609–620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2012.08.021. Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., Dereniowska, M.A., 2013. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance? Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (1), 85–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2012.10.009. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., 2013. Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 28 (6), 1053–1065. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s10980-012-9756-x.

77

Pröpper, M., Haupts, F., 2014. The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecol. Econ. 108, 28–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2014.09.023. Rawlins, A., Morris, J., 2010. Social and economic aspects of peatland management in Northern Europe, with particular reference to the English case. Geoderma 154 (3–4), 242–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.02.022. Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68 (5), 1301–1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006. Rees, S.E., Rodwell, L.D., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, S.C., 2010. The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 34 (5), 868–875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010. 01.009. Roca, E., Villares, M., 2012. Public perceptions of managed realignment strategies: the case study of the Ebro Delta in the Mediterranean basin. Ocean Coast. Manage. 60 (0), 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.01.002. Rudzitis, G., 1999. Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west. Rural Dev. Perspect. 14 (2), 9–13 (Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ west/amenities.pdf). Sagie, H., Morris, A., Rofè, Y., Orenstein, D.E., Groner, E., 2013. Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: a social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli–Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. J. Arid Environ. 97 (0), 38–48. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.05.007. Schraml, U., Volz, K.-R., 2009. Do species matter? Valuable broadleaves as an object of public perception and policy. In: Spieker, H. (Ed.), Valuable Broadleaved Forests in Europe. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, pp. 213–236. Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 50 (4), 19–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994. tb01196.x. Seeland, K., Dübendorfer, S., Hansmann, R., 2009. Making friends in Zurich's urban forests and parks: the role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. For. Policy Econ. 11 (1), 10–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.07.005. Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S., 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 (3), 630–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x. Serna-Chavez, H.M., Schulp, C.J.E., van Bodegom, P.M., Bouten, W., Verburg, P.H., Davidson, M.D., 2014. A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 39, 24–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024. Seymour, E., Curtis, A., Pannell, D., Allan, C., Roberts, A., 2010. Understanding the role of assigned values in natural resource management. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 17 (3), 142–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2010.9725261. Shackleton, C.M., Blair, A., 2013. Perceptions and use of public green space is influenced by its relative abundance in two small towns in South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 113 (0), 104–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.011. Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 31 (2), 748–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002. Shogren, J.F., Taylor, L.O., 2008. On behavioral–environmental economics. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2 (1), 26–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/rem027. Smith, H.F., Sullivan, C.A., 2014. Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—farmers' perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 98, 72–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008. Soini, K., Vaarala, H., Pouta, E., 2012. Residents' sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104 (1), 124–134. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002. Soliva, R., Rønningen, K., Bella, I., Bezak, P., Cooper, T., Flø, B.E., …, Potter, C., 2008. Envisioning upland futures: stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe's mountain landscapes. J. Rural. Stud. 24 (1), 56–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud. 2007.04.001. Spangenberg, J.H., Settele, J., 2010. Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 327–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04. 007. Spash, C.L., 2002. Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: coral reef biodiversity. J. Econ. Psychol. 23 (5), 665–687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0167-4870(02)00123-X. Spash, C.L., 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol. Econ. 63 (4), 690–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014. Spash, C.L., Vatn, A., 2006. Transferring environmental value estimates: issues and alternatives. Ecol. Econ. 60 (2), 379–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06. 010. Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (3), 309–317. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50 (3), 65–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x. Straton, A.T., Jackson, S., Marinoni, O., Proctor, W., Woodward, E., 2010. Exploring and evaluating scenarios for a river catchment in Northern Australia using scenario development, multi-criteria analysis and a deliberative process as a tool for water planning. Water Resour. Manag. 25 (1), 141–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269010-9691-z. Swanwick, C., 2009. Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26, S62–S75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025. Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., Munishi, P.K.T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., …, Lewis, S.L., 2011. Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (3), 563–574 (Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20932636).

78

S.S.K. Scholte et al. / Ecological Economics 114 (2015) 67–78

Tagliafierro, C., Longo, A., Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., Hutchinson, W.G., 2013. Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environ. Sci. Pol. 32 (0), 26–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.001. Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., Wetterberg, O., 2012. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2, 14–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006. Terkenli, T.S., 2001. Towards a theory of the landscape: the Aegean landscape as a cultural image. Landsc. Urban Plan. 57 (3), 197–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01692046(01)00204-3. Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., 2006. Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24 (1), 144–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cep/ byj014. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., Fry, G., 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 31 (3), 229–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01426390600783269. Tzoulas, K., James, P., 2010. Peoples' use of, and concerns about, green space networks: a case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 9 (2), 121–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.12.001. Ulrich, R.S., 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 13, 29–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8. Ulrich, R.S., 1993. Biophylia, biophobia and natural landscapes. In: Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophylia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., 2012. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 37, 163–174. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025. Van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Espinosa, M., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J., …, Viaggi, D., 2013. European agricultural landscapes, common

agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34 (2), 309–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4. Van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Koetse, M.J., van Beukering, P.J.H., 2014. Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132, 89–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012. Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., Williams, D.R., Jonker, S., 2001. Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 14 (9), 761–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419201753210585. Vatn, A., 2005. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 55 (2), 203–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.001. Vihervaara, P., Marjokorpi, a., Kumpula, T., Walls, M., Kamppinen, M., 2012. Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: a case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. For. Policy Econ. 14 (1), 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.008. Voelklein, C., Howarth, C., 2005. A review of controversies about social representations theory: a British debate. Cult. Psychol. 11 (4), 431–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1354067X05058586. Wilson, M.a., Howarth, R.B., 2002. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 41 (3), 431–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7. Yu, K., 1995. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 32 (2), 107–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 9 (1), 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0.