issue on “Putting Culture back into Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES): Case
Studies on CES and Conservation from the Global South”
services (CES) have been defined as the “intangible and non-material benefits
that people enjoy from ecosystems,” first introduced in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). The MEA specified several potential categories
of CES, including cultural diversity; spiritual and religious values; knowledge
systems; educational values; inspiration; aesthetic values; social relations;
sense of place; and recreation and ecotourism (MEA 2005). Since the MEA, there
has been a large increase in attention to how CES are defined, identified,
valued, and conserved in policy and projects (Trainor 2006; Chan,
Satterfield, and Goldstein 2012; Hirons et al 2016), reflecting their
importance as a concept to multiple groups of people.
Yet there remain major gaps in our
understanding of CES. First, most of the work to date has not focused on the
Global South; recent special issues on the topic have exclusively focused on
developed countries like the UK (Bryce et al 2016; Cooper et al.
2016). On-the-ground studies of how suites of ES are used in culturally
specific ways in developing countries remain relatively rare (Rasmussen et
al. 2016).Further, methodologies that are used to evaluate or value CES in a
developed country context (like travel cost methods or social media postings)
(Kenter 2017) may not be as appropriate in the developing world, leading to
challenges in implementation of CES projects and policies. Second,
many understandings of ‘culture’ in CES literature refer more to recreational
or touristic values (Ihammar & Pedersen 2017), rather than a deep
engagement with what the concept of culture means. Issues surrounding cultural
practices, such as religion and spirituality, taboos, epistemologies &
ontologies, and other fields are rarely invoked in the cultural ES literature,
despite calls for the past few years to do so (Chan et al., 2012; Gould et al.
2015). Finally, how CES can contribute to conservation outcomes for
biodiversity or ecosystems are not yet fully explored in the literature, nor
practical lessons learned easy to draw from experiences to date. As
Pascua et al. (2017) note “identifying CES in an accurate and culturally
appropriate way is vital in resource management efforts, particularly if they
can make place-based values visible before important decisions are made.” Yet
much additional work remains before such decision-making can be made around
Thus, we are seeking papers for a
special issue devoted to CES in the Global South and their role in
conservation. The aim is to publish the papers after a review process as a
special issue of a targeted journal. Submission targets include Conservation
Letters, Biological Conservationor similar journals. We invite
papers from a range of disciplines to contribute to this proposed special
issue. Submissions may range from specifying types of cultural ES to policies
to support CES to methodologies for researching CES. We particularly are
interested in papers with coauthors from the Global South and work done with
communities to assess local CES concepts. The special issue will be sponsored
and edited with the support of members of the Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM)
and the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) of
IUCN. The special issue is being proposed by the Thematic Group on Cultural
Practices and Ecosystem Management (CPEM) of CEM.
Possible topical themes for papers:
– How can concepts like
understandings of well-being and resilience be incorporated in CES (Bryce et
al. 2016; Bullock et al 2018)?
– What challenges, such as cultural
identity, language erosion, land rights, justice and equity, etc., do CES
policies face in the Global South?
– Can CES be separated from
other forms of ES? How are they mutually constituted? For example, what
cultural practices have shaped ES provisioning in different contexts?
– Are CES always non-material? How
can we account for material cultural ES?
– What are the ways in which CES can
help inform conservation decision-making? Are there best practices learned from
incorporation of CES?
– How can different knowledge
systems & worldviews be represented in the concept of CES?
– How can CES incorporate attention
to cultural sensitivity, awareness and safeguards?
– How do CES relate to other
approaches like cultural landscapes and heritage (Cuerrier et al 2015; Lepofsky
et al 2017)?
– How are CES being impacted by
climate and other environmental changes?
– What kinds of methods are best
suited to evaluate and value CES (Hirons et al. 2016)? How can methods be made
more interdisciplinary or participatory?
Deadlines: Interested participants
should send an abstract of no more than 500 words by Aug 15, 2019 to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Selected authors will be informed by Aug 30 to prepare a full manuscript for
submission to the editors by Dec 15, 2019. The aim for publication is for end
of 2020/early 2021.
R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O.
(2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural
ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21(Part B),
C., Joyce, D., & Collier, M. (2018). An exploration of the relationships
between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and
well-being. Ecosystem Services, 31(Part A),
Chan, Kai, Terre Satterfield, and Joshua Goldstein. 2012.
“Rethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address and Navigate Cultural
Values.” Ecological Economics74: 8–18.
N., Brady, E., Steen, H., & Bryce, R. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual
values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of
cultural ecosystem “services.” Ecosystem Services, 21(Part
B), 218–229. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014
A, Turner NJ, Gomes TC, Garibaldi A, Downing A (2015) Cultural Keystone Places:
Conservation and Restoration in Cultural Landscapes. Journal of
A, Turner N (2004) Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological
Conservation and Restoration. Ecology and Society 9
M., Comberti, C., & Dunford, R. (2016). Valuing Cultural Ecosystem
Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1),
S. S., & Pedersen, E. (2017). Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How
do people describe the value? Ecosystem Services, 26(Part
A), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010
Kenter, J. O. (2016). Integrating deliberative monetary
valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values
of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21(Part B),
D, Armstrong CG, Greening S, Jackley J, Carpenter J, Guernsey B, Mathews D,
Turner NJ (2017) Historical Ecology of Cultural Keystone Places of the
Northwest Coast. American Anthropologist 119:448-463.
P. A., McMillen, H., Ticktin, T., Vaughan, M., & Winter, K. B. (2017).
Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical,
place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service
assessments. Ecosystem Services, 26(Part B),
Laura Vang, Ole Mertz, Andreas Christensen, Finn Danielsen, Neil Dawson, and
Pheang Xaydongvanh. 2016. “A Combination of Methods Needed to Assess the Actual
Use of Provisioning Ecosystem Services .” Ecosystem Services17 (C).
Elsevier: 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.005.
Sarah. 2006. “Realms of Value: Conflicting Natural Resource Values and
Incommensurability.” Environmental Values 15(1):3-29.