Looking into the dragons of cultural ecosystem services. Issue 1 (1st January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gould, Rachelle K.; Adams, Alison; Vivanco, Luis
• Is Part Of: Ecosystems and people. Volume 16:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 257
• Page End: 272
• Publication Date: 2020-01-01
• Subjects: Matthias Schröter; Ecological services -- eco-services -- equity -- human dimensions -- interdisciplinary research -- relational values -- services to ecosystems -- social values; Ecosystem management -- Periodicals; Biotic communities -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Ecosystem management; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1815841
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2639-5908

Abstract

Abstract: Cultural ecosystem services research is in a somewhat tumultuous state. The cultural ecosystem services (CES) idea is seen simultaneously as a welcoming, expansive addition to conservation policy-making and as a strange, square-peg-in-a-round-hole concept that should be replaced by a more appropriate metaphor or conceptual structure. This confluence of interest and skepticism suggests an opportune moment to take stock of CES, both as a concept and growing scholarly field. Here, we focus on dilemmas that characterize and constitute CES as a field of empirical inquiry and practice. We describe five tensions that characterize the field (and mirror tensions in interdisciplinary work more broadly): universalism and anti-universalism; reductionism and non-reductionism; historical and ahistorical approaches; politicized and depoliticized approaches; and objectivity and situated knowledges. We then suggest five non-mutually-exclusive roles that CES research can (and does) play: The Convener/Illuminator; the Process Police Officer; the Translator; the Revolutionary; and the Policy In-fighter. We provide examples of each tension and role, and posit that clarity and reflexivity may help to make sense of a fertile, if sometimes confusing, interdisciplinary field. Making more sense of, and being more explicit about, the contradictions and contributions of the CES field, can, we suggest, aid decision-makers, CES researchers, and others to better include these values in environmental management.