How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators

[en] As an attempt to clarify the meaning of ‘values’ within ecosystem services (ES) assessments, this paper proposes the integration and fine-tuning of the concept of ‘socio-cultural values’ within the ES assessment framework. Firstly, it makes a conceptual clarification between biophysical, social or monetary value indicators describing the performance of a service, and socio-cultural values reflecting opinions on the importance of a (set of) service(s). Secondly, it provides a practical application to illustrate how to interpret ‘social value indicators’ through their interactions with ‘socio-cultural values’. An adequate use of these ‘socio-cultural values’ combined with subjective social value indicators’ makes it possible to take the opinion of a wide range of actors into account and to give meaning to their expressed preferences instead of blindfolding on caricaturized profiles. The case study in this paper deals with the Ardennes forests (Belgium). Wider public preferences for different structural forest characteristics (as performance-oriented ES value indicators) actually relate to different ‘socio-cultural values’. The study results reveal a mismatch between current forest management strategies and wider public preferences. This paper clearly demonstrates the potential of ‘socio-cultural values’ to improve legitimacy and to foster consensus-building of decision-making in natural resource management.

Disciplines :

Environmental sciences & ecology

Author, co-author :

Breyne, Johanna ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Terra

Dufrêne, Marc ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département GxABT > Biodiversité et Paysage

Maréchal, Kevin ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département GxABT > Modélisation et développement

Language :

English

Title :

How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators

Publication date :

2021

Journal title :

Ecosystem Services

eISSN :

2212-0416

Publisher :

Elsevier, Netherlands

Volume :

Issue :

101278

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Name of the research project :

AGRETA

Funders :

Interreg France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen [BE]

Available on ORBi :

since 07 May 2021

Statistics

Number of views

223 (14 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

468 (18 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Alderweireld, M., Burnay, F., Pitchugin, M., Lecomte, H., Inventaire Forestier Wallon—Résultats 1994–2012, SPW, 2015.
Anderson, N., Ford, R.M., Bennett, L.T., Nitschke, C., Williams, K.J.H., Core values underpin the attributes of forests that matter to people. For. Int. J. For. Res. 91 (2018), 629–640, 10.1093/forestry/cpy022.
Aretano, R., Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., Zurlini, G., People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small Mediterranean islands: a combination of subjective and objective assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 112 (2013), 63–73.
Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc., 22, 2017, 10.2307/26799016.
Bagstad, K.J., Reed, J.M., Semmens, D.J., Sherrouse, B.C., Troy, A., Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: a case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Reg. Environ. Change 16 (2016), 2005–2018, 10.1007/s10113-015-0756-7.
Baily, O., Chasse. Les seigneurs des Ardennes [WWW Document], 2018, ghttps://medor.coop/fr/articles/enquete-chasse/ (Accessed 2.15.19).
Barnaud, C., Antona, M., Marzin, J., Vers une mise en débat des incertitudes associées à la notion de service écosystémique. VertigO, 2011, 10.4000/vertigo.10905.
Barnaud, C., Corbera, E., Muradian, R., Salliou, N., Sirami, C., Vialatte, A., Choisis, J.-P., Dendoncker, N., Mathevet, R., Moreau, C., Reyes-García, V., Boada, M., Deconchat, M., Cibien, C., Garnier, S., Maneja, R., Antona, M., Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual framework. Ecol. Soc., 23, 2018, 10.5751/ES-09848-230115.
Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y., Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57 (1995), 289–300.
Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J.A., Pascual, U., Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Sustainability science 19 (2016), 134–143, 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003.
Blanco, J., Dendoncker, N., Barnaud, C., Sirami, C., Ecosystem disservices matter: towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosyst. Serv., 36, 2019, 100913, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100913.
Bobiec, A., Living stands and dead wood in the Białowieża forest: suggestions for restoration management. For. Ecol. Manag. 165 (2002), 125–140, 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00655-7.
Boeraeve, F., Dendoncker, N., Jacobs, S., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Dufrêne, M., How (not) to perform ecosystem service valuations: pricing gorillas in the mist. Biodivers. Conserv. 24 (2015), 187–197.
Breslow, S.J., Allen, M., Holstein, D., Sojka, B., Barnea, R., Basurto, X., Carothers, C., Charnley, S., Coulthard, S., Dolšak, N., Donatuto, J., García-Quijano, C., Hicks, C.C., Levine, A., Mascia, M.B., Norman, K., Poe, M., Satterfield, T., Martin, K.S., Levin, P.S., Evaluating indicators of human well-being for ecosystem-based management. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 3 (2017), 1–18, 10.1080/20964129.2017.1411767.
Brondízio, E.S., Gatzweiler, F.W., Zografos, C., Kumar, M., Jianchu, X., McNeely, J., Kadekodi, G.K., Martinez-Alier, J., Socio-cultural context of ecosystem and biodiversity valuation. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 2010, 149–174.
Brown, G., Reed, P., validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. For. Sci. 46 (2000), 240–247, 10.1093/forestscience/46.2.240.
Bryce, R., Irvine, K.N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., Kenter, J.O., Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 21 (2016), 258–269.
Buijs, A.E., Arts, B.J.M., Elands, B.H.M., Lengkeek, J., Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum, Themed Issue Subaltern Geopolitics 42 (2011), 329–341, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.008.
Byg, A., Martin-Ortega, J., Glenk, K., Novo, P., Conservation in the face of ambivalent public perceptions—the case of peatlands as ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’. Biol. Conserv. 206 (2017), 181–189.
Cáceres, D.M., Tapella, E., Quétier, F., Díaz, S., The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol. Soc., 20, 2015, 10.5751/ES-07297-200162.
Carnol, M., Baeten, L., Branquart, E., Grégoire, J.-C., Heughebaert, A., Muys, B., Ponette, Q., Verheyen, K., Ecosystem services of mixed species forest stands and monocultures: comparing practitioners’ and scientists’ perceptions with formal scientific knowledge. For. Int. J. For. Res. 87 (2014), 639–653, 10.1093/forestry/cpu024.
Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74 (2012), 8–18.
Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., GIS-based modelling of recreational potential of nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Geogr. 10 (2008), 233–257.
Christie, M., Martín-López, B., Church, A., Siwicka, E., Szymonczyk, P., Mena Sauterel, J., Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature's contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1267–1282, 10.1007/s11625-019-00716-6.
CICES, Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1, 2018.
Code Forestier, Décret relatif au Code forestier, 2008.
Colson, V., La fréquentation des massifs forestiers wallons: le public, ses activités et sa perception de la forêt. For. Wallonne, 2007, 20–35.
Colson, V., Garcia, S., Rondeux, J., Lejeune, P., Map and determinants of woodlands visiting in Wallonia. Urban For. Urban Green. 9 (2010), 83–91.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst. Serv. 28 (2017), 1–16, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 21–28, 10.1890/080025.
Davies, K.K., Fisher, K.T., Dickson, M.E., Thrush, S.F., Le Heron, R., 2015. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. E&S 20, art37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07581-200237.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. Ecosyst. Serv. Bridging Ecol. Econ. Social Sci. 7 (2010), 260–272, 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
De Vreese, R., Leys, M., Dendoncker, N., Van Herzele, A., Fontaine, C.M., Images of nature as a boundary object in social and integrated ecosystem services assessments. Reflections from a Belgian case study. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 269–279, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.008.
Denayer, D., Bréda, C., Si le Loup y était. Quelles compétences humaines et animales sont instaurées dans l'anticipation d'une coexistence située ? (Région wallonne, Belgique). Anthropologica 62 (2020), 105–118, 10.3138/anth.2018-0098.r2.
Dendoncker, N., Boeraeve, F., Crouzat, E., Dufrêne, M., König, A., Barnaud, C., How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?. Ecol. Soc., 23, 2018, 10.5751/ES-09843-230112.
Deuffic, P., Sotirov, M., Arts, B., “Your policy, my rationale”. How individual and structural drivers influence European forest owners’ decisions. Land Use Policy 79 (2018), 1024–1038, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.021.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 1–16.
Díaz, S.M., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Watson, R.T., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Ahn, S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Balvanera, P., Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C.H., Cáceres, D.M., Chobotová, V., Daly-Hasen, H., Basak Dessane, E., Figueroa, E., Golden, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Kumar, R., Ma, K., Maris, V., Masozera, M., May, P.H., Mead, A., Mohamed, A., Moran, D., O'Farrell, P., Pacheco, D., Pandit, R., Pengue, W.A., Pichs, R., Popa, F., Povazan, R., Quaas, M.F., Rakotobe, T., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B., Subramanian, S.M., Beltvan den, M., Verma, M., Wang, X., Wickson, F., Wittmer, H., Yagi, N., Barbier, E.B., Burton, M., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Liu, S., Maynard, S., Portela, R., Spierenburg, M.J., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271529734.
Dieler, J., Uhl, E., Biber, P., Müller, J., Rötzer, T., Pretzsch, H., Effect of forest stand management on species composition, structural diversity, and productivity in the temperate zone of Europe. Eur. J. For. Res. 136 (2017), 739–766, 10.1007/s10342-017-1056-1.
F.X. Drouet, Le temps des forêts, 2018.
du Bus de Warnaffe, G., Lebrun, P., Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 118 (2004), 219–234, 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.015.
Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G., Public preferences across europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol. Soc., 17, 2012, 10.5751/ES-04520-170127.
Edwards, D.M., Collins, T.M., Goto, R., An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems. Ecosyst. Serv. Shared Plural Cult. Val. 21 (2016), 319–328, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.018.
Ernstson, H., The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc. Urban PlanSpecial Issue Urban Ecosyst. Serv. 109 (2013), 7–17, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005.
Faccoli, M., Bernardinelli, I., Composition and elevation of spruce forests affect susceptibility to bark beetle attacks: implications for forest management. Forests 5 (2014), 88–102, 10.3390/f5010088.
Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Boch, S., Prati, D., Ammer, C., Schall, P., Gossner, M.M., Bauhus, J., Buscot, F., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., de Frutos, A., Ehbrecht, M., Frank, K., Goldmann, K., Hänsel, F., Jung, K., Kahl, T., Nauss, T., Oelmann, Y., Pena, R., Polle, A., Renner, S., Schloter, M., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E.-D., Solly, E., Sorkau, E., Stempfhuber, B., Tschapka, M., Weisser, W.W., Wubet, T., Fischer, M., Allan, E., Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 9 (2018), 1–11, 10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4.
Filot, O., L'usage de la forêt wallonne. Courr. Hebd. CRISP 1892 (2005), 5–51.
Fish, R., Church, A., Winter, M., Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 21 (2016), 208–217.
Forêt, Naturalité, La crise du scolyte de l’épicéa, enfin une opportunité pour une forêt plus naturelle en Wallonie?. Forêt & Naturalité, 2021.
Garson, G.D., Testing statistical assumptions. 2012, NC Stat. Assoc. Publ., Asheboro.
Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119 (2015), 8–23.
Global Data Insights [WWW Document], n.d. Light. Res. URL http://www.lightspeedresearch.com/ (accessed 8.19.19).
E. Gomez-Baggethun, B. Martin-Lopez, D.N. Barton, L. Braat, E. Kelemen, M. Garcia-Llorente, H. Saarikoski, J. van den Bergh, State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services (EU FP7 OpenNESS report No. Deliverable D.4.1 / WP4) European Commission, 2014.
Gould, R.K., Pai, M., Muraca, B., Chan, K.M.A., He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1213–1232, 10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). Eur. Environ. Agency, 33, 2012, 107.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst. Ecol. New Synth., 2010, 110–139.
Harrington, R., Anton, C., Dawson, T.P., de Bello, F., Feld, C.K., Haslett, J.R., Kluvankova-Oravska, T., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Luck, G.W., Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers. Conserv. 19 (2010), 2773–2790.
Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., “Maps have an air of authority”: potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 4 (2013), 25–32, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.11.003.
Horne, P., Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For. Ecol. Manag. Decision Support Multi Purpose Forest. 207 (2005), 189–199, 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026.
Hoyos, D., The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1595–1603, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011.
K.N. Irvine, L. O'Brien, N. Ravenscroft, N. Cooper, M. Everard, I. Fazey, M.S. Reed, J.O. Kenter, Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values, Serv. Ecosyst., (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.001.
Ishihara, H., Relational values from a cultural valuation perspective: how can sociology contribute to the evaluation of ecosystem services?. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., Sustain. Challeng. Rel. Values 35 (2018), 61–68, 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.016.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 213–220.
Jax, K., Barton, D.N., Chan, K.M.A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., Görg, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Griewald, Y., Haber, W., Haines-Young, R., Heink, U., Jahn, T., Joosten, H., Kerschbaumer, L., Korn, H., Luck, G.W., Matzdorf, B., Muraca, B., Neßhöver, C., Norton, B., Ott, K., Potschin, M., Rauschmayer, F., von Haaren, C., Wichmann, S., Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 93 (2013), 260–268, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008.
Kendal, D., Raymond, C.M., Understanding pathways to shifting people's values over time in the context of social–ecological systems. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1333–1342, 10.1007/s11625-018-0648-0.
Kenter, J.O., Demystifying Shared and Social Values. Valuing Nature Program, VNP20, 2019.
Kenter, J.O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K.N., Fazey, I., O'Brien, L., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst. Serv. 21 (2016), 358–371.
Kenter, J.O., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K.N., Reed, M.S., Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., What are shared and social values of ecosystems?. Ecol. Econ. 111 (2015), 86–99.
Kenter, J.O., Raymond, C.M., van Riper, C.J., Azzopardi, E., Brear, M.R., Calcagni, F., Christie, I., Christie, M., Fordham, A., Gould, R.K., Ives, C.D., Hejnowicz, A.P., Gunton, R., Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., Kendal, D., Kronenberg, J., Massenberg, J.R., O'Connor, S., Ravenscroft, N., Rawluk, A., Raymond, I.J., Rodríguez-Morales, J., Thankappan, S., Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1439–1461, 10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4.
Klain, S.C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLOS ONE, 12, 2017, e0183962, 10.1371/journal.pone.0183962.
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (2002), 239–260, 10.1080/13504620220145401.
Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Integrating social values with other value dimensions: parallel use vs. combination vs. full integration. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1283–1295, 10.1007/s11625-019-00688-7.
Laurent, C., Lecomte, H., Les services environnementaux et sociaux rendus par la forêt. Rapport Analytique Sur l’état de l'environnement Wallon 2006–2007, 2007, Région Wallonie.
Lewis, S.L., Wheeler, C.E., Mitchard, E.T., Koch, A., Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. 2019, Nature Publishing Group.
J. Liang, T.W. Crowther, N. Picard, S. Wiser, M. Zhou, G. Alberti, E.-D. Schulze, A.D. McGuire, F. Bozzato, H. Pretzsch, S. de-Miguel, A. Paquette, B. Hérault, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C.B. Barrett, H.B. Glick, G.M. Hengeveld, G.-J. Nabuurs, S. Pfautsch, et al., Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science, 354 (2016) aaf8957, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957.
Maebe, L., Claessens, H., Dufrêne, M., The critical role of abiotic factors and human activities in the supply of ecosystem services in the ES matrix. One Ecosyst., 4, 2019, e34769, 10.3897/oneeco.4.e34769.
L. Maebe, H. Claessens, M. Dufrêne, Balancing forest ecosystem services by adapting their management to the forest type and the ecological context: a case study in Southern Belgium, 2018.
Maréchal, K., Not irrational but habitual: the importance of “behavioural lock-in” in energy consumption. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1104–1114.
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., Montes, C., Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 37 (2014), 220–228, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003.
Masterson, V.A., Enqvist, J.P., Stedman, R.C., Tengö, M., Sense of place in social–ecological systems: from theory to empirics. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 555–564, 10.1007/s11625-019-00695-8.
Maynard, S., James, D., Davidson, A., Determining the value of multiple ecosystem services in terms of community wellbeing: Who should be the valuing agent?. Ecol. Econ 115 (2015), 22–28, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.002.
MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [WWW Document], 2015, https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html (Accessed 7.6.18).
Menegaki, A.N., Olsen, S.B., Tsagarakis, K.P., Towards a common standard—a reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys. J. fChoice Model. 18 (2016), 18–50, 10.1016/j.jocm.2016.04.005.
Mormont, M., Conflit et territorialisation. Geogr. Econ. Soc. 8 (2006), 299–318.
mpOC, n.d. Actualisation de l'action: “Non à la privatisation des forêts publiques de Wallonie!—Mouvement politique des objecteurs de croissance (mpOC) [WWW Document]. https://objecteursdecroissance.be/spip.php?article768 (accessed 6.29.19).
Müller, J., Bütler, R., A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 129 (2010), 981–992, 10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5.
Munda, G., Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158 (2004), 662–677.
Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Lozada, P., Jaramillo, A., Aguayo, M., Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: an application at the local level in Southern Chile. Appl. Geogr. 40 (2013), 71–82, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.004.
Nordén, A., Coria, J., Jönsson, A.M., Lagergren, F., Lehsten, V., Divergence in stakeholders’ preferences: evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 132 (2017), 179–195.
O'Connor, S., Kenter, J.O., Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1247–1265, 10.1007/s11625-019-00715-7.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P.H., Mead, A., O'Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., Yagi, N., Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27 (2017), 7–16, 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
Peltola, T., Arpin, I., How We Come to Value Nature? - A Pragmatist Perspective. Ecol. Econ. 142 (2017), 12–20, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.009.
Pröpper, M., Haupts, F., The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecol. Econ. 108 (2014), 28–35.
Radu, S., The ecological role of deadwood in natural forests. Gafta, D., Akeroyd, J., (eds.) Nature conservation: concepts and practice, environmental science and engineering, 2006, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 137–141, 10.1007/978-3-540-47229-2_16.
Rametsteiner, E., Eichler, L., Berg, J., Aggestam, F., Binda Zane, E., Plumet, C., Rademaekers, R., Shaping forest communication in the European Union: public perceptions of forests and forestry. Final Rep ECORYS Rotterdam, 2009.
Rawluk, A., Ford, R., Anderson, N., Williams, K., Exploring multiple dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for mapping and translating values for social-ecological research and practice. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1187–1200, 10.1007/s11625-018-0639-1.
Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T., Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 1301–1315, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006.
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P., Polasky, S., Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (2013), 268–273, 10.1890/120144.
Robertson, M.M., The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 24 (2006), 367–387.
Schägner, J.P., Brander, L., Paracchini, M.L., Maes, J., Gollnow, F., Bertzky, B., Spatial dimensions of recreational ecosystem service values: a review of meta-analyses and a combination of meta-analytic value-transfer and GIS. Ecosyst. Serv. 31 (2018), 395–409.
Scholte, S.S., van Teeffelen, A.J., Verburg, P.H., Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 67–78.
J.P. Scohy, Une forêt publique aux multiples fonctions, in: Le Grand Livre de La Forêt. Forêt wallonne, Marche-en-Famenne, 2017, p. 496.
Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 31 (2011), 748–760, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002.
Sherrouse, B.C., Semmens, D.J., Ancona, Z.H., Brunner, N.M., Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Ecosyst. Serv 26 (2017), 431–444, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.003.
Sherrouse, B.C., Semmens, D.J., Clement, J.M., An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol. Indic. 36 (2014), 68–79, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.008.
Small, N., Munday, M., Durance, I., The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Change 44 (2017), 57–67, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.005.
Smith, M., Ram, Y., Tourism, landscapes and cultural ecosystem services: a new research tool. Tourism Recreation Research 42 (2017), 113–119, 10.1080/02508281.2016.1253206.
Spangenberg, J.H., Settele, J., Value pluralism and economic valuation–defendable if well done. Ecosyst. Serv. 18 (2016), 100–109.
Stålhammar, S., Pedersen, E., Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value?. Ecosyst. Serv. 26 (2017), 1–9, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010.
Stålhammar, S., Thorén, H., Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2019), 1201–1212, 10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4.
Stop aux dérives de la chasse—Pour une réforme radicale de la chasse, stoppons les dérives de la chasse [WWW Document], n.d. https://stopderiveschasse.be/, (accessed 6.29.19).
Tadaki, M., Sinner, J., Chan, K.M.A., Making sense of environmental values: a typology of concepts. Ecol. Soc., 22, 2017.
Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Baró, F., Termansen, M., Barton, D.N., Berry, P., Stange, E., Thoonen, M., Kalóczkai, Á., Vadineanu, A., Castro, A.J., Czúcz, B., Röckmann, C., Wurbs, D., Odee, D., Preda, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Rusch, G.M., Pastur, G.M., Palomo, I., Dick, J., Casaer, J., van Dijk, J., Priess, J.A., Langemeyer, J., Mustajoki, J., Kopperoinen, L., Baptist, M.J., Peri, P.L., Mukhopadhyay, R., Aszalós, R., Roy, S.B., Luque, S., Rusch, V., When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 566–578, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011.
Uggla, Y., Negotiating responsible forestry: forest owners’ understanding of responsibility for multiple forest values. Environ. Sociol., 2017, 1–12, 10.1080/23251042.2017.1414659.
Van Riper, C.J., Kyle, G.T., Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped by environmental worldviews: a spatial analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 145 (2014), 374–384, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.014.
van Riper, C.J., Kyle, G.T., Sutton, S.G., Barnes, M., Sherrouse, B.C., Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl. Geogr. 35 (2012), 164–173, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.008.
Vanloqueren, G., Baret, P.V., Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural ‘lock-in'case study. Ecol. Econ. 66 (2008), 436–446.
Verheyen, K., Lust, N., Carnol, M., Hens, L., Bouma, J.J., 2006. Feasability of forest conversion: ecological, social and economic aspects (FEFOCON) (Scientific support plan for a sustainable development policy (SPSD II)).
Wibail, L., Farcy, C., 2018. Etat et résilience des milieux forestiers.