SYMP 18-2 - Not impossible: Integrating ecological considerations and cultural values into decision-making

Thursday, August 9, 2012: 8:20 AM
Portland Blrm 253, Oregon Convention Center
Kai Ming A. Chan1, Anne Guerry2, Patricia Balvanera3, Sarah C. Klain1 and Terre Satterfield4, (1)Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, (2)Woods Institute for the Environment, The Natural Capital Project & Stanford University, Seattle, WA, (3)Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico, (4)Institue for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Background/Question/Methods

Focusing on ecosystem services (ES) is seen as a means of improving decision-making. Research to date has emphasized valuation of material contributions of ecosystems to human well-being (through e.g., clean water, agricultural crops, reduced flood risk). Much less attention has been paid to characterizing how important ‘cultural’/non-material values – such as cultural heritage, identity, and artistic and spiritual inspiration, might be affected by ecological change. This gap persists because it is difficult to identify, quantify, and integrate non-material values in decision-making. This talk will focus on a framework for ES research to contribute to planning and management, which was developed by an international team of scientists and managers. The framework, based on the team’s experiences and a review of diverse literature, includes the core components necessary to meet three challenges: (i) non-material values are ill-suited to characterization in monetary terms; (ii) changes in non-material benefits are not easily attributed to ecological change; and (iii) non-material benefits are simultaneously produced by many ES, which complicates the separate valuation and summation of ES benefits.

Results/Conclusions

Our proposed framework offers assistance to three audiences: (1) researchers seeking to understand how their social and/or ecological research can contribute to ecosystem-based management and spatial planning; (2) decision-makers seeking to engage research more effectively in light of the many human benefits associated with ecosystems; and (3) stakeholders concerned with the relative inattention to certain benefits (often intangible ones) in decision-making. Our framework provides one way to document these benefits, so that decision-makers “can’t say they didn’t know,” to quote a pilot-study interviewee. There is no magic bullet, but our framework—to be published in BioScience—may facilitate fuller and more socially acceptable integrations of ES information into planning and management.