Understanding cultural ecosystem services: Findings from pilot studies in Hawaii and British Columbia

Background/Question/Methods:

Scholarly discussion about cultural ecosystem services – what they are, how to “measure” them, and how to incorporate them into decision-making – is enriching our understanding of the intangible ways that ecosystems benefit people. We field-tested a possible first step in “measuring” – or eliciting how people think about – these services and values. We implemented a values-elicitation protocol designed by an international, interdisciplinary working group on Cultural Ecosystem Services in two distinct sites: Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and Hawai’i Island. The protocol comprises two approaches to value elicitation: (1) a semi-structured interview, which produces qualitative data concerning a diversity of cultural ecosystem services, such as heritage, education, spirituality, and artistic inspiration; and (2) a mapping exercise, in which study participants spatially represent intangible values (Cultural Ecosystem Services). We used qualitative analysis methods to code interview responses, and spatial statistical methods to analyze the spatial data.

Results/Conclusions:

We found both similarities and differences in responses across the theorized array of cultural ecosystem services. Despite different sampling protocols in the two sites, respondents in both Hawai’i and Vancouver shared values that are difficult to fit into the Cultural Ecosystem Services framework – for example, animistic and kinship relationships with ecosystems. One notable difference was more frequent discussion of heritage and spirituality in Hawai’i than in Vancouver. Highlights from the spatial analyses include a portrayal of “hot spots” of cultural ecosystem service value in both sites, and discussion of places that hold particular meaning (e.g., places of particular significance to ancestors and/or the next generation). We briefly discuss benefits and drawbacks of elements of the protocol: certain question types, mapping exercises, and even the importance of word choice. Some respondents expressed that articulating some values addressed in the interviews was awkward and difficult, but the majority responded to the exploratory protocol with meaningful and often profound comments regarding the intangible aspects of human-nature relationships. Thus while this method certainly has its limitations (time intensive, limited sample sizes), we found that it successfully helped to elicit difficult-to-discuss and sometimes socially sensitive values, and also provides ample fodder for continued refinement of approaches and methods.