Ahupuaʻa Values Should Enlighten Next Generation Investing in Hawaiʻi

Hawaiian values, which sustainably generated abundance and fostered well-being, are needed to stem the unrelenting surge of economic developments that ravage our natural resources, erode our cultural heritage, and compromise our future. Asserting these values requires critical assessment of investment horizon, scope, and benefit

The forest has a story: Cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai‘i

Understanding cultural dimensions of human/environment relationships is now widely seen as key to effective management, yet characterizing these dimensions remains a challenge. We report on an approach for considering the nonmaterial values associated with ecosystems, i.e., cultural ecosystem services. We applied the approach in Kona, Hawai‘i, using 30 semistructured interviews and 205 in-person surveys, striving to balance pragmatism and depth. We found spirituality, heritage, and identity-related values to be particularly salient, with expression of some of these values varying among respondents by ethnicity and duration of residence in Hawai‘i. Although people of various backgrounds reported strong spirituality and heritage-related values, Native Hawaiians rated heritage connections as deeper, and lifetime residents portrayed ecosystem-identity connections as more integral to their wellbeing than did people from other backgrounds. The approach also proved useful in identifying concerns not addressed in survey and interview prompts, including postcolonial issues, access to ecosystems, and relationships between people of different ethnic backgrounds. Although understanding these nonmaterial dimensions of human-ecosystem relationships can be complex, emerging techniques eliciting qualitative and quantitative data provide feasible ways of deepening that understanding

A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame

Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. Stakeholders\u27 nonmaterial desires, needs, and values often critically influence the success of conservation projects. These considerations are challenging to articulate and characterize, resulting in their limited uptake in management and policy. We devised an interview protocol designed to enhance understanding of cultural ecosystem services (CES). The protocol begins with discussion of ecosystem-related activities (e.g., recreation, hunting) and management and then addresses CES, prompting for values encompassing concepts identified in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and explored in other CES research. We piloted the protocol in Hawaii and British Columbia. In each location, we interviewed 30 individuals from diverse backgrounds. We analyzed results from the 2 locations to determine the effectiveness of the interview protocol in elucidating nonmaterial values. The qualitative and spatial components of the protocol helped characterize cultural, social, and ethical values associated with ecosystems in multiple ways. Maps and situational, or vignette-like, questions helped respondents articulate difficult-to-discuss values. Open-ended prompts allowed respondents to express a diversity of ecosystem-related values and proved sufficiently flexible for interviewees to communicate values for which the protocol did not explicitly probe. Finally, the results suggest that certain values, those mentioned frequently throughout the interview, are particularly salient for particular populations. The protocol can provide efficient, contextual, and place-based data on the importance of particular ecosystem attributes for human well-being. Qualitative data are complementary to quantitative and spatial assessments in the comprehensive representation of people\u27s values pertaining to ecosystems, and this protocol may assist in incorporating values frequently overlooked in decision making processes

Opinion: Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment

A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches

The Challenges of Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Environmental Assessment

The ecosystem services concept is used to make explicit the diverse benefits ecosystems provide to people, with the goal of improving assessment and, ultimately, decision-making. Alongside material benefits such as natural resources (e.g., clean water, timber), this concept includes—through the ‘cultural’ category of ecosystem services—diverse non-material benefits that people obtain through interactions with ecosystems (e.g., spiritual inspiration, cultural identity, recreation). Despite the longstanding focus of ecosystem services research on measurement, most cultural ecosystem services have defined measurement and inclusion alongside other more ‘material’ services. This gap in measurement of cultural ecosystem services is a product of several perceived problems, some of which are not real problems and some of which can be mitigated or even solved without undue difficulty. Because of the fractured nature of the literature, these problems continue to plague the discussion of cultural services. In this paper we discuss several such problems, which although they have been addressed singly, have not been brought together in a single discussion. There is a need for a single, accessible treatment of the importance and feasibility of integrating cultural ecosystem services alongside others

Where are ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ in ecosystem services: A framework for constructive engagement.

Focusing on ecosystem services (ES) is seen as a means for improving decision-making. Research to-date has emphasized valuation of material contributions of ecosystems to human well-being, with less attention to important cultural ES and non-material values. This gap persists because there is no commonly accepted framework for eliciting tangible values, characterizing their changes and including them alongside other services in decision-making. Here we develop such a framework for ES research and practice, addressing three challenges: i) non-material values are ill-suited to characterization using monetary methods, ii) it is difficult to unequivocally link particular changes in social-ecological systems to particular changes in cultural benefits; and iii) cultural benefits are associated with many services, not just cultural ES. There is no magic bullet, but our framework may facilitate fuller and more socially acceptable integrations of ES information into planning and management. Copyright statement: “NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in BioScience. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in BioScience, 6, (8), (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7¨Science, Faculty ofNon UBCResources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute forReviewedFacultyPostdoctora