LETTER
Reply to Kirchhoff: Cultural values
and ecosystem services
We thank Thomas Kirchhoff (1) for agreeing that cultural values are important. As is explicit in our paper (2), we also agree that not all cultural values can befit into the ecosystems services framework; however, we chose to focus on those that can. We are nonetheless considerably more optimistic about the number of cultural values and socioecological contexts in which ecological structures and functions do contribute significantly to satisfying cultural needs/wants.
We understand Kirchhoff’s two alleged “flaws” (1) as (i) we have overestimated the range of cultural values that can be served by ecosystems and (ii) ecosystems cannot properly be attributed as contributing toward meeting cultural needs/wants that are based on symbolic meanings. Based on the latter as-sertion, he concludes that only instrumental values, not cultural ones, can be provided or enhanced by ecosystems.
From our perspective, the range of cultural values exhibiting a significant contribution from ecosystems, as well as the relative contribution of specific ecosystems to satisfying particular cultural needs/wants, is an empirical matter. We cited in our paper numer-ous examples where such contributions have been established by existing research. We have been careful to recognize that any attribution of a cultural ecosystem service can only be determined by considering the specific needs/wants of a particular human/ social client at a given time and place in relation to the demon-strated ability of designated ecological structures and functions to contribute toward meeting those needs/wants. This applies equally to needs/wants based on instrumental or cultural values. The“structural properties of wood” (1) do not provide services to everyone, everywhere, at all times, and not all wood is considered equally suited to serve for building, fuel, paper, and many other instrumental needs/wants. Moreover, as is the case with roses, the structural properties of wood sometimes serve primarily to meet aesthetic needs/wants, thus providing a cultural service.
That a landscape’s cultural value depends on an area’s unique character as understood by relevant residents or users is consistent with research on landscape aesthetics and place at-tachment. However, decades of research also show that there are many commonalities among the biophysical characteristics of culturally valued natural and cultivated landscapes. Although a lake’s shimmering surface may be an object of aesthetic
appreciation, the lake is also a biophysical phenomenon influ-enced by ecological factors, such as aquatic plants and phyto-plankton, which can alter aesthetic experience. Moreover, a well-wooded shoreline with minimal intrusion by human development frequently correlates highly with affective responses, as do eco-logical characteristics, such as species richness. Causal associa-tions are more difficult to determine, but studies we cite (2) show that ecological structures and functionsfigure highly in many cultural benefits derived from landscapes. We agree that there is still much to learn about these linkages. However, consistent with dominant landscape conventions, we emphasize the in-teraction of natural and cultural factors. In the absence of countervailing data, we are not willing, a priori, to define cultural values out of the ES framework at the expense of further mar-ginalizing their contributions to the full range of benefits eco-systems provide to people.
Terry C. Daniela,1, Andreas Muharb, Olivier Aznarc, James W. Boydd, Kai M. A. Chane, Robert Costanzaf, Courtney G. Flintg, Paul H.
Gobsterh, Adrienne Greˆt-Regameyi, Marianne Penkerb, Robert G. Ribej, and Marja Spierenburgk
aDepartment of Psychology and School of Natural Resources and
Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721;b Depart-ment of Landscape, Spatial, and Infrastructure Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, A-1190 Vienna, Austria;
cEvolution des Usages, Intervention Publique et Développement des
Espaces Ruraux, National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, Clermont-Ferrand, 63172 Aubière Cedex, France; dResources for the Future,
Wash-ington, DC 20036; eInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4; fInstitute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201; gNatural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801;
hUS Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Evanston, IL 60201; iDepartment of Civil, Environmental, and Geomatic Engineering,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland;
jInstitute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon,
Eugene, OR 97403; andkFSW Department of Organisation Studies, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1. Kirchhoff T (2012) Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:E3146.
2. Daniel TC, et al. (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8812–8819.
Author contributions: T.C.D., A.M., O.A., J.W.B., K.M.A.C., R.C., C.G.F., P.H.G., A.G.-R., M.P., R.G.R., and M.S. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tdaniel@u.arizona.edu.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1213520109 PNAS | November 13, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 46 | E3147
