Emerging Patterns in Cultural Ecosystem Services as Incentives and Obstacles for Raptor Conservation

Abstract

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment proposed four categories of ecosystem services as regulating, provisioning, supporting and cultural. Of these, cultural services have been the most difficult to quantify despite playing a key role in developing society’s supporting services to ecosystems. By reviewing a series of case studies related to the cultural services derived from raptors, we examine relations between tangible ecosystem services and ‘knowledge’ and ‘beliefs’ as part of supporting services from human societies to ecosystems. We identified types of raptor regulating and provisioning services and patterns in service--knowledge-beliefs that defined positive or negative outcomes for raptor conservation. We also demonstrate how possible interactions between physical, experiential, physical-symbolic and representative-symbolic cultural services and between different stakeholders can create incentives or obstacles for conservation. Predictable patterns in service-knowledge-beliefs provide a framework upon which socio-cultural and ethnobiological aspects of raptor conservation may be combined with ecological research to support conservation initiatives. Based on these patterns we present examples of how cultural services might be employed to better promote raptor conservation while respecting the beliefs and traditions of stakeholders.

Assessing African Vultures as Biomonitors and Umbrella Species

“…Vultures are recognized worldwide for the ecosystem services (cleaning, nutrient cycling, cultural) they provide (Gangoso et al, 2013;Grilli et al, 2019;Morales-Reyes et al, 2019), for their aesthetic value (Becker et al, 2005;Morelli et al, 2015;Aguilera-Alcalá et al, 2020), and for their important roles in African traditional medicine (Buij et al, 2016). The use of African vultures as cultural keystone species could bridge gaps between ecological and socio-cultural systems that undermine current vulture conservation efforts (Horgan et al, 2021).…”

Reconnecting Farmers with Nature through Agroecological Transitions: Interacting Niches and Experimentation and the Role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems

“…Further research is required to understand farmers' more profound appreciation of nature, not just the benefits, but the deep appreciation of living entities and the surrounding ecosystems in which their economic activities take place. Although these benefits (i.e., ecosystem services) are important, the farmers' knowledge and beliefs (i.e., cultural services) are determinants of whether they protect, ignore, neglect, or even destroy biodiversity [157]. In this regard, social scientists could work, documenting farmers' recognition of these cultural services.…”

People and Mangroves: Biocultural Utilization of Mangrove Forest Ecosystem in Southeast Asia

“…Whilst various ecosystem services are relatively well represented in literature, cultural ecosystem services are not yet adequately de ned or integrated within the ES framework, and are often under-represented, ignored, or neglected particularly in ecosystem services assessment and even in conservation studies given their subjective and largely intangible nature (Daniel et al, 2012;He & Guo, 2021;Horgan et al, 2021;Martin et al, 2016). Cultural ecosystem services encompass the non-material, immanent, and intangible bene ts provided by nature associated with spiritual experiences, cultural expression, or aesthetic inspiration, which are hard to quantify or economically valorised (Onofri & Boatto, 2020).…”