The Strange Case of Cultural Services: Limits of the Ecosystem Services Paradigm☆

Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Methodological and Ideological Options The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm☆

Robert H. Winthrop

Socioeconomics Program (WO-210), USDI Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE (2134 LM), Washington, DC 20003, USA article info abstract

Article history: As interest in the concept of ecosystem services (ES) has grown, so has its scope. This paper considers some lim- Received 31 May 2014 itations of the ES paradigm by examining one category of ES: cultural services, including the environmental basis Received in revised form 16 October 2014 for esthetic, spiritual, and recreational experiences, cultural heritage, sense of place, and ways of life. It examines Accepted 19 October 2014 whether cultural ES can be assessed in terms of purely individual benefits or if social/collective considerations Available online xxxx must be included; and whether the concept of ‘services’ even provides an appropriate framework for under- Keywords: standing such values. To pursue these questions I consider the recent literature on the assessment and valuation ‘ ’ Cultural ecosystem services of cultural services and assess the adequacy of this perspective against several examples from American Indian Culture communities of the Pacific Northwest. Three characteristics of these situations from Indian Country are problem- Environmental value atic for an ES framework: the social construction of environmental experience, the symbolic character of environ- Native North America mental knowledge, and the multidimensionality of environmental value. On the basis of this analysis, I propose a Stewardship model of culturally reflexive stewardship as potentially a more productive and theoretically consistent framework Sustainability science for characterizing such socially constructed environmental values and practices. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Millennium Ecosystem Assessment describes cultural ES as the “nonma- terial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrich- Ecosystem services (ES), “the benefits people obtain from ecosys- ment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic tems,” assumed a prominent place in environmental policy with publi- experiences,” including knowledge systems, social relations, and sense cation of the United Nation's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid of place (Reid et al., 2005, p. 40). A more succinct definition is “ecosys- et al., 2005, p. v). Today ES activities have grown beyond research and tems' contributions to the non-material benefits (e.g., capabilities and policy discussion to include widespread efforts to institutionalize the experiences) that arise from human–ecosystem relationships” (Chan use of ES information in the management of terrestrial and marine en- et al., 2012b, p. 9). vironments. Yet making ES metrics an integral part of environmental The ES framework is intended to be comprehensive in scope. In prin- and natural resource decision-making will be controversial (Lele et al., ciple all interactions of environment and society find a place. In addition 2013), technically challenging (Bagstad et al., 2013), and organization- to cultural services, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment considers ally complex (Scarlett and Boyd, 2011). Precisely because an ES frame- provisioning services (such as food, fuel, and fiber), regulating services work holds real promise for improving how governments and firms (such as water purification and climate regulation), and supporting ser- make decisions regarding environmental change, it is critical not to vices (such as soil formation and nutrient cycling) (Alcamo et al., 2003, overextend its application to problems and domains where it is inap- Fig. 3.2). While a number of ES classifications exist, they generally in- propriate. While the concept of ES provides an “eye-opening metaphor,” clude both biophysical and sociocultural services (Kumar, 2010, it can obscure the complexity of social–ecological interactions chap. 1, appendix 2). (Norgaard, 2010, pp. 1219–1220) and deflect the exploration of other approaches in both research and policy. 1.1. The Challenge of ‘Cultural Services’ This paper considers some of the limitations of the ES framework by examining the analytic effectiveness of one category of ES: cultural ser- The concept of ES emerged through a dialogue between biology and vices, including the environmental basis for esthetic, spiritual, and recre- economics (Lele et al., 2013, pp. 343–346). The resulting framework ational experiences, cultural heritage, sense of place, and way of life. The was strongly shaped by two economic assumptions. First, a stock-flow model is the most appropriate way to understand environmental experience. This posits a flow of human benefits linking ecological and eco- ☆ The views expressed are the author's, and do not represent the policies of the U.S. “ Department of the Interior. nomic systems (Norgaard, 2010, p. 1219), involving the intertwined E-mail address: [email protected]. notions of natural capital ‘stocks’ and the ecosystem services that flow

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.005 0921-8009/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. R.H. Winthrop / Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214 209 like interest or dividends from those stocks” (de Groot et al., 2010, extended from intensive relations of reciprocity among kinsmen to p. 13). Second, environmental value is best understood through the wel- cosmic relations of reciprocal life-giving between men and animals, fare perspective of neoclassical economics. Individuals are rational wel- passing by way of the revived winter festivals that had classically fare maximizers. The values at stake even in complex, long-term effected such interchanges. ecological shifts should be assessed by aggregating their willingness- [Sahlins, 1999, p. viii] to-accept or willingness-to-pay for anticipated changes in particular services (Norton and Noonan, 2007, p. 667). Here the effects of technological change less concerned individual My interest in clarifying the limitations of the ES framework stems benefit and rather more involved strengthening social and ritual rela- from two concerns. tionships—matters difficult to interpret within the ES framework. From the standpoint of theory, the increasingly influential ES per- In ways to be explored, cultural ES involve a different type of phe- spective may be too narrow to provide useful insights about knowledge nomenon than, for example, water provisioning or carbon sequestra- systems, social relations, sense of place, or the capabilities emerging tion. On the nature of this difference hangs a series of contested from human-ecosystem relationships—at the very point that a more se- questions: whether economic valuation methods are appropriate for rious understanding of ‘coupled human-natural systems’ is critically some (or any) cultural ES; whether cultural ES are best treated as a sin- needed (Liu et al., 2007). By emphasizing individual utility and rational gle class of values, or require multiple approaches; whether cultural ES choice, for example, the ES framework excludes consideration of the so- can be assessed in terms of purely individual benefits or if social or col- cially transacted character of environmental knowledge, motivation, lective considerations must be included; and whether the concept of and values (Chibnik, 2011; Gudeman, 2001; Winthrop, 1990). ‘services’ even provides an appropriate framework for understanding From the standpoint of practice, assessing people's engagement with such values. their environments through the language of tradeoffs, which is fundamental to ecosystem services valuation, seems in many situations 1.2. Methods for Characterizing ‘Cultural Services’ both methodologically and ethically inappropriate. I have spent most of my career trying to understand and address conflicts resulting from There is a considerable economic literature describing the produc- the encounter of communities deeply connected to places and land- tion, consumption, and valuation of ‘cultural goods’ and ‘cultural indus- scapes with actions involving significant environmental change. As a tries’ (e.g., Acheson and Maule, 2001; Throsby, 2001). The most basic consultant for nearly twenty years the communities I worked with challenge in importing this framework into a discussion of cultural ES were largely American Indian tribes. The examples of tribal environ- is the ambiguity surrounding the concept of culture. Economic ap- mental values cited in Section 2 come primarily from two of my projects proaches generally treat ‘culture’ as a special category of commodities: on the Columbia Plateau in the northwestern United States—one involv- those involving “the enlightenment and education of the mind” ing the relicensing of a hydroelectric project, the other the construction (Throsby, 2001, p. 4), such as films, paintings, magazines, dance perfor- of an interstate natural gas pipeline. mances, and pop music recordings. This contrasts with anthropological Yet there is nothing unusual in the fierce commitment to culturally usage, in which ‘culture’ refers to a system of understandings through valued environments shown in those examples. To make this point I which social life is transacted (Suranovic and Winthrop, 2014, note two recent tribal cases from a very different region, the American pp. 59–60). This involves more than terminological confusion, for Southwest. (1) The San Francisco Peaks in Arizona have spiritual signif- these contrasting senses of culture entail fundamental differences in icance for the Hopi and a number of other southwestern tribes, which what constitutes the objects of study in assessing environmental values. has led these groups to wage a prolonged battle against expansion of Far fewer economic studies have examined the culturally informed a ski area, and in particular to block a proposal to pump treated sewage environmental values associated with indigenous communities. These to the Peaks to make artificial snow (Glowacka et al., 2009, pp. 547–552; include discrete choice experiments comparing environmental values Macmillan, 2012). (2) Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute tribal held by Maori and non-Maori students (Andersen et al., 2012)and groups have opposed federal planning for industrial-scale solar genera- Australian aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities (Rolfe and tion in their ancestral areas of southern Nevada, citing concerns over a Windle, 2003). Other studies include several assessments skeptical of variety of disruptive effects across a culturally significant landscape monetized nonmarket valuation methods as applied to indigenous (Stoffle et al., 2011). Such solar projects have large footprints, often cov- communities (e.g., Adamowicz et al., 1998). Suggested alternatives in- ering an area of four to eight square miles. clude eliciting physical quantity constraints (such as minimum water More recently, as a staff social scientist for a large federal land man- flow) that provide culturally relevant bounds on a decision space agement agency in the United States, my involvement has been more (Venn and Quiggin, 2007), and providing an ordinal ranking of environ- varied, ranging from Iñupiat villages on Alaska's North Slope to oil and mental values without monetization (Kant and Lee, 2004). gas boomtowns in Wyoming. The potential impacts to these communi- While the utilitarian perspective of neoclassical economics may pro- ties have varied across the spectrum of land use/land cover change, vide a workable method for assessing the benefits of biophysical ES, from herbicide treatments affecting subsistence plant gathering to many contend it does not offer an appropriate framework for valuing transmission lines and wind towers altering the landscapes of towns “cultural services.” Among the arguments advanced, five are noted across the western United States. here. (1) Applying economic metrics to values based on belief involves The analytic challenge posed by cultural ES is suggested by an Alaska a category error: ethical beliefs are not economic benefits and cannot Native example. Over the last several decades of the 20th century snow- be measured as such (Sagoff, 2004, p. 13). (2) Other communities may mobiles replaced dog sleds, motorboats replaced kayaks, and rifles and have understandings alien to the idea of “nature as a service provider” guns replaced many nets and traps, as native communities gained ac- (Chan et al., 2012a, p. 747). (3) Some categories of value are incommen- cess to wage labor and industrial technology. The result was more plen- surate and thus not amenable to tradeoffs (Adamowicz et al., 1998, tiful provisions of fish, game, and sea mammals, not only for immediate p. 57; Chan et al., 2012b, p. 9). (4) The concept of the self-regarding, ra- consumption but for socially patterned exchange. tional actor, fundamental to neoclassical economic analysis, offers an inadequate basis for assessing the inherently social character of many The people's efficiency in hunting, fishing, and gathering was direct- environmental practices (Parks and Gowdy, 2013, pp. e7–e8). (5) Eco- ly proportionate to their dependency on capitalism. But as their own nomic valuation methods incorporate distinctive ideas of property and modes of production were kinship-ordered–on Gambell [a village on ownership (Brondizio et al., 2010, p. 152), which are incompatible St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea] by a still-functioning patrilin- with the communal basis of many indigenous systems of property rights eal clan system–the effect was an overall florescence of tradition that (Venn and Quiggin, 2007, pp. 336–337). 210 R.H. Winthrop / Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214

An alternative is to embrace a more interdisciplinary approach to en- 2. Environmental Stewardship in Indian Country vironmental value, recognizing that “preferences are exogenous to economics, but endogenous to social science in the broader sense The southern Columbia Plateau of America's PacificNorthwestisan [including] data and theory from psychology, anthropology, and area of major ecological contrasts: river corridors, arid semi-desert low- sociology” (Norton et al., 1998, p. 198). Yet if there is a growing land zones marked by rocky canyons and buttes, forests and prairies at consensus in principle on the need for an alternative approach to valu- higher elevations, and meadows along mountain flanks (Übelacker and ing cultural ES, what is emerging as an alternative in practice is less Wilson, 1984). In the pre-reservation era, the seasonal requirements of clear. fishing, gathering, and hunting shaped the Middle Columbia tribes' environmental experience through successive movements across a large • In a review of environmental valuation, Parks and Gowdy (2013, p. landscape. In the spring people traveled to fishing stations; anadromous e8) call for a “truly social valuation of environmental services,” species such as chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)werehigh- based largely on deliberative approaches. ly valued. Edible roots were gathered in the spring, generally between • Where values are culturally sensitive or otherwise do not meet February and June; lomatium species such as biscuit root (Lomatium the assumptions of economic methods, Chan et al. (2012a, cous) and desert parsley (Lomatium canbyi) were particularly impor- pp. 750–752) recommend using a variety of qualitative research tant. Camas (Camassia quamash) occurred in abundance in upland prai- methods. ries, attracting large numbers through the summer months. Later, • Sherrouse et al. (2011, p. 748) use a geographic information system usually beginning in August, families traveled to mountain camps to (GIS) application to map and quantify in non-monetary terms “the pick black mountain huckleberries (Vaccinium membranaceum), a food perceived social values of ecosystem services” based on a public atti- celebrated in the early-August huckleberry feast. In the fall mountain tude and preference survey. meadows provided an ideal locale for hunting mule deer and black- • To identify the cultural ES associated with a coastal seascape and how tailed deer (Odocoileus spp.), before the return to permanent villages these might be affected by a proposed offshore wind farm, Gee and with the onset of winter (Winthrop, 1999a). Burkhard (2010, pp. 352–353) used a survey with both closed- and In the twenty-first century American Indians of the region rely on a open-ended questions, with queries such as “What do you spontane- combination of traditional foods and store-bought commodities. Yet ously associate with ‘sea’?” even if supermarkets provide much of the modern Indian diet on the • Urquhart and Acott (2014) examine the cultural ES provided by com- Warm Springs, Yakama, or Umatilla reservations, fishing, plant gather- mercial fishing for the social well-being of Cornish coastal communi- ing, and hunting remain culturally as well as nutritionally important. ties, using semi-structured interviews to illuminate place attachment, identity, and way of life. • Tengberg et al. (2012) present a pair of case studies illustrating 2.1. The Social Construction of Environmental Experience methods for assessing cultural ES. The first documents heritage values through a landscape analysis at several scales; the second provides a Environmental economics, like all extensions of neoclassical theory, social impact assessment of transboundary environmental issues, is predicated on methodological individualism: the assumption that all considering both direct factors (e.g., overfishing) and indirect factors economic phenomena can be explained as the collective outcome of (e.g., a weak regulatory framework). the decisions of individual actors (Rosenberg, 2001, p. 180). In an envi- • To assess the values of intangible ES for two exurban landscapes, Vejre ronmental context this implies a bifurcated rather than coupled model et al. (2010) used three methods: (1) evaluating the key qualities of of human/natural systems: on one side a host of autonomous individ- each area for land use planning (e.g., coastal access); (2) quantifying uals driven by unexplained tastes and values; on the other a universe recreational use; and (3) estimating the opportunity costs of main- of environmental outcomes from which each individual will assemble taining particular areas as open space, using a variety of economic a package that maximizes his or her satisfaction. Yet in real life individ- techniques such as hedonic analysis. uals are neither autonomous nor wholly selfish. They participate in social systems–villages, tribes, communities, churches, associations, These examples demonstrate that many non-economic techniques corporations–that shape their lives and inform their values. Environ- are now used to characterize cultural ES, applying well-established mental perceptions and values are not simply exogenous, uninterpret- tools of ethnography, surveys, social impact assessment, regional plan- able facts, but become intelligible in light of a community's ecological ning, spatial analysis, and collaborative process. Yet it is not clear how conditions and constraints, collective history, and way of life. invoking the ES label has altered–much less enhanced–these analyses. From an American Indian perspective environmental knowledge is Despite a burgeoning literature, the study of cultural ES has no coherent multifaceted, encompassing both the qualities of a place and the associ- basis in theory, but is instead defined largely in contrast to the methods ations that it holds for individuals, families, and communities, combin- of environmental economics. Absent such a foundation, it is problematic ing natural history with social history. One Yakama man remembered to compare the results of one analysis of cultural ES with another, to root gathering in the spring: build a body of shared findings from accumulated research, or to distin- My mother used to say when they had horses … they used to move guish valid from invalid (or even better from worse) accounts of cultural to [an upland site]1 at the early times [of the year] … May and June, ES. but up there it would be more or less just turning the spring weather Asking why many (not all) ‘cultural services’ have been poorly ac- … the roots of different kinds just beginning to ripen in this area. But commodated within an ecosystem services framework can lead to a there's the springs there and there's water and there was abundance more complete theory of environmental value. To answer this question of feed for horses, and they stayed there until such time that they I describe several aspects of American Indian environmental values, would move down into the … River area [a Columbia tributary] to drawn from the dam and pipeline projects mentioned above. I conclude dig other kinds of roots. that such values are not compatible with an ecosystem services frame- [Meninick and Winthrop, 1995] work where: (a) environmental experience is socially constructed; (b) environmental knowledge has a symbolic dimension; and A woman elder recalled trading from a settlement at the mouth of (c) environmental value is multidimensional. Since economics currently the White Salmon River: offers the only theoretically articulated perspective within the ES framework, the suggestions for an alternative approach are drawn in contrast to economic methods and assumptions. 1 Geographic references are omitted to protect culturally sensitive information. R.H. Winthrop / Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214 211

We didn't fish by no nets or no boats … my dad speared our fish. Him of species. It was the last species that came up, the fall fish is the white and a bunch of brothers went out and they speared the fish and we salmon” (Meninick and Winthrop, 1995). In this way the White Salmon would have strings and ropes of fish in the river to dry. We had three River and its surrounding country are not only linked with a particular dry sheds down there in [the settlement] and when my mother and species and season, but distinguished from other places known for my sisters sliced those fish and when … they filled those sheds we other key species, sought at other times of the year. traded these fish to other people that came in. Ritual offers another important means for experiencing the symbolic [Meninick and Winthrop, 1995] dimensions of environmental knowledge. Many periodic events in both past and contemporary Indian life are ritually marked by invoking pow- As the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan wrote, “What begins as undifferentiat- erful environmental symbols. Such symbols become meaningful and ef- ed space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with fective by associating tangible properties of the biophysical world with value” (Tuan, 1977, p. 6). Places and landscapes acquire social signifi- important ideas and values, linking sensory and ideological aspects of cance as they are experienced and linked with human purposes. Surely environmental experience (Turner, 1967, p. 28). the earliest and in a sense still the most fundamental way of expressing Among native communities of this relatively arid region, pure water environmental value is through narratives: linking attributes of places can be a “medicine.” Water may be collected for the sick or elderly from and landscapes with actions known through legend, history, or personal particular streams at particular elevations within a mountain landscape, memory (Satterfield and Slovic, 2004). Indian narratives of social life– because in such places it is believed to have healing properties. At the households fishing and trading along the White Salmon River, for exam- same time, water has a cultural value generally, and as such is a symbol ple–reaffirm a shared identity and transmit a shared tradition. linking all American Indian communities of the region. Traditional meals in mid-Columbia Indian communities still begin with a sip of 2.2. The Symbolic Character of Environmental Knowledge water and an exclamation of thanks: čuuš (“water!”). In the hierarchy of native environmental values on the Columbia Plateau, water is “pri- Information regarding markets is fundamental to economic theory, mordial and ultimate” (Schuster, 1975, p. 436). allowing each actor to make a rational allocation of scarce means in Across the region several “first foods” rituals celebrate the beginning choosing among alternative ends. Whether such information is perfect of root gathering in February, salmon runs in later spring, and berry or imperfect, economics and thus the ES framework remain Cartesian gathering in August (Schuster, 1975, p. 432). The annual root feast at in outlook, assuming “the clear and distinct idea as the single unit of the Yakama longhouse at White Swan, Washington opens by naming all knowledge” (Grene, 1968, p. 19). Here knowledge can always be all the culturally important foods. “The bell is rung and each food is expressed through explicit propositions: George prefers oranges to ap- named in order, first by the ritual leader and then in unison by the ples; in Colorado the average passive use value of wilderness is $13.92 worshipers.” The sequence of naming and tasting begins with water, per household. followed by salmon, venison, wild celery (Lomatium nudicaule), bitter Yet the universe of cultural knowledge is far larger than the world of root (Lewisia rediviva), and several other key plant foods, including information. Every tradition involves knowledge that is largely tacit and Indian carrot (Perideridia gairdneri), biscuit root, and huckleberries contextual (Polanyi, 1958; Scott, 1998, chap. 9). It entails both “knowl- (Schuster, 1975, pp. 435–436). For American Indian people of the Mid- edge of” and “knowledge how” (Winthrop, 2002, pp. 170–172): the me- dle Columbia region staple foods such as roots, salmon, and berries dicinal properties of water gathered in a particular mountain stream, formed only the most prominent elements within an integrated web how to conduct oneself to be an effective dipnet fisherman or Wáashat of resources, physical and spiritual, reflecting an ethic of “holistic con- dancer. Such knowledge cannot be taught or learned in the abstract, but servation” (Stoffle and Evans, 1990, pp. 91–92). rather must be expressed, transmitted, and understood by participating in a way of life (Connerton, 1989). However these contrasting modes of 2.3. The Multidimensionality of Environmental Value knowledge are characterized—explicit/tacit or semantic/symbolic (Sperber, 1975, p. 113), both are involved in the creation of environ- The ES framework assumes that environmental value is based on mental value. utilitarian benefit. This perspective is not consistent with an American The narratives that preserved such experiences, generation after Indian understanding of the human place in nature. For Indian commu- generation, endowed salmon and other foods with complex symbolic nities of the Columbia Plateau, both past and present, environmental associations. The key symbols of this cultural landscape are typically value is multidimensional, reflecting cultural schemata (Casson, 1983) dual in character: general and regional on the one hand, particular for rightly experiencing, honoring, conserving, and appropriating the and local on the other, linking culturally salient categories such as physical and biological manifestations of particular places and land- water or salmon with specific places, qualities, and events. For Indian scapes. Knowledge of particular environments is gained through experi- peoples of the Columbia Plateau, salmon remains one of the most cul- ence, which may include interaction with personified spirits or forces. turally valued foods, referred to generically as núsux̣.2 At the same The goal is competence, appreciation, and wisdom, rather than the time, particular localities may be identified with specific runs of salmon, abstract, theoretical knowledge of the environmental sciences or the or- often interpreted through myths that explain the origins of that fishery. dered preferences of economics (Winthrop, 1994, p. 28). This multifac- Thus the White Salmon River in southern Washington is named for eted cultural perspective is demonstrated by the responses to a project salmon having a characteristic white flesh. The Sahaptin term Mɨt'úla proposed in the middle Columbia region: an interstate natural gas pipe- refers both to the dog or chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and to line which crossed fields of edible roots. I served as a consultant retained late-stage salmon in general, which turn white before spawning to document the tribe's concerns and seek culturally acceptable (Hunn and Selam, 1990, p. 151). The surrounding area was named solutions. accordingly mɨt'úla-aaš, place of the white salmon. This association is In these fields many tribal members collected desert parsley, biscuit given cultural emphasis through a creation myth, in which Coyote creator root, bitter root, and Indian carrot for ceremonial uses, such as the and culture bearer made the White Salmon River a fishing place for the weekly Wáashat longhouse services that are the central expression of Klickitat people (Boxberger and Robbins, 1994,p.1:13;Lane and Lane the Seven Drum religion (Hunn, 1996, p. 142). Through interviews Associates and Nash, 1981, p. 46). One man commented: “Mɨt'úla-aaš and site visits, the study inventoried contemporary native use of plants means the white salmon, the fall salmon turns white. . . . there's a variety and other culturally significant resources along some 170 miles of pipeline right-of-way. On this basis sections of the right-of-way were classi-

2 ﬁ Biological nomenclature and the transliteration of Sahaptin terms follow Hunn and ed as having low, medium, or high cultural sensitivity. The pipeline Selam (1990). company agreed to mitigate effects to plants in all high-sensitivity areas. 212 R.H. Winthrop / Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214

Mitigation techniques, however, had to be adapted to cultural con- American Indian communities, given the sometimes romanticized no- straints. Monetary compensation was so obviously unacceptable that tions of indigenous peoples as inherently “exemplary conservationists” the idea was not even suggested. Proposals by the company to arrange (Smith and Wishnie, 2000,493;seealsoKrech, 2005). additional gathering rights on private land, to transplant roots from Stewardship represents one set of solutions for the institutional de- other areas, or to prepare tissue cultures of plants from the impact sign of effective environmental management, emphasizing a particular areas–raising these in a nursery and replanting after construction– type of motivational structure, in contrast to market-based and regula- were all rejected. One elder commented: “Don't reseed—that's for tory approaches (Vatn, 2005, pp. 425–431). Stewardship is a deontolog- God.” Tribal elders insisted that each area's roots have distinct spiritual ical concept: it is based on moral duties rather than outcomes or qualities. Thus a Western botanical perspective, which for most pur- benefits (Barrett, 1996, p. 12), belonging to a different conceptual poses considers each plant species as a single biological entity, proved realm altogether from that of ecosystem services. Yet both offer poten- incompatible with the tribal viewpoint, which takes a given plant spe- tial solutions to the challenge of promoting more sustainable use of cies together with its immediate environment to constitute one cultur- lands and resources. The ecosystem services paradigm does so by pro- ally meaningful complex. viding more comprehensive information on the costs and benefits of en- Ultimately, negotiations with tribal elders and project staff identified vironmental change to inform managerial decision-making. The a variety of techniques compatible with quite specific cultural con- stewardship paradigm does so by illuminating the internalized motiva- straints–for example, removing and protecting root-bearing topsoils tions and understandings that shape citizens' actions. What those un- and replacing them in their original areas after construction–to mitigate derstandings and motivations may be, how they are internalized and the effects of the project (Winthrop, 1999b). The roots represented transmitted, and the extent to which they shape environmental out- “protected values” (Baron and Spranca, 2005), environmental goods comes—these are important questions for a research agenda. for which–at least for these Indian communities–there were no accept- The examples from native communities of the Pacific Northwest able substitutes, monetary or otherwise. The notion of ES, flowing “like suggest a particular form of engagement between social groups and interest or dividends” from the edible roots of the Columbia Plateau, is their environment, termed here culturally reflexive stewardship (CRS). simply inadequate to explain the cultural constraints imposed on pro- While stewardship may reflect individual voluntary actions (Segerson, ject mitigation measures or to characterize the complexity of the 2013), the pattern shown in the American Indian examples has a cultur- human/nature relationship at work here. al foundation: it involves an ethos and world-view illuminating how humans should act as part of nature, often expressed through symbols 3. Culturally Reflexive Stewardship and practices (Geertz, 1973). This pattern is also reflexive in that the acts of stewardship affirm a social identity and transmit critical cultural The stock and flow model of ecosystem services assumes a unidirec- knowledge and motivations. Thus CRS entails actions to promote the tional relationship with nature: the environment provides; we con- appropriate and sustainable use of nature that are motivated in part sume. The world of environmental goods is vast, but nothing is unique by socially transmitted understandings and values, expressed through or irreplaceable. I may value wilderness, or a particular wilderness, but symbols and practices that affirm a social identity and transmit cultural if that pristine landscape were altered by oil rigs or hotels there would knowledge. be some other good, or at least some compensation, that will leave me The narratives of fishing camps or upland root gathering, shared in whole. That is the logic of tradeoffs underlying environmental values families and villages, reaffirm the value of a way of life based on a par- defined in terms of willingness to accept or willingness to pay.Anonymity, ticular set of places and landscapes. The ritually framed thanks for alienability, and fungibility are key attributes of this world-view, partic- water, roots, salmon, and other key foods express understandings and ularly as elaborated through neoclassical economic analysis (Gowdy, values concerning the appropriate use, reverence, and conservation of 1997, pp. 27–28; Pritchard et al., 2000, p. 38). In addition, the overall nature and its resources. Conversely, tribal objections to the lack of ac- goal of using an ES framework is to provide a path to better decisions: ceptable mitigation for edible roots in the path of a natural gas pipeline “The main point of understanding and valuing natural capital and eco- delineate violations of cultural principles shaping the appropriate and system services is improving natural resource decisions” (Daily et al., sustainable use of nature. Like better known American Indian interven- 2011, p. 5). tions to oppose dam construction, ski bowl development, and other In contrast, the idea of stewardship–“the careful and responsible landscape-altering projects (Winthrop, 2002, pp. 166–167), negotiation management of something entrusted to one's care” (Barrett, 1996, over the gas pipeline involved practical actions to advance stewardship p. 11) –provides a starting point for identifying elements of an alterna- that at the same time affirmed a distinctive social identify. tive model of culturally-grounded environmental values. Rather than the assumption of anonymity in a stock-flow model, under a steward- 4. Conclusions ship ethic landscapes are shaped and conserved by the engagement of particular social groups, usually reflecting residence and use over multi- The ES paradigm offers a valuable approach for characterizing the ple generations. Culturally, if not legally, lands are not readily alienable: human gains and losses entailed in proposed environmental change. long-term responsibility for a place or landscape is a virtue. Finally, such Nonetheless, the ES viewpoint alone is not sufficient to illuminate the places and landscapes are not fungible, but have unique significance for full range of social–ecological interactions. particular families or communities. The broad objective of the ES framework is to provide a more com- While the concept of stewardship is used in various ways in environ- plete assessment of tradeoffs, considering the environmental costs and mental science and policy (e.g., Chapin et al., 2009), here “stewardship” benefits associated with a set of actions, to facilitate choosing the most refers specifically to actions intended to promote the appropriate and efficient outcome. Yet the possibility of identifying an efficient outcome sustainable use of nature that are motivated in large part by internalized is directly related to the simplicity of the benefits to be modeled, where understandings and values. In this usage, appropriate and sustainable are simplicity is characterized by private goods having direct use values context-specific: they refer to a conceptualized relationship with nature shaped by an individual rationality, and complexity by public goods hav- that is socially transmitted. Appropriate and sustainable stewardship ing non-use or intrinsic values shaped by a social logic (Gatzweiler and may mean different things to American Indians in Oregon, cattle Volkmann, 2007, 13; see also Vatn, 2005,419–422). In these terms the ranchers in Montana, and Amish farmers in Pennsylvania. Whether a American Indian examples related here, as well as many of the situa- particular form of stewardship actually promotes objectively-defined tions examined in the literature on cultural ES, manifest complexity conservation outcomes is therefore a matter for investigation. That and require some other approach to characterize the motives and com- point needs emphasis, particularly when citing examples from mitments involved. R.H. Winthrop / Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214 213

Rather than framing the experience of nature as a form of consump- Chapin, F.S.I., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., 2009. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: fi Resilience-based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World. Springer, tion, subject to trade-offs between bene ts and costs, the concept of cul- New York. turally reflexive stewardship (CRS) offers one route to explore more Chibnik, M., 2011. Anthropology, Economics, and Choice. University of Texas Press, complex motives for conservation. Particularly where socially patterned Austin. Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and symbolically powerful experiences of places and landscapes are in- [England]; New York. volved, the American Indian examples suggest how environmental Daily, G.C., Kareiva, P.M., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T.H., Tallis, H., 2011. Mainstreaming natural values can combine a detailed and nuanced knowledge of local ecolog- capital into decisions. In: Kareiva, Peter M., et al. (Eds.), Natural Capital: Theory & ical conditions with a powerful ethos for the conservation of nature. Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford [England]; New York, pp. 3–14. To explore the analytic implications of the CRS model, an agenda for De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimen- future research could explore the following questions: sions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Eco- nomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. – • Earthscan, London; Washington, DC, pp. 9 40. Is the CRS model applicable beyond small-scale, subsistence-based Gatzweiler, F.W., Volkmann, J., 2007. Beyond economic efficiency in biodiversity conser- communities? vation. Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Discussion Paper • How effective is CRS in promoting conservation, and under which cir- No. 7704. Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics (http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/huiain/7704.html). cumstances? Gee, K., Burkhard, B., 2010. Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind • What factors serve to maintain structures of CRS? farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecol. Complex. 7, 349–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.02.008. Geertz, C., 1973. Ethos, world view, and the analysis of sacred symbols. The Interpretation A comparative analysis of environmental stewardship at several of Cultures. Basic Books, New York, pp. 126–141. scales and in multiple societies could provide insights for enriching a Glowacka, M., Washburn, D., Richland, J., 2009. Nuvatukya'ovi, San Francisco Peaks: theory of environmental value while broadening our strategies for ad- balancing western economies with Native American spiritualities. Curr. Anthropol. 50, 547–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/599069. dressing the world's most intractable ecological challenges. Gowdy, J.M., 1997. The value of biodiversity: markets, society, and ecosystems. Land Econ. 73, 25–41. Acknowledgments Grene, M., 1968. Tacit knowing and the pre-reflective cogito. In: Langford, T.A., Poteat, W.H. (Eds.), Intellect and Hope: Essays in the Thought of Michael Polanyi. Duke Uni- versity Press, Durham, NC. I wish to acknowledge the insights gained from many American Gudeman, S., 2001. The Anthropology of Economy: Community, Market, and Culture. Indian colleagues on the cultural and spiritual value of place and envi- Blackwell, Malden, Mass. ronment. Thanks to David Brookshire, Anne Chambers, and two anony- Hunn, E.S., 1996. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. In: Davis, M.B. (Ed.), Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, mous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. I have New York, pp. 140–142. benefited from discussions on the challenges of environmental valua- Hunn, E.S., Selam, J., 1990. Nch'i-wána, “The Big River”: Mid-Columbia Indians and Their tion with Ken Bagstad, Frank Casey, Lynne Koontz, Joel Larson, John Land. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kant, S., Lee, S., 2004. A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an anal- Loomis, Rebecca Moore, Darius Semmens, Carl Shapiro, Josh Sidon, Bill ysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario. Economics of Sustainable For- Stevens, Brian Voigt, and Sissel Waage. Thanks also to Lydia Olander est Management, For. Policy Econ. 6, 215–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol. and Dean Urban, organizers of a workshop at the National Socio- 2004.03.005. Krech, S.I., 2005. Reflections on conservation, sustainability, and environmentalism in in- Environmental Synthesis Center, the National Science Foundation digenous North America. Am. Anthropol. 107, 78–86. (which funded the workshop), and the other participants for a stimulat- Kumar, P. (Ed.), 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Eco- ing discussion of the social dimensions of ecosystem services. nomic Foundations. Earthscan, London; Washington, DC. Lane and Lane Associates, Nash, D., 1981. The White Salmon Indian Fisheries and Condit Dam. Prepared for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon. References Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D., Dash, P., 2013. Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 11, 343–358. http:// Acheson, K., Maule, C.J., 2001. Much Ado About Culture: North American Trade Disputes. dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H., Ostrom, Adamowicz, W., Beckley, T., Macdonald, D.H., Just, L., Luckert, M., Murray, E., Phillips, W., E., Pell, A.N., Lubchenco, J., Taylor, W.W., Ouyang, Z., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., 1998. In search of forest resource values of indigenous peoples: are nonmarket valu- Provencher, W., 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio J. Hum. Environ. ation techniques applicable? Soc. Nat. Resour. 11, 51–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 36, 639–649. 08941929809381061. Macmillan, L., 2012. Arizona Ski Resort's Sewage Plan Creates Uproar. N. Y. Times 9-26- Alcamo, J., Bennett, E.M., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program, 2003. Ecosystems 2012. and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Meninick, J., Winthrop, R., 1995. Talking with Anglos: cultural barriers to communicating Andersen, M.D., Kerr, G.N., Lambert, S.J., 2012. Cultural differences in environmental val- an Indian perspective on environmental impacts. Presented at the Society for Applied uation. Presented at the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Anthropology Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM. Conference (http://hdl.handle.net/10182/5123). Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., 2013. A comparative assessment of blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1219–1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009. decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Norton, B., Costanza, R., Bishop, R.C., 1998. The evolution of preferences: why ‘sovereign’ Serv. 5, 27–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004. preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecol. Econ. Baron, J., Spranca, M., 2005. Protected values. In: Kalof, L., Satterfield, T. (Eds.), 24, 193–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00143-2. The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values. Earthscan, London & Sterling, VA, Norton, B.G., Noonan, D., 2007. Ecology and valuation: big changes needed. Ecol. Econ. 63, pp. 246–272. 664–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.013. Barrett, C.B., 1996. Fairness, stewardship and sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 19, Parks, S., Gowdy, J., 2013. What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review 11–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00047-X. essay. Ecosyst. Serv. 3, e1–e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.002. Boxberger, D.L., Robbins, L., 1994. An Archival and Oral History Inventory of the White Polanyi, M., 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. University of Salmon and Klickitat Rivers. Western Washington University, Bellingham, Wash. Chicago Press, Chicago. Brondizio, E.S., Gatzweiler, F.W., Zografos, C., Kumar, M., 2010. The socio-cultural context Pritchard, L.J., Folke, C., Gunderson, L., 2000. Valuation of ecosystem services in institu- of ecosystem and biodiversity valuation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosys- tional context. Ecosystems 3, 36–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100210000008. tems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London; Reid, W.V.C., et al., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: General Synthesis: A Report Washington, DC, pp. 149–181. of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Casson, R.W., 1983. Schemata in cognitive anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 12, Rolfe, J., Windle, J., 2003. Valuing the protection of aboriginal cultural heritage sites. Econ. 429–462. Rec. 79, S85–S95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.00094. Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Rosenberg, A., 2001. The metaphysics of economics. In: Mäki, U. (Ed.), The Economic Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cam- Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012a. Where are cultural and so- bridge. New York, pp. 174–188. cial in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62, Sagoff, M., 2004. Price, Principle, and the Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cam- 744–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7. bridge & New York. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better Sahlins, M., 1999. What is anthropological enlightenment? Some lessons of the twentieth address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18. http://dx.doi.org/10. century. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28, i–xxiii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro. 1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011. 28.1.0. 214 R.H. Winthrop / Ecological Economics 108 (2014) 208–214

Satterfield, T., Slovic, S., 2004. What's Nature Worth?: Narrative Expressions of Environ- Tuan, Y., 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota mental Values. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Press, Minneapolis. Scarlett, L., Boyd, J., 2011. Ecosystem Services: Quantification, Policy Applications, Turner, V.W., 1967. Symbols in Ndembu ritual. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu and Current Federal Capabilities (RFF DP 11–13). Resources for the Future, (http:// Ritual. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 19–47. www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-11-13.pdf). Übelacker, M.L., Wilson, J.S., 1984. Time Ball: A Story of the Yakima people and the Land: A Schuster, H.H., 1975. Yakima Indian Traditionalism: A Study in Continuity and Change, Cultural Resource Overview. Yakima Nation, Yakima, WA. (Ph.D. dissertation) University of Washington, Seattle. Urquhart, J., Acott, T., 2014. A sense of place in cultural ecosystem services: the case of Scott, J.C., 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condi- Cornish fishing communities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ tion Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven. 08941920.2013.820811. Segerson, K., 2013. Voluntary approaches to environmental protection and resource man- Vatn, A., 2005. Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. agement. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 5, 161–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev- Vejre, H., Jensen, F.S., Thorsen, B.J., 2010. Demonstrating the importance of intangible eco- resource-091912-151945. system services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecol. Complex. 7, 338–348. http://dx.doi. Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., 2011. A GIS application for assessing, map- org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005. ping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 31, Venn, T.J., Quiggin, J., 2007. Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in re- 748–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002. source assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Smith, E.A., Wishnie, M., 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Ecol. Econ. 61, 334–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.003. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29, 493–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1. Winthrop, R.H., 1990. Persistent peoples: mechanisms of cultural survival in southern Or- 493. egon and northwestern California. In: Hannon, N., Olmo, R.K. (Eds.), Living With The Sperber, D., 1975. Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Land: The Indians of Southwest Oregon (Symposium Proceedings). Southern Oregon New York. Historical Society, Medford, Oregon. Stoffle, R., Evans, M., 1990. Holistic conservation and cultural triage: American Indian per- Winthrop, R.H., 1994. Conflicting perceptions: tribal and regulatory views of nature, risk, spectives on cultural resources. Hum. Organ. 49, 91–99. and change. Pract. Anthropol. 16, 25–28. Stoffle, R.W., Van Vlack, K.A., Johnson, H.Z., Dukes, P.T., De Sola, S.C., Simmons, K.L., 2011. Winthrop, R.H., 1999a. Resource stewardship by Middle Columbia Tribes of the American Tribally Approved American Indian Ethnographic Analysis of the Proposed Amargosa Pacific Northwest. In: Posey, D. (Ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. In- Valley Solar Energy Zone. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of termediate Technology, London, pp. 79–82. Arizona, (http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/ethnographic/EthnographicAnalysis_ Winthrop, R.H., 1999b. Resolving culturally-grounded conflict in environmental change. AmargosaValley.pdf). Presented at the International Association for Conflict Management Annual Meeting, Suranovic, S., Winthrop, R., 2014. Trade liberalization and culture. Glob. Econ. J. 14, 57–78. Eugene, OR. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/gej-2013-0047. Winthrop, R.H., 2002. Defining a right to culture, and some alternatives. Cult. Dyn. 14, Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., Wetterberg, O., 2012. Cultural 161–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09274002014002632. ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2, 14–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006. Throsby, C.D., 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York.