ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
The generations of cultural ecosystem services research.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The generations of cultural ecosystem services research.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the cultural dimensions of human-nature relationships and integrating them into decision-making is a central goal of conservation social science. One prominent avenue for this work is the characterization and analysis of cultural ecosystem services (CES) (i.e., nonmaterial aspects of the benefits derived from human-nature relationships). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment introduced the term CES in 2005, and the ensuing decades have seen a blossoming of work on this topic-including extensive critique and the development of multiple closely related concepts. Because the need to recognize CESs (by whatever name) is not going away, we reflected on where CES research has been, where it is now, and where it might go. We refer to the current field as second-generation CES: a suite of approaches and innovations (biocultural indicators, relational values, and nonmaterial nature's contributions to people) that enhance, reject, or modify some of the premises of first-generation CES. These new approaches can be understood as a pluralistic menu of options to capture the essence of what CES aimed to, or failed to fully, represent. Nonmaterial factors (i.e., CES and conceptual offspring of CES) can affect conservation decision-making via 4 main channels: evaluation or assessment, elucidation of trade-offs, epistemic and social recognition, and, in some cases, the reclassification of what nature itself is.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.