Determinación del Nivel del Objetivo de Inflación de Largo Plazo

Over half (57%, n=67) of the non-economically focused 117 papers used the term cultural values; the terms shared values or social values were each found in under a quarter and the phrase plural values occurred in only four papers (Figure 4). In all but one instance plural values were discussed in

conjunction with cultural values. Terms were often used interchangeably and frequently within the same paper. Approximately half of the papers discussed values in relation to the ecosystems of Europe and North America, with 52% (n=61) reporting studies from these regions (Figure 5).). The environments of Asia, Australasia, South America and Africa represented a third (35%, n=41) with the remaining articles discussing values with respect to more general area reference. Of those articles specifically focused on cultural values associated with a particular indigenous group, there was a broad geographical spread including the Americas, Australasia, Asia and Europe.

Figure 4. Number of studies using search term cultural, shared, social or plural values. Where a study used more than one value term, each term was separately included (ntotal=127).

Figure 5. Number of studies undertaken in or using case study exemplars from different continents or general geographic grouping. Where a study investigated more than one geographical location, each location was separately included (ntotal=105)

Table 1 provides specific examples of the ways in which the terms cultural, social and shared values were used within the literature. In most papers no specific definition was provided; rather, the authors outlined what the terms they use included or how the type of value manifested in a given context. Throughout the literature, it was suggested that quantification of these values is

73

25 25

4

Cultural values Shared values Social values Plural values

33 22 14 9 ₈ 6 8 4 1 17

36

problematic and that it is difficult to map them onto the physical landscape as well as across different communities.

Social and cultural values were described in similar ways. Within the discussion of cultural values, Klain & Chan (2012) outlined that these include sense of place and spiritual value. Chan et al. (2012) argued that the terms ‘services’, ‘benefits’ and ‘values’ were being conflated within the literature and within debates concerning values, valuation and the natural environment and suggested that while this remains the case these values will continue to be poorly represented in decision-making. The labels of ‘intangible’ and ‘imagined’ values were sometimes used to denote cultural values (Kanoswki & Williams, 2009). Robinson et al. (2012) in their discussion of cultural values made the distinction between ‘held values’ – described as fundamental, universal, principles and ideals – and ‘assigned values’, ones that are associated with an object, and/or were place- or culturally-based; this distinction, first made by Rokeach (1973), has resonance with the concepts of transcendental and contextual that were put forward in Section 1 and will be discussed in more detail in Section 3 of this report.

Social values were also not specifically defined, although some authors outlined what they included, for example aesthetic, recreation, or therapeutic values (Sherrouse et al. 2011). For Pike et al. (2011), social values were a contested concept; their conceptualisation included aesthetic and recreation values, similar to Sherrouse et al. (2011). As with cultural values the label intangible – as distinct from tangible – was used in relation to social values. Cultural values were also related to institutions, where they were seen as more problematic. Rees (2003, 2010) discussed cultural values in relation to the prevailing growth-oriented global development paradigm, noting that to achieve sustainability the world community must write a new cultural narrative designed for living on a finite planet.

Shared values related to issues of ethics and fairness, shared responsibility and shared meanings. Hoekveld & Needham (2012) highlighted this in terms of the need for development of an ethic for spatial planners based on shared values of the profession, while Cantrill & Senecah (2001)

emphasised the role that a shared sense of ‘selves-in-place’ could play in the process of attending to or embracing conservation orientated practices. The term plural values, when explicitly stated, was used as a concept to denote when multiple, potentially incommensurable, dimensions of values were identified such as aesthetic, heritage, moral, social value, etc. For example, Trainor (2006) identified 10 realms of value that included aesthetic, cultural and social. In their discussion of sustainable development planning, Barbanente & Khakee (2003) highlighted the plurality of values underlying decision-making surrounding the formation of future-focused policies. This same multiplicity of values was highlighted with regard to ideological drivers of biodiversity conservation initiatives, including intrinsic value of nature, traditional values of indigenous peoples, equity within and across generations, and economic well-being (Robinson, 2011). While the term plural value was not explicitly used in many of the papers, the concept of a plurality of values cuts across the

literature as authors identified in their research a wide range of values related to nature, e.g. spiritual, recreational, aesthetic, place-based values. Thus, when looking at how the terms shared, cultural, social and plural values were conceptualised, it seems that, overall, they were not always specifically defined; rather, they were identified by the categories within them. These values can be contested and there also seemed to be some overlap in what the terms covered and included.

Table 1 and the wider non-economic literature reviewed through the REA process highlight links to the theoretical framework of shared values types detailed in Section 3. For example, Klain & Chan (2012) suggested that CES such as sense of place, stewardship obligations and spiritual value of nature are often linked to fundamental transcendental values about moral concerns that can motivate people to protect and restore ecosystems (see Section 2.4.1 for a more detailed review of

37

this literature). The concepts of shared responsibility, fairness and justice as outlined by Evans et al.

(2008) and Arlinghaus (2006) relate to three of the value types in the conceptual typology, i.e. other- regarding values and communal values as well as transcendental values. Pike et al. (2010, 2011) argued that the identification of social values necessitated community participation in order to effectively uncover the existent communal values, ideas akin to the idea of communal, group and deliberated values articulated in theoretical framework. Anthony et al.’s (2009) discussion of social values highlighted a category of tacit values (such as sense of place, informal local traditions and spiritual appreciation) that are difficult to articulate. To the extent that these tacit values are collectively held (cf. Cantrill & Senecah, 2001), these may relate to contextual communal and cultural values within the conceptual typology defined in more detail in Section 3.

38

Table 1. Specific examples of different values as discussed in the reviewed non-economically focused literature.

Value

term Described as… Observations made…

Manifestation

through… Contribute to…

Links to theoretical framework – Types of

shared values

Example literature Cultural Sense of place

Stewardship obligation Recreational Aesthetics Education/scientific Cultural/historical Spiritual, sacredness To live in a place Re-inhabiting Insideness

Frequently discussed as/in conjunction with ES Moral dimension

Difficult to map across different communities Place names Performing arts Oral traditions Rituals/festivals Knowledge Traditional craftsmanship Place-based identity Spiritual connection to land Other-regarding values Cultural or societal values Transcendental values

Klain & Chan, 2012 Kanowski & Williams, 2009 Daniel et al. 2012 Chiesura & de Groot, 2003 Kato, 2006 Social Recreational Aesthetic Biodiversity Future generations Life sustaining Therapeutic Contested concept

Some more easily quantified Some more influential than others (Tacit – more influential because they ‘derive from and shape individual experiences & beliefs’)

Differing degrees of influences on experience, belief, behaviour Perceptions are filtered through social values (e.g. different perceptions of ‘rural’ influence social value of land protection)

Tourism Real estate Recreational fishing Research studies Landscape painting Performing arts Sense of place Childhood play & discovery Civic engagement in decision- making Cultural or societal values Group values Pike et al. 2010, 2011 Anthony et al. 2009 Sherrouse et al. 2011 Dirksmeier, 2008

39 Value

term Described as… Observations made…

Manifestation

through… Contribute to…

Links to theoretical framework – Types of shared values Example literature Shared Fairness Care Justice

Shared senses of ‘selves in place’ Nature’s creativity of processes provides human opportunities for expressing universal values Resilience

Shared responsibility Normative principles for a profession

Core beliefs providing

perspectives on severity, causes of habitat degradation

Ethical principles needed for professions that modify the landscape (e.g. planning) These are or need to be across multiple stakeholders

Distinction between core beliefs & preferences; preferences considered secondary beliefs

Set of principles or professional standards Shared vision across multiple groups Civic engagement Shared values may be recognised through deliberative approaches Professional ethics standards Collective sense of ownership Increased feelings of responsibility Increased participation & engagement Transcendental values Other-regarding values Value to society Arlinghaus, 2006 Norton, 2000 Hoekveld & Needham, 2012 Cantrill & Senecah, 2001 Evans et al. 2008

Lipsky & Ryan, 2011

40