abstract - vrije universiteit amsterdam...abstract the concept of value reflected in ecosystem...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
“Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth
are never alone or weary of life. Whatever the vexations or concerns of their personal lives,
their thoughts can find paths that lead to inner contentment and to renewed excitement in
living. Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will
endure as long as life lasts”. – Rachel Carson, The Sense of Wonder
Abstract
The concept of value reflected in ecosystem valuation frameworks is both diverse and hotly
debated. How value is defined within a given approach will have drastic effects on the kinds of
values that can be explored through the valuation process. Typically, instrumental or intrinsic
conceptions of value are privileged within an ecosystem services (ESS) approach to ecosystem
valuation. However, there is growing discourse in academic literature on how more socio-
ecological forms of value are elicited through the valuation process in accordance with the
‘Nature’s Contribution to People’ approach. Relational values are one such form of value
which are yet to be operationalised, and include values that stem from emotional,
psychological and ethical relationships that form between humans and ecosystems. While
currently overlooked, they are argued to play a powerful role in determining use preferences
and overall value perceptions of ecosystems. This study then focuses on three questions: what
different forms of value are ascribed to ecosystems, what factors mediate how these values are
experienced, and importantly how can they be elicited through valuation processes? Particular
focus is given to how more novel concepts of relational values can be elicited and complement
existing understandings of value within valuation processes. This was done by focusing on the
values revealed to be held by Swedish primary school students (aged 10-12) towards forest
ecosystems. Findings revealed that students displayed complex notions of value which
encompassed intrinsic, instrumental and relational values alike. Eliciting all three forms of
value required a mixed method approach encompassing quantitative and qualitative data and
methodologies. This study therefore highlights the importance of broader conceptions of value
within valuation processes, as well as the mixed method approaches required to elicit them.
3
Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 2
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 5
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Research question ................................................................................................................... 8
2. Theory and Background ......................................................................................................... 10
2.1 The ecosystem services framework and value - a brief history ............................................ 10
2.2 Service provision and value - Ecosystem Services vs Nature’s Contribution to People ...... 12
2.3 Service dynamics – where, when and for whom? ................................................................. 13
2.3.1 Temporal and contextual linkages – the case of intergenerational equity ........................ 14
2.3.2 The Swedish context ......................................................................................................... 15
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Student Survey ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.1.1 Data Selection and Survey Design ....................................................................................... 16
3.1.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.3 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Focus groups ......................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 Data Selection and Collection ....................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 23
4. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Cluster Analysis .................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Textual content analysis ........................................................................................................ 25
4.2.1 Value comparison between largest clusters .................................................................. 26
4.3 Focus groups ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.3.1 Activity 1 – drawing and discussion ............................................................................. 27
4.3.2 Activity 2 ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.3 Reflections on involvement in Love the Forest project ................................................ 32
5. Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 33
5.1. Response to Research Questions ........................................................................................... 33
5.1.1 Research Question 1A ................................................................................................... 33
5.1.2 Research Question 1B ................................................................................................... 36
5.1.3 Research Question 1C ................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Broader practical and theoretical implications of the study .................................................. 38
5.3. Strength and limitations of study .......................................................................................... 41
5.3.1. Strengths ....................................................................................................................... 41
5.3.2. Weaknesses ................................................................................................................... 42
4
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 44
7. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 44
References ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Appendix 1 – Survey design (translation) ......................................................................................... 54
Appendix 2- Code book for content analysis .................................................................................... 56
Appendix 3 – Results table from thematic analysis (activity 2) ....................................................... 59
5
List of Figures
Figure 1 MEA 2005 Framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) .................................... 11
Figure 2 Value conceptions through Nature's Contribution to People (Pascual et al., 2017) ............... 13
Figure 3 Methodological process .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4 Map of school distribution ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5 Reconfigured cluster results ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 6 Accumulated variable frequencies .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 7 Variable comparison between largest clusters ........................................................................ 27
Figure 8 Example of visual data from School 1 .................................................................................... 29
Figure 9 Example of visual data from School 2 .................................................................................... 30
Figure 10 Accumulated forest values for Sweden from focus group data ............................................ 31
Figure 11 Spectrum of value concepts from cluster analysis ................................................................ 34
Figure 12 IPBES NCP approach to valuation (from Pascual et al., 2017) ............................................ 38
6
List of Tables
Table 1 Coding procedure for society-level questions .......................................................................... 19
Table 2 Synthesised value concepts for coding .................................................................................... 20
Table 3 Results table from thematic analysis (activity 1) ..................................................................... 28
Table 4 Code book of synthesised value indicators .............................................................................. 56
Table 5 Results table from thematic analysis (activity 2) ..................................................................... 59
7
1. Introduction
The concept of what constitutes value is hotly debated within ecosystem valuation discourse
(Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2016). Value in often understood in economic terms,
separating between so-called ‘use’ and ‘non-use’ values. ‘Use’ values are benefits derived from
the direct and indirect use of an object, here ecosystems and their associated products and
services. These values are generally material benefits, for example wood and fibres from forest
ecosystems. ‘Non-use’ values are then all other benefits which are derived from the existence
of the object, and may in the case of ecosystems extend to emotional or psychological benefits
resulting from the existence of an ecosystem for present of future generations (de Groot et al.,
2010). Through environmental valuation processes, value is often expressed in terms of the
monetary value of the services to beneficiaries. Humans are generally the beneficiary in this
transaction, giving this approach an anthropocentric focus. This monetary approach to
ecosystem valuation is justified on the basis that monetary value is easily communicated and
is compatible and usable within governmental policy-making processes (Gómez-Baggethun et
al., 2010; Costanza et al., 2014).
This conception and expression of value is nonetheless challenged on numerous fronts. First,
it must be acknowledged that this is ultimately an arbitrary choice of measure and is
underpinned by individual and collective preferences that are expressed monetarily. However,
because of the monetary result, values which are not easily expressed in this way are obscured
or ignored. This thus evokes criticism of both the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of
this approach to value. In philosophical terms, the concepts of use and non-use values are
labelled as either instrumental or intrinsic respectively. Ecosystems as the object of value are
then either framed as a means to an end (instrumental) or as providing value in of themselves
by virtue of their existence (intrinsic) (Liu, et al., 2010). This ignores the reality that value can
be expressed and received in a plurality of ways that is not captured by this taxonomy, through
for example relational or ethical dimensions (Jax et al., 2013). As such, monetary approaches
to valuation of ecosystems are criticised for their under-privileging of more psycho- and socio-
cultural conceptions of value expressed through the relationships that form between humans
and ecosystems that cannot be easily or at all expressed in monetary terms. Relational values
thus describe an area of value defined by how humans identify and interact with ecosystems
through relations, interactions and responsibilities to nature (Kumar & Kumar, 2008; Ruiz-
Frau, Krause, & Marbà, 2018). This has yet received comparatively little methodical attention
8
in how these kinds are values are elicited in the context of ecosystem valuation processes
(Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; Díaz et al., 2015).
Challenging approaches to ecosystem valuation on this level is critical, given that the way that
value is defined initially within a given study ultimately determines the kinds of values that
can be found. As such, a limited conception of value can lead to the undervaluing of ecosystems
and the way in which they impact and benefit human life. For example, valuation methods
within the ecosystem services (ESS) approach are often criticized on these grounds in giving
undue weight to the instrumental and intrinsic values described above while often ignoring
socio- and psycho-cultural approaches to valuations and the unique forms of value they may
bring (Díaz et al., 2015). This is compared with ‘newer’ approaches to environmental valuation
and concepts of value reflected through the ‘nature’s contribution to people’ (NCP) framework
(Pascual et al., 2017). The NCP framework recognises the importance and relevance of the
former notions of value, but also brings forward relational values as being key to understanding
complex socio-ecological interactions between ecosystems and humans. These are values
which are embodied and elicited by the emotional, psychological and ethical interactions
between the two. Within both frameworks, however, there is currently little work done into
how these values can be elicited methodologically through the valuation process and how they
can be meaningfully included in governance regimes.
In filling this gap, this study aims to assess how these different elements of value can be elicited
in the context of forest ecosystems. Forests are a commonly studied ecosystem type, and as
such present an interesting opportunity to build on existing work in a different value context.
Further, the demographic focus of the study was limited to primary school students (10-12
years old). This choice was made because of the special relationships young people develop
with forests and the outdoors through socialisation and play, a key focus of relational values.
The particular focus on a younger demographic also allows consideration of matters of
intergenerational equity (Stern, 2008; Frew, 2017). In this way, the concept of social
sustainability is also enlivened by giving voice to the particular experience of an otherwise
under-voiced section of society within the study of ecosystem valuation (Sarkki et al., 2017).
1.1 Research question
(Question 1) How can different forms of value (instrumental, intrinsic and relational)
be elicited in the valuation of the contribution of ecosystems to human
well-being?
9
This requires the answering of three sub-questions:
(Question 1A) What kinds of values do children derive from forest ecosystems in
particular?
(Question 1B) What factors mediate the way in which value is perceived in the case of
relational values?
(Question 1C) What methods are more appropriate for eliciting relational values, in
terms of their relative strengths and weaknesses in being able to elicit
this form of value?
10
2. Theory and Background
Within this section, the way in which value is conceptualized in the ESS and NCP frameworks
will be analysed. This will include a consideration of the different methodological approaches
to eliciting different forms of value. Important also to answering the above research questions
is a consideration of how value is mediated by different aspects of the way that value is
experienced by beneficiaries. This will conclude with a discussion of the research gap to be
filled by this research project, and its resulting contribution to knowledge.
2.1 The ecosystem services framework and value - a brief history
The ecosystem services approach is used to express the value, monetary or otherwise, of the
numerous ‘services’ the non-human world contributes to the many facets of human lives. While
the term has existed for several decades, the concept was most famously capitulated by authors
such as Daily et al (1997), Costanza et al (1997), among many others. It has been re-cast into
numerous forms, with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) model (2005) being
among its most used. The MEA defines ecosystem services as the “benefits that people obtain
from ecosystems”. These services are separated into four key categories: supporting,
provisioning, regulating and cultural (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). These may
relate to, for example, the extraction of fibre from forest resources (provisioning), absorption
of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (regulating), or even personal notions of appreciation
of aesthetic beauty or a relationship with one’s culture (cultural) (Raudsepp-Hearne, Peterson,
& Bennett, 2010). These services then correspond to specific aspects of human well-being that
they provide (Figure 1).
Here, value is created in the conferral of ‘benefits’ as a result of services. Value is defined in
terms of the aspects of human well-being it creates, enhances or protects (see Figure 1 below).
It is generally understood in economic terms, as either use or non-use values (Farber, Costanza,
& Wilson, 2002). Use values are those where benefits are conferred through either direct or
indirect use of products or materials rendered through service performance, for example food
or wood fibres (Costanza et al., 2014). Non-use values then capture all other values which
relate more to matters of human experience, psychology or spirituality. These include altruistic
or existence values for example, or the benefit of knowing that certain ecosystems exist for
future generations (de Groot et al., 2010).
11
Figure 1MEA 2005 Framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)
In other words, use and non-use values can be considered ‘instrumental’ or ‘intrinsic’ forms of
value respectively. That is, services confer use values where they are instrumental to the
creation of other benefits, such as building houses. Non-use values are then provided by
services that are recognised as being valuable for philosophical, emotional or spiritual reasons.
These are generally contained within cultural ecosystem services, for example through
aesthetic, moral or cultural values embodied within ecosystems (Kumar & Kumar, 2008). In
general, one of the dominant approaches of the ESS approach is to monetise these values. While
this is not the only approach, it often entails expressing the value of ecosystems in financial
terms (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010).
The dominance of this approach has drawn much criticism. The integration of this kind of
approach to ecosystem valuation to ecology was originally used as a way to connect
environmental sciences with policy makers. However, this new wave of synergy between
ecology and economics has led to a disproportionate influence of monetary approaches on
ecosystem valuation. In turn, this has led to the development of a select few methods of
measuring ecosystem value, many revolving around monetary values (Silvertown, 2015).
Although some would view this as over simplistic understanding of the rationale and
importance of monetary methods for ecology (Potschin et al., 2016; Schröter & van
Oudenhoven, 2016), it nonetheless serves to highlight the methodological dominance of
economic and particularly monetary approaches to valuation of ecosystems over socio-cultural
12
ones (Scholte, van Teeffelen, & Verburg, 2015; Silvertown, 2016). This is problematic as it
leads to the commodification of ecosystem services which may be counterproductive both to
longer term conservation goals as well as equity concerns over access to services (Gómez-
Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011).
2.2 Service provision and value - Ecosystem Services vs Nature’s Contribution to
People
As mentioned above, the ecosystem services approach is often criticised for privileging the
monetary evaluation of the contribution of nature to human well-being (Schröter et al., 2014;
Braat & de Groot, 2012). Here, a preference is given to more economic or financial metrics for
measuring the value of services provided, which have proven difficult for more abstract notions
of culture and benefits to psychological and spiritual well-being (Schröter et al., 2014). In other
words, the ecosystem services framework typically privileges a valuation of either the
instrumental value (the value given through its use), or an intrinsic value (a value in of itself).
There have nonetheless been efforts to address this criticism. There is a growing discussion in
the literature on the transition from the ESS approach to the NCP approach, which is intended
to give a more comprehensive understanding of ‘value’ in the relationship between humans
and ecosystems.
The NCP framework heralds a shift in the understanding of ‘value’ in relation to the
environment and human benefits derived from nature. A sharp distinction is drawn between
different forms of value, these being value in terms of principle, preferences, importance or
measure. Approaches to ecosystem services generally present value as a unidimensional
concept, choosing one of these concepts of value in methodological frameworks while ignoring
their complex interplay (Pascual et al., 2017). This leads to an overly instrumental approach,
leaving aside a truly integrated approach to value. In answering this, the NCP framework
emphasises the relational values embodied by ‘ecosystem services’. This is one that starts from
the point of understanding how desirable relationships of humans towards nature are fostered
(Jacobs et al., 2016). In doing so it elevates the position of a holistic understanding of value
embodied by these individual and shared relationships (Diaz et al., 2018). Value is then seen
as not something present within a service, but rather derivative of the connection humans have
to nature (Chan et al., 2016; Figure 2 below).
13
This distinction is important in how the research conducted here evolved. From the survey and
focus group data, a more personal and relational sense of value was presented, as well as further
introducing contextual factors which mediated the way in which the value of ecosystems was
understood by participants. As such, the several factors which may mediate the perception of
value will now be discussed.
2.3 Service dynamics – where, when and for whom?
Ecosystem services, their associated values and conferred benefits are often expressed both
spatially and temporally and differ depending on the beneficiaries involved. This recognises
that service provision changes depending on both where, when and by whom it is received
(Hein et al, 2006). For example, key dynamics of this approach focus on service provision and
beneficiary location, and how these flow and interact through space (Chan et al., 2006; Fisher
et al., 2011; Bagstad et al., 2013). This includes, for example, the close proximal service
provision areas of storm and flood protection mechanisms (Brauman et al, 2007; Costanza,
2008), or of the omnidirectional nature of climate regulation services (Costanza, 2008). This is
Figure 2 Value conceptions through Nature's Contribution to People (Pascual et al., 2017)
14
one strength of the framework, in allowing services to become more visible by being mapped
spatially and enables them to be used as concrete data for planning. For example, it may be an
aid in the choice of governance mechanism (Wunder, 2007; Turner et al, 2012) or in identifying
where key stakeholders interact with landscapes (Agrawal, 2011), or in prioritising areas for
ecosystem services management and conservation (Verhagen et al. 2017).
Further, temporal scales may also interact with service provision in complex ways, as service
provisions may change depending on when they are provided (Brauman et al, 2007; Bastian et
al., 2012). However, most recent literature has attempted to deal primarily with spatial
complexities over temporal ones, leaving an exploration of the effect of temporal scales on
service provision underdeveloped (Serna-Chavez et al., 2014).
Finally, context specific attributes of beneficiaries involved also affect service provision. A
growing body of literature highlights several contextual factors that influence the ways in
which stakeholders view and value services and, and further receive benefits. These factors can
include age, cultural background and socioeconomic position, to name a few (McPhearson,
Kremer, & Hamstead, 2013; Andersson et al., 2015). As such, this confirms that service
provision is at least as much affected by where and when it is provided, but also for whom
(Hein et al., 2006; Rambonilaza & Dachary-Bernard, 2007; de Groot et al., 2010).
In reality, service provision is affected on these scales simultaneously, with each scale
interacting with one another in ways that are difficult to discern and disentangle (Serna-Chavez
et al., 2014). As above, the interlinkages between spatial and temporal (Brauman et al, 2007;
Bastian et al., 2012) as well as spatial and contextual scales (Andersson et al., 2015;
McPhearson, Kremer, & Hamstead, 2013) have at least been partially explored.
2.3.1 Temporal and contextual linkages – the case of intergenerational equity
In the context of these different scales, intergenerational equity is essentially an understanding
of the way in which the value of services may change as a virtue of time passed as well as how
they are valued differently by future stakeholders. In regards to the former, discounting is often
used in environmental economics to estimate how costs will change as a result of time
preferences and a temporal lag in the distribution of burdens (Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause,
1995; Stern, 2008; Gómez-Baggethun, de Groot, Lomas, & Montes, 2010; Luck et al., 2012).
This is as far as the literature goes in developing the discourse of intergenerational equity as it
was defined earlier in relation to ecosystem service provision.
15
Further, only limited studies have been done attempting to understand the ways in which
children (ages ~10-12) perceive services. Studies have focused on perceptions held by children
of biodiversity in Brazil in the context of education (Rosalino et al., 2017) and forest values in
New Zealand through the lens of the Montreal Process (Bayne et al., 2015). Rosalino et al.
(2017) discussed on the effect of different contextual factors, for example socio-economic
background, exposure to different media sources, and parental attitudes, on their attitudes
towards conservation. By comparison, Bayne et al. (2015) focussed more on the awareness of
children of different aspects of value provided by forests. Further attempts have been made to
understand how children gain knowledge about biodiversity and conservation in education (e.g.
Barraza & Pineda, 2003), without exploring underlying use preferences and values. These
studies also had limited study areas and focuses, without connecting findings to broader
frameworks involving ecosystem services and values. No broader, exploratory research has
been done to create a framework for conceptualising interactions between both temporal and
contextual scales, and the related impact on the way services are valued.
2.3.2 The Swedish context
In the context of Swedish forests, these contextual factors have been expressed in a variety of
literature. The conflict of use values, for example, is a widely covered topic in terms of
divergent stakeholder perspectives and use preferences (Haugen, 2016; Nordén et al., 2017).
The topic of youth perspectives has only begun recently to be explored in this context, however
focussing only on university-age students (Sandström et al., 2016). As such, the perspective of
children is yet to be covered in this context. This presents an opportunity to not only address
this missing perspective, but to attempt to consolidate and develop knowledge of this
stakeholder group in this area.
The methods in which the different values ascribed to forest ecosystems by this particular group
must now be discussed.
16
3. Methodology
To answer the above research questions a mixed method approach was taken. As such, both
quantitative and qualitative data was collected. This data was drawn from two main sources: a
survey with both open and closed ended questions, as well as focus groups conducted with
select groups of the original survey respondents. Originally, only the survey first described
below was to be done. However, based on the results to be discussed below additional focus
groups were required to further explore themes which became evident from the initial survey.
Figure 3 Methodological process
As shown above by Figure 3, three separate methods were then used to analyse the data. First,
a hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken on closed ended survey questions. This is a
statistical method used with quantitative data to understand how answers can be grouped by
type and similarity. Second, a content analysis was done on open ended survey questions to
understand dominant themes that arose from the data. This utilised qualitative data from the
open ended questions which was analysed quantitatively and expressed as a function of the
frequency of themes arising from answers. As such, it is termed a mixed method. Finally, a
thematic analysis was undertaken on the qualitative data arising from observations made in
focus groups.
Each method will now be described in turn.
3.1 Student Survey
3.1.1 Data Selection and Survey Design
A survey was first designed to explore the perceptions and understandings of the services and
benefits derived from forest ecosystems (see Appendix 1). Survey questions were organised by
1. Cluster AnalysisClosed ended survey
questionsQuantitative/Statistical
method
2. Content AnalysisOpen ended survey
questionsMixed method
3. Thematic AnalysisFocus groups
Qualitative/Deliberative method
17
their relationship to two different contextual factors involving scale. Particularly, two questions
that are the focus of analysis were differentiated by asking respondents either the two most
important services forests provide for Sweden (i.e. for society, or at a macro-scale), or their
favourite/least favourite things about being in a forest for themselves (i.e. personal, or at a
micro-scale). Society level answers contained seven set choices of services. There was also an
opportunity for students to create their own answer that was not listed. Society level questions
were treated as quantitative data for statistical analysis. Individual level questions were in the
form of open questions and were as such treated as qualitative data. Content analysis was
performed on these questions.
The choice to separate society and personal level questions into closed and open ended
questions respectively was deliberate and based on knowledge of the demographic. Students
of this age group were not expected to have considered previously the complexities of the
societal relationship with natural resources but were nonetheless deemed able to comprehend
this kind of information if given options as inspiration. Answers were presented in simple
terms, highlighting practical and relatable activities and benefits, such as ‘wood for houses’ in
the case of provisioning services, or ‘trees absorbing carbon dioxide from the air’ for regulating
services. Open questions were deemed more appropriate for personal level benefits, as it
allowed students to reflect on their own experiences with forests and decide on answers
relevant for them, as was the scope of the question. Open questions were also phrased in terms
of both positive and negative aspects of forest ecosystems, allowing a balanced reflection
which was also intended to stimulate students to consider so-called ecosystem ‘disservices’ as
well as trade-offs.
3.1.2 Data Collection
Data was collected in cooperation with the Universeum Science Centre, located in Gothenburg,
Sweden. Universeum is the largest public science centre in the Nordics and is involved in
communicating scientific information on the natural world to the public. Surveys were
distributed through their Love the Forest project (‘Älska Skog’ in Swedish), which was a multi-
stakeholder partnership between schools in the greater Gothenburg area, academics, the
Swedish forestry industry, local politicians and other members of associated organisations. The
project had its aim to stimulate interest and innovation in the Swedish forestry industry through
educational and competitive programs run with school students in classes 4-6 within the
Swedish education system (ages 10-12). This was done through education workshops at the
Universeum and other educational activities, as well as a competition between participating
18
schools for students to invent an innovative forest product. In general, students were
encouraged to invent a product which would innovate the future of sustainable use of Sweden’s
forests. These events were used as an opportunity to collect survey data from nine different
schools around Gothenburg, as well as to further educate them on the sustainability challenges
facing the future of Sweden’s forests.
Figure 4 Map of school distribution (anonymised)
Follow-up surveys were also attempted to be distributed after the activities had concluded to
attempt to measure if there had been any change in attitude towards the forests as a result of
the activities. Because of the lack of response to the survey (n = 20 of 403 initial responses),
analysis was not performed further as it was not critical to answering the research questions
presented here.
3.1.3 Data Analysis
3.1.3.1 Quantitative Data
To analyse this data, a hierarchical cluster analysis was done through Ward’s method using
squared Euclidean distances in SPSS v24. This kind of analysis is useful to organise
respondents by the relationships between answers, which can allow their categorisation into
stakeholder groups according to their perceptions of the value of the given services (Ward,
1963). This choice of method is justified on two main grounds. First, this method has been used
in different iterations (depending on the kind of data) within the ecosystem services context to
identify different socio-cultural indicators for different land use preferences for example
(Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2017). Similarly, this methodology is used here
primarily to identify which were the most common ways that students answered the questions
19
in order to reveal groupings of perceptions and values. Second, Ward’s method is helpful where
clusters are already known through external validity (Overall, Gibson, & Novy, 1993; Taylor
et al., 2006). This is present in this case, because it is possible to cross-reference the clusters
created by reference to the real data set. Cross-referencing is feasible in this case given the
binary nature and relative simplicity of the data set, only containing seven questions
representing one variable each, of which only two answers could be chosen. As such, questions
were coded as ordinal binaries (1= present, 0= absent).
Data was organised on a service level, where each question represented the importance of a
particular aspect of an ecosystem service. As discussed above, the ecosystem services approach
is most useful to give a broader understanding of large-scale processes. This is the case here,
as broader ecosystem processes are being analysed in accordance with their preference at a
society, rather than individual, level.
Table 1 Coding procedure for society-level questions
Service Category Question
Provisioning Trees to build houses and furniture, for example
You can get energy from the forest (to warm your house or drive a car)
You can pick mushrooms and berries in the forest
Regulating Forests are important for the climate, because they absorb carbon
dioxide from the air
Supporting The forest is good for animals
Cultural You can exercise in the forest and walk the dog
You can relax in the forest
Once coded, the above method was used to responses into similar answer groups. Answers left
blank, and those answers that either selected too few or too many services were also excluded.
This was done to ensure the comparability of results and to simplify analysis.
3.1.3.2 Qualitative Data
The second part of the survey was used to collect qualitative data. Students were asked to try
to identify three of the best things about being in a forest for themselves. They were then asked
to also reflect on three things they thought were bad about being in a forest. Questions were
left open to allow students to relay their personal feelings and attitudes towards forests.
In order to analyse this data, content analysis was used taking a decisive approach. This entails
the coding and organisation of data using pre-existing variables found in existing literature.
20
The goal is to identify and quantify phenomena in a descriptive manner through the systematic
use of pre-established rules of analysis (Krippendorf, 1980). This relies on a clearly defined
analysis procedure with a code book of indicators to be applied to a given data set. To ensure
reliability, this procedure should be repeatable regardless of the analyst following the procedure
(Krippendorff, 1969; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Where there are sections of data which do not fit
the chosen framework, adaptations are made according (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Below are the variables which formed the code book to facilitate analysis, categorised
according to groupings presented by the NCP framework (see Figure 2 above). The full code
book and coding procedure can be found in Appendix 2.
Table 2 Synthesised value concepts for coding (Fish, Church, & Winter, 2016; Cooper et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017)
Physical and
experiential
interactions
Physical,
mental and
emotional
health
Way of life Cultural
identity,
sense of
place
Social
Cohesion
Variable
indicators
Discovery
Escape
Fun
Inspiration
Knowledge
Care
Tranquillity
Security
Sense of
well-being
Food
collection
Recreation
Belonging Recreation
The above variables were chosen after a synthesis of existing literature on ESS and NCP (Fish,
Church, & Winter, 2016; Cooper et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017). All variables mentioned
above account for either benefits or activities associated with ‘cultural services’ under the ESS
framework. Because not all experiences mentioned in the answers fit comfortably within this
framework, further recourse was needed outside of the literature on cultural ESS. Aid was
found in literature further developing cultural ESS to incorporate more relational aspects of
value which were similarly the foundation of the NCP framework. This was also done to
elucidate flaws in the development of cultural services under the ESS framework, and where
more holistic conceptions of value are useful in analysis.
There are several issues that must be addressed relating to the scope and content of the data
analysis. First, only those variables that were found to be present at least once were chosen to
be further discussed above and within the code book for the sake of simplicity. Because of the
broad approach taken by the NCP framework, there are a multitude of possible experiences
that could have been elicited, and it was not practical to mention all of these unless they were
21
present. Second, while students were encouraged to think of three answers, this was not
required by the question. As such, students that answered the questions could give anywhere
between one and three answers. These answers were analysed in isolation to one another where
appropriate, however when the answers permitted a collective reading they were read together
in interpreting their meaning.
Further, it should be noted that some of these experiences are potentially interrelated and may
appear twice. For example, feelings of tranquillity, escapism or aesthetic appreciation may be
accompanied by feelings of better mental health. Fun or leisure could also be considered an
activity, as a result of recreational activities, or an end in itself. Recreation then can relate to
the autonomy with which one chooses to fill their time (way of life), but also may go towards
enhancing social cohesion between groups participating (social cohesion). It could therefore
be categorised as either phenomenon depending on the particular experience. The choice to
separate answers into these variables was nonetheless made to ensure that the most finite and
particular account was give the individual experiences. This is done to confront the challenges
presented also in undertaking a content analysis relating to an oversimplification of data
(Morgan, 1993). Particularisation also means that double counting is avoided, and ensures the
reliability of findings made (Krippendorff, 2004). Further, while their interplay may seem
intuitive in some respects, it was also not possible on the data available to correlate their
relationships. The question was not phrased in such a way that students were encouraged to
connect their responses to particular thoughts, feelings or experiences, and so this was mostly
not provided.
After all responses were coded, they were collated and compared to see which themes evoked
by the variables were most dominant. Frequency was used as a metric to understand whether
the developed theme is a dominant one. The reliability of frequency as a measure is
strengthened in this study because of the relatively short answers. As students are only required
to give a few short lines, each theme is likely only mentioned once per answer. This means that
another common challenge of content analysis is avoided, that being that frequency and
repetition in long texts may overstate the importance of the theme (Vaismoradi, Turunen, &
Bondas, 2013). Conversely, here repetition is only taken to develop themes between shorter
answers rather than within longer textual data sets.
22
3.2 Focus groups
3.2.1 Data Selection and Collection
In order to validate and further explore the data collected and analysed through the above
means, follow-up focus group sessions were undertaken with consenting schools. Two schools
were chosen via self-selection to take part in these sessions. A third school was scheduled to
also take part, however ultimately could not because of scheduling issues. Participating schools
were labelled School 1 and School 2 and consisted of 23 and 19 students respectively with an
approximately equal gender distribution. Ages ranged between 10 and 12 years old. Three
researchers participated in conducting the focus groups.
The students were first split into three smaller groups so that individual observations could be
more easily made between the three researchers present. This was done via a game where the
students were each allocated a forest dweller on a card anonymously: either a birch tree, a bear
or an elk, representing three important and captivating elements of the Swedish forests.
Students were required to find those in the class with the same card as them without speaking
which acted as a warm-up activity to stimulate the students while also randomising the
distributions of the students in the class. Effort was made within the allocation of the cards to
ensure gender distribution within groups was roughly equal. Generally, randomisation meant
that bias could be avoided through friendship interactions and gender distribution (Morgan,
1997, pp. 38-40).
Once in their groups, the researchers undertook two phases of activities. The first was a drawing
exercise, where students were asked to draw a forest that they are familiar with in a way
comfortable for them, along with the activities they undertake there. This could have been
either in the form of a map or landscape view for example. While students were doing this, the
researchers encouraged the students to explain what kind of landscape features and activities
they were drawing, as well as what kinds of feelings they elicit. These activites and feelings
were both recorded by the students on the papers themselves, as well as made in written
observations by the researchers. The use of drawings is an age-appropriate way to allow
students to explore these themes in a fun and engaging way (e.g. Bayne et al., 2015).
The second activity involved the use of several cards with different activities on them
undertaken within forests, for example harvesting of wood, picking berries, exercising, walking
the dog, carbon sequestration, and so on. These options were much more diverse than those
presented in the initial survey, with eighteen options instead of six. Some activities were
23
variations or repetitions of the activities. This was done in the hope of ensuring a more honest
reflection on the part of students. Several dummy options were put in with the cards that did
not relate to forests to clarify the preferences of students over other activities. These included
things like playing video games or reading at home. The students were then asked to decide
collectively which six were most important for Sweden as a whole. In some groups where
discussions were stalled, students were each asked to choose their favourite and discuss why
they chose it. Comments made by students, as well as observations made by researchers
through the process, were recorded.
Finally, the researchers concluded with several questions about the participation in the ‘Love
the Forest’ project. Questions were asked to discern how the students felt about forests after
their participation in the project, whether they felt like they learned anything new, and whether
they felt their perception or interest in forests had changed as a result. These answers as well
as general observations about their interaction with these questions were noted.
In all activities, researchers remained attentive to group dynamics, ensuring that all students
were able to have their voices heard and that dominance of any one member of the group was
avoided. The structure of the activities was designed to encourage collaborative work in
creating the drawings, as well as within discussions of activity preferences. This was an
important aspect of research design to reduce bias and to ensure the validity and reliability of
data collected (Acocella, 2012).
As a result, two groups of primary data were collected. The first were the drawings created by
the students, which were later analysed as described below. The second included the answers
to direct questions asked to students, along with any general observations made about the
reactions and attitudes of the students towards the questions and the activities. These were also
coded alongside the visual data.
Secondary data was also collected in the form of informal conversations with teachers about
the students’ involvement with the ‘Love the Forest’ project.
3.2.2 Data Analysis
To analyse the visual and verbal data collected, a thematic analysis was undertaken. This was
done by ‘coding up’ visual data and observations made during the focus group activities.
‘Coding up’ requires the researcher to develop codes themselves which relate to identified
themes through the course of deliberative data collection exercises. This is performed on a
combination of both observations and visual data, which was here used as a method to help
24
elicit themes through the activities (Keenan, van Teijlingen, & Pitchforth, 2005). This was done
to juxtapose the ‘coding down’ or decisive approach undertaken within the content analysis.
Observations and drawings from each researcher group were collated and discussed to produce
themes common between each of their groups. Data is generally then presented in the form of
a narrative, which covers the themes that arose and how they relate to one another according
to the data collected. This method is useful for reasons of method triangulation, so to be able
to confirm or further develop the content analysis undertaken on survey data above.
25
4. Results
4.1 Cluster Analysis
First, all incorrectly answered questions were removed. These were either blank answers, or
those students which answered more or fewer than the required two most important services
for Sweden. This was to ensure that the answers used in analysis were comparable and
coherent, which would have weakened the findings able to be drawn from the results. The
remaining responses (n = 296) were then clustered. This was agglomerated in the form of a
dendrogram so that answer-type clusters could be revealed. The analysis presented two main
lines of hierarchies, which eventually produced eleven different answer clusters. These were
cross-referenced with the real data to ensure that the clusters produced accurately reflected
those within the dendrogram. Below is a summary of the answer clusters. It should be noted
that not all answer types were included. Those answers which were outliers, occupying less
than 5% of the total answers, were excluded. Of the eleven clusters which were originally
presented on the dendrogram, five prominent answer clusters appeared which are shown below
(Figure 5). Outliers were not presented on this diagram for the sake of simplicity.
Figure 5 Reconfigured cluster results
As can be seen, answers combining regulating and supporting services formed the most
prominent cluster (36% of total answers), followed by those with provisioning and regulating
(31%) as well as provisioning and supporting/cultural services (13% - a cluster which included
a mix of secondary answers).
4.2 Textual content analysis
After the open questions were cleaned of blank or dummy answers and coded (n = 397) they
were collated to determine which were the most thematically dominant. Each question had the
opportunity for three answers, however these were not all taken by all respondents. Where a
Hierarchies
Regulating + Supporting
(36%)
Provisioning + Supporting/Cultural
(13%)
Cultural + Regulating/Supporting
(5%)
Provisioning + Regulating
(31%)
Provisioning
(Wood & Energy)(3%)
26
variable was present within a single answer more than once, it was only counted as one. This
approach was taken so that the results could be expressed as a function of how many
respondents identified different variables and to avoid double counting. As a result of this
process, several variables were excluded because of their insignificance (<1% of total
responses). These excluded variables were security, knowledge and inspiration. Below is a
summary of the raw results of the analysis (Figure 6).
Figure 6 Accumulated variable frequencies
As can be seen, there are several benefits and activities which develop key themes within the
data. Of these, it can be seen that benefits of discovery (appearing in 47% of answers),
fun/leisure (37%), tranquillity (36%) and health (32%) are the most dominant themes, followed
still closely by ethics of care (21%). By comparison, experiences of escapism (8%) and
belonging (4%) scored relatively lowly. In terms of activities, recreation and the collection of
food as a participation in a cultural activity were both present in significant measures (each
25%).
4.2.1 Value comparison between largest clusters
A comparison was undertaken between the two largest clusters identified from the above
cluster analysis to identify whether there were any differences in the values they presented.
Analysis was only possible on these particular two clusters because of their comparable sizes.
From this analysis it was shown that there were slight yet not insignificant differences in several
of the variables between these answer clusters.
020406080
100120140160180200
Total Values
27
Figure 7 Variable comparison between largest clusters
The most significant differences presented above (Figure 7) are within the discovery (15%
difference), tranquillity (17%), health (30%) and ethic of care (31%) variables. Variables which
were not significantly represented within the clusters (>1%) were not shown.
This presents a difference in the way that forest ecosystems were valued between these two
main clusters. While they differed in magnitude, the differences at least suggest that those
students that valued supporting services (biodiversity) over provisioning services (either wood
or energy) had a relationship with forest ecosystems which fostered a higher ethic of care as
well as contributions to their health and wellbeing, and elicited a stronger sense of discovery.
4.3 Focus groups
4.3.1 Activity 1 – drawing and discussion
The results of the first two methods described above were further explored through a thematic
analysis of the focus groups undertaken with students. The number of participants from the
first school was 23, while the second was 19, totalling 41. The data collected through the
drawings made by students, as well as observations made during the activities, were discussed
jointly between the three participating researchers. Examples of the drawings can be found
below in Figures 8 and 9. After deliberation between the researchers, and a closer analysis of
the drawings and discussions with students, the findings were tabulated (see Table 3). These
thematic groupings were drawn directly from the source material and compared between
groups and schools. An elaboration of the findings is presented below in the form of a narrative
construction.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Discovery Tranquility Health Care
Cluster Comparison
Regulating andSupporting Cluster
Regulating andProvisioning Cluster
28
Table 3 Results table from thematic analysis (activity 1)
School 1 School 2
Themes • Fear
• Finding different animals, trees,
and flowers
• Playing games, climbing and
walking
• Recognition of the importance of
the interconnectedness between
species
• Aesthetic appreciation
• Building huts and other things
from forest materials
• Getting fresh air
• Relaxing
• Escaping
• Excitement and adventure
• Feeling happy, relaxed and free
• General sense of comfort and
belonging
• Finding different animals, trees
and flowers
• Feeling connected to the
landscape
• Playing games, climbing and
walking
• Recognition of the importance of
the interconnectedness between
species
• Building huts and other things
from forest materials
• Picking berries and mushrooms
• Escaping
From the above summary in Table 3 several similar themes arose within the schools, however
several new experiences arise too. From the visual data it was shown that the physical and
aesthetic experience of the forest was one of the most important aspects for the students. For
example, most drawings and discussions told stories of adventures into the forest and the trees,
flowers, and animals that could be discovered there. The relationships that arose between
students and their environment was fundamentally relational and physical, where immersion
in the forest was reflected through activities involving play. These included playing games,
making things from forest materials, picking mushrooms and berries, walking, and climbing
trees. The psychological benefits of these activities in terms of well-being were clear, as
students connected these experiences as enabling them to relax, escape from their everyday
lives, and be themselves. In addition to this close physical and emotional connection, students
also showed a certain knowledge of and respect for what the forest signified as an ecosystem.
Many students identified the interconnectedness of forests within themselves as well as to
human lives, emphasising the balancing of the forces of nature through species diversity and
interaction which are fundamental to the health and well-being of the forest and humans alike.
Connected with this, students identified many of the services that forests provide to humans,
29
through climate regulation, provision of materials such as wood and energy, as well as
biodiversity.
Figure 8 Example of visual data from School 1
Several unexpected themes also arose out of the data. There was a stark difference in the
attitude shown towards the forest between the first and second schools. Although both schools
expressed their interest in playing within the forest, the first school took a much more negative
and trepidatious approach towards being in the forest and especially alone. Many expressed
their direct fear and unwillingness to explore the forest in that way, some identifying that if
they had to travel to a location where going through the forest would be a direct route, they
would take the long way around to avoid it. The first school was generally less interested in
forests and did not give as vibrant or detailed answers as the second school. By comparison,
the second group spoke with much excitement about the kinds of activities they would
undertake and expressed a fearlessness in their relationship with the forest. They spoke of it as
an old friend. To them, the forest is a welcoming environment where they were free to interact
with as they willed; playing in streams, hiding in trees, and playing elaborate games using the
terrain of the forest were some of the activities of which they spoke most fondly.
30
Figure 9 Example of visual data from School 2
These differences were difficult to reconcile on the face of the data presented from the
activities. To clarify this, further discussions were held with teachers after the activities which
provided some insight. They suggested several socio-cultural reasons why this might be the
case. The demographic of School 1 was predominantly new Swedes, where the children and
their parents were most often refugees from Syria and Somalia. By comparison, there were no
students with this kind of background present in the activities with School 2. Teacher 1
(anonymised) from School 1 indicated that their parents more than likely discouraged them
from interacting with the forest owing to the challenging situations in the countries that they
fled, often torn by war and civil unrest. Forests, in this case, become a dangerous wilderness
that are to be avoided at all costs. It is possible too that the children themselves have had
negative experiences with these kind of forest wildernesses in their lives, however it was not
within the scope of this research (neither ethically nor practically) to further probe into these
issues. Nonetheless it hints at an interesting contextual factor which may mediate service
provision for forests within this demographic.
4.3.2 Activity 2
The second activity required students to discuss which six activities undertaken in forests were
the most important for Sweden. This was done by references to picture cards. Generally,
students discussed very heartily and democratically how these six should be chosen. Below is
a tally of their respected choices per group and school (Figure 10; also see Appendix 3).
31
Figure 10 Accumulated forest values for Sweden from focus group data
As can be seen, all groups within both schools identified carbon absorption, the picking of
berries/mushrooms, and the importance of the forest for animals as one of the six choices. The
interest in carbon absorption can be at least partly explained by the students’ involvement with
the ‘Love the Forest’ project, as this was a central theme of the education program it involved.
It is interesting to note that all groups in both schools identified picking berries and mushrooms
as an important activity, even though the attitudes of the students in both schools towards
actually being in forests differed greatly as discussed above. When probed further, while many
students from School 2 admitted to actually undertaking this activity, many from School 1
rather acknowledged that this was an activity they recognised could be done within forests but
further that they did not often do it themselves, if at all.
High interest was also then reflected in activities involving play and those that elicit feelings
of being free, as well as providing wood for fibres and energy. Only one group selected the
dummy option (video games) which indicates that the students were mostly interested in
engagement with forest ecosystems over other activities.
In general, the several observations made here are largely consistent with the findings from the
cluster and content analyses, and further reflect elements of the above thematic analysis.
Students prioritised services and benefits in similar ways as shown through the surveys both
through the clusters that formed as well as the dominant variables presented through the content
analysis, while also echoing the elements of the thematic analysis discussed above in relation
to their differing attitudes towards forests.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Totals between schools
32
4.3.3 Reflections on involvement in Love the Forest project
In general, the students showed mixed dispositions towards their involvement in the project
and its effect on their perceptions of the forest. From School 1, all groups identified that they
enjoyed the experience of taking part in the project. The visit to the Universeum Science Centre
was by far the most enjoyed aspect. Regardless, only one group identified that they saw the
forest in a better way and would visit more often. The remaining groups showed either apathy
towards visiting the forest more, or flatly said that they were not any more interested. By
contrast, while all groups in School 2 similarly identified that they were not more interested in
the forest, they also stated that their level of involvement and interest in the forest was already
high. This is consistent with the findings stated above in regards to the first activity undertaken
through the close relationship that already exists between the students and forest ecosystems.
33
5. Discussion
The results presented above will now be used to answer the main research question: how can
different forms of value (instrumental, intrinsic and relational) be elicited in the valuation of
the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being? This will be done by approaching each of
the three sub-questions identified above individually:
(Question 1A) What kinds of values do children derive from forest ecosystems in
particular?
(Question 1B) What factors mediate the way in which value is constructed in the case
of relational values?
(Question 1C) What methods are more appropriate for eliciting relational values, in
terms of their relative strengths and weaknesses in being able to elicit
this form of value?
This discussion will include an analysis of the findings from each for the three different
methods of analysis and how they are confirmed by or complement existing literature. Then,
the findings of this study will be located within the broader theoretical conversations taking
place around value within ecosystem valuation practices. Suggestions will be made throughout
as to where future research may be best directed as a result of the findings made here. Finally,
these findings will be reflected upon and critiqued in order to ascertain the strength of their
scientific rigour.
5.1. Response to Research Questions
5.1.1 Research Question 1A
In synthesising the above results and answering Research Question (RQ) 1A, the case study
example of children has been a poignant one in illustrating the relationship between different
conceptions of value within the ESS and NCP frameworks. The kinds of values elicited by the
different questions and methods are illustrative of this. In regards to the clustering analysis, the
clusters formed can be seen to reflect different elements of value on a spectrum.
34
Figure 11 Spectrum of value concepts from cluster analysis
As shown by Figure 11, the kinds of values express by answers can be separated into either
showing more intrinsic or instrumental understandings of value. On the intrinsic side, these
questions were framed as either benefiting non-human life, for example forests being ‘good for
animals’ which were framed as supporting services, or larger processes which regulate the
functioning of ecosystems. While the latter is not solely focused on intrinsic value, it
nonetheless focuses on kinds of value which are external to humans and for larger systemic
processes (Mace, Norris, & Fitter, 2012; Davidson, 2013). The distinction being made is the
placing of value on processes that are primarily ‘for non-human forms of life’ and ‘for humans’.
It must be acknowledged that these ultimately interconnected processes are differentiated by
their ultimate ‘ends’, or ‘for whom’ they are valued (Reyers et al., 2012). From there we move
into more hybrid forms of value, incorporating both the intrinsic value of ecosystems as well
as more instrumental concepts of value involving provisioning services. On the other end of
the spectrum, there were those answers which focused more heavily on provisioning services.
From this we can see that both kinds of value are represented through the students’ answers.
However, there are clear preferences revealed from the volume of answers in each category as
well as differences between the underlying values revealed through the content analysis. More
intrinsic forms of value were more heavily valued by students, where 36% of them found
regulating and supporting services to be the most important. This was followed by the 31% of
students who valued regulating and provisioning services most highly. This is generally
consistent with previous studies showing that regulating, provisioning and supporting services
are generally valued more highly in participatory studies over land use preferences (Raymond
et al., 2009).
35
There were also differences shown in the values underlying different service preferences.
Within the regulating and supporting cluster, the value placed on discovery, health and
wellbeing, as well as ethics of care, were shown to be more dominant compared to the
regulating and provisioning cluster. While different statistical data and methods would need to
be used to confirm the significance of these findings, this at least begins to suggest that service
preferences and ecosystem values across different scales (here societal and individual) are
related and impact on one another. This particular finding suggests that as there is more
importance being placed on instrumental over intrinsic value, the importance of more
interactive and relational values involving a sense of discovery, health and wellbeing, and
ethics of care begin to decrease.
In further answering RQ 1A, many elements of the findings from the content and thematic
analyses can be confirmed by existing research done within the social sciences. In some cases,
the study done here has also added further depth. Mostly, this study has effectively been able
to combine the several discreet aspects discussed in other studies through a combined
methodological approach. As such, the volume of findings within this study has been amplified
by its multifaced methodological approach. For example, Blizard (2004) and Iliopoulou (2018)
both found a similar ethic of care shown by students towards forests presented by the content
analysis above. Blizard (2004) further discussed the importance of recreational bonding
through hut building and other interactional methods of play in developing relationships
between students and forests that were suggested by the content and thematic analyses. These
variables were reflected in the variables of discovery, recreation and fun contained within the
content analysis. Corraliza, Collado and Bethelmy (2010) then probed into the positive
correlations between exposure to forest ecosystems and improved mental health of children of
similar ages through increased relaxation and improved emotional resilience. Again, these
factors were elicited most clearly within this study through the content and thematic analyses.
These studies utilised deliberative methods (mostly interviews) highlighting the importance of
qualitative and deliberative methods within the valuation process.
Future research should focus on the way that different methods may in themselves be used as
a way of fostering and strengthening relationships between young people and ecosystems.
Studies have shown that education is key in instilling value for ecosystems in young people
(Barazza and Pineda, 2003; Porifio, Saramento & Fonseca, 2014). There is then a mandate to
better understand how ecosystem valuation processes can contribute to ensuring that new
generations of young people can engage and connect with ecosystems through, for example,
36
social learning processes within more deliberative methods. Social learning is the process
through which knowledge is transferred between members of society through social
interactions as a result of stimulation on a certain topic, for example through deliberation and
other participatory processes (Reed et al., 2010). In this context, knowledge gained by students
as a result of deliberation may transfer between groups of students, between students and their
parents, and ultimately between students and society as they grow older. There is a clear need
for this in light of the risk of youth disengagement with nature and ecosystems. The cost of this
disengagement is a potential threat not only to nature conservation efforts in the future but also
the physical and mental well-being of children (Mustapa, 2010; Zhang, Goodale & Chen,
2014).
Additionally, further study could also be directed towards understanding the precise
relationship between service preferences and underlying values that were hinted at within this
study. This could be done by statistically regressing the relationship between services
preferences and values to understand which values are most related to which services. The data
collected in this study was not suited to undertake this kind of analysis. This is of limited
consequence for the present research question, as the focus of this study was instead to explore
the different conceptual and methodological underpinnings of eliciting value. It would
nonetheless add further depth to the analysis undertaken.
5.1.2 Research Question 1B
Answering RQ 1B then requires a closer analysis of the contextual factors presented by the
study which mediated the way students ascribed value to forests. The novel contextual factor
involving the background of students within this study, in this case the relationship of fear that
stemmed from the students’ refugee and immigrant backgrounds, fits within a broad range of
mediating contextual factors that have been already discovered in previous studies. This can
range from factors including the educational program within which students study (Barazza
and Pineda, 2003; Porifio, Saramento & Fonseca, 2014), the amount of contact with nature
(Zhang, Goodale & Chen 2014), and even the education level of the parents of students
(Rosalino & Rosalino, 2012). Other factors such as age and gender have also been revealed to
mediate the way in which children of similar ages relate to forests in different ways (Uitto et
al., 2011). Finally, and perhaps most comparable to this study, ethnicity has also been shown
in some studies to play a determining role in the way children value forest ecosystems, as was
discussed by Stevenson et al. (2013). In that study, ethnicity was seen to interact with socio-
economic disadvantage to result in lower values ascribed to forest ecosystems. This is the
37
closest finding which can be compared to the present study, as the ethnic background of refugee
students and the differing cultural associations with forests is seen to mediate the relationships
they formed with forests.
Further research on the contextual factor presented within this study is required, however was
out of the scope of this particular study. Further efforts should be made to understand how and
why these kinds of contextual factors create disengagement with forest and other ecosystems,
and how these factors can be mitigated. As suggested by Teacher 1, further engagement with
forests in the particular case of Sweden may help new arrivals better integrate and adapt to their
new surroundings both ecologically and socially. This is especially the case in the context of
the relatively high importance of forests to Swedish society and culture as revealed by
deliberation with School 2. This highlights the importance of further research into the benefits
that can be derived from the relationships that form between people and ecosystems within
more complex societal phenomena.
5.1.3 Research Question 1C
In answering RQ 1C, the findings here fit broadly into the approach taken by the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
in incorporating diverse forms of value into valuation methods.
As a result, this study was able to test the usefulness of the NCP framework in incorporating
fundamentally relational values. This study concerned itself most with steps three and four
identified within the diagram below (below Figure 12). Regarding step three, particular focus
was given here to method plurality, where multiple methods were used to elicit different forms
of value and the relationships between them. Here, method pluralism required a consideration
of both qualitative and quantitative methods, involving both statistical and deliberative
methods. This lead to the identification of different forms of biophysical, cultural and social
value, as well as health and holistic forms of value. Continuing to step four, these values were
then expressed through integrated modelling of survey responses through the cluster and
content analysis methods used. It also produced a narrative analysis through the focus group
activities, which was helpful in identifying contextual mediating factors in the values produced
(Pascual et al., 2017). As such, it is clear that the methods in eliciting different forms of value
undertaken here are compatible with existing valuation frameworks.
38
Figure 12 IPBES NCP approach to valuation (from Pascual et al., 2017)
In directly answering RQ 1C, instrumental and intrinsic values were able to be elicited through
statistical/quantitative methods within the cluster and content analyses, as well as through
deliberative/qualitative methods within the focus groups undertaken. However, these methods
were not able to clearly elicit more relational values. Relational values were only elicited
clearly through deliberative focus groups. Again, this highlights the importance of undertaking
mixed methods approaches so that the broad range of values that exist in ecosystems can be
captured within valuation processes.
Further studies would be best directed towards refining the way in which deliberative methods
can be used not only to elicit relational values but also to understand how they are developed.
This would be useful information in understanding how these relationships are formed, and
how this can then be used as information in directing governance practices in a way that
facilitates and encourages these relationships to grow and flourish.
5.2 Broader practical and theoretical implications of the study
On a higher level, the conceptual and methodological discussion on value provoked by this
study also speak to the philosophical dimensions of ecosystem valuation. There are ideological
39
tensions within what constitutes value in ecosystem valuation, which has very real
consequences for the way in which valuations of ecosystems are undertaken and expressed.
For example, so called ‘environmental economics’ approaches to ecosystem valuation more
comfortably accommodate instrumental concepts of value. This approach is generally
anthropocentric in nature, in that it places humans as the main beneficiary of natural processes
(van den Bergh, 2001). Methods of ESS valuation tend to reflect more environmental
economics ideals, for example through monetary cost-benefit analyses. These kinds of methods
are underpinned by the understanding that all values are commensurable, and as such can be
reduced to a common express through money (Gowdy, 2005; Muridian & Cardenas, 2015).
This can incorporate more intrinsic forms of value, however is challenged because of the often
monetary expressions of value that eventuate from its methods (Luck et al., 2012). This
monetary method is argued to detract from the integral societal dimensions of environmental
problems, as well as their solutions (Kinzig et al., 2013).
By comparison, ‘ecological economics’ recognises that humans are but one of many species
on earth that benefit from natural processes and their interests should not serve as a starting
point of discussion of how ecosystems are managed (Røpke, 2004). This is underpinned by the
recognition that all systems are necessarily connected, and so damage to ecosystems seemingly
distant from humans can nonetheless have catastrophic effects for human and non-humans
lives. Value is thereby separated into multiple and incommensurable categories, which are
distinct but nonetheless rely on one another (Gowdy, 2005). This is addressed by the ESS
framework also through other valuation methods such as multi-criteria analysis, which
emphasises the multifactor nature of the values input into the model for decision-making
(Venkatachalam, 2007). As such, it is clear that what is considered to constitute ‘value’ will
change both the way in which an ecosystem is measured, and its ultimate worth that is
expressed as a result. This ideological tension underpinning different valuation approaches has
continued for some decades and continues to evolve.
More recent iterations of value conceptions in academic discussion also find their place within
the results presented from this study. The values expressed within the methods that focused on
individual benefits differed greatly from those focused on society. While this is perhaps
unsurprising, it nonetheless serves to highlight different aspects of value which may again have
implications for the ways in which ecosystems are valued. Newer paradigms, such as the NCP
framework, represent a shift towards more ‘relational’ forms of value that exist between the
more individual relationships between humans and ecosystems. Relational concepts of value
40
are those which are a product of the relationships, responsibilities and connections formed
between humans and ecosystems on psychological, emotional, and spiritual levels (Díaz et al.,
2015). They produce elements of well-being which result from these relationships which are
not merely instrumental to attain, nor do they stand alone within the ecosystem as a matter of
their existence in line with more intrinsic notions of value. They depend on reciprocal
relationships of care and duty which strengthen feelings of connectedness to the natural world
(Chan et al., 2016). While conceptually these ideas of value are not novel, what is novel is their
potential inclusion in a meaningful way in management frameworks attempting to value the
services provided by ecosystems (Klain et al., 2017).
Without acknowledging these forms of value it is not possible to give full account to the kinds
of answers students gave in both the open-ended questions as well as the focus groups
undertaken. Many of these answers related to more intangible services and benefits received.
These services and benefits related to fundamentally relational concepts, such as discovery,
tranquillity, aesthetic appreciation as well as ethics of care. These forms of value were not
merely instrumental, but rather speak to more deeper held intimate connections with the
landscape. This was confirmed through the focus groups undertaken, where student responses
to forests revealed a sense of comfort and curiosity in their interactions with forests, which
could not be reduced to a means to an end of enhancing their well-being. Rather, any well-
being produced is seen to be a result of their relationships built (or not) over their lives. This in
turn explains why the value ascribed by students from non-Swedish backgrounds were
mediated by their differing perceptions of the safety of forests. This difference is explained by
differing fundamental relationships with forest ecosystems. It therefore also highlights the
importance of contextual factors in the process of valuation of ecosystems, here represented by
differing cultural representations of ecosystems. As such, relationships were also shown to be
critical in an ultimate understanding of how value is perceived. This goes to answering RQ 1B,
in understanding what types of factors can mediate the experience of relational values within
forests.
Developing novel approaches to valuation that incorporate diverse understandings of value is
critical to the future of sustainability sciences. Diversifying the conceptions of value reflected
through management practices and valuation methods is necessary to give full account of the
ways in which any changes to management practices or ecosystem health have on the everyday
lives of local people (Jacobs et al., 2016). In this way, ‘higher level’ philosophical starting
points for understanding value are seen to affect how these values are experienced and
41
operationalised in the real world. Further, while broader contexts are necessary to create overall
impressions of value, particular local stakeholder perspectives should not be ignored. They are
no less important in the mosaic of value narratives presented through valuation processes (Kok
et al., 2017). Particular demographical focuses such as those presented in this study are
therefore invaluable in advancing these narratives in being able to test and refine
methodological approaches to constructing value.
To conclude, the findings discussed here confirm the need expressed in recent literature for
more holistic conceptions of value to be expressed within valuation processes. This is necessary
to ensure that the total value of ecosystems can be constellated, without ignoring benefits and
values that cannot be easily or convincingly grouped as either intrinsic or instrumental. As a
result, a more informed discussion can be started on the relationship between ecological and
social values whereby they can be understood as mutually reinforcing one another. For
example, social values in ecosystem can be used as a vehicle to drive interest in protection of
ecological value and enhanced ecological value can in turn further grow the social value placed
within them (Ruiz-Frau et al., 2018). It further contributes to existing knowledge by in
beginning to show how both a mixture of deliberative and statistical methods can be used to
elicit relational values in practice (Klain et al., 2017).
5.3. Strength and limitations of study
5.3.1. Strengths
Fundamentally, this study has highlighted the need for methodological diversity in how
ecosystems are valued through more deliberative and socio-cultural approaches to valuation.
While statistical methods are generally more dominant over deliberative methods such as focus
groups (Scholte, van Teeffelen & Verburg, 2015), it can be more challenging to elicit more
socio-ecological experiences that are encapsulated within relational values through less
personal approaches such as questionnaires (Klain et al., 2017). As such, the strength of this
study is underpinned by its mixed method approach, in incorporating both statistical and
deliberative methods which combined both qualitative and quantitative data. This enabled a
thorough exploration of different forms of value, which are elicited in different ways depending
on the kinds of methods used. On a reliability level this kind of method triangulation is also
important to validate findings if the same results can be found on the same topic through
different approaches. That is the case here, as the personal and relational nature of the students’
relationships with forests was again highlighted through the focus groups, indicating a
42
reasonable level of reliability of the data collected. The focus groups also allowed for new
contextual data to be discovered, adding to the complexity of the findings presented through
this study.
5.3.2. Weaknesses
There are several limitations of the study which must also be acknowledged. First, the limited
age range of the respondents may present a limitation in terms of the experience available for
them to draw on in informing their answers. Being children, it is possible that they were yet to
develop the level of systems thinking abilities to meaningful engage with complex questions
relating to ecosystem services and environmental value. Nonetheless, studies have shown that
students of this age can develop these kinds of thinking skills through education (e.g. Evagorou
et al., 2009; Assaraf & Orion, 2009). Their engagement with the ‘Love the Forest’ project may
have provided them an opportunity to develop these skills, which were also reflected in the
findings from the focus groups. The project was geared towards teaching students how to
understand the relationships between the services forests provide and the world, including not
only basic provisioning services but also climate regulation. As such, the data collected can be
considered valuable nonetheless because of the particular educational experience the students
had experienced.
Second, the way that students responded to certain questions meant that some data had to be
excluded to present a coherent narrative in this study. For example, there were two distinct
groups of answers to the question asking students to identify three things that they thought were
bad about forests. One group understood the question to mean ‘what is bad for the forest’,
which were answers that were coded as ethics of care where they were regarding threats to the
forest. Other students understood this as it was intended to mean and gave answers regarding
what they thought was uncomfortable about being in a forest. These answers included things
like insects, getting lost or tripping over. Data describing what students thought was bad for
the forest was helpful to analysis and was kept, while data involving uncomfortable aspects of
being in the forest was excluded as it was inconsequential to the kind of analysis undertaken in
this study.
Third, the reliability of the content analysis conducted may be challenged by the lack of re-
coding by other researchers. It is general practice to have the data re-coded in this way to see
if the same results through coding the data to ensure that the coding regime is coherent
(Krippendorff, 2004). The original coder can become be too close to the data they are coding
43
and may also be affected by bias (Weber, 1990, p. 12). Due to limited resources it was not
possible for this to be completed within the time frame of the project due to limited resources.
However, this was attempted to be rectified by the creation of a comprehensive code book and
coding procedure (see Appendix 2) so that the process of coding is transparent as possible,
thereby enhancing its reliability.
Fourth, and similarly, the reliability of the results of the focus groups may also by limited by
the absence of professional mediators. This is considered best practice so that the expertise of
the mediators can be used to ensure that group discussions can be run in such a way that the
dominance of any one members is avoided and any conflicts that arise are able to be managed
(e.g. Christie et al., 2012; Halcomb et al., 2007). Nonetheless, these factors did not present a
major challenge within the present study. Groups were randomised to ensure that group
dynamics were as varied as possible, creating a random mix of personalities so that any
potential friend groups were dispersed. The researchers present were attentive to the resulting
group dynamics, ensuring that discussions were undertaken in a democratic and consensus-
driven manner so to avoid the dominance of any one member of each group. Care was taken to
ensure each member of the group had their voice heard, and any conflicts that arose were
handled in an appropriate manner. Further, because of the age disparity between researchers
and students, students were generally well-behaved and responded to the researchers and their
peers with respect as they would in class if conducted by a teacher, who were also present
during the activities. It is also worth noting that during activities with School 1, teachers aids
and special translator assistance were made available to the researchers to ensure that students
who were less comfortable with the Swedish language were able to fully take part in activities.
Fifth, and finally, statistical reliability checks were not undertaken on the initial cluster
analysis. This choice was made because it was deemed unnecessary at this point to undertake,
given the aim of the method was to identify groupings of answers for analysis with relative
ease. Further, data input into the method was simple in that it was expressed as ordinal binary
data, and further that only two choices were possible per answer. The simplicity and volume
of this data meant that it could be easily cross-referenced with the real data, where it was
already known that certain clusters existed because of preliminary analysis (Overall, Gibson,
& Novy, 1993; Taylor et al., 2006). As such it was not necessary to undertake further statistic
checks into whether the relationships between the hierarchies of clusters was accurate as this
was not the aim of the use of the method. In that sense the data that eventuated, once cross-
referenced, was fit for purpose.
44
6. Conclusion
This study has attempted to weigh into growing discussions on how concepts of value are
reflected through environmental valuation and management frameworks such as the ESS and
NCP approaches. In doing so, it explored how new methods could be developed to include
more holistic frameworks such as NCP and how they can be operationalised. This was done
using a mix of both statistical and deliberative methods. The findings have revealed values of
forest ecosystems occurring on multiple scales and contexts. First, students could be separated
into different groupings regarding their opinions on the most important aspects of forest
ecosystems for their society through the findings of the cluster analysis. The results of this
method reflected more instrumental and intrinsic forms of value. By comparison, on a more
individual level students revealed a much more personal and relational connection to forest
ecosystems as shown in part by the content analysis, and more fully by the findings from focus
groups conducted. Statistical methods were chosen to extrapolate the former set of values
through the cluster analysis, which is a tried and tested approach. In expanding on this
approach, the use of more deliberative methods adapted to the younger demographic of the
students studied here proved to be fruitful in eliciting more complex, relational forms of value.
This suggests that deliberative approaches need to be further utilised and developed to be able
to better capture the rich inner worlds of stakeholders that are developed and shaped by their
interaction with ecosystems, of which this study revealed but only a glimpse. Further effort
needs to be directed in linking ecosystem valuation frameworks such as ESS and NCP with
broader social, cultural, psychological and spiritual connections that are fundamental to both
human development as well as the relationship between the humans and ecosystems. This
needs to be done in a way that this information can be meaningfully connected to governance
regimes to ensure that these values are not lost.
7. Acknowledgements
It is with the sincerest gratitude that I want to take the opportunity to thank those who made
this study possible. I am grateful for the continued support and guidance of my supervisor,
Astrid van Teeffelen, as well as Sara Brogaard and Torsten Krause who invited me to take part
in their research project. Above and beyond all, however, is my utmost adoration and
appreciation of all those in my life who made this possible for me, both my family and friends,
who paid their love forward to allow me to elevate myself to the achievements I am proud to
have made through completing this project and degree program.
45
46
References
Acocella, I. (2012). The focus groups in social research: advantages and disadvantages. Quality &
Quantity, 46(4), 1125–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9600-4
Adamowicz, W. L., Naidoo, R., Nelson, E., Polasky, S., & Zhang, J. (2011). Nature-based tourism and
recreation. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. Polasky (Eds.), Natural Capital
(pp. 188–205). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0011
Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 373–396.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-094508
Andersson, E., McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Tuvendal, M., & Wurster,
D. (2015). Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service providing units. Ecosystem Services,
12, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.001
Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2009). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47 (5), 540-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351
Bagstad, K. J., Johnson, G. W., Voigt, B., & Villa, F. (2013). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows:
A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 117–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012
Barraza, L., & Pineda, J. (2003). How young people see forests in Mexico: a comparison of two rural
communities. UNASYLVA-FAO, 10–17.
Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., & Syrbe, R.-U. (2012). Space and time aspects of ecosystem services, using
the example of the EU Water Framework Directive. International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services & Management, 8(1–2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.631941
Bayne, K. M., Höck, B. K., Spence, H. R., Crawford, K. A., Payn, T. W., & Barnard, T. D. (2015). New
Zealand school children’s perceptions of local forests and the Montréal Process Criteria and
Indicators: comparing local and international value systems. New Zealand Journal of Forestry
Science, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40490-015-0051-x
Bignal, E. M., & McCracken, D. I. (1996). Low-Intensity Farming Systems in the Conservation of the
Countryside. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 33(3), 413. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404973
Blizard, C. (2005). “They All Cared about the Forest”: Elementary School Children’s Experiences of the
Loss of a Wooded Play Space at a Private School in Upstate New York. In: Bricker, Kelly, comp., ed.
2005. Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-
326. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research
Station: 57-63.
Blicharska, M., Smithers, R. J., Hedblom, M., Hedenås, H., Mikusiński, G., Pedersen, E., … Svensson, J.
(2017). Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept.
Ecosystem Services, 23, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.014
Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science
and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services,
1(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011
Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K., & Mooney, H. A. (2007). The Nature and Value of Ecosystem
Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 32(1), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758
47
Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2000). Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning.
Forest Science, 46(2), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/46.2.240
Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., … Turner,
N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Chan, K. M. A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., … Woodside, U.
(2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, &
S. Polasky (Eds.), Natural Capital (pp. 206–228). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0012
Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation
Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379
Chen, H. (1997). Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory-driven evaluations. New
Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1072
Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-
monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in
countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics, 83, 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012
Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H., & Bryce, R. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems:
Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services.’ Ecosystem
Services, 21, 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014
Corraliza, J. A., Collado, S., & Bethelmy, L. (2012). Nature as a Moderator of Stress in Urban Children.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 253–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.347
Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological
Conservation, 141(2), 350–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., … Turner, R. K.
(2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–
158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … van den Belt, M. (1997). The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.
https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., … Turner, R. K.
(2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–
158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Daily, G. C. (2000). ECOLOGY: The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science, 289(5478), 395–
396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5478.395
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., … von der Dunk, A.
(2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Davidson, M. D. (2013). On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and
economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 95, 171–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.002
48
de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.
Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES
Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An Investigation of the Potential of
Interactive Simulations for Developing System Thinking Skills in Elementary School: A case study
with fifth‐graders and sixth‐graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655–674.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749313
Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing
ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
8009(02)00088-5
Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel
framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision
making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Forrest Keenan, K., van Teijlingen, E., & Pitchforth, E. (2005). The analysis of qualitative research data in
family planning and reproductive health care. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Care, 31(1), 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1783/0000000052972825
Frew, K., Peterson, M. N., & Stevenson, K. (2017). Are we working to save the species our children want
to protect? Evaluating species attribute preferences among children. Oryx, 51(03), 455–463.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001477
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., & Montes, C. (2011). Exploring the motivations of protesters in
contingent valuation: Insights for conservation policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(1), 76–
88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.004
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development:
Implications for Management Theory and Research. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4),
874. https://doi.org/10.2307/258959
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services
in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological
Economics, 69(6), 1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of
ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 613–628.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708
Gowdy, J. (2005). The approach of ecological economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(2), 207–
222. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei033
Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., & Davidson, P. M. (2007). Literature review:
considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x
49
Haugen, K. (2016). Contested Lands? Dissonance and Common Ground in Stakeholder Views on Forest
Values: CONTESTED LANDS? Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 107(4), 421–
434. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12165
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the
valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Iliopoulou, I. (2018). How young children think they can act for the environment: the case of forest and
waste. Education 3-13, 46(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1236829
Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B. (2014). Socio-
cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and
human well-being. Ecological Economics, 108, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F., …
Washbourne, C.-L. (2016). A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource
and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22, 213–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007
Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., … Wichmann, S. (2013).
Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics, 93, 260–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008
Kinzig, A. P., Ehrlich, P. R., Alston, L. J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T. G., … Saari, D. (2013).
Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of Behaviors, Values,
and Policy. BioScience, 63(3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.3.5
Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and
differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLOS ONE, 12(8),
e0183962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962
Kok, M. T. J., Kok, K., Peterson, G. D., Hill, R., Agard, J., & Carpenter, S. R. (2017). Biodiversity and
ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustainability Science, 12(1),
177–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0354-8
Krippendorff, K. (1969). Models of messages: three prototypes. In G. Gerbner, O. Holsti, K. Krippendorff,
G. Paisly, & J. Stone (Eds.), The analysis of communication content. New York: Wiley.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in Content Analysis.: Some Common Misconceptions and
Recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2958.2004.tb00738.x
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (3rd ed). Los Angeles ;
London: SAGE.
Kukkala, A. S., & Moilanen, A. (2017). Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation
prioritization. Landscape Ecology, 32(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0446-y
Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective.
Ecological Economics, 64(4), 808–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008
Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., & Egoh, B. (2013).
Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A
Systematic Review. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e67737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737
50
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the
need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), 54–78.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05167.x
Luck, G., Chan, K., Eser, U., Gómez-Baggethu, E., Matzdorf, B., Norton, B., & Potschin, M. (2012).
Ethical Considerations in On-Ground Applications of the Ecosystem Services Concept. BioScience,
62(12), 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.12.4
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered
relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., & Montes, C. (2011). The conservation against
development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social–
ecological system (southwestern Spain). Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1481–1491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.009
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D. G. D.,
… Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences. PLoS
ONE, 7(6), e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., & Hamstead, Z. A. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services in New York City:
Applying a social–ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosystem Services, 5, 11–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.005
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Ed.). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mok, K. Y., Shen, G. Q., & Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega construction
projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 446–
457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand
Oaks California 91320 United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287
Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative Content Analysis: A Guide to Paths not Taken. Qualitative Health
Research, 3(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107
Muradian, R., & Cardenas, J. C. (2015). From market failures to collective action dilemmas: Reframing
environmental governance challenges in Latin America and beyond. Ecological Economics, 120,
358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.001
Neiman, Z., & Ades, C. (2014). Contact with nature: effects of field trips on pro-environmental knowledge,
intentions and attitudes. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 20(4), 889–902.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-73132014000400008
Nordén, A., Coria, J., Jönsson, A. M., Lagergren, F., & Lehsten, V. (2017). Divergence in stakeholders’
preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden.
Ecological Economics, 132, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.032
Overall, J. E., Gibson, J. M., & Novy, D. M. (1993). Population recovery capabilities of 35 cluster analysis
methods. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
4679(199307)49:4<459::AID-JCLP2270490402>3.0.CO;2-P
Pascua, P., McMillen, H., Ticktin, T., Vaughan, M., & Winter, K. B. (2017). Beyond services: A process
and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in
ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Services, 26, 465–475.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.012
51
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., … Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing
nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Porfirio, G., Sarmento, P., & Fonseca, C. (2014). Schoolchildren’s Knowledge and Perceptions of Jaguars,
Pumas, and Smaller Cats Around a Mosaic of Protected Areas in the Western Brazilian Pantanal.
Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(4), 241–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2014.978047
Potschin, M. B., Primmer, E., Furman, E., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2016). Have Ecosystem Services Been
Oversold? A Response to Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 334–335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.008
Rambonilaza, M., & Dachary-Bernard, J. (2007). Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we
learn from choice experiment method? Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(4), 318–326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing
tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 5242–
5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T.
(2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological
Economics, 68(5), 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., ... & Stringer, L. (2010). What is social
learning?. Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H., & Larigauderie, A. (2012). Finding Common Ground for
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 62(5), 503–507.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12
Røpke, I. (2004). The early history of modern ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 50(3–4), 293–
314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.012
Rosalino, L. M., Gheler-Costa, C., Santos, G., Gonçalves, M. T., Fonseca, C., & Leal, A. I. (2017).
Conservation priorities for elementary school students: Neotropical and European perspectives.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(11), 2675–2697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1380-2
Rosalino, L. M., & Rosalino, C. (2012). Nature conservation from a Junior High School perspective.
Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.01.001
Sandström, C., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Lindahl, K. B., Sonnek, K. M., Mossing, A., Nordin, A., … Räty,
R. (2016). Understanding consistencies and gaps between desired forest futures: An analysis of
visions from stakeholder groups in Sweden. Ambio, 45(S2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
015-0746-5
Sarkki, S., Jokinen, M., Nijnik, M., Zahvoyska, L., Abraham, E., Alados, C., … Zhyla, T. (2017). Social
equity in governance of ecosystem services: synthesis from European treeline areas. Climate
Research, 73(1–2), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01441
Schmidt, K., Walz, A., Martín-López, B., & Sachse, R. (2017). Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of
ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosystem Services, 26, 270–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.001
Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives
into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67–
78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
52
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez, H. M., de
Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: a Synthesis of
Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514–523.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
Schröter, M., & van Oudenhoven, A. P. E. (2016). Ecosystem Services Go Beyond Money and Markets:
Reply to Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 333–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.001
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values:
Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–
891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.878
Serna-Chavez, H. M., Schulp, C. J. E., van Bodegom, P. M., Bouten, W., Verburg, P. H., & Davidson, M.
D. (2014). A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecological
Indicators, 39, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024
Silvertown, J. (2015). Have Ecosystem Services Been Oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(11),
641–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007
Silvertown, J. (2016). Ecologists Need to be Cautious about Economic Metaphors: A Reply. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.007
Stern, N. (2008). The Economics of Climate Change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.1
Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Mertig, A. G., & Moore, S. E. (2013). Environmental,
Institutional, and Demographic Predictors of Environmental Literacy among Middle School Children.
PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059519
Taylor, S., Abramowitz, J. S., McKay, D., Calamari, J. E., Sookman, D., Kyrios, M., … Carmin, C. (2006).
Do dysfunctional beliefs play a role in all types of obsessive–compulsive disorder? Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 20(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.005
Turner, W. R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T. M., Gascon, C., Gibbs, H. K., Lawrence, K. S., … Selig, E. R.
(2012). Global Biodiversity Conservation and the Alleviation of Poverty. BioScience, 62(1), 85–92.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.13
Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2011). Secondary school students’ interests,
attitudes and values concerning school science related to environmental issues in Finland.
Environmental Education Research, 17(2), 167–186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.522703
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications
for conducting a qualitative descriptive study: Qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health
Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2001). Ecological economics: themes, approaches, and differences with
environmental economics. Regional Environmental Change, 2(1), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s101130000020
Venkatachalam, L. (2007). Environmental economics and ecological economics: Where they can converge?
Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.012
Verhagen, W., Kukkala, A. S., Moilanen, A., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2017). Use of
demand for and spatial flow of ecosystem services to identify priority areas: Demand and Flow of
Ecosystem Services. Conservation Biology, 31(4), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12872
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
53
Weber, R. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd ed.). California: Newbury Park.
Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E., Kastner, T., & Verburg, P. H. (2017). Quantifying Spatial Variation in
Ecosystem Services Demand: A Global Mapping Approach. Ecological Economics, 136, 14–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.005
World Commission on Environment and Development (Ed.). (1987). Our common future. Oxford ; New
York: Oxford University Press.
Wunder, S. (2007). The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation.
Conservation Biology, 21(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x
Zhang, W., Goodale, E., & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia
and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 109–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011
54
Appendix
Appendix 1 – Survey design (translation)
We are very happy that you have chosen to help us with our research on ‘Love the
Forest’ by answering these questions! If there are some questions you don’t want
to or can’t answer, simply leave the spaces blank.
Lund Universitets Centrum för
Hållbarhetsstudier (LUCSUS) Sara Brogaard,
Torsten Krause
Name of your school:
................................................................................
What class are you in? (circle the right one) 4 5 6
What do you think are the TWO most important things that Sweden gets from forests? Circle your answers:
Wood from trees, for example to build houses
They are important for the climate because they absorb carbon dioxide
You can exercise in the forest and walk the dog
You can get energy from the forest (for example to drive a car or heat
your house) You can relax when you walk in the forest
The forest is good for animals
You can pick berries and mushrooms in the forest
Something else (write here) …………………………………………………………………..……
What is the best thing about being in the forest for you? Try to think of three things!
1………………………………………………………………………………….……………
2………………………………………………………………………………….……………
3………………………………………………………………………………….……………
55
Is there something you think is bad about being in a forest?
………………………………………………………………………………….……………
………………………………………………………………………………….……………
………………………………………………………………………………….……………
Do you have any other observations or questions about ‘Love the Forest’?
..………………………………………………………………………………….……………
……………………..………………………………………………………………………….
Thank you for taking part!
56
Appendix 2- Code book for content analysis
Table 4 Code book of synthesised value indicators (Fisher et al., 2009; Diaz et al., 2015; Cooper et al., 2016)
Code Detailed explanation Content Indicators
Discovery This is used to describe the benefits
derived from experiences of exploration
and discovering in unknown areas and
ecosystems, involving different elements
of that ecosystem. Respondents experience
the satisfaction of discovering new things
in discussing experiences of seeing new
plants, animals, trees and natural processes
in the ecosystems that they explore.
“see animals/flowers/trees”
“explore”
Sense of well-being Physical and mental health benefits
combine in discussions of outdoor
activities in producing a sense of well-
being. While outdoors interacting with
ecosystems, respondents may identify that
they experience feelings of health and
well-being as a result these interactions.
These may be from enhancing physical
fitness, or by experiencing a more
‘healthy’ environment to through feeling
like they are getting cleaner or fresher air,
for example. Physical and mental health
were combined because of their interplay,
and because of the way in which
respondents identified these benefits, to be
further discussed below.
“feel better”
“get fresh air”
Escape Respondents who felt like they were
‘getting away’ or enabled to ‘be
themselves’ or ‘feel free’ were coded as
identifying the experience of escape.
Triggered directly by interactions with
generally outdoor and distantly located
ecosystems, respondents would identify
positively with separating themselves from
their ‘regular life’ through escape to more
natural surrounds.
“be free”
“get away from technology”
Tranquillity Answers were coded as showing an
appreciation of the benefits of tranquillity
were those relating to needing to relax or
be at peace.
“it is relaxing”
“it is cosy”
“fika”
Aesthetic Appreciation of the aesthetic of an
ecosystem is multidimensional and
involves positive sensory experiences of
any kind. As such, aesthetic appreciation
of a forest involves not only an
appreciation of the physical beauty
observed by the eyes, but also a more
complex sensory experience involving the
“it is beautiful”
“hearing birds sing”
“the smell of the forest”
57
sounds, smells and textures the landscape
provides. This could include for example
hearing birds, or the particular lush smell
emitted by some forests.
Fun/leisure Here, fun or leisure is defined to include
both activities and corresponding benefits.
As such, it may be an activity or an end.
This is adapted to take account of the
demographic involved. As young people,
play is an integral experience in their lives,
however ‘having fun’ may either
encapsulate a subset of other activities
involving play or may result from a variety
of activities. As such, these were
catalogued together.
“it is fun to play in the forest”
“play games with my friends”
“play and build huts”
Care This is a relatively novel benefit within the
literature. An ethic of care is developed
through certain activities and concerns
held over ecosystems, for example worry
for its health because of certain damaging
activities or action taken to prevent harm.
This is exemplified through concern over
litter in forests, or increased deforestation.
It is solely relational, in the sense that it is
the product of an intimate affinity with an
ecosystem, and not necessarily through
any particular action or activity taken.
“to look after the forest”
“clean up trash”
Recreation This variable arose because of the
challenge mentioned earlier in the different
ways in which students answered the
questions. Answers which involved certain
recreational activities, such as camping or
hiking, were catalogued under this variable
where they were not related to any
particular benefit.
“barbequing”
“walking”
“cycling”
Food collection While traditionally collection of food is
deemed a provisioning service, here it is
conceived as a cultural one. This is owing
to nuances in the way it is performed.
Traditional provisioning services generally
relate to the acquisition of food from
ecosystems to ensure human survival.
Here, the collection of food is described to
be undertaken more in a leisurely way, and
as such represents a discrete form of
cultural activity undertaken to enjoy
locally available produce. As such, it was
given its own category.
“picking mushrooms and
berries”
Security Ecosystems may elicit a sense of security
and homeliness as a positive experience
among visitors.
“I feel at home”
Knowledge From their interaction with ecosystems,
visitors may acquire new knowledge about
the workings of the natural world, for
“I learn new things about the
forest”
58
example. This may be of value in
developing their perception about the
world around them.
Inspiration Inspiration may be taken from interactions
with ecosystems in creating works of art of
literature in celebration of the experiences
elicited therein.
“I use it has inspiration for my
drawings”
59
Appendix 3 – Results table from thematic analysis (activity 2)
Table 5 Results table from thematic analysis (activity 2)
School 1 School 2
Group 1 Carbon absorption Picking berries/mushrooms Playing in the forest Playing video games Animals Getting fresh air
Carbon absorption Picking berries/mushrooms Wood (for energy) Wood (for houses) Animals Hunting (for food)
Group 2 Carbon absorption Feeling free Playing in the forest Going for a walk Picking berries/mushrooms Wood (for energy)
Carbon absorption Feeling free Picking berries/mushrooms Animals Playing in the forest Resting in the forest
Group 3 Carbon absorption Picking berries/mushrooms Feeling free Wood (for houses) Animals Wood (for energy)
Carbon absorption Picking berries/mushrooms Playing in the forest Animals (x2) Wood (for houses)