The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’
Open accessAbstract
This paper explores spiritual and aesthetic cultural values associated with ecosystems. We argue that these values are not best captured by instrumental or consequentialist thinking, and they are grounded in conceptions of nature that differ from the ecosystem services conceptual framework. To support our case, we engage with theories of the aesthetic and the spiritual, sample the discourse of ‘wilderness’, and provide empirical evidence from the recent UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on Phase. We observe that accounts of spiritual and aesthetic value in Western culture are diverse and expressed through different media. We recognise that humans do benefit from their aesthetic and spiritual experiences of nature. However, aesthetic and spiritual understandings of the value of nature lead people to develop moral responsibilities towards nature and these are more significant than aesthetic and spiritual benefits from nature. We conclude that aesthetic and spiritual values challenge economic conceptions of ecosystems and of value (including existence value), and that an analysis of cultural productions and a plural-values approach are needed to evidence them appropriately for decision-making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems
Ostrom, E. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1172133 · Cited by 8,656
Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?
Schwartz, S. H. (1994) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x · Cited by 5,793
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00089-7 · Cited by 4,809
The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis
White, L. (1967) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203 · Cited by 4,287
A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas
Ostrom, E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0702288104 · Cited by 2,728
Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature
Cronon, W. J. (1996) · Cited by 2,113
Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 · Cited by 1,871
The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality
Heelas, P., Woodhead, L., Seel, B., Tusting, K., & Szerszynski, B. (2005) · Cited by 1,869
Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment
Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113 · Cited by 1,766
Cited by
Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services
Himes, A., & Muraca, B. (2018) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005 · Cited by 489
Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change
(2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02318-8 · Cited by 308
Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services
Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015 · Cited by 267
Self-citationDumitru, A., Frantzeskaki, N., & Collier, M. (2020) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.024 · Cited by 134
“…example, this can be performed by combining qualitative assessments on the social e ff ects of nature-based solutions that focus on perceptions (Botzat et al., 2016; Buchel and Frantzeskaki, 2015; Cooper et al., 2016; Farjon et al., 2016; Fish et al., 2016) with quantitative assessments of outcomes.”
BackgroundA global horizon scan of the future impacts of robotics and autonomous systems on urban ecosystems
Goddard, M. A., Davies, Z. G., Guenat, S., Ferguson, M. J., Fisher, J. C., Akanni, A., Ahjokoski, T., Anderson, P. M. L., Angeoletto, F., Antoniou, C., et al. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-020-01358-z · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H., & Bryce, R.
- Venue
- Ecosystem Services
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 21
- Pages
- 218-229
- ISSN
- 2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2528217289
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 108
- FWCI
- 22.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
