Ecological restoration is promoted as a promising solution to environmental change and degradation. A relatively young field, restoration ecology has yet to accommodate fully the social processes involved in defining and prioritizing desirable ecosystem change and identifying interventions to bring that change to fruition. To ensure we plan for resilient and sustainable ecosystems, restoration must assess the full range of values society associates with their environment, including the often excluded social and cultural values. We contend that the cultural ecosystem services (CES) framework can capture these social and cultural values. CES are defined as the non-material benefits society receives from ecosystem processes, such as recreation, cultural heritage, and knowledge systems. Using grassland restoration in Southwest New Mexico as a case study and semi-structured interview methods, we (1) captured perceptions of CES, (2) how those perceptions differed across users, and (3) how restoration efforts affect the delivery of perceived CES. Interview results, with collaborative input from ecologists and social scientists, will inform the construction of a Q-sort survey complete with photo-elicitation methods. This instrument is intended to link known biological data with CES perceptions. These boundary-spanning efforts aim to unite resilient ecological systems with society’s visions of desired landscapes.
Results/Conclusions
Interviews with participants (n=34) reveal that those involved directly in restoration (e.g., managers, livestock producers, and Restore New Mexico partners), focus heavily on lifestyle CES, while the wider array of users focus more on recreation CES. Results also show that ecological change associated with restoration, including enhanced wildlife sightings and vast grassland spaces, improve aesthetic value, recreation, and lifestyle CES. However, some participants see value in shrubland for perceived CES and other ecosystem services, like aesthetic value, carbon sequestration, and habitat provisioning. In addition to ecological factors, management action also impacts CES. Longevity of interventions, restricted access to treatment areas, and federal policy associated with cattle hinder recreation and lifestyle CES, while social processes such as trust in management, participant attitudes toward other stakeholder groups, and differences in CES perceptions can hinder how people experience the environment. Results indicate that people perceive and prioritize CES differently, so goals of restoration may not be inclusive to all visions of the landscape. Moreover, processes involved in restoration, not just outcomes, impact CES perceptions. Results imply that social monitoring can help inform defining goals for restoration. CES outlined in the interviews will inform the construction of the Q-sort survey.