Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory

Understanding why people make the decisions they do remains a fundamental challenge facing conservation science. Ecosystem service (ES) (a benefit people derive from an ecosystem) approaches to conservation reflect efforts to anticipate people's preferences and influence their environmental behavior. Yet, the design of ES approaches seldom includes psychological theories of human behavior. We sought to alleviate this omission by applying a psychological theory of human values to a cross-cultural ES assessment. We used interviews and focus groups with fish workers from 28 coral reef fishing communities in 4 countries to qualitatively identify the motivations (i.e., human values) underlying preferences for ES; quantitatively evaluate resource user ES priorities; and identify common patterns among ES motivations and ES priorities (i.e., trade-offs and synergies). Three key findings are evident that align with human values theory. First, motivations underlying preferences for individual ESs reflected multiple human values within the same value domain (e.g., self-enhancement). Second, when averaged at community or country scales, the order of ES priorities was consistent. However, the order belied significant variation that existed among individuals. Third, in line with human values theory, ESs related to one another in a consistent pattern; certain service pairs reflected trade-off relationships (e.g., supporting and provisioning), whereas other service pairs reflected synergistic relationships (e.g., supporting and regulating). Together, these findings help improve understanding of when and why convergence and trade-offs in people's preferences for ESs occur, and this knowledge can inform the development of suitable conservation actions. Enlazando los Servicios Ambientales y la Teoría de Valores Humanos Entender por qué las personas toman las decisiones que toman todavía es un obstáculo fundamental que encara la ciencia de la conservación. Las estrategias de conservación basadas servicios ambientales (SA) (beneficios que las personas obtienen de un ecosistema) reflejan los esfuerzos por anticiparse a las preferencias de las personas e influir sobre su comportamiento humano. A pesar de esto, el diseño de las estrategias de SA casi nunca incluyen las teorías psicológicas del comportamiento humano. Buscamos aliviar esta omisión al aplicar una teoría psicológica de valor humano a la evaluación trans-cultural de los SA. Utilizamos entrevistas y grupos de muestreo con pescadores de 28 comunidades de pesca en arrecifes de coral en cuatro países para identificar cualitativamente las motivaciones (es decir, los valores humanos) que subyacen las preferencias por los SA; evaluar cualitativamente las prioridades de SA de los usuarios de los recursos; e identificar los patrones comunes entre las motivaciones y las prioridades de los SA (es decir, las compensaciones y las sinergias). Tres hallazgos clave que se alinean con la teoría de valor humano son evidentes. Primero, las motivaciones que subyacen las preferencias para los SA individuales reflejaron múltiples valores humanos dentro del mismo dominio de valor (por ejemplo, el auto-mejoramiento). Segundo, al promediar el orden de las prioridades de SA a escala de comunidad o de país, este fue congruente. Sin embargo, el orden contradijo una variación significativa que existió entre los individuos. Tercero, en línea con la teoría de valor humano, los SA se relacionaron unos con otros en un patrón congruente; ciertos pares de servicios reflejaron las relaciones de compensación (por ejemplo, sustentación y provisión), mientras que otros pares de servicios reflejaron las relaciones sinérgicas (por ejemplo, sustento y regulación). En conjunto, estos hallazgos ayudan a mejorar el entendimiento de cuándo y por qué ocurren la convergencia y las compensaciones en las preferencias de las personas por los SA, y este conocimiento puede informar al desarrollo de acciones de conservación apropiadas. Despite local, national, and global efforts to mitigate undesirable ecosystem change (COP 2011), anthropogenic impacts on Earth's systems are intensifying (Barnosky et al. 2012; Costello et al. 2012). This widespread failure to steer human behavior has brought with it a growing recognition that the solutions to environmental challenges need to transcend disciplinary boundaries and, specifically, incorporate social considerations (Daily & Matson 2008; Milner-Gulland 2012). In response, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2003) endorsed an ecosystem services (ESs) approach that explicitly recognizes the benefits people gain from nature. By describing how nature is a benefit to people, the ES approach aims to align environmental sustainability with human well-being and thus build support for conservation and sustainable resource management (Daily 1997; Norgaard 2010). Although there is an explicit focus on steering human behavior toward a more sustainable path, ES applications have to date largely come from the ecological or economic sciences (e.g. Balvanera et al. 2006; Mace et al. 2011; Bateman et al. 2013) and lacked integration with the broader social science literature about people's choices and behavior (Ajzen 1991; Milner-Gulland 2012; Schwartz 2013). However, a growing body of conservation-focused research that draws on the psychological sciences can help to inform these efforts. This research seeks to determine how people's environmental choices and behaviors are shaped by their values, beliefs, attitudes, norms, and intentions (Ajzen 1991; Stern et al. 1999; Manfredo et al. 2009). These factors, in various combinations, are used in frameworks such as a theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985, 1991) and value belief norm (Stern et al. 1999) to predict specific behaviors, such as maintaining a forest patch or recycling (Mastrangelo et al. 2014). In all cases, human values, which are an expression of people's motivational goals (Schwartz 1994; Rokeach 2008), are antecedent to the factors that shape their behavior (Stern et al. 1999; Song et al. 2013). Yet, few studies have explicitly examined how human values, and thus behaviors, are related to people's ES preferences. It is generally accepted that a small number of human values exist, are present in all societies, and are prioritized in a consistent order (Schwartz 1994; Rokeach 2008; Hofstede 2011). Because this finite set of values are conceptually consistent, scholars have been able to develop robust value-measurement systems that advance and validate ideas about human values and how they relate to one another (e.g., Morris 1956; Rokeach 2008; Schwartz 2013). For example, in a widely adopted framework, Schwartz (1994, 2013) identified 10 basic human value types (benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, tradition, conformity) that are related to each other, heuristically depicted as a wheel of values (Schwartz 1994, 2013) (Fig. 1a; Supporting Information). Within this wheel, adjacent values have similar motivations and differences are accentuated when values are opposite each other. These 10 values cluster into 4 domains (traditionalism, openness to change, self-transcendence, self-enhancement) that lie along 2 axes (Table 1). Values within a domain complement one another and domains that lie in opposition to one another create potential trade-offs, where activities that enhance values in one domain will obstruct values in the opposing domain (Schwartz & Bardi 2001; Davidov 2010). Behaviors are therefore guided by trade-offs among competing values such that people will actively oppose activities that enhance low priority values and promote activities that enhance high priority values (Rokeach 1973; Tetlock 1986; Schwartz 1996). Self-enhancement values lie opposite self-transcendence values and reflect a trade-off between concern for self and concern for others. Openness-to-change values lie opposite traditionalism values, reflecting a trade-off between desires for change and for stability. Therefore, an understanding of the human values associated with various ES preferences can help managers and scientists anticipate people's general behavior (e.g., tendency to cooperate or not) (Schwartz 1996). We positioned marine ESs (MA 2003; Böhnke-Henrichs et al. 2013) in a human values framework (Schwartz 1994, 2013) to improve understanding of the underlying values associated with specific ES preferences. To operationalize this, we visited 28 coral reef fishing communities in 4 countries to examine how resource users’ prioritize nine ES and the human values associated with each. We sought to determine how resource users conceptualized ES benefits, the human values associated with ES preferences, how resource users prioritized ES benefits, and how ESs (i.e., their associated human values and priorities) related to one another (i.e., which ESs create synergies and which trade-offs). We conducted interviews and focus groups with fish workers (fishers, fish processors, and traders) from 28 independent coral reef fishing communities across Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, and Seychelles. Communities were selected to be representative of the regions rural coral reef fishing communities. These fisheries were therefore artisanal (i.e., small scale), where fishers land a diversity of reef and reef-associated species for home consumption and local markets using a diversity of gears (broadly classified as spears, nets, traps, and handlines). For each community, we contacted the relevant local fish workers organization or the fisheries department to establish how many registered fish workers they were, how old they were, where they lived, and what they used as a primary gear. We used this information to randomly select respondents across the age, gear, and geographic range of all involved in the fishery. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Fish workers were predominantly male, although there were some female fish processors and traders. The average age of a fish worker was 40 years (range 14–80). We conducted 28 focus groups, one in each community, at either fish landing sites, communal meeting spots, or a fisher's house. Focus groups were designed to help us conceptualize ES benefits and identify the underlying motivations (i.e., human values) associated with these benefits. We then conducted face-to-face, individual, semi-structured interviews to quantitatively measure resource users’ ES priorities according to how important each ES was to each resource user. We interviewed 374 fish workers, 7–32 from each community, which represented 20–40% of the fish workers in each community (Hicks et al. 2013). We asked resource users in focus groups to explore the benefits they associated with their environment (Hicks et al. 2013; Hicks & Cinner 2014). We then used concepts from an ecological economics perspective on ES (MA 2003; Supporting Information) to stimulate further discussion and determine whether any ES, relevant to resource users across the 4 study countries, had been missed. The first 2 focus groups in each country developed a description of each ES and selected a photograph of each ES to be used later in the quantitative strategy (described below). The later focus groups were used to ensure the descriptions and photographs (Supporting Information, Hicks et al. 2013) were applicable at different sites, where necessary adjustments were made. For example, some communities identified the spiritual significance of a baobab tree (Adansonia spp.) (a cultural service), whereas others identified spiritual sites found in coastal caves, known as kayas. The final list contained 9 ESs that we categorized into 1 of the 4 ES categories: provisioning services- fishery and materials; regulating services- coastal protection and sanitation; supporting service- habitat provision; and cultural services-education, recreation, culture, and bequest (natural or cultural heritage for future generations). In the second part of the focus group, we used a human values framework (Schwartz 1994, 2013) from social psychology to identify the underlying motivations (i.e., human values) associated with each benefit. We asked resource users to explore and articulate why each of the nine ES were important in their lives. The first author used the notes and transcripts from the focus groups to code respondents’ statements according to statements used in Schwartz (2009) value survey (SVS). The SVS contains 58 statements (e.g., preserving my image) that are associated with a specific value type (e.g., power). The SVS allowed us to assign a value type or types to respondent's statements and thus to assign a value to each ES. For example, respondents said fishery benefits were important because acquiring them enabled fishers to gain personal income; provide for families; be seen as a skilled fisher; and eat tasty fish. These motivations reflected the following statements from the SVS “wealth- material possessions and money”; “influential- having an impact on people and events”; “preserving my image- protecting my face”; and “pleasure- gratification of desire” that reflect power, achievement, and hedonism values. Fishery was therefore assigned power, achievement, and hedonism values, which fall within the domain (Table Supporting Information). The author then the first of value types to ES. the first author the and which value type reflected the respondents’ In the quantitative of the we used individual semi-structured interviews to the assigned to each ES. We were in how important the ES was in general to as and how important it was to enhance or the ES to as & Bateman et al. and values are For example, in general to be important because it is necessary for an in is to be important for people do have We used a that for differences in ES priorities and values by of the 9 ESs to where differences This allowed us to determine whether there is a in the of ES priorities that across similar to that found for human values. We that first for second for and, for or We all and information values to select the Information). We used a to for differences in priorities and values by a of as to determine where the across a of We that first for second for and, for or community variation Information). We all and values to select the For all we of and by of were some from for is to with it is robust to of & To determine how ESs are related to one another (i.e., whether certain services create synergies and others we used the independent (i.e., ES human values, ES ES priorities) to and the among We used the in First, we used the human values associated with each ES, identified from the focus groups, to the 9 ESs (1994, 2013) value wheel (Table (Fig. The Schwartz wheel values with similar motivations and values with opposing motivations at a Second, we used respondents ES in the to the among ESs individual, community, and country on a We used a with and to the value & & This approach services that respondents similar priorities to one another and services that respondents different priorities from one Third, we used the ES in the to the among ESs individual, community, and country on We used and to the value & & Fish workers from the identified a number of motivations (i.e., human values) associated with each ES. motivations with broader human values from social psychology and the of human value domains (Table (Schwartz 1994, 2013). It was to assign individual values to each ES because the motivations identified reflected multiple value types (e.g. and (Supporting Information). However, the value types associated with each ES to fall into a value domain (Schwartz 1994, 2013) (e.g., openness to change, self-transcendence, and self-enhancement) (Table The was the ES recreation, where the motivations be classified as openness to change (e.g., or (e.g., values. However, because the identified values were to be by the (i.e., they represented to for we assigned to the value groups of ESs were each associated with a values culture, and bequest associated with traditionalism associated with fishery and associated with and coastal and associated with self-transcendence values (Table were significant differences in the priorities assigned to the 9 ESs on and were 4 of priorities for value Fishery was the priority and was by habitat and coastal and and, recreation, and (Fig. was in the on values, this was consistent across community, and (Supporting Information). were of priority for value fishery and habitat were the was coastal and recreation, and was the priority (Supporting Information). there was in on values, this was consistent across community, and (Supporting Information). The individual priorities assigned to ESs for and at country and community (Supporting Information). The was associated with the values (Fig. and the values (Fig. was in on values, these relationships across (Supporting Information). In other although there to be that and were of high priority in general there was that to and were a high ES approaches values, and priorities) similar patterns that were consistent across This ESs were related to one another in a consistent (Fig. Supporting Information). on human values and culture, and bequest were and opposite This reflected a coastal and were and opposite a of fishery and which reflected a second trade-off (Fig. 1). on value priorities was The was adjacent culture, and bequest (Supporting Information). support key First, individual ESs were associated with multiple human values, these values were all from the same value domain (Schwartz 2013). Second, certain ESs were prioritized others. Schwartz and Bardi and and Schwartz found that certain human values are prioritized others. However, the in ES priorities variation in Third, we found consistent patterns among ES priorities and their associated human values, reflecting synergies and trade-offs among ESs et al. 2012; et al. 2012; Hicks et al. 2013). Together, these key findings for understanding when and why convergence and trade-offs in people's ES priorities behavior can be by the values they understanding of the motivations associated with people's priorities can therefore help managers develop (e.g., people by a concern for others are more to and thus be to in resource societies, the of is seldom a priority et al. 2011). people goals to prioritize their decisions and develop that the of benefits people gain from nature are therefore an important part of any conservation However, to influence behavior need to be by people's psychological We found ES preferences were associated with a range of for any ES, these motivations were similar and within the same value domain 2010). studies can therefore focus on the value domain (e.g. the type of value (e.g., associated with an ES. Fishery benefits were, for example, associated with individual achievement, economic and (Schwartz et al. whereas coastal protection benefits were associated with and fishing and (Schwartz 2009). A ES therefore multiple of people's et al. The consistent of ES (e.g., and prioritized recreation, and the human values although of the (Schwartz & Bardi 2001; & Schwartz 2011). this and order whether ESs in general or an in However, the in ES priorities at community or country variation that within a this variation is when an ES is a high priority (e.g., and This because people prioritize one value from and all (Hicks et al. 2013). are therefore to because groups of people have on which ESs need are many why prioritize ESs different priorities to different and (Hicks et al. 2013). are to a benefit they have to and are of from a resource et al. 1999; Hicks & Cinner 2014). of (e.g., and variation and make about how & 2012). Because there is or to individual choices to a future ES examine the in this variation is any is to benefit some and and et al. 2011). The of ESs into value domain with the 4 ES (MA this trade-offs in the ES specifically, between provisioning services and regulating or supporting services et al. et al. 2006; et al. 2012). This ES trade-offs when human values whereas synergies when values align (Schwartz & However, preferences for various cultural ESs were by and change and stability. This trade-offs between and culture, or bequest (Hicks et al. 2009). services are therefore in need of et al. 2012; et al. and ES need to ensure that cultural other recreation, are (Hicks 2011; et al. 2011; et al. 2013). A failure to do this in with benefits and et al. The values people prioritize are to their of people are to to to values (Schwartz 1996). that self-transcendence values promote for social benefits, whereas values promote personal (Schwartz 1996). values promote and change, whereas traditionalism values promote social (Schwartz 1996). These and knowledge of how ESs relate to can help managers anticipate how people are to to various conservation for example, prioritize ES associated with self-transcendence values (i.e., supporting and regulating are more to in approaches that focus on social benefits such as community conservation prioritize ES associated with traditionalism values (i.e., culture, and are more to in management that or local or as protecting or local efforts to et al. However, activities that promote one value the opposing people to to activities that promote values of a low priority and to activities that promote values of a high Understanding the relationships among ES values and their trade-off can help managers anticipate behavior and develop (Schwartz 1996). prioritize recreation, an support a management such as & people prioritize culture, a traditionalism this people prioritize a with management that individual such as or in the of whereas prioritize a self to such This it be to all For example, protecting and fisheries be because these values, and thus behaviors, are in opposition to one However, in such managers be to the social and approaches to the to support In this a conservation can and fisheries with different different in the same Although ES are to be adopted widely by the to them incorporate a human values to in their We have how from psychology have in ES research and how the different domains of can help and what types of synergies and trade-offs are to et al. 2006; et al. 2012; et al. 2012). This approach conservation to be explicit about the and choices involved et al. et al. 2012). However, values are to be The human values associated with an ESs change such as (e.g., are and will on of to future research are the relationships between ESs consistent and across how do people benefit from their what the values people and how can individual values be to determine a social This was by the the for support was by the and the Cinner and Hicks from the and 1 were from Schwartz to and in the to the many fishers their and to for and to for on the was by the from the and and this The is for the or of any supporting information by the be to the author for the