4.8 Review

Linking the nonmaterial dimensions of human-nature relations and human well-being through cultural ecosystem services

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 8, 期 31, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abn8042

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [22H00567]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper explores the relationship between cultural ecosystem services (CESs) and human well-being, identifying unique pathways and mechanisms linking CESs and constituents of human well-being. It highlights the complex interactions through latent class analysis and multiple correspondence analysis, revealing synergies and trade-offs at the interface of CESs and human well-being. The study also offers critical discussions on key research trends and gaps, proposing future directions to leverage the potential of nature's nonmaterial contributions for human well-being and sustainability.
Nature contributes substantially to human well-being through its diverse material and nonmaterial contributions. However, despite the growing literature on the nonmaterial dimensions of human-nature relations, we lack a systematic understanding of how they are linked with human well-being. Here, we use the concept of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) as a lens to explore this interface. Through a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, we elicit the unique pathways and mechanisms linking individual CESs and constituents of human well-being, as well as their relative effects. Subsequently, we identify their complex interactions through latent class analysis and multiple correspondence analysis, which delineate five major assemblages that reflect synergies and trade-offs at the interface of CESs and human well-being. We critically discuss key research trends and gaps and propose directions for future research and practice to leverage the potential of the nonmaterial contributions of nature for human well-being and sustainability more broadly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据