The cultural ecosystem services: From philosophical post-modernism perspectives

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) has been one of the most important aspects in determining the human well-being especially those so called urban dweller. Many studies in CES had been conducted, but generally all of it only discussed from the objectivism point of view. Hence, this study tries to open a new paradigm as we will look into the significant of subjectivity in CES. The relevance of CES to indicate human well-being is based on few indicators such as emotions, stress, health and happiness. From previous studies shows that there was a significant relationship between the existence of CES and human well-being. However, those studies only provide the knowledge quantitatively. We also found that to discuss CES only from quantitative approach is absurd because CES cannot be separated from spiritual and religious factors. Therefore we are agreed that CES have to be discussed from the philosophical post-modernism which undeniably is significant.

Full text

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 Oct 2018
59
WFL Publisher
Science and Technology
Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: info@world-food.net
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 . 2018
www.world-food.net
The cultural ecosystem services: From philosophical post-modernism perspectives
Azlan Abas 1*, Kadaruddin Aiyub 1, Nurul-Azza Abdullah 2 and Nur Najmi Mohamad Anuar 3
1 Centre of Development, Social and Environment, 2 Centre of Psychology and Human Well-being, Faculty of Social Sciences
and Humanities, 3 Centre of Health and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
*e-mail: azlanabas@ukm.edu.my, azlanbinabas@gmail.com
Received 10 December 2017, accepted 30 March 2018. Abstract
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) has been one of the most important aspects in determining the human well-being especially those so called urban
dweller. Many studies in CES had been conducted, but generally all of it only discussed from the objectivism point of view. Hence, this study tries to open
a new paradigm as we will look into the significant of subjectivity in CES. The relevance of CES to indicate human well-being is based on few indicators
such as emotions, stress, health and happiness. From previous studies shows that there was a significant relationship between the existence of CES and
human well-being. However, those studies only provide the knowledge quantitatively. We also found that to discuss CES only from quantitative approach
is absurd because CES cannot be separated from spiritual and religious factors. Therefore we are agreed that CES have to be discussed from the
philosophical post-modernism which undeniably is significant.
Key words: Cultural ecosystem services, post-modernism, human well-being, environmental management.
Introduction
The concept of ecosystem services has a long history, dating to at
least the time of Plato. It has since gained attention in economics
and ecology research and conservation applications. Recently, it
has gained an increased attention beyond ecology and economics,
and becoming increasingly influential in environmental research
and decision-making. The advantages and benefits the organisms
derive from ecosystem are generally known as ecosystem services.
In fact, the process of natural ecosystem and ecosystem services
are two sides of the coin, ecosystem. From an anthropological
angle, ecosystem services help for successful survival of mankind
on this Earth by maintaining biodiversity of micro and macro
utilitarian goods and values. Accordingly, ecosystem goods (such
as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the
benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from
ecosystem function. Valuing natural resources is a complex, spatial
and institutional cross-scale problem. Cultural ecosystem service
(CES) are generally described as the non-material benefits people
obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive
development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. CES
are highly recognized and directly perceived by people, and they
may have most direct links with wellbeing. A significant proportion
of CES research has been focused on tourism and recreation in
industrialized economies, where the importance of CES is expected
to grow. However, research has also shown that CES are essential
for cultural identity and even survival among many traditional
communities, where comparatively little research is focused. Table
1 shows the division, group, class and examples for CES 9.
In some nations, there has been a widespread shift in demand
away from local- to national-level nature based recreation
experiences that can be largely explained (statistically) by a rise
in video games, home movies, theatre attendance and internet
use20. These marked declines appear to be limited largely to the
US and Japan, however, as many other nations have enjoyed an
increase in nature-based tourism and the decline in US national
park visitation is correlated statistically with a rise in income and
in foreign travel, including to protected areas elsewhere 20.Thus
it is unclear whether there are global declines in demand for CES;
it is however quite clear that demand is highly variable and likely
subject to change, including intentional. The concept of
environmental identity may be useful here, as it appears to
manifest in the quantity of interactions with nature, perceived
importance of those interactions, positive experiences in nature,
and approval of pro-environmental behavior. Environmental
identity is a function of social context, through the values and
activities of ones friends and family 7.
So many studies have been conducted using the CES
framework prepared by The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
but the problem is epistemologically the framework only touch
on the objectivity and abandons the subjective parts of the CES.
This study utterly try to investigate whether the measurement
for CES that been used from the beginning till now is sufficient
with bringing the idea how CES helped the society forming a
resilient generation, and is there any room for improvisation if
we look over a different framework such as philosophical post-
modernism and what it took to define CES non-empirically.

60
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 Oct 2018
Table 1. Cultural ecosystem services division, group, class and examples.
Division Group Class Examples
Physical and
intellectual
interactions Physical and
experiential
interactions
Experiential use of plants, animals,
and land-seascapes in different
environmental settings
Physical use of land-/seascapes in
different environmental settings
Whale or bird watching, snorkeling, diving
Walking, hiking, kayaking, boating, recreational fishing,
using urban green spaces
Spiritual and
Intellectual and
representative
interactions
Scientific Subject matter for scientific research, e.g., pollen record,
genetic patterns
Educational Subject matter of educational value, e.g., for school trips;
books
Heritage, cultural Historic records of a place; cultural heritage preserved in
water bodies or soils, e.g., pottery remains, relics
Aesthetic Artistic representations of nature
Entertainment Ex situ viewing of the natural world through different
media, e.g., wildlife television programs
Emblematic plants and animals; national symbols, e.g.,
symbolic
Spiritual and/or
emblematic
Symbolic
Sacred and/or religious
English rose, American eagle, South African springbok
Holy or spiritual places important to spiritual or ritual
identity, e.g.,
River Ganges in India, sacred forest groves, sacred plants
or animals
Enjoyment and philosophical perspective provided by the
knowledge of, and reflections on, the existence of wild
species,
Other cultural
outputs
Existence wilderness, or land-/seascapes, e.g., presence of the
Amazon rainforest and its wildlife for dwellers of South
$P
HULFD¶V
FDSLWD
O
FLWLHV
Bequest
Willingness to preserve plants, animals, ecosystems, and
land-/seascapes for the experience and use of future
generations, e.g., long-term conservation
Cultural Ecosystem Services Molding Resilient Society
Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and
reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially
the same function, structure, and feedbacks, and therefore identity,
that is, the capacity to change in order to sustain identity; resilience
is a dynamic concept focusing on how to persist with change,
how to evolve with change. Adaptability refers to human actions
that sustain development on current pathways. Adaptation is a
process of deliberate change in anticipation or in reaction to external
stimuli and stress. Adaptation and adaptive capacity of people,
communities, and societies are concepts in use in global
environmental change in general and in climate change in particular
with overlap with resilience thinking. The adaptability concept in
resilience thinking captures the capacity of people in a social-
ecological system to learn, combine experience and knowledge,
innovate, and adjust responses and institutions to changing
external drivers and internal processes. Adaptability has been
defined as the capacity of actors in a system to influence resilience
and is about adapting within critical social-ecological thresholds.
Adaptability is central to persistence. It helps turn changes and
surprises into opportunities and, hence, is an important part of
social-ecological resilience. Transformability is about shifting
development into new pathways and even creating novel ones. It
is about having the ability to cross thresholds and move social-
ecological systems into new basins of attractions, into new,
emergent and often unknown development trajectories. Such
ability draws on sources of resilience from other levels and scales
than the one in focus for the transformation of the existing system.
Crises can open up space for transformations, for new ways of
thinking and operating. Here, experiences can be revitalized,
recombined for novelty, and help in navigating the arising
transformative opportunities. Transformability has been defined
as “the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when
ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system
untenable” 10.
In order to form a resilience society, the human well-being must
first be taken care of. Human well-being is very much related with
the ecosystem services. Human well-being has many components,
including many aspects not based in ecosystem services.
Moreover, the components of well-being are experienced and
perceived differently across cultures and socioeconomic gradients.
These components of well-being refer to personal and social
functioning, and they express what a person values doing or
being23 . Well-being also needs to be understood at the supra-
individual level, since some aspects of well-being are primarily a
collective experience or the property of a community (for example,
resilience to ecological shocks or stress). Indeed, the colloquial
phrase wellbeing of nations reflects this perspective.
Nevertheless, research conducted in 23 countries 16 has shown
that poor people consistently stress that well-being depends
primarily on having the basic material minimum requirements for a
good life, and they attach particular importance to secure and
adequate livelihoods that enable them to provide for their children.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 Oct 2018
61
The well-being of humans, as social beings, requires a society
with a sufficient amount of social, human, and natural capital, as
well as manufactured (that is, conventional economic) capital.
Within ethnically and economically complex human cultures, trade-
offs and exchanges occur among these types of capital. For
example, the accumulation of manufactured capital is often
achieved at the cost of natural capital, and sometimes at the cost
of social capital. In the longer term, however, the stocks of all
these forms of capital depend on the continuing flow of services
from the natural world. In this sense, nature is the true creator to
whose products human societies seek to add economic and cultural
value, so as to suit the needs and purposes of society.
Human well-being is affected by changes in the composition
and functioning of ecosystems and the resultant flow of
ecosystem services. Often-used terms such as ecosystem health
or ecosystem integrity gain much more focus when defined in
terms of the capacity of ecosystems to supply a particular basket
of services to users of those services. Worldwide evidence of
escalating human impacts on ecosystems raises questions about
their capacity to continue to provide the services necessary for
an acceptable level of human well-being. Human activity already
impairs the flow of many ecosystem services. If current trends
continue, humanity will markedly alter virtually all of Earths
remaining natural ecosystems within a few decades, in most cases
in ways that increase the supply of one service (such as food or
fiber) at the expense of others (for example, clean water and
self-regulation of pests and diseases). Cultural ecosystem
services play a major role in determining the wellness of a
society. Fig. 1 shows how cultural ecosystem services molding
the human well-being and eventually forming a resilient society.
As shown in Fig. 1, cultural ecosystems services divided into
2 main divisions are physical and intellectual and spiritual and
symbolic. These 2 divisions make effects towards human in various
aspects such as happiness, health, emotion stability, stress and
literacy. All of the aspects were known as the indicator for human
well-being. According to Chan et al. 6, cultural ecosystems services
divided into two main groups that included the physical and
intellectual which are stands for the physical landscape that suits
Figure 1. CES framework towards society resilience.9
for recreation and outdoor activity such as Grand Canyon in USA,
Danum Valley in Malaysia, Everest Mount in India and Savannah
in Africa. The another group is spiritual and symbolic which brings
the mean of religion or nation symbols such as Kaaba in Mecca,
Vatican city, Eiffel Tower in Paris, Giant Pyramid in Egypt and
KLCC Tower in Malaysia. All of these places have their own value
depending on the society necessity. Some of the people will feel
happy if they can watch a pack of birds flown together, some will
get healthier if they can breathe the air from the Danum Valley or
the Amazon, perhaps some will feel much more relieved after a
session of sunbathing on the beach of California, USA. The
services provided by these places are very much depending on
what the people needs from it. In Japan, people will tend to have
less stress if they can go to the night club here times a week
compare to the people who did not. In Malaysia, people feel very
comfort and at ease if they can see mosque or temple near to their
home. Different people, different society needs different services
from the ecosystem. Index of happiness in New York central park
went up when they open a new animal farming in the central park
but it did not go the same way in Toronto when the index of
happiness has no significant changes when a mini zoo was
opened near to the city center.
Various studies have been made in measuring the emotion,
happiness and stress of society towards cultural ecosystems
services. According to Ozguner 19, people in Turkey use urban
parks generally for passive recreational activities such as
picnicking, resting and relaxing, in contrast to Western countries
where urban parks are generally used for walking, dog walking,
sport activities and exercise. In contrast to a common concern
about personal safety in urban parks, this study determined a
positive perception of safety among Turkish people. Appreciation
of natural features, experienced benefits, the need for
recreational facilities and concerns for general cleanliness and
maintenance were found as universally similar attitudes in urban
parks. People also tend to pay more to watch views that they
wants. Bastian et al. 1 stated that the tourism sector is prepared
to contribute to the funding of nature conservation and landscape
management. Use of general tax revenues is favored, but other
modes would also be accepted, e.g. a nature tax. Willingness to
pay (WTP) is ranging between €0.75 and €1.36 per guest per
night by TSP, or between €1.06 and €2.73 per day by visitors.
With respect to landscape preference and WTP they found in
some cases significant differences among visitors, depending
on region of residence, age and education level. A major part of
the annual costs for nature conservation and landscape could be
covered by public funds (taxes), if the results of the WTP
approach were understood as a sign of societal demand and a
call to action. Ozguner et al. 18 suggested that restoration of
derelict land increases the value of such areas for people and
enhances their uses for recreational purposes in urban areas.
Therefore, it is vital that urban planners and local authorities
should encourage restoration of derelict and unused urban areas
and preserve then as green spaces to meet the amenity needs of
urban people. Study also shows that Japanese showed a pervasive
tendency to reportedly experience engaging emotions more
strongly than they experienced disengaging emotions, but
Americans showed a reversed tendency. Moreover, as also
predicted, Japanese subjective well-being (i.e., the experience
of general positive feelings) was more closely associated with the

62
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 Oct 2018
experience of engaging positive emotions than with that of
disengaging emotions. Americans tended to show the reversed
pattern. The established cultural differences in the patterns of
emotion suggest the consistent and systematic cultural shaping
of emotion over time 14.
Cultural ecosystem services also had affected human health.
Studies have shown significant results on how the cultural
ecosystem services correlated with human health. Wilker et al.26
evaluated association between green space and ischemic stroke
in an epidemiological study that followed 1675 patients in the
Boston, MA, USA area for up to 13 years post-stroke. They
reported that those who lived in the lowest quartile of green space
examined had a higher mortality rate than those in the highest
green space quartile, and this effect was not linked to
socioeconomic or clinical factors, but no mechanism of causality
was identified. In another study, increased longevity was reported
among a large cohort of elderly people (>73 years) who lived in
areas of Japan with significant “walkable green spaces” 24.
Decreases in pre-term births and low birth weight, mortality rates,
as well as increases in academic performance, have all been
associated with greenness. For example, Hystad et al. 13 followed
the outcomes of nearly 65,000 singleton births in Vancouver, BC,
between 1999 and 2002 in relation to satellite-derived greenness
data. They reported significant positive relationship of greenness
with lower incidence of very and moderately pre-term births and
low birth weights, In another study, Villeneuve et al. 25 followed a
cohort of 575,000 individuals from 10 Canadian cities for 22 years,
during which the cohort experienced 187,000 deaths. They
reported reduced mortality rates for adults who lived in areas with
the most green space, and the strongest association was with
non-malignant respiratory disease. Bernstein 4 and references
therein, nicely summarized literature on the case for biodiversity
as support for food, natural products and drug discovery. Hough12
focused on studies dealing with the human health effects of loss
of biodiversity, including changes in ecosystem function, disease
regulation, and direct and indirect exposure to biodiverse
environments. Both of these reviewers and Rook 23 examined some
of the important roles of human gut microbial diversity in human
health, and how environmental effects on the gut microflora may
contribute to health problems including obesity, asthma, some
forms of bowel disease, and other inflammatory disorders. Derne
et al. 8 examined a possible relationship between incidence of
human leptospirosis in 19 island nations (where the potential host,
rats, may have large populations) and island biodiversity. Annual
leptospirosis incidence rates (adjusted for socioeconomics and
latitude) were significantly negatively associated with both total
species counts and terrestrial mammalian counts. Furthermore,
terrestrial mammalian species richness was the biodiversity
component shown to have the strongest association with
leptospirosis incidence. The authors stated: “Leptospirosis
incidence rates varied dramatically with small changes in terrestrial
mammalian species numbers when mammalian species richness
was low. As terrestrial mammalian species richness increased, the
decrease in leptospirosis incidence with each additional mammal
species became progressively smaller.” The authors remarked that
these results did not demonstrate a causal relationship and required
further investigation but were suggestive that biodiversity has a
“bioregulatory effect” on the transmission of leptospirosis, and
thus incidence, through the dilution effect and/or predatory and
competitive interactions 8.
Cultural Ecosystem Services vs Philosophical Post-modernism
There is a big argument whether we are living in modern era or
post-modern era. Is modernism philosophically still relevant or is
post-modernism just another rhetoric played by the scholars?
Whatever it is there is a lot of opinions and thoughts crossed all
over the world from different perspectives. This study is trying to
argue how the social form of a society can determine the demand
of their cultural ecosystem services. A modern mind would say
that every aspect in the social form can be quantified empirically.
If they cannot be quantified, then they are very much tending to
ignore it. According to Capra 5, the goal of modern science is to
describe reality objectively, with no reference to the subjective
observer. As a machine, the world functions according to
completely determinate universal mechanical laws and can be
explained using mathematics. Modernism has had a significant
influence on peoples attitudes towards the environment, as its
mechanistic view has allowed for the exploitation of nature 5.
Capra5 also states that in terms of early modernism: “Animals
were still [regarded as] machines, although they were much more
complicated than mechanical clockworks, involving complex,
chemical processes”. Nature, as falling into the category of matter,
was not seen to have its own purpose and, therefore, the aim of
science was to dominate and control it 5. In simple words, anything
that cannot be quantified is called irrelevant in philosophical
modernism. Post-modernism can be characterised by the aspects
of modernism that it negates, which include: meta-narratives or
totalising discourses; positivism and the myth of the pre-given;
the mechanistic and reductionistic view of the world and the
dominance of the profit-motive 11. The post-modern view of the
world is therefore not subject to any type of grand plan and there
is no reference to any particular larger truth 2. Rather the world is
comprised of an indefinite number of agencies that generate
meaning (e.g. the local community, a specific discipline, a social
institution, a particular scientist or the peer group).
In the perspectives of cultural ecosystem services, it has been
a norm to discuss it within the philosophical post-modernism but
the modernists were never admitting it. For example, how can we
relate a society attachment to a building so called mosque or
church with scientific approaches? How can we prove scientifically
that being inside those buildings can increase human wellness?
These questions always rose up whenever a discussion happened
about cultural ecosystems services measurement. The attachment
of a society towards a cultural element cannot be measured
scientifically. Its like measuring the good and bad deeds of a person
using kilograms. It is absurd to quantify it scientifically. Cultural
ecosystem services literally defined as the services provided by
the cultural buildings, monument, landscape and etc. to the human.
In the context of philosophical post-modernism, it is also discussed
what the human provided to the ecosystem in order to preserve
and sustain the service. Fig. 2 has been illustrated with the addition
of the effect of post-modernism in the cultural ecosystem services
framework.
From the post-modernism perspectives, we are adding up the
human contribution towards the ecosystem by preserving and
conserving in any forms. Perhaps, this may be in line with the
changing of humans ethics towards environment. According to
O’Riordan 17, humans perception and ethics towards environment

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 Oct 2018
63
Figure 2. CES framework from post-modernism perspective.
were changing since the industrial age and still changing rapidly
depends on human needs and desire. The ethics changing from
anthropocentrism (human centred) to technocentrism (technology
centred) in recent years. Technocentrism has its roots in many
aspects of modernism. It is, therefore, based on Descartes
fundamental division between the realm of mind and matter 5 in
which the human mind aims to achieve control over matter. The
natural environment is valued for its use to humans as a resource,
rather than for the fact that it exists, independent of its usefulness
to humans (i.e. its intrinsic value) 21. Technocentrism is also based
on a view of human well-being that is associated with growth,
technological progress and economic expansion 21. Benton 3 points
out that this view is typically found in modern capitalist countries,
state-socialist countries, as well as developing countries that are
modernizing. If problems arise, it is assumed that they can be
resolved through technological solutions, based on objective
analyses and efficient management 21. Technocentrism sounds
like very much to philosophical modernism, only quantitative
approaches are relevant to be discussed in term of human-
environment relationship. Yet, technocentrism cannot answer how
human value natures without any quantified purposes. From
tehcnocentrism, it shifts into ecocentrism where human will start
preserving nature because of its intrinsic value 21. An ecocentric
ethics, as described by O’Riordan 17, centres on the virtues of
reverence, humility, responsibility and care. Where the
technocentric approaches emphasize processes and techniques
for the management of environmental resources, ecocentric
approaches focus on the type of relationship that should exist
between humans and nature and on questioning the social and
economic values that underpin society. Ecocentrism ise much more
suitable in the framework of post-modernism. Human is willing to
sacrifice their needs and preserve the nature for its intrinsic value
such as spiritual, religious, intellectual, and etc. According to
Naess 15, to discuss econcentrism in the framework of modernism
is a mistake, because modernism never discuss about subjective
matters whereas ecocentrism is always rely on subjectivity. Hence,
to make CES framework much more practical it needed to be
discussed in line with post-modernism and ecocentrism.
Conclusions
Cultural ecosystem services are very important in sustaining
human well-being. Human well-being can be indicated based on
social emotion, happiness, health and resilience. All of these
indicators can be measured from the cultural ecosystem services
(CES). However, for now, the approach to measure the CES is
quantitative. Based on the findings of this paper, we argue that
CES cannot be determined based on empirical view. It also needs
to be understood non-empirically which is obeying the
philosophical post-modernism. In line with that, the ecocentrism
point of view can bring the balance in discussing the post-
modernism in the CES framework because ecocentric attitudes
also have the non-empirical stand towards the nature itself. Post-
modernism should be more taken into credits when defining and
valuing the cultural ecosystem services. It is just not because of
it stands being non-empirical, but also because of the lacking in
defining the definition of cultural ecosystem services in term of
the measurement. The next from now, there should be a very
thorough discussion to implement subjective approach in cultural
ecosystem services measurement in order to get the whole picture
of cultural ecosystem services framework as proposed by The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
References
1Bastian, O., Stein, C., Lupp, G., Behrens, J., Renner, C. and Grünewald,
K. 2015. The appreciation of nature and landscape by tourism service
providers and visitors in the Ore Mountains (Germany). Landscape
Online. Official Journal of the International Association for Landscape
Ecology 41:1-23.
2Baumann, Z. 1992. Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, London.
3Benton, T. 1994. Biology and social theory in the environmental debate.
In Redclift, M. and Benton, T. (eds). Social Theory and the Global
Movement. Routledge, London, pp. 21-50.
4Bernstein, A. S. 2014. Biological diversity and human health. Annu. Rev.
Public Health 35:153-167.
5Capra, F. 1982. The Turning Point. Flamingo, London, 97 p.
6Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T.,
Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B. S.,
Levine, J., Norton, B., Rucelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J. and Woodside,
U. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A
framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62(8):744-756.
7Clayton, S. D. and Opotow, S. 2003. Identity and the Natural
Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
8Derne, B.T., Fearnley, E.J., Lau, C.L., Paynter, S. and Weinstein, P.
2011. Biodiversity and leptospirosis risk: A case of pathogen
regulation? Med. Hypotheses 77(3):339-344.
9Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-
being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
10Folke, C. 2016. Resilience. Ecology and Society 21(4):44-49.
11Gare, A. E. 1995. Postmodernism and the Environmental Crisis.
Routledge, London.
12Hough, R. L. 2014. Biodiversity and human health: Evidence for causality?
Biodivers. Conserv. 23(2):267-288.
13Hystad, P., Davies, H. D., Frank, L., Van Loon, J., Gehring, U., Tamburic,
L. and Brauer, M. 2014. Residential greenness and birth outcomes:
Evaluating the influence of spatially correlated built-environment
factors. Environ. Health Perspect. 122(10):1095-1102.
14Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B. and Karasawa, M. 2006. Cultural
affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging
emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and

64
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.16 (3&4):45-50 Oct 2018
Social Psychology 91(5):890-903.
15Naess, A. 1988. Self-realisation: An ecological approach towards being
in the world. In VanDeVeer, D. and Pierce, C. (eds). The Environmental
Ethics and Policy Book. 3rd edn. Wadsworth, California, pp. 268-273.
16Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A. and Koch-Schulte,
S. 2000. Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone hear Us? Oxford University
Press.
17O’Riordan, T. 1981. Environmentalism. Pion, London.
18Ozguner, H., Eraslan, S. and Yilmaz, S. 2010. Public perception of
landscape restoration along a degraded urban streamside. Land
Degradation & Development 23(1):24-33.
19Ozguner, H. 2011. Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks
and green spaces. Landscape Research 36(5):599-620.
20Pergams, O. R. W. and Zaradic, P. A. 2006. Is love of nature in the US
becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park
visits explained by watching movis, playing video games, internet use
and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management 80(4):387-393.
21Reid, D. 1995. Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide.
Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
22Rook, G. A. 2013. Regulation of the immune system by biodiversity
from the natural environment: An ecosystem service essential to health.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110(46):18360-18367.
23Sen, A. 1999. On ethics and economics. OUP Catalogue.
24Takano, T., Nakamura, K. and Watanabe, M. 2002. Urban residential
environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The
importance of walkable green spaces. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
56(12):913-918.
25Villeneuve, P. J., Jerrett, M., Su, J.G., Burnett, R.T., Chen, H., Wheeler,
A.J. and Goldberg, M.S. 2012. A cohort study relating urban green
space with mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Res. 115:51-58.
26Wilker, E. H., Wu, C.-D., Mcneely, E., Mostofsky, E., Spengler, J.,
Wellenius, G.A. and Mittleman, M.A. 2014. Green space and mortality
following ischemic stroke. Environ. Res. 133:22-28.