UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Culture, Intangibles and Metrics in Environmental Management Satterfield, Terre; Gregory, Robin; Klain, Sarah; Roberts, Mere; Chan, Kai M. A. 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Satterfield_T_et_al_Culture_and_metrics_2013.pdf [ 597.12kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0132714.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0132714-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0132714-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0132714-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0132714-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0132714-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0132714-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0132714-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0132714.ris

Full Text

	 ?	 ? 1	 ?	 ?Culture,	 ?Intangibles	 ?and	 ?Metrics	 ?in	 ?Environmental	 ?Management	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Terre	 ?Satterfield	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?Resource,	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Sustainability	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Vancouver,	 ?B.C.	 ?V6T	 ?1Z4	 ?Canada	 ?Corresponding	 ?author:	 ?terre.satterfield@ires.ubc.ca	 ?604-??822-??2333	 ?	 ?Robin	 ?Gregory	 ?Decision	 ?Research	 ?1201	 ?Oak	 ?Street	 ?Eugene,	 ?Oregon	 ?97401	 ?USA	 ?robin.gregory@ires.ubc.ca	 ?	 ?Sarah	 ?Klain	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?Resource,	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Sustainability	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Vancouver,	 ?B.C.	 ?V6T	 ?1Z4	 ?Canada	 ?s.klain.ubc@gmail.com	 ?	 ?Mere	 ?Roberts	 ?Department	 ?of	 ?Anthropology	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Auckland,	 ?Auckland,	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?mere.roberts@auckland.ac.nz	 ?	 ?Kai	 ?M.	 ?Chan	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?Resource,	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Sustainability	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Vancouver,	 ?B.C.	 ?V6T	 ?1Z4	 ?Canada	 ?kai.chan@ires.ubc.ca	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 2	 ?	 ?	 ?Abstract	 ?1	 ? 	 ?2	 ? The	 ?demand	 ?for	 ?better	 ?representation	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?considerations	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?is	 ?3	 ? increasingly	 ?evident.	 ?As	 ?two	 ?cases	 ?in	 ?point,	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?approaches	 ?increasingly	 ?include	 ?cultural	 ?4	 ? services,	 ?and	 ?resource	 ?planners	 ?recognize	 ?indigenous	 ?constituents	 ?and	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?knowledge	 ?they	 ?hold	 ?5	 ? as	 ?key	 ?to	 ?good	 ?environmental	 ?management.	 ?Accordingly,	 ?collaborations	 ?between	 ?anthropologists,	 ?6	 ? planners,	 ?decision	 ?makers	 ?and	 ?biodiversity	 ?experts	 ?about	 ?the	 ?subject	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?are	 ?increasingly	 ?7	 ? common?but	 ?also	 ?commonly	 ?fraught.	 ?Those	 ?whose	 ?expertise	 ?is	 ?culture	 ?often	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?such	 ?8	 ? collaborations	 ?because	 ?they	 ?worry	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?from	 ??elsewhere?	 ?will	 ?employ	 ?a	 ??measure	 ?of	 ?culture?	 ?9	 ? that	 ?is	 ?poorly	 ?or	 ?naively	 ?conceived.	 ?Those	 ?from	 ?an	 ?economic	 ?or	 ?biophysical	 ?training	 ?must	 ?grapple	 ?with	 ?10	 ? the	 ?intangible	 ?properties	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?as	 ?they	 ?intersect	 ?with	 ?economic,	 ?biological	 ?or	 ?other	 ?material	 ?11	 ? measures.	 ?This	 ?paper	 ?seeks	 ?to	 ?assist	 ?those	 ?who	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?collaborations	 ?to	 ?characterize	 ?cultural	 ?benefits	 ?12	 ? or	 ?impacts	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?decision-??making,	 ?in	 ?three	 ?ways;	 ?by:	 ?(i)	 ?considering	 ?the	 ?likely	 ?mindset	 ?of	 ?would-??be	 ?13	 ? collaborators;	 ?(ii)	 ?providing	 ?examples	 ?of	 ?tested	 ?approaches	 ?that	 ?might	 ?enable	 ?innovation;	 ?and	 ?(iii)	 ?14	 ? characterizing	 ?the	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?obstacles	 ?that	 ?are	 ?in	 ?principle	 ?solvable	 ?through	 ?methodological	 ?alternatives.	 ?	 ?15	 ? We	 ?accomplish	 ?these	 ?tasks	 ?in	 ?part	 ?by	 ?examining	 ?three	 ?cases	 ?wherein	 ?culture	 ?was	 ?a	 ?critical	 ?variable	 ?in	 ?16	 ? environmental	 ?decision	 ?making:	 ?risk	 ?management	 ?in	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?Maori	 ?concerns	 ?about	 ?17	 ? genetically	 ?modified	 ?organisms;	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?to	 ?assist	 ?marine	 ?planning	 ?in	 ?coastal	 ?British	 ?Columbia;	 ?18	 ? and	 ?a	 ?decision-??making	 ?process	 ?involving	 ?a	 ?local	 ?First	 ?Nation	 ?about	 ?water	 ?flows	 ?in	 ?a	 ?regulated	 ?river	 ?in	 ?19	 ? western	 ?Canada.	 ?We	 ?examine	 ?how	 ??culture?	 ?came	 ?to	 ?be	 ?manifest	 ?in	 ?each	 ?case,	 ?drawing	 ?from	 ?20	 ? ethnographic	 ?and	 ?cultural-??models	 ?interviews	 ?and	 ?using	 ?subjective	 ?metrics	 ?(recommended	 ?by	 ?theories	 ?of	 ?21	 ? judgment	 ?and	 ?decision	 ?making)	 ?to	 ?express	 ?cultural	 ?concerns.	 ?We	 ?conclude	 ?that	 ?the	 ?characterization	 ?of	 ?22	 ? cultural	 ?benefits	 ?and	 ?impacts	 ?is	 ?least	 ?amenable	 ?to	 ?methodological	 ?solution	 ?when	 ?prevailing	 ?cultural	 ?23	 ? worldviews	 ?contain	 ?elements	 ?fundamentally	 ?at	 ?odds	 ?with	 ?efforts	 ?to	 ?quantify	 ?benefits/impacts,	 ?but	 ?that	 ?24	 ? even	 ?in	 ?such	 ?cases	 ?some	 ?improvements	 ?are	 ?achievable	 ?if	 ?decision-??makers	 ?are	 ?flexible	 ?regarding	 ?25	 ? processes	 ?for	 ?consultation	 ?with	 ?community	 ?members	 ?and	 ?how	 ?quantification	 ?is	 ?structured.	 ?	 ?26	 ? 	 ?27	 ? 	 ?28	 ? Keywords:	 ?culture,	 ?ecosystem	 ?services,	 ?structured	 ?decision	 ?making,	 ?consultation,	 ?environmental	 ?values.	 ?29	 ? 	 ? 	 ?30	 ?	 ?	 ? 3	 ?1.0	 ?Introduction	 ?31	 ? Two	 ?remarkable	 ?events	 ?unfolded	 ?in	 ?Guyana	 ?and	 ?Bolivia	 ?in	 ?April	 ?2011,	 ?each	 ?speaking	 ?volumes	 ?to	 ?32	 ? the	 ?changing	 ?social	 ?and	 ?ecological	 ?landscape	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?management.	 ?Guyana	 ?received	 ?the	 ?33	 ? second	 ?of	 ?two	 ?payments	 ?from	 ?Norway,	 ?reportedly	 ?totaling	 ?$250	 ?million,	 ?in	 ?exchange	 ?for	 ?protecting	 ?its	 ?34	 ? ecosystems	 ?and	 ?the	 ?services	 ?they	 ?deliver	 ?(Juniper	 ?2011).	 ?Bolivia	 ?amended	 ?its	 ?federal	 ?constitution	 ?to	 ?35	 ? grant	 ?equal	 ?rights	 ?to	 ?nature,	 ?in	 ?response	 ?to	 ?a	 ?long	 ?history	 ?of	 ?the	 ?contamination	 ?of	 ?community	 ?resources	 ?36	 ? from	 ?mining	 ?and	 ?the	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?that	 ?country?s	 ?substantial	 ?indigenous	 ?population,	 ?who	 ?place	 ?the	 ?earth	 ?37	 ? deity?Pachamama-??-??at	 ?the	 ?center	 ?of	 ?all	 ?life	 ?(Vidal	 ?2011)1.	 ?The	 ?first	 ?event	 ?signals	 ?the	 ?fact	 ?that	 ?the	 ?global	 ?38	 ? trade	 ?in	 ?ecosystem	 ?services	 ?(including	 ?cultural	 ?ecosystem	 ?services)	 ?is	 ?gaining	 ?considerable	 ?traction;	 ?the	 ?39	 ? second	 ?the	 ?fact	 ?that	 ?indigenous	 ?populations	 ?and	 ?the	 ?cultures	 ?they	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?represent	 ?are	 ?an	 ?increasingly	 ?40	 ? vital	 ?constituency	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?governance.	 ?	 ?41	 ? This	 ?paper	 ?seeks	 ?to	 ?address	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?challenges	 ?facing	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?given	 ?an	 ?42	 ? emphasis	 ?on	 ?culture,	 ?whether	 ?due	 ?to	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?approaches	 ?(as	 ?in	 ?Guyana),	 ?where	 ?cultural	 ?43	 ? services	 ?are	 ?one	 ?of	 ?four	 ?identified	 ?classes	 ?(Daily	 ?1997),	 ?or	 ?due	 ?to	 ?indigenous	 ?populations	 ?recognizing	 ?the	 ?44	 ? fundamental	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?their	 ?knowledge	 ?systems	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?revised	 ?federal	 ?constitutions	 ?(as	 ?in	 ?45	 ? Bolivia).	 ?Our	 ?arguments	 ?also	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?address	 ?the	 ?growing	 ?disenchantment	 ?worldwide	 ?with	 ?the	 ?failure	 ?of	 ?46	 ? management	 ?regimes	 ?to	 ?represent	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?consequences	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?decisions	 ?in	 ?First	 ?Nation	 ?47	 ? or	 ?Aboriginal	 ?communities	 ?(Arquette	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2002;	 ?Nadasdy	 ?2003;	 ?O?Neill	 ?2003),	 ?alongside	 ?broader	 ?48	 ? concerns	 ?that	 ?many	 ?of	 ?the	 ?primary	 ?means	 ?of	 ?conservation,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?establishment	 ?of	 ?parks	 ?and	 ?49	 ? protected	 ?areas,	 ?have	 ?disproportionately	 ?burdened	 ?indigenous	 ?and	 ?land-??based	 ?populations	 ?(Zerner	 ?50	 ? 2003;	 ?Brockington	 ?&	 ?Igoe	 ?2006).	 ?51	 ? Collaborations	 ?between	 ?indigenous	 ?communities	 ?and	 ?the	 ?research	 ?or	 ?consultant	 ?partners	 ?with	 ?52	 ? whom	 ?they	 ?work	 ?are	 ?often	 ?at	 ?odds	 ?with	 ?those	 ?whose	 ?expertise	 ?is	 ?in	 ?conservation	 ?planning,	 ?53	 ? environmental	 ?economics,	 ?or	 ?negotiations	 ?(Gregory,	 ?McDaniels	 ?&	 ?Fields,	 ?2001;	 ?Brosius	 ?2006).	 ?	 ?Further,	 ?54	 ? indigenous	 ?communities	 ?may	 ?be	 ?tempted	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?processes	 ?they	 ?recognize	 ?as	 ?55	 ? flawed	 ?because	 ?they	 ?fear	 ?that	 ?otherwise	 ?decisions	 ?will	 ?be	 ?made	 ?that	 ?are	 ?devoid	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?56	 ? considerations,	 ?or	 ?that	 ?a	 ?practitioner	 ?from	 ??elsewhere?	 ?will	 ?employ	 ?a	 ?misleading	 ??measure	 ?of	 ?culture?	 ?to	 ?57	 ? somehow	 ?be	 ?valued	 ?alongside	 ?economic,	 ?biological	 ?or	 ?other	 ?more	 ?materialist	 ?measures.	 ?Such	 ?58	 ? engagements	 ?leave	 ?a	 ?diverse	 ?group	 ?of	 ?practitioners	 ?and	 ?researchers	 ?(and	 ?the	 ?indigenous	 ?communities	 ?59	 ? whose	 ?insights	 ?they	 ?represent)	 ?feeling	 ?uncomfortable,	 ?at	 ?best,	 ?for	 ?several	 ?possible	 ?reasons:	 ?(1)	 ?the	 ?60	 ? norms	 ?of	 ?measurement	 ?or	 ?data	 ?inclusion	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?complexity	 ?of	 ?ecological	 ?and	 ?social	 ?dynamics	 ?to	 ?61	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1	 ?This	 ?Bolivian	 ?constitutional	 ?amendment	 ?was	 ?preceded	 ?in	 ?2008	 ?by	 ?adoption	 ?of	 ?similar	 ?	 ?	 ? 4	 ?reductionist	 ?or	 ?static	 ?measures	 ?(Gunderson	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2002;	 ?Chan	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?2012a);	 ?(2)	 ?a	 ?conviction	 ?that	 ?the	 ?62	 ? social	 ??whole?	 ?is	 ?a	 ?curious	 ?and	 ?complicated	 ?mix	 ?of	 ?power	 ?and	 ?local-??to-??global	 ?interactions	 ?and	 ?conflicting	 ?63	 ? knowledge	 ?systems	 ?(Brosius	 ?2006);	 ?(3)	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?neither	 ?a	 ?monetary	 ?measure	 ?of	 ?value	 ?nor	 ?an	 ?64	 ? aggregate	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?preferences	 ?will	 ?accurately	 ?portray	 ?community	 ?impacts	 ?(Sagoff,	 ?2004;	 ?Norton	 ?&	 ?65	 ? Noonan	 ?2007),	 ?and	 ?(4)	 ?awareness	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?only	 ?culture	 ?(as	 ?an	 ?artifact	 ?as	 ?the	 ?mind)	 ?that	 ?needs	 ?66	 ? protection	 ?but	 ?the	 ?physical	 ?spaces	 ?on	 ?which	 ?continuing	 ?cultural	 ?practices	 ?depend	 ?(Redford	 ?and	 ?Brosius	 ?67	 ? 2006;	 ?Peterson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?68	 ? It	 ?is	 ?well	 ?known	 ?that	 ?integrating	 ?such	 ?interdisciplinary	 ?perspectives	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?69	 ? management	 ?contexts	 ?can	 ?be	 ?problematic.	 ?What	 ?is	 ?less	 ?clear	 ?is	 ?how	 ?these	 ?challenges	 ?might	 ?be	 ?70	 ? reconciled,	 ?at	 ?least	 ?in	 ?part,	 ?through	 ?methodological	 ?improvements.	 ?	 ?Simply	 ?stated,	 ?much	 ?of	 ?the	 ?difficulty	 ?71	 ? experienced	 ?in	 ?the	 ?course	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?managers?	 ?attempts	 ?at	 ?developing	 ?interdisciplinary	 ?72	 ? approaches	 ?to	 ?address	 ?cultural	 ?impacts	 ?is	 ?due	 ?to	 ?a	 ?profound	 ?disciplinary	 ?intractability	 ?that	 ?is	 ?negatively	 ?73	 ? complemented	 ?by	 ?the	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?(or,	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?dismissal)	 ?of	 ?innovative	 ?methods.	 ?	 ?A	 ?74	 ? willingness	 ?to	 ?transgress	 ?disciplinary	 ?boundaries	 ?and	 ?to	 ?seek	 ?practical,	 ?methodological	 ?improvements	 ?in	 ?75	 ? current	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?practices	 ?and	 ?policies	 ?(recognizing	 ?that	 ?progress	 ?will	 ?evolve	 ?slowly	 ?76	 ? and	 ?that	 ?mistakes	 ?will	 ?be	 ?made)	 ?can	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?new	 ?learning	 ?and,	 ?over	 ?time,	 ?to	 ?reductions	 ?in	 ?the	 ?adverse	 ?77	 ? cultural	 ?consequences	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?indigenous	 ?communities.	 ?78	 ? We	 ?begin	 ?this	 ?paper	 ?by	 ?reviewing	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?in	 ?concert	 ?with	 ?critiques	 ?of	 ?conventional	 ?79	 ? ecosystem	 ?service	 ?and	 ?related	 ?management	 ?approaches	 ?that	 ?have	 ?been	 ?raised	 ?by	 ?anthropologists,	 ?80	 ? decision	 ?scientists,	 ?ecologists,	 ?ethnoecologists,	 ?geographers	 ?and	 ?planners	 ?whose	 ?interest	 ?is	 ?culture	 ?81	 ? and/or	 ?cultural	 ?groups	 ?and	 ?the	 ?environments	 ?in	 ?which	 ?they	 ?live.	 ?	 ?Critical	 ?points	 ?address	 ?problems	 ?82	 ? associated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?classification	 ?schemes,	 ?especially	 ?those	 ?pertaining	 ?to	 ?culture,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?83	 ? management	 ?regimes	 ?that	 ?necessitate	 ?the	 ?commodification	 ?of	 ?nature	 ?(Gomez-??Baggethun	 ?&	 ?Ruiz-??Perez	 ?84	 ? 2011,	 ?Robertson	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?We	 ?then	 ?describe	 ?and	 ?discuss	 ?three	 ?case	 ?studies	 ?in	 ?which	 ?some	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?these	 ?85	 ? overall	 ?problems	 ?were	 ?resolved	 ?through	 ?methodologies	 ?involving	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?subjective	 ?or	 ??locally	 ?86	 ? defined?	 ?scales	 ?or	 ?metrics	 ?to	 ?address	 ?cultural	 ?phenomena	 ?(as	 ?recommended	 ?by	 ?research	 ?from	 ?judgment	 ?87	 ? and	 ?decision	 ?making)	 ?and	 ?narrative	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?value	 ?elicitation.	 ?All	 ?three	 ?cases	 ?involve	 ?examples	 ?88	 ? wherein	 ?culture	 ?was	 ?a	 ?central	 ?component	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?decision	 ?making.	 ?The	 ?first	 ?is	 ?an	 ?explicit	 ?effort	 ?89	 ? to	 ?examine	 ?cultural	 ?services,	 ?benefits	 ?and	 ?values2	 ?in	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?marine	 ?spatial	 ?planning	 ?in	 ?British	 ?90	 ? Columbia.	 ?	 ?The	 ?second	 ?case	 ?study	 ?draws	 ?from	 ?a	 ?consideration	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?concerns	 ?in	 ?planning	 ?for	 ?91	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?2	 ?These	 ?three	 ?terms	 ?have	 ?often	 ?been	 ?used	 ?interchangeably	 ?by	 ?those	 ?addressing	 ?culture	 ?in	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?contexts	 ?(Chan	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2012b).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 5	 ?environmental	 ?risks	 ?in	 ?New	 ?Zealand.	 ?	 ?The	 ?third	 ?example	 ?involves	 ?participation	 ?by	 ?an	 ?indigenous	 ?92	 ? community	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?an	 ?environmental	 ?planning	 ?effort	 ?on	 ?a	 ?managed	 ?river	 ?in	 ?western	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ?These	 ?93	 ? examples	 ?help	 ?illustrate	 ?both	 ?the	 ?successes	 ?and	 ?limitations	 ?of	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?policy-??relevant	 ?94	 ? ?measures?	 ?of	 ?culture.	 ?Closing	 ?remarks	 ?turn	 ?to	 ?remaining	 ?questions,	 ?for	 ?both	 ?practitioners	 ?and	 ?theorists,	 ?95	 ? and	 ?review	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?limits	 ?of	 ?any	 ??classification?	 ?and	 ??measurement?	 ?of	 ?culture,	 ?however	 ?these	 ?terms	 ?96	 ? are	 ?defined.	 ?97	 ?2.0	 ?Problems	 ?of	 ?definition,	 ?classification	 ?and	 ?constituency	 ?98	 ? 2.1	 ?Defining	 ?culture	 ?99	 ? The	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?is	 ?the	 ?subject	 ?of	 ?no	 ?end	 ?of	 ?debate.	 ?Thus	 ?it	 ?should	 ?be	 ?no	 ?surprise	 ?that	 ?much	 ?100	 ? difficulty	 ?is	 ?encountered	 ?when	 ?so	 ?broad	 ?a	 ?construct	 ?is	 ?applied	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?and	 ?101	 ? planning.	 ?	 ?A	 ?related	 ?development	 ?of	 ?the	 ?last	 ?two	 ?decades	 ?is	 ?that	 ?culture,	 ?once	 ?largely	 ?the	 ?domain	 ?of	 ?102	 ? anthropologists,	 ?has	 ?been	 ?embraced	 ?by	 ?other	 ?disciplines	 ?and	 ?fields	 ?as	 ?an	 ?important	 ?variable	 ?in	 ?their	 ?103	 ? work	 ?(Kuper	 ?2000,	 ?Turner	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?2008).	 ?As	 ?one	 ?example,	 ?researchers	 ?of	 ?the	 ?valuation	 ?and	 ?protection	 ?of	 ?104	 ? ecosystem	 ?services	 ?now	 ?recognize	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?as	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?most	 ?compelling	 ?reasons	 ?for	 ?105	 ? conserving	 ?ecosystems.	 ?	 ?Ecosystem	 ?services	 ?have	 ?been	 ?defined	 ?in	 ?reference	 ?to	 ?their	 ?material	 ?and	 ?non-??106	 ? material	 ?values,	 ?with	 ?material	 ?values	 ?considered	 ?in	 ?relation	 ?to	 ?provisioning,	 ?regulating,	 ?and	 ?supporting	 ?107	 ? services	 ?whereas	 ?non-??material	 ?values	 ?and/or	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?cultural	 ?services.	 ?Costanza	 ?et	 ?108	 ? al.	 ?(1997),	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?defined	 ?cultural	 ?values/services	 ?as	 ??aesthetic,	 ?artistic,	 ?educational,	 ?spiritual	 ?109	 ? and/or	 ?scientific	 ?values	 ?of	 ?ecosystems?	 ?(p.	 ?254).	 ?The	 ?Millennium	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Assessment	 ?(2005)	 ?110	 ? expanded	 ?this	 ?definition	 ?to	 ?include	 ?the	 ?non-??material	 ?benefits	 ?people	 ?obtain	 ?from	 ?ecosystems	 ?through	 ?111	 ? spiritual	 ?enrichment,	 ?cognitive	 ?development,	 ?reflection,	 ?recreation,	 ?and	 ?aesthetic	 ?experience,	 ?including,	 ?112	 ? educational/learning	 ?opportunities,	 ?maintenance	 ?of	 ?social	 ?relations,	 ?and	 ?aesthetic	 ?values.	 ?	 ?113	 ? 	 ?114	 ? As	 ?befitting	 ?a	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?or	 ?cultural	 ?ecosystem	 ?services	 ?(CES)	 ?that	 ?seeks	 ?to	 ?capture	 ?the	 ?115	 ? intangible	 ?attributes	 ?of	 ?nature,	 ?the	 ?focus	 ?is	 ?on	 ?ecosystems	 ?as	 ?generative	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?supportive	 ?of	 ?116	 ? human	 ?experiences	 ?(recreational,	 ?aesthetic,	 ?social	 ?and	 ?spiritual).	 ?These	 ?attributes	 ?nonetheless	 ?bear	 ?117	 ? more	 ?than	 ?a	 ?passing	 ?resemblance	 ?to	 ?an	 ?idealized	 ?vision	 ?of	 ?nature	 ?akin	 ?to	 ?a	 ?wilderness	 ?aesthetic	 ?wherein	 ?118	 ? one	 ?recuperates	 ?from	 ?the	 ?burdens	 ?of	 ?urban	 ?industrialization	 ?through	 ?recreation,	 ?experience,	 ?sensory	 ?119	 ? enhancement	 ?and	 ?spiritual	 ?refreshment	 ?(Cronon	 ?1996;	 ?Cole	 ?&	 ?Yung	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?Such	 ?values	 ?matter	 ?120	 ? tremendously	 ?to	 ?many	 ?North	 ?American	 ?and	 ?European	 ?audiences	 ?(Dunlap	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000;	 ?Milfont,	 ?Duckitt,	 ?121	 ? and	 ?Cameron	 ?2006)	 ?and	 ?if	 ?this	 ?is	 ?the	 ?constituency,	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?of	 ?classification	 ?diminishes.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?a	 ?122	 ? problem	 ?for	 ?CES	 ?with	 ?regard	 ?primarily	 ?to	 ?methods	 ?for	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?policy	 ?initiatives,	 ?insofar	 ?as	 ?such	 ?123	 ?	 ?	 ? 6	 ?variables	 ?might	 ?be	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?define	 ?and	 ?measure	 ?(Gregory	 ?and	 ?Slovic	 ?1997;	 ?Chan	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?But	 ?the	 ?124	 ? problem	 ?of	 ?classification	 ?remains	 ?(a)	 ?if	 ?this	 ?isn?t	 ?the	 ?constituency	 ?of	 ?concern,	 ?and	 ?(b)	 ?if	 ?such	 ?a	 ?definition	 ?125	 ? suggests,	 ?either	 ?explicitly	 ?or	 ?implicitly,	 ?that	 ?people	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?experience	 ?nature	 ?this	 ?way.	 ?	 ?Additional	 ?126	 ? problems	 ?arise	 ?when	 ?the	 ?assumption	 ?is	 ?made	 ?that	 ?all	 ?cultural	 ?phenomena	 ?are	 ?assumed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?immaterial	 ?127	 ? or	 ?intangible,	 ?when	 ?many	 ?are	 ?not	 ?(e.g.,	 ?specific	 ?territorial	 ?resources	 ?or	 ?material	 ?cultural	 ?such	 ?as	 ?burial	 ?128	 ? sites,	 ?petroglyphs,	 ?or	 ?totem	 ?poles,	 ?among	 ?other	 ?facets)	 ?(Gibson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?129	 ? Idealized	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?how	 ??other?	 ?cultures	 ?ought	 ?to	 ?experience	 ?nature	 ?are	 ?particularly	 ?manifest	 ?in	 ?130	 ? debates	 ?about	 ?the	 ?ecological	 ??ignobility?	 ?of	 ?indigenous	 ?peoples	 ?implied	 ?to	 ?have	 ??lost?	 ?their	 ?cultural	 ?purity,	 ?131	 ? for	 ?example	 ?because	 ?they	 ?hunt	 ?with	 ?guns	 ?or	 ?fish	 ?with	 ?motorboats	 ?and	 ?rifles,	 ?and	 ?so	 ?are	 ?no	 ?longer	 ?132	 ? ?traditional?	 ?in	 ?the	 ?eyes	 ?of	 ?western	 ?conservationists	 ?(Raymond	 ?2007;	 ?Buege	 ?1997,	 ?Redford,	 ?1991.).3	 ?	 ?In	 ?133	 ? post-??structuralist	 ?terms,	 ?assumed	 ?ecological	 ?nobility	 ?is	 ?akin	 ?to	 ?what	 ?is	 ?today	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?as	 ??racialization?	 ?134	 ? or	 ??oppressive	 ?eco-??authenticity?	 ?(Sissons	 ?2005).	 ?The	 ?argument	 ?is	 ?that	 ?by	 ?classifying	 ?groups	 ?we	 ?more	 ?135	 ? often	 ?than	 ?not	 ?racialize	 ?them	 ?or	 ?produce	 ?a	 ?heightened	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ??them?	 ?as	 ?different,	 ?as	 ?against	 ?a	 ?136	 ? dominant	 ?(usually	 ?white)	 ?norm	 ?(James	 ?2001).	 ??They?	 ?come	 ?to	 ?be	 ?defined	 ?by	 ?attributes	 ?or	 ?essences	 ?137	 ? ascribed	 ?to	 ?them	 ?through	 ?traits	 ?(e.g.,	 ?moralistic	 ?assumptions	 ?that	 ?indigenous	 ?people	 ?are	 ?closer	 ?to	 ?138	 ? nature).	 ?Assumed	 ?behavioural	 ?expectations	 ?tend	 ?then	 ?to	 ?follow	 ?given	 ?idealized	 ?expectations	 ?(as	 ?in	 ?the	 ?139	 ? case	 ?of	 ?ecological	 ?nobility),	 ?and	 ?so	 ?to	 ?grounds	 ?for	 ?harsh	 ?criticism	 ?when	 ?expectations	 ?are	 ?unmet.	 ?Both	 ?can	 ?140	 ? then	 ?become	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?coercion	 ?whereby	 ?the	 ??problem?	 ?group	 ?must	 ?be	 ?policed	 ?or	 ?managed	 ?to	 ?141	 ? become	 ?more	 ??native?	 ?in	 ?the	 ?eyes	 ?of	 ?the	 ?beholder	 ?(Shepherd	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?142	 ? At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?maintaining	 ?and/or	 ?reviving	 ?customary	 ?cultural	 ?practices	 ?(e.g.,	 ?indigenous	 ?143	 ? systems	 ?of	 ?knowledge)	 ?also	 ?has	 ?proved	 ?fundamentally	 ?important	 ?to	 ?ongoing	 ?recovery	 ?from	 ?colonial	 ?and	 ?144	 ? state	 ?violence,	 ?whose	 ?central	 ?characteristic	 ?was	 ?the	 ?forced	 ?assimilation	 ?of	 ?aboriginal	 ?populations	 ?into	 ?145	 ? dominant	 ?society	 ?(e.g.,	 ?via	 ?mandatory	 ?residential	 ?schooling	 ?involving	 ?removal	 ?of	 ?children	 ?from	 ?homes,	 ?146	 ? loss	 ?of	 ?language,	 ?banning	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?practices,	 ?loss	 ?of	 ?lands	 ?and/or	 ?access	 ?to	 ?lands,	 ?and	 ?inscription	 ?into	 ?147	 ? cash	 ?economies)	 ?(Memmi	 ?2003,	 ?Regan	 ?2009).	 ?For	 ?this	 ?reason	 ?(recovery),	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?its	 ?intersection	 ?with	 ?148	 ? nobility	 ?assumptions,	 ?many	 ?conservation	 ?and	 ?development	 ?projects	 ?actively	 ?promote	 ?a	 ?return	 ?of	 ?149	 ? tradition.	 ?At	 ?times	 ?this	 ?takes	 ?the	 ?form	 ?of	 ?the	 ?valorization	 ?of	 ?local	 ?or	 ?indigenous	 ?knowledge	 ?by	 ?150	 ? environment	 ?or	 ?development	 ?NGOs	 ?as	 ?a	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?maintaining	 ?biodiversity	 ?or	 ?agro-??biodiversity	 ?151	 ? (Shepherd	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?At	 ?other	 ?times	 ?(and,	 ?typically,	 ?for	 ?other	 ?reasons),	 ?it	 ?includes	 ?active	 ?efforts	 ?by	 ?152	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?3	 ?We	 ?don?t	 ?mean	 ?to	 ?shy	 ?away	 ?from	 ?the	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?assert	 ?arguments	 ?about	 ?some	 ?practices	 ?as,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?environmentally	 ?destructive	 ?or	 ?socially	 ?unjust.	 ?Rather,	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?is	 ?attributing	 ?these	 ?features	 ?to	 ?the	 ?essence	 ?or	 ?character	 ?of	 ?a	 ?place	 ?or	 ?people	 ?and	 ?in	 ?so	 ?doing	 ?maligning	 ?them	 ?as	 ?failing	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?our	 ?own,	 ?often	 ?naively	 ?romantic,	 ?standards	 ?of	 ?morality	 ?or	 ?nobility.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 7	 ?indigenous	 ?people	 ?themselves	 ?to	 ?define	 ?local	 ?classifications	 ?and	 ?measures	 ?for	 ?key	 ?terms	 ?including	 ?153	 ? culture,	 ?health,	 ?community	 ?and	 ?so	 ?on	 ?(Donatuto	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?154	 ? Confusion,	 ?even	 ?contestation,	 ?also	 ?arises	 ?when	 ?there	 ?is	 ?conflation	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?with	 ?those	 ?155	 ? who	 ?hold	 ?them,	 ?so	 ?that	 ?the	 ?in	 ?situ	 ?stakeholders	 ?themselves	 ?become	 ?viewed	 ?as	 ?a	 ??cultural?	 ?group.	 ?Such	 ?156	 ? groups	 ?may	 ?be	 ?citizens	 ?with	 ?preferences	 ?like	 ?any	 ?other	 ?group;	 ?they	 ?might	 ?also	 ?be	 ?a	 ?self-??defined	 ?157	 ? population	 ?with	 ?a	 ?unique	 ?identity,	 ?which	 ?they	 ?refer	 ?to	 ?as	 ?their	 ?culture.	 ?But	 ?both	 ?are	 ?categorically	 ?158	 ? different	 ?than	 ?indigenous	 ?groups	 ?when	 ?they	 ?are	 ?also	 ?Treaty	 ?partners	 ?with	 ?the	 ?state	 ?or	 ?crown,	 ?as	 ?is	 ?the	 ?159	 ? case	 ?with	 ?groups	 ?known	 ?as	 ??first	 ?people?	 ?-??-??	 ?aboriginal	 ?or	 ?indigenous	 ?residents	 ?of	 ?settler	 ?nations	 ?such	 ?as	 ?160	 ? Canada,	 ?Peru,	 ?Bolivia,	 ?Australia	 ?or	 ?New	 ?Zealand.	 ?In	 ?Africa,	 ?India,	 ?and	 ?Malaysia,	 ?among	 ?other	 ?places,	 ?161	 ? there	 ?are	 ?people	 ?enduringly	 ?land-??based	 ?and	 ?recognized	 ?as	 ??indigenous?	 ?or	 ??tribal?	 ?even	 ?though	 ?any	 ?162	 ? notion	 ?of	 ?first	 ?peoples	 ?is	 ?precluded	 ?by	 ?millennia	 ?of	 ?successive	 ?inhabitants	 ?(Dove	 ?2006).	 ?Moreover,	 ?many	 ?163	 ? members	 ?of	 ?the	 ?group	 ?will	 ?also	 ?likely	 ?regard	 ?their	 ?status	 ?as	 ?closely	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?their	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?define	 ?just	 ?164	 ? what	 ?they	 ?mean	 ?by	 ?culture	 ?or	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?(Donatuto	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?2011);	 ?and/or	 ?they	 ?will	 ?uphold	 ?very	 ?165	 ? different	 ?ideas	 ?of	 ?what	 ?conservation	 ?planners	 ?might	 ?consider	 ??nature?	 ?or	 ?sub-??categories	 ?such	 ?as	 ?166	 ? ?knowledge?,	 ??spirituality?	 ?or	 ?other	 ?master	 ?constructs	 ?(Nadasdy	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?167	 ? 	 ?168	 ? Defining,	 ?then,	 ?what	 ?culture	 ?is	 ?and	 ?for	 ?whom	 ?is	 ?a	 ?nontrivial	 ?problem	 ?for	 ?any	 ?environmental	 ?169	 ? management	 ?regime	 ?in	 ?academically	 ?and	 ?socially	 ?collaborative	 ?contexts.	 ?One	 ?can	 ?employ	 ?the	 ?definition	 ?170	 ? most	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?CES	 ??	 ?primarily	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?experiences	 ?in	 ?nature.	 ?But	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?employed,	 ?171	 ? however	 ?warily,	 ?by	 ?anthropologists	 ?and	 ?those	 ?with	 ?whom	 ?they	 ?partner,	 ?tend	 ?instead	 ?to	 ?treat	 ?culture	 ?as	 ?172	 ? an	 ?adjective	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?a	 ?noun	 ?(Appadurai	 ?1996)	 ?which	 ?then	 ?modifies	 ?particular	 ?dimensions	 ?of	 ?culture,	 ?173	 ? such	 ?as	 ?belief	 ?systems,	 ?symbolic	 ?expressions	 ?or	 ?identified	 ?assets	 ?and	 ?institutions.4	 ?	 ?Frequently,	 ?this	 ?174	 ? realignment	 ?shifts	 ??culture?	 ?from	 ?being	 ?a	 ??thing?	 ?to	 ?also	 ?include	 ?processes,	 ?as	 ?in	 ?the	 ?following	 ?brief	 ?set	 ?of	 ?175	 ? definitions:	 ?176	 ? 	 ?177	 ? 1. Cultural	 ?worldviews	 ?and	 ?epistemes	 ?-??-??	 ?	 ?worldviews	 ?generally	 ?understood	 ?to	 ?be	 ?comprised	 ?178	 ? of	 ?explanatory	 ?logics,	 ?knowledge	 ?systems	 ?and	 ??ways	 ?of	 ?knowing?	 ?(e.g.,	 ?perceptual	 ?systems)	 ?179	 ? different	 ?from	 ?dominant	 ?norms,	 ?including	 ?but	 ?not	 ?limited	 ?to	 ?sensory	 ?engagement	 ?with	 ?and/or	 ?180	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?4	 ?In	 ?point	 ?of	 ?fact,	 ?many	 ?anthropologists	 ?are	 ?hesitant	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?culture	 ?at	 ?all	 ?as	 ?the	 ?construct	 ?has	 ?been	 ?so	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?define	 ?and	 ?because,	 ?in	 ?conservation	 ?contexts	 ?or	 ?those	 ?where	 ?compensation	 ?for	 ?cultural	 ?losses	 ?is	 ?at	 ?stake	 ?(Kirsch	 ?2001;	 ?Gregory	 ?and	 ?Trousdale	 ?2009),	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?point	 ?is	 ?damages	 ?to	 ?land	 ?or	 ?resources	 ?that	 ?constitute	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?any	 ?populations?	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?persist	 ?and	 ?maintain	 ?myriad	 ?social	 ?processes	 ?that	 ?are	 ?inextricably	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?place	 ?(West	 ?&	 ?Brockington	 ?2006).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 8	 ?spiritual	 ?and	 ?metaphysical	 ?properties	 ?of	 ?animate	 ?and	 ?inanimate	 ?objects;	 ?the	 ?organization	 ?and/or	 ?181	 ? cosmology	 ?of	 ?the	 ?human-??natural	 ?world	 ?and	 ?the	 ?social	 ?obligations	 ?that	 ?accompany	 ?these	 ?(Ingold	 ?182	 ? 2000);	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?norms	 ?for	 ?appropriate	 ?behaviour	 ?including	 ?how	 ?and	 ?through	 ?whom	 ?is	 ?183	 ? knowledge	 ?acquired	 ?(Turner	 ?et	 ?al	 ?2000).	 ?184	 ? 2. Cultural	 ?symbols	 ?-??-??whereby	 ?culture	 ?is	 ?understood	 ?as	 ?expressed	 ?through	 ?a	 ?vast	 ?array	 ?of	 ?185	 ? symbolic	 ?phenomena	 ?and	 ?properties	 ?(language,	 ?ritual,	 ?dances,	 ?songs,	 ?stories	 ?and	 ?oral	 ?narratives,	 ?186	 ? as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?material	 ?culture	 ?including	 ?all	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?artistic	 ?media,	 ?totemic	 ?poles	 ?and	 ?carvings,	 ?187	 ? architecture,	 ?clothing	 ?and	 ?much	 ?more)	 ?(Sahlins	 ?1999).	 ?188	 ? 3. Cultural	 ?assets	 ?-??-??	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?goods	 ?marked	 ?by	 ?histories	 ?of	 ?a	 ?people	 ?(from	 ?important	 ?sites,	 ?to	 ?189	 ? place	 ?names,	 ?to	 ?territories	 ?claimed	 ?or	 ?pending	 ?through	 ?Treaty,	 ?rights	 ?and	 ?title)	 ?(Koehler	 ?2007;	 ?190	 ? Marsden	 ?2002);	 ?and,	 ?finally,	 ?	 ?191	 ? 4. Cultural	 ?institutions,	 ?practices	 ?or	 ?forms	 ??	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?practices;	 ?institutions	 ?of	 ?governance,	 ?192	 ? exchange,	 ?naming,	 ?marriage	 ?or	 ?descent,	 ?kinship	 ?(human	 ?and	 ?nonhuman,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?eternal	 ?life	 ?of	 ?193	 ? ancestors	 ?long	 ?physically	 ?dead	 ?though	 ?inscribed	 ?into	 ?and	 ?animating	 ?local	 ?landscapes);	 ?decision	 ?194	 ? making?formal	 ?and	 ?informal	 ?(Roth	 ?2008;	 ?Sahlins	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?195	 ? 	 ?196	 ? This	 ?is	 ?by	 ?no	 ?means	 ?a	 ?complete	 ?or	 ?comprehensive	 ?list,	 ?nor	 ?can	 ?it	 ?be:	 ?an	 ?ethnographic	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?197	 ? culture	 ?is	 ?premised	 ?on	 ?time-??intensive	 ?immersion,	 ?even	 ?proximate	 ?assimilation,	 ?into	 ?the	 ?worlds	 ?of	 ?those	 ?198	 ? unlike	 ?oneself	 ?or	 ?as	 ?a	 ?social-??group	 ?member	 ?looking	 ?at	 ?one?s	 ?own.	 ?Ethnography?s	 ?optimal	 ?output	 ?also	 ?199	 ? remains	 ?a	 ?monograph,	 ?whose	 ?explanatory	 ?power	 ?resides	 ?in	 ?the	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?theory,	 ?description	 ?and	 ?detail	 ?200	 ? often	 ?expressed	 ?in	 ?essay-??	 ?or	 ?narrative-??framing	 ?of	 ?observations.	 ?This	 ?evidentiary	 ?standard	 ?can	 ?be	 ?set	 ?201	 ? against	 ?the	 ?comparatively	 ?efficient	 ?or	 ?rapid	 ?methods	 ?of	 ?collection	 ?based	 ?on	 ?a	 ?priori	 ?data	 ?targets,	 ?which	 ?202	 ? most	 ?anthropologists	 ?regard	 ?with	 ?skepticism,	 ?or	 ?more	 ?colloquially	 ?as	 ??drive-??by?	 ?ethnography.5	 ?	 ?Yet	 ?this	 ?203	 ? concern,	 ?to	 ?which	 ?we	 ?are	 ?sympathetic,	 ?fails	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?the	 ?needs	 ?of	 ?the	 ?environmental	 ?manager,	 ?204	 ? politician	 ?or	 ?legal	 ?adviser	 ?whose	 ?task	 ?is	 ?to	 ?form	 ?(or	 ?reform)	 ?a	 ?management	 ?practice	 ?or	 ?regulation.	 ?	 ?205	 ? Furthermore,	 ?anthropologists	 ?have	 ?no	 ?special	 ?standing	 ?when	 ?it	 ?comes	 ?to	 ?cries	 ?for	 ?more	 ?in-??depth	 ?206	 ? analyses	 ?and	 ?understanding:	 ?scientists	 ?will	 ?request	 ?more	 ?field	 ?work	 ?or	 ?additional	 ?data	 ?collection,	 ?legal	 ?207	 ? advisers	 ?will	 ?want	 ?to	 ?carefully	 ?review	 ?precedent,	 ?and	 ?economists	 ?and	 ?ecologists	 ?will	 ?want	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?208	 ? more	 ?complete	 ?models.	 ?209	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?5	 ?While	 ?worries	 ?about	 ?not	 ?being	 ?a	 ?real	 ?ethnographer	 ?cannot	 ?become	 ?the	 ?preoccupation	 ?of	 ?CES	 ?or	 ?other	 ?management	 ?approaches,	 ?many	 ?of	 ?these	 ?critiques	 ?are	 ?instructive	 ?because	 ?the	 ?empirical	 ?labor	 ?and	 ?standards	 ?for	 ?ethnography	 ?are	 ?an	 ?anathema	 ?to	 ??data?	 ?often	 ?dismissed	 ?as	 ?anecdotal.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 9	 ?With	 ?regard	 ?to	 ?employing	 ?cultural	 ?definitions	 ?in	 ?management	 ?contexts,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?also	 ?important	 ?to	 ?210	 ? recognize	 ?that	 ?worldviews,	 ?symbolic	 ?expression	 ?and	 ?more	 ?intangible	 ?forms	 ?are	 ?all	 ?largely	 ?embodied	 ?211	 ? expressions	 ?of	 ?culture,	 ?which	 ?have	 ?long	 ?since	 ?become	 ?so	 ?fully	 ?normalized	 ?and	 ?widely	 ?saturated	 ?212	 ? throughout	 ?the	 ?everyday	 ?life	 ?of	 ?those	 ?who	 ?hold	 ?them	 ?that	 ?their	 ?attributes	 ?or	 ??traits?	 ?are	 ?not	 ?necessarily	 ?213	 ? amenable	 ?to	 ?conscious	 ?articulation.	 ?Other	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?culture,	 ?following	 ?the	 ?above	 ?definitions,	 ?are	 ?quite	 ?214	 ? tangible,	 ?especially	 ?sites,	 ?masks,	 ?dances,	 ?and	 ?territories	 ??	 ?entities	 ?that	 ?might	 ?also	 ?be	 ?protected	 ?by	 ?legal	 ?215	 ? mandate	 ?in	 ?some	 ?countries	 ?or	 ?regions	 ?(Koehler	 ?2007).	 ?Similarly,	 ?many	 ?cultural	 ?institutions	 ?such	 ?as	 ?216	 ? naming	 ?practices,	 ?governance	 ?and	 ?decision-??making	 ?institutions,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?local	 ?knowledge	 ?systems	 ?are	 ?217	 ? well	 ?known	 ?to	 ?those	 ?who	 ?hold	 ?them	 ?and	 ?are	 ?amenable	 ?to	 ?conscious	 ?articulation.	 ?But	 ?they	 ?might	 ?well	 ?be	 ?218	 ? protected	 ?for	 ?reasons	 ?of	 ?privacy,	 ?family	 ?or	 ?lineages-??specific	 ?rights	 ?to	 ?that	 ?knowledge,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?broader	 ?219	 ? intellectual	 ?and	 ?cultural	 ?property	 ?concerns	 ?(e.g.,	 ?knowledge	 ?is	 ?held	 ?closely	 ?due	 ?to	 ?concerns	 ?about	 ?politics	 ?220	 ? or	 ?bio-??prospecting	 ?activities).	 ?	 ?221	 ?2.2	 ?	 ?Classifying	 ?culture	 ?	 ?222	 ? A	 ?second	 ?class	 ?of	 ?concerns,	 ?typically	 ?articulated	 ?by	 ?human	 ?geographers	 ?or	 ?environmental	 ?223	 ? ethicists	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?anthropologists,	 ?involves	 ?critiques	 ?of	 ?market-??based	 ?management	 ?regimes	 ?(Harvey	 ?224	 ? 2007)	 ?and	 ?efforts	 ?to	 ?clarify	 ?and	 ?measure	 ?social	 ?or	 ?cultural	 ?phenomena	 ?more	 ?broadly.	 ?	 ?	 ?Linked	 ?to	 ?this	 ?are	 ?225	 ? debates	 ?about	 ?assigning	 ?measures	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?or	 ?cultural	 ?values,	 ?the	 ?commensurability	 ?and	 ?226	 ? tradeoffs	 ?across	 ?environmental	 ?values,	 ?the	 ?commodification	 ?of	 ?nature	 ?(including	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?dollar	 ?227	 ? measures	 ?of	 ?value),	 ?and	 ?the	 ?infusion	 ?of	 ?designs	 ?that	 ?presume	 ?logics	 ?of	 ?consumer	 ?or	 ?choice-??based	 ?228	 ? preferences	 ?(Sagoff	 ?2004).	 ?On	 ?this	 ?last	 ?point	 ?(preferences),	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?is	 ?that	 ?an	 ?	 ??individual?	 ?(whose	 ?229	 ? preference	 ?or	 ?choices	 ?are	 ?being	 ?measured)	 ?might	 ?be	 ?an	 ?inappropriate	 ?unit	 ?of	 ?analysis	 ?when	 ?the	 ?social	 ?230	 ? group	 ?in	 ?question	 ?normally	 ?employs	 ?governance,	 ?property	 ?and	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?regimes	 ?that	 ?are	 ?231	 ? collective	 ?or	 ?highly	 ?authoritarian	 ?(Ostrom	 ?1994;	 ?Dietz	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2003).	 ?Furthermore,	 ?asking	 ?people	 ?their	 ?232	 ? environmental	 ?choices	 ?or	 ?preferences	 ?is	 ?not	 ?as	 ??easy?	 ?as	 ?it	 ?sounds,	 ?especially	 ?when	 ?the	 ?people	 ?involved	 ?233	 ? in	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?have	 ?a	 ?long	 ?history	 ?of	 ?subjugation.6	 ?	 ?234	 ? The	 ?underlying	 ?problem	 ?is	 ?that	 ?the	 ?act	 ?of	 ?classifying	 ?what	 ?constitutes	 ?a	 ?cultural	 ?entity	 ?or	 ?value	 ?235	 ? might	 ?at	 ?best	 ?only	 ?awkwardly	 ?accommodate	 ?the	 ?meanings	 ?of	 ?this	 ?class	 ?for	 ?members	 ?of	 ?the	 ?community	 ?it	 ?236	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?6	 ?A	 ?common	 ?term	 ?is	 ??subaltern?	 ?referring	 ?to	 ?those	 ?so	 ?fully	 ?outside	 ?or	 ?excluded	 ?from	 ?formal	 ?and	 ?informal	 ?venues	 ?of	 ?political	 ?representation	 ?that	 ?any	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?agency	 ?or	 ?political	 ?voice,	 ?let	 ?alone	 ?representation,	 ?is	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?imaginable	 ?(Spivak	 ?1988).	 ?The	 ?problem	 ?here	 ?is	 ?not	 ?just	 ?simple	 ?representation,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?saying:	 ?Well,	 ??they?	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?given	 ?the	 ?vote.	 ?Rather,	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?is	 ?that	 ?marginalization	 ?of	 ?this	 ?kind	 ?is	 ?so	 ?profound	 ?and	 ?subordination	 ?itself	 ?is	 ?so	 ?completely	 ?assumed,	 ?even	 ?normalized,	 ?that	 ?any	 ?alternate	 ?is	 ?cognitively,	 ?socially,	 ?politically	 ?inconceivable.	 ?This	 ?may	 ?be	 ?especially	 ?so	 ?for	 ?women	 ?in	 ?many	 ?parts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?world	 ?and	 ?across	 ?many	 ?decision	 ?contexts	 ?(Asfaw	 ?and	 ?Satterfield	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?	 ? 10	 ?is	 ?said	 ?to	 ?represent.	 ?This	 ??classification	 ?failure?	 ?might	 ?well	 ?undermine	 ?the	 ?legitimacy	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?237	 ? planning	 ?when	 ?engaging	 ?with	 ?local	 ?stakeholders,	 ?where	 ?legitimacy	 ?is	 ?a	 ?function	 ?of	 ?how	 ?well	 ?the	 ?238	 ? management	 ??tool?	 ?or	 ??approach?	 ?captures	 ?cultural	 ?value	 ?from	 ?their	 ?point	 ?of	 ?view	 ?(Corbera,	 ?Brown,	 ?&	 ?239	 ? Adger	 ?2007).	 ?Further,	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?might	 ?be	 ?so	 ?profound	 ?as	 ?to	 ?be	 ?unresolvable	 ?by	 ?any	 ?classification	 ?(i.e.,	 ?240	 ? it?s	 ?not	 ?just	 ?a	 ?matter	 ?of	 ?building	 ?better	 ?CES	 ?categories),	 ?because	 ?thinking	 ?about	 ?cultural	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?241	 ? ecosystems	 ?is	 ?seen	 ?to	 ?be	 ?irreconcilable	 ?with	 ?local	 ?ethno-??theories	 ?of	 ?human-??nature	 ?relations.	 ?242	 ? In	 ?concert	 ?with	 ?this	 ?set	 ?of	 ?concerns	 ?are	 ?critiques	 ?already	 ?raised	 ?by	 ?those	 ?who	 ?study	 ?the	 ?politics	 ?243	 ? of	 ?knowledge	 ??	 ?that	 ?school	 ?of	 ?thought	 ?which	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?the	 ?very	 ?criteria	 ?through	 ?which	 ?assessment	 ?or	 ?244	 ? characterization	 ?of	 ?a	 ?system	 ?is	 ?made	 ?overly	 ?determines	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?considerations	 ?and	 ?outcomes	 ?245	 ? rendered	 ?possible	 ?(Brosius	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?[More	 ?colloquially,	 ?this	 ?refers	 ?to	 ?the	 ?critique	 ?often	 ?expressed	 ?as	 ?246	 ? ?those	 ?who	 ?design	 ?the	 ?approaches	 ?control	 ?the	 ?outcomes?.]	 ?Moreover,	 ?criteria	 ?themselves	 ?are	 ?said	 ?to	 ?247	 ? inherently	 ?require	 ?the	 ?fitting	 ?of	 ?complexity	 ?into	 ?formats	 ?or	 ?data	 ?boxes	 ?that	 ?do	 ?them	 ?injustice	 ?or	 ?subject	 ?248	 ? them	 ?to	 ?evidentiary	 ?norms	 ?that	 ?compromise	 ?the	 ?very	 ?essence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?thing	 ?meant	 ?to	 ?be	 ?captured.	 ?249	 ? Examples	 ?from	 ?anthropology	 ?include	 ?Povinelli?s	 ?question:	 ?Do	 ?Rocks	 ?Listen	 ?(Povinelli	 ?1995),	 ?or	 ?and	 ?250	 ? Cruikshank?s	 ?question:	 ?Do	 ?Glacier?s	 ?Listen	 ?(Cruikshank	 ?2005)?	 ?The	 ?former	 ?case	 ?describes	 ?an	 ?Australian	 ?251	 ? Aboriginal	 ?group?s	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?an	 ?important	 ?dreaming	 ?site	 ?known	 ?as	 ??Old	 ?Man	 ?Rock,?	 ?a	 ?rock	 ?252	 ? understood	 ?as	 ?registering	 ?the	 ?activities	 ?of	 ?Aboriginal	 ?people	 ?as	 ?they	 ?pass	 ?the	 ?site/rock,	 ?insights	 ?which	 ?253	 ? are	 ?equally	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?the	 ?countryside?s	 ?health.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?latter	 ?case,	 ?glaciers	 ?are	 ?epistemologically	 ?254	 ? understood	 ?not	 ?as	 ?inanimate	 ?objects	 ?but	 ?as	 ?animate	 ?and	 ?behaviourally	 ?responsive	 ?(e.g.,	 ?melting,	 ?shifting,	 ?255	 ? calving,	 ?etc.)	 ?to	 ?the	 ?transgressions	 ?of	 ?humans.	 ?7	 ?	 ?256	 ? In	 ?these	 ?intentionally	 ?provocative	 ?examples,	 ?scientists	 ?are	 ?willing	 ?to	 ?accept	 ?that	 ?relationships	 ?257	 ? with	 ?multi-??natural	 ?beings	 ?(de	 ?Castro	 ?1998)	 ?form	 ?part	 ?of	 ?Aboriginal	 ?participants?	 ?beliefs,	 ?but	 ?they	 ?are	 ?258	 ? generally	 ?not	 ?willing	 ?to	 ?risk	 ?operating	 ?by	 ?such	 ?epistemological	 ?logics	 ?(Nadasdy	 ?2007).	 ?Thus,	 ?the	 ?question	 ?259	 ? from	 ?a	 ?management	 ?regime?s	 ?point	 ?of	 ?view	 ?becomes	 ??what	 ?political	 ?or	 ?economic	 ?weight	 ?should	 ?these	 ?260	 ? beliefs	 ?be	 ?given?	 ?(Povinelli,	 ?1995,	 ?p.505)	 ?or	 ??through	 ?what	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?category	 ?might	 ?they	 ?be	 ?261	 ? classified	 ?and	 ?assessed?	 ?rather	 ?than:	 ??Is	 ?there	 ?something	 ?important	 ?to	 ?be	 ?learned	 ?here	 ?that	 ?our	 ?own	 ?262	 ? classifications	 ?obfuscate??	 ?	 ?Politically,	 ?the	 ?question	 ?of	 ?what	 ?weight	 ?to	 ?give	 ?beliefs	 ?also	 ?positions	 ?those	 ?263	 ? with	 ??different?	 ?knowledge	 ?systems	 ?as	 ?at	 ?best	 ?quaint,	 ?or	 ?even	 ?blatantly	 ?wrong.	 ?Through	 ?such	 ?questions,	 ?264	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?7	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?one	 ?oral	 ?record	 ?from	 ?a	 ?First	 ?Nation?s	 ?person	 ?in	 ?Alaska,	 ?refers	 ?to	 ?geological	 ?change	 ?in	 ?18th	 ?and	 ?19th	 ?century	 ?as	 ?follows:	 ??In	 ?one	 ?place	 ?Alsek	 ?River	 ?runs	 ?under	 ?a	 ?glacier.	 ?People	 ?can	 ?pass	 ?beneath	 ?[in]	 ?their	 ?canoes,	 ?but,	 ?if	 ?anyone	 ?speaks	 ?while	 ?they	 ?are	 ?under	 ?it,	 ?the	 ?glacier	 ?comes	 ?down	 ?on	 ?them.	 ?They	 ?say	 ?that	 ?in	 ?those	 ?times	 ?this	 ?glacier	 ?was	 ?like	 ?an	 ?animal,	 ?and	 ?could	 ?hear	 ?what	 ?was	 ?said	 ?to	 ?it.?	 ?(Cruikshank	 ?2005,	 ?p.	 ?40)	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 11	 ?the	 ?rock	 ?or	 ?glacier	 ?becomes	 ?something	 ?else	 ??	 ?not	 ?fundamentally	 ?important	 ?animate	 ?beings	 ?that	 ?265	 ? comprise	 ?nature,	 ?but	 ?a	 ?curiosity	 ?of	 ?sorts	 ?to	 ?somehow	 ?be	 ?accommodated	 ?by	 ?the	 ?available	 ?categories.	 ?266	 ? 	 ?267	 ? 	 ?268	 ? 2.3	 ?Measuring	 ?culture	 ?269	 ? This	 ?set	 ?of	 ?concerns	 ?also	 ?applies	 ?to	 ?critiques	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?commodification	 ?of	 ?nature	 ?-??-??	 ?270	 ? assuming	 ?nature	 ?as	 ?capital	 ?to	 ?be	 ?treated	 ?as	 ?fungible	 ?fiscal	 ?assets.	 ?	 ?The	 ?problem	 ?is	 ?greater	 ?for	 ?those	 ?271	 ? working	 ?on	 ?CES	 ?because	 ?important	 ?distinctions	 ?need	 ?be	 ?made	 ?between	 ?preferences	 ?and	 ?principles,	 ?272	 ? where	 ?the	 ?latter	 ?might	 ?not	 ?be	 ?fungible	 ?(Chan	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006).	 ?The	 ?bottom	 ?line	 ?for	 ?valuation	 ?methods	 ?is	 ?that	 ?273	 ? either	 ?dollar	 ?valuation	 ?is	 ?accepted	 ?as	 ?the	 ?primary	 ?methodological	 ?end	 ?or	 ?not.	 ?And	 ?if	 ?the	 ?latter	 ?case,	 ?then	 ?274	 ? it?s	 ?possible	 ?to	 ?simultaneously	 ?reject	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?translation	 ?of	 ?knowledge,	 ?beliefs,	 ?feelings	 ?or	 ?275	 ? perceptions	 ?or	 ?experiences	 ?into	 ?dollar	 ?terms	 ?yet	 ?remain	 ?open	 ?to	 ?multiple	 ?metrics	 ?for	 ?the	 ?value	 ?of	 ?276	 ? cultural	 ?services.	 ?	 ?The	 ?criteria	 ?for	 ?deciding	 ?upon	 ?metrics	 ?and	 ?employing	 ?them	 ?thus	 ?becomes	 ?critical,	 ?and	 ?277	 ? intersects	 ?with	 ?the	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?express	 ?and	 ?to	 ?address	 ?the	 ?possibility	 ?that	 ?some	 ?things	 ?are	 ?relatively	 ?more	 ?278	 ? important	 ?than	 ?others	 ?and	 ?so	 ?might	 ?be	 ?subject	 ?to	 ?negotiation	 ?or	 ?tradeoffs	 ?(or	 ?not	 ?amenable	 ?as	 ?can	 ?also	 ?279	 ? be	 ?the	 ?case)	 ?(Baron	 ?&	 ?Spranca	 ?1997).	 ?	 ?Possible	 ?candidates	 ?for	 ?the	 ?elicitation	 ?of	 ?what	 ?matters	 ?alongside	 ?280	 ? measurement	 ?criteria,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?questions	 ?to	 ?be	 ?asked	 ?when	 ?cultural	 ?assets,	 ?symbols,	 ?or	 ?281	 ? institutions	 ?or	 ?beliefs	 ?might	 ?be	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?options,	 ?include	 ?the	 ?following:	 ?	 ?282	 ? 	 ?283	 ? 1. Articulation:	 ?It	 ?should	 ?be	 ?anticipated	 ?that	 ?culture	 ?itself	 ?is	 ?a	 ?complicated	 ?subject,	 ?284	 ? including	 ?both	 ?tangible	 ?assets	 ?and	 ?intangible	 ?qualities	 ?that	 ?are	 ?lived	 ?or	 ?experienced	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?285	 ? easily	 ?articulated	 ?in	 ?response	 ?to	 ?the	 ?direct	 ?question-??answer	 ?formats	 ?that	 ?characterize	 ?286	 ? preference	 ?surveys	 ?and	 ?similar	 ?instruments	 ?of	 ?research.	 ?Alternate	 ?methods	 ?that	 ?encourage	 ?287	 ? narrative	 ?expressions	 ?of	 ?experience	 ?and	 ?meaning	 ?are	 ?thus	 ?likely	 ?more	 ?productive.	 ?	 ?288	 ? 2. Classification:	 ?When	 ?working	 ?with	 ?indigenous	 ?partners,	 ?what	 ?culture	 ?is	 ?typically	 ?will	 ?not	 ?289	 ? be	 ?well	 ?represented	 ?by	 ?units	 ?comprising	 ?generalized,	 ?a	 ?priori	 ?cultural	 ?categories.	 ?	 ?It	 ?might	 ?290	 ? instead	 ?be	 ?both	 ?methodologically	 ?astute	 ?and	 ?socially	 ?just	 ?to	 ?recognize	 ?cultural	 ?dimensions	 ?of	 ?291	 ? concern	 ?(e.g.,	 ?cultural	 ?services)	 ?as	 ?an	 ?open	 ?category	 ?to	 ?be	 ?augmented	 ?or	 ?defined	 ?by	 ?those	 ?whose	 ?292	 ? cultural	 ?constituency	 ?is	 ?legally	 ?or	 ?normatively	 ?involved.	 ?	 ?293	 ? 3. Importance:	 ?Resistance	 ?to	 ?assigning	 ?weights	 ?or	 ?scales	 ?to	 ?cultural	 ?variables	 ?should	 ?be	 ?294	 ? anticipated.	 ?	 ?But	 ?for	 ?practical	 ?reasons	 ?some	 ?assignment	 ?of	 ?relative	 ?importance	 ?can	 ?be	 ?necessary;	 ?295	 ? for	 ?example,	 ?when	 ?seeking	 ?to	 ?articulate	 ?the	 ?possible	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?a	 ?proposed	 ?action	 ?(siting	 ?a	 ?296	 ?	 ?	 ? 12	 ?pipeline	 ?or	 ?incinerator)	 ?on	 ?an	 ?established	 ?indigenous	 ?community,	 ?it?s	 ?unlikely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?desirable	 ?to	 ?297	 ? study	 ?all	 ?possible	 ?effects	 ?in	 ?the	 ?same	 ?detail	 ?and	 ?so	 ?one	 ?key	 ?question	 ?is	 ?to	 ?ask:	 ?which	 ?of	 ?this	 ?likely	 ?298	 ? set	 ?of	 ?impacts	 ?will	 ?matter	 ?most	 ?to	 ?you	 ?and	 ?to	 ?your	 ?community?	 ?	 ?This	 ?does	 ?not	 ?imply	 ?that	 ?a	 ?299	 ? tradeoff	 ?is	 ?made	 ?across	 ?values	 ?(especially	 ?protected	 ?ones)	 ?(Baron	 ?&	 ?Ritov	 ?2009).	 ?These	 ?often	 ?are	 ?300	 ? and	 ?should	 ?be	 ?treated	 ?as	 ?non-??negotiable	 ?(e.g.,	 ?being	 ?asked	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?as	 ?negotiable	 ?an	 ?301	 ? extremely	 ?valued	 ?relationship	 ?or	 ?site).	 ?Instead,	 ?we	 ?mean	 ?only	 ?to	 ?address	 ?tradeoffs	 ?being	 ?made	 ?302	 ? for	 ?the	 ?specific	 ?purposes	 ?under	 ?discussion	 ?(e.g.,	 ?to	 ?allocate	 ?a	 ?limited	 ?budget	 ?across	 ?the	 ?different	 ?303	 ? outcomes	 ?of	 ?possible	 ?scenarios	 ?or	 ?mitigation	 ?actions).	 ?	 ?304	 ? 4. Spatial	 ?relevance:	 ?	 ?Measures	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?need	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?the	 ?place-??based	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?305	 ? these	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?that	 ?might	 ?be	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?a	 ?proposed	 ?management	 ?action.	 ?	 ?Community	 ?306	 ? members	 ?may	 ?find	 ?it	 ?difficult	 ?or	 ?be	 ?unwilling	 ?(e.g.,	 ?for	 ?reasons	 ?of	 ?confidentiality)	 ?to	 ?locate	 ?their	 ?307	 ? values	 ?spatially.	 ?308	 ? 	 ?309	 ? In	 ?the	 ?remaining	 ?portions	 ?of	 ?this	 ?paper	 ?we	 ?explicitly	 ?address	 ?the	 ?classification	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?problem	 ?and	 ?310	 ? trial	 ?scales	 ?or	 ?metrics	 ?for	 ?measuring	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?culture.	 ?We	 ?assert	 ?that	 ?a	 ?primary	 ?problem	 ?with	 ?311	 ? conventional	 ?measures	 ?or	 ?metrics	 ?is	 ?that	 ?they	 ?under-??represent	 ?or	 ?transgress	 ?key	 ?cultural	 ?values,	 ?312	 ? principles,	 ?or	 ?institutions	 ?(Turner	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?With	 ?intangibles	 ?as	 ?the	 ?case	 ?in	 ?point,	 ?one	 ?premise	 ?that	 ?313	 ? has	 ?been	 ?recommended	 ?(see	 ?the	 ?New	 ?Zealand-??Maori	 ?case	 ?study	 ?in	 ?Section	 ?3.2)	 ?is	 ?that,	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?314	 ? simultaneously	 ?represent	 ?tangible	 ?and	 ?intangible	 ?concerns	 ?in	 ?a	 ?single	 ?meta	 ?framework,	 ?metrics	 ?can	 ?and	 ?315	 ? necessarily	 ?must	 ?be	 ?flexible	 ?and	 ?constructed	 ?in	 ?a	 ?language	 ?that	 ?best	 ?represents	 ?local	 ?understandings	 ?of	 ?316	 ? the	 ?concern	 ?or	 ?objective	 ?in	 ?question	 ?(Satterfield,	 ?Gregory	 ?&	 ?Roberts	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?This	 ?requirement	 ?317	 ? especially	 ?applies	 ?to	 ?some	 ?types	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?due	 ?to	 ?their	 ?linked	 ?affective,	 ?experiential,	 ?sensory,	 ?318	 ? and	 ?spiritual	 ?qualities	 ?and	 ?associations	 ??	 ?which	 ?can	 ?combine	 ?to	 ?produce	 ?a	 ??you	 ?just	 ?had	 ?to	 ?be	 ?there?	 ?319	 ? quality.	 ?This	 ?reasoning	 ?relates,	 ?in	 ?part,	 ?to	 ?the	 ?possible	 ?aspatial	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?awe;	 ?whereas	 ?320	 ? many	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?assessments	 ?are	 ?conducted	 ?at	 ?the	 ?spatial/landscape	 ?level	 ?(Nelson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?321	 ? For	 ?example,	 ?imagine	 ?a	 ?person	 ?trying	 ?to	 ?describe	 ?their	 ?feeling	 ?of	 ?awe	 ?upon	 ?entering	 ?a	 ?forest	 ?for	 ?322	 ? the	 ?first	 ?time,	 ?or	 ?in	 ?the	 ?footsteps	 ?of	 ?other	 ?members	 ?of	 ?their	 ?community	 ?who	 ?have	 ?hunted	 ?or	 ?walked	 ?that	 ?323	 ? terrain	 ?for	 ?hundreds	 ?of	 ?years.	 ?Unlike	 ?tangible	 ?benefits	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?provisioning	 ?of	 ?food,	 ?which	 ?people	 ?324	 ? might	 ?easily	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?point	 ?to	 ?and	 ?which	 ?might	 ?have	 ?market-??value	 ?equivalents,	 ?the	 ?same	 ?is	 ?not	 ?so	 ?for	 ?325	 ? ?awe?.	 ?Instead	 ?many	 ?people	 ?describe	 ?awe	 ?using	 ?mostly	 ?storied	 ?talk,	 ?namely	 ?the	 ?telling	 ?of	 ?the	 ?event	 ?or	 ?an	 ?326	 ? analogous	 ?event	 ?that	 ?communicates	 ?the	 ?experience	 ?of	 ?awe	 ?for	 ?the	 ?speaker.	 ?This	 ?means	 ?that	 ?expressions	 ?327	 ? of	 ?awe	 ?and	 ?all	 ?its	 ?parallels	 ?are	 ?most	 ?likely	 ?not	 ?amenable	 ?to	 ?the	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?direct	 ?question-??answer	 ?formats	 ?328	 ?	 ?	 ? 13	 ?used,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?by	 ?contingent	 ?valuation	 ?or	 ?other	 ?preference	 ?surveys	 ?favoured	 ?by	 ?economists.	 ?Yet	 ?329	 ? they	 ?may	 ?well	 ?be	 ?amenable	 ?to	 ?a	 ?narrative-??based	 ?or	 ?descriptions-??based	 ?measures,	 ?what	 ?decision	 ?analysts	 ?330	 ? and	 ?psychologists	 ?typically	 ?refer	 ?to	 ?as	 ?a	 ?constructed	 ?scale	 ?(Keeney	 ?&	 ?McDaniels,	 ?1992)	 ?or	 ?constructed	 ?331	 ? value	 ?(Lichtenstein	 ?&	 ?Slovic,	 ?2006)	 ?in	 ?which	 ?different	 ?degrees	 ?of	 ?awe	 ?(e.g.,	 ??a	 ?little?	 ?or	 ??a	 ?lot?)	 ?may	 ?be	 ?332	 ? tied	 ?directly	 ?to	 ?narratives.	 ?	 ?Performance	 ?measures	 ?of	 ?this	 ?kind	 ?are	 ?also	 ?used	 ?by	 ?practitioners	 ?of	 ?multi-??333	 ? criteria	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?(MCDM)	 ?(Adamowicz	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1998),	 ?though	 ?much	 ?of	 ?this	 ?work	 ?is	 ?aimed	 ?less	 ?at	 ?the	 ?334	 ? particulars	 ?of	 ?building	 ?appropriate	 ?and/or	 ?good	 ?quality	 ?scales	 ?and	 ?more	 ?at	 ?aggregating	 ?individual	 ?335	 ? preference	 ?functions	 ?into	 ?higher	 ?order	 ?social	 ?welfare	 ?functions.	 ?	 ?336	 ? Three	 ?different	 ?types	 ?of	 ?measures	 ?are	 ?employed	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?337	 ? initiatives:	 ?natural,	 ?proxy,	 ?and	 ?constructed	 ?(Keeney	 ?&	 ?Gregory	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?Natural	 ?measures	 ?are	 ?in	 ?general	 ?338	 ? use	 ?and	 ?have	 ?a	 ?common	 ?interpretation:	 ?just	 ?as	 ?the	 ?concern	 ?to	 ??maximize	 ?profits?	 ?is	 ?naturally	 ?measured	 ?339	 ? in	 ?dollars,	 ?the	 ?concern	 ?to	 ??minimize	 ?the	 ?loss	 ?of	 ?habitat	 ?occupied	 ?by	 ?a	 ?valued	 ?and/or	 ?endangered	 ?species?	 ?340	 ? might	 ?make	 ?use	 ?of	 ?the	 ?natural	 ?indicator	 ??hectares	 ?of	 ?lost	 ?and/or	 ?remaining	 ?habitat.?	 ?The	 ?second	 ?type,	 ?341	 ? proxy	 ?measures,	 ?are	 ?less	 ?informative	 ?than	 ?natural	 ?attributes	 ?because	 ?they	 ?only	 ?indirectly	 ?indicate	 ?the	 ?342	 ? underlying	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?situation	 ?and	 ?so	 ?the	 ?achievement	 ?of	 ?an	 ?objective.	 ?An	 ?example	 ?is	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?a	 ?343	 ? measure	 ?such	 ?as	 ??dead	 ?or	 ?diseased	 ?trees	 ?per	 ?hectare?	 ?as	 ?a	 ?proxy	 ?for	 ?the	 ?health	 ?of	 ?a	 ?forest	 ?community.	 ?344	 ? The	 ?third	 ?type	 ?of	 ?performance	 ?measure,	 ?constructed	 ?metrics,	 ?is	 ?used	 ?with	 ?values	 ?such	 ?as	 ??awe?	 ?for	 ?when	 ?345	 ? no	 ?suitable	 ?natural	 ?measures	 ?exist	 ?and	 ?the	 ?relevance	 ?of	 ?a	 ?proxy	 ?measure	 ?is	 ?tenuous.	 ?Another	 ?example	 ?is	 ?346	 ? a	 ?scale	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?community	 ?support	 ?for	 ?a	 ?proposed	 ?management	 ?practice.	 ?Because	 ?no	 ?natural	 ?scale	 ?347	 ? exists	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?support,	 ?an	 ?index	 ?(e.g.,	 ?1-??5	 ?or	 ?1-??10)	 ?can	 ?be	 ?created,	 ?with	 ?each	 ?rating	 ?denoting	 ?a	 ?348	 ? different	 ?level	 ?of	 ?support.	 ?	 ?When	 ?thoughtfully	 ?designed,	 ?constructed	 ?indices	 ?define	 ?precisely	 ?the	 ?focus	 ?of	 ?349	 ? attention	 ?and	 ?so	 ?permit	 ?discussion	 ?of	 ?pros	 ?and	 ?cons	 ?across	 ?community	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?the	 ?concern	 ?(e.g.,	 ?is	 ?it	 ?350	 ? worth	 ?postponing	 ?harvest	 ?of	 ?an	 ?area	 ?for	 ?x	 ?years	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?support	 ?from	 ?say,	 ?level	 ?2	 ?to	 ?level	 ?4?).	 ?	 ?351	 ? 	 ?352	 ? All	 ?three	 ?types	 ?of	 ?measures	 ?are	 ?made	 ?operational	 ?through	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?scales	 ?or	 ?metrics.	 ?	 ?353	 ? Scales	 ?serve	 ?two	 ?major	 ?purposes:	 ?they	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?means	 ?for	 ?distinguishing	 ?among	 ?different	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?354	 ? impact,	 ?and	 ?they	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?way	 ?to	 ?distinguish	 ?the	 ?endpoints	 ?of	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?anticipated	 ?impacts.	 ?	 ?Scales	 ?355	 ? translate	 ?qualitative	 ?information	 ?into	 ?quantitative	 ?scores,	 ?but	 ?without	 ?losing	 ?information:	 ?behind	 ?a	 ?356	 ? summary	 ?rating	 ?of	 ??2?	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?can	 ?reside	 ?narratives,	 ?oral	 ?testimony,	 ?and	 ?scientific	 ?information	 ?357	 ? relating	 ?to	 ?this	 ?anticipated	 ?level	 ?of	 ?impact.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?creating	 ?appropriate	 ?metrics	 ?for	 ?intangibles	 ?358	 ? remains	 ?difficult,	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?where	 ?it	 ?is	 ?deemed	 ?helpful	 ?and	 ?necessary	 ?by	 ?all	 ?parties	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?a	 ?359	 ? consultation	 ?-??-??	 ?and	 ?thus	 ?with	 ?the	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?participation	 ?of	 ?local	 ?residents,	 ?resource	 ?users,	 ?or	 ?360	 ?	 ?	 ? 14	 ?indigenous	 ?partners	 ??	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?an	 ?explicit	 ?performance	 ?measure	 ?can	 ?help	 ?to	 ?highlight	 ?361	 ? progress,	 ?albeit	 ?imperfectly	 ?or	 ?partially,	 ?toward	 ?a	 ?desired	 ?environmental	 ?or	 ?cultural	 ?endpoint.	 ?We	 ?take	 ?362	 ? up	 ?the	 ?above	 ?critiques	 ?and	 ?demonstrate	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?uses	 ?of	 ?proxy	 ?and	 ?constructed	 ?scales	 ?as	 ?363	 ? well	 ?as	 ?narrative	 ?expression	 ?and	 ?cultural	 ?classifications	 ?more	 ?broadly	 ?in	 ?the	 ?following	 ?case	 ?studies.	 ?364	 ?3.0	 ?Cultural	 ?Investigations	 ?in	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Contexts	 ?365	 ?3.1	 ?Marine	 ?spatial	 ?planning	 ?on	 ?Vancouver	 ?Island:	 ?Field	 ?testing	 ?the	 ?articulacy	 ?and	 ?the	 ?spatial	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?366	 ? intangible	 ?services	 ?	 ?367	 ?Predominant	 ?among	 ?techniques	 ?for	 ?characterizing	 ?environmental	 ?values	 ?are	 ?willingness-??to-??pay	 ?368	 ? (WTP)	 ?and	 ?willingness-??to-??accept	 ?(WTA)	 ?approaches	 ?(Horowitz	 ?&	 ?McConnell	 ?2002);	 ?preference	 ?surveys	 ?369	 ? (Boxall	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1996);	 ?and	 ?choice	 ?experiments	 ?of	 ?different	 ?kinds	 ?(Powe,	 ?Garrod,	 ?&	 ?McMahon	 ?2005).	 ?Such	 ?370	 ? practices	 ?may	 ?yield	 ?quantitative	 ?results	 ?but	 ?these	 ?risk	 ?being	 ?so	 ?stripped	 ?of	 ?meaning	 ?as	 ?to	 ?misrepresent	 ?371	 ? the	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?under	 ?consideration.	 ?One	 ?alternative,	 ?following	 ?Calvet-??Mir	 ?et	 ?al	 ?(2012)	 ?	 ?is	 ?to	 ?make	 ?372	 ? better	 ?use	 ?of	 ?a	 ?suite	 ?of	 ?qualitative	 ?methods	 ?to	 ?first	 ?identify	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?deemed	 ?important,	 ?and	 ?373	 ? thereafter	 ?conduct	 ?social	 ?importance	 ?rankings	 ?of	 ?these	 ?comparing	 ?all	 ?services.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?example,	 ?the	 ?374	 ? cultural	 ?services	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?the	 ?agroecosysem	 ?studied	 ?(home	 ?gardens	 ?in	 ?northeast	 ?Spain),	 ?emerged	 ?as	 ?375	 ? the	 ?service	 ?relatively	 ?most	 ?valued	 ?by	 ?study	 ?participants	 ?(p.	 ?159).	 ?	 ?376	 ?Regardless,	 ?study	 ?participants	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?find	 ?it	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?give	 ?voice	 ?to	 ?values	 ?that	 ?are	 ?377	 ? experientially	 ?or	 ?spiritually-??charged,	 ?deeply	 ?held,	 ?or	 ?not	 ?readily	 ?expressed	 ?(e.g.,	 ?upon	 ?request	 ?in	 ?survey	 ?378	 ? designs).	 ?	 ?Such	 ?value	 ?positions	 ?and/or	 ?knowledge-??based	 ?epistemologies	 ?are	 ?often	 ?relegated	 ?to	 ?quiet	 ?379	 ? corners	 ?or	 ?absented	 ?through	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?overly	 ?rationalizing	 ?and	 ?confining	 ?direct	 ?question-??answer	 ?380	 ? formats	 ?(Nadasdy	 ?2007).	 ?	 ? 	 ?381	 ?Our	 ?first	 ?case	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?address	 ?some	 ?of	 ?these	 ?problems;	 ?namely	 ?value	 ?articulacy,	 ?locating	 ?382	 ? values	 ?spatially	 ?and/or	 ?assigning	 ?weights	 ?to	 ?these.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?drawn	 ?from	 ?a	 ?study	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?as	 ?inputs	 ?383	 ? to	 ?marine	 ?spatial	 ?planning	 ?for	 ?northern	 ?Vancouver	 ?Island	 ??	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?protected	 ?waters	 ?known	 ?as	 ?the	 ?384	 ? Inside	 ?Passage,	 ?off	 ?British	 ?Columbia?s	 ?central	 ?coast	 ?(Klain,	 ?in	 ?review).	 ?Our	 ?goal	 ?was	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?an	 ?385	 ? interview	 ?protocol	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?the	 ?ability	 ?for	 ?study	 ?participants	 ?to	 ?verbalize	 ?those	 ?non-??use	 ?qualities	 ?and	 ?386	 ? values	 ?that	 ?best	 ?express	 ?how	 ?they	 ?value	 ?their	 ?marine	 ?area	 ?(spatially	 ?or	 ?not)	 ?and	 ?why	 ?it	 ?matters,	 ?as	 ?387	 ? defined	 ?by	 ?emerging	 ?classification	 ?of	 ?these	 ?[cultural]	 ?services/benefits/values.	 ?	 ?We	 ?take	 ?it	 ?for	 ?granted	 ?388	 ? that	 ?there	 ?might	 ?be	 ?a	 ?need	 ?for	 ?holding	 ?some	 ?classifications	 ?constant	 ?across	 ?sites.	 ?	 ?On	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?we	 ?389	 ?	 ?	 ? 15	 ?also	 ?were	 ?open	 ?to	 ?value-??elicitation	 ?opportunities,	 ?frames,	 ?or	 ?contexts	 ?that	 ?resist	 ?the	 ?tendency	 ?to	 ?fit	 ?the	 ?390	 ? articulation	 ?of	 ?values	 ?into	 ?pre-??set	 ?expressions,	 ?that	 ?provide	 ?alternatives	 ?to	 ?direct	 ?question-??answer	 ?391	 ? formats,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?enable	 ?value	 ?expressions	 ?with	 ?spiritual,	 ?affective	 ?or	 ?experiential	 ?content	 ?to	 ?be	 ?392	 ? articulated	 ?as	 ?these	 ?pertain	 ?to	 ?qualities	 ?of	 ?natural	 ?systems.	 ?	 ?393	 ?The	 ?design	 ?relied	 ?on	 ?narrative-??based	 ?elicitation	 ?techniques	 ?used	 ?to	 ?(a)	 ?elicit	 ?the	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?394	 ? conversational	 ?talk	 ?that	 ?encompasses	 ?everyday	 ?reflections	 ?on	 ?important	 ?values	 ?(Satterfield,	 ?Slovic,	 ?and	 ?395	 ? Gregory	 ?2000;	 ?Satterfield	 ?2001;	 ?Moore	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005),	 ?and	 ?(b)	 ?ensure	 ?that	 ?questions/prompts	 ?are	 ?as	 ?396	 ? unassertive	 ?as	 ?possible	 ?regarding	 ?what	 ?people	 ?should	 ?think	 ?or	 ?value.	 ?	 ?The	 ?classification	 ?found	 ?in	 ?Chan	 ?et	 ?397	 ? al.	 ?(2012a)	 ?designates	 ?the	 ?following	 ?types	 ?of	 ?nonuse	 ?and/or	 ?cultural	 ?services-??cum-??values:	 ?spiritual,	 ?398	 ? educational,	 ?place,	 ?identity,	 ?artistic,	 ?intergenerational	 ?and	 ?recreational	 ?value.	 ?Each	 ?of	 ?this	 ?possible	 ?set	 ?of	 ?399	 ? services	 ?from	 ?which	 ?cultural	 ?benefits	 ?can	 ?be	 ?derived	 ?was	 ?approached	 ?indirectly:	 ?first,	 ?by	 ?introducing	 ?the	 ?400	 ? basic	 ?construct,	 ?and	 ?thereafter	 ?turning	 ?the	 ?conversation	 ?to	 ?any	 ?experiences,	 ?memories	 ?or	 ?other	 ?narrated	 ?401	 ? explanations	 ?that	 ?might	 ?capture	 ?this	 ?category	 ?of	 ?value.	 ?When	 ?eliciting	 ?thoughts	 ?on	 ?the	 ?relevance	 ?of,	 ?for	 ?402	 ? example,	 ??identity	 ?value,?	 ?we	 ?began	 ?not	 ?with	 ?the	 ?question:	 ?Do	 ?you	 ?have	 ?identity	 ?value	 ?for	 ?x?	 ?	 ?Rather,	 ?we	 ?403	 ? used	 ?an	 ?interview	 ?schedule	 ?that	 ?provided	 ?prompts	 ?to	 ?encourage	 ?the	 ?interviewee	 ?to	 ?think	 ?about	 ?identity:	 ?404	 ? 	 ?405	 ? ?Identity	 ?is	 ?the	 ?idea,	 ?relationships,	 ?and	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?belonging	 ?that	 ?help	 ?shape	 ?who	 ?we	 ?are;	 ?who	 ?we	 ?belong	 ?to,	 ?406	 ? the	 ?community	 ?we	 ?are	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?and	 ?so	 ?on.	 ?	 ?In	 ?this	 ?sense,	 ?you	 ?could	 ?even	 ?say	 ?that	 ?identity	 ?is	 ?tied	 ?to	 ?407	 ? physical	 ?spaces	 ?and/or	 ?the	 ?things	 ?people	 ?do	 ?within	 ?those	 ?places.?	 ?408	 ? 	 ?409	 ? This	 ?was	 ?followed	 ?with	 ?a	 ?parallel	 ?question/prompt	 ?along	 ?the	 ?lines	 ?of:	 ?410	 ? 	 ?411	 ? ?Are	 ?there	 ?places	 ?that	 ?are	 ?important	 ?to	 ?your	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?identity	 ?or	 ?the	 ?identity	 ?of	 ?the	 ?group	 ?to	 ?which	 ?you	 ?412	 ? see	 ?yourself	 ?as	 ?a	 ?member?	 ?How	 ?does	 ?that	 ?work?	 ?How	 ?would	 ?you	 ?describe,	 ?if	 ?at	 ?all,	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?link	 ?413	 ? between	 ?places	 ?and	 ?people	 ?as	 ?it	 ?relates	 ?to	 ?identity,	 ?belonging	 ?or	 ?more	 ?simply,	 ?who	 ?you	 ?as	 ?a	 ?person	 ?or	 ?414	 ? member	 ?of	 ?a	 ?group	 ?are	 ?and	 ?even	 ?who	 ?you	 ?are	 ??not?	 ?or	 ?who	 ?you	 ?are	 ?different	 ?from??	 ?	 ?415	 ? 	 ?416	 ? We	 ?do	 ?not	 ?intend	 ?to	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?prompts	 ?of	 ?this	 ?more	 ?abstract	 ?kind	 ?are	 ??easy?	 ?to	 ?respond	 ?to;	 ?instead	 ?417	 ? what	 ?tends	 ?to	 ?happen	 ?is	 ?that	 ?interviewees	 ?pause	 ?and	 ?treat	 ?them	 ?as	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?reflection.	 ?Because	 ?418	 ? the	 ?prompts	 ?blended	 ?abstract	 ?concepts,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?identity	 ?and	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?place	 ?with	 ?more	 ?tangible	 ?and	 ?419	 ? concrete	 ?details	 ?tailored	 ?to	 ?the	 ?particular	 ?site	 ?uses,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?going	 ?to	 ?visit	 ?important	 ?places	 ?and	 ?reflecting	 ?420	 ?	 ?	 ? 16	 ?on	 ?catching	 ?fish,	 ?the	 ?overall	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?the	 ?discussion	 ?was	 ?greatly	 ?enhanced.	 ?	 ?421	 ?In	 ?all,	 ?30	 ?interviews	 ?(23	 ?males	 ?and	 ?7	 ?females)	 ?were	 ?conducted	 ?across	 ?a	 ?variety	 ?of	 ?persons	 ?422	 ? purposively	 ?sampled	 ?from	 ?those	 ?whose	 ?livelihoods	 ?depend	 ?on	 ?the	 ?marine	 ?environment.	 ?They	 ?included:	 ?423	 ? marine	 ?mechanic	 ?(1),	 ?commercial	 ?fishermen	 ?(3),	 ?employees	 ?of	 ?an	 ?aquaculture	 ?facility	 ?or	 ?seafood	 ?424	 ? processor	 ?(5),	 ?sport	 ?fishing	 ?and	 ?ecotourism	 ?operators	 ?(9),	 ?hatchery	 ?manager	 ?(1),	 ?local	 ?artist	 ?(1)	 ?marine	 ?425	 ? educator	 ?(1),	 ?harbormaster	 ?(1),	 ?fisheries	 ?or	 ?marine	 ?biologists	 ?(3),	 ?employees	 ?of	 ?ENGOs	 ?(2),	 ?and	 ?426	 ? employees	 ?in	 ?the	 ?marine	 ?transportation	 ?sector	 ?(3).	 ?427	 ? 	 ?428	 ? [Insert	 ?figure	 ?1]	 ?429	 ? 	 ?430	 ? In	 ?brief,	 ?what	 ?can	 ?be	 ?surmised	 ?from	 ?this	 ?effort	 ?is	 ?that	 ?the	 ?capacity	 ?for	 ?stakeholders	 ?to	 ?articulate	 ?431	 ? the	 ?seemingly	 ?inarticulable	 ?is	 ?high,	 ?given	 ?an	 ?appropriately	 ?designed	 ?opportunity.	 ?Relative	 ?to	 ?more	 ?432	 ? material	 ?services,	 ?benefits	 ?or	 ?values,	 ?intangible	 ?attributes	 ?faired	 ?exceptionally	 ?well.	 ?Place	 ?or	 ?heritage	 ?433	 ? value,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?included	 ?all	 ?references	 ?to	 ?expressions	 ?of	 ?what	 ?is	 ?known	 ?as	 ??place	 ?attachment?	 ?434	 ? (Basso	 ?1996;	 ?White,	 ?Virden,	 ?and	 ?van	 ?Riper	 ?2008;	 ?Brown	 ?&	 ?Raymond	 ?2007)	 ?wherein	 ?a	 ?person	 ?values	 ?a	 ?435	 ? particular	 ?place	 ?as	 ?a	 ?site	 ?to	 ?visit,	 ?imagines	 ?its	 ?existence,	 ?and/or	 ?regards	 ?it	 ?as	 ?important	 ?because	 ?of	 ?436	 ? personal	 ?or	 ?historical	 ?events	 ?that	 ?occurred	 ?there	 ?(e.g.,	 ?physical	 ?places	 ?that	 ?act	 ?as	 ?heuristics	 ?for	 ?important	 ?437	 ? narrated	 ?events).	 ?	 ?Across	 ?all	 ?questions	 ?(including	 ?but	 ?not	 ?limited	 ?to	 ?the	 ?above	 ?prompt),	 ?this	 ?particular	 ?438	 ? value	 ?was	 ?mentioned	 ?98	 ?times,	 ?more	 ?than	 ?any	 ?other	 ?material	 ?or	 ?immaterial	 ?benefit,	 ?value	 ?or	 ?service	 ?439	 ? (including	 ?provisioning,	 ?employment,	 ?or	 ?recreational	 ?services)	 ?(Klain,	 ?in	 ?review).	 ?	 ?440	 ? Spatializing	 ?these	 ?results	 ?proved	 ?less	 ?difficult	 ?than	 ?assigning	 ?weights	 ?or	 ?metrics	 ?of	 ?importance	 ?to	 ?441	 ? them.	 ?Interviews	 ?were	 ?conducted	 ?in	 ?the	 ?company	 ?of	 ?local	 ?nautical	 ?charts	 ?so	 ?that	 ?question-??prompts	 ?442	 ? could	 ?involve	 ?the	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?see	 ?and	 ?point	 ?to	 ?locations	 ?on	 ?the	 ?map	 ?affiliated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?experiences	 ?they	 ?443	 ? were	 ?narrating.	 ?When	 ?asked	 ?to	 ?designate	 ?areas	 ?that	 ?were	 ?important	 ?to	 ?them	 ?for	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?444	 ? immaterial/intangible	 ?reasons	 ?discussed	 ?above,	 ?most	 ?complied	 ?(roughly	 ?83%	 ?or	 ?25/30).	 ?However,	 ?when	 ?445	 ? asked	 ?to	 ?assign	 ?an	 ?importance	 ?scale	 ?or	 ?weight	 ?to	 ?the	 ?nonmaterial	 ?values	 ?(e.g.,	 ?identity	 ?value)	 ?and/or	 ?to	 ?446	 ? the	 ?spatial	 ?areas	 ?they?d	 ?designated,	 ?just	 ?over	 ?half	 ?of	 ?the	 ?respondents	 ?(16/30)	 ?complied	 ?(i.e.,	 ?only	 ?half	 ?447	 ? found	 ?it	 ?acceptable	 ?to	 ?express	 ?non-??monetary	 ?values	 ?verbally,	 ?spatially	 ?and	 ?quantitatively).	 ?This	 ?may	 ?448	 ? signal	 ?that	 ?we	 ?were	 ?asking,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?words	 ?of	 ?one	 ?interviewee,	 ?to	 ??quantify	 ?the	 ?unquantifiable?	 ?and	 ?that	 ?449	 ? further	 ?work	 ?is	 ?needed	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?the	 ?methods	 ?trialed.	 ?	 ?450	 ?	 ?3.2	 ?	 ?Developing	 ?classifications	 ?of	 ?cultual	 ?values:	 ?a	 ?case	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?and	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?GMOs	 ?	 ?451	 ? 	 ?452	 ?	 ?	 ? 17	 ?There	 ?are	 ?now	 ?multiple	 ?published	 ?studies	 ?documenting	 ?a	 ?broad	 ?constellation	 ?of	 ?nature?s	 ?services	 ?and	 ?453	 ? production	 ?functions	 ?including	 ?carbon	 ?sequestration	 ?(Jackson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005),	 ?biodiversity	 ?conservation	 ?454	 ? (Nelson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009;	 ?Balvanera	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006)	 ?forest	 ?restoration	 ?(Chazdon	 ?2008),	 ?and	 ?pollination	 ?(Kremen	 ?et	 ?455	 ? al.	 ?2007).	 ?But	 ?no	 ?single	 ?published	 ?article	 ?that	 ?we	 ?could	 ?find	 ?attempted	 ?to	 ?map,	 ?model	 ?or	 ?assign	 ?value	 ?to	 ?456	 ? cultural	 ?services	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?an	 ?explicit	 ?expression	 ?or	 ?representation	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?services	 ?as	 ?defined	 ?by	 ?457	 ? indigenous	 ?or	 ?local	 ?stakeholders.	 ?Nor	 ?has	 ?attention	 ?been	 ?paid	 ?by	 ?environmental	 ?managers	 ?more	 ?broadly	 ?458	 ? to	 ?address	 ?seriously	 ?the	 ?use	 ?and	 ?meaning	 ?of	 ??culture?.	 ?This	 ?is	 ?all	 ?the	 ?more	 ?strange	 ?given	 ?the	 ?large	 ?number	 ?459	 ? of	 ?recent	 ?publications	 ?by	 ?anthropologists	 ?and	 ?geographers	 ?noting	 ?the	 ?social	 ?and	 ?cultural	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?460	 ? parks	 ?and	 ?protected	 ?areas	 ?on	 ?indigenous	 ?populations	 ?(Zerner	 ?2000;	 ?Wilshusen	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2002).	 ?	 ?461	 ? This	 ?second	 ?example	 ?looks	 ?more	 ?closely	 ?at	 ?how	 ?classifications	 ?vary	 ?(e.g.	 ?from	 ?widely	 ?employed	 ?462	 ? classifications	 ?of	 ?culture	 ?such	 ?as	 ?those	 ?used	 ?by	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?approaches)	 ?regarding	 ?what	 ?is	 ?said	 ?to	 ?463	 ? matter	 ?as	 ?culturally	 ?important.	 ?	 ?The	 ?case	 ?describes	 ?an	 ?explicit	 ?effort	 ?to	 ?classify	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?held	 ?by	 ?464	 ? indigenous	 ?M?ori	 ?in	 ?New	 ?Zealand,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?way	 ?in	 ?which	 ?those	 ?values	 ?are	 ?said	 ?to	 ?be	 ?effected	 ?by	 ?the	 ?465	 ? production,	 ?trial	 ?or	 ?planting	 ?of	 ?genetically	 ?modified	 ?organisms.	 ?The	 ?study	 ?was	 ?motivated	 ?by	 ?the	 ?fact	 ?that	 ?466	 ? New	 ?Zealand?s	 ?regulator	 ?is	 ?mandated	 ?to	 ?take	 ?M?ori	 ??culture	 ?and	 ?traditions?	 ?into	 ?account,	 ?according	 ?to	 ?467	 ? the	 ?principles	 ?of	 ?the	 ?1840	 ??Treaty	 ?of	 ?Waitangi?.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?the	 ?Environmental	 ?Risk	 ?Management	 ?468	 ? Authority	 ?(now	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Environmental	 ?Protection	 ?Agency)	 ?found	 ?itself	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?address	 ?cultural	 ?469	 ? concerns	 ?of	 ?an	 ?intangible	 ?or	 ?metaphysical	 ?nature,	 ?which	 ?had	 ?been	 ?raised	 ?across	 ?numerous	 ?applications	 ?470	 ? to	 ?develop	 ?or	 ?trial	 ?genetically	 ?modified	 ?medical	 ?and	 ?agricultural	 ?products.	 ?A	 ?multi-??year	 ?effort	 ?involving	 ?471	 ? three	 ?of	 ?this	 ?paper?s	 ?authors	 ?(Satterfield,	 ?Gregory	 ?and	 ?Roberts)	 ?ensued	 ?to	 ?investigate	 ?(a)	 ?whether	 ?GMOs	 ?472	 ? were	 ?said	 ?to	 ?involve	 ?culture	 ?effects	 ?of	 ?any	 ?kind,	 ?be	 ?they	 ?negative	 ?or	 ?positive;	 ?(b)	 ?the	 ?distribution	 ?of	 ?these	 ?473	 ? concerns	 ?across	 ?Maori,	 ?and	 ?(c)	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?protocol	 ?for	 ?balancing	 ?intangible	 ?474	 ? and	 ?tangible	 ?effects	 ?(Satterfield	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005;	 ?2010;	 ?Finucane	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?475	 ? For	 ?our	 ?purposes	 ?here	 ?as	 ?regards	 ?cultural	 ?classifications,	 ?the	 ?initial	 ?research	 ?question	 ?as	 ?to	 ?what	 ?476	 ? might	 ?comprise	 ?the	 ?set,	 ?or	 ?ontology,	 ?of	 ?potentially	 ?affected	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?was	 ?entirely	 ?open.	 ?	 ?Such	 ?477	 ? ?value	 ?openness?	 ?is	 ?crucial	 ?to	 ?recognizing	 ?not	 ?just	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?classifications	 ?that	 ?different	 ?people	 ?hold,	 ?478	 ? but	 ?more	 ?generally	 ?the	 ?enormous	 ?variety	 ?and	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?different	 ?value	 ?languages	 ?themselves	 ?479	 ? (Martinez-??Alier	 ?2009).	 ?Not	 ?only	 ?do	 ?such	 ?languages	 ?vary	 ?with	 ?groups,	 ?and/or	 ?the	 ?positions	 ?of	 ?480	 ? stakeholders	 ?in	 ?conflict	 ?with	 ?one	 ?and	 ?other,	 ?they	 ?can	 ?become	 ?a	 ?means	 ?of	 ?better	 ?comprehending	 ?481	 ? differences	 ?between	 ?parties	 ?(Martinez-??Alier	 ?2009)	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?solved	 ?with	 ?clearer	 ?use	 ?of	 ?methods	 ?482	 ? proposed	 ?here.	 ?Ethnographic	 ?or	 ??cultural	 ?models?	 ?interviewing	 ?was	 ?used	 ?to	 ?first	 ?identify	 ?values	 ?of	 ?483	 ? concern	 ?and	 ?their	 ?meaning.	 ?Examples	 ?of	 ?such	 ?approaches	 ?can	 ?be	 ?found	 ?in	 ?the	 ?work	 ?of	 ?Kempton	 ?et	 ?al	 ?484	 ?	 ?	 ? 18	 ?(1996),	 ?Paolisso	 ?(2002),	 ?Morgan	 ?et	 ?al	 ?(2002),	 ?and	 ?Gregory	 ?et	 ?al	 ?(2012).	 ?	 ?485	 ? In	 ?the	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?case,	 ?approximately	 ?90	 ?open-??ended	 ?interviews	 ?and	 ?focus	 ?groups	 ?were	 ?486	 ? conducted	 ?across	 ?an	 ?18	 ?month	 ?period	 ?involving	 ?the	 ?broad	 ?spectrum	 ?that	 ?is	 ?NZ	 ?Maori	 ?(including	 ?487	 ? academics,	 ?resource	 ?managers,	 ?professionals,	 ?small	 ?and	 ?large	 ?business	 ?operators,	 ?under-??and	 ?488	 ? unemployed,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?Maori	 ?from	 ?both	 ?urban	 ?and/or	 ?rural	 ?iwi,	 ?roughly	 ?tribe).	 ?	 ?489	 ? Approximately	 ?14	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?emerged	 ?as	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?GM	 ?(Table	 ?SI-??1).	 ?Of	 ?those	 ?that	 ?490	 ? were	 ?dominant,	 ?many	 ?were	 ?arguments	 ?that	 ?addressed	 ?Treaty	 ?principles	 ?(tino	 ?rangatiratanga),	 ?491	 ? particularly	 ?the	 ?right	 ?of	 ?M?ori	 ?to	 ?be	 ?consulted	 ?as	 ?provided	 ?for	 ?in	 ?Section	 ?8	 ?of	 ?the	 ?HSNO	 ?Act.	 ?More	 ?492	 ? importantly,	 ?for	 ?the	 ?purposes	 ?of	 ?this	 ?paper,	 ?three	 ?of	 ?these	 ?(in	 ?bold)	 ?were	 ?prominent	 ?above	 ?all	 ?other	 ?493	 ? concerns,	 ?and	 ?involve	 ?what	 ?we	 ?have	 ?heretofore	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?as	 ??intangibles?	 ?though	 ?of	 ?a	 ?very	 ?different	 ?494	 ? kind	 ?than	 ?that	 ?captured	 ?by	 ?the	 ?classification:	 ?cultural	 ?ecosystem	 ?services.	 ?These	 ?were	 ?glossed	 ?as	 ?495	 ? whakapapa	 ?(a	 ?cosmological	 ?and	 ?kinship-??like	 ?institution	 ?that	 ?designates	 ?the	 ?order	 ?and	 ?place	 ?of	 ?all	 ?things	 ?496	 ? Maori	 ?across	 ?time	 ?and	 ?space)	 ?(Roberts	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2004),	 ?Spiritual	 ?Matrix	 ?B	 ?including	 ?mauri	 ?(a	 ?metaphysical	 ?497	 ? force	 ?present	 ?in	 ?all	 ?things	 ?whose	 ?treatment	 ?is	 ?central	 ?to	 ?the	 ?well	 ?being	 ?and	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?both	 ?the	 ?thing	 ?498	 ? itself	 ?and	 ?its	 ?malevolence	 ?or	 ?not	 ?in	 ?the	 ?face	 ?of	 ?movement	 ?or	 ?transfer	 ?or	 ?change),	 ?and	 ?Spiritual	 ?Matrix	 ?A	 ?499	 ? including	 ?tapu	 ?(the	 ?potency	 ?of	 ?all	 ?things,	 ?which	 ?varies	 ?according	 ?to	 ?the	 ?entity	 ?itself)	 ?(Satterfield	 ?and	 ?500	 ? Roberts	 ?2008).	 ?501	 ? 	 ?502	 ? 	 ?503	 ? Whakapapa	 ?was	 ?particularly	 ?important	 ?and	 ?is	 ?less	 ?a	 ?cultural	 ?value	 ?like	 ??spirituality?	 ?and	 ?much	 ?504	 ? more	 ?an	 ?epistemology	 ?that,	 ?like	 ?the	 ?aforementioned	 ?example	 ?of	 ??animals	 ?as	 ?kin?,	 ?prescribes	 ?appropriate	 ?505	 ? understandings	 ?of	 ?the	 ?relationship	 ?between	 ?humans	 ?and	 ?nonhuman	 ?entities	 ?that	 ?make	 ?up	 ?what	 ?is	 ?often	 ?506	 ? meant	 ?by	 ??nature.?	 ?In	 ?this	 ?sense,	 ?whakapapa	 ?is	 ?both	 ?construct	 ?and	 ?cultural	 ?institution	 ?comprised	 ?of	 ?an	 ?507	 ? elaborate	 ?cosmology	 ?beginning	 ?with	 ?the	 ?origin	 ?of	 ?the	 ?universe	 ?and	 ?of	 ?the	 ?primal	 ?parents,	 ?then	 ?508	 ? continuing	 ?to	 ?trace	 ?human	 ?descent/genealogy	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?that	 ?for	 ?all	 ?living	 ?and	 ?non-??living	 ?material	 ?and	 ?509	 ? immaterial	 ?phenomena.	 ?Lineages	 ?connect	 ?each	 ?papa	 ?or	 ?layer,	 ?and	 ?animal	 ?and	 ?plant	 ?whakapapa	 ?typically	 ?510	 ? involve	 ?many	 ?species	 ?often	 ?from	 ?distinctly	 ?different	 ?scientific	 ?kingdoms	 ?(for	 ?example,	 ?a	 ?k?mara/tuber	 ?511	 ? and	 ?a	 ?rat	 ?can	 ?be	 ?found	 ?in	 ?the	 ?same	 ?whakapapa),	 ?along	 ?with	 ?nonliving	 ?phenomena	 ?such	 ?as	 ?stars.	 ?The	 ?512	 ? clusters	 ?of	 ?nonhuman	 ?entities	 ?within	 ?such	 ?whakapapa	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?act	 ?as	 ?ecosystem	 ?maps.	 ?They	 ?may	 ?also	 ?513	 ? function	 ?as	 ?a	 ?traditional	 ?knowledge	 ?taxonomy	 ?based	 ?on	 ?perceived	 ?similarities	 ?(usually	 ?morphological)	 ?514	 ? between	 ?some	 ?or	 ?all	 ?of	 ?the	 ?things	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?whakapapa.	 ?	 ?Fundamentally,	 ?whakapapa	 ?is	 ?about	 ?515	 ? establishing	 ?relationships	 ?and	 ?so	 ?understanding	 ?one?s	 ?rights,	 ?purpose,	 ?duties	 ?and	 ?obligations	 ?that	 ?flow	 ?516	 ? from	 ?familial	 ?and	 ?tribal	 ?relationships	 ?and	 ?from	 ?one?s	 ?location	 ?in	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?order	 ?of	 ?relations,	 ?including	 ?an	 ?517	 ?	 ?	 ? 19	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?ecosystem	 ?relationships,	 ?which	 ?define	 ?human	 ?rights	 ?and	 ?responsibilities	 ?towards	 ?one?s	 ?518	 ? environmental	 ?kinsfolk.	 ?Through	 ?that	 ?location	 ?one	 ?comes	 ?to	 ?know	 ?one?s	 ?purpose,	 ?history,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?place	 ?519	 ? of	 ?oneself	 ?and	 ?all	 ?other	 ?entities	 ?in	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?order	 ?(Roberts	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?[This	 ?is	 ?not	 ?an	 ?obscure	 ?example	 ?520	 ? or	 ?point	 ?as	 ?the	 ?NZ	 ?courts	 ?recently	 ?granted	 ?personhood	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Whanganui	 ?River,	 ?the	 ?nation?s	 ?third	 ?largest	 ?521	 ? river,	 ?on	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?that	 ?the	 ?river	 ?is	 ?Te	 ?Awa	 ?Tupua	 ?(part	 ?of	 ?an	 ?integrated,	 ?living	 ?whole	 ?with	 ?inextricable	 ?522	 ? relationships	 ?to	 ?local	 ?iwi/tribes	 ?(Environment	 ?News	 ?Service,	 ?2012).	 ?523	 ? 	 ?524	 ? Whakapapa?s	 ? layers	 ? of	 ? relations	 ? suggest,	 ? amongst	 ? other	 ? things,	 ? obligations	 ? to	 ? a	 ? much	 ? wider	 ?525	 ? sphere	 ?of	 ?beings	 ?and	 ?time	 ?whereby	 ?any	 ?one	 ?person	 ?or	 ?thing	 ?is	 ?the	 ?sum	 ?total	 ?of	 ?all	 ?that	 ?has	 ?preceded	 ?him	 ?526	 ? or	 ?her.	 ?Within	 ?this,	 ?mauri	 ?is	 ?a	 ?powerful	 ?force	 ?that	 ?suggests	 ?both	 ?what	 ?something	 ?is	 ?and	 ?what	 ?its	 ?purpose	 ?527	 ? in	 ?life	 ?should	 ?be.	 ?Similarly,	 ?the	 ?tapu	 ?of	 ?something	 ?is	 ?often	 ?though	 ?not	 ?always	 ?a	 ?function	 ?of	 ?its	 ?whakapapa	 ?528	 ? or	 ? geneology.	 ? Together	 ? the	 ? tapu-??mauri	 ? complexes,	 ? and	 ? the	 ?multi-??dimensional	 ?whakapapa	 ? construct,	 ?529	 ? pose	 ? a	 ? vexing	 ? set	 ? of	 ? problems	 ? for	 ? the	 ? kinds	 ? of	 ? classification	 ? or	 ? valuation	 ? goals	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ?530	 ? management.	 ? An	 ? effect,	 ? by	 ? definition,	 ? is	 ? a	 ? performance	 ? measure	 ? that	 ? assumes	 ? that	 ? given	 ? a	 ? certain	 ?531	 ? action,	 ?harm	 ?in	 ?the	 ?form	 ?of	 ?a	 ?measurable	 ?and	 ?so	 ?tangible	 ?effect	 ?will	 ?ensue.	 ?	 ?532	 ? This	 ?was	 ?best	 ?expressed	 ?in	 ?an	 ?early	 ?decision	 ?by	 ?the	 ?regulator,	 ?in	 ?reference	 ?to	 ?a	 ?proposal	 ?to	 ?533	 ? genetically	 ?modify	 ?cattle	 ?for	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?pharmaceuticals.	 ?The	 ?cows	 ?had	 ?been	 ?grazing	 ?on	 ?land	 ?534	 ? belonging	 ?to	 ?the	 ?tribal	 ?iwi,	 ?Ngati	 ?Wairere,	 ?which	 ?when	 ?discovered	 ?propelled	 ?the	 ?case	 ?through	 ?that	 ?535	 ? country?s	 ?highest	 ?court	 ?(Satterfield	 ?&	 ?Roberts	 ?2008).	 ?The	 ?regulator?s	 ?decision	 ?requested	 ?a	 ?broader	 ?536	 ? approach	 ?in	 ?which	 ?the	 ?question	 ?of	 ?tradeoffs	 ?(?weighting?	 ?in	 ?their	 ?language)	 ?and	 ?metrics	 ?were	 ?central:	 ?537	 ? ?The	 ?balancing	 ?of	 ?spiritual	 ?beliefs	 ?and	 ?scientific	 ?endeavour	 ?is	 ?not	 ?a	 ?matter	 ?solely	 ?for	 ?judicial	 ?weighing	 ?up.	 ?538	 ? ?They	 ?do	 ?not	 ?lend	 ?themselves	 ?to	 ?point	 ?in	 ?time	 ?decision	 ?making,	 ?even	 ?though	 ?the	 ?HSNO	 ?Act	 ?requires	 ?539	 ? this?A	 ?broader	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?required	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?context	 ?in	 ?which	 ?the	 ?HSNO	 ?Act	 ?can	 ?operate	 ?in	 ?dealing	 ?540	 ? with	 ?these	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?issues??	 ?(ERMA	 ?2001:27).	 ?	 ?The	 ?dilemma	 ?faced	 ?by	 ?the	 ?regulator	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Authority	 ?541	 ? (the	 ?8	 ?person	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?body	 ?comprised	 ?of	 ?scientists,	 ?at	 ?least	 ?one	 ?of	 ?whom	 ?are	 ?Maori,	 ?and	 ?one	 ?542	 ? Maori	 ?philosopher)	 ?centered	 ?on	 ?questions	 ?such	 ?as:	 ??what	 ?can	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?best	 ?practice	 ?consultation	 ?543	 ? on	 ?concerns	 ?of	 ?this	 ?nature?;	 ??what	 ?constitutes	 ?relevant	 ?and	 ?robust	 ?evidence	 ?concerning	 ?the	 ?perceived	 ?544	 ? effects	 ?of	 ?GMOs	 ?on	 ?spiritual	 ?beliefs?;	 ?and	 ??how	 ?can	 ?one	 ?weigh	 ?and	 ?balance	 ?the	 ?magnitude	 ?and	 ?likelihood	 ?545	 ? of	 ??intangible?	 ?risks	 ?against	 ?tangible	 ?and/or	 ?physical	 ?risks	 ?using	 ?the	 ?existing	 ?process??	 ?546	 ? One	 ?of	 ?the	 ?fundamental	 ?problems	 ?was	 ?a	 ?tendency	 ?to	 ?conduct	 ?consultation	 ?with	 ?Maori	 ?outside	 ?547	 ? or	 ?alongside	 ?but	 ?not	 ?integral	 ?to	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?process	 ?itself	 ?(paralleling	 ?Arnstein	 ?1969,	 ?which	 ?548	 ? remains	 ?sadly	 ?relevant).	 ?This	 ?also	 ?typically	 ?involved	 ?the	 ?conversion	 ?of	 ?narrative	 ?testimony	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?549	 ?	 ?	 ? 20	 ?Maori,	 ?and	 ?generally	 ?aligned	 ?with	 ?the	 ?above	 ?cultural	 ?constructs,	 ?to	 ?a	 ?low-??high	 ?importance	 ?scale/metric.	 ?550	 ? The	 ??scaling?	 ?of	 ?that	 ?testimony,	 ?however,	 ?rested	 ?with	 ?the	 ?8-??member	 ?Authority	 ?(Burley	 ?2007).	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?551	 ? intangibles	 ?remained	 ?marginalized	 ?in	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?actual	 ?decisions	 ?because	 ?the	 ?designated	 ?scales	 ?often	 ?552	 ? fit	 ?the	 ?narrated	 ?constructs	 ?poorly,	 ?and	 ?because	 ?they	 ?were	 ?applied	 ?by	 ?those	 ?for	 ?whom	 ?the	 ?[cultural]	 ?553	 ? values	 ?were	 ?largely	 ?unfamiliar.	 ?	 ?The	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?moving	 ?beyond	 ?this	 ?step	 ?also	 ?meet	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?554	 ? concerns	 ?of	 ?critics	 ?outlined	 ?in	 ?this	 ?paper.	 ?First,	 ?adopting	 ?scales	 ?or	 ?metrics	 ?in	 ?reference	 ?to	 ?cultural	 ?555	 ? ontologies	 ?or	 ?classification	 ?that	 ?are	 ?designed	 ?in	 ?situ	 ?allows	 ?for	 ?knowledge	 ?expressions	 ?that	 ?were	 ?556	 ? heretofore	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?assumed	 ?structure	 ?of	 ?the	 ?original	 ?planning	 ?tool	 ?(be	 ?it	 ?an	 ?ecosystem	 ?service	 ?one	 ?557	 ? or	 ?that	 ?derived	 ?from	 ?risk	 ?assessment).	 ?Second,	 ?doing	 ?so	 ?necessarily	 ?involves	 ?input	 ?from	 ?indigenous	 ?558	 ? partners	 ?or	 ?constituents,	 ?a	 ?critically	 ?important	 ?concern	 ?from	 ?the	 ?point	 ?of	 ?view	 ?of	 ?just	 ?processes	 ?in	 ?559	 ? decision	 ?making	 ?(Peterson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2008),	 ?and	 ?is	 ?also	 ?essential	 ?when	 ??meaningful	 ?consultation?	 ?is	 ?legally	 ?560	 ? mandated	 ?as	 ?is	 ?the	 ?case	 ?in	 ?both	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?and	 ?Canada	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?in	 ?other	 ?nation	 ?states	 ?(Gregory	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?561	 ? 2008).	 ?	 ?562	 ? Because	 ?constructed	 ?scales	 ?(described	 ?in	 ?section	 ?2.3)	 ?are	 ?extremely	 ?useful	 ?yet	 ?often	 ?misused,	 ?a	 ?563	 ? more	 ?detailed	 ?example	 ?may	 ?be	 ?helpful.	 ?	 ?A	 ?Cultural	 ?Health	 ?Index	 ?(CHI)	 ?was	 ?developed	 ?in	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?as	 ?564	 ? a	 ?tool	 ?to	 ?facilitate	 ?the	 ?input	 ?and	 ?participation	 ?of	 ?iwi	 ?into	 ?land	 ?and	 ?water	 ?management	 ?processes	 ?and	 ?565	 ? decision	 ?making.	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?interviews	 ?with	 ?elders	 ?who	 ?identified	 ?key	 ?indicators	 ?pertaining	 ?to	 ?a	 ?body	 ?566	 ? of	 ?freshwater	 ?in	 ?their	 ?tribal	 ?area	 ?that,	 ?from	 ?a	 ?cultural	 ?perspective,	 ?are	 ?fundamental	 ?to	 ?maintaining	 ?the	 ?567	 ? health	 ?of	 ?the	 ?waterway.	 ?These	 ?include	 ?spiritual	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?physical	 ?values	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?tribal	 ?identity;	 ?568	 ? creation	 ?stories	 ?and	 ?rituals;	 ?historical	 ?events;	 ?traditional	 ?and	 ?extant	 ?settlements,	 ?sacred	 ?sites;	 ?food	 ?569	 ? resources,	 ?access	 ?and	 ?transport.	 ?Developed	 ?by	 ?M?ori	 ?working	 ?in	 ?collaboration	 ?with	 ?western	 ?scientists	 ?570	 ? (Tipa	 ?&	 ?Teirney	 ?2003)	 ?the	 ?CHI	 ?was	 ?designed	 ?by	 ?local	 ?M?ori	 ?and	 ?calculation	 ?of	 ?CHI	 ?scores	 ?is	 ?informed	 ?by	 ?571	 ? traditional	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?values.	 ?	 ?This	 ?is	 ?done	 ?using	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?sites	 ?on	 ?a	 ?river	 ?and	 ?developing	 ?a	 ?CHI	 ?572	 ? for	 ?each	 ?site.	 ?	 ?It	 ?consists	 ?of	 ?three	 ?major	 ?components,	 ?namely:	 ?site	 ?status	 ?(denotes	 ?the	 ?association	 ?and	 ?573	 ? significance	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river	 ?site	 ?to	 ?M?ori,	 ?past	 ?present	 ?and	 ?future);	 ?food	 ?gathering	 ?resources	 ?and	 ?values;	 ?and	 ?574	 ? stream	 ?health	 ?(includes	 ?many	 ?physical	 ?measures	 ?identified	 ?from	 ?a	 ?M?ori	 ?perspective).	 ?	 ?Each	 ?component	 ?575	 ? contains	 ?a	 ?subset	 ?of	 ?indicators,	 ?which	 ?are	 ?rated	 ?holistically	 ?on	 ?a	 ?1-??5	 ?scale.	 ?	 ?These	 ?are	 ?then	 ?subjected	 ?to	 ?576	 ? correlation	 ?and	 ?regression	 ?analyses,	 ?which	 ?help	 ?identify	 ?those	 ?indicators	 ?most	 ?highly	 ?correlated	 ?with	 ?577	 ? stream	 ?health.	 ?578	 ? 	 ?579	 ? 3.3	 ?Lower	 ?Bridge	 ?River,	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?	 ?580	 ?	 ?	 ? 21	 ?A	 ?third	 ?example	 ?of	 ?developing	 ?metrics	 ?for	 ?cultural	 ?concerns	 ?comes	 ?from	 ?decisions	 ?about	 ?river	 ?581	 ? flows	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?a	 ?dam	 ?on	 ?the	 ?lower	 ?Bridge	 ?River	 ?near	 ?Lillooet,	 ?in	 ?south-??eastern	 ?British	 ?Columbia,	 ?582	 ? Canada	 ?(Failing	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?in	 ?press).	 ?The	 ?area	 ?is	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?traditional	 ?territory	 ?of	 ?the	 ?St'?t'imc	 ?First	 ?Nation.	 ?	 ?583	 ? After	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Terzaghi	 ?Dam	 ?in	 ?1960,	 ?a	 ?four	 ?km	 ?section	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river	 ?channel	 ?immediately	 ?584	 ? below	 ?the	 ?dam	 ?was	 ?left	 ?essentially	 ?dry,	 ?and	 ?flows	 ?on	 ?the	 ?river	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole	 ?were	 ?greatly	 ?reduced.	 ?	 ?A	 ?Water	 ?585	 ? Use	 ?planning	 ?process,	 ?initiated	 ?in	 ?the	 ?late	 ?1990s	 ?and	 ?involving	 ?a	 ?diverse	 ?set	 ?of	 ?stakeholders	 ??	 ?federal	 ?and	 ?586	 ? provincial	 ?governments,	 ?local	 ?resource	 ?users,	 ?and	 ?nearby	 ?communities	 ?in	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?the	 ?utility	 ?(BC	 ?587	 ? Hydro)	 ?and	 ?members	 ?of	 ?the	 ?St?at?imc	 ?Nation	 ??	 ?structured	 ?discussions	 ?over	 ?several	 ?years,	 ?and	 ?had	 ?the	 ?588	 ? goal	 ?of	 ?developing	 ?a	 ?new	 ?flow	 ?regime	 ?for	 ?the	 ?river	 ?that	 ?would	 ?be	 ?acceptable	 ?to	 ?all	 ?participants.	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?key	 ?to	 ?589	 ? this	 ?process	 ?was	 ?the	 ?shared	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?an	 ?adaptive	 ?decision-??	 ?making	 ?framework	 ?for	 ?evaluating	 ?flow	 ?590	 ? releases	 ?downstream	 ?of	 ?the	 ?dam	 ?(Failing	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?in	 ?press).	 ?	 ?This	 ?resulted	 ?in	 ?a	 ?water	 ?use	 ?plan	 ?that	 ?591	 ? implemented	 ?a	 ?series	 ?of	 ?experimental	 ?flows,	 ?beginning	 ?with	 ?a	 ?seasonally	 ?adjusted	 ?water	 ?release	 ?592	 ? (averaging	 ?about	 ?3	 ?cms)	 ?and	 ?a	 ?4-??6	 ?year	 ?review	 ?period	 ?established	 ?to	 ?carefully	 ?monitor	 ?and	 ?evaluate	 ?the	 ?593	 ? results	 ?of	 ?each	 ?trial.	 ?	 ?At	 ?early	 ?stages	 ?of	 ?deliberations	 ?the	 ?key	 ?concerns	 ?were	 ?salmon	 ?abundance	 ?and	 ?594	 ? revenues	 ?from	 ?power	 ?production,	 ?but	 ?as	 ?the	 ?multi-??stakeholder	 ?group	 ?continued	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?flow	 ?595	 ? alternatives	 ?it	 ?became	 ?clear	 ?that	 ?it	 ?was	 ?essential	 ?to	 ?add	 ?measures	 ?that	 ?dealt	 ?with	 ?the	 ?health	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river	 ?596	 ? ecosystem	 ?(for	 ?example,	 ?concerned	 ?with	 ?the	 ?abundance	 ?and	 ?diversity	 ?of	 ?the	 ?aquatic	 ?benthic	 ?597	 ? community)	 ?and	 ?additional	 ?cultural	 ?objectives	 ?to	 ?capture	 ?the	 ?full	 ?range	 ?of	 ?those	 ?things	 ?that	 ?mattered	 ?to	 ?598	 ? aboriginal	 ?and	 ?other	 ?decision	 ?participants.	 ?599	 ? One	 ?of	 ?the	 ?concerns	 ?formally	 ?brought	 ?into	 ?the	 ?evaluation	 ?of	 ?flow	 ?alternatives	 ?by	 ?representatives	 ?600	 ? of	 ?the	 ?St?at?imc	 ?Nation	 ?involved	 ?stewardship	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river.	 ?	 ?Basic	 ?to	 ?St?at?imc	 ?culture	 ?and	 ?self-??identify	 ?is	 ?a	 ?601	 ? feeling	 ?of	 ?responsibility	 ?toward	 ?the	 ?long-??term	 ?protection	 ?and	 ?viability	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Bridge	 ?River	 ?on	 ?behalf	 ?of	 ?602	 ? the	 ?St?at?imc	 ?people	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?for	 ?the	 ?benefit	 ?of	 ?other	 ?First	 ?Nations,	 ?along	 ?with	 ?a	 ?responsibility	 ?to	 ?603	 ? protect	 ?the	 ?river	 ?itself.	 ?Two	 ?additional	 ?core	 ?components	 ?of	 ?stewardship	 ?were	 ?identified:	 ?the	 ?level	 ?and	 ?604	 ? quality	 ?of	 ?participation	 ?in	 ?river-??related	 ?opportunities,	 ?and	 ?a	 ?long-??term	 ?commitment	 ?to	 ?oversight	 ?and	 ?605	 ? monitoring.	 ?	 ?The	 ?recognition	 ?of	 ?these	 ?concerns	 ?aided	 ?both	 ?the	 ?identification	 ?and	 ?evaluation	 ?of	 ?flow	 ?606	 ? alternatives	 ?and	 ?provided	 ?visible	 ?confirmation	 ?to	 ?the	 ?St?at?imc	 ?that	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?process	 ?itself	 ?was	 ?able	 ?607	 ? to	 ??level	 ?the	 ?playing	 ?field?	 ?by	 ?including	 ?considerations	 ?important	 ?to	 ?their	 ?Nation	 ?alongside	 ?other	 ?608	 ? environmental	 ?or	 ?economic	 ?concerns.	 ?	 ?609	 ? The	 ?five-??point	 ?scale	 ?used	 ?to	 ?incorporate	 ?stewardship	 ?concerns	 ?is	 ?shown	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?1.	 ?	 ?Does	 ?this	 ?610	 ? index	 ?fully	 ?capture	 ?stewardship?	 ?	 ?Not	 ?at	 ?all:	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?concept	 ?of	 ?stewardship	 ?is	 ?fundamental	 ?to	 ?the	 ?611	 ? St?at?imc	 ?population	 ?and	 ?holds	 ?both	 ?spiritual	 ?and	 ?practical	 ?importance	 ?that	 ?is	 ?not	 ?captured	 ?in	 ?this	 ?simple	 ?612	 ?	 ?	 ? 22	 ?scale.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?this	 ?same	 ?criticism	 ?can	 ?be	 ?made	 ?of	 ?other	 ?ecological	 ?or	 ?economic	 ?measures.	 ?	 ?The	 ?613	 ? deliberations	 ?helped	 ?all	 ?participants	 ?to	 ?recognize	 ?these	 ?limitations	 ?in	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?the	 ?task	 ?at	 ?hand,	 ?614	 ? which	 ?was	 ?not	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?a	 ?comprehensive	 ?inventory	 ?of	 ?all	 ?concerns	 ?but,	 ?rather,	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?a	 ?defensible	 ?615	 ? basis	 ?for	 ?shared	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?(and	 ?to	 ?move	 ?from	 ?a	 ?highly	 ?unsatisfactory	 ?situation,	 ?in	 ?which	 ?flows	 ?616	 ? downstream	 ?of	 ?the	 ?dam	 ?were	 ?stopped,	 ?to	 ?something	 ?better	 ??	 ?not	 ?perfect,	 ?but	 ?representing	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?617	 ? move	 ?forward).	 ?	 ?Thus	 ?this	 ?type	 ?of	 ?scale	 ?works	 ?for	 ?the	 ?St?at?lmc	 ?because	 ?stewardship	 ?is	 ?not	 ?an	 ?absolute	 ?618	 ? measure	 ?but,	 ?instead,	 ?it?s	 ?a	 ?relative	 ?measure	 ?that	 ?allows	 ?for	 ?stewardship	 ?to	 ?be	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?619	 ? comparison	 ?of	 ?management	 ?alternatives	 ?and	 ?that	 ?establishes	 ?a	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?ongoing	 ?dialogue	 ?decision	 ?620	 ? participants	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?	 ?While	 ?the	 ?wording	 ?presented	 ?in	 ?this	 ?table	 ?was	 ?developed	 ?by	 ?St?at?lmc	 ?621	 ? stakeholders,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?notable	 ?similarity	 ?to	 ?the	 ?framework	 ?original	 ?presented	 ?by	 ?Arnstein	 ?(1969),	 ?and	 ?622	 ? long	 ?confirmed	 ?and	 ?elaborated	 ?by	 ?more	 ?recent	 ?work	 ?(Gregory	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?623	 ? 	 ?624	 ? 	 ?625	 ? Poor: One or more of the key parties are not included in active participation and stewardship opportunities are limited. Fair: All of the key parties are involved but stewardship opportunities are limited. Good: All key parties are fully involved, and there are moderate opportunities for active stewardship by key parties and affected communities. Very Good: All key parties are fully involved and there are significant opportunities for active and collaborative stewardship, but with limited long term financial and institutional commitment. Excellent: All key parties are fully involved, there are significant opportunities for active and collaborative stewardship and there is a commitment to active and on-going oversight, monitoring and capacity-building. Table	 ?1.	 ?Lower	 ?Bridge	 ?River,	 ?Canada	 ?example	 ?five-??point	 ?Stewardship	 ?Scale.	 ?Language	 ?for	 ?the	 ?626	 ? stewardship	 ?scale	 ?was	 ?derived	 ?from	 ?two	 ?all-??day	 ?focus	 ?workshops,	 ?the	 ?first	 ?including	 ?10	 ?diverse	 ?627	 ? stakeholders,	 ?the	 ?second	 ?meeting	 ?comprised	 ?of	 ?12	 ?community	 ?identified	 ?	 ?St?at?lmc	 ?elders	 ?who	 ?were	 ?628	 ? charged	 ?with	 ?articulating	 ?the	 ?scale	 ?and	 ?implementing	 ?it	 ?when	 ?assessing	 ?flow	 ?alternatives	 ?(Failing	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?629	 ? in	 ?press).	 ?630	 ? 	 ?631	 ? 	 ?632	 ? Another	 ?fundamental	 ?concern	 ?for	 ?St?at?imc	 ?emphasized	 ?maintaining	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?and	 ?spiritual	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?633	 ? the	 ?river?s	 ?flow.	 ?	 ?To	 ?represent	 ?these	 ?concerns	 ?in	 ?a	 ?scale	 ?that	 ?could	 ?be	 ?compared	 ?directly	 ?to	 ?other	 ?project-??634	 ? related	 ?impacts	 ?(e.g.,	 ?effects	 ?on	 ?fisheries,	 ?river	 ?health,	 ?power	 ?generation)	 ?study	 ?proponents	 ?worked	 ?635	 ? closely	 ?over	 ?several	 ?months	 ?with	 ?St?at?imc	 ?representatives	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Water	 ?Use	 ?Plan	 ?and,	 ?in	 ?addition,	 ?636	 ? incorporated	 ?input	 ?from	 ?a	 ?group	 ?of	 ?St?at?imc	 ?resource	 ?users	 ?and	 ?elders	 ?who	 ?were	 ?considered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?637	 ? community	 ?to	 ?be	 ?the	 ?resident	 ?knowledge	 ?holders.	 ?	 ?Some	 ?members	 ?of	 ?this	 ?group	 ?were	 ?residents	 ?of	 ?the	 ?638	 ? area	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?the	 ?dam	 ?a	 ?half-??century	 ?ago,	 ?and	 ?this	 ?knowledge	 ?provided	 ?an	 ?important	 ?639	 ?	 ?	 ? 23	 ?context	 ?for	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?the	 ??spiritual	 ?quality?	 ?measure.	 ?	 ?After	 ?numerous	 ?discussions,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?agreed	 ?640	 ? that	 ?this	 ?measure	 ?should	 ?include	 ?the	 ?sound	 ?(the	 ?voice	 ?of	 ?water	 ?and	 ?birdsong),	 ?sight	 ?(seasonally	 ?641	 ? appropriate	 ?patterns	 ?of	 ?pools	 ?and	 ?riffles);	 ?smell	 ?(of	 ?the	 ?water	 ?itself	 ?and	 ?at	 ?the	 ?water?s	 ?edge),	 ?and	 ?feel	 ?of	 ?642	 ? the	 ?river	 ?(wadeable	 ?at	 ?different	 ?locations).	 ?	 ?Importantly,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?the	 ?St?at?imc	 ?elders	 ?themselves	 ?who	 ?643	 ? translated	 ?the	 ??spirit?	 ?or	 ??voice?	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river	 ?into	 ?these	 ?terms,	 ?and	 ?they	 ?observed	 ?that	 ?in	 ?moving	 ?from	 ?a	 ?644	 ? water-??release	 ?volume	 ?of	 ?0	 ?to	 ?3	 ?cms/y,	 ?there	 ?already	 ?had	 ?been	 ?noticeable	 ?improvements.	 ?While	 ?these	 ?645	 ? four	 ?components	 ?clearly	 ?do	 ?not	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?universal	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?or	 ?spiritual	 ?quality,	 ?they	 ?define	 ?646	 ? the	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?and	 ?spiritual	 ?quality	 ?thought	 ?to	 ?be	 ?most	 ?relevant	 ?for	 ?the	 ?evaluation	 ?by	 ?St?at?imc	 ?of	 ?647	 ? a	 ?suite	 ?of	 ?alternative	 ?flow	 ?regimes	 ?and	 ?habitat	 ?enhancement	 ?activities	 ?on	 ?the	 ?river,	 ?and	 ?within	 ?the	 ?648	 ? (average	 ?annual)	 ?range	 ?of	 ?0	 ?to	 ?6	 ?cms-??y.	 ?	 ?649	 ? To	 ?refine	 ?these	 ?constructed	 ?performance	 ?measures	 ?over	 ?time	 ?(in	 ?keeping	 ?with	 ?the	 ?adaptive	 ?650	 ? nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?overall	 ?flow	 ?management	 ?plan),	 ?it	 ?was	 ?decided	 ?that	 ?a	 ?committee	 ?of	 ?three	 ?to	 ?eight	 ?St?at?imc	 ?651	 ? members	 ?will	 ?act	 ?as	 ?observers	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river;	 ?with	 ?designated	 ?observations	 ?to	 ?be	 ?taken	 ?four	 ?times	 ?per	 ?year	 ?652	 ? under	 ?a	 ?range	 ?of	 ?test	 ?flows;	 ?and	 ?including	 ?a	 ?visual	 ?record	 ?at	 ?each	 ?observation	 ?site	 ?using	 ?video	 ?camera	 ?653	 ? and	 ?still	 ?photography.	 ?All	 ?of	 ?this	 ?will	 ?occur	 ?in	 ?conjunction	 ?with	 ?a	 ?replicable	 ?and	 ?transparent	 ?scoring	 ?654	 ? system	 ?for	 ?assigning	 ?scores	 ?to	 ?each	 ?component	 ?(Failing	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?in	 ?press).	 ?655	 ?4.0	 ?Discussion:	 ?Directions	 ?in	 ?Articulating	 ?Culture	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy	 ?	 ?656	 ? What	 ?ultimately	 ?can	 ?be	 ?said	 ?about	 ?these	 ?efforts	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?the	 ?consideration	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?considerations	 ?657	 ? as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?decisions?	 ?Problem	 ?identification	 ?is	 ?a	 ?comfortable	 ?terrain	 ?for	 ?many	 ?social	 ?658	 ? scientists,	 ?although	 ?problem	 ?solving	 ?is	 ?less	 ?so	 ?-??-??	 ?in	 ?part,	 ?because	 ?fears	 ?of	 ?conservation	 ?or	 ?development	 ?659	 ? planning	 ?as	 ?social	 ?engineering	 ?run	 ?deep.	 ?Escobar	 ?(Escobar	 ?2005),	 ?quoting	 ?Thoreau,	 ?states:	 ??If	 ?I	 ?knew	 ?for	 ?660	 ? a	 ?certainty	 ?that	 ?a	 ?man	 ?was	 ?coming	 ?to	 ?my	 ?house	 ?with	 ?the	 ?conscious	 ?design	 ?of	 ?doing	 ?me	 ?good,	 ?I	 ?should	 ?661	 ? run	 ?for	 ?my	 ?life...	 ?for	 ?fear	 ?that	 ?I	 ?should	 ?get	 ?some	 ?of	 ?his	 ?good	 ?done	 ?to	 ?me	 ?(p.	 ?205)?.	 ?	 ?	 ?Yet,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?also	 ?the	 ?case	 ?662	 ? that	 ?many	 ?local	 ?First	 ?Nations	 ?are	 ?doing	 ?planning	 ?of	 ?this	 ?kind	 ?for	 ?themselves	 ?and	 ?seek	 ?advice	 ?about	 ?how	 ?663	 ? to	 ?do	 ?so.	 ?Those	 ?who	 ?reject	 ?outright	 ?the	 ?idea	 ?of	 ?ecosystem	 ?services	 ?as	 ?a	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?conservation	 ?planning,	 ?664	 ? or	 ?regard	 ?all	 ?environmental	 ?planning	 ?as	 ?a	 ?form	 ?of	 ?coercion,	 ?are	 ?not	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?comforted	 ?by	 ?these	 ?665	 ? methodological	 ?innovations.	 ?	 ?Nor	 ?do	 ?we	 ?mean	 ?to	 ?ignore	 ?the	 ?fact	 ?that	 ?all	 ?decision-??making	 ?involves	 ?both	 ?666	 ? political	 ?will	 ?and	 ?technical	 ?and	 ?deliberate	 ?implications.	 ?Such	 ?concerns	 ?are	 ?all	 ?the	 ?more	 ?legitimate	 ?as	 ?667	 ? major	 ?conservation	 ?organizations	 ?act	 ?as	 ?nascent	 ?state	 ?entities	 ?(West	 ?2006)	 ?and/or	 ?are	 ?ever	 ?more	 ?668	 ? pressured	 ?to	 ?perform	 ?accountability	 ?outcomes	 ?for	 ?distant	 ?donors	 ?at	 ?the	 ?expense	 ?local	 ?actors	 ?(Brosius	 ?669	 ? 2006).	 ?670	 ?	 ?	 ? 24	 ?	 ? Classification	 ?necessarily	 ?involves	 ?planning	 ?conducted	 ?as	 ?the	 ?local	 ?identification	 ?of	 ?what	 ?matters,	 ?671	 ? who	 ?knows,	 ?and	 ?by	 ?what	 ?rules	 ?of	 ?question	 ?framing	 ?and	 ?evidence?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?and	 ?British	 ?672	 ? Columbia	 ?cases,	 ?changes	 ?(though	 ?only	 ?partially	 ?complete)	 ?are	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?the	 ?very	 ?basis	 ?through	 ?which	 ?673	 ? key	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?are	 ?operationalized	 ?and	 ?debated	 ?in	 ?decision	 ?making.	 ?Not	 ?long	 ?ago	 ?it	 ?was	 ?virtually	 ?674	 ? impossible	 ?to	 ?imagine	 ?scientists	 ?and	 ?indigenous	 ?partners	 ?sitting	 ?down	 ?at	 ?the	 ?table	 ?discussing	 ?mauri	 ?or	 ?675	 ? the	 ??spirit	 ?of	 ?the	 ?river?,	 ?let	 ?alone	 ?including	 ?these	 ?as	 ?meaningful	 ?attributes	 ?in	 ?conservation	 ?planning.	 ?These	 ?676	 ? examples	 ?and	 ?the	 ?associated	 ?value	 ?openness	 ?occurred	 ?because	 ?of	 ?indigenous	 ?activation	 ?of	 ?state	 ?677	 ? mandated	 ?recognition	 ?of	 ?First	 ?Nations	 ?(see	 ?also	 ?Miller	 ?2011).	 ?678	 ? As	 ?mandates	 ?for	 ?including	 ?cultural	 ?concerns	 ?and	 ?the	 ?growth	 ?in	 ?political	 ?agency	 ?that	 ?fuels	 ?these	 ?679	 ? become	 ?increasingly	 ?common,	 ?culture	 ?is	 ?almost	 ?certain	 ?to	 ?become	 ?a	 ?classification	 ?that	 ?necessarily	 ?680	 ? involves	 ?indigenous	 ?constituents	 ?and	 ?policies.	 ?Consulting	 ?with	 ?constituents	 ?to	 ?create	 ?new	 ?and	 ?681	 ? meaningful	 ?scales	 ?-??-??	 ?documented	 ?expressions	 ?of	 ?important	 ?cultural	 ?values	 ?used	 ?to	 ?conduct	 ?evaluations	 ?682	 ? and	 ?decision	 ?making	 ?-??-??	 ?can	 ?also	 ?reduce	 ?covert	 ?political	 ?machinations	 ?precisely	 ?because	 ?a	 ?record	 ?and	 ?683	 ? precedent	 ?is	 ?provided	 ?that	 ?is	 ?politically	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?overturn.	 ?	 ?This	 ?particularly	 ?holds	 ?true	 ?if	 ?and	 ?where	 ?684	 ? community	 ?level	 ?consultation	 ?is	 ?mandated	 ?and	 ?practiced	 ?(e.g.,	 ?our	 ?NZ	 ?and	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ??smaller-??685	 ? scale?	 ?examples),	 ?less	 ?so	 ?when	 ?overt	 ?political	 ?and	 ?economic	 ?force	 ?is	 ?enabled.	 ?This	 ?is	 ?the	 ?case	 ?in	 ?many	 ?686	 ? contexts,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?in	 ?Bolivia,	 ?where	 ??aforementioned	 ?constitutional	 ?provisions	 ?aside	 ??	 ?road	 ?687	 ? construction	 ?is	 ?severing	 ?in	 ?two	 ?a	 ?protected	 ?area	 ?that	 ?is	 ?largely	 ?indigenous	 ?territory	 ?(BBC	 ?News	 ?2012);	 ?or	 ?688	 ? in	 ?Canada	 ?where	 ?proposed	 ?oil	 ?and	 ?gas	 ?pipelines	 ?openly	 ?advocated	 ?by	 ?the	 ?federal	 ?government	 ?are	 ?widely	 ?689	 ? unpopular	 ?(Gregory	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?690	 ? The	 ?question	 ?of	 ?how	 ?to	 ?think	 ?about	 ?and	 ?approach	 ?the	 ?question,	 ?locally,	 ?of	 ?who	 ?might	 ?speak	 ?for	 ?691	 ? the	 ??group?	 ?in	 ?decision	 ?fora	 ?is	 ?not	 ?addressed	 ?here	 ?and	 ?needs	 ?considerable	 ?attention.	 ?A	 ?conventional	 ?692	 ? social	 ?scientist	 ?approach	 ?presumes	 ?a	 ?representative	 ?sample	 ?of	 ?the	 ?group	 ?as	 ?best.	 ?But	 ?it	 ?might	 ?equally	 ?be	 ?693	 ? the	 ?case	 ?that	 ?representation	 ?is	 ?defined	 ?locally	 ?as	 ?a	 ?function	 ?of	 ?designated	 ?leadership	 ?(civic	 ?or	 ?694	 ? customary);	 ?recognized	 ?cultural	 ?knowledge	 ?holders	 ?when	 ?this	 ?is	 ?key	 ?(Davis	 ?&	 ?Wagner	 ?2003);	 ?or	 ?some	 ?695	 ? other	 ?means	 ?of	 ?appropriate	 ?representation	 ?of	 ?local	 ?constituencies	 ?as	 ?leadership	 ?and	 ?demographic	 ?696	 ? groups	 ?change	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?697	 ? The	 ?question	 ?of	 ??who?	 ?pertains	 ?equally	 ?to	 ?knowing	 ?when	 ?the	 ?unit	 ?of	 ?analysis	 ?is	 ?the	 ?group	 ?versus	 ?698	 ? the	 ?individual.	 ?	 ?Far	 ?too	 ?often,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?assumed	 ?that	 ?the	 ?group	 ?is	 ?an	 ?aggregation	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?preference	 ?699	 ? judgments	 ?when	 ?in	 ?fact	 ?the	 ?group	 ?(e.g.,	 ?as	 ?collectively	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?governing	 ?the	 ?commons)	 ?is	 ?the	 ?700	 ? appropriate	 ?unit	 ?of	 ?analysis.	 ?When	 ?this	 ?is	 ?the	 ?case,	 ?discursive	 ?decision-??making	 ?approaches	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?701	 ? more	 ?viable	 ?than	 ?methods	 ?based	 ?on	 ?surveys	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?preferences	 ?(Wilson	 ?and	 ?Howarth	 ?2002).	 ?	 ?This	 ?702	 ?	 ?	 ? 25	 ?is	 ?particularly	 ?true	 ?to	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?that	 ?significant	 ?learning	 ?-??-??	 ?about	 ?meanings,	 ?preferences	 ?and	 ?knowledge	 ?703	 ? -??-??	 ?can	 ?occur	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?of	 ?the	 ?interactions	 ?among	 ?group	 ?members	 ?and	 ?their	 ?evolving	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?704	 ? the	 ?consequences	 ?of	 ?proposed	 ?actions	 ?(Gregory	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?705	 ? Some	 ?give	 ?and	 ?take	 ?across	 ?interdisciplinary	 ?borders	 ?(Peterson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2008)	 ?on	 ?the	 ?norms	 ?of	 ?706	 ? evidence	 ?and	 ?greater	 ?use	 ?of	 ?narrative	 ?and	 ?open-??ended	 ?exploratory	 ?techniques	 ?can	 ?improve	 ?the	 ?707	 ? opportunities	 ?for	 ?expressing	 ?the	 ?inexpressible.	 ?Much	 ?deeper	 ?site-??based	 ?knowledge	 ?will	 ?be	 ?required	 ?to	 ?708	 ? do	 ?this	 ?well,	 ?as	 ?will	 ?collaboration	 ?with	 ?those	 ?long	 ?familiar	 ?with	 ?the	 ?ethical	 ?norms	 ?of	 ?research	 ?access	 ?and	 ?709	 ? relationship	 ?building	 ?across	 ?different	 ?communities.	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?because	 ?people	 ?may	 ?be	 ?more	 ?able	 ?to	 ?710	 ? discuss	 ?abstract	 ?concepts	 ?(e.g.,	 ?identity,	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?place)	 ?when	 ?mentioned	 ?in	 ?conjunction	 ?with	 ?going	 ?to	 ?an	 ?711	 ? important	 ?site	 ?or	 ?catching	 ?fish,	 ?it	 ?might	 ?be	 ?best	 ?to	 ?closely	 ?couple	 ?discussions	 ?of	 ?material	 ?ecosystem	 ?712	 ? services	 ?(e.g.,	 ?provisioning	 ?of	 ?food)	 ?with	 ?invisible	 ?benefits	 ?(such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?transmission	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?that	 ?713	 ? occurs	 ?when	 ?sharing	 ?that	 ?task	 ?with	 ?a	 ?child)	 ?(see	 ?also	 ?Turner	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2008;	 ?Calvet-??Mir	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?714	 ? Yet	 ?even	 ?when	 ?the	 ?intangible	 ?dimensions	 ?in	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?context	 ?are	 ?satisfactorily	 ?articulated,	 ?715	 ? assigning	 ?weights	 ?to	 ?these	 ?dimensions	 ?and	 ?addressing	 ?the	 ?associated	 ?tradeoffs	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?management	 ?716	 ? plans	 ?will	 ?often	 ?remain	 ?difficult.	 ?Tradeoffs	 ?are	 ?widely	 ?recognized	 ?as	 ?difficult	 ?(McShane	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011),	 ?and	 ?717	 ? this	 ?is	 ?especially	 ?so	 ?when	 ?the	 ?objects	 ?of	 ?proposed	 ?trades	 ?are	 ?strongly	 ?held	 ?and	 ?thus	 ?tradeoffs	 ?are	 ?718	 ? resisted	 ?as	 ?amenable	 ?to	 ?common	 ?measurement	 ?of	 ?any	 ?kind	 ?(Ginges	 ?&	 ?Atran	 ?2009;	 ?Baron	 ?&	 ?Ritov	 ?2009;	 ?719	 ? Satterfield	 ?&	 ?Roberts	 ?2008;	 ?Baron	 ?and	 ?Spranca	 ?1997).	 ?Imagine,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?discussions	 ?of	 ?a	 ?stand	 ?of	 ?720	 ? trees	 ?that	 ?are	 ?recognized	 ?by	 ?a	 ?cultural	 ?group	 ?as	 ?inhabited	 ?by	 ?the	 ?spirits	 ?of	 ?their	 ?ancestors;	 ?and	 ?imagine	 ?721	 ? the	 ?possibility	 ?of	 ?discussing	 ?the	 ?right	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?these	 ?physical	 ?and	 ?metaphysical	 ?resources	 ?as	 ?open	 ?to	 ?722	 ? negotiation.	 ?In	 ?such	 ?cases,	 ?fungibility	 ?should	 ?not	 ?be	 ?taken	 ?as	 ?a	 ?given	 ?but	 ?neither	 ?should	 ?it	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?723	 ? necessarily	 ?off-??limits:	 ?instead,	 ?it	 ?should	 ?be	 ?approached	 ?cautiously,	 ?as	 ?potentially	 ?offensive	 ?or	 ?morally	 ?724	 ? compromising	 ?at	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time	 ?that	 ?it	 ?might	 ?be	 ?viewed	 ?as	 ?politically	 ?or	 ?practically	 ?necessary	 ?in	 ?order	 ?for	 ?725	 ? an	 ?indigenous	 ?group	 ?or	 ?community	 ?to	 ?gain	 ?a	 ?voice	 ?in	 ?a	 ?critical	 ?environmental	 ?policy	 ?debate.	 ?	 ?726	 ? That	 ?we	 ?need	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?meaningfully	 ?and	 ?respectfully	 ?with	 ?diverse	 ?constituencies	 ?and	 ?find	 ?727	 ? better	 ?ways	 ?to	 ?represent	 ?the	 ?complexities	 ?of	 ?natural	 ?and	 ?cultural	 ?worlds	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?policy	 ?728	 ? decisions	 ?is	 ?a	 ?given.	 ?	 ?That	 ?we	 ?have	 ?barely	 ?begun	 ?is	 ?a	 ?verdict	 ?that	 ?simultaneously	 ?reflects	 ?a	 ?disturbing	 ?past	 ?729	 ? and	 ?a	 ?more	 ?promising	 ?future.	 ?	 ?730	 ? 	 ?731	 ? Acknowledgements	 ?732	 ? The	 ?authors	 ?would	 ?like	 ?to	 ?thank	 ?Social	 ?Sciences	 ?and	 ?Humanities	 ?Council	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?and	 ?the	 ?US	 ?National	 ?733	 ? Science	 ?Foundation	 ?(Awards	 ?SES-??0924210	 ?and	 ?SES-??1231231)	 ?for	 ?financial	 ?support	 ?in	 ?the	 ?preparation	 ?of	 ?734	 ?	 ?	 ? 26	 ?this	 ?paper.	 ?	 ?	 ?735	 ? 	 ? 	 ?736	 ?	 ?	 ? 27	 ?REFERENCES	 ?737	 ? Adamowicz, W. Beckley, T., Hatton MacDonald, D., Just, L., Luckert, M., Murray, E. & 738	 ? Phillips, W. 1998.  In Search of Forest Resource Values of Indigenous Peoples: 739	 ? Are Nonmarket Valuation Techniques Applicable? Society & Natural Resources 740	 ? 11: 51-66.	 ?741	 ? Appadurai,	 ?A.	 ?1996.	 ?Modernity	 ?at	 ?large:	 ?Cultural	 ?dimensions	 ?of	 ?globalization.	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Minnesota	 ?742	 ? Press.	 ?743	 ? Arnstein,	 ?S.R.	 ?1969.	 ?	 ?Ladder	 ?of	 ?Citizen	 ?Participation.	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?American	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?744	 ? Planners	 ?35(4):	 ?216-??224.	 ?745	 ? Arquette,	 ?M.,	 ?M.	 ?Cole,	 ?K.	 ?Cook,	 ?B.	 ?LaFrance,	 ?M.	 ?Peters,	 ?J.	 ?Ransom,	 ?E.	 ?Sargent,	 ?V.	 ?Smoke,	 ?and	 ?A.	 ?Stairs.	 ?746	 ? 2002.	 ??Holistic	 ?risk-??based	 ?environmental	 ?decision	 ?making:	 ?a	 ?Native	 ?perspective.?	 ?Environmental	 ?747	 ? health	 ?perspectives	 ?110	 ?(Suppl	 ?2):	 ?259.	 ?748	 ? Asfaw,	 ?T.,	 ?and	 ?T.	 ?Satterfield.	 ?2010.	 ??Gender	 ?Relations	 ?in	 ?Local-??Level	 ?Dispute	 ?Settlement	 ?in	 ?Ethiopia?s	 ?749	 ? Zeghie	 ?Peninsula.?	 ?Human	 ?Ecology	 ?Review	 ?12):	 ?161.	 ?750	 ? Balvanera,	 ?P.,	 ?A.	 ?B	 ?Pfisterer,	 ?N.	 ?Buchmann,	 ?J.	 ?S	 ?He,	 ?T.	 ?Nakashizuka,	 ?D.	 ?Raffaelli,	 ?and	 ?B.	 ?Schmid.	 ?2006.	 ?751	 ? ?Quantifying	 ?the	 ?evidence	 ?for	 ?biodiversity	 ?effects	 ?on	 ?ecosystem	 ?functioning	 ?and	 ?services.?	 ?752	 ? Ecology	 ?Letters	 ?9	 ?(10):	 ?1146?1156.	 ?	 ?753	 ? Baron,	 ?J.,	 ?and	 ?Ritov,	 ?I.	 ?2009.	 ?Protected	 ?Values	 ?and	 ?Omission	 ?Bias	 ?as	 ?Deontological	 ?Judgments.	 ?50:	 ?133-??754	 ? 167.	 ?755	 ? Baron,	 ?J.,	 ?&	 ?Spranca,	 ?M.	 ?1997.	 ?Protected	 ?Values.	 ?	 ?Organizational	 ?Behaviour	 ?and	 ?Human	 ?Decision	 ?756	 ? Processes.	 ?70:1-??16.	 ?757	 ? Basso,	 ?K.	 ?H.	 ?1996.	 ?Wisdom	 ?sits	 ?in	 ?places:	 ?Landscape	 ?and	 ?language	 ?among	 ?the	 ?Western	 ?Apache.	 ?758	 ? Albuquerque,	 ?NM:	 ?Univiversity	 ?of	 ?New	 ?Mexico	 ?Press.	 ?759	 ? BBC	 ?News.	 ?2012.	 ?Bolivia	 ?march	 ?revives	 ?Tipnis	 ?Amazon	 ?road	 ?dispute.	 ?BBC	 ?News	 ?January	 ?760	 ? 30th	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?Available	 ?at:	 ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-??latin-??america-??16804399	 ?761	 ? [accessed	 ?October	 ?2012]	 ?762	 ? Boxall,	 ?P.	 ?C,	 ?W.	 ?L	 ?Adamowicz,	 ?J.	 ?Swait,	 ?M.	 ?Williams,	 ?and	 ?J.	 ?Louviere.	 ?1996.	 ??A	 ?comparison	 ?of	 ?stated	 ?763	 ? preference	 ?methods	 ?for	 ?environmental	 ?valuation.?	 ?Ecological	 ?Economics	 ?18	 ?(3):	 ?243?253.	 ?764	 ? Brockington,	 ?D.,	 ?and	 ?J.	 ?Igoe.	 ?2006.	 ??Eviction	 ?for	 ?conservation:	 ?A	 ?global	 ?overview.?	 ?Conservation	 ?and	 ?765	 ? Society	 ?4	 ?(3):	 ?424.	 ?766	 ? Brosius,	 ?J.	 ?P.	 ?2006.	 ??Common	 ?ground	 ?between	 ?anthropology	 ?and	 ?conservation	 ?biology.?	 ?Conservation	 ?767	 ? Biology	 ?20	 ?(3):	 ?683?685.	 ?768	 ?	 ?	 ? 28	 ????.	 ?2010.	 ??Conservation	 ?Trade-??offs	 ?andthe	 ?Politics	 ?of	 ?Knowledge.?	 ?Trade-??offs	 ?in	 ?Conservation:	 ?769	 ? Deciding	 ?What	 ?to	 ?Save:	 ?311.	 ?770	 ? Brown,	 ?G.,	 ?and	 ?C.	 ?Raymond.	 ?2007.	 ??The	 ?relationship	 ?between	 ?place	 ?attachment	 ?and	 ?landscape	 ?values:	 ?771	 ? Toward	 ?mapping	 ?place	 ?attachment.?	 ?Applied	 ?Geography	 ?27	 ?(2):	 ?89?111.	 ?772	 ? Buege,	 ?Douglas	 ?J.	 ?1997.	 ??The	 ?Ecologically	 ?Noble	 ?Savage	 ?Revisited.?	 ?Environmental	 ?Ethics:	 ?18(1)	 ?71-??88.	 ?	 ?773	 ? Burley, N. et al. (2007) Ira Taha Wairua project: Discussion document. Unpublished 774	 ? report, July 2007, ERMA. 82pp. 775	 ? Calvet-??Mir,	 ?L.,	 ?Gomez-??Baggethun,	 ?E,	 ?Reyes-??Garcia,	 ?V.	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?"Beyond	 ?Food	 ?Production:	 ?Ecosystem	 ?776	 ? services	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?home	 ?gardens.	 ?A	 ?case	 ?study	 ?in	 ?Vall	 ?Fosca,	 ?Catalan	 ?Pyrenees,	 ?Northeastern	 ?777	 ? Spain."	 ?Ecological	 ?Economics	 ?74:	 ?153-??160.	 ?778	 ? Chan,	 ?K.	 ?M.A,	 ?M.	 ?R	 ?Shaw,	 ?D.	 ?R	 ?Cameron,	 ?E.	 ?C	 ?Underwood,	 ?and	 ?G.	 ?C	 ?Daily.	 ?2006.	 ??Conservation	 ?planning	 ?779	 ? for	 ?ecosystem	 ?services.?	 ?PLoS	 ?Biology	 ?4	 ?(11):	 ?e379.	 ?	 ?780	 ? Chan,	 ?K.	 ?M.	 ?A.,	 ?J.	 ?Goldstein,	 ?T.	 ?Satterfield,	 ?N.	 ?Hannahs,	 ?K.	 ?Kikiloi,	 ?R.	 ?Naidoo,	 ?N.	 ?Vadeboncoeur	 ?and	 ?U.	 ?781	 ? Woodside.	 ?2011.	 ?Cultural	 ?services	 ?and	 ?non-??use	 ?values.	 ?Natural	 ?Capital:	 ?Theory	 ?&	 ?Practice	 ?of	 ?782	 ? Mapping	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Services.	 ?P.	 ?Kareiva,	 ?H.	 ?Tallis,	 ?T.	 ?H.	 ?Ricketts,	 ?G.	 ?C.	 ?Daily	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Polasky.	 ?783	 ? Oxford,	 ?UK,	 ?Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press:	 ?206-??228.	 ?	 ?784	 ? Chan,	 ?K.M.A.,	 ?Goldstein,	 ?J.,	 ?Satterfield,	 ?T.,	 ?Hannahs,	 ?N.,	 ?Kikiloi,	 ?K.,	 ?Naidoo,	 ?R.,	 ?Vadeboncoeur,	 ?N.,	 ?and	 ?785	 ? Woodside,	 ?U.	 ?2012a.	 ?Cultural	 ?services	 ?and	 ?non-??use	 ?values.	 ?In	 ?Natural	 ?Capital:	 ?Theory	 ?and	 ?786	 ? Practice	 ?of	 ?Mapping	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Services.	 ?Chapter	 ?12,	 ?Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press,	 ?pp	 ?206-??228.	 ?787	 ? Chan,	 ?K.M.A.,	 ?Satterfield,	 ?T.,	 ?and	 ?Goldstein,	 ?J.	 ?2012b.	 ?"Rethinking	 ?ecosystem	 ?services	 ?to	 ?better	 ?address	 ?788	 ? and	 ?navigate	 ?cultural	 ?values."	 ?Ecological	 ?Economics	 ?74:8-??18.	 ?	 ?789	 ? Chazdon,	 ?R.	 ?L.	 ?2008.	 ??Beyond	 ?Deforestation:	 ?Restoring	 ?Forests	 ?and	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Services	 ?on	 ?Degraded	 ?790	 ? Lands.?	 ?Science	 ?320	 ?(5882)	 ?(June	 ?13):	 ?1458	 ?-??1460.	 ?doi:10.1126/science.1155365.	 ?791	 ? Cole,	 ?D.	 ?N.,	 ?and	 ?Laurie	 ?Yung.	 ?2010.	 ?Beyond	 ?Naturalness:	 ?Rethinking	 ?Park	 ?and	 ?Wilderness	 ?Stewardship	 ?in	 ?792	 ? an	 ?Era	 ?of	 ?Rapid	 ?Change.	 ?Island	 ?Press,	 ?March	 ?18.	 ?793	 ? Corbera,	 ?E.,	 ?K.	 ?Brown,	 ?and	 ?W.	 ?N	 ?Adger.	 ?2007.	 ??The	 ?equity	 ?and	 ?legitimacy	 ?of	 ?markets	 ?for	 ?ecosystem	 ?794	 ? services.?	 ?Development	 ?and	 ?Change	 ?38	 ?(4):	 ?587?613.	 ?795	 ? Costanza,	 ?R.,	 ?d'Arge,	 ?R.,	 ?de	 ?Groot,	 ?R.,	 ?Farber,	 ?S.,	 ?Grasso,	 ?M.,	 ?Hannon,	 ?B.,	 ?Limburg,	 ?K.,	 ?Naeem,	 ?S.,	 ?O'Neill,	 ?796	 ? R.V.,	 ?Paruelo,	 ?J.,	 ?Raskin,	 ?R.G.,	 ?Sutton,	 ?P.,	 ?van	 ?den	 ?Belt,	 ?M.,	 ?1997.	 ?The	 ?value	 ?of	 ?the	 ?world's	 ?797	 ? ecosystem	 ?services	 ?and	 ?natural	 ?capital.	 ?Nature	 ?387,	 ?253?260.	 ?798	 ? Cronon,	 ?W.	 ?1996.	 ??The	 ?Trouble	 ?with	 ?Wilderness:	 ?Or,	 ?Getting	 ?Back	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Wrong	 ?Nature.?	 ?Environmental	 ?799	 ? History	 ?1	 ?(1)	 ?(January	 ?1):	 ?7-??28.	 ?doi:10.2307/3985059.	 ?800	 ?	 ?	 ? 29	 ?Cruikshank,	 ?J.	 ?2005.	 ?Do	 ?glaciers	 ?listen?:	 ?local	 ?knowledge,	 ?colonial	 ?encounters,	 ?and	 ?social	 ?imagination.	 ?801	 ? Vancouver:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Press.	 ?802	 ? Daily,	 ?G.	 ?1997.	 ?Nature's	 ?Services:	 ?Societal	 ?dependence	 ?on	 ?natural	 ?ecosystems.	 ?	 ?Island	 ?Press.	 ?803	 ? Davis,	 ?A.,	 ?and	 ?J.	 ?R	 ?Wagner.	 ?2003.	 ??Who	 ?knows?	 ?On	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?identifying	 ??experts?	 ?when	 ?804	 ? researching	 ?local	 ?ecological	 ?knowledge.?	 ?Human	 ?ecology	 ?31	 ?(3):	 ?463?489.	 ?	 ?805	 ? de	 ?Castro,	 ?E.V.	 ?1998.	 ?Cosmological	 ?Deixis	 ?and	 ?Amerindian	 ?Perspectivism.	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Royal	 ?806	 ? Anthropological	 ?Institute.	 ?4:	 ?469-??488.	 ?807	 ? Dietz,	 ?T.,	 ?Ostrom,	 ?E.	 ?and	 ?Stern,	 ?P.	 ?2003.	 ??The	 ?Struggle	 ?to	 ?Govern	 ?the	 ?Commons.?	 ?Science	 ?302	 ?(5652)	 ?808	 ? (December	 ?12):	 ?1907	 ?-??1912.	 ?doi:10.1126/science.1091015.	 ?809	 ? Donatuto,	 ?J.	 ?L,	 ?T.	 ?A	 ?Satterfield,	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?Gregory.	 ?2011.	 ??Poisoning	 ?the	 ?body	 ?to	 ?nourish	 ?the	 ?soul:	 ?Prioritising	 ?810	 ? health	 ?risks	 ?and	 ?impacts	 ?in	 ?a	 ?Native	 ?American	 ?community.?	 ?Health,	 ?Risk	 ?&	 ?Society	 ?13	 ?(2):	 ?103?811	 ? 127.	 ?812	 ? Dove,	 ?M.	 ?R.	 ?2006.	 ??Indigenous	 ?People	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Politics.?	 ?Annual	 ?Review	 ?of	 ?Anthropology	 ?35	 ?813	 ? (1)	 ?(October):	 ?191-??208.	 ?doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123235.	 ?814	 ? Dunlap,	 ?Riley	 ?E,	 ?Kent	 ?D	 ?Van	 ?Liere,	 ?Angela	 ?G	 ?Mertig,	 ?and	 ?Robert	 ?Emmet	 ?Jones.	 ?2000.	 ??New	 ?Trends	 ?in	 ?815	 ? Measuring	 ?Environmental	 ?Attitudes:	 ?Measuring	 ?Endorsement	 ?of	 ?the	 ?New	 ?Ecological	 ?Paradigm:	 ?A	 ?816	 ? Revised	 ?NEP	 ?Scale.?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Social	 ?Issues	 ?56	 ?(3)	 ?(January	 ?1):	 ?425-??442.	 ?doi:10.1111/0022-??817	 ? 4537.00176.	 ?818	 ? Environment	 ?News	 ?Service,	 ?2012.	 ?New	 ?Zealand's	 ?Wanganui	 ?River	 ?Gets	 ?Personhood	 ?Status.	 ?	 ?819	 ? Available	 ?at	 ?http://ens-??newswire.com/2012/09/13/new-??zealands-??whanganui-??820	 ? river-??gets-??personhood-??status/	 ?[Accessed	 ?October	 ?2012]	 ?821	 ? Escobar,	 ?A.	 ?2005.	 ??Imagining	 ?a	 ?post-??development	 ?era.?	 ?The	 ?anthropology	 ?of	 ?development	 ?and	 ?822	 ? globalization:	 ?From	 ?classical	 ?political	 ?economy	 ?to	 ?contemporary	 ?neoliberalism:	 ?341?351.	 ?823	 ? ERMA,	 ?2001.	 ?Notification	 ?of	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Authority	 ?under	 ?the	 ?HSNO	 ?Act	 ?1996.	 ?GMF	 ?98009,	 ?23	 ?May	 ?824	 ? 2001.	 ?825	 ? Failing,	 ?L,	 ?Gregory,	 ?R.	 ?&	 ?Higgins,	 ?P.	 ?	 ?(in	 ?press).	 ?	 ?Science,	 ?Uncertainty,	 ?and	 ?Values	 ?in	 ?Ecological	 ?Restoration:	 ?826	 ? A	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?in	 ?Structured	 ?Decision-??Making	 ?and	 ?Adaptive	 ?Management.	 ?	 ?Restoration	 ?Ecology.	 ?827	 ? Finucane,	 ?M.,	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2005.	 ?Tangata	 ?Whenua	 ?judgments	 ?of	 ?GMO	 ?acceptability/nonacceptability	 ?as	 ?828	 ? determined	 ?by	 ?social,	 ?cultural,	 ?and	 ?technical	 ?variables.	 ?Decision	 ?Research,	 ?Publication	 ?No.	 ?596	 ?829	 ? [online].	 ?Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.decisionresearch.org/publications/search/	 ?[Accessed	 ?830	 ? February	 ?2008].	 ?831	 ?	 ?	 ? 30	 ?Gibson,	 ?G.,	 ?MacDonald,	 ?C.,	 ?O'Faircheallaigh,	 ?C.	 ?(2011)	 ?"Cultural	 ?Considerations	 ?for	 ?Mining	 ?and	 ?832	 ? Indigenous	 ?Communities."	 ?SME	 ?Mining	 ?Engineering	 ?Handbook	 ?P.	 ?Darling	 ?(ed).	 ?Englewood,	 ?833	 ? Colorado:	 ?Society	 ?of	 ?for	 ?Mining,	 ?Metallurgy,	 ?and	 ?Exploration.	 ?834	 ? Ginges,	 ?J.,	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Atran.	 ?2009.	 ??Non-??instrumental	 ?reasoning	 ?over	 ?sacred	 ?values:	 ?An	 ?Indonesian	 ?field	 ?835	 ? experiment.?	 ?Psychology	 ?of	 ?learning	 ?and	 ?motivation	 ?50.	 ?836	 ? G?mez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-P?rez, M. 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of 837	 ? ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35: 613 - 628	 ?838	 ? Gregory,	 ?R.,	 ?Failing,	 ?L.,	 ?Harstone,	 ?M.,	 ?Long,	 ?G.,	 ?McDaniels,	 ?T,	 ?Ohlson,	 ?D.	 ?(2012)	 ?Structured	 ?Decision	 ?839	 ? Making:	 ?A	 ?Practical	 ?Guide	 ?to	 ?Environmental	 ?Management	 ?Choices.	 ?Hoboken,	 ?NJ:	 ?Wiley	 ?Blackwell.	 ?840	 ? Gregory,	 ?R.	 ?2012.	 ?Consider	 ?facts,	 ?values	 ?for	 ?tough	 ?government	 ?decisions.	 ?The	 ?Vancouver	 ?Sun,	 ?August	 ?841	 ? 22nd,	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?Available	 ?at	 ?http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion/Op-??842	 ? Ed/Consider+facts+values+tough+government+decisions/7130468/story.html	 ?[accessed	 ?843	 ? October	 ?2012].	 ?844	 ? Gregory,	 ?R.,	 ?McDaniels,	 ?T.,	 ?Fields,	 ?D	 ?(2001).	 ?Decision	 ?Aiding,	 ?Not	 ?Dispute	 ?Resolution:	 ?Creating	 ?Insights	 ?845	 ? through	 ?Structured	 ?Environmental	 ?Decisions.	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Policy	 ?Analysis	 ?and	 ?Management.	 ?Vol	 ?20	 ?846	 ? (3):	 ?415-??432.	 ?847	 ? Gregory,	 ?R.,	 ?and	 ?P.	 ?Slovic.	 ?1997.	 ??A	 ?constructive	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?valuation.?	 ?Ecological	 ?848	 ? Economics	 ?21	 ?(3):	 ?175?181.	 ?849	 ? Gregory,	 ?R.,	 ?and	 ?W.	 ?Trousdale.	 ?2009.	 ??Compensating	 ?aboriginal	 ?cultural	 ?losses:	 ?An	 ?alternative	 ?approach	 ?850	 ? to	 ?assessing	 ?environmental	 ?damages.?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?90	 ?(8):	 ?2469?2479.	 ?851	 ? Gregory,	 ?R.,	 ?L.	 ?Failing,	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?Harstone.	 ?2008.	 ??Meaningful	 ?Resource	 ?Consultations	 ?with	 ?First	 ?Peoples	 ?852	 ? Notes	 ?from	 ?British	 ?Columbia.?	 ?Environment	 ?50	 ?(1)	 ?(January):	 ?36-??45.	 ?853	 ? Gunderson,	 ?L.	 ?H.,	 ?Holling,	 ?C.	 ?S.,	 ?Pritchard,	 ?L.	 ?&	 ?Peterson,	 ?G.	 ?D.	 ?2002.Resilience	 ?of	 ?large-??scale	 ?resource	 ?854	 ? systems.	 ?Vol.	 ?60.	 ?855	 ? Harvey,	 ?D.	 ?2007.	 ?A	 ?brief	 ?history	 ?of	 ?neoliberalism.	 ?Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press,	 ?USA.	 ?856	 ? Horowitz,	 ?J.	 ?K,	 ?and	 ?K.	 ?E	 ?McConnell.	 ?2002.	 ??A	 ?review	 ?of	 ?WTA/WTP	 ?studies.?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Environmental	 ?857	 ? Economics	 ?and	 ?Management	 ?44	 ?(3):	 ?426?447.	 ?858	 ? Ingold,	 ?T.	 ?2000.	 ?The	 ?perception	 ?of	 ?the	 ?environment:	 ?essays	 ?on	 ?livelihood,	 ?dwelling	 ?and	 ?skill.	 ?Routledge.	 ?859	 ? Jackson,	 ?Robert	 ?B.,	 ?Esteban	 ?G.	 ?Jobb?gy,	 ?Roni	 ?Avissar,	 ?Somnath	 ?Baidya	 ?Roy,	 ?Damian	 ?J.	 ?Barrett,	 ?Charles	 ?W.	 ?860	 ? Cook,	 ?Kathleen	 ?A.	 ?Farley,	 ?David	 ?C.	 ?le	 ?Maitre,	 ?Bruce	 ?A.	 ?McCarl,	 ?and	 ?Brian	 ?C.	 ?Murray.	 ?2005.	 ?861	 ? ?Trading	 ?Water	 ?for	 ?Carbon	 ?with	 ?Biological	 ?Carbon	 ?Sequestration.?	 ?Science	 ?310	 ?(5756)	 ?(December	 ?862	 ? 23):	 ?1944	 ?-??1947.	 ?doi:10.1126/science.1119282.	 ?863	 ?	 ?	 ? 31	 ?James,	 ?A.	 ?2001.	 ??Making	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?race	 ?and	 ?racial	 ?classification.?	 ?Race	 ?and	 ?Society	 ?4	 ?(2):	 ?235-??247.	 ?864	 ? doi:10.1016/S1090-??9524(03)00012-??3.	 ?865	 ? Juniper,	 ?T.,	 ?2011.	 ?A	 ?historic	 ?move	 ?in	 ?the	 ?battle	 ?to	 ?save	 ?tropical	 ?rainforests.	 ?The	 ?Guardian,	 ?[online]	 ?1	 ?April.	 ?866	 ? Available	 ?at:	 ?http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/01/historic-??move-??rainforests.	 ?867	 ? Keeney,	 ?R.	 ?L,	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?S	 ?Gregory.	 ?2005.	 ??Selecting	 ?attributes	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?the	 ?achievement	 ?of	 ?objectives.?	 ?868	 ? Operations	 ?Research:	 ?1?11.	 ?869	 ? Keeney,	 ?R.	 ?L.	 ?&	 ?McDaniels,	 ?T.	 ?L.	 ?Value-??focused	 ?thinking	 ?about	 ?strategic	 ?decisions	 ?at	 ?BC	 ?Hydro.	 ?Interfaces	 ?870	 ? 22,	 ?94-??109,	 ?doi:10.1287/inte.22.6.94	 ?(1992).	 ?871	 ? Kempton,	 ?Willett,	 ?James	 ?S.	 ?Boster,	 ?and	 ?Jennifer	 ?A.	 ?Hartley.	 ?1996.	 ?Environmental	 ?Values	 ?in	 ?American	 ?872	 ? Culture.	 ?MIT	 ?Press,	 ?August	 ?1.	 ?873	 ? Kirsch,	 ?Stuart.	 ?2001.	 ??Lost	 ?Worlds:	 ?Environmental	 ?Disaster,	 ??Culture	 ?Loss,?	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Law.?	 ?Current	 ?874	 ? Anthropology	 ?42	 ?(2)	 ?(April	 ?1):	 ?167-??198.	 ?875	 ? Klain,	 ?S;	 ?Satterfield,	 ?T.;	 ?Chan,	 ?K.	 ?(under	 ?review)	 ?Advancing	 ?methods	 ?for	 ?understanding	 ?cultural	 ?876	 ? ecosystem	 ?services:	 ?a	 ?marine	 ?planning	 ?demonstration	 ?877	 ? Koehler,	 ?E.	 ?M.	 ?2007.	 ??Repatriation	 ?of	 ?Cultural	 ?Objects	 ?to	 ?Indigenous	 ?Peoples:	 ?A	 ?Comparative	 ?Analysis	 ?of	 ?878	 ? US	 ?and	 ?Canadian	 ?Law.?	 ?Int?l	 ?Law.	 ?41:	 ?103.	 ?879	 ? Kremen,	 ?C.,	 ?N.	 ?M	 ?Williams,	 ?M.	 ?A	 ?Aizen,	 ?B.	 ?Gemmill-??Herren,	 ?G.	 ?LeBuhn,	 ?R.	 ?Minckley,	 ?L.	 ?Packer,	 ?S.	 ?G	 ?Potts,	 ?880	 ? and	 ?others.	 ?2007.	 ??Pollination	 ?and	 ?other	 ?ecosystem	 ?services	 ?produced	 ?by	 ?mobile	 ?organisms:	 ?a	 ?881	 ? conceptual	 ?framework	 ?for	 ?the	 ?effects	 ?of	 ?land-??use	 ?change.?	 ?Ecology	 ?Letters	 ?10	 ?(4):	 ?299?314.	 ?882	 ? Kuper,	 ?A.	 ?2000.	 ?Culture:	 ?the	 ?anthropologists?	 ?account.	 ?Harvard	 ?University	 ?Press,	 ?November	 ?15.	 ?883	 ? Lichtenstein,	 ?S.	 ?and	 ?Slovic,	 ?P.	 ?2006.	 ?The	 ?Construction	 ?of	 ?Preference.	 ?Cambridge	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?884	 ? Marsden,	 ?S.	 ?2002.	 ?	 ?"Adawx,	 ?Spanaxnox,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Geopolitics	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Tsimshian.''	 ?BC	 ?Studies:	 ?The	 ?British	 ?885	 ? Columbian	 ?Quarterly	 ?135:	 ?101-??135.	 ?886	 ? Martinez-??Alier,	 ?Joan,	 ?2009.	 ?Social	 ?metabolism,	 ?ecological	 ?distribution	 ?conflicts,	 ?and	 ?languages	 ?of	 ?887	 ? valuation.	 ?Capitalism	 ?Nature	 ?Socialism	 ?20	 ?(1),	 ?58?87.  888	 ? McShane,	 ?T.	 ?O.	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?Hard	 ?choices:	 ?Making	 ?trade-??offs	 ?between	 ?biodiversity	 ?conservation	 ?and	 ?human	 ?889	 ? well-??being.	 ?Biological	 ?Conservation	 ?144,	 ?966-??972,	 ?doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038	 ?(2011).	 ?890	 ? Memmi,	 ?A.	 ?2003.	 ?The	 ?colonizer	 ?and	 ?the	 ?colonized.	 ?London:	 ?Earthscan.	 ?891	 ? Milfont,	 ?T.	 ?L.,	 ?J.	 ?Duckitt,	 ?and	 ?L.	 ?D.	 ?Cameron.	 ?2006.	 ??A	 ?Cross-??Cultural	 ?Study	 ?of	 ?Environmental	 ?Motive	 ?892	 ? Concerns	 ?and	 ?Their	 ?Implications	 ?for	 ?Proenvironmental	 ?Behavior.?	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Behavior	 ?38	 ?893	 ? (6)	 ?(November	 ?1):	 ?745	 ?-??767.	 ?doi:10.1177/0013916505285933.	 ?894	 ?	 ?	 ? 32	 ?Millennium	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Assessment.	 ?2005,	 ?Ecosystems	 ?and	 ?human	 ?well-??being:	 ?Synthesis.	 ?Washington,	 ?895	 ? D.C.:	 ?Island	 ?Press.	 ?896	 ? Miller,	 ?B.G.	 ?2011.	 ?	 ?Oral	 ?History	 ?on	 ?Trial:	 ?Recognizing	 ?Aboriginal	 ?Narratives	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Courts.	 ?	 ?UBC	 ?Press.	 ?897	 ? Moore,	 ?N.,	 ?K.	 ?Pidgeon,	 ?P.	 ?Simmons,	 ?and	 ?K.	 ?Henwood.	 ?2005.	 ??The	 ?Use	 ?of	 ?Narrative	 ?to	 ?Explore	 ?Risk	 ?in	 ?898	 ? Everyday	 ?Life.?	 ?899	 ? Morgan,	 ?M.	 ?G.;	 ?,	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?Granger	 ?Morgan.	 ?2002.	 ?Risk	 ?communication:	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?models	 ?approach.	 ?900	 ? Cambridge	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?901	 ? Nadasdy,	 ?P.	 ?2007.	 ??The	 ?gift	 ?in	 ?the	 ?animal:	 ?The	 ?ontology	 ?of	 ?hunting	 ?and	 ?human?animal	 ?sociality.?	 ?902	 ? American	 ?Ethnologist	 ?34	 ?(1)	 ?(February	 ?1):	 ?25-??43.	 ?doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25.	 ?903	 ? Nadasdy,	 ?P.	 ?2003.	 ?Hunters	 ?and	 ?bureaucrats:	 ?Power,	 ?knowledge,	 ?and	 ?aboriginal-??state	 ?relations	 ?in	 ?the	 ?904	 ? southwest	 ?Yukon.	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Pr.	 ?905	 ? Nelson,	 ?E,	 ?Guillermo	 ?M.,	 ?J.	 ?Regetz,	 ?S.	 ?Polasky,	 ?H.	 ?Tallis,	 ?D.	 ?Cameron,	 ?K.	 ?M.	 ?Chan,	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009.	 ??Modeling	 ?906	 ? multiple	 ?ecosystem	 ?services,	 ?biodiversity	 ?conservation,	 ?commodity	 ?production,	 ?and	 ?tradeoffs	 ?at	 ?907	 ? landscape	 ?scales.?	 ?Frontiers	 ?in	 ?Ecology	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Environment	 ?7	 ?(1)	 ?(February):	 ?4-??11.	 ?908	 ? doi:10.1890/080023.	 ?909	 ? Norton,	 ?B.	 ?G,	 ?and	 ?D.	 ?Noonan.	 ?2007.	 ??Ecology	 ?and	 ?valuation:	 ?big	 ?changes	 ?needed.?	 ?Ecological	 ?economics	 ?910	 ? 63	 ?(4):	 ?664?675.	 ?911	 ? Ostrom,	 ?E.	 ?1994.	 ?Neither	 ?market	 ?nor	 ?state:	 ?Governance	 ?of	 ?common-??pool	 ?resources	 ?in	 ?the	 ?twenty-??first	 ?912	 ? century.	 ?IFPRI.	 ?913	 ? O?Neill,	 ?C.	 ?A.	 ?2003.	 ??Risk	 ?avoidance,	 ?cultural	 ?discrimination,	 ?and	 ?environmental	 ?justice	 ?for	 ?indigenous	 ?914	 ? peoples.?	 ?Ecology	 ?LQ	 ?30:	 ?1.	 ?915	 ? Povinelli,	 ?E.	 ?A.	 ?1995.	 ??Do	 ?Rocks	 ?Listen??	 ?American	 ?Anthropologist	 ?97	 ?(3)	 ?(September	 ?1):	 ?505-??518.	 ?916	 ? doi:10.1525/aa.1995.97.3.02a00090.	 ?917	 ? Paolisso,	 ?M.	 ?2002.	 ??Blue	 ?crabs	 ?and	 ?controversy	 ?on	 ?the	 ?Chesapeake	 ?Bay:	 ?A	 ?cultural	 ?model	 ?for	 ?918	 ? understanding	 ?watermen?s	 ?reasoning	 ?about	 ?blue	 ?crab	 ?management.?	 ?Human	 ?Organization	 ?61	 ?919	 ? (3):	 ?226?239.	 ?920	 ? Peterson,	 ?R.	 ?B.,	 ?D.	 ?Russell,	 ?P.	 ?West,	 ?and	 ?J.	 ?P.	 ?Brosius.	 ?2008.	 ??Seeing	 ?(and	 ?Doing)	 ?Conservation	 ?Through	 ?921	 ? Cultural	 ?Lenses.?	 ?Environmental	 ?Management	 ?45	 ?(1)	 ?(July):	 ?5-??18.	 ?doi:10.1007/s00267-??008-??9135-??922	 ? 1.	 ?923	 ? Powe,	 ?N.	 ?A.,	 ?G.	 ?D.	 ?Garrod,	 ?and	 ?P.	 ?L.	 ?McMahon.	 ?2005.	 ??Mixing	 ?methods	 ?within	 ?stated	 ?preference	 ?924	 ? environmental	 ?valuation:	 ?choice	 ?experiments	 ?and	 ?post-??questionnaire	 ?qualitative	 ?analysis.?	 ?925	 ? Ecological	 ?economics	 ?52	 ?(4):	 ?513?526.	 ?926	 ?	 ?	 ? 33	 ?Raymond,	 ?H.	 ?2007.	 ??The	 ?Ecologically	 ?Noble	 ?Savage	 ?Debate.?	 ?Annu.	 ?Rev.	 ?Anthropol.	 ?36:	 ?177?190.	 ?927	 ? Redford,	 ?K.	 ?(1991)	 ?.	 ??The	 ?Ecologically	 ?Noble	 ?Savage"	 ?Cultural	 ?Survival	 ?Quarterly,	 ?15(1):46-??8.	 ?928	 ? Redford,	 ?K.H.	 ?and	 ?J.P.	 ?Brosius.	 ?2006.	 ?	 ?Diversity	 ?and	 ?homogenization	 ?in	 ?the	 ?endgame.	 ?Global	 ?929	 ? Environmental	 ?Change,	 ?16(4):	 ?317-??319.	 ?930	 ? Regan,	 ?P.	 ?Y.L.	 ?2009.	 ??Unsettling	 ?the	 ?settler	 ?within:	 ?Canada?s	 ?peacemaker	 ?myth,	 ?reconciliation,	 ?and	 ?931	 ? transformative	 ?pathways	 ?to	 ?decolonization.?	 ?932	 ? Revkin,	 ?A.	 ?2008.	 ?	 ?"Ecuador	 ?Constitution	 ?Grants	 ?Rights	 ?to	 ?Nature".	 ?The	 ?New	 ?York	 ?Times,	 ?933	 ? Sept	 ?29th,	 ?2008.	 ?Available	 ?at	 ?934	 ? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/ecuador-??constitution-??grants-??935	 ? nature-??rights/	 ?[Accessed	 ?October	 ?2012]	 ?936	 ? Roberts,	 ?M.	 ?B.	 ?Haami,	 ?R.	 ?Benton,	 ?T.	 ?Satterfield,	 ?M.	 ?L.	 ?Finucane,	 ?M.	 ?Henare,	 ?and	 ?Manuka	 ?Henare.	 ?2004.	 ?937	 ? ?Whakapapa	 ?as	 ?a	 ?M?ori	 ?Mental	 ?Construct:	 ?Some	 ?Implications	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Debate	 ?over	 ?Genetic	 ?938	 ? Modification	 ?of	 ?Organisms.?	 ?Contemporary	 ?Pacific	 ?16	 ?(1):	 ?1-??28.	 ?doi:Article.	 ?939	 ? Robertson,	 ?M.M.	 ?2004.	 ?"The	 ?neoliberalization	 ?of	 ?ecosystem	 ?services:	 ?wetland	 ?mitigation	 ?940	 ? banking	 ?and	 ?problems	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?governance."	 ?Geoforum	 ?35(3):	 ?361-??373.	 ?941	 ? Roth,	 ?C.	 ?F.	 ?2008.	 ?Becoming	 ?Tsimshian:	 ?the	 ?social	 ?life	 ?of	 ?names.	 ?Univ	 ?of	 ?Washington	 ?Pr.	 ?942	 ? Sagoff,	 ?M.	 ?2004.	 ?Price,	 ?Principle,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Environment.	 ?NY:	 ?Cambridge	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?943	 ? Sahlins,	 ?M.	 ?1999.	 ??Two	 ?or	 ?three	 ?things	 ?that	 ?I	 ?know	 ?about	 ?culture.?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Royal	 ?Anthropological	 ?944	 ? Institute	 ?5	 ?(3).	 ?945	 ? ???.	 ?2011.	 ??What	 ?kinship	 ?is	 ?(part	 ?one).?	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Royal	 ?Anthropological	 ?Institute	 ?17	 ?(1):	 ?2?19.	 ?946	 ? Satterfield,	 ?T.	 ?2001.	 ??In	 ?search	 ?of	 ?value	 ?literacy:	 ?suggestions	 ?for	 ?the	 ?elicitation	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?values.?	 ?947	 ? Environmental	 ?Values	 ?10	 ?(3):	 ?331?359.	 ?948	 ? Satterfield,	 ?T.,	 ?P.	 ?Slovic,	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?Gregory.	 ?2000.	 ??Narrative	 ?valuation	 ?in	 ?a	 ?policy	 ?judgment	 ?context.?	 ?949	 ? Ecological	 ?Economics	 ?34	 ?(3):	 ?315?331.	 ?950	 ? Satterfield,	 ?T.,	 ?Roberts,	 ?M.,	 ?Henare,	 ?M.,	 ?Finucane,	 ?M.,	 ?Benton,	 ?R.,	 ?&	 ?Henare,	 ?M.	 ?2005.	 ?Culture,	 ?risk,	 ?and	 ?951	 ? the	 ?prospect	 ?of	 ?genetically	 ?modified	 ?organisms	 ?as	 ?viewed	 ?by	 ?Ta??ngata	 ?Whenua.	 ?Research	 ?Report	 ?952	 ? No.1.	 ?Faculty	 ?of	 ?Science,	 ?Te	 ?Whare	 ?Wananga	 ?o	 ?Awanui	 ?rangi,	 ?Whakatane,	 ?New	 ?Zealand.	 ?953	 ? Decision	 ?Research	 ?Report	 ?[online]	 ?Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.decisionresearch.org/pdf/558.pdf	 ?954	 ? [Accessed	 ?October	 ?2012].	 ?955	 ? Satterfield,	 ?T.,	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?Roberts.	 ?2008.	 ??Incommensurate	 ?risks	 ?and	 ?the	 ?regulator?s	 ?dilemma:	 ?considering	 ?956	 ? culture	 ?in	 ?the	 ?governance	 ?of	 ?genetically	 ?modified	 ?organisms.?	 ?New	 ?Genetics	 ?and	 ?Society	 ?27	 ?(3):	 ?957	 ? 201?216.	 ?958	 ?	 ?	 ? 34	 ?Satterfield,	 ?T.,	 ?Gregory,	 ?R.,	 ?Roberts,	 ?M.	 ?2010.	 ?Dealing	 ?with	 ?difference:	 ?Policy	 ?decision-??making	 ?in	 ?the	 ?959	 ? context	 ?of	 ?the	 ?genetic	 ?modification	 ?of	 ?organisms	 ?Feb	 ?2010.The	 ?New	 ?Zealand	 ?Environmental	 ?Risk	 ?960	 ? Management	 ?Authority.	 ?51pages.	 ?961	 ? Shepherd,	 ?C.	 ?J.,	 ?W.	 ?Anderson,	 ?D.	 ?Hicks,	 ?A.	 ?McWilliam,	 ?M.	 ?van	 ?Eijck,	 ?H.	 ?Verran,	 ?and	 ?C.	 ?J.	 ?Shepherd.	 ?2010.	 ?962	 ? ?Mobilizing	 ?Local	 ?Knowledge	 ?and	 ?Asserting	 ?Culture.?	 ?Current	 ?Anthropology	 ?51	 ?(5):	 ?629?654.	 ?963	 ? Sissons,	 ?J.	 ?2005.	 ?First	 ?peoples:	 ?indigenous	 ?cultures	 ?and	 ?their	 ?futures.	 ?London:	 ?Reaktion	 ?Books.	 ?964	 ? Spivak,	 ?G.	 ?C.	 ?1988.	 ??Can	 ?the	 ?subaltern	 ?speak??	 ?In	 ?Marxism	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Interpretation	 ?of	 ?Culture	 ?C.	 ?Nelson	 ?&	 ?965	 ? L.	 ?Grossberg	 ?(eds),	 ?London:	 ?Macmillan.	 ?	 ?966	 ? Tipa, G. and L. Teirney (2003) A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways: 967	 ? Indicators for Recognising and Expressing Cultural Values. Ministry for the 968	 ? Environment Technical Paper 75. 969	 ?	 ?970	 ? Turner,	 ?N.	 ?J,	 ?R.	 ?Gregory,	 ?C.	 ?Brooks,	 ?L.	 ?Failing,	 ?and	 ?T.	 ?Satterfield.	 ?2008.	 ??From	 ?invisibility	 ?to	 ?transparency:	 ?971	 ? identifying	 ?the	 ?implications.?	 ?Ecology	 ?and	 ?society	 ?13	 ?(2):	 ?7.	 ?972	 ? Turner,	 ?N.	 ?J.,	 ?Ignace,	 ?M.	 ?B.	 ?&	 ?Ignace,	 ?R.	 ?Traditional	 ?Ecological	 ?Knowledge	 ?and	 ?Wisdom	 ?of	 ?aboriginal	 ?973	 ? peoples	 ?in	 ?British	 ?Columbia.	 ?Ecological	 ?Applications	 ?10,	 ?1275-??1287,	 ?doi:10.2307/2641283	 ?974	 ? (2000).	 ?975	 ? Vidal,	 ?J.,	 ?2011.	 ?Bolivia	 ?enshrines	 ?natural	 ?world?s	 ?rights	 ?with	 ?equal	 ?status	 ?for	 ?Mother	 ?Earth.	 ?The	 ?Guardian	 ?976	 ? [online]	 ?10	 ?April.	 ?Available	 ?at:	 ?http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-??977	 ? enshrines-??natural-??worlds-??rights.	 ?978	 ? West,	 ?P.	 ?2006.	 ?Conservation	 ?is	 ?Our	 ?Government	 ?Now:	 ?The	 ?Politics	 ?of	 ?Ecology	 ?in	 ?Papua	 ?New	 ?979	 ? Guinea.	 ?Duke	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?980	 ? West,	 ?P.,	 ?and	 ?D.	 ?Brockington.	 ?2006.	 ??An	 ?Anthropological	 ?Perspective	 ?on	 ?Some	 ?Unexpected	 ?981	 ? Consequences	 ?of	 ?Protected	 ?Areas.?	 ?Conservation	 ?Biology	 ?20	 ?(3)	 ?(June):	 ?609-??616.	 ?982	 ? doi:10.1111/j.1523-??1739.2006.00432.x.	 ?983	 ? White,	 ?D.	 ?D,	 ?R.	 ?J	 ?Virden,	 ?and	 ?C.	 ?J	 ?van	 ?Riper.	 ?2008.	 ??Effects	 ?of	 ?place	 ?identity,	 ?place	 ?dependence,	 ?and	 ?984	 ? experience-??use	 ?history	 ?on	 ?perceptions	 ?of	 ?recreation	 ?impacts	 ?in	 ?a	 ?natural	 ?setting.?	 ?Environmental	 ?985	 ? Management	 ?42	 ?(4):	 ?647?657.	 ?986	 ? Wilshusen,	 ?P.	 ?R,	 ?S.	 ?R	 ?Brechin,	 ?C.	 ?L	 ?Fortwangler,	 ?and	 ?P.	 ?C	 ?West.	 ?2002.	 ??Reinventing	 ?a	 ?square	 ?wheel:	 ?987	 ? Critique	 ?of	 ?a	 ?resurgent?	 ?protection	 ?paradigm?	 ?in	 ?international	 ?biodiversity	 ?conservation.?	 ?Society	 ?988	 ? &	 ?natural	 ?resources	 ?15	 ?(1):	 ?17?40.	 ?989	 ?	 ?	 ? 35	 ?Wilson,	 ?M.	 ?A,	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?B	 ?Howarth.	 ?2002.	 ??Discourse-??based	 ?valuation	 ?of	 ?ecosystem	 ?services:	 ?establishing	 ?990	 ? fair	 ?outcomes	 ?through	 ?group	 ?deliberation.?	 ?Ecological	 ?Economics	 ?41	 ?(3):	 ?431?443.	 ?991	 ? Zerner,	 ?C.	 ?2000.	 ?People,	 ?plants,	 ?and	 ?justice:	 ?the	 ?politics	 ?of	 ?nature	 ?conservation.	 ?Columbia	 ?University	 ?992	 ? Press.	 ?993	 ? ???.	 ?2003.	 ?Culture	 ?and	 ?the	 ?question	 ?of	 ?rights:	 ?forests,	 ?coasts,	 ?and	 ?seas	 ?in	 ?Southeast	 ?Asia.	 ?Duke	 ?994	 ? University	 ?Press	 ?Books.	 ?995	 ? 	 ?996	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?1.	 ?	 ?Eliciting	 ?Cultural	 ?Values	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Context	 ?of	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Services	 ?for	 ?Marine	 ?Spatial	 ?Planning.	 ?Number	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?services,	 ?benefits	 ?or	 ?values	 ?mentioned	 ?for	 ?each	 ?cultural	 ?value	 ?prompt	 ?across	 ?interviewees	 ?(n=30).	 ?The	 ?mention	 ?of	 ?each	 ?category	 ?of	 ?cultural	 ?ecosystem	 ?service,	 ?benefit	 ?or	 ?value	 ?(y	 ?axis)	 ?was	 ?summed	 ?across	 ?seven	 ?cultural	 ?value	 ?prompts	 ?(x	 ?axis).	 ?The	 ?number	 ?of	 ?categories	 ?mentioned	 ?reflects	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?articulacy	 ?about	 ?what	 ?matters	 ?culturally,	 ?be	 ?that	 ?expressed	 ?as	 ?a	 ?service,	 ?benefit,	 ?or	 ?value.	 ?The	 ?typology	 ?used	 ?for	 ?coding	 ?the	 ??number	 ?of	 ?categories	 ?mentioned?	 ?is	 ?drawn	 ?from	 ?Chan	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012a,	 ?p.	 ?13.	 ?	 ?	 ?23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. of Categories Mentioned Cultural Value Interview Prompt   Cultural Values Raised Definition	 ?I nga w? o mua Deference	 ?to	 ?ancestral	 ?wisdome He tangata, he tangata Intrinsic value (and, in many situations, primacy) of human beings, both individually and collectively. Spiritual Matrix A ? tapu, mana, noa Metaphysical potency and power manifest in all entities Spiritual Matrix B ? mauri, wairua Origin, meaning and presence of purpose, agency or life force in all things Taonga  Whakapapa Among Polynesians this concept is used to encapsulate their understandings of the world and of their place in it. This typically takes the form of an elaborate cosmogony beginning with the origin of the universe and of the primal parents, then continuing to trace the descent of living and non-living, material and immaterial phenomena including humans. Kaitiakitanga Guardianship-??-??-??differentiated	 ?from	 ?stewardship,	 ?which	 ?implies	 ??someone	 ?else?s	 ?property? Kia t?pato In	 ?contemporary	 ?terms,	 ?kia	 ?t?pato	 ?(be	 ?cautious)	 ?follows	 ?most	 ?closely	 ?the	 ??precautionary	 ?principle? Kimihia te m?tauranga/m?hiotanga quest	 ?or	 ?desire	 ?to	 ?seek	 ?new	 ?knowledge K?rero tahi  Tino rangatiratanga and Treaty Principles Related	 ?to	 ?the	 ?principle	 ?of	 ?partnership	 ?implicit	 ?in	 ?Te	 ?Tiriti	 ?o	 ?Waitangi	 ?as	 ?both	 ?evoke	 ?participation	 ?and	 ?control	 ?in	 ?decision-??making	 ?processes.	 ?Tino	 ?rangatiratanga	 ?as	 ?absolute	 ?power	 ?and	 ?authority	 ?refers	 ?to	 ?the	 ?person	 ?or	 ?group	 ?who	 ?has	 ?the	 ?power	 ?to	 ?act	 ?with	 ?ultimate	 ?authority	 ?when	 ?necessary. Tikanga While	 ?there	 ?are	 ?no	 ?specific	 ?M?ori	 ?terms	 ?for	 ?virtue,	 ?ethics	 ?and	 ?values,	 ?the	 ?term	 ?tikanga	 ?can	 ?be	 ?justly	 ?said	 ?to	 ?embody	 ?them	 ?all.	 ?Tikanga	 ?speaks	 ?to	 ?ideas	 ?of	 ?right,	 ?correct,	 ?true,	 ?and/or	 ?just	 ?rules	 ?of	 ?practice. Kaupapa Purpose	 ?and	 ?consequential	 ?ethics	 ?including	 ??who?	 ?benefits,	 ?also	 ?signifies	 ?kaupapa	 ?signified	 ??will?	 ??intent?	 ?or	 ??motive.? Karakia Karakia,	 ?first	 ?and	 ?foremost,	 ?is	 ?the	 ?invocation	 ?or	 ?prayer	 ?through	 ?which	 ?permission	 ?for	 ?transfer	 ?or	 ?exchange	 ?is	 ?sought	 ?from	 ?the	 ?realm	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Atua.	 ?More	 ?specifically,	 ?karakia	 ?is	 ?the	 ?invocation	 ?itself	 ?whereas	 ?pure	 ?is	 ?the	 ?ritual	 ?practice	 ?in	 ?which	 ?those	 ?invocations	 ?are	 ?situated.  SI-??Table	 ?1:	 ?	 ?Cultural	 ?classifications	 ?were	 ?drawn	 ?from	 ?interviews	 ?and	 ?focus	 ?groups	 ?with	 ?90	 ?Maori	 ?stakeholders,	 ?selected	 ?for	 ?their	 ?diversity	 ?of	 ?views	 ?and	 ?traditional	 ?knowledge	 ?expertise.	 ?A	 ?full	 ?reported	 ?of	 ?methods	 ?is	 ?available	 ?in	 ?Satterfield	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005.	 ?

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0132714/manifest

Comment

Related Items