Avant, Vol. XIII, No. 1, https://doi.org/110.26913/avant.202202
published under license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Received 6 June 2020; accepted 28 February 2022; published 23 May 2022.
Download full text
Abstract: Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, interest has increased in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) research to understand the complexity of the non-material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. The intangible and interactive characteristics of CESs present many challenges regarding how to approach, quantify and even define CESs. In this paper, we suggest looking at CESs through the lens of embodied and situated cognition theories. We advocate that such an approach should be applied to the development stage of CES research projects, as the embodied and situated experience of the site aids the development of research questions and future interventions. We described a case study—namely, the Environmental Empathy Research Challenge, which took place during the ColLaboratoire 2020 Research Residency in the Philippines. This case shows how interactive, embodied and situated workshops, such as Embodied Empathy and Walking Maps, contributed to developing a research proposal and a novel research framework, ecological embodied cognition (EEC). EEC focuses on the concept of environmental empathy to redefine the human-environment relationship. Further, based on an example of a participatory research activity, Sensing-Playing-Moving, we examined how interventions founded upon EEC principles enhance environmental empathy.
Keywords: environmental empathy; embodied cognition; situated cognition; CES; landscape; participatory research
|Abram, D. (2010). Becoming animal. Green Letters, 13(1), 7-21.
|Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology; concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior.|
|Benjamin, A. (2002). Making an entrance: Theory and practice for disabled and non-disabled dancers. Routledge.|
|Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research, 37(4), 191-222.|
|Breitbart, M. M. (2010). Participatory Research Method. In N. J. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key method in Geography (2nd ed, pp. 131-157). Sage Publications.|
|Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Devine-Wright, P., Anderies, J. M., Barr, S., Bousquet, F., Butler, C., Evans, L., Marshall, N., & Quinn, T. (2019). Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 56, 11-17.
|Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8-18.
|Chemero, A. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT press.|
|Church, A., Fish, R., Haines-Young, R., Mourato, S., Tratalos, J., Stapleton, L., Willis, C., Coates, P., Gibbons, S., Leyshon, C., Potschin, M., Ravenscroft, N., Sanchis-Guarner, R., Winter, M., & Kenter, J. (2014) UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 5: Cultural ecosystem services and indicators. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.|
|Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.
|de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
|de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393-408.
|Derntl, B., & Regenbogen, C. (2014). Empathy. In Social Cognition and Metacognition in Schizophrenia (pp. 69-81). Elsevier.
|Fish, R., Church, A., Willis, C., Winter, M., Tratalos, J. A., Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2016). Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosystem Services, 21, 329-343.
|Gallese, V. (2003). The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 517-528.
|Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press.|
|Guergachi, A., Ngenyama, O., Magness, V., & Hakim, J. (2010). Empathy: A Unifying Approach to Address the Dilemma of ‘Environment versus Economy’. International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. 293., 9.|
|Gummerum, M., & Denham, S. (2014). Cognitive innovation: From cell to society. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(4), 586-588.
|Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James’s radical empiricism. Psychology Press.|
|Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
|Jahoda, G. (2005). Theodor Lipps and the shift from “sympathy” to “empathy”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), 151-163.
|Lanzoni, S. (2018). Empathy: A history. Yale University Press.
|Martin, J., Williamson, D., Łucznik, K., & Guy, J. A. (2021). Development of the My Cult-Rural Toolkit. Sustainability, 13(13), 7128.
|Mathwes, F. (1997). Living with Animals-Freya Mathews | Environmental Philosophy | Ecology | Ethics | Author. Animal Issues, I(1), 4-16.|
|Meagher, B. R. (2020). Ecologizing Social Psychology: The Physical Environment as a Necessary Constituent of Social Processes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(1), 3-23.
|Milcu, A., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Ecology and Society, 18(3).
|Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in Attitudes, Social Perception, and Emotion. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 9(3), 184-211.
|Raymond, C. M., Giusti, M., & Barthel, S. (2018). An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: Toward embodied ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5-6), 778-799.
|Rothschild, B. (2006). Help for the helper: The psychophysiology of compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma. WW Norton & Co.|
|Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic Books.|
|Tam, K.-P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92-104.
|Torre, I., Łucznik, K., Francis, K. B., Maranan, D. S., Loesche, F., Figueroa Jr, R. B., Sakuta, A., & Zaksaite, T. (2020). Openness across Disciplines: Reflecting on a Multiple Disciplinary Summer School. In Open (ing) Education (pp. 300-328). Brill Sense.
|Tudor, C. (2014) An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment; Natural England. London, UK. Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691184/landscape-character-assessment.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020)|
|Turner, R. K., & Daily, G. C. (2008). The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 25-35.
|United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017. (A/RES/71/313) Source: https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 (accessed 6 Sept 2020).|
|United Nations (2019) UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented”, Sustainable Development www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report (accessed 30 Jan 2020).|