 Hello everyone, thank you. So this is and Gary chief strategy officer and lead scientist at the natural capital project. Thank you so much for joining us for the second installment of our new series, natural capital conversations. We've got a great panel today on cultural ecosystems services connected to water. For those of you who are unfamiliar with natural capital project. We partner, we pioneer the science technology and partnerships that enable people and nature to thrive. We're a partnership centered at Stanford University with five core partners shown on this slide here, and a network of many more because we can't do this work without each one of you. The series is the natural capital conversations which is the newest addition to our virtual programming, and we started this series because we missed the connections that we had with so many of you at our annual natural capital symposium at Stanford. We also are designed to spark engaging discussions, learn from each other's experiences and promote new connections with old and new collaborators. These events feature everything from climate smart coastal planning to the cultural ecosystem services that we will feature today. We have a recording of this webinar available on our YouTube channel, and also a copy of the slides presented today will be in a thank you email sent to you after the event. During the webinar, please use the question and answer box for questions for the panel discussion at the end of the after the two presentations, and use the chat box for webinar logistics or technical assistance. The schedule for this morning or afternoon or evening, whatever your time zone is is next. I will introduce Dr. Alejandra H. a very who's a postdoc with natural capital project. She's currently working on better ways to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into national development policies, specifically in Colombia and Costa Rica. A lot thinker about the connections between nature and people and has put together two great panels today's and then a follow up one on February the 16th on a subject that's near and dear to my heart, cultural ecosystem services. These are the intangible benefits that people derive from our interactions with nature that are absolutely central to the rich and diverse connection between nature and human well being. Dr. Alejandra do I will turn it over to Ale. Thank you and for that awesome introduction so today I'm calling from the Bay Area in California. To recognize that this are the ancestral lands of the Muwekma Oholoni tribe, where our academic institution sits. So we offer our grateful appreciation for the opportunity to live and work here and we celebrate the culture and perseverance of them and their strong identity. So, I mentioned this so about cultural ecosystem services and what they are so they are defined as ecosystems contributions to the non material benefits capabilities and experiences that arise from human ecosystem relationships. I know our audience which is very plentiful today is very familiar with this framework of ecosystem services many of you work on this field we probably read your papers we cite you or we have worked with you. And we know them by this typology of the millennium ecosystem assessment so some are supporting services like photos photosynthesis. Some are provisioning services the ones that we are most used to studying like the nature benefits that people gives us in terms of like wood or food or clean water. So what are these cultural services, also now called cultural benefits so these are the, the benefits that we there are from nature like artistic inspiration like recreation, and these have been next slide please. So, they remain less studied compared to the other categories of services so in a recent review, published by Kai Chan and Terry Satterfield actually not too long ago a few months ago. We did a scan of the literature of ecosystem services and how the trends have gone through time and this graph I think shows the proportion of studies that address the different kinds of services so we'd see that overall ecosystem services like carbon storage has grown over time as we expected, but still the social or the cultural benefits here shown in pink are less studied compared to the biophysical services like pest control carbon storage and the others that I mentioned. So, next slide please. So today I wanted to put together this panel with two awesome researchers on cultural ecosystem services connected to water. First we have Professor Rebecca Hale. Rebecca Hale is an assistant professor at Idaho State University, her research addresses the interfaces of biogeochemistry hydrology and society at local and regional scales. Her research addresses the biogeochemistry of urban social ecological systems. And her talk titled cultural ecosystem services provided by rivers social media analysis will give us some ideas on how her team is going about incorporating this cultural services in the study of rivers and this is something that I think at NACAP we can learn a lot about we have a lot of hydrologists and ecosystem services modelers modeling the bio physical services of rivers so I speak on behalf of our team and the audience we're all very much looking forward to learning from you. We also have Rocío Lopez de la Lama she's a PhD candidate at the Institute for resources environment and sustainability at the University of research of British Columbia, and her research explores people's relationships with nature through a relational value lens. In particular she's interested in understanding how people's relationship with nature might motivate and foster the creation of privately protected areas in Peru, her home country. Rocío's talk titled reconnecting with the past and anticipating the future, a review of fisheries derived cultural ecosystem services in prehispanic Peru. We'll also teach us a lot about something that I had not seen before in the cultural ecosystem services scholarship which is applying that framework to ancient civilizations to help us understand how Peruvians have built their identity so I also look forward to learning from Rocío and I hope that you all enjoy this two talks so I'm going to give it over to Rebecca and we'll have the two talks, and then we'll do the Q&A together so thank you. Alright, thank you all for being here and thank you Alejandra for the for the kind of introduction and for the invitation to speak to you all today. So first I'll acknowledge my co-authors Elizabeth Cook who's an assistant professor at Barnard College and Brian Beltran who is the science director at the heart of the Rocquies initiative. And this is some work we've been doing over the past years focused on seeing if we can use social media data to quantify social cultural ecosystem services at landscape scale. So where do ecosystem services come from? A dominant paradigm in the field is that ecosystem services is this ecosystem service cascade, sorry I'm trying to move this thing so I can actually see my slide. There we go. So where ecosystem structures are producing ecosystem functions which then provide services and those kind of cascade down to humans and provide human well-being. And this is really a supply side model of ecosystem services and it presupposes that we can present ecosystem services and human benefits based on the structure of ecosystems. Increasingly we've been seeing efforts to quantify demand for ecosystem services as well with the associated recognition that the services that people obtain from ecosystems depends at least in part on the perspective and the perspective perceptions and the needs of the people obtaining those services. So some ecosystem services are going to be very directly related to ecosystem structure and functions such as carbon sequestration while others are likely to be less related such as recreation or sense of place. And in order to understand especially cultural ecosystem services we really need to understand how people use and experience ecosystems. So Alejandra I give a brief introduction to cultural ecosystem services. They're really important category of services. They can be economically important. So this image here on the right or my left shows that cultural ecosystem services can be big business. So this is a picture of an angler in Henry's fork a river in Idaho where fishing and boating is valued at almost 30 million dollars a year. But those fishing at Henry's fork are getting more than just food and they're doing more than just stimulating the economy. They're also getting their recreating their gaining a sense of place they're sharing their cultural heritage and their identity and so on. And as we focus more on quantifying landscape patterns of ecosystem services we're realizing that cultural ecosystem services are really challenging to quantify landscape scales. We can't remote sense cultural services and they're much less likely to be directly related to structure. And the best ways of measuring cultural ecosystem service provisioning is through like surveys and interviews which are really labor intensive, expensive and therefore difficult to implement at large spatial scales. You know we have some opportunities to people including myself voluntarily share a lot of information about what they're thinking on social media often with with spatial information as well and this can can provide an inexpensive and readily available source of information for identifying cultural ecosystem services. So photo sharing services such as Flickr Instagram Panoramio have been used to assess where people are obtaining cultural ecosystem services across the landscape. So, first images from a paper in PNAS that illustrated the use of Flickr to understand cultural ecosystem services across Europe. And then we found that user days to national parks and other natural attractions is estimated from geotag Flickr images is well correlated with empirical visitation estimates. And if you're familiar with the natural capital project invest model this is the relationship that he's estimated visitation to an ecosystem in that in that framework. The research has looked to photo sharing services to understand not only where people are understanding cultural or opinion cultural ecosystem services, but which services are being provided in those places. So this study from Patagonia classified photographs from Flickr in Panoramio, according to the cultural ecosystem services highlighted by each image so they classified the images into these four categories aesthetic values local identity existence and recreation. A really great richness to our understanding of cultural ecosystem services at landscape scales, but manually coding each image is very labor intensive and it's also quite subjective. Most importantly, I think though is that these categories are predefined by the researcher and so they might not capture the full range of meaning that a photographer can tend as as they're experiencing the landscape. So, fortunately, we don't have to guess at what a social media user was thinking, and they took a photograph because they can tell us when people upload a photograph to Flickr. For example, they often include a good deal of additional information. So, this photo here for example has a title and detailed description of what the photograph is as well as these tags about the image and some of the tags here. They're probably too small to read, but some of them include cement, water, reservoir, a landscape, and it's this text that's associated with the photographs that we're exploring in this research. So the idea is that how people describe the picture that they've taken can give us insight into how they're perceiving the landscape, including what cultural ecosystem services they're attaining. So today I'm going to present results from a test case where we use Flickr metadata. So, specifically the words and the spatial information associated with photographs to explore cultural ecosystem services provided by rivers in Idaho. So, we restricted our analysis, we pulled data from Flickr, we restricted our analysis to photographs that were geotagged within 200 meters of a river. And we use this data set to ask three questions. One, what cultural ecosystem services are people attaining from rivers in Idaho? How do those specific services relate to ecosystem characteristics? So, do we find any evidence of this cascade model? And then three, do these services bundle in ways that parallel traditional cultural ecosystem services? And everything I'm presenting today and more is in this paper we published a couple of years ago in ecological indicators and so I'll point you there for more methodological background and detail. So the first thing we did with our data set was characterize the frequency of different words in the data set. So we did this first by identifying categories of cultural ecosystem services from the literature. And then we developed a set of about 260 words or steps of words that represented those different services. And so some of those were both in literature and some of them were obtained by literally looking at every single word that was in our data set. And then we coded our image data sets so that we have presence and absence of each of the 260 sets of terms for each. So this figure here shows the five most common words in each of these categories. So each of the cultural ecosystem service categories is along the X axis. And then the Y shows the proportion of images in our data set that that had each of these words and note the log scale here so there's quite a bit of various some words are very common and some are very rare. So what we find here is that we have good representation, all all these categories were represented in the data set, but there's a strong bias towards existence and reparation values. And this is likely because some services are less likely to be the subject of a photograph that's public, mostly publicly online. But it's also because some of these categories are extremely difficult to operationalize with the data set, such as sense of place and cultural diversity. It's really hard to find, you know, an individual word that's unimpeachably associated with something like cultural heritage. So there's there's some limitations. So we have all these words, can we relate them to ecosystem structure and rather than doing 260 individual regressions for each word. We use a redundancy analysis, which I'll refer to is an RDA. And RDA is basically an expanded regression so we have multiple predictor variables that we're using to predict multiple response variables. So in this case, our predictive variables are a number of environmental characteristics. So we use a variety of land cover metrics, land ownership and also variables related to access to fishing and boating access, campgrounds and stuff. And then we use those to predict our cultural ecosystem services. And again, we're using these words as proxy for these purposes. And here we restricted our analysis actually to those words that were relatively common across the landscape so we weren't having things driven by something that was very rare. I'm going to kind of build this figure a little bit. This shows these two axes are our, our organization, you can think about this part as, as similar to any kind of organization thought we've collapsed the variation in our predictor variables onto these two axes and you'll see not very many predictors here. These are the predictors that came out as significant. So on the first axis, we have this gradient from more remote reaches over here that are associated with the distance to the nearest road over to reaches that have more private land ownership and more developed land cover. And then our second access described a gradient from, again, more remote reaches and then areas that have more scrub and grassland cover and more developed land cover. So then we can add our words, our services on here and see how they relate to these environmental predictors. And essentially we can read this as spatial association of this plot being basically statistical association. So, for example, boat and while here are associated with remote and negatively associated with private and developed land cover cycle and load in contrast to more associated with private land ownership and developed land cover and recreation is associated with forest forest service land. So the bottom line here is we have some structure here where we're not explaining nothing, but we're not explaining very much. So the R squared this model is point one for and and part of this is, is might be because of data limitations. But I also think part of it because we don't know anything about who these people are as I noted into introduction, the cascade model is really limited for thinking about social services because the human side of the equation is so important. I think we're really seeing that here, we can estimate what people are getting from the landscape, but it's not strongly related to the structure of the landscape. And also know I'm not going to show these data but we did this with a broader categories as well and was, we were able to identify significant model explained even even less of the variation only about 6%. So here we're finding that if you want to connect things to landscape being more specific. More being more specific to help you. So these classical categories of culturally consistent services weren't well associated with landscape features. We were curious if we create different groupings or bundles of services based on how they're distributed across landscape and what environmental features they associate with. So we did a hierarchical analysis of words using the scores from those axes from the RDA. So we're not grouping services conceptually. Recreation or aesthetics, but by what environmental variables they associate with and how they're distributed across landscape. So the clusters that are associated that resulted from this analysis over here on the right. We're really distinct from traditional categories. So we had two clusters that really were associated with specific activities. So this first cluster, the words are river boat recreation camp and wild. And this describes a very specific activity that people do quite a bit in specific places in Idaho. So a lot of wilderness, white water rafting and this other cluster travel cycle and road. Again, it's kind of a mode of interaction, how people are interacting with the rivers, the idea that they might be viewing them. And then the other two clusters really describe a mixture of existence and aesthetic values. So cluster two of this beautiful existence. So a lot of words describing a view, bridge, plant, water, animals and park. And then cluster three, we have a lot to go on here and naming it. There are two words associated with this cluster mountain and sun. And so that is what we call the cluster mountain sun. But again, it's mixture of existence and an aesthetic values. So that's really isn't typically how we group culturally consistent services. And I think there's some important implications when we try to map them out and try to make predictions about where services are happening over space, the more specifically can be the better. So before I wrap up, I wanted to give just a couple of short examples of other things that we can do with these data. So the first is from some work we did with the Salmon Chalice National Forest District in Idaho. We use Flickr to do a cultural ecosystem service assessment for their district. But we were also to compare able to compare our analysis with their visitors use survey results assessed by us. And so this figure is showing our results in orange and blue survey. And I won't spend too much time here. The key take on here is that Flickr overestimates natural feature viewing. So things that are more likely to be photographed. And it underestimates more active recreational activities that are less likely to be photographed, and also as underestimates extractive activities so hunting and gathering that are much less likely to be geotag. And then a second quick story I'd like to share is some work that Breville Town has been leading using species distribution modeling approaches to model cultural ecosystem services in the high divide region of Idaho and Montana. And what we get from these is this spatial kind of continuous spatial predictions of the probability of CES provisioning based on landscape structure. And what I think is just super native about these preliminary results is that we have these really different spatial patterns across these. And again, this was words that we were modeling here. So camping over here and hiking are both subsets of recreation, but when we model them independently, we get really different spatial patterns. So showing us that combining the spatial and the content information of these images can be really powerful tool for estimating the potential for cultural ecosystem service provisioning across the landscape. So some take one 3D services identified for Flickr were significantly, but very weakly related to ecosystem structure. So understanding the cultural aspects of demand are going to be really important for understanding cultural ecosystem service provisioning. This is probably not really surprising. So again, the broad categories of cultural services were less useful for linking to the landscape. The more specific we were, the better. So where landscape structure matters, it does so in very specific ways. And then finally, I didn't spend too much time focused on these, but there are a lot of biases and limitations associated with these data sets. Who is providing the data, what they are choosing to share publicly and we still have to, you know, to some extent guess what people are thinking. And so analysis using social media data are really powerful, but when we use them to support decision making, it means you're really carefully examine and ideally quantify the biases and limitations when we interpret, and especially when we apply those results. And that is it for me. Thank you so much for your attention. And I'm looking forward to our discussion. Oh, thank you, Rebecca. That was wonderful. Um, so now we'll see if you can please show your screen. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Great. Thank you everyone. Thanks for the interaction Alejandra. I'm very excited to be part of the natural capital conversations. And as mentioned last week, one type of dependence with marine ecosystems are cultural ones. And within that context is that our project aims to shed light onto the hysterical ties people in particularly early coastal Peruvians had with marine and coastal ecosystems and the transformative role that such cultural benefits had in favor of Peruvian development. Before starting just a quick overview of the presentation's outline, starting from what we understand by cultural ecosystem services and their relevance in the marine context to presenting through as a fascinating case study for the exploration of cultural benefits. But marine and coastal ecosystems have been and still are key for our development of the society, particularly in the global south through small scale fisheries, where their contribution to food security and economy are vital importance. While many have speculated that such activities are central to the provision of cultural benefits, such as cultural identity and heritage values, there are key information gaps regarding small scale fisheries contribution to societies and their historical importance. However, marine ecosystems are suffering from intense irradiation worldwide. These irradiation does not only affect marine and coastal ecosystems capacity to provide regulating provisioning and supporting ecosystem services but also cultural ones that arise from our relationship with marine and coastal ecosystems. As Alejandra and Rebecca have already defined what we understand by cultural services, I won't go into the definition. However, it is important to mention that most of what we know regarding cultural services is limited to terrestrial ecosystems, mainly Europe and North America and chronologically to the most recent past decades. This leaves critical information gaps for understanding cultural services in global south nations and how these human nature relationships have changed through time, particularly within the marine and coastal context. Past relationships between people and nature may be exploring all their literature, such as anthropology and geography. However, that literature has not been used for deepening our understanding of how our relationship with nature have changed throughout time and how those changes affect what we deem appropriate of such interactions now. Moreover, a long term perspective of human nature relationships may allow us to better comprehend long term environmental cycles and complex socio-ecological processes. So within this context, our aim was to showcase a transformative role of fisheries for early coastal rulers in Peru, highlighting how this activity allowed for the development of dynamic and reciprocal relationships between humans and marine and coastal ecosystems. Our main focus is a pre-Hispanic period, which starts around 13,000 years before our current era, which is the date of the first evidence of humans in the Perugian coast, until 1532 of our current era, which is the year of the Spanish conquest of Peru. But why Peru? Until last year, according to FAO statistics, Peru was the world's fifth largest fishing nation based on landies, mainly anchovy fisheries, and more than half of the Perugian population, around 15, 20 million people, lives in the coastal regions, where seafood plays an important role in economy, food security and people's identity. As Peruvians, we're very proud of our ceviche. However, Peru is a fascinating case study from a historical perspective as it is home to one of the six oldest civilizations in the world, the Norte Chico civilization. Unlike other core civilizations that grew primarily based on agriculture, such as Mesopotamia or the Indus Valley, fisheries played a key part in the early flourishment of the Indian civilizations. Consequently, traditional fisheries gained a new dimension of importance, tightly linked to people's identities and traditions. Thus, all of these factors make Peru a great case study for exploring cultural services through a historical lens, plus trying to revalue the role that small scale fisheries had in our history. To identify cultural services, we conducted an extensively church review focused on early coastal Peruvian settlements and cultures as well as on Asian and traditional fishing practices. The sites you can see on the map as red triangles. To do so, we limited our scope, as I mentioned before, to when the humans first appeared on the Peruvian coast up until the Spanish colonization. We concentrated our efforts mainly on archaeological data, as this discipline can provide critical insights into the transformation of socio-ecological systems across time. By using specific keywords, we managed to identify and include 129 articles, both in English and Spanish in our study. In order to make sense of all the data we were gathering, we decided to use fish and colisex framework from 2016. Based on such framework, which I will show you next, we identify broad themes and codes for our qualitative analysis. This framework approaches cultural services as relational and non-linear. By that I mean that this framework acknowledges that cultural services are co-produced and created by people's relationships with their environmental settings. This dynamism can be transformative to cultures at the societal scales, which is actively changing the way in which cultural meaning itself is derived from ecosystems. In this framework, the environmental spaces, places in which people interact with other people and nature, and cultural practices, expressive and symbolic interactions between people and their environment, are mutually reinforcing cultural services through which cultural benefits arise. These cultural benefits can be understood in the dimensions of human well-being that can be associated with interaction between nature and people. Finally, fish categorizes cultural benefits as capabilities, identities and experiences, and these are the categories we use for understanding our data. So what did we find? First, I will start on our environmental spaces findings. The skid seascape and landscape have changed significantly. This is something important to keep in mind before jumping into the different identified cultural benefits. Marine ecosystems, along the Peruvian coast, have experienced multiple environmental changes over the past few millennia before reaching current climatic conditions, mainly related to sea level stabilization, ecosystem throughout TBT, and frequency of the linear events. As the current landscape, we can see today is significantly different from what early coastal Peruvians have access to, such as a wide range of coastal ecosystems that complemented each other very well in terms of providing food, water, and other key resources. Some of these ecosystems included dry forests, mangroves, salt marshes, wetlands, lagoon, and more others. This explains the almost permanent coastal occupation by early Peruvians even before the development of agriculture. Sadly, many of these ecosystems are no longer there or are highly degraded. Second, interaction between the seascape and Peruvians have yielded marine cultural practices for at least 14,000 years. These cultural practices first emerge from the most basic interaction between humans and the ocean food procurement. These activities included gathering, hunting, fishing, diving, and so on. Due to the importance of fishing as a key step for building a human-nature relationship, we have elaborated a timeline focusing on the evolution of fisheries. In this timeline, you can see that the oldest evidence of primitive fishing dates back to 12,500 years before our current era. Sadly, because of time, I cannot go into detail here, but please refer to our article to check out this timeline. However, I will do point that perhaps the most significant technological development for fishing communities in Peru were floating nets made from cotton. These nets increase productivity substantially, as being more resistant and lighter to use. This occurred in the North Chico civilization, the one I talked about in the introduction, providing an important amount of nutritious, small pelagic fish, mainly anchovies and sardines, for local people, which led to a food surplus. This surplus fostered the specialization between fisheries and agriculture, a key feature of complex societies. Okay, so before presenting our findings on cultural benefits, it is important to mention that we can only make inferences about ecosystems' cultural contributions to society through ecological evidence found to date. In terms of capabilities, early coastal Peruvians experienced a community learning process regarding the extraction of marine natural resources. Evolution of traditional ecological knowledge from seafood gallery to cotton nets with floats took roughly 10,000 years. By resulting technological innovations around fisheries secured a surplus of seafood for coastal communities, allowing local communities to develop complementary traditional knowledge systems on land, such as new cooking practices, seafood processing, and eventually trade with the Indian communities. Some examples of seafood processing can be found in La Paloma, where there is evidence of fish meal production. Here they found about 500 storage pits for fish meal, which allowed its consumption and distribution long after having gone fishing. And our interesting site is in Jeronimo, south of Peru, where La Chidibaya people once lived. There is evidence that they would dry and snow fish in circular sand field drug enclosures. In terms of skills regarding sailing, different types of vessels were eventually crafted to gain access to offshore marine resources and continue recent fishery productivity. The first evidence of rafts made of reed date from 3,000 years ago on a site where 50% of all seafood remains correspond to blue sharks. So these ancient rafts were highly likely used for fishing sharks. Reed rafts then evolved into more complex structures. In this way, thanks to sailing, reed hurricanes managed to use the ocean as a route for communication, breaking the barrier imposed by the coastal desert. In terms of identities, marine team myths and rituals and all the importance of the ocean for spiritual purposes, improving coastal societies. Some examples of these include the spiny oysters, or locally known as muyu, and sharks. One of the most valuable possessions during prehistoric times, and even at the beginning of the colonial times. Muyu were imported from all the way from Ecuador, at least since 3,000 years ago, and were used for ceremonies that tried to predict the weather, particularly if an El Muno event would come that year. On the other hand, sharks were considered as sacred beings in multiple sites. Locapuquiana, which is located in Lima, shark meat was limited only for spatial locations associated with human sacrifices, and only those from higher classes could eat them. The ceremonies had several deficiencies of shark and ceramics, textiles, and jewelry. Finally, in terms of experiences people had, I want to focus on those spirituality and religiosity. The architecture was an essential conduit for expressing alleration for the sea. One site that deserves special attention is Pachacama, located south of Lima. Pachacama was a ritual site for over a thousand years for different cultures within the site. This long-term occupation was uncommon in the pre-Hispanic Andes, as people were always changing sites. There is evidence of seamless transition between four successive different cultures up to the Spanish conquest. Although there were some changes in religious beliefs, the sea and marine elements remain as a central feature of its architecture. Okay, so before wrapping up my presentation, here we have managed to identify historical, cultural, ecosystem services derived from the constant relationship between the seascape, coastal landscapes, and early coastal rulers in Peru, which generated dynamic and reciprocal relationships that fostered the development of early coastal communities and cultures. Changes in the seascape and coastal ecosystems together with the ongoing evolution of cultural practices led to diverse cultural benefits that contributed to the advancement of complex and coastal societies. These benefits include capabilities, identities, and experiences that still shape how people, especially small-scale fishers, approach their relationships with the oceans today. Unfortunately, all of these relationships and interactions were negatively affected once colonial times began. As local communities turned to fisheries as a way to escape and isolate themselves from colonial rule, so all this technological development just stopped. Due to this break in the relationship between people and nature, it is imperative that current small-scale fisheries are seen as a 14,000-year legacy of the ancient relationships between Peruvians and the seascape. Small-scale fisheries to this date are not protected nor adequately managed, as they are considered less important mainly in terms of revenue when compared to industrial fisheries, which are huge. However, by letting small-scale fisheries to be unsustainable or to be an inadequate livelihood for people, Peruvians are losing part of their identity. Thus, that is why it is so important to use cultural benefits as key arguments when defending small-scale fisheries. As in that way, they are not only seen as an economic activity that provides food, but also as a cultural heritage for needs and reserve protection for all Peruvians. That's all I wanted to talk to you about today. And here is a link to our article in case you want to check out the timeline in more detail or there is a far findings. And thank you. Thank you so much, Rosio. So now I invite Rebekah to turn on her video too. And we are going to start the panel discussion. We've had a lot of activity in the Q&A box. So people, if you still have questions, please type them there because we're moderating through that box. So I'm going to start with a question from Althea to Rebekah that says, are you able to incorporate other languages beside English? I'm curious if posting say in Spanish might have different usages associated with pictures. Yeah, that's a really great question. So we had a few images in our data set that were in Spanish, but a very small amount. And one of the things we would like to do in the future, one of the kind of study areas would like to do to kind of try to do a better job. I noticed one of the other questions kind of combined answers to these is focusing on national parks where we have more languages present and where we could actually more kind of easily tie like folks from different nationalities and see how that varies and really try to get at this question of like, how does the user and the user's kind of cultural framework affect what they're getting from that landscape? And so that's definitely something that's possible with these data sets. This data set didn't have much to work with there. There was a little bit in Spanish, but not much, but that's definitely an area where we're excited to move forward into the future. Awesome. And this one is from Natalia to Rocío and it goes, Dia Rocío based on the impressive current achievements and changes in Peru. What do you think is the next most important step on a way of building a sustainable future in harmony with nature for your country? What challenges might be faced? Oh, that's a very complex question. Yeah. Well, focusing on the seascape and small scale fisheries, we recently found that currently small scale fishers are living under the poverty line. And they're like the state is not taking care of them or they are not well organized socially to face the new economic challenges or even the pandemic, right? So I think in order for us to have a sustainable fisheries, because that's how Peruvians mainly access seafood through small scale fisheries, I think a basic step is start working towards sustainability and other quick management of these type of fisheries. Because so far we are seeing severe indicators of overfishing every time now small scale fisheries have to go further and further away from the whole fish. So yeah, I think so using science and information we need to properly manage and care for small scale fisheries in order to have a better future. Awesome. And this one is also from Natalia Batur Rebeca and it says, during your research, did you notice any cultural ecosystem services specific to particular cultures like different nationalities? Are they affecting ecosystem services in certain way? And this was related to a question I had, which is, do you think social media is capturing the perceptions of a white demographics or, no, so over to you. Yeah, there's been there's been some research trying to quantify kind of like who actually uses social media and how biased it is, whether it's towards different age groups or different demographics. We, we didn't get so far in this, in this analysis to look at who the users were that were posting photographs here. So we didn't weren't able to say, well, these, these people are looking at these things. Again, this is kind of a direction we'd like to go focused on the national parks where we might have a more diverse group of users using those those ecosystems. Yeah, but I don't have a good answer for like what the bias is, but I can guarantee you that it's biased that certain types of people are going to be using different types of media. And so, you know, using a combination of media is going to be a good kind of way of trying to address that and also I think this should never really be, especially if you're applying it, it should not be used in isolation. You should be combining it with either other sources of social media or other on the ground methods to kind of want to buy what those biases are and be able to adjust for them in the analysis. Yeah, I want to actually build on that question probably addressing both of you because your talks are a very nice complement one it's in North America, one is in South America one studies present relationships one studies past relationships one uses quantitative methods and one is more qualitative, which is part of the reason why I wanted both of you to present to show the audience that there are many ways of studying cultural ecosystem services. So I was wondering if either of you could integrate the methods of the other talk or like other ways of doing things, what would have strengthened your studies. I love that question. I was thinking as I was, you know, putting this talk together that, you know, maybe there are landscape variables that are just, they're not captured in national national data sets right like everything we pulled was like a national land cover data set a national ownership data set, you know, access points from better collated national or state level and, you know, there's a lot of their other ways of understanding base and landscape and, and that might be predicted in these models if there is it's more of like, landscapes of meaning. There was a great log the other day I can't remember what it was. I'm not going to remember any of the details but it was basically like alternative ways of mapping using kind of oral histories and cultural histories and using that to like map the landscape and I think you could, you know, that would be a, I think a really neat way of thinking about how can we think about this at large spatial scales and try to make predictions at large spatial scales while not just using a biophysical understandings of space but also thinking about cultural understandings of space. Yeah, thank you for the question and I think from my perspective. I think it would be super interesting to actually start exploring how people like on their social media right like every time they go to the beach or like even local communities who live on the beach what are they taking pictures of or what they are talking about to see how much the seascape or like the ocean is important to them, because from previous research we know that lots of coastal Koreans actually are detached from the ocean, and perhaps that's something that comes from colonial times because if you're, you have a house. You have the beach on one side and the highway on the other, people will like view the highway instead of the ocean. And that's because where that's where development comes from like you can sell your products there. I think exploring that current relationship and what people value could be like a great addition. Awesome. And this one is from Sydney to Russia. And she says, thank you both for your presentations. Rocio, how might your findings be translated into the language of decision makers to inform and shape political strategies that would protect small scale fisheries and their and their associated cultural services. That's a great question. And I think there's, there might be two components to it. First, because right now decision makers they have economic data. They have ecological data, but still they are not prioritizing small scale fisheries as they should. And perhaps by using these cultural heritage language, then we could call their attention, because we have much impeachment that works really well like it's well managed and protected and people value it. So perhaps that same kind of narrative we could use to design policy brief or talks with decision makers, but also thinking about Jennifer's jacket work. Right, like these decision makers are leaving this cultural heritage just go away. Are we going to let like, are we allowing them to do that. I think maybe those two things could work. Great question. So lots of activity in the Q&A box. So this one's from Ling Ling to Rebecca, which data sources did you use to study this cultural ecosystem services distribution modeling and she's wondering how to determine choosing variables like slave, recreation, private and developed and so on when connecting rivers and cultural service. Yeah, so we use the same data set the flicker data set for the high divide study so same kind of thing we pull data from flicker, we pulled out certain words and we looked at, we basically map words across the landscape so we had the presence of words across space and then in that particular model, we were using some different environmental variables, we use a human modification index, which combines a lot of kind of variables about the built environment and a topographic index, which kind of defines where you are in space and those are kind of some of the big differences that came out between the hiking and the camping. And so you can identify whether words are more associated with being in valleys or ridges. And so that ended up really coming out in that analysis and I'll also say that the kind of the fit of those models was stronger than the models that we did with the rivers and so there actually was some pretty good relationships without landscape structure. Like how we chose the other ones we wanted to get a range of variables that captured broadly ecosystem structure so land cover variables. Land ownership variables and variables related to access and remoteness because which is kind of tied to access are people able to get to those places. And so we had a lot of variables that we that we pulled out for all these reaches and the ones that I showed in that in that plot were the ones that that will retain in our best model so we tested a lot of variables. And those were the ones that ended up being most important. Yes, thank you. And this one was not asked to Rocio but I'm going to ask here because I know she studied this for her candidacy exam so this one's from Elisa Tamayo, and it says our cultural ecosystem services considerably more difficult to value economically, compared to other service. Thank you for the question. Well, yes, according to the literature they are very hard to estimate, especially because what does this economic value tells you right if you're asking people. How important is their land to them or how much their value their likelihoods and economic estimate won't necessarily make sense. And some literature says right that even asking that question can offend or insult some people. I think that's why it's so hard to actually value economically tourism. I think that's it's more simple right like you can estimate how much a ticket cost to this tourist attraction or how much people are investing into going all the way there. But more like nuances thing or like how people relate with nature I think that's that's more complicated. I was going to add to that but I think you covered it so. One is from Ariane to Rebecca. Thank you both for presenting your really interesting work. Rebecca, how do you think your findings about cultural ecosystem services could feed into future landscape management in Idaho, or more broadly. Yeah, that's a really good question. And so I'll kind of pivot and and talk about how I shared with the National Forest when we did their the assessment for their district. I'll kind of talk about how we could have framed that for them because they were doing it as part of their, their planning process. And what I think is really useful about this kind of analysis is we can kind of pull out like what are the natural features that are important in that that are providing services and what are the, you know, the built features that are really critical for for actually allowing access to happen to connect people to the environment and and the way that we talked about it with the forest. And I was thinking about, well, you know, if we find out that people really like these types of features, and there are additional types of features like that on the landscape that don't currently have access to them. Perhaps you can, you know, provide access to those and find basically limitations to access that can can that can increase the way that we. can increase the provisioning of services and in my mind provisioning a cultural services means people need to access ecosystems and so that is to me a big outcome of this is what how are people accessing them and and what ways are they using them so that we can identify kind of what things are really popular and where their opportunities to increase. That's awesome thank you I had a question that I've been thinking about for probably the past. I don't know five years so let's see what you guys think about this one is my own work on cultural services is very context specific and your talks as well. I know a lot of people in the audience are doing global models of ecosystem services so like things for like carbon storage we have global maps, and at least in our organization we're thinking about this. What is global indicator of cultural services or maybe the answer is they're known we have to keep doing this very context dependent study so. So, two questions one, do you think there's something that we could use as a global proxy for cultural services, or like if so what is it or no we should stick to doing local studies like the three of us do. That's a really hard question. I have no idea and I haven't I haven't really thought about that I guess my initial kind of thinking as you were talking was, you know we. As you as you kind of increase the scale, the spatial scale of your analysis you lose detail and you lose richness right like you want to do things at large spatial scales, like the state of Idaho, even which is not even that big of a spatial scale compared to the globe, you know we lost a lot of richness by having to use some of these proxy data sets. I would say that you could use, you know, social media. Technically, you know you could use it across the globe, but you know obviously there's going to be so much variation and use in in kind of how people are using how much people are using it the ways in which they use it. There's a lot of things that need even. I don't know that's hard. I don't know if we can. Not answer. And I guess it also depends on what we are measuring cultural benefits of for culture, like, if it's like, we are interested in a species or a type of ecosystem that's like, you don't have that a global scale, but perhaps if you want to assess people's and do then use that information for advocating for clean water as a, I don't know, like human right and for decision makers to actually do something or their relationship with something that is common at the global scale I think that could work, but it would be like a massive challenge right because it's not something that they say they don't. Oh, thank you for your answers. I know it was not fair to have a question because I said I've been thinking about it for five years. But that means I plan to keep thinking about these questions and the more people that can help me think about it the better. I see that. Wait, can I just one thing. I mean, I think if you wanted to have any proxy for cultural ecosystem services, it would be people. Are there people there. There's cultural services is is probably it's like number of people times infinity would be like your, your calculation right. Awesome, thank you. I see that there's still lots of questions in the chat that we don't have time to answer so we'll try to follow up either by email or because I am, I'm sorry audience has been super engaged that's great but we don't have time. So I'm just going to wrap this discussion. Yeah, so I want to say that this was the first session and we learned a lot today about as I, as I mentioned before two very complimentary talks on how to do this for water. And new, another conversation coming up exactly two weeks from today. Same time same channel about the ones tied to land with Nora, Faye her home who is in Finland and at least out there is roses in Spain and Canada so show up for the next version of these and thank you so much to Rebecca and the Nat Cap staff for helping us together put together this talk it was super interesting panel. I learned a lot. Very good questions. So I hope everybody enjoyed it as much as I did. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.