Abstract Placing environmentally beneficial elements into human-dominated landscapes can be challenging if the resulting landscape appearance does not align with cultural values. To address this challenge, Nassauer introduced “cues to care” (CTC) as landscape elements for design, and, in three foundational papers, she developed theories to explicate mechanisms of their potential social and environmental effects. These underlying perceptual, cultural, and social mechanisms are immediate recognizability, communication of caring human intention or presence, and a consistency with local cultural traditions or social norms for landscape appearance. To identify trends and opportunities in CTC scholarship and implementation, we examine relationships among CTC and their mechanisms by reviewing literature citing any of the three foundational papers. We note: 1) what CTC were identified, and 2) which of the three underlying mechanisms were described. Our analysis shows that first, many more papers include CTC as landscape elements than examine their underlying mechanisms; second, CTC and their mechanisms are interpreted with different emphases across study topics that are loosely associated with disciplines; and finally, land use/landcover (LULC) contexts influence choices of CTC. These differences suggest that greater consideration of mechanisms of CTC in scholarship could enhance their effectiveness in design and management. We discuss the related potential for CTC to be used as boundary objects for communication among disciplines, practitioners, and stakeholders – specific to locales and applications. With this more critical perspective on their use, CTC could become more effective in providing cultural ecosystem services and protecting ecosystem services more broadly.

中文翻译：

---

护理提示：系统分析综述

摘要 如果由此产生的景观外观不符合文化价值，那么将环境有益元素放入以人类为主导的景观中可能具有挑战性。为了应对这一挑战，Nassauer 引入了“关怀线索”（CTC）作为设计的景观元素，并且在三篇基础论文中，她开发了理论来解释其潜在社会和环境影响的机制。这些潜在的感知、文化和社会机制是即时可识别性、关怀人类意图或存在的交流，以及与当地文化传统或景观外观的社会规范的一致性。为了确定 CTC 奖学金和实施的趋势和机会，我们通过回顾引用三篇基础论文中的任何一篇的文献来检查 CTC 及其机制之间的关系。我们注意到：1) 确定了哪些 CTC，以及 2) 描述了三种潜在机制中的哪一种。我们的分析表明，首先，更多的论文将 CTC 作为景观元素而不是研究其潜在机制；其次，在与学科松散关联的研究主题中，对 CTC 及其机制的解释具有不同的侧重点；最后，土地利用/土地覆盖 (LULC) 环境影响 CTC 的选择。这些差异表明，在奖学金中更多地考虑 CTC 机制可以提高其设计和管理的有效性。我们讨论了 CTC 被用作学科、从业者和利益相关者之间交流的边界对象的相关潜力——特定于地区和应用程序。对它们的使用有了更批判的看法