Assessing,mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Ecosystem Services Research Group, Jägerstr. 22/23, 10117 Berlin, Germany;2. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Geography Department, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;3. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, C/Darwin 2, Edificio de Biología, 28049 Madrid, Spain;4. University of Freiburg, Institute for Landscape Management, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany;1. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy;2. Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, P.O. Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland;3. Aarhus University, Department of Environmental Science, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark;4. ALTERRA, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;5. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire LA1 4AP, United Kingdom;1. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain;2. Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm University, Sweden;3. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, Portugal;4. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Oslo, Norway;1. Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7016, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden;2. Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, 75 236 Uppsala, Sweden;3. Ricardo Energy & Environment, Gemini Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Didcot OX11 0QR, UK;4. Department of Forest Resources Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden;5. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7044, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden;6. Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden;7. School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 43, 739 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden;8. Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden;9. Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden;1. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;2. Geography Division, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turku, Finland;3. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Fredriksberg C, Denmark;1. National Research Council, Institute for Biometeorology (CNR Ibimet) Via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019 Sesto F. no, Italy;2. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany;1. Chair of Strategic Landscape Planning and Management, Technische Universität München, Emil-Ramann-Straße 6, 85354 Freising, Germany;2. Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Hohenheim 1C, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany;3. Chair of Terrestrial Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany;4. Institute of Geography, Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;5. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Numerous studies underline the importance of immaterial benefits provided by ecosystems and especially by cultural landscapes, which are shaped by intimate human–nature interactions. However, due to methodological challenges, cultural ecosystem services are rarely fully considered in ecosystem services assessments. This study performs a spatially explicit participatory mapping of the complete range of cultural ecosystem services and several disservices perceived by people living in a cultural landscape in Eastern Germany. The results stem from a combination of mapping exercises and structured interviews with 93 persons that were analyzed with statistical and GIS-based techniques. The results show that respondents relate diverse cultural services and multiple local-level sites to their individual well-being. Most importantly, aesthetic values, social relations and educational values were reported. Underlining the holistic nature of cultural ecosystem services, the results reveal bundles of services as well as particular patterns in the perception of these bundles for respondent groups with different socio-demographic backgrounds. Cultural services are not scattered randomly across a landscape, but rather follow specific patterns in terms of the intensity, richness and diversity of their provision. Resulting hotspots and coldspots of ecosystem services provision are related to landscape features and land cover forms. We conclude that, despite remaining methodological challenges, cultural services mapping assessments should be pushed ahead as indispensable elements in the management and protection of cultural landscapes. Spatially explicit information on cultural ecosystem services that incorporates the differentiated perceptions of local populations provides a rich basis for the development of sustainable land management strategies. These could realign the agendas of biodiversity conservation and cultural heritage preservation, thereby fostering multifunctionality. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
