thesis cultural ecosystem services

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The role of tourism impacts on cultural ecosystem services.

1. Introduction

1.1. facilitating cultural ecosystem services–well-being through nature experiences, 1.2. current study, 2.1. participants, 2.2. materials and measures, 2.3. procedure, 4. discussion, limitations and future research, 5. conclusions, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health exposure to natural environments. BMC Pub. Health. 2010 , 10 , 456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dustin, D.; Zajchowski, C.; Gatti, E.; Bricker, K.; Brownlee, M.T.J.; Schwab, K. Greening health: The role of parks, recreation, and tourism in health promotion. J. Parks Rec. Admin. 2018 , 36 , 113–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Pub. Health 2014 , 35 , 207–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995 , 15 , 169–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• National Parks and Public Health: A NPS Healthy Parks Healthy People Science Plan ; U.S. Department of Interior, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
• Romagosa, F.; Eagles, P.; Lemieux, C. From the inside out to the outside in: Exploring the role of parks and protected areas as providers of human health and well-being. J. Outdoor Rec. Tour. 2015 , 10 , 70–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thomsen, J.M.; Powell, R.B.; Monz, C. A systematic review of the physical and mental health benefits of wildland recreation. J. Parks Rec. Admin. 2018 , 36 , 123–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. A Framework for Assessment ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.A.; Costanza, R.; Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C.G.; Gobster, P.H.; et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 8812–8819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Díaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009 , 106 , 1305–1312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012 , 74 , 8–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aronson, J.C.; Blatt, C.M.; Aronson, T.B. Restoring ecosystem health to improve human health and well-being: Physicians and restoration ecologists unite in a common cause. Ecol. Soc. 2016 , 21 , 39–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ribe, R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environ. Manag. 1989 , 13 , 55–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zube, E.H.; Friedman, S.; Simcox, D.E. Landscape change: Perceptions and physical measures. Environ. Manag. 1989 , 13 , 639–644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Korpela, K.; Borodulin, K.; Neuvonen, M. Analyzing the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014 , 37 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolsko, C.; Lindberg, K. Experiencing connection with nature: E matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology 2013 , 5 , 80–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shin, Y.; Kim, D.; Jung-Choi, K.; Son, Y.; Koo, J.; Min, J.; Chae, J. Differences of psychological effects between meditative and athletic walking in a forest and gymnasium. Scand. J. For. Res. 2013 , 28 , 64–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tarrant, M.A. Attending to past outdoor recreation experiences: Symptom reporting and changes in affect. J. Leis. Res. 1996 , 28 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Russell, J.A.; Barrett, L. Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999 , 76 , 805–819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Russell, J.A.; Barrett, L. Core Affect. In The Oxford Companion to Emotion and the Affective Sciences ; Sander, D., Scherer, K.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, J.; Russell, J.A.; Peterson, B.S. The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol. 2005 , 17 , 715–734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; Garling, T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003 , 23 , 109–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Von Lindern, E. Setting-dependent constraints on human restoration while visiting a wilderness park. J. Outdoor Rec. Tour. 2015 , 10 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lohr, V.; Pearson-Mims, C. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environ. Behav. 2006 , 38 , 667–688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Summit, J.; Sommer, R. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environ. Behav. 1999 , 31 , 550–576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nasar, J.; Li, M. Landscape mirror: The attractiveness of reflecting water. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004 , 66 , 233–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tyrvainen, L.; Ojala, A.; Korpela, K.; Lanki, T.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Kagawa, T. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014 , 38 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abbott, L.A.; Taff, B.D.; Newman, P.; Benfield, J.A.; Mowen, A.J. Influence of natural sounds on restoration. J. Park Rec. Admin. 2016 , 34 , 5–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benfield, J.A.; Taff, B.D.; Newman, P.; Smyth, J. Natural sound facilitates mood recovery from stress. Ecopsychology 2014 , 6 , 183–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012 , 1249 , 118–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bratman, G.N.; Daily, G.C.; Levy, B.; Gross, J.J. The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015 , 138 , 41–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, D.; Barton, J.; Gladwell, V. Viewing nature scenes positively affects recovery of autonomic function following acute-mental stress. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2013 , 47 , 5562–5569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, C.; Hammitt, W.; Chen, P.; Machnik, L.; Su, W. Psychological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008 , 85 , 79–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balmford, A.; Green, J.M.; Anderson, M.; Beresford, J.; Huang, C.; Naidoo, R.; Walpole, M.; Manica, A. Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol. 2015 , 13 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cole, D.N. Impacts of Hiking and Camping on Soils and Vegetation: A Review. In Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism ; Buckley, R., Ed.; Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International: Wallingford, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gutzwiller, K.J.; D’Antonio, A.L.; Monz, C.A. Wildland recreation disturbance: Broad-scale spatial analysis and management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017 , 517–524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fahrig, L.; Rytwinski, T. Effects of roads on animal abundance. An empirical review and synthesis. Ecol. Soc. 2009 , 14 , 21–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francis, C.; Levenhagen, M.; Newman, P.; Taff, B.D.; White, C.; Monz, C.A.; Petrelli, A.; Abbott, L.; Newton, J.N.; Burson, S.; et al. Acoustic environments matter: Synergistic benefits to humans and ecological communities. J. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 203 , 245–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammitt, W.E.; Cole, D.N.; Monz, C.A. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management , 3rd ed.; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole, D.N.; Hall, T.E. Perceived effects of setting attributes on visitor experiences in wilderness: Variation with situational context and visitor characteristics. Environ. Manag. 2009 , 44 , 24–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Antonio, A.; Monz, C.; Newman, P.; Lawson, S.; Taff, B.D. Enhancing the utility of visitor impact assessment in parks and protected areas: A combined social-ecological approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2013 , 124 , 72–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorwart, C.E.; Moore, R.L.; Leung, Y.F. Visitors’ perceptions of a trail environment and effects on experiences: A model for nature-based recreation experiences. Leis. Sci. 2009 , 32 , 33–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manning, R.; Freimund, W.A. Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. J. Leis. Res. 2004 , 36 , 557–579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martin, S.R.; McCool, S.; Lucas, R.C. Wilderness campsite impacts. Do Managers and visitors see them. The same? Environ. Manag. 1989 , 13 , 623–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monz, C.A.; Cole, D.N.; Leung, Y.F.; Marion, J.L. Sustaining visitor use in protected areas. Future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience. Environ. Manag. 2010 , 45 , 551–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Priskin, J. Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-based recreation. Environ. Manag. 2003 , 32 , 189–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• White, D.D.; Virden, R.J.; van Riper, C.J. Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environ. Manag. 2008 , 42 , 647–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buhrmester, M.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S.D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011 , 6 , 3–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mason, W.; Suri, S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 2012 , 44 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paolacci, G.; Chandler, J.; Ipeirotis, P.G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2010 , 5 , 411–419. [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Antonio, A.; Monz, C.; Newman, P.; Taff, B.D.; Lawson, S. The Effects of Local Ecological Knowledge, Minimum-Impact Knowledge, and Prior Experience on Visitor Perceptions of the Ecological Impacts of Backcountry Recreation. Environ. Manag. 2012 , 50 , 542–554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farrell, T.A.; Hall, T.E.; White, D.D. Wilderness campers’ perception and evaluation of campsite impacts. J. Leis. Res. 2001 , 33 , 229–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiu, L.; Lindberg, S.; Nielsen, A.B. Is biodiversity attractive? On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013 , 119 , 136–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Larson, L.R.; Keith, S.J.; Fernandez, M.; Hallo, J.C.; Shafer, S.C.; Jennings, V. Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What’s the public’s perspective? Ecosyst. Serv. 2016 , 22 , 111–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Livingstone, S.W.; Cadotte, M.W.; Isaac, M.E. Ecological engagement determines ecosystem service valuation: A case study from Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto, Canada. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018 , 30 , 86–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Sherrouse, B.C.; Bagstad, K.J.; Sutton, S.G. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Eco. Indic. 2017 , 72 , 278–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, T.J.; Ham, S.H.; Hughes, M. Picking up litter: An application of theory-based communication to influence tourist behaviour in protected areas. J. Sust. Tour. 2010 , 18 , 879–900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manning, R. Emerging principles for using information/education in wilderness management. Int. J. Wilderness 2003 , 9 , 20–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller, Z.D.; Freimund, W.; Powell, R.B. Measuring elaboration and evaluating its influence on behavioral intentions. J. Interpret. Res. 2018 , 23 , 27–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marion, J. Leave No Trace in the Outdoors ; Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradford, L.; McIntyre, N. Off the beaten track: Messages as a means of reducing social trail use at St. Lawrence Islands National Park. J. Park Rec. Admin. 2007 , 25 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hockett, K.S.; Hall, T.E. The effect of moral and fear appeals on park visitors’ beliefs about feeding wildlife. J. Interpret. Res. 2007 , 12 , 5–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hockett, K.S.; Marion, J.; Leung, Y.F. The efficacy of combined educational and site management actions in reducing off-trail hiking in an urban-proximate protected area. J. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 203 , 17–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson, D.R.; Swearingen, T.C. The effectiveness of selected trailside sign texts in deterring off-trail hiking, Paradise Meadows, Mount Rainier National Park. In Vandalism: Research, Prevention and Social Policy (No. PNWR-QTR-293) ; Christensen, H.H., Johnson, D., Brookes, M., Eds.; USDA Forest Service—Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 1992; Volume 293, pp. 103–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kidd, A.M.; Monz, C.; D’Antonio, A.; Manning, R.E.; Reigner, N.; Goonan, K.A.; Jacobi, C. The effect of minimum impact education on visitor spatial behavior in parks and protected areas: An experimental investigation using GPS-based tracking. J. Environ. Manag. 2015 , 162 , 53–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Widner, C.J.; Roggenbuck, J. Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest National Park. J. Interpret. Res. 2000 , 5 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winter, P.L.; Sagarin, B.J.; Rhoads, K.; Barrett, D.W.; Cialdini, R.B. Choosing to encourage or discourage: Perceived effectiveness of prescriptive versus proscriptive messages. Environ. Manag. 2000 , 26 , 589–594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marion, J.L.; Wimpey, J. Assessing the influence of sustainable trail design and maintenance on soil loss. J. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 189 , 46–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leung, Y.F.; Newburger, T.; Jones, M.; Kuhn, B.; Woiderski, B. Developing a monitoring protocol for visitor-created informal trails in Yosemite National Park, USA. Environ. Manag. 2011 , 47 , 93–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paolacci, G.; Chandler, J. Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2014 , 23 , 184–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, Z.D.; Freimund, W.; Blackford, T. Communication perspectives about bison safety in Yellowstone National Park: A Comparison of international and North American Visitors. J. Park Rec. Admin. 2018 , 36 , 176–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, Z.D.; Freimund, W. Using visual-based social norm methods to understand distance-related human–wildlife interactions. Hum. Dim. Wildl. 2018 , 23 , 176–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beute, F.; de Kort, Y.; IJsselsteijn, W. Restoration in Its Natural Context: How Ecological Momentary Assessment Can Advance Restoration Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016 , 13 , 420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doherty, S.T.; Lemieux, C.J.; Canally, C. Tracking human activity and well-being in natural environments using wearable sensors and experience sampling. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014 , 106 , 83–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heron, K.E.; Smyth, J.M. Ecological momentary interventions: Incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2010 , 15 , 1–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Taff, B.D.; Benfield, J.; Miller, Z.D.; D’Antonio, A.; Schwartz, F. The Role of Tourism Impacts on Cultural Ecosystem Services. Environments 2019 , 6 , 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6040043

Taff BD, Benfield J, Miller ZD, D’Antonio A, Schwartz F. The Role of Tourism Impacts on Cultural Ecosystem Services. Environments . 2019; 6(4):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6040043

Taff, B. Derrick, Jacob Benfield, Zachary D. Miller, Ashley D’Antonio, and Forrest Schwartz. 2019. "The Role of Tourism Impacts on Cultural Ecosystem Services" Environments 6, no. 4: 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6040043

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Five frontiers of ces, conclusions, acknowledgments, references cited.

• < Previous

Frontiers in Cultural Ecosystem Services: Toward Greater Equity and Justice in Ecosystem Services Research and Practice

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Rachelle K Gould, Leah L Bremer, Pua'ala Pascua, Kelly Meza-Prado, Frontiers in Cultural Ecosystem Services: Toward Greater Equity and Justice in Ecosystem Services Research and Practice, BioScience , Volume 70, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages 1093–1107, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa112

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are associated with diverse and profound values, such as spiritual fulfillment, cultural heritage, and identity-related phenomena. Early ecosystem services research often omitted these deep meanings, but they are increasingly explored in recent studies through a range of disciplinary and epistemological perspectives. In the present article, we distill emerging frontiers of CES research. These frontiers help to characterize varied sources of meaning that are central to the CES ethos. They represent both advances in and opportunities for CES research, especially as related to justice and equity. The frontiers are: broadening definitions and conceptualizations of CES; addressing collective aspects of CES and attending to process; acknowledging that CES are reciprocal, relational, and dynamic; embracing narrative; and better connecting CES to biophysical attributes. We focus on the implications of these frontiers for equity and justice and suggest future research that can help ecosystem services work better address both legacies and current manifestations of injustice.

For millennia, people have recognized that spiritual, identity-based, and culturally rich connections to ecosystems are crucially important. Through these nonmaterial connections (which are often deeply intertwined with material connections), ecosystems enrich human well-being in diverse ways. However, in general, much decision-making has not fully honored these relationships. In response, recent scholarly and policy work strives to create mechanisms to better include such connections. One approach, part of the increasing use of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in decision-making at multiple scales, is to label the nonmaterial aspects of these connections as nature's nonmaterial contributions to people, or cultural ecosystem services (CES; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 , IPBES 2019 ). Many CES link intimately—but not always obviously—to multiple dimensions of equity in diverse contexts. In urban areas, for example, who has access to the benefits of green space? In rural regions, whose values are considered when decisions about mining are made? Such issues of justice profoundly and systemically intertwine with environmental research and must be addressed across every subfield and in many ways (Schell et al. 2020 ). We suggest that CES can provide an important workspace to address equity-related challenges as they manifest in the environmental field generally and the ES field specifically. We therefore argue that well-designed and implemented CES research has the potential to represent diverse viewpoints so that they can be better included in decision-making that supports thriving socioecological systems.

In the present article, we synthesize emerging frontiers in the developing interdisciplinary body of research on CES and related concepts. We focus on how emerging CES research addresses issues of equity and justice because we see these normative goals as central and crucial. The frontiers we identify suggest a fundamental role CES research can play: It can provide a framework to bring diverse worldviews and values to bear on land-use decisions in transparent ways (Hirons et al. 2016 ). This role responds to an oversight of or a problem with decision-making frameworks: When values are implicit, decisions will, by default, reflect the worldviews and values of those with power (Ernstson 2013 , Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016 ). Because they can make diverse values explicit, CES have the potential—if they are implemented with many caveats (e.g., in ways that align with the frontiers below, such as expanding beyond purely instrumental forms of value; James 2016 )—to counteract injustices in the way environmental management actions proceed.

The present article and its origins

We describe five intertwined frontiers we identify as in-progress developments in the CES field. We emphasize the frontiers’ potential to advance justice and equity in ES research and practice (table  1 ) and suggest future research that they inspire (table  2 ). In the process, we address many critiques of CES and offer ways that CES research is responding (and can further respond) to them.

Relationships between the frontiers we describe and equity and justice.

Suggested future research questions at the frontiers of CES research.

Before presenting our content, we briefly describe this article's origins. We generated the idea for this article following a session on CES at the 2018 Natural Capital Project symposium, in which all of the present authors participated. Our varied backgrounds (which include combinations of research, consultancy, and work with communities) encompass ongoing and varied experiences that engage CES and led us to the frontiers we present. During these experiences, we detected gaps in ES research and practice, especially as related to equity and justice. Because we see not only equity-related gaps but also some progress toward filling them, we wished to crystallize our thoughts on existing and future work that addresses these gaps. We categorize the results of that crystallization—that is, promising directions in the field—as frontiers. We discuss a subset of CES research: a selection of CES research that which in some way contributes to the role of CES in increasing equity, justice, and inclusion.

Background: CES as a contested concept

We immediately acknowledge two closely related challenges to this article's conceptual foundation: First, critiques of the CES concept and, next, recent suggestions that the concept of nature's contributions to people (NCP) should replace ES (and, by extension, CES). We discuss critiques of the CES concept in this section, then address NCP in our description of the first frontier because we see the NCP concept as intertwined with the trend to broaden and deepen definitions of CES.

We divide critiques of the CES concept into two categories: problems with ES in general and problems with CES specifically. First, some critiques of ES in general may be especially applicable to CES. One such critique is that ES approaches often ignore or exacerbate uneven power relations; this is more likely when data are seen as subjective and soft, as is often the case with CES (Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016 ). Second, some scholars have argued that ES valuation encourages neoliberal approaches to environmental management that result in commodification of ecosystems, which is especially problematic for many CES (Büscher et al. 2012 , Dempsey and Robertson 2012 ). Third, others have suggested that ES language and concepts do not match how people truly value ecosystems, particularly the nonmaterial relationships that CES aim to represent (Bull et al. 2016 , De Vreese et al. 2019 ). Finally, some argue that ES, because they focus on instrumental value, detract from biodiversity conservation efforts (Miller et al. 2014 ), or cannot adequately capture the many noninstrumental reasons that people value ecosystems (James 2016 ). This final critique interacts with CES in complex ways because CES often imperfectly fit the definition of instrumental value and also encompass relational values (Chan et al. 2018 ).

A second set of challenges address CES specifically in the context of research that embraces ES perspectives, but finds CES challenging to incorporate. A central difficulty lies in quantifying CES and integrating them into broader ES analyses of synergies and trade-offs (Hirons et al. 2016 ). Two underlying issues that make CES challenging to integrate into ES analyses are the problematic one-way service metaphor, which inadequately represents many human–nature reciprocal relationships (Raymond et al. 2013 , Comberti et al. 2015 ), and the deep incommensurability of many CES (Satz et al. 2013 ).

These and other often related incompatibilities, such as the inappropriateness of the ecosystem concept's focus on functional systems rather than aesthetic, symbolic phenomena, have led some scholars to argue that we should abandon the CES concept altogether (Kirchhoff 2019a , 2019b ).

We agree that these myriad challenges and incompatiblities are important. But we think they are surmountable and worth overcoming for intertwined intellectual, practical, and ethical reasons. The intellectual reasons include that decades (if not centuries) of research demonstrate the profound importance of nonmaterial aspects of human–nature connections for human fulfillment and well-being (Russell et al. 2013 , Hirons et al. 2016 ). The practical reasons include that decision-making increasingly employs ES frameworks (Guerry et al. 2015 ), which creates a clear need for some permutation of the concepts that underlie CES. The ethical reasons include that without any way to represent CES, decision-making processes that use ES approaches (and many others) will continue to omit nonmaterial values, with sometimes dramatic justice-related consequences.

CES is one of many possible lenses to interpret and express human–environment relationships—but one that, because of the popularity of the ES concept, currently has potential to influence policy and planning decisions. Although critiques of ES (such as those listed above) are important, it seems that, in practice, the concept can be a larger container for understanding why the nonhuman world matters to people; as the concept continues to evolve, the use of ES may not always fit a strict instrumental, service-provider definition. Indeed, scholars have been working to develop ES to bring about what may be its ultimate goal: to better incorporate into decision-making the diverse ways in which nature matters to people. The frontiers below represent some of—and can perhaps guide future permutations of—this collective work.

Here we describe the five frontiers of CES research that we have identified.

Broadening and deepening definitions and conceptualizations of CES

Most CES research that enters ES assessments has focused on recreation and aesthetic values (Hermes et al. 2018 ), which are easier to quantify (and therefore more readily integrate into ES models) than many other CES. These values are important to many people, but the breadth and depth of CES expand well beyond them. Recent scholarship has shown that widely used typologies of CES (e.g., that of the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) may not capture the full array of concepts that could be considered CES. Most notably, Indigenous and local knowledge often play an essential role in CES, but Millennium Ecosystem Assessment–based categories do not capture many nuances of these perspectives. To describe this frontier, we first address recent work to reframe ES as NCP, then discuss two reasons that this frontier is important.

Scholars have recently suggested that the NCP concept replace ES (and by extension CES), partly in response to critiques raised above (e.g., a primary goal of the move to NCP is to address limitations of the transactional and economics-derived essence of the language involving services ; Díaz et al. 2018 ). This proposed lexicon change is probably the most well-defined example of the trend to broaden and deepen conceptualizations of CES. For this reason and also because the NCP versus ES discussion is of current interest, we will elaborate on the suggested transition to NCP.

Like many others, we do not see the distinction between NCP and ES as conceptually consequential (de Groot et al. 2018 , Kenter 2018 ). The NCP framing addresses issues that, although not a focus of the first iteration of ES, were not total blind spots (de Groot et al. 2018 ), as the examples in this article demonstrate. An issue more substantial than which term we use is the unidirectionality implicit in both terms: They both focus on how ecosystems affect people, not the reverse (Comberti et al. 2015 ). In presenting our next frontier, we describe emerging evidence that researchers within ES or NCP communities are working to address this problem.

Our understanding of CES is highly consistent with published descriptions of both nonmaterial NCP and CES. Díaz and colleagues ( 2018 : 271) defined nonmaterial NCP as “nature's effects on subjective or psychological aspects underpinning people's quality of life, both individually and collectively.” One distinction between NCP and ES, they noted, is that culture permeates the NCP categories (­material, nonmaterial, and regulating), rather than, in their perception, being isolated to one category in the ES framework. But this very idea of culture permeating ES categories and the separate category having nonmateriality at its core has been part of the published CES conversation for nearly a decade. Chan and colleagues ( 2011 : 206) defined CES as “ecosystems’ contribution to the nonmaterial benefits (e.g., experiences, capabilities) that people derive from human–ecological relations.” Another group led by Chan (Chan et al. 2012a : 745) discussed how CES are “everywhere” in ES: “Most ES, cultural and otherwise, have nonmaterial or intangible dimensions.” This understanding of CES is quite consistent with the ethos of nonmaterial NCP. The primary distinction is between nature's effects (NCP) and its benefits (CES)—that is, how nature's negative impacts are treated. The term effects includes negative impacts; benefits does not. We do not see this distinction as central to the conversation for two main reasons: because the classification of impacts as negative or positive can be contextually dependent and also because scholarly work on ecosystem disservices addresses negative impacts (e.g., von Döhren and Haase 2015 , Shackelton et al. 2016 ).

The prior two paragraphs demonstrate that the thinking underlying NCP and CES is quite similar. We do not have a strong preference for either term. More importantly, we advocate for the richness inherent in the understanding evident in much CES work and detailed in the present article (Schaubroeck 2019 ). We use CES because it is more parsimonious and currently more established than nonmaterial NCP. As we embrace the concept's richness, however, we should also address the following question: If we wish to broaden and deepen definitions of CES, where does the concept end? We therefore accompany our call for expanded definitions of CES with a suggestion of where the concept might locate its outer bounds. We suggest that CES research must include three core concepts: how nonmaterial aspects of human-nature relationships influence human well-being . If the question does not address nonmateriality, human–nature relationships and human well-being, it is not CES.

Engagement with broader and deeper definitions of CES may entail substantial deviations from typical ES research, and the remainder of our discussion of this frontier focuses on innovations related to these divergences. We focus on two fundamental differences between research on ES ­generally and on broadly defined CES, and on responses to these differences. The first difference is that many CES are based on people's interactions and experiences with particular ecosystems and are therefore locally nuanced and place based (Pascua et al. 2017 ). Much ES research, conversely, seeks to generalize across larger geographic regions. The second difference is that understanding rich experiences of CES can require epistemological and methodological approaches distinct from those that ES research typically employs (Adamowicz et al. 1998 , Winthrop 2014 , van Riper et al. 2017 ). In the present article, we discuss two overarching ways that CES scholars have embraced these differences: place-based research and expanded types of valuation.

Place-based research is a clear response to the place-specific nature of many CES. The process of identifying particular CES concepts relevant to a given place, especially when conducted in close coordination with Indigenous peoples and local communities, may not only provide the most accurate understanding but may also deepen existing perspectives and reveal new ideas of what CES can be. Once identified, these concepts might resonate with other communities, even in distinct contexts. As one example, a community-based process in Hawai´i identified the CES concept of “opportunities to learn place-based practices by actually doing them” (Pascua et al. 2017 : 471). This may manifest in some places (e.g., Hawai´i) as reviving double-hulled canoe celestial navigation practices and in others (e.g., Japan) as embracing responsibilities that come with being a third-generation ama diver (a freediving fisherwoman). This suggests that there are roles both to allow local language and cultural concepts to inform place-based CES frameworks and categorical groupings and to find commonalities between places.

Expanding conceptualizations of CES also requires that we address challenges and opportunities with valuation, broadly construed. The shortcomings of monetary valuation, including deep epistemological and methodological concerns, are particularly salient for CES (Satz et al. 2013 , Hirons et al. 2016 ). Classical economic valuation methods account poorly for linked and overlapping values (Lo and Spash 2013 ) and values held by communities or groups (Kenter et al. 2015 , and see next section). The place-based and relational nature of CES may also conflict with the hypothetical, often abstract situations typical of stated-preference methods (Kenter et al. 2016a ; e.g., survey questions about individuals’ willingness to pay to support a hypothetical new park).

These challenges mean that CES must engage with diverse forms of valuation or value elicitation; that is, they must broaden and deepen approaches to valuation. CES researchers have explored multiple options; we cite two examples. The first is deliberative democratic monetary valuation, which maintains economic valuation as a goal but also attends to power dynamics and representation through, as the name suggests, deliberative and democratic participatory processes (Orchard-Webb et al. 2016 ). A second example, this from the field of biocultural approaches, is to first identify specific attributes that connect culture and the environment and then, as appropriate, to use economic valuation tools (e.g., choice experiments) to compare those attributes (Baulcomb et al. 2015 ). One application of a biocultural approach relates to the 2013 large-scale oil spill on Otaiti Reef (Aotearoa, New Zealand). After the spill, tribal authorities used an Indigenous-person–led and culturally grounded decision-making tool to assess the impacts of the spill on the cultural, social, and environmental well-being of their communities using the customary concept of mauri (life force or life-sustaining capacity) as the unit of measurement (Morgan and Fa´aui 2018 ).

Why is it important to broaden and deepen interpretations of CES? One vitally important reason is that expanded interpretations (and operationalizations) of CES may increase the visibility of perspectives, categories, and conceptualizations that are particularly important in contexts less heavily influenced by Western European thought. The role of nature as a valued teacher (Comberti et al. 2015 , Gould and Lincoln 2017 , Pascua et al. 2017 , Ching 2018 ) provides an example. A broader example—one that integrates profound issues related to Indigenous perspectives, cosmovisions (i.e., how a person understands their place in the world), and priorities—is found in Berta Cáceres's work (figure  1 ). These examples, chosen from among thousands, make clear that in order to access the richness and depth of the CES concept, research must engage with definitions beyond recreation and aesthetics.

Tribute to Berta Cácares. The description illuminates relationships between Cácares work, Indigenous world views, and the types of values that CES research strives to represent to the extent possible. Photograph: Goldman Environmental Prize.

This section demonstrates that many scholars are converging on a concept of CES (or nonmaterial NCP) that broadens from how CES were frequently operationalized in the early years of ES research but still limits CES work to address human–nature relationships, human well-being, and nonmaterial phenomena. This expanded but still bounded conception includes deep engagement with place-based values and diverse ways to understand and represent value. This is an important step in advancing equity and environmental justice, especially in places in which some CES values have long been undermined. One primary reason is that an important dimension of social equity is recognition: an acknowledgement of and respect for local knowledge, ­values, and norms (McDermott et al. 2013 , Pascual et al. 2014 ). In both theory and practice, broad meanings of CES will allow CES research to help make manifest the diverse values of underrepresented communities.

Addressing collective aspects of CES and attending to process

In many cases, CES are experienced as shared cultural phenomena that are best expressed and characterized collectively (Kenter et al. 2015 , 2016a , 2016b ). Of course, individual and collective experiences and values are in “dynamic interplay” (Kenter et al. 2015 : 97); individuals absorb shared and cultural values from their surroundings but interpret them through individual experience (Bachika and Schulz 2011 ). A basic tenet of welfare economics is that aggregating individual preferences adequately represents overall value to society. Although this tenet may be relevant for certain types of values (e.g., economic use values), it may not apply in the case of values that are more often experienced and, therefore, more accurately described at community levels (Parks and Gowdy 2013 ). Research ­suggests that concepts of collective or shared experiences and values, although they are certainly important in communities of many types, may be particularly important in communities whose perspectives and worldviews differ from dominant Western ones—for instance, among Indigenous peoples (Adamowicz et al. 1998 , Pascua et al. 2017 ).

There are fundamental theoretical reasons why collective valuation techniques make sense in ES-related processes (Wilson and Howarth 2002 ); these reasons are likely even more applicable to highly socially defined CES. Primary among them is that ES are, in economic terms, public goods (i.e., they are “collectively consumed and indivisible among individuals”; Wilson and Howarth 2002 : 441). Individual valuations of such public goods are unlikely to represent collective well-being, and they are unlikely to address social equity in meaningful ways (Wilson and Howarth 2002 ). Another reason relates to the fact that many ecosystem-related values are not pre-formed but emerge through discussion and consideration (Kenter et al. 2016 c). Scholars recognize permutations of this phenomenon in many fields—for instance, in social learning (Wals 2007 , Reed et al. 2010 , Kenter et al. 2011 ), education (Dewey 2007 ), and economics (constructed preferences; Simon et al. 2008 ). Finally, research on ecosystem valuation demonstrates that outcomes—for example, the mix and relative weight of various ES—differ when individual versus collective methods are used (Kaplowitz and Hoehn 2001 ).

Research on how best to elicit collective values—at least as they relate to the environment—has blossomed in recent decades. Much of this work has been focused on participatory and deliberative processes (e.g., Raymond et al. 2014 ). It has used diverse methods: in-depth discussions of various types, citizens’ juries, deliberative opinion polls, deliberative monetary valuation, and deliberative multicriteria analysis (Fish 2011 , Kenter et al. 2015 ). Creative methods also expand from more conventional or established forms of deliberation and include participatory geographic information system (Brown and Fagerholm 2015 ), film- and arts-based approaches (Edwards et al. 2016 , Ranger et al. 2016 ), participatory workshops (Pascua et al. 2017 ), and the use of ethnographic methods during community workdays (Ching 2018 ). Research also suggests that it is often helpful to offer diverse routes to convey values, because various modes can appeal to different social groups (Ernstson 2013 ).

CES research has acknowledged the collective, constructed nature of values in many contexts. Collective methods of characterizing CES can create fruitful spaces of interaction—for example, among managers and participants in watershed management programs (Wilburn 2017 ) or among people interested in more opportunities for collective reflection among busy lives (Ching 2018 ).

Methods that rely on collective engagement have limitations that are important to consider. Most notably, collective methods are especially sensitive to considerations of power (Bickerstaff and Walker 2005 ). The impacts of power differentials include peer pressure, dominance of certain opinions, and avoidance of controversy. These influences can make it difficult to validate results with an entire community and to figure out what entire community means in a given context. Skilled facilitators and local collaborators can help minimize these impacts and work toward more inclusive valuation.

It is worthwhile to address these limitations because acknowledging collective aspects may be crucial to the ability of CES to affect issues of equity and justice. Individual, independent perspectives tend to align with white, Western (especially American), and male identities (Markus and Connor 2014 ); collective approaches to and representations of CES may better represent how many communities think about meaning and importance. Future work could address the limitations above while allowing for collective approaches by focusing on research that inspires, listens, and contributes (University of Hawai´i 2018 ). When performed with place-appropriate and socially aware methods, characterizing CES collectively may lead to more accurate and rich understandings of these services in diverse contexts. In some cases, this type of work can even empower participants and catalyze action—both of which are important components of equity.

Acknowledging that CES are reciprocal, relational, and dynamic

Research described in the previous sections has been linked closely to conceptions of CES as reciprocal, relational, and dynamic. Empirical work on CES has repeatedly revealed that the unidirectional, producer–consumer, and instrumental metaphor of services is often inadequate. In Madagascar, for example, ancestral spiritually imbued relationships with land dictate management practices, which in turn provide ES (von Heland and Folke 2014 ). In both British Columbia and Hawai´i (contexts that differ in many ways), the importance of kinship—a relationship but not exactly a service, benefit, or impact—arose repeatedly in semistructured interviews about CES (Gould et al. 2015 ). In an Indigenous-scholar-led study in Hawai'i, Pascua and colleagues ( 2017 ) framed CES research from the beginning as concerning reciprocal relationships, which resulted in meaningful community engagement with the framework and approach.

The concept of reciprocal relationships incorporates the reality that people all over the world steward, manage, or otherwise care for ecosystems that provide various services (Diver et al. 2019 ). Therefore, for many communities, services that people provide to ecosystems are just as relevant as those that ecosystems provide to people; the concept of reciprocity is more relevant than that of services (Comberti et al. 2015 , Kimmerer 2013 ). To recognize that ideas of reciprocity and relationships with nature are central to the ontologies and operation of many communities has important equity implications, especially among Indigenous peoples, local communities, and other groups with profound ties to ecosystems. The Native Hawaiian expression I ola ´ oe, i ola mākou nei (“When you thrive, so too do we,” said between people and their natural environment), exemplifies the idea that care for the environment, which encompasses living and nonliving elements in the natural system, will, in turn, lead to care for all occupants of that system, whether they be human or nonhuman (McGregor 2007 ). Relational thinking is also central to the Indigenous Andean concept of sumak kawsay , which roughly translates to “ buen vivir ” and “the good life.” Sumak kawsay encompasses ideas of what good living means, and it addresses the important role that nature–society interactions play in that good living. Because the Indigenous ontology that underlies it is inherently relational, the concept (unlike the ES framework) does not involve clear distinctions between nature and human society; it therefore also does not foreground either nature or humans (Villalba 2013 ). This means that sumak kawsay encompasses many of the concepts that CES addresses, such as living in harmony with nature, but without using a services metaphor. The same pattern exists in numerous other cultures (Diver et al. 2019 ). Recognition that the services framing is problematic is widespread, and scholars have suggested multiple alternatives (e.g., metaphors of a closed-loop system, stewardship, or a web of life; Raymond et al. 2013 ).

Closely connected to the idea that CES are reciprocal and relational is that they are often intertwined with long-term human–nature connections. In other words, many CES do not exist at a point in time but, instead, extend over periods or cycles. Therefore, to measure CES at one temporal point often does not capture their full meaning. Many CES, especially those associated with values other than recreation and aesthetics, often involve engagement of some duration. Long-term relationships can take multiple forms, and the CES concept allows for relationships that span the temporal spectrum (figure  2 ).

Spectrum of types of long-term engagement that people may have with place.

The importance of relationships and reciprocity in experiences of CES-related concepts has led to recent conversations in the sustainability literature about relational values (Muraca 2016 , Chan et al. 2018 , Himes and Muraca 2018 ). Instrumental framings of ES can clash with some concepts under the CES umbrella, because those concepts are not exactly and not always benefits that ecosystems provide to people (or, in NCP framings, impacts that ecosystems have on people). Spirituality, which is included in most typologies of CES, provides an example. Spirituality is a phenomenon that can be tightly intertwined with ecosystems, and it represents a crucial component of well-being for many people. However, it is rarely considered a benefit or contribution that nature provides to humans. This may be because phenomena such as spirituality, for many people, are “inherently relational: [They] are valued in the context of desired and actual relationships” (Chan et al. 2016 : 1464). The relational values concept creates conceptual space for values that are grounded in relationships and that are important to human well-being but that are not exactly benefits or contributions. It is important to note is that values that could be called relational values have been addressed in a variety of fields for decades and, in some cases, for centuries (Saxena et al. 2018 ). Burgeoning empirical and theoretical work under the relational values umbrella attempts to provide a meeting space and policy-relevant language for those ideas (see Chan et al. 2018 and the special issue it introduces).

To allow that CES are relational and involve reciprocity links naturally to acknowledgement of their dynamism. Studies on how CES may change in the absence of ecosystem change (e.g., through education or experience) are just emerging. Constructs closely related to CES and relational values (but not labeled as such) can change in a relatively short time (days to months) following educational initiatives (Britto dos Santos and Gould 2018 , Gould et al. 2018 ). Change in CES also occurs over historical and generational timescales. This often involves complex interactions of biophysical and social change; examples include changes in benefits from forests in the Mediterranean basin (Holmgren and Scheffer 2017 ) or from mangroves in Singapore (Thiagarajah et al. 2015 ). Longer-term dynamism is important to consider for at least two reasons: first, to better understand a context and its current state and, next, because changes in some CES may affect long-term goals of ecosystem management.

Complications arise when we recognize that CES may not always fit the service or benefit framing and can change independently of ecosystem change. Both characteristics pose additional challenges to inclusion of CES within ES analyses. Ways forward that acknowledge the complex realities inherent in CES can simultaneously honor these complexities and address issues of equity. One possibility would be to include more thorough consideration of the reciprocal relationships that underpin resource management in many places. To ignore such relationships risks imposition of outside ways of conceptualizing conservation. Another approach would be to better consider the nonecological factors that affect CES (e.g., timescales, extent of engagement, education). Increased attention to nonecological factors may enable more direct connections to decision-making by shedding light on how societal changes (e.g., a global pandemic) interact with CES, and particularly on equity-related concerns (e.g., how do CES support people during a pandemic, and how does that support vary?).

Embracing narrative

The methods used to elicit and characterize values influence what is shared (Chan et al. 2012b , Jax et al. 2013 ); the choice of method can obscure or make visible entire value systems (Turner et al. 2008 ). ES researchers, at least in the field's early stages, designed many findings to fit cost–benefit frameworks. The conclusions were therefore quantitative and sometimes monetary (e.g., Fisher et al. 2009 ). This can be problematic for CES, which are often difficult to describe and even more difficult to quantify. Quantitative, monetary values can be particularly inadequate to represent the perspectives of communities for which the language of ES may not resonate (Ernstson 2013 ). In Tarituba, Brazil, for example, local communities express value in ways that align poorly with ES language and categories (de Oliveira and Berkes 2014 ). To speak of fish or fishing-based lifestyles as a benefit does not make much sense; instead, people narrate the actions or occupations that allow them to access fish. Through stories, people express how fish are intimately connected with identity, cultural practices, and occupation. This example illuminates how elicitation methods that permit people to convey their relationships with nature in diverse ways may be necessary to capture diverse CES. Narrative-based approaches offer one such method; they allow participants to define and describe their experiences in their own terms. They also offer a way to connect CES to the rich theoretical foundations of diverse social science fields that are often obscured by economic, quantitative frameworks (Winthrop 2014 ).

Narrative can be central to how people understand and share nonmaterial relationships with ecosystems and, in particular, may help to understand the reciprocal, relational, and dynamic aspects of CES. The concept of narrative has hundreds of definitions, but most are similar to storytelling: “someone telling someone else that something has happened” (Smith 1981 : 232). Although scholars have not extensively explored the potential of narrative in the CES sphere, research in other fields suggests that it may serve as an effective method of expressing values. Below, we summarize this work from multiple fields and note its relevance to CES. We then present a few examples of CES research based on narrative.

An important reason to embrace narrative in CES research is that it can be central to fields that have justice as a guiding principle. Conflict resolution studies use narrative as a tool and suggest that narrative is powerful because it requires listening, is accessible, mobilizes new voices, and democratizes conversations (Senehi 2002 ). Critical feminist ethnographic methods from political science demonstrate how narrative can lead to more empathetic decision-making (Wiebe 2016 ). In critical race theory, narrative is a central tool for comprehending historical trauma and “opening a window onto ignored or alternative realities” (Delgado and Stefancic 2017 : 46). Narrative can be a particularly powerful and effective means to express deeply complex concepts such as identity and cultural heritage (Winthrop 2014 ). For these types of value especially, narrative can offer unique and crucial insight because it can convey profound meaning that is otherwise difficult to share. Peace and reconciliation commissions, as developed in South Africa and later widely implemented elsewhere, provide a prominent global example. These commissions foreground the importance of listening to stories of past trauma and have confronted injustice in many places. The relevance of this diverse past work to CES is obvious when one considers the ways that CES intertwine with historical trauma—notably colonialism and postcolonialism (which often cleave people–place relationships; Gould et al. 2014 )­—and with nuanced concepts such as identity that is inseparable from place (Pascua et al. 2017 ).

The ES field has also employed narrative in multiple contexts, and at least one framework for CES analysis suggests the use of narrative (Chan et al. 2012b ). Three examples illustrate ways that CES research can employ narrative. The participants in watershed ES initiatives in the Cauca Valley, Colombia, use stories to explain why they participate in these programs. Their stories, which are deeply infused with CES such as identity and sense of place, suggest that these services strongly influence sustained participation (Meza Prado et al. 2018 ). A second example, from the United Kingdom, used storytelling to elicit personal stories of important experiences at marine sites; the participants’ shared stories then formed the basis of deliberative discussion about the meaning and value of marine protected areas (Kenter et al. 2016a ). A third example, from Germany, involves analysis of stories submitted to a contest about a natural reserve. The stories collectively reveal rich evidence of multiple CES, and also demonstrate that many CES “are explicitly connected to specific biophysical features” (Bieling 2014: 207).

People collect and share narratives in myriad ways. Many standard semistructured interview formats leave space for stories to emerge; other methods specifically target stories. Methods that target stories include StoryMaps, an ESRI platform that links maps, images, and text; creative writing; theater performances; and community storytelling events. These narrative-focused methods can aid both data collection and sharing of findings.

Narrative has many benefits but also has limitations. The most obvious one is that interpreting and analyzing narrative to distill values may require substantial time and specialized training. In addition, although the researchers’ identities affect the research process in many types of CES research, those impacts may be even more pronounced in studies that rely on narrative.

It is worthwhile to address these challenges because narrative approaches are an important way to address equity and justice concerns through CES research and practice. Earlier, we described the prominent role that narrative plays in multiple fields that foreground justice concerns. CES research, being highly interdisciplinary, can take cues from this justice-forward work to understand why narrative may contribute to advancing equity and how to engage with ­narrative in productive, enriching ways.

Better connecting to biophysical attributes

Connecting ecosystem functions and processes with human well-being is a central—yet still largely unrealized (Chan and Satterfield 2020 ; Mandle et al. 2020 )—goal of ES research. Indeed, one of the reasons ES analyses can be so powerful is that they are able to pinpoint biophysical elements and characterize how and by how much those elements relate to human well-being. One way researchers make these links is through the concept of ES providers—that is, “the component populations, species, functional groups (guilds), food webs or habitat types that collectively produce” ES (Kremen 2005 : 469). As this definition of ES providers indicates, connections between ES and biophysical attributes can be studied in many ways, from species specific to landscape encompassing. CES are no different in this regard, and therefore, we use the concept of ES providers to organize a subset of CES research that engages with biophysical attributes. We hope that this structure may help to reveal gaps and ways forward.

Despite the similar applicability of ES providers, CES obviously differ in many ways from other ES; their nonmateriality often necessitates distinct methods. One result of these different methods is that CES work often engages with specific biophysical attributes far less than most other ES research.

Although this biophysically specific CES research is rare, it is on the rise; researchers have recently related many types and scales of ES providers to CES. Figure  3 summarizes a selection of CES studies as they relate to various categories of providers. We describe a few of those studies, starting from the left side of the figure. Research in Hawai´i has documented how CES are intertwined with the presence and recognition of ´ aumākua , familial ancestor guardians who assume the physical form of individual nonhuman organisms (e.g., a particular shark, a specific owl; Pascua et al. 2017 ). Some studies have focused on the CES associated with particular species or taxa (Amberson et al. 2016 , Cortés-Avizanda et al. 2018 , Echeverri et al. 2019 ). In a few studies, ecological traits or attributes have been examined: One showed that species evenness and color diversity, but not species richness, predict the aesthetic appeal of wildflower displays (Graves et al. 2017 ), and another indicated that avian functional traits (e.g., diet, plumage color) can predict CES (Echeverri et al. 2019 ). One study showed a positive association between CES and biodiversity in grassland landscapes (King et al. 2017 ). Another described how socioecological landscape characteristics (views, accessibility, historical sites, woodland size) influence the delivery of CES (Ridding et al. 2018 ). Larger temporal and geographic scales were explored in other studies; they demonstrate how seasonal and landscape dynamics influence CES (Graves et al. 2017 , 2019 ) or how dryland systems, including their abiotic components such as geodiversity, provide CES (Teff-Seker and Orenstein 2019 ).

Types of ecosystem service providers addressed in CES research, with examples. The examples are associated with the following publications: 1Pascua et al. 2017 ; 2Amberson et al. 2016 ; 3Cortés-Avizanda et al. 2018 ; 4Graves et al. 2017 ; 5Echeverri et al. 2019 ; 6King et al. 2017 ; 7Graves et al. 2019 , 2017b; 8Plieninger et al. 2013 ; 9Keeler et al. 2015 ; 10Willis et al. 2018 ; 11Baulcomb et al. 2015 .

There may be multiple reasons why a specific biophysical focus is pertinent to a study context; sometimes authors make this explicit, and sometimes they do not. Interests in species-specific explorations, for instance, may be driven by ecological classifications (e.g., threatened and endangered species) or by local and cultural connections to a particular species (e.g., cultural keystone species, Garibaldi and Turner 2004 ). Many CES studies focus on larger-scale areas (e.g., a specific forest area or park); these may or may not constitute ES providers. The tendency to generalize on the ecological side is one distinction between research on CES and ES more generally: In CES research, ecological granularity is often much more coarse.

A small segment of researchers have explored how CES may change on the basis of a specific type of biophysical detail: the condition of the ES provider (as affected by, e.g., pollution or habitat modification). This work can span the range of ES providers, from specific organisms to landscapes. It asks the following question: How do different ecosystem conditions affect CES? As two examples, research demonstrates that harmful algal blooms in marine ecosystems decrease a suite of multiple CES (Willis et al. 2018 ) and that lakes with clearer water receive more visitors (Keeler et al. 2015 ). This work can add to research on how ecosystem condition affects ES generally (e.g., McLaughlin and Cohen 2013 ).

Another permutation of this frontier—that is, an approach that better links biophysical attributes but with a focus different than that of ES providers—relates to an improved connection between CES and material ES (because the latter tend to be more commonly and obviously connected to specific biophysical attributes). This work takes two forms. The first is inclusion of CES in broader ES assessments (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010 , Bremer et al. 2018a , 2018b ). This inclusion brings CES into larger conversations about ES; it brings CES to the table alongside other ES. The second avenue to better connect CES with material ES goes a step further: Beyond presenting the two alongside one another, it explores potential causal relationships between material ES and CES. In some ways, this second avenue can be considered a meta-approach, because a material ES may itself be analogous to an ES provider. As one example, communities participating in the Ecuadorian Andes’ Socio Bosque conservation incentive program recognize the páramo (alpine tundra) as the source of water essential to their livelihoods. They also describe how these grasslands are deeply connected to community identity and culture, which demonstrates the links between material and nonmaterial values (Farley and Bremer 2017 ). It seems likely that some of the CES associated with the páramo draw power and importance from the crucial role played by that specific ecosystem in material livelihoods; that is, the provider of the CES is the material ES of water provision. Future research could explore this type of connection between particular material ES and particular CES (e.g., how might water-flow regulation relate to spirituality?).

A primary challenge of efforts to link biophysical attributes and CES is that these efforts must address two highly complex arenas: social preferences and values and ecosystems’ biophysical properties. To date, much CES-related research explores detail in only one of the two. Much research focused on CES has described and parsed nuance on the social side of that relationship but has minimally treated ecological attributes. Much current CES research that engages with ecological nuance, however, does the reverse: It uses holistically important or novel measures of ES providers but relatively simple or superficial measures for CES. For the most part, the work we present in this section aligns more closely with the second group: It engages with ecological nuance but less so with social nuance.

We perceive a need to develop approaches that capture increased nuance in both cultural and ecological attributes; indeed, doing so may open possibilities for CES research to address equity in novel ways. The reason that increased attention to biophysical attributes may address equity issues stems from the fact that different beneficiaries—that is, groups or individuals who perceive or experience CES in a particular way—may value biophysical attributes in different ways and to different degrees. To offer two extreme examples: A jogger may experience the same CES while exercising in a highly diverse native forest or a forest filled with invasive species, whereas a forager may experience dramatically different CES as a result of changes in spatial or temporal abundance of valued species. The forager's case is one of many possibilities: Biophysical attributes can affect a broad range of CES (e.g., those related to spirituality, ceremony, identity) in crucial ways. These impacts may be particularly important for communities that are highly aware of nuanced ecological condition (e.g., hunters, foragers, cultural practitioners). Specific biophysical attributes may also be especially relevant in and among Indigenous peoples and local communities who place high value on both human and nonhuman kinship bonds (Salmón 2000 ); in some such contexts, humanity and nature are less (or not) distinct, and biophysical features, conditions, and attributes may be just as important as human ones. The challenge is how to carefully and respectfully identify then monitor these connections. One approach is in emerging research on biocultural indicators, which capture aspects of linked biological and cultural systems (Sterling et al. 2017 ). Other potential pathways will likely include drawing on diverse methods, working closely with place-connected communities, and honoring Indigenous and local knowledge and worldviews.

Building on the promising work we describe in this section, we argue that scholars continue to improve the ability of CES to achieve that central goal of ES research: to understand how particular biophysical elements benefit human well-being. We also emphasize that this work should acknowledge its potential blind spots and complications and should strongly consider whether and how different knowledge systems and worldviews approach biophysical attributes (e.g., that those attributes may be inseparable from each other or social systems). To advance in this way may simultaneously achieve two goals: that CES research become more management-relevant and better able to address equity issues rooted in deep connections to ES providers, whether or not that particular term is used. This kind of increased attention to connections between biophysical attributes and CES may bring equity issues to the forefront in management and planning related to ethically complex issues—for example, important debates such as those around novel ecosystems (Burnett et al. 2019 ), or restoration strategies that are focused on biocultural goals rather than solely on native species (Winter et al. 2020 ).

To describe and value CES is complicated. However, without explicit attention to CES, the ideas they represent may be ignored in some decision-making circles. This omission can have important justice-related consequences (Maru et al. 2012 ). In this article, we emphasize how recent advances in CES research can address past deficiencies in the ES conceptual framework—particularly those that have failed to address or even have exacerbated structural inequalities and injustice.

An important question in many CES analyses is how they relate to decision-making. Links to decision-making are still nascent in many cases (Gould et al. 2019 ), and strengthening them will require intentionality from both researchers and decision-makers (Chan and Satterfield 2020 , Mandle et al. 2020 ). Researchers, to achieve that strengthening, must think creatively about how to work with decision-makers at various stages of the research process. One aspect of that collaboration—albeit one much less involved than sustained transdisciplinary collaboration—is to share findings in various formats and for various audiences. Flexibility is important because not all decision-making contexts function the same way, nor do they use the same forms of evidence. To spur ideas related to this aspect of collaboration with decision-makers, table  3 presents multiple examples of ways to share findings related to CES. Notably, many underscore the importance of sharing findings with participants as a precursor to broader dissemination. Just as researchers must make this conscious effort, decision-makers may need to reconsider the types of information they use. They also likely need to pay special attention, in the case of complex CES and their justice implications, to whose voices are included in value- or CES-elicitation processes and to the ways values are characterized.

Examples of ways to more broadly share findings from CES and CES-related research.

Note: The examples primarily encompass approaches and outputs that stem from collaborative, community-based research projects codesigned with community members.

The issues that CES address are weighty and call for transdisciplinary problem-solving. We hope that CES research can provide flexible, powerful avenues to address equity-related concerns that often accompany these issues. We suggest that in order to reach its full potential, CES work should continue and deepen work aligned with the five frontiers described above. These frontiers suggest that CES research, if it maintains its connections with diverse methodologies and epistemologies, may help to strengthen ES approaches, both in general and as they relate to issues of justice and equity (table  1 ). In table  2 , we offer future research questions for each of the frontiers. We suggest and hope that CES work that builds on these frontiers, by answering the questions in table  2 and many others, can include diverse views and voices. By continuing to develop along these frontiers, CES work may begin to address social power relations, representational justice, and other equity concerns that surround and infuse ES research and practice (Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016 ).

We are grateful for the many people and places that have shared time and ideas with us and with the hundreds of other people conducting CES-related research. We also thank the Natural Capital Project Symposium for hosting the session that inspired this paper.

Author Biographical

Rachelle Gould ( [email protected] ) is an assistant professor in the Sustainability and Global Equity Cluster at the University of Vermont, in Burlington; she is a faculty member of the Rubenstein School of Environment and Resources and the Environmental Program and is a fellow of the Gund Institute for the Environment, also in Burlington, Vermont. Leah Bremer is an environmental science and policy specialist at the University of Hawai´i Economic Research Organization and Water Resources Research Center, in Honolulu, Hawai'i; she is also a cooperating faculty member with the Department of Geography and Environment, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, and the Biocultural Initiative of the Pacific and is an affiliate of the Gund Institute for the Environment, at the University of Vermont, in Burlington, and a research associate with Fundación Cordillera Tropical in Ecuador, in Cuenca. Pua´ala Pascua is a biodiversity scientist and a biocultural specialist at the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the American Museum of Natural History, in New York, New York. Kelly Meza Prado is a public health student at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, at the University of London, in London, England, and was previously a researcher at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, and with the Natural Capital Project, at Stanford University, in Stanford, California.

Adamowicz W , Beckley T , Hatton Macdonald D , Just L , Luckert M , Murray E , Phillips W . 1998 . In search of forest resource values of Indigenous peoples: Are nonmarket valuation techniques Applicable? Society and Natural Resources 11 : 51 – 66 .

Google Scholar

Amberson S , Biedenweg K , James J , Christie P . 2016 . “The Heartbeat of Our People”: Identifying and measuring how salmon influences quinault tribal well-being . Society and Natural Resources 29 : 1389 – 1404 .

Bachika R , Schulz MS. 2011 . Values and culture in the social shaping of the future . Current Sociology 59 : 107 – 118 .

Baulcomb C , Fletcher R , Lewis A , Akoglu E , Robinson L , von Almen A , Hussain S , Glenk K . 2015 . A pathway to identifying and valuing cultural ecosystem services: An application to marine food webs . Ecosystem Services 11 : 128 – 139 .

Berbés-Blázquez M , González JA , Pascual U . 2016 . Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Sustainability Science 19 : 134 – 143 .

Bickerstaff K , Walker G. 2005 . Shared visions, unholy alliances: Power, governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning . Urban Studies 42 : 2123 – 2144 .

Birling C. 2014 . Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the swabian Alb (Germany) . Ecosystem Services 8 : 207 – 215 .

Bremer LL , Falinski K , Ching C , Christopher Wada A , Kimberly Burnett M , Kukea-Shultz K , Reppun N , Chun G , Kirsten Oleson L , Ticktin T . 2018a . Biocultural restoration of traditional agriculture: Cultural, environmental, and economic outcomes of lo'i kalo restoration in He'eia, O'ahu . Sustainability 10 : 4502 .

Bremer LL et al.  2018b . Bringing multiple values to the table: Assessing future land-use and climate change in North Kona, Hawai'i . Ecology and Society 23 : 33 .

Britto dos Santos N , Gould RK . 2018 . Can relational values be developed and changed? investigating relational values in the environmental education literature . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 30 : 124 – 131 .

Brown G , Fagerholm N. 2015 . Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation . Ecosystem Services 13 : 119 – 133 .

Burnett KM et al.  2019 . Restoring to the future: Environmental, cultural, and management trade-offs in historical versus hybrid restoration of a highly modified ecosystem . Conservation Letters 12 : e12606 .

Bull JW et al.  2016 . Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework . Ecosystem Services 17 : 99 – 111 .

Büscher B , Sullivan S , Neves K , Igoe J , Brockington D . 2012 . Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation . Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 : 4 – 30 .

Chan KM , Goldstein J , Satterfield T , Hannahs N , Kikiloi K , Naidoo R , Vadeboncoeur N , Woodside U . 2011 . Cultural services and non-use values . Pages 206 – 228 in Kareiva P , Tallis H , Ricketts TH , Daily GC , Polasky S , eds. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services . Oxford University Press .

Google Preview

Chan KMA , Guerry AD , Balvanera P , Klain S , Satterfield T , Basurto X , Bostrom A , Chuenpagdee R , Gould RK , Halpern BS . 2012a . Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? a framework for constructive engagement . BioScience 62 : 744 – 756 .

Chan KMA , Satterfield T , Goldstein J . 2012b . Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values . Ecological Economics 74 : 8 – 18 .

Chan KMA , Satterfield T. 2020 . The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People and Nature . Online first .

Chan KMA et al.  2016 . Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 : 1462 – 1465 .

Chan KMA , Gould RK , Pascual U . 2018 . Relational values: What are they, and what's the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 : A1 – A7 .

Ching C. 2018 . Exploring the Underlying Drivers of the Ecosystem Services Offered in the Wetland of He'eia . Masters thesis , University of Hawai'i .

Comberti C , Thornton TF , Wyllie de Echeverria V , Patterson T . 2015 . Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems . Global Environmental Change 34 : 247 – 262 .

Cortés-Avizanda A , Martín-López B , Ceballos O , Pereira HM . 2018 . Stakeholders perceptions of the endangered Egyptian vulture: Insights for conservation . Biological Conservation 218 : 173 – 180 .

Delgado R , Stefancic J. 2017 . Critical Race Theory: An Introduction . New York University Press .

Dempsey J , Robertson MM. 2012 . Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism . Progress in Human Geography 36 : 758 – 779 .

Dewey J. 2007 . Experience and Education . Simon and Schuster .

de Groot R et al.  2018 . Ecosystem Services are Nature's Contributions to People . Science 359 .

De Vreese R , Van Herzele A , Dendoncker N , Fontaine CM , Leys M . 2019 . Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept? Ecosystem Services 37 : 100911 .

Díaz S et al.  2018 . Assessing nature's contributions to people . Science 359 : 270 .

Diver S , Vaughan M , Baker-Médard M , Lukacs H . 2019 . Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water . International Journal of the Commons 13 : 400 – 429 .

Echeverri A , Naidoo R , Karp DS , Chan KMA , Zhao J . 2019 . Iconic manakins and despicable grackles: Comparing cultural ecosystem services and disservices across stakeholders in Costa Rica . Ecological Indicators 106 : 105454 .

Edwards DM , Collins TM , Goto R . 2016 . An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems . Ecosystem Services 21 : 319 – 328 .

Ernstson H. 2013 . The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental Justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes . Landscape and Urban Planning 109 : 7 – 17 .

Farley KA , Bremer LL. 2017 . “Water is life”: Local perceptions of Páramo grasslands and land management strategies associated with payment for ecosystem services . Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107 : 371 – 381 .

Fish RD 2011 . Environmental decision making and an ecosystems approach: Some challenges from the perspective of social science . Progress in Physical Geography 35 : 671 – 680 .

Fish R , Church A , Willis C , Winter M , Tratalos JA , 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 .

Fisher B , Kerry Turner R , Morling P . 2009 . Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making . Ecological Economics 68 : 643 – 653 .

Garibaldi A , Turner N. 2004 . Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration . Ecology and Society 9 : 1 .

Gould RK , Lincoln NK. 2017 . Expanding the suite of cultural ecosystem services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching . Ecosystem Services 25 : 117 – 27 .

Gould RK , Ardoin NM , Woodside U , Satterfield T , Hannahs N , Daily GC . 2014 . The forest has a story: Cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai'i . Ecology and Society 19 : 55 .

Gould RK , Klain SC , Ardoin NM , Satterfield T , Woodside U , Hannahs N , Daily GC , Chan KM . 2015 . A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame: Analyzing cultural ecosystem services . Conservation Biology 29 : 575 – 586 .

Gould RK , Coleman K , Gluck SB . 2018 . Exploring dynamism of cultural ecosystems services through a review of environmental education research . Ambio 47 : 1 – 15 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1045-8 .

Gould RK , Morse JW , Adams AB . 2019 . Cultural ecosystem services and decision-making: How researchers describe the applications of their work . People and Nature 1 : 457 – 475 .

Graves RA , Pearson SM , Turner MG . 2017 . Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 : 3774 – 3779 .

Graves RA , Pearson SM , Turner MG . 2019 . Effects of bird community dynamics on the seasonal distribution of cultural ecosystem services . Ambio 48 : 280 – 292 .

Guerry AD et al.  2015 . Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 : 7348 .

Heland J , Folke C . 2014 . A social contract with the ancestors: Culture and ecosystem services in southern Madagascar . Global Environmental Change 24 : 251 – 264 .

Hermes J , Van Berkel D , Burkhard B , Plieninger T , Fagerholm N , von Haaren C , Albert C . 2018 . Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes . Assessment and Valuation of Recreational Ecosystem Services 31 : 289 – 295 .

Himes A , Muraca B. 2018 . Relational values: The key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 : 1 – 7 .

Hirons M , Comberti C , Dunford R . 2016 . Valuing cultural ecosystem services . Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41 : 545 – 574 . https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831 .

Holmgren M , Scheffer M. 2017 . To tree or not to tree: Cultural views from ancient Romans to modern ecologists . Ecosystems 20 : 62 – 68 .

[IPBES] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . 2019 . Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . IPBES .

James S. 2016 . Ecosystem services and the value of places . Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 : 101 – 113 .

Jax K et al.  2013 . Ecosystem services and ethics . Ecological Economics 93 : 260 – 268 .

Kaplowitz MD , Hoehn J . 2001 . Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics 36 : 237 – 247 .

Keeler BL , Wood SA , Polasky S , Kling C , Filstrup CT , Downing JA . 2015 . Recreational demand for clean water: Evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13 : 76 – 81 .

Kenter JO , Hyde T , Christie M , Fazey I . 2011 . The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries: Evidence from the Solomon Islands . Global Environmental Change 21 : 505 – 521 .

Kenter JO et al.  2015 . What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics 111 : 86 – 99 .

Kenter JO , Jobstvogt N , Watson V , Irvine KN , Christie M , Bryce R . 2016a . The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling . Ecosystem Services 21 : 270 – 290 .

Kenter JO et al.  2016b . Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions . Ecosystem Services 21 : 358 – 371 .

Kenter JO , Reed MS , Fazey I . 2016 . The deliberative value formation model . Ecosystem Services 21 : 194 – 207 .

Kenter JO. 2018 . IPBES: Don't throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater; Put people's values central, not nature's contributions . Ecosystem Services 33 : 40 – 43 .

Kenter JO et al.  2019 . Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability . Sustainability Science 14 : 1439 – 1461 .

Kimmerer R. 2013 . Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants . Milkweed Editions .

King HP , Morris J , Graves A , Bradbury RB , McGinlay J , Bullock JM . 2017 . Biodiversity and cultural ecosystem benefits in lowland landscapes in southern England . Journal of Environmental Psychology 53 : 185 – 197 .

Kirchhoff T. 2019a . Abandoning the concept of cultural ecosystem services, or against natural–scientific imperialism . BioScience 69 : 220 – 227 .

Kirchhoff T. 2019b . Concepts, not words, are at the core of science and of the ecosystem services framework . BioScience 69 : 585 – 586 .

Kremen C. 2005 . Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8 : 468 – 479 .

Lo AY , Spash CL. 2013 . Deliberative monetary valuation: In search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy . Journal of Economic Surveys 27 : 768 – 789 .

Mandle L , Shields-Estrada A , Chaplin-Kramer R , Mitchell MGE , Bremer LL , Gourevitch JD , Hawthorne P , Johnson JA , Robinson BE , Smith JR , Sonter LJ , Verutes GM , Vogl AL , Daily GC , Ricketts TH . 2020 . Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science . Nature Sustainability. Online first .

Markus HR , Conner A. 2014 . Clash! How to Thrive in a Multicultural World . Penguin .

Maru YT , Fletcher CS , Chewings VH . 2012 . A synthesis of current approaches to traps is useful but needs rethinking for indigenous disadvantage and poverty research . Ecology and Society 17 : 7 .

McLaughlin DL , Cohen MJ 2013 . Realizing ecosystem services: Wetland hydrologic function along a gradient of ecosystem condition . Ecological Applications 23 : 1619 – 1631 .

McDermott M , Mahanty S , Schreckenberg K . 2013 . Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services . Environmental Science and Policy 33 : 416 – 427 .

McGregor D. 2007 . Nā Kua’āina: Living Hawaiian Culture . University of Hawai'i Press .

Meza Prado AK , Vargas M , Bremer L , Brauman K , Hoyos Villada F . 2018 . Putting suppliers on the map: The stories of people conserving water upstream . Suppliers on the Map. http://suppliersonthemap.org/ .

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . 2005 . Ecosystems and Human Well-Being . Island Press .

Miller B , Soulé ME , Terborgh J . 2014 . “New conservation” or surrender to development? Animal Conservation 17 : 509 – 515 .

Morgan TeKKB , Fa´aui TN . 2018 . Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the mauri model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster . European Journal of Operational Research 268 : 984 – 995 .

Muraca B. 2016 . Relational values: A whiteheadian alternative for environmental philosophy and global environmental justice . Balkan Journal of Philosophy 8 : 19 – 38 .

Oliveira LEC , Berkes F. 2014 . What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions . Ecological Economics 107 : 114 – 121 .

Orchard-Webb J , Kenter JO , Bryce R , Church A . 2016 . Deliberative democratic monetary valuation to implement the ecosystem approach . Ecosystem Services 21 : 308 – 318 .

Parks S , Gowdy J. 2013 . What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay . Ecosystem Services 3 : e1 – e10 .

Pascua P , McMillen H , Ticktin T , Vaughan M , Winter KB . 2017 . Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments . Ecosystem Services 26 : 465 – 475 .

Pascual U , Phelps J , Garmendia E , Brown K , Corbera E , Martin A , Gomez-Baggethun E , Muradian R . 2014 . Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services . BioScience 64 : 1027 – 1036 .

Plieninger T , Dijks S , Oteros-Rozas E , Bieling C . 2013 . Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level . Land Use Policy 33 : 118 – 129 .

Ranger S , Kenter JO , Bryce R , Cumming G , Dapling T , Lawes E , Richardson PB . 2016 . Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices . Ecosystem Services 21 : 344 – 357 .

Raudsepp-Hearne C , Peterson GD , Bennett EM . 2010 . Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 : 5242 – 5247 .

Raymond CM , Singh GG , Benessaiah K , Bernhardt JR , Levine J , Nelson H , Turner NJ , Norton B , Tam J , Chan KMA . 2013 . Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships . BioScience 63 : 536 – 546 .

Raymond CM , Kenter JO , Plieninger T , Turner NJ , Alexander KA . 2014 . Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services . Ecological Economics 107 : 145 – 156 .

Reed M , Evely AC , Cundill G , Fazey IRA , Glass J , Laing A , Newig J , Parrish B , Prell C , Raymond C . 2010 . What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15 ( 4 ): r1 .

Ridding LE , Redhead JW , Oliver TH , Schmucki R , McGinlay J , Graves AR , Morris J , Bradbury RB , King H , Bullock JM . 2018 . The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services . Journal of Environmental Management 206 : 1145 – 1154 .

Russell R , Guerry AD , Balvanera P , Gould RK , Basurto X , Chan K , Klain S , Levine J , Tam J . 2013 . Humans and nature: How knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being . Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38 : 473 – 502 .

Salmón E. 2000 . Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human–nature relationship . Ecological Applications 10 : 1327 – 1332 .

Satz D et al.  2013 . The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment . Ambio 42 : 675 – 684 .

Saxena AK , Chatti D , Overstreet K , Dove MR . 2018 . From moral ecology to diverse ontologies: Relational values in human ecological research, past, and present . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 : 54 – 60 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.021 .

Schaubroeck T . 2019 . The concept of cultural ecosystem services should not be abandoned . BioScience 69 : 585 – 585 .

Schell CJ , Guy C , Shelton DS , Campbell-Staton SC , Sealey BA , Lee DN , Harris NC . 2020 . Recreating Wakanda by promoting Black excellence in ecology and evolution . Nature Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1266-7

Senehi J. 2002 . Constructive storytelling: A peace process . Peace and Conflict Studies 9 : 3 .

Shackleton CM , Ruwanza S , Sanni GS , Bennett S , De Lacy P , Modipa R , Mtati N , Sachikonye M , Thondhlana G . 2016 . Unpacking Pandora's box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing . Ecosystems 19 : 587 – 600 .

Simon D , Krawczyk DC , Bleicher A , Holyoak KJ . 2008 . The transience of constructed preferences . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 21 : 1 – 14 .

Smith BH. 1981 . Narrative version, narrative theories . Pages 213 – 236 in Thomas Mitchell WJ , Thomas J , eds. On Narrative . University of Chicago Press .

Sterling EJ et al.  2017 . Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales . Nature Ecology and Evolution 1 : 1798 – 1806 .

Teff-Seker Y , Orenstein DE. 2019 . The “desert experience”: Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services of drylands through walking and focusing . People and Nature 1 : 234 – 248 .

Thiagarajah J , Wong SKM , Richards DR , Friess DA . 2015 . Historical and contemporary cultural ecosystem service values in the rapidly urbanizing city state of Singapore . Ambio 44 : 666 – 777 .

Turner N , Gregory R , Brooks C , Failing L , Satterfield T . 2008 . From invisibility to transparency: Identifying the implications . Ecology and Society 13 : 7 .

University of Hawai´i . 2018 . Kūlana Noi´i . Hawai'I Sea Grant. http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Kulana-Noii-low-res-web.pdf .

van Riper CJ , Landon AC , Kidd S , Bitterman P , Fitzgerald LA , Granek EF , Ibarra S , Iwaniec D , Raymond CM , Toledo D . 2017 . Incorporating sociocultural phenomena into ecosystem-service valuation: The importance of critical pluralism . BioScience 67 : 233 – 244 .

von Döhren P , Haase D . 2015 . Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities . Ecological Indicators 52 : 490 – 497 .

Villalba U. 2013 . Buen vivir versus development: A paradigm shift in the Andes? Third World Quarterly 34 : 1427 – 1442 .

Wals AEJ 2007 . Social Learning towards a Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives, and Praxis . Wageningen Academic.

Wiebe SM. 2016 . Everyday Exposure: Indigenous Mobilization and Environmental Justice in Canada's Chemical Valley . University of British Columbia Press .

Wilburn E. 2017 . Voices from the Field: Participant Perspectives on Growth and Sustainability Opportunities for Water Producer Projects . Natural Capital Project.

Willis C , Papathanasopoulou E , Russel D , Artioli Y . 2018 . Harmful algal blooms: The impacts on cultural ecosystem services and human well-being in a case study setting, Cornwall, UK . Marine Policy 97 : 232 – 238 .

Wilson MA , Howarth RB 2002 . Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation . Ecological Economics 41 : 431 – 443 .

Winter KB , Ticktin T , Quazi SA . 2020 . Biocultural restoration in Hawai´i also achieves core conservation goals . Ecology and Society 25 : 26 .

Winthrop RH 2014 . The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm . Ecological Economics 108 : 208 – 214 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Resilient Geographies: An Atlas of Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Land of Spirit Waters.

This thesis explores the relationship between and the impact of cultural ecosystem services on resilience planning by examining public spaces in San Antonio, Texas. Existing studies have recognized that evaluating cultural ecosystem services is challenging, but continued research as well as the development and testing of new methods are necessary to enhance our understanding. To support this aim, this thesis utilized participant observation and an inductive research approach to examine how cultural ecosystem services – the intangible benefits that communities gain from their natural environments – influence levels of social interaction and social cohesion. Three public urban green spaces in San Antonio were selected for observation because they function as spaces for cultural engagement and social resilience in the city. The findings of this study indicate that cultural ecosystem services are invaluable to fostering social cohesion and greater levels of social interaction in public spaces. Further, mapping observations of use and behavior from each of the three selected public green spaces coupled with historical research reveal the extent to which planning, and design interventions can influence cultural ecosystem services, the number of people engaging with them, and the who those people are in a general sense. Although it was not possible for this thesis, future studies should employ post-observation interviews with individuals making use of public green spaces to enrich and contextualize the observational data.

1_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.pdf

Uploaded: May 09, 2024

Downloads: 80

2_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

Downloads: 11

3_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

Downloads: 13

4_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

Downloads: 10

5_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

6_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

Downloads: 9

7_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

8_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

9_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

Downloads: 18

10_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

11_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

12_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

13_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

14_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

Downloads: 8

15_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

16_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

17_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

18_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

19_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

20_Van_Brian_2024_MUEP.png

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 41, 2016, review article, valuing cultural ecosystem services.

• Mark Hirons 1,2 , Claudia Comberti 1 , and Robert Dunford 1,3
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom; email: [email protected] 2 School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, United Kingdom 3 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, United Kingdom
• Vol. 41:545-574 (Volume publication date October 2016) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
• First published as a Review in Advance on July 14, 2016
• © Annual Reviews

The ecosystem services (ES) framework was developed to articulate and measure the benefits humans receive from ecosystems. Cultural ecosystem services (CES), usually defined as the intangible and nonmaterial benefits ecosystems provide, have been relatively neglected by researchers and policy-makers compared to provisioning, supporting, and regulating services. Although valuing CES poses several conceptual and methodological difficulties, it is of huge interest and importance because of the linkages between cultural values, valuation methods, and the individual and collective decision-making that influence ecosystems and human wellbeing. This review is not a how-to guide, but rather examines key conceptual issues and maps critical areas of debate. There is a range of potential approaches to assessing CES; however, choices regarding valuation methods and their role in decision-making are shaped by cultural and political dynamics. CES are at a crossroads. They can potentially act as a fruitful conceptual container for a broad range of interdisciplinary research into human-environment relations and transform how decisions regarding the environment are made, but they can also be used to legitimize and entrench modes of decision-making that marginalize and undermine the very values they are intended to protect.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Daily G. 1.  1997 . Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• Gómez-Baggethun E , De Groot R , Lomas PL , Montes C . 2.  2010 . The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69 : 1209– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Westman WE. 3.  1977 . How much are nature's services worth?. Science 197 : 960– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Costanza R , Daly HE . 4.  1992 . Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv. Biol. 6 : 37– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Reid WV , Mooney HA , Cropper A , Capistrano D , Carpenter SR . 5.  et al. 2005 . Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• Raymond CM , Singh GG , Benessaiah K , Bernhardt JR , Levine J . 6.  et al. 2013 . Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience 63 : 536– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Peterson MJ , Hall DM , Feldpausch-Parker AM , Peterson TR . 7.  2010 . Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept. Conserv. Biol. 24 : 113– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Redford KH , Adams WM . 8.  2009 . Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv. Biol. 23 : 785– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Daniel TC , Muhar A , Arnberger A , Aznar O , Boyd JW . 9.  et al. 2012 . Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 : 8812– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Plieninger T , Dijks S , Oteros-Rozas E , Bieling C . 10.  2013 . Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33 : 118– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Hernández-Morcillo M , Plieninger T , Bieling C . 11.  2013 . An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29 : 434– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Carpenter SR , Mooney HA , Agard J , Capistrano D , DeFries RS . 12.  et al. 2009 . Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 : 1305– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Guo Z , Zhang L , Li Y . 13.  2010 . Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS ONE 5 : e13113 [Google Scholar]
• Brown J , MacLeod N . 14.  2011 . A site-based approach to delivering rangeland ecosystem services. Rangeland J. 33 : 99– 108 [Google Scholar]
• Voora V , Barg S . 15.  2008 . Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Project Area Ecosystem Services Valuation Assessment Winnipeg, Can.: Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev. [Google Scholar]
• Sagie H , Morris A , Rofè Y , Orenstein DE , Groner E . 16.  2013 . Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: a social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli–Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. J. Arid Environ. 97 : 38– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Kenter JO , Hyde T , Christie M , Fazey I . 17.  2011 . The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries—evidence from the Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Change 21 : 505– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Gobster PH , Nassauer JI , Daniel TC , Fry G . 18.  2007 . The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 22 : 959– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Orenstein D. 19.  2013 . More than language is needed in valuing ecosystem services. BioScience 63 : 913 [Google Scholar]
• Stynes D , Daniel J . 20.  Natl. Park Service, US Dep. Interior 2005 . Economic significance of recreational uses of national parks and other public lands. Gov. Doc. 423, All U.S. Gov. Doc. (Utah Reg. Dep.), Utah State Univ. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/423 [Google Scholar]
• Kirchhoff T. 21.  2012 . Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework. Agenda 109 : 8812– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Winthrop RH. 22.  2014 . The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 108 : 208– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Milcu AI , Hanspach J , Abson D , Fischer J . 23.  2013 . Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 18 : 44 [Google Scholar]
• Coscieme L. 24.  2015 . Cultural ecosystem services: the inspirational value of ecosystems in popular music. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 : 121– 24 [Google Scholar]
• van Berkel DB , Verburg PH . 25.  2014 . Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 37 : Part A 163– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Chan KM , Ruckelshaus M . 26.  2010 . Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services. F1000 Biol. Rep. 2 : 54 [Google Scholar]
• Kumar P. 27.  2012 . The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations London, New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Martín-López B , Gómez-Baggethun E , Lomas PL , Montes C . 28.  2009 . Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. J. Environ. Manag. 90 : 1050– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Kumar M , Kumar P . 29.  2008 . Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 64 : 808– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Chan KM , Goldstein J , Satterfield T , Hannahs N , Kikiloi K . 30.  et al. 2011 . Cultural services and non-use values. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services P Kareiva, H Tallis, TH Ricketts, GC Daily, S Polasky 206– 28 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Chan KM , Guerry AD , Balvanera P , Klain S , Satterfield T . 31.  et al. 2012 . Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62 : 744– 56 [Google Scholar]
• de Groot RP , Ramkrishnan PS , van de Berg A , Kulenthran T , Muller S . 32.  et al. 2005 . Cultural and amenity services. Millennium Ecosystem Services Assessment 455– 76 Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• Grove-White R. 33.  1997 . The environmental “valuation” controversy. Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment J Foster 21– 31 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Scott JC. 34.  1998 . Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Power M. 35.  1999 . The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Flint CG , Kunze I , Muhar A , Yoshida Y , Penker M . 36.  2013 . Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landsc. Urban Plan. 120 : 208– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Jax K , Barton DN , Chan KMA , de Groot R , Doyle U . 37.  et al. 2013 . Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 93 : 260– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Norgaard RB. 38.  2010 . Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69 : 1219– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Scholte SSK , van Teeffelen AJA , Verburg PH . 39.  2015 . Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 114 : 67– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Pröpper M , Haupts F . 40.  2014 . The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecol. Econ. 108 : 28– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Haines-Young R , Potschin M . 41.  2013 . CICES V4. 3 - Revised report prepared following consultation on CICES Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framew. Contract No. EEA/IEA/09/003, Cent. Environ. Manag., Univ. Nottm., Nottm., UK [Google Scholar]
• Fagerholm N , Käyhkö N , Ndumbaro F , Khamis M . 42.  2012 . Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol. Indic. 18 : 421– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Chan KMA , Satterfield T , Goldstein J . 43.  2012 . Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74 : 8– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Schaich H , Bieling C , Plieninger T . 44.  2010 . Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 19 : 269– 77 [Google Scholar]
• García-Llorente M , Martín-López B , Iniesta-Arandia I , López-Santiago CA , Aguilera PA , Montes C . 45.  2012 . The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 19–20 : 136– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Suckall N , Fraser ED , Cooper T , Quinn C . 46.  2009 . Visitor perceptions of rural landscapes: a case study in the Peak District National Park, England. J. Environ. Manag. 90 : 1195– 203 [Google Scholar]
• 47.  UK Natl. Ecosyst. Assess 2011 . The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Cambridge, UK: UN Environ. Progr.-World Conserv. Monit. Cent http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [Google Scholar]
• Alkire S. 48.  2007 . Choosing dimensions: the capability approach and multidimensional poverty. The Many Dimensions of Poverty N Kakwani, J Silber 89– 119 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
• Russell R , Guerry AD , Balvanera P , Gould RK , Basurto X . 49.  et al. 2013 . Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38 : 473– 502 [Google Scholar]
• Jenkins W , Chapple CK . 50.  2011 . Religion and environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36 : 441– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Weaver DB. 51.  2008 . Ecotourism Hoboken, NJ: Wiley [Google Scholar]
• Hulme M. 52.  2011 . Meet the humanities. Nat. Clim. Change 1 : 177– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Díaz S , Demissew S , Carabias J , Joly C , Lonsdale M . 53.  et al. 2015 . The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 : 1– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Maes J , Teller A , Erhard M , Liquete C , Braat L . 54.  et al. 2013 . Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services—an analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Tech. Rep. 2013-067, Eur. Union, Luxembourg [Google Scholar]
• Fankhauser S , Dietz S , Gradwell P . 55.  2014 . Non-economic losses in the context of the UNFCCC work programme on loss and damage Tech. Pap. FCCC/TP/2013/2, UNFCCC [Google Scholar]
• Church A , Burgess J , Ravenscroft N , Bird W , Blackstock K . 56.  et al. 2011 . Cultural services. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report co-chairs R Watson, S Albon 633– 92 Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/resources/tabid/82/default.aspx [Google Scholar]
• Plieninger T , van der Horst D , Schleyer C , Bieling C . 57.  2014 . Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 19 : 59 [Google Scholar]
• Bieling C. 58.  2004 . Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management. Eur. J. Forest Res. 123 : 293– 303 [Google Scholar]
• Plieninger T , Ferranto S , Huntsinger L , Kelly M , Getz C . 59.  2012 . Appreciation, use, and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in California's working landscapes. Environ. Manag. 50 : 427– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Bhagwat SA , Rutte C . 60.  2006 . Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4 : 519– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Khan M , Khumbongmayum AD , Tripathi R . 61.  2008 . The sacred groves and their significance in conserving biodiversity: an overview. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 34 : 277– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Kenter JO , O'Brien L , Hockley N , Ravenscroft N , Fazey I . 62.  et al. 2015 . What are shared and social values of ecosystems?. Ecol. Econ. 111 : 86– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Martin B. 63.  2001 . Nonviolence versus Capitalism. London: War Resist. Int. [Google Scholar]
• Chan KM , Satterfield T . 64.  2016 . Managing cultural ecosystem services for sustainability. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services M Potschin, R Haines-Young, R Fish, K Turner 343– 56 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Martín-López B , Iniesta-Arandia I , García-Llorente M , Palomo I , Casado-Arzuaga I . 65.  et al. 2012 . Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PloS ONE 7 : e38970 [Google Scholar]
• Raudsepp-Hearne C , Peterson GD , Tengö M , Bennett EM , Holland T . 66.  et al. 2010 . Untangling the environmentalist's paradox: Why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade?. BioScience 60 : 576– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Daw T , Brown K , Rosendo S , Pomeroy R . 67.  2011 . Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38 : 370– 79 [Google Scholar]
• MacDonald F. 68.  1998 . Viewing Highland Scotland: ideology, representation and the “natural heritage.”. Area 30 : 237– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Corbera E , Brown K , Adger WN . 69.  2007 . The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 38 : 587– 613 [Google Scholar]
• McDermott M , Mahanty S , Schreckenberg K . 70.  2013 . Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 33 : 416– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Layard R. 71.  2006 . Happiness and public policy: a challenge to the profession. Econ. J. 116 : C24– C33 [Google Scholar]
• Wilkinson R , Pickett K . 72.  2010 . The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone London: Penguin [Google Scholar]
• Steindl-Rast D. 73.  1984 . Gratefulness, the Heart of Prayer: An Approach to Life in Fullness Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press [Google Scholar]
• Roberts JA , Tsang J-A , Manolis C . 74.  2015 . Looking for happiness in all the wrong places: the moderating role of gratitude and affect in the materialism-life satisfaction relationship. J. Positive Psychol. 10 : 6 1– 10 [Google Scholar]
• Escobar A. 75.  1996 . Construction nature: elements for a post-structuralist political ecology. Futures 28 : 325– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Robbins P. 76.  2012 . Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction Oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Lyytimäki J , Sipilä M . 77.  2009 . Hopping on one leg—the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 : 309– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Jorgensen A , Anthopoulou A . 78.  2007 . Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands—does age make a difference?. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 : 267– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Doherty TJ , Clayton S . 79.  2011 . The psychological impacts of global climate change. Am. Psychol. 66 : 265– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Tschakert P , Tutu R , Alcaro A . 80.  2013 . Embodied experiences of environmental and climatic changes in landscapes of everyday life in Ghana. Emot. Space Soc. 7 : 13– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Gómez-Baggethun E , Barton DN . 81.  2013 . Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 : 235– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Platt J. 82.  1973 . Social traps. Am. Psychol. 28 : 641 [Google Scholar]
• Costanza R. 83.  1987 . Social traps and environmental policy. BioScience 37 : 407– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Roy J , Pal S . 84.  2009 . Lifestyles and climate change: link awaiting activation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1 : 192– 200 [Google Scholar]
• Lintott J. 85.  1998 . Beyond the economics of more: the place of consumption in ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 25 : 239– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Frank RH. 86.  2001 . Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
• Jackson T. 87.  2011 . Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Williams R. 88.  1985 . Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Patterson O. 89.  2014 . Making sense of culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40 : 1– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Satterfield T , Gregory R , Klain S , Roberts M , Chan KM . 90.  2013 . Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 117 : 103– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Scott WR. 91.  2001 . Organisations and Institutions London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Ostrom E. 92.  2005 . Understanding Institutional Diversity Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Newell P , Pattberg P , Schroeder H . 93.  2012 . Multiactor governance and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37 : 365– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Sum N-L , Jessop B . 94.  2013 . Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Putting Culture in Its Place in Political Economy Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ [Google Scholar]
• Berkes F. 95.  2012 . Sacred Ecology Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Pilgrim S , Pretty J . 96.  2010 . Nature and culture: an introduction. See Ref. 170 1– 22
• Comberti C , Thornton TF , Wyllie de Echeverria V , Patterson T . 97.  2015 . Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Glob. Environ. Change 34 : 247– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Stephan V. 98.  2010 . Singing to the Plants: A Guide to Mestizo Shamanism in the Upper Amazon Albuquerque, NM: UNM Press [Google Scholar]
• Shanley P , Galvão J . 99.  1999 . Invisible income: the ecology and economics of non-timber forest resources in Amazonian forests. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity D Posey 364– 66 Nairobi, Kenya: Pract. Action [Google Scholar]
• Hitlin S , Piliavin JA . 100.  2004 . Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30 : 359– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Dietz T , Fitzgerald A , Shwom R . 101.  2005 . Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 : 335– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Hechter M. 102.  1993 . Values research in the social and behavioral sciences. The Origin of Values M Hechter, L Nadel, RE Michod 1– 30 New York: Aldine Trans. [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill J , Spash CL . 103.  2000 . Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environ. Values 9 : 521– 36 [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill J. 104.  1997 . Value pluralism, incommensurability and institutions. Valuing Nat. 75– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Beery TH , Wolf-Watz D . 105.  2014 . Nature to place: rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 40 : 198– 205 [Google Scholar]
• Kallis G , Gómez-Baggethun E , Zografos C . 106.  2015 . The limits of monetization in valuing the environment: a reply to Gsottbauer et al.. Ecol. Econ. 112 : 170– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Justus J , Colyvan M , Regan H , Maguire L . 107.  2009 . Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 : 187– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Sagoff M. 108.  2009 . Intrinsic value: a reply to Justus et al.. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 : 643 [Google Scholar]
• Sagoff M. 109.  1998 . Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol. Econ. 24 : 213– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Chan KM , Balvanera P , Benessaiah K , Chapman M , Díaz S . 110.  et al. 2016 . Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS 113 : 1462– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Becker C. 111.  2006 . The human actor in ecological economics: philosophical approach and research perspectives. Ecol. Econ. 60 : 17– 23 [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill J , Holland A , Light A . 112.  2008 . Environmental Values Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Martín-López B , Gómez-Baggethun E , García-Llorente M , Montes C . 113.  2014 . Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 37 : Part A 220– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Raymond CM , Kenter JO , Plieninger T , Turner NJ , Alexander KA . 114.  2014 . Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 107 : 145– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Wegner G , Pascual U . 115.  2011 . Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Change 21 : 492– 504 [Google Scholar]
• Knights P , Admiraal J , Wossink A , Banerjee P , O'Neill J , Scott M . 116.  2013 . Economic environmental valuation: an analysis of limitations and alternatives ( BIOMOT Project Deliverable 1.1 ). BIOMOT Rep. 282625, BIOMOT Proj., Leiden Univ., Leiden, Neth. [Google Scholar]
• Wilkinson N , Klaes M . 117.  2012 . An Introduction to Behavioral Economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
• Pilgrim S , Samson C , Pretty J . 118.  2010 . Ecocultural revitalization: replenishing community connections to the land. See Ref. 170 235– 56
• Kelemen E , Barton D , Jacobs S , Martín-López B , Saarikoski H . 119.  et al. 2015 . Preliminary guidelines for integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services in specific policy contexts EU FP7 OpenNESS Proj. Deliv. 4.3., Eur. Comm. FP7 Contract 603416, OpenNESS Proj., Finn. Environ. Inst., Helsinki, Finl. http://www.openness-project.eu/ [Google Scholar]
• Harrison PA , Dunford RW . 120.  2015 . Preliminary guidelines describing the set of methods for mapping and modelling ecosystem service supply and their application in the WP5 case studies EU FP7 OpenNESS Proj. Deliv. 3.2., Eur. Comm. FP7 Contract 308428., OpenNESS Proj., Finn. Environ. Inst., Helsinki, Finl. http://www.openness-project.eu/ [Google Scholar]
• Richmond A , Kaufmann RK , Myneni RB . 121.  2007 . Valuing ecosystem services: a shadow price for net primary production. Ecol. Econ. 64 : 454– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Sander HA , Haight RG . 122.  2012 . Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. J. Environ. Manag. 113 : 194– 205 [Google Scholar]
• Costanza R , Farber SC , Maxwell J . 123.  1989 . Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 1 : 335– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Termansen M , McClean CJ , Jensen FS . 124.  2013 . Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol. Econ. 92 : 48– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Barrena J , Nahuelhual L , Báez A , Schiappacasse I , Cerda C . 125.  2014 . Valuing cultural ecosystem services: agricultural heritage in Chiloé Island, southern Chile. Ecosyst. Serv. 7 : 66– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Johnston RJ , Rolfe J , Rosenberger R , Brouwer R . 126.  2015 . Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Burkhard B , Kroll F , Nedkov S , Müller F . 127.  2012 . Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21 : 17– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Kopperoinen L , Itkonen P , Niemelä J . 128.  2014 . Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landsc. Ecol. 29 : 1361– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Pastur GM , Peri PL , Lencinas MV , García-Llorente M , Martín-López B . 129.  2016 . Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landsc. Ecol. 31 : 383– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Barton D , Saloranta T , Moe S , Eggestad H , Kuikka S . 130.  2008 . Bayesian belief networks as a meta-modelling tool in integrated river basin management—pros and cons in evaluating nutrient abatement decisions under uncertainty in a Norwegian river basin. Ecol. Econ. 66 : 91– 104 [Google Scholar]
• Haines-Young R. 131.  2011 . Exploring ecosystem service issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian Belief Networks. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 : 681– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Satterfield T. 132.  2001 . In search of value literacy: suggestions for the elicitation of environmental values. Environ. Values 10 : 331– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Plieninger T , Bieling C , Ohnesorge B , Schaich H , Schleyer C , Wolff F . 133.  2013 . Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol. Soc. 18 : 39 [Google Scholar]
• Calvet-Mir L , Gómez-Baggethun E , Reyes-García V . 134.  2012 . Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 74 : 153– 60 [Google Scholar]
• McCall MK. 135.  2003 . Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat Int. 27 : 549– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Étienne M . 136.  2013 . Companion Modelling. A Participatory Approach to Support Sustainable Development. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Dunford RW , Smith AC , Harrison PA , Hanganu D . 137.  2015 . Ecosystem service provision in a changing Europe: adapting to the impacts of combined climate and socio-economic change. Landsc. Ecol. 30 : 443– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Hattam C , Böhnke-Henrichs A , Börger T , Burdon D , Hadjimichael M . 138.  et al. 2015 . Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages?. Ecol. Econ. 120 : 126– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Latour B , Woolgar S . 139.  1979 . The Social Construction of Scientific Facts Beverley Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Hirons M. 140.  2015 . Trees for development? Articulating the ambiguities of power, authority and legitimacy in governing Ghana's mineral rich forests. Extr. Industries Soc. 2 : 491– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Bebbington AJ , Bury JT . 141.  2009 . Institutional challenges for mining and sustainability in Peru. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 : 17296– 301 [Google Scholar]
• Lemos MC , Agrawal A . 142.  2006 . Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31 : 297– 325 [Google Scholar]
• Muradian R , Corbera E , Pascual U , Kosoy N , May PH . 143.  2010 . Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 : 1202– 8 [Google Scholar]
• Vatn A. 144.  2010 . An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 : 1245– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Pascual U , Muradian R , Rodríguez LC , Duraiappah A . 145.  2010 . Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 69 : 1237– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Coralie C , Guillaume O , Claude N . 146.  2015 . Tracking the origins and development of biodiversity offsetting in academic research and its implications for conservation: a review. Biol. Conserv. 192 : 492– 503 [Google Scholar]
• Duke G. 147.  2013 . Making natural capital and ecosystem services operational in Europe through biodiversity offsetting and habitat banking. Ecosystem Services SJD Keune 325– 30 Boston: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
• Pirard R. 148.  2012 . Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Policy 19 : 59– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Auld G , Gulbrandsen LH , McDermott CL . 149.  2008 . Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33 : 187– 211 [Google Scholar]
• Whitelaw PA , King BE , Tolkach D . 150.  2014 . Protected areas, conservation and tourism—financing the sustainable dream. J. Sustain. Tourism 22 : 584– 603 [Google Scholar]
• Jennings S , Nussbaum R , Judd N , Evans T , Iacobelli T . 151.  et al. 2003 . The High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit Oxford, UK: ProForest [Google Scholar]
• Harvey D. 152.  2005 . A Brief History of Neoliberalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gsottbauer E , Logar I , van den Bergh J . 153.  2015 . Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: comment on Kallis et al. 2013. Ecol. Econ. 112 : 164– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Kallis G , Gómez-Baggethun E , Zografos C . 154.  2013 . To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecol. Econ. 94 : 97– 105 [Google Scholar]
• Klein N. 155.  2014 . This Changes Everything: Capitalism versus the Climate New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
• Turner RK , Paavola J , Cooper P , Farber S , Jessamy V , Georgiou S . 156.  2003 . Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46 : 493– 510 [Google Scholar]
• Bateman I , Mace G , Fezzi C , Atkinson G , Turner K . 157.  2011 . Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48 : 177– 218 [Google Scholar]
• Turner RK , Daily GC . 158.  2008 . The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 39 : 25– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Daily GC , Polasky S , Goldstein J , Kareiva PM , Mooney HA . 159.  et al. 2009 . Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 : 21– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Gómez-Baggethun E , Ruiz-Pérez M . 160.  2011 . Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 : 613– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Hahn T , McDermott C , Ituarte-Lima C , Schultz M , Green T , Tuvendal M . 161.  2015 . Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 : 74– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Muradian R , Rival L . 162.  2012 . Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 : 93– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Castree N. 163.  2003 . Commodifying what nature?. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 27 : 273– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Klain SC , Chan KMA . 164.  2012 . Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 82 : 104– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Frey BS , Oberholzer-Gee F . 165.  1997 . The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am. Econ. Rev. 87 : 746– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Martínez-Alier J. 166.  2003 . The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ [Google Scholar]
• Polanyi K. 167.  1944 . The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time Boston: Beacon Press [Google Scholar]
• Lazos E , Zinda J , Negra C , Bennett-Curry A , Bloomfield G . 168.  et al. 2016 . Challenges of tradeoffs and synergies in different reforestation scenarios. A case study at the Chamela-Cuitzmala Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico. Biotropica In press [Google Scholar]
• Gómez-Baggethun E , Muradian R . 169.  2015 . In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of market-based instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecol. Econ. 117 : 217– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Pilgrim S , Pretty J . 170.  2010 . Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections London: Earthscan [Google Scholar]
• 171.  Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA) 2015 . Report on the Ethiopian Economy. Addis Ababa, Ethiop.: EEA [Google Scholar]
• Hulme D , Shepherd A . 172.  2003 . Conceptualizing chronic poverty. World Dev. 31 : 403– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Martínez-Alier J. 173.  1995 . The environment as a luxury good or “too poor to be green”?. Ecol. Econ. 13 : 1– 10 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, adaptive governance of social-ecological systems, dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions, climate change and food systems, wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability, global water pollution and human health, adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework, i ndustrial s ymbiosis : literature and taxonomy, environmental governance, c arbon d ioxide e missions from the g lobal c ement i ndustry 1, global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review.

Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Spaces. How and What People Value in Urban Nature?

• Discipline of Landscape Architecture

Research output : Chapter in Book/Conference paper › Conference paper › peer-review

This paper discusses the concept of cultural ecosystem services (CES) as a part of a broader framework of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. It is based on literature review and evaluation of results from two research projects of urban green spaces conducted in Russia (three public parks in Moscow) and China (six public parks in Xi’an). Both case studies conducted face-to-face interviews of park visitors and stakeholders (in Xi’an) and utilized questionnaires as well as observational studies of people’s activities within parks and their infrastructure. This paper aims to explore how urban dwellers perceive and value urban green spaces (parks) and what particular CES/benefits can be drawn as being most important. CES of urban green spaces (especially urban parks) are discussed from the following viewpoints: a) visitors’ perception and behaviour, b) indicators and methods adapted to CES research and c) identifying and understanding the ecosystem service capacity of an urban green space for attracting visitors of different cultural backgrounds. The results highlight the importance of CES which are provided by urban green spaces for quality of life and human health in cities, and the role of CES in raising environmental awareness and social cohesion and interaction. This paper also provides suggestions for a research framework and conceptual models that can be applied in future studies of CES and provides useful tools for indicators selection and assessment.

Publication series

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

• 10.1007/978-3-030-75285-9_28

Users may only view, print, copy, download and text- and data-mine the content, for the purposes of academic research. The content may not be (re-)published verbatim in whole or in part or used for commercial purposes. Users must ensure that the author's moral rights as well as any third parties' rights to the content or parts of the content are not compromised.

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Conceptual Model Computer Science 100%
• Research Service Computer Science 100%
• Face to face interview Computer Science 100%
• Research Project Computer Science 100%
• Research Framework Computer Science 100%
• Case Study Computer Science 100%
• Awareness Medicine and Dentistry 100%
• Observational Study Medicine and Dentistry 100%

T1 - Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Spaces. How and What People Value in Urban Nature?

AU - Dushkova, Diana

AU - Ignatieva, Maria

AU - Konstantinova, Anastasia

AU - Yang, Fengping

PY - 2021/5/11

Y1 - 2021/5/11

N2 - This paper discusses the concept of cultural ecosystem services (CES) as a part of a broader framework of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. It is based on literature review and evaluation of results from two research projects of urban green spaces conducted in Russia (three public parks in Moscow) and China (six public parks in Xi’an). Both case studies conducted face-to-face interviews of park visitors and stakeholders (in Xi’an) and utilized questionnaires as well as observational studies of people’s activities within parks and their infrastructure. This paper aims to explore how urban dwellers perceive and value urban green spaces (parks) and what particular CES/benefits can be drawn as being most important. CES of urban green spaces (especially urban parks) are discussed from the following viewpoints: a) visitors’ perception and behaviour, b) indicators and methods adapted to CES research and c) identifying and understanding the ecosystem service capacity of an urban green space for attracting visitors of different cultural backgrounds. The results highlight the importance of CES which are provided by urban green spaces for quality of life and human health in cities, and the role of CES in raising environmental awareness and social cohesion and interaction. This paper also provides suggestions for a research framework and conceptual models that can be applied in future studies of CES and provides useful tools for indicators selection and assessment.

AB - This paper discusses the concept of cultural ecosystem services (CES) as a part of a broader framework of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. It is based on literature review and evaluation of results from two research projects of urban green spaces conducted in Russia (three public parks in Moscow) and China (six public parks in Xi’an). Both case studies conducted face-to-face interviews of park visitors and stakeholders (in Xi’an) and utilized questionnaires as well as observational studies of people’s activities within parks and their infrastructure. This paper aims to explore how urban dwellers perceive and value urban green spaces (parks) and what particular CES/benefits can be drawn as being most important. CES of urban green spaces (especially urban parks) are discussed from the following viewpoints: a) visitors’ perception and behaviour, b) indicators and methods adapted to CES research and c) identifying and understanding the ecosystem service capacity of an urban green space for attracting visitors of different cultural backgrounds. The results highlight the importance of CES which are provided by urban green spaces for quality of life and human health in cities, and the role of CES in raising environmental awareness and social cohesion and interaction. This paper also provides suggestions for a research framework and conceptual models that can be applied in future studies of CES and provides useful tools for indicators selection and assessment.

KW - Cultural ecosystem services

KW - Human health and well-being

KW - Landscape perception

KW - Nature-based recreation

KW - Urban green spaces

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105677789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-75285-9_28

DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-75285-9_28

M3 - Conference paper

AN - SCOPUS:85105677789

SN - 978-3-030-75284-2

SN - 978-3-030-75287-3

T3 - Springer Geography

BT - Advanced Technologies for Sustainable Development of Urban Green Infrastructure

A2 - Vasenev, Viacheslav

A2 - Dovletyarova, Elvira

A2 - Valentini, Riccardo

A2 - Cheng, Zhongqi

A2 - Calfapietra, Carlo

A2 - Inostroza, Luis

A2 - Leuchner, Michael

PB - Springer

CY - Switzerland

T2 - Smart and Sustainable Cities 2020

Y2 - 8 July 2020 through 10 July 2020

Advertisement

The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach

• Research Article
• Published: 23 August 2015
• Volume 31 , pages 533–545, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Rachel Darvill 1 , 3 &
• Zoë Lindo 2  

3548 Accesses

78 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

An ecosystem service approach for land-use or conservation decisions normally uses economic or biophysical assessments for valuating nature’s services. In contrast, even though ecosystem services are required for human well-being, the actual use of services by differing stakeholder groups are rarely considered in typical ecosystem service assessments, especially the more intangible, cultural ecosystem services.

The aim of this research was to quantify different uses for 15 cultural and provisioning ecosystem service indicators across seven stakeholder groups in a watershed proposed with large hydroelectric dam development.

We used a large-scale survey to quantify use and frequency of use for ecosystem services.

We demonstrate that different stakeholder groups use ecosystem services differently, both in terms of specific ecosystem service indicators, as well as for frequency of ecosystem service use. Across all stakeholder groups, specific cultural ecosystem services were consistently more important to participants when compared to provisioning ecosystem services, especially aesthetic/scenic values.

Conclusions

This work is of global importance as it highlights the importance of considering cultural ecosystem services (e.g. aesthetic/scenic, sense-of-place values) along with multiple stakeholder groups to identify the trade-offs and synergies during decision-making processes for land-use or conservation initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring socio-cultural values of ecosystem service categories in the Central Alps: the influence of socio-demographic factors and landscape type

Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services to improve protected area management: a multi-method approach applied to catalonia, spain.

Valuation of ecosystem services by stakeholders operating at different levels: insights from the Portuguese cultural montado landscape

Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown G (2008) Social–ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landsc Urban Plan 85:27–39

Article   Google Scholar  

Balvanera P, Siddique I, Dee L, Paquette A, Isbell F, Gonzalez A, Byrnes J, O’Connor MI, Hungate BA, Griffin JN (2014) Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. Bioscience 64:49–57

BC Oil and Gas Commission (2013) Oil and gas land use in the Fort Nelson LRMP area of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.bcogc.ca/node/8233/download

Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143:1307–1316

Brown G (2013) The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv 5:58–68

Brown G, Donovan S (2013) Escaping the national forest planning quagmire: using public participation GIS to assess acceptable national forest use. J For 111:115–125

Google Scholar  

Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv 5:119–133

Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K (2012) Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc Nat Resour 25:633–651

Brown G, Weber D, de Bie K (2014) Assessing the value of public lands using public participation GIS (PPGIS) and social landscape metrics. Appl Geograph 53:77–89

Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97:111–122

Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:e379

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Benjamin S, Hannahs N, Levine J, Norton B, Ruckelshaus M, Russell R, Tam J, Woodside U (2012a) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756

Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012b) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2013) Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol Conserv 166:144–154

Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

Darvill R (2014) Comparing and mapping ecosystem service use across interest groups in the Upper Peace River watershed. M.Sc. Thesis, Royal Roads University

Darvill R, Lindo Z (2015) Quantifying and mapping spatial ecosystem service use locations across stakeholder groups: implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosys Serv 13:153–161

de Chazal J, Quétier F, Lavorel S, Van Doorn A (2008) Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Glob Environ Change 18:508–520

Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol 4:1300–1305

Driver JC, Handly M, Fladmark KR, Nelson DE, Sullivan GM, Preston R (1996) Stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, and culture history of Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia. Arctic 49:265–277

Duniway MC, Herrick JE (2013) Assessing impacts of roads: application of a standard assessment protocol. Rangeland Ecol Manag 66:367–375

Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252

Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbara F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic 18:421–433

Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landscape Ecol 29:1435–1446

Garćia-Nieto AP, Quinta-Soriano C, Garćia-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-López B (2015) Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders’ profiles. Ecosyst Serv 13:141–152

Geijzendorffer IR, Roche PK (2013) Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services? Ecol Indic 33:148–157

Guo Z, Xiao X, Li D (2000) An assessment of ecosystem services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. Ecol Appl 10:925–936

Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448:188–190

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228

Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Indic 29:434–444

Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ Change 28:263–275

Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harploe WS, Reich PB, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schimd B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J, Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M (2011) High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477:199–202

Jones-Walters L, Çil A (2011) Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. J Nature Conserv 19:327–329

Klain SC, Chan KMA (2012) Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol Econ 82:104–113

Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, Szukics M, Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Region Environ Change 11:791–804

Lefcheck JS, Byrnes JEK, Isbell F, Gamfeldt L, Griffin JN, Eisenhauer N, Hensel MJS, Hector A, Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE (2015) Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nature Commun. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7936

Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag 8:17–25

Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystems service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7:e38970

Menzel S, Teng J (2010) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909

Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18(3):44

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Retrieved from http://www.maweb.org/en/Reports.aspx

Müller F, Burkhart B (2012) The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 1:26–30

North Peace Economic Development Commission (2011) Spatial export analysis: assessing the contribution of the northeast and Peace River regions to British Columbia’s exports. Retrieved from http://npedc.ca/sites/npedc.ca/files/document/106/northeast-peace-river-exports-final-urban-futures-4-October-2011.pdf

Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129

Plieninger T, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Byg A, Hartel T, Hurley P, López-Santiago CA, Nagabhatia N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, van der Horst D, Huntsinger L (2015) The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:28–33

Postel S, Carpenter S (1997) Freshwater ecosystem services. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, pp 195–214

Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle I, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303

Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community services for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315

Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turner NJ, Alexander KA (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156

Reyers B, O’Farrell PJ, Cowling RM, Egoh BN, Le Maitre D, Vlok JHJ (2009) Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Soc 14(1):38

Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11:268–273

Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2011) Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Series 434:239–249

Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia 19:269–277

Tallis H, Pagiola S, Zhang W, Shaikh S, Nelson E, Stanton C, Shyamsundar P (2011) Poverty and the distribution of ecosystem services. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–14

Turner NJ, Ignace MB, Ignace R (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecol Appl 10:1275–1287

Valentine KWG, Fladmark KR, Spurling BE (1980) The description, chronology and correlation of buried soils and cultural layers in a terrace section, Peace River Valley, British Columbia. Can J Soil Sci 60:185–197

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang G, Fanh Q, Zhang L, Chen W, Chen Z, Hong H (2010) Valuing the effects of hydropower development on watershed ecosystem services: case studies in the Jiulong River Watershed, Fujian Province, China. Estuar Coast Shelf S 86:363–368

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all survey participants whom reside in the study area of the Upper Peace River Watershed. The comments of two anonymous reviewers were gratefully appreciated. Funding is from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grants Program to ZL (#418241-2012). RD was funded by the NSERC Industrial Postgraduate Scholarships Program, the McLean Foundation, and was supported by Wildsight Golden and Wildsight Regional. Our funding sources had no involvement in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of data, nor in writing of the report or in the decision to publish these results.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2, Canada

Rachel Darvill

Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada

Wildsight Golden, PO Box 663, Golden, BC, V0A1H0, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoë Lindo .

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Darvill, R., Lindo, Z. The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landscape Ecol 31 , 533–545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y

Download citation

Received : 25 January 2015

Accepted : 17 August 2015

Published : 23 August 2015

Issue Date : March 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Conservation
• Cultural ecosystem services
• Ecosystem services
• Hydroelectric
• Land-use planning
• Provisioning ecosystem services
• Stakeholder groups
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Contact & Help

Cultural ecosystem services of Chinese typical landscapes: Rethinking non-material links between people and their landscapes

• Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning

Research output : Thesis › internal PhD, WU

Maintaining and enhancing landscapes’ beneficial contributions to a good quality of life is a major challenge of our time. Landscapes have been and are being changed by processes such as urbanization, economic development and ecological restorations which may sharply change the landscapes, and these changes may affect the ways in which people interact with their landscapes. The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) has been widely adopted by scientists and policymakers as a framework to assess the consequences of landscape interventions, on provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services. CES refer to the benefits people receive from ecosystems in the form of spiritual, religious, recreational, inspirational and educational experiences.

To inform decision-making for sustainable landscape management, an elicitation of people’s concerns associated with their landscapes from socio-cultural perspectives is. However, current approaches of investigating CES have been criticized for voluntary self-exclusion of disciplines, over-valuing tourist-attractive landscapes and neglecting critical social impacts or dynamics. Moreover, due to the limitation of accessible data and applicable methods, rarely does research capture the cultural diversity of CES perceived by local communities and little is known about how CES change under human interventions.

The objective of this research was to investigate the non-material links between people and landscapes by analysing CES from an interdisciplinary perspective, in four typical Chinese landscapes (Dryland agricultural landscape, wetlands, grasslands and coastal wetlands). The research especially addresses the subjective nature of CES perception and the socio-cultural consequences of ecological restoration and conservation projects through their influence on CES perception. The approach incorporates the perceived values that local communities attach to landscapes and overcomes the limited application of non-spatiality explicit CES in broader ecosystem assessment by assessing the perceptions of local communities. Data were gathered by questionnaires survey or semi-structured interviews depending on the local context, as well as participatory mapping and field observations to further diagnose CES appraisal and their spatial distribution.

Synthesizing the findings of this research, there are several conclusions we can draw: 1) In general, Aesthetic services, Recreational services, Education and science, Inspirations, Sense of place, Cultural heritage, Religious and spiritual services and Physical and mental health are all highly perceived in China’s typical landscapes including wetlands, grassland, cultivated lands and coastal wetlands. Social relations were only identified in wetlands and coastal wetlands. 2) Demographic characteristics affect the perception of CES, especially ethnicity, age and education. Although demographic characteristics determine how people perceive CES, no generic rules such as “women tend to perceive more CES than men” or “old people tend to perceive more CES than young people” could be found. 3) Landscape features play a different role in different landscapes, but dominant landscape features are perceived as more important by local communities. The appreciation appeared to be closely linked to the intensity of the interaction and common landscape features are more appreciated than special landscape features. 4) Human interventions, including ecological restoration, conservation and local economic development influence CES perception, by influencing the opportunities for local people to engage with their landscapes, as well as potentially influencing the demographic characteristics of local communities (such as occupation, income and even age composition). Ecological restoration tends to have a positive effect on recreational services but a negative effect on sense of place.

Despite the limitations of data and methods, we showed that considering cultural ecosystem services, local communities, and the way they interact with different landscape features in ecological conservation and landscape management can help to improve conservation effectiveness, and pioneer new co-management arrangements.

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

• 10.18174/526721

Files and links

• Download PDF

Fingerprint

• Communities Social Sciences 100%
• Chinese Social Sciences 100%
• Ecosystem Service Social Sciences 100%
• Demographic Characteristic Psychology 100%
• Sense of Place Social Sciences 33%
• Recreation Business Social Sciences 33%
• Grassland Social Sciences 33%
• Landscape Management Social Sciences 33%

Projects per year

Cultural ecosystem services of Chinese coastal landscapes and their vulnerability to global change

Dou, Y., Bakker, M. & Carsjens, G.

16/01/16 → 8/09/20

Project : PhD

• Chinese 100%
• Communities 100%
• Ecosystem Service 100%
• Demographic Characteristic 100%
• Sense of Place 33%

T1 - Cultural ecosystem services of Chinese typical landscapes

T2 - Rethinking non-material links between people and their landscapes

AU - Dou, Yuehan

N1 - WU thesis 7583 Includes bibliographical references. - With summary in English

PY - 2020/9/8

Y1 - 2020/9/8

N2 - Maintaining and enhancing landscapes’ beneficial contributions to a good quality of life is a major challenge of our time. Landscapes have been and are being changed by processes such as urbanization, economic development and ecological restorations which may sharply change the landscapes, and these changes may affect the ways in which people interact with their landscapes. The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) has been widely adopted by scientists and policymakers as a framework to assess the consequences of landscape interventions, on provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services. CES refer to the benefits people receive from ecosystems in the form of spiritual, religious, recreational, inspirational and educational experiences.To inform decision-making for sustainable landscape management, an elicitation of people’s concerns associated with their landscapes from socio-cultural perspectives is. However, current approaches of investigating CES have been criticized for voluntary self-exclusion of disciplines, over-valuing tourist-attractive landscapes and neglecting critical social impacts or dynamics. Moreover, due to the limitation of accessible data and applicable methods, rarely does research capture the cultural diversity of CES perceived by local communities and little is known about how CES change under human interventions.The objective of this research was to investigate the non-material links between people and landscapes by analysing CES from an interdisciplinary perspective, in four typical Chinese landscapes (Dryland agricultural landscape, wetlands, grasslands and coastal wetlands). The research especially addresses the subjective nature of CES perception and the socio-cultural consequences of ecological restoration and conservation projects through their influence on CES perception. The approach incorporates the perceived values that local communities attach to landscapes and overcomes the limited application of non-spatiality explicit CES in broader ecosystem assessment by assessing the perceptions of local communities. Data were gathered by questionnaires survey or semi-structured interviews depending on the local context, as well as participatory mapping and field observations to further diagnose CES appraisal and their spatial distribution.Synthesizing the findings of this research, there are several conclusions we can draw: 1) In general, Aesthetic services, Recreational services, Education and science, Inspirations, Sense of place, Cultural heritage, Religious and spiritual services and Physical and mental health are all highly perceived in China’s typical landscapes including wetlands, grassland, cultivated lands and coastal wetlands. Social relations were only identified in wetlands and coastal wetlands. 2) Demographic characteristics affect the perception of CES, especially ethnicity, age and education. Although demographic characteristics determine how people perceive CES, no generic rules such as “women tend to perceive more CES than men” or “old people tend to perceive more CES than young people” could be found. 3) Landscape features play a different role in different landscapes, but dominant landscape features are perceived as more important by local communities. The appreciation appeared to be closely linked to the intensity of the interaction and common landscape features are more appreciated than special landscape features. 4) Human interventions, including ecological restoration, conservation and local economic development influence CES perception, by influencing the opportunities for local people to engage with their landscapes, as well as potentially influencing the demographic characteristics of local communities (such as occupation, income and even age composition). Ecological restoration tends to have a positive effect on recreational services but a negative effect on sense of place.Despite the limitations of data and methods, we showed that considering cultural ecosystem services, local communities, and the way they interact with different landscape features in ecological conservation and landscape management can help to improve conservation effectiveness, and pioneer new co-management arrangements.

AB - Maintaining and enhancing landscapes’ beneficial contributions to a good quality of life is a major challenge of our time. Landscapes have been and are being changed by processes such as urbanization, economic development and ecological restorations which may sharply change the landscapes, and these changes may affect the ways in which people interact with their landscapes. The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) has been widely adopted by scientists and policymakers as a framework to assess the consequences of landscape interventions, on provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services. CES refer to the benefits people receive from ecosystems in the form of spiritual, religious, recreational, inspirational and educational experiences.To inform decision-making for sustainable landscape management, an elicitation of people’s concerns associated with their landscapes from socio-cultural perspectives is. However, current approaches of investigating CES have been criticized for voluntary self-exclusion of disciplines, over-valuing tourist-attractive landscapes and neglecting critical social impacts or dynamics. Moreover, due to the limitation of accessible data and applicable methods, rarely does research capture the cultural diversity of CES perceived by local communities and little is known about how CES change under human interventions.The objective of this research was to investigate the non-material links between people and landscapes by analysing CES from an interdisciplinary perspective, in four typical Chinese landscapes (Dryland agricultural landscape, wetlands, grasslands and coastal wetlands). The research especially addresses the subjective nature of CES perception and the socio-cultural consequences of ecological restoration and conservation projects through their influence on CES perception. The approach incorporates the perceived values that local communities attach to landscapes and overcomes the limited application of non-spatiality explicit CES in broader ecosystem assessment by assessing the perceptions of local communities. Data were gathered by questionnaires survey or semi-structured interviews depending on the local context, as well as participatory mapping and field observations to further diagnose CES appraisal and their spatial distribution.Synthesizing the findings of this research, there are several conclusions we can draw: 1) In general, Aesthetic services, Recreational services, Education and science, Inspirations, Sense of place, Cultural heritage, Religious and spiritual services and Physical and mental health are all highly perceived in China’s typical landscapes including wetlands, grassland, cultivated lands and coastal wetlands. Social relations were only identified in wetlands and coastal wetlands. 2) Demographic characteristics affect the perception of CES, especially ethnicity, age and education. Although demographic characteristics determine how people perceive CES, no generic rules such as “women tend to perceive more CES than men” or “old people tend to perceive more CES than young people” could be found. 3) Landscape features play a different role in different landscapes, but dominant landscape features are perceived as more important by local communities. The appreciation appeared to be closely linked to the intensity of the interaction and common landscape features are more appreciated than special landscape features. 4) Human interventions, including ecological restoration, conservation and local economic development influence CES perception, by influencing the opportunities for local people to engage with their landscapes, as well as potentially influencing the demographic characteristics of local communities (such as occupation, income and even age composition). Ecological restoration tends to have a positive effect on recreational services but a negative effect on sense of place.Despite the limitations of data and methods, we showed that considering cultural ecosystem services, local communities, and the way they interact with different landscape features in ecological conservation and landscape management can help to improve conservation effectiveness, and pioneer new co-management arrangements.

UR - https://edepot.wur.nl/526721

U2 - 10.18174/526721

DO - 10.18174/526721

M3 - internal PhD, WU

SN - 9789463954631

PB - Wageningen University

CY - Wageningen

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Evaluating cultural ecosystem services of urban residential green spaces from the perspective of residents' satisfaction with green space.

• 1 Department of Resource and Environmental Science, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou, China
• 2 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China
• 3 Jiyang College, Zhejiang Agricultural & Forestry University, Zhuji, China

Green spaces in residential areas provide multiple cultural ecosystem services (CES), which can contribute to human health by increasing the frequency of residents' visits. We evaluated the CES of residential green spaces by assessing residents' satisfaction with these spaces in the city of Zhengzhou, China. The data reveal the supply capacity of CES in residential green spaces: the results suggest that the level of recreational services is low, whereas the residents' satisfaction with the sense of place and neighborhood relations is high. The lower the frequency of residents who visit a park outside the residential area, the higher the satisfaction with the CES. This suggests that residential green spaces can effectively compensate for the lack of nearby parks owing to their proximity to residents' living quarters. The CES in residential communities increased as vegetation coverage increased, indicating that natural vegetation is a source of CES. In addition, the results showed that residents' perceptions of plant decoration, landscape patterns, and management and infrastructure in particular can effectively improve the level of CES, and this could compensate for CES that have shrunk owing to low green space coverage. This study has practical significance and value for the planning and design of residential green spaces, offering suggestions for urban landscape planners and decision makers. Future research should combine the residents' perception of demand and supply of CES and should clarify the gap and trade-off between them.

Introduction

The ecosystem services of urban green spaces can be defined as services that improve the welfare of urban residents who enjoy green spaces ( 1 ). These services include support, regulation, supply, and cultural ecosystem services (CES) ( 2 ). CES can be provided by green spaces for leisure, tourism, cultural education, aesthetic appreciation, and spiritual needs ( 3 ), all of which account for a large proportion of the ecosystem services in an urban green space ( 4 ). Residents' physical and mental health, especially social belonging, group identity, and social integration, are closely related to environmental services ( 5 ). In recent years, CES have become a trending topic in urban ecosystem services research. However, compared with other types of ecosystem services, research on CES is still in its infancy because its intangible characteristics are difficult to quantify.

Currently, several researchers are exploring various means to study the CES of urban green spaces (6–13). Survey questionnaires, the most commonly used evaluation method, can be direct or indirect. Direct methods includes face-to-face ( 5 , 6 ), email ( 7 , 8 ), or network ( 9 , 10 ) surveys, which evaluate CES according to residents' visit frequency to green spaces, activity types, and perceptions of CES. Indirect methods capture pictures of the target place and then invite residents to give scores to the CES reflected by the different green space landscapes or land use types in the pictures ( 11 , 12 ). Although face-to-face questionnaires are an effective way to evaluate urban ecosystem services, they are also difficult, mainly because of the high cost ( 8 ).

Previous studies have quantified CES in green areas from the residents' perceptions ( 10 , 13 ), producing CES scores for subjective cognition and distinguishing the importance of different CES ( 9 , 14 – 16 ). Moreover, by detecting the population's perspective on need, this research has described the demand for CES. The trade-off between the demand and supply of CES is also a popular research topic that can provide constructive suggestions for urban management and planning. CES supply in urban areas is characterized by the spatial distribution and physical attributes of urban green spaces, such as the amount, size, type, water bodies, facilities, and biodiversity ( 17 ). Residents' satisfaction with their surrounding physical environment is commonly used in studies concerning the well-being of humans ( 18 , 19 ); such parameters objectively portray the status (i.e., positive or negative) of an urban environment from the residents' perspective. Therefore, the evaluation of residents' satisfaction with CES can directly present the supply capacity of CES, which will facilitate any adjustment of the physical characteristics of green spaces. However, few studies have assessed CES from the perspective of residents' satisfaction with green spaces.

Urban residents around the world express a desire for contact with nature and one another, including attractive environments, recreational and play areas, privacy, active roles in the design of the community, and a sense of community identity ( 20 ). A positive correlation exists between human health and urban green spaces ( 21 – 23 ). Urban green spaces refer to natural vegetation in cities, including highly artificial green spaces, such as roadside green parks, residential green space, and natural woodland, which provide a variety of ecosystem services, especially recreational and entertainment areas with CES. Numerous studies have focused on the CES of urban parks, forests, wetlands, and other popular green spaces ( 6 , 24 , 25 ), whereas residential areas have received minimal attention. With the rapid expansion of cities and resultant growth of the urban population, as well as the limited natural vegetation in cities, urban residential areas are becoming gradually dominated by environments that have a high population density and a low green space density. In particular, the green areas of urban residential areas in developing countries are often correlated with real estate prices ( 26 ), which leads directly to the prevalence of urban human settlements and environmental inequity ( 27 ). Scholars have therefore pointed out that the remaining green spaces should make up for the shortage of other green land types, such as roadside and residential green spaces ( 9 ). The distance between urban green spaces (e.g., parks) and residents determines the use frequency of these spaces ( 10 , 28 , 29 ). Residential green spaces are the most common and frequently used land types and have multiple ecosystem functions and services (e.g., biodiversity protection, climatic adjustment, energy saving, and recreation). Therefore, evaluating and exploring the CES characteristics of green areas in high-density residential areas can provide valuable references for urban ecosystem research. As an essential component of urban green spaces, residential green spaces are characterized particularly by high fragmentation and heterogeneity, and huge differences exist among residential districts, which are correlated with various landscape planners, property managers, and residents with different socioeconomic status. Hence, research on CES in urban residential green spaces is difficult to conduct. Many studies have reported that the design of urban landscapes greatly influences the well-being and behavior of users and nearby inhabitants ( 18 , 30 ). CES in high-density residential areas are thus more important than the regulative and supporting services of green spaces. Moreover, magnifying the CES in limited spaces is significant. Investigating and assessing CES in residential areas can further enrich the theories and practices of ecosystem services in urban green spaces.

The influencing factors of CES in urban green spaces are a key research topic, which could provide important and practical information for the planning and management of urban green spaces. The CES in urban green spaces are often related to residents' socioeconomic status (e.g., age, income level, marriage, and profession) ( 14 , 31 – 34 ). Specifically, residents' socioeconomic status is closely related to the subjectivity and intangibility of CES. In addition, urban morphologies and land use may affect CES in large-scale green spaces. For instance, CES in wetlands are better than in other land types ( 9 , 35 ). The quality and quantity of green space landscapes are the important influencing factors of CES ( 36 ), along with green space size ( 37 ), green space accessibility ( 38 ), natural properties of green spaces ( 9 , 14 , 39 ), and species composition and biodiversity ( 40 , 41 ). Studies have found that cleanliness and proper management ( 9 ), as well as infrastructure ( 42 ), contribute greatly to improvement of CES in green spaces. Green spaces in residential areas offer various CES, such as walking, exercise, aesthetic appreciation, neighborhood exchanges, stress-relieving activities, and activities that foster a good mood. Hence, exploring the influencing factors of CES in residential green spaces should provide important practical guidance for landscape planning and the design of green spaces in residential areas.

Previous studies have focused on residents' satisfaction with their living environment ( 10 , 14 , 33 , 42 ). Physical and natural environments exert significant effects on residential satisfaction with the aspects of the natural environment, convenient transportation, environmental health, urban security, the convenience of public facilities, and the sociocultural environment. However, the following questions remain: (1) How does the natural environment affect the human perspective of the residential environment? (2) How satisfied are people with urban green spaces in residential areas? (3) What is the current level of CES in the residential green spaces of high-density communities? (4) Is the vegetation coverage of green spaces a major factor that affects CES? (5) What physical environment of residential green spaces contributes the most to CES? These questions can be answered by evaluation of CES and exploration of the possible determinant factors of CES in residential green spaces.

This study aimed to evaluate the level of CES in green spaces of residential areas by examining the satisfaction of residents and to explore the possible factors affecting the function of residential green spaces (e.g., coverage of green space in the residential areas, social factors, residents' use of green spaces, and management) and the key issues that should be addressed.

Materials and Methods

A total of 40 residential communities in Jinshui District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province, China, comprised the study area. Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan Province, is Henan's largest and most populated city and has an area of 7,446 km 2 and 9.88 million inhabitants as at 2018. Most housing estates in the Jinshui District are relatively mature, containing not only medium vegetation coverage but also housing built before 2010. We assumed that these housing estates would provide a stable and objective level of CES.

Among the 40 major cities in China, Zhengzhou has the highest population density at 15,000 people/km 2 , and the urban land conflict is most prominent. The current urbanization rate of Zhengzhou is 78.2%, ranking 30th in China, and the urbanization process in this city is advancing rapidly. Many real estate resources have been built, but their overall quality is low. In particular, Zhengzhou has low green space coverage and property management with different levels. Gaps between the living environment of Zhengzhou's urban residents and other first-tier cities in China (e.g., Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou) are evident; that is, Zhengzhou lags behind in terms of urbanization and economic development. Evaluating the current supply capacity of the CES of residential areas can provide a scientific reference for improving the living environment and well-being of Zhengzhou residents.

Zhengzhou is divided into six administrative districts and seven provincial direct counties. Jinshui District is one of the most economically developed urban areas in the province, with a total area of 135.3 km 2 and a population of 1.402 million. Jinshui District is the area with the largest population and the most developed economy in Zhengzhou ( Figure 1 ). Compared with the other districts' residential areas, the real estate development area in Jinshui District is the largest, earliest, and most mature. The residential projects developed in the Jinshui District are composed of 50% ordinary housing and almost 40% villas and affordable housing. These patterns are closely related to the comprehensive functions undertaken by the Jinshui District and the spatial development strategy of “Northward and Eastward Expansion.” The dominant type of residential area in the Jinshui District is the reason why this area was chosen for the case study ( 43 ).

Figure 1 . The geographical locations of the selected 40 residential communities.

Jinshui District is also the most active urban expansion area in Zhengzhou. The demand for residential areas from the urban population is increasing, leading to development of high-density residential areas in the region at the expense of green spaces and a reduction of ecosystem services.

Classification and Evaluation Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Green Spaces in Residential Areas

CES can be classified under the non-material benefits provided by ecosystems ( 44 ). CES in urban green spaces are globally categorized into seven types: aesthetic information, recreation, cultural heritage, education, social relations, health, and spiritual/religious values ( 2 , 45 , 46 ). In residential areas, CES could be defined as opportunities for residents to enjoy recreational activities, aesthetic appreciation, social contact with neighbors, and stress-relieving activities and to strengthen the sense of belonging. CES in residential green spaces are divided into five types: recreation, aesthetics, social relations, a sense of belonging, and spiritual demand ( Table 1 ). Recreational services refer to various recreational activities available in the residential green space for the residents, including exercise, walking, dog walking, childcare, and running. Recreational services are evaluated by measuring the frequency and duration of residents' participation and their satisfaction. Aesthetic services are residents' aesthetic perceptions of the overall landscape and plant collocation in residential green spaces, and they are evaluated by the residents' overall satisfaction with the aesthetics of the above two factors. Social relations services provide residents with opportunities to communicate with neighbors and release emotional stress. This service is evaluated through the communication frequency of residents with family members, friends, or neighbors, as well as their satisfaction with neighborhood relations. The evaluation index for the sense of belonging involves residents' satisfaction with respect to how welcoming and nurturing the environment is. Finally, spiritual services involve spiritual experience and spiritual release in residential green spaces. The evaluation indexes for spiritual services include satisfaction with pressure relief features and the quietness of the environment. The quality of urban green spaces is widely evaluated by residents' satisfaction with various functions ( 15 , 19 , 34 ). Therefore, in our study, we applied the satisfaction with CES to identify the level of CES.

Table 1 . Selected CES and their indicators.

Data Collection

A face-to-face survey was used to explore the attitudes of residents in Zhengzhou City toward the different types of CES in the residential green spaces. To ensure the adequacy of the sample size, as well as the authenticity of the questionnaire, we selected 40 sites from the 215 residential communities in Jinshui. These sites, all of which were built after 2000, have at least 600 households. The area of the 40 residential estates ranged from 0.38 to 33 hm 2 , and the vegetation cover ratio was between 13 and 58%. In China, a residential community is the smallest residential unit within a limited space ( Figure 1 ). Each residential community has unique characteristics, such as vegetation coverage, water bodies, public activity spaces, management, infrastructure, vegetation structure, and plant species. Moreover, different communities are relatively independent and closed. Therefore, our study investigated residents' overall satisfaction with different types of CES and the use of green spaces in these sites.

To truly express the impact of green spaces on residents' activities, the data were collected on weekends and official holidays from June 2017 to August 2018. The survey was conducted between 09:00 and 19:00. Our interviewees were mainly residents who are inactive in the green spaces of the community. A household survey was used as a supplement to ensure a sufficient sample size. A total of 4,519 respondents were interviewed, with between 93 and 135 interviewees from each of the 40 communities. First, residents' use of green spaces and satisfaction with different types of CES were collected to evaluate the cultural service levels of the green spaces. Then, the residents' satisfaction with green space management and infrastructure was investigated. Finally, the most satisfying and unsatisfying factors with regard to the residential green spaces were collected, covering management, water services, public activity spaces, green coverage, facilities, plant collocation, and the landscape pattern of the green spaces, to analyze the subjective physical environment of the residential areas by investigating the influencing factors of CES in the residential green spaces. The collected physical environment indicators included real vegetation coverage, the number of public activity spaces, including the existence of water bodies, and the management level. With the use of Google's high-definition imagery, object-oriented automatic classification was applied to extract the real vegetation coverage, which refers to the vertical projection area of vegetation (including leaves, stems, and branches) on the ground as a percentage of the total area of the residential area. The number of public activity spaces (e.g., squares, water bodies, children's play facilities, gazebos, promenades, and places for physical exercise) was obtained during the survey of residents' satisfaction with CES. A total of 40 residential areas were categorized into two groups: residential areas with water body settings and those without. The management of residential green spaces was subjectively divided into three levels: good, medium, and poor.

Data Analysis

All data aggregation and statistical analyses were conducted in Microsoft Excel and SPSS v21. First, we analyzed the descriptive statistics to explore the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, income, education, and the use of residential green spaces) and their ways of using green areas ( Table 2 ). The level of respondents' satisfaction with the various CES in the residential green spaces was scored 1–10, with 1 indicating poor satisfaction and 10 maximum. The overall satisfaction with CES was calculated as an average of satisfaction with seven types of CES, including recreation, the aesthetics of the green space landscapes and plant collocation, neighborhood relations, the sense of place, stress-relieving features, and the quietness of the environment. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship among the various CES in the residential green spaces (Pearson's coefficient) ( Table 3 ). Linear regression analyses were applied to test the possible variables affecting the level of CES. The analysis process was as follows ( 47 ): single-factor results were derived from a univariate linear regression model that included a single variable ( Table 4 ), and significant variables emerging from the single-factor models ( p < 0.05) were then included in subsequent multivariate linear models (i.e., social–economic attributes, green spaces' use, frequency of visits to parks outside the residential area, and the subjective and objective physical environmental variables) ( Table 5 ), which were examined in a series of backward stepwise elimination procedures. The final multivariate linear regression models included all the demographic variables and the successive inclusion of significant variables from the socioeconomic factors, use of green space, and the physical environmental variables selected by the backward stepwise procedures ( p < 0.05).

Table 2 . Respondents' demographic characteristics and use of residential green spaces.

Table 3 . Pearson's correlation coefficient of the different CES.

Table 4 . Relationship between residents' satisfaction on different CES and demographic characteristics, use frequency of green spaces and variables of physical environment with the univariate linear regression analysis.

Table 5 . Effects of residents' socioeconomic attributes, use characteristic and physical environment of green spaces on the total level of CES with the multivariate linear regression analysis.

Ethics Approval

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ethical standards of Henan University of Economics and Law. The protocol was approved by Henan University of Economics and Law. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Social and Economic Characteristics of the Respondents

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents and their mean satisfaction with the CES in their residential green spaces. A total of 4,519 residents in 40 residential areas were interviewed. The percentage of female respondents (50.28%) was slightly higher than that of the male ones (49.72%). Most respondents were within the age range of 30–39 years (24.36%), followed by 21–29 (19.7%), <20 (17.1%), 40–49 (15.17%), >60 (13.6%), and 50–59 years (10.07%). In terms of educational attainment, most of the respondents had an undergraduate degree (28.54%) or had completed junior high school or lower (27.73%), junior college (21.3%), or high school (18.05%). The smallest percentage of respondents had a post-graduate degree (4.38%). As for monthly income, respondents with no income represented the largest percentage (31.6%); followed by those earning 3,000–5,000 RMB (29.25%), 1,000–3,000 RMB (25.5%), and 5,000–10,000 RMB (18.55%); and last those earning above 10,000 RMB (5.1%). Almost half of the respondents had lived in the community area for more than 5 years (40.16%), followed by those residing in the area for 1–3 (24.45%) and 3–5 years (22.54%), and last those living in the community for <1 year (14.68%).

Cultural Ecosystem Services Satisfaction Levels in the Residential Green Spaces

Figure 2 shows the residents' satisfaction level with CES in the residential green spaces, which is based on the respondents' reported usage and satisfaction regarding residential green spaces. Satisfaction with neighborhood relations obtained the highest average score of 7.73 (from a scale of 1 to 10), followed by the sense of belonging (6.81), vegetation landscape aesthetics (6.62), and plant collocation aesthetics (6.56). Satisfaction with recreation services, the quietness of the environment, and stress-relieving features obtained the lowest average scores (6.36, 6.40, and 6.52, respectively). The average overall residents' satisfaction score was 6.71. These results reveal that the residents' satisfaction with various types of CES is relatively similar. The relationship between different CES of green spaces was analyzed using Pearson's correlation ( Table 3 ), which revealed significant positive correlations ( p < 0.01). The main activities of residents in residential green spaces include walking, childcare, and resting ( Figure 2 ), which accounted for 48.24, 33.89, and 27.17% of the activities, respectively. In addition, residents exercise (18.47%), meet and chat with friends (10.56%), walk their dogs (7.34%), participate in cultural activities (e.g., singing, dancing, calligraphy, playing chess or cards, and painting) (5.69%), ride bicycles (4.04%), and drink tea (1.24%).

Figure 2 . Residents' satisfaction score on cultural ecosystem services (CES) and the main recreational activities in the residential green spaces.

Residents frequently visit residential green spaces ( Table 2 ). Approximately 40% of the interviewed residents visit residential green spaces every day, and 30.87% visit at least three times per week. In addition, 11.68% of residents visit residential green spaces at least three times per month, and 18.07% pay occasional visits. However, most residents stay in residential green spaces for a short time: 44.05% stay for nearly half an hour, whereas 37.65% stay for 1–2 h. The proportion of residents staying for a longer time than this is relatively low, with 5.91 and 3.87% staying for 3 and >3 h, respectively. Walking is the major activity of the residents who stay in the residential green spaces for 1–2 h, whereas engaging in social communications and drinking tea are the primary activities of residents who stay for roughly 3 h. Moreover, social communication is the reason why residents stay longer than 3 h.

A statistical analysis of the residents' frequency of communicating with neighbors and friends in the residential green spaces was also performed. The results returned a high overall frequency: 27.95 and 30.71% of the residents chat with others every day and at least three times a week, respectively, and 11.58% chat with other people at least three times every month. Only 17.18 and 12.56% of residents occasionally and hardly chat with neighbors and friends, respectively. In addition, almost half of the respondents pay occasional visits to parks outside the residential areas (43.58%), whereas the lowest proportion visits these parks every day (10.26%). In addition, several people visit parks at least three times a week (24.37%) or at least three times a month (21.79%).

Determinants of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Residential Green Spaces

According to the univariate linear regression model between the socioeconomic characteristics and residents' satisfaction with CES ( Table 4 ), gender, length of stay, and education background showed no significant correlations. Interestingly, the proportion of people in the age group 21–29 years was negatively correlated with multiple CES, whereas that in the age group 50–59 years was positively correlated with the satisfaction of neighborhood relations and sense of belonging, whereas the age group >60 years was significantly correlated with satisfaction with a quiet environment and a sense of belonging. With respect to income level, residents earning 1,000–3,000 RMB were only slightly satisfied with plant collocation aesthetics.

Most residents were dissatisfied with the management, water facilities, and the public activity spaces in the residential green spaces ( Figure 3 ), accounting for 27.53, 19.10, and 14.44% of the total resident population. Moreover, 11.21, 6.89, 5.05, and 4.11% of the residents were not satisfied with the green space coverage, infrastructure, plant collocation, and landscape patterns, respectively. The residents viewed vegetation coverage, public activity spaces, and management as the most important factors that should be considered in the selection of future residential green spaces ( Figure 4 ). The proportions of residents highly concerned with vegetation coverage, public activity spaces, and management were highest, reaching 46.45, 44.29, and 39.73%, respectively. Moreover, those concerned about water facilities, landscape patterns, basic facilities, and plant collocation were 34.62, 33.78, 29.38, and 28.76%, respectively. The basic facilities in residential green spaces include ornamental, artistic, functional, or other equipment for services.

Figure 3 . Proportion of respondents who are satisfied and dissatisfied with the quality of residential green spaces.

Figure 4 . Proportion of respondents who are concerned about the future quality of residential green spaces.

The total level of CES was significantly affected by both the objective and subjective physical environments of the residential green spaces ( Table 4 ). The results from a univariate linear regression showed that the vegetation coverage, management level, number of public activity spaces, and settings of water bodies in residential green spaces were significantly correlated with CES. The proportion of residents who were satisfied with the physical environment, including plant decoration, the coverage of green spaces, the water bodies for public activities, and the landscape patterns of residential green spaces, was significantly correlated with almost all types of CES.

The real vegetation coverage and the proportion of residents who were satisfied with plant decorations and landscape patterns were the only physical environment variables to emerge as significant in the multivariate analysis ( Table 5 ), and their association with the total level of CES was examined after progressive adjustment for different blocks of variables. The proportion of residents who were satisfied with the coverage of green space was removed in the final model; we supposed it could be attributed to the multicollinearity between landscape pattern, plant decoration, and coverage of green spaces. However, the relationship between objective physical environment variables and CES attenuated after adjustment for other variables, indicating that CES was mainly influenced by residents' subjective perception of the physical environment. In addition, the percentage of residents occasionally visiting parks outside the residential areas was also significantly correlated with the level of CES.

Although some studies have suggested that CES in residential green spaces are less valuable than those in urban green spaces, many researchers have stated that the inherent cultural value does not determine the use frequency of residents and that the distance to green spaces is closely related to individual interests ( 6 , 10 , 24 , 34 , 48 , 49 ). Therefore, evaluating CES will further enrich the study of urban ecosystem services.

We defined the satisfaction level with CES <4 as low, 4–7 as medium, and >7 as high. The total satisfaction level with CES in the residential green spaces in Zhengzhou was medium (6.71), whereas residents' satisfaction with different types of CES varied. Satisfaction with the recreational services obtained the lowest score, which can be attributed to the absence of public activity spaces and facilities in most residential green spaces. Satisfaction with the overall landscape aesthetics of residential green spaces and plant collocation was relatively high, signifying the good aesthetic service level in residential green spaces in Zhengzhou. The level of spiritual services was complicated. Satisfaction with neighborhood relations and sense of belonging was the highest, whereas satisfaction with stress-relieving features and quietness was lower than the previous two factors.

Unlike previous studies, our study evaluated CES by examining residents' satisfaction, which was lowest for recreational services and highest for sense of place and neighborhood relations ( Figure 2 ). Previous studies have highlighted that recreational services in urban green spaces have the highest value among all relevant factors ( 10 , 50 ), whereas other studies have discovered that aesthetic features are most important ( 13 , 14 , 51 ). In this study, residents' satisfaction with the different CES in residential green spaces was analyzed to evaluate the supply capacity of CES. Gaps between the supply and demand of CES mostly account for the significant difference between our results and other research. However, identification of CES is mainly based on the subjective perception of residents, which produces great variability. Cultural background, customs, social status, and other socioeconomic factors influence people's perception of CES. In addition, the type of green space involved in different research also has an effect.

Multiple CES originate from the natural attributes of urban green spaces. Significantly positive correlations have commonly been observed among the different types of CES ( 9 , 10 , 13 , 52 ). However, other studies have also discovered significantly negative correlations ( 14 ). Respondents might find it difficult to distinguish between the different types of CES, indicating that various types of CES are concentrated in a specific space ( 13 , 53 ). This finding implies internal correlation and inseparable natural attributes of the various types of CES and further proves the binding effect of different CES, which might be related to the fact that the different types of CES derive from the natural attributes of the ecosystem (i.e., the surrounding natural environment).

In dense urban regions, CES provided by residential green spaces can stimulate the residents' positive attitude toward neighborhood relations, which could compensate for environmental inequality in the urban area that is, the insufficiency of other popular or large green spaces. Urban parks and woods are the most important among the different types of green spaces ( 10 ), providing high social, economic, environmental, and ecological services and values. However, the spatial distribution of these green spaces varies widely in urban areas, thereby contributing to widespread environmental inequities. The relationship between CES and residents' visit frequency to parks outside their communities in our study demonstrated that residential green spaces can effectively compensate for the lack of nearby parks owing to their proximity to residents' living areas. Therefore, the construction, investment, planning, and design of residential green spaces should be paid additional attention.

Socioeconomic Attributes of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Residential Green Spaces

CES in green spaces are stable and can be directly determined by the green landscape. Initially, we suppose the length of living in a community was believed to have caused polarization of residents' subjective evaluation of CES in green spaces. Residents who live in a community for a long time frequently visit residential green spaces, are more familiar with the surrounding environment than other groups, and thus make extensive subjective evaluations. Moreover, such residents are more socially integrated than residents who have been living in the community for a short time ( 42 ). However, residents may eventually become increasingly dissatisfied with the unreasonable characteristics of green spaces, resulting in low satisfaction with the different CES. Conversely, a short time of residence may easily polarize evaluation owing to the freshness of the residential environment. However, no significant correlation between residents' interest in CES and length of residence was observed in the present study, which can be attributed to the stability of the cultural service characteristics of the landscape in the residential green spaces of the 40 residential communities selected. In other words, established CES characteristics are difficult to change once the landscape is formed. Previous studies have reported that the landscapes in urban green spaces play an important role in improving the CES in an ecosystem ( 51 , 54 – 57 ). Given this fact, reasonable and scientific planning and design of the landscape become extremely important for the future. Nassauer et al. stated that the ecologically innovative designs of metropolitan residential landscapes were conducive to the enhancement of long-term cultural sustainability ( 58 ).

Age is the main influence on satisfaction with CES in residential green spaces in this study. The proportion of residents who were 21–29 years old demonstrated significantly negative correlations with recreation, aesthetics, neighborhood relations, stress-relieving features, and sense of belonging ( p < 0.001). This finding reveals that these young residents are the least satisfied with the different CES among the other residents of the community. This phenomenon can be attributed to the low satisfaction of this age group with the management and infrastructure of residential green spaces, which are key factors that determine residents' satisfaction with the CES in green spaces. The age group 21–29 years showed significantly negative correlations with the management and infrastructure of green spaces. Moreover, this age group was mainly composed of single individuals. Compared with married residents, single residents are less satisfied with CES and the surrounding residential environment ( 33 , 58 , 59 ). The respondents in the age group >50 years exhibited positive correlation with satisfaction regarding sense of belonging. Previous studies have reported that, compared with other age groups, older people possess a stronger sense of belonging ( 14 ) and aesthetic appreciation ( 60 ) of the urban environment, which can be attributed to their higher visit frequency to urban green spaces.

The low-income groups in our study demonstrated dissatisfaction with CES. The higher the proportion of residents with a 1,000–3,000 RMB income level, the lower the satisfaction with plant collocation. This result is consistent with the findings of Riechers et al., who discovered that residents with lower incomes had weaker natural cognition, cultural heritage, sense of social belongingness, and satisfaction with urban green spaces than those with higher incomes ( 14 ). Several studies have reported that low-income groups, or those with low socioeconomic status, were more frustrated than high-income individuals ( 28 , 61 ), which may affect their satisfaction with the surrounding green spaces and thus causes negative impacts on their health. Moreover, studies have proven that income level is positively related to interpersonal relationships and the physiological and psychological health of residents ( 28 ). However, the present study determined that the gender and cultural level of residents had no significant impact on satisfaction with CES in residential green spaces.

Cultural Ecosystem Services and Visit Duration in Residential Green Spaces

Urban residents frequently visit residential green spaces; hence, CES in the green spaces within residential areas cannot be ignored. In this study, ~40% of residents visited residential green spaces every day. The visit frequency of residents has been a focus of studies on CES in urban green spaces. The higher the visit frequency, the higher the CES level in the green spaces, which is because visiting green spaces is conducive to physiological and psychological health ( 29 , 42 , 62 , 63 ). Many studies have measured the CES level in green spaces using the visit frequency of urban residents ( 9 , 48 , 53 , 58 , 64 ). This study discovered that the visit frequency of residents showed no significant effect on their satisfaction with CES. This result is consistent with other studies, in which the visit frequency of residents to urban green spaces was discovered to have no significant correlation with the CES value ( 10 ), satisfaction with green spaces ( 6 ), or people's psychological health ( 47 ). Subjective evaluation of residents' demand for CES emphasizes the attributes of green spaces, such as their type, area, distance, and landscape pattern, whereas the evaluation of CES supply is influenced not only by the physical characteristics of green spaces but also by the individual differences of residents, such as age ( 14 ), individual emotional factors ( 6 ), social group ( 65 ), and even survey research methods ( 6 ). In this study, respondents belonging to the age group 21–29 years only occasionally visit green spaces. These respondents showed the lowest satisfaction with the aesthetics of the green spaces, which explains the correlation between visit frequency and CES.

Visit time, especially of 1–2 h of duration, is important in the investigation of the satisfaction with CES in green spaces. The proportion of residents in this study staying in the residential green spaces for this duration was high, and the satisfaction of these residents with the recreational services and stress-relieving features was proportionally high. Previous study have revealed that the visit time of residents and the flow duration of cultural services in the residential green spaces last for 1–2 h ( 6 ), and we also found that the proportion of residents visiting green spaces for 1–2 h was positively correlated with the percentage of residents walking ( Table 4 ). Walking was the main activity of residents staying for this duration, and this activity can greatly improve the physiological and psychological health of residents. However, many roads in residential areas have mixed purposes that include sidewalks, car lanes, facilities for bicycles and electric bicycles, and private car parking lots. In the 10 residential areas with the highest proportion of walking, six areas implement a sidewalk–car lane separated system. Although the remaining four areas adopt a sidewalk–car lane mixed system, large gardens or clustered green spaces hinder walking activities. Therefore, future planning and design of residential green spaces should create landscapes that are appropriate and safe for walking (e.g., designated sidewalks). If the green spaces in the community are limited, then public activity spaces should be enlarged to meet the residents' demands for walking activities.

Effects of Vegetation Coverage in Residential Green Spaces on Cultural Ecosystem Services

CES can be improved by increasing green coverage in residential green spaces. Increasing the area of urban green spaces can effectively optimize the biodiversity and carbon fixation of soils ( 66 ), regulate the urban microclimate, and reduce surface runoff. However, few studies have focused on the relationship between urban vegetation coverage and CES. Given similar demographic conditions, socioeconomic factors, and living conditions, residents have been found to be happier in larger surrounding green spaces and more satisfied with the surrounding environment than in smaller ones ( 67 ). The size of urban green spaces may directly influence their popularity ( 16 ). In this study, both objective and subjective green coverage were significantly related to total satisfaction with CES ( Figures 5 , 6 ). This inference can explain why residents show great concern with the green coverage in residential communities ( Figure 4 ). Natural vegetation is the source of CES that can increase spiritual and aesthetic services. High green coverage can provide many chances for residents to engage with nature and provide space for water bodies, in particular. In addition, public activity spaces are frequently used in residential communities to stimulate the residents' recreational activities: our study found that both the number and diversity of public activity spaces were higher in residential communities with high green coverage than in those with low green coverage.

Figure 5 . Correlation between the total satisfaction on cultural ecosystem services (CES) and the real vegetation coverage.

Figure 6 . Correlation between the total satisfaction on cultural ecosystem services (CES) and the proportion of residents who are satisfied with residential vegetation coverage.

With the increase in urban populations and the growing need for housing, urban residential areas are often dominated by high-density communities at the expense of green space. Hence, increasing CES and improving the living environment of residents in a limited green space are an important issue that must be addressed. We found that both residents' perception of plant decoration and landscape patterns in the residential green spaces could directly increase CES ( Tables 4 , 5 ). Several studies have suggested that vegetation characteristics (e.g., diversity, vegetation types, abundance, color, new species, morphology, density, and configuration structure) ( 7 , 16 , 37 ), spatial structure, and layout of urban green spaces ( 6 ) can influence CES. The close-to-nature attribute of green spaces has been widely accepted as an effective means to improve urban green spaces ( 9 , 16 , 37 ). Moreover, numerous studies have proved that the quality of green spaces is extremely important in improving the physiological and psychological health of residents ( 47 , 68 ). In this study, residential communities with high green coverage and large lawn areas are popular with residents owing to their accessibility and aesthetics. By contrast, dense shrub vegetation is not conducive to the improvement of green space CES owing to non-accessibility and the possibility of mosquito infestation. In Zhengzhou, half of the residential communities with high green coverage are dominated by dense shrub, which may be due to the low management cost, easy pruning, and accessible irrigation. Therefore, we recommend the cultivation of trees is economical and practical in dense urban residential areas. For communities with low green coverage, the lack of CES can be compensated for by increasing the public activity spaces.

Perception of Infrastructure and Management as the Key Influencing Factors of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Green Spaces

Infrastructure in residential green spaces includes public activity spaces (e.g., small squares, gardens, and pavilions), water facilities (e.g., fountains, pools, and artificial lakes), recreation facilities (e.g., fitness and integrated playground equipment), and artistic decorations (e.g., sculptures, chairs, streetlights, and other indicators). The results of this study suggest that satisfaction with the infrastructure in residential green spaces exhibits a significant positive correlation with the overall satisfaction with CES ( Figure 7 ). The positive effects of infrastructure and the convenience of urban green spaces in improving satisfaction with CES have been established by several research studies ( 10 , 13 , 34 , 59 , 69 ). Furthermore, public activity spaces in residential areas, especially green spaces in squares and gardens, can improve satisfaction with CES. These spaces were the second most important consideration of residents when selecting communities to live in, next to green spaces coverage. Moreover, the water facilities in residential green spaces, which is the fourth most important resident concern, can improve satisfaction with CES in green spaces ( Figure 4 ). Many studies have established the crucial role of wetlands (artificial or natural) in urban green spaces in improving CES ( 35 , 49 , 70 – 72 ). Plieninger observed that urban residents in Eastern Germany frequently visit water bodies ( 13 ) and often give a high evaluation ( 51 ). In summary, urban residents highly prefer wetland and water bodies. However, the water facilities in many communities in Zhengzhou are wasted or improperly managed. Therefore, residential green spaces should receive efforts to strengthen the layout and management of water landscapes and water facilities in the future.

Figure 7 . Correlation between the satisfaction on cultural ecosystem services (CES) and satisfaction on management and infrastructure.

Management of residential green spaces could improve CES greatly in residential green spaces ( Figure 7 ). Many studies have proved that satisfaction with urban residential spaces is closely related to a graceful visual landscape ( 34 , 37 ). However, the management of green spaces, such as irrigation, clipping, cleaning, and tidying, can directly influence the aesthetic characteristics of green spaces. These characteristics ( Figure 8 ) include (1) cleanliness, which is the top concern of residents ( 9 ) and can directly influence the satisfaction with the residential environment ( 59 ); (2) standardization, which involves preventing the use of green spaces for other purposes, such as hanging out clothes and providing parking lots for bicycles, electric bicycles, and even motor vehicles; and (3) uneven heights of vegetation, drought events, and weed spreading, which may be present in residential green spaces owing to inadequate daily management (e.g., lack of clipping, irrigating, and weeding). Management was the third concern of residents in residential green spaces ( Figure 4 ): therefore, additional attention and effort should be dedicated to performing regular high-quality maintenance and management of residential green spaces in the future.

Figure 8 . Differences in the management level between the residential communities with the lowest (above) and highest (below) satisfaction on the cultural ecosystem services (CES) in green spaces.

Limitations

Our study has several major limitations. This study only selected five types of CES, namely, leisure and entertainment services, spiritual services, aesthetic services, sense of belonging, and social relations. Other CES (e.g., landscape identity, education, history, religion, and heritage values), which are popularly involved in other research, were not included in our study. The main reason for this exclusion was that the residential areas selected in this study were built only after 2000. We hypothesized that the values of cultural heritage, education, history, and religion would be relatively weak. All 40 residential areas are located in the populated areas of Zhengzhou, which are mainly characterized by dense buildings, as determined by the socioeconomic status levels of developing countries. Future studies should explore the influences of spatial infrastructure arrangements in green spaces on CES, including vegetation type, quantity and area of public activity spaces, type and amount of infrastructure, form and area of water landscapes, and other objective factors. Moreover, landscape and species composition and structure (landscape and vegetation) should also be investigated because such factors could influence residents' contribution to CES in the residential green spaces. The answers to these issues could provide direct scientific references for the landscape planning and design of residential green spaces. Moreover, we chose 40 residential areas within neighboring cells to ensure a sufficient sample size (number of families > 600) and minimize the impact of the surrounding environment on the CES satisfaction of residential green spaces. However, these residential areas include high-rise buildings (>18 floors), mid-rise buildings (7–18 floors), and low-rise buildings (4–6 floors) and are characterized by various types and styles of buildings. These conditions may have affected residents' direct perception and satisfaction with green space landscapes. We suggest that future research focuses on residential areas with consistent socioeconomic levels, including housing prices, architectural styles, green space coverage, management levels, geographical locations, and surrounding green space distribution, to explore the rational arrangement of the green space landscape pattern in a limited space. Such selection will further improve the green space ecosystem services and human well-being and provide a direct theoretical basis for the spatial planning and design of urban green space landscapes.

Conclusions

Exploring CES in residential green spaces could greatly enrich urban ecosystem services research. The most important research is to clarify the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being. In this study, we found that walking, childcare, and resting were the most common recreational activities of residents. The results of the analysis show that satisfaction with recreational services in the residential green spaces was the lowest (6.26, 1–10), which can be attributed to the absence of public activity spaces. In contrast, satisfaction with neighborhood relations and the sense of place was the highest at 7.73 and 6.81, respectively, followed by aesthetic services (6.59), indicating that the spiritual and aesthetic services in the residential green spaces are excellent. Age and income status can influence residents' satisfaction with CES: young individuals (21–29 years old) expressed the lowest satisfaction with residential green spaces than did other groups, which might be influenced by their single status and their low satisfaction with the infrastructure in the residential environment.

Satisfaction with CES significantly increased with vegetation coverage, indicating that green vegetation is a source of high CES satisfaction. Compared with other factors, high green coverage is mostly preferred by residents. In addition, public activity spaces, management, infrastructure, and water landscapes are the other key influencing factors of CES satisfaction. Therefore, to maximize CES in residential green spaces, we suggest that public activity spaces should be increased and the daily management of residential areas should be improved when green coverage is limited. Moreover, basic facilities, particularly water landscapes, should be encouraged during the planning and design of residential green spaces. These steps are more effective and realistic in improving the CES of green spaces within areas of dense building density than increasing green space areas.

We suggest that the subjective indicators perceived by residents contribute more to CES than the objective physical environment of residential green spaces. The main reason is that CES refers to human well-being provided by green spaces, which implies residents' demand for green spaces. Future research on the relationship between green spaces' characteristics and CES should consider the physical environment (e.g., biodiversity, green space coverage, species matching, and landscape characteristics) preferred by residents, especially the gaps between the actual and the preferred characteristics favored by residents. For example, understanding the socioeconomic attributes of CES could clarify the demand characteristics of different social groups for urban green space. We suggest future research should pay more attention to different social groups' diverse demands of CES, for example, the use characteristics of the different types of urban green spaces and the diverse landscapes of the same green type. Such consideration will help ameliorate the existing planning and management of urban green spaces, maximize CES, and then protect human health. We suggest the future evaluation of urban green spaces should combine the residents' perception of demand and supply of CES, clarify the gap and trade-off between them, and then determine the key elements that affect the demand of residents, which is the fundamental purpose of urban ecosystem service research. We suggest that the answers to the above research questions will help provide constructive suggestions for building a multifunctional urban green space landscape, which is a path to urban environmental equality and a sustainable urban landscape.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

This work was supported by the Chinese National Natural Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 31600375, 31872688, and 41901238 and the Key Scientific and Technological Project of Henan Province (192102310003).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Tingzhen Zhang, Yizhen Hong, and other students from the Department of Resource and Environmental Science, Henan University of Economics and Law, for their contributions to the survey during 2017–2018. We are also grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments that helped improve this manuscript.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00226/full#supplementary-material

1. Bolund P, Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ . (1999) 29:293–301. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends . Washington, DC: Island Press (2005).

Google Scholar

3. Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ . (2013) 86:235–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019

4. Wu JG. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol. (2013) 28:999–1023. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9

5. Schmidt K, Walz A, Martín-López B, Sachse R. Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosyst Serv. (2017) 26:270–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Zwierzchowska I, Hof A, Iojă IC, Mueller C, Ponizy L, Breuste J, et al. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban For Urban Green. (2018) 30:84–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.017

7. Brycea R, Irvine KN, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO. Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. (2016) 21:258–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015

8. Willcock S, Camp BJ, Peh KSH. A comparison of cultural ecosystem service survey methods within South England. Ecosyst Serv. (2017) 26:445–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.012

9. Bertram C, Rehdanz K. Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst Serv. (2015) 12:187–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.011

10. Ko H, Son Y. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: a case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecol Indic . (2018) 91:299–306. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006

11. Wartmann FM, Purves RS. Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landsc Urban Plan . (2018) 175:169–83. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.021

12. López-Santiago CA, Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Plieninger T, Martín EG, González JA. Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol Econ. (2014) 19:27. doi: 10.5751/ES-06401-190227

13. Plieninger T, Sebastian D, Oteros-Rozas S, Bieling C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy. (2013) 33:118–29. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013

14. Riechers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T. Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Landsc Urban Plan . (2018) 75:161–8. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.017

15. Petrosillo I, Zurlinia G, Corlianò ME, Zaccarellia N, Dadamoa M. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landsc Urban Plan. (2007) 79:29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.017

16. Jim CY, Chen WY. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ Manage. (2006) 38:338–49. doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0166-6

17. Hegetschweilera KT, de Vries S, Arnberger A, Bell S, Brennan M, Siter N, et al. Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: a review of European studies. Urban For Urban Green . (2017) 21:48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.002

18. Lee SW, Ellis CD, Kweon BS, Hong SK. Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landsc Urban Plan . (2008) 85:60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.013

19. Wu WJ, Wang M, Zhu N, Zhang W, Sun H. Residential satisfaction about urban greenness: heterogeneous effects across social and spatial gradients. Urban For Urban Green . (2019) 38:133–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.011

20. Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R. People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc Urban Plan . (2008) 84:7–19. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009

21. McFarlane RA, Horwitz P, Arabena K, Capon A, Jenkkins AP, Jupiter S, et al. Ecosystem services for human health in Oceania. Ecosyst Serv . (2019) 39:100976. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100976

22. Jennings V, Larson L, Yun J. Advancing sustainability through urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2016) 13:196. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13020196

23. Ekkel ED, de Vries S. Nearby green space and human health: evaluating accessibility metrics. Landsc Urban Plan. (2017) 157:214–20. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008

24. Fischer LK, Botzat A, Honold J, Cvejić R, Brinkmeyer D, Delshammar T, et al. Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosyst Serv. (2018) 31:455–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.015

25. Hutcheson W, Hoagland P, Jin D. Valuing environmental education as a cultural ecosystem service at Hudson River Park. Ecosyst Serv . (2018) 31:387–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.005

26. Kong F, Yin H, Nakagoshi N. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: a case study in Jinan City, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. (2007) 79:240–52. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.013

27. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough'. Landsc Urban Plan . (2014) 125:234–44. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

28. Dong HW, Qin B. Exploring the link between neighborhood environment and mental wellbeing: a case study in Beijing, China. Landsc Urban Plan. (2017) 164:71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.005

29. Ma B, Zhou T, Lei S, Wen Y, Htun TT. Effects of urban green spaces on residents' well-being. Environ Dev Sustain. (2018) 21:2793–809. doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0161-8

30. Kulczyk S, Wozniak E, Derek M. Landscape, facilities and visitors: an integrated model of recreational ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv . (2018) 31:491–501. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.016

31. Suckall N, Fraser EGE, Cooper T, Quinn C. Visitor perceptions of rural landscapes: a case study in the Peak District National Park, England. Environ Manage . (2009) 90:1195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.06.003

32. Bullock C, Joyce D, Collier M. An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being. Ecosyst Serv . (2018) 31:142–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.020

33. Ma J, Dong G, Chen Y, Zhang W. Does satisfactory neighbourhood environment lead to a satisfying life? An investigation of the association between neighbourhood environment and life satisfaction in Beijing. Cities. (2018) 74:229–39. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.12.008

34. Hasani M, Sakieh Y, Khammar S. Measuring satisfaction: analyzing the relationships between sociocultural variables and functionality of urban recreational parks. Environ Dev Sustain. (2017) 19:2577–94. doi: 10.1007/s10668-016-9856-x

35. Pedersen E, Weisner SEB, Johansson M. Wetland areas' direct contributions to residents' well-being entitle them to high cultural ecosystem values. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 646:1315–26. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.236

36. Swetnam RD, Harrison-Curran SK, Smith GR. Quantifying visual landscape quality in rural Wales: a GIS-enabled method for extensive monitoring of a valued cultural ecosystem service. Ecosyst Serv. (2017) 26:451–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.004

37. Yao YM, Zhu X, Xu Y, Yang H, Wu X, Li Y, et al. Assessing the visual quality of green landscaping in rural residential areas: the case of Changzhou, China. Environ Monitor Assess. (2012) 184:951–67. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2012-z

38. Stessens P, Khan AZ, Huysmans M, Canters F. Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: a GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels. Ecosyst Serv. (2017) 28:328–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.016

39. Stålhammar S, Pedersen E. Recreational cultural ecosystem services: how do people describe the value? Ecosyst Serv . (2017) 26:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010

40. Southon GE, Jorgensen A, Dunnett N, Hoyle H, Evans KL. Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landsc Urban Plan . (2018) 172:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.002

41. Palliwodaa J, Kowarikab I, Lippeab MVD. Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: the species level matters. Landsc Urban Plan . (2017) 157:394–406. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003

42. Zhan DS, Kwan MP, Zhang W, Fan J, Yu J, Dang Y. Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities. (2018) 79:92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.025

43. Qian Bo W, Changhong M, Guowei W. Study on evolution processand drive mechanism of urban residential space in Zhengzhou City. Areal Res Dev. (2008) 27:36–41.

44. Chan KMA, Goldstein J, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Kikiloi K, Naidoo R, et al. Cultural services and non-use values. In: Kareiva HT, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S, editors. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services . London: Oxford University Press (2011). p. 206–28.

45. Finlayson CM. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) , Dordrecht: Springer. (2016).

46. La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L. Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecol Indic. (2016) 61:74–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028

47. Francis J, Wood LJ, Knuiman M, Giles-Corti B. Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc Sci Med. (2012) 74:1570–7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.032

48. Schirpke U, Scolozzi R, Da Re R, Masiero M, Marino D, Pellegrino D. Recreational ecosystem services in protected areas: a survey of visitors to Natura 2000 sites in Italy. J Outdoor Recreat Tour. (2018) 21:39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2018.01.003

49. Ridding LE, Redhead JW, Oliver TH, Schmucki R, McGinlay J, Graves AR, et al. The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services. Environ Manage. (2018) 206:1145–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.066

50. Pueffel C, Haase D, Priess JA. Mapping ecosystem services on brownfields in Leipzig, Germany. Ecosyst Serv. (2018) 30:73–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.011

51. Pastur GM, Peri PL, Lencinas MV, Llorente MG, Peri PL, Martín-López B. Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landsc Ecol . (2016) 31:383–99. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0254-9

52. Rall E, Bieling C, Zytynska S, Haase D. Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecol Indic . (2017) 77:80–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.001

53. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2012) 109:8812–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114773109

54. Wu JG. Thirty years of landscape ecology (1987–2017): retrospects and prospects. Landsc Ecol. (2017) 32:2225–39. doi: 10.1007/s10980-017-0594-8

55. Rescia AJ, Willaarts BA, Schmitz MF, Aguilera PA. Changes in land uses and management in two nature reserves in Spain: evaluating the social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. (2010) 98:26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.007

56. Musacchio LR. Cultivating deep care: integrating landscape ecological research into the cultural dimension of ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol. (2013) 28:1025–38. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9907-8

57. Graves RA, Pearson SM, Turner MG. Landscape dynamics of floral resources affect the supply of a biodiversity-dependent cultural ecosystem service. Landsc Ecol. (2017) 32:415–28. doi: 10.1007/s10980-016-0452-0

58. Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Dayrell E. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan. (2009) 92:282–92. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010

59. Ibem EO, Opoko PA, Aduwo EB. Satisfaction with neighbourhood environments in public housing: evidence from Ogun State, Nigeria. Soc Indic Res. (2017) 130:733–57. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-1188-y

60. Lauf S, Haase D, Kleinschmit B. Linkages between ecosystem services provisioning, urban growth and shrinkage–a modeling approach assessing ecosystem service trade-offs. Ecol Indic. (2014) 42:73–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.028

61. Van Berkel DB, Tabizian P, Dorning MA, Smart L, Newcomb D, Mehaffey M, et al. Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR. Ecosyst Serv . (2018) 31:326–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.022

62. Duan J, Wang Y, Fan C, Xia B, de Groot R. Perception of urban environmental risks and the effects of Urban Green Infrastructures (UGIs) on human well-being in four public green spaces of Guangzhou, China. Environ Manage. (2018) 62:500–17. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1068-8

63. van Den BAE, Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc Sci Med. (2010) 70:1203–10. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.002

64. Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K. Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc Nat Res . (2012) 25:633–51. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.621511

65. Breuste J, Qureshi S, Li JX. Scaling down the ecosystem services at local level for urban parks of three megacities. Hercynia. (2013) 46:1–20.

66. Grafius DR, Corstanje R, Harris JA. Linking ecosystem services, urban form and green space configuration using multivariate landscape metric analysis. Landsc Ecol. (2018) 33:557–73. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0618-z

67. Van Herzele A, de Vries S. Linking green space to health: a comparative study of two urban neighbourhoods in Ghent, Belgium. Popul Environ. (2012) 34:171–93. doi: 10.1007/s11111-011-0153-1

68. Feng XQ, Astell-Burt T. Residential green space quantity and quality and symptoms of psychological distress: a 15-year longitudinal study of 3897 women in postpartum. BMC Psychiatry. (2018) 18:348. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1926-1

69. Kazmierczak A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc Urban Plan . (2013) 109:31–44. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007

70. Ondiek RA, Kitaka N, Oduor SO. Assessment of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services in natural wetlands and rice fields in Kano floodplain, Kenya. Ecosyst Serv . (2016) 21:166–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.008

71. Larson KL, Nelson KC, Samples SR, Hall SJ, Bettez N, Cavender-Bares J, et al. Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst. (2016) 19:95–113. doi: 10.1007/s11252-015-0477-1

72. Baraua AS, Stringerb LC. Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in Malaysia's Pulau Kukup Ramsar site. Ecosyst Serv . (2015) 16:167–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.021

Keywords: cultural ecosystem services, residential districts, green space, satisfaction, physical environment

Citation: Mao Q, Wang L, Guo Q, Li Y, Liu M and Xu G (2020) Evaluating Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Residential Green Spaces From the Perspective of Residents' Satisfaction With Green Space. Front. Public Health 8:226. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00226

Received: 12 December 2019; Accepted: 14 May 2020; Published: 17 July 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Mao, Wang, Guo, Li, Liu and Xu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Guanghua Xu, guanghua0418@163.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 21 August 2024

What will it take to open South Korean research to the world?

• Raphael Rashid 0

Raphael Rashid is a freelance journalist based in Seoul.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Yaowu Liu, Stefano Reale and Lei Fang at the Center for Quantum Nanoscience, where local and international researcher numbers are split. Credit: Caroline Hommel, QNS

At the Center for Quantum Nanoscience (QNS), nestled in the hilly campus of Seoul’s Ewha Womans University, director of operations, Michelle Randall, shows off the facilities. “This is where we isolate our scanning tunnelling microscopes (STM) from any vibrations,” she says, pointing to an 80-tonne concrete damper, a mechanism that reduces interfering movements to near zero. Researchers at QNS are using STMs to image and manipulate individual atoms and molecules, chasing breakthroughs akin to last year’s assembly of a device made from single atoms that allows multiple qubits — the fundamental units of quantum information — to be controlled simultaneously ( Y. Wang et al. Science 382 , 87–92; 2023 ). The work, done by QNS in collaboration with colleagues in Japan, Spain and the United States, could have applications in quantum computing, sensing and communication.

What gives QNS its edge, says Randall, is the diversity of teams that populate its labs. “Our composition is 50:50, South Korean and international, and we are an English-speaking workplace as a result,” she says. “We invest heavily in building relationships with our domestic scientific community and worldwide,” she adds, pointing to one room with four women — two South Koreans, one French, and one Iranian — exemplifying the collaborative spirit.

Nature Index 2024 South Korea

The diversity of the QNS team offers a glimpse of what research looks like in a country that is betting big on international collaboration. For 2024, South Korea has more than tripled its budget for global research and development (R&D) collaboration, committing to 1.8 trillion won (US$1.3 billion), up from 2023’s 500 billion won. The investment, which represents an increase from 1.6% to 6.8% of the government’s overall R&D budget, could see a shift away from using metrics such as university rankings, quantified research outputs and international student and faculty recruitment in favour of boosting ties with leading overseas research institutions in strategic areas. “There’s a huge amount of money that has suddenly been assigned to international research. With this comes many opportunities,” says Meeyoung Cha, scientific director of the Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy, in Bochum, Germany, who holds joint positions at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) and the Korean Institute for Basic Science, in Daejeon.

The budget increase is part of the Korean Ministry of Science and ICT’s (MSIT) wider R&D Innovation Plan, announced in November 2023 . It includes a new Global R&D Strategy Map, which will guide tailored collaboration strategies with specific countries based on their strengths in 12 critical and emerging technologies, such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum science. Industry strengths in 17 technologies related to achieving carbon neutrality and mitigating climate change will also be considered. In addition, MSIT has amended laws to allow overseas research institutions to directly participate in state R&D projects and aims to develop Global R&D Flagship Projects in key areas that will receive prioritized allocation of government funds.

Such moves are designed to refocus South Korea’s R&D, which has become stagnant over the past decade, according to MSIT, despite the country being the world’s second highest spender on R&D as a percentage of GDP, after Israel. In 2023, South Korea’s legislative national assembly approved a 14.7% cut to the overall 2024 R&D budget, from 31.1 trillion won in 2023. The cuts include shifting some more general funds for universities to a separate budget.

Foreign students line up to submit their applications at a job fair in Busan, South Korea. Credit: YONHAP/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

“It seems that the term ‘budget cut’ really means redistributing money to more applied projects and international research initiatives,” says computational biologist, Martin Steinegger, based at Seoul National University. Steinegger experienced a 15–25% reduction in existing grants, paid annually from the National Research Foundation of Korea, the country’s main funding agency. This forced him to reduce conference travel for his students and use older hardware for research. “I have effectively less money than I did last year, but I can apply to many new things, it seems,” says Steinegger.

Changes could come next year, as South Korea continues to adjust its spending in science. In June, the government proposed a record 24.8 trillion won for R&D focused on basic and applied scientific research in 2025 , which is up from 2024’s 21.9 trillion won, although further details were not available at the time of writing.

Global collaborator

Off the back of such policy shifts, becoming the first Asian country to join the European Union’s Horizon Europe programme, the world’s largest research-funding scheme, is a major win for South Korea. Announced in March, the new partnership will drive collaborations between South Korean and European researchers in areas such as quantum technologies, semiconductors and next-generation wireless networks. South Korea is also forging bilateral cooperation agreements across Europe, such as with Denmark on clean-energy technologies and Germany on basic sciences, including the launch of a joint centre with the Max Planck Society, Germany’s flagship basic-research organization, at Yonsei University in Seoul.

Taking on more joint projects with Europe could help to diversify South Korea’s internationally collaborative outputs in the Nature Index. The United States, which has deep historic ties with South Korea dating back to the Korean War in the 1950s, is the country’s most important research partner in natural-sciences output, with a collaborative Share — a measure of joint contribution to research tracked by the Index — of 639.94 in 2023. China forms South Korea’s second-strongest partnership, with a collaborative Share of 300.81, followed by Japan, at 114.88 (see ‘Research ties’).

The number of natural-sciences articles in the Nature Index that have been co-authored by China- and South Korea-based researchers has grown considerably in recent years, up 222% between 2015 and 2023, compared with US–South Korean output, which dropped by 4% over the same period. But South Korean researchers report that collaborations with China are becoming more difficult, particularly in technology areas. According to data from South Korea’s national police agency, of the 78 cases of industrial technology leaks recorded between 2018 and mid-2023, 51 involved leaks to places or people in China. There is now also more oversight of collaborations with China than with other major research partners. “Researchers occasionally receive requests from their institutions or the government asking who is collaborating with China, says Cha. “They are aware that any collaboration may be monitored, creating a sense of censorship.”

In order to minimize its exposure to any supply-chain disruptions or political risks associated with ongoing US–China tensions, South Korea must look farther afield when establishing research links, says Lee Myung-hwa, who studies policy and innovation at the Science and Technology Policy Institute think tank, in Sejong. “The key is building trust with collaboration partners, which needs to be long-term, stable and maintained without being swayed by policy directions,” she says.

Cha highlights southeast Asia, a region that has long been of strategic and diplomatic interest to South Korea, as a place with untapped potential for joint innovation projects. “For instance, in Indonesia, there’s no governmental institution in charge of AI,” she says, which could open up the possibility of future collaborations around ethical and strategic development of AI technologies.

In 2023, the South Korean government committed to boosting cooperation with southeast Asia in areas including cybersecurity and communications technologies, and with individual nations, such as Vietnam, to help advance digital transition and clean-energy sectors. “Huge collaboration could happen if we work together,” says Cha.

Domestic challenges

With more than 10 million visitors moving between southeast Asian nations and South Korea each year, the region could also be important to South Korea in dealing with its dual demographic challenge: attracting overseas scientists in a country that is traditionally conservative towards immigration, and retaining homegrown talent. Solving these problems is paramount, as South Korea contends with the world’s lowest birthrate, driven by factors such as the rising costs of housing, education and childcare, a highly competitive and demanding work culture, and gender inequality issues, including the biggest gender pay gap among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members. Student numbers are also in steep decline, which is putting some universities at risk of closure. An analysis of 195 Korean universities published by Seoul-based institute Jongro Academy in March showed that 51 had failed to fill their enrolment quotas for 2024. Of those, 43 were located outside the Seoul metropolitan area, accounting for 98% of the total unfilled seats.

To boost numbers, the South Korean Ministry of Education has announced new initiatives, including annual financial support for master’s, doctoral and postdoctoral researchers. These measures, which are part of the overall R&D budget, aim to incentivize mostly local students to continue their careers in research. For foreign students, the ministry wants to attract 300,000 of them by 2027 through its ‘Study Korea 300K Project’. Students will be targeted at events and language centres abroad and science graduates may be offered an easier pathway to permanent residency and South Korean citizenship. Language proficiency requirements for admission will also be reduced. Scholarship programmes are being expanded, including the government-funded Global Korea Scholarship invitation programme, which will increase recipient numbers from 4,543 in 2022 to 6,000 by 2027. The ministry has identified India and Pakistan in particular as important sources of science and engineering talent.

It’s unclear whether efforts to attract international students will bring more of a spotlight to the challenges faced by those who are already in the country. Lewis Nkenyereye, who studies computer and information security at Sejong University in Seoul, expresses concern for the many foreign students who work part-time to satisfy the minimum bank balance requirements of their enrolments. Language barriers and administrative hurdles have led to some of them being deported for not having adequate permits, says Nkenyereye, who is originally from Burundi. “The government is aware that most foreign students have part-time jobs and should adapt its policies to better accommodate their needs,” he says.

Religious and cultural differences also pose difficulties. Muaz Razaq, a student, who left Pakistan to pursue his PhD in computer science at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, is involved in a small mosque-reconstruction project next to his university that has ignited strong opposition from segments of the local community. Razaq says he’s heard many stories from other Muslim students across South Korea who describe being taunted by their peers over food choices and who lack designated spaces for practices such as ablution before prayers.

Challenging conditions for foreign students might be contributing to South Korea’s low levels of retention after graduation. According to a 2022 report by the Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training in Seoul, the number of foreign students that are earning doctorates in South Korea quadrupled in the period 2012 to 2021. But the proportion of foreign students who returned to their home country after graduation has consistently increased, from 40.9% in 2016 to 62.0% in 2021.

Source: Nature Index

It is hoped that government-funded initiatives such as the Brain Pool programme, which gives doctoral researchers access to up to 300 million won annually for three years, and Brain Pool Plus, which offers outstanding researchers with expertise in core technology fields up to 600 million won annually for up to ten years, can help to attract and retain foreign talent. MSIT also plans to introduce support programmes to help new arrivals settle in and build networks.

Recent updates to visa rules for foreign researchers and students could make it easier for universities to attract overseas talent. In July, the Korean Ministry of Justice, which oversees immigration, greatly expanded the number of universities that are eligible to recruit foreign postgraduate and undergraduate students on D-2-5 research study visas and waived the three-year work-experience requirement for international master’s and PhD holders to obtain E-3 research visas.

New opportunities

The relatively low levels of English used at South Korean universities and research institutions is a major hurdle in the country’s drive towards internationalization. The number of university courses taught in English has increased in recent years, but Korean remains the primary language of instruction at many institutions. This affects foreign researchers at all career stages because they often require help from others or full-time assistance to navigate the environment, particularly in administrative matters, says Steinegger, who can manage daily life in Korean, but needs staff to help him with paperwork.

Seoul Robotics, a company that develops AI-powered software for autonomous driving and traffic management, has mandated an English-speaking work environment to attract international talent. Such a culture is unusual in South Korea; although many companies have English-speaking requirements, these are often not enforced, says Evan Thomas, business development manager at Seoul Robotics. “The ability to communicate in English without constant translation and cultural interpretation has been a significant advantage compared to more traditional South Korean companies,” he says.

Cultural attitudes towards foreigners can also hinder long-term retention, says Thomas. “Many South Koreans view foreigners as temporary visitors rather than potential long-term residents, discouraging them from settling in,” he says. A 2023 survey by the Korea Institute of Public Administration, a government-sponsored research institute in Seoul, seems to back this up, reporting that less than half of the respondents say they accept foreign nationals as members of South Korean society.

Given the shortages of local staff that are being recorded in strategic industries such as semiconductors and AI, it’s a problem that South Korea needs to address. Another report, by the University of Science and Technology in Daejon and the Korea Industrial Technology Association in Seoul, found that just 24% of 300 South Korean companies surveyed had foreign staff. Many cited a lack of information about foreign students as the reason, suggesting that there is a disconnect between academia and industry regarding graduate careers.

Hong Bui, a student from Vietnam, accepted a postdoctoral position at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich in April, after completing her PhD at QNS. Bui cites the limited permanent career opportunities that are available to international researchers in Seoul as one of her reasons for wanting to leave, despite having a positive experience in QNS’s internationally focused environment. “South Korean companies often value overseas experience more than domestic experience, and many workplaces require Korean language proficiency,” she says.

As South Korea devotes record levels of resources to building ties with overseas institutions and attracting foreign researchers and students, its leaders hope that stronger research performance and innovation prowess will follow. But the success of such efforts hinges on the country’s ability to foster a more diverse research ecosystem, with fewer cultural challenges for foreigners to contend with.

“If the barriers are lowered and support is provided for overseas researchers to utilize South Korea’s leading research facilities and equipment, I think South Korea will become an attractive country for conducting research activities,” says Lee.

Nature 632 , S2-S5 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02685-y

This article is part of Nature Index 2024 South Korea , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content. For more information about Nature Index, see the homepage .

Related Articles

Partner content: New generative AI tools to boost biomedical research

Partner content: Joining forces to combat diseases with syndromic qPCR testing

Partner content: Mastering matter to empower diverse research fields

Partner content: Enhancing cell counting for cell and gene therapy

Partner content: Leading a transformation in global healthcare

Partner content: Green energy research is surging – and South Korea is a leading light

• Institutions
• Research management

How South Korea can support female research leaders

Nature Index 21 AUG 24

Government plans often go astray

News & Views 20 AUG 24

UK’s new science minister on budget battles, Brexit and AI leadership

News 19 AUG 24

Can South Korea regain its edge in innovation?

How South Korea can build better gender diversity into research

South Korea can overcome its researcher shortage — but it must embrace all talents

Editorial 21 AUG 24

Postdoctoral Scholar

Dr. Glen N. Barber in the OSUCCC-PIIO is looking to hire enthusiastic, self-motivated Postdoctoral Scholars to contribute to cutting-edge research.

Columbus, Ohio

Polaris Recruitment

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

Faculty Position in Tissue Regeneration and Stem Cell Biology

Dallas, Texas (US)

Children’s Medical Center Research Institute at UT Southwestern

Faculty Position in Metabolism Research

Faculty position in cancer biology.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies