IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i2p421-d197853.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Services at the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland: A Visitor Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Elina Viirret

    (Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Vesilinnantie 5, FI-20014 Turku, Finland)

  • Kaisa J. Raatikainen

    (Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Vesilinnantie 5, FI-20014 Turku, Finland
    Department of Biological and Environmental Science & School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland)

  • Nora Fagerholm

    (Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Vesilinnantie 5, FI-20014 Turku, Finland)

  • Niina Käyhkö

    (Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Vesilinnantie 5, FI-20014 Turku, Finland)

  • Petteri Vihervaara

    (Biodiversity Centre, Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland)

Abstract

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO’s) Biosphere Reserves aim to be flagships of sustainable landscapes. Many of them are important locations for tourism and leisure activities. We explored the perceptions of short-term visitors and summer residents on ecosystem services (ESs) tied to characteristic habitats of the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland. During holiday season, we conducted structured on-field interviews with 74 Biosphere Reserve visitors. From these data, we gained information on the visitors’ appreciation of different ESs and the selected habitats. We also derived habitat-specific ES profiles. Excluding the reedbeds, most habitats were both highly valued and considered as important producers of the listed ESs. The derived ES profiles were partially overlapping and inclined towards appreciation of cultural services, and the importance of scenery was highlighted. Provisioning services were not particularly appreciated. We discovered several linkages among biodiversity, ESs, and recreational land uses. Certain habitats were found to be in need of protection under high recreational land-use pressure, but also potential synergies were found. Our method introduces an important socio-cultural perspective into the region’s land management that aims to find a balance between the protection of the Biosphere Reserve’s unique biodiversity and the need to support sustainable local livelihoods and tourism.

Suggested Citation

  • Elina Viirret & Kaisa J. Raatikainen & Nora Fagerholm & Niina Käyhkö & Petteri Vihervaara, 2019. "Ecosystem Services at the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland: A Visitor Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:421-:d:197853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/421/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/421/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    2. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    3. McGinlay, James & Parsons, David J. & Morris, Joe & Hubatova, Marie & Graves, Anil & Bradbury, Richard B. & Bullock, James M., 2017. "Do charismatic species groups generate more cultural ecosystem service benefits?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 15-24.
    4. Raatikainen, Kaisa J. & Barron, Elizabeth S., 2017. "Current agri-environmental policies dismiss varied perceptions and discourses on management of traditional rural biotopes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 564-576.
    5. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Boura, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    6. Josef Seják & Jan Pokorný & Karl Seeley, 2018. "Achieving Sustainable Valuations of Biotopes and Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    8. Rocco Scolozzi & Uta Schirpke & Carlo Detassis & Sabah Abdullah & Alessandro Gretter, 2015. "Mapping Alpine Landscape Values and Related Threats as Perceived by Tourists," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 451-465, May.
    9. Pascua, Pua‘ala & McMillen, Heather & Ticktin, Tamara & Vaughan, Mehana & Winter, Kawika B., 2017. "Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 465-475.
    10. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    11. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kuhn, Tinka K. & Oinonen, Soile & Trentlage, Jennifer & Riikonen, Simo & Vikström, Suvi & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2021. "Participatory systematic mapping as a tool to identify gaps in ecosystem services research: insights from a Baltic Sea case study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    2. Joaquin Romano & Emilio Pérez-Chinarro & Byron V. Coral, 2020. "Network of Landscapes in the Sustainable Management of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Salvador García-Ayllón, 2019. "New Strategies to Improve Co-Management in Enclosed Coastal Seas and Wetlands Subjected to Complex Environments: Socio-Economic Analysis Applied to an International Recovery Success Case Study after a," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-27, February.
    4. Tshewang Dorji & Justin D. Brookes & José M. Facelli & Robin R. Sears & Tshewang Norbu & Kuenzang Dorji & Yog Raj Chhetri & Himlal Baral, 2019. "Socio-Cultural Values of Ecosystem Services from Oak Forests in the Eastern Himalaya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Richard leBrasseur, 2023. "Citizen Sensing within Urban Greenspaces: Exploring Human Wellbeing Interactions in Deprived Communities of Glasgow," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-24, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    7. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    8. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    9. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Rodríguez-Morales, Beatriz & Roces-Díaz, José V. & Kelemen, Eszter & Pataki, György & Díaz-Varela, Emilio, 2020. "Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Are landowners’ and visitors’ perspectives dissimilar?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    12. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    13. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V. & Greenhalgh, Suzie, 2017. "Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-139.
    14. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    15. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    16. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    17. Negev, Maya & Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Hassan, Yousef & Amasha, Hani & Raviv, Orna & Fares, Nasrin & Lotan, Alon & Peled, Yoav & Wittenberg, Lea & Izhaki, Ido, 2019. "Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Rabe, Sven-Erik & Gantenbein, Remo & Richter, Kai-Florian & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2018. "Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys – Mapping recreation in the riverine zone," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 308-317.
    19. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:421-:d:197853. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.