IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p2138-d330704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management

Author

Listed:
  • Gréta Vrbičanová

    (Faculty of Natural Science, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Dominika Kaisová

    (Faculty of Natural Science, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Matej Močko

    (Faculty of Natural Science, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • František Petrovič

    (Faculty of Natural Science, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Peter Mederly

    (Faculty of Natural Science, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia)

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) have specific richness and diversity provision patterns related to particular landscape features and land cover forms. Studies of their spatial distribution, however, are quite rare in the Slovak Republic and surrounding countries. This paper links land cover information based on an ecosystem services (ES) matrix, field survey data and GIS method to assess CES supply in two selected Slovak regions. Our main focus is on the ecologically more valuable ‘hot-spots’ where socio-cultural values accumulate. We determined their spatial distribution, and our comparison with lower cultural value areas confirmed that mountainous landscapes have the highest capacity to provide CES. This especially applies to the landscapes under National Park protection. While Slovak forests, rocks and water areas also form essential ecosystems for overall CES provision, the lowest overall capacity is in areas with residential buildings, construction, industrial and other artificial habitats. Finally, a comparison of our results with the National Ecosystem Assessment indicates that our detailed CES assessment will be more effective in supporting future participatory planning and management processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gréta Vrbičanová & Dominika Kaisová & Matej Močko & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly, 2020. "Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2138-:d:330704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2138/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2138/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    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. Klain, Sarah C. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2012. "Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 104-113.
    4. 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.
    5. Pavlína Skládaná & Marek Havlíček & Ivo Dostál & Pavel Skládaný & Pavel Tučka & Jan Perůtka, 2018. "Land Use as a Motivation for Railway Trespassing: Experience from the Czech Republic," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    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. Jana Nozdrovická & Ivo Dostál & František Petrovič & Imrich Jakab & Marek Havlíček & Hana Skokanová & Vladimír Falťan & Peter Mederly, 2020. "Land-Use Dynamics in Transport-Impacted Urban Fabric: A Case Study of Martin–Vrútky, Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Hudecová, Ľubica & Kyseľ, Peter, 2023. "Legislative protection of agricultural land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Lili Song & Moyu Wu & Yingying Wu & Xiaoyun Xu & Changfei Xie, 2023. "Research on the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Zhengzhou Urban Parks Based on Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Alfred Krogmann & Peter Ivanič & Hilda Kramáreková & Lucia Petrikovičová & František Petrovič & Henrich Grežo, 2021. "Cultural Tourism in Nitra, Slovakia: Overview of Current and Future Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, May.
    6. Ingrid Belčáková & Branislav Olah & Martina Slámová & Zuzana Pšenáková, 2021. "A Cultural and Environmental Assessment of a Landscape Archetype with Dispersed Settlements in Čadca Cadastral District, Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Lia Laporta & Tiago Domingos & Cristina Marta-Pedroso, 2021. "Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems Services under the Proposed MAES European Common Framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-28, October.
    8. Juan Tang & Yudi Fang & Ziyan Tian & Yinghua Gong & Liang Yuan, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Research in Green Sustainable Science and Technology Field: Trends, Issues, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Bélisle, Annie Claude & Wapachee, Alice & Asselin, Hugo, 2021. "From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    4. 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).
    5. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    6. Ingrid Nesheim & Line Barkved, 2019. "The Suitability of the Ecosystem Services Framework for Guiding Benefit Assessments in Human-Modified Landscapes Exemplified by Regulated Watersheds—Implications for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    7. 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).
    8. 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).
    9. Malinauskaite, Laura & Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Ögmundardóttir, Helga, 2021. "Socio-cultural valuation of whale ecosystem services in Skjálfandi Bay, Iceland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    11. Marina García-Llorente & Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Elisa Oteros-Rozas & Irene Iniesta-Arandia & José A. González & David García del Amo & Marta Hernández-Arroyo & Izaskun Casado-A, 2020. "Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Across Multiple Ecosystem Types in Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    13. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    14. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    15. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    16. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    17. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    20. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.

    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:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2138-:d:330704. 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.