Abstract
ABSTRACTCultural ecosystem services (CES) are widely acknowledged as important but are often neglected by ecosystem service assessments, leading to a representational bias. This reflects the methodological challenges associated with producing robust and repeatable CES valuations. Here we provide a comparative analysis of three approaches for non-monetary valuation of CES, namely a structured survey, participatory GIS (PGIS) and GPS tracking methods. These were used to assess both recreation and aesthetic value of habitats within the New Forest National Park, UK. The association of CES with habitats enabled results of all three methods to be visualised at the landscape scale using maps, strengthening their value to conservation management. Broadleaved woodland and heathland habitats were consistently valued highly for both CES, whereas agricultural land tended to be associated with low values. Results obtained by the different methods were positively correlated in 6 out of 10 comparisons, indicating a degree of consistency between them. The spatial distribution of CES values at the landscape scale was also generally consistent between the three methods. These results highlight the value of comparative analyses of CES for identifying robust results, providing a way forward for their inclusion in land management decision-making.EDITED BY Matthias Schröter
Highlights
Growth in adoption of ecosystem services as a policy concept has been accompanied by a rapid increase in research effort, which has documented the factors influencing the provision of ecosystem services in a wide range of ecosystems and socio-economic contexts (Carpenter et al 2009; Nicholson et al 2009; Seppelt et al 2011)
In the stated preference survey, the distribution of scores was found to be significantly different between habitat types for both recreation (Kruskal–Wallis H test, χ2(10) = 554.531, P < 0.001, two-sided) and aesthetic value (Kruskal– Wallis H test, χ2(10) = 650.326, P < 0.001, two-sided) (Figure 2(a,b))
On the basis of the results presented here, which approach should conservation managers adopt to assess Cultural ecosystem services (CES)? We suggest that a focus on evaluating the relative value of different habitats for CES provision might provide a useful way forward
Summary
Growth in adoption of ecosystem services as a policy concept has been accompanied by a rapid increase in research effort, which has documented the factors influencing the provision of ecosystem services in a wide range of ecosystems and socio-economic contexts (Carpenter et al 2009; Nicholson et al 2009; Seppelt et al 2011). Relatively little progress has been made in assessing cultural ecosystem services (CES), which are often neglected owing to methodological challenges (Feld et al 2009; Seppelt et al 2011; Daniel et al 2012; Plieninger et al 2013). This has led to a representational bias in ecosystem assessments and landscape planning decisions, in which CES are often poorly represented (Hernández-Morcillo et al 2013). CES are often referred to as ‘intangible’ and ‘subjective’, reflecting the difficulties associated with their quantitative assessment and valuation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005; Daniel et al 2012) Despite such difficulties, the importance of CES has widely been acknowledged. CES are being embedded in environmental decision-making at a range of geographical and temporal scales, with the aim of achieving ecological sustainability, social justice and economic efficiency in an integrated way (Costanza et al 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
