Abstract
Inadequacies in the indication of cultural ecosystem services (CES) are a hindrance in assessing their comprehensive impacts on human wellbeing. Similarly, uncertainties about the quantity and quality of CES, in real time and space, have hampered the ability of resource managers to precisely take responsive management actions. The aim of the study is to demonstrate, how CES indicators can be identified and qualified in order to link CES to human wellbeing, and to integrate them into the ‘ecosystem services cascade’ and the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) models. A case study methodology is applied at the Nairobi-Kiambu (Kenya) peri-urban area. Primary data on CES was collected in the case study through survey, field observations and matrix tables. Secondary data originates from literature analysis. Results show that the participatory identification of CES and human wellbeing indicators could improve their transparencyand comprehensibility. The environmental policy formulation and implementation processes have been demonstrated. The tripartite framework of CES-human wellbeing-DPSIR has demonstrated more linkages and feedbacks than initially indicated in the cascade model. For policy formulation and implementation, appropriate communication of results is mandatory. This is illustrated by a terminology that enables the transfer of scientific messages to stakeholders, especially for the local people. The conclusion indicates the importance of consistency in qualifying CES and human wellbeing indicators even at this time of urgency to bridge the gaps existing in CES and human wellbeing research.
Highlights
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are defined as the intangible benefits of ecosystems to people (MA 2005)
The validation exercise reduced the number of cultural ecosystem services (CES) from thirteen (Tab. 1) to ten sub-categories as follows; (i) recreation and tourism, (ii) landscape aesthetic and amenity, (iii) knowledge, education and science, (iv) religious, spiritual and sacred experience, (v) cultural heritage and cultural diversity, (vi) natural heritage, natural diversity and existence, (vii) inspiration and art, (viii) social relations, (ix) sense of place, and (x) ceremonial
The ranking exercise resulted into the five sub-categories of CES (landscape aesthetics and, cultural heritage and identity, cultural ceremonies, recreation and tourism, and religious retreats and pilgrimages), which had the geometric mean score of 7.4, 7.9, 7.6, 8.1 and 8.7 respectively
Summary
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are defined as the intangible benefits of ecosystems to people (MA 2005). Unlike CES that are widely defined in literature (MA 2005, Chan et al 2012; Daniel et al 2012; Plieninger et al 2013; La Rosa et al 2015), attempts to define human wellbeing have remained on a conceptual level in most cases Wellbeing depends on both material and nonmaterial (intangible) inputs from ecosystems and social interrelations, but most of the human development agendas have discriminatively emphasised on material goods and services (Alkire et al 2011). The MA (2005) makes a quick reference to the varying ‘potential for mediation’ for the three ES (provisioning, regulating and cultural) categories It emerges that on overall, CES seem to have the lowest ‘potential for mediation’ and this means that human inputs are limited in generating substitutes for CES
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
