首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators
Institution:1. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Ecosystem Services Research Group, Jägerstr. 22/23, 10117 Berlin, Germany;2. Chair for Landscape Management, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany;1. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy;2. Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, P.O. Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland;3. Aarhus University, Department of Environmental Science, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark;4. ALTERRA, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;5. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire LA1 4AP, United Kingdom;1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Datun Road 11A, Beijing, 100101, China;2. School of Resource and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 19 A Yuquan Rd, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100049, China;3. Environmental Systems Analysis group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen 6700HB, The Netherlands;1. Chair of Strategic Landscape Planning and Management, Technische Universität München, Emil-Ramann-Straße 6, 85354 Freising, Germany;2. Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Hohenheim 1C, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany;3. Chair of Terrestrial Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany;4. Institute of Geography, Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;5. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;1. Agroecology Group, Department of Crop Sciences, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Grisebachstraße 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany;2. Environmental and Resource Economics Group, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
Abstract:Over millennia human well-being has benefited from ecosystems, not only through tangible goods, but also through intangible assets known as cultural ecosystem services. Despite growing research over the last decade, cultural services assessment still remains arbitrary and is largely limited to marketable services such as tourism. Evident difficulties in standardizing definitions and measurements have challenged cultural services accounting in decision making processes. However, the imminent formation of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services offers an opportunity to counterbalance this misrepresentation by establishing a scientific basis for consistently assessing cultural services. In that regard, the current review intends to facilitate discussion investigating the current state of cultural services accounting by offering an appraisal of existing evidence regarding cultural services indicator quality. The review builds on scientifically recognized frameworks to develop a holistic understanding of how cultural services indicators are conceived within ecosystem services research. Among the measures found, benefit indicators were most frequently used for assessing inspirational, educational and recreational services. A broad variety of methods for accounting cultural services was found, mainly due to the varied aims of the studies. Most of the cultural services indicators were deficient concerning their clarity of definitions, purposes and understanding of the processes to be measured and referring only marginally to tradeoffs and bundles with other services. Only 17% performed multitemporal assessments and 23% used spatially explicit information. It seems that indicator quality could be greatly enhanced by investing more effort toward involving relevant stakeholders in conceptualization and communication phases, using participatory mapping tools to enhance visibility.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号