Mapping Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Review and Relevance to Urban Context

Open access


Over decades human well-being has recognized from ecosystems, not only through material goods but also through nonmaterial assets namely cultural ecosystem services (CES). Regardless of increasing Ecosystem Services (ES) research over the last decade, cultural services assessment still remains neglected and is mainly limited to marketable services such as recreation and ecotourism. Obvious challenges in standardizing definitions and measurement units have brought about numerous difficulties in accounting cultural services and specific related indicators in decision-making processes. In that regard, the current review intends to create a reference list of CES categories and related measurement units with commonly used indicators. To put it another way, we analysis 80 publications to identify the most common CES indicators using in mapping various categories of CES approaches. Results prove that there are various methods can be used in assessing CES categories, whereas we found 57 indicators can be used for that and most of these indicators can be utilized in urban planning context as spatial indicators. Moreover, it is obvious that almost the same indicators can be used in evaluating most CES categories. For instance, in case of recreation and tourism indicators almost 50 % of all collected indicators can be used for mapping it, on the contrary, in case of spiritual and religious values. In conclusion, while there are various mapping methods of CES and different indicators, most of CES categories have relatively ignored by the planner and decision-makers such as education and inspirational values. Therefore, we recommend the use of the collected indicators and relevant measurement units in assessing neglected values in future research.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bermejo P. Helbling E. W. Durán-Romero C. Cabrerizo M. J. ---amp--- Villafañe V. E. (2018). Abiotic control of phytoplankton blooms in temperate coastal marine ecosystems: A case study in the South Atlantic Ocean. Science of the Total Environment 612 894-902.

  • Bieling C. (2014). Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany) Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 8 pp. 207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.002.

  • Bielinis E. Bielinis L. Krupińska-Szeluga S. Łukowski A. ---amp--- Takayama N. (2019). The Effects of a Short Forest Recreation Program on Physiological and Psychological Relaxation in Young Polish Adults. Forests 10(1) 34.

  • Broekx S. Liekens I. Peelaerts W. De Nocker L. Staes J. Meire P. ... ---amp--- Cerulus present a web-based T. (2013). Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 40 1-2.

  • Brown G. (2012). Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. Journal of The Urban ---amp--- Regional Information Systems Association 24(2).

  • Brown G. Pullar D. and Hausner V. H. (2016). An empirical evaluation of spatial value transfer methods for identifying cultural ecosystem services Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Ltd 69 pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.053.

  • Burkhard B. ---amp--- Gee K. (2012). Establishing the resilience of a coastal-marine social-ecological system to the installation of offshore wind farms. Ecology and Society 17(4).

  • Christie M. et al. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies Ecological Economics. Elsevier B.V. 83(2012) pp. 67–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012.

  • Clemente P. et al. (2019). Combining social media photographs and species distribution models to map cultural ecosystem services: The case of a Natural Park in Portugal Ecological Indicators. Elsevier 96 pp. 59–68. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.08.043.

  • Cooper N. et al. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem services Ecosystem Services. Elsevier B.V. 21(October) pp. 218–229. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014.

  • Czembrowski P. Kronenberg J. and Czepkiewicz M. (2016). Integrating non-monetary and monetary valuation methods – SoftGIS and hedonic pricing Ecological Economics 130 pp. 166–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.004.

  • D’Amato D. et al. (2016). Monetary valuation of forest ecosystem services in China: A literature review and identification of future research needs Ecological Economics 121 pp. 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.009.

  • Davis J. ---amp--- Kidd I. M. (2012). Identifying major stressors: The essential precursor to restoring cultural ecosystem services in a degraded estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 35(4) 1007-1017.

  • Dou Y. et al. (2017). Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 24 pp. 79–90. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.02.011.

  • Dou Y. et al. (2019). Assessing the influences of ecological restoration on perceptions of cultural ecosystem services by residents of agricultural landscapes of western China Science of The Total Environment. Elsevier 646 pp. 685–695. doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.07.205.

  • Figueroa-Alfaro R. W. and Tang Z. (2017). Evaluating the aesthetic value of cultural ecosystem services by mapping geo-tagged photographs from social media data on Panoramio and Flickr Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(2) pp. 266–281. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1151772.

  • Fu B. J. et al. (2011). Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: Causes and countermeasures Ecological Research 26(1) pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11284-010-0766-3.

  • Ghasemi S. Moghaddam S. S. Rahimi A. Damalas C. A. ---amp--- Naji A. (2018). Ecological risk assessment of coastal ecosystems: the case of mangrove forests in Hormozgan Province Iran. Chemosphere 191 417-426.

  • Haase D. Haase A. ---amp--- Rink D. (2014). Conceptualizing the nexus between urban shrinkage and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 132 159-169.

  • Hernández-Morcillo M. Plieninger T. and Bieling C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Ltd 29 pp. 434–444. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013.

  • Ho Huu L. et al. (2018). Socio-geographic indicators to evaluate landscape Cultural Ecosystem Services: A case of Mekong Delta Vietnam Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 31 pp. 527–542. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.11.003.

  • Hutcheson W. Hoagland P. and Jin D. (2018). Valuing environmental education as a cultural ecosystem service at Hudson River Park Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 31 pp. 387–394. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2018.03.005.

  • Ives C. D. et al. (2017). Capturing residents’ values for urban green space: Mapping analysis and guidance for practice Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier B.V. 161 pp. 32–43. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.010.

  • Langemeyer J. et al. (2015). Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 12 pp. 178–186. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.016.

  • Lee H. et al. (2019). Mapping cultural ecosystem services 2.0 – Potential and shortcomings from unlabeled crowd sourced images Ecological Indicators. Elsevier B.V. 96 pp. 505–515. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.035.

  • Lizana M. Carrasco J. A. ---amp--- Tudela A. (2019). Studying the relationship between activity participation social networks expenditures and travel behavior on leisure activities. Transportation 1-22.

  • Nahuelhual L. Carmona A. Aguayo M. ---amp--- Echeverria C. (2014). Land use change and ecosystem services provision: a case study of recreation and ecotourism opportunities in southern Chile. Landscape ecology 29(2) 329-344.

  • Naidoo R. et al. (2011). Effect of biodiversity on economic benefits from communal lands in Namibia Journal of Applied Ecology. John Wiley ---amp--- Sons Ltd (10.1111) 48(2) pp. 310–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01955. x.

  • Nesbitt L. et al. (2017). The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review and suggestions for future research Urban Forestry ---amp--- Urban Greening. Urban ---amp--- Fischer 25 pp. 103–111. doi: 10.1016/J.UFUG.2017.05.005.

  • O’Farrell P. J. et al. (2011). The possibilities and pitfalls presented by a pragmatic approach to ecosystem service valuation in an arid biodiversity hotspot Journal of Arid Environments. Academic Press 75(6) pp. 612–623. doi: 10.1016/J.JARIDENV.2011.01.005.

  • Paracchini M. L. et al. (2014). Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Ltd 45(2014) pp. 371–385. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018.

  • Rall E. Hansen R. and Pauleit S. (2019). The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS)for urban green infrastructure planning Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. Elsevier 40(June 2018) pp. 264–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.016.

  • Rewitzer S. et al. (2017). Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 26 pp. 197–208. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.06.014.

  • Ribeiro F. P. and Ribeiro K. T. (2016). Participative mapping of cultural ecosystem services in Pedra Branca State Park Brazil Natureza e Conservacao. Associação Brasileira de Ciência Ecológica e Conservação 14(2) pp. 120–127. doi: 10.1016/j.ncon.2016.09.004.

  • Richards D. R. and Friess D. A. (2015). A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs Ecological Indicators. Elsevier 53 pp. 187–195. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.01.034.

  • Richards D. R. and Tunçer B. (2018). Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 31 pp. 318–325. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.09.004.

  • Riechers M. Barkmann J. and Tscharntke T. (2018). Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier 175(April) pp. 161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.017.

  • Schirpke U. et al. (2016). Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Ltd 69 pp. 78–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.001.

  • Schirpke U. Altzinger A. Leitinger G. ---amp--- Tasser E. (2019). Change from agricultural to touristic use: Effects on the aesthetic value of landscapes over the last 150 years. Landscape and urban planning 187 23-35.

  • Sherrouse B. C. Semmens D. J. ---amp--- Clement J. M. (2014). An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Indicators 36 68-79.

  • Soleiman Mohammadi Limaei 1 Ghazaleh Safari 2 G. M. M. 3 (2017). Non-market valuation of forest park using travel cost method. Seite 53 134.’ pp. 53–74.

  • Stålhammar S. and Pedersen E. (2017). Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value? Ecosystem Services 26 pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010.

  • Stanik N. Aalders I. and Miller D. (2018). Towards an indicator-based assessment of cultural heritage as a cultural ecosystem service – A case study of Scottish landscapes Ecological Indicators. Elsevier 95 pp. 288–297. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.07.042.

  • Sumarga E. et al. (2015). Mapping monetary values of ecosystem services in support of developing ecosystem accounts Ecosystem Services. Elsevier 12 pp. 71–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.009.

  • Tenerelli P. Demšar U. and Luque S. (2016). Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes Ecological Indicators. Elsevier 64 pp. 237–248. doi: 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.12.042.

  • Tengberg A. Fredholm S. Eliasson I. Knez I. Saltzman K. ---amp--- Wetterberg O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services 2 14-26.

  • Upton V. et al. (2015). Combining conventional and volunteered geographic information to identify and model forest recreational resources Applied Geography. Elsevier Ltd 60 pp. 69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.03.007.

  • Van Berkel D. B. ---amp--- Verburg P. H. (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological indicators 37 163-174.

  • Villamagna A. M. Mogollón B. ---amp--- Angermeier P. L. (2014). A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing. Ecological indicators 45 255-265.

  • Wallace K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions Biological Conservation 139(3–4) pp. 235–246. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015.

  • Wartmann F. M. and Purves R. S. (2018). Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier 175(April) pp. 169–183. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.021.

  • Weyland F. ---amp--- Laterra P. (2014). Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: A method based in the ecosystem services approach and landscape metrics. Ecological indicators 39 34-43.

  • Willemen L. et al. (2008). Spatial characterization of landscape functions Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier 88(1) pp. 34–43. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2008.08.004.

  • Zwierzchowska I. et al. (2018). Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 30(July 2017) pp. 84–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.017

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.183
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.233

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 29 29 29
PDF Downloads 17 17 17