Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats

Cultural 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 comparati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Arjan S. Gosal, Adrian C. Newton, Phillipa K. Gillingham
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2018-01-01
Series:International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Subjects:
CES
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1447016
id doaj-23aed781c4994570b972a131a1b3ec8c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-23aed781c4994570b972a131a1b3ec8c2020-11-25T02:43:18ZengTaylor & Francis GroupInternational Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management2151-37322151-37402018-01-011419110410.1080/21513732.2018.14470161447016Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitatsArjan S. Gosal0Adrian C. Newton1Phillipa K. Gillingham2Bournemouth UniversityBournemouth UniversityBournemouth UniversityCultural 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 Schröterhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1447016CEScultural ecosystem servicesPGISsurveysbehaviourstated preferencerecreation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Arjan S. Gosal
Adrian C. Newton
Phillipa K. Gillingham
spellingShingle Arjan S. Gosal
Adrian C. Newton
Phillipa K. Gillingham
Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
CES
cultural ecosystem services
PGIS
surveys
behaviour
stated preference
recreation
author_facet Arjan S. Gosal
Adrian C. Newton
Phillipa K. Gillingham
author_sort Arjan S. Gosal
title Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
title_short Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
title_full Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
title_fullStr Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
title_sort comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
issn 2151-3732
2151-3740
publishDate 2018-01-01
description Cultural 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
topic CES
cultural ecosystem services
PGIS
surveys
behaviour
stated preference
recreation
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1447016
work_keys_str_mv AT arjansgosal comparisonofmethodsforalandscapescaleassessmentoftheculturalecosystemservicesassociatedwithdifferenthabitats
AT adriancnewton comparisonofmethodsforalandscapescaleassessmentoftheculturalecosystemservicesassociatedwithdifferenthabitats
AT phillipakgillingham comparisonofmethodsforalandscapescaleassessmentoftheculturalecosystemservicesassociatedwithdifferenthabitats
_version_ 1724770239924666368