Integrating the aesthetic value of landscapes and biological diversity

Abstract

As a cultural ecosystem service, the aesthetic value of landscapes contributes to human well-being, but studies linking biodiversity and ecosystem services generally do not account for this particular service. Therefore, congruence between the aesthetic perception of landscapes, ecological value and biodiversity remains poorly understood. Here, we describe the conceptual background, current methodologies and future challenges of assessing landscape aesthetics and its relationship with biodiversity. We highlight the methodological gaps between the assessment of landscape aesthetics, ecological diversity and functioning. We discuss the challenges associated with connecting landscape aesthetics with ecological value, and the scaling issues in the assessment of human aesthetics perception. To better integrate aesthetic value and ecological components of biodiversity, we propose to combine the study of aesthetics and the understanding of ecological function at both the species and landscape levels. Given the urgent need to engage society in conservation efforts, this approach, based on the combination of the aesthetic experience and the recognition of ecological functioning by the general public, will help change our culture of nature and promote ecologically oriented conservation policies.

To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands

“…It is therefore argued here, that regular artificial feeding may account at least partially for an overall decrease in species richness at tourism feeding sites here and elsewhere. Although not necessarily permanent, this phenomenon is likely not in the interest of operators or tourists, as speciose fish assemblages are generally preferred over those dominated by a few species (Salim et al, 2015;Tribot et al, 2018). This decrease is also undesired from an ecosystems' perspective, given that decreases in taxonomic richness are usually accompanied by reductions in functional richness thus posing risks to reef health and ecosystem services other than those associated to tourism (Worm et al, 2006;Burkepile and Hay, 2008).…”

Incorporating Biodiversity into Biogeochemistry Models to Improve Prediction of Ecosystem Services in Temperate Grasslands: Review and Roadmap

“…In particular, there are societal and policy expectations about the role of species-rich grasslands for the delivery of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural ecosystem services (ES, https://cices.eu/resources). Grasslands are not only the core of forage production worldwide but they also provide multiple additional ES such as carbon sequestration, erosion control and habitat for pollinators and other fauna [4]. Grassland species richness promotes carbon storage in plant and soil pools [5]-a robust store compared to other systems [6], which offers an opportunity to restore or even enhance existing carbon reservoirs [7].…”

A novel approach of mapping landscape aesthetic value and its validation with rural tourism data

“…and McWilliam, W.J. 2013;Andersson, E. et al 2014;Langemeyer, J. et al 2018;Tribot, A.-S. et al 2018), as well as leisure and tourism developments (Lóczy, D. 2002;Kollányi, L. et al 2012).…”

“…1999;Fry, G. et al 2009;Frank, S. et al 2013;Müderrisoglu, H. and Gultekin, P.G. 2013;Tribot, A.-S. et al 2018). The receiver-side approach describes landscapes with the psychological explanation of emotions, the socio-cultural background and through human perception and preferences (Daniel, T.C.…”

“…CES are important not only because they contribute to human well-being (Oteros-Rozas, E. et al 2018), but presumably increasingly determine it (Guo, Z. et al 2010). As with the aesthetic value of landscapes (Lee, S. et al 2011;Tribot, A.-S. et al 2018), it is especially true for recreation and tourism that they contribute to the enjoyment (Vallés-Planells, M. et al 2014), the health and the personal and social fulfilment of people. Despite their obvious significance and being at the forefront of research on ecosystem services, numerous studies have pointed out that the standardized assessment and spatially explicit representation of CES is rather difficult due to their non-material, intangible and often subjective nature (Plieninger, T. et al 2013;Andersson, E. et al 2014;Casado-Arzuaga, I. et al 2014;Smith, M. and Ram, Y.…”