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

Abstract

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.

Toward an Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services Delivered by Urban Micro-Farms

“…A marked increase in articles on the CESs in urban settings appears from 2012 as noted by the literature review carried out by Abualhagag and Valanski [23]. However, the authors point out that the evaluation of CESs remains generally neglected in scientific literature and is restricted to commodifiable services such as leisure and ecotourism.…”

Valuation of recreation-related cultural ecosystem services provided by Pirin National Park, Bulgaria

“…The choice of indicators to value the different categories of CES is also complicated by the fact that it is difficult to distinguish their benefits. Occasionally the recreation value indicators are related also to other CES mapping indicators, like it is for the aesthetic and spiritual value indicators (Abualhagag and Valánszki 2020). It is not possible to fully separate the different spiritual, intellectual, and physical links between human cultures and ecosystems (MA 2005).…”