Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services

Abstract

The substantial importance of cultural benefits as a source of human well-being is increasingly recognised in society-environment interactions. The integration of cultural ecosystem services (CES) into the ecosystem services framework remains a challenge due to the difficulties associated with defining, articulating and measuring CES. We operationalise a novel framework developed by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment that identifies CES as the interactions between environmental spaces (i.e. physical localities or landscapes), and the activities that occur there. We evaluate the benefits of the CES provided by 151 UK marine sites to recreational sea anglers and divers, using subjective well-being indicators. Factor analysis of an online questionnaire with 1220 participants revealed multiple CES benefits that contribute to human wellbeing e.g. including ‘engagement with nature’, ‘place identity’ and ‘therapeutic value’. In addition to regional differences, we also found that biophysical attributes of sites, such as the presence of charismatic species and species diversity, were positively associated with provision of CES benefits. The study provides evidence that could be used to inform designation of protected areas. The indicators used in the study may also be adapted for use across a range of marine and terrestrial spaces for improved integration of CES in environmental decision-making

Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices

“…For example, diverse stakeholders expressed how important the sites were to their wellbeing, expressed a love of the sea and an appreciation of the beauty of sites, and shared a sense of belonging. (see Bryce et al, 2016;Kenter et al, 2016b in this issue for comparable findings with other marine users). One of the follow up interviewees, an environmentalist, reflected on the benefits of allowing a broader range of values to be considered in decision-making: "When we're talking about MPAs, a really substantial proportion of what they can actually deliver are social and environmental benefits which may also have some short term impacts on business …I think that methods like CVM go far beyond just simple economic decision-making tool and incorporate the views of people in a much more holistic way.…”

“…This study, which demonstrated an innovative approach integrating a film-based interpretive approach with a deliberative-democratic multicriteria evaluation, highlights the power of film-based interpretation in building trust between conflicting interests by highlighting shared transcendental values and enabling more equal representation and participation, helping to address some of the key challenges of deliberative methods. It also addresses some of the key emerging themes in the cultural ecosystem services literature around the importance of interpretation, creative approaches, relational values and identities in grounding interventions in people's connection to place (in this issue: Bryce et al, 2016;Cooper et al, 2016;Edwards et al, 2016;Fish et al, 2016aFish et al, , 2016bKenter, 2016b). Combined with a deliberative-democratic rather than arithmetic approach to MCA, this provides an effective template for participatory management of MPAs and Ecosystem Approaches to conservation management more broadly, to help ensure the effective conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in a way that is equitable, inclusive and effective.…”

Marine and Coastal Cultural Ecosystem Services: knowledge gaps and research priorities

“…Another way to approach the difficulties in assessing CES is by explicitly linking their benefits to the multiple dimensions of human wellbeing (Plieninger et al 2013, Busch et al 2011, Bryce et al 2016, Daw et al 2016. This is an underdeveloped research topic within marine and coastal CES.…”

Economic value of ecosystem services in the eastern Ore mountains

“…Currently abroad, the issue of cultural ecosystem services provided by landscape and their valuation are intensively discussed in many scientifi c papers, e.g. Bryce et al (2016), Dickinson and Hobbs (2017), Lupp et al (2016), Rewitzer et al (2017, Small et al (2017) or Stalhammar and Peresen (2017). Tengberg et al (2012), andChan et al (2012) have proposed that methods of valuating cultural heritage and identity in landscape be integrated into ecosystem service valuation and thus help inform public policy-makers and urban designers in landscape and environmental management processes.…”