The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning

Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services at community level in the Colombian Amazon

“…The aim of this step was to determine the most common indicators driving the community members in search of a location providing a service. This information gives insight into community preferences and can be useful for more effective sustainable and environmental management and conservation (Silvano et al 2008;Figueiredo et al 2013;Bottazzi et al 2014;Plieninger et al 2015).…”

“…It is highly likely these changes will have a greater impact on their well-being as their lifestyle is more integrated to their surroundings. Furthermore, CES due to the intangible nature of the benefits they provide have been relatively neglected by researchers and policy-makers compared to provisioning, supporting, and regulating services (Brown and Fagerholm 2015;Plieninger et al 2015;Cummings and Read 2016;Hirons et al 2016;Ives et al 2017;Ramírez-Gómez et al 2017). Although measuring CES poses several conceptual and methodological difficulties, it is of huge interest and importance because of the linkages between cultural values, assessment methods and the individual and collective decision-making that influence ecosystems and human well-being (Chan et al 2012b;Brown and Fagerholm 2015;Hirons et al 2016).…”

“…These are intimately linked to the satisfaction of a human's basic needs (MEA 2005;Balvanera and Cotler 2007;De Groot et al 2010). The importance of traditional cultural practices, which contribute to a community's social, economic and ecological sustainability (Neff 2011;Plieninger et al 2015) is often difficult to ascertain or even measure. However, traditional cultural practices are reflected in the strategies, symbolisms and tools communities design to perform their tasks.…”

Europe: the paradox of landscape change : A case-study based contribution to the understanding of landscape transitions

“…They include provisioning services (crop-, feed-, livestock-and industrial production), regulating services (water retention, carbon storage), cultural services (tourism, outdoor sport, cultural heritage, hobby farming) (Hornigold et al 2016) and supporting services and habitat (wildlife habitat) (Brandt and Vejre 2003). Plieninger et al (2015) indicate that: '...the knowledge of how cultural ecosystem services influence land use practice remains incomplete and fragmented '. Following Opdam et al (2015), they note that cultural ecosystem services in particular tend to affect the well-being of people.…”

“…Involvement of a range of stakeholders can be 1 the best way to improve the provision of landscape services, since at the local level, it is best realised how to reconcile different demands for services. Involvement of different stakeholders will lead to more multifunctional land use, whereby aspects, such as landscape quality, biodiversity or other, non-commercial utilitarian functions, will also be taken into account (Plieninger et al 2015). There has been a lot of study of environmental governance, but landscape governance is relatively new, and the process through which stakeholders can participate in landscape planning and decision-making is largely unexplored.…”