Towards an indicator-based assessment of cultural heritage as a cultural ecosystem service – A case study of Scottish landscapes

Stanik, Nils; Aalders, Inge; Miller, David

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.042

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, CES mapping methods have been classified into biophysical methods and preference-based methods. On the contrary, these methods have been classified into monetary and non-monetary methods (Sumarga et al, 2015). Because of analyzing, mapping, or assessment of CES, CES indicators classified into primary and secondary mapping indicators (Hernández-Morcillo et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Abualhagag

Valánszki

2020

Journal of Landscape Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Abualhagag

Valánszki

2020

Journal of Landscape Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have also penetrated the deep-seated issues of diachronic, reflective, and advisory studies of the ICH protection system, the experience of conservation and management, the impact of ICH protection on local economic and social development, the relationship between ICH and human life, and the reconstruction and re-innovation of ICH protection (Long and Woods, 2011;Bille, 2012;Cominelli and Greffe, 2012;Giudici et al, 2013;Arizpe, 2015). In recent years, ICH protection in the process of cultural change and the evaluation and integration of heritage values in the context of cultural ecosystem services has become the focus of attention (Cozzani et al, 2017;Varnum and Grossmann, 2017;Long et al, 2018;Stanik et al, 2018;. However, little has been written about recent progress in NECPA (An NECPEA is the trial phase of an NECPA) implementation and regional overall ICH protection.…”

Section: Figure 1 Distribution Of 21 National Eco-cultural Protection Experimental Areas In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Building national eco-cultural protection areas and the Xiangxi practice in Hunan Province

Chunla

et al. 2020

J. Geogr. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2007, the Chinese government has initiated the building of national eco-cultural protection areas (NECPAs), thereby embarking on a significant transformation of the model of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) protection in China. To understand the origin and outputs of this policy, this paper demonstrates the context of China's NECPAs. It proposes a conceptual NECPA framework that mainly features regional overall ICH protection. This is followed by an examination of the case of Xiangxi in Western Hunan as a pilot zone for China's eco-cultural protection. Xiangxi has performed much related work to promote NECPAs and made great progress in regional overall ICH protection. This insight suggests that there are benefits and costs associated with promotion of China's NECPAs and regional overall ICH protection. Despite the advantages of institutional innovation, the unexpected side effects actually undermine the success of plan implementation.

show abstract

“…Indirect approaches can be identified in the ecosystems services assessment frameworks [38][39][40]. For example, Stanik et al [41] analysed cultural heritage from the perspective of cultural ecosystem services, with the aim of identifying and developing an indicator-based framework formed by indicators related to historic land uses and historic elements. Still, Gravagnuolo et al proposed an evaluation framework for circular economy implementation in the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage [12], while Foster [42] associated the concepts of adaptive reuse, cultural heritage and circular economy, focusing on the environmental benefits of heritage conservation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators for Ex-Post Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse Impacts in the Perspective of the Circular Economy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural heritage (CH) is considered a key element of cities and regions’ identity anduniqueness, contributing to people's wellbeing and health, as well as jobs creation, environmentalregeneration and place attractiveness. The adaptive reuse of abandoned and underused CH can be asustainable strategy for heritage conservation, stimulating local development processes. However,heritage conservation needs large investments, while the resources available are scarce, and invest-ment projects are subject to high uncertainties. Therefore, a careful assessment of impacts is neededto orient and direct CH adaptive reuse projects towards sustainability. Recent studies approach theadaptive reuse of abandoned buildings and sites as an effective circular economy strategy, potentiallycontributing to climate objectives through environmental regeneration and the reduction of naturalresources consumption. However, evaluation tools to assess the impacts and orient adaptive reuseinterventions in the perspective of circularity are lacking. Through the analysis of 76 literature sourceson CH impacts, this article explores how indicators are currently used in CH research and practice asimpact assessment tools. More than 3500 indicators were retrieved and classified. Finally, this articleproposes a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess the impacts of cultural heritage adaptivereuse in the perspective of the circular economy. The results show that, while some indicators areavailable, many circularity aspects are not considered in the current studies on CH impacts.

show abstract

Towards an indicator-based assessment of cultural heritage as a cultural ecosystem service – A case study of Scottish landscapes

Cited by 25 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Building national eco-cultural protection areas and the Xiangxi practice in Hunan Province

Indicators for Ex-Post Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Adaptive Reuse Impacts in the Perspective of the Circular Economy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About