Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;2. Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland;3. Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany;4. INDEHESA, Forestry School, University of Extremadura, Plasencia 10600, Spain;5. cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes/Azorean Biodiversity Group and University of the Azores, Açores, Portugal;6. Agricultural Landscapes and Biodiversity Research Group, Agroscope, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland;7. UMR BAGAP, INRA Agrocampus ESA, 35042 Rennes cedex, France;8. School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK;9. Forest Research Centre, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal;10. Department of Crop Production and Engineering Projects, High Polytechnic School, University of Santiago de Compostela, 27002-Lugo, Spain;11. Department of Biology and Ecology in Hungarian and Center of Systems Biology, Biodiversity and Bioresources (Center of ’3B’), Babes-Bolyai University, Str. Clinicilor 5–7, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;12. Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Babes-Bolyai University, 400294, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;13. Agricultural University of Athens, 36100 Karpenissi, Greece;14. MTA Centre for Ecological Research, 2163, Vácrátót, Hungary;15. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Rural development policies in many Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries promote sustainable landscape management with the intention of providing multiple ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it remains unclear which ES benefits are perceived in different landscapes and by different people. We present an assessment of ES benefits perceived and mapped by residents (n = 2,301) across 13 multifunctional (deep rural to peri-urban) landscapes in Europe. We identify the most intensively perceived ES benefits, their spatial patterns, and the respondent and landscape characteristics that determine ES benefit perception. We find outdoor recreation, aesthetic values and social interactions are the key ES benefits at local scales. Settlement areas are ES benefit hotspots but many benefits are also related to forests, waters and mosaic landscapes. We find some ES benefits (e.g. culture and heritage values) are spatially clustered, while many others (e.g. aesthetic values) are dispersed. ES benefit perception is linked to people’s relationship with and accessibility to a landscape. Our study discusses how a local perspective can contribute to the development of contextualized and socially acceptable policies for sustainable ES management. We also address conceptual confusion in ES framework and present argumentation regarding the links from services to benefits, and from benefits to different types of values. |
| |
| Keywords: | Cultural ecosystem services Landscape management Landscape values Landscape characteristics PPGIS Europe |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
