Advanced search
2 files | 942.21 KB Add to list

Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services : a review of methods

Xin Cheng (UGent) , Sylvie Van Damme (UGent) , Luyuan Li (UGent) and Pieter Uyttenhove (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) refer to the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems, and they have direct influence on quality of life. Although the concept of CES has been well accepted, they are rarely fully investigated. A significant barrier is the method for evaluating CES. This paper conducts a literature review of CES evaluation methods. Our aims are the following: to provide an overview of existing CES evaluation methods, to classify them, to analyze them, to highlight important challenges and to offer suggestions for future study. This study has reviewed 293 papers and identified 20 evaluation methods. To conclude, we (i) emphasize considering all CES categories. More specifically, consistent classification systems for CES and unambiguous descriptions of each category are needed; (ii) highlight a combination of methods to enable a better evaluation of CES and call for integrating monetary and non-monetary methods, which does not indicate merely adding the different parts but rather focusing on the interactions between these components, especially by means of deliberative, participatory and mapping techniques; (iii) encourage more stated preference methods, such as the Q-method and narratives, to evaluate neglected services; (iv) propose that in-depth study of CES evaluation process is required to improve evaluation accuracy.
Keywords
Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous), Ecology, Geography, Planning and Development, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Nature and Landscape Conservation, DELIBERATIVE MONETARY VALUATION, SOCIAL VALUES, PREFERENCES, INDICATORS, MANAGEMENT, CLASSIFICATION, NONMONETARY, INFORMATION, AGRICULTURE, RECREATION, Cultural ecosystem services, Evaluation methods, Monetary, Non-monetary, Stated preference, Revealed preference

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 904.86 KB
  • (...).xlsx
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • Excel
    • |
    • 37.36 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Cheng, Xin, et al. “Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services : A Review of Methods.” ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, vol. 37, 2019.
APA
Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services : a review of methods. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 37.
Chicago author-date
Cheng, Xin, Sylvie Van Damme, Luyuan Li, and Pieter Uyttenhove. 2019. “Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services : A Review of Methods.” ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 37.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Cheng, Xin, Sylvie Van Damme, Luyuan Li, and Pieter Uyttenhove. 2019. “Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services : A Review of Methods.” ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 37.
Vancouver
1.
Cheng X, Van Damme S, Li L, Uyttenhove P. Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services : a review of methods. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. 2019;37.
IEEE
[1]
X. Cheng, S. Van Damme, L. Li, and P. Uyttenhove, “Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services : a review of methods,” ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, vol. 37, 2019.
@article{8620885,
  abstract     = {{Cultural ecosystem services (CES) refer to the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems, and they have direct influence on quality of life. Although the concept of CES has been well accepted, they are rarely fully investigated. A significant barrier is the method for evaluating CES. This paper conducts a literature review of CES evaluation methods. Our aims are the following: to provide an overview of existing CES evaluation methods, to classify them, to analyze them, to highlight important challenges and to offer suggestions for future study. This study has reviewed 293 papers and identified 20 evaluation methods. To conclude, we (i) emphasize considering all CES categories. More specifically, consistent classification systems for CES and unambiguous descriptions of each category are needed; (ii) highlight a combination of methods to enable a better evaluation of CES and call for integrating monetary and non-monetary methods, which does not indicate merely adding the different parts but rather focusing on the interactions between these components, especially by means of deliberative, participatory and mapping techniques; (iii) encourage more stated preference methods, such as the Q-method and narratives, to evaluate neglected services; (iv) propose that in-depth study of CES evaluation process is required to improve evaluation accuracy.}},
  articleno    = {{100925}},
  author       = {{Cheng, Xin and Van Damme, Sylvie and Li, Luyuan and Uyttenhove, Pieter}},
  issn         = {{2212-0416}},
  journal      = {{ECOSYSTEM SERVICES}},
  keywords     = {{Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous),Ecology,Geography,Planning and Development,Global and Planetary Change,Management,Monitoring,Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,DELIBERATIVE MONETARY VALUATION,SOCIAL VALUES,PREFERENCES,INDICATORS,MANAGEMENT,CLASSIFICATION,NONMONETARY,INFORMATION,AGRICULTURE,RECREATION,Cultural ecosystem services,Evaluation methods,Monetary,Non-monetary,Stated preference,Revealed preference}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  title        = {{Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services : a review of methods}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925}},
  volume       = {{37}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: