openLandscapes - Cultural Ecosystem Services

University of Kiel, Ecology Centre, Msc Environmental Science, a seminar paper
Status: completed (2009)

Pia Bednarek and Marga Bahr
piabednarek@web.de and marga.bahr@web.de

Cultural ecosystem services are defined as “non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experience“(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Methods like the stated preference method or the revealed preference method try to estimate the value of these services and incorporate them into the basic concept of ecosystem goods and services which is a tool for decision making processes.

Content

1. Introduction

Figure 1. Ecosystem services with drivers influencing human well-being (MA 2005, http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/millennium-ecosystem-assessment-conceptual-framework).

Ecosystem goods and services are the benefits humans derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions (Constanza et al., 1997). These services differ between ecosystems because of their different constitutions. Ecosystem services can be subdivided in provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services (Figure 1). These services interact with direct (e.g. climate change) and indirect (e.g. economic or demographic factors) drivers and are linked with human well-being and poverty reduction (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

The concept of Ecosystem Services provides a framework for considering the provision of support and fulfilments of people’s life by nature. It encourages asking what these services are and what happens, or will happen to them under various approaches to land management. This concept raises the question on what scale of service is needed to maintain lives and lifestyles? Therefore the concept tries to include the different services in decision making processes due to identification and valuation of the different kinds of ecosystem goods and services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

This article refers to cultural services which are non-material benefits, basing on subjective estimations of humans. It includes different aspects and methods to measure these kinds of services. The focal questions are e.g.: Why are cultural services important and what influence do they have on human well-being? Is it possible to compare them to other ecosystem services and goods?

back

2. What are cultural ecosystem services?

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defines the cultural services as “non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experience“. In detail, the different aspects of cultural ecosystem services are the following:

2.1. Spiritual and religious values

Figure 2. Uluru Ayres Rock in Australia (Source: http://www.australiaadventures.com/images/uluru1.jpg)

This value refers to religious bonds to sacred landscapes, groves and species (Butler, 2006) which is often connected to different religions. In general the term “spirituality” is also included. That means it considers in the broadest sense the spirit. The consequence is that almost everything could have a spiritual value to someone. It is therefore difficult to define the point at which this aspect is taken into account for the evaluation of this service type. Example: The Uluru-Kata National Park is a sacred landscape for aboriginal people in Australia.

back

2.2. Cultural history

This term summarizes several aspects like cultural landscape, cultural identity, cultural diversity, heritage value, and knowledge systems.

Figure 3. Cultural landscape in southern Germany (Source: http://www.geo.tum.de/people/thuro/diplomarb/pics/9_allgaeu.jpg) .

There are many types of landscapes which are typical for specific regions. They are the result of a continuous land use over a long period, so that the original nature has turned into a cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes are the work of nature and humankind and therefore show the relationship between people and their environment (World Heritage Committee, 2009). For example hilly grasslands with many dandelions are the typical cultural landscape of the Allgaeu in southern Germany. These landscapes can be important, not only as biotopes for species which are already adapted to new conditions in the landscape but also as part of the cultural identification of humans (Voss&Meekes, 1999) and therefore as part and result of cultural history. There is a connection to the cultural identity because the different types of landscapes show the historical origins. People have an emotional bond to the landscape that is familiar to them.

Figure 4. Traditional cattle drive in southern Germany (Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/258385682.jpg).

Prevailing ecosystems influence the development of different cultures, and human beings influence ecosystems. That means there are close interactions between ecosystems and the development of landscapes, traditions and the identification of human beings. Hence the diversity of ecosystems is one factor of the development of cultural diversity with its different life-styles.

The heritage value arises due to societies that place high values on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes or culturally significant species (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008) (for example the World Heritage Program for maintaining natural and cultural sites).

Ecosystems also influence the types of knowledge systems developed by different cultures. This is for formal as well as for traditional knowledge systems. For example the indigenous knowledge systems which have evolved from many years of experience and problem solving by groups of people working in their environment drawing upon resources they have at hand (Berkes et al, 2000). The different knowledge systems do not only deal with environmental but also with cultural issues.

Example: Traditional Chinese medicine.

back

2.3. Educational and social value

Figure 5. Education related to nature (Source: http://www.gerlos.at/bilder/kinder_wald_sommer.jpg)

Ecosystems and their components and processes provide the basis for both formal and informal education in many societies (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008). The types of social relations that are established in particular cultures are also influenced by apparent ecosystems (Zinsstag&Weiss, 2001). The contents of teaching can differ extremely even within one country for example.

Example: The existing social relations in a community formed around fishing industry (Gov. of South Australia, 2009) compared to a nomadic society are very different.

back

2.4. Inspiration

Figure 6. Inspiration by nature as basis of technical developments (Source: http://www.inspiration-natur.net/780.html)

Ecosystems or nature as a whole inspire human beings. Different category groups e.g. art, literature, architecture, product design, bionics, advertising, folklore, etc. use ecosystems as bases of inspiration (Gov. of South Australia, 2009).

Example: Leonardo DaVinci used the inspiration of birds to develop a sailplane.

Figure 7. Impression of a lake (Source: http://www.new-dream.de/image/wallpaper/natur/sonnenuntergang/sonnenuntergang_07.jpg)

back

2.5. Aesthetics

Aesthetics and the sense of place are predicted on the subjective sensation of beauty and well-being of humans at certain sites, hence the value can differ extremely between every person.

Example: What do you prefer: A lake in the mountains or a place at the beach?

back

2.6. Recreation and tourism

Figure 8. Ecotourism in a mountainous region (Source: http://www.inspiration-natur.net/780.html)

Peoples’ requirements to recreate at natural or near-natural sites increase. Many people live in big cities and don’t have any contact with natural ecosystems in their everyday life (http://www.greenfacts.org/). It is an important requirement for human well-being (Frumkin, 2002). They therefore have to experience nature or cultural landscapes actively. Recreation is strongly linked with the market of tourism. More and more people want to travel and recreate at very natural and, if procurable, untouched places which led to the establishment of ecotourism.

Example: Increasing numbers of visitors in National Parks.

back

3. How to measure cultural ecosystem services?

The common measurement methods of ecosystem goods are not helpful to determine the value of cultural services, because there is no real market for these non-material benefits. Therefore the estimation of market prices or cost-methods does not work in this case, compared to the estimation of produced timber, for example.

But there are two different valuation approaches.

The stated preference method, which directly elicits individual preferences on non-market goods (Postnote, 2007). A survey can be designed in two different ways. Either with the use of the contingent valuation, where a hypothetical market situation exsits which allows the respondent to the trade of gains and losses against money, or a choice modelling method is used, where the respondent has to make choices between different services or rank them like their preferences (Newcome, 2005). An example and practical details are given in case study No. 1.
The revealed preference method infers individuals´ preferences by observing their behaviour in markets in which an ecosystem service is indirectly purchased. This assumes that the use of non-market goods is indirectly reflected in consumer expenditure (Postnote, 2007). It can be done by:
- The travel-cost method, which estimates the economic value of ecosystems for recreational usage. The method requires that the costs incurred by individuals travelling to recreation sites need to be surveyed, in terms of both travel expenses (fuel, fares etc.) and time (e.g. foregone earnings). Practical details are given in case study No. 2.
- A second possibility is the hedonic pricing method to evaluates services like landscape amenity. Here, in most cases price data from the housing market are used to estimate the willingness of the people to pay for relevant environmental characteristics (Newcome, 2005).

back

4. Case studies

No.1: North Sea, Germany

The GISS research centre tried to figure out how a planned off-shore wind park in the North Sea influences the cultural services in this region under the aspect of human well-being. The stated preference method was used and a survey was commissioned (Tab.1). The results show that the inhabitants of the region believe that the aesthetic value and due to this, the value of recreation of this ecosystem will decrease seriously, if the wind park is built. The survey expected no positive impacts related to cultural services at all (Lange , 2009).

Table 1. Survey results (Lange 2009), -2= Very negative impact, -1= negative impact, 0= no impact, 1= positive impact, 2= very positive impact

Cultural service	Perceived negative impact of offshore wind farms
Ethical (spiritual and religious)	-1
Existence values (nature conservation)	-2
Symbolic value (wilderness)	-2
Educational values	0
Inspiration	-1
Aesthetic values (wide open horizon)	-2
Sense of place	0
Cultural heritage values	-1
Recreation and ecotourism	-2
Knowledge system (traditional and formal)	0

No. 2: Leuser National Park, Sumatra

Another example for the estimation of cultural services took place in Sumatra, in the Leuser National Park by using the revealed preference method. The national park has serious problems with the destruction of ecosystems due to clear cutting. Two possible situations were consulted for the calculation. The one scenario estimated the value of the national park under ongoing clear cutting; the other calculated the value under a conservation status. We know that only tourism is a cultural ecosystem service, but to get a better overview, we decided to present the other results, too (Tab.2). The cultural service of recreation was included, by estimating the willingness of people to pay for the forest use under these two scenarios. In order to understand the value of the Leuser ecosystem for recreation, a survey of tourists was undertaken feeding into both a contingent valuation and travel cost analysis. The survey collected spending data, asked willingness to pay (WTP) for use of the forest in addition to the current entrance fee, and WTP for a general donation for the purpose of biodiversity conservation in Indonesia, regardless of whether the respondents would ever visit a natural park. This latter value represents the non-use value attached to biodiversity. The results from the contingent valuation and travel cost analyses using the survey data were combined with an assumption that tourism would decline 2% each year in response to a deforestation scenario. The total lost value of tourism is estimated at $34 million per annum, i.e. a net annual benefit from tourism with conservation of $41 million per annum compared with just $7 million per annum under the deforestation scenario (Tab.3).

Table 2. Impact of deforestation on the main stakeholders of the Leuser ecosystem (Newcome,2005)

	Local community	Local Government	Elite (logging) industry	National government	International community
Water supply	Expensive water	Costs of changing distribution system	-	Costs of changing distribution system	-
Fishery	Loss of income	Loss of local taxes	-	Loss of federal taxes	-
Agriculture	Increase food prices, loss of production	Loss of local taxes	Lost productions from plantations	Loss of federal taxes	-
Tourism	Loss of income	Loss of taxes	-	Loss of foreign revenues	Loss of recreational travel opportunities
Biodiversity	-	Loss of foreign revenues	Loss of pharmaceutical benefits	Loss of foreign revenues	Loss of research opportunities
Timber	Short-term gain production, long-term loss	Loss of taxes	Short-term gain production, long-term loss	Loss of export revenues	-

This survey provides a clear example how the impact of humans influences the several ecosystem services and how you can give them an economical value. Even when the sale of timber can provide high revenues, the net present value under the scenario of deforestation is estimated at 30% less than with the conservation scenario (Newcome, 2005).

Table 3. Distribution of benefits of deforestation and conservation (Newcom, 2005)

	Deforestation		Conservation
	Value ($ million)	% of total value	Value ($ million)	% of total value
Water supply	699	10	2,419	25
Fishery	557	8	659	7
Flood prevention	1,233	18	1,591	17
Agriculture	2,499	36	1,642	17
Hydro-Power	252	4	898	9
Tourism	171	2	828	9
Biodiversity	56	1	492	5
Carbon sequestration	53	1	200	2
Fire prevention	30	0	715	7
NTFP	235	3	94	1
Timber	1,184	17	0	0
Total	6,958	100	9,538	100

back

5. Conclusion

In general, cultural services of ecosystems are less specific to determine and harder to describe than other services because they are based on a subjective perception and estimation. Compared to the estimation of the value of other ecosystem services the measurement of cultural services is more difficult.

They need to be taken into consideration because they are components and influencing factors e.g. of religion, spirituality, education, culture and its development and they are important for human well-being, identity and social relations.

It is therefore necessary to include the cultural ecosystem services into the evaluation to achieve a holistic view on ecosystem goods and services.

Although there are methods to estimate the value of certain cultural services, there is still one question left:

Can emotional or spiritual values really be measured?

back

References

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (2000): Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management.Ecological Applications, Vol 10/5, p. 1251-1262, Ecological Society of America.
Butler, C. D., Oluoch-Kosura, W. (2006): Linking Future Ecosystem Services and Future Human Well-being. Ecology and Society Vol 11/1, art.30; 16 p. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art30/).
Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. (1997): The value of the world`s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.
Frumkin, H. (2002): Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Vol. 20, p. 234–240.
Government of South Australia: Department for Environment and Heritage: Sustainability Education Learnin Center (2009): http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/education/pages/modules/biodiversity/eco_04c.html (30.03.09)
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/figtableboxes/table2-1-trends-use-ecosystems-cultural.htm (04.05.09).
Lange, M (2009): Ecosystem services: Sozialökologische Systemanalyse am Beispiel der Auswirkungen von Offshore Windkraft in der südlichen Nordsee, GKSS- Forschungszentrum: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx (20.04.09)
Ministry of Natural Resources/Ontario (2008), Appendix A: The benefits of healthy ecosystems. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166832.htm (20.03.09)
Newcome, J., Provins, A., Johns, H., Ozdemiroglu, E., Ghazoul, J., Burgess, D. (2005):The Economic, Social and Ecological value of ecosystem services: A literature review, Economics for the environment Consultancy (eftec), London
Voss, W., Meekes, H. (1999): Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future.Landscape and Urban Planning Vol 46/1-3, p. 3-14. Elsevier Science B.V.
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (2007) Postnote: Ecosystem services, Number 281, London
World Heritage Committee (2009): http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape#1 (14.09.09).
Zinsstag, J., M. G. Weiss (2001): Livestock diseases and human health [editorial]. Science 294, p. 477.

back

Useful links

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ (Journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability)
http://www.greenfacts.org/ (Facts on Health and Environment)
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)
http://whc.unesco.org/ (World Heritage Committee)

back