IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v124y2016icp86-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California

Author

Listed:
  • Winkler, Klara J.
  • Nicholas, Kimberly A.

Abstract

Vineyard landscapes provide cultural ecosystem services (CES), which have been little studied in previous ecosystem services research. To fill this gap, we assess perspectives of wine producers and residents regarding CES provided by vineyards in two wine regions: Southeast England, an emerging wine area, and the counties of Sonoma and Napa, California (hereafter: Sonoma and Napa), a more traditional wine area. We used Q-methodology to reveal the perspectives expressed by participants from both areas, each of whom ranked 44 Q-statements. We found that wine producers and local residents have different perceptions. In Southeast England, wine producers are more positive about vineyard landscapes than residents. Wine producers in Sonoma and Napa value CES directly connected with wine production, while residents emphasize CES that benefit nature conservation or entertainment. Comparing the regions, we conclude that Southeast England vineyards represent sometimes unwelcome development to residents, while in Sonoma and Napa they represent conservation of nature and tradition. Our findings show that perspectives on CES are experience- and context-dependent, as the perspectives on vineyards of residents and wine producers are strongly held but vary widely. Understanding these perspectives will help land use planners and regional politicians make better decisions for optimizing available CES.

Suggested Citation

  • Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:124:y:2016:i:c:p:86-98
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916301227
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Morrison & Jeanette Durante & Jenni Greig & John Ward & Eddie Oczkowski, 2012. "Segmenting landholders for improving the targeting of natural resource management expenditures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(1), pages 17-37, November.
    2. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    3. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    4. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    5. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    6. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    7. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    8. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    9. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    10. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    11. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    12. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gül Aktürk & Ahmadreza Shirvani Dastgerdi, 2021. "Cultural Landscapes under the Threat of Climate Change: A Systematic Study of Barriers to Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    3. Greinert, Andrzej & Kostecki, Jakub & Vystavna, Yuliya, 2019. "The history of viticultural land use as a determinant of contemporary regional development in Western Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 249-258.
    4. Joana A. Quintela & Helena Albuquerque & Isabel Freitas, 2023. "Port Wine and Wine Tourism: The Touristic Dimension of Douro’s Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, July.
    5. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    6. Dirtje Marie Derksen & Dagmar Mithöfer, 2022. "Thinking sustainably? Identifying Stakeholders' positions toward corporate sustainability in floriculture with Q methodology," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1762-1787, December.
    7. Ángel Raúl Ruiz Pulpón & María del Carmen Cañizares Ruiz, 2022. "Intangible Heritage and Territorial Identity in the Multifunctional Agrarian Systems of Vineyards in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Stanislav E. Shmelev & Linus Agbleze & Joachim H. Spangenberg, 2023. "Multidimensional Ecosystem Mapping: Towards a More Comprehensive Spatial Assessment of Nature’s Contributions to People in France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-32, May.
    9. Zagata, Lukas & Uhnak, Tomas & Hrabák, Jiří, 2021. "Moderately radical? Stakeholders' perspectives on societal roles and transformative potential of organic agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    10. Sara Moggi & Paul Pierce & Nicole Bernardi, 2022. "From sustainability to thrivability: A novel framework for entrepreneurial ecosystems," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 829-853, June.
    11. Maria Cerreta & Alessia Elefante & Ludovica La Rocca, 2020. "A Creative Living Lab for the Adaptive Reuse of the Morticelli Church: The SSMOLL Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Veronica Alampi Sottini & Elena Barbierato & Iacopo Bernetti & Irene Capecchi, 2021. "Impact of Climate Change on Wine Tourism: An Approach through Social Media Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Stefan Partelow & Klara Johanna Winkler & Gregory M Thaler, 2020. "Environmental non-governmental organizations and global environmental discourse," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    2. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    6. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    8. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    9. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    10. Ingrid Nesheim & Line Barkved, 2019. "The Suitability of the Ecosystem Services Framework for Guiding Benefit Assessments in Human-Modified Landscapes Exemplified by Regulated Watersheds—Implications for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    12. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    13. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    14. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    15. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    16. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröte, 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    17. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour & Cotton Matthew, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Kim, Ilkwon & Lee, Jae-hyuck & Kwon, Hyuksoo, 2021. "Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    19. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    20. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:124:y:2016:i:c:p:86-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.