IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i10p1912-d1258438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Empirical Studies of Cultural Ecosystem Services in National Parks: Current Status and Future Research

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Cheng

    (Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, Xihua University, 999 Jinzhou Road, Pidu District, Chengdu 610039, China)

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) provided by national parks (NP) have been increasingly recognized and appreciated by the public and researchers. However, they are often under-represented in ecosystem services evaluations due to their intangible nature. As a result, their application in supporting NP conservation and management remains limited. To map the knowledge generated by CES within NP and to support NP practices, this study conducted a review of 199 empirical studies to identify the geographic distribution of research, specific NP habitats/ecosystems that supply CES, frequently addressed CES subcategories, CES evaluation methods, and challenges and prospects for future studies. The results revealed the following: a disparity exists in the global distribution of studies, and the majority of research is conducted in Europe and the USA, with limited knowledge about CES in developing countries. Studies on CES derived from specific NP habitats/ecosystems are limited, and not all the services have received equal attention. Multiple evaluation methods have been employed to assess CES, primarily relying on non-monetary approaches. Among these, participatory mapping-related methods and social-media-based methods are widely favored by researchers. Based on those findings, this study makes the following recommendations: (1) further research is needed in order to investigate a wider range of NP habitats/ecosystems worldwide, especially in developing countries; (2) comprehensive evaluation methods should be employed, considering all services, especially those less addressed; (3) more diverse methods for evaluating CES should be developed, with a particular emphasis on combining various methods to enhance evaluation accuracy; (4) the use of diverse techniques, such as machine learning for social-media-based methods, is encouraged to support data collection and processing to improve the efficacy of evaluation; (5) further studies on the relationships between CES and NP features can assist stakeholders in more effectively addressing CES by enabling the management and adjustment of these features; (6) future studies should integrate CES evaluation into an ecosystem services framework to support application in NP conservation and sustainable management.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Cheng, 2023. "A Review of Empirical Studies of Cultural Ecosystem Services in National Parks: Current Status and Future Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1912-:d:1258438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1912/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1912/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Greg & Helene Hausner, Vera & Lægreid, Eiliv, 2015. "Physical landscape associations with mapped ecosystem values with implications for spatial value transfer: An empirical study from Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 19-34.
    2. Campbell, Lindsay K. & Svendsen, Erika S. & Sonti, Nancy F. & Johnson, Michelle L., 2016. "A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 34-44.
    3. Gómez-Valenzuela, Víctor & Alpízar, Francisco & Bonilla, Solhanlle & Franco-Billini, Carol, 2020. "Mining conflict in the Dominican Republic: The case of Loma Miranda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Ana D. Maldonado & Darío Ramos-López & Pedro A. Aguilera, 2019. "The Role of Cultural Landscapes in the Delivery of Provisioning Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel, 2018. "Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 371-386.
    6. Heesup Han & Hossein G.T. Olya & Jinkyung (Jenny) Kim & Wansoo Kim, 2018. "Model of sustainable behavior: Assessing cognitive, emotional and normative influence in the cruise context," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 789-800, November.
    7. Andrew Balmford & Jonathan M H Green & Michael Anderson & James Beresford & Charles Huang & Robin Naidoo & Matt Walpole & Andrea Manica, 2015. "Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-6, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Radisti A. Praptiwi & Carya Maharja & Matt Fortnam & Tomas Chaigneau & Louisa Evans & Leuserina Garniati & Jito Sugardjito, 2021. "Tourism-Based Alternative Livelihoods for Small Island Communities Transitioning towards a Blue Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, June.
    3. Arki, Vesa & Koskikala, Joni & Fagerholm, Nora & Kisanga, Danielson & Käyhkö, Niina, 2020. "Associations between local land use/land cover and place-based landscape service patterns in rural Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Min Gon Chung & Tao Pan & Xintong Zou & Jianguo Liu, 2018. "Complex Interrelationships between Ecosystem Services Supply and Tourism Demand: General Framework and Evidence from the Origin of Three Asian Rivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & KovaÄ , Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    6. Tzu-Ming Liu & Chia-Mei Tien, 2019. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences of Negative Externalities of Environmental Management Programs: A Case Study on Invasive Species in Shei-Pa National Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    7. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovac, M., 2019. "The economic value of tourism and recreation across a large protected area network," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. James McGinlay & Jens Holtvoeth & Alfie Begley & Juliana Dörstel & Anne Kockelmann & Michael Lammertz & Chrysovalantis Malesios & Nikoleta Jones, 2023. "Perceived Social Impacts of Protected Areas, Their Influence on Local Public Support and Their Distribution across Social Groups: Evidence from the Eifel National Park, Germany, during the COVID-19 Pa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Heather L Reynolds & Leslie Brandt & Burnell C Fischer & Brady S Hardiman & Donovan J Moxley & Eric Sandweiss & James H Speer & Songlin Fei, 2020. "Implications of climate change for managing urban green infrastructure: an Indiana, US case study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 1967-1984, December.
    10. Mehran, Javaneh & Olya, Hossein GT., 2020. "Canal boat tourism: Application of complexity theory," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Yingying Qiu & Dan He & Zhe Xu & Xiaoliang Shi, 2023. "The Role of the Forest Recreation Industry in China’s National Economy: An Input–Output Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, June.
    12. Nguyen, Minh-Hoang, 2023. "Investigating urban residents' involvement in biodiversity conservation in protected areas: Empirical evidence from Vietnam," Thesis Commons z2hjv, Center for Open Science.
    13. Kinga Kostrakiewicz-Gierałt & Artur Pliszko & Katarzyna Gmyrek-Gołąb, 2020. "The Effect of Visitors on the Properties of Vegetation of Calcareous Grasslands in the Context of Width and Distances from Tourist Trails," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-28, January.
    14. Weaver, David B. & Lawton, Laura J., 2017. "A new visitation paradigm for protected areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 140-146.
    15. Lyudmila Maksanova & Taisiya Bardakhanova & Darima Budaeva & Anna Mikheeva & Natalia Lubsanova & Victoria Sharaldaeva & Zinaida Eremko & Alyona Andreeva & Svetlana Ayusheeva & Tatyana Khrebtova, 2023. "Ecotourism Development in the Russian Areas under Nature Protection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Thomas E. Jones, 2022. "Building eco-surplus culture among urban residents as a novel strategy to improve finance for conservation in protected areas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Arbieu, Ugo & Grünewald, Claudia & Martín-López, Berta & Schleuning, Matthias & Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, 2018. "Large mammal diversity matters for wildlife tourism in Southern African Protected Areas: Insights for management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 481-490.
    19. Chen, Haojie, 2020. "Complementing conventional environmental impact assessments of tourism with ecosystem service valuation: A case study of the Wulingyuan Scenic Area, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. István Valánszki & Lone Søderkvist Kristensen & Sándor Jombach & Márta Ladányi & Krisztina Filepné Kovács & Albert Fekete, 2022. "Assessing Relations between Cultural Ecosystem Services, Physical Landscape Features and Accessibility in Central-Eastern Europe: A PPGIS Empirical Study from Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1912-:d:1258438. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.