IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i8p244-d389791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Víctor García-Díez

    (Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain)

  • Marina García-Llorente

    (Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain)

  • José A. González

    (Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services are gaining increasing attention in the scientific literature, despite the conceptual and methodological difficulties associated with their assessment. We used a participatory GIS method to map and assess three cultural ecosystem services, namely, (a) outdoor recreation, (b) aesthetic enjoyment, and (c) sense of place, in the Madrid region (Spain). The main goal of the study was to identify cultural ecosystem service hotspots in the region and to explore the relationships among the three ecosystem services mapped. We developed a Maptionnaire online questionnaire asking participants to locate places that they associate with these three ecosystem services and their main reasons for choosing those places on a map. We collected 580 complete questionnaires with 1710 location points (807 for outdoor recreation, 506 for aesthetic enjoyment and 397 for sense of place). We found that the three ecosystem services analysed were spatially correlated, with similar hotspots appearing across the region. Most of the identified hotspots were located in the northern part of the region, which is characterised by mountains and forests. Other hotspots appeared within the city of Madrid, highlighting the importance of urban green areas. Natural protected areas supplied significantly more cultural ecosystem services than non-protected areas. Among CORINE land-use types, forested areas, mountain shrubs and rocky landscapes were more relevant than arable lands for the supply of cultural ecosystem services. Our results highlight the utmost importance of including ecosystem services mapping within land-use planning and policy-making agendas to ensure the conservation of areas supplying cultural services that are critical for societal wellbeing.

Suggested Citation

  • Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:8:p:244-:d:389791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/8/244/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/8/244/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    3. Hermes, Johannes & Van Berkel, Derek & Burkhard, Benjamin & Plieninger, Tobias & Fagerholm, Nora & von Haaren, Christina & Albert, Christian, 2018. "Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 289-295.
    4. Palomo, Ignacio & Martín-López, Berta & Potschin, Marion & Haines-Young, Roy & Montes, Carlos, 2013. "National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 104-116.
    5. Oleksandr Karasov & Stien Heremans & Mart Külvik & Artem Domnich & Igor Chervanyov, 2020. "On How Crowdsourced Data and Landscape Organisation Metrics Can Facilitate the Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Estonian Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Brown, Greg, 2013. "The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 58-68.
    7. Bianca Tilliger & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Jesus Victor Bustamante & Josef Settele, 2015. "Disentangling Values in the Interrelations between Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Conservation—A Case Study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, September.
    8. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    9. Delgado, Luisa E. & Marín, Víctor H., 2015. "Ecosystem services: Where on earth?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 24-26.
    10. David M. Fisher & Spencer A. Wood & Young-Hee Roh & Choong-Ki Kim, 2019. "The Geographic Spread and Preferences of Tourists Revealed by User-Generated Information on Jeju Island, South Korea," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    12. Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2012. "Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 153-160.
    13. Roux, Dirk J. & Smith, M. Kyle S. & Smit, Izak P.J. & Freitag, Stefanie & Slabbert, Liandi & Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M. & Hayes, Jessica & Mpapane, Nelsiwe P., 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    14. Johan Colding & Åsa Gren & Stephan Barthel, 2020. "The Incremental Demise of Urban Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.
    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. Xueqing Wang & Zhongyi Ding & Shaoliang Zhang & Huping Hou & Zanxu Chen & Qinyu Wu, 2022. "Spatial–Temporal Multivariate Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Services and Ecological Risk in Areas of Overlapped Cropland and Coal Resources in the Eastern Plains, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    2. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    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. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    6. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & María F. Schmitz, 2021. "Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    9. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Wang, Xuechao & Lu, Nachuan & Dong, Xiaobin & Zhao, Yanan & Ya, Xijia & Zhao, Yifei, 2017. "Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 15-27.
    15. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Burkhard, Benjamin & Bhandari, Santosh P. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2015. "Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 81-92.
    16. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    18. van Oort, Bob & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt & Baral, Himlal & Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Dhakal, Madhav & Rucevska, Ieva & Adhikari, Ramesh, 2015. "Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi river basin, Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 70-80.
    19. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    20. Cumming, Graeme S. & Maciejewski, Kristine, 2017. "Reconciling community ecology and ecosystem services: Cultural services and benefits from birds in South African National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 219-227.

    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:9:y:2020:i:8:p:244-:d:389791. 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.