IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2020i1p123-d467923.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania)

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Marcinkevičiūtė

    (Business and Rural Development Research Institute, Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, 53361 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Rasa Pranskūnienė

    (Business and Rural Development Research Institute, Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, 53361 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract

The benefits or harms of external and internal consequences for the viability of ecosystems are revealed through the impact on the quality of human life. The issues of assessing these benefits or harms are significant for the whole society and are therefore analyzed from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The article seeks to theoretically examine the coherence between humans and ecosystems, ensuring the social and economic well-being of present and future generations in the context of cultural ecosystem services (CES). As well, the article seeks to present the empirical research, carried out on the possibilities of adapting human activities to CES in the specific area, i.e., coastal-rural area, evaluating the past, present and future CES potential in the Lithuanian coastal zone, Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon in Lithuania. Elderships located near the Curonian Lagoon or within the protected area of the Nemunas Delta Regional Park were selected for the study. For this purpose, the empirical study involved representatives of different (public and private) sectors and stakeholders. The research was carried out in local tourism cultural centers and elderships with four group respondents (tourists, farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees). The research revealed the past and the current situation of CES potential and showed the possible CES potential future development directions. The article described the opportunities for the rural population (a potential supply of cultural ecosystems) to achieve diversification of economic activities and the needs of tourists (a potential demand for cultural ecosystems) to achieve service differentiation. Therefore, the recommendations have been formulated on how to exploit future CES of a specific territory by “employing” available natural resources, i.e., the ecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Marcinkevičiūtė & Rasa Pranskūnienė, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:123-:d:467923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/123/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/123/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Renata Giedych & Gabriela Maksymiuk, 2017. "Specific Features of Parks and Their Impact on Regulation and Cultural Ecosystem Services Provision in Warsaw, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Agnieszka Jaszczak & Agnieszka Morawiak & Joanna Żukowska, 2020. "Cycling as a Sustainable Transport Alternative in Polish Cittaslow Towns," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Pascua, Pua‘ala & McMillen, Heather & Ticktin, Tamara & Vaughan, Mehana & Winter, Kawika B., 2017. "Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 465-475.
    5. Cheng, Xin & Van Damme, Sylvie & Li, Luyuan & Uyttenhove, Pieter, 2019. "Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Spanou, Elisavet & Kenter, Jasper O. & Graziano, Marcello, 2020. "The Effects of Aquaculture and Marine Conservation on Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Integrated Hedonic – Eudaemonic Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    9. Claudia Bieling & Tobias Plieninger, 2013. "Recording Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(5), pages 649-667, October.
    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. 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).
    2. Teff-Seker, Yael & Rasilo, Terhi & Dick, Jan & Goldsborough, David & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "What does nature feel like? Using embodied walking interviews to discover cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    6. Ainsworth, Gillian B. & Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Connor, Sebastian & Daunt, Francis & Young, Juliette C., 2019. "A fulfilled human life: Eliciting sense of place and cultural identity in two UK marine environments through the Community Voice Method," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Chowdhury, Koushik & Behera, Bhagirath, 2021. "Traditional water bodies and cultural ecosystem services: Experiences from rural West Bengal, India," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    8. Balázsi, Ágnes & Dänhardt, Juliana & Collins, Sue & Schweiger, Oliver & Settele, Josef & Hartel, Tibor, 2021. "Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Vassiliki Vlami & Ioannis P. Kokkoris & Stamatis Zogaris & George Kehayias & Panayotis Dimopoulos, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Natura 2000 Network: Introducing Proxy Indicators and Conflict Risk in Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-27, December.
    10. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    11. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    12. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    15. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Richter, Franziska & Jan, Pierrick & El Benni, Nadja & Lüscher, Andreas & Buchmann, Nina & Klaus, Valentin H., 2021. "A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    17. Huai, Songyao & Chen, Fen & Liu, Song & Canters, Frank & Van de Voorde, Tim, 2022. "Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    18. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2021. "Applying the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Landscape Architecture Design: Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, June.
    19. 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).
    20. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2020:i:1:p:123-:d:467923. 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.