IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p11845-d920085.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Liangjian Yang

    (Key Laboratory of the Sustainable Development of Xinjiang’s Historical and Cultural Tourism, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    School of Tourism, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China)

  • Kaijun Cao

    (Key Laboratory of the Sustainable Development of Xinjiang’s Historical and Cultural Tourism, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    School of Tourism, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China)

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CESs) are direct influences on human well-being and sustainable development, and they have become increasingly important in the development and progress of society. This paper reviewed 1248 papers on CESs by using VOSviewer and CiteSpace software. On this basis, we also reviewed 179 selected empirical papers related to this field, with regards to geographical locations, study objects, evaluation methods, and categories. The results show that: (1) the number of publications related to cultural services has increased year by year, and Ecosystem Services, Ecological Indicators, and Sustainability are the top three journals with the greatest amount of research published; (2) ecosystem services, benefits, management, and social–ecological systems are perceptions closely related to CES research, which are also popular topics in the field; (3) the results of a keyword detection show that the cultural landscapes, patterns, mental health services, social value, and other keywords were popular keywords used from 2005 to 2021; (4) CESs have mainly attracted the attention of many developed countries, and the cultural services in cities, oceans, and coastal areas have become the focus for researchers; (5) the recreation and ecotourism, and aesthetic values are the common categories of the CES empirical studies, while the knowledge system and the cultural diversity are the two categories with the least amount of research; (6) the evaluation methods of CESs are mostly carried out using a traditional questionnaire and interview, but mapping and modeling methods have been widely used in recent years.

Suggested Citation

  • Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11845-:d:920085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11845/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11845/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gréta Vrbičanová & Dominika Kaisová & Matej Močko & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly, 2020. "Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    3. Paulina Guerrero & Maja Steen Møller & Anton Stahl Olafsson & Bernhard Snizek, 2016. "Revealing Cultural Ecosystem Services through Instagram Images: The Potential of Social Media Volunteered Geographic Information for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 1-17.
    4. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    5. Xu, Zihan & Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Wang, Xuechao & Huang, Bingling & Lu, Nachuan & Ren, Jiahui & Dong, Xiaobin, 2018. "Energy modeling simulation of changes in ecosystem services before and after the implementation of a Grain-for-Green program on the Loess Plateau—A case study of the Zhifanggou valley in Ansai Count," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 32-43.
    6. 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.
    7. Thiele, Julia & Albert, Christian & Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina, 2020. "Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    8. Jason P. Julian & Graham S. Daly & Russell C. Weaver, 2018. "University Students’ Social Demand of a Blue Space and the Influence of Life Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-30, September.
    9. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    10. Hualin Xie & Yanwei Zhang & Yongrok Choi & Fengqin Li, 2020. "A Scientometrics Review on Land Ecosystem Service Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Viniece Jennings & Lincoln Larson & Jessica Yun, 2016. "Advancing Sustainability through Urban Green Space: Cultural Ecosystem Services, Equity, and Social Determinants of Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Kosanic, Aleksandra & Petzold, Jan, 2020. "A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    14. Langemeyer, Johannes & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc, 2018. "Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 542-552.
    15. 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.
    16. Fletcher, Ruth & Baulcomb, Corinne & Hall, Clare & Hussain, Salman, 2014. "Revealing marine cultural ecosystem services in the Black Sea," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 151-161.
    17. 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.
    18. Vera Ferreira & Ana Paula Barreira & Luís Loures & Dulce Antunes & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    19. Nezha Mejjad & Marzia Rovere, 2021. "Understanding the Impacts of Blue Economy Growth on Deep-Sea Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-26, November.
    20. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    21. 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).
    22. Subramanian, Divya & Jana, Arnab, 2019. "Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services of India: Comparison of budget allocations to improve the use value of recreational open spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    23. Sherrouse, Benson C. & Semmens, Darius J. & Ancona, Zachary H. & Brunner, Nicole M., 2017. "Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 431-444.
    24. E. Seda Arslan & Ömer K. Örücü, 2021. "MaxEnt modelling of the potential distribution areas of cultural ecosystem services using social media data and GIS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2655-2667, February.
    25. 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.
    26. Richards, Daniel R. & Tunçer, Bige, 2018. "Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 318-325.
    27. 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).
    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. Jingwei Wang & Jinhe Zhang & Peijia Wang & Xiaobin Ma & Liangjian Yang & Leying Zhou, 2022. "Progress in Ecosystem Health Research and Future Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Calcagni, Fulvia & Nogué Batallé, Júlia & Baró, Francesc & Langemeyer, Johannes, 2022. "A tag is worth a thousand pictures: A framework for an empirically grounded typology of relational values through social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Juan Tang & Yudi Fang & Ziyan Tian & Yinghua Gong & Liang Yuan, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Research in Green Sustainable Science and Technology Field: Trends, Issues, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Fox, Nathan & Graham, Laura J. & Eigenbrod, Felix & Bullock, James M. & Parks, Katherine E., 2021. "Enriching social media data allows a more robust representation of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    6. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Dengyue Zhao & Mingzhu Xiao & Chunbo Huang & Yuan Liang & Ziyue An, 2021. "Landscape Dynamics Improved Recreation Service of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.
    8. Richards, Daniel Rex & Lavorel, Sandra, 2022. "Integrating social media data and machine learning to analyse scenarios of landscape appreciation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    9. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    10. Lishan Xu & Changlin Ao & Baoqi Liu & Zhenyu Cai, 2023. "Ecotourism and sustainable development: a scientometric review of global research trends," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 2977-3003, April.
    11. 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).
    12. 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).
    13. 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).
    14. 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).
    15. Fox, Nathan & Graham, Laura J. & Eigenbrod, Felix & Bullock, James M. & Parks, Katherine E., 2021. "Reddit: A novel data source for cultural ecosystem service studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Kong, Inhye & Sarmiento, Fausto O., 2022. "Utilizing a crowdsourced phrasal lexicon to identify cultural ecosystem services in El Cajas National Park, Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    17. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Toshiyuki Hasumi & Mei-Shiu Chiu, 2022. "Online mathematics education as bio-eco-techno process: bibliometric analysis using co-authorship and bibliographic coupling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4631-4654, August.
    20. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.

    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:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11845-:d:920085. 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.