IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i2p754-d721833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Relations between Cultural Ecosystem Services, Physical Landscape Features and Accessibility in Central-Eastern Europe: A PPGIS Empirical Study from Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • István Valánszki

    (Department of Landscape Protection and Reclamation, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Lone Søderkvist Kristensen

    (Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark)

  • Sándor Jombach

    (Department of Landscape Planning and Regional Development, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Márta Ladányi

    (Department of Applied Statistics, Institute of Mathematics and Basic Science, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Krisztina Filepné Kovács

    (Department of Landscape Planning and Regional Development, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Albert Fekete

    (Department of Garden Art, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Despite the growing quantity of ecosystem-services-related research, there is still a lack of deeper understanding on cultural ecosystem services (CES). This is mainly due to the perception of CES, which can vary by geographic location and population. In this study, we present a Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) method in a Hungarian microregion. Our goal is to increase understanding on how cultural services are perceived in this geographical context and level, and how this relative importance is related to biophysical landscape features. We also consider the influence of accessibility on the perceived landscape and compare our findings with the results of other studies with different sociocultural backgrounds. The research consists of participatory mapping with 184 persons that were digitized and analyzed with GIS and statistical software. During the analysis, we identified CES hotspots and compared CES with landscape features, as well as CES perception with accessibility. Our results showed positive correlation of CES with land covers related to built-up areas, as well as aesthetic and recreational services with water bodies. Compared to other studies, we found different spatial relationships in the case of spiritual services, and higher importance of agricultural land covers during the CES perception, thanks to the Central-Eastern European (CEE) sociocultural background. Our study highlights the effect of accessibility on CES perception; nevertheless, these relationships varied by different infrastructural elements. We conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of our study and encouraging future landscape research to apply the PPGIS method in this geographical context.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:754-:d:721833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/754/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/754/
    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. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Smithers, Richard J. & Hedblom, Marcus & Hedenås, Henrik & Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Pedersen, Eja & Sandström, Per & Svensson, Johan, 2017. "Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-70.
    3. 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.
    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. 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. 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. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. van den Heuvel, Lotte & Blicharska, Malgorzata & Masia, Sara & Sušnik, Janez & Teutschbein, Claudia, 2020. "Ecosystem services in the Swedish water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: Anthropogenic pressures and physical interactions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Cardoso, Ana Sofia & Renna, Francesco & Moreno-Llorca, Ricardo & Alcaraz-Segura, Domingo & Tabik, Siham & Ladle, Richard J. & Vaz, Ana Sofia, 2022. "Classifying the content of social media images to support cultural ecosystem service assessments using deep learning models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    7. 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).
    8. 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).
    9. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. 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).
    11. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    12. 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).
    13. Tahvonen, Outi & Airaksinen, Miimu, 2018. "Low-density housing in sustainable urban planning – Scaling down to private gardens by using the green infrastructure concept," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 478-485.
    14. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. John Martin & Dominica Williamson & Klara Łucznik & John Adam Guy, 2021. "Development of the My Cult-Rural Toolkit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, June.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Lee, Heera & Seo, Bumsuk & Cord, Anna F. & Volk, Martin & Lautenbach, Sven, 2022. "Using crowdsourced images to study selected cultural ecosystem services and their relationships with species richness and carbon sequestration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    20. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(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:14:y:2022:i:2:p:754-:d:721833. 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.