IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i13p10214-d1181045.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Well-Being: Testing a Method for Evaluating Natural Environment and Contact Types in the Harku Municipality, Estonia

Author

Listed:
  • Fiona Nevzati

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51014 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Mart Külvik

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51014 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Joanna Storie

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51014 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Liisa-Maria Tiidu

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51014 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Simon Bell

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
    OPENspace Research Centre, Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH3 9DF, UK)

Abstract

This study examined the evaluation of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) and their impact on well-being in peri-urban areas, using a case study in Harku municipality, Estonia. CESs, encompassing intangible factors such as emotions and values, are crucial for well-being but challenging to assess. To address this, a pilot method was developed, involving a typology of natural environment types (NETs) and contact types (CTs), assessed by a panel of local experts. The results revealed that “spiritual, historic, and symbolic” gardens exhibited a strong positive connection to well-being. Blue and green spaces offering physical activities and aesthetics were also highly rated. Surprisingly, cemeteries scored higher than expected. Agreement among experts varied, with “parks + sporting” showing near-perfect consensus and weaker agreement found in “parks + food production”, “blue spaces + providing gathering places”, and “green landscape elements + education”, highlighting diverse expert perspectives in identifying suitable combinations of NETs and CTs. This study addresses research-to-practice gaps and methodological challenges in applying CESs within planning frameworks, providing valuable insights for managing and conserving services in peri-urban areas. By testing the proposed method, this research contributes to a better understanding of how CESs can be effectively integrated into planning processes, fostering sustainable well-being in peri-urbanised regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona Nevzati & Mart Külvik & Joanna Storie & Liisa-Maria Tiidu & Simon Bell, 2023. "Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Well-Being: Testing a Method for Evaluating Natural Environment and Contact Types in the Harku Municipality, Estonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:13:p:10214-:d:1181045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10214/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10214/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Peichao Dai & Shaoliang Zhang & Zanxu Chen & Yunlong Gong & Huping Hou, 2019. "Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks Based on Social Network Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, September.
    4. Timothy Beatley & Peter Newman, 2013. "Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Ed Diener & Ronald Inglehart & Louis Tay, 2013. "Theory and Validity of Life Satisfaction Scales," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 497-527, July.
    6. Claire Henderson-Wilson & Kah-Ling Sia & Jenny Veitch & Petra K Staiger & Penny Davidson & Peter Nicholls, 2017. "Perceived Health Benefits and Willingness to Pay for Parks by Park Users: Quantitative and Qualitative Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    8. Sandifer, Paul A. & Sutton-Grier, Ariana E. & Ward, Bethney P., 2015. "Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-15.
    9. Ester Bardone & Piret Pungas-Kohv, 2015. "Changing Values of Wild Berries in Estonian Households: Recollections from an Ethnographic Archive," Journal of Baltic Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 319-336, July.
    10. Kaowen Grace Chang & William C. Sullivan & Ying-Hsuan Lin & Weichia Su & Chun-Yen Chang, 2016. "The Effect of Biodiversity on Green Space Users’ Wellbeing—An Empirical Investigation Using Physiological Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    12. Garri Raagmaa, 2023. "Estonian population and regional development during the last 30 years—back to the small town?," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 826-844, May.
    13. Joanna T. Storie & Enri Uusna & Zane Eglāja & Teele Laur & Mart Külvik & Monika Suškevičs & Simon Bell, 2019. "Place Attachment and Its Consequence for Landscape-Scale Management and Readiness to Participate: Social Network Complexity in the Post-Soviet Rural Context of Latvia and Estonia," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Raymond, Christopher M. & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo, 2017. "A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 15-24.
    15. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    16. Peter De Lacy & Charlie Shackleton, 2017. "Aesthetic and Spiritual Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Sacred Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
    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. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. Gladkikh, Tatiana M. & Gould, Rachelle K. & Coleman, Kimberly J., 2019. "Cultural ecosystem services and the well-being of refugee communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Figuières, Charles & Simier, Monique & De Wit, Rutger, 2021. "The impact of academic information supply and familiarity on preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(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. 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. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    9. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    10. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    11. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    12. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    13. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    14. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Richards, D.R. & Law, A. & Tan, C.S.Y. & Shaikh, S.F.E.A. & Carrasco, L.R. & Jaung, W. & Oh, R.R.Y., 2020. "Rapid urbanisation in Singapore causes a shift from local provisioning and regulating to cultural ecosystem services use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    17. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    18. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    19. Mannetti, Lelani M. & Göttert, Thomas & Zeller, Ulrich & Esler, Karen J., 2017. "Expanding the protected area network in Namibia: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 207-218.
    20. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.

    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:15:y:2023:i:13:p:10214-:d:1181045. 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.