IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01530-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of focus groups in cultural ecosystem services research: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Ľuboš Slovák

    (Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences
    Masaryk University)

  • Jan Daněk

    (Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences
    Charles University)

  • Tomáš Daněk

    (Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences
    Palacký University)

Abstract

Focus groups are an increasingly popular method for eliciting non-material values and cultural ecosystem services (CES) in the context of studying human–nature relationships. We conducted a systematic review of the literature with the aim of exploring where and how focus groups were used in the research into CES. Furthermore, we aimed to highlight good practices and potential caveats of the use of the focus groups method with respect to recommendations in methodological literature. We employed an inclusive CES classification framework and observed that focus groups were mostly used to research Recreation, Aesthetics, and Education categories. The review also discovered insufficient reporting and methodological inconsistencies in some of the studies. We provide suggestions for more robust and trustworthy applications of the focus group method, which can advance both research in this field and the implementation of the ecosystem services concept in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Ľuboš Slovák & Jan Daněk & Tomáš Daněk, 2023. "The use of focus groups in cultural ecosystem services research: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01530-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01530-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01530-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01530-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tom Moore & Gemma Tully, 2018. "Connecting landscapes: examining and enhancing the relationship between stakeholder values and cultural landscape management in England," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 769-783, August.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. S. J. Ngwenya & E. Torquebiau & J. W. H. Ferguson, 2019. "Mountains as a critical source of ecosystem services: the case of the Drakensberg, South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1035-1052, April.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Chan, Cheryl & Armitage, Derek & Alexander, Steven M. & Campbell, Donovan, 2019. "Examining linkages between ecosystem services and social wellbeing to improve governance for coastal conservation in Jamaica," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    8. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    9. Ivana Acocella, 2012. "The focus groups in social research: advantages and disadvantages," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1125-1136, June.
    10. Dou, Yuehan & Yu, Xiubo & Bakker, Martha & De Groot, Rudolf & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Duan, Houlang & Huang, Chao, 2020. "Analysis of the relationship between cross-cultural perceptions of landscapes and cultural ecosystem services in Genheyuan region, Northeast China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. DanÄ›k, Jan & Blättler, Linda & Leventon, Julia & VaÄ kářová, Davina, 2023. "Beyond nature conservation? Perceived benefits and role of the ecosystem services framework in protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Stålhammar, Sanna & Pedersen, Eja, 2017. "Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 1-9.
    14. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    15. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    16. Daniel Kpienbaareh & Rachel Bezner Kerr & Isaac Luginaah & Jinfei Wang & Esther Lupafya & Laifolo Dakishoni & Lizzie Shumba, 2020. "Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.
    18. 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.
    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. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    7. 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).
    8. Zoeller, Kim C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Heydinger, John & Cumming, Graeme S., 2020. "Defining cultural functional groups based on perceived traits assigned to birds," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    9. 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).
    10. 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).
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    14. 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.
    15. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    16. 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.
    17. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    18. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    19. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    20. Ingrid Nesheim & Line Barkved, 2019. "The Suitability of the Ecosystem Services Framework for Guiding Benefit Assessments in Human-Modified Landscapes Exemplified by Regulated Watersheds—Implications for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01530-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.