IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v27y2025i2d10.1007_s10668-023-04062-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contributions of cultural ESs to human well-being, landscape planning and rural development in border landscapes: Local Insights from the Bendimahi River Basin (Eastern Anatolia, Türkiye)

Author

Listed:
  • Emel Baylan

    (Trakya University
    Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL)

  • Sanem Şehribanoğlu

    (Yüzüncü Yil University)

  • Onur Şatır

    (Yüzüncü Yil University)

Abstract

Despite the rise in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) research in urban or peri-urban settings and related participatory approaches, studies on the social values of CESs benefits, in the largely natural and rural border landscapes to locals' well-being are still few. This study uses the Bendimahi River Basin (Van), one of Türkiye's least developed areas along the Iranian border, as an empirical case to explore the links between the locals' social values for ecosystem benefits, landscape characteristics, and human well-being dimensions such as personal and social fulfilment and enjoyment. A questionnaire survey combined with PPGIS landscape value mapping with 348 people was employed to gather data for 15 ecosystem services with an emphasis on CES. The findings of the statistical and spatial analyses revealed that while enjoyment benefits are lowest in the landscape due to the low development, respondents have the highest well-being benefits in social fulfilment through intrinsic, future, continuity, and sense of place values. The male respondents found as experiencing both of these well-being benefits more than women in the Basin. Physical features such as accessibility, water bodies/wetlands, settlements, dynamic topography, and naturalness displayed positive influence on the locals' CES experiences. Due to their facilitation on CESs experiences, improvements in rural tourism and environmental protection are proposed as two paths for the Basin’s development and for enhancing the well-being of its inhabitants. A discussion is provided on how and when to incorporate the social values of CES into landscape planning to improve participatory decision making in rural landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Emel Baylan & Sanem Şehribanoğlu & Onur Şatır, 2025. "Contributions of cultural ESs to human well-being, landscape planning and rural development in border landscapes: Local Insights from the Bendimahi River Basin (Eastern Anatolia, Türkiye)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 5397-5419, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:27:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-023-04062-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-04062-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-04062-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-04062-7?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. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    2. Tengberg, Anna & Fredholm, Susanne & Eliasson, Ingegard & Knez, Igor & Saltzman, Katarina & Wetterberg, Ola, 2012. "Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 14-26.
    3. 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.
    4. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0038970 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    7. Lucy E. Keniger & Kevin J. Gaston & Katherine N. Irvine & Richard A. Fuller, 2013. "What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, March.
    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. Bullock, Craig & Joyce, Deirdre & Collier, Marcus, 2018. "An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 142-152.
    10. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    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. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.
    8. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    11. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    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. Flood, Kate & Mahon, Marie & McDonagh, John, 2021. "Assigning value to cultural ecosystem services: The significance of memory and imagination in the conservation of Irish peatlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    14. 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).
    15. 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).
    16. 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).
    17. 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, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    18. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    19. Laura Onofri & Conrad Landis & Phoebe Koundouri, 2025. "Exploring the Economic Nature of Spiritual Values: Results from a Qualitative Meta-analysis," DEOS Working Papers 2530, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.

    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:spr:endesu:v:27:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-023-04062-7. 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: http://www.springer.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.