A Multidimensional Approach for Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) Assessment: The Cilento Coast Case Study (Italy)

Cerreta, Maria; Clemente, Massimo; Ettorre, Benedetta; Poli, Giuliano

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87007-2_35

Cited by 2 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, 35% of the papers applied multiple non-monetary methods [8,61,70,87]. Half of these papers applied social media-based analysis in combination with other revealed preference methods (document methods, observation in the field) [57,59,62,69,86], or in some cases, with stated preference methods (e.g., expert based methods, participatory mapping) [10,71,81].…”

Section: Valuation Methods Appliedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only 24% of the papers explicitly focused on MSP [24,44,70,71], concerning specific MSP-related fields like "incorporation of socio-cultural values and CES in MSP", "recreation opportunities", "tourism", "marine biodiversity" "MPAs management", "preservation of marine ES", etc. A high percentage of the papers examined (76%) utilized another focus than MSP, such as "natural resources management", "management of MPAs", "vulnerability and risk assessment", or "ecosystem services" in general [59,60,68,69].…”

Section: Focus Of the Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Focus Of the Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As displayed in Figure 6 below, a high percentage of the papers (70%) involved stakeholders in the assessment of CES, including 18% of residents [72], 28% of specific stakeholders, mainly recreational groups, residents, and tourists [73,74]; and 2% were scientists [10]. Finally, almost one quarter (22%) of the publications involved mixed groups of stakeholders [9,24,70,71], including Aboriginal Traditional Owners; residents; user groups and professionals; federal, state, and local government; or different groups of marine-related professionals.…”

Section: Type Of Engaged Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, as shown in Figure 7b, 33% of the papers focusing on MSP utilized social mapping approaches (orange color); among them, 25% used participatory mapping applications, and 8% used MCA to map and assess CES [8,9,24]. The majority of the articles (58%), though, were mixed mapping approaches (blue color), either mixed participatory mapping applications (17%) or a combination of other methods (42%) [11,44,70]. Finally, 8% of the articles used biophysical approaches (green color) [3].…”

Section: Mapping Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mapping and Assessing Cultural Ecosystem Services to Inform Maritime Spatial Planning: A Systematic Review

Banela,

Kyvelou,

Kitsiou

2024

Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-cultural dimensions and values in maritime spatial planning (MSP) are gaining momentum worldwide and especially in the European Union (EU), since it is acknowledged that they are the “missing layer” of maritime spatial plans (MSPlans). These values are partly explored through cultural ecosystem services (CES). Coastal and marine CES refer to the benefits that humans derive from the coastal and marine environments in recreational, artistic, spiritual, and educational terms. They reflect the ways in which coastal and marine ecosystems contribute to human well-being, cultural identity, and interactions with nature. The research question is how to map and assess coastal/marine ecosystem services and to integrate them in the MSPlans. Thus, this systematic review sheds light on methodological and technical issues with CES mapping and assessment and provides guidance on how to incorporate CES in MSP for future research. Publications dealing with the spatial aspects of CES were examined with an extra focus on participatory mapping approaches. Initially, 199 articles were identified, and 50 articles were ultimately eligible for the analysis. Papers were concentrated in the European Atlantic, whilst their scope was either local or regional. A large number of articles consider the contribution of CES to efficient marine management rather than to achieving an integrated and coordinated MSP. Social and mixed mapping approaches were met with the most often, especially participatory mapping approaches. Also, non-monetary valuation was prevailing, and a multitude of techniques, tools, and statistical software were used. In most of the cases, the distribution of values in relation to environmental, socio-economic, and demographic factors was examined. This article concludes that an effective integration of CES into MSP is crucial for creating prospects of a more sustainable and inclusive approach to coastal/marine planning and for the well-being of ecosystems and communities both currently and for future generations. This knowledge should become “property” of the maritime spatial planners.

show abstract