“…Natural heritage (NH) was apparently assessed in 25% of the papers, although it proved to be analysed as a cultural ES in only 6% of the papers (of 39 publications, four were eligible; Table ). In the papers excluded from the NH category of ES, the landscape was considered: (i) for the effects that it can have on biodiversity (e.g., Cole, Brocklehurst, Robertson, Harrison, & McCracken, ; Kearns & Oliveras, ; Lindborg et al., ; Littlewood, Stewart, & Woodcock, ; Sanderson et al., ); (ii) as support for improving or maintaining other ES, but not as an ES per se (e.g., Lavorel et al., , ; Schaldach et al., ); (iii) as an assessment scale for other ES (e.g., Hussain & Tschirhart, ; Kimoto et al., ; Medina‐Roldán, Paz‐Ferreiro, & Bardgett, ; Peringer et al., ); and (iv) for the effects that different drivers had on it without directly analysing the consequences on its cultural value (e.g., Cousins, Auffret, Lindgren, & Tränk, ; Lamarque, Meyfroidt, Nettier, & Lavorel, ; Schaich, Kizos, Schneider, & Plieninger, ). The limited number of papers dealing with the landscape as a cultural ES might be explained by the difficulty for the measurement of this aspect, and to the few currently available indicators (Feld et al., ; TEEB, ).…”