Keywords
rural landscape
environmental management
landscape audit
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper explores the quantitative evaluation of cultural ecosystem services (CES) at a local scale, employing biophysical landscape analysis. The evaluation was carried out for spatial units representing different types of rural areas protected in the landscape audit of Wielkopolskie voivodeship. The study used a set of indicators grouped into six categories of CES: recreation and tourism (A), knowledge system (B), natural heritage and natural diversity (C), cultural heritage and cultural diversity (D), landscape aesthetics and inspiration (E), religious and spiritual experience (F). The results of the analyses showed that open rural landscapes with a mosaic of small or medium-sized fields (subtypes 6c and 6d) provide the best supply of CES. In contrast, areas dominated by rural settlements (subtype 6g) exhibit a low CES value. In the case of open rural landscapes, a high potential is particularly evident in CES categories related to recreation and tourism, landscape aesthetics and inspiration, as well as religious and spiritual experience. However, the situation differs for ecosystem services related to cultural heritage and cultural diversity, where landscapes with a predominance of rural settlements hold an advantage. Similar CES supply values were observed across all analyzed landscapes and concerned knowledge systems, natural heritage and natural diversity. The proposed methodological approach can serve as an objective and recognized tool to support the process of rural landscape management. This applies to activities related to landscape protection and its development for tourism and recreation.
References
Affek A., Degórski M., Wolski J., Solon J., Kowalska A., Roo-Zielińska E., Grabińska B., Kruczkowska B. 2020. Ecosystem Service Potentials and Their Indicators in Postglacial Landscapes. Assessment and Mapping. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816134-0.00002-X
Audyt krajobrazowy województwa wielkopolskiego. 2023. Wielkopolskie Biuro Planowania Przestrzennego w Poznaniu.
Bennett E.M., Peterson G.D., Levitt E.A. 2005. Looking to the future of ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 8: 125-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0078-y
Bródka S., Kubacka M., Macias A. 2021. Landscape Diversity and the Directions of Its Protection in Poland Illustrated with an Example of Wielkopolskie Voivodeship. Sustainability, 13, 24: 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413812
Burkhard B., de Groot R., Costanza R., Seppelt R., Jørgensen S.E., Potschin M. 2012a. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 21: 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.008
Burkhard B., Kroll F., Nedkov S., Müller F. 2012b. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21: 17-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
Burkhard B., Kandziora M., Hou Y., Müller F. 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34: 1-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
Burkhard B., Maes J., 2017. Mapping ecosystem services. Advanced Books. Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837
Campagne S., Roche P., Müller F., Burkhard B. 2020. Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. One Ecosystem, 5: e51103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e51103
Chan K.M.A., Guerry A.D., Balvanera P., Klain S., Satterfield T., Basurto X., Bostrom A., Chuenpagdee R., Gould R., Halpern B.S. i in. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience, 62: 744-756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
Costanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill R.V., Paruelo J. 1998. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Ecol. Econ, 25: 3-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2
Crossman N., Burkhard B., Nedkov S. 2012. Quantifying and Mapping Ecosystem Services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8(1-2): 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.695229
de Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3): 260-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Europejska Konwencja Krajobrazowa, sporządzona we Florencji dnia 20 października 2000 r. (Dz.U. z 2006 r. nr 14, poz. 98).
Fagerholm N., Käyhkö N., Ndumbaro F., Khamis M. 2012. Community stakeholder’s knowledge in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18: 421-433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004
Haines-Young R.H., Potschin M.B. 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) v.5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd., Nottingham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108
Hernández-Morcillo M., Plieninger T., Bieling C. 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29: 434-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
Kowalska A., Affek A., Solon J., Degórski M., Grabińska B., Kołaczkowska E., Kruczkowska B., Regulska E., Roo-Zielińska E., Wolski J., Zawiska I. 2017. Potential of cultural ecosystem services in postglacial landscape from beneficiaries’ perspective. Economics and Environment, 60, 1: 236-245.
Kulczyk S., Matczak P., Derek M., Gerlée A., Mączka K. 2023. Kulturowe wartości usług ekosystemowych. [W:] M. Stępniewska, A. Mizgajski (red.), Usługi ekosystemowe w zarządzaniu układami przyrodniczymi. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12657/9788379864690-10
Macias A., Bródka S. (red.) 2021. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne województwa wielkopolskiego. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań.
Maes J., Teller A., Erhard M. (red.) 2013. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services – An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion paper. EUR KH-32-13-185-EN-N. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. JRC81328.
Makovníková J., Kološta S., Flaška F., Pálka B. 2022. Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital – A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic. Land, 11(2): 270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020270
Mandle L., Shields-Estrada A., Chaplin-Kramer R., Mitchell M.G.E., Breme L.L., Gourevitch J.D., Hawthorne P., Johnson J.A., Robinson B.E., Smith J.R., Sonter L.J., Verutes G.M., Vogl A.L., Daily G.C., Rickett T.H. 2020. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nature Sustain., 4: 161-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Our Human Planet. Summary for Decision Makers. 2005. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, 5. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Mizgajski A., Stępniewska M. (red.) 2023. Usługi ekosystemowe w zarządzaniu układami przyrodniczymi. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12657/9788379864690
Müller F., Bicking S., Ahrendt K., Kinh Bac D., Blindow I., Fürst C., Haase P., Kruse M., Kruse T., Ma L., Perennes M., Ruljevic I., Schernewski G., Schimming C.-G., Schneiders A., Schubert H., Schumacher J., Tappeiner U., Wangai P., Windhorst W., Zeleny J. 2020. Assessing ecosystem service potentials to evaluate terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystem types in Northern Germany – An expert-based matrix approach. Ecological Indicators, 112, 106116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106116
Peña L., Casado-Arzuaga I., Onaindia M. 2005. Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosyst. Serv., 13: 108-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.008
Plieninger T., Dijks S., Oteros-Rozas E., Bieling C. 2013. Assessing, mapping and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33: 118-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Schröter M., Bonn A., Klotz S., Seppelt R., Baessler C. 2019. Atlas of Ecosystem Services Drivers, Risks, and Societal Responses. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0
van Berkel D.B., Verburg P.H. 2014. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37(A): 163-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025
Unijna strategia na rzecz bioróżnorodności 2030. Przywracanie przyrody do naszego życia. 2022. Komunikat Komisji do Parlamentu Europejskiego, Rady, Europejskiego Komitetu Ekonomiczno-Społecznego i Komitetu Regionów, Bruksela.
Yang L., Cao K. 2022. Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review. Sustainability, 14: 11845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911845
Zheng T., Yan Y., Lu H., Pan Q., Zhu J., Wang C., Zhan Y. 2020. Visitors’ perception based on five physical senses on ecosystem services of urban parks from the perspective of landsenses ecology. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(3): 214-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1729272
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sylwia Bródka, Weronika Spasówka
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.