Elsevier

Ecological Indicators

Volume 45, October 2014, Pages 371-385
Ecological Indicators

Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum approach is adapted to map outdoor recreation as cultural ecosystem service at continental level in Europe.

  • The described framework takes into consideration both potential supply and potential demand.

  • Indicators of quality of provision, remoteness and accessibility are calculated to characterise Recreation Opportunity Spectrum zones.

  • Country profiles summarise outdoor recreation potential provision to citizens.

Abstract

Research on ecosystem services mapping and valuing has increased significantly in recent years. However, compared to provisioning and regulating services, cultural ecosystem services have not yet been fully integrated into operational frameworks. One reason for this is that transdisciplinarity is required to address the issue, since by definition cultural services (encompassing physical, intellectual, spiritual interactions with biota) need to be analysed from multiple perspectives (i.e. ecological, social, behavioural). A second reason is the lack of data for large-scale assessments, as detailed surveys are a main source of information. Among cultural ecosystem services, assessment of outdoor recreation can be based on a large pool of literature developed mostly in social and medical science, and landscape and ecology studies. This paper presents a methodology to include recreation in the conceptual framework for EU wide ecosystem assessments (Maes et al., 2013), which couples existing approaches for recreation management at country level with behavioural data derived from surveys and population distribution data. The proposed framework is based on three components: the ecosystem function (recreation potential), the adaptation of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum framework to characterise the ecosystem service and the distribution of potential demand in the EU. Results show that 38% of the EU is characterised by a high outdoor recreation potential, which is easily accessible, and that such areas can host about 35.4% of potential demand for close-to-home trips (<8 km). This proportion increases to 37.6% for long distance travelling (<80 km). The analysis framework can be applied to quantify the availability of outdoor recreation potential as an ecosystem service to EU citizens, to describe through country profiles differences in ecosystem service provision at regional level, and can be used as an input to land use planning processes.

Introduction

The MA, 2005 and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2010) have greatly contributed to the introduction of the ecosystem service concept in multiple policies and initiatives at global and European level. Examples include the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and the EU Blueprint to safeguard Europe's Waters. This has created the need to operationalise the concept, both in terms of geographical mapping and economic valuation, so that ecosystem services can be effectively incorporated into policy-making. Many initiatives are supporting the difficult path to an effective and harmonised use of the ecosystem service concept, as a key step towards resource efficiency as a common goal of the above mentioned policy actions (EC, 2011).

Among the main ecosystem services groups identified by the (MA, 2005) and CiCES (Maes at al., 2013; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013) cultural ecosystem services are those that due to their intangible nature and dependence from social constructs are particularly challenging to map and assess (Daniel et al., 2012).

Cultural ecosystem services are defined as “non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experience“(MA, 2003, Chapter 2, p. 58). Examples of cultural ecosystem services are: appreciation of natural scenery; opportunities for tourism and recreational activities; inspiration for culture, art and design; sense of place and belonging; spiritual and religious inspiration; education and science (De Groot et al., 2010).

The work presented in this paper aims to provide a framework for addressing outdoor recreation as an example of cultural ecosystem services, and it is part of a larger effort to set up tools and methods for the spatially explicit evaluation of ecosystem services in support of the Biodiversity Strategy 2020 (Maes et al., 2011a). Therefore, a model is developed, to assess the availability of outdoor recreation potential to citizens, at the continental scale. Outdoor recreation was selected due to its importance for millions of people and because it is a service for which the geographical distribution of ecosystems is particularly important. More specifically, the type of recreation addressed in the paper concerns outdoor activities generating benefits in daily life (day leisure visits), spanning from having a walk in the closest green urban area, to a short bike ride in a local natural park, to a day trip with the sole purpose to experience nature. Long distance (>100 km) travelling is not included in the exercise as the presented analysis focuses on resident population and day trips.

The proposed methodology is based on three components:

  • the modelling of the ecosystem function, through a recreation potential index;

  • the characterisation of the ecosystem service through the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum;

  • an assessment of potential demand.

In combination these components are used to evaluate the extent to which European citizens can benefit from ecosystems through recreation.

Section snippets

Characterising outdoor recreation as an ecosystem service

Outdoor recreation is addressed in this paper from the perspective of ecosystem services; therefore, we include all ecosystem types in the analysis, irrespective of intensity of use and alteration by humans, including natural, semi-natural and more intensively managed ecosystems. All ecosystems are considered to be potential providers of the recreation service, irrespective from their conservation status, though the range of provision changes according to ecosystem characteristics.

The

Results

The results will be presented in the following order: (1) modelling the potential of ecosystems to provide outdoor recreation as ecosystem function, (2) characterising the spatial distribution of the potential ecosystem service, and (3) assessing the distribution of the potential demand.

Fig. 3 shows the RPI, which corresponds to the ecosystem function. It is a ranking of the potential recreation provision in the EU, independently whether such potential is or can be used. Ecosystems highly

Discussion

The approach presented in this paper couples an analysis of potential recreation provision, accessibility and potential demand. In our view this is an important aspect because visitor surveys clearly show that people typically do not travel long distances for this type of activities. Therefore they often choose their destinations among a limited set of options available around their homes. Choices on where to actually go are driven by many factors (available time, age, purpose of the trip,

Conclusions

In this paper we propose a method for mapping and assessing outdoor recreation as an ecosystem service at continental level. This is measured in terms of extent and quality of citizens’ access to nature, considering all ecosystems as potential providers of the service.

The mapping is carried out in three separate steps, each of which provides insight to the major components of the ecosystem service flow:

  • mapping of the ecosystem function (the recreation potential) illustrates the degree to which

Acknowledgements

This study was developed in the frame of the PEER Research on EcoSystem Services (PRESS) project. We wish to thank the two reviewers for their thorough reading and their insightful comments and suggestions.

References (56)

  • K. Tzoulas et al.

    Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review

    Landsc. Urban Plann.

    (2007)
  • J. Vesterinen et al.

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2010)
  • T. Wrbka et al.

    Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators

    Land Use Pol.

    (2004)
  • Y. Yang et al.

    Walking distance by trip purpose and population subgroups

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (2012)
  • B.J. Anderson et al.

    Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2009)
  • M. Bossard et al.

    CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide–Addendum 2000. Technical report No 40

    (2000)
  • D.E. Bowler et al.

    A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments

    BMC Public Health

    (2010)
  • K.M. Brown et al.

    Assessing Future Recreation Demand. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 404

    (2010)
  • A. Bujosa Bestard et al.

    Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context

    J. Forest Econ.

    (2010)
  • R.N. Clark et al.

    The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. General Technical Report PNW-98 December 1979

    (1979)
  • D.N. Cole et al.

    Experiencing the restorative components of wilderness environments: does congestion interfere and does length of exposure Matter?

    Environ. Behav.

    (2010)
  • T.C. Daniel et al.

    Cultural ecosystem services: potential contributions to the ecosystems services science and policy agenda

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2012)
  • European Commission

    COM(2011)21 Final – a resource-efficient Europe–flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy

    (2011)
  • European Commission

    COM(2013)249 Final - green infrastructure (GI) — enhancing Europe's natural capital

    (2013)
  • European Environment Agency

    European inventory of nationally designated areas

    (2005)
  • F.J. Gallego

    A population density grid of the European Union

    Popul. Environ.

    (2010)
  • K.T. Geurs et al.

    Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. RIVM report 408505 006

    (2001)
  • C.M. Goossen et al.

    Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: finding the most important indicators for recreation

    Landsc. Urban Plann.

    (2000)
  • Cited by (362)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text