Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods

被引:22
|
作者
Tian, Tian [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Sun, Lin [4 ]
Peng, Shengjing [5 ]
Sun, Fengyun [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Che, Yue [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] East China Normal Univ, Sch Ecol & Environm Sci, Shanghai 200241, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Key Lab Urban Ecol Proc & Ecorestorat, Shanghai 200241, Peoples R China
[3] Inst Ecochongming IEC, Shanghai 200062, Peoples R China
[4] Fudan Univ, Dept Environm Sci & Engn, Shanghai 200438, Peoples R China
[5] Kunming Univ, Inst Kunming Sci Dev, Kunming 650214, Yunnan, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Cultural ecosystem services; Visitor-employed photography; SolVES; Social media photograph analysis; Method comparison;
D O I
10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126945
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
There is a close-knit link between people and cultural ecosystem services (CESs). Many methods have been verified as being able to value CESs. However, different methods have focused on specific aspects of CESs and have different highlights and challenges, which makes it difficult to select an appropriate method for specific research. To solve this problem, it is important to understand comprehensively and deeply the various CES valuation methods that exist. This study selects four representative methods, i.e., document analysis, social media photograph analysis, structured interviews and visitor-employed photography (VEP), and combines them with a participatory mapping method based on the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) tool to compare their performance in assessing most facets of CESs. We find that the major differences among these four valuation methods are in the process from perception to CES assessment, and we list the advantages and limitations of each method for distinct aspects. Structured interviews are the most practical method because they can be applied to most situations, with few limitations and high accuracy and efficiency. Social media photograph analysis and VEP make a considerable difference in gaining perception for separate valuation purposes. The accuracy and efficiency of document analysis are low; thus, this method is better as a supplement than as an independent assessment.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods
    Cheng, Xin
    Van Damme, Sylvie
    Li, Luyuan
    Uyttenhove, Pieter
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2019, 37
  • [22] Spatiotemporal valuation of cultural and natural landscapes contributing to Pakistan’s cultural ecosystem services
    Arshad Ali Shedayi
    Ming Xu
    Julen Gonalez-Redin
    Amjad Ali
    Laila Shahzad
    Sabit Rahim
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29 : 41834 - 41848
  • [23] Spatiotemporal valuation of cultural and natural landscapes contributing to Pakistan's cultural ecosystem services
    Shedayi, Arshad Ali
    Xu, Ming
    Gonalez-Redin, Julen
    Ali, Amjad
    Shahzad, Laila
    Rahim, Sabit
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2022, 29 (27) : 41834 - 41848
  • [24] Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review
    Matos Marquez, Laura Andreina
    Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes
    Machado, Karine Borges
    do Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins
    Castro, Joana D. 'arc Bardella
    Nabout, Joao Carlos
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2023, 64
  • [25] On the economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services: A tale of myths, vine and wine
    Onofri, Laura
    Boatto, Vasco
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2020, 46
  • [26] From cognition to economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services - An evidence from Parambikulam tiger reserve, Kerala
    Soman, Divya
    Anitha, V.
    Viswanath, Syam
    Sreeraj, M.
    JOURNAL FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, 2025, 84
  • [27] Technological features of cultural ecosystem services assessment
    Korohoda, Nataliia
    Kupach, Tetiana
    VISNYK OF V N KARAZIN KHARKIV NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-SERIES GEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY ECOLOGY, 2024, (60): : 342 - 353
  • [28] Guidance for the rapid assessment of cultural ecosystem services
    Anthem, Helen
    Infield, Mark
    Morse-Jones, Sian
    ORYX, 2016, 50 (01) : 13 - 13
  • [29] Experts' versus laypersons' perception of urban cultural ecosystem services
    Riechers, Maraja
    Noack, Eva Maria
    Tscharntke, Teja
    URBAN ECOSYSTEMS, 2017, 20 (03) : 715 - 727
  • [30] Experts’ versus laypersons’ perception of urban cultural ecosystem services
    Maraja Riechers
    Eva Maria Noack
    Teja Tscharntke
    Urban Ecosystems, 2017, 20 : 715 - 727