Participatory and deliberative assessment of the landscape and natural resource social values of marine and coastal ecosystem services: the case of Kyrenia (Girne) Region from Northern Cyprus

Abstract

This paper aims to identify and evaluate the landscape and natural resource (traditional ecological knowledge) social values of marine and coastal ecosystem services (MCESs) in Kyrenia (Girne) Region of Northern Cyprus. To this end, the objectives of the study were (1) to identify and evaluate the key landscape social values of MCESs, and (2) to record and assess the major marine and coastal natural resources harvested as traditional ecological knowledge. Participatory and deliberative research techniques were used to uncover both value types. The data on the marine and coastal natural resources as traditional ecological knowledge were obtained from the stakeholders through 6 in-depth discussion groups and 9 in-depth interviews. The quantitative data on the landscape social values of MCESs were collected with a questionnaire designed. Within this context; the respondents scored the importance of MCESs on a five-point Likert scale. The results showed that the stakeholders hold six landscape social values of MCESs: aesthetic, entertainment, life-sustaining, biodiversity, recreation, and nutrition. However, the total average relative degree of MCESs was found to be very low with 1.71 points. Besides, it was determined that the stakeholders harvest 29 fishes and 3 plant species from the marine and coastal ecosystems. The landscape and natural resource social values of MCESs, and relevant traditional ecological knowledge are important cultural heritage and guiding principles, which should be incorporated into the landscape and natural resource management policies in the region and elsewhere. A greater focus should also be given to integrating the values identified in the ecosystem services assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data availability

The all dataset was presented in the manuscript.

References

  1. Adamowicz WL (1995) Alternative valuation techniques: a comparison and movement to a synthesis. In: Willis KG, Corkindale JT (eds) Environmental Valuation: New Directions. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 144–159

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J (2009) Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26:551e557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baral H, Jaung W, Bhatta L.D, Phuntsho S, Sharma S, Paudyal K, Zarandian A, Sears R.R, Sharma R, Dorji T, Artati Y (2017) Approaches and tools for assessing mountain forest ecosystem services. Working Paper 235. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

  4. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR (2011) The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr 81(2):169–193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berkes F (2008) Sacred Ecology, 2nd edn. Routledge

  6. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown G (2004) Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc Nat Resour 18(1):17–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590881853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown G (2013) The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv 5:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown G, Brabyn L (2012a) The extrapolation of social landscape values to a national level in New Zealand using landscape character classification. Appl Geogr 35(1-2):84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown G, Brabyn L (2012b) An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landsc Urban Plan 107(3):317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown GG, Reed P (2009) Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national forest planning. For Sci 55(2):166–182 Available at: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/28830/PDF (cited on 22.04.2020).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bryan BA, Raymond C, Crossman ND, King D (2011) Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 25:172–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01560.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Christie M, Fazey I, Cooper R, Hyde T, Kenter JO (2012) An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol Econ 83:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chung MG, Kang H, Choi S-U (2015) Assessment of coastal ecosystem services for conservation strategies in South Korea. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0133856. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133856

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ciftcioglu GC (2017) Assessment of the resilience of social-ecological landscapes and seascapes: a case study from Lefke Region of the North Cyprus. Ecol Indic 73:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ciftcioglu GC (2020) Using a combination of Q-methodology and survey-based approach for assessing forest ecosystem services of Five Finger Mountains in Northern Cyprus. Sustain Sci 15:1789–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00824-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Çoker T, Akyol O (2014) An overview on the fish diversity in the coasts of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Mediterranean). Ege J Fish Aqua Sci 31(2):113–118. https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.2014.31.02.08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cole Z, Holland S, Donohoe H (2015) A social values typology for comprehensive assessment of coastal zone ecosystem services. Soc Nat Resour 28:1290–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1020580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Peruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cuttelod A, Garcia N, Malak DA, Temple H, Katariya V (2008) The Mediterranean a biodiversity hotspot under threat. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  22. Daily GC (1997) Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  23. de Groot RS (1992) Functions of Nature. Wolters - Noordhoff

  24. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. de Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Haines-Young R, Gowdy J, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Delipetrou P, Makhzoumi J, Dimopoulos P, Georghiou K (2008) Cyprus. In: Vogiatzakis IN, Pungetti G, Mannion AM (eds) Mediterranean Island Landscapes, Landscape Series, vol 9. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5064-0_9

  27. Diaz S, Demissew S, Carabia J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KM, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Pérez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Abdul Hamid Z, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roué M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual framework – connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Drius M, Bongiomi L, Pugnetti A. (2017). An overview on the Mediterranean coastal ecosystem services, with special focus on the cultural service recreation and tourism, is provided. Technical Report, September 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21997.49122.

  29. Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks I, Mazarrasa I, Marba N (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3(11):961–968. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1970

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. EEA (European Environment Agency). (2014). Horizon 2020 Mediterranean report. Toward shared environmental information systems. EEA-UNEP/MAP joint report. https://doi.org/10.2800/13326.

  31. Ernoul L, Wardell-Johnson A, Willm L, Béchet A, Boutron O, Mathevet R, Arnassant S, Sandoz A (2018) Participatory mapping: exploring landscape values associated with an iconic species. Appl Geogr 95:71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41(3):375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fish, R., Burgess, J., Chilvers, J. Footitt, A., Haines-Young, R. Russel, D., Winter, D.M. (2011). Participatory and deliberative techniques to embed an ecosystems approach into decision making: an introductory guide. (Defra Project Code: NR0124).

  34. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fisher B, Bateman I, Turner RK (2011) Valuing ecosystem services: Benefits, values, space and time. In: Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE) Working Paper Series, Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, Paper No 3. Kenya, UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockström J (2010) Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15(4):20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fuller W, Yalinca G.K, Seffer J, Stanova S, Özden Ö, Hessenberg C, Kara C. (2011). Akdeniz ÖÇKB için Yönetim Planı. Kıbrıs’ın kuzey kesimindeki potansiyel NATURA 2000 bölgelerinin yönetimi ve korunması için teknik yardım. Lefkoşa 2011.

  38. Hacıoğulları İ. (2017). Saliva species of Cyprus and spatial distribution analysis of Salvia Veneris Hedge endemic to Northern Cyprus. Near East University. MS Thesis in Landscape Architecture. Nicosia. Available at http://docs.neu.edu.tr/library/6674841274.pdf (cited on 01.12.2020).

  39. Hagan K, Williams S (2016) Oceans of discourses: utilizing Q Methodology for analyzing perceptions on marine biodiversity conservation in the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa. Front Mar Sci 3(188). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00188

  40. Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosys Ecol 1:110–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haines-Young R.H and Potschin M. (2013). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf (cited on 05.12.2019).

  42. Haines-Young R.H and Potschin M. (2014). Typology/Classification of ecosystem services. In: Potschin M and Jax K (eds) OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book, EC FP7 Grant Agreement No. 308428. Available at: http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/SP_Classification_of_ecosystem_services.pdf (cited on 05.12.2019).

  43. Haines-Young R and Potschin M.B. (2018). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf (cited on 05.12.2019).

  44. Hawkins K. (2003). Economic valuation of ecosystem services. University of Minnesota, October 2003. Available at: https://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/landscape/SE%20Landscape/MFRC_Economic_Valuation_EcosystemServices_SE_2003-10-01_Report.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.

  45. Himes-Cornell A, Pendleton L, Atiyah P (2018) Valuing ecosystem services from blue forests: a systemetic review of the valuation of salt marshes, sea grass beds and mangrove forests. Ecosyst Serv 30:36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kelemen E and Gómez-Baggethun E (2008) Participatory methods for valuing ecosystem services. THEMES Summer School, Lisbon 26.05.-05.06.2008. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eszter_Kelemen/publication/247773660_Participatory_Methods_for_Valuing_Ecosystem_Services/links/02e7e51dd0cc9f0c6a000000/Participatory-Methods-for-Valuing-Ecosystem-Services.pdf (accessed on 21.07.2019).

  47. Kelemen E, García-Llorente M, Pataki G, Martín-López B, and Gómez-Baggethun E. (2014). Non-monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem service. In: Potschin M and Jax K (eds) OpenNESS Reference Book. www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book (accessed on 04.09.2016)

  48. Kennedy JJ, Thomas JW (1995) Managing natural resources as social value. In: Knight RL, Bates SF (eds) A new century for natural resources management. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 311–322 Available at: https://www.umass.edu/hd/resources/KennedyValues.pdf (cited on 12.12.2019)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kenter JO (2016) Deliberative and non-monetary valuation. In: Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Fish R, Turner RK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, Part II. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN, Reed MS, Christie M, Brady E, Bryce R, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Evely A, Everard M, Fish R, Fisher JA, Jobstvogt N, Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ranger S, Ryan M, Watson V, Williams S (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23:879–890

    Google Scholar 

  52. Knights A.M, Koss R.S, Papadopoulou N, Cooper L.H, Robinson L.A. (2011). Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In: Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’, University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-63-6: 165 pp.

  53. La Notte A, D’Amato D, Makinen H, Paracchini ML, Liquete C, Egoh B, Geneletti D, Crossman ND (2017) Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol Indic 74:392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lau WWY (2013) Beyond carbon: conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services. Ocean Coast Manag 83:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lescourret F, Magda D, Richard G, Adam-Blondon A-F, Bardy M, BaudryJ DI, Dumont B, Lefèvre F, Litrico I, Martin-Clouaire R, Montuelle B, Pellerin S, Plantegenest M, Tancoigne E, Thomas A, Guyomard H, Soussana JF (2015) A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schagner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa PM, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Maes J, Liquete C, Teller A, Erhard M, Paracchini ML, Barredo JI, Grizzetti B, Cardoso A, Somma F, Petersen JE, Meiner A, Eva RoyoGelabert ER, Zal N, Kristensen P, Bastrup-Birk A, Biala K, Piroddi C, Egoh B, Degeorges P, Fiorina C, Santos-Martín F, Naruševičius V, Verboven J, Pereira HM, Bengtsson J, Gocheva K, Marta-Pedroso C, Snäll T, Estreguil C, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Pérez-Soba M, Grêt-Regamey A, Lillebø AI, Malak DA, Condé S, Moen J, Czúcz B, Evangelia GD, Zulian G, Lavalle C (2016) An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst Serv 17:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Makhzoumi J and Pungetti G. (1999). Ecological landscape design and planning, the Mediterranean Context.E & FN SPON, London and New York.

  60. Martínez ML, Intralawan A, Vazquez G, Perez-Maqueo O, Sutton P, Landgrave R (2007) The coasts of our world: ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol Econ 63(2):254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, González JA, Lomas PL, Montes C (2009) The assessment of ecosystem services: rethinking concepts and research needs. In: Aronoff JB (ed) Handbook of nature conservation: global, environmental and economic issues. Nova Science, New York, pp 261–282

    Google Scholar 

  62. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C (2014) Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic 37:220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Mjörk M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman BR (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9(10):552–560. https://doi.org/10.1890/110004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Meikle R.D. (1977- 1985). Flora of Cyprus, Vol. 1-2. Kew: The Publisher Bentham, Moxon Trust Royal Botanic Gardens.

  65. Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18(3):565–598. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nijnik M, Miller D (2017) Valuation of ecosystem services: paradox or Pandora’s box for decision-makers? One Ecosyst 2:e14808. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.2.e14808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nijnik M, Nijnik A, Lundin L, Staszewski T, Postolache C (2010) A study of stakeholders’ perspectives on multifunctional forests in Europe. Forests Trees Livelihoods 19(4):341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2010.9752677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Oliver TH, Isaac NJB, August TA, Woodcock BA, Roy DB, Bullock JM (2015) Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat Commun 6(10122). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10122

  69. Papadakis Y. (2008). History education in divided Cyprus: a comparison of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot schoolbooks on the ‘History of Cyprus’. PRIO Report 2/2008. International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

  70. Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Craft C, Fourqurean JW, Kauffman JB, Marba N, Megonigal P, Pidgeon E, Herr D, Gordon D, Baldera A (2012) Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 7(9):e43542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043542

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pickett STA, Burch WR, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Plieninger T, Kizos T, Bieling C, Le Dû-Blayo L, Budniok M-A, Bürgi M, Crumley CL, Girod G, Howard P, Kolen J, Kuemmerle T, Milcinski G, Palang H, Trommler K, Verburg PH (2015) Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecol Soc 20(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07443-200205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2016) Defining and measuring ecosystem services. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London and New York, pp 25–44

    Google Scholar 

  74. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68(5):1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Raymond CM, Singh GG, Benessaiah K, Bernhardt JR, Levine J, Nelson H, Turner NJ, Norton B, Tam J, Chan KMA (2013) Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human–environment relationships. Adv Biosci 63(7):536–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Rosenfeld JS (2002) Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation. Oikos 98:156–162. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980116.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Santos-Martín F, Martín-López, B., Kelemen E, Jacobs S, LLorente M.G, Barton D, Otero-Rozas E, Palomo I, Heiva V. (2016). Social assessment methods for ecosystem services and applications. Deliverable D4.3 EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA Project, Grant agreement No. 642007. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Toshiba/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/D4%203%20Social%20Assessment%20Methods%20for%20Ecosystem%20Services_Draft%20(1).pdf (Accessed on 22.04.2020).

  78. Schernewski G, Inácio M, Nazemtseva Y (2018) Expert based ecosystem service assessment in coastal and marine planning and management: a Baltic Lagoon case study. Front Environ Sci 6:19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Scholte SSK, Todorova M, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015a) Public support for wetland restoration: what is the link with ecosystem service values? Wetlands 36:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0755-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015b) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme R, Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot R, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv Lett 7(6):514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Scott MJ, Bilyard GR, Link SO, Ulibarri CA, Westerdahl HE (1998) Valuation of ecological resources and functions. J Environ Manag 22(1):49–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900083

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Fuller W.J, Seffer J, Özden Ö, Doğan K, Sefferova V, Stritih J, Kara C. (2011). Alagadi ÖÇKB için Yönetim Planı. Kıbrıs’ın kuzeyindeki potansiyel NATURA 2000 alanlarının korunması ve yönetimi için teknik yardım. Lefkoşa 2011.

  84. Sherrouse B.C. and Semmens D.J. (2015). Social values for ecosystem services, version 3.0 (SolVES 3.0) - Documentation and user manual: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1008, 65 p., Available at: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151008 (accessed on 04.12.2020).

  85. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr 31:748–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Sodhi NS, Lee TM, Sekercioglu CH, Webb EL, Prawiradilaga DM, Lohman DJ, Pierce NM, Diesmos AC, Rao M, Ehrlich PE (2009) Local people value environmental services provided by forested Parks. Biodivers Conserv 19:1175–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Sousa LP, Sousa AI, Alves FL, Lillebø AI (2016) Ecosystem services provided by a complex coastal region: challenges of classification and mapping. Sci Rep 6:22782. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22782

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Stålhammar S, Thorén H (2019) Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustain Sci 14:1201–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ 64:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Takahashi Y, Lopez-Casero F, Natori Y, Dublin D (2019) GEF-Satoyama project working paper: values, knowledge and governance of socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan, and Conservation International Japan, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  91. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  92. Tsintides TC (1998) The endemic plants of Cyprus. Bank of Cyprus Group, Cyprus

    Google Scholar 

  93. UNEP. (2006). Marine and coastal ecosystems and human well-being: a synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: UNEP; 2006.

  94. UNEP/MAP (2012) Initial integrated assessment of the Mediterranean Sea: fulfilling step 3 of the ecosystem approach process. United Nations Environment Programme, Mediterranean Action Plan, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  95. UNEP/MAP-Plan Blue. (2008). The Blue Plan’s sustainable development outlook for the Mediterranean, UNEP/MAP.

  96. United Nations (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development. United Nations, New York October 2003

    Google Scholar 

  97. UNU-IAS (United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies. (2013). Indicators of resilience in socio-ecological landscapes (SEPLs). UNU-IAS Policy Report (Authors: Bergamini N, Blasiak R, Eyzaguirre, Ichikawa K, Mijatovic D, Nakao F, Subramanian S.M). Available at: http://archive.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/Indicators-of-resilience-in-sepls_ev.pdf (accessed 21.06.16).

  98. USAID. (2015). USAID Mekong adaptation and resilience to climate change (USAID Mekong ARCC), valuing ecosystem services in the Lower Mekong Basin: country report for Vietnam.

  99. van Zanten BT, van Berkel DB, Meetemeyer RK, Smith JW, Tieskens KF, Verburg PH, Meentemeyer R, Smith JW, Tieskens KF, Verburg PH (2016) Continental scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Walz A, Schmidt K, Ruiz-Frau A, Nicholas KA, Bierry A, de VriesLentsch A, Dyankov A, Joyce D, Liski A, Marba N, Rosário IT, Scholte SSK (2019) Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe. Reg Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01506-7

  101. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, Calladine A, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL Jr, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, Short FT, Williams SL (2009) Accelerating loss of sea grasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. PNAS 106(30):12377–12381. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905620106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Whyte KP (2013) On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecol Process 2:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Winkler KJ, Nicholas KA (2016) More than wine: cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California. Ecol Econ 124:86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. WorldAtlas. (2020). Cyprus maps. Available at: https://www.worldatlas.com/maps/cyprus (accessed on 01.12.2020).

  105. Zube EH (1987) Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Eco 1(1):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank the anonymous reviewers for his/her careful reading of the manuscript, insightful comments, and suggestions to improve the quality of paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GCC was the only contributor in analyzing and interpreting data, and writing the manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gulay Cetinkaya Ciftcioglu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research study is an original work and has not published elsewhere in any language. Informed consent to participate in this study was obtained from the participants.

Consent for publication

Consent of the individuals, who participated in this study, was obtained.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible Editor: V. V.S.S. Sarma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ciftcioglu, G.C. Participatory and deliberative assessment of the landscape and natural resource social values of marine and coastal ecosystem services: the case of Kyrenia (Girne) Region from Northern Cyprus. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12600-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marine and coastal ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem services assessment
  • Landscape social values
  • Traditional ecological knowledge
  • Participatory and deliberative assessment
  • Landscape management