Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National assessment of cultural ecosystem services: Participatory mapping in Switzerland

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies assessed cultural ecosystem services (CES) at the local scale but often ignored them in national assessments. This paper explores CES relationships in Switzerland using web-based participatory mapping. We identified the spatial relationships between CES, the drivers of negative change and solutions to mitigate it. Results indicated that CES tend to have positive spatial relationships, although not always significant. A proxy-based approach supported the findings that the provision of heritage and inspiration services decreased along the urban–rural gradient while others increased. Participants located more CES close to their residence, but acknowledged their presence in distant alpine regions. They reported that better planning and stricter implementation of policies were necessary to refrain CES loss. According to respondents, there might be a density threshold to ensure sustainable supply of CES. Although mitigation measures were specific enough at the national scale, they remained too broad to be applicable at the local scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abram, N.K., E. Meijaard, M. Ancrenaz, R.K. Runting, J.A. Wells, D. Gaveau, A.S. Pellier, and K. Mengersen, et al. 2014. Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. Ecosystem Services 7: 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, C., A. Bonn, B. Burkhard, S. Daube, K. Dietrich, B. Engels, J. Frommer, M. Götzl, et al. 2016. Towards a national set of ecosystem service indicators: Insights from Germany. Ecological Indicators 61: 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, C., C. Neßhöver, H. Wittmer, M. Hinzmann, and C. Görg. 2014. Sondierungsstudie für ein Nationales Assessment von Ökosystemen und ihren Leistungen für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Deuschland. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung–UFZ, unter Mitarbeit von K. Grunewald und O. Bastian (IÖR), Leipzig.

  • Baró, F., E. Gómez-Baggethun, and D. Haase. 2017. Ecosystem service bundles along the urban–rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosystem Services 24: 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I.J., G.M. Mace, C. Fezzi, G. Atkinson, and K. Turner. 2011. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental & Resource Economics 48: 177–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boerema, A., A.J. Rebelo, M.B. Bodi, K.J. Esler, and P. Meire. 2017. Are ecosystem services adequately quantified? Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 358–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brändli, U.-B. 2015. L’inventaire forestier national suisse. https://www.lfi.ch/publikationen/publ/LFI_Flyer-fr.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  • Brown, G., and L. Brabyn. 2012. An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landscape and Urban Planning 107: 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., and N. Fagerholm. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services 13: 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G.G., and D.V. Pullar. 2012. An evaluation of the use of points versus polygons in public participation geographic information systems using quasi-experimental design and Monte Carlo simulation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26 (2): 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G.G., P. Reed, and C.C. Harris. 2002. Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: An Alaska case study. Applied Geography 22: 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, R., K.N. Irvine, A. Church, R. Fish, S. Ranger, and J.O. Kenter. 2016. Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 21: 258–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard, B., M. Kandziora, Y. Hou, and F. Müller. 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, 34. Landscape online: Indication and Quantification.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov, and F. Müller. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21: 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M., M.R. Shaw, D.R. Cameron, E.C. Underwood, and G.C. Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4 (11): e379.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clerici, N., M.L. Paracchini, and J. Maes. 2014. Land-cover change dynamics and insights into ecosystem services in European stream riparian zones. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 14 (2): 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordingley, J.E., A.C. Newton, R.J. Rose, R.T. Clarke, and J.M. Bullock. 2015. Habitat fragmentation intensifies trade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a heathland ecosystem in southern England. PLoS ONE 10: e0130004.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, M.R., and M.J. Fortin. 2014. Spatial analysis: A guide for ecologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darvill, R., and Z. Lindo. 2015. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services 13: 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, J., J. Maes, R.I. Smith, M.L. Paracchini, and G. Zulian. 2014. Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level. Ecological Indicators 38: 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutilleul, P., P. Clifford, S. Richardson, and D. Hemon. 1993. Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49: 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egoh, B., B. Reyers, M. Rouget, D.M. Richardson, D.C. Le Maitre, and A.S. van Jaarsveld. 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 127: 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2011. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Fagerholm, N., N. Käyhkö, F. Ndumbaro, and M. Khamis. 2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments: Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators 18: 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholm, N., E. Oteros-Rozas, C.M. Raymond, M. Torralba, G. Moreno, and T. Plieninger. 2016. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Applied Geography 74: 30–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fei, L., Z. Shuwen, Y. Jiuchun, B. Kun, W. Qing, T. Junmei, and C. Liping. 2016. The effects of population density changes on ecosystem services value: A case study in Western Jilin, China. Ecological Indicators 61: 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frehner, M., B. Wasser, R. Schwitter. 2005. Gestion durable des forêts de protection. Soins sylvicoles et contrôle des résultats: instructions pratiques. (L’environnement pratique). Office fédéral de l’environnement, des forêts et du paysage, 564 p.

  • García-Nieto, A.P., M. García-Llorente, I. Iniesta-Arandia, and B. Martín-López. 2013. Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services 4: 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonseth, Y., T. Wohlgemuth, B. Sansonnens, and A. Buttler. 2001. Die biogeographischen Regionen der Schweiz. Erläuterungen und Einteilungsstandard. Umwelt Materialien Nr. 137. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern.

  • Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. Borgström, J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Å. Gren, et al. 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43: 413–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2011. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 update. Nottingham: Report to the European Environmental Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young, R. and M. Potschin. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.

  • Hayek, U.W., M. Teich, T.M. Klein, and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2016. Bringing ecosystem services indicators into spatial planning practice: Lessons from collaborative development of a web-based visualization platform. Ecological Indicators 61: 90–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Morcillo, M., T. Plieninger, and C. Bieling. 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators 29: 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, J.M., and D. GarcÍa. 2010. Effects of forest fragmentation on seed dispersal and seedling establishment in ornithochorous trees. Conservation Biology 24: 1089–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, Y., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2013. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 127: S117–S131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaligot, R., A. Kemajou, and J. Chenal. 2018. Cultural ecosystem services provision in response to urbanization in Cameroon. Land Use Policy 79: 641–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jopke, C., J. Kreyling, J. Maes, and T. Koellner. 2015. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecological Indicators 49: 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, A., G. Brown, and M. Hockings. 2015. Methods and participatory approaches for identifying social-ecological hotspots. Applied Geography 63: 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienast, F., J. Frick, M.J. van Strien, and M. Hunziker. 2015. The Swiss Landscape Monitoring Program: A comprehensive indicator set to measure landscape change. Ecological Modelling 295: 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klain, S.C., and K.M. Chan. 2012. Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecological Economics 82: 104–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larondelle, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators 29: 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavorel, S., K. Grigulis, G. Leitinger, M. Kohler, U. Schirpke, and U. Tappeiner. 2017. Historical trajectories in land use pattern and grassland ecosystem services in two European alpine landscapes. Regional Environmental Change 17: 2251–2264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P., M.R. Dale, M.J. Fortin, J. Gurevitch, M. Hohn, and D. Myers. 2002. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. Ecography 25: 601–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, R., and N. Videira. 2017. Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping. Ecosystem Services 28: 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maestre, F.T., J. Cortina, S. Bautista, J. Bellot, and R. Vallejo. 2003. Small-scale environmental heterogeneity and spatiotemporal dynamics of seedling establishment in a semiarid degraded ecosystem. Ecosystems 6: 630–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahaim, R. 2014. Le principe de durabilité et l'aménagement du territoire: le mitage du territoire à l'épreuve du droit: utilisation mesurée du sol, urbanisation et dimensionnement des zones à bâtir. Schulthess.

  • Martín-López, B., I. Palomo, M. García-Llorente, I. Iniesta-Arandia, A.J. Castro, D.G. Del Amo, E. Gómez-Baggethun, C. Monteset, et al. 2017. Delineating boundaries of social-ecological systems for landscape planning: A comprehensive spatial approach. Land Use Policy 66: 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modica, G., M. Vizzari, M. Pollino, C.R. Fichera, P. Zoccali, and S. Di Fazio. 2012. Spatio-temporal analysis of the urban–rural gradient structure: An application in a Mediterranean mountainous landscape (Serra San Bruno, Italy). Earth System Dynamics 3: 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mononen, L., A.P. Auvinen, A.L. Ahokumpu, M. Rönkä, N. Aarras, H. Tolvanen, M. Kamppinen, and E. Viirret, et al. 2016. National ecosystem service indicators: Measures of social-ecological sustainability. Ecological Indicators 61: 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahuelhual, L., A. Carmona, P. Lozada, A. Jaramillo, and M. Aguayo. 2013. Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: An application at the local level in Southern Chile. Applied Geography 40: 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paracchini, M.L., G. Zulian, L. Kopperoinen, J. Maes, J.P. Schägner, M. Termansen, M. Zandersen, M. Perez-Soba, et al. 2014. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators 45: 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J.N., L. Winder, J.M. Holland, and R.D. Alston. 1999. Red–blue plots for detecting clusters in count data. Ecology Letters 2: 106–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasant, M.M., S.A. Gray, C. Lepczyk, A. Fernandes, N. Hunter, and D. Ford. 2014. Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 8: 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger, T., H. Draux, N. Fagerholm, C. Bieling, M. Bürgi, T. Kizos, T. Kuemmerle, J. Primdahl, et al. 2016. The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57: 204–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, B., F. Kienast, I. Seidl, C. Ginzler, P.H. Verburg, and J. Bolliger. 2015. Future landscapes of Switzerland: Risk areas for urbanisation and land abandonment. Applied Geography 57: 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, C., M. Meacham, K. Richter, A.V. Norström, E. Andersson, J. Norberg, and G. Peterson. 2015. Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44: 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe, S.E., R. Gantenbein, K.F. Richter, and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2018. Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys: Mapping recreation in the riverine zone. Ecosystem Services 31: 308–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, K.G., and P. James. 2013. Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural–urban gradient: A case study of Greater Manchester, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rall, E., C. Bieling, S. Zytynska, and D. Haase. 2017. Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecological Indicators 77: 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renard, D., J.M. Rhemtulla, and E.M. Bennett. 2015. Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 13411–13416.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rewitzer, S., R. Huber, A. Grêt-Regamey, and J. Barkmann. 2017. Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps. Ecosystem services 26: 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., A. Pecci, V. Amadio, O. Rossi, and L. Soliani. 2008. Coupling indicators of ecological value and ecological sensitivity with indicators of demographic pressure in the demarcation of new areas to be protected: The case of the Oltrepò Pavese and the Ligurian-Emilian Apennine area (Italy). Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 12–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3E ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satz, D., R.K. Gould, K.M. Chan, A. Guerry, B. Norton, T. Satterfield, B.S. Halpern, J. Levine, et al. 2013. The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio 42: 675–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiders, A., T. Van Daele, W. Van Landuyt, and W. Van Reeth. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Complementary approaches for ecosystem management? Ecological Indicators 21: 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter, D., W. Cramer, R. Leemans, C.I. Prentice, M.B. Araújo, N.W. Arnell, A. Bondeau, H. Bugmann, et al. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science. 310: 1333–1337.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2015. L’utilisation du sol en Suisse: Exploitation et analyse. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/espace-environnement/utilisation-couverture-sol.assetdetail.349275.html. Accessed 25 May 2018.

  • SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2018a. Annuaire statistique de la Suisse 2018. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/catalogues-banques-donnees/publications/ouvrages-synthese/annuaire-statistique-suisse.assetdetail.4522228.html. Accessed on 25 May 2018.

  • SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2018b. Statistique de la superficie: Nomenclature standard (NOAS04) par grande région et canton, en hectares. STAT-TAB –tableaux interactifs (OFS). https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/pxweb/fr/px-x-0702000000_101/-/px-x-0702000000_101.px. Accessed 02.2018.

  • Sodhi, N.S., T.M. Lee, C.H. Sekercioglu, E.L. Webb, D.M. Prawiradilaga, D.J. Lohman, N.E. Pierce, A.C. Diesmos, et al. 2010. Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1175–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohel, M.S.I., S.A. Mukul, and B. Burkhard. 2015. Landscape’s capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services 12: 128–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, U. 2016. Conserver et améliorer la qualité du paysage: Vue d’ensemble des instruments de politique paysagère. Office Fédéral de l’environnement (OFEV). https://regiosuisse.ch/sites/default/files/2016-12/Conserver_et_ameliorer_la_qualite_du_paysage.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2018.

  • Termansen, M., C.J. McClean, and F.S. Jensen. 2013. Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecological Economics 92: 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vizzari, M., and M. Sigura. 2015. Landscape sequences along the urban–rural–natural gradient: A novel geospatial approach for identification and analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 140: 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrebos, D., J. Staes, T. Vandenbroucke, R. Johnston, M. Muhumuza, C. Kasabeke, and P. Meire. 2015. Mapping ecosystem service flows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce regions. Ecosystem Services 13: 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. 2014. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the help of those who provided assistance and data, including all those participants to the online survey and the experts who provided feedbacks. The authors are also grateful to the experts at ETH Zürich and the University of Geneva for their helpful inputs regarding the selection of ecosystem services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urban and Regional Planning Community, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Rémi Jaligot, Stéphanie Hasler & Jérôme Chenal

Authors
  1. Rémi Jaligot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphanie Hasler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jérôme Chenal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rémi Jaligot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaligot, R., Hasler, S. & Chenal, J. National assessment of cultural ecosystem services: Participatory mapping in Switzerland. Ambio 48, 1219–1233 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1138-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1138-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation