Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cultural ecosystem services in an urban park: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Sets of ecosystem services that occur together across space or time are called ‘bundles’, and the interactions among them can result in synergies or trade-offs. Knowledge about the interactions among cultural ecosystem services (CES) in urban parks is limited, and how these interactions can be used to support landscape practices (i.e., design and management) and decision-making is unknown.

Objectives

This study aims to identify CES bundles, synergies, and trade-offs in Huanhuaxi Park, Chengdu, China.

Methods

Face-to-face surveys combined with participatory mapping, questionnaires and interviews were performed to assess the interactions of eight CES. Interviews were conducted to reveal existing scenarios of CES interactions and how landscape features influence these interactions.

Results

Overall, CES bundles, trade-offs, and particularly synergies occurred frequently in the park. Four distinctive bundles were found. CES trade-offs and synergies appeared to be complex. Individual CES have relationships with more than one other CES, and not every service has an equal influence on the others. Moreover, trade-offs and synergies were highly influenced by different landscape features.

Conclusions

To conclude, this study constitutes an opportunity for park managers and designers to enhance CES by designing landscape features with CES interactions in mind. Additionally, this study offers a new tool for understanding and quantifying CES interactions, as well as identifies critical landscape features that can be used to guide landscape practices. We promote simulating scenarios by integrating landscape features to present how CES trade-offs or synergies may change under different designs.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ament JM, Moore CA, Herbst M, Cumming GS (2017) Cultural ecosystem services in protected areas: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv Lett 10(4):440–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anguluri R, Narayanan P (2017) Role of green space in urban planning: outlook towards smart cities. Urban for Urban Green 25:58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asah ST, Guerry AD, Blahna DJ, Lawler JJ (2014) Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosyst Serv 10:180–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auer A, Nahuelhual L, Maceira N (2018) Cultural ecosystem services trade-offs arising from agriculturization in Argentina: a case study in Mar Chiquita Basin. Appl Geogr 91:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2012) Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities. Island press

  • Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram C, Rehdanz K (2015) Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst Serv 12:187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieling C, Plieninger T (2013) Recording manifestations of cultural ecosystem services in the landscape. Landsc Res 38(5):649–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulton C, Dedekorkut-Howes A, Byrne J (2018) Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: a systematic review of the literature. Landsc Urban Plan 178:82–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G (2013) The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv 5:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27(2):89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO (2016) Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:258–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell LK, Svendsen ES, Sonti NF, Johnson ML (2016) A social assessment of urban parkland: analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environ Sci Policy 62:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan K, Klinkenberg B (2011) Ecosystem services in conservation planning: Less costly as costs and side-benefits. J Ecosyst Manag 12(1)

  • Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, Hannahs N, Levine J, Norton B, Ruckelshaus M, Russell R, Tam J, Woodside U (2012b) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62(8):744–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012a) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Van Damme S, Li L, Uyttenhove P (2019) Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: a review of methods. Ecosyst Serv 37:100925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Van Damme S, Li L, Uyttenhove P (2020) Taking “social relations” as a cultural ecosystem service: a triangulation approach. Urban for Urban Green 55:126790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc Urban Plan 68(1):129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dade MC, Mitchell MG, McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR (2018) Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: the need for a more mechanistic approach. Ambio 1–13

  • Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Maltby LL, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 62(1):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darvill R, Lindo Z (2016) The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landscape Ecol 31(3):533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson DC, Hobbs RJ (2017) Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst Serv 25:179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan 78(4):465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer A, Eastwood A (2016) Coproduction of ecosystem services as human-nature interactions-An analytical framework. Land Use Policy 52:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young M (2018) Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): a policy brief. One Ecosystem 3:e27108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajmirsadeghi RS (2012) The influence of urban parks on sustainable city via increase quality of life. Sustain Archit-Elixir Int J 51:10766–10770

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegetschweiler KT, de Vries S, Arnberger A, Bell S, Brennan M, Siter N, Olafsson AS, Voigt A, Hunziker M (2017) Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: a review of European studies. Urban for Urban Green 21:48–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives CD, Oke C, Hehir A, Gordon A, Wang Y, Bekessy SA (2017) Capturing residents’ values for urban green space: Mapping, analysis and guidance for practice. Landsc Urban Plan 161:32–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeuring JHG (2017) Weather perceptions, holiday satisfaction and perceived attractiveness of domestic vacationing in The Netherlands. Tour Manag 61:70–81

  • Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol Ind 28:54–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kati V, Jari N (2016) Bottom-up thinking—Identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue–green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land Use Policy 50:537–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenter JO, Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Irvine KN, Christie M, Bryce R (2016) The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosyst Serv 21:270–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch EW, Barbier EB, Silliman BR, Reed DJ, Perillo GM, Hacker SD, Granek EF, Primavera JH, Muthiga N, Polasky S, Halpern BS, Kennedy CJ, Kappel CV, Wolanski E (2009) Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam ST, Conway TM (2018) Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: a case study of Ontario municipalities. Land Use Policy 77:641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leemans HBJ, de Groot RS (2003) Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 58–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin CL, Momtaz S, Gaston T, Moltschaniwskyj NA (2016) A systematic quantitative review of coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services: current status and future research. Mar Policy 74:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6):e38970

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Czepkiewicz M, Kronenberg J (2017) Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS. Landsc Urban Plan 160:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Torralba M, Hartel T, Fagerholm N (2019) Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Lands Ecol

  • Plieninger T, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Byg A, Hartel T, Hurley P, López-Santiago CA, Nagabhatla N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, van der Horst D, Huntsinger L (2015) The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11):5242–5247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11(5):268–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro FP, Ribeiro KT (2016) Participative mapping of cultural ecosystem services in Pedra Branca State Park. Brazil Natureza & Conservação 14(2):120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riechers M, Noack EM, Tscharntke T (2017) Experts’ versus laypersons’ perception of urban cultural ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst 20(3):715–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez J, Beard Jr TD, Bennett E, Cumming G, Cork S, Agard J, Dobson A, Peterson G (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1)

  • Ryan GW, Bernard HR (2003) Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15(1):85–109

  • Schnell I, Harel N, Mishori D (2019) The benefits of discrete visits in urban parks. Urban for Urban Green 41:179–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scolozzi R, Schirpke C, Detassis S, Abdullah U, Gretter A (2014) Mapping Alpine landscape values and related threats as perceived by tourists. Landsc Res 1–15

  • Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48(3):630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM (2014) An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Ind 36:68–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. London

  • Tilliger B, Rodriguez-Labajos B, Bustamante JV, Settele J (2015) Disentangling values in the interrelations between cultural ecosystem services and landscape con[1]servation a case study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines. Land 4(3):888–913

  • Turkelboom F, Thoonen M, Jacobs S, Berry P (2015) Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies. Ecol Soc 21:43

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning J-C (2014) Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 125:89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson C, Saarne T, Peterson GD, Colding J (2013) Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept–an historical exploration. Ecol Soc 18(1)

  • Wu H (2016) Evaluation of visual preference of landscape of Chengdu Huanhuaxi Park based on the SD theory and the AHP theory. Master dissertation, Sichuan Agricultural University, p 9. (in chinese).

  • Zhang, X., 2011 The spatial organization study of Chengdu Huanhuaxi Park based on environment and behavior research. Master dissertation, Sichuan Agricultural University, p.13. (in chinese).

  • Zoderer BM, Stanghellini PSL, Tasser E, Walde J, Wieser H, Tappeiner U (2016b) Exploring socio-cultural values of ecosystem service categories in the Central Alps: the influence of socio-demographic factors and landscape type. Reg Environ Change 16(7):2033–2044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoderer BM, Tasser E, Erb K-H, Lupo Stanghellini PS, Tappeiner U (2016a) Identifying and mapping the tourists perception of cultural ecosystem services: a case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy 56:251–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, Xihua University, 999 Jinzhou Road, Pidu District, Chengdu, 610039, China

    Xin Cheng

  2. School of Arts, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Sylvie Van Damme

  3. Department of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China

    Luyuan Li

  4. Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Ghent, China

    Pieter Uyttenhove

Authors
  1. Xin Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sylvie Van Damme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luyuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pieter Uyttenhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Cheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 614 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L. et al. Cultural ecosystem services in an urban park: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Landsc Ecol 37, 1693–1705 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01434-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01434-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation