, Volume 48, Issue 10, pp 1219–1233 | Cite as

National assessment of cultural ecosystem services: Participatory mapping in Switzerland

  • Rémi JaligotEmail author
  • Stéphanie Hasler
  • Jérôme Chenal
Research Article


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.


Culture Ecosystem services Participatory assessment Spatial planning Switzerland 



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.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Brändli, U.-B. 2015. L’inventaire forestier national suisse. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, G., and N. Fagerholm. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services 13: 119–133.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov, and F. Müller. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21: 17–29.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Dale, M.R., and M.J. Fortin. 2014. Spatial analysis: A guide for ecologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Hernández-Morcillo, M., T. Plieninger, and C. Bieling. 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators 29: 434–444.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Hou, Y., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2013. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 127: S117–S131.Google Scholar
  37. Jaligot, R., A. Kemajou, and J. Chenal. 2018. Cultural ecosystem services provision in response to urbanization in Cameroon. Land Use Policy 79: 641–649.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Karimi, A., G. Brown, and M. Hockings. 2015. Methods and participatory approaches for identifying social-ecological hotspots. Applied Geography 63: 9–20.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Klain, S.C., and K.M. Chan. 2012. Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecological Economics 82: 104–113.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. 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.Google Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Saldaña, J. 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3E ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2015. L’utilisation du sol en Suisse: Exploitation et analyse. Accessed 25 May 2018.
  69. SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2018a. Annuaire statistique de la Suisse 2018. Accessed on 25 May 2018.
  70. SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). 2018b. Statistique de la superficie: Nomenclature standard (NOAS04) par grande région et canton, en hectares. STAT-TABtableaux interactifs (OFS). Accessed 02.2018.
  71. 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.Google Scholar
  72. 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.Google Scholar
  73. Steiger, U. 2016. Conserver et améliorer la qualité du paysage: Vue d’ensemble des instruments de politique paysagère. Office Fédéral de l’environnement (OFEV). Accessed 26 Oct 2018.
  74. Termansen, M., C.J. McClean, and F.S. Jensen. 2013. Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecological Economics 92: 48–57.Google Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar
  76. 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.Google Scholar
  77. Wu, J. 2014. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 209–221.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urban and Regional Planning CommunitySwiss Federal Institute of Technology LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations