Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia

Abstract

Context

Although there is a need to develop a spatially explicit methodological approach that addresses the social importance of cultural ecosystem services for regional planning, few studies have analysed the spatial distribution on the cultural ecosystem services based on social perceptions.

Objective

The main objective of this study was to identify cultural ecosystem service hot-spots, and factors that characterize such hot-spots and define the spatial associations between cultural ecosystem services in Southern Patagonia (Argentina).

Methods

The study was carried out in Southern Patagonia (243.9 thousand km2) located between 46° and 55° SL with the Andes mountains on the western fringe and the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern fringe of the study area. The study region has a range of different vegetation types (grasslands, shrub-lands, peat-lands and forests) though the cold arid steppe is the main vegetation type. We used geo-tagged digital images that local people and visitors posted in the Panoramio web platform to identify hot-spots of four cultural ecosystem services (aesthetic value, existence value, recreation and local identity) and relate these hot-spots with social and biophysical landscape features.

Results

Aesthetic value was the main cultural service tagged by people, followed by the existence value for biodiversity conservation, followed by local identity and then recreational activity. The spatial distribution of these cultural ecosystem services are associated with different social and biophysical characteristics, such as the presence of water bodies, vegetation types, marine and terrestrial fauna, protected areas, urbanization, accessibility and tourism offer. The most important factors are the presence of water in Santa Cruz and tourism offer in Tierra del Fuego.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that this methodology is useful for assessing cultural ecosystem services at the regional scale, especially in areas with low data availability and field accessibility, such as Southern Patagonia. We also identify new research challenges that can be addressed in cultural ecosystem services research through the use of this method.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Abildtrup J, Garcia S, Olsen SB, Stenger A (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol Econ 92:67–77

  2. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroğlu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

  3. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1–11

  4. Bernáldez FG (1985) Invitación a la ecología humana: La adaptación afectiva del entorno. Ed. Tecnos, Madrid

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

  6. Burham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

  7. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. PNAS 106(5):1305–1312

  8. Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M (2013) Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manag 129:33–43

  9. Casalegno S, Inger R, DeSilvey C, Gaston KJ (2013) Spatial covariance between aesthetic value and other ecosystem services. PLoS One 8(6):e68437

  10. Castro AJ, Martín-López B, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, López E, Cabello J (2011) Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. J Arid Environ 75:1201–1208

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

  12. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou E, Martín-López B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MD, Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping and modeling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:4–14

  13. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Grêt-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. PNAS 109:8812–8819

  14. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272

  15. DeLucio JV, Múgica M (1994) Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to Spanish national parks. Land Urban Plan 29:145–160

  16. Estévez RA, Anderson CB, Pizarro JC, Burgman MA (2015) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv Biol 29:19–30

  17. Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments: mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic 18:421–433

  18. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, López-Santiago CA, Aguilera PA, Montes C (2012) The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ Sci Policy 19–20:136–146

  19. Hartel T, Fischer J, Câmpeanu C, Milcu A, Hanspach J, Fazey I (2014) The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecol Soc 19(2):42. doi:10.5751/ES-06333-190242

  20. Heal G (2000) Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3:24–30

  21. Hernández Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Indic 29:434–444

  22. Higuera D, Martín-López B, Sánchez Jabba A (2013) Social preferences towards ecosystem services provided by cloud forests in the neotropics: implications for conservation strategies. Reg Environ Chang 13:861–872

  23. Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  24. Klain SC, Chan KMA (2012) Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol Econ 82:104–113

  25. Lacitignola D, Petrosillo I, Cataldi M, Zurlini G (2007) Modelling socio-ecological tourism-based systems for sustainability. Ecol Model 206:191–204

  26. Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, Szukics U, Schermer M, Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Chang 11:791–804

  27. López-Santiago CA, Oteros Rozas E, Martín-López B, Plieninger T, González E, González JA (2014) Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol Soc 19(2):27. doi:10.5751/ES-06401-190227

  28. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1988) Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. Wiley, New York

  29. Manly B (1994) Multivariate statistical methods. A primer. Chapman and Hall, London

  30. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lomas PL, Montes C (2009) Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. J Environ Manag 90:1050–1059

  31. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, García del Amo D, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos Martín F, Onaindia M, López Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7(6):e38970

  32. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) Multivariate analysis of ecological data, Version 4.0, MjM software. Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA

  33. Milcu A, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18(3):44. doi:10.5751/ES-05790-180344

  34. Milcu AI, Sherren K, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2014) Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: application of photo-based Q-method in Transylvania (Central Romania). Land Use Policy 41:408–422

  35. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Current state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC

  36. Mouchet MA, Lamarque P, Martín-López B, Crouzat E, Gos P, Byczek C, Lavorel S (2014) An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Global Environ Chang 28:298–308

  37. Musacchio L (2013) Key concepts and research priorities for landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 28:995–998

  38. Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Lozada P, Jaramillo A, Aguayo M (2013) Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: an application at the local level in Southern Chile. Appl Geogr 40:71–82

  39. Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, González JA, Plieninger T, López CA, Montes C (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg Environ Chang 14:1269–1289

  40. Panoramio (2013) Panoramio website acceptance policy for Google Earth and Google Maps. http://www.panoramio.com/help/acceptance_policy

  41. 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

  42. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 28:1053–1065

  43. 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

  44. 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 11:268–273

  45. Richards DR, Friess DA (2015) A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol Ind 53:187–195

  46. Russell R, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Gould RK, Basurto X, Chan KMA, Klain S, Levine J, Tam J (2013) Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Ann Rev Environ Res 38:473–502

  47. Sen A, Harwood AR, Bateman IJ, Munday P, Crowe A, Brander L, Raychaudhuri J, Lovett AA, Foden J, Provins A (2014) Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems: methodological development and national and local application. Environ Res Econ 57(2):233–249

  48. 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

  49. Termansen M, Skov Petersen H, McClean CJ (2004) Recreational site choice modelling using high-resolution spatial data. Environ Plan 36:1085–1099

  50. Ulrich RS (1986) Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Land Urban Plan 13:29–44

  51. van Jaarsveld AS, Biggs R, Scholes RJ, Bohensky E, Reyers B, Lynam T, Musvoto C, Fabricius C (2005) Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philos Trans R Soc Ser B 360:425–441

  52. Vihervaara P, Rönkä M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39(4):314–324

  53. Vila M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE, DAISIE partners (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Front Ecol Environ 8:135–144

  54. Vilardy SP, González JA, Martín-López B, Montes C (2011) Relationships between hydrological regime and ecosystem services supply in a Caribbean coastal wetland: a social-ecological approach. Hydrol Sci J 56:1423–1435

  55. Wood SA, Guerry AD, Silver JM, Lacayo M (2013) Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci Rep 3:e2976

  56. Wu JG (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023

  57. Zagarola JP, Anderson CB, Veteto JR (2014) Perceiving Patagonia: an assessment of social values and perspectives regarding watershed ecosystem services and management in Southern South America. Environ Manag 53:769–782

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank to Santiago Sosa Lovato for laboratory work, Breton Ladd for the English review, and reviewers and assigned editor for their suggestions that have significantly improved the paper. This research was supported by ‘Operationalisation of ecosystem services and natural capital: From concepts to real-world applications’ (OpenNESS) project financed under the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (Project Number 308428). MGL was funded by a  grant from the Spanish National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA) for PhD researchers which is co-funded by the Social European Fund.

Author information

Correspondence to Berta Martín-López.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martínez Pastur, G., Peri, P.L., Lencinas, M.V. et al. Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landscape Ecol 31, 383–399 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0254-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Landscape pictures
  • Spatial distribution
  • Social perceptions
  • Aesthetic value
  • Existence value
  • Local identity
  • Recreation