Abstract
Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) are recognized but still considered as the “residual” ES subcategory and remain understudied. Their potential to shape common identities and impact societal perspectives on ocean/marine resources’ management explains why further research on CES can widen the range of information needed for policymaking, especially in cases of blue tourism interventions. In this chapter (This work has received funding from the European Union’s Interreg Balkan-Mediterranean programme under grant agreement MIS 5017160.), we review some possible conceptual frameworks for the CES classification along with the monetary and non-monetary (revealed and stated preference) methods for their valuation. Attention is given to the stated methods that the last years have received increasing attention and exhibit some potential to be linked with Maritime Spatial Planning decisions. An attempt to operationally define CES in the context of Marine Protected Areas and investigate the determinants of perceived cultural heritage and identity features has been adopted in two Interreg projects, AMAre and RECONNECT.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AMARE (Interreg). (2020). AMARe – Actions for marine protected areas. Online Platform. https://amare.interreg-med.eu
Börger, T., Beaumont, N. J., Pendleton, L., Boyle, K. J., Cooper, P., Fletcher, S., et al. (2014). Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: the role of valuation. Marine Policy, 46, 161–170.
Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21, 258–269.
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012a). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18.
Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B. S., 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, 744–756.
Cheng X., Van Damme S., Li L., Uyttenhove P. (2019). ‘Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods’, Ecosystem Services, Elsevier 37.
Church, A., Burgess, J., Ravenscroft, N., Bird, W., Blackstock, K., Brady, E., Crang, M., Fish, R., Gruffudd, P., Mourato, S., Pretty, J., Tolia-Kelly, D., Turner, K., & Winter, M. (2011). Cultural services. In UK national ecosystem assessment: technical report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). United Nations environment programme, 1760 UNTS 79; 31 ILM 818.
Costanza, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(15), 253–260.
Cruz, I., Stahel, A., & Max-Neef, M. (2009). Towards a systemic development approach: Building on the human-scale development paradigm. Ecological Economics, 68, 2021–2030.
Daily, G. C. (Ed.). (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 392 pp.
Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Skinner, A. M. J., Davies, Z. G., Rouquette, J. R., Maltby, L. L., Warren, P. H., Armsworth, P. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2012). Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human Well-being and species richness. Bioscience, 62, 47–55.
Defra, U. (2007). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). UK: UK.
European Commission. (2018). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An analytical framework for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition in EU, Fifth technical report
Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217.
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390–394.
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). Consultation on CICES version 4.3, August–December 2012: Report to the European Environment Agency. Consultation report on the common international classification of ecosystem services under EEA framework contract no EEA/IEA/09/003. Nottingham, UK: Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham.
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. B. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure.
Irvine, K., Fuller, R., Devine-Wright, P., Payne, S., Tratalos, J., Warren, P., Lomas, K., & Gaston, K. (2010). Ecological and psychological value of urban green space. In J. Jenks & C. Jones (Eds.), Dimensions of the sustainable city. Dordrecht: Springer.
Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., & Kenter, J. O. (2014). Looking below the surface: The cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecosystem Services, 10, 97–110.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. Official Journal of the European Union, 164, 19–40.
Max-Neef, M. (1989). Human scale development: An option for the future. Development Dialogue, 1, 5–81.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Natural England. (2012). Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: The national survey on people and the natural environment. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-naturalenvironment-survey-purpose-and-results
RECONNECT (Interreg). (2020). Regional cooperation for the transnational ecosystem sustainable development. Online platform. https://reconnect.hcmr.gr
Remoundou, K., Koundouri, P., Kontogianni, A., Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Skourtos, M. (2014). Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: An economic perspective. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 1040–1051.
Schmidt, K., Walz, A., Jones, I., & Metzger, M. J. (2016). The sociocultural value of upland regions in the vicinity of cities in comparison with urban green spaces. Mountain Research and Development, 36(4), 465–474.
Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services, 2, 14–26.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. (2010). Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB, 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stergiopoulou, L., Koundouri, P., Vassilopoulos, A. (2021). Monetary and Non-monetary Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Marine Protected Areas. In: Koundouri, P. (eds) The Ocean of Tomorrow. Environment & Policy, vol 57. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56847-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56847-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56845-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56847-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)