CONTENT .. 2
1.1 Overview .. 3
1.2 Research Questions ... 4
1.3 Justification ... 4
2. BACKGROUND CONCEPTS ... 5
3. METHODOLOGY .. 8
3.1 Study area .. 8
3.2 Data collection . 14
3.3 Data analysis 15
4. RESULTS .. 15
4.1 Provisioning ecosystem services . 15
4.2 Regulating ecosystem services 16
4.3 Cultural ecosystem services . 16
4.3.1 The Human-Scale Development Matrix (H-SDM) and it’s relevance for cultural ecosystem services . 16
4.3.2 Cultural ecosystem services evidence ... 18
4.3.2 Mapping cultural ecosystem services ... 21
4.3.3 Questionaire .. 24
4.3.3 Monetizing cultural ecosystem services ... 24
4.3.4 Cultural ecosystem service demand-potential comparison matix . 26
5. CONCLUSIONS ... 27
Glossary refferences .. 28
Extras din document
“The world’s economic prosperity and well-being are underpinned by its natural capital, i.e. its biodiversity, including ecosystems that provide essential goods and services for mankind, from fertile soils and multi-functional forests to productive land and seas, from good quality fresh water and clean air to pollination and climate regulation and protection against natural disasters” (J. M. Benjamin Burkhard 2017)
Using different methods of monetizing and mapping, this analisys centres on green and blue infrastructure regarding the ecosystem services but in particular cultural services generated by studied area situated in Vaihingen an der Enz. “Mapping ecosystem services is essential to understand how ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing and to support policies which have an impact on natural resources” (J. M. Benjamin Burkhard 2017). Field visits and questionnaires were conducted in order to have a better understanding of the environment. Spending time in the studied area and speaking with visitors played an important role in analysing the relationship between people and services provided by the environment.
Keywords: Ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem services, mapping, monetizing, landscape aesthetics, landscape value
“Urban ecosystems i.e. blue and green infrastructure” supply multiple benefits to citizens and the quality of life is influenced by these essential features. (Vierikko Kati 2016)
One particular ecosystem service can be categorised by its characteristics related to natural structure, functional feature and organisational properties (J. M. Benjamin Burkhard 2017). All services like provisioning, regulating and cultural provided by nature are directly linked to people, therefore they are influencing the ecosystems and vice versa.
1.2 Research Questions
The following essential questions have been of significant relevance for concept of localisation, monatizing, indication and quantification of ecosystem services but especially cultural services in studied area.
What kind of ecosystem services are provided by Enz River in relation with Vaihingen an der Enz town?
In which manner cultural ecosystem services are influencing people’s well being?
Is there a distinction between cultural ecosystem service potentials and demands practical?
How perceive people the aesthetic characteristic of the space?
Which are the hot spots of the area?
We, as human beings are interacting with nature in our daily life both in rural and in urban areas sometimes without being aware or without appreciating the influence that it has in our way of being or developing. In urban surroundings, people are facing with speciffic characteristics of environment as heat island effect, quality of air or stormwater runoff so, finding a balance between all the aspects is tremendous.
Quantification and maping of cultural ecosystem services can guide citizens, authorities and researchers to awareness and to a better understanding of environment’s influence on quality of life.
More specifically, the aim of this study is to understand the relationship between the Enz River and the Vaihingen an der Enz locality concerning how people benefit of different ecosystem services but especially cultural services.
The main intention was to have direct and valuable data from the field “to support land-use policies based on public perceptions and opinions that could contribute to decision-making” (Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga 2013).
Andrew Church, Jacquelin Burgess, Neil Ravenscroft. Cultural Services. 2010.
Benjamin Burkhard, Joachim Maes. Mapping Ecosystem Services. 2017.
Benjamin Burkhard, Marion Kandziora, Ying Hou & Felix Müller. Ecosystem Service Potentials, Flows and Demands. 2014.
Benjamin Burkhard, Marion Kandziora, Ying Houl. Ecosystem Service Potentials, Flows and Demands. 2012.
Burckhardt, Lucius. Why is landscape beautiful? . 1979.
Davis, McKenna. Green Infrastructure in-depth Case Analysis Theme 6: Grey Infrastructure Mitigation. 2011.
De Mark A. Benedict, Edward T. McMahon. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscape and Communitites. 2012.
Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga, Iosu Madariaga, Miren Onaindia. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. 2013.
Jules Pretty, Caroline Angus, Madeleine Bain, Jo Barton, Valerie Gladwell, Rachel Hine, Sarah Pilgrim, Gavin Sandercock and Martin Sellens. Nature, Childhood, Health and Life Pathways. 2009.
Mark Rickinson, Justin Dillon, Kelly Teamey, Marian Morris, Mee Young Choi, Dawn Sanders, Pauline Benefield. A Review of Research on Outdoor. 2004.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005.
Olaf Bastian, Karsten Grunewald. Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. 2014.
Stephan Barthel Sara Borgström, Johan Colding, Thomas Elmqvist, Carl Folke, Åsa Gren. Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere. 2014.
Takano. Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces. 2002.
Vierikko Kati, Niemelä Jari. Identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue- green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland,. 2016.
White, Lisa Marie. The Value of Well-Being Advancing Urban Blue Infrastructure with Holistic Metrics,. Portland State University,, 2014.
Conținut arhivă zip
- Green and blue infrastructure - Cultural ecosystem services.pdf