Methodological framework of cultural ecosystem service assessment

Authors

  • Aiga Spage Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies
  • Daiga Skujane Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies
  • Natalija Nitavska Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2023.23.02

Keywords:

cultural ecosystem services, methodological framework, assessment

Abstract

In recent decades, cultural ecosystem services have been increasingly studied in the field of ecosystem services. Even more diverse studies have been conducted since the Covid-19 pandemic and today's political situation brings cultural ecosystem services, more specifically identity, symbolic, religious and cultural-historical values even more to the fore. Although the services of cultural ecosystems in general are more and more extensively researched, mostly focusing on tourism issues, the cultural-historical, symbolic, religious and entertainment value as base not only for tourism, but also for strengthening local communities, is still rarely studied in research in the world and in Latvia due to the lack of data and the intangible nature of research. Therefore, a methodological framework for conducting such a research, selecting data from publicly available sources, as well as obtaining missing data in field studies. Also, tools for integrating results from assessment of cultural ecosystem services related to identity, religious and symbolic values into political and decision-making documents are missing.
Thus, as a continuation of the study on the assessment of cultural ecosystem services and integration into political and decision-making documents, the aim of the particular article is presentation of a methodological framework developed for the assessment of cultural-historical, symbolic, religious and entertainment values in the landscape. The methodological framework includes seven steps, which are described in this article.
The methodological framework created will be tested and validated in future studies, where improvements may be made depending on the situation during the process.

Author Biographies

Aiga Spage, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

Mg. arch., PhD student and guest lecturer at the Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Engineering, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies.

Daiga Skujane, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

Dr. arch., professor, leading researcher, landscape architect. Academic and research experience more than ten years, currently works as a professor and leading researcher at the Institute of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Engineering, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies.

Natalija Nitavska, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

Dr.arch., professor, leading researcher, landscape architect. Academic and research experience for more than twenty years, currently working at the Institute of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Engineering, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies.

References

Australia ICOMOS Incorporated. International Council on Monuments and Sites. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013. [online 29.11.2023.]. https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf

Bell, S., Montarzino, A., Aspinall, P., Penēze, Z., Nikodemus, O. Rural society, social inclusion and landscape change in central and eastern Europe: a case study of Latvia. Sociologia Ruralis, 2009, Vol. 49, No. 3, p. 295–326.

Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. Recording Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Landscape. Landscape Research, 2013, 38(5), 649–667.

Cabana, D., Ryfield, F., Crowe, T. P., & Brannigan, J. Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 2020, 42.

Canter, D. The psychology of place. Psichonomic Bulletin & Review, New York: St, Martin's Press, 1977, 198 p.

Carlson, L., Kenny, R. Interpreting spatial terms involves simulating interactions. Social & Cultural Geography, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 682–688.

Council of Europe. Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. 1985 [online 29.11.2023.]. https://rm.coe.int/168007a087

Cultural Heritage Database [online 20.11.2023.]. https://is.mantojums.lv

Dambis, J. Kultūras pieminekļu aizsardzības sistēmas pārmaiņas Latvijā [online 5.11.2023.] https://www.bvkb.gov.lv/sites/bvkb/files/nkmp_prezentacija_buvvalzu_sanaksme_22_03_20192.pdf

Eiropas ainavu konvencija. Preambula. (2000). [online 01.10.2023.]. https://likumi.lv/ta/lv/starptautiskie-ligumi/id/1265

European Landscape Character Areas – Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes. Final Project Report Wascher, D.M., (ed) 2005, 150 p.

Faro Convention. Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, 2005 [online 29.11.2023.]. https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention

Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 21, 208–217.

Geospatial infoburrarmation portal of the Latvian State Forests [online 20.11.2023.]. https://www.lvmgeo.lv/kartes

Herscovits, A. Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambrige: Cambrige University Presss. 1986, 220 p.

Hølleland, H., Skrede, J., & Holmgaard, S. B. Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 2017, 19(3), 210–237.

Kim, J.H. Understanding Narrative Inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc., 2016. 345p.

Kingery-Page, K., Glastetter, A., DeOrsey, D., Falcone, J. Examples of adapted etnographic approaches for participatory design. Landscape research record. Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. 2016, No.5. p. 262-275.

Kostanjšek, B., & Golobič, M. Cultural ecosystem services of landscape elements and their contribution to landscape identity: The case of Slovenia. Ecological Indicators, 2023, 157.

Landau, B., Jackendoff, R. “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1993, Vol. 16, p. 217–238.

Latvian Geospatial Information Agency [online 20.11.2023.]. https://kartes.lgia.gov.lv

Lausanne Declaration “Landscape integration in sectoral policies”, 2020 [online 29.11.2023.]. https://rm.coe.int/landscape-convention-of-the-council-of-europe-lausanne-declaration-lan/1680a00bae

LeCompte, M. D., J. J. Schensul. Analyzing and Interpreting Ethnographic Data. Book Five in the Ethnographer’s Toolkit J.J. Schensul and M.D. LeCompte (Eds.). Walnut Creek, Calif: AltaMira Press. 1999a. 268.p.

LeCompte, M. D., J. J. Schensul. Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research. Book One in the Ethnographer’s Toolkit. J.J. Schensul and M.D. LeCompte (Eds.). Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press, 1999b. 246.p.

Levinson, S.C. Relativity in spatial conception and description. In: Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 177–202.

Levinson, S.C., Wilkins, D. P. Patterns in the data: Towards a semantic typology of spatial description. In: Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 512–552.

LIFE Ecosystem services project. LIFE13 ENV/LV/000839, Ekosistēmu un to sniegto pakalpojumu novērtējuma pieejas pielietojums dabas daudzveidības aizsardzībā un pārvaldībā [online 5.11.2023.)]. https://ekosistemas.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/rikkopa/

LIFE Grass Life project. LIFE16NAT/LV/262 “Zālāji un ekosistēmu pakalpojumi” [online 5.11.2023.] https://ldf.lv/sites/default/files/zalaju_ekosistemu_pakalpojumi_zinojums_gala_versija.pdf

LIFE Viva Grass project. ENV/LT/000189, “Integrēta plānošanas pieeja zālāju dzīvotspējai” [online 5.11.2023.] https://vivagrass.eu/lv/integrated-planning-tool/matrix-of-viva-grass-basemap/

MAREA project. CB934, “From marine ecosystem accounting to integrated governance for sustainable planning of marine and coastal areas” [online 5.11.2023.]. https://marea.balticseaportal.net/about-the-project/

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005, 137 p.

Murgante, B., Valluzzi, R., & Annunziata, A. Developing a 15-minute city: Evaluating urban quality using configurational analysis. The case study of Terni and Matera, Italy. Applied Geography, 2024, 162, 103171.

Nacionālā identitāte, mobilitāte un rīcībspēja. Latvija. Pārskats par tautas attīstību 2010/2011. B. Zepa un E. Kļave (Eds.). Rīga: LU Sociālo un politisko pētījumu institūts, 2011, 154 p.

Natural data management system Ozols [online 20.11.2023.]. https://ozols.gov.lv/pub

Ņitavska N. Baltijas jūras piekrastes identitāte Latvijā. Ph.D. thesis. Jelgava: LLU, 2014. 216 p.

Nitavska, N., Zigmunde, D. Legislative Framework for Landscape Planning in Latvia. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2017, 245, 62033.

Pleasant, M. M., Gray, S. A., Lepczyk, C., Fernandes, A., Hunter, N., & Ford, D. Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 2014, 8, 141–147.

Project “Ainavu dārgumi” [online 20.11.2023.]. https://ainavudargumi.lv/karte/

Project “Ilgtspējīga zemes resursu un ainavu pārvaldība: izaicinājumu novērtējums, metodoloģiskie risinājumi un priekšlikumi” information. [online 05.12.2023.]. https://www.arei.lv/lv/projekti/2020/ilgtspejiga-zemes-resursu-un-ainavu-parvaldiba

Project of the National Library of Latvia “Zudusī Latvija” [online 20.11.2023.]. https://zudusilatvija.lv/

Rural support service database [online 20.11.2023.]. https://karte.lad.gov.lv/

Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J.J., LeCompte M.D. Essential Ethnographic Methods. Book Two in the Ethnographer’s Toolkit. J.J. Schensul and M.D. LeCompte (Eds.). Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press, 1999. 318.p.

SIA Delta Kompānija. Zemgales reģionālais ainavas un zaļās infrastruktūras plāns 2020. – 2027. gadam. 2019. [online 11.11.2023.]. https://www.zemgale.lv/lv/media/109/download?attachment

Simensen T., Halvorsen R., Erikstad L. Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review. Land Use Policy, 2018, No 75, pp. 557–569

Spage, A. Landscape quality evaluation using cultural ecosystem service assessment methods. Research for Rural Development, 2023, 38, 229-234.

Spage, A. Using the ecosystem services approach to assess landscape quality. Research for Rural Development, 2022, 37, 293–299.

Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services, 2012, 2, 14–26.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. 1972 [online 29.11.2023.]. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf

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

Whitehead, T. L. Basic Classical Ethnographic Research Methods: Secondary Data Analysis, Fieldwork, Observation/Participant Observation, and Informal and Semistructured Interviewing. Ethnographically Informed Community and Cultural Assessment Research Systems (Eiccars) Working Paper Series, 2005. 206.p.

Yang, L., & Cao, K. Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022, Vol. 14, Issue 19.

Zhang, S., Wu, W., Xiao, Z., Wu, S., Zhao, Q., Ding, D., & Wang, L. Creating livable cities for healthy ageing: Cognitive health in older adults and their 15-minute walkable neighbourhoods. Cities, 2023, 137.

Downloads

Published

31-12-2023

How to Cite

Spage, A., Skujane, D., & Nitavska, N. (2023). Methodological framework of cultural ecosystem service assessment . Landscape Architecture and Art, 23(23), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2023.23.02