Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the New Forest National Park showing management units in grey and surveyed car park locations marked in red (derived from Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016).

Figure 2. Bar charts illustrating the mean preference for (a) recreation value (b) aesthetic value for habitats, using a survey method. The overall difference between the median ranks of habitats was significant for (b) recreation value and (b) aesthetic value. Bars grouped by the same letter are not significantly different from each other (pairwise comparisons, p < 0.05, without Bonferroni correction).

Figure 3. Bar charts illustrating the mean percentage of (a) recreation value and (b) aesthetic value, using participatory GIS. The overall difference between the median ranks of habitats was significant for (a) recreation value and (b) aesthetic value. Bars grouped by the same letter are not significantly different from each other (pairwise comparisons, P < 0.05, without Bonferroni correction).

Figure 4. Bar chart illustrating the mean percentage of recreation value using GPS tracking. The overall difference between the median ranks of habitats was significant. Bars grouped by the same letter are not significantly different from each other (pairwise comparisons, P < 0.05, without Bonferroni correction).

Table 1. Area of habitat types within the study area and the normalised mean (between 0 and 1) value for recreation and aesthetic values for each method utilised.

Habitat	Area (ha)	Recreation			Aesthetic
		Survey	PGIS	GPS tracking	Survey	PGIS
Acid grassland	3167	0.27	0.48	0.57	0.25	0.08
Arable and horticulture	4539	0.00	0.45	0.00	0.06	0.17
Boundary and linear features	387		0.12	0.16		0.03
Bracken	303		0.02	0.01		0.01
Broadleaved, mixed, and yew woodland	14,294	1.00	1.00	0.59	1.00	1.00
Built-up areas and gardens	2583	0.15	0.59	0.12	0.00	0.16
Calcareous grassland	0.13		0.00	0.00		0.00
Coniferous woodland	4949	0.64	0.42	0.35	0.46	0.25
Dwarf shrub heath	9968	0.53	0.78	1.00	0.57	0.49
Fen, marsh and swamp	3030	0.22	0.12	0.19	0.42	0.16
Improved grassland	9924	0.39	0.70	0.07	0.11	0.13
Inland rock	33		0.00	0.00		0.00
Inshore sublittoral sediment	33		0.00	0.00		0.01
Littoral Rock	2.65		0.00	0.00		0.00
Littoral Sediment	1259		0.23	0.00		0.20
Neutral grassland	1030	0.38	0.39	0.01	0.27	0.21
Rivers and streams	1098		0.06	0.00		0.02
Standing open water and canals	79.0		0.01	0.05		0.06
Supralittoral Rock	0.56		0.00	0.00		0.00
Supralittoral Sediment	55.0		0.04	0.00		0.03
Unidentified habitat	1073		0.20	0.02		0.07
Unidentified water	143		0.08	0.00		0.04

Table 2. Spearman rank correlations between all methods utilised for recreation and aesthetic value assessment using two-tailed tests. Unity-based normalisation was used on the means for each habitat type for each method before testing. To compare the survey method, the ‘arable cereals’ and ‘arable horticulture’ classes were combined and the classes ‘Urban’ and ‘Suburban rural developed’ were combined. Values in bold are statistically significant.

Method		Recreation			Aesthetic
		Structured survey	PGIS	GPS tracking	Structured survey	PGIS
Recreation	Structured survey	–	r = 0.450 P = 0.224	r = 0.634 P = 0.067	r = 0.817 P < 0.01	r = 0.617 P = 0.077
	PGIS		–	r = 0.757 P < 0.01	r = 0.200 P = 0.606	r = 0.884 P < 0.01
	GPS tracking			–	r = 0.734 P < 0.05	r = 0.659 P < 0.01
Aesthetic	Structured survey				–	r = 0.767 P < 0.05
	PGIS					–

Figure 5. Habitat maps based on the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) at a 25 × 25m resolution, displaying the normalised mean value for each habitat for recreation value (a, c, e) and aesthetic value (b, d), by method: structured survey (a, b), PGIS (c, d) and GPS tracking (e). Areas shown as white (a, b) were not included in the list of habitats presented to participants for this method, hence have not been included.