Where and why is landscape considered valuable? Societal actors’ perceptions of ecosystem services across Bavaria (Germany)

References

• Ainscough J, de Vries Lentsch A, Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Schröter M, Delbaere B, de Groot R, Staes J. 2019. Navigating pluralism: understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst Serv. 36:100892. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 22(4):art43. doi:10.5751/ES-09812-220443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayerische Staatsregierung. 2021. Der Freistaat Bayern [WWW Document]. https://www.bayern.de/der-freistaat/.
   Google Scholar
• Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik (LfStat). 2021. Bayern in Zahlen. Fachzeitschrift für Statistik, Ausgabe 08/2021. [WWW Document]. https://www.statistik.bayern.de/mam/produkte/biz/z1000g_202108.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (LfU). 2021. Schutzgebiete in Bayern [WWW Document]. https://www.lfu.bayern.de/natur/schutzgebiete/index.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (StMELF). 2018. Bayerischer Agrarbericht 2018 [WWW Document]. https://www.agrarbericht-2018.bayern.de/landwirtschaft-laendliche-entwicklung/landnutzung.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Landesentwicklung und Energie (StMWi). 2019. 18. Raumordnungsbericht – Bayern 2013 - 2017 [WWW Document]. https://www.stmwi.bayern.de/fileadmin/user_upload/stmwi/Publikationen/2019/2019-08-.
   Google Scholar
• Bidegain I, Cerda C, Catalán E, Tironi A, López-Santiago C, Umapathy G. 2019. Social preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. Plos One. 14(4):e0215715. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Fagerholm N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv. 13:119–18. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic. 21:17–29. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M. 2013. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manage. 129:33–43. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 113(6):1462–1465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, et al. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience. 62(8):744–756. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanza R. 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems. 3(1):4–10. doi:10.1007/s100210000002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan. 54(1–4):267–281. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot WT, van den Born RJG. 2003. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in the Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan. 63(3):127–138. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vreese R, Leys M, Fontaine CM, Dendoncker N. 2016. Social mapping of perceived ecosystem services supply – the role of social landscape metrics and social hotspots for integrated ecosystem services assessment, landscape planning and management. Ecol Indic. 66:517–533. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietze V, Hagemann N, Jürges N, Bartke S, Fürst C. 2019. Farmers consideration of soil ecosystem services in agricultural management - a case study from Saxony, Germany. Land Use Policy. 12:813–824. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.003.
   Google Scholar
• Faccioli M, Czajkowski M, Glenk K, Martin-Ortega J. 2020. Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 174:106600. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Eilola S, Kisanga D, Arki V, Käyhkö N. 2019. Place-based landscape services and potential of participatory spatial planning in multifunctional rural landscapes in Southern highlands, Tanzania. Landsc Ecol. 34(7):1769–1787. doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00847-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-López B. 2015. Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders׳ profiles. Ecosyst Serv. 13:141–152. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geer JG. 1991. Do open-ended questions measure “Salient” Issues? Public Opin Q. 55(3):360–370. doi:10.1086/269268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottwald S, Albert C, Fagerholm N. 2022. Combining sense of place theory with the ecosystem services concept: empirical insights and reflections from a participatory mapping study. Landsc Ecol. 37(2):633–655. doi:10.1007/s10980-021-01362-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann H, Haensel M, Riebl R, Lohse EJ, Koellner T. 2021. Volksbegehren Artenvielfalt: Gesetzesänderungen können auch Ökosystemdienstleistungen in Bayerns Agrarlandschaften stärken. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc. 30(2):106–113. doi:10.14512/gaia.30.2.8.
   Google Scholar
• Hermes J, Albert C, von Haaren C. 2018. Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosyst Serv. 31:296–307. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howley P, Yadav L, Hynes S, Donoghue CO, Neill SO. 2014. Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the ‘multifunctional’ role of the agricultural sector. Land Use Policy. 38:248–256. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martín-López B. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ. 13:36–48. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028.
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2017. Update on the classification of nature’s contributions to people by the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Dunford R, Harrison PA, Kelemen E, Saarikoski H, Termansen M, García-Llorente M, Gómez-Baggethun E, et al. 2018. The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst Serv. 29:515–528. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Wardwell RF. 2003. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis: nonuse value meta-analysis. Water Resour Res. 39(12):39. doi:10.1029/2003WR002649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane EW, Schuman H. 1991. Open survey questions as measures of personal concern with issues: a reanalysis of stouffer’s communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Sociol Methodol. 21:81. doi:10.2307/270932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamarque P, Meyfroidt P, Nettier B, Lavorel S, Reinhart KO. 2014. How ecosystem services knowledge and values influence farmers’ decision-making. PLoS One. 9(9):e107572. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Change. 11(4):791–804. doi:10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewicka M. 2011. Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? J Environ Psychol. 31(3):207–230. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieskovský J, Rusňák T, Klimantová A, Izsóff M, Gašparovičová P. 2017. Appreciation of landscape aesthetic values in Slovakia assessed by social media photographs. Open Geosci. 9(1):9. doi:10.1515/geo-2017-0044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. Plos One. 7(6):e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masterson VA, Stedman RC, Enqvist J, Tengö M, Giusti M, Wahl D, Svedin U. 2017. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecol Soc. 22(1):art49. doi:10.5751/ES-08872-220149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring P. 2015. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical background and procedures. In: Bikner-Ahsbahs A, Knipping C Presmeg N, editors. Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education, advances in mathematics education. Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer; pp. 365–380. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13.
   Google Scholar
• Ode Å, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage. 90(1):375–383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Başak Dessane E, Islar M, Kelemen E, et al. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26–27:7–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrakis RE, Norman LM, Lysaght O, Sherrouse BC, Semmens D, Bagstad KJ, Pritzlaff R. 2020. Mapping perceived social values to support a respondent-defined restoration economy: case study in Southeastern Arizona, USA. Air Soil Water Res. 13:117862212091331. doi:10.1177/1178622120913318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintas-Soriano C, Brandt JS, Running K, Baxter CV, Gibson DM, Narducci J, Castro AJ. 2018. Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception: a programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) analysis. Ecol Soc. 23(3):art3. doi:10.5751/ES-10226-230303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabe S-E, Koellner T, Marzelli S, Schumacher P, Grêt-Regamey A. 2016. National ecosystem services mapping at multiple scales - the German exemplar. Ecol Indic. 70:357–372. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlich S, Zhang J, Benjamin C, Dhillon MS, Englmeier J, Ewald J, Fricke U, Ganuza C, Haensel M, Hovestadt T, et al. 2021. Disentangling effects of climate and land use on biodiversity and ecosystem services – a multi-scale experimental design. bioRxiv 2021.03.05.434036. doi:10.1101/2021.03.05.434036.
   Google Scholar
• Reja U, Manfreda KL, Hlebec V, Vehovar V. 2003. Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires. 19.
   Google Scholar
• Riechers M, Noack EM, Tscharntke T. 2017. Experts’ versus laypersons’ perception of urban cultural ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst. 20(3):715–727. doi:10.1007/s11252-016-0616-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirpke U, Altzinger A, Leitinger G, Tasser E. 2019. Change from agricultural to touristic use: effects on the aesthetic value of landscapes over the last 150 years. Landsc Urban Plan. 187:23–35. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirpke U, Meisch C, Marsoner T, Tappeiner U. 2018. Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings. Ecosyst Serv. 31:336–350. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt K, Walz A, Martín-López B, Sachse R. 2017. Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosyst Serv. 26:270–288. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt TM, Martín-Lopez B, Kaim A, Früh-Müller A, Koellner T. 2021. Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations. Ecosyst Serv. 49:11. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt TM, Riebl R, Martín-López B, Hänsel M, Koellner T. 2022. Plural valuation in space: mapping values of grasslands and their ecosystem services. Ecosyst People. 18(1):258–274. doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2065361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholte SSK, Daams M, Farjon H, Sijtsma FJ, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH. 2018. Mapping recreation as an ecosystem service: considering scale, interregional differences and the influence of physical attributes. Landsc Urban Plan. 175:149–160. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH. 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ. 114:67–78. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuman H, Presser S. 1979. The open and closed question. Am Sociol Rev. 44(5):692. doi:10.2307/2094521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoyama K, Managi S, Yamagata Y. 2013. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: a choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators. Land Use Policy. 34:282–293. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEEB. 2010. Die Ökonomie von Ökosystemen und Biodiversität: Die ökonomische Bedeutung der Natur in Entscheidungsprozesse integrieren. Ansatz, Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen von TEEB - eine Synthese, Münster.
   Google Scholar
• Thiemann M, Riebl R, Haensel M, Schmitt TM, Steinbauer MJ, Landwehr T, Fricke U, Redlich S, Koellner T, Dhyani S. 2022. Perceptions of ecosystem services: comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences. Plos One. 17(10):e0276432. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Berkel DB, Verburg PH. 2014. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Indic. 37:163–174. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walz A, Schmidt K, Ruiz-Frau A, Nicholas KA, Bierry A, de Vries Lentsch A, Dyankov A, Joyce D, Liski AH, Marbà N, et al. 2019. Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe. Reg Environ Change. 19(8):2245–2259. doi:10.1007/s10113-019-01506-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wartmann FM, Purves RS. 2018. Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landsc Urban Plan. 175:169–183. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic. 55:159–171. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SA, Winder SG, Lia EH, White EM, Crowley CSL, Milnor AA. 2020. Next-generation visitation models using social media to estimate recreation on public lands. Sci Rep. 10(1):15419. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70829-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoderer BM, Tasser E, Carver S, Tappeiner U. 2019. Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles. Ecosyst Serv. 37:37. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoderer BM, Tasser E, Erb K-H, Lupo Stanghellini PS, Tappeiner U. 2016. Identifying and mapping the tourists perception of cultural ecosystem services: a case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy. 56:251–261. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar