Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Landscape Resource Policy Context
4. Aesthetic Value Assessment Theory
4.1. The Expert Paradigm
4.2. The Psychophysical Paradigm
4.3. The Cognitive Paradigm
4.4. The Experiential, Paradigm
5. New Cultural Ecosystem Valuation Methods
5.1. Recent Standardized Protocols for Cultural Ecosystem Services including Aesthetic Landscape Attributes
5.2. Specific Landscape Aesthetic Ecosystem Service Assessment Application Types
6. Summary and Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Project. Ecosystem and Human Well Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis; Water Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297563785_Millennium_Ecosystem_Assessment_Ecosystems_and_human_well-being_synthesis (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Smardon, R.C. Cultural Ecosystem Services as Part of Scenic Resource Management? In Visual Resource Stewardship Conference Proceedings; Gobster, P.H., Smardon, R.C., Eds.; GTR-NRS-P-183G; US Forest Service Publication: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-p-183papers/09-smardon-VRS-gtr-p-183.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 959–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, R.; Wilson SM, A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faber, S.; Costanza, R.; Childers, D.L.; Erickson, J.; Gross, K.; Grove, M.; Hopkinson, C.S.; Kahn, J.; Pincetl, S.; Troy, A.; et al. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. BioScience 2006, 56, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smardon, R.C. Assessing visual-cultural values of inland wetlands. In Landscape Assessment: Value, Perceptions and Resources; Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fábos, J.G.y., Eds.; Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1975; pp. 289–318. [Google Scholar]
- Smardon, R.C. Visual-cultural values of wetlands. In Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding; Greeson, P., Clark, J.R., Clark, J., Eds.; American Water Resources Association: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1979; pp. 535–544. [Google Scholar]
- Smardon, R.C. Wetland Policy and Visual-Cultural Values in the United States. In The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values; Smardon, R.C., Ed.; Allanheld Osmun: Totowa, NJ, USA, 1983; pp. 17–24. Available online: http://www.esf.edu/via (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Smardon, R.C. Visual-cultural assessment and wetland evaluation. In The Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Volume 2: Management, Use and Value of Wetlands; Hook, D.D., McKee, W.H., Smith, H.K., Gregory, J., Burrell, V.G., DeVoe, M.R., Sojka, R.E., Gilbert, S., Banks, R., Stolzy, L.H., et al., Eds.; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 1988; pp. 103–114. [Google Scholar]
- Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ringold, P.L.; Boyd, J.; Landers, D.H.; Weber, M. What data should we collect? A framework for identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landers, D.H.; Nahilk, A.M. Final Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS); EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914; US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
- Kumar, W.; Kumar, P. Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 808–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reimhold, J.R.; Hardisky, M.A.; Phillips, J.H. Wetland values—A non-consumptive perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 1980, 11, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, R.K.; Georgiou, S.; Fisher, B. Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of Multi-Functional Wetlands; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1394–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Montes, C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 37, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smardon, R.C. Sustaining the Worlds Wetlands: Setting Policy and Resolving Conflicts; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgstro¨m, S.; Ju¨rgen, B.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, A.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 2014, 43, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jax, K.; Barton, D.N.; Chan, K.M.A.; de Groot, R.; Doyle, U.; Eser, U.; Görg, C.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Griewald, Y.; Haberl, W.; et al. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smardon, R.C.; Moran, S. Revitalizing urban waterways: Streams of environmental justice. In Landscapes and Greenways of Resilience: Proceedings of the 5th Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning; Jombach, S., Valanszki, I., Filep-Kovacs, K., Fábos, J.G.y., Ryan, R.L., Lindhult, M.S., Kollányi, L., Eds.; Szent University, Department of Landscape Planning and Regional Development: Budapest, Hungary, 2016; pp. 215–222. [Google Scholar]
- Hein, L.; van Koppen, K.; de Groot, R.S.; van Ierland, E.C. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M.A.; Costanza, R.; Boumans, R.; Liu, S. Integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem goods and services provided by coastal systems: In The Intertidal Ecosystem: The Value of Ireland’s Shores; James, G.W., Ed.; Royal Irish Academy: Dublin, Ireland, 2005; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, R.J.; Grigalunas, T.A.; Opluch, J.J.; Mazzotta, M.; Diamantedes, J. Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: The Peconic estuary system study. Coast. Manag. 2002, 30, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, R.; Langford, I.H.; Bateman, I.J.; Turner, R.K. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg. Environ. Chang. 1999, 1, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyer, T.; Polasky, S. Valuing urban wetlands: A review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 2004, 24, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghermandi, A.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Brander, L.M.; de Groot, H.L.F.; Nunes, P.A.L.D. Values of natural and human-made wetlands: A meta-analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, W12516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leopold, A.A. Sand County Almanac; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1949. [Google Scholar]
- Callicott, J.B. The land aesthetic. In Companion to the Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays; Callicott, J.B., Ed.; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Carlson, A. Appreciation of the natural environment. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 1979, 37, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, A. Nature and positive aesthetics. Environ. Ethics 1984, 6, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobster, P. Aldo Leopold’s ecological aesthetics integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. J. For. 1995, 93, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
- Gobster, P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest. Landsc. J. 1999, 18, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheppard, S.R.J. Beyond visual resource management: Emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship Chapter eleven. In Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics; Sheppard, S.R.J., Horshaw, H.W., Eds.; CABI Publishers: Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 149–172. [Google Scholar]
- Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention, European Treaty Series 176 (Florence Convention); Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Fairchough, G.; Herlin, I.S.; Swanwick, C. Handbook of Landscape Character Assessment: Current Approaches to Characterization and Assessment; Fairchough, G., Herlin, I.S., Swanwick, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- US Congress. National Environmental Policy Act; 42 U.S.C. §4321 et. seq.; US Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 1969.
- Smardon, R.C. Historical evolution of visual resources management within three federal agencies. J. Environ. Manag. 1986, 22, 301–317. [Google Scholar]
- Lothian, A. The Science of Scenery; How We See Scenic Beauty, What Is, Why We Love It and How to Measure and Map It; Amazon Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zube, E.H.; Sell, J.L.; Taylor, J.G. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 1982, 9, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smardon, R.C.; Fábos, J.G.y. A model for assessing visual-cultural values of wetlands: A Massachusetts case study, Chapter 9. In The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values; Smardon, R.C., Ed.; Allanheld Osmun: Totowa, NJ, USA, 1983; pp. 149–170. [Google Scholar]
- USDI Bureau of Reclamation. Water and Land recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WLROS) Users Handbook, 2nd ed.; USDI, Bureau of Reclamation Policy and Administration, Denver Service Center: Denver, CO, USA, 2011.
- Cottet, M.; Piégay, H.; Bornette, G. Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 1012–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dobbie, M.F. Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 120, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuel, P.M. Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: Cases from the Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada. Wetlands 2003, 23, 921–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassauer, J.N. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological design. Wetlands 2004, 24, 756–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, M.S. Landscape preference assessment of Louisiana river landscapes; A methodological Study. In Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource; Elsner, G., Smardon, R.C., Eds.; USDA General Technical Report PSW-35; Pacific Southwest Forest and Experiment Station: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979; pp. 572–580. Available online: https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27629 (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Lee, M.S. Assessing visual preference for Louisiana river landscapes. In The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values; Smardon, R.C., Ed.; Allanheld Osmun: Totowa, NJ, USA, 1983; pp. 43–63. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, L.-H. Perspectives on landscape aesthetics for the ecological conservation of wetlands. Wetlands 2017, 37, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callicott, J.B. Wetland gloom and wetland glory. Philos. Geogr. 2003, 6, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolston, H. Aesthetics in the Swamps. Perspect. Biol. Med. 2000, 43, 584–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Korpela, K.M.; Klemettila, T.; Hietanen, J.K. Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 634–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Human Behavior and Environment. Vol. 6: Behavior and the Natural Environment; Altman, I., Wohwill, J.F., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, J.F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.F. Assessment of coastal wetlands in Dennis Massachusetts. Chapter 5. In The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values; Smardon, R.C., Ed.; Allanheld Osmun Publishers: Totawa, NJ, UAS, 1983; pp. 81–98. [Google Scholar]
- Milcu, A.I.; Hanspach, J.; Abson, D.; Fischer, J. Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, G.; Montag, J.M.; Lyon, K. Public participation GIS: A method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 633–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Bryan, B.A.; MacDonald, D.H.; Cast, A.; Strathearn, S.; Grandgirard, A.; Kalivas, T. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1301–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.F.; Smardon, R.C. Measuring human values associated with wetlands. In Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation; Kriesberg, L., Northrup, T.A., Thorson, E.S.J., Eds.; Syracuse University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 156–179. [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, J.F.; Smardon, R.C. Visual amenity value of wetlands: An assessment of Juneau, Alaska. In Wetlands 88: Urban Wetlands and Riparian Habitat; Kusler, J., Brooks, G., Eds.; Association of State Wetland Managers: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 104–107. [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, J.F.; Smardon, R.C. Human-use value of wetlands: An assessment of Juneau, Alaska. In Wetland 88: Urban Wetlands and Riparian Habitat; Kusler, J., Brooks, G., Eds.; Association of State Wetland Managers: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 108–117. [Google Scholar]
- Ruskule, A.; Vingrados, I.; Pecina, M.V. The Guidebook on “The Introduction to the Ecosystem Service Framework and its Application in Integrated Planning”; University of Latvia, Faculty of Geography and Earth Science: Riga, Latvia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sherrause, B.; Semmes, D. Social Values for Ecosystem Services Version 4.0—Documentation and User Manual; Chapter 25; Book 7; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2020.
- Norton, L.R.; Inwood, H.; Crowe, A.; Baker, A. Trailling a method to quantify the ‘cultural services’ of the English landscape using countryside survey data. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tengberg, A.; Fredholm, S.; Eliasson, I.; Knez, I.; Saltzman, K.; Wetterberg, O. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagerholm, N.; Kayhko, N. Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Int. J. Geogr. 2009, 187, 43–60. [Google Scholar]
- Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Herrero-Jauregui, C.; Schmitz, M.F. Recreational and nature-based tourism as a cultural ecosystem service. Assessment and mapping in a rural-urban gradient of central Spain. Land 2021, 10, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayashi, K.; Ooba, M.; Hasegawa, Y. Cultural ecosystem service assessment in a semi-mountainous area in Toyota city. Int. J. Environ. Rural Dev. 2015, 6, 97–102. Available online: http://iserd.net/ijerd61/IIERD5206-1-17.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Xu, H.; Zhao, G.; Fagerholm, N.; Primdahl, J.; Plieninger, T. Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services for landscape corridor planning. A case study of the Silk Roads corridor in Zhangye, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruskule, A.; Klepers, A.; Veldemane, K. Mapping and assessment of cultural ecosystem services of Latvian coastal areas. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e25499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dou, Y.; Liu, M.; Bakker, M.; Yu, X.; Carsjens, G.J.; De Groot, R.; Liu, J. Influence of human interventions on local perceptions of cultural ecosystem services provided by coastal landscapes; Case study of Huiwen wetland, Southern China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 1010311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smart, L.S.; Vulkomanovic, J.; Sills, E.O.; Sanchez, G. Cultural ecosystem services caught in a ‘coastal squeeze’ between sea level rise and urban expansion. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2021, 66, 102209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, L.; Murtha, T.; Orland, B.A. The use of crowd sourced and geo-referenced photography to aid in visual resource planning and conservation. In Visual Resource Stewardship Conference Proceedings; Gobster, P., Smardon, R., Eds.; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report; North Central Forest Experiment Station: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 116–126. [Google Scholar]
- Pueyo-Ros, J.; Ribas, A.; Freguell, R.M. A cultural approach to wetlands restoration to assess public acceptance. Restor. Ecol. 2018, 27, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyer, A.-L.; Comby, E.; Falminio, S.; Yes-Francious, L.L.; Cottet, M. The social dimensions of a river’s environmental quality assessment. Ambio 2019, 48, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jammah, F.S.; Mosier, S. The role of cultural ecosystem services in Urban riverscape restoration. In Proceeding of the Fifth International Cultural Landscape Conference: Urban Cultural Landscape Past: Present and Future, Tehran, Iran, 1 March 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everard, M.; Suker, L.; Gurnell, A. The Mayes Book Restoration on Mayesbrook Park, East London: An Ecosystem Assessment; Environmental Agency, Horizon House: Bristol, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Soini, K.; Vaarala, H.; Pouta, E. Resident’s sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vejre, H.; Jensen, F.S.; Thorsen, B.J. Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, K.L.; Nelson, K.C.; Samples, S.R.; Hall, S.J.; Bettez, N.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Groffman, P.M.; Grove, M.; Hefferman, J.B.; Hobbie, S.E.; et al. Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: Priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 19, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, L.; Holland, R.A.; Ball, J.; Sykes, T.; Taylor, G.; Ingwall-King, L.; Snaddon, J.L.; Peh, K.S.-H. A place-based participatory mapping approach for assessing cultural ecosystem services in urban green space. People Nat. 2019, 2, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Priess, J.; Pinto, L.V.; Misiune, I.; Palliwoda, J. Ecosystem service use and the motivations for use in central parks in three European cities. Land 2021, 10, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunziker, M.; Felber, P.; Gehring, K.; Buchecker, M.; Bauer, N.; Kienast, F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hermann, A.; Schleifer, S.; Wrbka, T. The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research; A review. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 2011, 5, 1–37. Available online: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2011-1 (accessed on 15 September 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheppard, S.R.J. Visualizing Climate Change: A Guide to Visual Communication of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions; Earthscan: London, UK; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Services | Comments and Examples | |
Aesthetic | Finding beauty or aesthetic value | |
Recreational | Opportunities for recreational activities | |
Educational | Opportunities for formal and informal education and training | |
Spiritual and inspirational | Source of inspiration, religious attachment | |
Functions | Ecosystem Processes | Goods and Services |
Information functions | Opportunities for cognitive development | |
Aesthetic information | Attractive landscape | Enjoyment of scenery |
Recreation | Variety for recreation use | Travel for ecotourism Outdoor sports |
Cultural/artistic information | Natural feature variety with cultural artistic value | Use of nature in books, film, painting, folklore, symbols |
Spiritual and historic information | Natural feature variety with spiritual and historic purposes | Use of nature for religious and heritage value |
Science and Education | Natural variety with scientific and education value | Use of natural systems for school exercises and scientific research |
Functions and Services | Description | Examples |
Cultural Services | Enhancing emotional, psychological and cognitive well being | |
Aesthetic | Sensory enjoyment of functioning ecological system | Proximity to scenery and open space |
Recreation | Opportunities for rest, refreshment and recreation | Ecotourism, bird watching, outdoor sports |
Science and education | Use of areas for natural field lab and natural reference areas | Scientific and educational activities |
Spiritual and historic | Spiritual or historical information | Use of nature as symbol or natural landscape with significant religious value |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Smardon, R. Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review. Land 2021, 10, 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111123
Smardon R. Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review. Land. 2021; 10(11):1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111123
Chicago/Turabian StyleSmardon, Richard. 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review" Land 10, no. 11: 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111123