**1. Introduction**

The main challenge of the 21st century is to create economic, social, and environmental managemen<sup>t</sup> mechanisms that would ensure current and future human well-being. Today, all sectors mainly focus on the following aspects: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being; science, which includes basic interdisciplinary knowledge of ecosystems and the implementation of this science in decision-making to restore ecosystem services and their sustainable use in the future. However, the successful implementation of economic, social, and environmental managemen<sup>t</sup> mechanisms is still in the initial stage. Therefore, strategic decisions by the leaders of the government, business, and civil society are necessary for the establishment of theoretical and practical measures to increase the functionality of services provided by ecosystems.

For millennia, ecosystems have been useful for human well-being not only because of their tangible but also because of their intangible assets known as cultural ecosystem services (hereinafter—CES). According to Mowat and Rhodes [1], cultural ecosystem services make an important and valuable contribution to human well-being. Spanou et al. [2] note, that CES are increasingly central in understanding individual and community connections to ecosystems. Today, CES are identified as intangible ecosystem services

**Citation:** Marcinkeviˇciut¯ e, L.; ˙ Pranskunien ¯ e, R. Cultural Ecosystem ˙ Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania). *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 123. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.3390/su13010123

Received: 15 November 2020 Accepted: 22 December 2020 Published: 24 December 2020

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2020 by the authors. 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/).

that meet the diverse cultural, social, and emotional needs of humans and refer to the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems [3–9]. CES is a growing field of research characterized by a growing number of different academic disciplines: ecology, economics, and the social sciences [10,11]. Relevant research topics for the above services are related to the development and research of CES assessment methods [12], etc. According to scientific analysis, CES are suitable as a means of bridging the gap between different academic disciplines and scientific communities. Taking advantage of the social importance of CES, real problems could be solved by promoting new conceptual connections between alternative logic related to various social, cultural, and ecological (environmental) problems. CES are more comprehensible and meaningful to people than many other services.

Despite recent research, the assessment of CES still remains very individual and largely limited to the most in-demand tourism services. The article seeks to theoretically examine the coherence between humans and ecosystems, ensuring the social and economic wellbeing of present and future generations in the context of cultural ecosystem services (CES). As well, the article seeks to present the empirical research, carried out on the possibilities of adapting human activities to CES in the specific area, i.e., coastal-rural area, evaluating the past, present, and future CES potential in the Lithuanian coastal zone, Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon in Lithuania.

The work of this article is organized as follows: in further sections, the literature review, divided into two subsections; the research setting, materials and methods, divided into two subsections. Additionally, results; discussion and recommendations; conclusions sections are presented.

#### **2. Literature Review**

#### *2.1. Theoretical CES Insights*

Lithuania has one important tourism resource—nature, also ecosystems created by it, where tourism infrastructure is formed, rural communities live, people of the city and foreign tourists looking for a quiet rest come, etc. Therefore, the services provided by local ecosystems should be treated as opportunities for the development of activities in suburban, remote, and protected areas, etc. It has been noticed that the importance of agriculture as the main economic activity of the rural population is changing in Lithuania as well as in other European countries. The rural population is forced to look for additional activities to replenish financial resources. Place-based communities are struggling to maintain their connections to land and water, including the social and cultural practices that are rooted in a particular landscape [13]. The prevailing opinion is that the need for diversification of economic activities in the 21st century is determined by such factors as social (emigration of young people, aging farmers, rising unemployment, quality of life gap between urban and rural areas), economic (declining farm profitability, insufficient development of rural economic activities), political (financial mechanisms to promote farm diversification in rural areas), geographical (landscape, land-use productivity, infrastructure), etc.

According to research data [14–19], more and more rural residents would like to diversify their economic activities by creating additional sources of income in addition to agricultural activities, gradually abandoning them altogether. These statements are confirmed by the EU's goal to increase the income of the rural population from nontraditional agriculture or alternative activities to agriculture. The implementation requires not only financial support but also the motivation of the rural population itself; therefore, gradual abandonment of intensive farming raises the following question: what alternative activities can be chosen with available resources? Rural tourism is recommended as one of the forms of activity, promoting tourism business, increasing the variety of services, for a citizen or foreign gues<sup>t</sup> vacationing in the countryside. It should be emphasized that tourism services should help to address social, economic, and environmental problems by providing an alternative source of livelihood for the rural population and helping to preserve the natural values associated with the preservation of ecosystems.

Based on the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, the Recommendations On The Historic Urban Landscape, Comprehensive Plan of the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania—Vision for 2050 [20–22], assessing cultural heritage through the historical landscape (including associative natural) and socio-cultural dimensions, CES were chosen as the research object, updating nature, heritage and traditions, looking for opportunities to increase accessibility and attractiveness of cultural heritage objects, preserving and meaningful cultural heritage sites in a specific area.

The solution to this problem requires the help of certain specialists and strategists (tourism business, marketing, nature protection, etc.), identifying disturbances in the development of a particular area and providing recommendations on the most efficient methods of joint efforts to develop services in the rural areas. A lack of cooperation between institutions and businesses is one of the main problems. Although the owner of a rural tourism homestead is likely to list valuable natural objects nearby, he or she can rarely offer a wide range of entertainment for a tourist for a long weekend or the whole week. Similarly, nature conservationists often shrug their shoulders when asked why so little information about their cognitive, cultural tourism and other events and activities is available to tourists. They often reply that they are not responsible for marketing.

The ecosystem is the complex and dynamic combination of plants, animals, microorganisms, and the natural environment that coexist as a whole and depend on each other. Ecosystem functions "become" services when a socio-economic interest arises, i.e., when a function is identified as having "benefits" (human mental and physical health, social life, the satisfaction of general needs, etc.) and "value" (economic, social, health, etc.). Human activities (or drivers of change) can have direct (e.g., climate change) and indirect (e.g., demographic change) impacts for human well-being on both ecosystems and human wellbeing. Human wellbeing can also influence indirect drivers of change, e.g., demographic situation, technological progress, social change, etc. According to De Bello et al. [23], the benefits of ecosystems can be perceived and incomprehensible. Perceptions of the value of an ecosystem are experienced (felt) and the benefits of the ecosystem to people in the local context are recognized. For example, microclimate regulation services provided by a city park is clearly felt by a person in that place.

Ecosystem services can also be understood as an interface between people and nature, which is illustrated by the so-called cascade model [6,24–26]. This model describes the causal interrelationships between ecosystems on one side and human well-being on the other. In this model, ecosystems are described through their biophysical structures and processes. Biophysical structures can more easily be called habitat types (e.g., forests, wetlands, meadows, etc.) and processes are the dynamics and relationships that form the ecosystem (e.g., primary production). Ecosystem functions in the context of a cascade model can be understood as features or behavior of ecosystems that support their capacity to provide ecosystem services (i.e., the ability of forests or grasslands to generate permanent biomass stocks). These elements and features required for the capacity of ecosystems to provide services are sometimes referred to as "supportive" or "intermediate" services, and "final" ecosystem services are what we can harvest as "harvested" (e.g., hay, timber, etc.) or benefits of ecosystems (e.g., flood protection, beautiful landscape, etc.). End-to-end services directly contribute to people's well-being through benefits (e.g., health and safety). People are accustomed to attributing some value to such benefits for the benefits they receive. As a result, benefits are often referred to as goods or products, and value can be expressed in monetary terms, but also in moral, aesthetic, or other qualitative criteria.

Several different typologies and approaches have been developed to categorize ecosystem services, using different criteria such as spatial characteristics and scale, service flows, service recipients (private or public), type of benefit received (used or not used), and whether the service is used. As well according to whether the services are used for one person or group affects the ability of others to use them (competitive and non-competitive). One way to classify ecosystem services is to raise public awareness of the benefits of

ecosystems to humans. This approach was also the basis of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [16] classification system. This method of classifying ecosystem services consists of four main categories of ecosystem services: supply services—food, materials, and energy, i.e., things that people can use directly, supporting services—the ecosystem processes and functions on which the types of services are based, regulatory services—services by which ecosystems regulate the environment and its processes, cultural services—services that are related to the cultural or spiritual needs of people.

CES are most often associated with tangible and intangible ecosystem services, meeting the diverse cultural, social, and emotional needs of people. Recreation, inspiration found in nature, aesthetic, spiritual satisfaction, traditions, connection with place—these are the most important and the easily understandable values provided by nature.

Scientists argue that CES arise only from the perception of people, and cultural services would not exist without human perception of one or another benefit. They are intangible, so they are influenced by people's understanding and activity priorities. In principle, as Fish et al. [11] notice, CES provide a way in which the cultural dimension of ecosystem contributions to human well-being can be utilized in decision making through standardized comparison with all other ecosystem services. As well, the highly interdisciplinary and socially constructed nature of the ES framework invites a series of ontological and epistemological challenges [27]. According to Hirons et al. [28], the intersections between nature, culture, value, and politics are extremely complex. Despite being intangible, subjective, and difficult to measure, as Tandaric et al. [29] notice. Thus, the CES field provides a methodological framework for identifying the "non-material" services that ecosystems can offer to people, such as aesthetic values, educational values, or tourism and recreation possibilities [30].

It's important to notice, that some practical site-specific CES assessment studies choose to examine those ecosystem services that are most characteristic for the study area, without seeking to account for absolutely all aspects of ecosystem services [31–37].

Researchers [8,30,38] note that the intangible benefits that ecosystems provide to humans are mostly studied in the field of CES. Human perception and valuation change for many reasons and in a variety of ways. There is a growing concern that the ecosystem services approach emphasizes the optimization of a small number of services, which may endanger environmental sustainability. It can be observed that the range, intensity, and selection priorities of CES used are among the most important parameters of the use of services. The above-mentioned parameters demonstrate the territorial distribution of services, supply (potential), current volume, quality, and possible threats to the quality of services and the possibilities of providing services in the future [24,26]. According to Wang et al. [39], recreation is found to be both a way of experiencing CESs and a component of CESs. Therefore, recreation, inspiration found in nature, aesthetic, spiritual satisfaction, traditions, connection with place—for many people these are the most important and easily understandable values provided by nature and considered as CES. Analyzing the function of CES, such as aesthetic evaluation and cultural inspiration, it should be emphasized that the changing motives of people to travel may influence the increased interest in folk and inherited archaic culture and traditions (old houses, their decoration, ornamentation, interior, etc.). Therefore, efforts are necessary to involve travelers in the process of cognition of the country's culture, highlighting agritourism and the importance of visiting ecological homesteads.

It seems important to mention, that Lithuania-neighboring countries also carry out research in CES. Beichler [40] discusses the case study on CES in an urban region on the Baltic Sea coast; Veidemane et al. [41] examine marine ES approach; Giedych and Maksymiuk [42] analyze the specific features of parks and their impact on regulation and CES Provision in Warsaw, Poland; Müller et al. [43] discuss their importance of CES and biodiversity for landscape visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany), etc. The ability of ecosystems to adapt to the changing conditions may reduce potential damage; some benefits may even be gained from new possibilities provided by the climate. Still, when planning the methods of adaptation, one must not forget that there are no universal adaptation measures that would be suitable for the entire territory of the European Union (hereinafter—the EU) because different measures are used under varying local conditions. For this reason, in order to determine effective impact measures for the preservation of ecosystems and the services they provide, research must be conducted on the adaptation of human activities to the ecosystem services in a specific location.

#### *2.2. CES Challenges and the Case of Lithuania*

Due to the natural diversity, landscape, and clean and safe environment, Lithuania has a favorable potential for the development of nature tourism. With increasing unemployment in rural areas, it is suggested to link the development of rural areas (settlements) with the identification, strengthening, and development of their internal functional connections (strong communities, internal services) and external connections (services for urban centers, for ecologically important areas). Strong communities in many cases would be a key condition for the viability of rural areas, creating opportunities for activities that would be an alternative to the declining number of workers in the agricultural sector. It can be emphasized that the immovable cultural heritage and related infrastructure in agricultural areas should be developed by overcoming it, applying the principle of "storage through use" [44].

It can be noticed that there are a number of cultural heritage objects in Lithuania, but when assessing the country's tourist areas, the emphasis should be placed on those objects that would be interesting for both local tourists and guests from abroad, representing the country's culture, history, biological and landscape diversity. For example, in rural areas, a large part of the list of attractions includes churches, crosses; at the local level, these are significant historical religious, memorial objects, valuable from the point of view of the region, cognition of the place, historical memory. However, from the point of view of tourist attractiveness, these objects are seldom visited because information about them is either not available or the information is presented in a sufficiently primitive way and is of no interest to visitors.

As experts [45–48] note, tourist brochures or guides sugges<sup>t</sup> tourists (especially in the regions) visit churches, but village and town churches are usually only open during the services (early morning and evening) and are therefore not open to visitors at any time. Some of them are architecturally interesting, but most of them have no greater cognitive value. In some churches, movable cultural heritage values (paintings, tombstones, sculptures, altars, church utensils, etc.) have survived but they are not exhibited. If they are to be exhibited, the protection of values should be ensured, which is difficult to do in rural churches.

It has been established that the websites of municipal administrations, elderships, tourist information centers, national and regional parks often offer dilapidated manor houses or homestead parks as places of interest. However, no one is waiting for a tourist in the former manor houses or parks, there are neither information nor tourism services. Therefore, very often manor homesteads in rural areas should be treated only as potential objects of tourism services to be developed, but today they do not provide any financial or cultural benefit.

The prevailing opinion is that most cultural and natural heritage sites are interesting from a scientific and cognitive perspective but are unattractive from the tourism organization's point of view. For example, a list of cultural heritage monuments is dominated by mounds, burial mounds, and cemeteries, ancient villages. Once all the Lithuanian mounds have been arranged, they would become a unique part of the landscape. However, today a traveling tourist could see only a few of them in detail, and the preparation of cultural heritage monuments for a visit is very different. Most of them do not provide any services (catering, excursions, souvenirs, information).

It has been noticed that many natural monuments are inaccessible, i.e., they are far from roads (in the middle of forests) or accessible only by water (hydrographic), or

difficult to prepare for visits (exposures). For example, 30% of the proposed geological, hydrogeological, geomorphological, hydrographic, and botanical objects have a status of natural monuments but only 18% are ready for visiting.

Protected cultural heritage objects with the status of a monument, dissemination of national and regional parks, and protected landscape objects with the status of a natural monument were also analyzed. In certain areas, it is possible to notice their compaction, to distinguish the chains of objects, etc. Where the chains of monuments are visible, there are no roads. Where there is a higher density of monuments, the road network is sparser. This is due to the fact that a large part of cultural heritage objects with the status of a monument are archaeological objects (mounds, alcoves, ancient villages, burial mounds). Their spread is related to ancient land and waterways. It seems important to mention the study of Lithuanian tourism potential assessment determining the largest tourist attraction areas and priorities for their use [49], where the prevailing opinion is that the Lithuanian landscape and biological diversity are best represented by national and regional parks. National and regional parks are the places of interest that protect the Lithuanian landscapes and have many individual objects of interest. In order to overcome the above-mentioned areas, the employees of protected areas were encouraged to look for ways and means, to adapt ecologically fragile areas to the needs of tourists. On the other hand, they are natural complexes, the life, and activities of which should not be disturbed by a large flow of tourists, especially those traveling by car. When activating the possibilities of nature tourism activities, it should be borne in mind that sustainable tourism should be carried out in the developing area, taking into account how tourism affects local nature and local communities. However, it is unfortunate that the concept of sustainable tourism in Lithuania is still little known, there are attempts to develop the tourism business in a sustainable direction, but this is rather an individual initiative than a trend [50–52].

According to forecasts, with the total annual flow of tourists growing by about 5.5%, the demand for nature tourism will grow six times faster. This will be determined by the improving living standards of the population of many countries, increasing life expectancy, interest in a healthy lifestyle as well as the growing urban population, concerns about the human impact on the environment, and other reasons. Popular nature tourism is very important and useful for Lithuania, which is famous for NATURA 2000 territories, unique landscapes, rare plants, bird watching, and other activities in nature [51]. It can be observed that the popularity of nature tourism requires more attention to the development of tourism infrastructure, improving the quality of products and services offered. In Lithuania, little attention is paid to the development of more diverse nature tourism services (focused on active and cognitive leisure). In naming the attractiveness of nature tourism services, it is necessary to emphasize the environment, as there is an opportunity to be surrounded by nature and stay away from the noise of the city and people. Cognitive opportunities must also be kept in mind as vacationing in the countryside provides perfect opportunities to ge<sup>t</sup> to know the local community, the culture, and the area.

The impact of CES is usually intangible, difficult to measure and quantify. As a result, CES is also treated differently by different people or by different organizations representing different sectors of activity, the so-called stakeholders, both natural and legal persons. As different typologies and methods have been developed for the categorization of CES, which use different criteria, the selection of CES for the survey was based on the classification (the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services—CICES 5.1 [53], Table 1) and existing and potential resources in the study area.


**Table 1.** Chosen cultural ecosystem services (CES) from classification by CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, version 5.1).

Due to the large number of CES services, only eight concrete services were selected for the study, such as: provision of recreation and recreation in nature, cultural heritage, aesthetic significance, religious significance, striving to preserve existing natural values, nature and ecological tourism, sightseeing tours, nature observation, cognition service, providing recreational fishing opportunities, providing material for research and cognition. These services were selected on the basis of the existing and potential natural, traditional, and heritage resources of the area, seeking to preserve and enhance them, making them accessible and attractive for visitors.

#### **3. Research Setting, Materials, and Methods**

## *3.1. Research Setting*

During the research, the potential of CES in the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon and in the ~10 km zone from the shore in the rural areas were assessed. The Nemunas Delta begins 48 km from the mouth (below Tilže), where the Nemunas branch ˙ into Rusne and Gilija branches. Rusn ˙ e begins 13 km from the mouth (at Rusn ˙ e Island) ˙ branches into Atmata and Skirvyte. The plain of the Nemunas Delta is still being changed ˙ by the branches of the Nemunas and the delta of the Minija, Šyša, Tenenis, Leite, and ˙ other rivers that have joined the Nemunas Delta. As sediments continue to form at the mouth of the Nemunas, the Nemunas Delta is gradually increasing and moving towards the Curonian Lagoon [54]. The Nemunas Delta is well known for its grea<sup>t</sup> biodiversity and in 1992 the Nemunas Delta Regional Park was established in order to preserve its original landscape, and natural and cultural heritage [55]. The Nemunas Delta is one of the few places in Lithuania and Europe where large floodplains of swampy deciduous forests— habitats of European importance—can still be seen. Many rare bird species protected in Lithuania and the European Union breed in the forest and wetland complexes (black stork, eagle roost, winch, grea<sup>t</sup> crested grebe, etc.). The area of the flooded area is about 400 km2. The coast is characterized by spring and autumn—winter floods. Floods usually occur in the spring, when the Nemunas flows out of the banks. The spring floods in the lower reaches of the Nemunas begin at the end of March and reach their maximum level 6–8 days after the river flows out of the riverbed. Spilled water and ice destroy embankments,

floods settlements, destroys roads, quays, and brings fertile land to sediment. Floods cause a lot of damage every year. During the major floods, more than 1500 people are flooded, and the flood is approaching the entrances to the city of Šilute [ ˙ 54]. The Nemunas Delta is very important due to its natural landscape, ecosystem values, and economic value [55]. According to Atkoceviˇciene et al. [ ˙ 56], Nemunas Delta Regional Park and its surroundings is the land of the heritage of Lithuania Minor with its special history, unique scenery, original ethnocultural, and valuable cultural heritage: Villages and homesteads of Lithuania Minor were of greater variety than in Lithuania Propria as there were no forced rural restructuring which had a grea<sup>t</sup> impact on the establishment and development of villages, thus ancient villages had been preserved in Nemunas Delta Regional Park until the post-war period. These villages may be grouped not only by location, and names, but also by lifestyle peculiarities of villagers [56].

The Curonian Lagoon is the largest coastal lagoon in Europe with high nutrient loadings from the surrounding rivers [57], the large body of coastal water in the southeastern is part of the Baltic Sea [58], and the 1584 km<sup>2</sup> coastal water body connected to the south-eastern Baltic Sea by a narrow (0.4–1.1 km.) strait, Klaipeda port area [ ˙ 59]. According to Jakimaviˇcius and Kovalenkoviene [ ˙ 45], the Curonian Lagoon is the only and largest freshwater basin in Lithuania, a part of it belongs to Russia (1171 km2), whereas 413 km<sup>2</sup> is in the territory of Lithuania. The Curonian Lagoon is distinguished by its unique area, landscape, and fauna. During the development of Klaipeda State Seaport, the northern ˙ part of the Curonian Lagoon, connecting the lagoon with the Baltic Sea through a strait, was deepened; in addition, the quays have been reconstructed and newly built [60]. The authors [60] notice, that currently there are many discussions, debating the limits on the impact of natural processes and the anthropogenic impact. Therefore, there is a need to renew the water balance quotas of the Curonian Lagoon and global climate change, rising water levels may affect aquatic ecosystems [59].

Elderships located near the Curonian Lagoon or within the protected area of the Nemunas Delta Regional Park were selected for the study. The following seven elderships were distinguished: Priekule, Saugai, Kintai, Rusn ˙ e, Šilut ˙ e, Juknaiˇ ˙ ciai, and Usenai ˙ (Figure 1).

For this purpose, the empirical study involved representatives of different (public and private) sectors and stakeholders. The main research was carried out in Kintai, Rusne,˙ Šilute, and Dreverna tourism cultural centers (the main objectives of the tourism cultural ˙ centers are: to accumulate, preserve and popularize the spiritual and material values of ethnic culture and to adapt them to the needs of modern society; cultural tourism activities; to take care of the dissemination and popularization of ethnic culture; to educate, form the general culture of the society, to develop educational, non-formal education of children and adults, entertainment activities, to take care of the dissemination of professional art; to organize cultural activities in elderships [36]). Additionally, the research was carried out in Priekule, Saugai, Kintai, Rusn ˙ e, Šilut ˙ e, Juknaiˇ ˙ ciai, and Usenai elderships, with local elders ˙ and eldership employees, with farmers and with entrepreneurs.

The empirical study was carried out on the possibilities of adapting human activities to CES in the specific area, i.e., coastal-rural area, evaluating the past, present, and future CES potential in the Lithuanian coastal zone, Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon in Lithuania.

**Figure 1.** Distribution of cultural ecosystem services (CES) potential in the study area according to the generalized Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) classification (distribution map made by J. Mezine).

#### *3.2. Materials and Methods*

The following data collection and analysis methods were used in the research: document analysis, questionnaire, and comparative analysis.

Document analysis. Having considered the object of the research (ecosystem services) as well as the goals and tasks of the research, this method is considered to be the most important method of data collection (method used to obtain data). Data sources: national, EU and international legislation, scientific books, and journals, press publications; official statistics (information provided by the Department of Statistics, municipalities, elderships, departments of protected areas); official governmen<sup>t</sup> publications; documents of private, state, professional and other non-governmental organizations.

Questionnaire. In order to evaluate the existing problems of ecosystem protection and their services, a survey of respondents (tourists, farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees) was conducted and their opinions on ecosystem conservation and possible related problem areas were investigated, and the peculiarities of CES regulation and implementation were revealed. The questionnaire examined the advantages and disadvantages of socio-economic conditions (related to current or potential CES). Based on the survey, the following insights into the managemen<sup>t</sup> of CES were provided: Contingent valuation method and Consumer choice experiments. The contingent valuation method was based on a survey of the users of CES in regard to their priorities for ecosystem services. A hypothetical market for potential CES has been created. Consumers (tourists) were asked about specific actions of their own (the ones that can be done by them) and were also asked questions about actions taken to maintain or improve the status of ecosystems. During consumer choice experiments, consumers of CES (tourists) had to choose potential (in their opinion) operation alternatives related to CES by 2030.

Comparative analysis. The comparative analysis has allowed the researchers to reveal the differences and similarities not only in the practice of the phenomena (e.g., ecosystem (biodiversity) conservation) in Lithuania, but also in the examples of "good practice" in various countries. It was necessary to take a close look at/to empathize with another cultural perspective, learn to understand the thinking processes of another culture and see it from the inside rather than from the outside (through the insider's eyes), as well as evaluate the research phenomena in the country through the eyes of the impartial observer.

Research participants. In order to evaluate the existing problems of ecosystem protection and their services, a survey with four group respondents (tourists, farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees) was conducted. Tourists were the ones who visited the mentioned centers (85 respondents), aiming to evaluate the past, present, and future CES potential. The distribution of respondents (tourists) by countries was as follows: 56% were tourists from Lithuania, 31%—tourists from the EU countries, 5% each, from the UK, Norway, Russia, and Ukraine, and 3% from the USA. Analyzing the assigning of tourists into certain classified tourist groups, it was found that the largest share (49%) was made up of holidaymakers, 21%—active recreation lovers, 8%—entertainers and adventure seekers. Furthermore, the research was carried out in Priekule, Saugai, Kintai, ˙ Rusne, Šilut ˙ e, Juknaiˇ ˙ ciai, and Usenai elderships, with local elders and eldership employees ˙ (11 respondents), with farmers (64 respondents) and with entrepreneurs (15 respondents). All respondents had to assess the potential of CES. A score scale from 1 to 5 was chosen for the evaluation (1—the most significant, 5—low significance). CES samples were selected based on literature analysis and expert opinion, according to the types of ecosystems in the study area. In this way, eight examples of services of CES were selected (Table 1) according to the CICES 5.1. classification.
