Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes

Abstract

Recreational ecosystem services (RES), understood as the numerous benefits people obtain from landscapes and the natural environment, are a topical area of policy, research and society. This Editorial introduces the current state of RES research, provides an overview of the 21 contributions comprising this Special Issue of Ecosystem Services, and outlines opportunities for further research. This issue’s publications employ diverse methods for assessing and valuing RES at different scales in Europe and beyond. The papers present advancements in mapping and valuation, provide evidence for the contributions of biodiversity and landscapes to the generation of RES and human well-being, and shed light on distributional effects across different beneficiaries. Taken together, contributions emphasize that RES may be a prime vehicle for reconnecting people with nature with positive effects on societal well-being. The diversity of approaches currently applied in RES research reflects much creativity and new insights, for example by harnessing georeferenced social media data.

Future research should aim towards harmonizing datasets and methods to enhance comparability without compromising the need for context-specific adaptations. Finally, more research is needed on options for integrating RES information in decision making, planning and management in order to enhance actual uptake in public and private decisions.

1. Introduction

Recreation is one of the numerous benefits that individuals and societies gain from landscapes and natural environments. Whether it is the ability to hike through an alpine meadow, the joy of bicycling in an agricultural landscape, or the relaxation of taking a walk through an urban green space, nature provides an array of diverse recreational possibilities. Identified in the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013) as an important class of cultural ecosystem services (CES), recreational ecosystem services (RES) benefit people through improved physical health (e.g. exercise), and psychological and emotional well-being. Recreational opportunities also often provide an economic basis for communities and related businesses. Such social and economic benefits have resulted in numerous national and regional RES mapping and assessment strategies, and calls for advanced methodologies aimed at RES globally (e.g. Target 2, Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy¹, the EPA’s EnviroAtlas² as well as efforts in Australia (Cork et al., 2008) and South Africa (UNEP-WCMC, 2016)).

Planning and management issues around outdoor recreation have been studied for decades (e.g. papers published in the Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism or in the Journal of Leisure Research or Leisure Sciences), but these studies have rarely taken an ecosystem services (ES) perspective. In a broad sense, RES can be viewed as the natural environment’s contributions to the range of leisure and recreational opportunities and experiences enjoyed by human societies. Often the landscape’s aesthetic quality and amenities associated with natural environments enhance outdoor recreation, while specific recreation opportunities like hiking, climbing, boating, bird watching, etc. require specific landscape elements (e.g. varied topography, appropriate habitats), and human-made infrastructure (e.g. historical monuments, trails).

Despite wide recognition of the value of RES, there are numerous pressures and barriers to the equitable availability of these services across societies. Increasing mobility, rising real incomes, and associated expanding leisure time have increased demands on existing recreational areas. Government austerity and land change driven by competing land uses (e.g. urbanization) may further degrade recreational potentials (Clough 2014). Tools that help in understanding perceptions, beneficiaries, recreational use locations, and the relationships between them would aid in monitoring and conserving the special places that benefit people recreationally, and help with prioritizing maintenance of existing areas and possible development of new areas that provide these important ecosystem services.

This paper provides an overview of the cutting-edge research featured in this Special Issue and provides a vision for future RES research. We have assembled 21 studies that shed light on three main themes: 1) advancements in mapping and assessment of RES (spatial and non-spatial); 2) investigating the links between landscapes, RES, benefits, and beneficiaries; and 3) recommendations for application in spatial planning and management. These topic areas were developed in a workshop on the assessment and economic valuation of RES, hosted by Leibniz Universität Hannover (Hannover, Germany, Sept. 2016). Recognizing the rapid and dynamic progress in the field of RES, we have also taken stock of recent research trends in RES. Here we provide an overview of the current state and trends in RES, followed by a characterization of the lessons learned from contributors to this issue. Finally, we discuss recommendations for future RES research.

2. Current state and trends in RES research

RES have commonly been the main CES assessed in ES evaluations, due primarily to the wide availability of tourist visitation data. Once a neglected category of ES, an increasing number of studies aimed at RES has broadened the scope of RES research. RES research has increasingly acknowledged the many complementary non-material benefits that enhance recreational opportunities, including inspiration, cultural heritage, aesthetic, educational, and the spiritual qualities of landscapes. A search of relevant literature on the Web of Science revealed a total of 1356 publications covering CES, with 153 addressing recreation³. (Fig. 1a). Our search was limited to the key terms “cultural” and “ecosystem” and “services” (in TOPICS). We filtered this compiled literature for publications addressing recreation (supplement 1) by searching the title, abstract and keywords for derivatives of the term recreation (e.g. recreationalist, leisure) and by carefully reading and assessing their relevance as empirically-based RES studies (i.e. omitting reviews and studies that were not directly related to ES).

Fig. 1.

Total (a) publications (journal articles, books and chapters) on cultural ES (gray) and RES (black) since 2006; (b) empirical data from survey of the public/stakeholders vs. expert based approaches; (c) data collection methods; (d) use of spatial data or analysis; (e) use of econometric methods; and scale of analysis.

Our assessment of RES literature revealed innovation in data collection and analytical techniques driven by the need for timely, spatially, and socially representative data. For example, the majority of RES research leverages surveys and official censuses of visitation to parks and protected areas (Fig. 1b; N = 75), or stakeholder (N = 32). While these new approaches have improved on the previously dominant mode of RES studies, which relied on expert-based evaluation (N = 42), these new techniques require costly, and time-consuming, data collection. They may also suffer from sample bias related to who is surveyed when, and where. New techniques for data collection via mining social media, citizen science (Fig. 1c; N = 8; 5%), and participatory PPGIS/PGIS⁴ (N = 12; 8%) hold promise to at least partially solve social and geographic representative biases, but have yet to be thoroughly evaluated (Fig. 1). Analyses of RES data have also advanced in the last decades drawing and building on geographic (Gee and Burkhard, 2010, Van Berkel and Verburg, 2014), economic (Stynes, 2005), and social science techniques (Fagerholm et al., 2012, Gee and Burkhard, 2010). Spatial analyses have been prominent within this literature (Fig. 1d; N = 50) in an ongoing search for proxies that accurately identify RES for mapping the locations and qualities associated with outdoor activities. These are often based on statistical analysis of spatial relationships (N = 28) and other spatial representations. Social science techniques include Q-methodology (N = 3), photographic evaluation (N = 6) and a diversity of qualitative and participatory methods (N = 22). While a majority of RES analytical methods are based on non-monetary estimates (Fig. 1e; N = 122), there is a portion of studies employing monetary approaches (N = 31). These studies use econometric methodologies including contingent valuation (N = 12), travel cost (N = 1), benefit transfer (N = 7) and other techniques. Finally, these studies are often done at local and regional scales (Fig. 1f), as challenge exist for larger scale studies.

3. Insights from the Special issue contributions

The variety of studies in this issue represents a growing global interest in RES. While a majority of studies were located in Europe (11 of the 21), North America (n = 3), South America (n = 1), Africa (n = 1), Asia (n = 2), and Australia (n = 2) were also represented (Supplement 2). Studies were mostly conducted at regional (n = 8) and local scales (n = 7). However, the number of national (n = 2), supranational (n = 3), and global (n = 1) scale assessments suggests increasing interest at these larger spatial extents (Fig. 2a). The spatial resolution of the studies was likewise diverse, with some spatially explicit and comprehensive assessments with high granularity (e.g. 100 m resolution maps), and others summarized by geographic extent (e.g. a protected area) or relating to less discrete spatial characteristics like forest sites, or wildlife.

Fig. 2.

Overview of (a) spatial scales of assessments in papers of this Special Issue, (b) dimensions of RES assessed, and methodological approaches used (b and c: multiple assignments of studies possible).

The specific location of RES was considered in 10 studies using mapping or spatial relationships between landscape attributes and recreational use. Preferences for certain landscape elements and features or for recreational activities were assessed most frequently (n = 13), followed by the demand and/or flow of RES from service providing areas to beneficiaries (n = 12) (Fig. 2b). A monetary estimate of the value of RES was found in 10 studies; the non-material benefits of RES were assessed in eight studies. The supply of RES (including landscape potential and anthropogenic inputs) was assessed in nine studies (for definitions of this ES related terminology such as flow or supply see Albert et al., 2016) Surveys or interviews were the most frequently used methodology for data collection, with eight studies relying entirely on this approach, and four using it in conjunction with another collection technique. Five studies used expert- or literature-based approaches, three in combination with other methods. Four studies employed social media data; census or observation data were analyzed in four studies, usually to supplement survey results. Only one study was based on census or observation data exclusively. Furthermore, this issue contains two meta-analysis studies and one PGIS-based approach.

4. Methodological advancements in mapping and assessment of RES

4.1. Advancements towards large-scale high-resolution mapping of RES

Spatial assessments of RES at national and continental scales have progressed substantially over the last decade, especially in the areas of expert-based approaches that use theoretically derived spatial indicators. For example, Hermes et al. (this issue) present a landscape aesthetic quality index for mapping the backdrop of outdoor activities using landscape metrics that could be applied at various spatial scales. Rabe et al. (this issue) go further in exploring the validity of results from such expert-based approaches by comparing them with outcomes from an online survey assessing user preferences.

While expert-based approaches have proven useful to map and assess recreation opportunities, visitor-based approaches more accurately represent spatially-specific use of RES. A particularly promising means of assessing actual use or flows of RES is through the use of geolocated social media data for determining recreational visitation rates (Tenkanen et al., 2017, Wood et al., 2013), and values and motivations (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2017, van Zanten et al., 2016). Richards and Tunçer (this issue) show how perspectives on RES in urban areas can be investigated using algorithms that collect and classify social media photographs volunteered by a highly diverse public. Social media can also be helpful for collecting visitor data in locations with low or infrequent visitation (e.g., Van Berkel et al. (this issue) and Schirpke et al. (this issue)). Both Van Berkel et al. (this issue) and Schirpke et al. (this issue) identify and characterize locations of high recreational value in data-sparse environments. Schirpke et al. (this issue), furthermore, capture the temporal dynamics of recreation, shedding light on seasonal changes in spatial RES value attributions. Such insights will help in disentangling the supply, demand and flow of RES.

Social media-based approaches to map and assess RES face the challenge of working with particularly large datasets. Interpretations of the contents of social media photographs can deliver highly contextualized analytical categories, but these are limited by the sheer amount of data to be processed. However, automated photographic classification methods provide a promising alternative, as shown by Richards and Tuncer (this issue) who classify more than 130,000 photographs. Social media datasets often also require advanced computational techniques for processing large amounts of data, such as Van Berkel (this issue) using parallel processing to map 16000 + viewsheds from social media locations. Ghermandi (this issue) presents a method for estimating individuals’ ‘home’ locations using different locational frequency algorithms to extract spatially explicit behavioral information from social media.

5. Advancements in monetary valuation

Assigning monetary values to RES has been a challenge in RES evaluation, largely due to the lack of market surrogates that can approximate the prices associated with these non-excludable goods. Several studies in this Special Issue leverage existing economic methods for providing monetary estimates of recreational opportunities.

Ghermandi (this issue) uses social media to measure the travel distance of visitors to reclaimed wetlands in Florida, based on an econometric travel-cost method (TCM). This technique captures a broad cross-section of the public at multiple locations, which would be nearly impossible using common econometric survey approaches. Using a classic survey approach for economic behavior, Heagney et al. (this issue) and Mayer and Woltering (this issue) provide monetary estimates of protected areas in New South Wales, Australia and National Parks in Germany, respectively. Using existing datasets of 62,000 telephone interviews (Heagney et al., this issue) and 24,000 on-site interviews (Mayer and Woltering, this issue) they provide broad, representative insights, not often found in TCM research. Another innovative application of TCM by Hutcheson et al. (this issue) estimates the economic value of environmental education, a widely under-researched CES. To do this, they apply TCM to school trips and participation in summer camps that are part of the environmental education program of the Hudson River Park in New York.

Another approach for estimating RES monetary value is the use of meta-analysis to derive comprehensive monetary estimates from primary valuation studies, while controlling for different possible biases due to the methods used and/or the geographic and socio-cultural contexts. Schaegner et al. (this issue) evaluate the relationships between visitor numbers, derived monetary estimates, and the biophysical and socioeconomic explanatory variables of RES values across studies. Their findings indicate high spatial variations in visitor numbers compared to the estimated monetary value, suggesting the need for greater accuracy in collection of visitation data across studies. In a global scale meta-analysis, Hynes et al. (this issue) compare monetary estimates of marine RES. Their findings show that societies with more humane orientations - prioritizing altruism, benevolence, kindness, love, and generosity - value marine RES more than societies with a more performance orientation - prioritizing assertiveness, competitiveness, and materialism.

An alternative approach for estimating the economic value of RES is presented by Moseley et al. (this issue), where they develop an economic indicator of physical health benefits based on a visitor survey. They calculate the energy expenditure from respondents’ recreational activities, which were converted to Quality Adjusted Life Years (a measure of the health benefits that combine duration and quality of life) and to which monetary values were assigned according to White et al. (2016). Linking health benefits or life satisfaction to a wider range of landscape attributes and sociocultural factors is an open area of study in RES research.

Economic approaches to monetary estimates of RES face the challenge of discriminating between the different goods and/or attributes that are producing value. In this Special Issue, studies have addressed this challenge through including non-traditional variables in model estimates and increasing the sophistication of modelling approaches. Heagney et al. (this issue) introduce a novel, site-based application of a zero-inflated model. They argue that by including the attributes of non-selected protected sites, they can better discriminate factors influencing visitation between sites of high and low demand. Similarly, Mayer and Woltering (this issue) introduce an indicator that discriminates on the familiarity of protected areas to control for the wider familiarity of the public with specific national parks in their model estimates. Farr and Stoeckl (this issue) suggest that expected benefits often differ from realized benefits and the resulting uncertainty should be considered in TCM and choice modelling. Agimass et al. (this issue) find that that adding additional choice options in contingent valuation increases discrimination of preferences: their empirical results show the possibility of getting consistent parameter estimates through random selection of alternatives. Fischer et al. (this issue) and Hynes et al. (this issue) use a broad spectrum of sociocultural factors, and their geographic context, to differentiate between user groups in the assessment of preferences at different spatial scales. They also find that the inclusion of cultural indicators greatly improves the explanatory power of their meta-regression models. Schaegner et al. (this issue) include comprehensive and consistent data sets that describe local biophysical and socio-economic conditions and characteristics, which determine the quality of the recreational experience in large-scale assessments and meta-analyses.

6. Empirical links between landscapes, RES, benefits, and beneficiaries

6.1. Contributions of biodiversity, ecosystems, and landscapes

Landscape RES have been notoriously difficult to evaluate due to the scarcity of detailed data on the values people associate with specific places, the diversity of nature-based activities, and the difference in landscape qualities that enhance and contribute to recreational activities. This suggests the need for increased study of the diversity of landscapes and beneficiaries, globally.

Empirical evidence of spatial and perceptual determinants of RES can facilitate a broader understanding of recreational opportunities. For example, biodiversity is becoming increasingly identified as an important driver of RES. McGinlay et al. (this issue) find that the English public appreciates and seeks locations where wildlife can be viewed in their recreational pursuits. Similarly, Arbieu et al. (this issue) identify wildlife richness and diversity as important drivers of visitation to protected areas in South Africa. This work and the work of Graves et al. (2016) suggest that conservation of wildlife can enhance RES. Built infrastructure and amenities are also important contributors to RES. Moseley et al. (this issue), Heagney et al. (this issue), Kulczyk et al. (this issue), and Van Berkel et al. (this issue) all show that site-specific amenities (horseback riding, cafes, etc.) and infrastructure (trails, campsites, etc.) contribute to recreational appreciation. Heagney et al. (this issue) indicate that accessibility was an attenuating factor of RES, observing a spatial dependency between tourism and recreation values across multiple protected areas in New South Wales, Australia. Similar results are presented by Mayer and Woltering (this issue), where park image is an important determinant of visitation rate. While these studies indicate some clearly identifiable characteristics associated with RES, an overarching theory remains elusive as Schägner et al. (this issue) illustrate in their meta-analysis of valuation studies across Europe. Their work shows mixed and partly conflicting results among existing studies, making it difficult to identify overall trends. Further investigation of the spatial relationships of recreational opportunities and public perceptions and behavior, will be required for better understanding of RES.

7. Understanding the variety of benefits provided to a diversity of beneficiaries

Another challenge to understanding RES is disentangling the many and diverse public perceptions of RES. Stakeholders with diverse social attitudes, power, interests, and worldviews value ecosystem services differently and at different scales (Martín-López et al., 2012, Van Riper and Kyle, 2014). Further study of the perception of appreciation across these social gradients may help differentiate between recreational beneficiaries, and discovering universally appreciated qualities.

A sense of nature-connectedness and affinity for biodiversity is becoming an increasingly relevant factor influencing RES enjoyment, as shown by McGinlay (this issue) and Farr and Stoeckl (this issue). However, this ‘connection to nature’ is not easily linked to any one social group, as groups with high occupational attainment and new immigrants were both motivated to visit parks by the opportunity to be in nature (Fischer et al., this issue). Socioeconomic attainment as related to nature-connectedness is also examined by Heagney et al. (this issue) who find higher visitation rates to protected areas by people living in rural areas with generally lower levels of income relative to their urban counterparts.

Age and gender impact on recreational activities and RES appreciation is investigated by Farr and Stoeckl (this issue) that reveal differences between the recreational behavior (i.e. catch and release) of men and women in their study on fishing. While these differences may seem important in a RES context, neither Rabe et al.’s (this issue) surveys of riverine suitability for recreation nor McGinlay’s (this issue) study of biodiversity find gender differences, and their results for age effects is ambiguous.

Recreational familiarity is also an influence, with more experienced outdoor recreationalists appreciating RES more than those less experienced (Farr and Stoeckl, this issue). Also, locals who frequently visit protected areas rate tourism and recreational opportunities higher than infrequent visitors coming from farther away (Heagney et al., this issue). Mayer and Woltering (this issue) suggest that well-known or famous parks are more likely to be visited than less-known areas, even if they have similar attributes. However, respondents’ geographic awareness of/familiarity with riverine sites in Zürich, Switzerland did not result in differences in assessed suitability for recreation (Rabe et al., this issue).

Identifying RES beneficiaries based on simple social or cultural categories may not be possible currently. For example, there is a high variability in preference for urban green spaces in Oslo, Norway, even after controlling for the socioeconomic character of respondents (Emma et al., this issue). However, Fischer et al.’s (this issue) cross-cultural survey finds that recreation potentials are motivating factors for park visitation in Sweden, Slovenia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Thus, increasing the use of comprehensive surveys may help to untangle the diversity of RES beneficiaries.

8. Evidence for benefits between RES and human well-being

Like other cultural services, RES are closely linked to multiple aspects of human well-being (also termed quality of life). Human well-being has both objective (e.g., income) and a subjective (e.g., life satisfaction) dimensions (Costanza et al., 2007, Rogers et al., 2012). RES relate most obviously to health (e.g. exercise), but also contribute to social relations (e.g., following local traditions), as well as some basic materials (e.g., mushroom picking) among others. Recreation, hiking, and cycling are among the most salient activities mentioned by respondents in four central European sites when asked about the linkages between landscapes and human well-being (Bieling et al., 2014). Similar to other ecosystem services studies, the links between RES and human well-being have been less investigated. An exception is the study by Ribeiro Carvalho et al. (this issue), reviewing the relationship between eco-tourism and community-based tourism and the well-being outcomes of communities and tourists in the Brazilian Amazon. Their findings show that tourists associate being close to nature and learning local values, skills, and ecological knowledge with improved well-being through increased cultural and spiritual stimulation. For local communities, recognition of traditional lifestyles and maintenance of traditions are interrelated with RES and well-being. While not explicitly addressed, Moseley et al. (this issue) examine physical health benefits of RES that can be associated with well-being. Drawing on their on-site visitor survey data, they develop a quantitative indicator of physical recreation and, while highly variable, did suggest that considerable health benefits were provided by woodland ecosystems.

9. Recommendations for application of RES in spatial planning and management

Contributions to this Special Issue provide a number of findings useful for the application of RES in spatial planning and management. Building on existing frameworks (Burkhard et al., 2014, von Haaren et al., 2014), Kulczyk et al. (this issue) suggest assessing: (1) landscape potential; (2) availability of recreational facilities, and (3) recreationalists demand as three-dimensional evaluation criteria for planning RES. Other contributions in this Special Issue offer techniques for operationalizing this multidimensional approach, such as the use of social media to assess all three aspects. Sun et al. (this issue) presented a time series analysis assessing alterations to RES and the subsequent changes in demand for RES.

Planning and management can also benefit from governance recommendations for creating synergies and limiting social and environmental trade-offs between different CES. Moseley et al. (this issue) produce monetary estimates of the physical health benefits of woodlands that can help managers weigh alternative ES like timber production in their management strategies. Carvalho Ribeiro et al. (this issue) assess CES in relation to achieving several societal and nature conservation targets simultaneously. Ho et al. (this issue) recognize the need to balance the management and development of tourism activities with preserving cultural identity and spiritual values that form a strong basis for recreational opportunities. Lastly, Fischer et al. (this issue) highlight the need to consider environmental justice issues in the delivery of RES across sociocultural groups, given their differences in preferences and actual use of green spaces.

10. Conclusions

The contributions to this Special Issue are reflective of the substantial interest and increasingly creative and novel methodologies in the field of RES assessment and valuation on different spatial scales across the globe. Representatives from policy and practice communities regard RES of prime importance for human well-being, and substantial investment has been made into approaches for the elicitation and valuation of RES for decision support.

Given decreasing access to the natural environment caused by urbanization, RES may be a prime vehicle for reconnecting people with nature. Promotion of both special forms (e.g., whale watching) and everyday interactions with nature (e.g., use of green spaces for recreation in cities) can lead to improved societal well-being. Such promotion should consider both intentional (e.g., creation of tourist infrastructure) and potentially unintentional (e.g., cross-country skiers disturbing wildlife) impacts on socio-ecological systems. Careful consideration of the synergies and trade-offs between RES and other ES and biodiversity is needed for such assessments. Furthermore, it will be important to find a balance between appropriate access and overuse, especially in sensitive areas where management of RES resources could be viewed as an exclusionary tactic (e.g., limited access to core protected areas).

While the diversity of approaches in this Special Issue provides a number of new ideas and insights, the results of this work and that of others lack comparability yet. Common classification, framework, terminology, and methodological standards could increase comparability of the results of these different applications for planners and decision makers. Such comparability would support the planning of broader scale projects which cross national borders such as biosphere reserves, but also the smaller recreational landscapes. Future research should aim towards harmonization and the development of uniform datasets. However, we acknowledge socio-ecological system context-sensitivity, which requires methods that are sufficiently flexible to be adapted to the specific needs, challenges, timing, and stakeholder interests in each application. Future efforts will thus need to balance interests for harmonization with the need for locally adapted approaches. We also recognize that many research studies, while complementary, have not been integrated into the discourse on RES (e.g. the large body of literature on outdoor recreation). Further efforts should be taken to identify and integrate the knowledge and approaches from these similar, but underutilized fields of research.

The substantial increase in spatial data from social media sources and volunteered geographic data provides exciting new opportunities for evaluating ES supply and demand, and the public’s actual use and appreciation of landscapes for RES. Social data provides a rich and potentially fruitful approach to the analysis of RES, especially with ever more accurate and up-to-date data on land uses and novel spatial indicators from remote sensing.

Local and indigenous knowledge is still relatively absent from RES. Integrating this knowledge will be important for conservation efforts, increasing equitable access to RES, and the empowerment of communities (Hrabanski and Pesche, 2016). Further efforts by the ES community should be taken to develop methods for better including local and indigenous knowledge in ES assessments. This will require the use of appropriate concepts and language to engage local communities, as well as new ways to identify and connect various knowledge systems (Tengö et al., 2014).

The integration of RES information in planning and decision-making, and its impacts and added-value to decision processes will require future examinations. In particular, testing of applications in real-world case studies, and taking into account the resource constraints faced by practitioners, will ultimately determine the usefulness of the RES approach in actually influencing human-nature relationships.