Integrated Watershed Management

Integrated Watershed Management

Spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem services for sustainable land-use planning in Chaharmahal-Bakhtiari Province

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fatemeh Mohammadyari 1
Khodayar Abdollahi 2
1 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.
2 Department of Nature Engineering Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.
10.22034/iwm.2024.2027322.1149
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction: Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are the non-material benefits that humans derive from ecosystems, encompassing spiritual fulfillment, psychological development, cognitive engagement, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. These services enhance human well-being by fostering a sense of place, reducing stress, promoting physical and mental health, cultivating social connections, supporting spiritual and cultural practices, and enriching recreational activities. Despite their importance, CES are often undervalued in planning and land management, leading to the erosion of cultural identity, lifestyle degradation, and increased social inequalities. This study focuses on the Chaharmahal-Bakhtiari province, known for its diverse natural landscapes and cultural heritage, to understand and quantify the distribution and importance of CES. It is widely recognized that applying the ecosystem services framework in managerial decision-making and planning depends on identifying various value types, particularly CES. While there is a growing inclination towards quantifying ecosystem services for land-use planning, substantial knowledge gaps remain concerning CES, especially within urban ecosystems. This study aims to address these gaps by quantifying CES in Chaharmahal-Bakhtiari province, a region significantly impacting urban welfare yet inadequately explored in ecosystem services research.
Materials and methods: The research aims to quantify and spatially zone seven prevalent categories of CES: education, recreation, spirituality and religion, aesthetics, inspiration, heritage, and sense of place. The study integrates mathematical models and multi-criteria evaluation to achieve this. The significance and prioritization of each service category were determined through expert consultation, with weights assigned using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Getis-Ord Gi* tool was employed to delineate areas with the potential to provide comprehensive CES, allowing for a detailed analysis of the spatial distribution of these services across the province.
Results and Discussion: The study's findings highlight aesthetic and recreational values as the most significant CES, with weights of 0.17 and 0.15, respectively. These results highlight the importance of these two values ​​among other types of CES and can potentially encourage the exploration and engagement with additional cultural services. The results indicate that, the southern regions, characterized by natural vegetation, landforms, and attractions such as waterfalls, exhibit higher aesthetic values compared to other parts. Recreational opportunities are notably present in the northwestern and southern parts of the province, including areas like Kohrang, Lordegan, Ardal and Borujen, predominantly covered by forests. Overall, about 26% of the province's area has a high potential for providing CES. The zoning results reveal a north-to-south gradient in CES provision, peaking in the central lowlands (Sabzekoh and Helen protected areas) and diminishing towards the southern extremity. The east-west axis shows the most substantial CES supply in the eastern locales of the province.
Conclusion: The results of this study have significant implications for land-use planning and management. Areas with high CES potential often lack formal protection, their future viability is threatened by land-use changes and human activities. This poses a risk to the province's natural heritage and the continued provision of CES. Therefore, protecting these high-capacity areas should be a priority in spatial planning to prevent future land-use alterations and urban expansion from diminishing CES flows. The results showed that, CES in Chaharmahal-Bakhtiari province play a crucial role in attracting tourists and conserving the environment, serving as a vital foundation for the region's sustainable development. The spatial representation of high-potential CES areas provided by this study enables managers and planners to focus their decision-making on these zones, facilitating time and cost savings and enhancing land-use management in the province. This ensures the preservation and promotion of its cultural and natural assets for future generations.
Keywords
Cultural Ecosystem Services
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Spatial Distribution
Chaharmahal-Bakhtiari
Abdollahi, S., Ildoromi, A., Salmanmahini, A., & Fakheran, S. (2019). Determination and quantification of the landscape aesthetic value in central part of Isfahan Province. Iranian Journal of Applied Ecology, 7, 31-42. http://doi.org/10.29252/ijae.7.4.31 (In Persian)
Abdollahi, S., Ildoromi, A., Salmanmahini, A., & Fakheran, S. (2020). Determination of homogenous areas for ecosystem services supply in the central part of Isfahan province. Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 11(1), 29-47. http://doi.org/10.30495/girs.2020.672371 (In Persian)
Ahmadi Mirghaed, F., Mohammadzadeh, M., Salmanmahiny, A., & Mirkarimi, S.H. (2020). Assessing the interactions between landscape aesthetic quality and spatial indices in Gharasoo watershed, North of Iran. International J. of Environmental Science and Technology, 17, 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02342-2
Alvarez-Codoceo, S., Cerda, C., & Perez-Quezada, J.F. (2021). Mapping the provision of cultural ecosystem services in large cities: The case of the Andean piedmont in Santiago, Chile. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 66, 127390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127390
Cabana, D., Ryfield, F., Crowe, T.P., & Brannigan, J. (2020). Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 42, 101085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101085
Caro, C., Marques, J.C., Cunha, P.P., &Teixeira, Z. (2020). Ecosystem services as a resilience descriptor in habitat risk assessment using the InVEST model. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106426
Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., and Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: a review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
Davis, N., Daams, M., van Hinsberg, A., & Sijtsma, F. (2016). How deep is your love – Of nature? A psychological and spatial analysis of the depth of feelings towards Dutch nature areas. Applied Geography, 77, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.012
Depietri, Y., Ghermandi, A., Campisi-Pinto, S. & Orenstein, D.E. (2021). Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101277
Ebner, M., Schirpke, S., & Tappeiner, U. (2022). Combining multiple socio-cultural approaches – Deeper insights into cultural ecosystem services of mountain lakes? Landscape and Urban Planning, 228, 104549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104549
Enssle, E., & Kabisch, N. (2020). Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people— an integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environmental science & policy, 109, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.008
Galic, N., Salice, C.J., Birnir, B., Bruins, R.J.F., Ducrot, V., Jager, H.I., Kanarek, A., Pastorok, R., Rebarber, R., Thorbek, P., & Forbes, V.E. (2019). Predicting impacts of chemicals from organisms to ecosystem service delivery: A case study of insecticide impacts on a freshwater lake. Science of the Total Environment, 682, 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.187
Havinga, I., Bogaart, P. W., Hein, L., & Tuia, D. (2020). Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101091
Jangi, H., Tavakolinia, J. Razavian, M. (2020). Assessment of Sustainability and Landscape Aesthetic Value (LAV) in Urban Green Spaces. The case of Tehran, District 22. Geographical Urban Planning Research, 8(1), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.22059/jurbangeo.2020.294868.1211 (In Persian)
Kabiri Hendi, M., Mirkarimi, H., & Salmanmahiny, A. (2020). Cultural ecosystem services assessment in Golestan Province. Journal of Environment Sciences Studies, 5 (2), 2560-2568. (In Persian)
Kim, J., & Son, Y. (2021). Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services of an urban forest based on narratives from blog posts. Ecological Indicators, 129, 107983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107983
Klain, S., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K.M. (2014). What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. Ecological economics, 107, 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003
Komossa, F., Wartmann, F.M., Kienast, F., &Verburg, P.H. (2020). Comparing outdoor recreation preferences in peri-urban landscapes using different data gathering methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 199, 103796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103796
Langemeyer, J., Calcagni, F., & Baró, F. (2018). Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics. Land use policy, 77, 542-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018 05.049
Li, B., Chen, D., Wu, Sh., Zhou, Sh., Wang, T., & Chen, H. (2016). Spatio-temporal assessment of urbanization impacts on ecosystem services: Case study of Nanjing City, China. Ecological Indicators, 71, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.017
Liu, Z., Huang, Q., & Yang, H. (2021). Supply-demand spatial patterns of park cultural services in megalopolis area of Shenzhen, China. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107066
Ma, S. H., Wang, L. J., Zhu, D., & Zhang, J. (2021). Spatiotemporal changes in ecosystem services in the conservation priorities of the southern hill and mountain belt, China. Ecological Indicators, 122, 107225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107225
Martinez-Harms, M. J., Bryan, B. A., Figueroa, E., Pliscoff, P., Runting, R. K., & Wilson, K. A. (2017). Scenarios for land use and ecosystem services under global change. Ecosystem Services, 25, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.021
Meng, S., Huang, Q., Zhang, L., He, C., Inostroza, L., Bai, Y., & Yin, D. (2020). Matches and mismatches between the supply of and demand for cultural ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101156
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2015. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: current State and Trends. Island Press. Washington DC.
 Mohammadyari, F., Pourkhabbaz, H., & Gholami Chaleshtari, SH. (2023). Modeling cultural ecosystem services (Case study: Recreational Ecosystem Services in Behbahan county). Environment Sciences, 2(4), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.48308/envs.2023.1346 (In Persian)
Munoz, L., Hausner, V., Brown, G., Runge, C., & Fauchald, P. (2019). Identifying spatial overlap in the values of locals, domestic- and international tourists to protected areas. Tourism Manage, 71, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.07.015
Pan, J., Ma, Y., Cai, S., Chen, Y., & Chen, Y. (2022). Distribution patterns of lake-wetland cultural ecosystem services in highland. Environmental Development, 44, 100754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100754
Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2016). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services, 17, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007
Ryfield, F., Cabana, D., Brannigan, J., & Crowe, T. (2019). Conceptualizing ‘sense of place’in cultural ecosystem services: A framework for interdisciplinary research. Ecosystem Services, 36, 100907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100907
Santana-Santana, S.B., Marrero-Rodríguez, N., García-Romero, L., Peña-Alonso, C., & Espino, E.P.C. (2022). Is disability a conditioning factor to perceive cultural ecosystem services? Assessing social perception in a coastal protected dunefield. Ocean & Coastal Management, 228, 106298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106298
Sen, S., & Guchhait, S. K. (2021). Urban green space in India: Perception of cultural ecosystem services and psychology of situatedness and connectedness. Ecological Indicators, 123, 107338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107338
Song, W., & Deng, X. (2017). Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision in China. Science of the Total Environment, 576, 705–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.078
Spanou, E., Kenter, J.O., & Graziano, M. (2020). The effects of aquaculture and marine conservation on cultural ecosystem services: An integrated hedonic–eudaemonic approach. Ecological Economics, 176, 106757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106757
Strand, M., Rivers, N., & Snow, B. (2023). The complexity of evaluating, categorising and quantifying marine cultural heritage. Marine Policy, 148, 105449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105449
Sun, X., & Li, F. (2017). Spatiotemporal assessment and trade-offs ofmultiple ecosystem services based on land use changes in Zengcheng, China, Science of the Total Environment, 609, 1569–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.221
Sun, X., Crittenden, J.C., Li, F., Lu, Z., & Dou, X. (2018). Urban expansion simulation and the spatio-temporal changes of ecosystem services, a case study in Atlanta Metropolitan area, USA. Science of the Total Environment, 622, 974–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.062
Sun, Y., Liu, D., & Wang, P. (2022). Urban simulation incorporating coordination relationships of multiple ecosystem services. Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, 103432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103432
Tajima, Y., Hashimoto, S., Dasgupta, R., & Takahashi, Y. (2023). Spatial characterization of cultural ecosystem services in the Ishigaki Island of Japan: A comparison between residents and tourists. Ecosystem Services, 60, 101520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101520
Tavakoli, M., & Mohammadyari, F. (2023). Modeling the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystem services in Ilam dam watershed, Western Iran: Identification of areas for spatial planning. Urban Ecosystems, 26(2), 459-478. https://doi.org/10.2788/6471
Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Zulian, G., Ferrini, S., & Maes, J. (2019). Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecological Modelling, 392, 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.09.023
Wang, Y., & Hayashi, K. (2023). Methodological development of cultural ecosystem services evaluation using location data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 396, 136523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136523
Wartmann, F. M., & Purves, R.S. (2018). Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175, 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.021
Wei, H., Liu, H., Xu, Z., Ren, J., Lu, N., Fan, W., Zhang, P., & Dong, X. (2018). Linking ecosystem services supply, social demand and human well-being in a typical mountain–oasis–desert area, Xinjiang, China. Ecosystem Services, 31, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.012
Wu, J., Jin, X., Wang, H., & Feng, Z. (2022). Evaluating the supply-demand balance of cultural ecosystem services with budget expectation in Shenzhen, China. Ecological Indicators, 142, 109165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109165
Zhao, Y., You, W., Lin, X., & He, D. (2023). Assessing the supply and demand linkage of cultural ecosystem services in a typical county-level city with protected areas in China. Ecological Indicators, 147, 109992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109992
Zhao, Q., Li, J., Liu, J., Cuan, Y., & Zhang, C. (2019). Integrating supply and demand in cultural ecosystem services assessment: a case study of Cuihua Mountain (China). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 6065–6076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3910-1
Zhang, L.B., Hao, C.Z., Song, Y., Wang, Y.Y., Zhang, W.T., Huang, Y.H., & Liang, T. (2022). Basic principles of gross ecosystem product (GEP) accounting. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 213(3), 501-510. https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.03.014
Zhang, Z., Zhang, H., Feng, J., Wang, Y., & Liu, K. (2021). Evaluation of social values for ecosystem services in urban riverfront space based on the SolVES model: a case study of the fenghe river, xi’an, China. Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2765. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052765

  • Receive Date 01 May 2024
  • Revise Date 29 May 2024
  • Accept Date 09 June 2024