Tourism, Wellbeing and Ecosystem Services (TObeWELL) - Short Term Scientific Mission (STSM)
Katja Schmidt

Scientific Report: Recreation and (eco)tourism: Implications of a cultural service for the ecosystem service framework

  1. Purpose of the STSM

1.1 General Purpose of the STSM

The purpose of my Short Term Scientific Mission (STSM) at the Environmental Systems Analysis Group (ESA)was to gain experience in a new research environment while exploring the relationship between recreation and tourism and the ecosystem services framework (ESF). While my PhD examines ecosystem services with a focus on socio-cultural values,the expertise of ESA, particularly of Dr. Bas Amelung, in tourism research allowed for a more in-depth exploration of recreation and tourism within the ESFduring the STSM. Weaim to promote collaboration between the Landscape Management Group of Potsdam University and Environmental System Analysis Group of Wageningen University and Research Centre.

1.2 Purpose of mystudy

Ecosystem services are final outputs of ecosystems that most directly affect the well-being of people while retaining a connection to the underlying ecosystem functions, processes, and structures that generate them (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). Given recent discussions on the classification of cultural ecosystem services and the lack of a common understanding of the confinement of individual cultural ecosystem services, I will explore if and to what extent recreational benefits and tourism should essentially be considered cultural ecosystem services. My work will provide an overview ofrecreation and tourism in different typology/classification frameworks, namely the Millennium Assessment (MA), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity framework (TEEB), and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Moreover, I will explore recent findings of recreation/tourism in past studies and provide various examples from the ecosystem services and tourism research communities.

  1. Description of the work carried out during the STSM

During my stay at ESA, I have carried out a literature review, focusing on

  1. The terminology of “recreation and tourism” in different typologies/classifications (MA, TEEB, CICES) and
  2. Recent findings on cultural ecosystem services (mainly recreation and tourism).

The literature review was the basis for various discussions held with people from the ESA group and the neighboring Environmental Policy group.

I further designed a questionnaire that I will use within my PhD project to elicit socio-cultural values in a case study area in Scotland and integrated questions on non-nature-based motivations regarding respondents’ visit to the case study area.

At the end of my stay, I presented and discussed my work within the ESA group and adapted it according to many valuable suggestions to improve my study.

  1. Description of the main results obtained

The examined literature suggests that general terminology of functions, services, goods, benefits and values of ecosystems has evolved over the years, successively leading to an accurate distinction between intermediate services, final services, goods and benefits and values (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; de Groot et al., 2002; Fisher and Kerry Turner, 2008; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). Haines-Young and Potschin(2013) emphasize the difference of final ecosystem services (final outputs of ecosystems that most directly affect the well-being of people while retaining a connection to the underlying ecosystem functions, processes, and structures that generate them), ecosystem goods and benefits (things people create or derive from final ecosystem services; products or experiences that are not functionally connected to their original systems) and human well-being (state that emerges from adequate access to the basic materials for a good life needed to sustain freedom of choice and action, health, good social relations and security, partially depending on the aggregated ecosystem goods and benefits).

Although the terminology has been improved and made more applicable recently, the validity of particular ecosystem services remains controversial. Whereas recreation (and tourism) in the past has commonly been regarded a cultural ecosystem service (de Groot et al., 2010; MA, 2005), an opposing trend (within CICES consultations and in wider research) suggests that recreation actually refers to a benefit gained by a physical and cultural setting of characteristics of the ecosystem (Abson and Termansen, 2011; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013; Rounsevell et al., 2010) and is thus not ultimately linked to biophysical functions and processes. Whether recreation and tourism result in experiences that are functionally connected to their original systems, thus whether visitors choose destinations exclusively because of prevalent nature-based functions and processes or what role non-nature-based settings play, could be focus in future research.

Recreation/tourism is referred to in various typologies of ecosystem services, namely the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. Whereas the MA mixes terminology when defining ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem services and the recreational service itself (‘recreation and ecotourism’), the TEEB study offers a distinct definition of ecosystem services but mixes terminology when defining cultural ecosystem services. CICES eliminates the very vague terminology of services, benefits and values of recreation when referring to the physical use and experiential interactions (benefits) within different environmental settings (see Table 1). This distinction between environmental settings (as service) and different experiential and physical uses (benefits) is a major difference to its understanding in the MA and TEEB study.

Table 1: Definitions of ecosystem services (ESS), cultural ecosystem services (CES) and recreation/tourism in different typologies

Framework / Definition of ESS / Definition of CES / Name of service / Definition of service / Activities included in the service
Millennium Assessment (MA, 2005) / Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems / Nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences / Recreation and Ecotourism / Value of ecosystem as a place where people can come for rest, relaxation, refreshment, and recreation / Nature-based recreational activities: walking, bird-watching, camping, fishing, swimming, nature study
The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010) / Ecosystem services are direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being / Indirect or direct aesthetic, spiritual, psychological and other benefits that humans obtain from contact with ecosystems / Recreation and Tourism / Not defined / Not defined
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICESV4.3, 2013) / Ecosystem services are contributions that ecosystems make to human wellbeing. / The physical settings, locations or situations that give rise to changes in the physical or mental states of people, and whose character are fundamentally dependent on living processes / Physical and experiential interactions / a.. the experiential use of plants, animals and landscapes in different environmental settings and
b..the physical use of landscapes in different environmental settings / a.. in-situ whale and bird-watching, snorkeling, diving etc.
b.. walking, hiking, climbing, boating, leisure fishing and leisure hunting

The number of papers acknowledging and exploring cultural ecosystem services has risen significantly since 2008 (Milcu et al., 2013). These studies vary regarding the depth of exploration of cultural ecosystem services from the mere acknowledgement to actual discussion. Intheir review,(Milcu et al., 2013)find that approximately 80% of studies that examine cultural ecosystem services investigate recreation and tourismand more than half discuss aesthetic values (n=107). This development is in line with findings of(Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010), that cultural ecosystem services in general lack quantitative characterization and modeling, with the exception of tourism and aesthetics. This concentration on just few services runs the risk of contributing to the marginalization of other significant ecosystem services (Milcu et al., 2013).(Hernandez-Morcillo et al., 2013) review 42 empirical ecosystem services assessments that derive explicit qualitative or quantitative measurements for cultural ecosystem services and find that over half of the studies explore recreation and ecotourism. The frequency of the investigation of other socio-cultural indicators in this review (such as education and knowledge system, inspirational, sense of place, aesthetic, etc.) within reviewed studies varies from 3-14% (ibid.).

Tourism research has examinedperceptions and motivations from the perspectives of different stakeholder groups for various recreational activities that are related to the environment, without necessarily establishing a link to the concept of ecosystem services.Fuller et al. (2007)demonstrate that the psychological well-being of urban greenspace users increases with levels of species richness and diversity.Recently, Smith and Moore (2013) extended the travel cost approach by social-psychological factors when they examined recreationists’ motivations as well as their attachments to settings as an estimate of recreation demand. Items (“Recreation Experience Preference statements”) used in their study include “to be creative”, “to learn about countryside”, “to get exercise”, “to enjoy the view” and “to think about personal values” which essentially include some of the basic notions of cultural ecosystem services (cf.(Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013).

Next to reviewing literature and concepts of ecosystem services during my STSM, I have designed a questionnaire that derives socio-cultural values of visitors to a Regional Park in Scotland. The survey aims to elicit benefits that respondents identify in the study area (provided by provisioning services, regulating services or cultural/amenity services) as well as socio-cultural values (personal, altruistic, biospheric) that respondents place on these benefits. I further ask respondents to rank four management scenarios (renaturation, wind farming, traditional livestock farming, recreational events) following their personal preferences to test how these values may change when confronted several trade-offs.

Within the questionnaire, I further aim to examine what ecosystem-related and –unrelated characteristics of the destination influence visitors’ motivation to go there. I included questions to test whether or not only the ecosystems’ biophysical structure and functions have an impact on the choice of travel destination or whether factors independent of the ecosystems’ biophysical structure and function play a role. Investigated parameters will include nature-based indicators (rarity of species/ecosystem (distinctiveness), diversity of species, naturalness) as well as non-nature-based indicators (accessibility, infrastructure, recreational facilities). Questions regarding motivations of visitors to visit this particular destination read:

What best describes your motivation to come here? (toexperience nature; to be inspired by nature; to enjoy the scenery, to learn about nature; species richness; rarity of species; biodiversity)

What other factors determined your choice to visit the Pentland Hills today? (Existing facilities (ski slope, golf course, Visitor/Information Center); proximity to work/home; accessibility (buses, car park); solitude; to get fresh air; to exercise; other).

  1. Future collaboration with the host institution

Future collaboration– perhaps in form of a publication considering the concept of recreation and tourism in (national) ecosystem services assessments – is still subject of discussion.

  1. Confirmation by the host institution of the successful execution of the STSM
  1. References

Abson D J, Termansen M, 2011, "Valuing Ecosystem Services in Terms of Ecological Risks and Returns" Conservation Biology25 250-258

Boyd J, Banzhaf S, 2007, "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units" Ecological Economics63 616-626

Chan K M, Ruckelshaus M, 2010, "Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services" F1000 biology reports2 54-54

de Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I, 2010, "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB), Chapter 1", (Earthscan, London and Washington)

de Groot R S, Wilson M A, Boumans R M J, 2002, "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services" Ecological Economics41 393-408

Fisher B, Kerry Turner R, 2008, "Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation" Biological Conservation141 1167-1169

Fuller R A, Irvine K N, Devine-Wright P, Warren P H, Gaston K J, 2007, "Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity" Biology Letters3 390-394

Haines-Young R, Potschin M, 2013, "CICES", in Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003

Hernandez-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C, 2013, "An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators" Ecological Indicators29 434-444

MA, 2005, "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment", (Island Press, Washington, DC)

Milcu A I, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J, 2013, "Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research" Ecology and Society18

Rounsevell M D A, Dawson T P, Harrison P A, 2010, "A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services" Biodiversity and Conservation19 2823-2842

Smith J W, Moore R L, 2013, "Social-Psychological Factors Influencing Recreation Demand: Evidence From Two Recreational Rivers" Environment and Behavior45 821-850