Working Group One

Meta-Analysis Baseline Report

The Working Group has been exploring some of the following themes:

  • Definitions and measurements of wellbeing from different disciplinary perspectives (e.g. public health, psychology, sociology)
  • The relationship between tourism and quality of life, wellbeing and happiness (tourist perspective)
  • The relationship between tourism and quality of life, wellbeing and happiness (local resident/community perspective)
  • Defining ecosystem services and their relationship to human wellbeing
  • Defining ecosystem services and their relationship to tourism
  • The health benefits of being in natural environments or landscapes (with sub-sets of forests, parks, gardens, etc.)
  • The role of ecosystem services in landscape and tourism planning/management

The Working Group was divided into several sub-groups, all of whom have been working on the Meta-Analysis according to given keywords or search words.

One group searched using the words ’Tourism’ and ’Ecosystem Services’ and analysed 77 articles. They were categorised according to whether they were considered to be of high, medium or low relevance to the project. They were also categorised according to their focus on the different types of ecosystem services: Cultural, Provisioning, Regulatory and Supporting. The relationship between tourism and EES was also noted. Scales were also included as to whether they were Local, Regional, National or International. They were listed according to the number of times that articles had been cited.

A second sub-group analysed a further 99 articles using the words tourism, ecosystem services and landscape (not all of the articles contained all three words, however). They categorised them according to the same scales (i.e. Local, Regional, National or International), types of EES, as well as according to type of article: Description, Analysis, Case, Theory/Concept.

A third group searched using the words ’Ecosystem Services’ and ’Wellbeing’ and focused only on articles from 2013-2015. These articles were coded according to frequently occuring words and themes in the titles, the most popular of which were the following (in order of importance): Assessment, Water, Climate, Urban, Biodiversity, Marine, Communities. A further 100 articles were reviewed (out of a possible 977) and the most relevant 22 were selected according to the following themes: Theory/Concepts; Assessment/Indicators/Indices; Research; Nature and Health; Landscapes; Cultural Ecosystem Services. These served as the basis for a more focused qualitative meta-analysis (of which more later).

No sub-group only focused on the terms ’Tourism’ and ’Wellbeing’ as the group already has quite a good grasp of the tourism, wellness, wellbeing, health, happiness and quality of life literature (sources include: Puczkó & Smith, 2010; Corvo, 2011; Nawijn, 2011; Filep, 2012; Dolnicar et al., 2012; Cini, Kruger, & Ellis, 2012; De Bloom, Guerts, & Kompier, 2012; Uysal, Perdue and Sirgy, 2012. We also have collected several indicators of wellbeing (e.g. Gallup, 2013). The following conclusions have been drawn about this literature:

  • Social consumption in highly developed economies does not increase wellbeing (‘diminishing returns’) (Knight and Rosa, 2011)
  • Wellbeing has not increased relative to economic growth or with environmental ‘overshoot’ (Pretty, 2013)
  • Tourism can be detrimental to the wellbeing of local communities (the literature on this is already considerable, e.g. Uysal, Perdue and Sirgy (2012) so we decided not to focus on this theme in our research)
  • Individual trips can create greater pre-trip than post-trip happiness (Narwijn, 2010; Corvo, 2011)
  • Vacationers’ happiness does not increase long-term wellbeing (Nawijn, 2011)
  • Research should focus on tourism and ‘authentic happiness’ rather than SWB or Subjective Wellbeing (Filep, 2014)

However, research also suggests that nature-based experiences can improve health and wellbeing (e.g. Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1995; Louv, 2005, 2009; Ward Thompson, Aspinall, and Bell, 2010; Park et al., 2010; Nilsson et al., 2011; Korpela, Borodulin, Neuvonen, Paronen& Tyrvalinen (2014), therefore it would be interesting to see how far rural and nature-based holidays can improve wellbeing. A recurrent theme in our literature search is also that of sustainability. If nature-based tourism increases, it will have serious implications for ecosystems but also for the wellbeing of local people. Many of the EES articles containing a tourism theme are about impacts, conservation, ecotourism and communities. The majority (60% or more) are case study-based.

Many recent studies emphasise the importance of environmental quality and ecosystem services for human wellbeing (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Happy Planet Index, 2012; Knight & Rosa, 2013). A more focused Meta-Analysis of several articles relating to Ecosystem Services (ES) and human wellbeing (HWB) revealed that:

  • The link between ES and HWB is complex and hard to quantify(Villamagna and Giesecke, 2014)
  • The link between ES and HWB is needed at fine spatial scales (Wu, 2013)
  • Many indices are biased towards urban areas(Villamagna and Giesecke, 2014)
  • Wellbeing, empathy/compassion and non-material values lead to sustainable behaviour (Ericson, Kjonstad & Barstad, 2014)
  • Human dependence on CES (Cultural Ecosystem Services) increases with economic development while dependence on provisioning ecosystem services decreases (Plieninger, Dijks, Oteros-Rozas and Bieling, 2013)
  • The core components of Landscape Sustainability Science (LSS) are ecosystem services, human wellbeing and landscape pattern (Wu, 2013)

In terms of gaps in the tourism, wellbeing and ecosystem services literature, very few articles mention all three themes. It is hard to differentiate between the sustainable and ecotourism debates and those of ecosystem services. We may be using different language for the same phenomena? This needs further exploration. One major gap has been identified with the help of Plieninger, Dijks, Oteros-Rozas and Bieling (2013). Their review of 42 papers on CES showed that only three papers contained measures of CES impacts on HWB (whereas more than half focused on recreation and ecotourism services). We have therefore started to develop some indices which could help to measure the relationship between CES and HWB in a landscape context (we have many landscape specialists in our group).

Additional Activities and Sub-Themes (we have several individuals and sub-groups working on the themes below):

  • Terroir, landscapes and food
  • Blue spaces/water, landscapes and wellbeing
  • Spirituality and spirit of place
  • Ecowellness
  • Therapeutic landscapes