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 ESF during the STSM. We aim 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 my study
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 of recreation 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.
2. Description of the work carried out during the STSM
During my stay at ESA, I have carried out a literature review, focusing on
a. The terminology of “recreation and tourism” in different typologies/classifications (MA,
TEEB, CICES) and
b. 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.
3. 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
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
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
Framework
Common
International
Classification
of Ecosystem
Services
(CICES V4.3,
2013)
Definition of
ESS
Definition of CES
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. In their review,
(Milcu et al., 2013) find that approximately 80% of studies that examine cultural ecosystem services
investigate recreation and tourism and 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 examined perceptions 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 socialpsychological 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? (to experience 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).
4. 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.
5. Confirmation by the host institution of the successful execution of the STSM
6. References
Abson D J, Termansen M, 2011, "Valuing Ecosystem Services in Terms of Ecological Risks and
Returns" Conservation Biology 25 250-258
Boyd J, Banzhaf S, 2007, "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units" Ecological Economics 63 616-626
Chan K M, Ruckelshaus M, 2010, "Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services" F1000
biology reports 2 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 Economics 41 393-408
Fisher B, Kerry Turner R, 2008, "Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation" Biological
Conservation 141 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 Letters 3 390-394
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 Indicators 29 434-444
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 Society 18
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 Conservation 19 2823-2842
Smith J W, Moore R L, 2013, "Social-Psychological Factors Influencing Recreation Demand: Evidence
From Two Recreational Rivers" Environment and Behavior 45 821-850