Opportunities offered by rural landscapes for cultural ecosystem services: Socio-cultural benefits of rural

Öz

This study comprehensively examines the cultural ecosystem services (CEES) of rural landscapes and their impacts on individual and societal well-being. CESs represent the intangible and intangible benefits of ecosystems to individuals and society that are experienced in the process of interacting with the natural and cultural elements of the landscape. However, today, factors such as unsustainable land use, globalization, environmental issues, non-inclusive planning processes, technical and social infrastructure negatively affect the existence, continuity and quality of potential and existing cultural ecosystem services of rural landscapes. Although overcoming these challenges requires comprehensive and context-specific studies, the common basis of all these studies is the development of awareness and knowledge about the cultural ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes. Understanding these benefits of rural landscapes will support quality of life and resilience in rural landscapes by assisting spatial decision-making processes for the development and maintenance of rural cultural ecosystem services. The study adopts an approach within the framework of landscape services by evaluating the links between the concepts of “ecosystem services”, “landscape services” and “amenities theory”. In this context, the study is based on the premise that cultural ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes are a product of physical and socio-cultural landscape features and the relationships between these features. From this point of view, cultural ecosystem service types are grouped according to the form of human-nature interaction and explained by synthesizing the definitions made in different sources. Providing examples from both Turkey and the world, the study sheds light on the importance of CES in local and global contexts. With examples taken from different geographies such as the Black Sea plateaus, the Alps, and sacred groves in India, the psycho-social, cultural, and physical contributions of rural landscapes to both daily life and society, which may differ according to the socio-cultural context, and the richness of these contributions are emphasized. In this context, the study draws attention to the necessity of policies that include interdisciplinary approaches and stakeholder participation for the sustainable management of rural landscapes. The comprehensive evaluation of the study provides a new framework for the integration of cultural landscape services into social welfare, environmental sustainability and planning processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecosystem Services
• Landscape
• Landscape services
• Affordance Theory
• Context

Kırsal Peyzajların Kültürel Ekosistem Hizmetleri için Sağladığı Olanaklar: Kırsalın Sosyo-Kültürel Katkıları

Öz

Bu çalışma, kırsal peyzajların kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerini (KEH), bu hizmetlerin bireysel ve toplumsal refah üzerindeki etkilerini kapsamlı bir şekilde incelemektedir. KEH’ler, peyzajın doğal ve kültürel unsurlarıyla etkileşim sürecinde deneyimlenen, ekosistemlerin bireylere ve topluma soyut ve manevi faydalarını temsil etmektedir. Ancak, günümüzde sürdürülebilir olmayan arazi kullanımı, küreselleşme, çevre sorunları, kapsayıcı olmayan planlama süreçleri, teknik ve sosyal altyapı gibi faktörler, kırsal peyzajların potansiyel ve mevcut kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerinin varlığını, devamlığını ve kalitesini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Bu zorlukların aşılması, kapsamlı ve bağlama özgü çalışmaları gerektirmekle birlikte, tüm bu çalışmaların ortak temeli; kırsal peyzajların sağladığı kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri konusunda farkındalıkların gelişmesi ve bilgi birikimidir. Kırsal peyzajın sunduğu bu yararların anlaşılması, kırsala özgü kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerinin gelişimine ve devamlılığına yönelik mekansal karar alma süreçlerine yardımcı olarak, kırsal peyzajlarda yaşam kalitesini ve dirençliliği destekleyecektir. Çalışma, “ekosistem hizmetleri”, “peyzaj hizmetleri “ve “olanaklar teorisi" konseptleri arasındaki bağlantıları değerlendirerek, peyzaj hizmetleri çerçevesinde bir yaklaşım benimsemiştir. Bu bağlamda çalışmada, kırsal peyzajların sağladığı kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerinin, fiziksel ve sosyo-kültürel peyzaj özelliklerinin ve bu özellikler arasındaki ilişkilerin bir ürünü olduğu temel alınmıştır. Bu bakış açısıyla, kültürel ekosistem hizmet tipleri; insan-doğa etkileşimin biçimine göre gruplandırılmış ve farklı kaynaklarda yapılan tanımlamaların sentezi ile açıklamıştır. Hem Türkiye hem de dünya genelinden örnekler sunan çalışma, KEH’lerin yerel ve evrensel bağlamdaki önemine ışık tutmaktadır. Karadeniz yaylaları, Alpler, Hindistan’daki kutsal koruluklar gibi farklı coğrafyalardan alınan örneklerle, hem gündelik hayata hem de toplumsal boyutta, kırsal peyzajların sosyo-kültürel bağlama göre farklılaşabilen psiko-sosyal, kültürel, fiziksel katkıları, bu katkıların zenginliği üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu kapsamda çalışma, kırsal peyzajların sürdürülebilir yönetimi için disiplinler arası yaklaşımlar ve paydaş katılımını içeren politikaların gerekliliğine dikkat çekmektedir. Çalışmanın sunduğu kapsamlı değerlendirme, kültürel peyzaj hizmetlerinin toplumsal refah, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve planlama süreçlerine entegrasyonu için yeni bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekosistem Hizmetleri
• Peyzaj
• Peyzaj hizmetleri
• Olanaklar Teorisi
• Bağlam

Kaynakça

1. Albert, C., Aronson, J., Fürst, C., & Opdam, P. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 29, 1277-1285.
2. Allendorf, T. D., & Yang, J. (2013). The role of ecosystem services in park–people relationships: The case of Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve in southwest China. Biological Conservation, 167, 187-193.
3. Amelung, B., & Viner, D. (2006). Mediterranean Tourism: Exploring the Future with the Tourism Climatic Index. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 349-366.
4. Amelung, B., Nicholls, S., & Viner, D. (2007). Implications of Global Climate Change for Tourism Flows and Seasonality. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (3), 285-296.
5. Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and urban planning, 70(1-2), 21-34.
6. Arnaiz-Schmitz, C., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., & Schmitz, M. F. (2021). Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain. Land, 10(4), 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND10040343
7. Arslan, E. S., Nordström, P., Ijäs, A., Hietala, R., & Fagerholm, N. (2021). Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services: spatial differences in urban and rural areas of Kokemäenjoki, Finland. Landscape Research, 46(6), 828-844.
8. Baylan, E., Şehribanoğlu, S., & Şatır, O. (2023). Contributions of cultural ESs to human well-being, landscape planning and rural development in border landscapes: Local Insights from the Bendimahi River Basin (Eastern Anatolia, Türkiye). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-23.

9. Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R. U., Walz, U., & Wende, W. (2014). Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape ecology, 29, 1463-1479.
10. Berbés-Blázquez, M. (2012). A participatory assessment of ecosystem services and human wellbeing in rural Costa Rica using photo-voice. Environmental management, 49, 862-875.
11. Berkes, F. (1999). Review of Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, (by F. Berkes). Human Ecology, 29 (2), 255–257.
12. Berkes, F. & Jolly, D. (2001). Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5(2), 18. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18/
13. Blicharska, M., Smithers, R. J., Hedblom, M., Hedenås, H., Mikusiński, G., Pedersen, E., Sandström, P., & Svensson, J. (2016). Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept, Ecosystem Services, 23, 55-70.
14. Brown, G. (2012). Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. Journal of the Urban ve Regional Information Systems Association, 24(2).
15. Brown, K., & Fortnam, M. (2018). Gender and ecosystem services: A blind spot. 257–272. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507090-20
16. Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21, 258-269.
17. Butler, C.D., & Oluoch-Kosura, W. (2006). Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society, 11, 1-16.
18. Carpenter, S. R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H. A., Polasky, S., Reid, W. V., & Scholes, R. J. (2006). Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science, 314 (5797), 257-258.
19. Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.016.
20. Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O'Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., & Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9483-9488.
21. Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T., Salzman, J. & Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7, 21-28.a.
22. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
23. Dou, Y., Zhen, L., Yu, X., Bakker, M., Carsjens, G. J., & Xue, Z. (2019). Assessing the influences of ecological restoration on perceptions of cultural ecosystem services by residents of agricultural landscapes of western China. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 685-695.
24. Dou, Y., Yu, X., Bakker, M., De Groot, R., Carsjens, G. J., Duan, H., & Huang, C. (2020). Analysis of the relationship between cross-cultural perceptions of landscapes and cultural ecosystem services in Genheyuan region, Northeast China. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101112.
25. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments–Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421-433.
26. Ferrara, V., Sala, G., & La Mantia, T. (2024). Change and Persistence in an Olive Landscape of Sicily. Geospatial Insights Into Biocultural Heritage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-024-00498-1
27. Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement, Ecosystem Services, 21(B);208-217.
28. Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., & Balmford, A. (2008). Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy‐relevant research. Ecological applications, 18 (8), 2050-2067.
29. García-Llorente, M., J. Castro, A., Quintas-Soriano, C., Oteros-Rozas, E., Iniesta-Arandia, I., González, J. A., García del Amo, D., Hernández-Arroyo, M., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Onaindia, M., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B. (2020). Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Across Multiple Ecosystem Types in Spain. Land, 9(9), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090330
30. Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Portela, R., Nalini, R., & Teelucksingh, S. S. (2010). Recreational, Cultural and Aesthetic Services from Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1532803
31. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (1st ed.,1979). Psychology Press.
32. Giedych, R., & Maksymiuk, G. (2017). Specific Features of Parks and Their Impact on Regulation and Cultural Ecosystem Services Provision in Warsaw, Poland. Sustainability, 9(5), 792.
33. Gjorgievski, M. & Nakovski, D. (2014). Climatic features as a factor for development of tourism in the Republic of Macedonia. UTMS Journal of Economics 5 (1): 67–77.
34. Gould, R. K., Coleman, K., & Gluck, S. B. (2018). Exploring dynamism of cultural ecosystems services through a review of environmental education research. Ambio, 47(8), 869-883.
35. Graham, B., Ashworth, G., & Tunbridge, J. (2000). A Geography of Heritage (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824895
36. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. https://cices.eu/
37. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 18(35):207–28.
38. Hermes, J., Van Berkel, D., Burkhard, B., Plieninger, T., Fagerholm, N., von Haaren, C., & Albert, C. (2018). Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes. Ecosystem services, 31, 289-295.
39. Howley, P., Yadav, L., Hynes, S., Donoghue, C. O., & Neill, S. O. (2014). Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the ‘multifunctional’role of the agricultural sector. Land use policy, 38, 248-256.
40. Jones, K. B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., Petrosillo, I., Edwards, T., Wade, T. G., ... & Zaccarelli, N. (2013). Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landscape ecology, 28, 1175-1192.
41. Kang, N., Xie, G., & Liu, C. (2023). Assessment of Society’s Perceptions on Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape in Nanchang, China. Sustainability, 15(13), 10308.
42. Keller, R., Clivaz, M., Reynard, E., & Backhaus, N. (2019). Increasing landscape appreciation through the landscape services approach. A case study from Switzerland. Sustainability, 11(20), 5826.
43. Kettunen, M., Vihervaara, P., Kinnunen, S., D’Amato, D., Badura, T., Argimon, M. and Ten Brink, P. 2012 Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic Countries-Synthesis in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).
44. La Rosa, D., Geneletti, D., Spyra, M., Albert, C., & Fürst, C. (2018). Sustainable planning for peri-urban landscapes. Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes: Broadscale Considerations, 89-126.
45. Lamers, M & Amelung, B. (2012). Sustainable Tourism Development in Antarctica: Conceptualization, Perspectives, and Ways Forward. 10.2307/j.ctv18ph1gb.15.
46. Lewis, A. (2022). Ecosystem Service Flows Across the Rural-Urban Spectrum. In: Misiune, I., Depellegrin, D., Egarter Vigl, L. (eds) Human-Nature Interactions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01980-7_15.
47. López-Santiago, C. A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., Martín, E. G., & A. González, J. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society, 19(2).
48. Maestre-Andrés, S., Calvet-Mir, L., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2016). Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services to improve protected area management: a multi-method approach applied to Catalonia, Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 16, 717-731.
49. Mander, Ü., Helming, K., Wiggering, H. (2007). Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. In: Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H., Helming, K. (eds) Multifunctional Land Use. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36763-5_1
50. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2009). Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Journal of environmental management, 90(2), 1050-1059.
51. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Bagghetun, E., González, J., Lomas, P. & Montes, C. (2009). The Assessment of ecosystem services provided by biodiversity: Re-thinking concepts and research needs.
52. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D. G. D., ... & Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6), e38970.
53. McGinlay, J., Parsons, D. J., Morris, J., Graves, A., Hubatova, M., Bradbury, R. B., & Bullock, J. M. (2018). Leisure activities and social factors influence the generation of cultural ecosystem service benefits. Ecosystem services, 31, 468-480.
54. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
55. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape journal, 14(2), 161-170.
56. Oliveira, R., Dneboská, M. (2004): From landscape perception until public participation. How long is the way? - In: International Conference “From Landscape Knowledge to Landscaping Action,Bordeaux, France.
57. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., López, C. A., Palomo, I., & González, J. A. (2013). Envisioning the future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: a case study in Spain. The Rangeland Journal, 35(3), 251-272.
58. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2018). Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecological Indicators, 94, 74-86.
59. Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley, P., ... & Huntsinger, L. (2015). The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 28-33.
60. Plieninger, T., Kizos, T., Bieling, C., Dû-Blayo, L. Le, Budniok, M.-A., Bürgi, M., Crumley, C. L., Girod, G., Howard, P., Kolen, J., Kuemmerle, T., Milcinski, G., Palang, H., Trommler, K. & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecology and Society, 20(2): 5.
61. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land use policy, 33, 118-129.
62. Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, Fikret., de Athayde, SF., Dudley, N., Hunn, E., Maffi, L., Milton, K., Rapport, D., Robbins, P., Sterling, E., Stolton, S., Tsing, A., Vintinnerk, E., & Pilgrim, S. (2009). The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration. Conservation and Society, 7(2): 100-112s, doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.58642
63. Rose, D. B. (2000). To dance with time: A Victoria River Aboriginal study. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 11(2), 287-296.
64. Santoro, A., Venturi, M., & Agnoletti, M. (2020). Agricultural heritage systems and landscape perception among tourists. The case of Lamole, Chianti (Italy). Sustainability, 12(9), 3509.
65. Sarıtunç, B. (2023). The Cult of Water in Turkish Belief Systems. Valley International Journal Digital Library, 1478-1489.
66. Sarmiento, F.O. & Cotacachi, C. (2019). Framing cultural ecosystem services in the Andes: Utawallu as sentinels of values for biocultural heritage conservation in Understanding the Multiple Values associated with Sustainable Use in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS).
67. Schirpke, U., Kohler, M., Leitinger, G., Fontana, V., Tasser, E., & Tappeiner, U. (2017). Future impacts of changing land-use and climate on ecosystem services of mountain grassland and their resilience. Ecosystem Services, 26, 79-94.
68. Schirpke, U., Meisch, C. & Tappeiner, U. (2018). Symbolic species as a cultural ecosystem service in the European Alps: insights and open issues. Landscape Ecology. 33. 10.1007/s10980-018-0628-x.
69. Schirpke, U., Altzinger, A., Leitinger,G., & Tasser, E. (2019). Change from agricultural to touristic use: Effects on the aesthetic value of landscapes over the last 150 years. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 23-35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.004.
70. Schirpke, U., Scolozzi, R., & Tappeiner, U. (2022). Not too small to benefit society: insights into perceived cultural ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps. Ecology and Society, 27 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12987-270106
71. Schneider, P., & Popovici, L. D. (2019). Approaches for the implementation of water-related cultural ecosystem services in teaching programs on sustainable development. Sustainability and the Humanities, 267-289.
72. Scott, D., Jones, B. & Konopek, J. (2007). Implications of climate and environmental change for nature-based tourism in the Canadian Rocky Mountains: A case study of Waterton Lakes National Park. Tourism Management, 28(2):570–579.
73. Shougrakpam, D., Chaudhary, N., Goswami, R., & Gogoi, R. (2024). Conservation of Sacred Groves of Rajasthan through Folkloric Beliefs. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i03.20673.
74. Smardon, R. (2021). Ecosystem services for scenic quality landscape management: A review. Land, 10(11), 1123.
75. Smith, M., & Ram, Y. (2017). Tourism, landscapes and cultural ecosystem services: a new research tool. Tourism recreation research, 42 (1), 113-119.
76. Smith, C.S. (2023). Affordances. In: Foundations of Interprofessional Health Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33414-6_2
77. Summers, J.K., Smith, L.M., Case, J.L., & Linthurst, R.A. (2012). A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio,41(4):327-40.
78. Sodhi, N. S., Lee, T. M., Sekercioglu, C. H., Webb, E. L., Prawiradilaga, D. M., Lohman, D. J., ... & Ehrlich, P. R. (2010). Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 1175-1188.
79. Soini, K., Vaarala, H., & Pouta, E. (2012). Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 124-134.
80. Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P., & Hamilton, S. K. (2007). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological economics, 64(2), 245-252.
81. TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. https://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/synthesis/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
82. Tempesta, T. (2010). The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(4), 258-272.
83. Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity, Ecosystem Services, 2, 14-26.
84. Termorshuizen, J. W., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape ecology, 24, 1037-1052.
85. Thiemann, M., Riebl, R., Haensel, M., Schmitt, T. M., Steinbauer, M. J., Landwehr, T., ... & Koellner, T. (2022). Perceptions of ecosystem services: Comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences. Plos One, 17(10), e0276432.
86. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape research, 31(3), 229-255.
87. UNWTO Annual Report. (2013). Erişim adresi: https://www.unwto.org/archive/global/publication/unwto-annual-report-2013
88. Vallés-Planells, M., Galiana, F., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2014). A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning. Ecology and Society, 19(1).
89. Van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological indicators, 37, 163-174.
90. Van den Bosch, M., & Sang, Å. O. (2017). Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health–A systematic review of reviews. Environmental research, 158, 373-384.
91. Vikram, L., Bhardwaj, M., & Gopal, A. (2024). Challenges in Preserving the Revered Character of Sacred Groves of Udupi District, Western Ghats – Karnataka (pp. 355–373). Informa.
92. Wang, J., Wang, K., Song, H., Ma, S., & Pang, D. (2024). Exploring the relationship between cultural ecosystem services and human well-being of Qiandao Lake in China: insights from tourists and residents. Environmental Research Communications. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad4d43
93. 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.
94. Yang, L., & Cao, K. (2022). Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review. Sustainability, 14(19),11845.
95. Yücesoy, G. E., Okmeydan, S.B., & Ekıc, M. (2023). Somut Olmayan Kültürel Miras Unsuru Olarak Bahar Bayramı: Hıdırellez. In: Balkan 9th International Conference on Social Sciences (Edirne) Proceeding Book, 899-910. Academy Global Publishing House.
96. Xu, H., & Plieninger, T. (2022). Intangible Bonds: Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Practices. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 10(5): 4‒7. https://doi.org/10.15302/j-laf-1-010027.
97. Zoderer, B. M., Tasser, E., Erb, K. H., Stanghellini, P. S. L., & Tappeiner, U. (2016). Identifying and mapping the tourists perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an Alpine region. Land use policy, 56, 251-261.