Spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem services in Lublin: Perception of local residents and tourists

Ihor Kozak; Myroslava Mylenka; Iryna Kozak-Balaniuk

doi:10.31648/aspal.9277

Published: 2024-03-191

Vol. 23 No. 1 (2024)

Spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem services in Lublin: Perception of local residents and tourists

Ihor Kozak , Myroslava Mylenka , Iryna Kozak-Balaniuk

Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Administratio Locorum

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.31648/aspal.9277

Abstract

Motives: Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) are perceived differently by local residents and tourists. Therefore, an understanding of spatial patterns in CES is important for urban planning.
Aim: To determine whether residents and tourists differ in their perceptions of CES groups in Lublin, and whether these perceptions are influenced by gender, age, occupation, and frequency of visits.
Results: The relative value of CES groups was ranked in the following descending order of importance: physical, social, cultural, inspirational, and spiritual activities by local residents (n = 138), and inspirational, cultural, spiritual, physical, and social activities by tourists (n = 134). The Wilcoxon test showed that the total and average number of the identified locations was higher among residents than tourists. The chi-square test revealed a difference between the CES categories identified by the local residents (x² = 265.602, df = 5, p < 0.01) and tourists (x² = 25.660, df = 5, p < 0.01).

Keywords:

Public Participatory Geographical Information System, non-material values, Cultural Ecosystem services, urban green spaces

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Kozak, I., Mylenka, M., & Kozak-Balaniuk, I. (2024). Spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem services in Lublin: Perception of local residents and tourists. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Administratio Locorum, 23(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.31648/aspal.9277

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Adamiec, P., & Trzaskowska, E. (2012). Diagnoza stanu i walorów parków miejskich Lublina oraz wytyczne do ich kształtowania [The diagnosis of the condition and values of urban parks in Lublin and guidelines for development]. Teka Komisji Architektury, Urbanistyki i Studiów Krajobrazowych [Teka Comission of Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Studies], 8, 7–18.
Crossref
Google Scholar

Almeida, C. M. V. B., Mariano, M. V., Agostinho, F., Liu, G. Y., & Giannetti, B. F. (2018). Exploring the po¬tential of urban parks size for the provision of ecosys¬tem services to urban centres: a case study in Sao Paulo Brazil. Building and Environment, 144, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.08.036
Crossref
Google Scholar

Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, & Gren, C. Å. (2014). Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio, 43, 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280- 014-0506-y
Crossref
Google Scholar

Artmann, M., Chen, X., Iojă, C., Hof, A., Onose, D., Poniży, L., Lamovšek, A. Z., & Breuste, J. (2017). The role of urban green spaces in care facilities for elderly people across European cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 27, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2017.08.007
Crossref
Google Scholar

Bachi, L., Ribeiro, S. C., Hermes, J., & Saadi, A. (2020). Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) in landscapes with a tourist vocation: Mapping and modeling the physical landscape components that bring benefits to people in a mountain tourist destination in southeastern Brazil. Tourism Management, 77, 104017. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104017
Crossref
Google Scholar

Barometr turystyczny. (2022). Raport o ruchu turystycznym w Lublinie [Tourism Barometer, Report on tourism in Lublin]. Retrieved January 21, 2024, from: https://lublin.eu/gfx/lublin/userfiles/_public/ turystyka/projekty/barometr_turystyczny/raport_ turystyczny_2022.pdf
Google Scholar

Blicharska, M., Smithers, R. J., Hedblom, M., Hedenås, H., Mikusiński, G., Pedersen, E., Sandström, P., & Svensson, J. (2017). Shades of Grey Challenge Practical Application of the Cultural Ecosystem Services Concept’. Ecosystem Services, 23, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.014
Crossref
Google Scholar

Bramwell, B. (2015). Theoretical activity in sustainable tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.07.005
Crossref
Google Scholar

Brown, G. (2006). Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism and residential development planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 101–113. https://doi. org/10.1002/jtr.562
Crossref
Google Scholar

Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/ PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119–133. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
Crossref
Google Scholar

Brown, G., Rhodes, J., & Dade, M. (2018). An evaluation of participatory mapping methods to assess urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.018
Crossref
Google Scholar

Chen, S., Wang, Y., Ni., Z., Zhang, X., & Xia, B. (2020). Benefits of the ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructures: differences between perception and measurements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 54, 126774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2020.126774
Crossref
Google Scholar

Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & 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
Crossref
Google Scholar

Dade, M. C., Mitchell, M. G. E., Brown, G., & Rhodes, J. R. (2020). The effects of urban green space characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 49, 126641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2020.126641
Crossref
Google Scholar

Darvill, R., & Lindo, Z. (2015). Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services, 13, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.004
Crossref
Google Scholar

Darvill, R., & Lindo, Z. (2016). The inclusion of stake-holders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landscape Ecology, 31, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y
Crossref
Google Scholar

Dasgupta, R., Hashimoto, S., Basu, M., Okuro, T., Johnson, B. A., Kumar, P., & Dhyani, S. (2021). Spatial characterization of non-material values across multiple coastal production landscapes in the Indian Sundarban delta. Sustainability Sciences, 17, 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00899-3
Crossref
Google Scholar

Dłużewska, A. (2016). Cultural Ecosystem Services – Framework, Theories and Practices. Problemy Ekorozwoju [Problems of Sustainable Development], 12(1), 101–110. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/313768444_Cultural_ecosystem_ services_-_Framework_theories_and_practices
Google Scholar

Dłużewska, A., Tuohino, A., & Correia, F. (2020). Cultural ecosystem services and wellbeing policies for tourism – transnational and national challenges and opportunities. Geographical Journal, 91(1–2), 285–306. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348973853_ Cultural_Ecosystem_Services_and_Wellbeing_ Policies_for_tourism_-transnational_and_national_ challenges_and_opportunities
Google Scholar

Fischer, L. K., Honold, J., Botzat, A., Brinkmeyer, D., Cvejić, R., Delshammar, T., Elands, B., Aase, D., Kabisch, N., Karle, S. J., Lafortezza, R., Nastran, M., Nielsen, A. B., van der Jagt, A. P., Vierikko, K., & Kowarik, I. (2018). Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: socio cultural and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosystem Services, 31, 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.015
Crossref
Google Scholar

Geneva Convention. (1949). Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, adopted on 12 August 1949, 75, U.N.T.S. 31. https://doi. org/10.1163/9789004478428_073
Google Scholar

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief. One Ecosystems, 3, e27108. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108
Crossref
Google Scholar

Hirons, M., Comberti, C., & Dunford, R. (2016). Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 545–574. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
Crossref
Google Scholar

Iraegui, E., Augusto, G., & Cabral, P. (2020), Assessing equity in the accessibility to urban green spaces according to different functional levels. International Journal of Geo-Information, 9, 308. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijgi9050308
Crossref
Google Scholar

Jones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science, 360, 788–791. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aap9565.
Crossref
Google Scholar

Klemm, W., van Hove, B., Lenzholzer, S., & Kramer, H. (2016). Towards guidelines for designing parks of the future. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 21, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.004
Crossref
Google Scholar

Kosanic, A., & Petzold, J. (2020). A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human ellbeing. Ecosystem Services, 45, Article 101168. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101168
Crossref
Google Scholar

Lublin. (2023). Retrieved January 21, 2024, from: https:// www.polskawliczbach.pl/Lublin
Google Scholar

Łachowski, W., & Łęczek, A. (2020). Tereny zielone w dużych miastach Polski. Analiza z wykorzystaniem Sentinel 2 [Green areas in large Polish cities. The analysis using Sentinel 2]. Urban Development. Issues, 68(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.51733/udi.2020.68.07
Google Scholar

MEA. (2003). Ecosystem and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment, MEA, Washington, USA. Retrieved January 21, 2024, from: http://pdf. wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf
Google Scholar

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(3), 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344
Crossref
Google Scholar

Muñoz, 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 Management, 71, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.07.015
Crossref
Google Scholar

Nghiem, T. P. L., Wong, K. L., Jeevanandam, L., Chang, C. C., Tan, L. Y. C., Goh, Y., & Carrasco, L. R. (2021). Biodiverse urban forests, happy people: experimental evidence linking perceived biodiversity, restoration, and emotional well-being. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 59, 127030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2021.127030
Crossref
Google Scholar

O‘Brien, L., De Vreese, R., Kern, M., Sievänen, T., Stojanova, B., & Atmiş, E. (2017). Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban green infrastructure across different European countries Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 24, 236–248. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.002
Crossref
Google Scholar

Onose, D. A., Iojă, I. C., Niță, M. R., Vânău, G. O., & Popa, A. M. (2020). Too old for recreation? How friendly are urban parks for elderly people? Sustainability, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030790
Crossref
Google Scholar

Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corlian`o, M. E., Zaccarelli, N., & Dadamo, M. (2007). Tourist perception of recre-ational environment and management in a marine pro¬tected area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.017
Crossref
Google Scholar

Petrosillo, I., Costanza, R., Aretano, R., Zaccarelli, N., & Zurlini, G. (2013). The use of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital suport residents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecological Indicators, 24, 609–620. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.021
Crossref
Google Scholar

Pinto, L., Ferreira, C. S. S., & Pereira, P. (2021). Environmental and socioeconomic factors influencing the use of urban green spaces in Coimbra (Portugal). Science of The Total Environment, 792, 148293. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148293
Crossref
Google Scholar

Priatmoko, S., Kabil, M., Vasa, L., Pallás, E. I., & Dávid, L. D. (2021). Reviving an Unpopular Tourism Destination through the Place making Approach: Case Study of Ngawen Temple, Indonesia. Sustainability, 13, 6704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13126704
Crossref
Google Scholar

Rall, E., Bieling, C., Zytynska, S., & Haase, D. (2017). Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecological Indicators, 77, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.001
Crossref
Google Scholar

Stępniewska, M. (2021). The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception. Land Use Policy, 111, 105778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2021.105778
Crossref
Google Scholar

Syrbe, R. U., Neumann, I., Grunewald, K., Brzoska, P., Louda, J., Kochan, B., Macháč, J., Dubová, L., Meyer, P., Brabec, J., & Bastian, O. (2021). The value of urban nature in terms of providing ecosystem services related to health and well-being: an empirical comparative pilot study of cities in Germany and the Czech Republic. Land, 10, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land10040341
Crossref
Google Scholar

Trzaskowska, E. (2023). Recreational and leisure development for the elderly in residential areas in Lublin. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Administratio Locorum, 22(2), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.31648/ aspal.8223
Crossref
Google Scholar

Uchwała NR 1281/XLII/2022 RADY MIASTA LUBLIN z dnia 8 września 2022 r. w sprawie uchwalenia zmiany miejscowego planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego miasta Lublin – część II dla obszaru F – rejon ulic: Roztocze i W. Orkana (2022) [Resolution No. 1281/XLII/2022 OF THE LUBLIN CITY COUNCIL of September 8, 2022 on the adoption of an amendment to the local spatial development plan of the city of Lublin – part II for area F – the area of Roztocze and W. Orkana streets]. https:// bip.lublin.eu/gfx/bip/userfiles/_public/import/ rada_miasta_lublin/uchwaly/viii_kadencja/42_ sesja_08-09-2022/1281_xlii_2022.pdf
Google Scholar

Ustawa z dnia 12 marca 2022 r. o pomocy obywatelom Ukrainy w związku z konfliktem zbrojnym na tery-torium tego państwa (2022) [Act of March 12, 2022 on assistance to citizens of Ukraine in connection with an armed conflict on the territory of this coun¬try, Journal of Laws of 2022, item 583], Dz.U. 2022 r., item 583. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails. xsp?id=WDU20220000583
Google Scholar

Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Pearlmutter, D., & Sanesi, G. (2021). Usage of urban green space and related feelings of deprivation during the COVID-19 lockdown: lessons learned from an Italian case study. Land Use Policy, 105, Article 105437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2021.105437
Crossref
Google Scholar

UN. (2020). The New Urban Agenda (Nairobi, Kenya). https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/12/nua_ handbook_14dec2020_2.pdf
Google Scholar

WHO. (2020). United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030). General Assembly Resolution No. A/ RES/75/131 United Nations, New York, USA. https:// documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ N20/363/87/PDF/N2036387.pdf?OpenElement
Google Scholar

Willis, C. (2015). The contribution of cultural ecosystem services to understanding the tourism–nature– well being nexus. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jort.2015.06.002
Crossref
Google Scholar

Xin, C., Sylvie, V. D., Luyuan, L., & Pieter, U. (2020). Taking “social relations” as a cultural ecosystem service: a triangulation approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 55, 126790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2020.126790
Crossref
Google Scholar

Yang, L., & Cao, K. (2022). Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review. Sustainability, 14, 11845. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su141911845
Crossref
Google Scholar

Ihor Kozak

kozakihor58@gmail.com

Affiliation:

The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin Poland

Myroslava Mylenka

Affiliation:

Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ivano-Frankivsk Ukraine

Iryna Kozak-Balaniuk

Affiliation:

The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin Poland