Diterjemahkan dari bahasa Inggris ke bahasa Indonesia - www.onlinedoctranslator.

com

LandUsePolicy79(2018)622–632

Daftar isi tersedia di SainsLangsung

Kebijakan Penggunaan Lahan

beranda jurnal: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Menggunakan cincin von Thünen dan logika dominan-layanan

dalam menyeimbangkan hutan layanan ekosistem
Anders RoosA,kan, Jeannette EggersB, Cecilia Mark-HerbertC, Anders LindhagenC
A
Orang Swedia Universitas Ilmu Pertanian, Departemen Ekonomi Hutan, Kotak 7060, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Swedia
B
Orang Swedia Universitas Ilmu Pertanian, Pusat Informasi Spesies Swedia, Uppsala, Swedia
C
Orang Swedia Universitas Ilmu Pertanian, Departemen Ekonomi Hutan, Uppsala, Swedia

INFO ARTIKEL
ABSTRAK

Kata kunci:
NS alokasi dari hutan tanah ke berbeda menggunakan untuk ekosistem jasa (ES) adalah A kompleks tugas
Konservasi hutan
yang adalah semakin terpengaruh oleh saat ini urbanisasi tren dan NS pertumbuhan dari NS berorientasi
Perencanaan
penggunaan lahan
layanan ekonomi. Dengan NS fokus tentang budaya ES,makalah ini mengkaji prinsip-prinsip yang
Rekreasi alam dimaksudkan untuk memastikan nilai ES budaya terbaik dalam alokasi penggunaan lahan hutan.
Hutan kota Zonasi Analisis ini mempertimbangkan proses penciptaan bersama nilai ES budaya dan pertukaran antara
kategori budaya dan ES lainnya dalam konteks perkotaan-pedesaan. Sebuah tinjauan literatur dari
studi terapan tentang alokasi penggunaan lahan hutan dan ES disajikan dan kesenjangan penelitian
diidentifikasi. Berdasarkan temuan tinjauan, disarankan dua kerangka teoretis untuk analisis
peningkatan nilai ES budaya dan alokasi penggunaan lahan: teori lokasi von Thünen dan logika
dominan layanan (SDL). Von Thünen menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan lahan yang optimal
ditentukan oleh sewa lahan untuk penggunaan alternatif yang berbeda, yang bervariasi tergantung
pada jarak dari pusat populasi. SDL, sebuah teori dari bidang riset pemasaran, berfokus pada peran
keterampilan dan layanan - selain atribut terkait barang tradisional - untuk penciptaan nilai
pelanggan. Makalah ini berargumen bahwa kombinasi dari kedua kerangka tersebut dapat
menginspirasi penelitian dan pembuatan kebijakan di masa depan mengenai alokasi penggunaan
lahan hutan. Kerangka kerja von Thünen menyoroti peran lanskap hutan lokal di dekat pusat
populasi untuk menciptakan nilai ES budaya. Teori SDL menekankan pada penciptaan bersama nilai
ES budaya berbasis hutan yang melibatkan ekosistem hutan; penerima manfaat nilai ES budaya;
dan aktor, yang juga merupakan integrator sumber daya (misalnya pemilik hutan, perencana,
asosiasi dan aktor lainnya). Contoh aplikasi dari dua kerangka kerja diberikan dan implikasi praktis
dan keterbatasan dibahas.

1. Pendahuluan: Jasa ekosistem budaya - tantangan bagi
perencanaan tata guna lahan hutan
1.1. Peran jasa ekosistem budaya
Alokasi spasial lahan hutan untuk jasa ekosistem (ES)
melibatkan keseimbangan pandangan yang saling bertentangan
tentang penggunaan yang paling optimal (Niemelä dkk., 2005;
Rantala dan Primmer, 2003; Sténs dkk., 2016). Perubahan
masyarakat saat ini yang ditandai dengan urbanisasi,
pertumbuhan ekonomi jasa dan perubahan gaya hidup juga
mempengaruhi kondisi perencanaan tata guna lahan hutan. Ada
risiko bahwa prioritas yang berbeda antara para konservasionis
dan kepentingan industri kehutanan akan menjadi semakin jelas,
di samping transisi yang dibayangkan ke ekonomi berbasis bio
yang membutuhkan produksi hutan yang lebih intensif untuk
energi dan material (Staffas et al., 2013). Dengan latar belakang
ini, relevan untuk merevisi prinsip-prinsip yang berlaku yang
memandu alokasi penggunaan lahan hutan untuk
kategori budaya dan ES lainnya.
NS ekosistem jasa (ES) konsep adalah kunci ke ini belajar. ES
berhubungan ke NS manfaat itu rakyat memperoleh dari NS
ekosistem, termasuk itu dari hutan, dikategorikan di dalam
mendukung jasa, seperti sebagai gizi bersepeda dan tanah
pembentukan; penyediaan jasa, misalnya untuk makanan, a i r , serat
dan bahan bakar; MENGATUR jasa dariiklim, kualitas air dan
penyakit; dan layanan ES budaya, yang melibatkan manfaat
non-materi terkait dengan pengayaan spiritual,
pengembangan kognitif, refleksi, rekreasi, dan pengalaman
estetika. Manfaat khusus lainnya terdiri dari keragaman dan
identitas budaya, lanskap budaya dan nilai-nilai warisan,
inspirasi, kohesi sosial, identitas dan keragaman budaya, rasa
tempat, dan sistem pengetahuan (saya, 2005, P 40; Chan et Al.,
2012a, B). Chan et Al. menggunakan A luas karakterisasi dari
kultural ES: "Demikian, kami m e ne nt u kan kultural jasa
secara inklusif sebagai ekosistem' kontribusi ke NS n o n - bahan
manfaat (misalnya, kemampuan dan pengalaman) itu timbul d a r i
manusia-ekosistem hubungan" (Chan dkk., 2012b,hal 9). NS

kan
Penulis yang sesuai.
SUREL ALAMAT: anders.roos@slu.se (A. Roo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.046
Diterima 10 Agustus 2017; Diterima dalam bentuk revisi 31 Agustus 2018; Diterima 31 Agustus 2018
0264-8377/©2018ElsevierLtd.Seluruh hak cipta.
A. Roos et AL. LANDUSEPOLICY79(20
18)622–632

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment mengakui kerumitan dan bahkan manusia untuk nilai telah disorot sebagian misalnya
kesulitan yang terlibat dalam menggambarkan hubungan antara dalamChan dkk. (2012b). JugaIkan dkk. (2016)dan Wu (2013)
ekosistem dan budaya manusia, menyoroti bahwa "... tidak mungkin menggambarkan ES dan manfaat terkait dalam konteks jaringan
untuk sepenuhnya memisahkan hubungan spiritual, intelektual, dan relasional termasuk manusia dan ekosistem. Diklaim di
fisik yang berbeda antara budaya manusia dan ekosistem..." (MA, sinibahwa pandangan ini relevan dan perlu ditindaklanjuti
2005, hal 120). Kompleksitas ini juga dicatat dalamChan dkk. lebih lanjut.
(2012a)dan oleh Milcu dkk. (2013)yang menyediakan kualifikasi ES Budaya dinikmati oleh sebagian besar populasi di seluruh
bahwa ES budaya sering harus dilihat sebagai multi-faceted. wilayah dan negara. Pada tahun 2015, hampir setengah dari
Lebih lanjut, bundel ES menggabungkan berbagai kategori populasi AS (48,4%) berpartisipasi dalam kegiatan di luar
ES, misalnya di mana olahraga memancing menyediakan ruangan (Yayasan luar ruangan,
makanan (ES sementara) bersama-sama dengan aktivitas
rekreasi (terkait dengan ES budaya) (Kesepakatan dkk., 2012;
Raudsepp- Hearne dkk., 2010; Turner dkk., 2014). Kumpulan
juga dapat terdiri dari berbagai jenis ES budaya, misalnya ketika
lanskap yang indah mendukung manfaat estetika, rekreasi, dan
rasa tempat (Chan et al., 2012a). Budaya ES kurang mendapat
perhatian dalam literatur daripada kategori ES lainnya, seperti
mengatur dan menyediakan ES, yang dapat lebih mudah diukur
dalam istilah moneter (Chan et al., 2012a; plieninger dkk., 2013).
NS tantangan dari hutan tanah menggunakan perencanaan terdiri
dari secara spasial alokasi hutan tanah menggunakanuntuk
menghasilkan nilai ES yang optimal. Namun, penilaian ES
merupakan bidang penelitian yang luas dan topik yang
kontroversial dan diperdebatkan, di mana teori yang berbeda
dan bersaing digunakan (bunse et Al., 2015; Farber et Al., 2002;
Liu et Al., 2010; Perlman et Al., 2003, P 56–81, 400–01). NS
Milenium Ekosistem Penilaian Laporan (saya, 2005, P 120) termasuk
keuangan, non-moneter nilai-nilai, publik nilai bagus dan tidak
berwujud di dalam NS ES nilai konsep - yang adalah serupa ke
definisi dari total ekonomis nilai (TEV), yang menggabungkan
langsung dan tidak langsung nilai, nilai pilihan dan nilai
keberadaan (intrinsik) dalam konsep (Pearce, 1993, P 17). Chan
et Al. (2012b, P 10) menjelaskan itu ES mewakili NS proses itu
mendukung NS bernilai barang-barang dan pengalaman
dariekosistem – manfaat; area nilai yang sesuai mengacu
pada “preferensi, prinsip, dan kebajikan” yang dianggap
berasal dari manfaat ini oleh orang atau kelompok. Perbedaan
ini sebanding dengan konsep kaskade jasa ekosistem yang
diuraikan dalamHaines-Young dan Potschin (2010). Dia adalah secara
teratur mencatat bahwa beberapa nilai ES mungkin untuk
memperkirakan dalam istilah moneter, sedangkan yang lain,
paling tidak yang terkait dengan budaya ES, sering tidak
dapat diukur, sebanding atau dipasarkan (Chan et Al., 2012b).
Ini perspektif pada ES nilai, di dalam berbelok, mencerminkan A lebih
luas definisi dari manusia kesejahteraan termasuk bukan hanya
konvensional metrik ekonomi dari nilai, tetapi juga termasuk KUALITAS
dari Kehidupan aspek di dalam NS konsep (Stiglitz et Al., 2009).
Setara, Wu (2013 ) membantah itu kelestarian lanskap Sebaiknya
menjadi dinilai Menurut ke A lebar, definisi multidimensi dari manusia
kesejahteraan. Karenanya, ini kertas Salam kultural nilai ES sebagai
sebagian objektif dan terukur tetapi mereka juga istirahat ke A gelar
besar pada subyektif, tidak penting, dan lokal indikator. Lebih-lebih
lagi, itu mempekerjakan NS membuka definisi dari NS pengguna
atau penerima manfaat dari kultural nilai ES, siapa mungkin menjadi
keduanya lokal masyarakat anggota dan pengguna itu bisa jadi
dicirikan sebagai “orang luar” (misalnya kota penduduk
mengunjungi A hutan untuk rekreasi, sosial kegiatan atau inspirasi).
Namun, proses penciptaan nilai ES budaya dari waktu ke
waktu sering diabaikan dalam literatur (Mattila dkk., 2013; Sténs
dkk., 2016). Pandangan proses tentang penciptaan nilai berasal dari
ilmu pemasaran (Gronroo dan Voima, 2013; Payne dkk., 2008;
Prahalad dan Ramaswamy, 2004) tetapi diklaim di sini bahwa
dapat diperluas untuk menganalisis peran layanan pemangku
kepentingan/pelaku dalam proses yang menciptakan nilai
budaya ES. Perspektif seperti itu menyiratkan bahwa
penciptaan nilai ES budaya didasarkan pada interaksi, yang
melibatkan ekosistem hutan dan pemangku kepentingan
yang berbeda (yaitu pengelola hutan, pembuat kebijakan,
dan pengguna atau pengunjung hutan). Hubungan ekosistem

6
A. Roos et AL. LANDUSEPOLICY79(20
18)622–632
2016). Tingkat partisipasi yang tinggi juga dilaporkan di Eropa, di ada kebutuhan untuk memperbaiki kerangka kerja untuk
mana pendorong utama popularitas kegiatan di luar ruangan, perencanaan penggunaan lahan hutan, dan pendekatan yang lebih
misalnya di hutan, adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi, perubahan realistis mendefinisikan dan menganalisis ES budaya berbasis hutan
demografis, munculnya masyarakat informasi, minat pada (Hornsten dan Fredman, 2000; Mattila dkk., 2015).
kesehatan dan kesejahteraan, dan peningkatan kesadaran Tujuan dari makalah ini adalah untuk mengidentifikasi prinsip-
prinsip konseptual untuk
lingkungan (Bell et al., 2007). Kunjungan hutan untuk ES budaya
bagaimana ES budaya dapat dinilai untuk memungkinkan alokasi
dapat menjadi kegiatan inklusif yang tidak memerlukan sumber
penggunaan lahan hutan yang wajar. Berdasarkan tinjauan
daya yang besar, dan untuk alasan ini, hutan lokal untuk ES
pustaka terhadap pendekatan yang ada, proposal ini
budaya sangat penting bagi kelompok berpenghasilan rendah
mengusulkan dua kerangka kerja, yang jika digabungkan, dapat
(Boman dkk., 2013). Kawasan hijau yang dekat dengan lokasi
menginformasikan para perencana dan peneliti dalam analisis
pemukiman diapresiasi oleh penghuninya dan cenderung
lebih lanjut penggunaan lahan hutan. Lebih spesifikSecara garis
meningkatkan nilai rumah (Jim dan Chen, 2010; Poudyal dkk.,
besar, penelitian ini mencakup sub-tujuan berikut:
2009).
Ketertarikan baru-baru ini terhadap tantangan penggunaan
lahan hutan dan ES budaya telah mendorong penelitian intensif
tentang masalah ini (Milcu et al., 2013). Serangkaian studi
terbaru menunjukkan hubungan antara ES budaya dan
kesejahteraan psikologis dan fisiologis.Korpela dkk., 2013; Maas
et al., 2006; Nilsson et al., 2010; Shanahan dkk., 2015; Tyrväinen
dkk., 2014; SIAPA, 2016). Studi juga menemukan bahwa sifat-
sifat khusus dari kawasan alam hutan, seperti keanekaragaman
hayati dan fitur lanskap, dapat meningkatkan tingkat kepuasan
di antara pengguna hutan (Carrus dkk., 2015; Norman dkk.,
2010; Sandifer dkk., 2015; Poudyal dkk., 2009).
Keputusan penggunaan lahan hutan dunia nyata untuk
menyeimbangkan budaya, penyediaan penetapan dan
pengaturan ES dipengaruhi oleh faktor geofisika, sosio-
ekonomi, teknologi dan kelembagaan (Platt, 2014). Urbanisasi
adalah salah satu tren global kontemporer yang membentuk pola
penggunaan lahan dan peluang masyarakat untuk mengalami nilai
ES budaya. Jumlah penduduk perkotaan di Eropa meningkat
sebesar 30 juta antara tahun 2000 dan 2015 dan angka tersebut
akan terus bertambah sebesar 20 juta hingga tahun 2030 (Serikat
Bangsa, 2014). Seiring dengan peningkatan standar hidup di
banyak daerah, perkembangan ini meningkatkan kesadaran
masyarakat akan pentingnya ES berbasis hutan yang berbeda
(Franzen dan Meyer, 2010; Mattila dkk., 2015). Ada juga
pengakuan yang meluas dari masyarakat akan nilai
keanekaragaman hayati hutan dan perannya bagi lingkungan
(Hannerz dkk., 2016), mencerminkan sikap post-materialistik yang
muncul ketika kebutuhan manusia yang lebih mendasar telah
terpenuhi (Franzen dan Meyer, 2010; Guo dkk., 2010).
Kebijakan adalah Akibatnya makhluk diformulasikan pada
dilffeevreelnstuntuk melindungi dan meningkatkan ES budaya.
Salah satu contoh di tingkat supranasional adalah Strategi
Hutan Uni Eropa (UE) yang menyatakan bahwa “hutan juga
menawarkan manfaat sosial yang luas, termasuk untuk
kesehatan manusia, rekreasi dan pariwisata” (Komisi Eropa,
2013, hal 2). Di tingkat nasional, dengan menggunakan Swedia
sebagai contoh, pemerintah menegaskan peran hutan dalam
mencapai kedua tujuan lingkungan (Orang Swedia Badan
Perlindungan Lingkungan, 2017a) dan juga mencantumkan
tujuan spesifik yang terkait dengan ES budaya (Badan
Perlindungan Lingkungan Swedia, 2017b). Signifikansi hutan
untuk nilai ES rekreasi disebutkan dalam dokumen kebijakan di
beberapa negara Eropa (Man dkk., 2010). Kebijakan tingkat
lokal untuk mendukung hutan untuk ES budaya juga sering
dirumuskan (Lawrence et al., 2013; Man dkk., 2010; Mattila
dkk., 2015) di mana pembuat kebijakan menganggap keindahan
alam dan rekreasi sebagai aset yang meningkatkan kesejahteraan
warga dan meningkatkan daya tarik suatu kawasan (Källstrom dan
Ekelund, 2016). Namun, ada risiko bahwa konflik penggunaan lahan
di sekitar pusat populasi akan meningkat karena pertumbuhan kota
yang berkelanjutan secara bertahap mengurangi ketersediaan hutan
pinggiran kota (Olsson, 2013). Kesimpulannya, urbanisasi bersama
dengan perubahan pola dan nilai kehidupan lainnya akan memicu
peningkatan tekanan pada ES budaya di banyak daerah. Meskipun
topik semakin penting, masih ada kekurangan model konseptual
dan alat untuk perumusan masalah dan analisis. Oleh karena itu,

6
A Untuk mengidentifikasi kerangka kerja konseptual yang pedoman untuk tinjauan sistematis (Margareth, 2001;
menangkap proses kunci dalam terlibat dalam penciptaan Transfield et al., 2003; Jones, 2004). Tinjauan tersebut mencakup
nilai ES budaya. publikasi yang berasal dari tahun 2005. Istilah pencarian
B Untuk mengilustrasikan dan menerapkan kerangka kerja yang berhubungan dengan “penggunaan lahan” atau “tanah alokasi";
relevan untuk penciptaan nilai ES budaya berbasis hutan, dan dan "hutan"; dan "kultural" atau "rekreasi"; dan “jasa
mengkaji potensinya untuk tujuan penelitian dan ekosistem”. Pencarian menghasilkan 19 makalah yang diterbitkan
perencanaan. (Tabel A1 dalam Lampiran A) dan mencerminkan minat yang
meningkat pada prinsip-prinsip alokasi penggunaan lahan hutan
Tujuannya menggabungkan implikasi tren urbanisasi saat ini, untuk ES budaya dan lainnya (11 dari 19 makalah diterbitkan
perubahan sosial dan interaksi antara budaya dan ES lainnya, pada tahun 2016 atau 2017). Pemeriksaan geografis menemukan
terutama di negara-negara berpenghasilan tinggi. Makalah ini bahwa studi Eropa mendominasi, juga mewakili 11 dari 19studi.
berfokus pada ES budaya berbasis hutan karena hutan memberikan
contoh yang jelas tentang pertukaran antara ES budaya dan ES
lainnya. Hutan juga menjadi tuan rumah ekosistem penting untuk
budidayaES tural di daerah pinggiran kota (Hegetschweiler
dkk., 2017).
Makalah ini menekankan bahwa ES budaya umumnya
berbasis pengalaman dan terhubung ke lokasi (Chan et al.,
2012b, hal 10). Oleh karena itu, ES budaya yang relevan untuk
penyelidikan ini berpotensi mencakup sebagian besar jenis yang
tercantum dalam pendahuluan. Namun, karena perhatian utama
makalah ini adalah pada perencanaan dan pemahaman
penciptaan nilai ES budaya dalam konteks perkotaan-pedesaan,
makalah ini tidak menganalisis secara mendalam aspek-aspek
yang dijelaskan di bawah ini (studi pada masing-masing bidang
ini diberikan dalam tanda kurung). Topik-topik yang sangat
penting ini dapat dijelaskan dengan lebih baik secara khusus dan
fokus.studi yang digunakan:
ES spiritual terkait dengan peristiwa sejarah lokal dengan
signifikansi atau keyakinan agama (lihat Bhagwat dan Rutte,
2006; Byers et al., 2001; Lewis dan Sheppard, 2005; Ormsby dan
Bhagwat, 2010; Rutte, 2011; Wadley dan Colfer, 2004).
Peran gabungan budaya (termasuk spiritual) dan kategori ES
lainnya untuk identitas dan dinamisme masyarakat negara
pertama (Lewis dan Sheppard, 2005; Kant dkk., 2016)
Hubungan antara ES budaya dan ES terkait dengan mata
pencaharian dasar pedesaan di negara-negara berpenghasilan
rendah dan menengah (Angelsen dkk., 2014; Ellis, 1995;
Fitzpatrick, 2006; Shackleton dan Fabricius, 2004; mobil van
Jaarsveld et al., 2005; Yemiru dkk., 2010).
Makalah ini tidak bertujuan untuk memberikan kerangka kerja
yang mencakup semua yang menggabungkan semua faktor biologis,
fisik, sosial ekonomi yang dapat, atau dapat, menentukan
penggunaan lahan. Sebaliknya, ini bertujuan untuk berkontribusi
lebih banyak lagikerangka kerja yang lengkap.
Bagian studi yang tersisa dimulai dengan tinjauan literatur
yang mencakup analisis empiris dan model perencanaan
penggunaan lahan hutan dan ES budaya. Tujuannya adalah
untuk mengidentifikasi keadaan seni pada topik, khususnya
untuk penelitian empiris. Setelah mensintesis tinjauan dan
mengidentifikasi kesenjangan penelitian, ini menyajikan dua
teori ilmu sosial mapan yang dapat menawarkan saran dalam
pencarian pendekatan yang lebih akurat untuk analisis ES lahan
hutan dan penggunaan lahan, terutama ketika ES budaya
terlibat: cincin von Thünen dan logika yang dominan layanan
(SDL). Sebuah model sintesis dirumuskan dan implikasinya
untuk proses perencanaan penggunaan lahan dijelaskan. Contoh
bagaimana kerangka kerja gabungan dapat diterapkan pada
situasi penggunaan lahan nyata dijelaskan.

1.2. TINJAUAN LITERATUR TENTANG PERENCANAAN PENGGUNAAN LAHAN

HUTAN

Untuk menilai pengetahuan saat ini, tinjauan literatur dilakukan

pada studi empiris tentang aspek spasial ES hutan, termasuk
kebijakan dan perencanaan tata guna lahan. Itu dilakukan pada
bulan Desember 2017 di Web ofPengetahuan dan mengikuti
 NS studi adalah diklasifikasikan Menurut ke NS kategorisasi: (1) Untuk mengatasi kesenjangan pengetahuan yang
mempelajari itu pertimbangkan hanya ES budaya vs studi yang teridentifikasi, makalah ini mengusulkan bahwa dua teori ilmu
mempertimbangkan kategori budaya dan ES lainnya; (2) sosial yang mapan – cincin von Thünen dan logika dominan
NORMATIFvs studi deskriptif; (3) penelitian yang menganalisis data layanan (SDL) – digunakan bersama untuk analisis dan
primer tentang preferensi pengguna (misalnya data survei) vs perencanaan penggunaan lahan hutan untuk ES budaya. Peran
penelitian yang memperoleh informasi tentang preferensi pengguna mereka terutama konseptual: untuk menginformasikan diskusi
secara tidak langsung (misalnya berdasarkan karakteristik situs); dan mendorong lebih empiris, analisis terapan. Keuntungan
(4) studi yang mempertimbangkan ES budaya berbasis hutan di dengan kerangka ini terdiri dari fokus mereka pada gradien
wilayah perkotaan vs studi yang tidak secara eksplisit membahas perkotaan-pedesaan dan pada proses yang mengarah ke nilai-
konteks urban ES. nilai ES budaya.
Temuan disajikan dalam Tabel A1 dan diringkas dan
dicontohkan di bawah ini:
Studi ITU hanya mempertimbangkan KULTURAL ES vs studi
mempertimbangkan KULTURAL dan lainnya ES KATEGORI: Keduanya
pendekatan adalah terapan. Casado-Arzuaga et Al. (2013) menyelidiki
terutama kultural ES di dalamsebuah studi tentang nilai
estetika yang dirasakan masyarakat dari hutan pinggiran
kota di sekitar Bilbao, Spanyol; sedangkanPang et Al. (2017)
kontras kultural melawan non-budaya ES di dalam NS penyelidikan
dari hutan pengelolaan untuk alternatif tujuan dan ES: bioenergi,
kayu, karbon penyimpanan, rekreasi dan margasatwa habitat.
NORMATIF vs ES deskriptif: Tujuan dari NS ditinjau studi di
dalam- putarbaik normatif, model perencanaan berorientasi
praktik, dan studi investigasi (yaitu deskriptif) (dalam tiga
kasus, studi pendekatan campuran). Sebuah studi olehdan
Silva et Al. (2017), mewakili A pendekatan normatif di dalam yang
berbasis tempat kebijakan dan pembayaran untuk e k o s i s t e m
jasa (PES) adalah digunakan ke menyarankan sesuai berbasis
ekosistem tanah menggunakan di dalam NS Sao paulo wilayah, Brazil.
Di dalam kontras, Schmidt et Al. (2017, P. 270) berlaku pendekatan
deskriptif untuk “mengidentifikasi kelompok preferensi
penggunaan lahan”.
Studi MENGANALISA UTAMA DATA TENTANG pengguna preferensi vs studi
berasal informasi tentang preferensi pengguna secara tidak
langsung: Jugauntuk perbedaan ini pendekatan yang berbeda
diikuti. Informasi tangan pertama tentang preferensi
pengguna hutan untuk atribut lanskap dikumpulkan dalam
sepuluh studi, termasuk penyelidikan tentang situs rekreasi
luar ruang olehDe Valck et Al. (2017). NS alternatif jalur, ke
menghitung kultural dan kategori lain dari ES dari biofisika dan
geografis lokasi data, adalah diadopsi oleh Blumstein dan Thompson,
(2015) dan Roces-Diaz et Al. (2017).
Studi mempertimbangkan ES budaya berbasis hutan di wilayah
perkotaan vs studi yang tidak secara eksplisit membahas ES di
dalam NS konteks perkotaan: ES di dalam NS konteks perkotaan
adalah dipertimbangkan di dalam A mayoritas dari NS studi,
misalnya oleh Blumstein d a n T h o m p s o n (2 0 1 5 ) untuk NS
Boston wilayah, C as a do - A r zu a ga et A l ., (2013) untuk Bilbao dan
dan Silva et Al. (2017) untuk NS Sao paulo wilayah. Sebaliknya, Roces-
Diaz et Al. (2017) melakukan bukan secara khusus termasuk NS
perkotaan aspek Kapan pemetaan ES di dalam five administratif
daerah di dalam barat laut Spanyol.
Meskipun ES budaya dianalisis dari perspektif yang berbeda
dalam studi, tinjauan mengidentifikasi defisit penelitian yang
menyelidiki proses penciptaan bersama generasi nilai ES budaya
dan peran yang sesuai dari pemangku kepentingan yang berbeda.
Aspek yang terkait dengan penciptaan ES budaya diidentifikasi
dalam studi yang ditinjau, tetapi proses dasar yang mendasari
bagaimana nilai ES budaya diciptakan bersama hanya diselidiki
secara dangkal. Selanjutnya, sejumlah studi yang secara sistematis
mempertimbangkan peran lokasi dalam kaitannya dengan pusat
populasi untukbudaya ES.

2. Kerangka kerja untuk menganalisis penggunaan lahan

untuk jasa ekosistem hutan budaya

2.1. Memperkenalkan kerangka kerja

2.2. Cincin Von Thünen dan jasa ekosistem
NSe pertamaT pilaR Sayan the analisis, von Thünen'S lokasin teori,
garis besarS sebuah contoh HaiF lanD kitae Sayan hubungann THai
perkotaann populasin pusat. Sayan HaiS bekerjak Der isolierte staaT
(von Thönen, 1826), von Thünen menggambarkanS A prinsipe FOR land
gunakan alokasin basisD Hain the ekonomiC sistemM HaiF
the 19tH abad, karakterD Bkamu higH transportasin biayaS
NSD lokasiaku produksin HaiF energikamu NSmakanan. Von
Thünen menjelaskan, Sayan A skemaC cara, ituT Sayan
pesananR THai mencapai optimalaku lanD menggunakan,
ekonomiC kegiatanS sekitarD A populasin tengahe harusD menyebarD
S a y a n k o n s e n t r a s i C l i n g k a r a n S s e s u a i G T Hai l a n D
r e n T p e r b a n d i n g a n . S a y a n e ko n o m i C sistemM HaiF von
Thünen'S waktuA normaaku hasile SayaS ituT tamann NSd susu
p ro d u k S a r e m e n g h as i l ka n D t u t u p T T Hai t h e k o t a ,
ik u t i D B kamu l in g k a r a n S F O kayu bakar, tanaman-tanaman,
lingkungan sekitarD Bkamu daerah hutan belantara (Ara. 1).
NSe kerangka kerja menjadie luaskamu mengadopsiD NSD SayaS
diamaku kadang-kadangkamu merujukD THai Sayan kontemporery
belajar (Angelsen, 2007; sakit hatiR eT Al., 2009, P. 160–165;
Hardie NSD Taman, 1997; Wang, 2013).
Sayan the hadirT belajar, the fokusS SayaS bergeserD
awakamu mondar-mandirM the 19tH fisika abadaku produksin
sistemM THai An meningkatkanD pertimbangann HaiF budayaaku
ES Sayan hubungan THai perkotaann TengahS (TEEB, 2010).
Sebagai gantinyaD HaiF - AS Sayan the asalaku versin -
menentukanGproduksi dan transportasi tanaman dan
sayuran, jarak dalam interpretasi modern, mempengaruhi
alokasi ES hutan budaya. Lebih khusus lagi kawasan hutan
yang cocok untuk ES budaya dan terletak dekat dengan pusat
populasi berpotensi menghasilkan nilai ES budaya total yang
tinggi (Hornsten NSD Fredman, 2000). Akibatnya, dan
jugaHai AS A refleksin HaiF lebarR masyarakat aku
perubahan, jarake NS D aksesibilitaskamu harus
mempengaruhie perencana' NSD pembuat kebijakan' alokasin HaiF
dedikasiD hutan untukRnilai ES budaya dalam jangkauan yang
wajar dari kelompok populasi besar. Kerangka von Thünen
karenanya dapat dikonsultasikan untuk menganalisis
penggunaan lahan yang optimal untuk ES budaya dalam
dimensi perkotaan-pedesaan, berdasarkan premis bahwa ES
budaya sebagian besar bersifat lokal. Namun perlu dicatat
bahwa karena ES budaya seringkali tidak mudah diukur atau
dipasarkan, model tersebut harus dilihat sebagai kerangka
kerja konseptual untuk menganalisis nilai-nilai ES dalam
definisi yang lebih luas dan bukan seperti dalam presentasi
asli von Thünen, hanya kuantitas moneter.
2.3. LOGIKA LAYANAN-DOMINAN DAN NILAI LAYANAN EKOSISTEM
Pilar kedua untuk analisis ES budaya, layanan-
dominan logika (SDL), kekhawatiran NS mendasari proses dari
kultural ES nilai penciptaan. Di dalam pemasaran teori, NS jasa
memiliki unik a r a n g - karakteristik itu memisahkan mereka dari
fisik barang-barang: hal tdk dpt dipahami, d i d a l a m - sifat dpt
dipisahkan dari produksi dan konsumsi, heterogenitas, dan p e r -
keterbelakangan (Zeithaml et Al., 1985). Sjasa di dalam NS kreasi
bersama proses dalam SDL adalah dipandang sebagai aktivitas
penciptaan nilai yang berasal dari pengetahuan khusus,
dengan fokus pada aspek tidak berwujud dari pertukaran
antar aktor (Vargo dan Lusch, 2017). NSpandangan alternatif
(tradisional) – Logika Dominan Barang – mengasumsikan
bahwa nilai produk fisik diciptakan oleh produsen. Co-creation
menyiratkan sebaliknya "memungkinkan pelanggan untuk
bersama-sama membangun pengalaman layanan agar sesuai
dengan konteksnya" (Prahalad dan Ramaswamy, 2004, P. 8). Di
dalam ini belajar, kreasi bersama dari kultural ES nilai menandakan A
jaringan, terintegrasi proses itu melibatkan: NS ekosistem hutan; AKTOR
siapa juga adalah sumber integrator itu mengubah khusus mikro
kompetensi ke dalam jasa (Vargo dan Lusch, 2008)(seperti pemilik
tanah, pembuat kebijakan, Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat
Lingkungan, asosiasi); dan penerima manfaat ES budaya
dalam bentuk rekreasi, pendidikan, inspirasi, dll. Sebagai
akibatnya, perspektif ini memperluas perspektif dari berfokus
terutama pada properti bidang hutan (keindahan
pemandangan, properti tegakan hutan, komposisi spesies),
hingga juga mencakup layanan yang digunakan dan interaksi
antara aktor yang berbeda untuk melindungi, menciptakan,
dan memanfaatkan properti ini untuk penciptaan bersama
nilai ES budaya (Vargo dan Lusch, 2004, 2008).
NS kunci tempat dari SDL negara itu jasa adalah NS mendasar
satuan dari menukarkan, dan juga itu nilai adalah secara unik dan
ditentukan secara fenomenologis oleh NS untungfiCIARY. Di dalam
tambahan, SDL menyatakan itu NS bersama penciptaan proses
dari nilai melibatkan terkoordinasi kelembagaan m e n g a t u r -
ment (Vargo dan Lusch, 2017; Payne et Al., 2008). Karenanya,
j a s a menjadi NS kunci benda untuk NS pertanyaan di mana aktor
jaringan dan kelembagaan keadaan dikenali – “nilai dalam
penggunaan” berkembang menjadi “nilai dalam konteks”
(Vargo dan Lusch, 2017). Kembali ke kultural ES nilai-nilai, SDL
menyiratkan itu ini nilai-nilai adalah berdasarkan pada relasional,
interaktif membujur proses di mana, di dalam tambahan ke spesifik
ekosistem, aktor' dan penerima manfaat kapasitas, pertunangan dan
inisiatif memiliki A penentu dampak dari NS hasil, yaitu NS nilai
penciptaan.
Pendekatan SDL sebelumnya telah diterapkan pada isu-isu
terkait hutan dalam studi penyedia jasa silvikultur (Mattila dan
Roos,
Gambar 1. Presentasi asli dari cincin von Thünen (von Thünen, 1826).
2014). mati et Al. (2016) dikembangkan A model menggabungkan NS
SDL dan ES pendekatan, di dalam yang NS konsep dari NILAI-DALAM-
DAMPAK menggambarkan nilai mengalirmelalui ekosistem alami,
dan komponen dinamis menandakan dampak nilai dan
interaksi antara ES dan sistem layanan berbasis manusia.
Namun, kedua aplikasi SDL pada sektor kehutanan ini tidak
mengeksplorasi aspek spesifik dari ES budaya atau proses co-
creation pada gradien perkotaan-pedesaan.
sesuaiG THai the hadirT belajar'S adaptasin HaiF SDL FOR the
analisisS dari budayaaku ESnilai, perhatian harus diberikan
pada keadaan dan proses di mana ekosistem hutan dialami
oleh pengguna hutan (penerima manfaat); bagaimana
lanskap hutan telah dikelola dari waktu ke waktu; dan
bagaimana faktor-faktor kontekstual – akses, keterampilan
dan pengetahuan di antara para pelaku/pengintegrasi sumber
daya dan penerima manfaat, dll. – berinteraksi dalam proses
penciptaan bersama nilai ES budaya. Untuk SDL, nilai-nilai ES
hutan yang dirasakan lebih jauh bervariasi antara individu
dan kelompok, yang berarti bahwa para aktor (misalnya
pemilik tanah, perencana, pembuat kebijakan atau bisnis
atau organisasi alam) alih-alih menjadi pencipta unik nilai ES
budaya, membuat proposisi nilai, misalnya dalam bentuk
keanekaragaman lanskap hutan (Gundersen eT Al., 2015).
Lebih-lebih lagi, t h e m e m p e rp an j an g D p re m i s e i t u T
n il ai e kr e a s i b e rs am a n te rj ad i S S ay a n A n d i d al am -
institusional konteksT (VargHai NSD Lusch, 2016) menekankanS the
pentinge dari inie legaaku NSD polisikamu framework (property rights,
access rights and payment for ecosystem service schemes) that
enables (or obstructs) the creation of cultural ES values.
Moreover, SDL distinguishes between ecosystem features and
the corresponding value creation that involves the ecosystem,
but also
actors and beneficiaries. In summary, SDL offers an analytical tool
for ex- amining the service aspect of cultural ES from forests.
2.4. A synthesised framework
Taken together, and with a focus on achieving the most
optimal com- bination of cultural and other ES in an urban–rural
gradient, the two fra- meworks above have implications for forest
land use planning: They posit that cultural ES value is the outcome of
a co-creation process incorporating the forest site, actors and beneficiaries.
The total cultural ES value achieved is influenced by the distance to
population centre since accessibility allows opportunities for more
people to co-create of such values. Table 1 presents the key
theoretical propositions according to the von Thünen
framework (von Thönen, 1826) and SDL (Vargo and Lusch, 2016),
their interpretations in the analysis of cultural forest based ES, value
creation, and it also pro- vides practical examples of the premises’
implications for land use planning. Table 1 summarises how the combined
von Thünen/SDL framework can structure the analysis and also
policy and planning along the ur- ban–rural gradient. It confirms the
notion that cultural ES values are based on the physical forest
characteristics. However, the framework also highlights the roles of
LOCATIONand services for the co-creation pro- cess. These services
include e.g. historical and current m a n a g e m e n t practices,
established infrastructure and logistics services, and nature
conservation practices. Corresponding services from the
beneficiary

Table 1
Premises of the von Thünen and Service-Dominant Logic frameworks, implications for analysing cultural forest ecosystem services’ value creation, and
planning examples.

Theoretical premiseImplications for analysing and planning cultural forest

ecosystem services Land use planning examples

Von Thünen framework (1826)

Land use is should optimize land value.Also forest land should be used in a way that generates
optimal land value. Management for cultural ES should
be allocated to forests where the potential total cultural
ES value is higher than ES value from alternative uses.
Distance to population centres influence Forest attributes that increase cultural ES value have a
optimal land use. greater weight close to population centres because they
can generate more visits and increased total cultural ES
value. Negative externalities of large-scale forest
methods also increase with the proximity to urban
centres. This suggests that suitable forests close to
population centres often should be considered to be
managed for cultural ES.
Service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch,
2016):
Service is the fundamental basis of exchange.The co-creation of cultural ES value is linked to the
properties
of the physical ecosystem, and also to actors’ services:
i.e. knowledge and skills that are used to co-create
cultural ES value. These underlying services can be
mobilised to improve cultural ES value.
Value is co-created by multiple actors, Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically
always including the beneficiary. determined by the beneficiary.
Value co-creation is coordinated through actor- generated
Actors cannot deliver value but can institutions and institutional arrangements.
participate in the creation and offering of
value propositions.
Planners should assess a forest parcel’s potential for
total cultural ES value. A site that combines scenic
beauty, interesting nature qualities with a potential to
receive multiple users should be considered for
cultural ES.
Planners can include the distance to urban centres
(among other influencing factors) when identifying
potential forest areas for cultural ecosystem services.
Where possible, planners and policymakers can facilitate
actors’ and beneficiaries’ use of services that contribute
to cultural ES value: Use suitable silvicultural methods,
improve accessibility to forests, inform and inspire
actors to employ services to build cultural ES value.
Value creation is a combinatorial process wherein the forest
ecosystem, actors/resource integrators (planners, forest
personnel etc.) and beneficiaries co-create cultural ES value.
Hence, co-creation process, should be in focus, alongside
the biophysical attributes of a specific forest area.
Planners or forest owners cannot determine or provide the
cultural ES value of a forest parcel. But they can offer a
range of alternative sites for forest-based cultural ES value.

All social and economic actors are Cultural ES value creation takes place in networks (mediated
resource integrators. by resource integrators). Cultural ES value is co-created
within the network and dependent on multiple actors.
Preferred forest-based cultural ES and the co-
creation process vary depending on
beneficiaries’ knowledge, resources,
preferences and abilities. However, the
beneficiary determine the value of the co-
creation process.
The co-creation process occurs within an
institutional framework, e.g. concerning land
uses. These institutions are influenced and
changed in the political and negotiation
process.
Planners and policymakers should base land use
planning on insights about the co-creation processes
of cultural ES value. People’s preferences and habits
concerning cultural ES can be surveyed. Multiple
actors (citizens, organizations etc.) can be
encouraged to collaborate to find ways to improve
cultural ES value.
Plan for variety in the forest landscape that cater for
people’s different abilities, preferences and
behaviour. Identify and manage forests for different
cultural ES: for birdwatching, biology excursions,
easy access forests etc.
Planners should acknowledge and consider the network
of co- creators of cultural ES value through dialogue and
co- management practices. Include actors and
beneficiaries in consultations when land use plans are
being developed.
Planners, policymakers and others should understand
how different groups of people co-create and benefit
from cultural ES. Based on insights about people’s
preferences on ES, suitable land use and management
methods can be implemented.
Planners can consider, assess and apply the range of
policy instruments that affect cultural ES value:
financial, regulatory and information instruments,
zoning, PES, access rights etc.
consist of the application of operant resources (skills and to improved analyses of cultural ES value and forest land use
knowledge) that improve her experienced cultural ES value. planning that more realistically considers these values – also
The combined framework gives recommendations for land use when they have to be compared with other categories of ES.
plan- ning: to consider the accessibility and population base when
selecting for- ests for cultural ES, e.g. to encourage actors (interest 2.5. APPLICATIONS OF THE VON THÜNEN/SDL FRAMEWORK
groups, associations, schools etc.) to mobilise services in the co-
creation of ES value; and to consider the range of beneficiary With a focus on co-creation the combined framework
preferences on cultural ES. As explained in Chan et al. (2012b) emphasises the roles of services, relations and interactions,
these values are in most situations not quantifiable although they can which, together with the physical forest features, contribute to
be considered and assessed through various methods, e.g. surveys, the creation of ES value. The
consultations and democratic processes.
The combined von Thünen/SDL framework also indicates
partly changed approaches for information collection in land use
planning: Inventories and site characteristic data should be
complemented by information that describe the co-creation
processes: e.g. number of forest visitors, their experiences and
preferences for cultural ES, ser- vices employed by actors or
beneficiaries for enhanced cultural ES, site locations in relation to
population centres and infrastructure. In this way, parcel-wise
cultural ES values can be assessed more accurately in the land
use planning process (Tong and Murray, 2012).
Further implications of the SDL view concerns the potential for
net- works and institutions to promote, or impair, cultural ES
value co-creation in a land use planning contexts. Rights of
public access, agreements between forest owners and local
authorities, and PES schemes may for instance create
opportunities for enhanced cultural ES co-creation.
Consequently, the SDL perspective corroborates the assertion
presented by Liu et al. (2010) that forest planning should involve a
participatory aspect and include, for instance, group evaluations
of different land use alternatives.
The combined von Thünen/SDL framework highlight specific
opportu-
nities for authorities and land use planners to protect and establish
biodi- versity hotspots around cities, not because these areas would
be unsuitable for timber production, but because they are more
accessible to users who benefit from various cultural, forest-based
ES. The premise that the bene- ficiary determines the cultural ES
value also supports an openness among stakeholders and planners
towards novel ways of appreciating forests’ cul- tural ES, and
towards new opportunities to preserve and build biodiversity
(Kowarik, 2011). It assists planners in identifying opportunities in
which cultural forest-based experiences – bird watching, orienteering,
botanic excursions, meditation – can be promoted in tandem with the
protection of forests for biodiversity, which in turn may support other ES
categories (mainly provisioning and regulating ES) (MA, 2005, p
vii)
Policies for improved cultural ES co-creation on municipal/public
lands can ideally combine management efforts to increase the
number of forest visits (e.g. easy access, maps, paths) with
measures that enhance cultural ES benefits per visit (e.g.
management for biodiversity and scenic beauty). For non-public
forest land, this objective may require voluntary agreements
between authorities and landowners (e.g. to permit hiking trails or
botanic excursions on private land), local zoning regulations on
forestry in densely populated areas, or PES schemes where
compensations to land owners can be proportional to the co-
created cultural ES value.
The framework, produced through a combination of the von
Thünen rings and SDL, puts the visitor/beneficiary in focus for
cultural ES. It in- dicates that various actors are resource
integrators in the process and that networks and institutional
frameworks matter for the co-creation process and the benefits
experiences among individuals. These aspects are well il-
lustrated by examples of participatory processes in which
stakeholders take part in the planning and decision-making
process for forest management (Groešetljal., 2016). The
application of the von Thünen/SDL framework could contribute
implications of this framework and how it differs from
conventional land use planning perspectives are illustrated by
three examples below.

2.5.1. Old-growth forests reserve near urban centres: Tyresta,

Stockholm
Tyresta National Park is an example of land use focused on
forest-based cultural ES close to a large population centre. The
park is located only 25 km from Stockholm, Sweden, and
covers 1964 ha (5000 ha including natural reserves) and
contains old-growth protected forests mixed with traditional
agricultural landscapes. The forest is home to 300-year-old
trees and several plant and insect species in the area are
rare and depend on old growth trees for their habitats
(Tyresta National Park, 2018). The primary objective of the National
Park is to preserve a forest landscape with high biodiversity and
provide opportunities for urban dwellers to experience its
cultural ES (Tyresta National Park, 2018). For the forest
visitor/user, such cultural ES could result in them acquiring botanical
knowledge, experien- cing aesthetic beauty, engaging in
recreational activities, exploring old cultural landscapes and
improving their health. Tyresta is accessible by public transport (it
can be reached in approximately 70 min by bus from Stockholm
Central station) and therefore attracts 300,000 visitors each year
(Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).
The purpose of Tyresta National Park conforms to the framework
for
cultural ES based on von Thünen’s framework and SDL. Firstly, and
in line with von Thünen, the proximity of the forest to a
population centre strengthened the arguments to establish
the National Park in 1993 for cultural ES, instead of using
the land for timber production. Secondly, with reference to
SDL, the assessment of the forest’s cultural ES values could
be based on the varied benefits it offers to different
categories of users (e.g. botanists, persons interested in
cultural history, hikers and families etc.) from a co-creation
perspective – in which initiatives, involvement and
knowledge among actors (such as authorities and forest
planners) and beneficiaries, play a key role. Thirdly, the
location near a large city and the ensuing high number of
visitors, creates a synergy between co-created cultural ES
value and the conservation of a biodiverse forest ecosystem
for other categories of ES.

2.5.2. Forest boardwalks

In Vårdsätra, a district in the city of Uppsala, Sweden, the
local

Fig. 2. Forest boardwalk, Vårdsätra, Uppsala (Photo: A.

Roos).
municipality has built nature boardwalks along the shore of
Lake Mälaren. Vårdsätra is a protected lakeside area and
represents a highly diverse historical and biological landscape
with old broad-leaved trees and several rare insect and bird
species. The area is protected for eco- logical research and
botanical and birdwatching excursions are orga- nized to the
area. The boardwalks ensure good accessibility, while re-
ducing the impact on the soil and vegetation (Fig. 2).
Information boards and resting benches have been installed
(Uppsala County Administrative Board, 2018).
The Vårdsätra boardwalks allude to the SDL premise “Value is
al- ways uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the
beneficiary” in the sense that they increase the opportunities for
beneficiaries to take advantage of cultural ES. They help persons
with limited mobility to benefit from cultural ES and combine
biodiversity protection with im- proved accessibility in the vicinity
of a city (in line with the von Thünen framework).
2.5.3. “Rain or shine” Swedish forest schools
The “rain or shine” (Swedish: “Ur och Skur”) forest schools,
founded in 1985 in Sweden, adopt an educational approach in
which outdoor activities support the learning process. This
pedagogic idea prescribes conducting outdoor classes in local
forests that constitute both play- grounds and “laboratories”,
e.g. during biology lessons. In addition to the conventional
curriculum, children acquire ecological knowledge and an
awareness of, and familiarity with, nature. This includes
climbing, skiing and preparing food in the forest, reflecting an
idea in which “...the practice favours autonomy, experience-
based explorations and creative inquiries of nature” (Klaar and
Öhman, 2014, p. 249).
The “rain or shine” philosophy exemplify educational, cultural
ES. And in agreement with von Thünen’s framework, these ES
are highly related to the proximity of local forests. The co-
creation component is based on frequent forest visits that
employ and develop operant re- sources (e.g. knowledge and
skills) among teachers and pupils. These service-related
capabilities are vital to the process and its outcomes in terms of
additional experiences, knowledge and ecological insights.
Hence, the “Rain or shine” pedagogy suggests that (1) the
proximity of a forest to the school is key to creating cultural
(learning) ES value and, (2), it is not the forest in isolation that
supports this ES value; rather, learning is shaped in a co-
creation process that involves the forest, the educational
approach and the knowledge and imagination among both
teachers and pupils.
2.5.4. Synthesis of the examples
The three examples above (and summarized in Table 2) support
and illustrate both the roles of location and of the relational
processes for cultural ES value. They demonstrate, in line with von
Thünen that proximity to population centres can enhance the value
creation. The varied forms in which forests are used for cultural ES
additionally un- derscores the SDL premise that cultural ES value is
not provided to the beneficiary, but rather co-created in a relational
process. The premise that value of ES is ultimately determined by
the beneficiary mean here
Table 2
Applying the SDL/von Thünen framework to the examples.
Relevant
framewor Tyresta National ForestVårdsätra Forest boardwalks
k
Von Thünen Good accessibility and proximity to a large city
Service-dominant logic
framework leads to many visits for cultural ES. A synergy
of biodiversity and cultural ES is achieved.
that forest ecosystems within reach of urban dwellers should
feature variety of forest landscapes – e.g. pristine old-growth
forests, forests with marked trails, accessible forests, and local
forests for school classes and families etc – that contribute in the
co-creation of cultural ES values in different situations and for
different groups of beneficiaries.
3. Policy implications
3.1. Policy tools
The combined SDL and von Thünen framework is not
intended as a strict procedure for land use planning. The
complexity and multi- dimensionality of this task, and to
balance between different ESs cate- gories is widely
recognised and discussed, e.g. by Sténs et al. (2016), Elands
and Wiersum (2001), and Kangas et al. (2010). Nevertheless, the
framework can provide guidance to forest land use policymaking at
local and national levels when cultural ES are significant. It
can therefore be seen as a response to the call by Mattila et
al. (2015, p. 989) for “more flexible and ecologically driven
forest management approaches”.
The combined framework can influence land use planning
and policy in mobilising resources, initiatives and services
towards im- proved cultural ES value. It can contribute to
policymaking at the dif- ferent scales and levels mentioned by
Krott (2005, p 248): For European Union level forestry
recommendations, National Forest P r o g r a m m e s , State and
Regional Forestry Planning, Local Forest Plans and Business
Plans. Different policy instruments described in Krott (2005)
can be adapted to incorporate the von Thünen/SDL framework.
Informational instruments can, for instance include a dialogue
between actors/re- source integrators and beneficiaries that
enable more informed land use decisions at the national level
or by municipalities. They can also be used to mobilise actors’
resources and capabilities for increased cultural ES benefits
from existing forests. Economic instruments can involve
compensations to forest owners to enhance co-creation of
cultural ES,
e.g. by landscape management or by improving access.
Furthermore, knowledge about people’s preferences and
behaviour will assist p o l - icymakers to create payment schemes
that optimally improve cultural ES values. Regulatory
instruments, including forest management re- strictions,
natural parks/reserves or zoning options, can also be used to
increase co-created cultural ES values. The precision of
regulation im- proves if the true processes behind the co-
creation of cultural ES value are known by policymakers.
Further implications of the combined framework are described
below.
3.2. A holistic view of forest policymaking intended to promote cultural ES
The framework underscores that policymakers and planners
should consider and take advantage of the co-creation process of ES
value, and pay attention to the institutional context, resource
integrators, and the services employed by different actors in the
network, including the
“Rain and shine” forest school
Cultural ES value is based on the forest
ecosystem, management and facilities
and visitors’ within a regulatory framework – to co-create
operant ES value. The boardwalks improve accessibility and increase A local forest is frequently visited by
resources. the number of visits, thus facilitating ES value school classes, thus increasing its
Multiple co- creation persons with disabilities. importance for educational/cultural ES
actors Boardwalks reduce damage to vegetation. value.
(landowners,
Boardwalk planning and information boards are
park staff,
based on services by planners and land owners. The cultural ES value of the forest is
associations,
The facilities enable most visitors to participate co- created within the “rain and
visitors) are
and co- create ES value. shine” philosophy, based on operant
involved –
resources among pupils and teachers.
beneficiaries. This mean that managing and conserving forests is with caution and with a contextual understanding. Land use
only one factor for creating cultural ES value, alongside the use of decisions are complex and hard to make generalisations about, as
other services and enabling factors. In this sense, the message in several principles and goals have to be balanced. Landscapes and
this study conforms to recent conclusions in the research field of land use is furthermore
nature tourism about the suitability of the SDL approach (Hoarau,
2014; Li and Petrick, 2008; Lorgnier and Su, 2014; Shaw et al.,
2011).

3.3. Synergies between biodiversity and cultural ecosystem services

The von Thünen/SDL perspective can inspire policymakers to

des- ignate forests that combine good conditions for the co-creation
of cul- tural ES value with other ES, such as climate regulation,
species pro- tection, and noise barriers (see the examples from
Tyresta and Vårdsätra above). From this perspective, novel
opportunities for pro- tecting and promoting biodiversity
hotspots close to urban areas can even be identified. Urban
fringe forests could thus represent a partly unexplored
opportunity to through varied management practices and co-
creation processes jointly protect a rich flora and fauna and
enhance cultural ES values.

3.4. VALUE ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

A further conclusion is that land use planning for the co-

creation of cultural ES value, in addition to inventory data,
should be based on knowledge about actors’ and beneficiaries’
resources, needs and the involved services (based on operant
resources). Such information can concern the number of forest
visits, perceived cultural ES value in dif- ferent user groups, the
use of skills and knowledge for cultural ES co- creation. More
insights about cultural ES value creation will foster a constructive
political and planning process that facilitate co-creation of ES
value. This perspective is already partly adopted in travel costs
studies associated with forest recreation, for example by Bertram
and Larondelle (2017), who take into consideration user and co-
creation aspects (including travel mode, age group, forest
activities) in their model.

3.5. Offering a variety of cultural ES

The SDL view strongly indicates that people’s preferences for

cul- tural ES values vary as well as their operant resources to co-
create ES values. Planning should therefore aim to meet the
needs of visitors with different interests and abilities, e.g. both
completely unmanaged ‘wilderness’ areas and forests with
signposted paths with picnic areas. It is also possible that more
species-rich locations on the urban fringe will increase the public
knowledge level and awareness about biodiversity issues.

3.6. The institutional framework

SDL principles state as an axiom that “value co-creation is co-

ordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional
ar- rangements” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). The statement reminds
that land laws, and property rights institutions determine the
applicability of the current framework. Nevertheless, a range of
policy instruments can be used to improve the conditions for cultural
ES value co-creation de- pending on the institutional context. These
legal frameworks involve for instance property rights legislations,
regulations of public access on forest land, PES schemes, regulations
of land use planning processes (Engel et al., 2008; Koh et al.,
2017; Polasky et al., 2014).

4. Discussion and conclusions

The framework presented in this paper should be interpreted

influenced by historical factors (path dependent). Stated in component of cultural ES value.
simple terms, it depends on the physical geography (land
forms, hydrology, biogeography) combined with socioeconomic Acknowledgements
and political processes (Platt, 2014).
Several local circumstances can reduce the relevance of this The valuable comments from two anonymous reviewers are
model. Remote forest areas with high biodiversity and high scenic grate- fully acknowledged.
values may still be frequented by large numbers of visitors, for
instance at tourist destinations. And strong arguments may justify
the protection unique forest areas, also from too large numbers of
visitor, in order to maintain their species and a pristine qualities.
However, both these cases may in fact conform also with the SDL
since they contribute to an even more varied range of forests types
for cultural ES.
This framework does not suggest at all that the individual’s
benefit of cultural ES differ between urban fringe areas and
more sparsely populated regions. However, forest areas with
cultural ES character- istics that are located within reach of for
large population groups may contribute to co-created cultural
ES to more people and therefore be particularly suitable to
manage (and conserve) for these ES.
Further, this presentation does not discuss in depth the
concept of pure “existence value”, that all living beings, and
ecosystems, have equal, inherent values (Naess, 1984).
According to this view there should be valid reasons that wildlife
and ecosystems are protected in- dependently of their
contribution to cultural ES. Nor does the combined model
analyse other types of land use tradeoffs and conflicts, for ex-
ample between reindeer husbandry and forest management in
northern Scandinavia (Kivinen et al., 2010). Such conflicts may,
in some loca- tions, be more significant than aspects of cultural
ES.
The findings in this paper complement more comprehensive
land
use models such as the “Land use and society model” for dynamic
land use changes in Platt (2014, p. 62). This model is rooted in three
nodes of land use, PHYSICAL environment and LEGAL/POLITICAL conditions.
H o w e v e r , Platt’s model can, in fact, integrate the present von
Thünen/SDL fra- mework for the cases where a closer
examination of cultural ES in an urban–rural context are
warranted. The von Thünen/SDL framework also harmonises
with Hein and de Groot (2009) who indicate the role of visitor
frequency for cultural ES value.
This study explores forest land use and the co-creation of
cultural ES value. A logical next step would be to analyse the
marginal contribu- tions of different forest sites in terms of cultural
ES, including factors that affect the co-creation of ES value process.
The von Thünen fra- mework and SDL could inspire more detailed
studies into co-creation processes of cultural ES values in proximity
to urban areas, wherein user frequencies or accessibility are
considered in spatial modelling and planning analysis, using
approaches similar to those in Kallio et al. (2008). Such exercises
would evaluate the optimal allocation, or sui- table
adjustments, of forest land uses. Similar approaches could also
serve as a basis for attempts to map ES (European Commission,
2014) or provide grounds for estimating payments for cultural ES
schemes (Polasky et al., 2014; Matthies et al., 2015). The
combined framework can be combined with cost modelling
techniques to gain a realistic perspective of the value co-creation
process. Other research options involve a systematic
documentation and determination of the true constituents of the
co-creation of cultural and forest-based ES values in a service
based, urbanised society.
This study has outlined how the combined Von Thünen/SDL
fra- mework can contribute to the practice and analysis of forest
land use for cultural ES value; emphasizing that due
consideration is paid the nature of the value-creating process.
The proposed model calls for an increased attention on the roles
of current urbanization trends and traits of the service
economy, and to the basic processes and drivers and ‘service’
 A.
Appendix A Ro
os
et
AL.

Table A1
Studies reviewed.

1st author Year Title Region Cultural ES Cultural and Normative Descriptive User preferences Urban–Rural aspects
other ES

Alves-Pinto et al. 2017 Reconciling rural development and ecological restoration: Strategies and policy Brazil 1 1
recommendations for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
Bestard and Font 2009 Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling Spain 1 1 1
Blumstein and 2015 Land use impacts on the quantity and configuration of ecosystem service USA 1 1 1
provisioning in
Thompson Massachusetts, USA
Casado-Arzuaga et al. 2013 Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Spain 1 1 1 1
Metropolitan Greenbelt
Da Silva et al. 2017 Perspectives for environmental conservation and ecosystem services on coupled Brazil 1 1 1
rural-
urban systems
De Valck et al. 2017 Outdoor recreation in various landscapes: Which site characteristics really matter? Belgium 1 1 1 1
Dobbs et al. 2014 Multiple ecosystem services and disservices of the urban forest establishing their Australia 1 1 1 1
connections with landscape structure and sociodemographics
Fruh-Muller et al. 2016 Regional patterns of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes Germany 1 1
Gret-Regamey et al. 2008 Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region Switzerland 1 1 1 1
Liekens et al. 2013 Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Belgium 1 1 1 1 1
Flanders,
Belgium
Pang et al. 2017 Trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services under different forest Sweden 1 1 1
management
6 scenarios - The LEcA tool
3 Roces-Diaz et al. 2017 Use of ecosystem information derived from forest thematic maps for spatial Spain 1 1
analysis of
ecosystem services in northwestern Spain
Schägner et al. 2016 Mapping recreational visits and values of European national parks by combining Europe 1 1 1
statistical modelling and unit value transfer
Schmidt et al. 2017 Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use Scotland 1 1 1 1
preferences
Sherrouse et al. 2017 Analyzing land use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services USA 1 1 1 1 1
in
the Southern Rocky Mountains
Van Berkel et al. 2014 Spatial analysis of land suitability, hot-tub cabins and forest tourism in USA 1 1 1
Appalachian
Ohio
Vangansbeke et al. 2017 Spatially combining wood production and recreation with biodiversity conservation Belgium 1 1 1 1
Weyland and Laterra 2014 Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: A method based in the Argentina 1 1 1
ecosystem
services approach and landscape metrics
Zarandian et al. 2016 Anthropogenic decline of ecosystem services threatens the integrity of the unique Iran 1 1 1 1
Hyrcanian (Caspian) forests in northern Iran

L
CULTURAL ES: a focus on cultural/recreational ES aspects; CULTURAL AND other ES: including other ES categories - provisioning, regulating, and/or supporting - together with cultural ES in the analysis; NORMATIVE: planning
A
models for forest land use and ES; Descriptive: primarily descriptive studies on factors that influence current forest land use; User focus: studies that incorporate the behaviour or preferences of beneficiaries or N
stakeholders (as opposed to being based on (geophysical, ecological) site data; Urban aspect: studies that explicitly address the issue in an urban–rural context. D
U
SE
P
O
LI
CY
79
(2
01
8)
A. Roos et AL. LANDUSEPOLICY79(20
18)622–632
a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26 (2),
References 219–234.
Fruh-Muller, A., Hotes, S., Breuer, L., Wolters, V., Koellner, T., 2016. Regional patterns
of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Land 5 (2).
Alves-Pinto, H.N., Latawiec, A.E., Strassburg, B.B.N., Barros, F.S.M., Sansevero,
Gret-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W.A., 2008. Linking GIS-based
J.B.B., Iribarrem, A., Crouzeilles, R., Lemgruber, L., Rangel, M.C., Silva,
models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J. Environ. Manage. 89,
A.C.P., 2017.
197–208.
Reconciling rural development and ecological restoration: strategies and policy
Gronroos, C., Voima, P., 2013. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation
re- commendations for the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Land Use Policy 60, 419–
and co-creation. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 41, 133–150.
426.
Amacher, G.S., Ollikainen, M., Koskela, E., 2009. Economics of Forest
Resources. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA pp. 397.
Angelsen, A., 2007. Forest Cover Change in Space and Time: Combining the Von
Thünen and Forest Transition Theories. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 4117, Washington, DC. .
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N.J., Bauch, S.,
Boerner, J., Smith-Hall, C., Wunder, S., 2014. Environmental income and rural
livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Dev. 64, S12–S28.
Bell, S., Tyrvainen, L., Sievanen, T., Probstl, U., Simpson, M., 2007. Outdoor
recreation and nature tourism: a European perspective. Liv. Rev. Landsc. Res.
1 2-2.
Bertram, C., Larondelle, N., 2017. Going to the woods is going home: recreational
benefits of a larger urban forest site - a travel cost analysis for Berlin,
Germany. Ecol. Econ. 132, 255–263.
Bestard, A.B., Font, A.R., 2009. Environmental diversity in recreational choice
modelling.
Ecol. Econ. 68, 2743–2750.
Bhagwat, S.A., Rutte, C., 2006. Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity
management.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 519–524.
Blumstein, M., Thompson, J.R., 2015. Land use impacts on the quantity and
configuration of ecosystem service provisioning in Massachusetts, USA. J. Appl.
Ecol. 52, 1009–1019.
Boman, M., Fredman, P., Lundmark, L., Ericsson, G., 2013. Outdoor recreation – a
ne- cessity or a luxury? Estimation of Engel curves for Sweden. J. Outdoor
Recreat. Tour. 3–4, 49–56.
Bunse, L., Rendon, O., Luque, S., 2015. What can deliberative approaches bring
to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review.
Ecosyst. Serv. 14, 88–97.
Byers, B.A., Cunliffe, R.N., Hudak, A.T., 2001. Linking the conservation of culture
and nature: a case study of sacred forests in Zimbabwe. Hum. Ecol. 29, 187–
218.
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F.,
Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P., Sanesi, G., 2015. Go greener, feel
better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals
visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 134, 221–228.
Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2013. Perception, demand and
user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt.
J. Environ. Manage. 129, 33–43.
Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X.,
Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine,
J., Norton, N., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012a.
Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for
constructive engagement. BioScience 62 (8), 744–756.
Chan, K.M.A.-, Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to
better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18.
Da Silva, R.F.B., Rodrigues, M.D.A., Vieira, S.A., Batistella, M., Farinaci, J.,
2017. Perspectives for environmental conservation and ecosystem services on
coupled rural-urban systems. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 15, 74–81.
De Valck, J., Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., De Nocker, L., Vranken, L.,
2017.
Outdoor recreation in various landscapes: which site characteristics really matter?
Land Use Policy 65, 186–197.
Deal, R.L., Cochran, B., LaRocco, G., 2012. Bundling of ecosystem services to
increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For.
Policy Econ. 17, 69–76.
Dobbs, C., Kendal, D., Nitschke, C.R., 2014. Multiple ecosystem services and
disservices of the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape
structure and socio- demographics. Ecol. Indic. 43, 44–55.
Elands, B.H.M., Wiersum, K.F., 2001. Forestry and rural development in Europe:
an ex- ploration of socio-political discourses. For. Policy Econ. 3 (1–2), 5–16.
Ellis, F., 1995. Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development.
Cambridge University Press.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental
services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65 (4),
663–674.
European Commission, 2013. A New EU Forest Strategy: For Forests and the Forest-
Based Sector. Brussels, 20.9.2013. COM(2013) 659 final. Brussels. .
European Commission, 2014. Mapping and Assessment of Forest Ecosystems and
Their
Services – Applications and Guidance for Decision Making in the
Framework of MAES. Technical Report - 2014 – 080. Brussels. .
Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A., 2002. Economic and ecological
concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 375–392.
Fish, R., Church, A., Winter, M., 2016. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem
services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv.
21, 208–217.
Fitzpatrick, D., 2006. Evolution and chaos in property rights systems: the third
world tragedy of contested access. Yale Law J. 115 (5), 996–1048.
Franzen, A., Meyer, R., 2010. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective:

6
A. Roos et AL. LANDUSEPOLICY79(20
18)622–632
303–312.
Grošelj, P., Hodges, D.G., Stirn, L.Z., 2016. Participatory and multi-criteria Margarey, J., 2001. Elements of a systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 7 (6), 376–
analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: a case study of Pohorje, Slovenia. 382. Matthies, B.D., Kalliokoski, T., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H.-F., Valsta, L.T., 2015.
For. Policy Econ. 71, 80–86. Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: a portfolio approach to ecosystem
Gundersen, V., Tangeland, T., Kaltenborn, B.P., 2015. Planning for recreation services and
along the opportunity spectrum: the case of Oslo, Norway. Urban For. Urban forestland investment. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 1–12.
Green. 14 (2), 210–217. Matthies, B.D., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H.-F., Holopainen, J.,
Guo, Z.W., Zhang, L., Li, Y.M., 2010. Increased dependence of humans on Korhonen, J.E., Lähtinen, K., Mattila, O., Toppinen, A., 2016. An ecosystem service-
ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS One 5, e13113. dominant logic?–integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem dominant logic. J. Clean. Prod. value. J. Acad.
Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 110– 124, 51–64. Market. Sci. 36, 83–96.
139. Mattila, O., Roos, A., 2014. Service Pearce, D., 1993. Economic
Hannerz, M., Lindhagen, A., Forsberg, O., Fries, C., Rydberg, D., 2016. Skogsskötsel logics of providers in the Values and the Natural World.
för friluftsliv och rekreation. Skogsskötselserien No 15. Swedish Forest forestry services sector: Earthscan, London. Perlman,
Agency, Jönköping, Sweden. evidence from Finland and R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J.,
Hardie, I.W., Parks, P.J., 1997. Land use with heterogeneous land quality: an Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 43, Common, M., 2003. Natural
application of an area base model. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79 (2), 299–310. 10–17. Resource and
Hegetschweiler, K.T., de Vries, S., Arnberger, A., Bell, S., Brennan, M., Siter, N., Mattila, O., Toppinen, A., Tervo, M., Environmental Economics. Pearson,
Olafsson, A.S., Voigt, A., Hunziker, M., 2017. Linking demand and supply Berghall, S., 2013. Non-industrial U.K.
factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green private forestry service markets in Platt, R.H., 2014. Land Use and
infrastructures: a review of European studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 21, a flux: results from a qualitative Society: Geography, Law, and
48–59. analysis on Finland. Small-Scale Public Policy, 3rd revised edition.
Hein, L., de Groot, R.S., 2009. A framework for the economic valuation of land For. 12 (4), 559–578. Island Press.
use change. In: Denman, Penrod (Eds.), Land Use Policy. Nova Science Mattila, O., Häyrinen, L., Tervo, M., Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-
Publishers, UK, pp. 231–253. Toppinen, A., Berghäll, 2015. Rozas, E., Bieling, C., 2013.
Hoarau, H., 2014. Service dominant logic for innovation in nature based Challenges of muni- cipal Assessing, mapping, and
tourism. 4th Advances in Hospitality & Tourism Marketing & Management greening and multifunctional quantifying cultural ecosystem
Conference 543–568 25–27 June. forest management: the case of services at community level.
Hörnsten, L., Fredman, P., 2000. On the distance to recreational forests in Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129.
Sweden. 14, 982–990. Polasky, S., Lewisb, D.J., Plantinga,
Landsc. Urban Plan. 51, 1–10. Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, A.J., Nelson, E., 2014.
Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2010. External effects of neighbourhood parks and D., Fischer, J., 2013. Cultural Implementing the optimal
landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Policy 27 (2), ecosystem services: a literature provision of ecosystem services.
662–670. review and prospects for future PNAS 111 (17), 6248–6253.
Jones, M.L., 2004. Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: research. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3). Poudyal, N.C., Hodges, D.G., Merrett,
practical issues. J. Adv. Nurs. 48 (3), 271–278. Naess, A., 1984. A Defense of C.D., 2009. A hedonic analysis of
Kallio, M.A., Hänninen, R., Vainikainen, N., Luque, S., 2008. Biodiversity value the deep ecology the demand for and benefits of
and the optimal location of forest conservation sites in Southern Finland. movement. Environ. Ethics urban recreation parks. Land Use
Ecol. Econ. 67, 232–243. 6 (3), 265–270. Policy 26 (4), 975–983.
Källstrom, L., Ekelund, C., 2016. What can a municipality offer to its residents? Niemelä, J., Young, J., Alard, D., Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004.
Value propositions and interactions in a place context. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Askasibar, M., Henle, K., Co-creation experiences: the next
Hosp. Res. 10 (1), 24–37. Johnson, R., Kurttila, M., practice in value
Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., Larsson, T.-B., Matouch, S., creation. J. Interact. Market. 18, 5–
2010. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Nowicki, P., Paiva, R., 14.
Programmes in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 12 (3), 213–222. Portoghesi, L., Smulders, R., Rantala, T., Primmer, E., 2003.
Kant, S., Vertinsky, I., Zheng, B., 2016. Valuation of first nations peoples’ social, Stevenson, A., Tartes, U., Watt, Value positions based on forest
cultural, and land use activities using life satisfaction approach. For. Policy Econ. A., 2005. Identifying, managing policy stakeholders’ rhetoric in
72, 46–55. and monitoring conflicts Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 6
Kivinen, S., Moen, J., Berg, A., Eriksson, A., 2010. Effects of modern forest between forest biodiversity (3), 205–216.
management on winter grazing resources for reindeer in Sweden. Ambio 39, conservation and other human Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D.,
269–278. interests in Europe. For. Policy Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem
Klaar, S., Öhman, J., 2014. Children’s meaning-making of nature in an outdoor- Econ. 7, 877–890. service bundles for analyzing
oriented and democratic Swedish preschool practice. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.
Res. J. 22 (2), 229–253. Hartig, T., De Vries, S., Seeland, PNAS 107, 5242–5247.
Koh, N.S., Hahn, T., Ituarte-Lima, C., 2017. Safeguards for enhancing ecological K., Schipperijn, J., 2010. Forest, Roces-Diaz, J.V., Burkhard, B., Kruse, M.,
com- pensation in Sweden. Land Use Policy 64, 186–199. Trees and Human Health. Muller, F., Diaz-Varela, E.R., Alvarez-
Korpela, K., Borodulin, K., Neuvonen, M., Paronen, O., Tyrväinen, L., 2013. Analyzing Alvarez,
Springer Science Business and
the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional well- Media, Dordrecht. P., 2017. Use of ecosystem
being. J. Environ. Psychol. 37, 1–7. Norman, J., Annerstedt, M., Boman, information derived from forest thematic
Kowarik, I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. M., Mattsson, L., 2010. Influence maps for spatial analysis of ecosystem
Environ. of outdoor re- creation on self- services in Northwestern Spain. Landsc.
Pollut. 159 (8–9), 1974–1983. rated human health: comparing Ecol. Eng. 13, 45–57.
Krott, M., 2005. Forest Policy Analysis. European Forest three categories of Swedish recrea- Rutte, C., 2011. The sacred commons:
Institute/Springer, The Netherlands. tionists. Scandinavian J. For. Res. conflicts and solutions of resource
Lawrence, A., De Vreese, R., Johnston, M., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C., Sanesi, 25 (3), 234–244. management in sacred natural
G., 2013. Urban forest governance: towards a framework for comparing Olsson, O., 2013. Changed availability sites. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2387–
approaches. of urban fringe forests in Sweden in 2394.
Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (4), 464–473. 2000–2010. Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Ward,
Lewis, J.L., Sheppard, S.R.J., 2005. Ancient values, new challenges: indigenous Scandinavian J. For. Res. 28, 386– B.P., 2015. Exploring connections
394. among nature, biodiversity,
spiritual perceptions of landscapes and forest management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18,
907–920. Ormsby, A.A., Bhagwat, S.A., 2010. ecosystem services, and human
Sacred forests of India: a strong health and well-being: opportunities
Li, X., Petrick, J.F., 2008. Tourism marketing in an era of paradigm shift. J.
Travel Res. 46 (3), 235–244. tradition of com- munity-based to enhance health and biodiversity
natural resource management. conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 1–
Liekens, I., Schaafsma, M., De Nocker, L., Broekx, S., Staes, J., Aertsens, J.,
Environ. Conserv. 37, 320–326. 15.
Brouwer, R., 2013. Developing a value function for nature development and
land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 30 (1), 549–559. Outdoor foundation, 2016. Outdoor Schägner, J.P., Brander, L., Maes,
Recreation Participation Topline J., Paracchini, M.L., Hartje, V.,
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Troy, A., 2010. Valuing ecosystem services
Report 2016. 19 February 2018. 2016. Mapping re- creational
theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. In: Limburg, K.,
https://outdoorindustry.org/wp- visits and values of European
Costanza, R. (Eds.), Ecological Economics Reviews, pp. 54–78.
content/uploads/2017/05/2016- National Parks by combining
Lorgnier, N., Su, C.-J., 2014. Considering coopetition strategies in sport tourism
networks: a look at the nonprofit nautical sports clubs on the northern coast Topline-Report.pdf. statistical modelling and unit
of France. Eur. Sport Manage. Q. 14 (1), 87–109. Pang, X., Nordström, E.M., Böttcher, value transfer. J. For. Nat.
MA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, H., Trubins, R., Mörtberg, U., Conserv. 31, 71–84.
Washington DC. 2017. Trade-offs and synergies Schmidt, K., Walz, A., Martin-Lopez, B.,
Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. among ecosystem services under Sachse, R., 2017. Testing socio-
different forest management cultural valuation methods of
Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol.
scenarios - the LEcA tool. Ecosyst. ecosystem services to explain land
Community Health 60, 587–592.
Serv. 28, 67–79. use preferences. Ecosyst. Serv. 26,
Mann, C., Pouta, E., Gentin, S., Jensen, F.S., 2010. Outdoor recreation in forest
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 270–288.
policy and legislation: a European comparison. Urban For. Urban Green. 9 (4), 2008. Managing the co-creation of

6
A. Roos et AL.
Shackleton, C., Fabricius, C., et al.,
2004. Southern African
Millennium Assessment: Gariep
Basin Local Scale Assessments.
Rhodes University.,
Grahamstown, South Africa.
Shanahan, D.F., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R.,
Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., 2015. The
health benefits of urban nature:
how much do we need?
BioScience 65 (5), 476–485.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., Williams, A.,
2011. Aspects of service-
dominant logic and its im-
plications for tourism management:
examples from the hotel industry.
Tour. Manage. 32 (2), 207–214.
Sherrouse, B.C., Semmens, D.J.,
Ancona, Z.H., Brunner, N.M., 2017.
Analyzing land use change
scenarios for trade-offs among
cultural ecosystem services in the
Southern Rocky Mountains.
Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 431–444.
Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M.,
McCormick, K., 2013. Strategies
and policies for the bioec-
onomy and bio-based economy:
an analysis of official national
approaches.
Sustainability 5 (6), 2751–2769.
Sténs, A., Bjärstig, T., Nordström, E.-
M., Sandström, C., Fries, C.,
Johansson, J., 2016. In the eye of
the stakeholder: the challenges of
governing social forest values.
Ambio 45, 87–99.
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J.-P.,
2009. Report by the Commission
on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress.
Commission on the Measurement
of Economic Performance and
Social Progress, Paris.
Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, 2015.
Besökarundersökning i Sveriges
na- tionalparker - Resultat från
sommaren 2014 [eng. “A visitor
survey in Sweden´s National
Parks”]. Report 6687. Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency,
Bromma, Sweden (in Swedish).
Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, 2017a. Sveriges
miljömål (eng: “Swedish
environmental goals”). 2
January 2017.
http://www.naturvardsverket.s
e/ Miljoarbete-i-
samhallet/Sveriges-miljomal/.
Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, 2017b. Sveriges
friluftsmål (eng: “Swedish goals
for outdoor recreation”). 2
January 2017.
http://www.naturvardsverket.se
/ Miljoarbete-i-
samhallet/Miljoarbete-i-
Sverige/Uppdelat-efter-
omrade/Friluftsliv/ Friluftsmalen/.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
Mainstreaming the Economics of
Nature: A Synthesis of the
Approach, Conclusions and
Recommendations of TEEB. United
Nations Environment Programme.
Progress Press, Malta.
Tong, D.Q., Murray, A.T., 2012. Spatial
optimization in geography. Ann. Assoc.
Am.
Geogr. 102, 1290–1309.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.,
2003. Towards a methodology
for developing evi- dence-
informed management
knowledge by means of
systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Turner, K.G., Odgaard, M.V., Bøcher,
P.K., Dalgaard, T., Svenning, J.-C.,
2014. Bundling ecosystem
services in Denmark: trade-offs
and synergies in a cultural
landscape.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 125, 89–104.
Tyresta National Park, 2018. Tyresta
– A National Park on the Edge of
the City. (Accessed 7 May 2018).
http://www.tyresta.se/english/.
Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K.,
Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y.,
Kagawa, T., 2014. The influence
of urban green environments on
stress relief measures: a field
experiment.
J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 1–9.
United Nations, 2014. World
Urbanization Prospects -
Population Division. United
Nations (Accessed 22
January 2017).
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wu
p/.
Uppsala County Administrative Board,
2018. Vårdsätra naturpark - ett
naturexperiment [eng.” Vårdsätra
Nature Park]. (Accessed 22 May
LANDUSEPOLICY79(20
18)622–632
2018. https://www.lansstyrelsen. Jafari, H.R., Stork, N.E., Ling,
se/uppsala/besok-och- M.A., Amirnejad, H., 2016.
upptack/naturreservat/vardsatra- Anthropogenic decline of ES
naturparks-naturreservat. html. threatens the integrity of the
van Berkel, D.B., Munroe, D.K., unique hyrcanian (Caspian)
Gallemore, C., 2014. Spatial forests in Northern Iran. Forests
analysis of land suitability, hot- 7.
tub cabins and forest tourism in Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry,
Appalachian Ohio. Appl. Geogr. L.L., 1985. Problems and strategies
54, 139–148. in services marketing. J. Market.
van Jaarsveld, A.S., Biggs, R., Scholes, 49 (2), 33–46.
R.J., Bohensky, E., Reyers, B.,
Lynam, T., Musvoto, C., Fabricius,
C., 2005. Measuring conditions
and trends in ecosystem services
at multiple scales: the Southern
African Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (SAfMA) experience.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360,
425–441.
Vangansbeke, P., Blondeel, H.,
Landuyt, D., De Frenne, P.,
Gorissen, L., Verheyen, K.,
2017. Spatially combining
wood production and recreation
with biodiversity con-
servation. Biodivers. Conserv.
26, 3213–3239.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004.
Evolving to a new dominant logic for
marketing. J. Market.
68 (1), 1–17.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008.
Service-dominant logic: continuing the
evolution. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 36 (1), 1–10.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2016.
Institutions and axioms: an
extension and update of ser- vice-
dominant logic. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 44, 5–23.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2017.
Service-dominant logic 2025.
Int. J. Res. Market. 34, 46–
67.
von Thünen, J.H., 1826. der Isolierte
Staat in Beziehung auf
Landwirtschaft und
Nationalökonomie, oder
Untersuchungen über den Einfluss,
den die Getreidepreise, der
Reichtum des Bodens und die
Abgaben auf den Ackerbau
ausüben, vol. 1,. and Der
Isolierte Staat…, Vol II: Der
Naturgeässe Arbeitslohn und
dessen.
Wadley, R.L., Colfer, C.J.P.,
2004. Sacred forest, hunting,
and conservation in West
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Hum.
Ecol. 32, 313–338.
Wang, S., 2013. Forest economics in
an increasingly urbanized society: the
next frontier.
For. Policy Econ. 35, 45–49.
Weyland, F., Laterra, P., 2014.
Recreation potential assessment at
large spatial scales: a method
based in the ES approach and
landscape metrics. Ecol. Indic.
39, 34–43.
WHO, 2016. Urban Green Spaces
and Health. Copenhagen, World
health Organization (WHO)
Regional Office for Europe,
Geneva.
Wu, J., 2013. Landscape sustainability
science: ecosystem services and human
well-being
in changing landscapes. Landsc.
Ecol. 28, 999–1023.
Yemiru, T., Roos, A., Campbell,
B.M., Bohlin, F., 2010. Forest
incomes and poverty al-
leviation under participatory
forest management in the Bale
Highlands, Southern Ethiopia.
Int. For. Rev. 12 (1), 66–77.
Zarandian, A., Baral, H., Yavari, A.R.,