Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 Department of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Faculty of Agricultural, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Cultural ecosystem services, as one of the components of ecosystem services, are intangible human benefits from ecosystems that play a fundamental role in promoting human well-being. Rapid changes in land use with damage to ecological assets in the Ilam urban watershed have reduced the capacity of ecosystem services, including aesthetic quality. Therefore, the evaluation of the supply of aesthetic ecosystem service, which shows the biological diversity in urban areas and favorable conditions for life, is considered essential for inclusion in the improvement plans of Ilam city in line with appropriate management measures. In this vein, in the current research, an integrated approach to prepare an aesthetic map with the aim of showing the spatial distribution of the supply of aesthetic services in the Ilam urban watershed has been presented, the results of which can greatly influence planning and managerial decisions regarding future development towards urban sustainability by preserving natural ecosystems.
Materials and Methods: Spatial distribution of providing aesthetic ecosystem services in Ilam urban watershed using 12 visual and ecological criteria including: slope, Elevation, geomorphology, land use, habitat characteristics, visibility of various areas, visibility of roads, visibility of residential areas, visibility of the river, visibility of the park, type and density of vegetation were investigated. To prepare visibility layers, Viewshed function was used in TerrSet Idrisi software. Then, the input layers were integrated using fuzzy membership functions and using the weighted linear combination method in the ArcGIS 10.8 system. Among the multi-criteria decision-making methods, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to prioritize the criteria.
Results: Based on the results of the hierarchical analysis process and according to the results of the experts Among the input criteria, visibility of the river, type of vegetation and visibility of diverse areas were assigned the most weight with values of 0.14, 0.127 and 0.116 respectively. On the other hand, the least importance and weight was observed in the measure of road visibility. Based on the final map of aesthetic quality, the best quality of this service is in the parts of the north, east, southeast and west of the Ilam urban watershed, where these places have the best visibility of the river, visibility of various areas, high to medium altitude and with dominant forest cover.
Discussion: The results of this study showed, that areas with forest cover and areas with human uses have the highest and lowest capacity of this service in the study area, respectively, which denotes the importance of natural green uses compared to artificial uses and human-made is in providing aesthetic service. These results indicate that the capacity of the watershed ecosystem of Ilam city in providing aesthetic services varies in different places and is influenced by various factors, especially topographic changes and land use patterns. That is to say, prevent land use change is an important factor for maintaining ecosystem services. Because the land use Changes pattern affects the capacity of the ecosystem to produce goods and services. The results of this research also, by presenting the spatial distribution model of aesthetic service potential can be useful for decision makers, managers and urban planners in order to monitor and protect aesthetic values and it is important and useful to adopt urban landscape management strategies and plans in the landscape of the studied area.
Keywords
Main Subjects
- Abdollahi, S., Iildoromi, A.R., Salmanmahini, A. and Fakheran, S., 2019. Determination and Quantification of the Landscape Aesthetic Value in Central Part of Isfahan Province. Iranian of applied ecology, 7(4), 31-42. [In Persian]
- Aghsaei, H., Dinan, N.M., Moridi, A., Asadolahi, Z., Delavar, M., Fohrer, N. and Wagner, P.D., 2020. Effects of dynamic land use/land cover change on water resources and sediment yield in the Anzali wetland catchment, Gilan, Iran. Science of the Total Environment, 712, p.136449.
- Ahmadi Mirghaed, F., Mohammadzadeh, M., Salmanmahiny, A. and Mirkarimi, S.H., 2020. Assessing the interactions between landscape aesthetic quality and spatial indices in Gharasoo watershed, North of Iran. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 17, pp.231-242.
- Albaladejo-García, J.A., Zabala, J.A., Alcon, F., Dallimer, M. and Martínez-Paz, J.M., 2023. Integrating socio-spatial preference heterogeneity into the assessment of the aesthetic quality of a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 239, p.104846.
- Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H. and Bryce, R., 2016. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21, pp.218-229.
- Das, A., Das, M., Saha, S. and Pereira, P., 2023. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cultural ecosystem services from urban green spaces: a case from English Bazar Urban Agglomeration, Eastern India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(24), 65933-65946.
- Grunewald, K., Bastian, O., Louda, J., Arcidiacono, A., Brzoska, P., Bue, M., Cetin, N.I., Dworczyk, C., Dubova, L., Fitch, A. and Jones, L., 2021. Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning. Ecosystem Services, 49, p.101273.
- Guo, R.Z., Lin, L., Xu, J.F., Dai, W.H., Song, Y.B. and Dong, M., 2023. Spatio-temporal characteristics of cultural ecosystem services and their relations to landscape factors in Hangzhou Xixi National Wetland Park, China. Ecological Indicators, 154, p.110910.
- Guo, R.Z., Song, Y.B. and Dong, M., 2022. A review and prospect of cultural ecosystem services of urban wetlands. J. Hangzhou Normal Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.). 21, pp. 364–371.
- Jangi, H., Tavakolinia, J. and Razavian, M.T., 2020. Assessment of Sustainability and Landscape Aesthetic Value (LAV) in Urban Green Spaces. The case of Tehran, District 22. Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR), 8(1), pp.213-236. [In Persian].
- Jelokhani-Niaraki, M., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A. and Choi, S.M., 2018. Semantic interoperability of GIS and MCDA tools for environmental assessment and decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 100, pp.104-122.
- Kalinauskas, M., Mikša, K., Inácio, M., Gomes, E. and Pereira, P., 2021. Mapping and assessment of landscape aesthetic quality in Lithuania. Journal of Environmental Management, 286, p.112239.
- Kowarik, I., 2019. The “Green Belt Berlin”: Establishing a greenway where the Berlin Wall once stood by integrating ecological, social and cultural approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning, 184, 12-22.
- La Rosa, D., Spyra, M. and Inostroza, L., 2016. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological indicators, 61, pp.74-89.
- Langlois, J., Guilhaumon, F., Bockel, T., Boissery, P., Braga, C.D.A., Deter, J., Holon, F., Marre, G., Tribot, A.S. and Mouquet, N., 2021. An integrated approach to estimate aesthetic and ecological values of coralligenous reefs. Ecological Indicators, 129, p.107935.
- Leyshon, C., 2014. Cultural ecosystem services and the challenge for cultural geography. Geography Compass, 8(10), pp.710-725.
- Li, B., Chen, D., Wu, S., Zhou, S., Wang, T. and Chen, H., 2016. Spatio-temporal assessment of urbanization impacts on ecosystem services: Case study of Nanjing City, China. Ecological Indicators, 71, pp.416-427.
- Li, X., Wang, X., Jiang, X., Han, J., Wang, Z., Wu, D., Lin, Q., Li, L., Zhang, S. and Dong, Y., 2022. Prediction of riverside greenway landscape aesthetic quality of urban canalized rivers using environmental modeling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 367, p.133066.
- Lumber, R., Richardson, M. and Sheffield, D., 2017. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS one, 12(5), e0177186.
- Luo, S., Xie, J. and Furuya, K., 2023. Effects of perceived physical and aesthetic quality of urban blue spaces on user preferences–A case study of three urban blue spaces in Japan. Heliyon, 9(4).
- Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E.G., La Notte, A., Zulian, G. and Bouraoui, F., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem services, 1(1), pp.31-39.
- Mohammadyari, F., 2023. Evaluating and modeling the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystem service capacity in the urban planning process. Posdoc Project. [In Persian]
- Mohammadyari, F., Tavakoli, M., Zarandian, A. and Abdollahi, S., 2023. Optimization land use based on multi-scenario simulation of ecosystem service for sustainable landscape planning in a mixed urban-Forest watershed. Ecological Modelling, 483, p.110440.
- Pinto, L.V., Inácio, M., Bogdzevič, K., Kalinauskas, M., Gomes, E. and Pereira, P., 2023. Factors affecting cultural ecosystem services use in Vilnius (Lithuania): A participatory mapping survey approach. Heliyon, 9(4).
- Polat, A.T. and Akay, A., 2015. Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), pp.573-582.
- Reimer, M.H., 2010. Unsettling eco-scapes: aesthetic performances for sustainable futures. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 5(1), pp.24-37.
- Romanazzi, G.R., Koto, R., De Boni, A., Palmisano, G.O., Cioffi, M. and Roma, R., 2023. Cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods and tools for economic evaluation. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, p.100304.
- Sakieh, Y., Salmanmahiny, A., Mirkarimi, S.H. and Saeidi, S., 2017. Measuring the relationships between landscape aesthetics suitability and spatial patterns of urbanized lands: an informed modelling framework for developing urban growth scenarios. Geocarto International, 32(8), pp.853-873.
- Schirpke, U., Timmermann, F., Tappeiner, U. and Tasser, E., 2016. Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecological indicators, 69, pp.78-90.
- Tandarić, N., Ives, C. D., and Watkins, C., 2022. From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 120, 106309.
- Tavakoli, M. and Mohammadyari, F., 2023. Modeling the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystem services in Ilam dam watershed, Western Iran: Identification of areas for spatial planning. Urban Ecosystems, 26(2), pp.459-478.
- Thiemann, M., Riebl, R., Haensel, M., Schmitt, T.M., Steinbauer, M.J., Landwehr, T., Fricke, U., Redlich, S. and Koellner, T., 2022. Perceptions of ecosystem services: Comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences. Plos One, 17(10), p.e0276432.
- Wang, Y. and Hayashi, K., 2023. Methodological development of cultural ecosystem services evaluation using location data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 396, p.136523.
- Wu, J., Jin, X., Wang, H. and Feng, Z., 2022. Evaluating the supply-demand balance of cultural ecosystem services with budget expectation in Shenzhen, China. Ecological Indicators, 142, p.109165.
- Xiao, X., Fang, C., Lin, H. and Chen, J., 2022. A framework for quantitative analysis and differentiated marketing of tourism destination image based on visual content of photos. Tourism Management, 93, p.104585
- Zhao, J., Wang, R., Luo, P., Xing, L. and Sun, T., 2017. Visual ecology: exploring the relationships between ecological quality and aesthetic preference. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 13, pp.107-118.
- Zhao, Y., You, W., Lin, X. and He, D., 2023. Assessing the supply and demand linkage of cultural ecosystem services in a typical county-level city with protected areas in China. Ecological Indicators, 147, p.109992.
- Zhu, X., Cheng, X., Zhang, B. and Mihalko, C., 2023. A user-feedback indicator framework to understand cultural ecosystem services of urban green space. Ecological Indicators, 154, p.110642
)