A Conceptual Model for the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services on University Campuses: The Case of Erciyes University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v13i12.4093-4105.8224Keywords:
Cultural Ecosystem Services, University Campus, Spatial Analysis, Participatory Mapping, Erciyes UniversityAbstract
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) refer to the spiritual, aesthetic, socio-cultural, and cognitive benefits that emerge from individuals’ emotional bonds and interactions with nature. In recent years, studies focusing on the spatial assessment of CES and their integration into planning processes have increased considerably. This study presents a theoretical model and methodological framework for evaluating CES specifically within university campuses, which are areas with high potential for providing such services. The proposed approach is structured around CES indicators, service-providing spatial units, and user values. To demonstrate the applicability of the model, the Erciyes University Campus is addressed as a case example, and areas with CES potential such as walking paths, ceremonial spaces, open green areas, sports fields, and water features are descriptively identified using the existing campus layout and Google Earth data. Instead of adopting predefined indicators commonly used in the literature, the study suggests developing place-specific and user-based indicators; furthermore, it recommends assessing CES components such as recreation, aesthetic value, identity and sense of place, educational contribution, and inspiration through future quantitative analyses adapted to campus-scale land-cover units. Integrating participatory approaches into CES planning in campus environments and adopting a holistic perspective can enhance the benefits users derive from these areas. In this context, the proposed conceptual model offers a testable methodological framework for future academic studies and for informing university management plans. Empirical testing of the model may be conducted through surveys, participatory mapping, and GIS-supported analyses.
References
Aktürk, E., Altunel, A.O, & Kara, F. (2020). Investigation of the 18-year status and changes of mixed stands in Europe. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3): 929–938. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.744832
Alshuwaikhat, H., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1777-1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002
Arslan Muhacir, E. S., & Tazebay, H. İ. (2017). Kırsal turizm türlerinin belirlenmesinde bir araç: Ekosistem hizmetleri yaklaşımı. Turkish Journal of Forestry Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisivol.18, no.1, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.308633
Arslan, E. S., & Kaymaz, I. (2020). Visitor perception of recreational ecosystem services and their role in landscape management of Gölcük Nature Park, Turkey. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(3), 202-213, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1711247 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1711247
Bergquist, D., Hempel, C. A., & Lööf Green, J. (2019). Bridging the gap between theory and design: A proposal for regenerative campus development at the Swedish university of agricultural sciences. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(3), 548-567. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0143
Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), 89-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2009). Public participation GIS: A new method for use in national forest planning. Forest Science, 55(2), 166-182. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/55.2.166
Brown, G., Pullar, D., & Hausner, V.H. (2016). An empirical evaluation of spatial value transfer methods for identifying cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 69, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.053
Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (Eds.) (2017). Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers, https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837
Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., & Müller, F. (2014). Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – Concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
Campagne, C., & Roche, P. (2018). May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping. One Ecosystem, 3, e24134. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e24134
Casalegno, S., Inger, R., DeSilvey, C., & Gaston, K. J. (2013). Spatial relationships between aesthetic value and other ecosystem services. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e68437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068437
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Church, A., Fish, R., Haines-Young, R., Mourato, S., Tratalos, J., Stapleton, L., Willis, C., Coates, P., Gibbons, S., Leyshon, C., Potschin, M., Ravenscroft, N., Sanchis-Guarner, R., Winter, M., & Kenter, J. (2014). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 5: Cultural ecosystem services and indicators. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/59899
Czúcz, B., Arany, I., Potschin-Young, M., Bereczki, K., Kertész, M., Kiss, M., Aszalós, R. & Haines-Young, R. (2018). Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosystem Services, 29, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.018
Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Gret-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tam, J., & Von Der Dun, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23): 8812-8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Dober, R. P. (2000). Campus landscape: Functions, forms, features. Wiley. ISBN: 978-0-471-35356-0
ESRI (2020). ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Tool Reference: Kernel density, hotspot analysis, weighted overlay, raster calculator, map algebra.Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
European Commission (2015). MAES – Indicators for Ecosystem Services. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission (2015a). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2788/341839
European Commission (2015b). Mapping and sssessment of ecosystems and their services: Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. DOI (PDF versiyonu): 10.2779/75203
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2002). Pressure-state-response framework and environmental indicators. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/ toolbox/refer/envindi.htm.
Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959-972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
González García, A., Aguado, M., Solascasas, P., Palomo, I., González, J. A., García Llorente, M., Hevia, V., Olmo, R. M., López Santiago, C. A., Benayas, J., & Montes, C. (2023). Co producing an ecosystem services based plan for sustainable university campuses. Landscape and Urban Planning, 230, 104630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104630
Grady, J. S., Her, M., Moreno, G., Perez, C., & Yelinek, J. (2019). Emotions in storybooks: A comparison of storybooks that represent ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(3), 207– 217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000185
Hahn, C. (2021). Cultural ecosystem services on the university campus a student-centered approach to assess psychological and climate-related benefits of cultural ecosystem services on the university campus. (Master's Thesis, Lund Unıvesity). http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9066104
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
Hirons, M., Comberti, C., & Dunford, R. (2016). Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 545-574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
Kaplan, S. 1995. Doğanın iyileştirici faydaları: Bütünsel bir çerçeveye doğru. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3): 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi. 2025. Kayseri Kent Rehberi.
Erişim adresi: https://cbs.kayseri.brl.tr/kayseri-kent-rehberi
(Erişim Tarihi: 27.11.2025).
Kelemen, E., Barton, D., Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Saarikoski, H., Termansen, M., Bela, G., Braat, L., Demeyer, R., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Hauck, J., Keune, H., Luque, S., Palomo, I., Pataki, G., Potschin, M., Schleyer, C., Tenerilli, P. & Turkelboom, F. 2015. Preliminary guidelines for integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services in specific policy contexts. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.3, 55 s. https://purews.inbo.be/ws/files/13807116/OpenNESS_Deliverable4.3.pdf (Erişim Tarihi:03.12.2025)
Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R., & Kenney, T. L. (2005). Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Klain, S. C., & Chan, K. M. (2012). Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecological Economics, 82, 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.008
Lautenbach, S., Kugel, C., Lausch, A., Seppelt, R. (2011). Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecological Indicators, 11(2), 676-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007
Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4): 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, S. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60, 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Raymond, C. M., & Brown, G. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1301-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
Santos-Martín, F., Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Aguado, M., Benayas, J., & Montes, C. (2013). Unraveling the links between cultural ecosystem services and human well-being: An exploratory study in the Doñana natural areas (Spain). Ecological Indicators, 37, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.010
Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., & Halpern, B. S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6
Schirpke, U., Timoneda, F., Tappeiner, U., & Tasser, E. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services in mountain regions: Modelling aesthetic value. Ecological Indicators, 45, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.008
Sharma, S., Hussain, S., & Singh, A. N. (2022). Evaluation methods for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic review. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 12(3), 194–210.
Syrbe, R.-U., & U. Walz (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators 21, 80–88.
TEEB (2009). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. UNEP, Bonn, Germany. 64 pp.
TEEB (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. London.
Tezer, A., Çetin, N.İ., Onur, A.C., Menteşe, E.Y., Albayrak, İ., & Cengiz, E.C., (2015). TR10/14/DFD/0039 no’lu Ömerli Havzası’nda ekosistem hizmetlerine dayalı bütünleşik havza yönetim planının geliştirilmesi projesi araştırma raporu. (157 s)., İstanbul.
Tilliger, B., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Bustamante, J. V., & Settele, J. (2015). Disentangling values in the interrelations between cultural ecosystem services and landscape conservation—A case study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines. Land, 4(3), 888-913. https://doi.org/10.3390/land4030888
Tokgöz, G., & Say N. (2018). Kentsel ekosistem hizmetlerinin haritalanması için kullanılan göstergeler, yöntemler ve geliştirilen araçlar. Artıbilim: Adana Bilim ve Tekonoloji Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 1-8. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/artibilim/issue/38060/439290
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemelä, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
Van Zanten, B. T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M. J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2016).
A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17, 87–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011
Vandewalle, M., Sykes, M.T., Harrison, P.A., Luck, G.W., Berry, P., Bugter, R., Dawson, T.P., Feld, C.K., Harrington, R., Haslett, J.R., Hering, D., Jones, K.B., Jongamn, R., & S. Lavorel (2009). Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. The Rubicode Project Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems. http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_ Review_on_Ecosystem_Services.pdf
Willemen, L., Verburg, P.H., Hein, L., & van Mensvoort, M.E.F. (2008). Spatial characterisation of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 88(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.004
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
