Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Conceptualizing ‘sense of place’ in cultural ecosystem services: A framework T

for interdisciplinary research
⁎
Frances Ryfielda, David Cabanaa, John Branniganb, , Tasman Crowea
a
UCD Earth Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
b
UCD Humanities Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper we aim to establish a conceptual and practical framework for investigating sense of place as a
Cultural ecosystem services category of cultural ecosystem services, drawing upon transdisciplinary research on assessing cultural value and
Sense of place ecosystem change in the Irish Sea. We examine sense of place as a material phenomenon, embedded in and
Phenomenological research expressive of the relationship between determining ecological conditions of particular locations and the de-
Ecosystem assessment
termining social and cultural conditions of human habitation. Our emphasis on sense of place as a material
Cultural materialism
Interdisciplinarity
phenomenon contrasts with the prevailing tendency in ecosystem services literature to treat cultural ecosystem
services as ‘non-material’, ‘immaterial’, or ‘intangible’, and builds on a call to conceptualize cultural ecosystem
services in ‘a more theoretically nuanced approach’ which yields practical means of researching and assessing
cultural benefits (Fish et al., 2016a, p. 215). The paper emerges from a transdisciplinary project on ‘The Cultural
Value of Coastlines’, which seeks to define a mechanism for integrating materialist research on cultural benefits
into the ecosystem services framework. We demonstrate the need for a more significant role for sense of place as
a category of cultural ecosystem services, and for research practices which can account for the material and
socially-produced nature of sense of place.

1. Introduction decision makers can understand ecosystems in terms of their life-en-

riching and life-affirming contributions to human well-being… en-
As Fish et al. have argued, the widespread tendency to associate compassing a broad symbolic, experiential and virtuous realm of
cultural ecosystem services with non-materiality and intangibility (and human interactions and understandings of the natural environment’
several other negative prefixes), or to characterize cultural ecosystem (Fish et al., 2016a, p. 208). This is the definition upon which we have
services as subjective and nebulous, reflects the difficulties encountered based our own investigations of sense of place as a cultural ecosystem
by a framework largely dominated by scientific and economic quanti- service in this paper. Interdisciplinary from its inception, the ecosystem
tative methods with realms of research based on alternative epis- services framework has the capacity to embrace a wider epistemolo-
temologies (Fish et al., 2016a). This weakness has the potential to in- gical range of research strategies to overcome this tendency to mis-
capacitate the ecosystem services framework as a tool to aid decision- characterize or undervalue cultural ecosystem services, and to capture
making, as it risks ignoring or marginalizing some of the most funda- evidence of sense of place in particular (Chan et al., 2012, Urquhart and
mental ways in which people engage with, and understand their re- Acott, 2014). King et al. (2017) made this call also in relation to the
lationship to, nature: ‘cultural ecosystem services are about under- design of programmes to protect and enhance ‘nature’s contribution to
standing modalities of living that people participate in, that constitute people’, specifically by recognizing the ways in which biotic, abiotic
and reflect the values and histories people share, the material and and human-made features combined to provide ‘socio-psychological
symbolic practices they engage in, and the places they inhabit’ (Fish pathways’ by which people constructed sense of place. In this paper, we
et al., 2016a, p. 210; see also Fish et al., 2016b). In contrast to the set out the ways in which we have sought to integrate qualitative,
widely used definition of cultural ecosystem services provided by the materialist methods of researching sense of place into cultural eco-
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report, the source of this emphasis system services.
on the ‘nonmaterial’, Fish et al. provide an alternative definition of A materialist approach to cultural ecosystem services, which draws
cultural ecosystem services as ‘a concept around which researchers and upon place-based research in the humanities and social sciences, has

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Brannigan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100907
Received 5 September 2018; Received in revised form 14 February 2019; Accepted 4 March 2019
2212-0416/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

much to add to a more holistic understanding and practice of ecosystem In our research project on ‘The Cultural Value of Coastlines’, which
services research. Materialism is used here in its philosophical sense as focused on the Irish Sea area, we investigated how such narrative and
an understanding of human society as fundamentally determined and cartographical modes of research can be operationalized in cultural
shaped by matter or the natural environment. As an extension of ma- ecosystem services research. We begin this paper with a review of sense
terialist philosophies, cultural materialism studies all forms of cultural of place research, especially in the ecosystem services framework, but
representation as expressive of distinctive social formations and eco- with some reference to concurrent debates in phenomenological re-
nomic and environmental conditions. A key tenet of cultural materialist search in the environmental humanities. We use this review to identify
practice is to discern the ways in which cultural texts, activities or ar- the extent of research undertaken so far, the role afforded to sense of
tefacts are both shaped by their material contexts, and in turn shape the place in ecosystem service classifications currently, and the ways in
way communities see and express themselves. Sense of place, in parti- which research on place in environmental humanities has significance
cular, requires methodologies which can reveal relational, historical, for linking to ecosystem services research. We proceed to the con-
and affective meanings and values. Rick Van Noy argues for a particular ceptual basis for materialist analysis of sense of place, and to demon-
fusion of methodologies which can bring sense of place to light: ‘The strate the research practices for linking cultural evidence of sense of
synthesis of placed experience – the sights, stories, feelings, and con- place with its ecological conditions. The paper concludes with re-
cepts – gives us what we call the sense of place. To bring it into being, commendations about how these practices might be integrated into
we need a complex intersection of cartography and literature, a ecosystem services research and assessment.
charting of interior and exterior landscapes’ (Van Noy, 2003, p. xvi).
Van Noy’s study explores in particular a body of American literary 2. Reviewing the case for sense of place in ecosystem research
writing explicitly concerned with cartographical surveys, but his com-
ments have wider applicability to cartography and literature as em- Sense of place has been used in the literature of ecosystem services
bodying modes of knowledge of place. Mapping has become an in- since the late 1990s, and derives mainly from the fields of geography,
creasingly important aspect of ecosystem assessment, especially for architecture, and urban planning, in which it has been widely used
cultural services, as it is a means of incorporating participatory research since the 1970s. Its deployment within the ecosystem services frame-
methods with stakeholder groups, and can capture non-quantitative work can be attributed to two reasons: first, the recognition that eco-
information about stakeholder valuation (Nahuelhual et al., 2014). In systems include people, and that managing ecosystems is inseparable
addition, as Plieninger et al. (2013) argued, ‘Cartographic representa- from managing how people use, perceive, and value ecosystems; and
tion of perceptions and preferences enables localization of the most second, the understanding that different scales and perceptions of place
highly valued ecosystems in a landscape … and consequently, identi- and belonging affect the potential for conflicting ecosystem uses and
fication of critical focal areas for cultural services management’ (119). values. Norton and Hannon (1997) advocated a ‘place-based approach’
Another significant advantage of using mapping in ecosystem services to environmental valuation, positing that a hierarchical methodology
research, both as research tools and for stakeholder engagement, is that and triscalar system could be used to analyse the relationship between
maps facilitate a diverse range of disciplinary inputs, from demo- people’s orientation towards place and environmental values. However,
graphics and economic metrics, to heritage values, social diversity in- the hypothesis that proximity was a factor in determining valuation was
dices, and stakeholder preferences. However, maps offer little depth in not straightforward, and place attachment depended on a variety of
terms of affective registers of the meaning and value of places, and risk factors, best understood as ‘a dialectic between a culture and its natural
simplifying qualitative information as aggregated ‘heat maps’ or clus- context’ (230; see also Brown et al., 2002, and Stedman, 2003). There
ters of preferences. For this reason, as Van Noy suggests, cartographical was no easy correlation between the physical location of an individual
information needs to be complemented with cultural sources which can or community, and the extent or location of the ecosystem services most
reveal the ‘interior’ knowledge of place. valued. Williams and Stewart (1998, p. 18) proposed that sense of place
To mediate between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ modes of knowing offered ecosystem managers ‘a way to identify and respond to the
place, J. Nicholas Entrikin proposed that narrative-based forms of emotional and spiritual bonds people form with certain spaces’. In the
knowledge had a key role, using Paul Ricoeur’s understanding of nar- same year, Cantrill (1998, p. 302) argued that sense of place was
rative’s role as ‘the synthesis of heterogeneous phenomena’ (Entrikin, especially needed by ecosystem managers when engaging with local
1991, p. 138). Entrikin points to the importance of narrative in place- communities as ‘an appreciation for how human understandings of
making activities, as does Tim Cresswell who writes that ‘places are where we live, work, and recreate are socially constructed and endowed
created by cultural practices such as literature, film, and music, and the with value’ (See also Chapin and Knapp, 2015).
investigation of these forms of producing places are a central strand in It has remained a consistent pattern in ecosystem services literature
contemporary human geography and beyond’ (Cresswell, 2015, p. 116). to identify sense of place as a management or communications tool with
There have been limited attempts to incorporate narrative sources into which to engage local communities, based on the understanding that
ecosystem services research, although the potential to do so has been ‘emotional attachment to place can serve as a bridge between eco-
recognized. Claudia Bieling uses short stories as sources for her study of system functioning and stakeholders’ engagement in environmental
cultural ecosystem services in the Swabian Alb biosphere reserve, and stewardship’ (Masterson et al., 2017, p. 49). However, the Millennium
concludes that the stories constitute ‘rich evidence regarding connec- Ecosystem Assessment Report (2005) included sense of place as a cul-
tions to identity, heritage values, inspiration, esthetic values and re- tural ecosystem service in its own right, recognizing that sense of place
creation’ (Bieling, 2014, p. 207). The stories were written by residents should be part of the contributions made by ecosystems to human so-
of the biosphere reserve as part of a contest to identify local values, and ciety which needed to be assessed and managed (MA, 2005). Sense of
analysis of them is used to discern a number of problems with the place was defined in the MA report, along with other cultural ecosystem
conceptual framework of cultural ecosystem services, such as the lack services, as a ‘nonmaterial benefit of ecosystems’, which people valued
of recognition that cultural services are the outcome of human per- through associations with ‘recognized features of their environment,
ception and valuation as well as biophysical features. Other narrative including aspects of the ecosystem’ (40). It is also included in the global
sources of information about cultural ecosystem services have been study of biodiversity loss, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
developed through questionnaire surveys and interviews, which have (TEEB), in which cultural ecosystem services are divided into four
focused on place-based values, and have demonstrated the potential to groups, one of which is ‘Spiritual experience and sense of place’, which
elicit information about emotional connections with natural features, as is briefly explained: ‘Nature is a common element of all major religions;
well as perceptions of connections to well-being, heritage, and identity natural landscapes also form local identity and sense of belonging’
(Gee and Burkhard, 2010; Ratter and Gee, 2012). (TEEB, 2010). TEEB began as an initiative of the German government in

2
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

collaboration with the European Commission. In the USA, however, the harvesting, which would conventionally be categorized in ecosystem
National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) does not services as either a provisioning or recreational service. The ‘non-
include any reference to sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service material’ definition of sense of place associates place values with the
(NESCS, 2015). Nor is sense of place included in the Common Inter- feelings derived from static features such as ‘ocean views’, which Poe
national Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), developed for the et al. critique as overlooking how place values are underpinned by is-
European Environment Agency by Haines-Young and Potschin, in any sues of ‘access, knowledge and ecological integrity’ (410). Instead, Poe
of its iterations since 2009 (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018a). Both et al. emphasize a ‘practice-based’ and ‘meaning-based’ approach to
the NESCS and CICES aim to be as comprehensive as possible, to fa- sense of place. In this definition, sense of place is created and main-
cilitate widespread adoption, so the absence of sense of place or similar tained through activities conducted within an ecosystem, including
categorizations of the importance of ecosystems to local identities as a interactions such as swimming, boating, walking, shellfish harvesting,
service in itself is a significant omission. CICES does make reference in and bird watching, and those activities are inseparable from their place-
its classification of cultural ecosystem services to ‘environmental set- making functions. There is a similar call for understanding sense of
tings’, however, which may be understood to approximate to sense of place as ‘practice-based’ in the review by Masterson et al. of the sig-
place as a spatially-specific median concept between the biophysical nificance of research on place for social-ecological systems research
processes of ecosystems and the opportunities for cultural benefits they (Masterson et al., 2017). One of the key recommendations of the article
provide. This was introduced in CICES v.4 as an adoption of the UK is to insist that ‘although values and cognitions are subjectively held
National Ecosystem Assessment explanation of cultural ecosystem ser- and vary within a population and among characteristics of a place, this
vices as ‘the environmental settings that give rise to the cultural goods variation is systematic and can therefore be measured’, and on this basis
and benefits that people obtain from ecosystems’ (UK NEA, 2011, 634). to call for research which develops ‘integrated methods and indicators
In the guidance notes for the latest version of CICES (v.5.1), the defi- that could make these phenomena more tangible and measurable
nition of cultural ecosystem services implies a closer relationship be- without neglecting the subjective, qualitative nature of sense of place’
tween ‘environmental settings’ and the feelings of attachment, be- (49). One limitation of the approach taken by Masterson et al. is that
longing or identity associated with place: ‘Cultural services are there is little engagement with phenomenological approaches to un-
primarily regarded as the environmental settings, locations or situations derstanding how sense of place is constructed, maintained, and prac-
that give rise to changes in the physical or mental states of people, tised. However, it is clear that recent work on sense of place in relation
where the character of those settings is fundamentally dependent on to ecosystem services emphasizes a materialist understanding of sense
living processes; they can involve individual species, habitats and of place as co-produced in human-nature interactions, and as mani-
whole ecosystems’ (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018b). However, even fested through cultural practices and meanings. This is broadly in line
if this can be interpreted as akin to, or inclusive of, sense of place, with the conceptualization of cultural ecosystem services offered by
‘environmental settings’ has only a conceptual role in the CICES clas- Fish et al. (2016a) as ‘relational processes and entities that people ac-
sification, and is not in itself ‘counted’ as a final ecosystem benefit. This tively create and express through interactions with ecosystems’ (211).
is particularly out of step with strong evidence of the impact of sig- Concurrent with the development of sense of place research in
nificant ecosystem change on sense of place, in the case of overfishing ecosystem services, the environmental humanities have embraced
or natural disasters, for example (See for examples Micklin, 1988, phenomenological research on place, but with a particular emphasis on
Longo and Clark, 2012, and Knez et al., 2018). materialist manifestations of place-attachment from environmental
The argument for a more comprehensive integration of sense of perspectives (Bate, 2000; Garrard, 2004; Malpas, 2010). Such concepts
place into ecosystem services research and assessment has been made in as ‘bioregionalism’, ‘local distinctiveness’, ‘re-inhabitation’, ‘land ethic’,
four recent articles (Urquhart and Acott, 2014; Hausmann et al., 2016; and ‘dwelling’, which have expressed the commitments of environ-
Poe et al., 2016; Masterson et al., 2017). Urquhart and Acott examined mental movements to recuperating strong ties between culture and
the significance of sense of place to fishing communities in Cornwall, ecology through sense of place, have been developed as critical con-
and through semi-structured interviews gathered information on how cepts in the environmental humanities. The distinction between space
individual and collective identities and place attachment was depen- and place has been crucial to the contribution of humanities research to
dent upon historic and contemporary fishing practices (Urquhart and environmental thought. Libby Robin provides the following distinction,
Acott, 2014). The article finds that the cultural significance of sense of for example: ‘space is something measurable: it is amenable to Geo-
place, as defined by fishing practices, sometimes takes precedence over graphic Information Systems and other spatial tools. Place is not mea-
economic interests: ‘Understanding this deep attachment to fishing and surable in this way. It is defined by the relations between the country
its role in defining identity may partly explain why some fishers are and the people who perceive it’ (Robin, 2012, p. 74). Place is co-pro-
reluctant to diversify into other activities when fishing is no longer duced by ecological and cultural processes, and requires an under-
viable and why they often do not operate according to economic ra- standing of how meanings, knowledge, and values are formed and
tionale’ (Urquhart and Acott, 2014, p. 11). Hausmann et al. identify communicated about specific places, as well as the particular ecosystem
sense of place as ‘one of the most neglected cultural services’, and make features and functions on which those places depend. That place is co-
a strong case for its importance to conservation decision-making produced is an important difference from what Tim Ingold has de-
(Hausmann et al., 2016, p. 118). The article also reports a strong cor- scribed as the ‘sterile opposition between the naturalistic view of the
relation between ‘people’s commitment to places’ and ‘pro-environ- landscape as a neutral, external backdrop to human activities, and the
mental behaviour, responsible use of resources and waste reduction’ culturalistic view that every landscape is a particular cognitive or
(120: see also Devine-Wright and Howes, 2010). They conclude with a symbolic ordering of space’ (Ingold, 2000, p. 189). The ‘naturalistic
call for ‘improved assessment and knowledge of the benefits that bio- view’ Ingold cites is clearly at work in the CICES concept of ‘environ-
diversity-related experiences provide as a sense of place’, in the ex- mental settings’, although it is also common to find in more traditional
pectation that this may ‘uncover positive benefits for both biodiversity humanities approaches a similar view of the environment as a mere
conservation and human well-being’ (123; see also Kudryavtsev et al., setting for human endeavour. For the environmental humanities, a key
2012). Poe et al. begin their study with a crucial distinction between motivation is to break down the idea that nature and culture are binary
understanding sense of place as a ‘nonmaterial’ benefit, as it is widely opposites, and to explore instead the implications of thinking of
defined in ecosystem services frameworks, and as a series of ‘material humanity as dependent upon environment, and of the environment as a
and social interactions with ecosystems’ (Poe et al., 2016, p. 410). The domain which is as much cultural as ecological. This is particularly
latter is important for their study of sense of place in Puget Sound, evident in current work informed by new materialist approaches (see
where residents associate place values strongly with shellfish Iovino and Oppermann, 2012; Alaimo, 2010; Cohen, 2015). For this

3
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

reason, place as a social-ecological construct, as a site of entanglement island; and both grey and harbour seals use the island as haul-out lo-
between human and nonhuman natures, is a key concept in the en- cations.
vironmental humanities. The environmental and social pressures on Dublin Bay include dis-
Building on phenomenological approaches to place (largely influ- charges of waste and warm water from industrial facilities in the port
enced by Heideggerian philosophies of being-in-place, or dwelling), the area, nitrogen pollution carried downriver from farming activities, litter
environmental humanities research on place can be summarized in four from extensive recreation use and the adjacent urban population, dis-
key tenets: turbance of habitats from social and recreational use of coastal spaces,
the risk of spills and contaminations from shipping in the port area,
1) Places are ‘material things’, made up of objects, the activities we coastal erosion, floods, and sea level rise.
perform there, and the social relations we build and maintain
(Casey, 1997, pp. ix–x);
2) Places are also socially produced, through representations, mem- 3.2. Conceptual approach
ories, buildings, social networks, and other place-making activities
(Casey, 2000, pp. 214–215); There are four key research methods outlined below which elicit
3) Sense of Place is a dynamic temporal as well as spatial process, an qualitative data of the kind not usually included in ecosystem services
assemblage of materials, connections, flows, ideas, and feelings, research and assessment, and which we found useful to the evaluation
which is constantly changing (Harvey, 1996, p. 303); and integration of sense of place (See Fig. 2). These can be divided into
4) Sense of Place is a primary and constitutive condition of existence, two broad themes: observational and participatory research, and co-
the locus indeed of how we perceive, understand, and engage with authored mapping. In combination, these methods provide access to
the world around us (Malpas, 1999, pp. 31–32; Heidegger, 2001, p. information about a diversity of values and benefits, enable researchers
145; Cresswell, 2015, p. 50). and participants the scope to articulate and explain place-based values,
and facilitate identification and mapping of shared and prevailing va-
These tenets concerning sense of place imply a need within the lues. We propose these methods as a series of steps, which develop both
ecosystem assessment framework to afford greater significance to sense the capacity to generate and analyse new information about cultural
of place as a cultural ecosystem service in its own right, to nest other ecosystem services, and also the capacity to engage communities-of-
cultural ecosystem benefits within sense of place, and to develop re- interest in participatory research. Engaging communities-of interest
search practices which can accommodate both the material and socially through informal meetings, interviews, focus groups, and surveys also
produced nature of sense of place. In the next section, we will explain has the potential to encourage a sense of ‘ownership’ of the discourse of
how our research practices have been developed from these tenets, and value in their local environments. We use maps as a key integrative tool
demonstrate how we have tested specific forms of research practice for interaction between disciplines, and between researchers and par-
appropriate to the collection and analysis of evidence of sense of place ticipants, enabling us to identify spatially-specific patterns in the pro-
for the purposes of ecosystem services research. vision, perception, and use of cultural ecosystem services. Through
showing the patterns of shared cultural values of coastal ecosystems,
3. Materials and methods specifically around sense of place, and the historical basis of these
patterns through cultural representations, we aim to enhance the ca-
3.1. Dublin Bay UNESCO biosphere reserve pacity of the ecosystem services framework to integrate effective as-
sessment of a broader range of cultural ecosystem services.
This research paper focuses on methods of researching sense of The methods set out below (3.3 and 3.4) were used in combination
place as a cultural ecosystem service. These methods were tested as part to provide a framework in which narrative and cartographical modes of
of a research project funded by the Irish Research Council in the Irish knowledge could be synthesized. For example, maps were used as sti-
Sea area on the cultural value of coastlines. Our principal case study muli in surveys and interviews to prompt participants to articulate
area was Dublin Bay, on the western shores of the Irish Sea (See Fig. 1). memories, associations or experiences that are place-bound. In addi-
Encompassing the capital city of Ireland with a population of 1.2 tion, much of the findings about place-based values elicited from sur-
million people, the bay is horseshoe-shaped, extending from the rocky veys, cultural representations, and interviews can be represented car-
shores of the Hill of Howth in the North, and around to Dalkey Hill in tographically and to some extent quantitatively. We used these methods
the South. The interior shores of the bay are characterised by extensive, not just because they provided access to types of knowledge which are
shallow sands, known as the North and South Bulls, which are widely vital to, and currently underdeveloped in, the ecosystem services fra-
used by Dubliners for recreational activities. The bay is estuary to three mework, but also because they engender participatory and inclusive
main rivers – the Liffey, the Tolka, and the Dodder – and is also home to approaches to ecosystem services research. Part of the challenge in
an island, North Bull Island, which was formed in the nineteenth cen- adopting these methodologies is ensuring that they are also attributed
tury as a result of the development of the port infrastructure. The bay with the same level of importance as numerical and monetary valua-
was designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 2015, which was an tions.
extension of an existing UNESCO Biosphere designation of North Bull We used the CICES framework to classify cultural ecosystem ser-
Island which dated from 1981. The island is the most heavily desig- vices identified in our research. The CICES framework was selected over
nated location in Ireland in terms of environmental legislation. It was the classifications proposed in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
designated Ireland’s first bird sanctuary in 1931, and became a national and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity because it (a) is the
nature reserve in 1988. It was also designated as a RAMSAR site for most finely divided and explicit in relation to cultural services, (b) has a
wetlands conservation in 1988, and under EU legislation it has been greater emphasis on how humans interact with ecosystems as part of the
designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special process of deriving benefits from them, (c) is the most operational and
Protection Area for Birds (SPA). The ecological characteristics which the one most widely applied, particularly in a European context, and (d)
warrant these measures of protection include high quality rare and is an organic framework that continues to evolve and be updated with
threatened coastal habitats, such as salt marshes, lagoonal mud and input from a spectrum of researchers and practitioners. It has also been
sand flats, and actively accreting dune systems (unique in Ireland), with specifically designed to be complementary to and inter-operable with
associated flora and fauna; bird species of international importance, the other systems, such that the findings we present can easily be drawn
such as Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, and Light-bellied Brent into them.
Geese, and large numbers of waders and wildfowl who breed on the

4
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

Fig. 1. Map of Dublin Bay.

3.3. Observational and participatory research 3.3.2. Interviews and focus groups with communities-of-Interest
Based on engagement with local communities through transect
3.3.1. Observational and experiential study of place walks, surveys, and social media contacts, more detailed and expansive
As an interdisciplinary research team combining ecological and focus groups and open interviews were conducted. The interviews and
cultural expertise, we visited and traversed key sites around the Bay focus groups were used to build relationships with communities-of-in-
and observed for evidence of built heritage, cultural uses and activities, terest, as well as to gain valuable insight into local issues and contexts.
signage, patterns of development or neglect, and indications of how We developed our engagement strategy from the framework proposed
communities organized or managed coastal social spaces. This method by Lopes and Videira (2013) for maritime ecosystem services research
of getting to know a place is described by the nature writer, Barry and decision-making. As cultural values of place and environment tend
Lopez, as ‘an old business, walking slowly over the land with an ap- to be bundled and interdependent, interviews which elicit more ex-
preciation of its immediacy to the senses and in anticipation of what lies pansive discursive responses can be useful ways of identifying values
hidden in it’ (Lopez, 1986, p. 254). It allowed the team to check coastal and benefits not captured fully in the ecosystem services framework,
walks, amenities and habitats against maps and existing data, and to and also of addressing management and policy contexts in more detail.
formulate questions from our different disciplinary perspectives about Gould et al. (2015) have argued for the important role such interviews
how cultural ecosystem services were dependent upon ecosystem con- can play in enriching understanding of the results of more closed sur-
ditions and functions. The observational and experiential study of place veys, and recommend structuring interviews with the use of maps and
was also significantly enhanced by four ‘transect’ walks, in which situational and prompt questions. We conducted informal, open inter-
members of the team walked and talked with four different local ex- views with a nature reserve manager (Bull Island Nature Reserve), a
perts in coastal and maritime heritage to identify local natural and heritage manager (Dublin Port), and a group of museum volunteers
cultural features in the case study area, and to consider how cultural (National Maritime Museum).
benefits derived from the coastal ecosystem had changed over time. We conducted a focus group with advisors identified through
Information and advice gleaned from these walks helped to shape the transect walks, stakeholder relationships and surveys. The focus group
survey questions we devised (see 3.4.1), but they were conducted on an in Dublin Bay consisted of ten multi-sector experts and policy decision-
informal basis as preparatory meetings and were not recorded. Three of makers in the Dublin Bay area, which included a range of people from
the local experts involved then took part in our focus group (see 3.3.2 local government, environmental management, cultural and maritime
below). Visiting key sites and talking with local experts were important heritage, and those with local cultural and historical expertise. The
correctives to the ‘abstracted’ tendency of remote forms of information focus group was comprised of three parts: 1) A discussion of the ‘cul-
gathering, and enabled us to build good relations with local groups of tural values’ of Dublin Bay; 2) Participatory mapping of those values;
coastal users and residents around the Bay. and 3) Discussion of the key issues, future challenges and policy context

5
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

Fig. 2. Research Framework for Sense of Place.

for the bay. With permission from participants, we recorded the dis- questions asking participants about their interaction with Dublin Bay
cussion in full on video and audio, and participants also completed a and their views on changes to the bay and management issues. How-
written survey giving short summaries of their responses to the ques- ever, we also designed the survey to be sufficiently concise to encourage
tions discussed. as many participants as possible to complete it, and to foster goodwill
between the researchers and participants. The survey questions were
3.4. Co-authored mapping accompanied by a map of the Bay on which participants were invited to
indicate the specific routes or locations they prefer to visit, and those
3.4.1. Map-based surveys of social and cultural values they prefer to avoid, and to specify briefly the reasons why. There were
Based on observational and experiential study, a map-based survey advantages to both the field and online versions of the survey. The
(see appendix) was designed for field and online use, which sought to online survey was efficient, remote, and easy to spread via social media
collect data from participants about activities, heritage, values and to various interest groups, and the majority of our participants com-
benefits of the site under investigation. The survey was tested and re- pleted the online version, but it was difficult to ensure adequate par-
vised in January and February of 2018, and then data was collected ticipation and completion. The field survey took considerable time and
from the survey between March and May 2018, by which time 231 effort on the part of the research team, and there were fewer partici-
participants had completed responses. The information gathered from pants, but participants tend to complete the survey, provide longer and
the survey included anonymous data about the participant (age range, more detailed answers, and often shared more insights about their ex-
gender, and area of residence), the cultural activities and values the periences of cultural benefits and ecosystem changes than they might
participant associates with the Bay, the participant’s perception of the have done online. For this reason, and because field and online versions
relationship between cultural values and the ecological health of the of the survey can reach different target groups of participants, the
Bay, and the participant’s understanding of how the Bay is managed. combination of field and online versions of the survey is recommended.
The survey comprised a combination of multiple-choice and open The map-based survey we used invited participants to identify the

6
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

key cultural benefits they associated with the coastal locations they identify only those works which make substantial reference to, or de-
visited. We used the latest version of the CICES classification (5.1) to piction of, coastal locations around the Bay, and the extent to which
codify the cultural ecosystem services we identified, with the exception they meaningfully represent the bay by attributing particular traits,
that we added a separate category for sense of place as a distinctive associations, values, or feelings. The data yielded from this search
cultural ecosystem service. In our analysis of both the map-based survey method is by no means exhaustive, as comprehensive databases of art
and cultural representations of Dublin Bay, we defined sense of place as and literature classified by location are not common or reliable. The
the attachment of particular emotions, ideas, or experiences with de- filtered results amounted to 160 works, which consisted of 54 paintings,
fined locations which had distinctive identities. The importance af- 50 fictional works (novels and short stories), 49 poems or poetic works,
forded to sense of place as a discrete ecosystem benefit can be identified and 7 literary works of other miscellaneous kinds. We did not include
from the responses to the survey. The survey included an open question: topographical, academic, or educational texts in the results as we fo-
‘Why does the marine and coastal environment in Dublin Bay matter to cused only on those works which could be classified as cultural, aes-
you?’ It was important to our study that participants were not simply thetic, or literary representations.
given the opportunity to tick a box identifying sense of place as a We analysed the 160 cultural representations we identified of par-
benefit, as this is less commonly understood than ‘recreation’ or ‘contact ticular places in the Bay for patterns of changing conditions, changing
with nature’ for example. Yet, walking along the coast, or swimming in uses, or changing perceptions of the coast and seascape. The analysis
the Bay, may indeed enhance a participant’s attachment to, and ap- consisted of identifying the location and time period represented in
preciation of the distinctive identity of, particular places. The open each cultural representation, situating the representation in relation to
question, therefore, gave participants the freedom to choose their own historical and cultural context, and classifying the values or feelings
terminology to explain how they value the marine and coastal en- associated with the coastal area depicted as clearly as possible within
vironment, and added a narrative-based dimension to the results shown the CICES classification. In the case of some cultural representations,
on the map. classification is relatively easy: scenic appreciation is evident in most
paintings which take a seascape as their subject, for example. There is
3.4.2. Survey and analysis of cultural representations of place often more than one cultural ecosystem service evident in a painting or
As a novel form of evidence for cultural ecosystem services, we novel, however, and it is difficult to distinguish between some classes.
sought to incorporate analysis of cultural representations (principally We defined the criteria for identifying sense of place in cultural
art and literature) into our study of Dublin Bay. Because sense of place representations as 1) the place had to be named specifically or clearly
may be difficult to articulate, and also because sense of place is often identifiable from distinguishing characteristics so as not to be confused
intricately linked to history, cultural identity and social relations, cul- by the reader or viewer with any other place; 2) the place had to be
tural representations are invaluable sources of evidence. Cultural re- attached in the representation with particular feelings, ideas or ex-
presentations potentially include all forms of visual, written, sculptural, periences which were particularly relevant to that place in cultural and
and aural forms of artistic and material endeavour which make present, historical context; and 3) the affinities with place depicted in the re-
stand for, or symbolize a specific time, place, person or other life form. presentation had to clearly depend upon biophysical features, whether
It includes literature, theatre, painting, sculpture, music, photography, biotic or abiotic. We analysed the distribution and intensity of cultural
and film, as forms which make public art from this process of em- representations in relation to sense of place by mapping the key loca-
bodying or symbolising to the mind the thing depicted. Cultural re- tions represented in art and literature, and compared how works of art
presentations are embedded in particular ways of life: they reflect, or literature represented places around Dublin Bay across the last two
shape and amplify how particular social groups or communities attri- centuries. Cultural representations are vital sources of what stories and
bute meaning and value to the world around them. While individual images people associate with place, especially pertaining to the social,
works of art, literature or music are usually the product of one person’s historical, or cultural bonds between a community and its environment,
imaginative engagement with the thing or place depicted, and therefore and to defining features of cultural identity and heritage.
may be understood as subjective, every artist and every work of artistic
imagination is the result of a complex social and cultural process, and is 4. Results and discussion
therefore readable as both symptomatic and expressive of its historical,
social, and environmental contexts. The depth, type and number of 4.1. Sense of place in map-based surveys
cultural representations of places may vary widely, but identifying and
analysing cultural representations can provide access to how environ- Using a map-based survey enabled us to obtain a clear graphic re-
ments are imbued in human memory and psychology not just with presentation of the locations around Dublin Bay which respondents
physical and ecological characteristics (as sources of food or shelter, for identified as their favoured places to visit and use (see Fig. 3).
example), but with social, emotional, spiritual, and aesthetic meanings, Of the 231 participants who took the survey, 14 did not answer the
which may be as real and embedded in those environments as any question about the cultural benefits they associated with particular
physical characteristics. locations. Many of the 217 respondents mentioned multiple benefits,
We used databases of art and literary works (AHI, EBSCO, IMDB, which confirms findings that cultural ecosystem services are often
JSTOR, LION, MLA, as well as national, university and local library bundled or overlapping (Bieling, 2014, p. 213; Tengberg et al., 2012).
catalogues, and the use of full-text search facilities at archive.org, For example, one respondent answered ‘Essential recreational space
Amazon and Google Books), to identify those works which represented and essential biodiversity site’, which we counted under both ‘recrea-
coastal locations around Dublin Bay. We focused only on cultural re- tion’ and ‘care for the environment’. The most common benefits refer-
presentations produced since 1750, so that we could track changing enced were recreational benefits (30%), and amenity benefits (such as
patterns of cultural value across a meaningful expanse of historical access to beaches or the sea: 22%). Sense of Place, or aspects of local
time, but within the scope of modern environmental history (i.e. since distinctiveness, were referenced 40 times (14%) (see Fig. 4). The dis-
the industrial revolution and modern urbanization patterns). We sear- tribution of locations which respondents identified with particular
ched for place-names around the Bay (Dublin Bay, Howth, Sutton, cultural benefits shows that these benefits are understood to be closely
Kilbarrack, Clontarf, Dollymount, Bull Island, Fairview, Dublin Port, tied to particular places, and often to particular landscape or seascape
Ringsend, Irishtown, Sandymount, Booterstown, Blackrock, features. The map-based survey revealed the locations which partici-
Monkstown, Dun Laoghaire, Glasthule, Sandycove, and Dalkey) in the pants favoured, but the open questions enabled us to gain a deeper
meta-data and full-text search facilities. The results of these searches sense of the bonds which participants felt with particular places.
were filtered through analysis of each artwork or literary text to The expressions used to indicate sense of place were varied. Place

7
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

Fig. 3. The online version of the map-based survey was built using the free Ushahidi platform, which enabled us to see which locations respondents identified as their
favoured places to visit or use. The coloured circles indicate the number of responses, coded according to density (green for less than 10, yellow for less than 100, and
red for 100 and above). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

was mentioned directly in some, such as ‘It’s a place I love and value express their own sense of value, providing a rich source of qualitative
hugely’. In others, the value of place is implicit in the articulation of evidence of cultural ecosystem services, and giving respondents a better
belonging: ‘It is the landscape of my life’. Such expressions differ sense of ownership of the survey. Many respondents also uploaded
completely from many of the answers which indicated the amenity or photographs of their favourite coastal locations, with captions in-
recreational value of Dublin Bay, where it is often clear that the Bay just dicating what these locations meant to them personally. The survey was
happens to be the coastal location in which people are able to benefit not therefore just a process of collecting information, but also of en-
from amenities or recreational opportunities which are also available riching how people engaged with the process of thinking about and
elsewhere (for example, one respondent wrote: ‘I grew up on the Irish caring for their local environment. As a general limitation, of course, it
Atlantic coast, and Dublin Bay allows me share my love of the ocean should be noted that those respondents most likely to contribute rich
with my children’). In contrast, sense of place is where valued socio- qualitative data through the survey are probably not a representative
ecological characteristics are inseparable from a particular identity, for sample. However, the quantitative data shows sufficient clustering of
example in one comment that the marine and coastal environment of locations preferred and cultural ecosystem services identified to have
Dublin Bay was ‘an integral part of Dublin City’. Distinctiveness and validity for at least significant groups of people.
pride indicate a strong sense of belonging and sense of place in some
comments, such as ‘It is a beautiful amenity which is available free to all
4.2. Sense of place in cultural representations
and which marks Dublin as different from other European capital ci-
ties’, and ‘It is a unique place that should be protected and cherished’.
In our survey of cultural representations, the importance of sense of
Such expressions of belonging and distinctiveness give an important
place values can be expressed in quantitative terms as a result of our
indicator of the value which participants attribute in narrative forms to
classification of representations according to the CICES index (5.1) with
places. The open format questions therefore enabled respondents to
some modification.

8
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

around the Bay reveals some key hotspots, which correlate closely with
the distribution of favoured coastal locations in our map-based surveys
(Fig. 6). The distribution of sense of place values varies considerably in
proportion to the total number of cultural representations of each lo-
cation (Fig. 7). Given the low numbers involved for some locations,
they are not necessarily indicative of the strength of place attachments
to those locations. Perhaps understandably, representations of Dublin
Bay itself as a watery space tend to be more heavily associated with
scenic values than place values – only 7 of the 48 cultural representa-
tions of Dublin Bay registered place values. On the other hand, the
majority of cultural representations of coastal residential areas such as
Ringsend, Sandymount Strand and Dun Laoghaire registered place va-
lues more than any other cultural services. As a method of demon-
strating patterns in the distribution of cultural ecosystem services, this
mapping of cultural representations is useful to consider when com-
bined with the distribution maps from our participatory survey, and
also with the maps showing key biophysical features and other eco-
system services. Taken together, our findings from the participatory
survey and analysis of cultural representations confirm that aesthetic
and cultural benefits of ecosystems are not just a matter of subjective
and personal preferences, but as Cooper et al. argued, they are ‘socially
shared values… and the outcome of historical processes in shared cul-
Fig. 4. Responses to the Survey Question - Why does the marine and coastal
tures’ (2016, p. 225).
environment in Dublin Bay matter to you? There were 217 responses overall:
this graph shows the proportion of responses which referenced each category. While the maps showing quantitative indicators of place-attachment
are useful ways of showing spatial distributions and concentrations of
sense of place, they need to be combined with qualitative modes of
Fig. 5 shows that sense of place is of major significance as a cultural knowledge to provide a greater sense of depth. Landscape or seascape
ecosystem service identifiable in cultural representations. It is also often paintings are an especially rich source of information about what as-
bundled with other cultural ecosystem services. This finding is parti- pects of the coast have been appreciated over time. Seascape studies of
cularly important given that it is not currently classified in CICES as a Dublin Bay became popular in the late eighteenth century, and continue
distinct cultural ecosystem service, and our research suggests that it to be popular with contemporary artists today. It is clear that the aes-
should be. As mentioned above, the cultural representations surveyed thetics of the seascape have been a key source of inspiration for artists,
consist mainly of visual art (paintings) and literary works (fiction and and that several abiotic traits are attractive, including the quality of
poetry). It is perhaps not surprising that scenic appreciation tends to be light, the conditions of the sea (calm or rough), the colours of the
closely associated with visual art, and the more nuanced expressions of seawater, and the sense of space. In addition, the particular shape and
sense of place are more likely to be found in fictional and poetic works. forms of the Dublin Bay seascape depicted in paintings convey a strong
As is the case with the open format questions used in the survey (see sense of place. For example, Dublin Bay Study 2 (Fig. 8) by con-
4.1), this highlights the significant role that narrative forms of evidence temporary artist, Irina Kuksova, combines the iconic chimneys of the
could play in research on cultural ecosystem services. Ringsend power station with the rim of Wicklow mountains in the
The distribution of cultural representations of sense of place values background, with the flat, shallow sands of the North Bull in the

Fig. 5. Percentage of cultural ecosystem services evident in Cultural Representations of Dublin Bay.

9
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

Fig. 6. Dublin Bay – top shows the density of cultural representations associated with each location, while bottom shows the density of cultural representations in
which sense of place is a key value.

foreground, to evoke sense of place. It is not just scenic appreciation, considerably in extent and depth. In some works, there is a strong as-
which might be of any scenic view appreciated aesthetically, but the sociation of emotional bonds with a particular place depicted, which
specific identifying characteristics of this place which are figured in the makes clear that the emotional or cultural benefits represented are in-
painting. separable from that place. In W.H. Drummond’s poem, Clontarf (1822),
The representation of sense of place in literary works varies for example, the poet writes ‘Clontarf, I hail thee. In thy pure and

10
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

Fig. 7. The proportion of cultural representations of each location which register sense of place as a key value.

fragrant breeze, my soul feels buoyant’, and proceeds to praise the Armada. Unwholesome sandflats waited to suck his treading soles,
various aspects of Clontarf’s shore which contribute to his emotions breathing upward sewage breath. He coasted them, walking warily.
(Drummond, 1822, pp. 1–2). It is clear that the distinctive qualities of A porter-bottle stood up, stogged to its waist, in the cakey sand
this singular place account for his pleasure, and not just the activities or dough. A sentinel: isle of dreadful thirst. Broken hoops on the shore;
amenities available to him. There are also more complex representa- at the land a maze of dark cunning nets; farther away chalkscrawled
tions of the interdependencies of ecosystems and sense of place, such as backdoors and on the higher beach a dryingline with two crucified
in this passage from James Joyce’s novel, Ulysses (1993): shirts. Ringsend: wigwams of brown steersmen and master mariners.
Human shells. (Joyce, 1993, p. 119)
The grainy sand had gone from under his feet. His boots trod again a
damp crackling mast, razorshells, squeaking pebbles, that on the One key tension between existing Ecosystem Services frameworks
unnumbered pebbles beats, wood sieved by the shipworm, lost and cultural representations such as these is the ability to isolate and

Fig. 8. Irina Kuksova, Dublin Bay Study 2. By kind permission of the artist.

11
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

prioritize one service over another. The above passage might be un- project website (www.culturalvalueofcoastlines.com), and have been
derstood to register the inspiration Joyce derived from the Dublin Bay demonstrated to be useful tools with stakeholder groups for identifying
coastline, or to depict his character deriving educational value from it. aspects of coastal cultural heritage which depend upon ecosystem
Sense of place is significant because it allows for the overlapping of health and biodiversity, and which are potentially liable to change or
multiple cultural ecosystem services, and accommodates more holistic loss. We used them with our focus group, for example, to stimulate
sources of evidence and indicators in ecosystem services assessment. discussion about what people value in the Bay, and how the cultural
Sense of place allows cumulative depictions of how a text derives cul- history of interaction with the sea and the coast might be used to en-
tural benefits from a particular environmental location. The location of courage people to care more for their coastal environment.
the passage is Sandymount Strand, which is part of the South Bull, and
the North and South Bulls of Dublin Bay reputedly get their name from 5. Conclusions
the association of the sounds of the waves with the hoof-beats of a bull;
Joyce here focuses our attention on the beats of Stephen’s walk along This paper set out to develop a conceptual and practical framework
the shore, and this sound of foot- or hoof-beats is part of the image for investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service, drawing
system of the chapter; the ‘isle of blessed thirst’ is an allusion to ancient upon both narrative and cartographical modes of knowledge. It is clear
Irish myths about the ‘isles of the blessed’, specifically associated with from our results that the spatial locations and extent of emotional bonds
sea-voyages; the driftwood and thoughts of the lost armada may be said with place can be captured through map-based surveys and the map-
to register the notoriety of Dublin Bay as the historic location of many ping of locations represented in art and literature, and that depth can be
shipwrecks, a crucial context for the modern shape of Dublin Port with added to our understanding of those bonds through qualitative forms
its North and South Walls. There is no question that the sensory and such as open questions and closer engagement with the place-specific
cultural pleasures which Joyce depicts in this passage are unique and meanings and values depicted in cultural representations. The argu-
distinctive to this place, and that literary texts of this kind can be used ments above are made in the context of evolving ambitions in eco-
as evidence for how we understand the uniqueness of place. One lim- system services research to address the full range of ecosystem services
itation upon this methodology, however, is that the volume of cultural (most studies remain focused on a limited number of services), and to
representations specific to place is highly dependent on density of po- transition to an understanding of ecosystem assessment as necessarily
pulation. As a relatively large urban centre adjoining a coastline of involving public engagement. The expected trend towards more holistic
considerable variety and scenic attractiveness, Dublin provided an or comprehensive forms of assessment, and towards participatory
ample number of cultural representations of coastal locations. In less modes of ecosystem research, brings added weight to the importance of
densely populated areas, however, cultural representations might be sense of place as a distinct category of cultural ecosystem services. This
commissioned in the form of short story writing competitions in the paper invites consideration of the conceptual basis for understanding
manner described in Bieling’s Swabian Alb study (Bieling, 2014), or the importance of sense of place, and suggests some of the methods for
photography or art competitions. The sourcing of artistic and literary qualitative research which are key to identifying and analysing how
representations can be difficult, but there are a growing number of place attachment and social bonds are interlinked with the active
digital archives of art and literature which are searchable by location processes of nature.
and keyword, which will make it easier to identify and catalogue arts The broader ambition for this conceptualization and methodological
and humanities evidence of cultural ecosystem services. outline of sense of place research is to widen the disciplinary range of
ecosystem services research to include the arts and humanities, in order
4.3. Integrating cultural evidence of cultural ecosystem services to better source the cultural evidence for cultural ecosystem services.
There are clear advantages to conducting this research using integrated
As indicated above, there are quantitative indicators of the strength research teams, consisting of researchers from the environmental sci-
of particular cultural ecosystem services associated with specific loca- ences and environmental humanities, and working in partnership with
tions which we can derive from both participant surveys and studies of community groups and local stakeholders to engender participatory
cultural representations. In addition, the project sought to develop ways research methods. Research on cultural ecosystem services remains
of presenting and integrating qualitative analyses of our results. In the relatively underdeveloped. The survey of CICES users conducted by
study of Dublin Bay, we used StoryMaps to construct spatially-specific Haines-Young in 2016 identified ‘cultural ecosystem services’ as ‘the
narratives of the cultural benefits associated with the Bay. The most frequently cited area of the classification that caused concern’
StoryMaps are important tools for both synthesizing environmental and (Haines-Young, 2016, p. 4), with particular concerns expressed about a
cultural information, by showing, for example, the spatial relationship lack of clear terminology, a lack of direction about where to categorize
between ecosystem habitats and cultural services, and also temporal such cultural benefits as ‘local identity, sense of place, or attachment to
narratives of historical changes in cultural services. For example, cul- a landscape’, and a lack of clarity about ‘to whom’ benefits were at-
tural representations showed a strong historical presence of cockle tributable. A broader and more qualitative range of cultural evidence,
picking and fishing within the Bay, which declined as a result of the and a deeper understanding of how culture and nature co-produce
degradation of the marine environment due to untreated human ef- identity and place, will enable ecosystem service researchers to address
fluent and refuse dumping. The dune system on Bull Island appears in these gaps.
our analysis of the social surveys and cultural representations to sup-
port a range of cultural activities (not all of which are easily categorized Acknowledgements
in the ecosystem services framework), but which would be threatened
by coastal erosion and sea level rise in the near future. Our StoryMap of This article is based on research undertaken as part of the ‘Cultural
cultural representations of Dublin Bay allowed us to show prominent Value of Coastlines’ project hosted by UCD Earth Institute and UCD
themes in the history of how people have engaged with the sea – as a Humanities Institute (University College Dublin), and funded by the
working space, as a leisure space, as a space for contemplation, as Irish Research Council New Horizons Scheme (REPRO/2016/46),
‘edgelands’ or wild space, and as an emotional landscape. We were also 2016–2018.
able to show through StoryMaps that some of the activities people as-
sociate most closely with the coast – such as seaside walks, swimming, Appendix A. Supplementary data
or pleasure boating – are relatively recent historical developments
(there are no cultural representations of such activities that we could Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
find prior to the 1820s). StoryMaps for the project are available on the doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100907.

12
F. Ryfield, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100907

References Iovino, Serenella, Oppermann, Serpil, 2012. Material ecocriticism: materiality, agency,
and models of narrativity. Ecozon@ 3.1, 75–91.
Joyce, James, 1993. Ulysses. Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford.
Alaimo, Stacy, 2010. Bodily Natures: Science, Environment and the Material Self. Indiana King, Helen P., Morris, Joe, Graves, Anil, Bradbury, Richard B., McGinlay, James, Bullock,
University Press, Bloomington. James M., 2017. Biodiversity and cultural ecosystem benefits in lowland landscapes
Bate, Jonathan, 2000. The Song of the Earth. Picador, London. in southern England. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 185–197.
Bieling, Claudia, 2014. Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from Knez, I., Butler, A., Ode Sang, Å., Ångman, E., Sarlöv Herlin, I., Åkerskog, A., 2018.
residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany). Ecosyst. Serv. 8, 207–215. Before and after a natural disaster: disruption in emotion component of place-identity
Brown, G.G., Reed, P., Harris, C.C., 2002. Testing a place-based theory for environmental and wellbeing. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 11–17.
evaluation: an Alaska case study. Appl. Geogr. 22, 49–76. Kudryavtsev, Alex, Stedman, Richard C., Krasny, Marianne E., 2012. Sense of place in
Cantrill, James G., 1998. The Environmental self and a sense of place: communication environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 18 (2), 229–250.
foundations for regional ecosystem management. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 26, Longo, S.B., Clark, B., 2012. The commodification of bluefin tuna: the historical trans-
301–318. formation of the mediterranean fishery. J. Agrarian Change 12 (2-3), 204–226.
Casey, Edward S., 1997. The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. University of Lopes, R., Videira, N., 2013. Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: an integrated
California Press, Berkeley. participatory framework. Ocean Coast. Manage. 84, 153–162.
Casey, Edward S., 2000. Remembering: A Phenomenological Study, second ed. Indiana Lopez, Barry, 1986. Arctic Dreams: Imagination and Desire in a Northern Landscape.
University Press, Bloomington. Bantam, Toronto.
Chan, K., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74 (2012), 8–18. Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
Chapin, F.S., Knapp, C.N., 2015. Sense of place: a process for identifying and negotiating Malpas, J.E., 1999. Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography. Cambridge
potentially contested visions of sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy 53, 38–46. University Press, Cambridge.
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, 2015. Stone: An Ecology of the Inhuman. University of Minnesota Malpas, Jeff, 2010. Progressive Geographies. Place Research Network. https://
Press, Minneapolis. progressivegeographies.com/2010/11/04/place-research-network/.
Cooper, Nigel, Brady, Emily, Steen, Helen, Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. Aesthetic and spiritual Masterson, V.A., Stedman, R.C., Enqvist, J., Tengō, M., Giusti, M., Wahl, D., Svedin, U.,
values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural 2017. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a re-
ecosystem “services”. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 218–229. view and research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 22 (1), 49.
Cresswell, Tim, 2015. Place: An Introduction, second ed. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford. Micklin, P.P., 1988. Desiccation of the Aral Sea: a water management disaster in the
Devine-Wright, P., Howes, Y., 2010. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of Soviet Union. Science 241 (4870), 1170–1176.
restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (3), Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Laterra, P., Barrena, J., Aguayo, M., 2014. A mapping ap-
271–280. proach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: the case of agricultural
Drummond, William Hamilton, 1822. Clontarf: A Poem. Archer, Hodges and McArthur, heritage in Southern Chile. Ecol. Indic. 40, 90–101.
Dublin. NESCS, 2015. National Ecosystem Services Classification System: Framework Design and
Entrikin, J.Nicholas, 1991. The Betweenness of Place: Towards a Geography of Policy Application. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Modernity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Norton, Bryan G., Hannon, Bruce, 1997. Environmental values: a place-based approach.
Fish, Robert, Church, Andrew, Winter, Michael, 2016a. Conceptualising cultural eco- Environ. Ethics 19 (3), 227–245.
system services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Plieninger, Tobias, Dijks, Sebastian, Oteros-Rozas, Elisa, Bieling, Claudia, 2013.
Serv. 21, 208–217. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 33,
Fish, Robert, Church, Andrew, Willis, Cheryl, Winter, Michael, Tratalos, Jamie A., Haines- 118–129.
Young, Roy, Potschin, Marion, 2016b. Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Poe, Melissa R., Donatuto, Jamie, Satterfield, Terre, 2016. “Sense of Place”: human
Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, wellbeing considerations for ecological restoration in Puget sound. Ecol. Soc. 44 (5),
329–343. 409–426.
Garrard, Greg, 2004. Ecocriticism. Routledge, Abingdon. Ratter, Beate M.W., Gee, Kira, 2012. Heimat – A German concept of regional perception
Gee, Kira, Burkhard, Benjamin, 2010. Cultural ecosystem services in the context of off- and identity as a basis for coastal management in the Wadden Sea. Ocean Coast.
shore wind-farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecol. Manage. 68, 127–137.
Complexity 7, 349–358. Robin, Libby, 2012. Global ideas in local places: the humanities in environmental man-
Gould, Rachelle K., Klain, Sarah C., Ardoin, Nicole M., Satterfield, Terre, Woodside, agement. Environ. Hum. 1, 69–84.
Ulalia, Hannahs, Neil, Daily, Gretchen C., Chan, Kai M., 2015. A protocol for eliciting Stedman, R.C., 2003. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the phy-
nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv. Biol. 29 sical environment to sense of place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16 (8), 671–685.
(2), 575–586. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the
Haines-Young, Roy, Potschin, Marion B., 2018a. Common International Classification of Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations
Ecosystem Services (CICES), V.5.1. Available from: https://cices.eu/. of TEEB. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-
Haines-Young, Roy, Potschin, Marion B., 2018b. Common International Classification of reports/synthesis-report/.
Ecosystem Services (CICES) V.5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., Wetterberg, O., 2012.
Structure. Available from: https://cices.eu/. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values
Haines-Young, Roy, 2016. ‘Report of Results of a Survey to Assess the Use of CICES, 2016’. and identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2, 14–26.
Support to EEA tasks under the EU MAES Process. Negotiated procedure No EEA/ UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment
NSS/16/002. Available from: https://cices.eu/. Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Harvey, David, 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell, Oxford. Urquhart, Julie, Acott, Tim, 2014. A sense of place in cultural ecosystem services: the case
Hausmann, Anna, Slotow, Rob, Burns, Jonathan K., Di Minin, Enrico, 2016. The eco- of Cornish fishing communities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 3–19.
system service of sense of place: benefits for human well-being and biodiversity Van Noy, Rick, 2003. Surveying the Interior: Literary Cartographers and the Sense of
conservation. Environ. Conserv. 43 (2), 117–127. Place. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.
Heidegger, Martin, 2001. Poetry, Language, Thought. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. Williams, Daniel R., Stewart, Susan I., 1998. Sense of Place: an elusive concept that is
HarperCollins, New York. finding a home in ecosystem management. J. Forest. 96 (5), 18–23.
Ingold, Tim, 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Routledge, London.

13