ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Differentiating Cultural Ecosystem Services (CESs) in Young Glacial Landscapes Using Weighted and Unweighted Matrix Approaches: A Case Study from Poland
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Landscape Ecology, Institute of Physical Geography and Environmental Planning, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
 
 
Submission date: 2025-10-19
 
 
Final revision date: 2026-03-27
 
 
Acceptance date: 2026-05-04
 
 
Online publication date: 2026-06-02
 
 
Corresponding author
Marta Kubacka   

Department of Landscape Ecology, Institute of Physical Geography and Environmental Planning, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
 
 
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Cultural ecosystem services (CESs), defined as the nonmaterial benefits people derive from ecosystems such as recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, cultural identity, and heritage, are commonly perceived as difficult to assess due to their intangible and subjective nature. These challenges often limit the incorporation of CESs into environmental management and landscape planning. This study aims to evaluate the potential supply of CESs at the local scale in postglacial landscapes using the young glacial region of the Zbąszyń municipality in western Poland as a case study. A set of 42 biophysical indicators was developed using spatial datasets to represent ecological, cultural, and physiognomic landscape characteristics. In this study, CES potential was assessed within 27 spatial landscape units using the landscape audit database and the corresponding landscape typology and applying both weighted and unweighted matrix approaches. The results indicate that natural ecosystems, such as forests, wetlands, and watercourses, generally present the highest CES supply potential, especially in the categories of recreation, natural heritage, and aesthetics. In contrast, cultural and rural landscapes demonstrated greater potential for cultural heritage and cultural diversity. Notably, the use of a weighted matrix approach enhanced the degree of CES supply differentiation across landscape types and provided a more detailed understanding of ecosystem contributions. The findings underscore the importance of natural landscapes, especially young glacial landscapes, in delivering CESs and support the application of indicator-based assessments in local-scale spatial planning. This approach offers a transferable framework for evaluating CESs in other postglacial regions and contributes to sustainable land use management and conservation strategies.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
REFERENCES (89)
1.
PAUDYAL K., BARAL H., BURKHARD B., BHANDARI S., KEENAN R.J. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 13, 81, 2015.
 
2.
ALBERT C., GALLER C., HERMES J., NEUENDORF F., VON HAAREN C., LOVETT A. Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework. Ecological Indicators, 61, 100, 2016.
 
3.
COSTANZA R., DE GROOT R., BRAAT L., KUBISZEWSKI I., FIORAMONTI L., SUTTON P., FARBER S., GRASSO M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1, 2017.
 
4.
KARIMI A., YAZDANDAD H., FAGERHOLM N. Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101188, 2020.
 
5.
SUN X., YANG P., TAO Y., BIAN H. Improving ecosystem services supply provides insights for sustainable landscape planning: A case study in Beijing, China. Science of the Total Environment, 802, 149849, 2022.
 
6.
CHEN P., ZHOU Y., BAI, Y., ZHOU Y., INOSTROZA L., SUN X., LIU L., HUANG Q., WU P., LIU C. Perceived ecosystem services differ substantially from calculated services using biophysical models. Landscape Ecology, 39 (9), 170, 2024.
 
7.
BERMEJO R., BUSCHMANN A., CAPUZZO E., COTTIER-COOK E., FRICKE A., HERNÁNDEZ I., HOFMANN L.C., PEREIRA R., VAN DEN BURG S. State of knowledge regarding the potential of macroalgae cultivation in providing climate-related and other ecosystem services. European Commission, 2022.
 
8.
EUROPEAN COMISSION. EU biodiversity strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives. Brussels, 2020.
 
9.
OTEROS-ROZAS E., MARTÍN-LÓPEZ B., FAGERHOLM N., BIELING C., PLIENINGER T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European cities. Ecological Indicators, 94, 74, 2018.
 
10.
DE GROOT R.S., ALKEMADE R., BRAAT L., HEIN L., WILLEMEN L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7 (3) , 260, 2010.
 
11.
BURKHARD B., MAES J. Mapping ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers, 2017.
 
12.
ZAGÓRRSKA K., KRAJEWSKI P., SYLLA M., LEBEDZIŃSKA M., KOŁODYŃSKA I., FURMANKIEWICZ M., CZAJKOWSKI M. Willingness to pay for landscape benefits: Examining variation by landscape type in Lower Silesia, Poland. Ecological Indicators, 171, 113129, 2025.
 
13.
MICHALIK-ŚNIEŻEK M., LIPIŃSKA H., WOŻNIAK-KOSTECKA I., KOMOR A., KĘPKOWICZ A., ADAMCZYK-MUCHA K., KRUKOW E., DUNIEWICZ A. Cultural Ecosystem Services in Rural Areas: Assessing Demand and Supply for Ecologically Functional Areas (EFA). Sustainability, 17 (19), 8822, 2025.
 
14.
CHENG X., VAN DAMME S., LI L., UYTTENHOVE P. Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925, 2019.
 
15.
PLIENINGER T., DIJKS S., OTEROS-ROZAS E., BIELING C. Assessing, mapping and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118, 2013.
 
16.
DURAIAPPAH A.K., TANYI ASAH S.T., BRONDIZIO E.S., KOSOY N., O'FARRELL P.J., PRIEUR-RICHARD A.H., SUBRAMANIAN S.M., TAKEUCHI K. Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human well-being: A conceptual framework for understanding the new commons. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 7, 94, 2014.
 
17.
HRIBAR M.S., HORI K., URBANC M., SAITO O., ZORN M. Evolution and new potentials of landscape commons: Insights from Japan and Slovenia. Ecosystem Services, 59, 101499, 2023.
 
18.
CHAN K.M.A., GUERRY A.D., BALVANERA P., KLAIN S., SATTERFIELD T., BASURATO X., BOSTROM A., CHUENPAGDEE R., GOULD R., HALPERN B.S., HANNAHS N., LEVINE J., NORTON B., RUCKELSHAUS M., RUSSEL R., TAM J., WOODSIDE U. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62 (8), 744, 2012.
 
19.
MARTÍN-LÓPEZ B., GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN E., LOMAS P.L., MONTES C. Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (2), 1050, 2009.
 
20.
HERNÁNDEZ-MORCILLO M., PLIENINGER T., BIELING C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434, 2013.
 
21.
COSTANZA R., D'ARGE R., DE GROOT R., FARBER S., GRASSO M., HANNON B., LIMBURG K., NAEEM S., O'NEILL R.V., PARUELO J. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253, 1997.
 
22.
STANGE E., RUSCH G.M. Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services in Norway: Examples as support for implementation of ecosystem accounting. NINA Report 2012. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. 2021.
 
23.
MAES J., TELLER A., ERHARD M. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, 2013.
 
24.
MÜLLER F., BICKING S., AHRENDT K., KINH BAC D., BLINDOW I., FÜRST C., HAASE P., KRUSE M., KRUSE T., MA L., PERENNES M., RULJEVIC I., SCHERNEWSKI G., SCHIMMING C.G., SCHNEIDERS A., SCHUBERT H., SCHUMACHER J., TAPPEINER U., WANGAI P., WINDHORST W., ZELENY J. Assessing ecosystem service potentials to evaluate terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystem types in Northern Germany: An expert-based matrix approach. Ecological Indicators, 112, 106116, 2020.
 
25.
PERENNES M., CAMPAGNE C.S., MÜLLER F., ROCHE P., BURKHARD B. Refining the tiered approach for mapping and assessing ecosystem services at the local scale: A case study in a rural landscape in Northern Germany. Land, 9 (10), 348, 2020.
 
26.
CROUZAT E., DE FFUTOS A., GRESCHO V., CARVER S., BÜERMANN A., CARVALHO-SANTOS C., KRAEMER R., MAYOR R., PÖPPERL F., ROSSI C., SCHRÖTER M., STRITIH A., VAZ A.S., WATZEMA J., BONN A. Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings. Ecosystem Services, 53, 101395, 2022.
 
27.
AFFEK A., DEGÓRSKI M., WOLSKI J., SOLON J., KOWALSKA A., ROO-ZIELIŃSKA E., GRABIŃSKA B., KRUCZKOWSKA B. Ecosystem service potentials and their indicators in postglacial landscapes: Assessment and mapping. Elsevier, pp. 49, 2020.
 
28.
BURKHARD B., DE GROOT R., COSTANZA R., SEPPELT R., JØRGENSEN S.E., POTSCHIN M. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 21, 1, 2012.
 
29.
BURKHARD B., KROLL F., NEDKOV S., MÜLLER F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17, 2012.
 
30.
STĘPNIEWSKA M., MIZGAJSKI A. Usługi ekosystemowe w zarządzaniu układami przyrodniczymi. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2023.
 
31.
ZWIERZCHOWSKA I., HOF A., IOJĂ I.C., MUELLER C., PONIŻY L., BREUSTE J., MIZGAJSKI A. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 84, 2018.
 
32.
RICHLING A., SOLON J., MACIAS A., BALON J., BORZYKOWSKI J., KISTOWSKI M. Regionalna geografia fizyczna Polski. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 2021.
 
33.
SOLON J., BORZYKOWSKI J., BIDŁASIK M., RICHLING A., BADORA K., BALON J., BRZEZIŃSKA-WÓJCIK T., CHABUDZIŃSKI Ł., DOBROWOLSKI R., GRZEGORCZYK I., JODŁOWSKI M., KISTOWSKI M., KOT R., KRĄŻ P., LECHNIO J., MACIAS A., MAJCHROWSKA A., MALINOWSKA E., MIGOŃ P., MYGA - PIĄTEK U., NITA J., PAPIŃSKA E., RODZIK J., STRZYŻ M., TERPIŁOWSKI S., ZIAJA W. Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of contemporary spatial data. Geographia Polonica, 91 (2), 143, 2018.
 
34.
MACIAS A., BRÓDKA S. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne województwa wielkopolskiego. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 2021.
 
35.
PINIARSKI W. Challenges of a GIS-based physical-geographical regionalization of Poland. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195 (9), 1125, 2023.
 
36.
KARCZEWSKI A., MAZUREK M., STACH A., ZWOLIŃSKI Z. Mapa geomorfologiczna Niziny Wielkopolsko-Kujawskiej w skali 1:300,000, wersja numeryczna pod redakcją B. Krygowskiego. Instytut Paleogeografii i Geoekologii, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań, 2007.
 
37.
CHMIELEWSKI T.J., MYGA-PIĄTEK U., SOLON J. Typologia aktualnych krajobrazów Polski (Typology of Poland's current landscapes). Przegląd Geograficzny, 87 (3), 377, 2015.
 
38.
AFFEK A., KOŁACZKOWSKA E., KOWALSKA A., REGULSKA E., WOLSKI J., SOLON J. Usługi ekosystemowe polskich lasów: Ocena potencjału. Fundacja WWF Polska. 2023.
 
39.
ABUALHAGAG A., VALÁNSZKI I. Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services: Review and relevance to urban context. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 13 (1), 4, 2020.
 
40.
REWITZER S., HUBER R., GRĚT-REGAMEY A., BARKMANN J. Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps. Ecosystem Services, 26, 197, 2017.
 
41.
PARACCHINI M.L., ZULIAN G., KOPPEROINEN L., MAES J., SCHÄGNER J.P., TERMANSEN M., ZANDERSEN M., PEREZ-SIBA M., SCHOLEFIELD P.A., BIDOGLIO G. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45, 371, 2014.
 
42.
BURKHARD B., KANDZIORA M., HOU Y., MÜLLER F. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands: Concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34, 1, 2014.
 
43.
MAKOVNÍKOVÁ J., KOLOŠTA S., FLAŠKA F., PÁLKA B. Regional differentiations of the potential of cultural ecosystem services in relation to natural capital: A case study in selected regions of the Slovak Republic. Land, 11 (2), 270, 2022.
 
44.
MAES J. (Ed.). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (JRC89447). Publications Office of the European Union, 2014.
 
45.
SHACKLETON C.M., RUWANZA S., SINASSON SANNI G.K., BENNETT S., DE LACY P., MODIPA R., MTATI N., SACHIKONYE M., THONDHLANA G. Unpacking Pandora's box: Understanding and categorizing ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems, 19 (4), 587, 2016.
 
46.
CAMPAGNE C.S., ROCHE P., GOSSELIN F., TSCHANZ L., TATONI T. Expert-based ecosystem services capacity matrices: Dealing with scoring variability. Ecological Indicators, 79, 63, 2017.
 
47.
CAMPAGNE C.S., ROCHE P. May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping. One Ecosystem, 3, 2018.
 
48.
GORN L., KLEEMANN J., FÜRST C. Improving the matrix-assessment of ecosystem services provision - The case of regional land use planning under climate change in the Region of Halle, Germany. Land, 7 (2), 76, 2018.
 
49.
ROCHE P., CAMPAGNE C.S. Are expert-based ecosystem services scores related to biophysical quantitative estimates? Ecological Indicators, 106, 105421, 2019.
 
50.
SCHRÖTER M., BONN A., KLOTZ S., SEPPELT R., BAESSLER C. Atlas of ecosystem services: Drivers, risks, and societal responses. Springer International Publishing, 2019.
 
51.
WARD J.H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58 (301), 236, 1963.
 
52.
TORRALBA M., LOVRIĆ M., ROUX J.L., BUDNIOK M.A., MULIER A.S., WINKEL G., PLIENINGER T. Examining the relevance of cultural ecosystem services in forest management in Europe. Ecology and Society, 25 (3), 2, 2020.
 
53.
CHURCH A., FISH R., RAVENSCROFT N., STAPLETON L. Cultural ecosystem services, water, and aquatic environments. In MARTIN-ORTEGA J., FERRIER R.C., GORDON I.J., KHAN S. Water ecosystem services: A global perspective. Cambridge University Press, pp. 148, 2015.
 
54.
BRYCE R., IRVINE K.N., CHURCH A., FISH R., RANGER S., KENTER J.O. Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural services. Ecosystem Services, 21, 258, 2016.
 
55.
CSURGÓ B., SMITH M.K. The value of cultural ecosystem services in a rural landscape context. Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 76, 2021.
 
56.
ZHOU P., ANG B.W., ZHOU D.Q. Weighting and aggregation on composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96 (1), 169, 2010.
 
57.
DE MONTIS A., SERRA V., CALIA G., TROGU D., LEDDA A. To weight or not to weight, that is the question: The design of a composite indicator of landscape fragmentation. Applied Sciences, 11 (7), 3208, 2021.
 
58.
BING Z., QIU Y., HUANG H., CHEN T., ZHONG W., JIANG H. Spatial distribution of cultural ecosystem services demand and supply in urban and suburban areas: A case study from Shanghai, China. Ecological Indicators, 127, 107720, 2021.
 
59.
CROSSMAN N., BURKHARD B., NEDKOV S. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8 (1-2), 1, 2012.
 
60.
VAN BERKEL D.B., VERBURG P.H. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37, 163, 2014.
 
61.
DE ARAUJO BARBOSA C.C., ATKINSON P.M., DEARING J.A. Remote sensing of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecological Indicators, 52, 430, 2015.
 
62.
TENERELLI P., DEMŠAR U., LUQUE S. Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 64, 237, 2016.
 
63.
RENDON P., EERHARD M., MAES J., BURKHARD B. Analysis of trends in mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition in Europe. Ecosystems and People, 15 (1), 156, 2019.
 
64.
PALOMO I., FELIPE-LUCIA M.R., BENNETT E.M., MARTIN-LÓPEZ B., PASCUAL U. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Advances in Ecological Research, 54, 245, 2016.
 
65.
MILCU A.I., HANSPACH J., ABSON D., FISCHER J. Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18 (3), 44, 2013.
 
66.
FISH R., CHURCH A., WINTER M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208, 2016.
 
67.
BAGSTAD K.J., SEMMENS D.J., ANCONA Z.H., SHERROUSE B.C. Evaluating alternative methods for biophysical and cultural ecosystem services hotspot mapping in natural resource planning. Landscape Ecology, 32 (1), 77, 2017.
 
68.
BLICHARSKA M., SMITHERS R.J., HEDBLOM M., HEDENǺS H., MIKUSIŃSKI G., PEDERSEN E., SANDSTÖM P., SVENSSON J. Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services, 23, 55, 2017.
 
69.
BIELING C., PLIENINGER T., PIRKER H., VOGL C.R. Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19, 2014.
 
70.
PLIENINGER T., BIELING C., FAGERHOLM N., BYG A., HARTEL T., HURLEY P., LOPEZ-SANTIAGO C.A., NAGABHATLA N., OTEROS-ROZAS E., RAYMONF C.M., VAN DE HORST D., HUNTSINGER L. The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 28, 2015.
 
71.
ALBERT C., ARONSON J., FÜRST C., OPDAM P. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 29 (8), 1277, 2014.
 
72.
CASADO-ARZUAGA I., ONAINDIA M., MADARIAGA I., VERBURG P. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landscape Ecology, 29 (8), 1393, 2013.
 
73.
KAUFMAN L., ROUSSEEUW P.J. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
 
74.
JAMES G., WITTEN D., HASTIE T., TIBSHIRANI R. An introduction to statistical learning. Springer, 2013.
 
75.
KASSAMBRA A. Practical guide to cluster analysis in R: Unsupervised machine learning (Multivariate analysis). STHDA, 2017.
 
76.
ZHAO G., ZHAI X., WU Y., MA S. Spatial and Temporal Evolution Patterns and Influencing Factors of Logistics Expansion in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei-Shanxi Region. Promet - Traffic&Transportation, 37 (6), 1525, 2025.
 
77.
ZHOU Y., CHEN T., WANG J., XU X. Analyzing the Factors Driving the Changes of Ecosystem Service Value in the Liangzi Lake Basin - A GeoDetector-Based Application. Sustainability, 15 (22), 15763, 2023.
 
78.
WU Y., PENG X., JIA G., YU X., RAO H. Evaluation and Optimization of Landscape Spatial Patterns and Ecosystem Services in the Northern Agro-Pastoral Ecotone, China. Land, 13 (10), 1549, 2024.
 
79.
GUO R.-Z., LIN L., XU J.-F., DAI W.-H., SONG Y.-B., DONG M. Spatio-temporal Characteristics of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Their Relations to Landscape Factors in Hangzhou Xixi National Wetland Park, China. Ecological Indicators, 154, 110910, 2023.
 
80.
CAO H., MIGUEZ N.G., MASON B.M., CALLAGHAN C.T., QIU J. Spatial Patterns and Interactions among Multiple Cultural Ecosystem Services across Urban Greenspaces. Ecosystem Services, 73, 101740, 2025.
 
81.
CAMPAGNE C.S., ROCHE P., MÜLLER F., BURKHARD B. Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. One Ecosystem, 5, 2020.
 
82.
DRYGVAL P., DRYGVAL A., TABUNSHCHIK V. Assessment of Organic Carbon Stocks at Landscape Levels Using the InVEST Software. Civil Engineering Journal, 11 (3), 1145, 2025.
 
83.
PINIARSKI W. Delimitation of physico-geographical microregions of the Greater Poland Voivodeship using multicriteria environment analysis. Dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland, 2020.
 
84.
MACIAS A., BRÓDKA S., KUBACKA M., PINIARSKI W. Physical and geographical regionalization and environmental management: A case study in Poland. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 29 (4), 2753, 2020.
 
85.
SCHRÖTER M., REMME R., HEIN L. How and where to map supply and demand of ecosystem services for policy-relevant outcomes? Ecological Indicators, 23, 220, 2012.
 
86.
JACOBS S., BURKHARD B., DAELE T.V., STAES J., SCHNEIDERS A. The Matrix Reloaded: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 295, 21, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol....
 
87.
BRÓDKA S., KUBACKA M., MACIAS A. Landscape diversity and the directions of its protection in Poland illustrated with an example of Wielkopolskie Voivodeship. Sustainability, 13 (24), 13812, 2021.
 
88.
VILLAMAGNA A.M., ANGERMEIER P.L., BENNETT E.M. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15, 114, 2013.
 
89.
HØLLELAND H., SKREDE J., HOLMGAARD S. Cultural heritage and ecosystem services: A literature review. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 19 (3), 210, 2017.
 
eISSN:2083-5906
ISSN:1230-1485
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top