The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services
Open accessAbstract
The substantial importance of cultural benefits as a source of human well-being is increasingly recognised in society-environment interactions. The integration of cultural ecosystem services (CES) into the ecosystem services framework remains a challenge due to the difficulties associated with defining, articulating and measuring CES. We operationalise a novel framework developed by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment that identifies CES as the interactions between environmental spaces (i.e. physical localities or landscapes), and the activities that occur there. We evaluate the benefits of the CES provided by 151 UK marine sites to recreational sea anglers and divers, using subjective well-being indicators. Factor analysis of an online questionnaire with 1220 participants revealed multiple CES benefits that contribute to human wellbeing e.g. including ‘engagement with nature’, ‘place identity’ and ‘therapeutic value’. In addition to regional differences, we also found that biophysical attributes of sites, such as the presence of charismatic species and species diversity, were positively associated with provision of CES benefits. The study provides evidence that could be used to inform designation of protected areas. The indicators used in the study may also be adapted for use across a range of marine and terrestrial spaces for improved integration of CES in environmental decision-making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,867
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(2018) · A New Era in Global Health · doi:10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 · Cited by 19,351
On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 · Cited by 11,567
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868 · Cited by 10,297
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443 · Cited by 3,638
Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(83)80021-8 · Cited by 3,132
Performance of some variable selection methods when multicollinearity is present
Chong, I.-G., & Jun, C.-H. (2005) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2004.12.011 · Cited by 2,049
A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 · Cited by 1,993 · cited 1×
“An international body of evidence supports the idea that interaction with the natural environment plays an important role in human health and well-being (for reviews see, Bowler et al., 2010; Frumkin, 2001; Hartig et al., 2014; Irvine and Warber, 2002; Keniger et al., 2013).”
BackgroundEcosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver
Salzman, J., Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H., & Shallenberger, R. J. (2009) · Duke Law Scholarship Repository (Duke University) · Cited by 1,990
Cited by
A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing
Kosanic, A., & Petzold, J. (2020) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101168 · Cited by 259
A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure
Veerkamp, C. J., Schipper, A. M., Hedlund, K., Lazarova, T., Nordin, A., & Hanson, H. I. (2021) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101367 · Cited by 244
Metadata
- Authors
- Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O.
- Venue
- Ecosystem Services
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 21
- Pages
- 258-269
- ISSN
- 2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2528632768
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 17.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015
- The paper
- Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.