Ecosystem services in UNESCO World Heritage sites: a review of research trends and future directions
Source abstract
Abstract
UNESCO World Heritage sites provide vital ecosystem services that support sustainable human well-being, yet their value remains underrecognized amid growing threats. This research comprehensively analyzes 201 publications (2005–2025) to elucidate the research trajectory and emerging frontiers of World Heritage Ecosystem Services (WHES). By juxtaposing WHES with other frameworks such as MAB and GIAHS, the analysis delineates its unique characteristics and offers practical recommendations for overcoming conservation challenges.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Agricultural Systems and Practices · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Poria, Y., Reichel, A. & Cohen, R. Tourists perceptions of World Heritage Site and its designation. Tour. Manag. 35, 272–274 (2013).10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.011 ↗
2. Parga-Dans, E., González, P. A. & Enríquez, R. O. The social value of heritage: Balancing the promotion-preservation relationship in the Altamira World Heritage Site, Spain. J. Destination Mark. Manag. 18, 100499 (2020).
3. Hu, J. & Yao, J. Dependency between herdsmen’s diversified livelihoods and grassland ecosystem services: Taking the Kalajun World Natural Heritage Site as an example. Pratacult. Sci. 37, 800 (2020).
4. Remme, R. P. et al. Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century. Ecosyst. Serv. 66, 101610 (2024).10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101610 ↗
5. Nápoles-Vértiz, S. & Caro-Borrero, A. Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 67, 101627 (2024).10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101627 ↗
6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis.Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. (2005).
7. Carpenter, S. R. et al. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314, 257–258 (2006).10.1126/science.1131946 ↗
8. Ma, L., Liu, H., Peng, J. & Wu, J. A review of ecosystem services supply and demand. Acta Geographica Sin. 72, 1277–1289 (2017).
9. Wood, K. A. et al. A global systematic review of the cultural ecosystem services provided by wetlands. Ecosyst. Serv. 70, 101673 (2024).10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101673 ↗
10. Balasubramanian, M. Economic value of regulating ecosystem services: a comprehensive at the global level review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 616 (2019).10.1007/s10661-019-7758-8 ↗
11. Fu, B. J. & Zhang, L. W. Land-use change and ecosystem services: Concepts, methods and progress. Prog. Geogr. 33, 441–446 (2014).
12. Santarém, F., Saarinen, J. & Brito, J. C. Map** and analysing cultural ecosystem services in conflict areas. Ecol. Indic. 110, 105943 (2020).10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105943 ↗
13. Dee, L. E. et al. Quantifying disturbance effects on ecosystem services in a changing climate. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 9, 436–447 (2025).10.1038/s41559-024-02626-y ↗
14. Zeng, X. M. et al. Temperature thresholds induce abrupt shifts in biodiversity and ecosystem services in montane ecosystems worldwide. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 122, e2413981122 (2025).10.1073/pnas.2413981122 ↗
15. Lin, B. B. et al. Holistic climate change adaptation for World Heritage. Nat. Sustainability 6, 1157–1165 (2023).10.1038/s41893-023-01153-1 ↗
16. Falk, M. T. & Hagsten, E. A threat to the natural World Heritage site rarely happens alone. J. Environ. Manag. 360, 121113 (2024).10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121113 ↗
17. Yang, H., Ma, M. & Flower, R. J. Heritage status could safeguard fossil beds. Nature 546, 210 (2017).10.1038/546210a ↗
18. Shrestha, N., Xu, X., Meng, J. & Wang, Z. Vulnerabilities of protected lands in the face of climate and human footprint changes. Nat. Commun. 12, 1632 (2021).10.1038/s41467-021-21914-w ↗
19. Riva, F. & Fahrig, L. Landscape-scale habitat fragmentation is positively related to biodiversity, despite patch-scale ecosystem decay. Ecol. Lett. 26, 268–277 (2023).10.1111/ele.14145 ↗
20. Biswas, G. et al. Evaluating the effects of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem services: A three-decade perspective. Ecol. Inform. 77, 102283 (2023).10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102283 ↗
21. Schwartz, N. B. et al. Fragmentation increases wind disturbance impacts on forest structure and carbon stocks in a western Amazonian landscape. Ecol. Appl. 27, 1901–1915 (2017).10.1002/eap.1576 ↗
22. Sitotaw, T. M., Willemen, L., Meshesha, D. T., Weldemichael, M. & Nelson, A. Modelling the impact of ecosystem fragmentation on ecosystem services in the degraded Ethiopian highlands. Ecol. Inform. 87, 103100 (2025).10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103100 ↗
23. Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustainability 2, 674–680 (2019).10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y ↗
24. Sun, X. et al. Impacts of climate-induced drought on lake and reservoir biodiversity and ecosystem services: A review. Ambio 54, 488–504 (2025).10.1007/s13280-024-02092-7 ↗
25. Inácio, M. et al. Mapping and assessing coastal recreation cultural ecosystem services supply, flow, and demand in Lithuania. J. Environ. Manag. 323, 116175 (2022).10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116175 ↗
26. Gajardo, L. J. et al. Cultural values of ecosystem services from coastal marine areas: Case of Taytay Bay, Palawan, Philippines. Environ. Sci. Policy 142, 12–20 (2023).10.1016/j.envsci.2023.01.004 ↗
27. Cámara, A. & Santero-Sánchez, R. Economic, social, and environmental impact of a sustainable fisheries model in Spain. Sustainability 11, 6311 (2019).10.3390/su11226311 ↗
28. Badman, T. et al. World Heritage in Danger, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 48 (2009).
29. Marwick, B. & Smith, P. World Heritage sites on Wikipedia: Cultural heritage activism in a context of constrained agency. Big Data Soc. 8, 20539517211017304 (2021).10.1177/20539517211017304 ↗
30. Adams, H. et al. Multi-dimensional well-being associated with economic dependence on ecosystem services in deltaic social-ecological systems of Bangladesh. Regional Environ. Change 20, 42 (2020).10.1007/s10113-020-01620-x ↗
31. Geijzendorffer, I. R. et al. Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 40–48 (2017).10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017 ↗
32. Wang, H. et al. Short-term fluctuations of ecosystem services beneath long-term trends. Resour., Conserv. Recycling 203, 107454 (2024).10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107454 ↗
33. Stoeckl, N. et al. The value of Antarctic and Southern Ocean ecosystem services. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 5, 153–155 (2024).10.1038/s43017-024-00523-3 ↗
34. Druckenmiller, H. Accounting for ecosystem service values in climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 596–598 (2022).10.1038/s41558-022-01362-0 ↗
35. Xun, B., Zheng, Y., Fang, R., Hao, R. & Liu, B. Assessment of trade-off/synergy relationships between ecosystem services identification of ecological restoration thresholds. Acta Ecologica Sin. 44, 7431–7444 (2024).
36. Xiang, H. L. et al. Ecosystem services tradeoff-synergy and supply-demand relationships in the Shennongjia National Park. Acta Ecologica Sin. 45, 4774–4788 (2025).
37. Nelson, E. et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 4–11 (2009).10.1890/080023 ↗
38. Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. change 26, 152–158 (2014).10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 ↗
39. Dhongde, S., Pattanaik, P. K. & Xu, Y. Well-being, deprivation, and the Great Recession in the US: A study in a multidimensional framework. Rev. Income Wealth 65, S281–S306 (2019).10.1111/roiw.12411 ↗
40. Costanza, R. D. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).10.1038/387253a0 ↗
41. Xu, Z. & Peng, J. Recognizing ecosystem service’s contribution to SDGs: Ecological foundation of sustainable development. Geogr. Sustainability 5, 511–525 (2024).10.1016/j.geosus.2024.05.001 ↗
42. International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2016. Decision and scoping report for the IPBES global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services. http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/Scoping_Global%20assessment.pdf (accessed 9 November 2016).
43. International Council for Science (ICSU), 2015. Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: the science perspective. International Council for Science, Paris. (accessed 23 March 2016).
44. Yin, N., WANG, S. & Liu, Y. X. Ecosystem service value assessment: Research progress and prospects. Chin. J. Ecol. 40, 233 (2021).
45. Ens, E. J. et al. Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: review and insight from Australia. Biol. Conserv. 181, 133–149 (2015).10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.008 ↗
46. Campbell, B. L., Rangers, Y., Custodians, Y. K., Gallagher, R. V. & Ens, E. J. Expanding the biocultural benefits of species distribution modelling with Indigenous collaborators: case study from northern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 274, 109656 (2022).10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109656 ↗
47. Ogar, E., Pecl, G. & Mustonen, T. Science must embrace traditional and indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth 3, 162–165 (2020).10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006 ↗
48. Khosravi Mashizi, A. & Escobedo, F. The role of traditional ecological knowledge and ecosystem quality in managing ecosystem services. Sci. Rep. 15, 31510 (2025).10.1038/s41598-025-17611-z ↗
49. Loch, T. K. & Riechers, M. Integrating indigenous and local knowledge in management and research on coastal ecosystems in the Global South: A literature review. Ocean Coast. Manag. 212, 105821 (2021).10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105821 ↗
50. Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903 (2019).10.1126/sciadv.aax0903 ↗
51. Li, L., Tang, H., Lei, J. & Song, X. Spatial autocorrelation in land use type and ecosystem service value in Hainan Tropical Rain Forest National Park. Ecol. Indic. 137, 108727 (2022).10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108727 ↗
52. Cai, G. et al. Predicting the ecosystem service values and constructing ecological security patterns in future changing land use patterns. Ecol. Indic. 154, 110787 (2023).10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110787 ↗
53. Türkay, Z. & Tezer, A. Utilizing ecosystem services for spatial decision-making with trade-off & synergy analysis in Istanbul. Environment, Development and Sustainability.1-41 (2024).10.1007/s10668-024-05483-8 ↗
54. 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. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272 (2010).10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 ↗
55. Johansen, U. et al. The Norwegian seafood industry–importance for the national economy. Mar. Policy 110, 103561 (2019).10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103561 ↗
56. Anneboina, L. R. & Kumar, K. K. Economic analysis of mangrove and marine fishery linkages in India. Ecosyst. Serv. 24, 114–123 (2017).10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.004 ↗
57. Zoumides, C., Bruggeman, A. & Djuma, H. Revitalising terraced landscapes: Co-production of ecosystem services for sustainable futures. Geogr. Sustainability. 6, 100306 (2025).10.1016/j.geosus.2025.100306 ↗
58. Dyer, M. I. & Holland, M. M. UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program. BioScience 38, 635–641 (1988).10.2307/1310830 ↗
59. Bouamrane, M. Dialogue in Biosphere Reserves: References, Practices and Experiences, (2007).
60. UNESCO. A New Roadmap for the Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme and its World Network of Biosphere Reserves. MAB strategy (2015–2025), Lima action plan (2016–2025). Lima Declaration, Paris, France. (UNESCO, 2017).
61. UNESCO. Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB). https://www.unesco.org/en/mab (accessed on 20 November 2025).
62. UNESCO. UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp). https://en.unesco.org/global-geoparks (accessed on 20 November 2025).
63. Henriques, M. H. & Brilha, J. UNESCO Global Geoparks: A strategy towards global understanding and sustainability. Epis. J. Int. Geosci. 40, 349–355 (2017).
64. Altieri, M. A. & Koohafkan, P. Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS): extent, significance, and implications for development. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop and Steering Committee Meeting for the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Project. FAO, Rome, Italy .7-9 (2004).
65. Koohafkan, P., & Altieri, M. A. Globally important agricultural heritage systems: a legacy for the future. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1-47 (2011).
66. Kim, D. H. & Kim, B. H. A Study on the Social Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Wave—Focusing on Big Data-Based Text Mining Analysis. SAGE Open 15, 21582440251340132 (2025).10.1177/21582440251340132 ↗
67. Elitaş, T., Kır Elitaş, S. & Ayhan, N. Identify Future Trending Topics by Thematic Mapping of the Cinema Phenomenon Using Machine Learning and LDA. SAGE Open 15, 21582440251390678 (2025).10.1177/21582440251390678 ↗
68. Wang, G. & Yang, Y. Quantitative evaluation of digital economy policy in Heilongjiang Province of China based on the PMC-AE index model. SAGE Open 14, 21582440241234435 (2024).10.1177/21582440241234435 ↗
69. Organisation, C. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France. (2008).
70. Zhang, C. Y. A Summary of Heritage Authenticity and Integrity Studies at Home and Abroad. Southeast Cult. 4, 30–37 (2010).
71. Hagerman, S. M. & Pelai, R. “As far as possible and as appropriate”: implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Conserv. Lett. 9, 469–478 (2016).10.1111/conl.12290 ↗
72. Barnes, M. Aichi targets: Protect biodiversity, not just area. Nature, 526, 195 (2015).10.1038/526195e ↗
73. Shepherd, E. et al. Status and Trends in Global Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: Assessing Progress Toward Aichi Biodiversity Target 14. Conservation Letters (2016).10.1111/conl.12320 ↗
74. Leal Filho, W. et al. Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: the role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25, 131–142 (2018).10.1080/13504509.2017.1342103 ↗
75. Haas, P. M. Sustainable development goals: SDGs: Create a coordinating body. Nature. 535, 493–493 (2016).10.1038/535493d ↗
76. Holden, P. B. et al. Climate–carbon cycle uncertainties and the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 609–613 (2018).10.1038/s41558-018-0197-7 ↗
77. Lawrence, M. G. & Schäfer, S. Promises and perils of the Paris Agreement. Science 364, 829–830 (2019).10.1126/science.aaw4602 ↗
78. De Castro, E. et al. The Estrela UNESCO Global Geopark territorial development strategy: A holistic vision for the twenty-first century. In Economics and management of geotourism. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 19-46 (2022).10.1007/978-3-030-89839-7_2 ↗
79. Santoro, A. et al. Innovation of argan (Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels) products and byproducts for sustainable development of rural communities in Morocco. A systematic literature review. Biodivers. Conserv. 34, 3211–3239 (2025).10.1007/s10531-023-02691-y ↗
80. Shen, J., Huang, F. & Chou, R. Agricultural-Heritage-Oriented Rural Revitalization: Experiences from the Ancient Tea Town of Xiping. Land. 10, 927 (2021).10.3390/land10090927 ↗
81. Barua, H., Acharjee, M. R. & Talukder, A. Tourism index evaluation of exposed coast, Bangladesh: A modeling approach. Heliyon. e34745 (2024).10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34745 ↗
82. Stoeckl, N., Condie, S. & Anthony, K. Assessing changes to ecosystem service values at large geographic scale: A case study for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Ecosyst. Serv. 51, 101352 (2021).10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101352 ↗
83. Van Ruymbeke, K. et al. Assessing the impact of farm-management practices on ecosystem services in European agricultural systems: A rapid evidence assessment. Sustainability 15, 12819 (2023).10.3390/su151712819 ↗
84. Caviedes, J., Ibarra, J. T., Calvet-Mir, L., Álvarez-Fernández, S. & Junqueira, A. B. Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System. Agric. Syst. 216, 103885 (2024).10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103885 ↗
85. Xian, Y. J. et al. International Strategy of Man and the Biosphere Programme of Germany and Its Implications to China. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 37, 1320–1327 (2022).
86. Dudley, N. (Ed.). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN. (2008).10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en ↗
87. Wang, W. & Gao, J. Progress and prospect of the construction of protected area system with national parks as the main body in China. Res. Environ. Sci. 37, 2100–2109 (2024).
88. Allan, J. R. et al. Gaps and opportunities for the World Heritage Convention to contribute to global wilderness conservation. Conserv. Biol. 32, 116–126 (2018).10.1111/cobi.12976 ↗
89. Sánchez, M. L., Cabrera, A. T. & del Pulgar, M. L. G. The potential role of cultural ecosystem services in heritage research through a set of indicators. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106670 (2020).10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106670 ↗
90. Wang, C. X. et al. Ecosystem services for a sustainable future: A review of the 10th Ecosystem Services Partnership World Conference. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 39, 8193–8199 (2019).10.5846/stxb201910302283 ↗
91. Min, Q. & Zhang, B. Research progress in the conservation and development of china-nationally important agricultural heritage systems (China-NIAHS). Sustainability 12, 126 (2020).10.3390/su12010126 ↗
92. Wang, D. et al. To harmonize relationship between human and nature and achieve sustainable development: UNESCO’s man the and biosphere programme in China. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 36, 448–455 (2021).
93. Wu, L., Jiang, H., Chen, W. & Peng, W. Geodiversity, geotourism, geoconservation, and sustainable development in Xiangxi UNESCO Global Geopark—a Case Study in Ethnic Minority Areas. Geoheritage (2021).10.1007/s12371-021-00629-w ↗
94. Gravis, I., Németh, K., Twemlow, C. & Németh, B. The case for community-led geoheritage and geoconservation ventures in Māngere, South Auckland, and Central Otago, New Zealand. Geoheritage. 12, 19 (2020).10.1007/s12371-020-00449-4 ↗
95. Davis, D. & Weiler, B. Kakadu National Park—conflicts in a world heritage area. Tour. Manag. 13, 313–320 (1992).10.1016/0261-5177(92)90104-F ↗
96. Cazenave, A. Anthropogenic global warming threatens world cultural heritage. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 051001 (2014).10.1088/1748-9326/9/5/051001 ↗
97. Esparon, M., Stoeckl, N., Farr, M. & Larson, S. The significance of environmental values for destination competitiveness and sustainable tourism strategy making: insights from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. J. Sustain. Tour. 23, 706–725 (2015).10.1080/09669582.2014.998678 ↗
98. Phillips, H. The capacity to adapt to climate change at heritage sites—The development of a conceptual framework. Environ. Sci. Policy 47, 118–125 (2015).10.1016/j.envsci.2014.11.003 ↗
99. Reed, M. G. The contributions of UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme and biosphere reserves to the practice of sustainability science. Sustainability Sci. 14, 809–821 (2019).10.1007/s11625-018-0603-0 ↗
100. Klaver, M., Currie, B., Sekonya, J. G. & Coetzer, K. Learning through place-based implementation of the UNESCO MAB program in South Africa’s oldest biosphere reserve: A case study of the Kogelberg biosphere reserve. Land 13, 455 (2024).10.3390/land13040455 ↗