تدوین مدل ارزیابی خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم در مناطق خشک و بیابانی بر مبنای مرور نظام‌مند: مطالعه موردی مناطق خشک ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله مستخرج از رساله دکتری

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی محیط زیست، گروه محیط زیست، پردیس بین المللی کیش، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشیار گروه مهندسی سوانح ، آموزش و سیستم های محیط زیست، دانشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
3 دانشیار گروه مهندسی طراحی محیط زیست، دانشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم مؤلفه‌ای پیچیده و ذهنی است که بر کیفیت زندگی، انسجام اجتماعی و حفظ تنوع فرهنگی اثرگذار است. ضمن این که ارزیابی خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم در مناطق خشک و بیابانی اغلب تحت تأثیر سوگیری به سمت معیارهای توسعه‌یافته برای اکوسیستم‌های معتدل و شهری قرار دارد. این پژوهش با هدف شناسایی، تحلیل و اولویت‌بندی معیارهای ارزیابی خدما ت فرهنگی متناسب با ویژگی‌های طبیعی و فرهنگی مناطق بیابانی، به‌ویژه در بافت ایران، انجام شد. منابع مورد نیاز با استفاده از روش مرور سیستماتیک و پروتکل پریسما، 80 مقاله ISI از پایگاه‌های Web of Science و Scopus انتخاب و با نرم‌افزار مکس‌کیودا تحلیل شدند. همچنین، از VOSviewer برای تحلیل علم‌سنجی 500 مقاله استفاده شد. 80 مقاله ISI منتخب بین سالهای (2000–2025) با نرم‌افزار مکس‌کیودا 2024 تحلیل کیفی شدند. همچنین، 500 مقاله برای تحلیل علم‌سنجی با VOSviewer 1.6.18 مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. مدل توسعه‌یافته بر اساس نظرات کارشناسی و با روش AHP (فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی) توسعه یافت. تحلیل مکس‌کیودا نشان داد معیارهای «ارزش زیبایی‌شناختی» (%03/29) و «گردشگری» (%9/14) بیشترین فراوانی را در مطالعات جهانی دارند، اما در مناطق بیابانی اهمیت آنها کاهش می‌یابد. بر اساس روش AHP و نظر کارشناسان، مدل توسعه‌یافته پیشنهاد شد که در آن «میراث فرهنگی» (وزن=405/0)، «هویت و حس مکان» (0.283) و «ارزش‌های نمادین و مذهبی» (198/0) به عنوان محورهای اصلی شناسایی شدند. ضریب ناسازگاری (CR=0.0228) نشان‌دهنده سازگاری بالای قضاوت کارشناسی است. مدل توسعه‌یافته پیشنهادی، با تمرکز بر معیارهای بومی و غیرمرئی، چارچوبی عادلانه و کاربردی برای ارزیابی خدمات فرهنگی در مناطق بیابانی ارائه می‌دهد و می‌تواند به عنوان ابزاری مؤثر در برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت پایدار این مناطق مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Developing a Model for Assessing Cultural Ecosystem Services in Dryland and Desert Regions Based on a Systematic Review: A Case Study of Iran's Drylands

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Mahdi Lotfi 1
Mohammad Javad Amiri 2
Hassan Darabi 3
1 PhD Student in Environmental Planning, Department of Environment, Kish International Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Disaster Engineering, Environmental Education and Systems, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Design Engineering, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) represent a complex and subjective component influencing quality of life, social cohesion, and the preservation of cultural diversity. However, the evaluation of CES in arid and desert regions is often biased toward criteria developed for temperate and urban ecosystems. This study aimed to identify, analyze, and prioritize evaluation criteria for cultural ecosystem services tailored to the natural and cultural characteristics of desert areas, with a particular focus on the Iranian context. Relevant sources were selected using a systematic review method and the PRISMA protocol, resulting in 80 ISI-indexed articles retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, which were analyzed through MAXQDA software. Additionally, 500 articles were subjected to bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer. The selected 80 ISI articles (2000–2025) were qualitatively analyzed with MAXQDA 2024, and the bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer 1.6.18. The developed model was further refined through expert judgment using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The MAXQDA analysis revealed that “aesthetic values” (29.3%) and “tourism” (14.9%) were the most frequently cited criteria in global studies, but their importance diminishes in desert contexts. Based on AHP results and expert evaluations, the developed model emphasized “cultural heritage” (weight = 0.405), “sense of place and identity” (0.283), and “symbolic and religious values” (0.198) as the main criteria. The consistency ratio (CR = 0.0228) confirmed the high reliability of expert judgments. The proposed model, by focusing on local and intangible criteria, provides a fair and practical framework for evaluating cultural ecosystem services in desert regions and can serve as an effective tool in sustainable planning and management of these areas.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Cultural Ecosystem Services
Arid and Desert Regions
Systematic Review
MAXQDA
1.     اکبری، م.، خشتابه، ر.، و طالبان فرد، ع. (1402). تحلیل SWOT-QSPM مبتنی بر توسعه پایدار مناطق بیابانی استان در خراسان رضوی. جغرافیا و توسعه ناحیه‌ای. https://doi.org/10.22067/jgrd.2024.84660.1339
2.     رجایی‌ریزی، محمدعلی؛ یوسفی‌زاده، رحیم؛ ملکی، حمیدرضا؛ کامیابی، سعید. (۱۳۹۳). بررسی و تحلیل عوامل طبیعی مؤثر در توسعه مناطق بیابانی و خشک (مطالعه موردی: شمال کویر حاج‌علی‌قلی). فصلنامه جغرافیایی سرزمین، ۱۱(۴۴)، ۷۵۶۱
3.     رضوانی، محمدرضا، و احمدی، علی. (1388). مکان و نقش فرهنگ در شکل گیری هویت مکانی. مطالعات فرهنگ - ارتباطات، 10(6).  SID. https://sid.ir/paper/487396/fa.
4.     صادقی، ز. (1401). ارزیابی اکوسیستم در پارک‌هایی با سبک‌های مختلف منظر: مطالعه موردی پارک‌های شهری تهران. مجله پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی و برنامه‌ریزی شهری, 10(4), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.22059/JURBANGEO.2022.342946.1698
5.     صادقی، ز.، انصاری، م.، و حقیقی بین، م. (1402). شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی اکوسیستم مبتنی بر ادراک کاربران در فضای سبز شهری: مطالعه موردی پارک‌های شهری تهران. فصلنامه پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی, 55(1), 223-239. https://doi.org/10.22059/JHGR.2022.329248.1008366
6.     عبدالله‌زاده، غ.، اژدری‌پور، ع.، و شریف‌زاده، م. ش. (1396). بررسی ادراک روستاییان نسبت به تغییرات اقلیمی و راهبردهای سازگاری در شهرستان زابل. جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی محیطی، 28(4)، 85106. https://doi.org/10.22108/gep.2018.103703.1041
7.     نظری‌زاده، ب.، الحسینی‌المدرسی، س. ا.، خبازی، م.، و مویدفر، س. (1401). تبیین ظرفیت گردشگری بومی بر توسعه معیشت در مناطق بیابانی: مطالعه موردی شهر شهداد، استان کرمان. فصلنامه برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای, 12(47), 223-242. https://doi.org/10.30495/JZPM.2022.5420
8.     مصطفوی، ن. س.، پرتوی، پ.، و اسدالهی، ز. (2023). یکپارچه‌سازی مفهوم خدمات اکوسیستم در برنامه‌ریزی شهری: طبقه‌بندی و تحلیل چالش‌ها و موانع آن با استفاده از روش فرامطالعه. جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی, 10(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.22034/gp.2023.54909.3085
 
9.      Albalawneh, A., Al-Assaf, A., Sweity, A., Hammour, W., Kloub, K., Hjazin, A., … Haddad, N. (2022). Mapping cultural ecosystem services in the hyper arid environment of south of Jordan. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 866309.
10.   Alorda-Kleinglass, A., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Diego Feliu, M., Rodellas, V., Bruach-Menchén, J. M., & Garcia-Orellana, J. (2021). The social implications of Submarine Groundwater Discharge from an Ecosystem Services perspective: A systematic review. Earth-Science Reviews, 221, 103742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103742
11.   Arntzen, S., & Brady, E. (Eds.). (2008). Humans in the land: The ethics and aesthetics of the cultural landscape. Oslo: Unipub.
12.   Ba, Z., Du, H., Hasi, E., & Lu, X. (2023). Changes in land use and ecosystem service value in desert areas of China after reform and opening up. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1251605.
13.   Bacar, F. F., Lisboa, S. N., Macuácua, J. C., & Sitoe, A. A. (2025). Mapping and assessing ecosystem service supply in drylands of the Limpopo Corridor, Mozambique. Environmental Challenges, 19, 101124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2025.101124
14.   Barbosa, V. R. F., Damasceno, R. M., Dias, M. A., Castelhano, F. J., Roig, H. L., & Requia, W. J. (2024). Ecosystem services provided by green areas and their implications for human health in Brazil. Ecological Indicators, 161, 111975. 
15.   Bing, Z., Qiu, Y., Huang, H., Chen, T., Zhong, W., & Jiang, H. (2021). Spatial distribution of cultural ecosystem services demand and supply in urban and suburban areas: A case study from Shanghai, China. Ecological Indicators, 127, 107720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107720
16.   Borrello, M., Carvalho, A., Isermann-Baldeto, C., & La Notte, A. (2022). Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics, 195, 107367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107367
17.   Breyne, J., Dufrêne, M., & Maréchal, K. (2021). How integrating ‘socio-cultural values’ into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101278
18.   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, 21, 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015
19.   Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., ... & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
20.   Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
21.   Chen, H., & Costanza, R. (2024). Valuation and management of desert ecosystems and their services. Ecosystem Services, 66, 101607.
22.   Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
23.   Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
24.   Csurgó, B., & Smith, M. K. (2021). The value of cultural ecosystem services in a rural landscape context. Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.05.030
25.   Dou, Y., Yu, X., & Liu, Y. (2021). Rethinking non-material links between people and drylands from a cultural ecosystem services perspective. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101274
26.   Douzandeh Ziabary, F., & Lotfi, H. (2017). Investigating the capabilities of desert areas in Iran in order to attract foreign tourists (Case study: Mesr Desert and Maranjab Desert). Journal of Tourism & Hospitality Research, 4(3), 5–32.
27.   Gladkikh, T. M., Gould, R. K., & Coleman, K. J. (2019). Cultural ecosystem services and the well-being of refugee communities. Ecosystem Services, 40, 101036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101036
28.   Hanaček, K., Langemeyer, J., Bileva, T., & Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2021). Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services: The case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria. Ecological Economics, 179, 106834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106834
29.   Harwell, M. C., & Jackson, C. A. (2021). Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community and Sustainability Decision Making. Sustainability, 13(15), 8249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158249 
30.   Havinga, I., Bogaart, P. W., Hein, L., & Tuia, D. (2020). Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101091
31.   Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.045
32.   Hirons, M., Comberti, C., & Dunford, R. (2016). Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 545-574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
33. Huang, S., Tian, T., Zhai, L., Deng, L., & Che, Y. (2023). Understanding the dynamic changes in wetland cultural ecosystem services: Integrating annual social media data into the SolVES. Applied Geography, 156, 102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.10299 
34.   Jones, L., Boeri, M., Christie, M., Durance, I., Evans, K., Fletcher, D., ... & Waters, R. (2021). Can we model cultural ecosystem services, and are we measuring the right things? People and Nature, 4(1), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10271
35.   Khosravi Mashizi, A., & Sharafatmandrad, M. (2023). Cultural services in arid landscapes: A comparative study based on people’s perception, southeast of Iran. Arid Land Research and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2023.2213671
36.   Khosravi Mashizi, A., & Escobedo, F. (2025). The role of traditional ecological knowledge and ecosystem quality in managing ecosystem services. Scientific Reports, 15, 31510.
37.   Mahjoubi, I., Osorio-Peláez, C., Mallow, B., Scheef, L., Kaczmarek, N., Silva-Novoa Sanchez, L. M., Berger, E., & Frör, O. (2025). Echoes of the Oasis: Water-dependent cultural ecosystem services in the Middle Drâa valley, Morocco. Ecosystem Services, 76, 101766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101766
38.   McElwee, P., He, J., & Hsu, M. J. (2022). Challenges to understanding and managing cultural ecosystem services in the global South. Ecology and Society, 27(3), 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13427-270323
39.   Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344
40.   Nagy, T. S. (2024). Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services in Lake Country, B.C. (T). University of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0444807
41.   Nicolás-Ruiz, N., Suárez, M. L., Vidal-Abarca, M. R., & Quintas-Soriano, C. (2025). Can dry rivers provide a good quality of life? Integrating beneficial and detrimental nature’s contributions to people over time. Ambio, 54, 305–324.
42.   Normyle, A., Vardon, M., & Doran, B. (2023). Aligning Indigenous values and cultural ecosystem services for ecosystem accounting: A review. Ecosystem Services, 59, 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101502
43.   Nyathi, N. A., Musakwa, W., Azilagbetor, D. M., & Kuhn, N. J. (2025). Perceptions of cultural and provisioning ecosystem services and human wellbeing indicators amongst indigenous communities neighbouring the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Heliyon, 11, e41448.
44.   Ocelli Pinheiro, R., Triest, L., & Lopes, P. F. M. (2021). Cultural ecosystem services: Linking landscape and social attributes to ecotourism in protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101340
45.   Olowu, E. A., Riley, I. T., & Avci, M. (2024). Trees in semiarid zones – perception of ecosystem services and community values in Niğde Province, Central Anatolia, Türkiye. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 22(1), 721–738.
46.   Pérez-Silos, I., Barquín, J., & Datry, T. (2025). Ecosystem services in drying river networks: A meta-ecosystem conceptual model. WIREs Water, 12, e70002. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.70002
47.   Pueyo-Ros, J. (2018). The role of tourism in the ecosystem services framework. Land, 7(3), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7030111
48.   Quintas-Soriano, C., Martín-López, B., Santos-Martín, F., Loureiro, M., Montes, C., Benayas, J., & García-Llorente, M. (2016). Ecosystem services values in Spain: A meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 186-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.001
49.   Rizzo, G., Ravera, F., Buechler, S., & Gioli, G. (2023). Cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods and tools for economic evaluation. Environmental Science & Policy, 200, 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103155
50.   Sagie, H., Morris, A., Rofè, Y., Orenstein, D. E., & Groner, E. (2013). Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: A social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli-Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. Journal of Arid Environments, 97, 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.05.007
51.   Santana-Santana, S. B., Marrero-Rodríguez, N., García-Romero, L., Peña-Alonso, C., & Pérez-Chacón Espino, E. (2022). Is disability a conditioning factor to perceive cultural ecosystem services? Ocean and Coastal Management, 228, 106298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106298
52.   Santos, J. C., dos Reis, R. R., & Peres, C. A. (2024). Exploring the cultural ecosystem services of arid watersheds: A social media–based assessment. Journal of Arid Environments, 215, 105055.
53.   Santarém, F., Saarinen, J., & Brito, J. C. (2021). Assessment and prioritization of cultural ecosystem services in the Sahara-Sahelian region. Science of The Total Environment, 777, 146053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146053
54.   Soe Zin, W., Suzuki, A., Peh, K. S.-H., & Gasparatos, A. (2019). Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques. Land, 8(12), 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8120194 
55.   Stavi, I., Xu, C., & Argaman, E. (2024). Climate-smart forestry in the world’s drylands: A review of challenges and opportunities. The Anthropocene Review, 11(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196231182354
56.   Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., & Linthurst, R. A. (2016). The role of ecosystem services in community well-being. In Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology (Chapter 8). InTechOpen. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74068
57.   Tan, Q., Siru, A., & Lang, W. (2024). Assessing local people’s perceptions of ecosystem services to support land management plans in arid desert regions, northwest China. Heliyon, 10, e25302.
58.   Taylor, B. R. (2007). Exploring Religion, Nature, and Culture—Introducing the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture, 1(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v1i1.5
59.   Teff-Seker, Y., & Orenstein, D. E. (2019). The desert experience: Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services of drylands through walking and focusing. People and Nature, 1(3), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.28
60.   van den Belt, M., Granek, E., Gaill, F., Halpern, B., Thorndyke, M., & Bernal, P. (2016). Scientific understanding of ecosystem services. In L. Inniss & A. Simcock (Eds.), The first global integrated marine assessment: World Ocean Assessment I (pp. 1–34). United Nations.
61.   Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez, M. R., Nicolás-Ruiz, N., Sánchez-Montoya, M. M., & Suárez Alonso, M. L. (2022). Ecosystem services provided by dry river socio-ecological systems and their drivers of change. Hydrobiologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-022-04915-8
62.   Vidal-Llamas, A., Nicolás-Ruiz, N., Suárez Alonso, M. L., & Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez, M. R. (2024). Exploring the cultural ecosystem services of arid watersheds: A social media analysis. Journal of Arid Environments, 221, 105141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2024.105141
63.   Walker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P., & Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: Introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society, 11(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01573-110112
64.   Wang, W., Wu, C., Fang, Q., & Ikhumhen Harrison, O. (2023). Cultural ecosystem services evaluation in a coastal city of China using social media data. Ocean & Coastal Management, 242, 106693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106693
65.   Wang, Y., Li, Z., & Deng, X. (2024). Assessment of cultural ecosystem services of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: Guarding the beauty of the Plateau, co-creating a better future. Ecological Indicators, 166, 112405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112405
66.   Wang, Z., Xie, W., Zhang, M., & Wang, Y. (2024). Comparative study on the perception of cultural ecosystem services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from different stakeholder perspectives. Forests, 15(2), 362.
67.   Wen, L., Li, B., Peng, Y., Zhou, Y., Weng, A., Jin, Y., Cai, G., Lin, Y., & Chen, B. (2024). Exploring the evolution of coupled natural-cultural ecosystem services and their geographically scaled driven modeling in a coastal city of Southeast China. Journal of Environmental Management, 361, 121265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121265
68.   Weyland, F., & Laterra, P. (2014). Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: A method based in the ecosystem services approach and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 39, 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.023