Identification and Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Service Resources in the Territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area

Abstract

The article focuses on the identification and mapping of cultural ecosystem service (CES) resources in the territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area (LAG LVA). The Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems (CLE) was used for mapping, and changes in the distribution and overall representation of cultural ecosystem service resources across the different CLE versions were monitored. A total of 27 ecosystem categories were identified in the region. Subsequently, the importance of cultural ecosystem services was assessed based on expert estimation. The classes of ecosystem services defined within the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) have been grouped into a total of four groups according to their common characteristics. Then, an expert estimation of all identified ecosystems in terms of their importance as sources of CESs was performed. It showed that ecosystems in the LAG LVA have a high potential to provide CES. As a result of the significant amount of CES resources, it is also an area that attracts a huge number of visitors annually. However, some places are more attractive and well known, causing an influx of tourists. The sustainability and protection of these resources, thus, depends on their appropriate management and integration into strategies and planning.

1. Introduction

Cultural ecosystem services (CESs) are the intangible benefits that ecosystems provide to society [1]. These services include aesthetic, recreational, spiritual, educational and cultural values that are associated with ecosystems and landscape features [1,2]. However, cultural ecosystem services are still an understudied area [3,4]. In recent years, however, there has been growing interest in the assessment and management of cultural ecosystem services as a tool for decision making [5]. The territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area (LAG LVA) is also a place that has significant landscape features and natural and cultural heritage. This area includes, among others, the Lednice–Valtice Area (LVA), which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and represents a unique combination of natural and historical elements [6].

The territory of the LAG LVA is characterised not only by its rich natural diversity but also by historically significant elements such as landscape compositions, cultural monuments and traditional agricultural activities. Its ecological and cultural value attracts visitors from all over the world and, at the same time, contributes to the development of the local economy mainly through tourism and other forms of recreational activities [7]. A focus on cultural ecosystem services in this area is, therefore, of particular importance given the intensive use of the landscape for recreational and tourism purposes [8]. Given this importance, it is important to focus on their assessment and mapping, which allows for the identification of the most valuable parts of the area in terms of the provision of these services and, thus, contributes to their protection and sustainable use. The growth of tourism and other activities related to natural and cultural heritage raises the need for the effective management of ecosystems to preserve their value for future generations.

It is the Local Action Group that can bring the issue of cultural ecosystem services to the awareness of not only local residents but also the tourists who use these services. The results of this assessment can serve as a basis for decision making on the future protection, management and use of the area, especially in the context of tourism, agriculture and spatial planning.

The main objective of the article is to identify, map and evaluate the resources of cultural ecosystem services in the territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area. The study focuses on the distribution of ecosystems within the region while also tracking the importance of updating the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer. The article also analyses the potential of ecosystems to provide cultural ecosystem services from which people can derive various benefits based on the activities undertaken. The results can serve as a basis for decision making in the conservation, management and sustainable use of landscapes, especially in relation to the increasing pressure of tourists on local resources and ecosystems.

The article presents an approach to assessing cultural ecosystem services based on the use of the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer and on linking it to the CICES to systematically assess the importance of individual ecosystems. This approach allows for the identification of key sites for supporting cultural services. It also recommends some ways to reduce pressure on the most exposed sites through the diversification of tourism activities. The study, thus, provides outputs that can be used in the strategic planning and decision making of the LAG, which can contribute significantly to the sustainability of ecosystem services in the area of interest.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Cultural Ecosystem Services

Nature provides humans with a vast array of opportunities for recreation, such as winter sports, cycling, hiking, and many others. Cultural ecosystem services (CESs) include both social and economic benefits that accrue to society from their existence [9]. Disciplines such as sociology, economics, and ecology are involved in the study of cultural ecosystem services. Scholars often agree that a satisfactory level of understanding of the important aspects of cultural ESs has not yet been achieved [10]. Cultural ecosystem services are generally defined as the benefits that humanity derives from landscapes [9].

CESs depend largely on how people perceive and interpret them. However, their specific characteristics are also important [11]. A typical characteristic of this group of ecosystem services is their recreational values, which refer to the cultural identity of a given area and human well-being derived from the relationship between people and nature [12]. Hein et al. [11] state, in their publication, that these are provided by different ecosystems, where they give, as an example, a single monumental tree but also an entire national park. Thus, some ecosystems may provide multiple ecosystem services simultaneously or there may be a situation where individual services are mutually exclusive [13].

A significant number of factors influence the visit to a particular recreation site (park, forest, pond, etc.) [14]. Examples include travel costs, gender, age, income, the mode of transportation, the attractiveness of the place and several others [15].

Cultural ecosystem services are important in a number of areas. The term CES is typically most often used to refer to recreation and tourism. This mainly includes the values of nature that motivate people to travel or recreate. It also includes cultural heritage, religious and cultural significance [13], as well as their use for science and education [16]. The demand for cultural ecosystem services is expected to grow, mainly in industrialised countries [17]. Most often, attention is directed to quality enhancement in the areas of aesthetics, nature and culture and recreation itself. The use of nature as a cultural ecosystem slave is a trend, especially for developed countries. However, in recent years, their importance has also been increasing in developing countries, and it is not unlikely that it will continue to grow in importance [11].

Among the groups of ecosystem services—provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural—cultural are the least studied [18] despite being a valuable component for humanity. Compared to other groups of ecosystem services, cultural ones are the group that is most recognised by the population [12]. There are several reasons for the lack of fully comprehensive articles. One is the assumption that their intangible nature makes them unmeasurable [18]. A reason is, for example, the existence of a large number of quantitative indicators that have been questioned because they are not able to explain cultural ecosystem services in a comprehensive way [19]. A related issue is the link between quantitative and qualitative data in decision-making processes [20]. Kopperoinen et al. [12] add that it is also difficult to quantify this group because its value is too complex to evaluate and map. A similar view is mentioned by Burkhard et al. [21], who also attribute the difficulty of evaluation in their publication precisely because of their intangible nature.

However, in recent years, there has been quite a significant increase in interest in their research and evaluation [17], mainly because of the massive growth in outdoor recreation, which has been accompanied by a diversification of activities carried out by humans. This causes an increase in the demand and supply of recreational services. Consequently, there is, then, an increased need for their quantification [22].

The reason for addressing this issue is the significant increase in tourism, which is increasing the pressure on the landscape. This may cause an erosion of the ability to provide cultural ecosystem services, thereby reducing the tourism potential of the landscape in the area.

2.2. Classification of Ecosystems

Within Europe, there are several resources that can be used for ecosystem mapping. If we focus on the pan-European level, CORINE Land Cover (Coordination of Information on the Environment Land Cover, CLC) can be used as a source for monitoring [13]. CORINE Land Cover can be considered one of the most used datasets in Europe [23], which was created as a result of a European Union initiative to standardise land cover data and, thus, create a pan-European landscape cover [24]. This standardisation involved a total of 39 participating countries. It is particularly important due to the provision of a considerable amount of time series [23]. The datasets are based on the classification of satellite images. Updates of the CLC take place at six-year intervals, with the most recent one produced so far in 2018. It currently offers a total of 44 classes covering land cover (LC) and land use (LU) [25].

If we focus locally only on the territory of the Czech Republic, a nationwide pilot ecosystem services assessment was created in 2012–2013 within the project “Integrated Assessment of Ecosystem Services in the Czech Republic”. The output of this project was the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems (CLE) [26], which was jointly developed by the Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic and CzechGlobe [27]. The CLE covers the entire territory of the Czech Republic with detailed resolution [26]. The Habitat Mapping Layer (HML) was used as the main data source, and its primary use was directed towards the identification of Natura 2000 sites. For the creation of the CLE, a combination of the aforementioned HML, as well as Corine Land Cover 2006, Urban Atlas, Basic Geographic Database (ZABAGED) data and water-specific geographic data (DIBAVOD), was used. The resulting map included 41 habitat categories [28,29]. An EKOSERV database was also created, which included 190 ecosystem service value data points. The project showed that ecosystems in the Czech Republic provide annual benefits equivalent to 1.5 times the GDP.

The follow-up project “One Nature” continued this research and focused on updating data and assessing ecosystem services while tracking long-term changes in landscape use [26]. Thus, in 2021, a new CLE was added to update the data. To create the updated CLE, the latest available data from their own sources were used, as well as data from NCA CR, CzechGlobe, Urban Atlas 2018, ZABAGED, CORINE Land Cover and DIBAVOD. New source data from the Institute for Forest Management, the public land register and the Registry of Territorial Identification of Addresses and Real Estate were also used. Furthermore, more precise boundaries of polygons of watercourses and economic forests were defined, and insignificant small polygons were removed. As part of the layer update, a category called “Scattered greenery” was created. This category includes small segments of woody vegetation, including linear elements. They do not have their own internal environment, are unaffected by the surroundings and, therefore, cannot be described as a forest. In the original CLE, these segments are included in neighbouring ecosystems. The category “Transport units” was expanded to include several smaller roads as well as unpaved roads. After the update, the CLE does not divide the category “Watercourses” into natural and non-natural [30]. The last update of the layer took place in 2022. The main differences from the 2021 version can be found in the removal of underground streams and small polygons. The name of the category “Farm meadows” has been changed to “Degraded grassland”. There has also been a renaming of “Continuous urban fabric” and “Discontinuous urban fabric”, which are now labelled as “Contiguous fabric” and “Discontinuous fabric” [31].

2.3. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services is a classification that is widely used primarily for ecosystem service assessment and mapping. It was developed by the European Environment Agency [32]. The first version of this classification was published in 2013. It was followed by an update in January 2018. The CICES is a tool that makes it possible to better measure ecosystem services [33]. The main objective of the creation of the CICES was to provide a certain standard that will help to systematically name, describe and classify ecosystem services. The CICES is not intended to replace other ecosystem service classifications but to facilitate comparisons between them and to better explain how people measure and process the associated information [34]. The classification is hierarchically divided into five levels, which are section, division, group, class and class type [32]. The current version of the CICES, 5.1, defines a total of 83 specific ecosystem service classes, of which 56 are related to biotic (living) services and 27 to abiotic (non-living) services. Each class is identified by a four-digit code, where the first digit identifies a “section”, the second a “division” within that section, the third a “group” within the division and the last digit a specific “class” within that group [35]. The CICES is a detailed inventory that categorises ecosystem services into a total of three levels: production, cultural and regulation [36].

2.4. Local Action Group

A Local Action Group is defined as a legal entity that operates on the principle of partnership across public and private sector entities, which are citizens and non-profit organisations but also public administration and private businesses. All these entities are united by a common interest and commitment to the development of the territory. This is achieved, among other things, by obtaining financial support from national programmes and from the EU [37].

Within the LAG, the integrated Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) instrument is used. It is a specific instrument within the sub-regional partnership. It is based on economic and social cohesion. It can be used to involve local communities and organisations that could contribute to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. Within CLLD, the LEADER (Liaison Entre Actions Développement de l’Économie Rurale) method is used, which translates as linking activities that develop the rural economy [38]. Local Action Groups operate on a bottom–up basis [39]. This is one of several principles of the LEADER method [38]. Through this approach, local actors are involved in policy making and are assumed to have good knowledge of the locality, thus identifying areas that need to be targeted in the pursuit of effective development of the territory [40]. Other LEADER principles include public–private partnerships, support for innovation-oriented projects, the creation of multi-sectoral strategies, the implementation of local development strategies and the creation of networks of local partnerships and cooperation [41]. There are a total of 180 LAGs in the Czech Republic [42].

Table 1. Summary of key aspects of the development and typology of cultural ecosystem services. Source: own elaboration.

Concept	Shortcut	Main Aspects
Cultural Ecosystem Services	CES	They provide recreational, aesthetic, cultural and educational values Growing interest in assessment in recent years Difficult to measure
CORINE Land Cover	CLC	A standardised dataset covering the whole of Europe Updated on a six-year basis Contains 44 LC and LU classes
Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems	CLE	Created for the Czech Republic Landscape cover layer Regular updates
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services	CICES	Hierarchical classification with 83 classes Supports comparability of EC data Divided into provisioning, cultural regulation and maintenance ecosystem services
Local Action Group	LAG	A legal entity established on the principles of local partnership to promote and develop a rural region Based on the LEADER approach 180 LAGs in the Czech Republic

provides an overview of the key aspects of the development, classification and sources of cultural ecosystem services, as discussed in the theoretical part of the paper. It includes a summary of important data on the methods and classifications used, including their main characteristics and applications.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Overview of the Study Area

The area of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area (LAG LVA) was selected for the identification of cultural ecosystem service resources. The main reason for selecting this area was its typical character. The LAG LVA is almost identical to the boundaries of the cultural landscape of the Lednice–Valtice Area, which was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List on 7 December 1996 [36]. With its area of 143 km² [43], the Lednice–Valtice Area is considered one of the largest artificially composed landscapes in Europe [43]. The area has long been one of the most visited tourist destinations in the Czech Republic, and the number of tourists is increasing every year [37]. Some parts of the municipalities associated with the LVA LAG that lie outside the protected area are not included in the cultural landscape of the UNESCO-listed LVA. These are, for example, the municipalities of Rakvice and Přítluky, which fall within the LAG LVA but are not part of the UNESCO cultural landscape. Similarly, some built-up parts of the municipalities of Břeclav and Podivín, which cross the boundaries defined by the UNESCO cultural landscape, are not included. This difference is based on different criteria for defining the boundaries: while the UNESCO cultural landscape boundaries focus on the protection of historically and aesthetically significant parts of the territory, the boundaries of the municipalities included in the LAG follow the administrative layout and functional connectivity of the region. This accounts for the difference in the listed areas, which amounts to 23 km².

By identifying the sources of cultural ecosystem services, the selected Local Action Groups can include this issue in their strategies and, thus, reduce the pressure on the ecosystems that provide these services.

The Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area is located in the district of Břeclav in the South Moravian Region. On the western border, it borders the LAG Mikulovsko, the northern part of the territory borders the LAG Hustopečsko, and, in the eastern part, it borders the LAG Jižní Slovácko. In the south is the state border with Austria. The LAG covers a total of nine municipalities, which belong to the administrative district of the municipality with extended competence Břeclav. These municipalities are Břeclav, Bulhary, Hlohovec, Lednice, Podivín, Přítluky, Rakvice, Valtice and Velké Bílovice [37]. The location of these municipalities is shown on the overview map in Figure 1.

This area is located along the lower reaches of the river Dyje in the flat landscape of the Lower Moravian Valley. Its uniqueness lies in the combination of the natural beauty represented by the floodplain forests and the cultural values created by the Liechtenstein family in the 18th and 19th centuries. The result is a vast landscape of outstanding global significance [37].

The total area of the LAG is 260 km². The largest area is the municipality of Břeclav, at 77.19 km². On the other hand, the smallest territory is occupied by the municipality of Hlohovec, which covers an area of 8.96 km² [37].

From a tourist point of view, the LAG LVA is a very attractive place. The area is closely linked to the World Natural and Cultural Heritage UNESCO Lednice–Valtice Area, which represents a historical and cultural landscape with exceptional values. A large part of the region belongs to the NATURA 2000 system of protected areas. The popularity of the region allows for a wide range of possibilities in the field of tourism. Tourism is also supported by the number of accommodation and catering facilities, of which there are many in the region [44]. There is also a network of marked walking and cycling routes for visitors, which connect the region’s important sites [37]. A specific feature of the LVA is that recreation is mainly concentrated on being outdoors [44], as there are several natural monuments and reserves. Examples include the National Nature Monument Pastvisko u Lednice, the National Nature Reserve Lednice Ponds, the Natural Monument Květné jezero and the National Nature Monument Rendezvous. In addition to the natural beauty, the area is also characterised by a number of important historical buildings. The Chateau Lednice and Chateau Valtice are worth mentioning. These buildings were built by the Liechtenstein family [45]. Other buildings include the Temple of Apollo and Diana, John’s Castle, the Colonnade Reistna, the Three Graces and the Minaret.

3.2. Methods

Mapping of cultural ecosystem service resources in the LAG LVA was carried out using the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer. A total of four versions of the CLE were compared: the initial version from 2013 and the versions from 2021 and 2022. The fourth layer consists of the edited version from 2022. The names of the categories were unified across the CEL versions to allow for comparison between them. In the 2021 update of CLE, the category “Scattered greenery” was added. The 2013 “Natural watercourses” and “Non-natural watercourses” categories were consolidated into a single “Watercourses” category under the 2021 version to allow for a comparison of the representation of watercourses in the study area across versions. Subsequently, according to the most recent version of 2022, the name of the category “Farm meadows” was changed to “Degraded grassland”. The same change was made to the “Continuous urban fabric” and “Discontinuous urban fabric” categories, which were renamed “Contiguous development” and “Discontinuous fabric”, respectively.

The editing of the 2022 CLE was undertaken on the assumption that the layer produced may contain inaccuracies and that there may have also been changes in the land use of parts of the study area since its production. This editing was carried out using the current orthophotomaps available on the OpenStreetMap and mapy.cz platforms, as well as using recent photographs and field reconnaissance.

During the field visits, select locations that were more likely to be inaccurate were verified and updated. Geographic information systems were used for CES resource mapping and editing, specifically working with QGIS Desktop (version 3.26.0). The layers were manually edited in the environment, with changes recorded in an attribute table to maintain transparency in the process. QGIS tools were used as follows:

• Importing and editing data: layers from different years were uploaded into QGIS, and their attribute tables were unified for easy comparison.
• Analytical tools: this step was carried out to compare whether there were significant changes within each layer; these area ratios were then plotted graphically.
• Data visualisation: a colour scale was created in the QGIS environment using the “Symbology” function, with points assigned to the KES significance values.

Geographic information systems were used to map the CES resources, specifically working with QGIS Desktop (version 3.26.0). Area ratios for each CES category to the total area of the study area were calculated to compare whether there were significant changes within each layer. These area ratios were then plotted graphically.

The categories of the different versions of the CLE were then classified in terms of the importance of the provision of cultural ecosystem services. The most recent version of the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), V5.1, was used for this step.

The assessment of cultural ecosystem services was carried out by expert estimations of the importance of ecosystem services, based on their management, provision and use. Experts from the project team were included in the assessment, and their assessments were conducted independently. Each expert had access to category descriptions, orthophotomaps and data from each CLE. Differences of opinion were evaluated through a discussion and the adoption of an average value.

The proposed score of 0–4 determines whether the ecosystem is used solely for the provision of the cultural ecosystem service or whether the CES is secondary to its importance. The specific characteristics of the scoring are as follows:

• Main ecosystem service (ES): usually the main management and use objective of the ecosystem, value 4;
• Secondary ecosystem service: the ecosystem is almost always used as a CES but is not always the target of its management, value 3;
• Occasional ES: the ecosystem has potential for use (produces a function) but is rarely intentionally used in this way, value 2;
• Theoretical ES: the ecosystem has the potential to use ecosystem services but is not used much in this way (or has been used in the past), value 1;
• Unused/unmanaged ES: value 0, no designation [46].

The different classes of ecosystem services have been grouped into four categories of their own. This merging was based on their similarity within the original CICES classes. This merging is shown in

Table 2. Merged categories based on the characteristics of the original CICES classes. Source: own elaboration using CICES V5.1 [47].

9.1.1.1 Characteristics of ecosystems that enable activities that contribute to health, regeneration or enjoyment through active physical or immersive interaction
3.1.1.1	3.2.1.3		6.1.1.1
Characteristics of living systems that enable activities promoting health, recuperation or enjoyment through active or immersive interactions	Elements of living systems used for entertainment or representation		Natural, abiotic characteristics of nature that enable active or passive physical and experiential interactions
9.1.1.2 Ecosystem features that enable activities that contribute to health, regeneration or enjoyment through passive or observational interaction
3.1.1.2			3.1.2.4
Characteristics of living systems that enable activities promoting health, recuperation or enjoyment through passive or observational interactions			Characteristics of living systems that enable aesthetic experiences
9.1.1.3 Features of ecosystems that support intellectual interactions, research or educational activities
3.1.2.1	3.1.2.2		6.1.2.1
Characteristics of living systems that enable scientific investigation or the creation of traditional ecological knowledge	Characteristics of living systems that enable education and training		Natural, abiotic characteristics of nature that enable intellectual interactions
9.1.1.4 Ecosystem features that have value associated with cultural, historical, traditional or regional heritage
3.1.2.3	3.2.2.1		3.2.2.2
Characteristics of living systems that are resonant in terms of culture or heritage	Characteristics or features of living systems that have an existence value		Characteristics or features of living systems that have an option or bequest value
6.2.1.1		6.2.2.1
Natural, abiotic characteristics of nature that enable spiritual, symbolic and other interactions		Natural, abiotic characteristics or features of nature that have either an existence, option or bequest value

[46].

The overall value of the importance of cultural ecosystem services was, therefore, calculated according to the following formula [46]:

Cultural ecosystem services (CESs) = 9.1.1.1 + 9.1.1.2 + 9.1.1.3 + 9.1.1.4

(1)

The points assigned to each category were again transferred to maps using QGIS for easy comparison. The points contained in the Excel spreadsheet were transferred in.csv format to QGIS and then linked to the attribute tables of all CLE versions using the “Join” function. Points were assigned a colour scale according to their importance in terms of cultural ecosystem services. The colour scale was created using the “Symbology” function. The results were processed using QGIS 3.26 software to produce thematic maps for visual interpretation.

4. Results

4.1. Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems

The territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area was interpreted in terms of the ecosystem categories that occur in the locality using the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer. According to the latest version, the CLE divides the territory of the Czech Republic into a total of 40 categories [31]. A total of 29 ecosystem categories were identified in the study area. Figure 2 shows the distribution of each category in the LAG LVA for the 2013, 2021 and 2022 versions, as well as for our edited 2022 version. The use of cultural ecosystem services has a major impact on the quality of human life [48], and the modifications and data updates made contribute to better protection and management of cultural ecosystem services in the LAG LVA.

The biggest changes can be observed especially in the case of “Contiguous fabric” and “Discontinuous fabric”. The 2013 and 2021 versions referred to residential areas within village centres as “Discontinuous fabric”, which is not entirely accurate in terms of the defined definition of these categories. Contiguous development is defined as parts of an area where some buildings contain residences and at least 80% of the area is covered by buildings, streets or other artificial surfaces. An area is defined as a “Contiguous fabric” if these areas dominate. It follows that an area that is covered by impermeable features on more than 80% of the ground surface may be considered as a “Contiguous fabric”. Areas of vegetation and undeveloped parts of land are rare. In contrast, a “Discontinuous urban fabric” is an area in which some buildings contain settlements but cover less than 80% of the surface. The area is also covered by vegetation and bare areas and occupies significant areas. Impervious features such as buildings, roads and artificial landscaped areas range from 30 to 80% of the land cover [49,50]. These categories have been modified in the 2022 version and areas in city centres have been designated as “Contiguous development”. Further adjustments were then made within our edit to include areas of gardens, urban greenspace and dispersed greenspace, which also increases the value of the cultural ecosystem services of the site. At the same time, it is possible to see quite large areas of forest, with several categories of forest. Forests are an important source of cultural ecosystem services [51]. They can host a range of activities that contribute to human well-being [52]. Floodplain forests, as well as economic broadleaf, coniferous and mixed forests, occur in the LVA. The largest areas of forests can be found mainly in the southern part of the territory, where the municipalities of Valtice and Břeclav are located.

The area is also characterised by relatively large areas of vineyards, which is due to the fact that it is a wine-growing area [53,54]. As can be seen, the largest area is occupied by vineyards in the north-eastern part, where the village of Velké Bílovice is located. This municipality is famous for its winemaking tradition, which dates back to the 16th century. It is the largest wine-growing municipality in the Czech Republic in terms of the number of wine growers and its area. There are over 750 ha of vineyards, which are tended by over 1050 wine growers [55]. However, vineyards can also be found in other municipalities such as Rakvice, Hlohovec, Valtice and Lednice. In addition to the larger areas of vineyards, there are often smaller ones in the area, which are used mainly for cultivation and the subsequent production of wine by local inhabitants who pursue this activity only as a hobby. It is important for the area that the tradition of viticulture is preserved, as it is the traditions that shape a certain identity of a place [56,57]. Vineyards are also an important source of cultural ecosystem services, as they do not only serve for farming for profit but can host a range of activities related to recreation and tourism, which includes, among other things, wine tasting and the regional products associated with it [58].

From an overall view of Figure 3, the changes across the CLE versions are not as obvious, and it would seem that changes in the distribution of ecosystems across versions may not affect the actual provision of cultural ecosystem services. For this reason, two specific sites have been selected to more accurately represent the changes made to the distribution of cultural ecosystem service resource categories.

The first area chosen was the part of the village of Valtice (Figure 3), where an important and frequently visited castle is located [59]. Here, it is possible to mainly observe a change in the mentioned distribution of continuous and discontinuous buildings and also in the area of vineyards.

In the 2013 version, the largest area in this part of the area was in the “Discontinuous fabric” category, and it is possible to note the area shown in purple, which depicts “Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas”. It is in this area that Chateau Valtice is located, together with the extensive castle park, through which a number of hiking trails lead. The park and the Chateau are an important source of cultural ecosystem services as they have considerable historical and cultural value and also bear traces of the past, architectural art and traditions [60].

In the 2021 version, walking trails have been added to the park area. However, the designation as a “Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas” was retained. This designation for Chateau Park is not entirely accurate, even though it is a recreational area. A more accurate categorisation is suggested here as “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries”. This reasoning was confirmed in the 2022 version, when the Chateau Park was categorised as an urban green space, which better reflects its importance for cultural ecosystem services. As part of our editing, a tiny polygon in the part of the Chateau Park for the tennis court was added and designated as “Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas”. We have also modified the boundaries of the “Contiguous fabric” to include only houses in this category and have defined gardens and green spaces around the development. Not only Chateau Gardens but also gardens that are part of dwellings are considered as sources of cultural ecosystem services [61], as people engage in activities here that provide physical and mental well-being. At the same time, they also carry aesthetic value, which is provided by flowers and trees, and the sight of them ensures human satisfaction [60,61]. Plant cultivation is also a source of maintaining traditions and cultural identity. Finally, educational value can be observed in the care of gardens, where we learn a range of information about biodiversity, natural processes and ecosystems [60].

The area of vineyards has also changed compared to the 2013 version. It can be noted that the areas of vineyards have decreased and some of them have been converted to arable land, orchards and gardens and degraded grassland. Despite this, a relatively large part of the vineyard area is still preserved.

The second selected part of the territory was the village of Lednice (Figure 4). Lednice can be considered the core of the selected area in terms of attractiveness for tourists. It is, thanks to the castle, the unique park and the Chateau Garden, why this place has earned the status of one of the most visited areas in the Czech Republic [59]. This is also evidenced by the number of visitors in 2023, when Chateau Lednice was visited by 349,139 visitors in total, making it the most visited Chateau in the Czech Republic. For comparison, the number of visitors to Chateau Valtice reached 131,031 [45]. Specifically, Figure 4 shows the area on which the aforementioned Chateau Lednice and the Chateau Garden are located. This important monument is immediately adjacent to the built-up area, which is characterised, above all, by the large number of accommodation and catering facilities. Over the years and with the growing interest in tourism, the site has become a rather inaccessible area for normal housing due to the increase in the number of accommodation facilities. It is this fact that has often been pointed out by local residents in the citizen needs analysis [62].

Here, again, we see the aforementioned issue of the designations of “Continuous and Discontinuous fabrics” and the designation of the castle park as “Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas”. Behind the Chateau is the Chateau Park. Looking at this part of the area, it is also possible to note some changes in the different versions of the CLE, especially in the part where the Chateau Pond extends. This pond was constructed in the early 19th century as a compositional and aesthetic key element of the park, and it was not intended to be used for fish farming and fishing. The part of the park where the Chateau Pond is located is interwoven with a network of walking trails, and it is possible to use horse-drawn carriages around the area, making the site a tourist attraction [63]. In the parts of the islands that are located within the pond, the 2013 and 2021 versions have designated the areas largely as the “Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas” category. In the 2022 version, the change to “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens, cemeteries” was made during the update. During the editing process, the marked polygons were designated as “Scattered greenery”. The main reason for this edit was that the islands, which are mainly covered by a few trees, shrubs and other greenery, serve primarily as habitats for important bird species, and there is a desire to maintain overall conservation interests [64]. Thus, these are not primarily places that would be designated for recreational purposes, even though they do provide this ecosystem service. At the same time, the Chateau Park is a place where bicycles are prohibited [65]. The Chateau Pond is part of the Lednice Ponds system, which is a National Nature Reserve [64]. This system also includes the Mlýnský, Hlohovecký and Prostřední Ponds, whose water bodies are also located in the study region [6]. They fall under protection mainly due to the presence of important species of water and wetland birds. Examples are the river kingfisher, the ashen heron or swans and ducks. It is one of the most important ornithological sites in the Czech Republic [64]. Thus, these water bodies are also an important source of cultural ecosystem services, as their presence in the area makes it possible to carry out a wide range of activities that increase human well-being. A large part of the Chateau Park is designated as “Alluvial meadows”. Meadows of this type are mainly found in wet and floodplain areas [66]. Their importance also lies in their aesthetic value, especially when meadow plants are in bloom, which makes them attractive to tourists and photographers. Alluvial meadows are also rich in biodiversity, which is related to the observation of nature and a wide range of animals. These areas are, therefore, an important place for hiking and walking, as well as for relaxation or educational purposes.

As we can see in Figure 4, the 2022 version has expanded the category “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries” and can be said to have divided the “Contiguous fabric” into two parts. This part has been slightly expanded in the course of editing with the use of orthophotomaps and subsequent field reconnaissance.

For a better idea of what part of the territory of the LAG LVA is occupied by the individual categories of the defined ecosystems, Graph 1 was created, showing the proportion of areas to the total area of the monitored site. The graph illustrates how the representation of designated ecosystems has changed over time due to the more accurate mapping and categorisation of ecosystems. Despite the updates and edits made, some categories, such as “Arable land” and “Forest ecosystems”, remain key elements of the LAG LVA. It would appear that arable land is not significant in terms of cultural ecosystem services. It primarily falls into the category of productive ecosystem services [67,68], which include the benefits that ecosystems provide to people through the production of food, biomass and other materials [68]. Arable land, however, may have some cultural aspects if, for example, it is an area where traditional agricultural practices are an important element for local and cultural heritage [69,70,71]. The idea that arable land also provides cultural ecosystem services can be supported by the emerging form of tourism that is agrotourism. Agrotourism is based on the combination of agriculture with tourism activities [72]. It is a type of tourism that is implemented, for example, on farms or in agricultural areas [73], where visitors can experience rural life and also engage in various activities related to agriculture [74]. This form of tourism has a number of benefits, which mainly include the preservation of cultural heritage, awareness as well as environmental education, while visitors can be educated on sustainable agriculture [75]. Within the LVA, sustainable agriculture and the development of traditional agricultural industries are among the development needs identified within the Community-Led Local Development Strategy 2021–2027. Viticulture and fruit and vegetable farming are considered as the main traditional agricultural industries in the area. While viticulture in particular is an attractive sector due to wine tourism (e.g., wine trails built), the other two mentioned sectors are in decline [7]. This could be achieved precisely by promoting the development of agrotourism. In the territory of the LAG LVA, there are several establishments that conduct agrotourism; here, we can mention the Hippoclub Lednice s.r.o. establishment: this establishment mainly conducts hipotourism. Another place where agrotourism is conducted is the Siesta Guesthouse in Valtice.

It can be seen in Figure 5 that several categories defined in the 2013 version have seen a significant decline in the updated versions. This can be seen, for example, in the categories “Degraded grassland”, “Alluvial forests”, “Oak and oak–hornbeam forests” or “Human-influenced water bodies”. This is due to the updates that have been made, with more precise ecosystem identifications.

From the analysis of the distribution of ecosystems and their changes over time using the individual versions of the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems, it is clear that the territory of the LAG LVA offers a wide range of ecosystems, a large part of which are important sources of cultural ecosystem services. These services are crucial not only for local residents but also for visitors, especially due to the interconnection of historical, cultural and natural elements that make up the unique character of the Lednice–Valtice Area. The perceived stability of land use and land cover can contribute to the reinforcement of a “sense of place” and, thus, to identity formations [34]. On the other hand, more than 40% of land use is arable land. This means it is an ecosystem type that does not have much potential to provide cultural ecosystem services compared to other ecosystem types. In addition, the share of arable land has increased in the last ten years. Therefore, it is important to know the potential of other types of ecosystems to provide CESs.

4.2. Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Following the identification of cultural ecosystem service resources, an assessment of their importance in terms of potential for use and management was developed as cultural ecosystem services. The following

Table 3. Areas of the municipalities of LAG LVA in 2023. Source: own elaboration based on CICES [47] and Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems [31].

Categories of Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems	9.1.1.1	9.1.1.2	9.1.1.3	9.1.1.4	Sum
Alluvial forests	3	3	3	4	13
Alluvial meadows	3	3	2	4	12
Arable land	2	2	2	2	8
Artificial rocks	2	2	1	0	5
Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries	4	4	3	3	14
Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas	4	3	1	0	8
Continuous fabric	2	2	2	1	7
Degraded grasslands	2	3	1	1	7
Discontinuous fabric	2	2	2	1	7
Dry grasslands	3	1	1	1	6
Dump and construction units	0	0	0	0	0
Human-influenced water bodies	3	3	3	3	12
Industrial and commercial units	0	0	2	0	2
Intensive broad-leaved forests	3	3	2	3	11
Intensive coniferous forests	3	3	2	3	11
Intensive mixed forests	3	3	2	3	11
Introduced shrub vegetation	2	2	2	2	8
Macrophyte vegetation of water bodies	1	2	2	3	8
Mesic meadows	3	3	1	3	10
Natural shrub vegetation	2	2	2	2	8
Oak and oak–hornbeam forests	3	3	2	4	12
Orchards and gardens	2	4	3	4	13
Peatbogs and springs	1	2	1	4	8
Scattered greenery	2	3	2	3	10
Swamps	1	2	1	4	8
Transport units	0	0	0	0	0
Watercourses	3	3	3	4	13
Wetlands and littoral vegetation	1	2	2	4	9
Vineyards	2	3	3	4	12

shows the assigned values (0–4) to the identified ecosystems within the LVA within the defined CICES classes of cultural ecosystem services, which have been aggregated into four categories of their own.

The merged cultural ecosystem service classes were interpreted through maps for each version of the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems.

Figure 6 was created to give a better overview of the area representation of each category. It can be seen that a score of 2 has the largest representation across all the merged categories examined.

The subsequent section will focus on the detailed description of each category.

4.2.1. Category 9.1.1.1

The scoring for category 9.1.1.1, which includes ecosystem characteristics that enable activities that contribute to health, regeneration or enjoyment through active physical interaction, is shown in Figure 7.

In this case, the ecosystems with the highest representation within the LAG LVA are those that have been assigned a value of 2 (shown in brown). This value represents ecosystems that have the potential to be used as a source of cultural ecosystem services but are not intentionally used or are rarely used in this way. In our assessment, a value of 2 was assigned to a total of nine cultural ecosystem service resources, such as “Arable land”, “Introduced shrub vegetation”, or “Natural shrub vegetation”. The aforementioned “Arable land” has been given this value precisely because it has the potential for the use of cultural ecosystem services, but it is rarely used, and its potential could be increased with the development of agrotourism. The blue colour in Figure 5 represents the ecosystems that were rated 3 on a scale of 0–4. This value represents the ecosystems that are almost always used as a source of cultural ecosystem services, but they are not always the main objective of its management. A total of ten categories within Class 9.1.1.1 were rated with this number; this mainly includes forest areas that are largely used by tourists who engage in a range of activities such as hiking, cycling, running or other sports and activities that contribute to their mental well-being, but the main management focus is on the economy. A total of two categories, namely “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries” and “Artificial urban green areas: recreation and sport areas”, which are directly intended for the use of cultural ecosystem services and are designated for this purpose, received the highest possible value. On the other hand, the categories “Industrial and commercial units” and “Transport units” received a value of zero. These categories do not have the potential for the use of cultural ecosystem services. However, in the case of the transport network, it can be said that it is a necessary element for tourists to be able to get to a given place to be able to benefit from cultural ecosystem services. As far as the comparison of the different options of the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems is concerned, the changes in the scores are not significantly noticeable at first sight. This is mainly due to the fact that the modifications were made, for example, across the defined categories of “Forest”, or “Arable land” was replaced by “Natural scrub”, all of which were assigned the same value.

4.2.2. Category 9.1.1.2

Category 9.1.1.2, interpreted in Figure 8, represents ecosystem features that enable activities that contribute to health, regeneration or enjoyment through passive or observational interaction. This characteristic of ecosystems implies that certain features of nature and landscapes allow people to gain positive experiences such as relaxation, improved health or a sense of happiness without having to do anything directly in nature. People can draw on cultural ecosystem services by being near or observing them. As an example, simply looking at a beautiful landscape can create a sense of calm without having to actively interfere with the ecosystem.

Again, a scale of 0–4 was used for the assessment. It can be observed that in all four versions of the CLE, values of 3 have the highest representation, again with the categories representing forest land. Just as we are able to draw cultural ecosystem services actively from forest ecosystems, so too can we draw them passively, such as by simply looking at them. The fact that forest ecosystems evoke a sense of calm in us is due, for example, to the predominant green colour that trees, shrubs and plants carry. The colour green generally has a positive effect on humans, reducing stress, improving health and mental well-being [74]. The second most frequent value was 2. The latter in this case carries, for example, arable land or non-native shrubs. Arable land can be visually attractive to people during the growing season when it visually changes, creating a dynamic element in the landscape. Where features such as copses, borders or flower strips are created on the edges of arable land or between crops, this adds to the visual appeal by ensuring that the land is not just monoculture. These areas can also support agrotourism, where aesthetics and the opportunity to experience different aspects of nature (for example, insect or game viewing) increase the value of arable land as a cultural ecosystem service. Value 1 is represented by only one category, namely “Dry grasslands”. A value of 4 was assigned to a total of two ecosystem groups, namely “Urban green spaces, ornamental garden, park and cemetery” and “Orchard and garden”. Urban green spaces are built mainly for the purpose of drawing cultural ecosystem services by people. There are several sites within the LVA, which are shown in green in Figure 6. The two Chateau Parks, located in Lednice and Valtice, are clearly visible. The remaining visible sites are mainly in the built-up area (continuous and discontinuous), where there are gardens and orchards, which also have a positive effect on the human psyche when used passively. It is in the case of the ecosystem categories “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries” and “Orchard and garden” that the greatest changes can be observed in terms of the different variants of the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems.

4.2.3. Category 9.1.1.3

Figure 9 shows the merged CICES classes, collectively referred to as ecosystem features that support intellectual interactions, research or educational activities.

In all four cases, the value 2 has the largest representation, i.e., ecosystems that have the potential to use ecosystem services but are underutilised as such. This value was assigned to a total of thirteen ecosystem categories. These include all forest groups, “Water courses”, “Human-influenced water bodies”, “Swamps”, “Wetlands and littoral vegetation”, etc. All these categories have a high potential for producing cultural ecosystem services through various forms of education, but their potential is not well developed. There are several important nature trails in the territory of the LAG LVA (e.g., nature trail Valtice, Pohansko, Lednice Ponds or Mezi vinicemi [76], which makes efforts to develop this ecosystem service. The value 3 in blue mainly represents vineyards, which can be seen as an opportunity for inspiration and learning [34]. Within the vineyards, a number of wineries offer the opportunity to participate in a vintage wine tasting accompanied by a guided tour, thus developing education in wine growing and processing. A score of 1 was assigned to “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries”, “Dry grasslands” and “Artificial rocks”, for example. These categories have the potential to develop cultural ecosystem services but are hardly used in this way. Interestingly, none of the ecosystems occurring in the LAG LVA are used exclusively as a source of cultural ecosystem services, being drawn only through some form of education. In terms of changes across the versions, there is a noticeable decline in ecosystems scored one point, which is mainly due to the loss of sports and recreational areas that were changed to “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries” during the update and editing process; these were mainly the aforementioned areas of the Chateau Parks.

4.2.4. Category 9.1.1.4

The last grouped CICES classes, characterised as a group of ecosystems that have a value associated with cultural, historical, traditional or regional heritage, are shown in Figure 10. In this case, we see a difference from the previously defined categories 9.1.1.1, 9.1.1.2 and 9.1.1.3, where one or two values were always significantly predominant.

In this assessment, it was found that there are ecosystems represented in the LAG LVA that represent all points within the defined scale. It can be said that the most represented is, again, the value 2, which, in this case, was assigned to “Arable land”, “Introduced shrub vegetation” and “Natural shrub vegetation”. A change compared to the previous ones can be observed in the case of the highest point value 4, which is shown in green and represents the ecosystems with the provision of cultural ecosystem services as a main objective of their use and management. This value was assigned to a total of nine categories. One of these is “Oak and oak–hornbeam forests”. The main reason for assigning this value was that they are of cultural and historical value to the LAG LVA, as they are found only in South Moravia within the Czech Republic [77,78]. These ecosystems attract many tourists thanks to these values and, thus, increase the potential of the monitored area for tourism. From the perspective of comparing the individual variants, we can observe a decline in ecosystems with a value of 1, which were relatively abundant in version 1. This is mainly due to the fact that this value was assigned to a disconnected development, the area of which was reduced during the updates and editing of the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer.

4.2.5. Sum Value of Merged Classes of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Finally, the values of all merged classes were summed to determine the overall value of the importance of cultural ecosystem services for each ecosystem. The result is shown in Figure 11.

The ecosystem category “Artificial urban green areas: parks, gardens and cemeteries”, shown in dark blue, received the highest values within the total. However, it is clear that this category occupies only a small part of the territory, namely in Valtice and Lednice, where it is represented by the Chateau Parks. Overall, Lednice and Valtice are the focal points of the study area in terms of visitor numbers, as they are among the best known in the whole area, as evidenced by their annual visitor numbers [79,80,81]. This puts pressure on the area and has an impact on the local population [62]. High values (10–13) were also achieved by cultural ecosystem service resources such as “Floodplain forests, “Alluvial meadows”, “Human-influenced water bodies”, all categories representing forests, or also the categories “Orchards and gardens”, “Watercourses” and “Vineyards”. All these ecosystems provide a range of cultural ecosystem services and are, thus, an important source of ecosystem services. At the same time, their potential is relatively exploited within the LAG LVA, whether it be by tourists for recreation, sport, relaxation, research or education. Most of the ecosystems mentioned, which scored high in the analysis, are fairly evenly distributed across the territory. Ecosystems such as “Arable land”, “Macrophyte vegetation of water bodies”, “Swamps”, “Dry grassland”, “Degraded grasslands” and “Discontinuous urban fabric” achieved lower values (9–5). These areas have the potential to provide cultural ecosystem services but are not being used or are underused. Their use could be enhanced, for example, by raising awareness of their presence in the area and introducing activities to encourage their use in this way. Alternatively, for example, larger areas of dry grassland or degraded grassland could be used for cultural events, fairs and other events, thereby reducing the pressure on tourist congestion. The lowest scores were for “Industrial and Commercial Units” and “Transport units”, which were scored 0 in all categories assessed, so they do not have the potential to be used as sources of cultural ecosystem services. Overall, it is clear from the analysis undertaken that the LAG LAV has a large area comprising a number of ecosystems that are significant sources of cultural ecosystem services. However, the actual use of cultural ecosystem service resources is unevenly distributed in the region, which, in some cases, reduces the quality of life of the local residents [62], and it is this issue that the LAG focuses on in its strategy [7].

5. Discussion

Local Action Groups, of which there are many in Europe [82], focus their strategies on a wide range of areas, from the economy to demography. Often, these strategies work with concepts related to cultural ecosystem services, but the concept itself does not appear in the strategies: for example, tourism development, tourism, etc. There is a lack of articles that focus specifically on LAGs and also on cultural ecosystem services in the LAG area. There are few articles that address tourism and its impact on cultural ecosystem services in rural areas or only in certain parts of the territory, such as parks or protected areas [83,84]. Our study focused on the territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area, thus covering a relatively large part of the rural area within the South Moravian Region of the Czech Republic. At the same time, the area is almost entirely covered by the Lednice–Valtice Landscape Complex, which has been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List and also contains a number of natural monuments, national natural monuments or important ornithological sites [6]. This makes tourism an important factor here. The LEADER method is closely linked to Local Action Groups [85,86]. EU policies help to ensure the resilience of rural tourism. LEADER LAGs are able to provide grants for small projects that focus on rural tourism and can benefit visitors and local people. EU support for cultural tourism in rural areas can be multifunctional, as it offers benefits to tourism traders and focuses on preserving cultural resources for future generations [87]. Tang and Xu, 2023 [88], mention that there are several cases stating that culture benefits rural tourism. However, it has been shown that some areas lose their cultural identity due to tourism inefficiency. These problems may be caused by an imbalance between tourism supply and demand. As a result, emphasis needs to be placed on how to minimise these problems. It is for this reason that we find it important to bring cultural ecosystem services to the attention of the LAG and the possibility of incorporating them into the planning and development of the area. LAGs include several municipalities that cooperate with each other, and this makes it possible to focus on a larger part of the territory and to also deploy tourism in areas that have potential for tourism development but are not exploited. Monitoring the distribution of ecosystem service resources and their distribution within the territory can help to achieve this.

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is often used in the assessment and classification of cultural ecosystem services [89]. In our case, we merged the CICES classes into common categories based on their shared characteristics, which reduced the number of classes and made the assessment process simpler and clearer. We supported the accurate distribution of ecosystem service resources and subsequent assessment of the potential for CESs to provide by using the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer, which allowed us to assess this issue comprehensively.

The limitations within the study can be observed specifically in the use of the Consolidated Ecosystem Layer. Some of the polygons within the layer had to be edited based on orthophotos and field reconnaissance, as the determination of ecosystem categories or their total area was not always accurate even within the most up-to-date version from 2022. However, it can be concluded that the different updates of the CLE have led to a significant improvement and a more accurate representation of the distribution of ecosystems. This research will be followed by mapping of specific cultural, historical and natural sites that are located in the study area and their accessibility for tourists. In this context, the availability of food and accommodation facilities and their distribution within the region will also be assessed. Other limits of the research can be found in the expert estimation, which is based on a subjective value of significance of potential use and management of cultural ecosystem services in the LAG LVA. However, the subjective nature of this approach was reduced by the fact that the assessment was carried out independently by the authors of the article, whereupon an average score was determined for each item.

6. Conclusions

This study focused on the assessment and identification of cultural ecosystem service (CES) resources in the territory of the Local Action Group Lednice–Valtice Area (LAG LVA), which is an area with significant cultural and natural heritage sites such as the Lednice–Valtice Area. The main objective was to assess the potential of each ecosystem in the region to provide CESs, which includes benefits such as aesthetic value, recreation, education and tourism or sport.

The research examined ecosystems that are linked to both natural elements and human activities. Ecosystems such as floodplain forests and oak woodlands, as well as areas of arable land and vineyards, which are of high value not only in terms of biodiversity but also in terms of cultural services, were specifically assessed. A scoring method was used, with each ecosystem being assigned a value from a scale of 0–4, which allowed the different importances of different landscape types for the provision of cultural services to be considered.

The results show that significant cultural ecosystem services are mainly linked to protected areas that are subject to legal protection or intensive tourist interest. These include, for example, ponds, parks and gardens or specific forest areas that provide not only recreational opportunities but also educational value. These ecosystems were rated predominantly higher, as they represent key areas where the provision of cultural ecosystem services is the main objective of land management and use.

Another important category is traditional agricultural areas, such as vineyards and arable land, which have been assigned a lower rating but still represent important CES resources, particularly due to their cultural and aesthetic values. These areas are often associated with historical and regional traditions, which increases their importance to residents and visitors. Arable land forms a mosaic with other types of ecosystems whose potential to provide cultural ecosystem services is high. This mosaic has a high recreational potential as a whole. This potential also corresponds to the demand for cultural ecosystem services, being represented by high attendance and the declaration of a World Natural and Cultural Heritage UNESCO site.

The results of the mapping analysis show that all categories of CES provision values (0–4) are present in the LAG LVA, which indicates the diversity and complexity of the landscape in terms of cultural services. This variability provides the LAG with the opportunity to develop different forms of tourism and to target less developed sectors that have the potential for development.

The article provides a detailed assessment of cultural ecosystem services in the LAG LVA and helps to identify ecosystems with the highest potential for cultural and tourist uses. The study provides new insights into the importance of different ecosystems using the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems and the CICES. This provides a practical basis for the planning and management of these resources. A rating scale (0–4) allows for effective comparisons of the importance of different ecosystems in an area, facilitating decision making about their protection and use.

The research was undertaken mainly due to the increasing pressure of tourists on the region, which threatens its sustainability and the conservation of its ecosystems. The increased interest of tourists and visitors puts high demands on local ecosystems, especially in Lednice and Valtice. Most of the visitors are concentrated in these municipalities due to the important historical, cultural and natural monuments they offer. It is, therefore, essential that these sites are managed effectively and that the degradation of these valuable sites is avoided.

The results can be used as a basis for decision making in the field of protection and development of tourist activities outside the municipalities of Lednice and Valtice. They can help local authorities and planners to develop strategies aimed at the sustainable use of the landscape, avoiding overburdening the most attractive sites and encouraging the distribution of tourism to other sites with potential for cultural ecosystem services. This approach can help protect the region’s valuable natural and cultural resources and ensure their value for future generations.