Human appreciation of flower colours as cultural ecosystem service in grasslands: A methodological approach
Marco Bianchini , Matteo Francioni , Giulio Tesei , Marina Allegrezza , Paride D'Ottavio
Grassland Research ›› 2026, Vol. 5 ›› Issue (1) : 56 -72.
Background: Grasslands provide key ecosystem services (ES), and yet, the cultural value linked to flower colour remains poorly quantified. This study presents a literature-based approach to estimate human appreciation of flower colours in grassland as a cultural ES.
Methods: We introduce a flower colour appreciation value (FCAp value) that combines a flower colour appreciation index (FCAp index) with species abundances and flower colour area (FCAr). Four supramontane grasslands in Monti Sibillini (central Italy)—Bromopsis erecta Huds., Carex macrolepis DC., Sesleria nitida Ten. and Sesleria juncifolia Suffren—were selected, representing continuous and discontinuous grassland types.
Results: FCAp values peaked between May and July. Continuous B. erecta grasslands showed the highest values, while discontinuous S. juncifolia showed the lowest values. Green provided the largest contribution to total appreciation, whereas secondary colours (pink, yellow, purple and white) varied among grasslands. Blue, despite a high FCAp index, had limited influence due to low abundance and reduced FCAr.
Conclusions: Inherent limitations related to the colour appreciation scale and phenological uncertainty leave room for refinement: this rapid and standardised method provides a valid alternative to resource-intensive field campaigns, particularly in remote or rugged study areas. It complements remote-sensing and valuation approaches, enhances assessment of cultural ES and supports integration of landscape aesthetic values into grassland management and ES bundles.
grassland blooming / habitat conservation / IPBES / landscape value / plant traits / supramontane ecosystems
| [1] |
Acta Plantarum. (2007). IPFI: Index Plantarum. https://www.actaplantarum.org/flora/flora.php |
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
EEA. (2020). State of nature in the EU: Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013-2018. https://doi.org/10.2800/705440 |
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
ILRI, IUCN, FAO, WWF, UNEP, & ILC. (2021). Rangelands Atlas. ILRI. |
| [60] |
iNaturalist. (2008). iNaturalist.org. https://www.inaturalist.org |
| [61] |
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat. |
| [62] |
ITHAKA. (2000). Global plants. https://plants.jstor.org/ |
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
MEA. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being. www.islandpress.org |
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
|
| [81] |
|
| [82] |
|
| [83] |
|
| [84] |
|
| [85] |
|
| [86] |
|
| [87] |
|
| [88] |
|
| [89] |
|
| [90] |
|
| [91] |
|
| [92] |
|
| [93] |
|
| [94] |
|
| [95] |
|
| [96] |
|
| [97] |
|
| [98] |
|
2026 The Author(s). Grassland Research published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Chinese Grassland Society and Lanzhou University.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |