There is a close-knit link between people and cultural ecosystem services (CESs). Many methods have been verified as being able to value CESs. However, different methods have focused on specific aspects of CESs and have different highlights and challenges, which makes it difficult to select an appropriate method for specific research. To solve this problem, it is important to understand comprehensively and deeply the various CES valuation methods that exist. This study selects four representative methods, i.e., document analysis, social media photograph analysis, structured interviews and visitor-employed photography (VEP), and combines them with a participatory mapping method based on the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) tool to compare their performance in assessing most facets of CESs. We find that the major differences among these four valuation methods are in the process from perception to CES assessment, and we list the advantages and limitations of each method for distinct aspects. Structured interviews are the most practical method because they can be applied to most situations, with few limitations and high accuracy and efficiency. Social media photograph analysis and VEP make a considerable difference in gaining perception for separate valuation purposes. The accuracy and efficiency of document analysis are low; thus, this method is better as a supplement than as an independent assessment.

人与文化生态系统服务（CES）之间有着紧密的联系。已经验证了许多方法可以评估CES。但是，不同的方法侧重于CES的特定方面，并且具有不同的亮点和挑战，这使得难以为特定研究选择合适的方法。为了解决这个问题，重要的是全面，深入地了解现有的CES评估方法。本研究选择了四种代表性方法，即文档分析，社交媒体照片分析，结构化访谈和访客摄影（VEP），并将它们与基于生态系统服务社会价值（SolVES）工具的参与式映射方法相结合，以进行比较他们在评估CES大部分方面的表现。我们发现这四种评估方法之间的主要区别在于从感知到CES评估的过程，并且针对每种方面列出了每种方法的优点和局限性。结构化访谈是最实用的方法，因为它们可以应用于大多数情况，几乎没有限制，而且准确性和效率很高。社交媒体照片分析和VEP在获得用于单独评估目的的认知方面有很大的不同。文档分析的准确性和效率低；因此，这种方法作为补充比作为独立评估更好。结构化访谈是最实用的方法，因为它们可以应用于大多数情况，几乎没有限制，而且准确性和效率很高。社交媒体照片分析和VEP在获得用于单独评估目的的认知方面有很大的不同。文档分析的准确性和效率低；因此，这种方法作为补充比作为独立评估更好。结构化访谈是最实用的方法，因为它们可以应用于大多数情况，几乎没有限制，而且准确性和效率很高。社交媒体照片分析和VEP在获得用于单独评估目的的认知方面有很大的不同。文档分析的准确性和效率低；因此，这种方法作为补充比作为独立评估更好。