IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v24y2017icp170-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity in resident perceptions of a bio-cultural heritage in Hong Kong: A latent class factor analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Wendy Y.
  • Hua, Junyi

Abstract

There is an increasing recognition of ecosystem services provided by urban trees and their importance to urban resilience and sustainability through the preservation and enhancement of biological diversity so as to withstand disturbances and retain ecosystem functions as well as guarantee the well-being of current and future urban dwellers. However, the heterogeneous perceptions that urban residents may hold towards various ecosystem services have seldom been investigated. This study made a unique contribution to the growing body of literature on urban ecosystem services by examining the unobserved heterogeneity in resident perceptions of ecosystem services provided by a distinctive bio-cultural asset, urban heritage trees, in Hong Kong, via a novel application of latent class factor analysis which allows for considering the multidimensionality of latent factors and increases model parsimony. A total of 1075 face-to-face interviews were conducted with a stratified sample of residents about their perceived importance of two categories of distinctive ecosystem services provided by urban heritage trees: biological benefits and cultural benefits. The results indicated that, on average, both biological and cultural benefits of urban heritage trees were perceived to be important. Nevertheless, six classes were identified on the basis of different levels of two latent class factors, which differed markedly with respect to individual’s perceived importance of ecosystem services provided by urban heritage trees, from fairly balanced to very divergent perceptions of biological services and cultural services. This heterogeneity was explained with covariates describing respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics and activities at heritage tree sites. The results have implications for optimally tailoring promoting and participatory approaches, fostering improved communications with the general public, and nurturing overall support for urban heritage tree conservation from heterogeneous resident groups in order to achieve urban resilience and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Wendy Y. & Hua, Junyi, 2017. "Heterogeneity in resident perceptions of a bio-cultural heritage in Hong Kong: A latent class factor analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 170-179.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:24:y:2017:i:c:p:170-179
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616302765
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krasny, Marianne E. & Russ, Alex & Tidball, Keith G. & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2014. "Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 177-186.
    2. Pascual, Marta & Miñana, Elena Pérez & Giacomello, Eva, 2016. "Integrating knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Mind-mapping and Bayesian Network modelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 112-122.
    3. Valeri, Eva & Gatta, Valerio & Teobaldelli, Désirée & Polidori, Paolo & Barratt, Benjamin & Fuzzi, Sandro & Kazepov, Yuri & Sergi, Vittorio & Williams, Martin & Maione, Michela, 2016. "Modelling individual preferences for environmental policy drivers: Empirical evidence of Italian lifestyle changes using a latent class approach," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 65-74.
    4. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    5. Asah, Stanley T. & Guerry, Anne D. & Blahna, Dale J. & Lawler, Joshua J., 2014. "Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 180-186.
    6. Beery, Thomas & Stålhammar, Sanna & Jönsson, K. Ingemar & Wamsler, Christine & Bramryd, Torleif & Brink, Ebba & Ekelund, Nils & Johansson, Michael & Palo, Thomas & Schubert, Per, 2016. "Perceptions of the ecosystem services concept: Opportunities and challenges in the Swedish municipal context," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 123-130.
    7. Tengberg, Anna & Fredholm, Susanne & Eliasson, Ingegard & Knez, Igor & Saltzman, Katarina & Wetterberg, Ola, 2012. "Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 14-26.
    8. Harrison, P.A. & Berry, P.M. & Simpson, G. & Haslett, J.R. & Blicharska, M. & Bucur, M. & Dunford, R. & Egoh, B. & Garcia-Llorente, M. & Geamănă, N. & Geertsema, W. & Lommelen, E. & Meiresonne, L. &, 2014. "Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 191-203.
    9. Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.
    10. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    11. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    12. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    13. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    14. Lyn Kathlene & John A. Martin, 1991. "Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 46-63.
    15. Vermunt, Jeroen K. & Magidson, Jay, 2003. "Latent class models for classification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-4), pages 531-537, January.
    16. Lara Jaillon & C. S. Poon, 2008. "Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(9), pages 953-966.
    17. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    18. Abram, Nicola K. & Meijaard, Erik & Ancrenaz, Marc & Runting, Rebecca K. & Wells, Jessie A. & Gaveau, David & Pellier, Anne-Sophie & Mengersen, Kerrie, 2014. "Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 116-127.
    19. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    20. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    21. Francesca Bassi, 2007. "Latent class factor models for market segmentation: an application to pharmaceuticals," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 16(2), pages 279-287, August.
    22. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    23. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    24. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2008. "Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 536-546, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Teodoro Semeraro & Elisa Gatto & Riccardo Buccolieri & Valentina Catanzaro & Luigi De Bellis & Lorenzo Cotrozzi & Giacomo Lorenzini & Marzia Vergine & Andrea Luvisi, 2021. "How Ecosystem Services Can Strengthen the Regeneration Policies for Monumental Olive Groves Destroyed by Xylella fastidiosa Bacterium in a Peri-Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Abdullah Addas & Ahmad Maghrabi & Ran Goldblatt, 2021. "Public Open Spaces Evaluation Using Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) in Saudi Universities: The Case of King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    6. Yibo Yang & Guangdao Bao & Dan Zhang & Chang Zhai, 2022. "Spatial Distribution and Driving Factors of Old and Notable Trees in a Fast-Developing City, Northeast China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Shan Liu & Mingxia Yang & Yuling Mou & Yanrong Meng & Xiaolu Zhou & Changhui Peng, 2020. "Effect of Urbanization on Ecosystem Service Values in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration of China from 2000 to 2014," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    2. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Tabi, Andrea & del Saz-Salazar, Salvador, 2015. "Environmental damage evaluation in a willingness-to-accept scenario: A latent-class approach based on familiarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 280-288.
    4. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    5. Ndebele, Tom & Marsh, Dan, 2014. "Environmental attitude and the demand for green electricity in the context of supplier choice: A case study of the New Zealand retail electricity market," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 188376, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    9. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    10. Ehrlich, Oren & Bi, Xiang & Borisova, Tatiana & Larkin, Sherry, 2017. "A latent class analysis of public attitudes toward water resources with implications for recreational demand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 124-132.
    11. Ehrlich, Oren & Bi, Xiang & Borisova, Tatiana & Larkin, Sherry, 2016. "A Latent Class Analysis of Public Attitudes Towards Water Resources: Implications for Recreational Demand," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230058, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    13. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    14. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, William George, 2018. "Types of front of pack food labels: Do obese consumers care? Evidence from Northern Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 84-102.
    16. Weiwei Liu & Kevin J. Egan, 2019. "A Semiparametric Smooth Coefficient Estimator for Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1163-1187, November.
    17. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    18. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    19. Daria Sikorska & Piotr Sikorski & Richard James Hopkins, 2017. "High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, February.
    20. Lam, Sharon T. & Conway, Tenley M., 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 641-651.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:24:y:2017:i:c:p:170-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.