IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1566-d914936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Service Functions in National Parks from the Perspective of Benefits of Community Residents

Author

Listed:
  • Peng Wang

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Nan Li

    (International Center for Bamboo and Rattan, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100102, China)

  • Yating He

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Youjun He

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

Abstract

The ecosystem of national parks bears some cultural features. How the cultural ecosystem service functions are perceived by the public and how the cultural ecosystem service functions shape the public’s cognition have become urgent scientific questions. This paper performs a case analysis on the Qianjiangyuan National Park System Pilot Area, a representative national park in China, which clarifies the main types of cultural ecosystem service functions from the perspective of the landscape aesthetics benefits of community residents, and analyze the varied impacts of demographics on functional cognition. On this basis, the entropy weight method was adopted to evaluate the importance of each function. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation was employed to assess the composite level of the cultural service functions. The results show that: (1) the community residents value the benefits brought by the national park the most in terms of the ecological improvement function, and the situation is consistent across the four towns/townships; by contrast, the community residents attach the least importance to the benefits in terms of system governance function. (2) Except for the years of local residence, the community residents’ cognition of different cultural ecosystem service functions may vary significantly, owing to factors like gender, age, education level, occupation, and annual mean income. (3) Concerning the importance of functional indices, the importance scores of the natural experience functions, humanistic concern functions, and social service functions are 0.3286, 0.3503, and 0.3211, respectively. The community residents had a moderate to high level of cognition for the cultural ecosystem service functions (3.99). The different types of functions can be sorted by effectiveness as: the social service functions (4.11) > natural experience functions (4.03) > humanistic concern functions (3.86). The research results provide a reference for improving the management level of national parks, and ease the increasingly prominent contradiction between people and land.

Suggested Citation

  • Peng Wang & Nan Li & Yating He & Youjun He, 2022. "Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Service Functions in National Parks from the Perspective of Benefits of Community Residents," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-26, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1566-:d:914936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1566/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1566/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tuffery, Laetitia, 2017. "The recreational services value of the nearby periurban forest versus the regional forest environment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 33-41.
    2. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    3. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    4. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    5. Charlotte Ham & Patricia A. Champ & John B. Loomis & Robin M. Reich, 2012. "Accounting for Heterogeneity of Public Lands in Hedonic Property Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 444-456.
    6. Hatan, Shachar & Fleischer, Aliza & Tchetchik, Anat, 2021. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services: The case of landscape aesthetics in the agritourism market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Klain, Sarah C. & Satterfield, Terre A. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2014. "What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 310-320.
    3. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    7. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    8. Rawlins, Maurice A. & Westby, Leon, 2013. "Community participation in payment for ecosystem services design and implementation: An example from Trinidad," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 117-121.
    9. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    10. Ho Huu, Loc & Ballatore, Thomas J. & Irvine, Kim N. & Nguyen, Thi Hong Diep & Truong, Thi Cam Tien & Yoshihisa, Shimizu, 2018. "Socio-geographic indicators to evaluate landscape Cultural Ecosystem Services: A case of Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 527-542.
    11. Parks, Sarah & Gowdy, John, 2013. "What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 1-10.
    12. Vieira, Felipe A.S. & Bragagnolo, Chiara & Correia, Ricardo A. & Malhado, Ana C.M. & Ladle, Richard J., 2018. "A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 182-192.
    13. Junga Lee & Byoung-Suk Kweon & Christopher D. Ellis & Sang-Woo Lee, 2020. "Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    15. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    16. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    17. Ocelli Pinheiro, Raphael & Triest, Ludwig & Lopes, Priscila F.M., 2021. "Cultural ecosystem services: Linking landscape and social attributes to ecotourism in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    18. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Brown, Greg, 2013. "The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 58-68.
    20. Shoyama, Kikuko & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2016. "Local perception of ecosystem service bundles in the Kushiro watershed, Northern Japan – Application of a public participation GIS tool," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 139-149.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1566-:d:914936. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.