IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i3p346-d1353569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying the Optimal Area Threshold of Mapping Units for Cultural Ecosystem Services in a River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Ye Li

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Junda Huang

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Yuncai Wang

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
    Joint Laboratory of Ecological Urban Design (Research Centre for Land Ecological Planning, Design and Environmental Effects, International Joint Research Centre of Urban-Rural Ecological Planning and Design), College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

Abstract

Mapping cultural ecosystem services (CES) in river basins is crucial for spatially identifying areas that merit conservation due to their significant CES contributions. However, precise quantification of the appropriate area of mapping units, which is the basis for CES assessment, is rare in existing studies. In this study, the optimal area threshold of mapping units (OATMU) identification, consisting of a multi-dimensional indicator framework and a methodology for validation, was established to clarify the boundary and the appropriate area of the mapping units for CES. The multi-dimensional indicator framework included geo-hydrological indicator (GI), economic indicator (EI) and social management indicator (SMI). The OATMU for each indicator was determined by seeking the inflection point in the second-order derivative of the power function. The minimum value of the OATMU for each indicator was obtained as the OATMU for CES. Finally, the OATMU for CES was validated by comparing it with the area of administrative villages in the river basin. The results showed the OATMU for CES was 3.60 km 2 . This study adopted OATMU identification, with easy access to basic data and simplified calculation methods, to provide clear and generic technical support for optimizing CES mapping.

Suggested Citation

  • Ye Li & Junda Huang & Yuncai Wang, 2024. "Identifying the Optimal Area Threshold of Mapping Units for Cultural Ecosystem Services in a River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:3:p:346-:d:1353569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/3/346/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/3/346/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Massimiliano Alvioli & Ivan Marchesini & Badal Pokharel & Kaushal Gnyawali & Samsung Lim, 2022. "Geomorphological slope units of the Himalayas," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 300-313, December.
    2. 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.
    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. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    2. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    3. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Zhiyuan Ma & Xuejun Duan & Lei Wang & Yazhu Wang & Jiayu Kang & Ruxian Yun, 2023. "A Scenario Simulation Study on the Impact of Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Carbon Storage in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    8. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    9. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. Rebecca Montrasio & Silvana Mattiello & Martina Zucaro & Dino Genovese & Luca Battaglini, 2020. "The Perception of Ecosystem Services of Mountain Farming and of a Local Cheese: An Analysis for the Touristic Valorization of an Inner Alpine Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà , N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    14. Wisely, Samantha M. & Alexander, Kathleen & Mahlaba, Themb'a & Cassidy, Lin, 2018. "Linking ecosystem services to livelihoods in southern Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PC), pages 339-341.
    15. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Zhe Cheng & Tianyu Zhao & Tao Song & Li Cui & Xinfa Zhou, 2022. "Assessing the Spatio-Temporal Pattern and Development Characteristics of Regional Ecological Resources for Sustainable Development: A Case Study on Guizhou Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    19. Tindale, Sophie & Vicario-Modroño, Victoria & Gallardo-Cobos, Rosa & Hunter, Erik & Miškolci, Simona & Price, Paul Newell & Sánchez-Zamora, Pedro & Sonnevelt, Martijn & Ojo, Mercy & McInnes, Kirsty & , 2023. "Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    20. Jiang, Wei, 2017. "Ecosystem services research in China: A critical review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 10-16.

    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:13:y:2024:i:3:p:346-:d:1353569. 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.