IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p16298-d995304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Perception and Experience of Rural Natural Landscape among Youth Groups: An Empirical Analysis from Three Villages around Hefei

Author

Listed:
  • Yanlong Guo

    (Social Innovation Design Research Center, Department of Design, Anhui University, Hefei 203106, China
    Anhui Institute of Contemporary Studies, Anhui Academy of Social Sciences, Hefei 203106, China)

  • Pengyu Chen

    (Social Innovation Design Research Center, Department of Design, Anhui University, Hefei 203106, China)

  • Han Zhang

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China)

  • Zuoqing Jiang

    (State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China)

Abstract

Research on the perception and evaluation degree that the rural natural landscape plays an important role in improving rural sustainable development and construction. However, the views of young people, who play a key role in social development, on the natural landscape of the countryside have been neglected. Based on the perspective of the rural natural landscape in China, this study combines the field research of Ma Ying, San Shi Gang, and Shen Fu villages around Hefei, Anhui Province, and constructs a perception and experience evaluation index and questionnaire of the rural natural landscape from four dimensions of rural landscape ecology, water environment, climate, and sound. Through the online questionnaire, 316 questionnaires were distributed to young people aged 18 to 35 years old, and 283 valid questionnaires were recovered with an effective recovery rate of 89.56%. The Cronbach coefficient was 0.954, and the KMO value was 0.968. The reliability and validity were good. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) combined with the entropy method was used to calculate the weight of each index and analyze the influencing factors of young people’s perception evaluation of the rural landscape. Firstly, young people have a good perception of rural climate conditions, but the planning and layout of rural landscape ecology need to be improved. Secondly, sound comfort, air cleanliness, and landscape adaptation in a rural environment are the key factors that affect young people’s perception and experience of rural areas. Thirdly, improving the adaptability of the rural natural landscape to the local environment and the richness of vegetation is conducive to improving young people’s favorable understanding of the rural environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanlong Guo & Pengyu Chen & Han Zhang & Zuoqing Jiang, 2022. "Evaluation of the Perception and Experience of Rural Natural Landscape among Youth Groups: An Empirical Analysis from Three Villages around Hefei," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:16298-:d:995304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16298/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16298/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    2. Guanglong Dong & Zhonghao Liu & Yuanzhao Niu & Wenya Jiang, 2022. "Identification of Land Use Conflicts in Shandong Province from an Ecological Security Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, 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. Yanlong Guo & Xingmeng Ma & Yelin Zhu & Denghang Chen & Han Zhang, 2023. "Research on Driving Factors of Forest Ecological Security: Evidence from 12 Provincial Administrative Regions in Western China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.

    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. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    2. Junga Lee & Christopher D. Ellis & Yun Eui Choi & Soojin You & Jinhyung Chon, 2015. "An Integrated Approach to Mitigation Wetland Site Selection: A Case Study in Gwacheon, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, March.
    3. Torres-Miralles, M. & Grammatikopoulou, I. & Rescia, A.J., 2017. "Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 258-269.
    4. Acosta, Lilibeth A. & Enano, Nelson H. & Magcale-Macandog, Damasa B. & Engay, Kathreena G. & Herrera, Maria Noriza Q. & Nicopior, Ozzy Boy S. & Sumilang, Mic Ivan V. & Eugenio, Jemimah Mae A. & Lucht,, 2013. "How sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and opinions of people with different typologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 241-253.
    5. Arifin, Bustanul & Swallow, Brent M. & Suyanto, S. & Coe, Richard D., 2009. "A conjoint analysis of farmer preferences for community forestry contracts in the Sumber Jaya Watershed, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2040-2050, May.
    6. Gandino, E., 2018. "Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: A Choice Experiments approachAuthor-Name: Ferretti, V," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1077-1091.
    7. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    8. Andreas Tolk & Jennifer A. Richkus & F. LeRon Shults & Wesley J. Wildman, 2023. "Computational Decision Support for Socio-Technical Awareness of Land-Use Planning under Complexity—A Dam Resilience Planning Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Jiao Chen & Liwei Zhang & Shan Zhao & Hua Zong, 2023. "Assessing Land-Use Conflict Potential and Its Correlation with LULC Based on the Perspective of Multi-Functionality and Landscape Complexity: The Case of Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, March.
    10. van der Heide, C.M. & Brouwer, Floor M. & Bellon, Stephane & Bockstaller, Christian & Garrod, Guy & Geniaux, Ghislain & Oliveira, Rosario & Smith, Peter & Stapleton, Lee & Weinzaepflen, Emmanuelle & Z, 2007. "Review of approaches to establish reference levels to interpret indicators," Reports 57466, Wageningen University, SEAMLESS: System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society.
    11. Shan Ke & Hui Pan & Bowen Jin, 2023. "Identification of Priority Areas for Ecological Restoration Based on Human Disturbance and Ecological Security Patterns: A Case Study of Fuzhou City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    12. Sydorovych, Olha & Wossink, Ada, 2008. "The meaning of agricultural sustainability: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 10-20, July.
    13. George Ekonomou & Dimitris Kallioras & Angeliki N. Menegaki & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Tourist Preferences for Revitalizing Wellness Products and Reversing Depopulation in Rural Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-31, December.
    14. Chanita Panmanee & Aree Cheamuangphan & Kasem Kunasri, 2013. "Consumer preferences, willingness to pay and ability to pay for fresh organic vegetables in Chiang Mai province," The Empirical Econometrics and Quantitative Economics Letters, Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University, vol. 2(1), pages 29-42, March.
    15. Fabiana Natali & Giacomo Branca, 2020. "On positive externalities from irrigated agriculture and their policy implications: An overview," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(2), pages 1-25.
    16. Guanglong Dong & Jue Wang & Wenxin Zhang & Zheng Liu & Kehua Wang & Weiya Cheng, 2023. "Land Use Conflict Identification Coupled with Ecological Protection Priority in Jinan City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Linlin Wang & Qiyuan Hu & Liming Liu & Chengcheng Yuan, 2022. "Land Use Multifunctions in Metropolis Fringe: Spatiotemporal Identification and Trade-Off Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Abdul Hamid Mar Iman & Fu Yek Pieng & Christopher Gan, 2012. "A Conjoint Analysis of Buyers' Preferences for Residential Property," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 15(1), pages 73-105.
    19. Pérez y Pérez, Luis & Egea, Pilar & de-Magistris, Tiziana, 2019. "When agrarian multifunctionality matters: identifying heterogeneity in societal preferences for externalities of marginal olive groves in Aragon, Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 85-92.
    20. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:16298-:d:995304. 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.