IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v41y2020ics2212041619306631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Shi, Qinqin
  • Chen, Hai
  • Liang, Xiaoying
  • Zhang, Hang
  • Liu, Di

Abstract

Understanding residents’ preferences for cultural ecosystem services (CES) will provide reference for targeted ecological management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the preferences for CES and to determine their multilevel drivers in Gaoqu Township in Mizhi County, China. A social preference method (questionnaire) was used to quantitatively assess the CES preferences. The respondents in Gaoqu Township perceived the importance of all eight types of CES, and aesthetic and sense of place services were the two most prevalent CES categories in the study area. Woodlands and grasslands, cave dwellings, terraces, temples and theaters played a significant role in providing diverse CES, and each type of environmental space was important for at least four types of CES. We also used multilevel models to detect the individual and environmental variables that affect the CES preferences. The results showed that gender, age, health, and annual per capita income did not have a significant effect on preferences for any of the eight types of CES. Community safety was identified as an important environmental variable that explained the preferences for educational, social relations, therapeutic and recreation services. The preferences for sense of place services were driven by per capita living space, population density and road network density, and migrant works had higher preferences for sense of place services than did farmers in the study area. This study verified the validity of multilevel model to quantitatively identify the nested drivers of CES. These outcomes can contribute to improving our understanding of the importance of CES and may assist in developing relevant policy for the transformation from traditional living functions to cultural and ecological functions in Gaoqu Township.

Suggested Citation

  • Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:41:y:2020:i:c:s2212041619306631
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041619306631
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101052?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. Chiesura, Anna & de Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 219-231, March.
    2. Ciftcioglu, Gulay Cetinkaya, 2017. "Social preference-based valuation of the links between home gardens, ecosystem services, and human well-being in Lefke Region of North Cyprus," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 227-236.
    3. Zhongwei Guo & Lin Zhang & Yiming Li, 2010. "Increased Dependence of Humans on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
    4. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    5. Cheng, Xin & Van Damme, Sylvie & Li, Luyuan & Uyttenhove, Pieter, 2019. "Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Irvine, Katherine N. & O’Brien, Liz & Ravenscroft, Neil & Cooper, Nigel & Everard, Mark & Fazey, Ioan & Reed, Mark S. & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 184-193.
    7. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    8. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    11. Willcock, Simon & Camp, Brittany J. & Peh, Kelvin S.-H., 2017. "A comparison of cultural ecosystem service survey methods within South England," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 445-450.
    12. Di Liu & Xiaoying Liang & Hai Chen & Hang Zhang & Nanzhao Mao, 2018. "A Quantitative Assessment of Comprehensive Ecological Risk for a Loess Erosion Gully: A Case Study of Dujiashi Gully, Northern Shaanxi Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    14. Rongwei Wu & Degang Yang & Lu Zhang & Jinwei Huo, 2018. "Spatio-Temporal Patterns and Determinants of Inter-Provincial Migration in China 1995–2015," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    17. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    18. Aguado, Mateo & González, José A. & Bellott, Kr'sna & López-Santiago, César & Montes, Carlos, 2018. "Exploring subjective well-being and ecosystem services perception along a rural–urban gradient in the high Andes of Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 1-10.
    19. Bullock, Craig & Joyce, Deirdre & Collier, Marcus, 2018. "An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 142-152.
    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. Tianwei Geng & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Qinqin Shi & Hang Zhang, 2021. "Research on Mediating Mechanisms and the Impact on Food Provision Services in Poor Areas from the Perspective of Stakeholders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    3. Qinqin Shi & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Tianwei Geng & Hang Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Spatial Imbalance in the Supply and Demand of Cultural Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Wang, Xiaoqi & Zhao, Xueyan, 2023. "Farmers' perception and choice preference of grassland ecosystem services: Evidence from the northeastern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Chowdhury, Koushik & Behera, Bhagirath, 2021. "Traditional water bodies and cultural ecosystem services: Experiences from rural West Bengal, India," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).

    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. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    3. Qinqin Shi & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Tianwei Geng & Hang Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Spatial Imbalance in the Supply and Demand of Cultural Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    5. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    7. 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.
    8. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    9. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    10. 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).
    11. Roux, Dirk J. & Smith, M. Kyle S. & Smit, Izak P.J. & Freitag, Stefanie & Slabbert, Liandi & Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M. & Hayes, Jessica & Mpapane, Nelsiwe P., 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    12. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Bullock, Craig & Joyce, Deirdre & Collier, Marcus, 2018. "An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 142-152.
    14. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    15. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    17. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    18. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    19. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    20. Kenter, Jasper O. & Reed, Mark S. & Fazey, Ioan, 2016. "The Deliberative Value Formation model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 194-207.

    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:41:y:2020:i:c:s2212041619306631. 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.