IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v72y2025ics2212041625000129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new method to classify cultural ecosystem services and visualize their economic value: A case study of Guilin, a famous tourist destination in China

Author

Listed:
  • Nie, Xin
  • Huang, Chengdao
  • Wang, Han

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are one of the most important benefits that humans obtain from nature. However, due to inconsistent understanding of CES and challenges in assessment methods, incorporating CES into policy frameworks is difficult. Based on field survey data from Guilin, this paper uses principal component analysis (PCA) to reclassify CES. Then, choice experiments (CE) are combined with the public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) to measure the value of CES in Guilin and realize the spatial visualization of the CES’ economic value. The results are as follows: CES in Guilin can be reclassified into four types: natural and cultural heritage, health and hedonic well-being, aesthetic information, and existence and bequest value of biodiversity. In addition, the preference order of respondents for these types is as follows: aesthetic information, health and hedonic well-being, existence and bequest value of biodiversity, and natural and cultural heritage. The value of CES in Guilin is 0.998 billion yuan/year, and the per capita willingness to pay (WTP) for CES is 219.67 yuan/year. Through the visualization of economic value, this study finds that there is a gradient in CES value in space. The CES assessment method developed in this study is replicable and practically applicable, which is of great significance for promoting the inclusion of CES in policy considerations and improving human well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Nie, Xin & Huang, Chengdao & Wang, Han, 2025. "A new method to classify cultural ecosystem services and visualize their economic value: A case study of Guilin, a famous tourist destination in China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:72:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000129
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041625000129
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101708?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. Spanou, Elisavet & Kenter, Jasper O. & Graziano, Marcello, 2020. "The Effects of Aquaculture and Marine Conservation on Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Integrated Hedonic – Eudaemonic Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    5. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    6. Barrena, José & Nahuelhual, Laura & Báez, Andrea & Schiappacasse, Ignacio & Cerda, Claudia, 2014. "Valuing cultural ecosystem services: Agricultural heritage in Chiloé island, southern Chile," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 66-75.
    7. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    9. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    10. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    11. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    12. Kong, Inhye & Sarmiento, Fausto O., 2022. "Utilizing a crowdsourced phrasal lexicon to identify cultural ecosystem services in El Cajas National Park, Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    13. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    14. Richmond, Amy & Kaufmann, Robert K. & Myneni, Ranga B., 2007. "Valuing ecosystem services: A shadow price for net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 454-462, December.
    15. Pröpper, Michael & Haupts, Felix, 2014. "The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-35.
    16. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    17. Felipe-Lucia, María R. & de Frutos, Ángel & Crouzat, Emilie & Grescho, Volker & Heuschele, Jonna M. & Marselle, Melissa & Heurich, Marco & Pöpperl, Franziska & Porst, Florian & Portela, Ana Paula & Ro, 2024. "Differences in the experience of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas by clusters of visitors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    19. Robert Huber & Marcel Hunziker & Bernard Lehmann, 2011. "Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 93-113.
    20. Jax, Kurt & Barton, David N. & Chan, Kai M.A. & de Groot, Rudolf & Doyle, Ulrike & Eser, Uta & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Griewald, Yuliana & Haber, Wolfgang & Haines-Young, Roy & Heink, 2013. "Ecosystem services and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 260-268.
    21. Knut Per Hasund & Mitesh Kataria & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2011. "Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 31-53.
    22. Richards, Daniel R. & Tunçer, Bige, 2018. "Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 318-325.
    23. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, Enero-Abr.
    24. Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
    25. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    26. Thiele, Julia & Albert, Christian & Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina, 2020. "Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    27. Lee, Dong-Kyu, 2024. "Analysis of the potential value of cultural ecosystem services: A case study of Busan City, Republic of Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    28. 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.
    29. Huai, Songyao & Chen, Fen & Liu, Song & Canters, Frank & Van de Voorde, Tim, 2022. "Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    30. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    31. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    32. Tajima, Yuno & Hashimoto, Shizuka & Dasgupta, Rajarshi & Takahashi, Yasuo, 2023. "Spatial characterization of cultural ecosystem services in the Ishigaki Island of Japan: A comparison between residents and tourists," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    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. Nuan Han & Roziya Binti Ibrahim & Mohd Sallehuddin Bin Mat Noor, 2025. "Assessing Cultural Ecosystem Services in Sponge City Infrastructure: A Systematic Review and Framework Proposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, June.

    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. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    6. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    7. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Liu, Di & Geng, Tianwei & Zhang, Hang, 2025. "Combination of participatory mapping and Maxent model to visualize the cultural ecosystem services at county scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    10. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    11. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    12. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    13. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    14. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    15. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    16. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    17. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    18. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra, 2018. "Youths’ Preferences for Milk Products at School: How Product Attributes and Perceived Body Image Affect Choices," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(2), March.
    19. Agimass, Fitalew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2011. "Low-income fishermen's willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 162-170.
    20. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.

    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:72:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000129. 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.