IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9269-d874741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealing Spatial Patterns of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Four Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study from Hangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Shan He

    (College of Economics and Management, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Chenxia Hu

    (College of Economics and Management, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Jianfeng Li

    (College of Economics and Management, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Jieyi Wu

    (College of Economics and Management, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Qian Xu

    (College of Economics and Management, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Lin Lin

    (College of Humanities and Foreign Languages, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Congmou Zhu

    (Department of Land Resources Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Yongjun Li

    (College of Environment and Natural Resource, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Mengmeng Zhou

    (School of Business, Changzhou University, Changzhou 213164, China)

  • Luyao Zhu

    (College of Environment and Natural Resource, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

Monitoring and mapping agricultural cultural ecosystem services (CES) is essential, especially in areas with a sharp contradiction between agricultural land protection and urban development. Despite research assessing CES increasing exponentially in recent years, our knowledge of the CES of agricultural landscapes is still inadequate. This study used four types of agricultural landscapes in Hangzhou, China, as the study area, analyzed their CES spatial patterns, and explored their societal preferences by integrating the multi-sourced datasets, clustering algorithms, and Maxent model. The results indicated that hot spots of agricultural CES correspond to river valley plains, which were also easily vulnerable to urbanization. Moreover, we found that the CES level of paddy field and dry farmland were higher than tea garden and orchard. Based on the above spatial patterns of supply, demand, and flow of CES, we identified four groups of agricultural land by cluster analysis, distinguishing between significant, unimportant, little used, and potential CES. Further, our results showed that natural and human factors could explain societal preferences. This study can provide a valuable basis for stakeholders to develop balanced strategies by the aforementioned results.

Suggested Citation

  • Shan He & Chenxia Hu & Jianfeng Li & Jieyi Wu & Qian Xu & Lin Lin & Congmou Zhu & Yongjun Li & Mengmeng Zhou & Luyao Zhu, 2022. "Revealing Spatial Patterns of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Four Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study from Hangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9269-:d:874741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9269/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9269/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    2. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    3. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    4. Schirpke, Uta & Meisch, Claude & Marsoner, Thomas & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2018. "Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 336-350.
    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. Huber, Lisa & Schirpke, Uta & Marsoner, Thomas & Tasser, Erich & Leitinger, Georg, 2020. "Does socioeconomic diversification enhance multifunctionality of mountain landscapes?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    2. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    3. Wang, Zhuangzhuang & Fu, Bojie & Zhang, Liwei & Wu, Xutong & Li, Yingjie, 2022. "Ecosystem service assessments across cascade levels: typology and an evidence map," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Schirpke, Uta & Tasser, Erich & Ebner, Manuel & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2021. "What can geotagged photographs tell us about cultural ecosystem services of lakes?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    5. Dou, Yuehan & Yu, Xiubo & Bakker, Martha & De Groot, Rudolf & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Duan, Houlang & Huang, Chao, 2020. "Analysis of the relationship between cross-cultural perceptions of landscapes and cultural ecosystem services in Genheyuan region, Northeast China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    6. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    8. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    10. Shah, Syed Mahboob & Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Qing & Casazza, Marco & Agostinho, Feni & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2021. "Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    11. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    12. Rocío Silva-Pérez & Gema González-Romero, 2022. "GIAHS as an Instrument to Articulate the Landscape and Territorialized Agrifood Systems—The Example of La Axarquía (Malaga Province, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Pascual, Unai & Narloch, Ulf & Nordhagen, Stella & Drucker, Adam G., 2011. "The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-30, November.
    14. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    17. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    18. 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).
    19. Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Identifying obstacles to the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115992, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    21. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9269-:d:874741. 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.