IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11366-d911214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Connecting Recreational Service to Visitor’s Well-Being: A Case Study in Qianjiangyuan National Park

Author

Listed:
  • Wenjia Zhou

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Jun Cai

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Kai Chen

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Natural ecosystems provide service value to people in the region; especially in some nature reserves and national parks, the ecosystem recreational service function is more significant. It is worth paying attention to whether the recreational service function of this ecosystem can serve tourists outside the region and improve their well-being. Taking Qianjiangyuan National Park in China as the research site, based on the Spatially Explicit Ecosystem Services Comprehensive Assessment Model (ESTIMAP), we used the ecosystem services mapping tool to propose a comprehensive assessment framework for ecosystem recreational services and to explore the relationship between recreational services and the well-being of tourists. As a result, we identified the spatial distribution of the supply and demand flow paths of ecosystem recreational services and estimated that the actual flow of ecosystem recreational services was about 12.1 persons/km 2 per year. In terms of personal well-being, ecosystem recreational services have a significant positive impact on tourists’ well-being. The service value is concentrated in amusement places and recreational activities, and dynamic recreational activities have a greater impact on tourists. The research results suggest that to improve the well-being of tourists and the value of ecosystem recreational services, national parks and nature reserves should improve accessibility and the participation of tourists in recreational activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenjia Zhou & Jun Cai & Kai Chen, 2022. "Connecting Recreational Service to Visitor’s Well-Being: A Case Study in Qianjiangyuan National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11366-:d:911214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11366/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11366/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pröpper, Michael & Haupts, Felix, 2014. "The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-35.
    2. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A. & McPhearson, Timon, 2016. "The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 57-68.
    4. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    5. Ed Diener & Eunkook Suh, 1997. "Measuring Quality Of Life: Economic, Social, And Subjective Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 189-216, January.
    6. Megan King & Vivian Renó & Evlyn Novo, 2014. "The Concept, Dimensions and Methods of Assessment of Human Well-Being within a Socioecological Context: A Literature Review," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 681-698, May.
    7. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    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. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Ja, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    10. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    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. Liting Zhou & Fei Ouyang & Yan Sun & Wentao Chen & Yiyong Li & Ruyu Zhao, 2022. "Integrated Sustainable Development of Culture into Tourist Map Design: A Case from Foshan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Alicja Krzemień & Juan José Álvarez Fernández & Pedro Riesgo Fernández & Gregorio Fidalgo Valverde & Silverio Garcia-Cortes, 2022. "Restoring Coal Mining-Affected Areas: The Missing Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.

    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. 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).
    2. Song Liu & Peiyu Shen & Yishan Huang & Li Jiang & Yongjiu Feng, 2022. "Spatial Distribution Changes in Nature-Based Recreation Service Supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    7. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    9. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    10. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Richards, D.R. & Law, A. & Tan, C.S.Y. & Shaikh, S.F.E.A. & Carrasco, L.R. & Jaung, W. & Oh, R.R.Y., 2020. "Rapid urbanisation in Singapore causes a shift from local provisioning and regulating to cultural ecosystem services use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    12. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    13. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    14. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    15. 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).
    16. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    17. Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.
    18. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    19. Stoll, Stefan & Frenzel, Mark & Burkhard, Benjamin & Adamescu, Mihai & Augustaitis, Algirdas & Baeßler, Cornelia & Bonet, Francisco J. & Carranza, Maria Laura & Cazacu, Constantin & Cosor, Georgia L. , 2015. "Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 75-87.
    20. Yumeng Zhang & Jing Li & Zixiang Zhou, 2019. "Exploring Expedient Protected Area for Ecosystem Services: Decision-Making Method with a New Algorithm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.

    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:18:p:11366-:d:911214. 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.