IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p13968-d954757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Su

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Congmou Zhu

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

  • Lin Lin

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

  • Cheng Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Cai Jin

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Jing Cao

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Tan Li

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Chong Su

    (College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

Improving the accuracy of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) value assessment and paying more attention to the preferences and trade-offs of stakeholders in the administration of CESs are of vital importance for achieving resilient ecosystem management. Combining methodologies from sociology (Q method) and economics (choice experiment), an assessment framework of CESs is introduced to examine stakeholders’ preferences and willingness to pay to participate in CESs in protected areas so as to explore how the value of CESs in protected areas can be optimized. The results show that the selection of CESs by stakeholders reflects certain synergies and trade-offs. Visitors can be classified as preferring humanistic–natural recreation, aesthetic–sense of place, or environmental education according to the factor ranking of the Q method. Visitors have a higher willingness to pay for humanistic heritage and a lower willingness to pay for sense of place experience, which can be measured at $6.55 per visit and $0.96 per visit, respectively. This indicates that the local customs and characteristics should be further explored and promoted through traditional festival celebrations and farming activities in further development of protected areas, apart from protecting local cultural heritages such as Huizhou ancient villages and halls. Furthermore, it is also necessary to actively explore the synergistic development of CESs, promote social participation, raise stakeholders’ awareness of available services, manage visitors and stakeholders from a demand perspective, and promote the realization of the value of ecological products in protected areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Su & Congmou Zhu & Lin Lin & Cheng Wang & Cai Jin & Jing Cao & Tan Li & Chong Su, 2022. "Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:13968-:d:954757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/13968/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/13968/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    3. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    4. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Elwell, Tammy L. & López-Carr, David & Gelcich, Stefan & Gaines, Steven D., 2020. "The importance of cultural ecosystem services in natural resource-dependent communities: Implications for management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    7. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    8. Sherrouse, Benson C. & Semmens, Darius J. & Ancona, Zachary H. & Brunner, Nicole M., 2017. "Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 431-444.
    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. Wei Huang & Shizhu Lu & Yuqing Guo, 2023. "Measuring the Perceived Heterogeneity of Cultural Ecosystem Services in National Cultural Parks: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-16, 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. Chenxi Li & Zhihong Zong & Haichao Qie & Yingying Fang & Qiao Liu, 2023. "CiteSpace and Bibliometric Analysis of Published Research on Forest Ecosystem Services for the Period 2018–2022," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Vieira, Felipe A.S. & Bragagnolo, Chiara & Correia, Ricardo A. & Malhado, Ana C.M. & Ladle, Richard J., 2018. "A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 182-192.
    3. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Schwaiger, Fabian & Poschenrieder, Werner & Biber, Peter & Pretzsch, Hans, 2019. "Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Luca Battisti & Federica Larcher & Stefania Grella & Nunzio Di Bartolo & Marco Devecchi, 2022. "Management and Mapping Ecosystem Services in a Privately Owned Natura 2000 Site: An Insight into the Stellantis–La Mandria Site (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, March.
    7. 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).
    8. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    9. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    10. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    15. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    16. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    20. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    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:21:p:13968-:d:954757. 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.