IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i7p1034-d858164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Binglu Wu

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

  • Wenzhuo Liang

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

  • Jiening Wang

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

  • Dongxu Cui

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

Abstract

Rural residents’ perception is an important way of evaluating rural ecosystem services. Different topographies affect the level of ecosystem services, thus affecting residents’ perceived preferences. This study conducted a questionnaire survey of 1176 rural residents in mountainous, hilly, and plain areas of Shandong Province. It analyzed respondents’ satisfaction with ecosystem services and landscape preferences in different topographical areas. The results showed that the perception of ecosystem services was higher than average in all three topographic areas. The perceptions from high to low were cultural services, provisioning services, and regulating services. The perception of ecosystem services was significantly affected by topography, with significant differences between mountainous and plain areas in particular. Rural residents’ perceptions of cultural services varied widely and there were diverse preferences. This study believes that the important concerns in enhancing the perception of ecosystem services among rural residents are to raise villagers’ ecological awareness by meeting their growing spiritual needs and the high sensitivity of older people.

Suggested Citation

  • Binglu Wu & Wenzhuo Liang & Jiening Wang & Dongxu Cui, 2022. "Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:7:p:1034-:d:858164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/7/1034/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/7/1034/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Oliveira, Luiz Eduardo Chimello & Berkes, Fikret, 2014. "What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 114-121.
    2. Pan, Ying & Xu, Zengrang & Wu, Junxi, 2013. "Spatial differences of the supply of multiple ecosystem services and the environmental and land use factors affecting them," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 4-10.
    3. Greenland-Smith, Simon & Brazner, John & Sherren, Kate, 2016. "Farmer perceptions of wetlands and waterbodies: Using social metrics as an alternative to ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 58-69.
    4. Alcinia Zita Sampaio & Augusto Martins Gomes & Alberto Sánchez-Lite & Patricia Zulueta & Cristina González-Gaya, 2021. "Analysis of BIM Methodology Applied to Practical Cases in the Preservation of Heritage Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Quyen, Nguyen Thi Kim & Berg, Håkan & Gallardo, Wenresti & Da, Chau Thi, 2017. "Stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services and Pangasius catfish farming development along the Hau River in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 2-14.
    6. Liqin Zhang & Huhua Cao & Ruibo Han, 2021. "Residents’ Preferences and Perceptions toward Green Open Spaces in an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    8. Guoliang Xu & Yi Li & Iain Hay & Xiuqing Zou & Xiaosong Tu & Baoqiang Wang, 2019. "Beyond Place Attachment: Land Attachment of Resettled Farmers in Jiangsu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    10. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    11. Dave, Radhika & Tompkins, Emma L. & Schreckenberg, Kate, 2017. "Forest ecosystem services derived by smallholder farmers in northwestern Madagascar: Storm hazard mitigation and participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 72-82.
    12. Xiaohua Yu, 2018. "Engel curve, farmer welfare and food consumption in 40 years of rural China," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 65-77, February.
    13. Dorota Bednarska-Olejniczak & Jarosław Olejniczak & Viktorie Klímová, 2021. "Grants for Local Community Initiatives as a Way to Increase Public Participation of Inhabitants of Rural Areas," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Dunford, Rob & Harrison, Paula & Smith, Alison & Dick, Jan & Barton, David N. & Martin-Lopez, Berta & Kelemen, Ezsther & Jacobs, Sander & Saarikoski, Heli & Turkelboom, Francis & Verheyden, Wim & Hauc, 2018. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 499-514.
    16. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    17. Ashebir Woldeyohannes & Marc Cotter & Wubneshe Dessalegn Biru & Girma Kelboro, 2020. "Assessing Changes in Ecosystem Service Values over 1985–2050 in Response to Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in Abaya-Chamo Basin, Southern Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, January.
    18. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    19. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    20. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & H, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    21. Kibria, Abu S.M.G. & Costanza, Robert & Groves, Colin & Behie, Alison M., 2018. "The interactions between livelihood capitals and access of local communities to the forest provisioning services of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 41-49.
    22. Lee, Cha-Hee, 2020. "Understanding rural landscape for better resident-led management: Residents’ perceptions on rural landscape as everyday landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    23. Lyu, Rongfang & Zhang, Jianming & Xu, Mengqun & Li, Jijun, 2018. "Impacts of urbanization on ecosystem services and their temporal relations: A case study in Northern Ningxia, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 163-173.
    24. Lorraine A. Holloway & Gemma Catney & Aileen Stockdale & Roy Nelson, 2021. "Sustainable Family Farming Futures: Exploring the Challenges of Family Farm Decision Making through an Emotional Lens of ‘Belonging’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, November.
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & T, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    4. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    7. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Dick, Jan & Andrews, Chris & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Teff-Seker, Yael & Zulian, Grazia, 2022. "A mixed-methods approach to analyse recreational values and implications for management of protected areas: A case study of Cairngorms National Park, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    9. Li Ma & Yueting Qin & Han Zhang & Jie Zheng & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2021. "Improving Well-Being of Farmers Using Ecological Awareness around Protected Areas: Evidence from Qinling Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Veerkamp, C.J. & Loreti, M. & Benavidez, R. & Jackson, B & Schipper, A.M., 2023. "Comparing three spatial modeling tools for assessing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    11. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    12. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    13. Jax, Kurt & Furman, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Barton, David N. & Delbaere, Ben & Dick, Jan & Duke, Guy & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Harrison, Paula A. & Maes, Joachim & Pérez-Soba, M, 2018. "Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 415-427.
    14. László Miklós & Anna Špinerová & Ingrid Belčáková & Monika Offertálerová & Viktória Miklósová, 2020. "Ecosystem Services: The Landscape-Ecological Base and Examples," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Smith, Ron I. & Barton, David N. & Dick, Jan & Haines-Young, Roy & Madsen, Anders L. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Termansen, Mette & Woods, Helen & Carvalho, Laurence & Giucă, Relu Constantin & Luque, Sand, 2018. "Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: Experiences within the OpenNESS project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 452-464.
    16. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    17. Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Mertz, Ole & Christensen, Andreas E. & Danielsen, Finn & Dawson, Neil & Xaydongvanh, Pheang, 2016. "A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 75-86.
    18. You Zuo & Lin Zhang, 2023. "Research on Local Ecosystem Cultural Services in the Jiangnan Water Network Rural Areas: A Case Study of the Ecological Green Integration Demonstration Zone in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Pacini, Gaio Cesare & Bruschi, Piero & Ferretti, Lorenzo & Santoni, Margherita & Serafini, Francesco & Gaifami, Tommaso, 2023. "FunBies, a model for integrated assessment of functional biodiversity of weed communities in agro-ecosystem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
    20. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:7:p:1034-:d:858164. 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.