IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i2p509-d1073472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Zhifang Wang

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Yuqing Jian

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Zhibin Huang

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Salman Qureshi

    (Institute of Geography, Humboldt University of Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 16, 12489 Berlin, Germany)

  • Kexin Cheng

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Zhuhui Bai

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Qingwen Zhang

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

Abstract

The science-practice gap has recently been discussed as a critical challenge restricting sustainable growth and development in all facets of our society, including explorations of Recreation Ecosystem Services (RES). To better explore how well the scientific study of RES and its application are connected, this paper aims to synthesize empirical evidence based on an in-depth and systematic literature review. We found that studies of RES have not effectively transformed into the decision-making and long-term planning of our cities. From 2005 to 2020, only 13% of studies referred to specific applications, and about 40% of papers mentioned no applications or practical implications for their research. However, RES research has many potential applications, which can be categorised into six main aspects. In terms of non-spatial improvement: Improved monetary benefits (40%), non-monetary benefits (30%); in terms of spatial improvement: space with high recreational potential or degradation (7%), the relation between supply and demand (7%); and Cross-service governance (16%). After combining the results of various studies, we developed a framework starting from applicable problems and their solutions, which can incorporate the outcomes of RES research while systematically narrowing down the research questions and methods. The framework offers a starting point for further research that can modify and improve in bridging science-practice gaps in RES studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhifang Wang & Yuqing Jian & Zhibin Huang & Salman Qureshi & Kexin Cheng & Zhuhui Bai & Qingwen Zhang, 2023. "Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:509-:d:1073472
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/509/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/509/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dai, Peichao & Zhang, Shaoliang & Gong, Yunlong & Zhou, Yuan & Hou, Huping, 2022. "A crowd-sourced valuation of recreational ecosystem services using mobile signal data applied to a restored wetland in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    3. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Tokunaga, Kanae & Sugino, Hiroaki & Nomura, Hideaki & Michida, Yutaka, 2020. "Norms and the willingness to pay for coastal ecosystem restoration: A case of the Tokyo Bay intertidal flats," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Daria Sikorska & Piotr Sikorski & Richard James Hopkins, 2017. "High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, February.
    7. Yichen Zhong & Amy H. Auchincloss & Brian K. Lee & Ryan M. McKenna & Brent A. Langellier, 2020. "Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    8. Hermes, Johannes & Van Berkel, Derek & Burkhard, Benjamin & Plieninger, Tobias & Fagerholm, Nora & von Haaren, Christina & Albert, Christian, 2018. "Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 289-295.
    9. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    10. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    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. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Huamei Shao & Gunwoo Kim & Qing Li & Galen Newman, 2021. "Web of Science-Based Green Infrastructure: A Bibliometric Analysis in CiteSpace," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Irina Iulia Năstase & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Felix Kienast, 2019. "Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Wang, Xuechao & Lu, Nachuan & Dong, Xiaobin & Zhao, Yanan & Ya, Xijia & Zhao, Yifei, 2017. "Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 15-27.
    6. Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & María F. Schmitz, 2021. "Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Daria Sikorska & Piotr Sikorski & Piotr Archiciński & Jarosław Chormański & Richard J. Hopkins, 2019. "You Can’t See the Woods for the Trees: Invasive Acer negundo L. in Urban Riparian Forests Harms Biodiversity and Limits Recreation Activity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    9. Tingcan Ma & Ruinan Li & Guiyan Ou & Mingliang Yue, 2018. "Topic based research competitiveness evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 789-803, November.
    10. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    12. Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Riccardo Da Re & Mauro Masiero & Davide Pellegrino & Davide Marino, 2020. "Enhancing outdoor recreation and biodiversity through payments for ecosystem services: emerging potentials from selected Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2045-2067, March.
    13. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    14. Xingwen Chen & Li Zhu & Chao Liu & Chunhua Chen & Jun Liu & Dongxia Huo, 2023. "Workplace Diversity in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Review of Literature and Directions for Future Research," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1021-1045, September.
    15. Penghao Ye & Huarong Zhang & Siyi Ma & Fang Yang & Yanan Li, 2022. "A Knowledge Map Study of an Application of a Smart Land Planning Free-Trade Zone and China’s Contribution," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, June.
    16. Ziwen Wei & Man Yuan, 2023. "Research on the Current Situation and Future Development Trend of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Field of Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    19. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    20. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.

    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:12:y:2023:i:2:p:509-:d:1073472. 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.