IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i3p572-d1081371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of Visitor Perception of Urban Forest Ecosystem Services in Kuala Lumpur

Author

Listed:
  • Emylia Shakira Jamean

    (Center for Research in Development, Social and Environment, Faculty of Science, Social and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Azlan Abas

    (Center for Research in Development, Social and Environment, Faculty of Science, Social and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
    Centre of Excellence for Social Innovation & Sustainability (CoESIS), Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Jalan Kangar-Alor Setar, Kangar 01000, Perlis, Malaysia)

Abstract

Urban forests play a vital role in maintaining the city ecological balance and providing ecosystem services to citizens. Ecosystem services lead to better quality of life, better environmental quality, and more sustainable urban growth. However, many emerging nations have often progressed at the price of lowering and sacrificing forest coverage, which has a negative impact on the benefits that the public receives from natural green spaces. As a result, the goals of this research were to ascertain visitor impressions of urban forests in Kuala Lumpur, to assess the value assigned by visitors to urban forests in Kuala Lumpur, and to investigate the elements that impact the willingness to pay. A questionnaire-based field study was conducted on a total of 254 respondents among Taman Tugu Urban Forest visitors, Kuala Lumpur. The results show that visitor perceptions of regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services were positive, with high-level score values of 4.74, ±0.40, 4.69, ±0.37, and 4.70, ±0.50. Furthermore, provisioning services were perceived to be of moderately high level (3.49, ±1.12), and visitor perceptions of urban forest amenities were positive, with high-level scores (4.39, ±0.53). Overall, this indicates that visitors had a very good perception of Taman Tugu Urban Forest ecosystem services. However, when we looked at the factors that contributed to the willingness to pay for the conservation of urban forests and entry, only the perception of the amenities provided at Taman Tugu had a significant relationship with the willingness to pay. A total of 79.1% of visitors expressed their willingness to pay, for forest conservation, an average payment value of MYR 51.32 per year, while 65% of visitors were willing to pay, as entry fees at urban forests, an average payment value of MYR 3.07 per person. It can be concluded that visitors had a positive perception of urban forests in Kuala Lumpur and were willing to contribute for conservation and entry fee purposes. We hope that the findings of this research contribute to a better understanding of urban forest ecosystem services in Kuala Lumpur and visitor perception. In addition, this study could also be useful to policy makers to formulate a specific policy focus on urban forests by comprehensively and holistically including the monetary value of the ecosystem services provided, considering public opinion and needs, and performing financial allocation for conserving and managing urban forests. This is to ensure that the urban sustainable development goals and smart city aims can be achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Emylia Shakira Jamean & Azlan Abas, 2023. "Valuation of Visitor Perception of Urban Forest Ecosystem Services in Kuala Lumpur," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:572-:d:1081371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/3/572/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/3/572/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian H Langford & Mihalis S Skourtos & Areti Kontogianni & Rosemary J Day & Stavros Georgiou & Ian J Bateman, 2001. "Use and Nonuse Values for Conserving Endangered Species: The Case of the Mediterranean Monk Seal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(12), pages 2219-2233, December.
    2. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    3. Azlan Abas & Kadaruddin Aiyub & Azahan Awang, 2022. "Biomonitoring Potentially Toxic Elements (PTEs) Using Lichen Transplant Usnea misaminensis : A Case Study from Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Siriwardena, Shyamani D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Holmes, Thomas P. & Wiseman, P. Eric, 2016. "The implicit value of tree cover in the U.S.: A meta-analysis of hedonic property value studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 68-76.
    5. Jamal Othman & Yaghoob Jafari, 2019. "Economic Valuation of an Urban Lake Recreational Park: Case of Taman Tasik Cempaka in Bandar Baru Bangi, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    7. Herd-Hoare, S. & Shackleton, C.M., 2020. "Ecosystem disservices matter when valuing ecosystem benefits from small-scale arable agriculture," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    8. Shackleton, Sheona & Campbell, Bruce & Lotz-Sisitka, Heila & Shackleton, Charlie, 2008. "Links between the Local Trade in Natural Products, Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation in a Semi-arid Region of South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 505-526, March.
    9. Maria Bonaventura Forleo & Nicola Gagliardi & Luca Romagnoli, 2015. "Determinants of Willingness to Pay for an Urban Green Area: A Contingent Valuation Survey of College Students," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 4(1), pages 7-25.
    10. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    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. Targetti, S. & Raggi, M. & Zavalloni, M. & Viaggi, D., 2021. "Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Merida, Vincent Elijiah & Cook, David & Ögmundarson, Ólafur & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2022. "Ecosystem services and disservices of meat and dairy production: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    4. Stoeckl, Natalie & Condie, Scott & Anthony, Ken, 2021. "Assessing changes to ecosystem service values at large geographic scale: A case study for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    5. Michael Nassl & Jörg Löffler, 2019. "How Societal Values Determine the Local Use of Forest Resources—Findings from the Rural Community Kegong (Northwest Yunnan, China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Silva, Tiago Manuel & Silva, Susana & Carvalho, Armindo, 2022. "Economic valuation of urban parks with historical importance: The case of Quinta do Castelo, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Rafał Blazy & Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber & Alicja Hrehorowicz-Nowak & Arkadiusz Płachta, 2021. "The Synergy of Ecosystems of Blue and Green Infrastructure and Its Services in the Metropolitan Area—Chances and Dangers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Suchocka, Marzena & Heciak, Jakub & Błaszczyk, Magdalena & Adamczyk, Joanna & Gaworski, Marek & Gawłowska, Agnieszka & Mojski, Jacek & Kalaji, Hazem M. & Kais, Karolina & Kosno-Jończy, Joanna & Hec, 2023. "Comparison of Ecosystem Services and Replacement Value calculations performed for urban trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    9. Andresa Ledo Marques & Angélica Tanus Benatti Alvim & Jörg Schröder, 2022. "Ecosystem Services and Urban Planning: A Review of the Contribution of the Concept to Adaptation in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Stoeckl, Natalie & Dodd, Aaron & Kompas, Tom, 2023. "The monetary value of 16 services protected by the Australian National Biosecurity System: Spatially explicit estimates and vulnerability to incursions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Zahra Kalantari & Sara Khoshkar & Helena Falk & Vladimir Cvetkovic & Ulla Mörtberg, 2017. "Accessibility of Water-Related Cultural Ecosystem Services through Public Transport—A Model for Planning Support in the Stockholm Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    13. Lin Zhang & Suhong Zhou & Mei-Po Kwan & Fei Chen & Rongping Lin, 2018. "Impacts of Individual Daily Greenspace Exposure on Health Based on Individual Activity Space and Structural Equation Modeling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. & Oppong, B.B., 2016. "Commercialisation of mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) in rural households in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-148.
    15. Scott Hetrick & Rinku Roy Chowdhury & Eduardo Brondizio & Emilio Moran, 2013. "Spatiotemporal Patterns and Socioeconomic Contexts of Vegetative Cover in Altamira City, Brazil," Land, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    16. Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes, 2020. "Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    17. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O, 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    18. Dirk Lauinger & Romain G. Billy & Felipe Vásquez & Daniel B. Müller, 2021. "A general framework for stock dynamics of populations and built and natural environments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1136-1146, October.
    19. Yangcheng Hu & Yi Liu & Changyan Li, 2022. "Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River Urban Agglomeration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Yuta Kuroda & Takeru Sugasawa, 2023. "The Value of Scattered Greenery in Urban Areas: A Hedonic Analysis in Japan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 523-586, June.

    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:3:p:572-:d:1081371. 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.