IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i2p125-d1324664.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Interpretation of Landscape Preferences Based on Geographic and Social Media Data to Understand Different Cultural Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Yuanting Yang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Wei Duan

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

A crucial component of ecosystem services (ES) that represents social and humanities values is the cultural ecosystem service (CES), which refers to the non-material advantages that the environment provides for humans. CES are challenging to deeply understand, and little is known about the interactions between CES and landscape variables, particularly in some remote Chinese cities. In order to assess the dominant landscape variables of different CESs from physical, experiential, intellectual and inspirational aspects, this article investigates the landscape variables that may influence the public preferences of various CESs based on social media and geographic data in Anshun, China. The findings are displayed below. The public preferences of various CESs are impacted by the landscape variables in different ways. Physical CESs are influenced by both natural and infrastructure elements, demonstrating that accessibility to restaurants, accommodation, and transit affects how people interact with plays in public. Experiential CESs are primarily influenced by sensory elements, particularly the visual senses, suggesting that when people visit such settings, they place more emphasis on sensory experiences. Intellectual CESs are mostly affected by sensory and natural elements, implying that intellectual CESs with a natural perception are more alluring to tourists. Inspirational CESs are mainly influenced by natural and infrastructure elements, people usually consider nature and convenience when they go to such scenic spots. From the standpoint of promoting people’s wellbeing and boosting tourism appeal, the study’s results can offer fresh perspectives and content additions for the tourism landscape planning and management in Anshun.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuanting Yang & Wei Duan, 2024. "An Interpretation of Landscape Preferences Based on Geographic and Social Media Data to Understand Different Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:125-:d:1324664
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/2/125/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/2/125/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Czembrowski, Piotr & Kronenberg, Jakub & Czepkiewicz, Michał, 2016. "Integrating non-monetary and monetary valuation methods – SoftGIS and hedonic pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 166-175.
    2. Sumarga, Elham & Hein, Lars & Edens, Bram & Suwarno, Aritta, 2015. "Mapping monetary values of ecosystem services in support of developing ecosystem accounts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 71-83.
    3. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    4. 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).
    5. Richards, Daniel R. & Tunçer, Bige, 2018. "Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 318-325.
    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. Cong Gong & Tong He & Lijun Huang & Sijin Li & Qianyu Zhou & Yuchen Liu, 2025. "Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Service Values in Mountainous Urban Parks Based on Sex Differences," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, March.
    2. Qinghai Zhang & Ruijie Jiang & Xin Jiang & Yongjun Li & Xin Cong & Xing Xiong, 2025. "Supply–Demand Spatial Patterns of Cultural Services in Urban Green Spaces: A Case Study of Nanjing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.

    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. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    3. 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).
    4. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    6. Zhiming Zhang & Fengman Fang & Youru Yao & Qing Ji & Xiaojing Cheng, 2024. "Exploring the Response of Ecosystem Services to Socioecological Factors in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Ziyu Jia & Yan Jiao & Wei Zhang & Zheng Chen, 2022. "Rural Tourism Competitiveness and Development Mode, a Case Study from Chinese Township Scale Using Integrated Multi-Source Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Eduardo Blanco & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Kalina Raskin & Philippe Clergeau, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem-Level Biomimicry and Regenerative Design: Linking Ecosystem Functioning and Urban Built Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Richards, Daniel Rex & Lavorel, Sandra, 2022. "Integrating social media data and machine learning to analyse scenarios of landscape appreciation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    10. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    11. Ruochen Ma & Katsunori Furuya, 2024. "Social Media Image and Computer Vision Method Application in Landscape Studies: A Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    12. Jaung, Wanggi & Carrasco, L. Roman & Bae, Jae Soo, 2019. "Integration of ecosystem services as public values within election promises: evidence from the 2018 local elections in Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    14. Campos, Pablo & Oviedo, José L. & Álvarez, Alejandro & Mesa, Bruno & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2019. "The role of non-commercial intermediate services in the valuations of ecosystem services: Application to cork oak farms in Andalusia, Spain," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Lavorel, Sandra & Rey, Pierre-Louis & Grigulis, Karl & Zawada, Mégane & Byczek, Coline, 2020. "Interactions between outdoor recreation and iconic terrestrial vertebrates in two French alpine national parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Lulu Qu & Yurui Li & Yunxin Huang & Xuanchang Zhang & Jilai Liu, 2021. "Analysis of the Spatial Variations of Determinants of Gully Agricultural Production Transformation in the Chinese Loess Plateau and Its Policy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Cimburova, Zofie & Berghauser Pont, Meta, 2021. "Location matters. A systematic review of spatial contextual factors mediating ecosystem services of urban trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    18. Rosa, Josianne Claudia Sales & Geneletti, Davide & Morrison-Saunders, Angus & Sánchez, Luis Enrique & Hughes, Michael, 2020. "To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Meng, Shiting & Huang, Qingxu & Zhang, Ling & He, Chunyang & Inostroza, Luis & Bai, Yansong & Yin, Dan, 2020. "Matches and mismatches between the supply of and demand for cultural ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(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:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:125-:d:1324664. 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.