IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4206-d785266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Ruxing Wang

    (College of Tourism and Exhibition, Hefei University, Hefei 230601, China)

  • Yechen Zhang

    (College of Tourism and Exhibition, Hefei University, Hefei 230601, China)

  • Hongmei Zhang

    (College of Tourism, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200030, China)

  • Hu Yu

    (Institute of Geographical Sciences and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

Social values of ecosystem services originate from human perceptions of ecosystem services and are defined as non-market values perceived by ecosystem stakeholders. Although it is widely recognized that the information of social value can provide assistance to stakeholders and decision makers in environmental management, this issue has received far less attention. This article uses the Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) method to analyze the assessment of social values of national park ecosystem services by residents with different environmental values and their relationship with surrounding natural resource conditions. According to the preference of the interviewed residents, it was found that the four most important types of social value are biodiversity value, aesthetic value, economic value, and recreation and wellness value. In terms of spatial distribution, the hot spots of social values show a pattern of “two cores and multiple centers”. The “two cores” are the Gutianshan National Nature Reserve and Qianjiangyuan National Forest Park, which are located at the north and south ends of the national park; the “multiple centers” include Kukeng, Xikeng, Xiachuan, Gaotiankeng villages in Changhong Township and Longkeng Village in the Hetian Township. By analyzing the relationship between the four social value types with higher preference and the resource environment (land use and elevation), the article found that social values are closely related to scenic spots, river water surface, reservoir water surface, forested land, tea plantations, and villages, and that they are mostly distributed in the range of 400 m to 600 m above sea level. The distribution of social values in the ecocentric subgroup is larger, covering almost the entire national park area. The transition of the value index is smoother, while the distribution of social values in the anthropocentric subgroup is relatively concentrated in one area.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruxing Wang & Yechen Zhang & Hongmei Zhang & Hu Yu, 2022. "Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4206-:d:785266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4206/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4206/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yi Fan Koh & Ho Huu Loc & Edward Park, 2022. "Towards a “City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    3. Lu Zhang & Xuehan Lin & Bingkui Qiu & Guoliang Ou & Zuo Zhang & Siyu Han, 2022. "Impact of Value Perception on Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Farmland Fallow: A Case-Study in Major Grain-Producing Areas of Hubei and Hunan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    5. Lakerveld, Roan P. & Lele, S. & Crane, T.A. & Fortuin, K.P.J. & Springate-Baginski, O., 2015. "The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: Evidence and insights from Odisha, India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 56-66.
    6. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    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. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    2. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    3. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    4. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    5. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    6. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. 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).
    8. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    9. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    10. Wubante Fetene Admasu & Annelies Boerema & Jan Nyssen & Amare Sewnet Minale & Enyew Adgo Tsegaye & Steven Van Passel, 2020. "Uncovering Ecosystem Services of Expropriated Land: The Case of Urban Expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.
    12. Remme, Roy P. & Edens, Bram & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 116-128.
    13. Ho Huu, Loc & Ballatore, Thomas J. & Irvine, Kim N. & Nguyen, Thi Hong Diep & Truong, Thi Cam Tien & Yoshihisa, Shimizu, 2018. "Socio-geographic indicators to evaluate landscape Cultural Ecosystem Services: A case of Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 527-542.
    14. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    15. 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.
    16. Junga Lee & Byoung-Suk Kweon & Christopher D. Ellis & Sang-Woo Lee, 2020. "Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    17. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    18. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    19. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Schröter, Matthias & Stumpf, Klara H. & Loos, Jacqueline & van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E. & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne & Abson, David J., 2017. "Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 35-43.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4206-:d:785266. 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.