IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11964-d1209995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Zhengzhou Urban Parks Based on Public Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Lili Song

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China
    Henan Province Engineering Research Center of Horticultural Plant Resource Utilization and Germplasm Enhancement, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Moyu Wu

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Yingying Wu

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Xiaoyun Xu

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Changfei Xie

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

Abstract

Urban parks are the primary green infrastructure for urban residents to pursue psychological restoration, promote health, relax and connect with nature. The various cultural ecosystem services (CES) provided by urban parks directly impact people’s health and well-being. Understanding the correlation between CES provided by urban parks and the different characteristics of specific groups can promote public willingness to engage with the nature and their health and well-being, and the effective information provided by CES can be used to protect and improve specific or traditional areas of parks. This study focuses on two urban parks (People’s Park and Xiliu Lake Park) located in the central urban area of Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China. A questionnaire survey and participatory mapping methods were employed to explore the priority for 10 types of CES among both local residents and visitors, aiming to reveal the public demand for CES in urban parks and provide a basis for the landscape design or renovation of urban parks. The results show that (1) the main purposes for the public visiting the parks are mental relaxation, scenery appreciation, and leisure and fitness. (2) The public has a rich perception of various types of CES in the urban parks, especially in terms of entertainment and aesthetic value. (3) The impact of education level on cultural services was substantial. (4) The trade-offs and synergies of CES of urban parks are complex and diverse. (5) The public’s perception of urban park CES and spatial value tend to be similar, with a wide distribution. Therefore, to maintain urban sustainable development, urban managers and landscape designers should consider different perspectives on CES provided by urban park stakeholders and enhance their CES through landscape design and renovation practices in urban parks, thereby improving the health and well-being of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Lili Song & Moyu Wu & Yingying Wu & Xiaoyun Xu & Changfei Xie, 2023. "Research on the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Zhengzhou Urban Parks Based on Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11964-:d:1209995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11964/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11964/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gréta Vrbičanová & Dominika Kaisová & Matej Močko & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly, 2020. "Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Simone Buratti & Leticia Merino-Pérez, 2023. "Linear Parks as Urban Commons—Considerations from Mexico City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Tarja Nieminen & Tuija Martelin & Seppo Koskinen & Hillevi Aro & Erkki Alanen & Markku Hyyppä, 2010. "Social capital as a determinant of self-rated health and psychological well-being," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(6), pages 531-542, December.
    6. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    7. 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.
    8. Martin Dallimer & Zoe G. Davies & Katherine N. Irvine & Lorraine Maltby & Philip H. Warren & Kevin J. Gaston & Paul R. Armsworth, 2014. "What Personal and Environmental Factors Determine Frequency of Urban Greenspace Use?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Nguyet Anh Dang & Rubianca Benavidez & Stephanie Anne Tomscha & Ho Nguyen & Dung Duc Tran & Diep Thi Hong Nguyen & Ho Huu Loc & Bethanna Marie Jackson, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Modelling to Support Nature-Based Flood Water Management in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-28, December.
    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. Yipeng Ge & Shubo Chen & Yueshan Ma & Yitong Wang & Yafei Guo & Qizheng Gan, 2024. "Ecosystem Services and Public Perception of Green Infrastructure from the Perspective of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Luoyang City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Shengnan Zhao & Xirui Wen & Yuhang Ge & Xuning Qiao & Yu Wang & Jing Zhang & Wenfei Luan, 2025. "Assessment and Layout Optimization of Urban Parks Based on Accessibility and Green Space Justice: A Case Study of Zhengzhou City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-28, October.
    3. Nuan Han & Roziya Binti Ibrahim & Mohd Sallehuddin Bin Mat Noor, 2025. "Assessing Cultural Ecosystem Services in Sponge City Infrastructure: A Systematic Review and Framework Proposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Jiaxin Li & Kankan Li & Yanbo Wang & Rui Jiao, 2024. "Comparative Study on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from Different Stakeholder Perspectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, December.
    5. 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. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    2. Tongwen Wang & Ya Li & Haidong Li & Shuaijun Chen & Hongkai Li & Yunxing Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Vitality Evaluation of Parks and Squares in Medium-Sized Chinese Cities from the Perspective of Urban Functional Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-23, November.
    3. Melanie Feurer & Andreas Heinimann & Flurina Schneider & Christine Jurt & Win Myint & Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer, 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    5. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    6. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    7. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2021. "Applying the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Landscape Architecture Design: Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Irvine, Katherine N. & O’Brien, Liz & Ravenscroft, Neil & Cooper, Nigel & Everard, Mark & Fazey, Ioan & Reed, Mark S. & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 184-193.
    9. Hongmi Koo & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2020. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Land-Use Modeling to Assess the Effects of Future Land-Use Strategies in Northern Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, October.
    10. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    11. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Nandini Halder & Manoj Kumar & Akshay Deepak & Shailendra K. Mandal & Amjad Azmeer & Basit A. Mir & Anissa Nurdiawati & Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, 2025. "The Role of Urban Greenery in Enhancing Thermal Comfort: Systematic Review Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-30, March.
    15. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    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. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    19. Fabiellen C. Pereira & Stuart Charters & Carol M. S. Smith & Thomas M. R. Maxwell & Pablo Gregorini, 2023. "A Geospatial Modelling Approach to Assess the Capability of High-Country Stations in Delivering Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Kinga Kimic & Albert Fekete, 2022. "The Ratio of Biologically Vital Areas as a Measure of the Sustainability of Urban Parks Using the Example of Budapest, Hungary," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11964-:d:1209995. 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.