Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area
3. Research Methods and Data Sources
3.1. Research Methods
3.1.1. Q Method and Design
3.1.2. Choice Experiment Method
Attribute and Levels Design
Orthogonal Design
3.2. Data Sources
4. Results
4.1. Q Method Results
4.1.1. Participant Characteristics
4.1.2. Factor Analysis and Factor Rotation Score
4.2. Choice Experiment Results
4.2.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.2.2. Random Parameter Logit Model
- (1)
- The influence of ASC. According to the results, the coefficient of ASC is significantly negative at the 1% level, indicating that, compared with maintaining the status quo, tourists are more willing to improve the regional CESs and, thus, choose the improvement plan.
- (2)
- The influence of various CES variables. According to Table 6, all attribute coefficients are strongly significant at the confidence level of more than 5%, indicating that tourists have a strong willingness to improve support for cultural heritage, aesthetics, environmental education, natural heritage, and sense of place and can generate more attraction and bring better service experience. From the perspective of the standard deviation coefficient, infrastructure construction and agricultural cultural experience are both significant at the 5% level, further indicating the existence of heterogeneity in tourist preferences.
4.2.3. Willingness to Pay
5. Discussion
5.1. Stakeholders’ Preference and Trade-Off of Different CESs
5.2. Policy Revelation for Management of Protected Area
5.3. Strengths and Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ferraro, P.J.; Pressey, R.L. Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: Protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ament, J.M.; Moore, C.A.; Herbst, M.; Cumming, G.S. Cultural Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Understanding Bundles, Trade-Offs, and Synergies. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palomo, I.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B.; González, J.A.; García-Llorente, M.; Alcorlo, P.; Mora, M.R.G. Incorporating the social-ecological approach in protected areas in the anthropocene. Bioscience 2014, 64, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. CICES V5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. In Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services; Fabis Consulting Ltd.: Barton, UK, 2018; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.A.; Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 2018, 359, 270–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Cheng, H.; Zheng, H.; Ouyang, Z. Research on the policy instruments for the value realization of ecological products. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 8746–8754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Mao, D.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Jia, M.; Huang, X.; Xiao, Y.; Xiang, H. Understanding the contrasting effects of policy-driven ecosystem conservation projects in northeastern China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 135, 108578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabana, D.; Ryfield, F.; Crowe, T.P.; Brannigan, J. Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, S.; Su, Y.; Wang, L.; Cheng, H. Realisation of recreation in national parks: A perspective of ecosystem services demand and willingness to pay of tourists in Wuyishan Pilot. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schirpke, U.; Candiago, S.; Egarter Vigl, L.; Jäger, H.; Labadini, A.; Marsoner, T.; Meisch, C.; Tasser, E.; Tappeiner, U. Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 928–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Jin, L. Recreational Value of Rural Areas Based on Tourists’Behavior: The Example of Yanqing County. Tour. Trib. 2016, 31, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.; Li, L.; Wei, J. Economic value evaluation of resources and management attributes for forest parks using choice experiments. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 193–200. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, L.; Guan, D.; Huang, X.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, M. Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chhetri, P.; Arrowsmith, C. GIS-based modelling of recreational potential of nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Geogr. 2008, 10, 233–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Yang, F.; Wang, J.; Wu, R. Assessment of the tourism and recreation cultural ecosystem services in Three Parallel Rivers Region. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 4351–4361. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Wu, R.; Tian, F. A review of research on national park recreation in the past 20 years. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 2210–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J.; Ancona, Z.H.; Brunner, N.M. Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gosal, A.S.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Václavík, T.; Poulin, B.; Ziv, G. Using social media, machine learning and natural language processing to map multiple recreational beneficiaries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Brown, T. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 509–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Washbourne, C.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Le Provost, G.; Manning, D.A.C.; Manning, P. Trade-offs and synergies in the ecosystem service demand of urban brownfield stakeholders. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhelm, J.A.; Smith, R.G.; Jolejole-Foreman, M.C.; Hurley, S. Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armatas, C.; Venn, T.; Watson, A. Understanding social–ecological vulnerability with Q-methodology: A case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hølleland, H.; Skrede, J.; Holmgaard, S.B. Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2017, 19, 210–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, D.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, L.; Lu, L. Evolution process of ecosystem services and the trade-off synergy in Xin’an River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 6981–6993. [Google Scholar]
- Bredin, Y.K.; Lindhjem, H.; van Dijk, J.; Linnell, J.D.C. Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imran, S.; Alam, K.; Beaumont, N. Environmental orientations and environmental behaviour: Perceptions of protected area tourism stakeholders. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phi, G.; Dredge, D.; Whitford, M. Understanding conflicting perspectives in event planning and management using Q method. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.R. Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qual. Health Res. 1996, 6, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, A.K. A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 166, 106400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armatas, C.A.; Campbell, R.M.; Watson, A.E.; Borrie, W.T.; Christensen, N.; Venn, T.J. An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 33, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, W.; Morrison, M.D.; Boyle, K.J.; Boxall, P.C.; Rose, J. Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 182, 106904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulczyk, S.; Woźniak, E.; Derek, M. Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derek, M.; Woźniak, E.; Kulczyk, S. Tourism in a nature-based destination: The human versus the ecological perspectives. Tour. Geogr. 2017, 19, 548–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small, N.; Munday, M.; Durance, I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, E.; Yu, Y. Assessing tourism carrying capacity in the national forest park based on visitor’s willingness to pay for the environmental attributes. Syst. Eng. Pract. 2018, 38, 1153–1163. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Xie, L.; Zhang, L.; Huang, L.; Lin, Y.; Su, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, J.; Chen, X. Understanding different cultural ecosystem services: An exploration of rural landscape preferences based on geographic and social media data. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 317, 115487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Cai, J.; Sliuzas, R. Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guedes-Santos, J.; Aleixo Correia, R.; Mendes Malhado, A.C.; Ladle, R.J. A digital approach to quantifying political vulnerability of protected areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 124, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elwell, T.L.; López-Carr, D.; Gelcich, S.; Gaines, S.D. The importance of cultural ecosystem services in natural resource-dependent communities: Implications for management. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 44, 101123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maron, M.; Mitchell, M.G.E.; Runting, R.K.; Rhodes, J.R.; Mace, G.M.; Keith, D.A.; Watson, J.E.M. Towards a Threat Assessment Framework for Ecosystem Services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Montes, C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Statement and Number | |
---|---|---|
Aesthetics: local infrastructure level | 1 | I hope accommodation in the scenic spot is good. |
2 | I hope there is less solid waste in scenic spots. | |
3 | I hope the noise of the scenic spot is well controlled. | |
4 | I hope there is less water pollution in scenic spots. | |
5 | I hope there are more leisure and entertainment venues in scenic spots. | |
6 | I hope the scenic cruise is convenient. | |
7 | I hope the scenic road is accessible. | |
Sense of place: feel the local customs | 8 | Learn about traditional Huizhou culture (marriage, sacrifice, etc.). |
9 | Learn about Hui merchants and tea appreciation. | |
10 | Taste local delicacies (stinky mandarin fish, hairy tofu, Huimo crisp sugar pastry, etc.). | |
11 | Learn about local history and traditions. | |
12 | Learn about local traditional handicrafts (Hui ink, She inkstone, bamboo carving, paper cutting, etc.). | |
13 | Learn about customs on farming and solar terms in Huizhou. | |
Cultural heritage: feel the local culture | 14 | Visit Huizhou architectural features (horse head wall). |
15 | Visit Huizhou ancestral hall. | |
16 | Visit Huizhou ancient alley. | |
17 | Visit Huizhou ancient buildings. | |
18 | Visit Huizhou archway group. | |
19 | Visit a local ancient bridge. | |
Natural heritage: feel the natural scenery | 20 | Feel the traditional style of the local natural ecosystem. |
21 | Go for recreational activities such as jogging on the ecological trail. | |
22 | Carry out a series of water-based activities such as cruises, etc. | |
23 | Go fishing. | |
24 | Go camping by the Sinan River. | |
Environmental education: carry out environmental knowledge learning | 25 | Learn about biodiversity. |
26 | Learn about typical local wildlife. | |
27 | Learn about the main local plants. | |
28 | Participate in agricultural research activities. | |
29 | Learn green planting techniques. | |
30 | Learn about natural landscapes and emotional connections. |
Attributes | State Level | Attribute Hierarchy Explained |
---|---|---|
Cultural heritage | Deterioration | Local monuments are badly damaged and in disrepair. |
Status quo | There is some restoration of the damaged monument, but it is still in progress. | |
Slightly improved | Ancient Huizhou architecture is repaired and protected, and ancient villages improved. | |
Aesthetics | Status quo | The local accommodation is average, and the transportation is not convenient. |
Slightly improved | There are chain hotels or B&Bs, and the transportation is relatively convenient. | |
Better improvement | There are star hotels and special tourist buses, and the transportation is truly convenient. | |
Natural heritage | Deterioration | The original natural features are less preserved. |
Status quo | The original natural features are relatively preserved. | |
Slightly improved | The original natural features are well preserved. | |
Environmental education | Status quo | There are no relevant environmental publicity and education efforts. |
Slightly improved | Some areas have environmental protection signs and environmental education. | |
Better improvement | Most areas have environmental protection signs, environmental protection brochures, and environmental education. | |
Sense of place | Status quo | Tourists do not know there are local customs and experiential activities due to the lack of publicity. |
Slightly improved | There are some publicity signs, and tourists can sign up to experience custom activities such as farming and picking tea, etc. | |
Better improvement | There are various forms of local custom activities, and tourists have a good sense of experience. | |
Willingness to pay | - | $0, $7.61, $15.22, $30.44 each year |
Attributes | Plan A | Plan B | Plan C |
---|---|---|---|
Cultural heritage | Status quo | Status quo | Status quo |
Aesthetics | Status quo | Better Improvement | |
Environmental education | Status quo | Slightly improved | |
Natural heritage | Better Improvement | Status quo | |
Sense of place | Status quo | Status quo | |
Willingness to pay | $0 | $7.61 | $15.22 |
Your choice | - | - | - |
Sample | Factor Loading | Sample | Factor Loading | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
2 | 0.49 X | −0.18 | −0.23 | 4 | 0.20 | 0.62 X | −0.09 |
5 | 0.88 X | −0.01 | 0.1 | 13 | −0.07 | −0.44 X | −0.10 |
6 | 0.71 X | −0.23 | 0.19 | 17 | 0.30 | −0.66 X | −0.02 |
7 | 0.76 X | −0.30 | 0.11 | 18 | 0.31 | 0.55 X | −0.35 |
8 | 0.41 X | 0.27 | −0.10 | 25 | 0.30 | 0.63 X | 0.26 |
9 | 0.37 X | −0.19 | 0.02 | 10 | −0.21 | 0.04 | 0.60 X |
11 | 0.80 X | 0.16 | 0.16 | 16 | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.58 X |
14 | 0.63 X | 0.14 | −0.25 | 20 | 0.13 | −0.13 | −0.75 X |
24 | 0.70 X | 0.10 | 0.21 | 22 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.59 X |
26 | 0.75 X | 0.22 | 0.20 | 30 | 0.28 | −0.16 | 0.74 X |
27 | 0.79 X | 0.19 | 0.25 | ||||
28 | 0.82 X | 0.29 | 0.08 | ||||
29 | 0.45 X | 0.20 | 0.23 | ||||
1 | 0.44 | −0.49 X | 0.02 | ||||
3 | 0.06 | 0.53 X | −0.01 |
Variable | Variable Definition | (% of Total Surveyed) | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male = 1 Female = 2 | 56.7 | 1.518 | 0.500 |
43.3 | ||||
Age | 25 years old and below = 1 | 16.7 | 2.139 | 0.819 |
25–45 years old = 2 | 56.7 | |||
45–65 years old = 3 | 23.3 | |||
65 years old and above = 4 | 3.3 | |||
Education level | Junior high = 1 | 13.3 | 1.909 | 0.919 |
Senior high = 2 | 23.3 | |||
Undergraduate = 3 | 50.0 | |||
Postgraduate and above = 4 | 13.3 | |||
Number of trips | 0 times = 1 | 14.7 | 2.456 | 0.849 |
1–2 times = 2 | 46.0 | |||
3–4 times = 3 | 30.4 | |||
4 times or more = 4 | 8.9 | |||
Monthly income | $304.41 and below = 1 | 16.7 | 2.354 | 0.979 |
$304.41–$761.04 = 2 | 23.3 | |||
$761.04–$1522.07 = 3 | 43.3 | |||
$1522.07–$7610.35 = 4 | 16.7 |
Variable | Coefficient | Standard Error |
---|---|---|
Random parameter | ||
Aesthetics | 2.0132 *** | 0.6674 |
Sense of place | 0.5421 ** | 0.2366 |
Fixed parameters | ||
ASC | −2.3916 *** | 0.6843 |
Cultural heritage | 3.7076 *** | 0.7529 |
Environmental education | 1.00078 *** | 0.3485 |
Natural heritage | 2.2827 *** | 0.6419 |
Payment amount | −0.08616 *** | 0.0250 |
Standard deviation | ||
Aesthetics | 0.7581 ** | 0.3715 |
Sense of place | 1.8871 ** | 0.78018 |
AIC | 1459.1 | |
Log likelihood | −715.5825 | |
Pseudo-R2 | 0.2255 |
Attributes | Willingness to Pay (Unit: $/Visit) | Sort |
---|---|---|
Cultural heritage | 6.55 | 1 |
Aesthetics | 3.56 | 3 |
Environmental education | 1.77 | 4 |
Natural heritage | 4.03 | 2 |
Sense of place | 0.96 | 5 |
Total willingness to pay | 16.86 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Su, Y.; Zhu, C.; Lin, L.; Wang, C.; Jin, C.; Cao, J.; Li, T.; Su, C. Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13968. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113968
Su Y, Zhu C, Lin L, Wang C, Jin C, Cao J, Li T, Su C. Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):13968. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113968
Chicago/Turabian StyleSu, Yue, Congmou Zhu, Lin Lin, Cheng Wang, Cai Jin, Jing Cao, Tan Li, and Chong Su. 2022. "Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 13968. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113968