Next Article in Journal
Use It Sustainably or Lose It! The Land Stakes in SDGs for Sub-Saharan Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Challenges to Implementing Socially-Sustainable Community Development in Oil Palm and Forestry Operations in Indonesia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 9
Issue 3
10.3390/land9030062
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services

by
Jae-hyuck Lee
1 and
HaeOk Choi
2,*
1
Korea Environment Institute, 811 Building B, Sejong National Research Complex 370, Sicheng-daero, Sejong 30147, Korea
2
Science and Technology Policy Institute, 508 Building B, Sejong National Research Complex 370, Sicheng-daero, Sejong 30147, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2020, 9(3), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030062
Submission received: 20 January 2020 / Revised: 19 February 2020 / Accepted: 20 February 2020 / Published: 25 February 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reducing the demands placed on ecosystems can maximize the benefits they provide. Therefore, this study examines public complaints about the environment to analyze the pressure placed on the ecosystem spatially and temporally. Environment-related public complaints filed in the city of Namyangju were examined. The city sources its water from the Han River and is poised to implement a payment system for ecosystem services. Many complaints were filed regarding noise and oscillation, dust scattering, wildlife, air quality management, and water quality management. The complaints indicated that the public were inconvenienced by the regulation of services and service-support: scattered dust affected the downtown area all year, while noise and oscillation, as well as problems with air quality, were prevalent mainly during the summer. Measures should be adopted to address the peculiarities of each issue. This study suggests that areas in which wild boars are active should be separated from areas of human activity and that pollutants need to be prevented from reaching the waterfront. Measures should be developed to address the negative factors and maximize ecosystem benefits. Analyzing public complaints about the environment can lead to the establishment of local plans to maximize ecosystem services.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services are benefits derived from ecosystems [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Ecosystem service assessment is related to monetary values, which suggests that there could be base earning incomes in conservation areas by sharing the profits of development. This approach could restrain the polarization and alleviate the wasting paradigm of competition between conservation and development. In this context, ecosystem services are used as a new concept of environmental planning. There have been many attempts to use ecosystem services for decision-making in environmental policy [7,8,9].
Most existing research has focused on analyzing and improving the functions of ecosystem services on the supplier side [10,11,12,13]. By assessing and mapping ecosystem services according to the whole and subdivisions (provisioning, regulation, supporting, and cultural services), environmental planning and spatial planning could increase the benefits of ecosystem services. However, consideration should be given to reduce the risk factors when increasing the benefits of ecosystems. Environmental problems should be addressed to optimize these benefits [14]. While the improvement of positive ecosystem services is needed, a reduction of negative ecosystem services is also important. Before maximizing ecosystem services, existing issues in the local ecosystem should be examined [15,16,17,18].
This study focuses on public complaints concerning ecosystem services. Payment systems for ecosystem services, which are policy measures designed to utilize them effectively, offer financial benefits to residents who are facing difficulties due to ecosystem preservation efforts [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Ecosystem services should reflect the characteristics of the local ecosystem as well as the nature of public complaints. An examination of public complaints will help local governments understand the issues surrounding ecosystem services. Although a few studies have considered environmental complaints, they did not analyze the contents of complaints; they simply assessed motives based on the main complaints on survey and contamination measurements [25,26,27]. However, this study examines local complaints in detail to better understand the relationship between ecosystem benefits and public engagement at the local level.
Public complaints represent community distress and are frequently examined in the field of marketing [28,29,30,31]. In marketing, complaints are used to suggest alternatives in a spatial context. In online shopping or hotel management, text mining is used to analyze complaints [32,33,34,35]. The spatial relationships between snow complaints and traffic crashes, as well as among sinkholes, dry-well complaints, and groundwater pumping have been analyzed [36,37,38,39].
It is necessary to analyze ecosystem complaints in order to understand spatial transitions in ecosystems [40,41,42,43]. This study investigates the negative factors of ecosystem benefits such as construction and pollution using a content analysis of public complaints about ecosystem services in a local area [11,44,45]. This study further examines the temporal and spatial characteristics of public environmental complaints in an effort to involve the local economy and lessen the negative factors of ecosystem benefits.

2. Literature Review

Ecosystem service assessment is the evaluation of benefits received from the natural environment. Many studies have performed various supply assessments of ecosystem services, such as an assessment of the supply of rice provisioning ecosystem services by yield data [46], the regulation of ecosystem services by ecological modeling [47], and cultural ecosystem services (urban green spaces) by a survey [48]. A time-series evaluation is meaningful for suggesting environmental policies to improve ecosystem services values by comparing the past status to that of the present. Such an evaluation is related to the development of ecosystem service mapping studies for environmental planning. In studies on ecosystem services assessment, demand as a social aspect and supply as a natural aspect are related [49,50] and compared [40,51].
The various ecosystem service mapping studies have led to the question of how to find a balance between suburban areas that have sufficient ecosystem service supplies and urban areas where numerous people need ecosystem services. Various ideas about spatial matching surpluses and the deficiency of ecosystem services have been suggested. In these studies, the spatial structure of ecosystem services demand has been analyzed based on population [40] and environmental modeling [52,53]. However, these approaches had the limitation that local ecological issues did not appear due to particular future scenarios regarding ecosystem services, and the matrices between ecosystem service indicators and land use. Therefore, the results of such research are detached from immediate, local policy and decision-making. To overcome this gap, cultural ecosystem services related to behaviors have been analyzed through interviews with local residents [28,54]. However, this approach is also unable to cover all the dimensions of ecosystem services.
The present study focuses on environmental civil complaints to understand the local issues in ecosystem service assessments. In many studies, complaints have been used to analyze the needs of users [29,31,55,56]. Complaints can indicate risk factors in terms of suppliers and help policymakers to determine the needs of users. This shows that analyzing environmental complaints is essential for policy-making and environmental planning based on ecosystem services. This study presents the demand for ecosystem services through an analysis of temporal and spatial patterns of environmental complaints and suggests environmental policies based on local issues.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

Namyangju, which is located near Seoul, is the water supply source for the Korean capital of Seoul; 700,000 people live there. Urban development is restricted outside of certain areas in order to protect the quality of the water. Instead of expanded development, the city imposes a water usage charge on the citizens of Seoul, so that residential support projects can be implemented for those who live in development restricted areas. However, the number of people moving into Namyangju has been increasing by over 10,000 people per year, and residential development is growing rapidly. The interplay of restriction and development has prompted the city to introduce a water usage charge called the ecosystem services payment system. This is the context for this study (see Figure 1).

3.2. Method of Analysis

This study examines public environmental complaints to investigate the factors that contribute to the reduction of ecosystem benefits. First, a content analysis of the environmental complaints received by the Namyangju government was conducted. To establish a framework for content analysis, this study used the existing categorization system in Namyangju for recording public environmental complaints (Table 1). For content analysis, complaints were classified according to four main (e.g., air, water, pollutant) and 30 subcategories (Namyangju suggested administration). These were then reclassified according to time (year and month) and place (administrative area). These steps were completed using Microsoft Excel. Environmental complaints from 2012 to 2016 were analyzed, with a total of 19,482 complaints received from 546 people. The number of complaints per person ranged from 1 to 1293. This study focuses on the temporal and spatial patterns of complaints, with the assumption that a higher level of complaints indicates that more severe distress is being caused.
Second, a temporal analysis was conducted on the temporal characteristics of the categorized public complaints. Third, a spatial analysis was conducted by ArcGIS 10.3. It examined the types of public complaints that were filed and the prevalence of different types in various municipal areas of Namyangju over the course of 12 months (see Figure 2). Finally, this study identified the specific time and location at which the majority of public complaints were made and studied the contents of those complaints in an attempt to resolve the issues.

4. Results

4.1. Basic Statistical Analysis of the Public Environmental Complaints in Namyangju

The analysis revealed that the majority of public complaints were related to noise and oscillation. These were followed in order by dust scattering, wildlife, air quality management, and water quality management. There was a strong demand for an enhancement of the regulation of ecosystem services in Namyangju. This study conducted an in-depth analysis of the top five categories of public complaints (i.e., noise and oscillation, dust scattering, wildlife, air quality management, and water quality management; Table 2).

4.2. Analysis of Public Complaints by Monthly Distribution

This study performed a spatial analysis on the characteristics of complaints from 1 January 2016, to 31 December 2016 (the year of the most recent data) for months in which the most public complaints were filed. A time-series analysis revealed that there were numerous public complaints about noise and oscillation, wildlife, air quality management, and water quality management during the summer months of June, July, and August. Complaints about dust scattering, however, were filed inconsistently throughout each year (Figure 3).

4.3. Spatial Analysis

A spatial analysis was conducted on the complaints about noise and oscillation, air quality management, and water quality management received in August 2016. This was the time period in which the greatest number of complaints were filed. Similarly, a spatial analysis was performed on complaints about wildlife made in July 2016 and complaints made about dust scattering in November of 2016 (these months had the highest level of complaints about the respective subcategory). The majority of public complaints about noise and oscillation, dust scattering, and air quality management were filed in Hwado-eup. Complaints about wildlife, however, were often reported in Byeolnae-myeon and Wabu-eup. A large number of complaints about water quality management were filed in Hopyeong-dong. After the spatial analysis was performed, Hwado-eup was specifically examined for public complaints about noise and oscillation, dust scattering, and air quality management, while Hopyeong-dong was examined for complaints about water quality management, and Sudong-myeon was examined for complaints about wildlife (see Figure 4).
According to a detailed analysis of complaints in Hwado-eup, dust scattering affected various construction sites in the downtown area. Public complaints about dust scattering included “At the mountain reclamation site, large construction vehicles are traveling in and out without their wheels being washed, leaving roads muddy. Please force them to assign people to wash the vehicle wheels and sprinkle some water over the roads. There have been many complaints, but they fix the problem only temporarily” and “At Nokchon-ri, the company is currently doing construction work. The vehicles are passing through the front yard of my house, and the yard is filled with dirt from the wheels of the concrete mixer trucks, and dust is scattering everywhere. I’ve asked the construction company to do something about it, but no action has been taken. Please make them wash my front yard when they are spraying water”.
In addition, people in the central downtown area, who were already dealing with the issue of dust scattering, filed many complaints about noise and oscillation, and air quality management. Public complaints about noise and oscillation included “The apartment construction site in Nokchon-ri is making noise oscillation too much. I’ve been on leave from work for depression and insomnia, but I’m currently under a lot of stress due to the construction work. Please check the site and do something to fundamentally solve this problem” and “The construction site in Maseokwoo-ri is too loud during the early weekend mornings. Please check and find solutions to it.” Complaints about air quality management included “It’s about the construction site of the apartment in Nokchon-ri, Hwado-eup. Not just the noise, but also the vehicle exhaust from the site is making it difficult to do daily things. Please check and act to resolve the issue,” and “The apartment, Nokchon-ri, Hwado-eup. Besides the noise, the air is gray with dirt. I work in the field of construction myself, so I can understand it to a certain level, but the dirt is excessive. Please, come and do something about it”. These complaints suggest that a year-round measure should be implemented to control dust scattering in the entire downtown area, but measures to manage noise and vehicle exhaust should be implemented in specific areas such as construction sites and roads near residential areas, especially during the summer.
There were many complaints about water quality, specifically mentioning muddy water and a foul smell in Hopyeong Creek. It was discovered that these complaints were made in places where contaminants from construction sites had entered regions that members of the public visit very frequently. Public complaints about water quality management included “Under the Fifth Bridge, Hopyeong-dong, there is a drainage of water flowing into the creek. It smells foul, so it should be checked in person and addressed,” and “In Homan Creek, Hopyeong-dong, muddy water is flowing down all day long and it seems that it’s being discharged from the construction site behind the middle and high school. Please come to check and address the matter.” Based on these complaints, it is clear that pollutants must be investigated upstream of the Hopyeong Creek, and polluting substances must be prevented from entering the creek.
Many of the public complaints about wildlife in Sudong-myeon were observed at the point of contact between mountains and residential areas. Public complaints about wildlife included “In Jidun-ri, Sudong-myeon, a wild boar appeared and caused damage,” and “In Oebang-ri, Sudong-myeon, a wild boar came down again and dug the crops up all over the place, so please hurry and capture it. We get phone calls about it all the time, but it seems it’s never been handled”. To address these complaints, the area where wild boars are active must be cordoned off from areas where locals reside.

5. Discussion

A general analysis of the environmental complaints filed in Namyangju revealed that there were many complaints about the regulation of services regarding noise and oscillation, dust scattering, air quality management, and water quality management. There were also complaints about supporting services for wildlife. Namyangju should urgently introduce plans to improve the regulation of services.
The detailed temporal and spatial analysis of public complaints indicated that most complaints were filed in the summer, but public complaints about dust scattering were reported throughout the year. When mapped, complaints about dust scattering were distributed across the downtown area, while complaints about noise and oscillation and air quality management were concentrated in specific areas. There were many complaints about water quality management in widely-used areas where pollutants had entered the stream. Complaints about wildlife appeared sporadically in areas where mountains abut residential areas. Based on the data, a year-round measure should be implemented in the downtown area to resolve the issue of dust scattering. A measure that addresses noise and oscillation and air quality management should be implemented during the summer in specific affected areas. To resolve water quality management issues, measures should be taken to prevent pollutants from entering the water. To address issues regarding wildlife, policies to separate wild boar habitats from human residential areas are necessary.
An examination of the contents of the public complaints further revealed that people complained about dust scattering, noise and oscillation, air quality management, and water quality management near apartment building construction sites. Apartment building construction companies should, therefore, be encouraged by local governments to actively provide funds through a payment system for ecosystem services [19,20,21,22,23,24] in order to reduce the risks to ecosystem benefits.
Most environmental complaints originated from the meeting points of hazards to ecosystem services and residential areas. This shows that spatial planning approaches are needed to reduce the inconvenience caused by construction, pollution, and wild animals [57,58,59]. Construction management for noise and dust reduction and differentiation of roads used by construction and resident vehicles are also recommended. Further, pollution management in residential areas and creating separate spaces for wild animals and residents are required. This study suggests that finding local issue-based planning policies will aid the promotion of ecosystem services [54].

6. Conclusions

This study conducted an analysis of public environmental complaints to investigate the factors that prevent ecosystem services from reaching people. Public complaints about ecosystem services can provide important information for environmental planning. This study conducted content, temporal, and spatial analyses of environmental complaints using a geographical information system to examine environmental policy alternatives and decrease the hazards of ecosystem services [16,28,29,31,60,61,62,63,64,65] based on local issues [54]. The analysis of public complaints can help reduce various negative environmental factors, which can enable citizens to resolve their problems related to ecosystem services. We, therefore, suggest that public complaints regarding ecosystem services be analyzed to develop solutions and establish plans for maximizing local ecosystem services.

Author Contributions

J.-h.L. designed and structured the article. H.C. provided expertise in discussing the design proposal and conclusion. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Institute of Ecology in Korea (NIE-Strategy research-201708-1).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K. Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1167–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nahlik, A.M.; Kentula, M.E.; Fennessy, M.S.; Landers, D.H. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 77, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Seppelt, R.; Dormann, C.F.; Eppink, F.V.; Lautenbach, S.; Schmidt, S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 630–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barral, M.P.; Oscar, M.N. Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assessment: A case study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 154, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hauck, J.; Görg, C.; Varjopuro, R.; Ratamäki, O.; Maes, J.; Wittmer, H.; Jax, K. “Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 4, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. McKenzie, E.; Posner, S.; Tillmann, P.; Bernhardt, J.R.; Howard, K.; Rosenthal, A. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: Lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 2014, 32, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dasgupta, S.; Wheeler, D. Citizen Complaints as Environmental Indicators: Evidence from China; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; Volume 1704. [Google Scholar]
  11. Balvanera, P.; Pfisterer, A.B.; Buchmann, N.; He, J.S.; Nakashizuka, T.; Raffaelli, D.; Schmid, B. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 1146–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. De Bello, F.; Lavorel, S.; Díaz, S.; Harrington, R.; Cornelissen, J.H.; Bardgett, R.D.; Berg, M.P.; Cipriotti, P.; Feld, C.K.; Hering, D.; et al. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2873–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Maestre, F.T.; Reich, P.B.; Jeffries, T.C.; Gaitan, J.J.; Encinar, D.; Berdugo, M.; Campbell, C.D.; Singh, B.K. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1394–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 2507–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wilson, M.A.; Howarth, R.B. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K.; Swinton, S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Chen, X.; Lupi, F.; He, G.; Ouyang, Z.; Liu, J. Factors affecting land reconversion plans following a payment for ecosystem service program. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1740–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Engel, S.; Pagiola, S.; Wunder, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Farber, S.C.; Costanza, R.; Wilson, M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gross-Camp, N.D.; Martin, A.; McGuire, S.; Kebede, B.; Munyarukaza, J. Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: Exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness. Oryx 2012, 46, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Sommerville, M.; Jones, J.P.; Rahajaharison, M.; Milner-Gulland, E. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1262–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Redford, K.H.; Adams, W.M. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Dong, Y.; Ishikawa, M.; Liu, X.; Hamori, S. The determinants of citizen complaints on environmental pollution: An empirical study from China. J. Clean Prod. 2011, 19, 1306–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, X.; Geng, G.; Sun, P. Determinants and implications of citizens’ environmental complaint in China: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 166, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chung, J.-W.; Lee, M.-E.; Lee, H.-D. Characteristics of environmental pollution related with public complaints in an industrial shipbuilding complex, Korea. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 177, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Coussement, K.; Van den Poel, D. Improving customer complaint management by automatic email classification using linguistic style features as predictors. Decis. Support. Syst. 2008, 44, 870–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fornell, C.; Wernerfelt, B. Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: A theoretical analysis. J. Mark. Res. 1987, 24, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oly Ndubisi, N.; Yin Ling, T. Complaint behaviour of Malaysian consumers. Manag. Res. News 2006, 29, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tax, S.S.; Brown, S.W.; Chandrashekaran, M. Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cho, Y.; Im, I.; Hiltz, R.; Fjermestad, J. An Analysis of Online Customer Complaints: Implications for Web Complaint Management. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Big Island, HI, USA, 10 January 2002. [Google Scholar]
  33. Park, Y.; Lee, S. How to design and utilize online customer center to support new product concept generation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 10638–10647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, L. The antecedents of customer satisfaction and its link to complaint intentions in online shopping: An integration of justice, technology, and trust. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2013, 33, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, C.C.; Hu, C. Analyzing hotel customers’ E-complaints from an internet complaint forum. J. Travel Tour. Market. 2005, 17, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ngai, E.W.; Heung, V.C.; Wong, Y.; Chan, F.K. Consumer complaint behaviour of Asians and non-Asians about hotel services: An empirical analysis. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 41, 1375–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ngo, A.; Revesz, P. Efficient Traffic Crash and Snow Complaint GIS system. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yavas, U.; Karatepe, O.M.; Babakus, E.; Avci, T. Customer complaints and organizational responses: A study of hotel guests in Northern Cyprus. J. Hospit. Leis. Market. 2004, 11, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aurit, M.D.; Peterson, R.O.; Blanford, J.I. A GIS analysis of the relationship between sinkholes, dry-well complaints and groundwater pumping for frost-freeze protection of winter strawberry production in Florida. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e53832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Forrester, D.I. The spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests: From pattern to process. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2014, 312, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lautenbach, S.; Seppelt, R.; Liebscher, J.; Dormann, C.F. Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefit. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.A.; White, G.C.; Harris, R.B.; Cherry, S.; Keating, K.A.; Moody, D.; Servheen, C. Temporal, spatial, and environmental influences on the demographics of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 2006, 1–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Goldstein, J.H.; Caldarone, G.; Duarte, T.K.; Ennaanay, D.; Hannahs, N.; Mendoza, G.; Polasky, S.; Wolny, S.; Daily, G.C. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7565–7570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dang, K.B.; Windhorst, W.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. A Bayesian Belief Network–Based approach to link ecosystem functions with rice provisioning ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 100, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guo, Z.; Xiao, X.; Li, D. An assessment of ecosystem services: Water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 925–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ko, H.; Son, Y. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pan, H.; Page, J.; Zhang, L.; Cong, C.; Ferreira, C.; Jonsson, E.; Nasstrom, H.; Destouni, G.; Deal, B.; Kalantari, Z. Understanding interactions between urban development policies and GHG emissions: A case study in Stockholm Region. Ambio 2019, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Pan, H.; Zhang, L.; Cong, C.; Deal, B.; Wang, Y. A dynamic and spatially explicit modeling approach to identify the ecosystem service implications of complex urban systems interactions. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Goldenberg, R.; Kalantari, Z.; Cvetkovic, V.; Mörtberg, U.; Deal, B.; Destouni, G. Distinction, quantification and mapping of potential and realized supply-demand of flow-dependent ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 593, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liquete, C.; Piroddi, C.; Drakou, E.G.; Gurney, L.; Katsanevakis, S.; Charef, A.; Egoh, B. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Schulp, C.J.E.; Lautenbach, S.; Verburg, P.H. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Riechers, M.; Barkmann, J.; Tscharntke, T. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Choi, H. Geospatial Data Approach for Demand-Oriented Policies of Land Administration. Land 2020, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Min, K.; Jun, B.; Lee, J.; Kim, H.; Furuya, K. Analysis of Environmental Issues with an Application of Civil Complaints: The Case of Shiheung City, Republic of Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Carvalho, D.S.; Fidélis, T. The perception of environmental quality in Aveiro, Portugal: A study of complaints on environmental issues submitted to the City Council. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 939–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hopcraft, I.J. Shade and daylight loss to dwellings–The complaint zone. Arboric. J. 2012, 34, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meligrana, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Z. Resolving land use disputes in China: An analysis of a method of dealing with citizen complaints. Environ. Urban. ASIA 2011, 2, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yu, K.-M.; Shin, J.-B.; Naruse, T. Loess–paleosol stratigraphy of Dukso area, Namyangju City, Korea (South). Quat. Int. 2008, 176, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Carvalho, D.S.; Fidélis, T. Environmental complaints in Aveiro, Portugal: Actors, concerns, territorial pattern, and resolutions. Soc. Nat. 2009, 21, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jean Harrison-Walker, L. E-complaining: A content analysis of an Internet complaint forum. J. Serv. Mark. 2001, 15, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Duncan, D.T.; Tamura, K.; Regan, S.D.; Elbel, B.; Meline, J.; Al-Ajlouni, Y.A.; Chaix, B. Quantifying spatial misclassification in exposure to noise complaints among low-income housing residents across New York City neighborhoods: A Global Positioning System (GPS) study. Ann. Epidemiol. 2017, 27, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Hinrichs, U.; Alex, B.; Clifford, J.; Watson, A.; Quigley, A.; Klein, E.; Coates, C.M. Trading consequences: A case study of combining text mining and visualization to facilitate document exploration. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 2015, 30 (Suppl. 1), i50–i75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Robertson, M.M. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: Wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 2004, 35, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 09 00062 g001 550
Figure 1. Study area.
Figure 1. Study area.
Land 09 00062 g001
Land 09 00062 g002 550
Figure 2. Process of analysis.
Figure 2. Process of analysis.
Land 09 00062 g002
Land 09 00062 g003 550
Figure 3. Monthly changes in public complaints per year.
Figure 3. Monthly changes in public complaints per year.
Land 09 00062 g003
Land 09 00062 g004 550
Figure 4. Complaints by municipal areas in the month where the most complaints were received.
Figure 4. Complaints by municipal areas in the month where the most complaints were received.
Land 09 00062 g004
Table
Table 1. Namyangju government’s categorization system for environmental complaints.
Table 1. Namyangju government’s categorization system for environmental complaints.
No.CategoriesSubcategories
1Air Air pollution measurement, air quality improvement, companies emitting air pollutants, dust scattering, early scrapping of old vehicles, in-depth inspection of vehicle emissions, low-emission diesel vehicle, natural gas bus support project, noise and oscillation, subsidy for gas emission reduction device
2WaterCompanies dumping wastewater, special areas for water quality preservation, waterfront zone, water quality improvement, water quality management, water supply source protection zone
3PollutantToxic material management, total pollution load, total pollution load management system
4Other Public ItemsEnvironmental grievance mediation with others, environmental improvement charge, green growth, Green Start Network, natural environment protection, private toilets available to the public, public toilets, soil management, licensing of discharge facilities, resident support project, wildlife
Table
Table 2. Basic statistics of public complaints in Namyangju (the darker the cell is, the more complaints).
Table 2. Basic statistics of public complaints in Namyangju (the darker the cell is, the more complaints).
Year20122013201420152016Total
Noise and oscillation1722219720581909247010,356
Dust scattering6287015976508053381
Wildlife3112533583187351975
Air quality improvement1451754232082661217
Water quality management2053111921511631022
Public toilets74807798173502
Companies dumping waste water6458765379330
Companies emitting air pollutants813941721189
Environmental grievance mediation with others110322266131
Green growth10191514967
Air pollution measurement1492011559
Natural environment protection525141036
Soil management713103235
Natural gas bus support project32932
In-depth inspection of vehicle emissions11626732
Total pollution load1261616
Water supply source protection zone2332515
Toxic material management441312
Environmental improvement charge6221112
Private toilets available to the public3122311
Water quality improvement213219
Low-emission diesel vehicle21137
Waterfront zone113117
Resident support project1337
Early scrapping of old vehicles1326
Licensing of discharge facilities145
Total pollution load management system1214
Special areas for water quality preservation1113
Green Start Network112
Subsidy for gas emission reduction device112
Total3296389439373484487119,482

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.-h.; Choi, H. An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services. Land 2020, 9, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030062

AMA Style

Lee J-h, Choi H. An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services. Land. 2020; 9(3):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030062

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Jae-hyuck, and HaeOk Choi. 2020. "An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services" Land 9, no. 3: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030062

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop