Next Article in Journal
Are Local Residents Benefiting from the Latest Urbanization Dynamic in China? China’s Characteristic Town Strategy from a Resident Perspective: Evidence from Two Cases in Hangzhou
Next Article in Special Issue
Compensating for Loss of Nature and Landscape in a Growing City—Berlin Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Development of Rural Areas in Poland since 2004 in the Light of Sustainability Indicators
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantifying and Comparing the Cooling Effects of Three Different Morphologies of Urban Parks in Chengdu
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/land12020509
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance

by
Zhifang Wang
1,
Yuqing Jian
1,*,
Zhibin Huang
1,
Salman Qureshi
2,
Kexin Cheng
1,
Zhuhui Bai
1 and
Qingwen Zhang
1
1
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2
Institute of Geography, Humboldt University of Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 16, 12489 Berlin, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(2), 509; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020509
Submission received: 17 January 2023 / Revised: 9 February 2023 / Accepted: 10 February 2023 / Published: 19 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Space Planning, Design and Governance for Enhanced Human Wellbeing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The science-practice gap has recently been discussed as a critical challenge restricting sustainable growth and development in all facets of our society, including explorations of Recreation Ecosystem Services (RES). To better explore how well the scientific study of RES and its application are connected, this paper aims to synthesize empirical evidence based on an in-depth and systematic literature review. We found that studies of RES have not effectively transformed into the decision-making and long-term planning of our cities. From 2005 to 2020, only 13% of studies referred to specific applications, and about 40% of papers mentioned no applications or practical implications for their research. However, RES research has many potential applications, which can be categorised into six main aspects. In terms of non-spatial improvement: Improved monetary benefits (40%), non-monetary benefits (30%); in terms of spatial improvement: space with high recreational potential or degradation (7%), the relation between supply and demand (7%); and Cross-service governance (16%). After combining the results of various studies, we developed a framework starting from applicable problems and their solutions, which can incorporate the outcomes of RES research while systematically narrowing down the research questions and methods. The framework offers a starting point for further research that can modify and improve in bridging science-practice gaps in RES studies.

1. Introduction

The science-practice gap, or synonymously the science-policy gap, has recently been viewed as limiting the sustainable growth and development of society, in terms of the transformation of knowledge from science into practice and governance. Scholars worldwide working in multiple disciplines have sought to address this gap, aiming to improve governance and social well-being [1,2,3,4]. Thus, the issue of transforming scientific theories and research into applications and governance is a timely topic that requires attention.
Ecosystem services (ES), “the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”, are increasingly acknowledged as valuable in contemporary planning and governance [5]. However, the application of relevant research were believed to be still superficial and fragmented [6,7]. ES considers the ecological and socio-economic attributes that link natural and human systems and contribute to the overall enhancement of human well-being [8]. Many scholars have demonstrated the advantages of the ES approach in planning, design, and other practices with include its (1) spatially explicit relationships between landscape structure and ES functions, supplies, and values [9], (2) inclusion of stakeholders [10], and (3) comprehensible results [11]. However, only a few studies have explored the applications of ES, and most involve theoretical rather than practice-based procedures [7].
The application of recreational ecosystem services (RES) deserves particular attention as recreation is both a component of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and a carrier of personal experiences of ES [12]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Reports (MA) suggested that RES can be regarded as the recreational pleasures that people derive from natural or man-made ecosystems and that involve the contribution of the natural environment to the recreational opportunities and experiences enjoyed by society [13]. Recreation services can provide direct and indirect benefits, such as ecological conservation, human health, social and cultural education, and economic value in the marketplace [14,15,16]. Recreational activities in outdoor green spaces can be restorative and improved well-being [17]. Recreation services can also provide economic benefits to communities and businesses [18]. Since the definition of ES was initiated in the MA 2005 [13], RES have received increasing attention from scholars in various disciplines such as ecology, economics, urban planning, geography, and social sciences [19,20]. However, an significant knowledge gap remains between RES research and its application. RES have been implemented and applied in some areas, such as the travel cost method for value recreation in the European Union [21] and public participation GIS methods for guiding a planning exercise [22,23]. Nevertheless, knowledge of how RES research can inform applications and governance remain limited.
In this study, we conduct a literature review to synthesise the empirical evidence, with the aim of identifying the relationship between the scientific study of RES and its application. Three key research questions are specifically addressed in the review process: How much RES research can serve the application and governance? How well does the RES research connect to application and governance? What can RES research be applied to? This study’s ultimate goal is to develop an innovative application framework for RES to provide new approaches to transforming studies into applications and governance. In this paper, the applicability of RES is discussed broadly to include both practice (planning, design, maintenance, and construction of landscape or land uses) and governance (the various processes of negotiation involving the collective interests of stakeholders). Challenges and opportunities of RES research in applications will also be discussed. The overall goal of this study is to identify the science-practice gaps concerning RES and suggest an agenda for the effective transformation of RES research into application and governance. Our assessment of the useful insights into the links between RES and applications can inform evidence-based decision-making and practice-oriented research of RES. This can then help to fulfill the direct need for a better recreational environment and enhance the well-being of residents.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The existing literature and its information were obtained from the Web of Science database, which reflects the development of the scientific frontier (www.webofscience.com). The words ’recreational ecosystem services’, ’recreational services’, ’recreation services’, or ’recreation values‘ were used as keywords and searched on Topic Search, including all the years since MA (2005 to 2020). The document types (English-language publications only) selected in the database were ’REVIEW‘ and ’ARTICLES’. A total of 1149 published studies were initially identified. Among them, the ‘REVIEW’ informed us about research progress and the ‘ARTICLES’ informed us about research analysis.
The literature records were then exported to EndNote Desktop for selection in the second stage. The selection process included eliminating the duplicates in terms of studies, the literature sources, and authors in other academic fields. Then, another manual selection was carried out according to the title, keywords, and abstract. Many that were identified according to the search terms were found to be not specifically related to RES (primarily because some keywords were sporadically identified in the papers by the search engine). There were the following questionable problems in search results: (1) recreation activities are not that same as recreation services; (2) the literature was not downloadable; (3) the research object was not RES (and the term was only used to support an aspect of the discussion); and (4) the research objective was not focused specifically on RES. Thus, a total of 122 pieces of literature (120 articles and 2 reviews) were ultimately identified after our thorough and rigorous systematic screening review process. Figure 1 illustrates the systematic selection, and a deduction approach used to select research studies that for further in-depth review.

2.2. Assess the Connections to Applications and Governance

The research team read 120 abstracts to determine whether the studies addressed applications and governance focusing RES. Forty-six studies were removed because they do not refer to the applications and governance. This helped to standardise the extent of the connection between applications and governance; the research team referenced Rachelle K. Gould‘s method [24] and identified four connections (None, Brief mention, General guidance, Specific guidance) (Table 1). We then jointly discussed every piece of study, extracted each statement that supports the connection to applications and governance, and refined our definitions for clarity and consistency. This whole exercise of reading and discussion among colleagues allowed us to collectively understand and thus accurately gauge the connections of studies to applications and governance issues.
A Multilayer Pie Chart was created to illustrate the concept of levels. An inclusion relationship between different levels (https://help.fanruan.com/, accessed on 1 November 2022). This was useful for linking service types and detailed applications to reveal the RES research framework related to applications and governance. The chart was generated using Microsoft Office Excel.

2.3. Bibliometric Analysis

A bibliometric analysis of the number of published studies, countries of publication, and keywords was conducted using the Citespace software, which is widely used for bibliometric analyses (https://citespace.podia.com/, accessed on 1 November 2022) [25]. It creates networked infographics on a particular subject, which enabled us to better understand and interpret research trends. In addition to identifying the number of papers and the most published countries, summarizing the general core content of literature was primary aim in our study. Analysing the Keyword cluster indicated the popular topics in RES research. The research keywords analysis began by identifying the 25 most cited or frequently occurring items, followed by generating a hotspot network in Citespace.

3. Results

3.1. Increased Coverage of Ecosystems and Places but Limited Applications

Research on RES began in 2005 since the MA (Figure 2). After that, several studies were inculcated to create a synthesized understanding, and the research grew rapidly before peaking in 2018. In terms of the most published countries (Figure 2), the United States had the largest research output. European countries with significant RES demand such as Italy, England, Germany, and Spain, comprised ~27% of the total literature. Research into RES can be applied to a whole area with different habitat types. The study areas of interest, as shown in Figure 3, mainly include rivers and lakes (19%), urban areas (18%), nature reserves (17%), coastal (16%), others (13%), forests (7%), wetland (7%), and rural area (3%). Among them, “other” mainly refers to mountains, sites, etc.
Table 2 gives the number of studies and their degree of connection to practical application. Approximately 38% of the studies did not support any applications and governance. They are mainly concerned with theory or methodology and proposed new assessment methods for measuring RES value or investigating its formation and transformation mechanisms. Nearly 26% of the studies briefly mentioned the practice areas their findings were relevant to, but none provided specific details. In addition, 23% were able to describe where it should be applied but not how. Only 13% of the studies were classified as Specific guidance. These discussed in detail how their findings related to applications and governance, or indicated specific measures of goals such as meeting recreation needs, increasing RES value, or avoiding negative impacts.

3.2. Applications of RES research

Of the 122 selected papers, 74 addressed RES applications and governance with various connections. Further these, we identified three main aspects of RES application: (1) non-spatial improvement; (2) spatial improvement; and (3) cross-service governances (70%, 14%, and 16%, respectively) (Figure 4). Each of these aspects was supported by details of the applications (Table 3). Non-spatial improvement was the most common aspect and consisted of monetary and non-monetary benefits. Most of the research in Spatial improvement was included in the application directions of Space of High recreational potential or degraded and the Relation between supply and demand. Cross-Service governance refers to the trade-off between RES and other ES and the coordination of interests between various groups.

3.2.1. Non-Spatial Improvement

Knowing the direct monetary benefits and service quality information of RES helps to identify the challenges imposed on professionals, administrators, and managers when attempting to improve the non-spatial services they offered. Incentives and other monetary benefits can provide better packages.
  • Improved monetary benefits
RES are often considered to be an important revenue stream, and can have a significant influence on sector decisions and subsequently on local development planning [50]. RES can realise the transformation into a green economy, and thus is increasingly important to the government [51]. While municipality expenditure is allocated to promoting RES in developed cities [52,53], the city authorities in most developing countries face a tight budget, due to other priorities [54]. We identified three specific RES applications and governances that provide monetary benefits. First, providing additional services can boost consumption. A study of Italian nature reserves, for example, suggested that providing more and better information on attractions and improving recreational facilities can increase economic benefits by attracting more visitors to stay overnight [29]; Second, guidelines for service pricing can be provided. Pricing is a technically difficult and politically sensitive areas that recreation directors must make decisions about [27]. If users find pricing difficult to accept, t various strategies can be applied to enhance their perceptions of RES. The price increase can also be defined as a corresponding increase in costed or that there is insufficient revenue to cover costs through tax subsidies [30]. Visitor values can also be linked to funding for the purchase of RES flows through the trust (an online donation mechanism) [26]. In this way, resistance to pricing decisions from affected users can then be minimised. Third, investment can be allocated to infrastructure. Some studies of RES have identified differences in the marginal willingness to pay for various types of parks among urban residents in developing countries. This finding can help governments planning RES facilities in different locations to generate higher revenues [27]. TESSA research models are also used to assess the monetary value impact of specific government measures (e.g., land use changes) on RES [28].
  • Non-monetary improvements
Improvement in RES quality is closely related to the study of user preferences, as this knowledge can guide a region in developing reasonable management and improvement plans for its current recreation infrastructure [27]. The variability in users’ landscape preferences in terms of recreation purposes (e.g., picnicking, hiking, etc.) can guide the vegetation management and infrastructure construction in parks, based on different functional orientations. Thus, the knowledge of user preferences can inform the improvement of services. Enrichment RES, such as providing wildlife viewing opportunities within traditional fishing activities, conservation education during fishing, and farming combined with horse riding, can make trips more attractive [30,31,34]. Specifically, the novel RES, which combines traditional production with recreational activity such as grazing areas and bridleways with a visually attractive open landscape that is educational and entertaining, offers entry points for applications and governance.
However, not all outreach RES is positive. Expanding the services to provide RES that meet the needs of the users will increase the costs they face or affect the recreational experience. Authorities should focus on maintaining and improving basic services rather than developing special services [55]. For example, to satisfy their visitors, the management should consider all sites rather than just the most popular, as visitor preferences may vary greatly [56].
Some studies also indicate that better communication is required to bring RES improvements to the attention of users, as their perception will be affected if they are not fully aware of such improvements [57]. The actions involve combining and improving several items related to the facilities where service is provided and improved-. These can include the availability of maps, informational brochures, explanatory videos, clear layout, and center lighting in information rooms, along with interpretive guides that have sufficient knowledge to provide accurate information [58].

3.2.2. Spatial Improvement

The understanding of the spatial conditions of RES is important for a variety of purposes, including risk communication, service delivery, planning, and policy, while providing citizens with RES that optimally responds to their needs.
  • Space with high recreational potential or degradation
Recreation potential reflects the ability of an ecosystem to provide maximum recreational services to humans. A spatial assessment of recreation potential can inform decision-making such as land use planning and regional recreation management [36]. Studies at a sufficiently large spatial scale were able to identify the potential growth sites for recreation [37], and RES has been proven to be heterogeneous in spatial distribution and associated with specific Spaces. For example, water recreation activities distributed along oceans, lakes, rivers, and other water bodies have developed rapidly. The economic benefit of RES varies in a gradient from urban, suburban, and rural areas [38]. Studies of recreation potential studies can also help to identify priority areas for recreation infrastructure and enable on-site management planning such as the design of footpath routes or signage to create viewing areas [59]. The adaptation of ongoing development schemes can also represent the application and governance of recreational spaces with high potential. For example, a study of East Kazakhstan examined the proposal to build highways to connect several high-attraction recreation facilities to form a regional recreation system and expand the regional recreation area [60].
RES represent a natural solution to environmental challenges associated with extreme weather conditions [61]. However, ecosystems are often degraded or are at risk of degradation in RES areas under the influence of human use and the threat of natural disasters [39]. Spatial identification and intervention in areas at risk of degradation are key to achieving sustainable development [62]. In addition to increased monitoring, the specific application involves identifying areas where RES is degraded or at risk of degradation under the influence of visitor use to guide decision-making on concerns that managers should focus on-for instance, overuse and increasing use (safety concerns, ecological degradation, cultural resource degradation, trail degradation), overflights (soundscape degradation) [40].
  • Relation between Supply and Demand
The spatial configuration of RES supply and demand determines the quality and degree of human well-being achieved by RES [26]. Studies of supply-demand relations can help policymakers to set spatial development goals and develop programmes according to supply-demand matching. By mapping or spatially overlaying the hot-cold spots of RES supply and demand, the mismatch between supply and demand can be identified [41]. For example, a study of small towns in Southeast Asia found that rural areas have less supply of recreational facilities than urban areas; however, drawing on the construction of urban recreational facilities, green areas, and agricultural land transformed into parks and agritourism improved the local recreation facilities [42].
The combined quantitative results concerning supply and demand can inform the planning of the scale and pattern distribution of recreational facilities, based on the future RES supply-demand scenarios [27]. Recreation-related indicators, such as naturalness, accessibility, and cultural resources, can inform GIS and mapping methods. These can be used to quantify the objective supply of RES and to identify the future RES resources needs accordingly [43]. Similarly, the demand for RES can be modeled by individual characteristics (e.g., age, income, education level, region, etc.), recreational intention (e.g., visit frequency), population density, and other indicators for future scenario prediction [29,44]. Some studies have attempt to combine the results of supply and demand to make planning recommendations. For example, some have suggested that potential national parks should be built near densely populated areas but not near other national parks, or more small parks should be built within protected areas rather than a smaller number of large parks [45].
Research into the demand of different groups can guide the planning and specific space design so as to meet the recreation preference demand of different groups and provide more diversified recreational facilities [27,46]. The specific demands of stakeholders can be targeted. Market segmentation based on the spatial heterogeneity of recreationists’ preferences can assist operators in formulating recreational products along the interest locations of different stakeholders [42], thus maximize different stakeholders’ satisfaction with applications.

3.2.3. Cross-Service Governance

Cross-Service Tradeoffs conflicts can occur when one ES is reduced as a consequence of increased use of another [63,64]. Weighing up the relationships between RES and other ecological services in a region and making rational land-use decisions are the key to maximizing well-being and achieving sustainable development [65]. This is because RES, while meeting the needs of users and providing benefits to the region, can also pose many environmental threats [66]. In present studies, Cross-service trade-off studies are mostly oriented toward nature conservation areas (e.g., national parks, mountain landscapes, etc.). Cross-service governance studies have four main types of applications and governance.
  • Mitigating conflicts between different ecosystem services
Reducing conflicts between RES and other ES can guide the decision concerning the optimal land-use scheme, in which ecological and economic concern are balanced. Specific trade-offs include a service currency value ratio based on willingness to pay and travel costs [67,68], a model simulating the impact of multiple land use options on biodiversity [48], accurate spatial information provided by GPS track networks, and a GIS analytical map for analyzing potential conflicts. In practice, such trade-offs lead to a compromise in services. For example, one study found that a small portion of areas with marine recreation opportunities overlaps with areas suitable for aquaculture [47]. To achieve diversified goals and maximize benefits, potential use conflicts need to be considered during development to reduce negative impacts. Some studies have suggested that rational zoning of recreation use intensity or the development of new multi-service coexistence mode (e.g., wetland leisure agriculture) can be beneficial [48].
  • Prioritizing the projects for construction or restoration
Ecological restoration plans can be prioritized by quantifying the benefits that result from improving various RES [69]. Similarly, revealing the risks to different segments of the RES supply chains can guide the prioritisation of conservation interventions when resources are limited. For example, parks in coastal areas can determine RES vulnerability based on storm surge exposure levels, visitor numbers, and occupancy rates of nearby lodging facilities, and thus identify spatial areas for prioritized investment in drainage and green infrastructure improvements [49].
  • Reconciling the conflicting interests of local residents and visitors
The spatial distances from RES can affect stakeholders differently, which can result in obstacles to Cross-Service governance [68]. For some distant visitors, more recreational activity building or provision based on existing services can bring benefits in terms of where and how they engage in activities. They can also benefit local residents who depend on them for their livelihood, but the effects on other residents may not be as positive[70]. For the related studies to date, both theory and practice are moving away from excluding visitors and towards creating partnerships with them [27], thereby reconciling the conflicting interests of local residents and visitors. For example, a field case linking the livelihoods of Bangladeshi residents to community-based tourism can provide more RES for tourists, increase local economic income and prevent local people from stealing and logging trees to the detriment of local biodiversity [32]. Other studies of RES governance suggest that distant visitors might react more strongly to recreation restrictions but might be less interested in governance participation compared to those living close to the recreation area they use [33]. Local residents, however, are more likely to doubt that their demands can be effectively considered in governance [34]. Thus, the governance participation of local residents can be enhanced.

4. Discussion

4.1. Limited Transformation of RES Research into Practice

Our review suggests that studies of RES have not been effectively transformed into decision-making as studies of other ESs. ES is initiated to characterize and visualize the ways that ecosystems benefit people for decision-making. However, the uses of ES in decision-making have long been noticed to be difficult and challenging [24,71,72]. Application of RES is extremely rare, as shown in our study. There is only 12% of studies reviewed have specific applications, and about 40% of reviewed papers never mentioned any application potentials of their research. Despite the fact that CES is suggested to be the most relevant ES in decision-making [73] and recreation is not the only component of CES but also a carrier of the personal experiences of ES [12], the strong relevance of RES to personal experience and decision-making has not guaranteed its application in reality. Successes in combining RES research and decision-making are scattered and have not been fully achieved so far.
Another prominent finding is that the spatial application of RES studies is rare. Among the few research mentioning applications, there are only limited studies proposing service improvement strategies spatially, with the majority discussing non-spatial solutions. This indicates that the connections between RES research and landscape planning/design are yet established. One potential challenge that prohibits the spatial application of RES research is mapping techniques. As demonstrated in the review of ES mapping in practice, spatial scale, resolution mismatch, and expert-driven mapping techniques all contribute to gaps between ES mapping and practice [74]. How to conduct RES mapping appropriate to landscape planning/design with readily usable information is critical in future research.
Unlike many challenges and solutions that have been discussed and proposed to bridge ES research and practices in other studies, our paper would specifically advocate practice-oriented research of RES. That is, a study is better to be formulated with a practical problem to be solved at the beginning of the study design. In our review, we have found that a wide variety of research focuses and methods are involved in RES studies. And different research methods are linked to varied applications. Picking on scientific questions and research methods first can lead to random application results. Rather, if a study begins with a practical problem and then scopes for research questions from the practice problem, the relevant research methods can be easily selected, and the final application of the study can also be smoothly achieved. Here, we would like to propose a framework for transforming RES studies into applications and governance with a series of practical questions to be concerned about first.

4.2. A Suggested Framework to Integrate RES Research with Applications

As we have demonstrated in previous sections, current RES research is not necessarily comprehensive but can provide some insights in terms of application and governance. To better facilitate application, this paper develops a framework to better incorporate the application and research of RES from our analysis of the studies (Figure 5).
The framework emphasizes four practical questions to ensure the decision of RES research depends on the application purpose of the work. A RES study is suggested to start with contemplations of practical questions first: “Does the research address relationships between RES and other services?” “Does the research solve spatial issues?” “Does the research concern both supply and demand?” “Does the research address economic values?” An easy yes or no answer to these questions will facilitate in narrowing the scope of research. And the answers to these questions should consider the contextual characteristics and governance desires of different sites.
The contribution of practical questions in the framework is not only to guarantee applications but also can quickly assist in the selection of relevant research methods. There are many research methods of RES available, and the selection of the most appropriate methods can be quickly narrowed down using these practical questions. If a study aims to address conflicts between RES and other services, both evaluation methods of RES and other services should be explored. If a RES study is expected to direct spatial planning, spatial mapping of RES will be critical. Similarly, a study intending to balance supply and demand should map both supply and demand. And a study aiming to offer economic suggestions should explore monetary methods.
The framework highlights the importance of practical questions at the beginning of the research design. And the contributions of the framework are multifold by merging practical questions, research methods, and application potentials. It can not only guarantee the future application potentials of RES research but also assist in narrowing the research scope and research methods. We advocate that starting with applicable problems can better situate a RES study in a better position to bridge science-practice gaps.

4.3. Limitations

One limitation of our review is that selected studies may not sufficiently provide the forums and frameworks that ensure RES can be applied. Our review only examines how researchers have described and discussed applications of RES for decision-making. As most papers published in peer-reviewed journals are more concerned about scientific contributions, it is possible that some of the studies had far more connection to the application than reported in the manuscript. Practical implementations are never an inherent requirement for most journals. Future research could be more intentional about the connections between research and practices in various contexts. And we would like to advocate those future studies of ES always support their research with at least one section of practical contribution to bridge the gaps between research and practice in the realm of ES. In addition, our review only selected English language literature, although most decision-making occurs in local languages. Future studies can extend the literature research to different regional linguistic contexts.
Another solution to further reinforce the application framework proposed in this paper is to scope for other relevant work outside the few papers we reviewed. This expanded search scope could include more case studies or reports that provide more indications of their potential applications. Reports that do not have the formal structure required by scientific papers can be much more flexible and include more information about their application. Conducting expert survey to systematically solicit opinions is another method of exploring the possibilities of RES in application and governance. Results considering both expert opinions and potential applications from papers can offer a more comprehensive framework for discussing how RES can impact the practice and governance of land uses or natural resources.

5. Conclusions

In the last few decades, the science-practice gaps in many fields have gradually become a hot topic. How to achieve better integration of useful ES knowledge into practice and governance is a challenging task. Recreation is not the only component of CES but also a carrier of personal experiences of ES [12]. However, the strong relevance of RES to personal experience and decision-making has not guaranteed its application in reality. Our review focuses on RES research for practice and governance while supporting decision-making. Though the inadequacy of the outreach capacity of RES research to make explicit connections with practice is apparent, the studies reviewed here still highlight some of how RES can be transformed into practices.
First, we conclude that a wide variety of applications in multifold aspects can be motivated by RES research, including the explicit service improvement of RES and applications for other ES-related governance. Among RES, existing studies described both spatial and non-spatial implementations of RES research in either improvement of RES or the remediation of degraded RES. Supply and demand of RES are often discussed for enhanced supply-demand balance in recreation governance. On the other hand, RES research is also a critical component in discussing trade-offs among ES values. RES is not always fully beneficial to or compatible with environmental sustainability. RES research contributes to more comprehensive practice and planning decision-making in contested circumstances concerning synergy or tradeoffs among RES, other ES values, and/or multiple stakeholders.
Second, the paper sought to contribute to the science-practice gaps of RES by offering an application framework of RES through the synthesis of existing studies. By asking four questions relevant to practices at the beginning of the research design, the paper classifies RES research into varied applicable potentials so that researchers can conduct effective and informative research toward practice and decision-making. Our experience in articulating the application of RES research with a practical question framework has identified much potential for trying borrowing from RES research. And we advocate that starting with applicable problems can better situate a RES study in a better position to bridge science-practice gaps.
It is worthwhile pointing out that the application framework proposed in this paper does not claim that the paths derived from the review are adequate to cover all aspects of RES research into practices. Rather, the framework offers a starting point for further research to modify and improve in bridging science-practice gaps of RES studies. It offers a procedure for researchers to think more about end-users and practical questions first so that research can be more explicit on the research methods and scientific knowledge that are desirable for practices. By synthesizing useful insights into the linkages of RES and applications in an application framework, the ultimate goal of this review is to promote evidence-based decision-making and practice-oriented research of RES so that the desire for a better recreational environment and well-being of residents can be further fulfilled. Future research should be more intentional about the connections between research and practices in various contexts or expand information search and access to the potential for studies to transform into application and governance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.W. and Y.J.; methodology, Z.H.; software, K.C.; validation, S.Q.; formal analysis, Q.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.J.; visualization, Z.B.; supervision, Z.W.; project administration, Z.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant numbers 42271300 and 41871153.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Argyris, C. Action science and organizational learning. J. Manag. Psychol. 1995, 10, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Van den Hove, S. A Rationale for Science-Policy Interfaces. Future 2007, 39, 807–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perrings, C.; Duraiappah, A.; Larigauderie, A.; Mooney, H.A. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 2011, 331, 1139–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wang, Z.F.; Tan, P.Y.; Zhang, T.; Nassauer, J.I. Perspectives on narrowing the action gap between landscape science and metropolitan governance: Practice in the US and China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Colding, J. The Role of Ecosystem Services in Contemporary Urban Planning. In Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes, and Applications; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 228–237. [Google Scholar]
  6. Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C.; Fagerholm, N.; Byg, A.; Hartel, T.; Hurley, P.T.; López-Santiago, C.A.; Nagabhatla, N.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Raymond, C.M.; et al. The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Qiu, L.; Dong, Y.; Liu, H. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations. Land 2022, 11, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Braat, L.C.; Groot, R.D. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Almenar, J.B.; Rugani, B.; Geneletti, D.; Brewer, T. Integration of ecosystem services into a conceptual spatial planning framework based on a landscape ecology perspective. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 33, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Koschke, L.; Furst, C.; Frank, S.; Makeschin, F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 2014, 43, 516–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Wang, Z.F.; Li, D.; Chen, H.J.; Luo, T. Multifaceted influences of urbanization on sense of place in the rural-urban fringes of China: Growing, dissolving and transitioning. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2020, 146, 04019026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Assessment, M.E. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernath, K.; Roschewitz, A. Recreational benefits of urban forests: Explaining visitors’ willingness to pay in the context of the theory of planned behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 89, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P. Towards a better understanding of the relationship between greenspace and health: Development of a theoretical framework. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 118, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sikorska, D.; Papierowska, E.; Szatyłowicz, J.; Sikorski, P.; Suprun, K.; Hopkins, R.J. Variation in Leaf Surface Hydrophobicity of Wetland Plants: The Role of Plant Traits in Water Retention. Wetlands 2017, 37, 997–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Summers, J.K.; Vivian, D.N. Ecotherapy—A Forgotten Ecosystem Service: A Review. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hermes, J.; Haaren, C.V.; Schmücker, D.J.; Albert, C. Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 188, 107136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wilkins, E.J.; Chikamoto, Y.; Miller, A.B.; Smith, J.W. Climate change and the demand for recreational ecosystem services on public lands in the continental United States. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2021, 70, 102365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dai, P.; Zhang, S.; Gong, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Hou, H. A crowd-sourced valuation of recreational ecosystem services using mobile signal data applied to a restored wetland in China. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 192, 107249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vallecillo, S.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; Ferrini, S.; Maes, J. Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecol. Modell. 2019, 392, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ives, C.D.; Oke, C.; Cooke, B.; Gordon, A.; Bekessy, S. Planning for Green Open Space in Urbanising Landscapes; Report for the Australian Government Department of the Environment; RMIT University: Melbourne, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nunes, P.A.; Loureiro, M.L.; Piñol, L.B.; Sastre, S.; Voltaire, L.; Canepa, A. Analyzing Beach Recreationists’ Preferences for the Reduction of Jellyfish Blooms: Economic Results from a Stated-Choice Experiment in Catalonia, Spain. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gould, R.K.; Morse, J.W.; Adams, A.B. Cultural ecosystem services and decision-making: How researchers describe the applications of their work. People Nat. 2019, 1, 457–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Chen, C. CiteSpace II detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec. 2006, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Tibesigwa, B.; Ntuli, H.; Lokina, R. Valuing recreational ecosystem services in developing cities: The case of urban parks in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Cities 2020, 106, 102853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Komossa, F.; Wartmann, F.M.; Kienast, F.; Verburg, P.H. Comparing outdoor recreation preferences in peri-urban landscapes using different data gathering methods. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 199, 103796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Soe Zin, W.; Suzuki, A.; Peh, K.S.; Gasparatos, A. Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques. Land 2019, 8, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Schirpke, U.; Scolozzi, R.; Re, R.D.; Masiero, M.; Pellegrino, D.; Marino, D. Recreational ecosystem services in protected areas: A survey of visitors to Natura 2000 sites in Italy. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2018, 21, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Crompton, J.L. A Theoretical Framework for Formulating Non-Controversial Prices for Public Park and Recreation Services. J. Leis. Res. 2011, 43, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, H.; Oh, C. Applying the Theory of Recreation Specialization to Better Understand Recreationists’ Preferences for Value-Added Service Development. Leis. Sci. 2013, 35, 455–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chakraborty, S.; Saha, S.; Ahmed Selim, S. Recreational services in tourism dominated coastal ecosystems: Bringing the non-economic values into focus. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 30, 100279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Camp, E.V.; Ahrens, R.N.M.; Crandall, C.; Lorenzen, K. Angler travel distances: Implications for spatial approaches to marine recreational fisheries governance. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Doyle-Capitman, C.E.; Decker, D.J.; Jacobson, C.A. Toward a model for local stakeholder participation in landscape-level wildlife conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2018, 23, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hammer, M.; Bonow, M.; Petersson, M. The role of horse keeping in transforming peri-urban landscapes: A case study from metropolitan Stockholm, Sweden. Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. Norw. J. Geogr. 2017, 71, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Peña, L.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Onaindia, M. Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hermes, J.; Van Berkel, D.; Burkhard, B.; Plieninger, T.; Fagerholm, N.; von Haaren, C.; Albert, C. Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sikorska, D.; Sikorski, P.; Hopkins, R.J. High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Albaladejo-García, J.A.; Alcon, F.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. Economic valuation of allotment gardens in peri-urban degraded agroecosystems: The role of citizens’ preferences in spatial planning. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 68, 102771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rice, W.L.; Taff, B.D.; Newman, P.; Zipp, K.Y.; Pan, B. Identifying recreational ecosystem service areas of concern in Grand Canyon National Park: A participatory mapping approach. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 125, 102353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Inácio, M.; Gomes, E.; Bogdzevič, K.; Kalinauskas, M.; Zhao, W.; Pereira, P. Mapping and assessing coastal recreation cultural ecosystem services supply, flow, and demand in Lithuania. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 323, 116175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yeo, L.B.; Said, I. Mapping Recreational Ecosystem Service At Sub-Districts Of Muar. AIMC 2017 Asia Int. Multidiscip. Conf. 2018, 40, 843–857. [Google Scholar]
  43. Egarter Vigl, L.; Depellegrin, D.; Pereira, P.; de Groot, R.S.; Tappeiner, U. Mapping the ecosystem service delivery chain: Capacity, flow, and demand pertaining to aesthetic experiences in mountain landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 574, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sun, R.; Li, F.; Chen, L. A demand index for recreational ecosystem services associated with urban parks in Beijing, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schägner, J.P.; Brander, L.M.; Maes, J.; Paracchini, M.L.; Hartje, V.J. Mapping recreational visits and values of European National Parks by combining statistical modelling and unit value transfer. J. Nat. Conserv. 2016, 31, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kovács, B.; Márquez-Linares, M.A.; Rodriguez-Espinosa, P.; Gutierrez-Yurrita, P.J.; Perez-Verdin, G. Analysis of cultural ecosystem services of rock climbing settings in Mexico City: The case of Los Dinamos Recreational Park. Ecosyst. People 2021, 17, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nahuelhual, L.; Vergara, X.; Kusch, A.; Campos, G.; Droguett, D. Mapping ecosystem services for marine spatial planning: Recreation opportunities in Sub-Antarctic Chile. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stigner, M.; Beyer, H.L.; Klein, C.J.; Fuller, R.A. Reconciling recreational use and conservation values in a coastal protected area. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 1206–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dvarskas, A. Mapping ecosystem services supply chains for coastal Long Island communities: Implications for resilience planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pan, S.; Gao, M.; Kim, H.; Shah, K.J.; Pei, S.; Chiang, P. Advances and challenges in sustainable tourism toward a green economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 452–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhong, Y.; Auchincloss, A.H.; Lee, B.K.; McKenna, R.M.; Langellier, B.A. Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Kuvaja-Köllner, V.; Kankaanpää, E.; Laine, J.; Borodulin, K.; Mäki-Opas, T.; Valtonen, H. Municipal resources to promote adult physical activity—A multilevel follow-up study. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Toit, M.J.; Cilliers, S.S.; Dallimer, M.; Goddard, M.A.; Guenat, S.; Cornelius, S.F. Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, C.; Wang, C.; Liu, S.; Weng, L. Forest value orientations and importance of forest recreation services. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koniak, G.; Sheffer, E.; Noy-Meir, I. Recreation as an ecosystem service in open landscapes in the Mediterranean region in Israel: Public preferences. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 2011, 57, 151–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pouso, S.; Uyarra, M.C.; Borja, Á. Recreational fishers’ perceptions and behaviour towards cultural ecosystem services in response to the Nerbioi estuary ecosystem restoration. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2018, 208, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Moreno-Llorca, R.A.; García-Morales, V.J.; Llorens-Montes, J.; Ramos-Ridao, Á.F.; Alcaraz-Segura, D.; Navarrete, M.J. A co-designed method to guide decision-making in protected area visitor centres. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Richards, D.R.; Warren, P.H.; Moggridge, H.L.; Maltby, L. Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 15, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Chlachula, J. Geoheritage of East Kazakhstan. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kaluarachchi, Y. Potential advantages in combining smart and green infrastructure over silo approaches for future cities. Front. Eng. Manag. 2021, 8, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, W.Y.; Li, X. Urban forests’ recreation and habitat potentials in China: A nationwide synthesis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1394–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Z.F.; Peng, Y.Y.; Xu, C.Y. Current Applications and Future Potentials of Ecosystem Service Tradeoff Research. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekinensis. 2019, 55, 4. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  65. Miller, A.B.; Blahna, D.J.; Morse, W.; Leung, Y.; Rowland, M.M. From recreation ecology to a recreation ecosystem: A framework accounting for social-ecological systems. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 38, 100455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Petrosillo, I.; Zurlini, G.; Grato, E.; Zaccarelli, N. Indicating fragility of socio-ecological tourism-based systems. Ecol. Indic. 2006, 6, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Polizzi, C.; Simonetto, M.; Barausse, A.; Chaniotou, N.; Känkänen, R.; Keränen, S.; Manzardo, A.; Mustajärvi, K.; Palmeri, L.; Scipioni, A. Is ecosystem restoration worth the effort? The rehabilitation of a Finnish river affects recreational ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 14, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tokunaga, K.; Sugino, H.; Nomura, H.; Michida, Y. Norms and the willingness to pay for coastal ecosystem restoration: A case of the Tokyo Bay intertidal flats. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Allan, J.D.; Smith, S.D.; McIntyre, P.B.; Joseph, C.A.; Dickinson, C.; Marino, A.L.; Biel, R.G.; Olson, J.C.; Doran, P.J.; Rutherford, E.S.; et al. Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Liu, Y.; Bailey, J.L.; Davidsen, J.G. Social-Cultural Ecosystem Services of Sea Trout Recreational Fishing in Norway. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. 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. Plan. C 2014, 32, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bennett, E.M. Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosystems 2017, 20, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.; Costanza, R.; Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C.G.; Gobster, P.H.; et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. PNAS 2012, 109, 8812–8819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Chen, C.; Wang, Y.; Jia, J.; Mao, L.; Meurk, C.D. Ecosystem services mapping in practice: A Pasteur’s quadrant perspective. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 40, 101042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 00509 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of research methodology.
Figure 1. Flowchart of research methodology.
Land 12 00509 g001
Land 12 00509 g002 550
Figure 2. The trend of studies and the most published countries on RES research from 2005 to 2020.
Figure 2. The trend of studies and the most published countries on RES research from 2005 to 2020.
Land 12 00509 g002
Land 12 00509 g003 550
Figure 3. Habitat types and their proportion in RES research.
Figure 3. Habitat types and their proportion in RES research.
Land 12 00509 g003
Land 12 00509 g004 550
Figure 4. Multilayer pie chart of application and governance in RES.
Figure 4. Multilayer pie chart of application and governance in RES.
Land 12 00509 g004
Land 12 00509 g005 550
Figure 5. A framework to ensure RES research can be applied.
Figure 5. A framework to ensure RES research can be applied.
Land 12 00509 g005
Table
Table 1. Connection to practical application.
Table 1. Connection to practical application.
ConnectionDefinitione.g.,
NoneDoes not reference applications and governance/
Brief mentionReferences practical application, but only tangentially; does not develop or substantiate claims of relevance to applications and governancehelps the decision-making about their improvement a lot; should incorporate recreational value as an effective indicator of cultural services; planners focus not only on physical landscape and expert-based approaches but also on social landscape, etc.
General guidanceDiscusses research applications and relevance to governance with more attention to universal findings than to those in any specific contextEnhancing the quality of accommodation facilities; more and better communication actions; the promotion of and education about green areas to residents; etc.
Specific guidanceMakes substantial reference to applications and governance in a specific case, with attention to how the research findings may affect particular decision processes concerning applications and governancesupport passive recreation activities such as sitting and reading areas with benches and shades; closing these areas to vehicle traffic and relying more heavily upon existing accessible public transit systems; address this unique pattern requires interventions such as continuous educational or awareness campaigns programs, etc.
Table
Table 2. Connections to applications and governance, in term of number of studies and proportion of total.
Table 2. Connections to applications and governance, in term of number of studies and proportion of total.
ConnectionNumberProportion
None4638%
Brief mention3126%
General guidance2823%
Specific guidance1513%
Table
Table 3. Application of RES research.
Table 3. Application of RES research.
Service TypesApplicationsDetailed ApplicationsRef:
Only RESNo-spatial improvement Improved monetary benefits (a) Boosting consumption by providing more services
(b) Providing instruction for pricing services
(c) Supporting investment allocation through infrastructure		[26,27,28,29,30]
Non-monetary
improvements		(a) Maintaining and improving basic services
(b) Enriching service functions
(c) Enhancing the communication of RES to users		[31,32,33,34,35]
Spatial
improvement 		Space with high recreational potential or degradation(a) Identifying the potential sites for recreation
(b) Adjusting ongoing development schemes
(c) Identifying areas where RES is degraded or at risk of degradation		[36,37,38,39,40]
Relation between supply and demand(a) Addressing the spatial mismatch of supply and demand
(b) Planning recreational facilities based on future design
(c) Considering the recreation preference of different groups		[41,42,43,44,45,46]
With other servicesCross-service governanceTrade-off(a) Mitigating conflicts between different ecosystem services
(b) Prioritizing projects involving construction or restoration
(c) Reconciling the conflicting interests of local residents and visitors		[32,33,47,48,49]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Z.; Jian, Y.; Huang, Z.; Qureshi, S.; Cheng, K.; Bai, Z.; Zhang, Q. Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance. Land 2023, 12, 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020509

AMA Style

Wang Z, Jian Y, Huang Z, Qureshi S, Cheng K, Bai Z, Zhang Q. Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance. Land. 2023; 12(2):509. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020509

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Zhifang, Yuqing Jian, Zhibin Huang, Salman Qureshi, Kexin Cheng, Zhuhui Bai, and Qingwen Zhang. 2023. "Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance" Land 12, no. 2: 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020509

APA Style

Wang, Z., Jian, Y., Huang, Z., Qureshi, S., Cheng, K., Bai, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2023). Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance. Land, 12(2), 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020509

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