IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p2939-d1061389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wetland Park Planning and Management Based on the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Tieling Lotus Lake National Wetland Park (LLNWP), China

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Yang

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Zhi Zhang

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
    Liaoning Panjin Wetland Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Weikang Zhang

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
    Liaoning Panjin Wetland Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Tong Zhang

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Huan Meng

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
    Liaoning Panjin Wetland Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Hongwei Yan

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Yue Shen

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Zeqian Li

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Xiaotian Ma

    (Landscape Planning Laboratory, Forestry College, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China)

Abstract

The valuation of wetland ecosystem services and the construction of environmental landscapes are generally recognized as contributing to the sustainable development of human wellbeing. The valuation of ecosystem services plays an important role in planning for the recovery of degraded wetlands and in urban wetland park management; however, the role of the valuation of ecosystem services is always ignored. To bring more intuitive awareness to the importance of the ecological functions of wetlands and to rationally plan wetland parks, the Lotus Lake National Wetland Park (LLNWP), an urban wetland park in Northeast China, was selected as the study area. We referred to the millennium ecosystem assessment (MA) method and calculated the valuation of this park using the market value, benefit transfer, shadow engineering, carbon tax, and travel cost. ArcGIS was used for remote sensing interpretation. The research results were as follows. LLNWP was classified under seven types of land-use. The functions of the ecosystem services included provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services, and their total value in LLNWP was 11.68×10 8 CNY. Regarding the per-unit area value of the ecological service functions of different land types, it was found that forest swamp > herbaceous swamp > artificial wetland > permanent river > floodplain wetland. Combined with the characteristics of the functions of its ecosystem’s services, LLNWP was divided into ecological and socio-cultural functions. Then, according to the main service functions of the different land types, we propose that the space in LLNWP can be reused, and proposal planning and management suggestions can be made with the aim of preserving the basic functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Yang & Zhi Zhang & Weikang Zhang & Tong Zhang & Huan Meng & Hongwei Yan & Yue Shen & Zeqian Li & Xiaotian Ma, 2023. "Wetland Park Planning and Management Based on the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Tieling Lotus Lake National Wetland Park (LLNWP), China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-26, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:2939-:d:1061389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/2939/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/2939/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Armantier & Nicolas Treich, 2004. "Social Willingness to Pay, Mortality Risks and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 7-19, July.
    2. Jingya Liu & Jing Li & Ziyi Gao & Min Yang & Keyu Qin & Xiaonan Yang, 2016. "Ecosystem Services Insights into Water Resources Management in China: A Case of Xi’an City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Liting Zhou & Fei Ouyang & Yan Sun & Wentao Chen & Yiyong Li & Ruyu Zhao, 2022. "Integrated Sustainable Development of Culture into Tourist Map Design: A Case from Foshan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-14, October.
    4. James L. Boutwell & John V. Westra, 2013. "Benefit Transfer: A Review of Methodologies and Challenges," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-11, October.
    5. Pinke, Zsolt & Kiss, Márton & Lövei, Gábor L., 2018. "Developing an integrated land use planning system on reclaimed wetlands of the Hungarian Plain using economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 299-308.
    6. Lin Liu & Yapeng Zhou & Haikui Yin & Ruiqiang Zhang & Ying Ma & Guijun Zhang & Pengfei Zhao & Jinxiong Feng & Jun Yang, 2021. "Improving Land Use Planning through the Evaluation of Ecosystem Services: One Case Study of Quyang County," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-13, August.
    7. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    8. Alexandros I. Stefanakis, 2019. "The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Zita Izakovičová & László Miklós & Viktória Miklósová & František Petrovič, 2019. "The Integrated Approach to Landscape Management —Experience from Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiang Li & Jiang Zhu & Tao Liu & Xiangdong Yin & Jiangchun Yao & Hao Jiang & Bing Bu & Jianlong Yan & Yixuan Li & Zhangcheng Chen, 2023. "Quota and Space Allocations of New Urban Land Supported by Urban Growth Simulations: A Case Study of Guangzhou City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marwa M. Aly & Neveen H. Refay & Hoda Elattar & Karim M. Morsy & Erick R. Bandala & Samir A. Zein & Mohamed K. Mostafa, 2022. "Ecohydrology and flood risk management under climate vulnerability in relation to the sustainable development goals (SDGs): a case study in Nagaa Mobarak Village, Egypt," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(2), pages 1107-1135, June.
    2. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Henrich Grežo & Matej Močko & Martin Izsóff & Gréta Vrbičanová & František Petrovič & Jozef Straňák & Zlatica Muchová & Martina Slámová & Branislav Olah & Ivo Machar, 2020. "Flood Risk Assessment for the Long-Term Strategic Planning Considering the Placement of Industrial Parks in Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    6. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    7. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Mahsa Mesgar & Diego Ramirez-Lovering & Mohamed El-Sioufi, 2021. "Tension, Conflict, and Negotiability of Land for Infrastructure Retrofit Practices in Informal Settlements," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    11. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    12. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    13. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    14. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    15. Adler, Matthew, 2020. "What should we spend to save lives in a pandemic? A critique of the value of statistical life," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105283, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    17. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    18. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    19. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    20. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:2939-:d:1061389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.