IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i2p205-d737020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Recreational and Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Islands

Author

Listed:
  • Na Zhao

    (School of Geography, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
    Department of Business and Tourism, Hulunbuir Vocational Technical College, Hulunbuir 021000, China)

  • Hui Wang

    (School of Geography, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China)

  • Jingqiu Zhong

    (School of Geography, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
    Center for Studies of Marine Economy and Sustainable Development, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
    State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Dongqi Sun

    (State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

With the gradual expansion of benefits provided by islands to human wellbeing, it has become increasingly important to quantify the cultural ecosystem service functions of islands. In this study, the zone travel cost method (ZTCM) and individual travel cost method (ITCM) are used to assess the recreational and cultural ecosystem services value of the island region of Changhai County, China, and the recreational value of Xiaochangshan, Dachangshan, and Guanglu Islands based on questionnaire survey data. The results are as follows: (1) The overall recreational and cultural ecosystem services value of Changhai County in 2019 was 533.14 million USD, including a traveling cost of 395.71 million USD and consumer surplus of 137.43 million USD. (2) Further, based on the choice and consumption behaviors of tourists, multiple recreational values of the county were also inferred: the aesthetic experience presented the greatest contribution, while educational knowledge accounted for a lower percentage. (3) The recreational and cultural ecosystem services value 294.16, 60.03, and 143.26 million USD for Xiaochangshan, Dachangshan, and Guanglu Islands, respectively. Based on the findings of this study, future research will focus on the planning and development of Xiaochangshan Island tourism to maximize consumer surplus.

Suggested Citation

  • Na Zhao & Hui Wang & Jingqiu Zhong & Dongqi Sun, 2022. "Assessment of Recreational and Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Islands," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:205-:d:737020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/205/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/205/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Dong-Kyu, 2024. "Analysis of the potential value of cultural ecosystem services: A case study of Busan City, Republic of Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Jianxiong Bao & Wen Wang & Tianqing Zhao, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Ecosystem Service Values in Response to Land Cover Dynamics in China from 1992 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Amare Tesfaw & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Alemu & Ermias Teferi, 2022. "Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Yun Jiang & Guoming Du & Hao Teng & Jun Wang & Haolin Li, 2023. "Multi-Scenario Land Use Change Simulation and Spatial Response of Ecosystem Service Value in Black Soil Region of Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Atalel Wubalem & Teshale Woldeamanuel & Zerihun Nigussie, 2023. "Economic Valuation of Lake Tana: A Recreational Use Value Estimation through the Travel Cost Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, April.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:205-:d:737020. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.