IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i9p1661-d1224614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Ecosystem Services into Spatial Optimization of Urban Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Tianlin Zhai

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Mingyuan Chang

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Yingchao Li

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Longyang Huang

    (School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China)

  • Ye Chen

    (Chengdu Institute of Planning & Design, Chengdu 610041, China)

  • Guanyu Ding

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Chenchen Zhao

    (International Laboratory for Green Pest Control, College of Plant Protection, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Ling Li

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Weiqiang Chen

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Panfeng Zhang

    (School of Tourism and Geographical Sciences, Jilin Normal University, Siping 136000, China)

  • Enxiang Cai

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Caiyan Lei

    (International Laboratory for Green Pest Control, College of Plant Protection, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China)

  • Jing Wang

    (College of Water Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

It is vital to conduct urban ecosystem service evaluations and demarcate ecological management zoning to preserve regional ecological security and the spatial optimization of urban functions. This study assessed and examined the spatial distribution characteristics of the supply and demand of five typical ecosystem services in Zhengzhou and their matching pattern. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, urban ecological management zoning was demarcated to guide the spatial optimization of urban functions. The results showed that most of the ecological goods and services in Zhengzhou were generally provided in the west and south of the city. High-value areas of ecosystem service demand were mainly found in the urban center. There was a definite circle structure of total ecosystem service demand. Carbon sequestration, grain production, water yield, and habitat maintenance in the urban center area indicated an ecological deficit. Soil conservation in most regions was a surplus trend. Zhengzhou was demarcated into five groups of ecological management zoning. Different preferences had an impact on the ecosystem service supply and demand. The rise in living conditions led to an increase in the demand for high-level ecological services. This study can provide an essential theoretical basis and practical assistance for urban space optimization and ecosystem service management.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianlin Zhai & Mingyuan Chang & Yingchao Li & Longyang Huang & Ye Chen & Guanyu Ding & Chenchen Zhao & Ling Li & Weiqiang Chen & Panfeng Zhang & Enxiang Cai & Caiyan Lei & Jing Wang, 2023. "Integrating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Ecosystem Services into Spatial Optimization of Urban Functions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:9:p:1661-:d:1224614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/9/1661/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/9/1661/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Vemuri, Amanda W. & Costanza, Robert, 2006. "The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 119-133, June.
    3. Liang, Xinyuan & Jin, Xiaobin & He, Jie & Wang, Xiaorui & Xu, Cuilan & Qiao, Guoliang & Zhang, Xiaolin & Zhou, Yinkang, 2022. "Impacts of land management practice strategy on regional ecosystems: Enlightenment from ecological redline adjustment in Jiangsu, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Costanza, Robert & Fisher, Brendan & Ali, Saleem & Beer, Caroline & Bond, Lynne & Boumans, Roelof & Danigelis, Nicholas L. & Dickinson, Jennifer & Elliott, Carolyn & Farley, Joshua & Gayer, Diane Elli, 2007. "Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 267-276, March.
    5. Cubbage, Frederick & Harou, Patrice & Sills, Erin, 2007. "Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 833-851, April.
    6. Pham, Kien T. & Lin, Tang-Huang, 2023. "Effects of urbanisation on ecosystem service values: A case study of Nha Trang, Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    7. Wilkerson, Marit L. & Mitchell, Matthew G.E. & Shanahan, Danielle & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Ives, Christopher D. & Lovelock, Catherine E. & Rhodes, Jonathan R., 2018. "The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 102-110.
    8. Sara Antognelli & Marco Vizzari & Catharina J. E. Schulp, 2018. "Integrating Ecosystem and Urban Services in Policy-Making at the Local Scale: The SOFA Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Kerrie A. Wilson & Marissa F. McBride & Michael Bode & Hugh P. Possingham, 2006. "Prioritizing global conservation efforts," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7082), pages 337-340, March.
    10. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, 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. Yuchi Cai & Hong Li & Wancong Li, 2024. "Optimization of a “Social-Ecological” System Pattern from the Perspective of Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand: A Case Study of Jilin Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-31, October.

    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. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    2. Nicola Favretto & Emmanuelle Quillérou & Hannes C. Etter, 2015. "Chapter 2 - Setting the stage for structured economic assessment: The 6+1 step ELD approach," Post-Print hal-01954797, HAL.
    3. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    4. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    5. Hulin Pan, 2023. "Effect of the ecological environment on the residents’ happiness: the mechanism and an evidence from Zhejiang Province of China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 2716-2734, March.
    6. Kenny, Daniel C. & Costanza, Robert & Dowsley, Tom & Jackson, Nichelle & Josol, Jairus & Kubiszewski, Ida & Narulla, Harkiran & Sese, Saioa & Sutanto, Anna & Thompson, Jonathan, 2019. "Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962–2013)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Maria Susana Orta Ortiz & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and Food Supply in Havana, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    9. Katarina Haugen, 2016. "Contested Lands? Dissonance and Common Ground in Stakeholder Views on Forest Values," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 107(4), pages 421-434, September.
    10. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Megan King & Vivian Renó & Evlyn Novo, 2014. "The Concept, Dimensions and Methods of Assessment of Human Well-Being within a Socioecological Context: A Literature Review," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 681-698, May.
    12. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Shuai Zhang & Binbin Liu & Dajian Zhu & Mingwang Cheng, 2018. "Explaining Individual Subjective Well-Being of Urban China Based on the Four-Capital Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Costanza, Robert & Howarth, Richard B. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Liu, Shuang & Ma, Chunbo & Plumecocq, Gaël & Stern, David I., 2016. "Influential publications in ecological economics revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-76.
    15. Claudia Kettner-Marx & Angela Köppl & Sigrid Stagl, 2014. "Towards an Operational Measurement of Socio-ecological Performance. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 52," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 47154, March.
    16. Edson Tandoc & Bruno Takahashi, 2013. "The Complex Road to Happiness: The Influence of Human Development, a Healthy Environment and a Free Press," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 537-550, August.
    17. Epaminondas Panas, 2013. "Homeorhesis and Indication of Association Between Different Types of Capital on Life Satisfaction: The Case of Greeks Under Crisis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 171-186, January.
    18. Christopher L. Ambrey & Peter Daniels, 2017. "Happiness and footprints: assessing the relationship between individual well-being and carbon footprints," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 895-920, June.
    19. Fengchun Wang & Hua Zheng & Xiaoke Wang & Wenjia Peng & Dongchun Ma & Cong Li, 2017. "Classification of the Relationship between Household Welfare and Ecosystem Reliance in the Miyun Reservoir Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Kocsis, Tamás, 2010. ""Hajózni muszáj!" A GDP, az ökológiai lábnyom és a szubjektív jóllét stratégiai összefüggései [Navigare necesse est." The connections between GDP, ecological footprint, and subjectiv," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 536-554.

    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:12:y:2023:i:9:p:1661-:d:1224614. 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.