IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i11p1882-d1518414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Recreational Resource Value of National Park Based on Visitor Perception—A Case of Three-River-Source National Park in China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao Luo

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Zongcai Huang

    (College of Computer and Information Engineering, Xiamen University of Technology, Xiamen 361024, China)

  • Lingen Wang

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

National parks serve as critical practical sites for advancing the concept of “harmonious coexistence between humans and nature” and hold a strategic role in establishing global ecological security barriers. Scholars and decision-makers have expressed significant interest in rigorous assessments of the recreational resource value in national parks. This paper focuses on the Three-River-Source National Park, examining the characteristics and components of its recreational resource value through the lens of human–environment relationship theory. Analysis spans dimensions of geological and geomorphological value, ecological service value, historical and cultural value, and aesthetic landscape value. By extracting visitor comments rich in vocabulary related to their perceptions, this study compares variations in resource values and the “resource value–visitor perception” synergy within Three-River-Source National Park, employing text analysis, semantic network analysis, and coordination analysis methods. The findings reveal that (1) Visitor perceptions of recreational resource value display a clear hierarchy, with aesthetic landscape value (43.6%) ranking highest, followed by geological and geomorphological value (26.7%), historical and cultural value (19.3%), and ecological service value (10.4%), showing significant variation among categories; the vocabulary across these value types exhibits a pronounced long-tail distribution. (2) The recreational resource value in the park forms a distinct core centered on prominent attractions, accompanied by patterns of vocabulary aggregation and dispersion. (3) Visitors demonstrate strong synergy in their perception of geological and aesthetic value, weaker perception regarding historical and cultural value, and a relatively narrow understanding of ecological service value. This research enhances public comprehension of the recreational resource value of national parks and provides a scientific foundation for the conservation and sustainable use of recreational resources in national parks, advancing the realization of their recreational functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao Luo & Zongcai Huang & Lingen Wang, 2024. "Assessing the Recreational Resource Value of National Park Based on Visitor Perception—A Case of Three-River-Source National Park in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:1882-:d:1518414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/11/1882/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/11/1882/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wan-Yu Liu & Pin-Zheng Chen & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2019. "Assessing the Recreational Value of a National Forest Park from Ecotourists’ Perspective in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-17, July.
    2. van Beukering, Pieter J. H. & Cesar, Herman S. J. & Janssen, Marco A., 2003. "Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 43-62, February.
    3. Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel, 2018. "Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 371-386.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ezebilo, Eugene E. & Mattsson, Leif, 2010. "Socio-economic benefits of protected areas as perceived by local people around Cross River National Park, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 189-193, March.
    2. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & Kovač, Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Rao, Nalini S. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Portela, Rosimeiry & Wang, Xuanwen, 2015. "Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 95-105.
    6. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    7. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Elena Ojea & Maria Loureiro, 2009. "Mapping of Forest Biodiversity Values: A Plural Perspective," Working Papers 2009.4, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Chen, Haojie, 2020. "Complementing conventional environmental impact assessments of tourism with ecosystem service valuation: A case study of the Wulingyuan Scenic Area, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    9. Aline Chiabai & Chiara Travisi & Anil Markandya & Helen Ding & Paulo Nunes, 2011. "Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 405-445, November.
    10. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    11. Dai, Peichao & Zhang, Shaoliang & Gong, Yunlong & Zhou, Yuan & Hou, Huping, 2022. "A crowd-sourced valuation of recreational ecosystem services using mobile signal data applied to a restored wetland in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Kim, Sophanarith & Phat, Nophea Kim & Koike, Masao & Hayashi, Hiromichi, 2006. "Estimating actual and potential government revenues from timber harvesting in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 625-635, August.
    13. Suliman Yusif & Yukun Cao & Abdelazim Eissa & Elsamoal Elzaki, 2023. "Economic Assessment for the Recreation Value of Al-Sunut Forest Reserve in Khartoum State, Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, Makoto, 2013. "Valuing forest ecosystem services: Case study of a forest reserve in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 78-87.
    15. Ceccacci, Alberto & Lopes, Ana Faria & Mulazzani, Luca & Malorgio, Giulio, 2024. "Recreation in coastal environments: Estimating the non-market value of fishing harbors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    16. Albers, Heidi J. & Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z., 2007. "Spatial-temporal aspects of cost-benefit analysis for park management: An example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 129-150, August.
    17. Sabrina Lai & Federica Leone & Corrado Zoppi, 2018. "Implementing Green Infrastructures beyond Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Lakerveld, Roan P. & Lele, S. & Crane, T.A. & Fortuin, K.P.J. & Springate-Baginski, O., 2015. "The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: Evidence and insights from Odisha, India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 56-66.
    19. Cetin, Nuket Ipek & Bourget, Gulhan & Tezer, Azime, 2021. "Travel-cost method for assessing the monetary value of recreational services in the Ömerli Catchment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    20. Peihao Tong & Hongxi Yin & Zhifang Wang & Ian Trivers, 2022. "Combining Stormwater Management and Park Services to Mitigate Climate Change and Improve Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Sponge City Parks in Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.

    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:13:y:2024:i:11:p:1882-:d:1518414. 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.