IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p682-d1394052.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recreational Ecosystem Services in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau National Park Group: Mapping, Monetization, and Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Mengqi Yuan

    (State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Fang Han

    (State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Xuankai Ma

    (State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Tian Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Qixiang Liang

    (State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

Recreational ecosystem services (RESs) are the subset of ecosystem services (ESs) that contribute to human society through recreation, recreation opportunities, and experiences. Existing RESs mostly focus on a single recreational landscape; alternatively, when mapping RESs, multiple types of landscapes are often drawn together, ignoring the differences in recreational landscape (RL) types and affecting the accuracy of the mapping. At the same time, quantifying the monetary value of RESs has been a challenge due to the lack of market substitutes that can approximate the prices associated with these non-excludable goods. This study used the MaxENT model, then classified and used recreational resource POI data, combined with environmental data on the existence or generation of different types of RL, mapped RES from the perspective of RL supply, and conducted monetization and evaluations of RL. The results show that the models’ AUC values are all greater than 0.7, and the distribution of RL supply can be drawn relatively accurately. The Qinghai–Tibet Plateau National Park Group (QTPNPG) has the largest high-quality geomorphic recreational landscape (69,081.02 km 2 ), followed by a high-quality biological recreational landscape (59,348.65 km 2 ) and a high-quality hydrological recreational landscape (33,251.20 km 2 ). The national parks in the eastern part of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau have a larger proportion of high-value areas of the RES. The total monetary value of the RES is CNY 8.323 billion, and the average monetary value of RES per unit area is CNY 20,200/km 2 . Our study optimizes the method of mapping RESs and provides a new way of quantifying the monetary value of RESs. The results can provide a reference for the recreational development of THE QTPNPG and its contribution to regional sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Mengqi Yuan & Fang Han & Xuankai Ma & Tian Wang & Qixiang Liang, 2024. "Recreational Ecosystem Services in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau National Park Group: Mapping, Monetization, and Evaluation," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:682-:d:1394052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/682/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/682/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yayan Lu & Fang Han & Qun Liu & Zhaoguo Wang & Tian Wang & Zhaoping Yang, 2022. "Evaluation of Potential for Nature-Based Recreation in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A Spatial-Temporal Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovač, M., 2018. "Optimising recreation services from protected areas – Understanding the role of natural values, built infrastructure and contextual factors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 358-370.
    3. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Lausch, Angela & Blaschke, Thomas & Haase, Dagmar & Herzog, Felix & Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe & Tischendorf, Lutz & Walz, Ulrich, 2015. "Understanding and quantifying landscape structure – A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 31-41.
    6. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    7. You Zuo & Lin Zhang, 2023. "Research on Local Ecosystem Cultural Services in the Jiangnan Water Network Rural Areas: A Case Study of the Ecological Green Integration Demonstration Zone in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    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. 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).
    2. Dunning, Kelly H., 2021. "Adaptive governance of recreational ecosystem services following a major hurricane," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Sabrina Lai & Federica Leone & Corrado Zoppi, 2018. "Implementing Green Infrastructures beyond Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Roux, Dirk J. & Smith, M. Kyle S. & Smit, Izak P.J. & Freitag, Stefanie & Slabbert, Liandi & Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M. & Hayes, Jessica & Mpapane, Nelsiwe P., 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    8. Klain, Sarah C. & Satterfield, Terre A. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2014. "What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 310-320.
    9. Simon Willcock & Javier Martinez-Lopez & Norman Dandy & James M. Bullock, 2021. "High Spatial-Temporal Resolution Data across Large Scales Are Needed to Transform Our Understanding of Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-6, July.
    10. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    12. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    15. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    16. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    17. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    18. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    19. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Man-Jing Li & Jia-Xu Han & Mao Zhu & Yuan-Biao Zhang, 2019. "The True Valuation of Land Use Project in China Considering Ecosystem Services," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(10), pages 1-46, October.

    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:5:p:682-:d:1394052. 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.