IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i15p4086-d252555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is an Environment with High Biodiversity the Most Attractive for Human Recreation? A Case Study in Baoji, China

Author

Listed:
  • Tian Gao

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ling Zhu

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Tian Zhang

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China)

  • Rui Song

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China)

  • Yuanqun Zhang

    (College of Forestry, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China)

  • Ling Qiu

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China)

Abstract

Evidence has been accumulating of the psychological and physiological benefits and well-being gained by individuals from recreational activities in urban green spaces due to their ability to sustain biodiversity, but maximizing both biodiversity and recreational values of green spaces has become increasingly difficult in practice. In order to better maximize the biodiversity and recreational value of urban green space, this study was conducted through the utilization of an onsite questionnaire to understand people’s perceptions of and preferences for biodiversity and recreational values of urban green spaces in Baoji City, China. The results showed that respondents were able to correctly perceive biodiversity and preferred to engage in recreational activities in the high biodiversity environment. However, the respondents’ perceptions of the eight perceived sensory dimensions (PSDs) in the different habitats were divergent, and an environment which is high in biodiversity does not necessarily have higher PSDs. Moreover, ‘living environment’ and ‘frequency to the park’ had significant impacts on perception of and preference for urban biodiversity. In addition, ‘education level’, ‘living environment’, ‘age’, and other indicators were more likely to influence the perception of the eight PSDs. Therefore, the presented findings can be applied by urban landscape planners to assess the qualities of urban green spaces in order to maintain urban biodiversity and meet the satisfaction of human recreation in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Tian Gao & Ling Zhu & Tian Zhang & Rui Song & Yuanqun Zhang & Ling Qiu, 2019. "Is an Environment with High Biodiversity the Most Attractive for Human Recreation? A Case Study in Baoji, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4086-:d:252555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4086/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4086/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ling Qiu & Anders Busse Nielsen, 2015. "Are Perceived Sensory Dimensions a Reliable Tool for Urban Green Space Assessment and Planning?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(7), pages 834-854, October.
    2. Deborah F Coldwell & Karl L Evans, 2017. "Contrasting effects of visiting urban green-space and the countryside on biodiversity knowledge and conservation support," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    4. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Amaral, Aryanne G. & Padgurschi, Maíra C.G. & Joly, Carlos A. & Scarano, Fabio R., 2018. "Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 68-73.
    5. Mitchell, Richard, 2013. "Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 130-134.
    6. Michela Faccioli & Antoni Riera Font & Catalina M. Torres, 2014. "Valuing The Recreational Benefits Of Wetland Adaptation To Climate Change: A Trade-Off Between Species’ Abundance And Diversity," DEA Working Papers 64, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    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. Erik D. Slawsky & Joel C. Hoffman & Kristen N. Cowan & Kristen M. Rappazzo, 2022. "Beneficial Use Impairments, Degradation of Aesthetics, and Human Health: A Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Yuting Chen & Bingyao Jia & Jing Wu & Xuejun Liu & Tianyue Luo, 2022. "Temporal and Spatial Attractiveness Characteristics of Wuhan Urban Riverside from the Perspective of Traveling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Zhi Yue & Ying Zhong & Zhouxiao Cui, 2022. "Respondent Dynamic Attention to Streetscape Composition in Nanjing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Ling Qiu & Qujing Chen & Tian Gao, 2021. "The Effects of Urban Natural Environments on Preference and Self-Reported Psychological Restoration of the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.

    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. Tian Gao & Rui Song & Ling Zhu & Ling Qiu, 2019. "What Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Recreational Activities Do Self-Reported Stressed Individuals Like? A Case Study of Baoji, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Outdoor Activity Participation Improves Adolescents’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    5. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Rodriguez Soto, Clarita & Scarano, Fabio R., 2021. "Strategies to reach global sustainability should take better account of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    7. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    8. Peeter Vassiljev & Simon Bell, 2023. "While Experiencing a Forest Trail, Variation in Landscape Is Just as Important as Content: A Virtual Reality Experiment of Cross-Country Skiing in Estonia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    10. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    11. Elliott, Lewis R. & White, Mathew P. & Taylor, Adrian H. & Herbert, Stephen, 2015. "Energy expenditure on recreational visits to different natural environments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 53-60.
    12. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Christianson, Anne B. & Montgomery, Rebecca & Fleischman, Forrest & Nelson, Kristen C., 2022. "Exploring wildlife disservices and conservation in the context of ecosystem-based adaptation: A case study in the Mt. Elgon region, Uganda," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Andrés Ried & María Jesús Monteagudo & Pelayo Benavides & Anne Le Bon & Stephanie Carmody & Rodrigo Santos, 2020. "Key Aspects of Leisure Experiences in Protected Wilderness Areas: Notions of Nature, Senses of Place and Perceived Benefits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Jiang Li & Qiao Pan & You Peng & Tao Feng & Shaobo Liu & Xiaoxi Cai & Chixing Zhong & Yicheng Yin & Wenbo Lai, 2020. "Perceived Quality of Urban Wetland Parks: A Second-Order Factor Structure Equation Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Michela Faccioli & Nick Hanley & Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2015. "Do we care about sustainability? An analysis of time sensitivity of social preferences under environmental time-persistent effects," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-17, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    18. Sung-Kwon Hong & Sang-Woo Lee & Hyun-Kil Jo & Miyeon Yoo, 2019. "Impact of Frequency of Visits and Time Spent in Urban Green Space on Subjective Well-Being," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-25, August.
    19. Lingbo Liu & Yuni Zhong & Siya Ao & Hao Wu, 2019. "Exploring the Relevance of Green Space and Epidemic Diseases Based on Panel Data in China from 2007 to 2016," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Zhang, Qi & Gong, Jian & Wang, Ying, 2024. "How resilience capacity and multiple shocks affect rural households’ subjective well-being: A comparative study of the Yangtze and Yellow River Basins in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4086-:d:252555. 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.