IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1171-d485450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability through Participatory Planning Based on Investigation of the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes: Qing Mu Chuan, China

Author

Listed:
  • Huan Yang

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

  • Ling Qiu

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

  • Xin Fu

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

Abstract

Conservation efforts and cooperation from major stakeholders are critical factors for cultural heritage (e.g., historical landmarks) sustainability. Although landscape planners provide professional knowledge and intended designs for sustainable management of cultural heritage sites, the active effort and participation of local residents or communities are the decisive facts of whether relevant preservation actions can be successfully implemented. Traditional village landscapes in Qing Mu Chuan, China, were selected as the study area. We used photo questionnaires to explore the preferences, value perceptions, and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes of landscape professionals and local residents. The results revealed large differences in the perceptions and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes between the two groups. The most unexpected finding was that the local residents showed much stronger preferences and preservation willingness toward traditional village landscapes with cultural elements than the professionals. In addition, the local residents’ preservation attitudes were mainly affected by their perception of economic benefits and daily utility values, rather than cultural values. Meanwhile, the preservation of professionals’ attitudes was significantly related to recreational and cultural value perceptions. These findings will direct the participatory planning process to provide appropriate incentives for developing the preservation attitudes of local residents. They will also support the implementation of participatory planning to promote the positive collaboration of local residents and landscape planners toward cultural heritage sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Huan Yang & Ling Qiu & Xin Fu, 2021. "Toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability through Participatory Planning Based on Investigation of the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes: Qing Mu Chuan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1171-:d:485450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1171/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1171/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    2. A Fleischer & Y Tsur, 2000. "Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 27(3), pages 385-398, September.
    3. Min Zhang & Weiping Wu & Weijing Zhong, 2018. "Agency and social construction of space under top-down planning: Resettled rural residents in China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(7), pages 1541-1560, May.
    4. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    5. Francesca Nocca, 2017. "The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-28, October.
    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. Nina Almasifar & Tülay Özdemir Canbolat & Milad Akhavan & Roberto Alonso González-Lezcano, 2021. "Proposing a New Methodology for Monument Conservation “SCOPE MANAGEMENT” by the Use of an Analytic Hierarchy Process Project Management Institute System and the ICOMOS Burra Charter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Chryssy Potsiou & Charalabos Ioannidis & Sofia Soile & Argyro-Maria Boutsi & Regina Chliverou & Konstantinos Apostolopoulos & Maria Gkeli & Fotis Bourexis, 2023. "Geospatial Tool Development for the Management of Historical Hiking Trails—The Case of the Holy Site of Meteora," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Hawar Himdad J. Sektani & Mahmood Khayat & Masi Mohammadi & Ana Pereira Roders, 2021. "Erbil City Built Heritage and Wellbeing: An Assessment of Local Perceptions Using the Semantic Differential Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Anne Cathrine Flyen, 2023. "A Cultural Landscape Emerges: Analyzing the Evolution of Two Historic North Pole Expedition Bases in Virgohamna, Svalbard, from Trash to a Protected Cultural Heritage Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-37, July.
    5. Xiaoxu Liang & Cristina Coscia & Elena Dellapiana & John Martin & Yu Zhang, 2022. "Complex Social Value-Based Approach for Decision-Making and Valorization Process in Chinese World Cultural Heritage Site: The Case of Kulangsu (China)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-30, April.
    6. Shulong Dong & Jiangming Ma & Yanhua Mo & Hao Yang, 2022. "GIS-Based Watershed Unit Forest Landscape Visual Quality Assessment in Yangshuo Section of Lijiang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-28, November.
    7. Ling Cao & Jie Yin, 2023. "Research on Sharing Behavior Strategy of Cultural Heritage Institutions Based on Evolutionary Game Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-23, June.
    8. Changqing Sun & Hong Chen & Ruihua Liao, 2021. "Research on Incentive Mechanism and Strategy Choice for Passing on Intangible Cultural Heritage from Masters to Apprentices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Magdalena Gyurkovich & Marta Pieczara, 2021. "Using Composition to Assess and Enhance Visual Values in Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-31, April.
    10. Adel Saleh Bouregh, 2022. "A Conceptual Framework of Public Participation Utilization for Sustainable Urban Planning in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.

    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. Hatan, Shachar & Fleischer, Aliza & Tchetchik, Anat, 2021. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services: The case of landscape aesthetics in the agritourism market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    3. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    4. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    5. Rolf, Werner & Diehl, Katharina & Zasada, Ingo & Wiggering, Hubert, 2020. "Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    9. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Rong Fan & Junxi Fan & Jiayu Song & Kaiyuan Li & Wenli Ji, 2021. "Naturalness in the City: Demographic Groups’ Differences in Preference for Deciduous Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    11. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    12. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    13. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    14. Reza Keshtkaran & Amin Habibi & Hamidreza Sharif, 2017. "Aesthetic Preferences for Visual Quality of Urban Landscape in Derak High-Rise Buildings (Shiraz)," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 1-94, September.
    15. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    16. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    17. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    18. Zheng Xian & Tomoki Nakaya & Kun Liu & Bing Zhao & Junhua Zhang & Jiao Zhang & Yuxuan Lin & Jinguang Zhang, 2024. "The effects of neighbourhood green spaces on mental health of disadvantaged groups: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Tong, Qingmeng & Qiu, Feng, 2020. "Population growth and land development: Investigating the bi-directional interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.

    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:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1171-:d:485450. 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.