IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p8036-d853335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Benefits Evaluation of Rural Micro-Landscapes in Southeastern Coastal Towns of China—The Case of Jinjiang, Fujian

Author

Listed:
  • Lan Shen

    (College of Arts College of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
    College of Architecture, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yueying Li

    (College of Architecture, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Siren Lan

    (College of Arts College of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Minfeng Yao

    (College of Architecture, Huaqiao University, Xiamen 361021, China)

Abstract

Faced with the current situation of the decay and alienation of traditional public space and the broken and disorderly spatial structure caused by the rapid urbanization of the Chinese countryside, rural micro-landscape creation has become an effective way to improve human living environments. However, it is currently difficult for rural micro-landscape construction to achieve the sustainable development of social benefits due to the lack of scientific design guidelines. Evaluating the social benefits of completed projects and identifying the important influencing factors are key to realizing the evidence-based design of rural micro-landscapes. To this end, this study deduces the mechanism of social benefit generation based on the psychological process of spatial perception and establishes a structural equation model containing compound influence pathways to measure the social benefits of micro-landscapes. The evaluation model consists of four latent variables, “physical element characteristics”, “perceptual quality”, “cognitive experience”, and “activity behavior”, and 35 observed variables. The researchers selected 18 micro-landscape areas in Jinjiang City, Fujian Province, China, as the survey sample and analyzed the influence of the potential variables and the explanatory power of the observed variables through a quantitative analysis of objective environmental elements and perception data from 102 respondents. The results showed that “perceptual quality” and “cognitive experience” had the greatest direct effect on social benefits, and, based on the progressive influence relationships among the dimensions, “physical element characteristics” dominated the total social benefits through direct and indirect means. Compared with single-function green space, comfortable and diverse artificial facilities encourage residents to enter and use micro-landscapes and contribute to their social benefits. The purpose of this paper is to explore the ideal form of rural micro-landscape creation and provide a theoretical basis for the future practice of high-quality and sustainable rural micro-landscape construction.

Suggested Citation

  • Lan Shen & Yueying Li & Siren Lan & Minfeng Yao, 2022. "Social Benefits Evaluation of Rural Micro-Landscapes in Southeastern Coastal Towns of China—The Case of Jinjiang, Fujian," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8036-:d:853335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8036/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8036/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nguyen-Phuoc, Duy Q. & Phuong Tran, Anh Thi & Nguyen, Tiep Van & Le, Phuong Thi & Su, Diep Ngoc, 2021. "Investigating the complexity of perceived service quality and perceived safety and security in building loyalty among bus passengers in Vietnam – A PLS-SEM approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 162-173.
    2. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    3. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    4. Liu, Yansui, 2018. "Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-4.
    5. Mingxing Chen & Yuan Zhou & Xinrong Huang & Chao Ye, 2021. "The Integration of New-Type Urbanization and Rural Revitalization Strategies in China: Origin, Reality and Future Trends," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Renata Giedych & Gabriela Maksymiuk, 2017. "Specific Features of Parks and Their Impact on Regulation and Cultural Ecosystem Services Provision in Warsaw, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    8. Liudan Jiao & Liyin Shen & Chenyang Shuai & Bei He, 2016. "A Novel Approach for Assessing the Performance of Sustainable Urbanization Based on Structural Equation Modeling: A China Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Lin, Yongyuan & Shui, Wei & Li, Zhipan & Huang, Shan & Wu, Kexin & Sun, Xiaorui & Liang, Jingchen, 2021. "Green space optimization for rural vitality: Insights for planning and policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    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. Xu, Ze & Zhang, Zhengfeng & Li, Chu, 2019. "Exploring urban green spaces in China: Spatial patterns, driving factors and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Youxu Zheng & Jiangdi Tan & Yaping Huang & Zhiyong Wang, 2022. "The Governance Path of Urban–Rural Integration in Changing Urban–Rural Relationships in the Metropolitan Area: A Case Study of Wuhan, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. de Vries, S.P. & Garcia Alvarez, G. & Botzen, W.J.W. & Bockarjova, M., 2023. "Valuing urban nature through life satisfaction: The consistency of GIS and survey indicators of nature," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    5. Leng Liu & Congjie Cao & Wei Song, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis in the Field of Rural Revitalization: Current Status, Progress, and Prospects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Shahid Naeem & Chunxiang Cao & Khunsa Fatima & Omaid Najmuddin & Bipin Kumar Acharya, 2018. "Landscape Greening Policies-based Land Use/Land Cover Simulation for Beijing and Islamabad—An Implication of Sustainable Urban Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    7. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Zhiyong Wang & Tixing Yang & Helin Liu & Man Yuan & Ji Luo & Chun Li, 2019. "Evaluation and Dynamic Mechanism of Ecological Space in a Densely Urbanized Region During a Rapidly Growing Period—A Case Study of the Wu-E-Huang-Huang Metropolitan Interlocking Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Andrzej Długoński & Diana Dushkova, 2021. "The Hidden Potential of Informal Urban Greenspace: An Example of Two Former Landfills in Post-Socialist Cities (Central Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Tibesigwa, Byela & Lokina, Razack & Kasalirwe, Fred & Jacob, Richard & Tibanywana, Julieth & Makuka , Gabriel, 2018. "In Search of Urban Recreational Ecosystem Services in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania," EfD Discussion Paper 18-6, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    11. Karsten Grunewald & Olaf Bastian ., 2017. "Special Issue: “Maintaining Ecosystem Services to Support Urban Needs”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    12. Jinkun Yang & Haitao Ma & Lisheng Weng, 2022. "Transformation of Rural Space under the Impact of Tourism: The Case of Xiamen, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-12, June.
    13. Marzena Suchocka & Magdalena Błaszczyk & Adam Juźwiak & Joanna Duriasz & Adam Bohdan & Jerzy Stolarczyk, 2019. "Transit versus Nature. Depreciation of Environmental Values of the Road Alleys. Case Study: Gamerki-Jonkowo, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    14. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Zhang, Yingjie & Zhang, Tianzheng & Zeng, Yingxiang & Cheng, Baodong & Li, Hongxun, 2021. "Designating National Forest Cities in China: Does the policy improve the urban living environment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Zhang, Pengyan & Yang, Dan & Qin, Mingzhou & Jing, Wenlong, 2020. "Spatial heterogeneity analysis and driving forces exploring of built-up land development intensity in Chinese prefecture-level cities and implications for future Urban Land intensive use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Jianglin Lu & Keqiang Wang & Hongmei Liu, 2022. "Residents’ Selection Behavior of Compensation Schemes for Construction Land Reduction: Empirical Evidence from Questionnaires in Shanghai, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, December.
    18. Lü, Da & Gao, Guangyao & Lü, Yihe & Xiao, Feiyan & Fu, Bojie, 2020. "Detailed land use transition quantification matters for smart land management in drylands: An in-depth analysis in Northwest China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Yang, Yuanyuan & Bao, Wenkai & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Scenario simulation of land system change in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(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:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8036-:d:853335. 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.