IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2022i1p8-d1008584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Services as a Method to Evaluate the Sustainability of Intangible Dimensions of a Historic Urban Landscape: A Case Study in Guangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Siyou Wang

    (College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Research Institute of Rural Development of Guangdong Province, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Shaotao Chen

    (College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Research Institute of Rural Development of Guangdong Province, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Wei Gao

    (College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Research Institute of Rural Development of Guangdong Province, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

Abstract

The historic urban landscape (HUL) is the result of the continuous dynamic process of production, interaction, and accumulation. It is full of information from bygone years and remains to this day as a living witness of antiquity and a benefit to the contemporary public, both in mind and spirit. These intangible benefits, however, are easier to overlook than the tangible ones in conservation and management efforts that aim at sustainability. Therefore, we return to the prototype of the category “cultural services” in the ecosystem classification “information service” to evaluate these intangible benefits. The objectives of this study are: (1) to provide a methodological framework to assess the ability of the landscape to continuously provide information services in the historical process; (2) to analyze the drivers affecting HUL’s ability to continuously deliver information services, and then discuss the governance experience of HUL’s intangible dimensions for sustainability. First, we regard HUL as an object to learn from the experience of urban heritage governance: using the methods and tools of ecosystem service evaluation, this paper evaluates the intangible services that the public receives from the landscape over several consecutive historical periods, summarizes the dynamic changes in these services, and analyzes their drivers. Furthermore, we consider that the aforementioned intangible services are brought about in part by the spread of heritage information stored in HUL among specific people, and the continuous provision of information services is considered the sustainability of HUL in intangible dimensions. We use Yuexiu Hill in the center of Guangzhou, China, as a case study to verify the feasibility of our methodological framework by evaluating the information services provided by this ancient area with a construction history of 2000 years over five historical periods. The data needed for the evaluation of the information service was obtained through text mining by retrieving 1063 ancient Chinese poems related to Yuexiu Hill from the poetry database. The results obtained through this evaluation framework will provide a quantitative basis for planning, design, and decision making in small and medium-sized landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Siyou Wang & Shaotao Chen & Wei Gao, 2022. "Information Services as a Method to Evaluate the Sustainability of Intangible Dimensions of a Historic Urban Landscape: A Case Study in Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:8-:d:1008584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/8/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/8/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Ecosystems in Books: Evaluating the Inspirational Service of the Weser River in Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    4. Coscieme, Luca, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services: The inspirational value of ecosystems in popular music," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 121-124.
    5. Bingham, Gail & Bishop, Richard & Brody, Michael & Bromley, Daniel & Clark, Edwin (Toby) & Cooper, William & Costanza, Robert & Hale, Thomas & Hayden, Gregory & Kellert, Stephen, 1995. "Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 73-90, August.
    6. Wei Gao & Yuwei Guo & Fanying Jiang, 2021. "Playing for a Resilient Future: A Serious Game Designed to Explore and Understand the Complexity of the Interaction among Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and Urban Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    8. Andreas Gerber & Markus Ulrich & Flurin X. Wäger & Marta Roca-Puigròs & João S. V. Gonçalves & Patrick Wäger, 2021. "Games on Climate Change: Identifying Development Potentials through Advanced Classification and Game Characteristics Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    9. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    10. Fatmaelzahraa Hussein & John Stephens & Reena Tiwari, 2020. "Grounded Theory as an Approach for Exploring the Effect of Cultural Memory on Psychosocial Well-Being in Historic Urban Landscapes," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Kosanic, Aleksandra & Petzold, Jan, 2020. "A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    12. Mehrnaz MOLAVI & Elmira RAFIZADEH MALEKSHAH & Elaheh RAFIZADEH MALEKSHAH, 2017. "Is Collective Memory Impressed By Urban Elements?," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 14-27, March.
    13. 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.
    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. Jie Yin & Lili Zhao, 2024. "The Value Expression and Driving Factors of Rural Spatial Ecological Products: A Case Study of B&Bs in Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    3. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld & Karen Pletnikoff & Ronald Snigaroff & Daniel Snigaroff & Tim Stamm, 2008. "Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation in Terms of Ecological Goods and Services Versus Subsistence and Tribal Values," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1261-1272, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    8. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    10. Rey-Valette, Hélène & Salles, Jean-Michel & Blayac, Thierry, 2024. "Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and Bonds with Nature: The Case of Fish-Farming Ponds in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    11. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Ecosystems in Books: Evaluating the Inspirational Service of the Weser River in Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Martínez de Aragón, Juan & Riera, Pere & Giergiczny, Marek & Colinas, Carlos, 2011. "Value of wild mushroom picking as an environmental service," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 419-424, July.
    13. de Groot, R. & Stuip, M. & Finlayson, Max & Davidson, N., 2006. "Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services," IWMI Research Reports H039735, International Water Management Institute.
    14. Venghaus, Sandra & Selbmann, Kirsten, 2014. "Biofuel as social fuel: Introducing socio-environmental services as a means to reduce global inequity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 84-92.
    15. Cullen, Ross & Takatsuka, Yuki & Wilson, Matthew & Wratten, Steve D., 2004. "Ecosystem Services on New Zealand Arable Farms," 2004 Conference, June 25-26, 2004, Blenheim, New Zealand 97777, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    17. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    20. Breffle, William S. & Muralidharan, Daya & Donovan, Richard P. & Liu, Fangming & Mukherjee, Amlan & Jin, Yongliang, 2013. "Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: A Lake Michigan case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 152-161.

    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:15:y:2022:i:1:p:8-:d:1008584. 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.