IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11964-d1209995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Zhengzhou Urban Parks Based on Public Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Lili Song

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China
    Henan Province Engineering Research Center of Horticultural Plant Resource Utilization and Germplasm Enhancement, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Moyu Wu

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Yingying Wu

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Xiaoyun Xu

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

  • Changfei Xie

    (School of Horticulture Landscape Architecture, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, No. 90 Hualan Road, Hongqi District, Xinxiang 453003, China)

Abstract

Urban parks are the primary green infrastructure for urban residents to pursue psychological restoration, promote health, relax and connect with nature. The various cultural ecosystem services (CES) provided by urban parks directly impact people’s health and well-being. Understanding the correlation between CES provided by urban parks and the different characteristics of specific groups can promote public willingness to engage with the nature and their health and well-being, and the effective information provided by CES can be used to protect and improve specific or traditional areas of parks. This study focuses on two urban parks (People’s Park and Xiliu Lake Park) located in the central urban area of Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China. A questionnaire survey and participatory mapping methods were employed to explore the priority for 10 types of CES among both local residents and visitors, aiming to reveal the public demand for CES in urban parks and provide a basis for the landscape design or renovation of urban parks. The results show that (1) the main purposes for the public visiting the parks are mental relaxation, scenery appreciation, and leisure and fitness. (2) The public has a rich perception of various types of CES in the urban parks, especially in terms of entertainment and aesthetic value. (3) The impact of education level on cultural services was substantial. (4) The trade-offs and synergies of CES of urban parks are complex and diverse. (5) The public’s perception of urban park CES and spatial value tend to be similar, with a wide distribution. Therefore, to maintain urban sustainable development, urban managers and landscape designers should consider different perspectives on CES provided by urban park stakeholders and enhance their CES through landscape design and renovation practices in urban parks, thereby improving the health and well-being of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Lili Song & Moyu Wu & Yingying Wu & Xiaoyun Xu & Changfei Xie, 2023. "Research on the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Zhengzhou Urban Parks Based on Public Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11964-:d:1209995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11964/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11964/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gréta Vrbičanová & Dominika Kaisová & Matej Močko & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly, 2020. "Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Tarja Nieminen & Tuija Martelin & Seppo Koskinen & Hillevi Aro & Erkki Alanen & Markku Hyyppä, 2010. "Social capital as a determinant of self-rated health and psychological well-being," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(6), pages 531-542, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Martin Dallimer & Zoe G. Davies & Katherine N. Irvine & Lorraine Maltby & Philip H. Warren & Kevin J. Gaston & Paul R. Armsworth, 2014. "What Personal and Environmental Factors Determine Frequency of Urban Greenspace Use?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    6. Simone Buratti & Leticia Merino-Pérez, 2023. "Linear Parks as Urban Commons—Considerations from Mexico City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    8. 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).
    9. Nguyet Anh Dang & Rubianca Benavidez & Stephanie Anne Tomscha & Ho Nguyen & Dung Duc Tran & Diep Thi Hong Nguyen & Ho Huu Loc & Bethanna Marie Jackson, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Modelling to Support Nature-Based Flood Water Management in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-28, December.
    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. Yipeng Ge & Shubo Chen & Yueshan Ma & Yitong Wang & Yafei Guo & Qizheng Gan, 2024. "Ecosystem Services and Public Perception of Green Infrastructure from the Perspective of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Luoyang City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-25, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    4. Tongwen Wang & Ya Li & Haidong Li & Shuaijun Chen & Hongkai Li & Yunxing Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Vitality Evaluation of Parks and Squares in Medium-Sized Chinese Cities from the Perspective of Urban Functional Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Melanie Feurer & Andreas Heinimann & Flurina Schneider & Christine Jurt & Win Myint & Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer, 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    7. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2021. "Applying the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Landscape Architecture Design: Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Irvine, Katherine N. & O’Brien, Liz & Ravenscroft, Neil & Cooper, Nigel & Everard, Mark & Fazey, Ioan & Reed, Mark S. & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 184-193.
    9. Hongmi Koo & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2020. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Land-Use Modeling to Assess the Effects of Future Land-Use Strategies in Northern Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Damiano Fiorillo & Giuseppe Lubrano Lavadera & Nunzia Nappo, 2020. "Individual Heterogeneity in the Association Between Social Participation and Self-rated Health: A Panel Study on BHPS," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 645-667, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Zhiyuan Ma & Xuejun Duan & Lei Wang & Yazhu Wang & Jiayu Kang & Ruxian Yun, 2023. "A Scenario Simulation Study on the Impact of Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Carbon Storage in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Timo-Kolja Pförtner & Bart Clercq & Michela Lenzi & Alessio Vieno & Katharina Rathmann & Irene Moor & Anne Hublet & Michal Molcho & Anton Kunst & Matthias Richter, 2015. "Does the association between different dimension of social capital and adolescent smoking vary by socioeconomic status? a pooled cross-national analysis," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 60(8), pages 901-910, December.
    17. Mohamed A. M. Abd Elbasit & Jasper Knight & Gang Liu & Majed M. Abu-Zreig & Rashid Hasaan, 2021. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services in South Africa, 2001–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    18. Zihan Cai & Sidong Zhao & Mengshi Huang & Congguo Zhang, 2023. "Evolution Model, Mechanism, and Performance of Urban Park Green Areas in the Grand Canal of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, December.
    19. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.

    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:2023:i:15:p:11964-:d:1209995. 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.