IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p2166-d1604009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Environmental Knowledge and Religiosity on Public Preferences for Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Spaces—An Example from China

Author

Listed:
  • Jin Li

    (School of Environment and Geography, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Hai-Li Zhang

    (School of Environment and Geography, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Fanxin Meng

    (School of Environment and Geography, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Wei Wang

    (School of Environment and Geography, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Chen Wang

    (Department of Management, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA)

  • Runzi Wang

    (School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Yinghui Cao

    (School of Tourism and Geography Science, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Mir Muhammad Nizamani

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Marine Disaster Prediction and Prevention, Institute of Marine Sciences, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, China)

  • Zongshan Zhao

    (School of Environment and Geography, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

  • Hui Xue

    (School of Environment and Geography, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China)

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) are key benefits that humans derive from natural ecosystems, including provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. As urbanization accelerates globally, urban green spaces (UGS), increasingly recognized for their role in improving environmental quality and enhancing human well-being, provide essential ES that help mitigate the effects of urbanization. However, the factors influencing public preferences for these services, particularly environmental knowledge and religiosity, remain underexplored. This study seeks to bridge this gap by examining how environmental knowledge and religiosity shape public preferences for ecosystem services, with a particular focus on regulating services (e.g., air quality improvement, carbon sequestration) and cultural services (e.g., outdoor recreation, aesthetic enjoyment). A survey of 1236 respondents conducted in China reveals that both environmental knowledge and religiosity significantly enhance preferences for regulating services, especially in relation to air quality improvement (M = 4.33) and carbon sequestration (M = 4.26). Furthermore, higher education levels correlate with stronger preferences for ecosystem services, and coastal residents exhibit greater preferences for these services compared with inland residents. This study emphasizes that disseminating environmental knowledge through education and religious practices can significantly enhance public awareness of ecosystem services and foster greater support for green infrastructure investments. Policy recommendations include the adoption of targeted communication strategies in urban green space planning to enhance public engagement and support.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin Li & Hai-Li Zhang & Fanxin Meng & Wei Wang & Chen Wang & Runzi Wang & Yinghui Cao & Mir Muhammad Nizamani & Zongshan Zhao & Hui Xue, 2025. "The Influence of Environmental Knowledge and Religiosity on Public Preferences for Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Spaces—An Example from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-25, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2166-:d:1604009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2166/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2166/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Wei & Kato, Edward & Bhandary, Prapti & Nkonya, Ephraim & Ibrahim, Hassan Ishaq & Agbonlahor, Mure & Ibrahim, Hussaini Yusuf & Cox, Cindy, 2016. "Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 150-160.
    2. 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.
    3. Wudong Zhao & Liwei Zhang & Xupu Li & Lixian Peng & Pengtao Wang & Zhuangzhuang Wang & Lei Jiao & Hao Wang, 2022. "Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    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. Christopher Mulwanda & Vincent R. Nyirenda & Ngawo Namukonde, 2024. "Traditional ecological knowledge, perceptions and practices on insect pollinator conservation: A case of the smallholder farmers in Murundu ward of Mufulira mining district of Zambia," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 24-35, March.
    2. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    3. Wilhelm, Jennifer A. & Smith, Richard G. & Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Hurley, Stephanie, 2020. "Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    4. Mariana Cernicova-Buca & Vasile Gherheș & Ciprian Obrad, 2023. "Residents’ Satisfaction with Green Spaces and Daily Life in Small Urban Settings: Romanian Perspectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Qinqin Shi & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Tianwei Geng & Hang Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Spatial Imbalance in the Supply and Demand of Cultural Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Eleanor K.K. Jew & Oliver J. Burdekin & Andrew J. Dougill & Susannah M. Sallu, 2019. "Rapid land use change threatens provisioning ecosystem services in miombo woodlands," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 56-70, February.
    7. Jaewon Han & Sugie Lee, 2023. "Verification of Immersive Virtual Reality as a Streetscape Evaluation Method in Urban Residential Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Baraka P. Nyangoko & Håkan Berg & Mwita M. Mangora & Martin Gullström & Mwanahija S. Shalli, 2020. "Community Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and Their Determinants in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. He, Siyuan & Gallagher, Louise & Su, Yang & Wang, Lei & Cheng, Hongguang, 2018. "Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: A case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 169-180.
    10. Dalton Erick Baltazar & Jillian Labadz & Roy Smith & Andrew Telford & Marcello Di Bonito, 2022. "Socio-Cultural Valuation of Urban Parks: The Case of Jose Rizal Plaza in Calamba City, The Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Simon Lhoest & Cédric Vermeulen & Adeline Fayolle & Pierre Jamar & Samuel Hette & Arielle Nkodo & Kevin Maréchal & Marc Dufrêne & Patrick Meyfroidt, 2020. "Quantifying the Use of Forest Ecosystem Services by Local Populations in Southeastern Cameroon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Ryohei Ogawa & Ye Zhang & Vouchlay Theng & Zhongyu Guo & Manna Wang & Chihiro Yoshimura, 2023. "Capacity Assessment of Urban Green Space for Mitigating Combined Sewer Overflows in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, April.
    13. Lima, Flávia Pereira & Bastos, Rogério Pereira, 2019. "Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    14. Maria Vitória Ribeiro Gomes & Aline Pires Veról, 2024. "Assessing Public Perceptions of Blue–Green Infrastructure in Urban Watersheds: A Case Study of Acari River, Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-32, November.
    15. Xiangzi Fang & Samane Ghazali & Hossein Azadi & Rytis Skominas & Jürgen Scheffran, 2024. "Agricultural land conversion and ecosystem services loss: a meta-analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 23215-23243, September.
    16. Madu, Christian N. & Kuei, Chu-hua, 2019. "Modeling landscape sustainability in the oil producing Niger delta area of Nigeria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    17. Mengist, Wondimagegn & Soromessa, Teshome & Feyisa, Gudina Legese & Jenerette, G. Darrel, 2022. "Socio-environmental determinants of the perceived value of moist Afromontane forest ecosystem services in Kaffa Biosphere Reserve, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    18. Wang, Zhifang & Fu, Hongpeng & Jian, Yuqing & Qureshi, Salman & Jie, Hua & Wang, Lu, 2022. "On the comparative use of social media data and survey data in prioritizing ecosystem services for cost-effective governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    19. Hongbin Liu & Xiaojuan Luo, 2018. "Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Behaviors towards Farmland Quality Change in Northeast China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Imane Mahjoubi & Lisa Bossenbroek & Elisabeth Berger & Oliver Frör, 2022. "Analyzing Stakeholder Perceptions of Water Ecosystem Services to Enhance Resilience in the Middle Drâa Valley, Southern Morocco," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.

    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:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2166-:d:1604009. 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.