Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions

Ruxing Wang, Yechen Zhang, Hongmei Zhang and Hu Yu
Additional contact information
Ruxing Wang: College of Tourism and Exhibition, Hefei University, Hefei 230601, China
Yechen Zhang: College of Tourism and Exhibition, Hefei University, Hefei 230601, China
Hongmei Zhang: College of Tourism, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200030, China
Hu Yu: Institute of Geographical Sciences and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 7, 1-16

Abstract: Social values of ecosystem services originate from human perceptions of ecosystem services and are defined as non-market values perceived by ecosystem stakeholders. Although it is widely recognized that the information of social value can provide assistance to stakeholders and decision makers in environmental management, this issue has received far less attention. This article uses the Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) method to analyze the assessment of social values of national park ecosystem services by residents with different environmental values and their relationship with surrounding natural resource conditions. According to the preference of the interviewed residents, it was found that the four most important types of social value are biodiversity value, aesthetic value, economic value, and recreation and wellness value. In terms of spatial distribution, the hot spots of social values show a pattern of “two cores and multiple centers”. The “two cores” are the Gutianshan National Nature Reserve and Qianjiangyuan National Forest Park, which are located at the north and south ends of the national park; the “multiple centers” include Kukeng, Xikeng, Xiachuan, Gaotiankeng villages in Changhong Township and Longkeng Village in the Hetian Township. By analyzing the relationship between the four social value types with higher preference and the resource environment (land use and elevation), the article found that social values are closely related to scenic spots, river water surface, reservoir water surface, forested land, tea plantations, and villages, and that they are mostly distributed in the range of 400 m to 600 m above sea level. The distribution of social values in the ecocentric subgroup is larger, covering almost the entire national park area. The transition of the value index is smoother, while the distribution of social values in the anthropocentric subgroup is relatively concentrated in one area.

Keywords: ecosystem services; QJYNP; PPGIS; social values (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4206/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4206/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4206-:d:785266

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().