Next Article in Journal
Effects of Enclosure Succession on the Morphological Characteristics and Nutrient Content of a Bamboo Whip System in a Moso Bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) Forest on Wuyi Mountain, China
Previous Article in Journal
The Restorative Potential of Green Cultural Heritage: Exploring Cultural Ecosystem Services’ Impact on Stress Reduction and Attention Restoration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/f14112192
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Value of Urban Green Space Based on Visitors’ Perceptions: The Case of the Summer Palace, Beijing, China

by
Ruoyi Huang
1,
Yunxi Liu
2,
Shu Liang
3,
Jiayi Si
1,
Shuyi Di
4,
Mengmeng Cai
5,
Shuang Hu
6,
Chunxu Hao
7,* and
Zheng Zhao
6,*
1
School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2
College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
3
Institute of Western China Economic Research, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China
4
Sino-Danish College, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China
5
College of Information Technology, Shanghai Jian Qiao University, Shanghai 201306, China
6
School of Tourism, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
7
Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(11), 2192; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14112192
Submission received: 19 August 2023 / Revised: 27 October 2023 / Accepted: 30 October 2023 / Published: 3 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Forestry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban green spaces play a key role in constructing an ecological civilization in China. In this context, the realization and assessment of the social value of urban green spaces have received increasing attention. Taking the visitors of the Summer Palace in Beijing as the research object, this study used the public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) to collect research data, assess the social value of ecosystem services in the Summer Palace, and determine its spatial distribution. By examining the social value of urban green spaces, this study explored the relationship between the spatial distribution of ecosystem social value and environmental landscape features. The influence of different environmental values on the spatial distribution of the visitors’ perceived social value was also investigated to provide a decision-making basis for the planning and management of urban ecological spaces and the supply and protection of urban ecological products. This study found that cultural, historical, and aesthetic values were preferred by an increasing number of visitors. The hotspots of social value in the Summer Palace of Beijing have three cores and multiple centers. By analyzing the relationship between the three value types with higher preference and the environmental landscape features of the Summer Palace, this study found that the distribution of social values is closely related to the architectural complexes and waters. Anthropocentrists have smaller sample sizes and generally lower social value indices within the sample group, and ecocentrists have higher perceptions of overall social values.

1. Introduction

During the “14th Five-Year Plan” period in China, ecological civilization and urban environment construction entered a new stage of development. To build a modern society in which humans and nature coexist harmoniously, the protection of the urban ecological environment and ecological interests of residents need to be placed in a more prominent strategic position. Urban ecological protection is an important part of the promotion of urban ecological civilization, and urban green space is an important carrier for realizing the value of ecological products. The Opinions on Establishing a Sound Mechanism for Realizing the Value of Ecological Products [1] highlights that the functional attributes of different ecosystem types should be considered. Different paths for realizing the value of ecological products should be explored to build a value evaluation system for ecological products in administrative regions and specific geographical units.
The social value of ecosystem services can be defined as the assigned value of the ecological domain, expressed as visitors’ value preferences based on specific locations [2]. The pressure on ecosystems caused by human activities increases daily, and the importance of incorporating social values into ecological valuation systems is becoming increasingly prominent [3]. Researchers worldwide have focused strongly on the social valuation of ecosystems [4,5], pioneering new ideas for ecosystem service valuation and achieving the effective application of the ecological value of urban green spaces [6]. For decision makers, the assessment of sociocultural and intrinsic values beyond the economic value of ecosystems can more effectively capture the perceived value of ecosystem services. With the increasing demand for urban ecology, scientifically defining the social value of urban green space ecosystem services and using spatial analysis techniques based on visitors’ perceptions can provide a basis for decision making in urban ecological spatial planning and management, and the supply and protection of urban ecological products.
Summarizing the relevant studies on ecosystem value assessment shows that the PPGIS (Public Participation GIS) method provides a highly efficient and participatory method of public ecological evaluation and environmental decision making. Zhu et al. proposed a landscape service indicator system for Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve using PPGIS [7], combining the analysis of natural resources of Jiuzhaigou and semi-structured interview data from landscape service users. Zafar et al. used this method to explore forest cover and land use in the wildlife sanctuaries of southern Bangladesh [8]. This has provided a basis for decision makers to mitigate the conflict between people and land and to further implement forest protection measures and land policies. Rice et al. [9] prioritized areas for recreational ecosystem service management by analyzing spatial participatory mapping data to identify the impacts and causes of the degradation of ecological resources and visitor experiences in national parks in the western United States. This methodology has been effectively used in regional SLM strategy studies in Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands (Bryan, et al., 2010; Plieninger et al., 2013; Rachel and Zoë, 2015) [10,11,12]. To date, PPGIS evaluation studies have predominantly been concentrated in North America, Europe, and Australia, with relatively few studies being conducted in China [13]. The research object is dominated by patchy regional scales. These methods are still mostly used in agricultural and natural reserve ecosystems, with relatively few studies having been conducted in green spaces at the urban regional scale [14,15]. Therefore, this study used PPGIS to explore the non-monetary social value assessment method of urban green space ecosystem services, combined with data obtained from empirical research. The spatial distribution of social value in different landscape types and its application were explored in the context of regional priority protection and planning management. It has been proven that the PPGIS method can relatively efficiently and accurately obtain first-hand data related to space. At the same time, research has shown that respondents can point out the approximate geographical locations of various survey elements on color maps, indicating that PPGIS can also serve as an interactive tool to raise people’s awareness, promote information exchange, and effectively involve relevant personnel in the decision-making process. The PPGIS method selected in this study is feasible.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Theoretical Analysis

2.1.1. Definition and Classification of the Social Value of Ecosystem Services

Psychosocial and cultural studies have highlighted that values should be regarded as psychological and cultural concepts related to human perception. People’s perceptions of the values attached to things constitute their assigned values. These are generally expressed as their perceptions of the quality of the environment that provides them with material and non-material benefits, which usually include a wide range of products, activities, and services [16]. Therefore, the social value of ecosystem services is derived from people’s perception of ecosystem services in their daily lives and social activities and can be defined as non-market values, such as recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual, that ecosystem stakeholders derive from their personal perceptions of the environment. This is a reflection of individually assigned values in the ecological domain [17]. Various classification systems and methods have been used to assess human-assigned values [18,19]. Among these, the 12 assigned values proposed by Brown and Reed have been emulated and improved by other researchers with the development of ecosystem valuation studies [20,21,22]. We used a similar value classification framework to explore 12 social value types of urban green spaces (Table 1).

2.1.2. Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Spaces

The link between ecosystem functioning and human well-being is strengthened by ecosystem services in an effective way [23]. Urban green space ecosystems provide a variety of material and non-material services to humans [24]. Compared to ecological services such as provisioning, regulating and supporting, and cultural services (CESs), ecosystem services are more easily perceived and experienced by people directly, and play an important role in increasing human well-being [11,25]. They are the most important way to realize the social value of ecosystems. However, cultural services are intangible, and their social values, such as recreation, cannot be reflected in the market economy [26]. The traditional economic valuation of ecosystem services fails to capture the value perceived by ecosystem stakeholders. This can lead to neglecting the value of the psychological well-being derived from an individual’s relationship with nature [27]. For managers, the link between social information and ecosystem change should be valued more highly, including indirect drivers of ecosystem change such as demographic and cultural factors [28]. Simply estimating the total value of ecosystem services predominantly excludes the spatial aspects of value distribution, that is, the uneven distribution of service values inherent to the spatial heterogeneity of the ecosystem structure [29,30]. Traditional ecosystem service valuation methods, such as the opportunity cost method and travelling cost method (TCM), are based on the estimation of monetized values [31,32]. These are time-consuming and highly variable, and it is difficult to reflect the spatial distribution trend of ecosystem services [33]. Therefore, they are difficult to apply to practical planning and management.
With the rapid development of the Internet and advancement of RS and GIS technologies, an increasing number of domestic and international researchers have chosen to value ecosystem services using non-monetized methods. This has included the survey preference method [12], social media photo method [34], and public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) method [20]. The PPGIS method makes full use of accurate spatial information and provides an effective way to rapidly assess the value of ecosystem cultural services and identify priority conservation areas [35]. This method uses paper or electronic maps generated using GIS technology as the base medium. Participants can directly indicate the non-monetary value of ecosystem cultural services in the corresponding area on the map [22,36], that is, the social value of ecosystem services. For example, the assignment of spiritual value indicates that the respondent received a mentally relaxing or inspirational experience brought about by the ecological services and related places at the location. The use of visual geographic tools in the PPGIS has provided a key information platform for visualizing ecosystem social values and integrating ecological valuation with spatial analysis. This is conducive to increasing citizen participation in ecological governance and determining the regional management and protection of ecosystem services and prioritization of ecosystem service areas.

2.2. Research Hypothesis

2.2.1. Environmental Landscape Features and Social Value Distribution

Environmental landscapes can provide a variety of social values such as aesthetic, recreational, and cultural values. However, people may perceive different types of value from the same landscape differently. The ecosystem value assessment study by Ridding et al. [37] suggests that recreational, aesthetic, and learning values are the most widely distributed and publicly perceived types of social value in the southern Wiltshire region of England. The main reason for this is that beautiful regional landscapes are directly accessible and often strongly associated with more intact ecosystem functions and natural activity processes. This then enables the co-promotion of ecotourism, outdoor sports, and social interactions through multiple ecosystem social value types [37,38]. Greg and Lars [18] found that at the regional scale, the public generally associates specific types of values with specific landscape components and landscape features, such as the visibility range, degree of water accessibility, and vegetation cover. These are correlated with human perceptions of and access to ecosystem cultural service values, with water-accessible areas being perceived as bringing more spiritual and inspirational enjoyment. Laura et al. and Lorena et al. constructed visibility range measures to further quantify the aesthetic appeal of landscapes to people [38,39] and their attraction [39,40]. This showed that the wider the environmental horizon, the higher the value of the cultural services they can provide within a certain regional scale.
In addition to supporting people’s positive well-being, the natural activity processes of ecosystems and environmental landscape features may also have negative impacts. One study found that green areas with high levels of constriction were often considered unsafe, particularly for women in this type of environment at night [41]. People are prone to feeling insecure in areas with high canopy cover and constriction [42]. The height of the plants blocking this view is one of the main reasons for this insecurity.
The hypothesis of this study suggests that the distribution of social value types is related to environmental and landscape features. Differences in landscape features can significantly affect people’s perception of ecosystem social value. In the management and construction of urban green spaces, strategic changes in environmental and landscape characteristics are scientific methods to enhance the public’s ecological experience, which is conducive to promoting the full play of ecosystem social values.

2.2.2. Individual Environmental Values and Perceived Social Values

Antecedent variables of behavior, such as value orientations, worldviews, and beliefs, can help explain the formation of value assessments and highlight the complexity of human environmental behavior [20]. Multiple types of values, especially those held by individuals over time, such as environmental values, can influence behavioral processes and potentially impact management activities [17]. The influence of values on farmers’ pro-environmental behavior is currently the focus of academic attention. Researchers have mainly studied this from the perspectives of individual motivation [43], behavioral intention [44], environmental knowledge, and environmental values [45]. More farmers possess correct ecological values and positive attitudes towards environmental protection. The more they can mobilize their own pro-environmental subjective initiative, the more likely they are to implement pro-environmental behaviors.
However, most related studies have only emphasized the role of individual values in environmental behavioral decisions, and, to date, relatively few studies have combined individual values with ecosystem valuation. The social services provided by ecosystems, such as aesthetic recreation and fitness, are mostly based on individuals’ subjective experiences and feelings [46]. This also largely depends on stakeholders’ subjective attitudes [47], which are highly susceptible to the influence of their subjective value judgements. According to social cognitive theory [48], individual values are a prerequisite for an individual to adopt a certain behavior and are an intrinsic motivation to adopt that behavior [49]. By extension, individual values are likely to influence an individual’s environmental behavior by influencing their perception of the value of ecosystem services. In urban green space ecosystems, from the same value type in the same landscape to different value types in different landscapes, there may be differences in the degree of perception of different environmental value holders. Their attitudinal feedback on ecosystem management measures and corresponding environmental behaviors may also differ.
In summary, this study hypothesized that the distribution of social value types is related to individual environmental values and that differences in environmental values significantly affect people’s perceptions of ecosystem social values. The perception and assessment of ecosystem service values by different groups of people jointly influence the value realization and management construction of ecosystems. Introducing individual values into the study of ecosystem value evaluation helps establish a bridge between ecology, sociology, and psychology. Meanwhile, it is also an important condition for scientifically defining and evaluating ecosystem social values and providing accurate social information for decision making related to the management of urban green spaces.

3. Research Design

3.1. Study Area

Located in the western suburbs of Beijing, the Summer Palace is a royal garden of the Qing Dynasty in China. It is a large landscape garden built situated on Kunming Lake and Longevity Hill, and West Lake in Hangzhou. It draws on the design techniques of the Jiangnan gardens and is one of the best-preserved royal palaces and imperial gardens. Therefore, it is regarded as the “Museum of the Royal Gardens”. The entire garden covers an area of 3.009 km2, of which the water surface accounts for approximately three quarters of the area. It encompasses a variety of habitats and rich landscape types, which mainly consist of forests, open forests, waters, and architectural complexes (Figure 1). The total number of annual visitors exceeds 15 million. It is one of the most important places in Beijing for the public to come into contact with nature and experience the ecosystem services of urban green spaces.
Furthermore, it should be noted that as an ancient city with a history of over 3000 years, most of Beijing’s parks are mainly royal gardens and historical parks, and the Summer Palace is no different. Moreover, after years of war and transformation, the current Summer Palace is not particularly unique. For Beijing, it is an ordinary urban park. Unlike iconic parks such as the Forbidden City and the Temple of Heaven, the current Summer Palace serves more of a social service function. This function originates from the natural attributes of the park, but more importantly, social value needs to be measured from the perspective of user benefits.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

The research questionnaire consisted of four parts: (1) basic personal information, (2) environmental value orientation scale, (3) social value assessment scale, and (4) the Summer Palace range map. Basic personal information included sex, age, education, and place of origin. According to the environmental value orientation scale (Table 2) [50,51], respondents were divided into two subgroups with different environmental values, that is, the ecocentric (living in harmony with the environment) and anthropocentric (controlling nature) value orientation groups. Based on the social value assessment scale (Table 1) [21], respondents were asked to allocate $100 to 12 social values according to their personal attitudes and preferences and mark the locations or areas that best represented these values on the Summer Palace range map (Figure 2). Considering that ecosystems may experience some loss or damage while supporting human well-being, three services in urban ecosystems that negatively affect human well-being were included in this study (Table 3) [52,53].

3.3. Data Acquisition and Processing

3.3.1. Survey Data

This study conducted a questionnaire survey on the social value of urban green space ecosystem services from 10–18 July 2021, using the Summer Palace in Beijing as the survey area. Visitors to the garden were randomly selected as survey respondents. A total of 260 questionnaires were distributed in the study and 260 were recovered. After discounting questionnaires with more than 10% missing values, 237 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective rate of 91%. The study collected 2080 social value points identified by the interviewed visitors and 57 negative service function points.
Furthermore, it should be noted that as of the end of 2021, the total floating population in Beijing has reached 12 million, accounting for 42.4% of the total population of Beijing. There is no difference in terms of life, work, or other aspects between this population and local residents in Beijing, except that one party has a Beijing household registration, while the other party does not. Therefore, it is unrealistic to distinguish between local residents and visitors in terms of park use. The “visitors” we define actually refer to all users of the park. This is also a research design that combines the actual population composition of Beijing.

3.3.2. Spatial Data

ArcGIS tools were used to vectorize the screen tracking. We vectorized the original map of the Summer Palace and converted it into surface elements, classified and reclassified the land of different landscape types in the park according to land type, vegetation cover, and forest constriction, and established the initial vector map of the Summer Palace (Figure 1). New line and point elements were created to map the distribution of roads in the park and determine the location of each observation site. Based on the vector map, the data for each value type obtained from field research were entered into the observation points to form the spatial data source for data analysis and visualization.

3.3.3. Analysis Methods

(1) Statistical analysis of the data from the 237 valid questionnaires was performed using SPSS 20.0 software to determine the demographics of the respondents. The frequencies of various types of social values and negative services were assigned by the respondents for different landscape areas.
(2) Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated using SPSS software to determine the correlation between different types of social values.
(3) ArcGIS 10.8 software was used to normalize the social value data assigned by the visitors interviewed in the Summer Palace to obtain the value index (VI). The highest value index among the twelve types of social values and the three types of negative services was the maximum value index (M-VI) of the type. The result of M-VI indicates the degree of the importance of various value types. The larger its value, the higher the social value index.
(4) Using the built-in ArcToolbox spatial analysis tool of ArcGIS 10.8, we performed a kernel density analysis on the 2080 social value points collected, obtained the spatial distribution density of social value perception points, and generated a visual representation of the hotspot areas of social value of ecosystem services in the Summer Palace.
(5) Using ArcGIS 10.8 software, spatial analysis, and hierarchical mapping using the Maximum Entropy Maxent statistical model, we conducted social value analyses of different landscape type areas in the Summer Palace and generated maps of the spatial heterogeneity distribution status of each social value type and its relationship with environmental landscape features.
(6) The ecocentric and anthropocentric samples were grouped to compare the effects of different environmental values on the spatial heterogeneity distribution of each social value type in the Summer Palace.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Attributes of Social Value Users of Ecosystems in the Summer Palace

There were more men (58.9%) than women (41.1%) among the interviewees (Table 4). In terms of age structure, the interviewees were predominantly young. The number of people aged 18 years and below accounted for 9.4%, the largest number of people aged 19–30 accounted for 46.9%, the number of people aged 31–45 accounted for 23.4%, the number of people aged 46–60 accounted for 13.5%, and the number of people aged 60 and above accounted for 5.7%. The respondents were generally well-educated, with 79.2% of them having a college degree or above. In terms of place of origin, less than a quarter of the respondents came from Beijing (23.5%), while most of the respondents were visitors from other provinces and cities (76.5%). Overall, the respondents showed a more prominent tendency towards ecocentrism (Table 5).

4.2. Relationships between Social Values and Negative Services of Ecosystems and Landscape Types

The social value of ecosystem services varied with the landscape type (Table 6). Among the four main landscape types and waterfront areas–architectural complexes, water, forests, and open forests—cultural value (37.5%) and historical value (30.6%) were mainly distributed in the architectural complexes. Meanwhile, aesthetic value (35.7%) and recreational value (30.2%) were mainly distributed in the waterfront areas. Waters were the areas with the highest frequency of distribution of biodiversity value (45.5%), life support value (36%), and healing value (29.9%), with the highest frequency of distribution in the waterfront areas (28.6%). Meanwhile, future value (26.8%), learning value (29.9%), and intrinsic value (23.2%) were all distributed with the highest frequency in the architectural complexes.
From the perspective of different landscape types, the highest distribution rate in architectural complexes was for cultural value (37.5%), the highest distribution rate in both water and open forests was for biodiversity value (45.5% and 30.1%, respectively), the highest distribution rate in forests was for learning value (26.4%), and the highest distribution rate in waterfront areas was for aesthetic value (35.7%). Architectural complexes and waterfront areas were also the main areas where visitors perceived negative services. This may be related to factors such as the aggregation of the distribution of people in the park, the setting of fallout protection, and security measures.

4.3. Correlation Analysis of Social Values and Negative Services of Ecosystems in the Summer Palace

There were some correlations between different social values (Table 7). Aesthetic (0.687), biodiversity (0.498), economic (0.573), and healing (0.787) values all showed a significant positive correlation with recreational values. Of these, the aesthetic value, in turn, showed a significant positive correlation with the economic (0.561) and healing (0.528) values. The values of life support (0.516), and healing (0.389), and their combination (0.516) were all positively correlated with biodiversity values. Meanwhile, cultural, learning, and historic values showed a two-by-two significant positive correlation. Economic and intrinsic values were the most positively correlated types of values (0.643) with each other. Cultural (0.513) and historical (0.570) values were both significantly positively correlated with noise and negative services, combining the frequency of social values and negative services distributed across different landscape types. Architectural complexes were high-frequency areas for the distribution of cultural and historical values. Meanwhile, these were the areas where visitors’ perceptions of noise were the most concentrated. Considering attractions that bear high passenger flow per unit area and crowd concentration, visitors will likely be affected by the noise of dense crowds while appreciating their cultural and historical values.

4.4. Degree of Preference for Social Values of in the Summer Palace

Respondents assigned a variety of social values to ecosystem services in the Summer Palace, and the degree of preference varied greatly among different social value types (Table 8). Among them, cultural, historical, and aesthetic values were preferred by respondents, with 424, 386, and 347 value points, respectively. Cultural values were the most preferred, with a value index of 10. Respondents’ perceptions of the various types of negative services were overall lower and did not show any feelings of insecurity, excessive noise, or unpleasantness; that is, they were less affected by the ecosystem’s negative services. The number of value points assigned to each category by interviewed visitors and the social value index obtained by normalization showed that the preference for each category of social value was in the following order: cultural value > historical value > aesthetic value > recreational value > biodiversity value > economic value > spiritual value > learning value > life support value > healing value > future value > intrinsic value. In this study, the three social values, that is, cultural value, historical value, and aesthetic value, with the highest degree of preference by the interviewed visitors were selected for a more in-depth exploration and analysis.

4.5. Spatial Distribution of Social Value Points in the Summer Palace

The hotspots of social value of the Summer Palace are characterized by three cores and many centers (Figure 3). The three core hotspots are located in the areas of Clear and Peaceful Boats and the Long Corridor, the Hall of Dispelling Clouds and Tower of the Fragrance of the Buddha, and Kunming Lake. The Clear and Peaceful Boats and the Long Corridor are located at the south foot of Longevity Hill, near the north shore of Kunming Lake. This is the historical attraction of “leaning against the mountain and facing the water” in the architectural landscape group of the Summer Palace. Of these, the Long Corridor is a well-known representative of the traditional cultural attractions of the Summer Palace and the longest promenade in the Chinese gardens. The Hall of Dispelling Clouds, named after the “cloudy fairy mountain pavilion”, is located in the center of the landscape complex in front of Longevity Hill. This group of buildings is also the most spectacular architectural group in the Summer Palace. The Tower of the Fragrance of the Buddha is the most iconic building of the Summer Palace, the best form of ancient Chinese architecture, and represents high cultural and artistic value. Kunming Lake, north of Longevity Hill and south of the plains, is the largest lake in the Qing Dynasty Royal Gardens. It was the only source of surface water in Beijing before the completion of Yongding River Diversion Canal project, as well as the main storage reservoir of the Beijing–Miami Diversion Canal, and is known as the “lifeblood of the city of Beijing”. Therefore, the ecological value of the service is relatively high. Several hotspots are located in the northern waterfront and forested area of the Summer Palace, that is, the northeastern complex, the eastern waterfront area near Suzhou Street, the Glazed Pagoda with Many Treasures, the Hall of Utmost Blessing, the Garden of Harmonious Pleasures, the Garden of Virtue and Harmony, the Seventeen-Arch Bridge, and other representative attractions.

4.6. Relationships between Spatial Distribution of Social Values and Landscape Type in the Summer Palace

Using the Maximum Entropy Maxent statistical model for spatial analysis and hierarchical mapping, spatial distribution maps of cultural, historical, and aesthetic values in the Summer Palace were obtained (Figure 4) as well as their relationship maps with environmental landscape features (Figure 5). As shown in Figure 4, cultural value showed a trend of uniform distribution in the Summer Palace, the whole of which had a medium–high value index. Most had a high value index, indicating that the interviewed visitors had a high level of recognition of the cultural value of the Summer Palace and that they believed there was high artistic and cultural value distributed throughout the entire area of the park. The highest value indices of cultural values appear in the northern part of the Summer Palace in a patchy distribution, and in the southern and southwestern parts of the Summer Palace in a blocky distribution. Historical values were highly similar to cultural values in terms of visitor preference and spatial distribution in the Summer Palace. The largest difference was that historical values were distributed near the edges of the park with a lower value index than cultural values, as shown by the striped distribution in the east, south, and southwest, and the fragmented block distribution in the north. The distributions of the high-value and low-value aesthetic indexes in the Summer Palace were clearly separated, and the difference in values was relatively large. The spatial distribution of the high-value index in the Summer Palace was quite extensive, covering almost the entire park. This indicates that the interviewed visitors recognized the overall aesthetic value of the Summer Palace to a high degree and believed there was high ornamental value distributed throughout the park.
As shown in Figure 5, the relationship between the three social values and the environmental landscape types of the Summer Palace was relatively close, with fluctuations in the social value index between different landscape types. Cultural value was the value type that was least affected by landscape type, and its value index was higher in all types of landscapes with less fluctuation in value. The cultural value index reached the maximum in architectural complexes and forests, followed by open forests and waterfronts, and the perceived value in the water landscape was lower. Historical value was relatively less affected by landscape type. The value index fluctuated to a similar extent as cultural value, showing a higher value perception in the architectural complex, forest, and waterfront. Meanwhile, the historical value index decreased to the lowest point in the water landscape. Aesthetic value was most affected by landscape type, with a maximum fluctuation difference of six in the value index. This jointly reached a maximum in the water, open forest, and waterfront landscape types, followed by a substantial decrease in the forest landscape, and again in the architectural complex.

4.7. Influence of Environmental Values on the Spatial Distribution of Social Values Perceived by Visitors in the Summer Palace

Individuals’ environmental values affect the distribution of the social values of ecosystem services (Figure 6). Understanding the preferences of people with different values can provide guidance for the management and construction of urban green spaces and sustainable development. Figure 6 and Table 6 show that (1) anthropocentrists accounted for a relatively small sample size and had a generally low value index, which was less than 5, except for aesthetic value. Ecocentrists had a higher perception of overall social value, and the social value index of their sample group was generally higher. (2) Regarding cultural values, the two subgroups exhibited a certain difference, with value indices of 10 and 5. For the ecocentrism subgroup, the cultural values had medium–high value indices and were evenly distributed within the park, with the highest perceived values around the northern and northeastern architectural complexes. For the anthropocentricity subgroup, the distribution of value indexes was also more even, with medium–low value indices almost covering the entire park. The highest value indices for both subgroups were found in the architectural complex areas. (3) Regarding historical values, the differences in environmental values seemed to have a greater impact on visitors’ value perceptions, with the ecocentric subgroup having a higher value index overall. Meanwhile, the anthropocentric subgroup represented a significantly lower perception of historical values, with low and medium value indices encompassing the entire park. This significant difference was also influenced by the smaller anthropocentric sample size. (4) With regard to aesthetic value, the value indices for both the ecocentric and anthropocentric subgroups were relatively high, with the highest value occurring among anthropocentrists. This showed that respondents of both subgroups expressed a high degree of preference for and recognition of the aesthetic value of the Summer Palace. However, in the northern architectural complex and forest landscape region, the two subgroups showed a clear difference in their perception of aesthetic value. The ecocentric subgroup perceived the aesthetic value index to be close to the lowest in the region. Meanwhile, the anthropocentric subgroup perceived the region to have the highest aesthetic value, with a value index as high as nine points. (5) With the exception of culture, history, and aesthetics, which were the three value types with more salient data results, the value indices for the other social value types were generally low and the difference in values was small. The value indices of the ecocentric and anthropocentric subgroups had a relatively close intra-group distribution and were both similar to those of the total sample group.

5. Discussion and Insights

The spatial distribution of the value perception of the interviewed visitors was relatively concentrated. The social value points were distributed as “three cores”. In Figure 3, the distribution of the “three cores” is very close, in which the “two cores” near the north and with buildings as the main landscape type even almost connect into a “core zone”. The “three cores” were mainly located in the areas around the Clear and Peaceful Boats and the Long Corridor, the Hall of Dispelling Clouds, the Tower of the Fragrance of the Buddha, and Kunming Lake. These are the most representative scenic spots within the Summer Palace, belonging to the landmark level landscape. The distribution of the social value points is likely related to the popularity of attractions at the Summer Palace. In a larger area, it is difficult for visitors to complete an all-encompassing tour and accurately allocate relevant values in a short time, and often they can only choose their focus. These three core hotspots either have high ornamental value because of their culture and artistry or are convenient for rest because of their pleasant scenery, making them the most impressive places for visitors. Therefore, for the Summer Palace, managers should give priority to the order management and facility maintenance in the “three cores” area of the park.
This study also provides a reference for the management and construction of other green spaces in urban areas. That is to say, there are three principles worth noting in the design of urban green space: (1) When building landscape architecture, it can adopt a high-concentration “architectural complex” design scheme and pursue the artistic and symbolic appearance of the architectural complex with the goal of creating a “beautiful landmark”; (2) Considering that the distribution space of the “three cores” of the Summer Palace contains a variety of landscapes such as an architectural complex, forests, waterfront areas, and waters, it is recommended to adopt diversified landscape types or landscape elements in the combination; (3) The architectural design should have both public rest or entertainment functions—the corridor area in the “three cores” is the perfect scenic spot: the whole corridor of more than 700 m is equipped with benches, and each beam is painted with exquisite color paintings, providing a large number of visitors with a public space to rest and enjoy viewing activities. In addition, Kunming Lake in the “three cores” is the most concentrated area for recreational activities such as cruise ships and photography. In this way, creating a “core area” that integrates culture, aesthetics, and leisure and entertainment values has a very good effect on attracting visitors, and it can also significantly achieve the perception conditions of visitors for relevant value types.
The interviewed visitors showed strong attitudinal preferences towards the cultural, historical, and aesthetic values of the Summer Palace in Beijing, reflecting its important characteristics as an urban green space. As a cultural monument famous both in China and abroad, which was carefully constructed by the emperors over several generations, its garden style demonstrates a highly artistic and aesthetic value. Compared with other naturally occurring protected areas, the Summer Palace has substantial traces of artificial sculpture, showing a strong humanistic character, and visitors have a stronger sense of identification with its cultural, historical, and aesthetic values.
By further corresponding the three types of values to the landscape types in their spatial distribution, it can be found that the cultural and historical value index (9) of architectural complex landscape and forests is very high. From the perspective of landscape architecture and tourism management, the reason why visitors have such a deep perception of the cultural and historical value of forests is actually related to the forest species, ancient and famous trees, and their historical stories. Pinales in the Summer Palace play a role in dividing the space, making the tour route tortuous, narrow, and deep, which is the key to creating a historical atmosphere that is repeated and attractive. It can be seen that if we want to create an urban green space with historical and cultural atmosphere, we not only need to integrate characteristic elements in architectural design, but also need to pay attention to the selection of tree species and their planting and distribution. The value index (9) of aesthetic value in the water area, waterfront area, and open forest landscape area was much higher than that of the architectural complex landscape (3), which indicates that the shaping of the natural landscape type deserves great attention in the aesthetic construction of urban green space. The aesthetic value expression effect of delicate forest and water landscape may even be better than that of the architectural complex landscape with a certain scale. In addition, the value index (9) of the open forest area was significantly higher than that of the forest area (3) belonging to the same forest landscape. It can be seen that in addition to the sense of security [41,42], the canopy density of the green area also has an impact on the social value perception of the ecosystem of visitors, which is reflected in the lower aesthetic value perceived by visitors in the area with higher canopy coverage and canopy density. To sum up, in the planning and design of urban green space, the social value of the urban green space ecosystem can be better realized only by considering the combination of natural landscape and human landscape, and paying attention to the beauty and mutual benefit of landscape architecture and garden structure in green space.
Compared with other studies, the perceived intrinsic value and preference for urban green space in this study was significantly lower than that predicted at the beginning of the study. This may be attributed to the Summer Palace being located in the inner part of the “metropolis” of Beijing. This mainly serves the high-density urban population. As a nationally and world-renowned historical attraction, it carries a substantial amount of traffic throughout the year; therefore, it has a high maintenance cost attached. Most of the visitors interviewed believed that the fulfilment of the social value of this urban green space would be severely affected without manual maintenance. The study found that the future value of the ecosystem services of the Summer Palace was relatively low, reflecting that most visitors had some concerns about the maintenance of scenic park types of urban green spaces. The ecological environment of some of the urban green spaces may be more affected by changes in natural conditions and the intensity of human activities.
Through the survey of visitors’ individual environmental values, the concept of ecological civilization becoming increasingly popular, most of the interviewees showed the value tendency of “living in harmony with nature”, that is, ecocentrism. However, there was also a small group of respondents who held the value of “controlling nature”, namely, anthropocentrism. This suggests that there is still a need to continue to strengthen the promotion of ecological civilization. Consideration should be given to the promotion of relevant policies and knowledge in different regional locations for different groups of environmental value groups. The interviewed visitors generally reported unpleasant experiences because of the high noise levels near architectural complexes and waterfront areas. This suggests that the issue of controlling and diverting the flow of people in urban green spaces during the peak tourist season deserves attention. It is worth noting that both cultural and historical values were significantly positively correlated with noise and negative services (Table 7). Architectural complexes are high-frequency areas of cultural value and historical value distribution, and they are also the areas with the highest concentration of tourists’ perception of noise. Since most of the architectural complexes of scenic spots in the Summer Palace bear a high unit area of passenger flow, it is likely that tourists will be affected by crowd noise while appreciating its cultural and historical value.
Compared with nature reserves at the regional scale, such as national parks and natural parks, small changes in the environment and landscape of urban green spaces can make a substantial difference in social value. Therefore, it is necessary to put forward a quantitative assessment program of the social value of ecosystem services for urban green spaces to form a more strategic system of multiple evaluation indices, which can more effectively guide the application of ecological assessment research results in the management of urban green spaces. Meanwhile, it is possible to test the validity and generalizability of different evaluation methods for social value assessment using various spatial and ecological indicators on a wider scale, and to establish appropriate thresholds according to the specific types and scale characteristics of urban green spaces. In addition, this study did not quantitatively analyze landscape characteristics, but only conducted a descriptive analysis. Therefore, the conclusions have certain limitations. Further quantitative analyses of the correlations between landscape characteristic indicators and social value, and the introduction of landscape architecture, tourism management, and other related disciplines into the study of social value of urban green space are important for future research.

6. Conclusions

Based on previous studies [18,20,21], this study considered visitors to the Summer Palace in Beijing as the research object and used the public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) method to collect research data, assess the social value of ecosystem services in the Summer Palace, and determine its spatial distribution. Using a quantitative assessment method of the social value of urban green spaces, we explored the relationship between the spatial distribution of ecosystem social value and the characteristics of the environmental landscape, as well as the influence of different environmental values on the spatial distribution of visitors’ perceived social value.
The results of the study showed that (1) among the 12 types of social values, the interviewed visitors showed a higher degree of preference for the cultural, historical, and aesthetic values of the Summer Palace. (2) In terms of the spatial distribution of social values perceived by visitors, the results of the kernel density analysis showed that the hotspot areas of social values had a distribution of “three cores and multiple centers.” (3) By analyzing the spatial distribution of the three value types with higher preferences, it was found that the distribution of social value was closely related to architectural complexes and waters, and the social value index fluctuated between different landscape types. (4) Visitors with different environmental values perceived social values differently, leading to different spatial distributions of social values. (5) Respondents showed a more prominent sense of insecurity towards the waters, and the architectural complexes and waterfront areas were centrally reflected as being too noisy, which affected visitors’ ecological and recreational experiences. (6) There was a correlation between different social values and negative services. Cultural and historical values were significantly positively correlated with noise and negative services. This is related to the fact that scenic spots with high cultural and historical value tend to concentrate the largest group of tourists and crowd noise.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.H., Y.L., S.L. and J.S.; methodology, R.H., Y.L., S.L., J.S. and M.C.; investigation, R.H., Y.L., S.L., J.S., S.D. and S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, R.H., Y.L., S.L., J.S. and S.D.; writing—review and editing and validation, S.D., M.C., S.H., C.H. and Z.Z.; resources and funding acquisition, C.H. and Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Shanghai Art and Science Planning Project (2022-G-121) and the Development Research Center of the State Forestry and Grassland Administration (JYC-2021-00208).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original data used in this study were obtained from empirical research conducted by the research group. The relevant empirical research was funded by the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Culture and Tourism and the Development Research Center of the State Forestry and Grassland Administration, which is described in detail in the Funding section. The research group had the right to use the data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analyses, interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or decision to publish the results.

References

  1. The General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council. Opinions on Establishing a Sound Mechanism for Realizing the Value of Ecological Products. Bull. State Counc. People’s Repub. China 2021, 14, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  2. Seymour, E.; Curtis, A.; Pannell, D.; Allan, C.; Roberts, A. Understanding the role of assigned values in natural resource management. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yan, G.; Kang, L.; Qiao, M.; Ying, L.; Yaning, F.; Xiuqing, L.; Chao, G. Social valuation of ecosystem services based on SolVES model and tourists’ preferences-A case study of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park. J. Ecol. 2017, 36, 3564–3573. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lijuan, W. Progress and Trend of Research on Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Service Function. J. Ecol. 2013, 32, 2229–2237. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nora, F.A.; Niina, K.A.; Festo, N.B.; Miza, K.C. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 421–433. [Google Scholar]
  6. Yujiu, X.; Shaohua, Z.; Chunhua, Y.; Guoyu, Q.; Hua, S.; Yanlin, W.; Longjun, Q. Discussion on multi-scale monitoring and evaluation methods of urban green space resources. Remote Sens. Land Resour. 2021, 33, 54–62. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yaru, Z.; Jun, G.; Zhenhua, B.; Zhonghao, Z.; Jing, F. Research on landscape service assessment and spatial structure based on Public Participation Geographic Information Systems method. J. Earth Inf. Sci. 2020, 22, 1106–1119. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zafar, T.B.; Ding, W.; Din, S.U.; Khan, G.M.; Hao, C.; He, L. Forest cover and land use map of the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary based on participatory mapping and satellite images: Insight into Chunati beat. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rice, W.L.; Taff, B.D.; Newman, P.; Zipp, K.Y.; Pan, B. Identifying recreational ecosystem service areas of concern in Grand Canyon National Park: A participatory mapping approach. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 125, 102353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rachel, D.; Zoë, L. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liangeng, D.; Wenbo, Z.; Yang, G.; Shuangcheng, L. Progress of research on ecosystem cultural services. J. Peking Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2014, 50, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar]
  14. Qizheng, M.; Ganlin, H.; Jianguo, W. A review of urban ecosystem service research. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 26, 1023–1033. [Google Scholar]
  15. Greg, B.; Nora, F. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 119–133. [Google Scholar]
  16. Michael, L. Humans Valuing Nature: Synthesising Insights from Philosophy, Psychology and Economics. Environ. Values 1999, 8, 381–401. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yechen, Z.; Hongmei, Z.; Hu, Y. Social valuation of ecosystem services based on tourists’ perceptions-A case study of Qianjiangyuan National Park. Tour. Sci. 2020, 34, 66–85. [Google Scholar]
  18. Greg, B.; Lars, B. An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 317–331. [Google Scholar]
  19. Harmon, D.; Putney, A.D. The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  20. Benson, C.S.; Darius, J.S.; Jessica, M.C. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 68–79. [Google Scholar]
  21. Brown, G.; Reed, P. Validation of a Forest Values Typlogy for Use in National Forest Planning. For. Sci. 2000, 46, 240–247. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sherrouse, B.C.; Clement, J.M.; Semmens, D.J. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 748–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reid, W.V.; Cropper, A.; Mooney, H.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Hassan, R.; Leemans, R.; May, R. Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-Being, Statement form the Board; IEG: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chun, Y.; Shaohua, T.; Mingjuan, D. Study on the health impact of urban green space based on ESs: Service function, connotation and mechanism. China Gard. 2021, 37, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sarah, C.K.; Kai, M.A.C. Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 82, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhenmin, D.; Xiujuan, H.; Jiajia, Z. Content validity test of CVM for evaluating the recreational value of forest scenic spots-Taking Fuzhou National Forest Park as an example. For. Econ. Issues 2017, 37, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kumar, M.; Kumar, P. Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 808–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; Whyte, A. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhongwei, G.; Yaling, G. Scientific issues on ecosystem service functions. Biodiversity 2003, 20, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  30. Conghong, H.; Jun, Y.; Wenjuan, Z. Progress of Research on Ecosystem Service Assessment Models. J. Ecol. 2013, 32, 3360–3367. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gaodi, X.; Caixia, Z.; Changshun, Z.; Yu, X.; Chunxia, L. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1740–1746. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gaodi, X.; Lin, Z.; Chunxia, L.; Yu, X.; Cao, C. An expert knowledge-based approach to ecosystem service valorization. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 1, 911–919. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.; Winthrop, R.; Jaworksi, D.; Larson, J. Ecosystem Services Valuation to Support Decisionmaking on Public Lands—A Case Study of the San Pedro River Watershed, Arizona; Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5251; U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO, USA, 2012.
  34. Daniel, R.R.; Daniel, A.F. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 53, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  35. María, J.M.; Patricia, B. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2012, 8, 17–25. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gregory, B. Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2004, 18, 17–39. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ridding, L.E.; Redhead, J.W.; Oliver, T.H.; Schmucki, R.; Mcginlay, J.; Graves, A.R.; Morris, J.; Bradbury, R.B.; King, H.; Bullock, J.M. The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 1145–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lynne, C.M. For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 67–86. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nahuelhual, L.; Carmona, A.; Lozada, P.; Jaramillo, A.; Aguayo, M. Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: An application at the local level in Southern Chile. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 40, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lorena, P.; Izaskun, C.; Miren, O. Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hille, K.; Rachel, P. Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum 2000, 31, 269–280. [Google Scholar]
  42. O’Neil-Dunne, J.; Troy, A.; Grove, J.M. The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 106, 262–270. [Google Scholar]
  43. Leung, K.Y.; Koh, K.; Tam, K.P. Being environmentally responsible: Cosmopolitan orientation predicts pro-environmental behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ling, L. Integrating ecological values and the theory of planned behavior to predict customers’ green hotel consumption intention. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 32, 153–157. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhiheng, S.; Rongrong, J.; Hongjie, M.; Laishou, Q. Research on farmers’ pro-environmental behaviors based on the perspective of media education function-Analysis of the mediating effect of environmental knowledge and values. Arid. Zone Resour. Environ. 2018, 32, 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  46. Chunxia, L.; Gaodi, X.; Shengkui, C. Recreational Functions of River Ecosystems and Their Valuation. Resour. Sci. 2001, 14, 77–78. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yan, G. Social Value Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Qinling Mountain Forest Park Based on SolVES Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  48. Koster, S.E.; Langley, D.J. Modeling individual and collective opinion in online social networks: Drivers of choice behavior and effects of marketing interventions. In Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy Conference, Istanbul, Türkiye, 4–7 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Xiuqing, L.; Yahong, L.; Liming, X. Personal values, farmers’ willingness and pro-environmental behavioral decisions-An empirical study based on the questionnaire of farmers in Anze County, Shanxi Province. For. Econ. 2021, 43, 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dunlap, R.E.; Liere, K.D.V.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Peer, V.D.; Dagmar, H. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 490–497. [Google Scholar]
  53. Robert, R.D. Global Mapping of Ecosystem Disservices: The Unspoken Reality that Nature Sometimes Kills us. Biotropica 2010, 42, 555–557. [Google Scholar]
Forests 14 02192 g001
Figure 1. Zoning map of landscape types in the Summer Palace.
Figure 1. Zoning map of landscape types in the Summer Palace.
Forests 14 02192 g001
Forests 14 02192 g002
Figure 2. The Summer Palace range map.
Figure 2. The Summer Palace range map.
Forests 14 02192 g002
Forests 14 02192 g003
Figure 3. Kernel density analysis of social value points for ecosystem services in the Summer Palace.
Figure 3. Kernel density analysis of social value points for ecosystem services in the Summer Palace.
Forests 14 02192 g003
Forests 14 02192 g004
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of social values for higher visitor preference in the Summer Palace. (a) Cultural value distribution in the Summer Palace; (b) historical value distribution in the Summer Palace; (c) aesthetic value distribution in the Summer Palace.
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of social values for higher visitor preference in the Summer Palace. (a) Cultural value distribution in the Summer Palace; (b) historical value distribution in the Summer Palace; (c) aesthetic value distribution in the Summer Palace.
Forests 14 02192 g004
Forests 14 02192 g005
Figure 5. Relationships between each social value of ecosystem services and landscape types in the Summer Palace. (a) Distribution of cultural value in different landscape types in Summer Palace; (b) distribution of historical value in different landscape types in Summer Palace; (c) distribution of aesthetic value in different landscape types in Summer Palace.
Figure 5. Relationships between each social value of ecosystem services and landscape types in the Summer Palace. (a) Distribution of cultural value in different landscape types in Summer Palace; (b) distribution of historical value in different landscape types in Summer Palace; (c) distribution of aesthetic value in different landscape types in Summer Palace.
Forests 14 02192 g005
Forests 14 02192 g006aForests 14 02192 g006b
Figure 6. The effects of different environmental values on the spatial distribution of social values among the Summer Palace visitors. (a) Anthropocentrism group—distribution of cultural values in the Summer Palace; (b) anthropocentrism group—distribution of historical values in the Summer Palace; (c) anthropocentrism group—distribution of aesthetic values in the Summer Palace; (d) ecocentrism group—distribution of cultural values in the Summer Palace; (e) ecocentrism group—distribution of historical values in the Summer Palace; (f) ecocentrism group—distribution of aesthetic values in the Summer Palace.
Figure 6. The effects of different environmental values on the spatial distribution of social values among the Summer Palace visitors. (a) Anthropocentrism group—distribution of cultural values in the Summer Palace; (b) anthropocentrism group—distribution of historical values in the Summer Palace; (c) anthropocentrism group—distribution of aesthetic values in the Summer Palace; (d) ecocentrism group—distribution of cultural values in the Summer Palace; (e) ecocentrism group—distribution of historical values in the Summer Palace; (f) ecocentrism group—distribution of aesthetic values in the Summer Palace.
Forests 14 02192 g006aForests 14 02192 g006b
Table 1. Description of 12 social values of ecosystem services in urban green spaces.
Table 1. Description of 12 social values of ecosystem services in urban green spaces.
Types of Social ValuesDescription of Social Values
Aesthetic valueThis urban green space has beautiful landscapes, natural sounds, and fragrant aromas.
Biodiversity valueThis urban green space is rich in wildlife resources.
Cultural valueThis urban green space can provide knowledge and wisdom about the traditional way of life of our ancestors.
Economic valueThis urban green space can provide opportunities for farming, cultural and creative industries, and tourism, leading to industrial development.
Future valueThis urban green space will enable the next generation to understand and experience the current urban ecosystem.
Historical valueThis urban green space has left a legacy of natural and human history that is relevant to me, to others, and to the nation.
Learning valueThis urban green space provides me with opportunities for research, study, and science education.
Life support valueThis urban green space can maintain soil and water, nourish water, and purify air.
Recreational valueThis urban green space provides me with a place for outdoor activities and recreation.
Spiritual valueThis urban green space can cultivate my emotions and cleanse my soul.
Healing ValueThis urban green space can make me feel better physically and psychologically by relieving my body and mind and releasing my stress.
Intrinsic valueWhether someone lives here or not, this urban green space has its own value.
Table 2. Environmental value orientation scale.
Table 2. Environmental value orientation scale.
SubjectMeasurement Method
Humans are the most important and can change the natural environment to meet their needs.1–5 means “Strongly Disagree”–“Strongly Agree”.
Humans are born to be masters and to rule over the rest of nature.1–5 means “strongly disagree”–“strongly agree”.
Nature’s plants and animals have the same right to live as humans do.1–5 means “Strongly disagree”–“Strongly agree”.
Despite their special abilities, humans are still governed by the laws of nature.1–5 means “Strongly disagree”–“Strongly agree”.
Table 3. Description of three negative services of urban green space ecosystems.
Table 3. Description of three negative services of urban green space ecosystems.
Negative Service TypesDescription of Negative Service
UnpleasantPlaces that are neglected, damaged, or create an unpleasant feeling for people.
UnsafePlaces that make people feel unsafe, threatened, or in danger.
NoisyPlaces where there is a lot of noise.
Table 4. Demographic information of respondents.
Table 4. Demographic information of respondents.
SubjectChoiceFrequency (%)
SexMale58.9
Female41.1
Age18 years old and below9.4
19–30 years old46.9
31–45 years old23.4
46–60 years old13.5
Above 60 years old5.7
Educational levelPrimary/middle/high school20.8
Junior college/university65.1
Master/doctorate14.1
Place of originBeijing23.5
Other provinces and cities76.5
Table 5. Characteristics of respondents’ environmental value orientation.
Table 5. Characteristics of respondents’ environmental value orientation.
Value OrientationDescriptionMean Value
EcocentrismNature has the same right to exist as humans.4.3
Humans are still bound by the laws of nature.4.4
AnthropocentrismHumans are the most important.2.4
Humans are the masters of nature.1.9
Table 6. Distribution rate of ecosystem social values and negative services of different landscape types in the Summer Palace (%).
Table 6. Distribution rate of ecosystem social values and negative services of different landscape types in the Summer Palace (%).
ESV Classification Architectural ComplexWatersForestOpen
Forest		Waterfront
Aesthetic value15211117.335.7
Biodiversity value9.845.56.330.18.4
Cultural value37.59.419.311.122.6
Economic value16.217.118.12028.6
Future value26.825.415.512.719.7
Historical value30.68.823.610.626.4
Learning value29.96.926.418.418.4
Life support value12.83618.618.614
Recreational value15.328.27.418.830.2
Spiritual value28.115.620.818.816.7
Wellness value16.929.911.714.327.3
Intrinsic value23.221.421.419.614.3
Insecure places2030101525
Noisy places39.18.74.38.739.1
Unpleasant places42.921.47.1028.6
Table 7. Correlation coefficients of social values of ecosystems and negative values in the Summer Palace.
Table 7. Correlation coefficients of social values of ecosystems and negative values in the Summer Palace.
ESV ClassificationAestheticBiodiversityCultureEconomyFutureHistoryLearningLife
Support		RecreationSpiritHealingIntrinsicInsecurityNoise
Biodiversity 0.210
Culture 0.326−0.284
Economy 0.561 *0.1570.427 *
Future 0.2120.3530.3120.298
History 0.072−0.2930.596 **0.091−0.102
Learning 0.2470.0160.492 *0.492 *−0.0170.503 **
Life support 0.1120.516 **−0.3120.2380.122−0.3780.100
Recreation 0.687 **0.498 ***0.1380.573 **0.434 *−0.3180.0680.206
Spirit 0.2740.2690.3620.450 *0.413 *0.0670.1410.1060.302
Wellness 0.528 **0.389 *0.0060.3850.348−0.226−0.0920.2690.787 **0.212
Intrinsic 0.413 *0.2520.2540.643 **0.3720.0220.426 *0.2370.396 *0.2880.227
Insecurity0.106−0.0430.0400.178−0.008−0.0680.0810.2580.129−0.0980.2450.101
Noise0.007−0.0270.513 **−0.0940.0160.570 **0.305−0.357−0.089−0.147−0.095−0.081−0.024
Unhappiness −0.253−0.0140.215−0.1250.1840.225−0.018−0.419 *−0.1540.006−0.0050.0330.1840.302
Note: *, **, and *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.
Table 8. Value coefficients of ecosystems social values and negative services in the Summer Palace.
Table 8. Value coefficients of ecosystems social values and negative services in the Summer Palace.
ESV ClassificationTotal Sample
N (M-VI)		Ecocentrism Group
N (M-VI)		Anthropocentrism Group
N (M-VI)
Aesthetic value347 (8)305 (8)60 (10)
Biodiversity value143 (3)152 (4)21 (3)
Cultural value424 (10)377 (10)32 (5)
Economic value105 (2)92 (2)21 (3)
Future value71 (1)64 (1)17 (2)
Historical value386 (9)360 (10)18 (3)
Learning value87 (2)77 (2)3 (0)
Life support value86 (2)80 (2)19 (3)
Recreational value202 (5)171 (4)31 (5)
Spiritual value96 (2)93 (2)19 (3)
Healing value77 (2)77 (2)8 (1)
Intrinsic value56 (1)56 (1)3 (0)
Insecurity 20 (0.1)20 (0.2)3 (0)
Noise 23 (0.2)20 (0.2)3 (0)
Unhappiness 14 (0)13 (0)3 (0)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, R.; Liu, Y.; Liang, S.; Si, J.; Di, S.; Cai, M.; Hu, S.; Hao, C.; Zhao, Z. Social Value of Urban Green Space Based on Visitors’ Perceptions: The Case of the Summer Palace, Beijing, China. Forests 2023, 14, 2192. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14112192

AMA Style

Huang R, Liu Y, Liang S, Si J, Di S, Cai M, Hu S, Hao C, Zhao Z. Social Value of Urban Green Space Based on Visitors’ Perceptions: The Case of the Summer Palace, Beijing, China. Forests. 2023; 14(11):2192. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14112192

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Ruoyi, Yunxi Liu, Shu Liang, Jiayi Si, Shuyi Di, Mengmeng Cai, Shuang Hu, Chunxu Hao, and Zheng Zhao. 2023. "Social Value of Urban Green Space Based on Visitors’ Perceptions: The Case of the Summer Palace, Beijing, China" Forests 14, no. 11: 2192. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14112192

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop