Influence of Perceived Sensory Dimensions on Cultural Ecosystem Benefits of National Forest Parks Based on Public Participation: The Case of Fuzhou National Forest Park

Abstract

The decision-making process of China’s national forest park (NFP) system typically excludes the consideration of the public’s perceived benefits. In this regard, the objective of this study was to elucidate the type of cultural ecosystem benefits (CEB) that NFP can provide and to inform the evidence-based design of forest parks by establishing its linkage to the public’s perceived sensory dimensions (PSD). A CEB evaluation scale was developed for forest parks, and a 6-day public participation GIS (PPGIS) survey was conducted in Fuzhou NFP to collect evaluations of CEB and PSD at different sites from 853 respondents. The findings revealed that the CEB furnished by NFP is comprised of three dimensions. The three dimensions of cultural ecosystem benefits (CEB) are identities, experiences, and capabilities. The impact of different PSDs on CEBs varies, as do the impacts of high and low scores on CEBs for the same PSD. It can be concluded that the creation of more serene and open spaces will result in an increase in the CEB available to the public. Furthermore, designers may wish to consider enhancing single dimensions of PSDs in order to characterize different areas, which may prove to be a more effective approach than enhancing PSDs across the board. In summary, our PPGIS survey is expected to enable community-based governance of the NFP and provide a basis for a comprehensive sustainability dialogue between people and forests.

1. Introduction

In order to meet the public’s demand for nature, the Chinese government has established a national forest park (NFP) system across the country [1], which refers to forest areas with important natural and cultural values that are of national conservation significance [2]. However, the NFP system has revealed many problems in its long-term development, such as overdevelopment that impairs tourism carrying capacity, infrastructure shortages that reduce tourists’ perceived well-being, and landscape degradation that affects the public’s perceived experience and health [3,4,5]. Therefore, in order to maintain public well-being and perceived experience, there is a need for sufficient evidence of the role of public opinion and indigenous values NFP management and planning [6,7,8], and wider public participation as the basis of resource management.

The Ecosystem Service concept has been incorporated into the assessment frameworks and decision-making systems of many forest parks. The concept promotes collaboration between researchers, the public and decision-making bodies and categorizes the benefits generated by ecosystem services into four categories: regulation, support, provisioning and culture [9,10]. Among them, cultural ecosystem services (CES) refer to the intangible benefits that individuals derive from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences [11,12]. CES are often associated with forest environments and can significantly improve public health [13]. In addition, CES can draw public attention to forest ecosystems and lead them to participate in environmental governance [14].

However, existing theoretical frameworks fail to specify what specific benefits CES bring to individuals and ignore the biophysical process of interaction between individuals and the environment [15,16,17]. In addition, CES involve subjective experiences such as spirituality and aesthetics, which are influenced by subjective perceptions and cultural contexts, and are not directly linked to changes in the natural environment. Therefore, they lack clear measurement boundaries and internal consistency [18]. For accurate understanding, many scholars have deconstructed the attributes of CES and outlined specific types and sources of benefits. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) emphasizes the need to distinguish between ‘services’ and ‘benefits’ [19]. Fish et al. [20] argue that the main components of CES are environmental spaces and cultural practices, and that the interactions between the two produce individual-level cultural ecosystem benefits (CEBs), including identity, experience, and capability. For NFP, its ecosystem provides the public with a rich environmental space, which can effectively improve physical and mental health, individual competence as well as social identity through practices such as environmental education, forest therapy, consumption experiences and sports [21,22,23,24,25]. Incorporating CEB into the assessment framework of NFP helps decision makers to quantify the well-being gained by the public, and one of the objectives of our study is to explore what CEB is perceived by the public in NFP and to establish a universal indicator system.

In the assessment process of evaluating ecosystems, public views may diverge from expert opinions due to differences in values, knowledge structures, and economic interests [26,27,28], and can provide guidance from a societal perspective [29,30,31]. Public participation methods have been widely used to guide environmental policies, such as biodiversity policymaking in the European Union [32], Ecosystem governance in the Taihu Lake Basin in China [33]. Some countries have established tools or procedures for public participation, such as the Ecosystem Management Program in Northern Lower Michigan, USA and the Nature 2000 network in Europe [34,35]. Unlike traditional interview-based surveys, public participatory geographic information systems (PPGIS) allow cultural services to be better visualized and expressed in resource management processes [36], helping researchers to relate cultural ecosystem services in a given space to perceived human benefits [37]. Currently, PPGIS is mainly used in the study of ecosystem services to assess the relationship between the objective physical environment and cultural ecosystem benefits, such as natural landscape features [38], landscape accessibility [39], land use [40]. Considering that cultural ecosystem benefits do not rely on the interpretation of a single sensory dimension [41], and that the perceived preferences of policy makers, managers, and the public are inconsistent [42], investigating nature-based sensory perceptions of experiences during public engagement can help to provide insights into the factors influencing people’s concerns about ecosystem benefits [43].

A particular challenge at present is to clarify how the public’s perception of the environment influences cultural ecosystem benefits (CEB) [37]. While the effects of cultural ecosystem services (CES) provided by the physical environment of forests on individuals have been demonstrated [13], it remains unclear how national forest parks (NFPs) drive the public’s perceived sensory dimensions to provide cultural ecosystem benefits (CEBs). We must recognize that the physical environment is only the basis of perception, intangible values are assigned by the superposition of cognition and awareness [30], and people’s evaluation of nature is not determined by purely objective landscape features [44], but rather from the interplay of the physical environment and Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSD) [45].

PSD is an important way to assess environmental perception. People’s evaluation of the real environment does not rely on a single physical environment such as visual or auditory [41], and PSD has the advantage of categorizing the public’s perceived value of green space into several categories, which to a large extent correspond to the public’s different cultural practices respectively [46,47,48]. Given that all cultural ecosystem services require the involvement of human sensory organs and the brain to interpret the information generated by ecosystem components and structures, respectively [49], we believe it is necessary to establish a link between PSD and CEB. Furthermore, as a basis for evidence-based design, PSD has been used to design nature-based recreation policies in Denmark and healing gardens in Sweden [47], but such studies have not answered a key question: for NFP or similar forested environments, is it better to enhance the integrated quality of environmental perceptions or to focus on improving the experience of a particular perceptual dimension? In this regard, Stoltz and Grahn [50] modeled the synergies/tensions between different perceived sensory dimensions, arguing that a close collaboration of multiple perception dimensions enhances the aesthetic value of green spaces. However, our study is not limited to aesthetic experience, but is oriented to the broader human well-being, how to enhance the public’s environmental perceptual experience can lead to more CEB? We hope to answer the above questions to better understand the comprehensive value of national forest parks, and to propose refined solutions for planning and maintenance.

We constructed an evaluation method for the cultural ecosystem benefits of national forest parks (NFPs), specifying which factors influence the cultural ecosystem benefits of NFPs through the perceived sensory dimensions (Figure 1). We integrated PPGIS into the management process of NFP to facilitate decision-making through visual representation. The objectives of our study are as follows:

• What cultural ecosystem benefits are perceived by the public within the NFP?
• Is there a link between perceived sensory dimensions and cultural ecosystem benefits in NFP?
• Are there differences in the extent to which different perceived sensory dimensions and different levels of perception influence cultural ecosystem benefits in national forest parks?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Cultural Ecosystem Benefits (CEB)

The cultural dimensions of human well-being are intrinsic and specific [52], and by making distinctions it is possible to avoid describing benefits in purely terminological terms. Fish et al. [20] argue that cultural ecosystem benefits are the product of a combination of environmental space and the cultural practices of individuals, and summarize them in three dimensions: Identities, Experiences, and Capabilities. Identities refer to the role of ecosystems in facilitating attachment in the process of place identification, which implies that people learn about themselves and their relationship to the world around them through the cultural significance of forests [20]. Williams et al. [53] suggest that place attachment consists of at least two dimensions: place dependence and place identification. Kyle et al. [54] suggested that the environment can promote place attachment by influencing social bonding, and Experiences refer to the mental or physical benefits that individuals experience through contact with ecosystems [20], and studies have shown that individuals exposed to natural environments often experience more psychological and physiological benefits [55]. Capabilities refer to the role of ecosystems in shaping the ability of individuals and society to understand and do things [20]. O’Brien [51] distinguishes between different cultural ecosystem benefits provided by peri-urban green infrastructure, arguing that this dimension encompasses three main types of benefits, namely learning, health and economic.

2.2. Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSD)

Landscape perception, as a process of interaction between organisms and their environment, emphasizes the importance of individual differences in the pursuit of experiential diversity. Experience types vary according to environmental attributes defined by individual perception, reflecting subjectivity and environmental diversity [56]. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms of perception is crucial to assess the perceived value of the environment and to reveal preferences that can shed light on how environmental design affects emotions and behavior. In this regard, the Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSD) has been recognized as an important tool for qualitatively analyzing and evaluating environmental benefits [47], which consists of eight perceptual dimensions related to human well-being: Serene (e.g., quiet, calm), Natural (e.g., free from human activity), Species (e.g., rich in flora and fauna), and Open (e.g., spacious, free space), Cohesive (e.g., coherent, coordinated views), Refuge (e.g., places with a sense of security), Social (e.g., recreational and social activities), and Cultural (e.g., human landscapes and monuments) [50]. Although PSD has undergone multigenerational development and has become an important tool for evidence-based design [47,50,57], previous research has typically examined the relationship between PSD and attention recovery [58] and stress recovery [59] in isolation. Therefore, more evidence is needed to demonstrate the relationship between PSD and broader human well-being.

3. Materials and Methods

This study combines various methods such as questionnaire survey, PPGIS and hotspot analysis to design the study process (Figure 2). First, the Cultural Ecosystem Benefits Scale for assessing NFP was constructed. A PPGIS survey was conducted in Fuzhou NFP to record the coordinates of visited sites, self-reported PSD levels, CEB perception ratings, and personal information of visitors. Then, the geographic coordinates were visualized and analyzed using ArcMap 10.8. To answer the purpose of the study, the questionnaire data were subjected to correlation analysis, principal component analysis, and multifactor ANOVA. Finally, the visualization analysis results and questionnaire analysis results were combined to give refined management advice.

3.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in the Fuzhou National Forest Park, which is located in Fuzhou City, Fujian Province in southern China and is the earliest established and most representative national forest park in the city. The park is located in the northern mountainous area of Fuzhou City, covering an area of 8.59 km², and is popular among the public because it is only about 5–6 km from the city center (Figure 3).

We assessed the feasibility of Fuzhou National Forest Park as a study area. First, the park’s visitors are demographically and sociologically universal, as the park combines the functions of scientific research, education, tourism, and convalescence in one place. The park’s infrastructure is relatively well-developed, with hiking trails, waterfront trestles, and ancient stagecoach routes connecting most of the area, as well as open activity spaces such as lawns and camping areas, which can meet the needs of different groups of people for cultural practices. Secondly, the park has typical landscape elements in the NFP definition, including natural landscapes such as lakes, forests and wildlife, as well as human resources such as monuments and temples. It is also a national forestry and grassland science base with national conservation value. Finally, the park has gradually revealed deficiencies in management and maintenance during its more than 30 years of operation, such as aging facilities, deterioration of soil resources, and reduction of native vegetation [60], which may be detrimental to the well-being of visitors and local residents. Combining these three factors, we believe that a PPGIS survey can be conducted in Fuzhou National Forest Park.

3.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire of this study contains three scales, namely, the Socio-Demographic Survey, the Cultural Ecosystem Benefits Scale, and the Perceived Sensory Dimensions Scale. All indicators and descriptions are presented in simplified Chinese.

3.2.1. Socio-Demographic Survey

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to provide personal information including gender, age, educational background, occupation, place of residence, income level, duration of visit, and number of visits to Fuzhou National Forest Park. In addition, respondents were asked to record their opinions on the management and maintenance of Fuzhou National Forest Park.

3.2.2. Cultural Ecosystem Benefits (CEB) Indicators

A CEB scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree) was developed based the theoretical framework of Fish et al. [20] and some classic scales designed by previous authors. This scale is applicable to forest parks (

Table 1. Cultural ecosystem benefits scales.

Dimension	Index	S/N	Description	Reference
Identities	Place dependence	A1	It outperforms other natural environments.	Williams et al. [53]
		A2	It is the best place for me to relax.	Williams et al. [53]
		A3	It brings me unforgettable memories	Williams et al. [53]
	Place identification	A4	It gives me a sense of identity.	Williams et al. [53]
		A5	I feel like extending the playing time	Williams et al. [53]
		A6	It has a special meaning for me.	Williams et al. [53]
	Social connection	A7	I would bring my family here.	Kyle et al. [54]
		A8	I have a special emotional connection to the forest environment	Kyle et al. [54]
Experiences	Escape	A9	I feel relieved from work/study/trivia.	Hartig et al. [62]
		A10	I feel less constrained.	Hartig et al. [62]
	Fascination	A11	I feel the forest environment is attractive.	Hartig et al. [62]
		A12	I feel like there are unknown things in the forest waiting to be explored.	Hartig et al. [62]
	Compatibility	A13	I feel that the landscape is in harmony with the forest.	Hartig et al. [62]
		A14	I feel at one with the forest.	Hartig et al. [62]
	Energy	A15	I feel more energized than usual.	Lam et al. [63]
	Physical function	A16	I feel that the forest has improved my physical functions.	Lam et al. [63]
Capabilities	Boost confidence	A17	It makes me more confident than usual.	O’Brien et al. [51]
	Forest knowledge	A18	It imparts me knowledge and skills about forests.	O’Brien et al. [51]
	Quality of life	A19	It inspires me to improve my income or quality of life.	O’Brien et al. [51]

). The indicators of the Identities dimension refer to the Place Attachment Scale, which was designed by Williams et al. [53] and Kyle et al. [54]. In order to contextualize the topics under discussion, we drew upon the work of Xu et al. [61], who had previously applied the Place Attachment Scale in a forest environment. The indicators of the Experiences dimension are based on the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) developed by Hartig et al. [62]. Given the difficulty of directly measuring the physically perceived benefits of the PRS, we also introduced the Six-Dimensional Health State Classification System (SF-6D), a standardized scale for measuring health states. This is suitable for measuring the health level of Chinese people, as evidenced by previous research [63]. The indicators of vigor and physical functioning were extracted from this source. The indicators of the capabilities dimension refer to the three high-level categories proposed by O’Brien [51], namely learning, health, and economy.

In order to obtain a reliable CEB scale, 167 questionnaires were randomly selected to analyze their reliability and validity. The results showed that physical function led to a decrease in the overall reliability of the questionnaire. In addition, the results of the factor analysis showed that the rotated component matrix loaded A16 (physical function) onto only one component. We deleted this indicator and obtained a three-dimensional matrix with each indicator loading on its respective component with a value greater than 0.7. Finally, by deleting A16, we obtained a CEB scale with 18 indicators.

3.2.3. Perceived Sensory Dimensions Indicators

The PSD scale is used to assess individuals’ perceptions of different natural environments and has been shown to be reliable [45]. We refer to Li et al. [64] for the application of the PSD scale to forest environments, which consists of eight different dimensions: Serene, Natural, Species, Open, Cohesive, Refuge, Social, and Cultural, with additional descriptions following each of these dimensions to facilitate participants’ understanding. This section included eight questions (

Table 2. Perceived sensory dimension scales.

Dimension	Description
Serene	It is quiet and peaceful here.
Natural	It is a wild, untouched place.
Species	It is an area rich in flora and fauna.
Open	It is a spacious and undisturbed environment.
Cohesive	It’s a landscape that flows together.
Refuge	It is an environment that makes me feel safe.
Social	It is a great place to socialize.
Cultural	There are historic sites, carvings, temples and other cultural landscapes.

) on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree).

3.3. Public Participatory GIS

PPGIS typically ask respondents to mark on a map the geographic location and the benefits they perceive in that location [29,31,65]. PPGIS focus on what individuals think, feel, and do in space [66], and help to assess the multilevel human-place relationships of places by deepening the respondent’s sense of space [67]. However, web-based PPGIS surveys have methodological limitations, and respondents may have a digital divide and digital exclusion, making the demographic-sociological structure of respondents young and highly educated [68]. Respondents are unable to perceive the situation in the field with online maps alone [69], and the data obtained lacks sufficient geographic precision. Conducting participatory mappsing in the field deepens respondents’ understanding of the questions and yields higher response rates [70], while using points instead of polygons to map spatial attributes yields more accurate results when the sample size is large enough [71]. Therefore, we returned to the traditional field survey method of asking respondents to identify places they had visited on a map, recording the geographic coordinates and their feelings about being there.

3.4. Data Collection

We collected data from 22 March 2024–27 March 2024 within the Fuzhou National Forest Park. The main tools used were tablet computers and the OvitalMap application. First, researchers randomly invited tourists or local residents to participate in the survey, and respondents were required to visit the park for more than 30 min to ensure that they had a basic understanding of the park. Next, respondents identified a visited site on a satellite map and recorded the geographic coordinates using the Ovi Interactive Maps application 10.0. To ensure that the coordinates were accurate, coordinates were only recorded if the map scale was less than 1:1500. Finally, respondents completed a questionnaire to record their feelings about the site. The questionnaire consisted of 34 questions and included CEB scales, PSD scales, and a socio-demographic survey.

3.5. Data Analysis

We initially screened the data from 881 PPGIS surveys and obtained 853 valid data after deleting coordinate points outside the study area and invalid questionnaires. Statistical analysis of the questionnaires was performed using SPSS 26.0, and visualization of the geographic coordinate points were performed using ArcMap 10.8.

3.5.1. Statistical Analysis of Questionnaires

First, the reliability of the revised CEB scale was tested. Exploratory factor analysis was used to test whether the structure of the questionnaire met the expectations of the theoretical framework. Second, principal component analysis was used to test the public’s perception of different CEBs in the NFP, and the combined score coefficients and weights of each indicator in the CEB scale were obtained. Then, Pearson correlation analysis was used to test the relationship between the eight perceived sensory dimensions of NFP and CEB, and the strength of the correlation was categorized into three levels: high (0.6 < |r| ≤ 0.8), medium (0.4 < |r| ≤ 0.6), low (0.2 < |r| ≤ 0.4), and irrelevant (|r| ≤ 0.2). Finally, a multifactor ANOVA was used to test the effects of different PSDs on CEB in national forest parks. The degree of influence was categorized into three levels: strong (0.14 < ${\eta }_p^2$), moderate (0.06 < ${\eta }_p^2$ ≤ 0.14), weak (0.01 < ${\eta }_p^2$ ≤ 0.06), and no effect (${\eta }_p^2$ ≤ 0.01). In addition, post hoc tests can further analyze the effect of different perceived levels of PSD on the CEB overall. When the null hypothesis of the multifactor ANOVA was rejected (i.e., all eight categories of PSD had a significant effect on CEB overall), the different perceptual levels of PSD were compared pairwise using the Bonferroni method.

3.5.2. Data Visualization and Analysis

The collected geographic coordinates were visualized and analyzed using ArcMap 10.8. The collected georeferenced points were transformed into point elements and each point element was assigned a CEB and PSD score. Then, hotspot analysis was performed using the Getis-Ord Gi* tool. This tool is based on the principle that high scoring elements in space are more likely to be noticed, but may not be statistically significant. To be a statistically significant hotspot, elements should have high scores and be surrounded by other elements that also have high scores. The local sum of each element and its neighboring elements will be compared to the sum of all the elements and finally a statistically significant z-value will be obtained. The z-value can be used to determine the location in space where clustering of high- or low-value elements occurs; when the positive z-value is larger, the higher the degree of clustering of high-value elements; and when the negative z-value is smaller, the higher the degree of clustering of low-value elements. The principle of localization statistics can be expressed as

$${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{i}}^{*}=\frac{\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{x} }_{\mathrm{j}}-\overline{\mathrm{X}}\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}}}{\mathrm{S}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{n}\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}}^2-{\left(\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}}\right)}^2}{\mathrm{n}-1}}}$$

(1)

$$\overline{\mathrm{X}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{j}}}{\mathrm{n}}},\mathrm{S}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{j}}^2}{\mathrm{n}}}}-{\left(\overline{\mathrm{X}}\right)}^2,$$

(2)

where ${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the attribute value of element $\mathrm{j}$, ${\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}}$ is the spatial weight between elements $\mathrm{i}$ and $\mathrm{j}$, $\mathrm{n}$ is the total number of elements, and the ${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{i}}^{\mathrm{*}}$ statistic is the z-score, which does not need to be calculated further.

4. Results

4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

We counted the demographic-sociological characteristics of 853 respondents. The percentage of males was 54.6%, and the majority of respondents were between 26 and 50 years old (64.2%). The majority of respondents had undergraduate and specialized educational backgrounds (74.1%). 43.4% of respondents had regular occupations, 24.2% were retired, 18.8% were freelance and in other situations, and 13.2% were students. Among them, the group with monthly income of RMB 3000–9000 accounted for 68.3%. 62.3% of the respondents traveled less than 30 min from their residence to Fuzhou NFP. In addition, more than half of the respondents (53.6%) have visited more than 3 times.

4.2. Reliability and Validity of the CEB Scale

In this study, the Cultural Ecosystem Benefits (CEB) scale was developed and revised through factor analysis. The Cronbach’s alpha of the revised CEB scale was 0.889, the KMO value was 0.941, and the Barlett test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), indicating that the scale had high reliability and validity. We set the minimum value of coefficients 0.5 and eigenvalues greater than 1 in the factor analysis, and the rotated component matrix consisted of three components: A1–A8 in loading component 1, A9–A15 in loading component 2, and A17–A19 in loading component 3 (Appendix A). Our predefined theoretical framework is consistent with the results of the survey, suggesting that the scale is suitable for surveys targeting NFPs.

4.3. Cultural Ecosystem Benefits Provided by NFP

Principal component analysis can determine the level of public perception of different cultural ecosystem benefits (Appendix B). The composite score coefficients of each indicator are all greater than 0, indicating that the public’s overall perception of the benefits of cultural ecosystems is better. The composite score coefficients of A1–A8 are all around 0.2, indicating that the public’s perception of these seven indicators is high; the composite score coefficients of A9–A15 are all less than 0.1 and much smaller than the coefficients of the other 11 indicators, indicating that tourists’ perception of these seven indicators is very low. In addition, we counted the degree of contribution of the three sub-dimensions of cultural ecosystem benefits to the CEB overall, and the weights of each dimension were 59.75% (Identities), from (Experiences), and 19.5% (Capabilities), respectively. The Identities dimension had the highest degree of contribution to the CEB overall (the weights of A1–A8 are all greater than 6%).

4.4. Correlating PSD and Cultural Ecosystem Benefits

The results of the Pearson correlation analysis are listed in descending order of correlation size (

Table 3. Pearson’s correlation analysis of PSD and CEB.

CEB Overall		Identities		Experiences		Capabilities
PSDs	r	PSDs	r	PSDs	r	PSDs	r
Serene I	0.613 **	Serene II	0.468 **	Open II	0.536 **	Serene II	0.433 **
Open II	0.591 **	Open II	0.441 **	Serene II	0.526 **	Open III	0.373 **
Natural II	0.460 **	Natural III	0.291 **	Species II	0.446 **	Refuge III	0.351 **
Species II	0.448 **	Refuge III	0.279 **	Natural II	0.444 **	Cohesive III	0.349 **
Refuge II	0.445 **	Cohesive III	0.272 **	Refuge II	0.426 **	Natural III	0.347 **
Cohesive II	0.405 **	Species III	0.269 **	Cultural III	0.360 **	Species III	0.342 **
Cultural III	0.366 **	Cultural III	0.213 **	Cohesive III	0.359 **	Cultural III	0.304 **
Social IV	0.143 **	Social IV	0.062	Social IV	0.170 **	Social IV	0.101 **

Note: r stands for Pearson’s correlation coefficient. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. High correlation: ^I; Medium correlation: ^II; Low correlation: ^III; No correlation: ^IV.

). All seven PSDs except “Social” were correlated with CEB. “Serene” had the strongest correlation with CEB overall (r = 0.613 **), while “Open” (r = 0.591**), “Natural “ (r = 0.460 **), “Species” (r = 0.448 **), “Refuge” (r = 0.445 **), “ Cohesive” (r = 0.405 **) showed a moderate correlation with CEB overall, and “Cultural” was weakly correlated with CEB overall (r = 0.366 **).

Correlational analyses between the PSDs and the three dimensions of the CEB revealed that none of the PSDs were strongly correlated with any of the three dimensions of the CEB. For the Identities dimension, only “Serene” (r = 0.468 **) and “Open” (r = 0.441 **) showed moderate correlations. For the Experiences dimension, the highest correlation with PSDs was reported, with a total of five dimensions showing moderate correlations with PSDs. For the Capabilities dimension, only one dimension, “Serene”, showed some correlation (0.433 **). Notably, “Social” did not correlate with the CEB overall or with any of the three sub-dimensions (r ≤ 0.2), and we excluded “Social” from subsequent analyses.

4.5. Impact of PSD on Cultural Ecosystem Benefits

The results of the multifactor ANOVA reported the effects of the different PSDs on the CEB. We ranked them in descending order of effect size (

Table 4. Effect sizes of multifactor ANOVA.

CEB Overall		Identities		Experiences		Capabilities
PSDs	${\mathit{\eta }}_{\mathit{p}}^2$	PSDs	${\mathit{\eta }}_{\mathit{p}}^2$	PSDs	${\mathit{\eta }}_{\mathit{p}}^2$	PSDs	${\mathit{\eta }}_{\mathit{p}}^2$
Serene I	0.219 **	Serene II	0.122 **	Serene II	0.105 **	Serene II	0.098 **
Open I	0.147 **	Open II	0.080 **	Open II	0.094 **	Refuge III	0.038 **
Refuge II	0.071 **	Refuge III	0.040 **	Species III	0.036 **	Cultural III	0.030 **
Cohesive III	0.047 **	Cohesive III	0.039 **	Refuge III	0.027 **	Cohesive III	0.026 **
Species III	0.041 **	Natural III	0.011	Natural III	0.017 **	Species III	0.025 **
Natural III	0.028 **	Cultural IV	0.011	Cohesive III	0.015 *	Open III	0.018 **
Cultural III	0.022 **	Species IV	0.005	Cultural IV	0.007	Natural III	0.017 **

Note: The effect size is expressed as ${\eta }_p^2$. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. Strong influence: ^I; Medium influence: ^II; Weak influence: ^III; No influence: ^IV.

). When respondents’ perceived levels of “Serene” and “Open” changed, there was a significant effect on CEB overall, and moderate effects on the Identities and Experiences dimensions. For the Capabilities dimension, only “Serene” has a moderate impact. Meanwhile, the public perception of the Identities dimension is not dominated by the “Cultural” and “Species” dimensions, and the Experiences dimension is not influenced by the “Cultural” dimension.

A multifactor ANOVA showed that all PSD dimensions produced a significant differential relationship on CEB (p < 0.05), allowing for post hoc tests. We used a pentagon of dots and lines to represent how the different perceived levels of PSD affected CEB overall (Figure 4). Each endpoint of the pentagon represents five levels of perception levels (levels 1–5), and the connecting lines between the endpoints indicate the variability between perception levels, with a solid green line representing a significant difference and a dashed gray line representing no significant difference.

When CEB overall was used as the dependent variable, the effect of the highest level of PSD (level 5) on CEB differed from the other levels. Specifically, there were significant differences between level 5 (the highest level) and level 4 for all perceived sensory dimensions. Significant differences were also found between levels 5 and 3 for all six dimensions except the Cultural dimension. In addition, differences between levels 5 and 2 were also found for “Serene”, “Species”, and “Open”. It is noteworthy that there were two perceptual dimensions for which significant differences were found between level 5 and the other levels, namely “Serene” and “Open”. In contrast, the variability of the effects of the lower levels (1/2/3) of PSDs on the CEB overall was weaker, with only “Cohesive” and “Refuge” showing significant differences between levels 3 and 1.

4.6. Spatial Clustering of Cultural Ecosystem Benefits

The results of the hotspot analysis show that the CEB overall and the three sub-dimensions are clustered in space in a somewhat regular way, but the distribution of the different dimensions varies. Publicly perceived clusters of high CEB scores (hot spots) are indicated by red dots, while clusters of low scores (cold spots) are indicated by green dots (Figure 5). For CEB in general, hot spots are clearly clustered in the waterfront area in the southern part of the park, and are also found in the hiking trails in the southeast as well as in the Plum Garden in the north. Cold spots are mainly clustered in the central region and the northern mountains. It is worth noting that we found that the distribution of cold/hot spots in the three sub-dimensions of the CEB did not exactly follow the trend of the CEB overall: there were fewer cold spots in the Identities dimension, suggesting that the spatial aggregation of its low-efficacy spots was not significant, and for the Experiences dimension, the waterfront area in the south did not show a large number of hot spots clustered together but rather alternated between cold and hot spots; The Capabilities dimension has a wider distribution of cold spots, indicating more low-efficiency spots and more significant spatial aggregation.

5. Discussion

5.1. Cultural Ecosystem Benefits Provided by NFP

The findings indicated that the types of CEB provided by NFP can be summarized in three categories: The results of a series of studies on oceans [17], wetlands [37], and urban green spaces [51] indicated that the three categories of CEB accurately summarize the cultural well-being of people resulting from their interactions with different natural environments. Building on this, we extended our study area to NFP and revalidated the previous understanding of the connotation of CEB [20].

The cultural dimensions of human well-being are diverse and complex, and in this study, the Identities dimension was the most dominant benefit perceived by the public at NFPs (contributing 59.75% to the CEB overall), which may suggest that the cultural ecosystem services of NFPs promote a sense of belonging and attachment primarily by increasing the public’s understanding of themselves and their surroundings, a type of well-being that has typically been overlooked in previous studies [17]. Place attachment is a positive emotional connection between an individual and a place that is enhanced by practices such as forest health tourism and forest bathing [61], which allow individuals to perceive additional benefits in terms of physical, psychological, economic, and environmental factors [72]. The practical significance of place attachment in prompting the public to conceptualize access to the forest can reflect the value of the forest’s cultural ecosystem in accommodating the desired activities of various groups of people [53]. To illustrate, the cultural goods and services furnished by forests foster a deeper mental and physical dependence among local residents, thereby encouraging their active involvement in forest conservation efforts [73]. This assertion is supported by the findings of Zhang et al. [74], who conducted a field survey and reached a similar conclusion regarding the positive influence of CES on the public’s place attachment to NFP, thereby promoting pro-environmental behaviors.

The Experiences dimension is related to the health benefits of NFP, and the Capabilities dimension is related to the ability of NFP to improve self-confidence, knowledge, and quality of life. They did not contribute to the CEB to the same extent as the Identities dimension (20.75% and 19.5% of the CEB overall, respectively), which we hypothesized may be due to the potential driving effect of place attachment (Identities dimension). First, public evaluations of place attachment positively predict perceived restoration [75]. Second, the mediating role of place attachment during forest tourism experiences leads the public to engage in proactive nature contact and conservation behaviors [74], a process that spreads ecological knowledge about forests [2] and provides a range of psychological benefits [61]. Ruiz et al.’s [76] structural equation modeling also reflects the positive mediating effect of place attachment on perceived livability. In addition, residents are more likely to capture the cultural identity characteristics associated with parks that are closer to their residential areas, as these parks tend to reflect local culture and life philosophies [77], which explains the public’s higher perception of the identity dimension than the other dimensions.

Although all aspects of human well-being have important values, in this study, enhancing identity is an important way to improve the benefits of cultural ecosystems. Our view is that more expressive and symbolic cultural activities, such as environmental education activities, forest planting and gathering, and forest therapy, can be incorporated into the public’s visit to the NFP. These activities deepen the public’s identification with NFPs near their residential areas, thus fostering more ideas about ecocentrism [78] and providing a basis for a comprehensive dialog about human and forest sustainability.

5.2. PSD Linkages to Cultural Ecosystem Benefits

While previous studies have confirmed the link between PSDs in forests and stress recovery and perceived recovery [57,79], our study found correlations between PSDs in forest parks and a wider range of human well-being, such as place attachment, social connectedness, and individual competence. Furthermore, the findings reaffirm that CEB is the result of the interaction between environmental spaces and cultural practices [37].

“Serene” was strongly or moderately positively correlated with all CEB dimensions, and “Open” was moderately positively correlated with the CEB overall, Identities dimension, and Experiences dimensions with moderate positive correlations. Previous studies have confirmed that a serene and peaceful soundscape is often the most popular feature of forests and the most psychologically beneficial perceptual attribute, contributing more to stress recovery than visual perception [64,79,80], and that open, well-visualized forest spaces are more likely to be appealing to the public [44]. In addition, our study expands the applicability of the PSD scale by linking “Serene” and “Open” to other benefits of forests, implying that the PSD scale may have the potential to assess place attachment. We also noted that “Species”, “Natural”, and “Refuge” were moderately strongly positively correlation. This is consistent with Grahn and Stigsdotter’s [48] finding that a combination of species-rich and secure natural environments is beneficial for stress relief.

“Cultural” had the weakest correlation with the CEB overall because of the relatively limited ability of man-made elements to enhance public well-being [81]. “Social”, on the other hand, was uncorrelated with changes in CEB, a result that extends the findings of Chen and Lin [37]. Despite the ability of forests to promote social inclusion and build cross-cultural connections [82], Kaplan [83] argued that being alone in the forest gives people the opportunity to think about their self-worth and realize what is important to them. Kim et al. [25] used controlled experiments to demonstrate that being alone in a forest environment does indeed allow people to focus on thinking, reflecting, and cultivating mindfulness. Grahn and Stigsdotter [48] suggested that reducing or removing the socializing function of natural environments is beneficial for stress relief. In the subsequent analyses, we excluded the “social” dimension.

5.3. Impact of PSD on Cultural Ecosystem Benefits

All seven PSDs affected CEB production to varying degrees (except for “Social”), but there were differences in the effects of different PSDs on CEB. “Serene” and “Open” had the most significant effects on CEB. “Serene” outperforms other perceived sensory dimensions in many aspects of human well-being, such as helping individuals to escape from daily chores and increasing curiosity about nature and a sense of belonging [58]. Since the perception of the environment is a multi-sensory interaction, the attribute “serene” in this study does not mean absolutely silent, but rather the absence of artificial noise. In NFP, the attribute of serenity can be obtained through a combination of natural sounds such as birdsong and wind [48]. When feeling more stress, the public tends to perform activities in a tranquil natural environment [59]. The sound of birdsong is often seen as an important element of restorative experiences in nature. This natural sound triggers the ability to associate and perceive biodiversity, which not only deepens the connection between humans and nature [84], but also helps to increase the sense of identity with the natural environment [85]. “Open” represents the spatial attributes of good visibility and free movement. For NFP, forest stand structure is an important factor influencing the “Open” dimension, which is closely related to the perceived benefits to the public. It has been suggested that there is a so-called “bell-shaped effect” in the visual environment of forests: when the density of understory vegetation (e.g., shrubs, low trees) reaches a certain threshold, it may evoke more negative emotions [86]. Whereas overly tall and dense trees can block the view, the reduction in visual depth can further generate a sense of insecurity [87]. For individuals’ emotions, they need more freedom to cope with stress and negativity, and in some cases, uninhibited activities can help inspire and find relief from depression [48].

“Natural” has a low level of influence on CEB. Although nature is an important attribute of forests that distinguishes them from urban environments, studies have shown that the public prefers forests with appropriate artificial interventions, and that moderate clearing of dead wood can increase visual depth, which can effectively enhance the recreational value of forests [86], while purely natural forests without clearing are usually unsuitable for activities. Changes in public perceptions of “Species” did not affect the Identities dimension and had a weak effect on CEB overall, the findings of Edwards et al. [86] indicate that the addition of new tree species does not significantly impact the aesthetic and recreational value of forest cultural ecosystems. Currently, research on perceived health supportiveness of species diversity is usually divided into two types of views, the positive view that the cultural significance of species diversity is to promote human well-being [88] and the negative view that overabundance of species creates negative environmental stimuli [89], especially for mammals and reptiles [90]. This explains the weak effect of “Species” on CEB. Changes in “Cultural” did not affect the Identities and Experiences dimensions, as green spaces do not depend on man-made landscapes to increase human well-being [91].

We also found that the difference between the highest score (5) and the low score (1/2/3/4) of the same PSD is a determining factor affecting CEB. Therefore, from the perspective of enhancing the public perception of CEB, we summarize the options that contribute to the planning and management of NFP. Focusing on highlighting a particular perceived sensory dimension can influence CEB more than enhancing the overall quality of the environmental space.

5.4. PPGIS Implications for NFP Management and Optimization Strategies

Our PPGIS process captures both the location coordinates and the CEB and PSD perceived by the public at the location, and its significant advantages in practice are efficiency and accuracy. First, inviting visitors and residents to participate in the survey on-site yields a higher response rate, with most visitors willing to assist us, compared to only a 13% response rate in a previous web-based survey [40]. Second, our method allows for rapid data collection. Using a questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale made the survey more efficient, taking only 3–5 min per respondent. In contrast, the use of in-depth interviews is very time-consuming [6]. Thirdly, digital maps collect points with first-hand data with satellite positioning, whereas traditional paper maps are usually not accurate enough.

In light of the fact that China’s NFP system has reached the stage of resource integration and optimization, the Chinese government has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to take into account the social, economic, and ecological dynamics of NFPs [2], and that it is essential to conduct regular forest park quality ratings [3]. Consequently, the method of producing hotspot maps is anticipated to be incorporated into the management framework of a greater number of NFPs, a bottom-up management model that views local residents as stakeholders of forest parks. The dimensions of CEB in this study are close to the overall hot/cold spot distribution trend, but we can still observe different distributions. Comparing hot/cold spots with different perceived benefits can pinpoint the prioritized management areas without causing resource tension or conflict. At the same time, hotspot maps reflect the intensity of management needed in different areas, providing solutions that are more in line with societal needs and avoiding controversial conservation measures that affect landscape quality. In addition, the simplified survey method is expected to promote the community-based management of NFP, which can effectively reduce the cost of conservation [92], promote the standardization of conservation behavior [93], and reduce the possibility of forest degradation [94].

For decision makers in NFP, good soundscape and open space for activities are the most favorable environmental factors for cultural ecosystem benefits. NFPs that are species-rich, pristine and have a sense of security may be more conducive to psychological stress. In addition, maintaining a sense of nature in the NFP and providing space for the public to be alone is a better option than providing more humanistic landscapes and places to socialize. In addition, policy makers can assign unique perceptual attributes to different spaces to enhance the CEB perceived by the public. In this process, the most important thing is to reduce the noise generated by human activities and create a pleasant acoustic environment, for example, limiting the number of motorized vehicles in the NFP, utilizing plants to block external noise, and paying attention to the protection of local birds. Secondly, ensure that the public can enjoy open views and unobstructed space for activities. This can be done by moderately clearing fallen trees from the forest, controlling the spacing of artificial vegetation, and also reducing artificial barriers such as fences and artificial shrubs.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we constructed a theoretical framework of CEB for evaluating national forest parks and designed a CEB scale suitable for forests based on three types of human well-being: identity, physical and mental experience, and acquired capabilities. Additionally, we referenced the perceived sensory dimensions Scale, which is capable of assessing environmental characteristics that are highly pertinent to human well-being. Through the implementation of a PPGIS survey within the Fuzhou National Forest Park, we substantiated that the CEB scale is a dependable instrument for gauging the intangible benefits of NFP. Ultimately, we identified correlations between numerous sensory perception dimensions and CEB and examined the variability of the effects of diverse perception dimensions and their levels on CEB.

6.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

Establishing the link between PSD and CEB can provide more valuable evidence for evidence-based design, whereby designers can indirectly contribute to human well-being by enhancing specific environmental perceptual attributes. Our findings indicate that tranquil, open forest spaces are of significant importance to the public. Furthermore, our results suggest that highlighting a particular site-specific perceptual experience is more conducive to CEB generation than enhancing the overall perceptual quality. These findings will play an important role in the transformation of forest landscapes. In terms of methodology, the PPGIS process constructed in this study demonstrated enhanced reliability and efficiency. It provides a novel option for community-based management of NFP, which will facilitate public engagement and facilitate a transformation from mere “visitors” to “faithful partners” in forest management.

6.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The provision of visual aids for decision-making is a service offered to those in positions of authority; however, there is a dearth of guidance for the general public. The public frequently engages in expressive and symbolic cultural practices, such as exercise and meditation, in forest parks. In light of the fact that environmental behaviors exert an influence on individual perceptions [74], it is possible to pursue further investigation into the part played by PSD in mediating the relationship between different environmental behaviors and CEB. This should result in the formulation of guidance for the public, enabling them to select the activities that are most beneficial to them. Furthermore, the demand for cultural services varies among stakeholders in different cultural and geographic contexts [37]. NFPs exhibit considerable diversity in terms of culture, landscape, and climate [2]. This study focuses on tree-dominated mountain forest parks. To enhance the generalizability of the findings, future research could expand the study area to include NFPs with more diverse geographic and cultural contexts.