Next Article in Journal
Control Strategy for Line Overload and Short Circuit Current of Networked Distribution Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Properties of Cold-Bonded and Sintered Aggregate Using Washing Aggregate Sludge and Their Incorporation in Concrete: A Promising Material
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/su14074206
sustainability-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 Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions

by
Ruxing Wang
1,
Yechen Zhang
1,
Hongmei Zhang
2,* and
Hu Yu
3
1
College of Tourism and Exhibition, Hefei University, Hefei 230601, China
2
College of Tourism, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200030, China
3
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 4206; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074206
Submission received: 27 February 2022 / Revised: 23 March 2022 / Accepted: 28 March 2022 / Published: 1 April 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

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

1. Introduction

National parks are large natural areas established to protect nationally representative natural wilderness landscapes, wildlife, and unique ecosystems. They provide space for scientific research, environmental education, ecological recreation, and other activities [1,2,3]. The protection of natural ecosystems and biodiversity is the primary goal of establishing national parks. China is currently one of the scarcest countries in the world in terms of natural assets per capita. Under the influence of rapid economic development, the trade and occupation of natural assets are particularly active, and there is an urgent need for ecosystem service research [4]. Ecosystem services are the environmental conditions and services that ecosystems create and maintain for human survival and development [5] for all of the benefits that humans receive directly or indirectly from ecosystems [6]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) provides a framework for understanding the linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being, which explains four categories of ecosystem services: supporting services, provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services [7]. Ecosystem services frameworks and value assessments are increasingly used as tools for natural resource management and conservation [8,9]. However, most of the existing studies have focused on the assessment of ecological and economic values [10,11,12], with less attention to non-monetized social values [13,14]. Despite the low social value priority of ecosystems [15], the perception of social values and ecological knowledge of community residents have long been recognized as an important component of natural resource and city management [16,17,18]. Combining the social value of ecosystem services with a focus on the ecological and economic values of nature will produce equitable and effective policy outcomes, and significantly increase the resilience of social-ecological systems [19,20,21]. As Zagarola argues, an overemphasis on the value of tools in ecosystem services assessments can easily lead to ignoring the voices of those that are most affected by environmental management policies [22]. Lakerveld also argues that many ecosystem services are generated through integrating ecosystem processes and social actions, and therefore they cannot be assessed without social values [23]. Since the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, national parks have been viewed more as “wilderness areas” until the 1980s, when they were increasingly viewed as inhabited cultural landscapes (tourism and national parks). Therefore, community residents’ perception and assessment of ecosystem services, as core stakeholders in the national park context, is critical to local natural resource management and socio-ecological sustainability.

2. Literature Review

The social value of ecosystem services represents the benefits that ecosystems provide to society and the perceived quality of human well-being for natural ecology [7]. Social value is often defined as non-market values as perceived by ecosystem stakeholders [24], corresponding to specific cultural ecosystem services such as aesthetics, recreation, and spiritual services [25]. However, the focus of related research has been on cultural services, and the social values about supply, support, and regulate services have been neglected [26].
Previous research has developed a typology for characterizing perceptions of the natural environment, these studies draw on the concept of “allocated value” (“assigned value”) to reflect the relative importance of landscape features [27]. “Assigned value” indicates the preferences and beliefs of the study participants about the relative importance or value of a particular landscape. For example, “the marina has significant economic value” and “the forest has recreational value” are all statements reflecting “assigned value”. Based on this, Brown and Reed developed scales for 13 different types of values including biodiversity, aesthetics, and recreation has been applied to research areas such as personal attachments formed between people and places, and correspondence between human perceptions and ecosystem services [28,29,30,31].
In this process, the Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) approach has received attention from researchers. PPGIS can capture hotspots in spatial geographic locations and allows managers to understand the preferences and beliefs held by the public [24,32]. Alessa used a social value scale to identify “hotspots” or areas of spatial convergence between socially defined critical areas and net primary productivity as a proxy for species diversity on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska [33].
Nielson-Pincus also applied a form of PPGIS to better understand social conflicts over land use among rural residents of Idaho and Oregon [34]. Riper used a GIS application, SolVES, to assess the perceived social values of visitors to Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia, and found that there are different hotspots in the allocation of social values to the national park among tourists engaged in different consumption activities. Different hotspots exist for assigning social values to national parks among tourists engaged in different consumption activities. Tourist preferences for ecosystem social values are concentrated in three types: recreation, biodiversity, and aesthetic quality [35]. Scholars Gao Yan and Ma Qiao assessed 10 social values for ecosystem services such as aesthetics, biodiversity, life sustainability, and spirituality and their spatial distribution characteristics in Taibaishan National Forest Park and Xi’an Chanba National Wetland Park, respectively [36,37]. Wang Y analyzed the aesthetic, cultural, heritage, historical, learning, recreational, spiritual, recreational, economic, life support, and biodiversity values of ecosystem services using Wusong Fortress Wetland Forest Park in Shanghai as an example [38]. Zhang L W and Fu B J reviewed the progress of ecosystem service mapping research [39]. In general, current research on the social value of national park ecosystem services is in its infancy and is mostly concerned with tourists, with few studies on other stakeholders (e.g., residents, management agencies, etc.). At present, the national park system in China has not yet been truly formed, and there is a lack of research on the perceived social value of ecosystem services in the park landscape by its internal residents. Therefore, little is known about the relationship between perceived social value and the natural environment of the park. This study attempts to fill this gap by using the PPGIS approach in the pilot area of the Qianjiangyuan National Park (QJYNP) system as an example in order to provide suggestions for the management of natural resources in national parks.
Based on the above discussion, this study presupposes three research objectives: (1) to explore the social value preferences and spatial distribution and density of national park residents; (2) to investigate the relationship between the social value of ecosystem services and the natural resource conditions of the park; (3) to compare the differences in social value perceptions among residents with different environmental value orientations.

3. Study Design and Methods

3.1. Introduction to the Case Site

The QJYNP is located in Kaihua County, Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province (118°01′–118°37′ E, 28°54′–29°30′ N), bordered by Wuyuan County, Jiangxi Province to the west and Xiuning County, Anhui Province to the north. It is adjacent to Wuyuan County of Jiangxi Province and Xiuning County of Anhui Province to the north, and is the source area of Qiantang River, the mother river of Zhejiang Province. The national park covers an area of about 252 km2 and involves a total of 4 townships, including 19 administrative villages, 72 natural villages and a total population of 9744 people, including Suzhuang, Changhong, Hetian and Qixi townships. In order to highlight the importance and ecological service value of the ecosystem of the Qianjiang River source area in the eastern region and reflect the integrity of the existing protected areas, the source area is incorporated as much as possible based on the watershed of the Qiantang River source area, and the spatial scope includes the Gutian Mountain National Nature Reserve (81.07 km2), the Qianjiangyuan National Forest Park (45 km2), the Qianjiang River Source Provincial Scenic Area and the area connecting the above nature reserves The ecological area between the above nature reserves (most of them are ecological public welfare forests). The park is divided into four functional zones: a 28.49% core conservation area, 48.84% ecological conservation area, 6.27% recreational display area, and 16.40% traditional use area (Figure 1) [3].
The forest ecosystem of QJYNP is one of the most characteristic ecosystem types in China, and is a typical representative of subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest zonal vegetation with high service value, and is an important ecological barrier in East China. There are many rare and endangered plants and animals in the park, including 32 species of rare and endangered plants and 32 species of national key protected animals, such as Chinese first-level key protected wildlife animals Muntiacus crinifrons, Syrmaticus ellioti. The G3 highway and G205 national highway run through the park, and county and township roads are the main traffic routes connecting the towns and villages. On the basis of protecting the natural ecosystem, QJYNP still assumes the functions of recreation and education. The completed tourism infrastructure includes the Gutian Mountain Visitor Center, Gutian Mountain Resort, Suihu Mountain Resort, Qianjiangyuan Tourism Distribution Center, star toilets and a number of farm caravans; Changhong Township has developed 39 tourist attractions, including 7 red tourist attractions, 21 green field attractions, 11 ancient resource sightseeing attractions, and 35 farm caravan reception sites.
Residents in the pilot area make their living by growing crops such as rice, rape, corn and economic forests such as oil tea, of which agricultural income and income from working outside account for more than 80% of all income. Most farmers usually grow rice with a small amount of economic forestry, self-production and self-marketing. Some farmers are engaged in vegetable production and processing. The secondary and tertiary industries are not developed. The economic conditions in the surrounding areas are average and lower than the per capita net income of farmers in the county (8583 yuan per person, 2011). In recent years, leisure tourism has gradually emerged, mainly concentrated in Qi Xi Town and Changhong Township and some villages in Su Zhuang Township, mostly in the form of agritainment.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire of this study consists of four parts: (1) basic personal information; (2) environmental value scale; (3) social value assessment scale; and (4) the scope map of QJYNP. The basic personal information contains the gender, age, education, home address, familiarity with the national park, source of income, and perceived important values of the national park of the research sample. The environmental values scale was derived from Schultz and Dunlap et al.’s environmental values scale, and four items were selected for “ecocentrism” and “anthropocentrism” [40]. The measure is a 5-point Likert scale, with 1–5 indicating “strongly disagree”to” strongly agree” respectively. The social value assessment scale is originally proposed by Rolston et al. [41] are revised and refined in their study of public perceptions and preferences for ecological values in the Chugal National Forest, and are empirically analyzed in a related community study [33,34], which has some validity. The original scale contains 12 types of social values, including “aesthetic values”. Based on our pre-research, this study eliminates the “intrinsic values” that respondents perceived to be low, resulting in an assessment scale containing 11 types of social values, as shown in Table 1. Respondents are asked to allocate 100 RMB to the 11 social values according to their attitudes and preferences, and to mark the locations or areas that best represent these values on the QJYNP range map.

3.3. Data Sources

The data sources used in this study include two types: research data and spatial data. (1) Research data: the research team conducted a pre-study of the case sites in August 2018, and after further revision and improvement of the research questionnaire, the formal research as conducted from 19–24, September with systematic sampling. The research team consisted of two doctorate students and three graduate students, and relevant training was conducted before the research. The four towns within the QJYNP were expected to distribute 80 copies of questionnaires each; 300 copies were actually distributed and 275 valid questionnaires were collected. Among them, 73 copies were from Qixi, 58 copies from Hetian, 64 copies from Changhong, and 80 copies from Suzhuang. The spatial data points of residents’ social value perceptions were collected (1956). The basic statistical information of the research sample is shown in Table 2. (1) In terms of gender, there are more male respondents than female respondents, with the proportions of 64.7% and 35.3% respectively; in terms of age, the majority of respondents are between 18–60 years old, which is a reasonable distribution; in terms of educational attainment, the majority of respondents have education level of high school or below, with the proportion of 52.4%; the home addresses of respondents are involved in all four townships within the scope of the national park, which ensures a reasonable regional distribution to a certain extent; and the majority of the respondents have a certain degree of knowledge about QJYNP, with a proportion of 86.5%. (2) Spatial data: the spatial data of this study are derived from the vector data in the master plan of QJYNP, including the land use data formed based on the 2011 national land survey data of Kaihua County Bureau of Land and Resources, tourism project points within the scope of the national park, topographic elevation data of the park, natural resources distribution maps, etc.

3.4. Analysis Methods

The SolVES model (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) is a geographic information system (GIS) application developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Center for Geosciences and Environmental Change Sciences to quantify and assess the social value of ecosystem services and to link survey data on social values with landscape indicators in the region. A GIS application was developed by the USGS Center for Earth Science and Environmental Change Science to quantify and assess the social value of ecosystem services and to validate the relationship between survey data on social values and landscape indicators in natural resource layers in the region [31]. Social values are defined here as public attitudinal preferences and perceptions of non-marketable values of ecosystem services, such as aesthetics and recreation. Social values are represented by a value index assigned to a range of 0–10, where a higher value index represents a higher preference for such values.
The SolVES model consists of three sub-models (Figure 2): the social value model, the value mapping model, and the value transformation mapping model. In the analysis process, firstly, the social value model is used to select the stakeholder group, and the maximum value and the location of the highest rated value identified are derived using the Kernel Density Analysis tool in ArcGIS software. Secondly, the value mapping model is used to select the social value, and the value index is derived by normalizing the social value according to the maximum value and calculating the environmental change. Finally, the graphical output in ArcGIS. The operation result of MaxEnt statistical model to derive the relationship between social value index map and landscape index [36]. Two landscape indicator layers were selected to represent the natural resource layers in the region in this study, namely land use form (LULC; land use and land cover) and elevation (DEM).

4. Results

4.1. Spatial Distribution of Social Values

Using the arcGIS Kernel Density Analysis tool embedded in the SolVES model, Kernel Density Analysis was conducted on the 1956 social value points collected to obtain the spatial distribution density of social value perception points for the overall resident sample to identify hotspots of social value of ecosystem services in QJYNP, the results are shown in Figure 3. From the results of the nuclear density analysis, it can be seen that the social value hotspot area of QJYNP presents a situation of two cores and multiple centers. The two core hotspots are Qianjiangyuan National Forest Park in Qixi Township and Gutianshan National Nature Reserve in Suzhuang Town. The multiple centers are near Longkeng Village in Hetian Township, Kukeng in Changhong Township, Xiachuan and near Gautiankeng Village.
Qianjiangyuan National Forest Park and Gutianshan National Nature Reserve are where the core reserve of this national park is located and are important parts of the ecological conservation area. The area preserves intact natural ecosystems and ethnic habitats with fragile natural environments. The area is also responsible for many functions such as native ecological protection, ecological restoration and scientific investigation, environmental education and low-density recreation experience. In particular, the Qianjiangyuan National Forest Park, the birthplace of the Qiantangjiang River, the mother river of Zhejiang Province, bears the protection of water sources while also holding the emotional dependence of local residents. Most of the other hotspots are located in the recreation and display area and traditional use area of QJYNP, which are also the areas where the population is concentrated. Most of these hotspots assume the functions of ecological tourism, science education and community production and living. Especially in Changhong area, with the implementation of the concept of whole-area tourism, several famous tourist attractions have been formed in the area, such as Taihuishan, Gaotiankeng ancient village and Xikeng.

4.2. Spatial Clustering of Social Value Types

The research subject assigns various social value types to the ecosystem services of QJYNP, among which biodiversity, recreation and therapy, aesthetics, and recreation values are more preferred by the community residents, obtaining 229, 216, 211, and 188 digitized points, respectively. The SolVES model uses the Kernel Density Analysis in Arcgis software to determine the spatial clustering results of the 11 types of The Kernel Density Analysis is conducted to determine the spatial clustering results of social value points by the analyzed ratio (R value) and standard deviation (Z value) (as shown in Table 3). The R value less than 1 represents clustering; R value equal to 1 represents random; and R value greater than 1 represents discrete. The SolVES model normalizes the social value values assigned by the respondents and derives a decimal value index (value index, VI), and the highest value index among the 11 social value types is the maximum value index of the value type. The result of M-VI indicates the importance of each social value type, and the higher the value the higher the social value index.
The results of the average nearest neighbor analysis show that the residents’ perceptions of each social value point of the ecosystem services in QJYNP are spatially clustered and distributed (R < 1), with the highest degree of clustering of biodiversity value points, followed by aesthetic value. The social value indices obtained by normalization and the number of each type of value points assigned by the interviewed residents show that residents show a higher degree of preference for biodiversity, aesthetics, economy, and health and healing in QJYNP. The preference of each social value is in the following order: biodiversity value > aesthetic value > economic value > health and recuperation value > cultural value > future value > life support value > recreation value > historical value > learning value > spiritual value. In this paper, the four types of social values with higher preference of the interviewed residents are selected for more in-depth exploration and analysis.

4.3. Relationship between the Spatial Distribution of Social Values and Geographic Environment Conditions

The spatial distribution of biodiversity value, aesthetic value, economic value and recreation value of QJYNP is obtained by running the value mapping model and the maximum entropy model in the SolVES model (Figure 4), then describing the relationship between them and the geographic environment conditions (Figure 5). As can be seen from Figure 4, the spatial distribution of biodiversity value and aesthetic value in QJYNP is more concentrated, but still distributed in all four townships within the park area. And unlike the biodiversity value, the high value index of aesthetic value is concentrated in the range of Changhong Township.
In contrast, the economic and recreational values are more dispersed in spatial distribution, filling almost the entire park area. In contrast, all four social value types show a zonal distribution pattern, especially the economic value and recreation value are more obvious. In addition, most of the four social value types are distributed in the middle and low altitude area of 400–600 m. The accessibility of this area is higher, and therefore the perceived intensity of residents is also higher.
The relationship between the four social value types and the elevation and land use is calculated by the Maxent maximum entropy model, and a graph of the relationship between the four social value types and the elevation and land use was obtained. From Figure 5, it can be seen that the biodiversity value of QJYNP fluctuates the most by land use, and the recreation and therapy value fluctuates the least. All four social value types show the greatest value index near the villages, indicating that the areas where the residents interviewed perceive a stronger degree are more distributed in the range around the living area. The residents’ perceived biodiversity values show higher value indices in villages and other woodland types; high value indices for aesthetic values are mainly distributed in villages, other woodland and reservoir water types; economic values are mainly distributed within villages, orchards and other woodland types; and recreational and therapeutic values fluctuate the least, mainly within reservoir water, villages, paddy fields and other woodland. In terms of correlation with elevation, all four value types show a sharp increase in value index at 400 m altitude, which is consistent with the geomorphological type of the national park, which has steep hills, large mountain slopes, a wide distribution and large area of steep slopes, and a general cutting depth of 400 m or above. Above 600 m elevation, all four value types also show a rapid decline in value indices. The difference is that both biodiversity value and economic value show a continuous decreasing trend of value index above 400 m above sea level; while aesthetic value and recreation value index turn to increase after decreasing at 400 m above sea level, and then show another decrease above 600 m.

4.4. Influence of Different Environmental Values on the Spatial Distribution of Social Values of Residents

Individual environmental values affect the distribution of social values of ecosystem services [42], and understanding the preferences of people with different values can provide guidance for national park management and sustainable development. The sample is divided into ecocentric and anthropocentric subgroups based on the mean values of the measured environmental values question items (shown in Table 2). The four types of social values receive the highest degree of preference (highest value index), namely biodiversity value, aesthetic value, recreational and therapeutic value, and economic value, were selected for comparative analysis of different environmental values.
As can be seen from Figure 6: (1) overall, the distribution of social values in the ecocentrism subgroup is larger, covering almost the entire national park area, and the transition of value indices is smoother; the distribution of social values in the anthropocentrism subgroup is relatively more concentrated in a certain area; (2) both subgroups have a higher preference for the biodiversity value of QJYNP, with a value index of nine. However, the distribution of value points in the anthropocentrism subgroup is obviously more fragmented, and although they are distributed in four townships, they are mostly dotted, among which the value points near Kukeng in Changhong Township, Longkeng in Hetian Township, and Gutianshan in Suzhuang are particularly prominent; (3) in terms of aesthetic value, the value index of the anthropocentrism subgroup is higher, and the value points are concentrated in the vicinity of Gaotiankeng and Kukeng in Changhong Township and Longkeng Village in Hetian Township. The ecocentrism subgroup has a slightly lower value index, but the value points are more evenly distributed spatially; (4) the two subgroups maintain the same degree of preference for recreation and therapy values in national parks, with value indices of eight. The spatial distribution trends of value points are also relatively similar, and they are evenly distributed within the park. However, the anthropocentrism subgroup has a more obvious high-value clustering phenomenon in the water lake scenic area of Qixi Township and Changhong Township, indicating that the residents of this subgroup recognize the value of vacation and recreation in these two areas more; (5) As for the economic value of QJYNP, the value indices of the two subgroups are the same, but the distribution range of the ecocentrism subgroup is significantly larger and even.

4.5. Model Performance Evaluation

The ROC curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) can be used to assess the reliability of the SolVES model analysis results. the AUC (area under the curve) values under the ROC curve range between 0.5 and 1.0, and the closer the AUC value is to 1, the more effective the model is. The model is accurate for AUC values between 0.7 and 0.8, very accurate for AUC values between 0.8 and 0.9, and extremely accurate for AUC values above 0.9 [43]. As can be seen from Table 4, the output AUC values of MaxEnt statistical model for each social value type of ecosystem services in QJYNP are all greater than 0.7, indicating that this study has good results for the assessment of ecosystem services in QJYNP, its credibility is high, and the assessment results have favorable social significance.

5. Discussion

This paper takes the community residents of QJYNP in Zhejiang Province as the research object, focuses on social values, and uses PPGIS method and the SolVES model to test the relationship between the values held by individuals (anthropocentrism and ecocentrism) and the values of distribution. This paper expands on the level and connotation of the concept of value in ecosystem services research and demonstrates its importance for resource management decisions.
In terms of spatial distribution, the results of the nuclear density analysis show that the social value hotspot area of QJYNP presents a situation of two cores and multiple centers. The two core hotspots are QJYNP in Qixi Township and Gutianshan National Nature Reserve in Suzhuang Town. Multiple centers are near Longkeng Village in He Tian Township, Kukeng in Changhong Township, Xiachuan and near Gaotiankeng Village. By analyzing the relationship between value types and natural resource conditions (land use and elevation) for the four types with higher preference, it was found that social value points were closely related to villages, reservoir water, other forest land, and orchards; and most of the social value points were distributed in the range of 400–600 m above sea level. In addition, interviewed residents with different environmental values also showed different value perceptions and spatial distribution.
Compared to related studies, residents surveyed in this study showed significant attitudinal preferences in the types of economic and recreational values of national parks [36,37,44,45]. Most of the previous related studies were conducted with tourists, and respondents showed higher preference for aesthetic and recreational values and the lowest preference for economic values [29]. However, considering the multiple tasks of recreation and community livelihoods and ecological conservation undertaken by national parks, the residents’ concern for economic values illustrates the differences in the claims of different interests to national parks. Therefore, the development of community livelihoods is a part that cannot be ignored in the management of national parks. The QJYNP has the typical native evergreen broad-leaved forest zone vegetation of low altitude in the central subtropics, which is rare in the world, and is the source of the Qiantang River, the “mother river” of Zhejiang. At the same time, QJYNP is located at the edge of the Yangtze River Delta metropolitan area, and many city residents choose to come here for vacation and recreation in summer, which is closely related to the livelihood of community residents.
By analyzing the relationship between social value perception and natural resource conditions, it is found that the social value points allocated by community residents are mainly distributed in the area between 400 m and 600 m above sea level. This is related to the topography in QJYNP. Most of the villages where residents live in the park are located in the area below 600 m above sea level, so most of the value points are also distributed at this height. This result is similar to the value distribution of the interviewed tourists (different subjects in the same survey) [46]. However, the difference is that the value perception point of residents is most closely related to the village land; but the value perception point of tourists is most closely related to scenic spots, river water surface, and forest land. This shows that, whether tourists or residents, the distribution of value is closely related to the range of activities of the respondents. This is more important for the management of national parks, and relevant management policies and knowledge can be promoted in different regional locations for different groups.
This study introduces environmental values into the assessment of social values and tries to construct a link between personally held values and assigned values. The survey found that a small number of community residents in QJYNP believe that humans are the most important and are the masters of nature; however, most of the interviewed residents agree that nature and humans have equal power to survive and that humans are still constrained by the laws of nature. The study found that ecocentric respondents had a broader spatial scope in their perception of social values and were more evenly distributed across the park, rather than just focusing on a single point. Respondents of the two values still differed in their perception of specific types of values. For example, anthropocentric respondents had a stronger preference for aesthetic values than ecocentrics, which is closely related to personal values. Anthropocentrism may place more emphasis on types of values that are closely related to personal interests, while ignoring values that are also closely related to individuals but not directly perceived (e.g., biodiversity, etc.). In terms of economic values, significant differences also emerged in the perceptions of the two groups of respondents. The economic value distribution of the ecocentrists is more evenly distributed spatially, involving the four townships within the park, while the value distribution of the anthropocentrists is relatively concentrated and fluctuated more between the value indices. Taken together, the SolVES model has better performance in assessing the social value of ecosystem services in national parks, and the assessment results have higher credibility. This study still adopts the traditional social questionnaire approach in the acquisition of statistical data, and finding a better and more objective method of data acquisition and conversion to avoid the bias caused by the subjective factors of respondents is worth exploring in depth in the follow-up study. In addition, the scale selection and value screening of the study area have great explorability and research potential, and further research is also required on how the SolVES model can be more effective for social valuation of ecosystem services in China.

6. Conclusions

This study uses the SolVES model to assess the social value of park ecosystem services using community residents within the boundaries of QJYNP as the study population. The results of the study show that among the 11 types of social values, the residents interviewed showed significantly higher levels of preference for the biodiversity value, aesthetic value, economic value, and recreational and therapeutic value of the national park.
While the findings are beneficial for national park resource management, caution should be exercised in policy development with a wider audience in mind. Firstly, respondents’ perceptions of the social value of national park ecosystem services are closely related to their personal field experience, so ecological education can be carried out in relevant areas in a targeted manner. Secondly, respondents with different values may express different anchor values for ecosystem services in different spaces. The public is more likely to accept and abide by a policy if an individual’s value position is taken into account in the policy making process.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Z. and H.Y.; data curation, Y.Z. and R.W.; formal analysis, Y.Z. and H.Y.; methodology, R.W., Y.Z., and H.Y.; project administration, H.Z. and R.W.; investigation, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.W.; writing—review and editing, H.Z. and Y.Z.; visualization, R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 41971254; National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2017YFC0506401; Graduate Quality Engineering Project of Hefei University, grant number 2021Ymooc01; University Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Anhui Province, grant number SK2021A0581; General Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning of Anhui Province, grant number AHSKY2021D28.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approval for the study was not required in accordance with local/national legislation. Statement of Science and Technology Department (scientific research ethics review organization) of Hefei University confirmed “this study would be exempt from review for current institutional review boards, informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study, did not involve the collection of any data on biomedical research ethics, which is in line with national laws and regulations, no ethical review and approval is required”.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers and editor for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yaohua, C.; Dan, H.; Siqi, Y. On the public interest, national dominance and science of national parks. Geoscience 2014, 34, 257–264. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yinglin, W.; Yang, R.; Eckar, L. Review of national park management system in the United Kingdom. Chin.Gard. 2013, 9, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hu, Y.; Tian, C.; Linsheng, Z.; Rui, Z. Study on the functional zoning of the pilot area of QJYNP System. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gaoqi, X.; Lin, Z.; Chunxia, L.; Yu, X.; Cao, C. An expert knowledge-based approach to valorize ecosystem services. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 23, 911–919. [Google Scholar]
  5. Daily, G.C. Introduction: What Are Ecosystem Services. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Daily, G.C., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
  8. Lele, S.; Springate-Baginski, O.; Lakerveld, R.; Deb, D.; Dash, P. Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Gonzalez, J.A.; Plieninger, T.; Lopez, C.A.; Montes, C. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in spanning socio-ecological networks. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1269–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nieto-Romero, M.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; González, J.A.; Martín-López, B. Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Insights for future research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 37, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schroter, M.; Zanden, E.H.; van Oudenhoven AP, E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez, H.M.; Groot, R.S.D.; Opdam, P. Ecosystem services as a controversial concept: A synthesis of critiques and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Seppelt, R.; Fath, B.; Burkhard, B.; Fisher, J.L.; Gret-Regamey, A.; Lautenbach, S.; Pert, P.; Hotes, S.; Spangenberg, J.; Verburg, P.H. Form follows function? A blueprint for ecosystem service valuation based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 145–154. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cole, Z.; Holland, S.; Donohoe, H. A Social Values Typology for Comprehensive Assessment of Coastal Zone Ecosystem Services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2015, 28, 1290–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Sherrouse, B.C.; Bagstad, K.J.; Sutton, S.G. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Smith, H.F.; Sullivan, C.A. Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers’ perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sherren, K.; Fischer, J.; Price, R. Using photography to elicit grazier values and management practices relating to tree survival and recruitment. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 1056–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koh, Y.F.; Loc, H.H.; Park, E. Towards a“City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1499–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, L.; Lin, X.; Qiu, B.; Ou, G.; Zhang, Z.; Han, S. Impact of Value Perception on Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Farmland Fallow: A Case-Study in Major Grain-Producing Areas of Hubei and Hunan, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 724–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P. Bioeconomy of Sustainability: Drivers, Opportunities and Policy Implications. Sustainability 2022, 14, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. González-García, R.J.; Mártínez-Rico, G.; Bañuls-Lapuerta, F. Residents’ Perception of the Impact of Sports Tourism on Sustainable Social Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1232–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D.; Macdonald, D.H. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zagarola, J.P.A.; Anderson, C.B.; Veteto, J.R. Perceiving Patagonia: An Assessment of Social Values and Perspectives Regarding Watershed Ecosystem Services and Management in Southern South America. Environ. Manag. 2014, 53, 769–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lakerveld, R.P.; Lele, S.; Crane, T.A.; Fortuin, K.P.J.; Springate-Baginski, O. The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: Evidence and insights from Odisha, India. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 14, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Raymond, C.M.; Bryan, B.A.; MacDonald, D.H.; Cast, A.; Strathearn, S.; Grandgirard, A.; Kalivas, T. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1301–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. 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] [Green Version]
  27. McIntyre, N.; Moore, J.; Yuan, M. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2008, 21, 657–670. [Google Scholar]
  28. Brown, G.; Reed, P. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. For. Sci. 2000, 46, 240–247. [Google Scholar]
  29. Brown, G.; Montag, J.M.; Lyon, K. Publicly engaged GIS: A method to identifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 633–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Brown, G.; Raymond, C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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]
  32. Clement, J.M.; Cheng, A.S. Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alessa, L.N.; Kliskey, A.A.; Brown, G. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 85, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nielson-Pincus, M. Mapping a values typology in three counties of the Interior Northwest, USA: Scale, geographic associations among values, and the use of intensity. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Sutton, S.G.; Barnes, M.; Sherrouse, B.C. Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 35, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gao, Y.; Liu, K.; Ma, Q.; Li, Y.; Fan, Y.N.; Li, X.Q.; Gu, C. Social value assessment of ecosystem services based on SolVES model and tourists’ preferences: An example of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park. J. Ecol. 2017, 36, 3564–3573. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ma, Q.; Liu, K.; Gao, Y.; Li, Y.; Fan, Y.N.; Gu, C. Social value assessment of ecosystem services in Xi’an Chanba National Wetland Park based on SolVES model. Wetl. Sci. 2018, 16, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wang, Y.; Fu, B.T.; Lv, Y.P.; Yang, K.; Che, Y. Social value assessment of ecosystem services based on the SolVES model—an example of Wusong Fortress Taiwan Wetland Forest Park. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 27, 1767–1774. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang, L.W.; Fu, B.J. Advances in ecosystem service mapping research. J. Ecol. 2014, 34, 316–325. [Google Scholar]
  40. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rolston, H.I.; Coufal, J. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management:the integrity of forests and of foresters are bound together. J. For. 1991, 89, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lockwood, M. Humans Valuing Nature: Synthesising Insights from Philosophy, Psychology and Economics. Environ. Values 1999, 8, 381–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mao, L.W.; Li, Y.; Liu, C.; Fang, Y.M. Predicting the potential distribution area of Pinellia minor in China based on MaxEnt model. J. Ecol. 2017, 36, 54–60. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J.; Clement, J.M. 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] [CrossRef]
  45. Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T. Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped by environmental worldviews: A spatial analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yechen, Z.; Hongmei, Z.; Hu, Y. Evaluation of the social value of ecosystem services based on tourists’perception: A case study of QJYNP. Tour. Sci. 2020, 34, 66–85. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 04206 g001 550
Figure 1. Location and function partition of QJYNP.
Figure 1. Location and function partition of QJYNP.
Sustainability 14 04206 g001
Sustainability 14 04206 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the general analysis process of the SolVES model.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the general analysis process of the SolVES model.
Sustainability 14 04206 g002
Sustainability 14 04206 g003 550
Figure 3. Kernel density analysis about social values of residents in QJYNP ecosystem service.
Figure 3. Kernel density analysis about social values of residents in QJYNP ecosystem service.
Sustainability 14 04206 g003
Sustainability 14 04206 g004 550
Figure 4. Spatial dostribution of social value with high preference in QJYNP.
Figure 4. Spatial dostribution of social value with high preference in QJYNP.
Sustainability 14 04206 g004
Sustainability 14 04206 g005 550
Figure 5. The relationship between social value, elevation and land use of ecosystem services in QJYNP.
Figure 5. The relationship between social value, elevation and land use of ecosystem services in QJYNP.
Sustainability 14 04206 g005
Sustainability 14 04206 g006 550
Figure 6. The impact of different environmental values of QJYNP residents on the spatial distribution of social value. (Note: (a–d) correspond to the biodiversity value, aesthetic value, healing value, and economic value of the anthropocentrism subgroup, respectively; (e–h) correspond to the biodiversity value, aesthetic value, healing value, and economic value of the ecocentrism subgroup, respectively).
Figure 6. The impact of different environmental values of QJYNP residents on the spatial distribution of social value. (Note: (a–d) correspond to the biodiversity value, aesthetic value, healing value, and economic value of the anthropocentrism subgroup, respectively; (e–h) correspond to the biodiversity value, aesthetic value, healing value, and economic value of the ecocentrism subgroup, respectively).
Sustainability 14 04206 g006
Table
Table 1. Definitions and descriptions of 12 social value types.
Table 1. Definitions and descriptions of 12 social value types.
Type of Social ValueSocial Value Description
Aesthetic valueThis national park has beautiful landscapes, natural sounds and aromas
Biodiversity valueThis national park is rich in wildlife resources
Cultural valueThis national park can provide knowledge and wisdom about the traditions and the way of life of my ancestors
Economic valueThis national park can provide timber, tea, farming and tourism opportunities to drive industrial development
Future valueThis national park will allow the next generation to understand and experience the current mountain environment
Historical valueThis national park is a legacy of natural and human history that is relevant to me, to others, and to our country
Learning valueI can learn about nature through scientific observation or experimentation
Life support valueThis area has the ability to retain soil and water, to contain water, and to purify the air
Recreational valueThis national park can provide me with outdoor and recreational activities
Spiritual valueThis national park is sacred and spiritually special to me, or due to the reverence and respect for nature that I can feel here
Recreation and wellness valueThis place makes me feel much better, both physically and mentally
Intrinsic ValueWhether or not people live here, this national park has its own value
Table
Table 2. Basic statistics of survey sample.
Table 2. Basic statistics of survey sample.
VariablesDescriptionFrequency % (Number N)VariablesDescriptionFrequency % (Number N)
GenderMale64.7 (N = 178)National Parks Understanding LevelVery well24.0 (N = 66)
Female35.3 (N = 97)understood62.5 (N = 172)
AgeUnder 182.9 (N = 8)not understood13.5 (N = 37)
18–30 years old31.6 (N = 87)Income SourcesTourism10.5 (9)
30–45 years old34.2 (N = 94)Farming1.5 (N = 4)
45–60 years old29.5 (N = 81)Agricultural cultivation12.7 (N = 35)
60 and above1.8 (N = 5)Outworking19.6 (N = 54)
Education LevelHigh School and lower52.4 (N = 144)Enterprises and Businesses35.6 (N = 98)
Associate Degree17.1 (N = 47)Self-employed19.3 (N = 53)
Undergraduate22.9 (N = 63)Missing values0.8 (N = 2)
Graduate and higher0.7 (N = 2)VariablesDescriptionAverage value
Missing values6.9 (N = 19)AnthropocentrismHumans are the most important2.84
Home AddressQixi Township26.5 (N = 73)Human is the owner of nature2.65
He Tian Township18.2 (N = 58)EcocentrismNature has the same right to live as humans do4.10
Changhong Township23.3 (N = 64)Humans are governed by the laws of nature4.05
Suzhuang Township32.0 (N = 80)
Table
Table 3. The spatial agglomeration of social value evaluation of residents in QJYNP.
Table 3. The spatial agglomeration of social value evaluation of residents in QJYNP.
Type of Social ValueEcocentrism GroupAnthropocentric GroupTotal Sample
N(M-VI)R Value (Z Value)N(M-VI)R Value (Z Value)N(M-VI)R Value (Z Value)
Aesthetic value183 (8)0.31 (−17.76)64 (9)0.28 (−11.05)211 (9)0.31 (−19.11)
Biodiversity value200 (9)0.28 (−19.36)66 (9)0.35 (−10.03)229 (9)0.29 (−20.42)
Cultural value153 (7)0.32 (−16.07)46 (7)0.52 (−6.23)166 (7)0.31 (−16.89)
Economic value149 (8)0.38 (−14.38)53 (8)0.39 (−8.55)169 (8)0.37 (−15.58)
Future value148 (7)0.49 (−12.84)54 (7)0.41 (−8.29)160 (7)0.39 (−14.85)
Historical value135 (7)0.30 (−15.54)43 (4)0.66 (−4.22)151 (6)0.31 (−16.23)
Learning value118 (5)0.39 (−12.78)39 (5)0.38 (−7.46)129 (6)0.35 (−14.16)
Life support value137 (7)0.44 (−12.60)42 (5)0.40 (−7.45)152 (7)0.40 (−14.12)
Recreational value171 (7)0.33 (−16.69)61 (7)0.49 (−7.63)188 (6)0.33 (−17.50)
Spiritual value95 (5)0.42 (−10.91)30 (5)0.44 (−5.84)109 (5)0.45 (−11.03)
Recreation and wellness value193 (8)0.36 (−16.90)79 (8)0.32 (−11.63)216 (7)0.36 (−17.80)
Table
Table 4. AUC parameter values of various social value types in QJYNP.
Table 4. AUC parameter values of various social value types in QJYNP.
Type of Social ValueAUC Values Under the ROC Curve
Total SampleEcocentrismAnthropocentrism
Biodiversity value0.700.700.71
Aesthetic value0.760.740.73
Recreation and wellness value0.740.760.71
Economic value0.720.720.66
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yu, H. Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074206

AMA Style

Wang R, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Yu H. Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):4206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074206

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Ruxing, Yechen Zhang, Hongmei Zhang, and Hu Yu. 2022. "Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 4206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074206

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