Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Coupling Coordination of Urban Resilience and the Tourism Economy in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing the Sustainability of Intangible Cultural Heritage Projects: Obtaining Efficient Digital Skills Preservation through Binocular Half Panoramic VR Maps
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Spatial Layout and Influencing Factors of Campsites in the Yellow River Basin
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Sustainable Inheritance Strategies of National Traditional Fine Arts Intangible Cultural Heritage in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16124945
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

Impacts of Different Tourism Models on Rural Ecosystem Service Value in Ziquejie Terraces

by
Juan Shi
1,2,
Ming Mo
1,*,
Yimin Xie
2 and
Qianying Liao
3
1
School of Business, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
2
School of Business, Hunan University of Humanities, Science and Techonology, Loudi 417000, China
3
School of Law and Business, Shaoyang University, Shaoyang 422000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 4945; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124945
Submission received: 3 May 2024 / Revised: 29 May 2024 / Accepted: 3 June 2024 / Published: 9 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cultural Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Villages are important components of agricultural heritage sites, and their tourism models significantly impact ecosystem service value (ESV). This study takes Zhenglong Village (culture and tourism integration), Ziquejie Village (farmstay type), and Jizhai Village (sightseeing type) with different tourism models in the Ziquejie Terraces heritage site as the research objects. Firstly, a single dynamic land use model and a land use transfer matrix were used to reveal rural land use changes driven by three different tourism models. Secondly, changes in ESV in the three villages were assessed with a valuation model. Finally, the welfare per unit area of villagers obtained from ecosystem services (ESs) was calculated. The results showed that: (1) From 2006 to 2022, the built-up area in the three villages gradually increased, primarily converting from farmland. Zhenglong Village experienced the smallest degree of change in both farmland and built-up areas. (2) The total ESV in Zhenglong Village increased by 0.35 times, the highest among the three villages. (3) Zhenglong Village saw the largest increase in welfare per unit area of villagers, from 82,551 CNY in 2006 to 111,785 CNY in 2022. Therefore, adopting a culture and tourism integration model in this heritage site is most conducive to conserving and enhancing the rural ESV, improving villagers’ welfare, and promoting the sustainable development of villages and heritage sites.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

With increasingly serious problems such as global warming and food crises [1], traditional agroecosystems have attracted widespread attention. These systems have the characteristics of sustainability, dynamic adaptability, and complexity [2] and can adapt well to climate and environmental changes. Despite their long history, traditional agroecosystems are facing multiple challenges, such as urban expansion, loss of rural labor, shrinking agricultural income, and farmland abandonment [3,4,5,6], affecting their inheritance and sustainable development. In view of the development difficulties faced by traditional agroecosystems, to better protect them, many countries and organizations have initiated the identification of agricultural heritage systems and proposed the dynamic protection of traditional agroecosystems. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) [7], and China, South Korea, and Japan launched the Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (NIAHS) [8], among which GIAHS was the most influential. To date, China has 19 traditional agricultural systems recognized by the FAO as GIAHS, ranking first in the world in total. GIAHS are the result of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature and embody the wisdom of ancestors and the characteristics of agricultural culture [9]. They often have high aesthetic value and unique cultural heritage, so they are highly attractive to tourists. With the development of tourism, an increasing number of GIAHS have been developed for tourism and have become prestigious tourist attractions.
Villages are the constituent elements of GIAHS and the basic units of tourism activities. On the one hand, tourism development can enhance the social recognition of GIAHS, help people learn more about agricultural heritage systems [10], provide new employment opportunities for local villagers, and improve their livelihoods and living environments [11,12,13]. On the other hand, due to the construction of tourism reception facilities and the construction of tourism landscapes, farmland and woodland are occupied, which drives changes in village land use and thus affects local ecosystems [14,15,16]. However, there is still a lack of measurements of spatial and temporal changes in village land use caused by different tourism models, especially at long-history GIAHS sites. Furthermore, it is still unclear to what extent different tourism models drive changes in local ecosystems and whether these changes will affect sustainable development. To solve these problems, appropriate quantitative evaluation methods need to be adopted for exploration and research.
Ecosystem services (ESs) are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems [17]. The ecosystem service value (ESV) was used to quantify the economic value of ecosystem services using economic analysis with monetary values [18,19]. The assessment of ESV can evaluate the comprehensive value of an ecosystem and its degree of change [20], link the status of the ecosystem with human activities [21], and provide information for decisions about ecosystem management [22]. With the development of the concept of ESs, ESV and its evaluation have become important research fields in applied ecology [23] and have been widely used to evaluate the impact of human activities on ecosystems. Previous studies have primarily focused on the impact of different planting patterns on the ESV in agricultural heritage sites. Yuan et al. (2022) [24] compared the ESV of the integrated rice-fish-duck farming ecosystem and the rice monoculture system in Hani Terraces. Liu et al. (2020) [25] found the ESV of rice-fish coculture ecosystems in Ruyuan County was 37.9% higher than that in rice monoculture. Su et al. (2022) [26] analyzed the extra ESV in the Coastal Bench Terrace System relative to agricultural and aquatic ecosystems. However, few studies have linked tourism models with rural land use change and ESV change at GIAHS sites. Considering the continuous growth of tourism at GIAHS sites, it is necessary to study the rural land use change related to tourism models at GIAHS sites and its impact on ESV.
Ziquejie Terraces is located in Xinhua County, central Hunan Province, China, in the Fengjia Mountain section of the Xuefeng Mountain remnant. Formed over more than a thousand years by generations of Miao, Yao, Dong, Han, and other ethnic groups, the terraces are a historical relic that blend southern rice farming culture with mountain fishing and hunting traditions. The terraces are built according to the conditions of the mountains and are large in scale. Most of them are distributed between 500 and 1000 meters, with an average slope of approximately 30 degrees, and the steepest can reach more than 50 degrees. The slope is steep, the fields are small, and the shape is beautiful. This region enjoys the reputation of being called the “Terrace Kingdom” [27]. Due to its unique farming methods, pure natural gravity irrigation system, and profound cultural connotation, it has been successively rated as “China’s Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems” (China-NIAHS), “World Heritage Irrigation Structure” (WHIS), and “Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems” (GIAHS). Since opening to the public in 2006, the terraces have seen significant growth in tourism, with peak season attracting over 50,000 visitors daily. In the process of tourism development, villages in the heritage site have developed different tourism models.
Here, three villages with different tourism models in the core area of Ziquejie Terraces were selected as the research area. Based on high-resolution remote sensing images combined with field research, the land use changes in these villages since 2006 were interpreted and measured, and the impacts of the tourism models on ESV were subsequently analyzed. The aims of the study were as follows: (i) measure rural land use changes driven by different tourism models; (ii) assess changes in rural ESV under the influence of different tourism models; and (iii) analyze the impact of different tourism models on the rural ESV. Finally, policy implications were proposed based on the main findings.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

2.1.1. Geographic Location

The study subjects, Zhenglong Village, Ziquejie Village, and Jizhai Village, are located in the core area of Ziquejie Terraces (Figure 1). The three villages are all located in mountainous areas and belong to the mid-subtropical monsoon climate zone, which has a unique climate. The average annual temperature is 15 °C, the average annual precipitation is 1640 mm, and the frost-free period is approximately 235 days. The soil is red soil and yellow soil with differentiated development of granite. It is rich in organic matter and is suitable for the growth of crops. The natural and ecological environments of the three villages are similar, with large areas of farmland and woodland, and the farmland is mainly planted with rice. In recent years, the scale of tourism has continued to expand, and its position in local social and economic development has become increasingly important.

2.1.2. Tourism Models

The rural tourism model is a summary of the presentation form and management mechanism of tourism carried out by operators in specific rural areas [28]. Previous studies have proposed different models of rural tourism from various perspectives. Based on the content of the experience, Li categorized Japanese rural tourism into sightseeing, leisure, and rural cultural tourism models [29]. Based on the management model, Li et al. divided rural tourism into individual farm type, farmer cooperative type, and company-farmer type [30]. From the perspective of tourism projects, Wang et al. classified rural tourism into sightseeing, farmstay, business conference, leisure vacation, picking and tasting, etc. [31]. In line with the tourism projects and the content of tourist experiences, the three villages have formed different tourism models, such as cultural and tourism integration, farmstay type, and sightseeing type (Table 1).
In 2022, Zhenglong Village had a total area of 905.77 ha and a total population of 2660. It is a well-protected traditional village in Ziquejie Terraces with a history of more than 200 years. In 2014, it was included in the third batch of traditional Chinese villages. Zhenglong Village began to develop tourism in 2010 and currently has 28 homestays and farmstays. The terraces in the village are divided into northern and southern terraces. More than 200 residential houses with the traditional stilt-style board house architectural style of Ziquejie are freely laid out along the contour lines, following the mountains and intertwining with each other, and they combine with the terraces to form beautiful pastoral scenery. Combined with its unique Meishan culture, existing residential buildings have been used to build projects such as Jiufang Shibapu and a farming museum, and special activities such as the “Zhenglong Ancient Village Jiuqu Huilong Banquet” have been carried out. Under the leadership of the village committee and rural elites, Zhenglong Village has developed a cultural and tourism integration model. This model fully explores and utilizes local cultural resources, incorporating cultural elements into tourism products and services. It creates diverse cultural experiences and products, meets tourists’ needs for cultural engagement, enhances the added value and attractiveness of tourism, and promotes cultural inheritance and dissemination [32].
In 2022, Ziquejie Village had a total area of 1143.21 ha and a total population of 3980. The villagers of Ziquejie Village are the first major group to perform farmstays and tourism catering in a heritage site. Since the first farmstay in Ziquejie Terraces, Yongxing Farmstay, opened in 2006, the number of tourism reception facilities has gradually increased. There are currently 47 homestays and farmstays, making it the village with the most tourism reception facilities in Ziquejie Terraces. There are 3 terraced viewing platforms within Ziquejie Village that occupy the best position to appreciate the beauty of Ziquejie Terraces and the art of farming at close range. Tourists can enjoy the terraced landscape from the hotel. Under the leadership and guidance of rural elites, Ziquejie Village has developed a farmstay model. In this model, farmers utilize their own courtyards to offer tourists dining, accommodation, and terraced sightseeing activities.
In 2022, Jizhai Village had a total area of 395.29 ha and a total population of 1762. The terraces in the village stretch on the hillside, with a large scale and a variety of scenery. It has the production base of Ziquejie Tribute Rice, a Chinese agro-product geographical indications product. There is a terraced viewing platform in the village, the Gongmiling viewing platform, which is a good place to watch the terraced landscape and take photos of the sunrise and the sea of clouds. Jizhai Village has relatively few tourist reception facilities, with only a few scattered farmstays and tourist accommodations. Additionally, few farmers participate in tourism development, and the tourism projects primarily focus on viewing terraced landscapes and photography. The tourism model is sightseeing type.

2.2. Data Sources

Since Ziquejie Terraces was designated as part of the national natural and cultural heritage sites in 2006, the Ziquejie Terraces Scenic Area Management Office was established, and the first farmstay in Ziquejie opened, marking the beginning of tourism development in the area. After 2014, with the successful recognition of Ziquejie Terraces as a World Heritage site (WHIS and GIAHS) and the opening of the Ziquejie Terraces National Highway Intersection, the site’s popularity further increased, and tourism development entered a new phase. Consequently, research data for Zhenglong Village, Ziquejie Village, and Jizhai Village from 2006, 2014, and 2022 were collected, corresponding to two stages of development (2006–2014 and 2014–2022). The data used in this study are shown in Table 2.

2.3. Land Use Change Calculation

The satellite images were subjected to geometric correction, coordinate registration, image fusion, visual interpretation, and field survey correction to obtain three phases of land use data (Figure 2). According to the land use classification standards of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and combined with the characteristics of village land use, the land use types of the three villages were divided into four categories: farmland, woodland, built-up area, and water area. Based on three periods of land use data, a single dynamic land use model [37] was used to reveal the changes in the area of a certain land use type within a certain time range in the study area. Its mathematical expression is:
K = U b − U a U a × 1 T × 100 %
where K is the dynamic degree of a certain land use type during the study period, Ua and Ub are the areas of a certain land use type at the beginning and end of the study period, respectively, and T is the study period.
The land use transfer matrix [38] was used to reveal the transfer direction and nature among the land use types in Zhenglong Village, Ziquejie Village, and Jizhai Village. Its mathematical expression is:
S i j = | S 11   S 12 …   S 1 n S 21   S 22 …   S 2 n …   …   …   … S n 1   S n 2   …   S n n |
where S is the area of land type, n is the total number of land types, and Sij represents the area of type i land converted to type j land from the beginning to the end of the study period.
The spatial processing function of ArcGIS pro 3.0 was used to conduct an overlay analysis of the land use status vector maps of the three villages in 2006, 2014, and 2022, and the land use transfer matrices of the three villages in 2006–2014, 2014–2022, and 2006–2022 were obtained.

2.4. Ecosystem Service Value Evaluation Method

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) [39], developed by the European Environment Agency, employs widely recognized ecosystem service classifications and environmental accounting frameworks to ensure its rationality. The latest classification of ecosystem services aims to unify and standardize the description and evaluation of ESs internationally. Thus, based on the characteristics of the rural ecosystem in the Ziquejie Terraces heritage site, this study used the latest CICES5.1 version (2018) to construct an assessment model to calculate the rural ESV of Ziquejie Terraces. In this study, built-up area was assigned an ESV of 0, referencing previous studies [40]. According to the CICES classification system, ESs are divided into three sections: provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural services. The ES classification and valuation methods are shown in Table 3. The calculation formulas, parameter values, etc., are provided in Tables S1–S3.

3. Results

3.1. Land Use Changes

3.1.1. Land Use Dynamic Analysis

As shown in Table 4, from 2006 to 2022, the most dynamic land use type in Zhenglong Village was the built-up area, accounting for 2.06%, and the built-up area increased gradually. From 2014 to 2022, the growth rate of the built-up area slowed, and the dynamic level was significantly lower than that in the previous period. From 2006 to 2022, the area of farmland and water area decreased gradually, while the area of woodland increased gradually, with the smallest dynamic change.
From 2006 to 2022, the most dynamic land use type in Ziquejie Village was the built-up area, accounting for 2.83%, and the built-up area increased gradually. From 2014 to 2022, the increase in the built-up area slowed, and the dynamic level decreased slightly compared with that in the previous period. From 2006 to 2022, farmland decreased gradually, and the decrease from 2014 to 2022 slowed down from the previous period. The woodland area and water area first increased and then decreased.
From 2006 to 2022, the dynamic level of the built-up area in Jizhai Village was the highest, at 4.33%. The built-up area increased gradually. From 2014 to 2022, the increase in the built-up area slowed, and the dynamic level decreased significantly compared with that in the previous period. From 2006 to 2022, farmland decreased gradually, and the decrease in 2014–2022 increased compared with that in 2006–2014.

3.1.2. Land Use Transfer Matrix Analysis

From 2006 to 2022, the total land use conversion in Ziquejie Village was the largest at 649,316 m2, while the total land use conversion in Zhenglong Village and Jizhai Village was 627,241 m2 and 450,700 m2, respectively. Among all land types in the three villages, the outflow area of farmland was the largest and was mainly converted to woodland and built-up area. The farmland outflow area of Ziquejie Village was the largest at 415,709 m2, while the farmland outflow area of Zhenglong Village and Jizhai Village was 322,048 m2 and 263,463 m2, respectively (Figure 3, Table S4). In the three villages, the increase in built-up area mainly came from the conversion of farmland, accounting for 82.85%, 78.13%, and 92.6%, respectively. From the perspective of the time period, the total land use conversion in the three villages during 2014–2022 was smaller than that during 2006–2014 (Figure 4, Tables S5 and S6). Since 2014, the local protection of Ziquejie Terraces has been strengthened, which has slowed down the conversion intensity among different land types.

3.2. Total ESV Changes

From 2006 to 2022, the total ESV in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages all showed a trend of decreasing first and then increasing (Figure 5). Because after 2014, Ziquejie Terraces was successively awarded two titles: WHIS and GIAHS. With the increased protection of Ziquejie Terraces, ESs have been conserved. At the same time, with the increase in popularity, the ecological value of the terraces has been brought into play to a greater extent. From 2006 to 2022, the total ESV in Zhenglong Village increased by 0.35 times, from 74.77 million CNY to 101.25 million CNY, higher than the 0.31 times for Ziquejie Village and 0.30 times for Jizhai Village. In terms of farmland ecosystem, compared with that in 2006, the ESV in Zhenglong Village in 2022 increased by 0.82 times, from 32.48 million CNY to 59.16 million CNY, which was higher than the 0.74 times for Ziquejie Village and 0.64 times for Jizhai Village. Due to the cultural and tourism integration model adopted by Zhenglong Village, which integrates sightseeing photography, tourism reception, and cultural experience, farmland ESs are utilized to a high degree, thus giving full play to the farmland ESV. In terms of woodland ecosystem, compared with 2006, the ESV of Zhenglong Village increased slightly in 2022, while the ESV of Ziquejie Village and Jizhai Village decreased slightly. In terms of water ecosystem, the ESV of the three villages in 2022 showed a decrease compared with 2006. In recent years, the focus of protection and development has been on the terraced ecosystem, with less attention paid to forest area and water area, resulting in a decrease in the ESV of woodland area and water area.

3.3. Single ESV Changes

For the three villages, the proportion of regulation and maintenance service is the largest. The main single ESs are groundwater recharge, increase in fauna diversity, and micro-organism and temperature regulation, all of which fall under regulation and maintenance services. All of these indicate that regulation and maintenance services play an important role in the ESs of the three villages. From 2006 to 2022, there were significant changes in the 15 single ESV in the three villages. The values of control of erosion rates, water resources storage, groundwater recharge, flood control, maintaining soil nutrients, and regulation of the chemical composition of the atmosphere are all decreasing. Therefore, with the development of tourism, the quality of some ESs has declined. The increase in value of providing primary products is mainly due to rising rice prices. Among the three villages, Zhenglong Village saw the most significant increase in the value of providing primary products, as tourism development not only boosted the value of agricultural products but also increased the value of forest products. The value of forest products in the other two villages increased less. The development of tourism value in Zhenglong Village increased by 2.84 million CNY, higher than the other two villages. Compared to Ziquejie Village and Jizhai Village, Zhenglong Village places more emphasis on the protection and inheritance of traditional culture, resulting in an increase of 388,900 CNY for its cultural heritage value, while the other two villages saw no increase.

3.4. Welfare of Villagers from ESs

To more comprehensively analyze the impact of different tourism models on rural ESV, the welfare of villagers per unit area obtained from ESs in each village (i.e., the ESV per unit area) was statistically calculated. From 2006 to 2022, the welfare per unit area obtained from ESs in Zhenglong Village, Ziquejie Village, and Jizhai Village all increased. Zhenglong Village increased from 82,550 CNY to 111,785 CNY, Ziquejie Village increased from 76,695 CNY to 100,091 CNY, and Jizhai Village increased from 83,241 CNY to 108,257 CNY, an increase of 29,235 CNY, 23,396 CNY, and 25,016 CNY, respectively (Table 5). Zhenglong Village experienced the largest increase in welfare per unit area from ESs.
The welfare that villagers obtained from ESs includes direct economic welfare and indirect environmental welfare. Providing primary products and development of tourism, which are two ESs, can directly generate economic value and increase villagers’ income. Together, these factors are called direct economic welfare and can better reflect the utilization of ESV. From 2006 to 2022, the economic welfare per unit area of Zhenglong Village increased by 8092 CNY, which was the largest among the three villages. In terms of time periods, the economic welfare per unit area increased by 4815 CNY from 2006 to 2014. This stage was mainly due to the increase in economic benefits brought about by the provision of primary products. It increased by 3277 CNY from 2014 to 2022. At this stage, with the further establishment of its cultural and tourism integrated model, the increase in tourism income exceeded the provision of primary products and was also the largest among the three villages. From 2006 to 2022, the economic welfare per unit area of Ziquejie Village increased by 6571 CNY. It increased by 5798 CNY from 2006 to 2014 and by 773 CNY from 2014 to 2022. From 2006 to 2022, the economic welfare per unit area of Jizhai Village increased by 5131 CNY, which was the lowest among the three villages. The economic welfare per unit area increased by 6349 CNY from 2006 to 2014 but decreased by 1218 CNY from 2014 to 2022 (Figure 6), mainly due to the increase in price after Ziquejie Tribute Rice was recognized as a Chinese agro-product geographical indications product in 2010, which greatly increased the value of primary products. In the later period, the tourism model was sightseeing type, the tourism projects were relatively simple, and tourism revenue increased less, which is insufficient to compensate for the decrease in the output value of primary products, resulting in a decrease in economic welfare per unit area.
Although ESs, such as air purification, groundwater recharge, and flood control, cannot directly generate economic value, they are important prerequisites and foundations for ensuring sustainable development and environmental health [41], as well as the basis for using ESs to generate economic value. Together, these factors are called indirect environmental welfare and can better reflect the conservation status of ESV. From 2006 to 2022, the environmental welfare per unit area of the three villages all showed a trend of decreasing first and then increasing (Figure 6). In the early stage of tourism development, the ecological environment of the three villages suffered a certain degree of destruction. After 2014, with the strengthening of the protection of Ziquejie Terraces, the environmental welfare per unit area increased. Compared with 2006, the environmental welfare per unit area of Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages in 2022 increased by 21,142 CNY, 16,825 CNY, and 19,885 CNY, respectively. Zhenglong Village had the largest increase in environmental welfare per unit area, mainly because its farmland and built-up area have the smallest dynamic levels, so the environmental protection situation is good.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Impact of Tourism Model on Rural ESV

Tourism development has a vital impact on village economies and ecosystems [42]. Understanding the relationship between heritage site tourism models and rural ESV is an effective way to guide the sound tourism management of GIAHS sites. The impact of the tourism model on rural ESV is mainly reflected in two aspects: on the one hand, the tourism model drives changes in the type and intensity of rural land use, using land use as an intermediary to affect ESV; this is consistent with the study of Ding et al., 2016 [43], who found that the economic development model uses land use as the medium to affect the ESV. On the other hand, different tourism models form different ways of utilizing ESV, thereby affecting the utilization efficiency and conservation of ESV. The level of human welfare depends on the provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural services provided by ecosystems. The conservation and utilization of ESV will also affect the income and welfare of local people. The conservation and utilization of ESV also affect the income and welfare of local people, as also demonstrated by Wang et al., 2017 [44]. In contrast, villagers will exert different impacts on the structure, process, and function of ESs by changing their work style and lifestyle according to changes in their own income and welfare (Figure 7).
From 2006 to 2022, with the increase in the number of tourists, the built-up area used for tourism services in the three villages showed a growth trend, and most of it was converted from farmland. This is in line with other findings elsewhere [42,45]. In comparison, the dynamic degrees of farmland and built-up area in Zhenglong Village are the smallest, at −0.35% and 2.06%, respectively. The dynamic degrees of farmland and built-up areas in Jizhai Village are the largest, at −0.61% and 4.33%, respectively. Ziquejie Village is in the middle. Under the influence of the cultural and tourism integration model, the villagers of Zhenglong Village have a deeper understanding of the traditional farming culture of Ziquejie Terraces and are paying more attention to the protection of terraces in the process of tourism development. Therefore, Zhenglong Village has the lowest reduction in farmland, the largest increase in environmental welfare per unit area, and the best ES conservation.
Since Ziquejie Terraces was developed for tourism in 2006, the three villages have relied on Ziquejie Terraces to develop tourism, and their tourism income has gradually increased. The tourism income of Zhenglong Village increased from 0 CNY to 2.84 million CNY, the largest growth rate. Especially after 2014, with the further establishment of its cultural and tourism integration model, the increase in tourism income from 2014 to 2022 accounted for 92.62% of the total increase. The tourism income of Ziquejie Village increased from 0.43 million CNY to 3.04 million CNY, the second-largest growth rate. The tourism income of Jizhai Village increased from 0 CNY to 0.17 million CNY, the lowest growth rate. Zhenglong Village relies on the unique farming culture, Meishan culture, and architectural culture of Ziquejie Terraces to gradually form a cultural and tourism integration model, which has improved the utilization efficiency of ESV and fully utilized the driving force of tourists to transform ESV into tourism commodities.
In 2022, the ESV per unit area, economic welfare per unit area, and environmental welfare per unit area of Zhenglong Village were 111,785 CNY, 11,055 CNY, and 100,730 CNY, respectively, which were higher than Ziquejie Village and Jizhai Village. From 2006 to 2022, their increase was also higher than the other two villages. Using the resource advantages of the agricultural heritage system to develop a cultural and tourism integration model can not only improve the utilization efficiency and marketization ability of ESV, increase industrial income, and make direct contributions to local economic development but also enhance the protection of local ecosystems by residents, mitigate the reduction of terraces, and improve their ESV. This result was similar to previous studies of the Hani Terraces [46]. This approach is an important way to promote the coordinated development of the environment and economy [47,48].

4.2. Policy Implications

Our research showed that tourism models have an important impact on rural ESV at agricultural heritage sites, which provides the following three main implications for ecosystem management and decision-making at Ziquejie Terraces heritage sites.
First, the protection of Ziquejie Terraces should be strengthened. The terraces are the cornerstone of the sustainable development of Ziquejie Terraces and are also the main feature that distinguishes it from other tourist destinations. However, through the interpretation of satellite images, land use data analysis, and field surveys of Zhenglong Village, Ziquejie Village, and Jizhai Village, it was found that the terrace area has been reduced in all three villages. According to the land use conversion situation, some terraces have been converted into built-up area for the construction of tourist facilities, while some terraces have gradually been converted into woodland and other land due to low returns from farming. In view of the phenomenon of terraces being occupied by construction projects, strict implementation of existing terrace protection policies and severe punitive measures against units and individuals who occupy terraces are recommended [49]. For terraces that have been abandoned due to low farming returns, further compensation should be increased on the basis of existing farming compensation to curb the phenomenon of abandoned farming on terraces. Forests and water areas are important components of Ziquejie Terraces and should be protected to prevent further destruction. While being protected, they can also be reasonably utilized to maximize their ecological value. Moreover, a long-term environmental change monitoring system should be established to understand and monitor changes in terraces in a timely manner.
Second, a tourism model that integrates culture and tourism should be promoted. Utilizing the beautiful and spectacular terraced landscape and long-standing cultural heritage to develop tourism has become one of the main ways for villagers in Ziquejie Terraces to generate income. Our study shows that the cultural and tourism integration model has the most significant effect on increasing tourism revenue. However, field research has shown that the tourism development of most villages in Ziquejie Terraces has very little exploration or utilization of local farming culture and Meishan culture. For example, Ziquejie Village, which was the first to develop tourism, is still mainly focused on terrace sightseeing and tourism reception. There is a single tourism product, and there are very few tourism projects for tourists to experience. Tourists generally stay for a short time, which seriously restricts the increase in tourism income. Agricultural production activities with more economic value are often the first choice of stakeholders [50]. Therefore, vigorously promoting a cultural and tourism integration model in Ziquejie Terraces is recommended to maximize the local ESV.
Finally, the inheritance and utilization of traditional culture should be promoted. The traditional culture of Ziquejie Terraces has distinctive features, that is, lifestyle, residential construction, village site selection, cultural beliefs, etc., and they all emphasize maintaining a high degree of harmony with nature, embodying the traditional environmental view of “harmony between man and nature”. Cultural motivation is to ensure the harmony between man and land, ecological balance, and sustainable development of Ziquejie Terraces. Ziquejie Terraces is rich in traditional cultural resources, such as farming culture, Meishan culture, religious beliefs, residential architecture, and food customs, and has local characteristics. However, except for food culture and martial arts, other traditional cultures have a low degree of inheritance and are even endangered. For example, in the process of tourism development, some villagers considered only short-term benefits and built houses at will. The new houses have completely changed the style of traditional houses, and the architectural features have basically disappeared, destroying the agricultural cultural landscape of Ziquejie Terraces, which consists of four major elements: terraces, vegetation, water systems, and houses. The utilization of traditional cultural resources, an important tourism attraction, is also very low. Among the three villages, except for Zhenglong Village, there are almost no tourism products with traditional cultural experience, resulting in a low utilization rate of ESV. Therefore, we can promote the inheritance and utilization of traditional culture by establishing a traditional cultural database, conducting cultural heritage knowledge training, and innovating and developing cultural tourism products to achieve a win–win situation for the conservation and utilization of ESs.

4.3. Research Limitations

Exploring the impact of tourism on ecosystems is essential for the sustainable development of agricultural heritage sites. Previous studies have predominantly examined the impact of tourism on heritage sites [42,51]. This study, however, explores how various tourism models affect the ecosystem service value (ESV) of villages, which are fundamental elements of heritage sites. The research perspective has some innovation, but there are still certain limitations that need to be addressed in future research. First, the causal relationship between tourism models and rural ESV requires further analysis. Second, methods for accurately assessing rural ESV need to be improved. With respect to the assessment of ESV on a small scale, it is necessary to consider the determination of parameters and indicator values involved in each ESV assessment model. In this study, we used visits, actual measurements, etc., to obtain most of the indicator values, such as farmstay occupancy rates and prices; types, yields, and prices of agricultural and forestry products; soil bulk density; and nutrient element content. However, there are still some indicators that use empirical values from typical ecosystems because actual measurements are difficult to obtain, so the accuracy needs to be improved. Due to the spatial complexity of rural areas, there are many factors that affect the ESV, so ESV evaluation methods involving small-scale characteristics still need to be explored.

5. Conclusions

This study takes three villages, Zhenglong Village, Ziquejie Village, and Jizhai Village, which have different tourism models in the core area of Ziquejie Terraces, as examples. Based on the digital land use maps of remote sensing images of the three villages in 2006, 2014, and 2022, combined with the CICES classification standards, the land use changes and ESV changes in the three villages were measured. The impact of tourism models on the rural ESV was analyzed. The results showed that from 2006 to 2022, the built-up area in the three villages increased gradually and was mainly converted from farmland. In comparison, the dynamic degrees of built-up area and farmland in Zhenglong Village are the smallest, with the smallest degrees of change of −0.35% and 2.06%, respectively. The total ESV in Zhenglong Village increased by 0.35 times, the highest among the three villages. The ESV per unit area in Zhenglong Village increased the most, from 82,551 CNY in 2006 to 111,785 CNY in 2022. The increase in economic welfare per unit area and environmental welfare per unit area was also higher than in Ziquejie Village and Jizhai Village. This confirms that the cultural and tourism integration model can improve the utilization efficiency of rural ESV, affect the composition and intensity of land use, promote the conservation and improvement of ESV, and achieve the coordinated development of GIAHS site tourism and the ecological environment. In future development decisions, the impact of tourism models on land use and ESV should be fully considered to provide reliable support for tourism management decisions and ecosystem protection of GIAHS sites.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16124945/s1, Table S1: Calculation formula of farmland ecosystem service value assessment; Table S2: Calculation formula of woodland ecosystem service value assessment; Table S3: Calculation formula of water ecosystem service value assessment; Table S4: Land use conversion matrix in Zhenglong, Ziquejie and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022; Table S5: Land use conversion matrix in Zhenglong, Ziquejie and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2014; Table S6: Land use conversion matrix in Zhenglong, Ziquejie and Jizhai Villages, 2014–2022.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.; methodology, J.S.; formal analysis, J.S. and Q.L.; investigation, J.S. and Y.X.; data curation, J.S. and Q.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S.; writing—review and editing, M.M. and Y.X.; supervision, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the General Project of Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Hunan Province (grant number 21YBA082) and Scientific Research Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Education (grant number 301028).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the data support provided by Xinhua County government departments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wheeler, T.; Braun, J.V. Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security. Science 2013, 341, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhang, Y.X.; Li, X.D.; Min, Q.W. How to balance the relationship between conservation of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) and socio-economic development? A theoretical framework of sustainable industrial integration development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lomba, A.; Moreira, F.; Klimek, S.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Sullivan, C.; Moran, J.; Poux, X.; Honrado, J.P.; Pinto-Correia, T.; Plieninger, T.; et al. Back to the future: Rethinking socio-ecological systems underlying high nature value farmlands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 18, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nahuelhual, L.; Carmona, A.; Laterra, P.; Barrena, J.; Aguayo, M. A mapping approach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: The case of agriculture heritage in Southern Chile. Ecol. Ind. 2014, 40, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tilliger, B.; Rodríguez-Labajos, B.; Bustamante, J.V.; Settele, J. Disentangling values in the interrelations between cultural ecosystem services and landscape conservation—A case study of the ifugao rice terraces in the Philippines. Land 2015, 4, 888–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, N.; Li, J.H.; Zhou, Z.X. Landscape pattern optimization approach to protect rice terrace Agroecosystem: Case of GIAHS site Jiache Valley, Guizhou, southwest China. Ecol. Ind. 2021, 129, 107958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Agricultural Heritage: A Legacy for the Future. Available online: https://www.fao.org/giahs/background/en/ (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  8. Kajihara, H.; Zhang, S.; You, W.H.; Min, Q.W. Concerns and Opportunities around Cultural Heritage in East Asian Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). Sustainability 2018, 10, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shi, Q.Q.; Chen, H.; Liang, X.Y.; Zhang, H.; Liu, D. Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 41, 101052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Qiu, Z.; Chen, B.; Takemoto, K. Conservation of terraced paddy fields engaged with multiple stakeholders: The case of the Noto GIAHS site in Japan. Paddy. Water. Environ. 2014, 12, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, B.; Qiu, Z.; Nakamura, K. Tourist preferences for agricultural landscapes: A case study of terraced paddy fields in Noto Peninsula, Japan. J. Mt. Sci. 2016, 13, 1880–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Deng, C.X.; Wang, S.Y.; Liu, Y.J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, G.; Li, W.; Liu, C. Evolution of livelihood vulnerability in rice terrace systems: Evidence from households in the Ziquejie terrace system in China. Front. Sustain. Food. Syst. 2023, 7, 1031504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Soriano, M.A.; Herath, S. Quantifying the role of traditional rice terraces in regulating water resources: Implications for management and conservation efforts. Agroecol. Sust. Food. 2018, 42, 885–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Castonguay, A.C.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F.; Horgan, F.G.; Settele, J. Resilience and adaptability of rice terrace social-ecological systems: A case study of a local community’s perception in Banaue, Philippines. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mei, R.; Han, L.R. Evaluation System of Rural Sustainable Tourism Land Based on Ecosystem Service Value. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 2022, 29, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, B.; Hu, C.; Li, J. Coupling and Coordination Relationship between the Tourism Economy and Ecosystem Service Value in Southern Jiangsu, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2022, 19, 16136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sannigrahi, S.; Chakraborti, S.; Joshi, P.K.; Keesstra, S.; Sen, S.; Paul, S.K.; Kreuter, U.; Sutton, P.C.; Jha, S.; Dang, K.B. Ecosystem service value assessment of a natural reserve region for strengthening protection and conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 208–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Laurans, Y.; Rankovic, A.; Bille, R.; Pirard, R.; Mermet, L. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 119, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Droste, N.; D’Amato, D.; Goddard, J.J. Where communities intermingle, diversity grows—The evolution of topics in ecosystem service research. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Riensche, M.; Castillo, A.; Flores-Díaz, A.; Maass, M. Tourism at Costalegre, Mexico: An ecosystem services-based exploration of current challenges and alternative futures. Futures 2015, 66, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; Van Der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, D.; Min, Q.W.; Liu, M.C.; Cheng, S.K. Ecosystem service trade off between traditional and modern agriculture: A case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2012, 6, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yuan, Y.; Xu, G.C.; Shen, N.N.; Nie, Z.; Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Gong, Y.; He, Y.; Ma, X.; Zhang, H.; et al. Valuation of Ecosystem Services for the Sustainable Development of Hani Terraces: A Rice–Fish–Duck Integrated Farming Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2022, 19, 8549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, D.; Tang, R.C.; Xie, J.; Tian, J.J.; Shi, R.; Zhang, K. Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 41, 101054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Su, B.R.; Liu, M.C. Study on extra services of integrated agricultural landscapes: A case study conducted on the Coastal Bench Terrace System. Ecol. Ind. 2022, 145, 109634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bai, Y.Y.; Min, Q.W.; Zuo, Z.F. Ziquejie Terraces in Xinhua County, Hunan; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 30–32. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang, S.M.; Zhong, L.S.; Wang, L.E. Research on the development model of rural tourism in China based on tourism system theory. Geogr. Res. 2012, 31, 2094–2103. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, Q.S. Development Modes and Cases Analysis of Rural Tourism in Japan. Contemp. Econ. Jan. 2020, 2, 72–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, D.M.; Chen, J.M. An investigation into the patterns and strategies of mutual sustainable development of rural tourism and economy. Hum. Geogr. 2005, 3, 84–87. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, Y.C. The new form and model of rural tourism development in China. Tour. Trib. 2006, 4, 8. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  32. Lu, Y.J. The mechanism and model of deep integration of culture and tourism based on decoding cultural genes. Soc. Sci. 2023, 8, 64–69. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  33. Ma, X.; Ren, Z.; Sun, G. The calculation and assessment to the values of air purification by vegetation in Xi’an City. Chin. J. Ecol. Agric. 2004, 12, 180–182. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhao, T.Q.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Zheng, H. Forest ecosystem service function and its value evaluation in China. J. Nat. Resour. 2004, 4, 480–491. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  35. Kang, W.X.; Tian, D.L. Economic evaluation of forest public welfare efficiency in Hunan Province. J. C. S. Univ. For. Technol. 2001, 4, 1–4. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, J.G. Evaluation of climatic ecological services of Ebi Lake wetland. Wetl. Sci. Manag. 2007, 2, 38–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. Yin, D.Y.; Zhang, Q.J.; Zhai, T.T. Land use change and its impact on ecosystem service value in Shandong Province. Bull. Soil. Water. Conserv. 2018, 38, 134–143. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang, J.; Guo, A.D.; Xi, J.C.; Ge, Q.; Li, X. Spatial-temporal differentiation of three-dimensional urban landscape pattern:A case study of Zhongshan District in Dalian. Acta. Geogr. Sin. 2017, 72, 646–656. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  39. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available online: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2023).
  40. Li, G.; Chen, W.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Z.; Bi, P.; Wang, Z. Ecosystem Service Values in the Dongting Lake Eco-Economic Zone and the Synergistic Impact of Its Driving Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Salvati, L.; Carlucci, M. The economic and environmental performances of rural districts in Italy: Are competitiveness and sustainability compatible targets? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2446–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, J.H.; Bai, Y.; Alatalo, J.M. Impacts of rural tourism-driven land use change on ecosystems services provision in Erhai Lake Basin, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 42, 101081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ding, B.; Li, X.M.; Sun, X.H.; Wang, R.Q.; Zhang, S.P. Impacts of economic development models on ecosystem service values: A case study of three mountain villages in Middle Shandong, China. Acta. Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 3042–3052. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, X.C.; Dong, X.B.; Liu, H.M.; Wei, H.J.; Fan, W.G.; Lu, N.C.; Xu, Z.H.; Ren, J.H.; Xing, K.X. Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tolessa, T.; Senbeta, F.; Kidane, M. The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, J.; Chen, F.; Jiao, Y.M.; Liu, C.J.; Zhao, D.M.; Liu, Z.L.; Xu, Q.; Qiu, Y.M. Impacts of village land use change on ecosystem services and human well-being under different tourism models in Hani Rice Terrace. Acta. Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 5179–5189. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  47. Fisher, J.A.; Patenaude, G.; Giri, K.; Lewis, K.; Meir, P.; Pinho, P.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Williams, M. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Heubach, K.; Wittig, R.; Nuppenau, E.A.; Hahn, K. The economic importance of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for livelihood maintenance of rural west African communities: A case study from northern Benin. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1991–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, W.; Zhan, J.Y.; Zhao, F.; Yan, H.M.; Zhang, F.; Wei, X.Q. Impacts of urbanization-induced land-use changes on ecosystem services: A case study of the Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region, China. Ecol. Ind. 2019, 98, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martínez-Sastre, R.; Ravera, F.; González, J.A.; López Santiago, C.; Bidegain, I.; Munda, G. Mediterranean landscapes under change: Combining social multicriteria evaluation and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land. Use. Pol. 2017, 67, 472–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, J.; Yue, M.T.; Liu, Y.M.; Wen, D.; Tong, Y. The Impact of Tourism on Ecosystem Services Value: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis Based on BRT and GWR Modeling. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04945 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Sustainability 16 04945 g001
Sustainability 16 04945 g002
Figure 2. Land use maps of Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages in 2006, 2014, and 2022.
Figure 2. Land use maps of Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages in 2006, 2014, and 2022.
Sustainability 16 04945 g002
Sustainability 16 04945 g003
Figure 3. Land use types in 2006, 2014, and 2022. (a) Zhenglong, (b) Ziquejie, (c) Jizhai.
Figure 3. Land use types in 2006, 2014, and 2022. (a) Zhenglong, (b) Ziquejie, (c) Jizhai.
Sustainability 16 04945 g003
Sustainability 16 04945 g004
Figure 4. Sankey diagram of land use conversion in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Figure 4. Sankey diagram of land use conversion in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Sustainability 16 04945 g004
Sustainability 16 04945 g005
Figure 5. Changes in ESV in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Figure 5. Changes in ESV in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Sustainability 16 04945 g005
Sustainability 16 04945 g006
Figure 6. The welfare of villagers per unit area in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Figure 6. The welfare of villagers per unit area in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Sustainability 16 04945 g006
Sustainability 16 04945 g007
Figure 7. The relationship between tourism model, rural ESV, and villagers’ welfare.
Figure 7. The relationship between tourism model, rural ESV, and villagers’ welfare.
Sustainability 16 04945 g007
Table 1. Tourism models of Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages.
Table 1. Tourism models of Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages.
ZhenglongZiquejieJizhai
Tourism modelsCultural and tourism integrationFarmstay typeSightseeing type
Main tourism projectsSightseeing, photography, tourism reception, and cultural experienceSightseeing, photography, tourism receptionSightseeing, photography
Experience contentEnjoy the terraced scenery and experience Meishan cultureEnjoy the terraced scenery, farm accommodationEnjoy the terraced scenery
Participation degree of villagersHighMediumLow
Degree of cultural inheritanceHighLowLow
Degree of cultural resources utilization HighLowLow
Table 2. Study data sources.
Table 2. Study data sources.
Data Type Data DescriptionData Sources
Land use dataHigh-resolution satellite images with a resolution of 5 mGoogle Earth
Meteorological dataThe number of hot days in summerMeteorological Department of Xinhua County
The average daily water evaporation in the farmland
Mean annual precipitation
Annual average temperature
Soil dataSOM, N, P, K contents in the soil The Third Land Survey of Xinhua County
Soil bulk density
Erosion modulus of wastelandWater Resources Department of Xinhua County
Actual erosion modulus
Other ecological parametersThe average emission flux of CH4, N2O, CO2 in farmlandAgricultural Technology Station of Shuiche Town
The soil water infiltration rate in farmland
The carbon content of rice root system and straw
The moisture content of rice
The number of days of standing water period of riceField survey
The number of days of growth period of rice
The average ridge height of rice field
The depth of standing water in rice field
The average fluxes of SO2, NOx, HF, and dust absorbed by the farmland, woodland, and waterPublished literature [33,34,35,36]
The amount of nutrient elements from forest litter returned to forest land
The transpiration coefficient of woodland
Statistical dataThe purification cost of SO2, NOx, HF, and dustEcology and Environment Department of Hunan (http://sthjt.hunan.gov.cn (accessed on 2 May 2024))
The cost of industrial oxygen production
The Swedish carbon tax ratehttp://www.tanjiaoyi.com/ (accessed on 2 May 2024)
The unit price of reservoir engineering fee usageWater Resources Department of Xinhua County
The yield and price of agricultural and forestry productsField survey
The price of coal and fertilizer
The pesticide costs
The number of visitors
Total tourism revenue
Table 3. The ES classification and valuation methods of Ziquejie Terraces (according to CICES V5.1).
Table 3. The ES classification and valuation methods of Ziquejie Terraces (according to CICES V5.1).
SectionDivisionESFarmland EcosystemWoodland EcosystemWater EcosystemEvaluation Method
ProvisioningBiomassProviding primary product√√ Market price method
WaterSurface water for drinking √Market price method
Regulation & MaintenanceTransformation of biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystemsAir purification√√√Protection cost method
Water purification √Protection cost method
Regulation of physical, chemical, and biological conditionsControl of erosion rates√√ Opportunity cost method and shadow project method
Water resources storage √Shadow project method
Groundwater recharge√√ Shadow project method
Flood control√ √Shadow project method
Increase of fauna diversity and micro-organisms√√√Ecological value method, Shannon–Wiener index evaluation method
Reducing pesticides and herbicides√ Substitute cost method
Maintaining soil nutrients√√ Substitute cost method
Regulation of chemical composition of atmosphere√√√Carbon tax method and industrial oxygen method
Temperature regulation√√√Substitute cost methods and outcome parameter method
CulturalDirect, in situ, and outdoor interactions with living systems that depend on presence in the environmental settingDevelopment of tourism√ Travel cost method
Cultural inheritance√ Substitute cost method
Table 4. Land use dynamic (%) in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Table 4. Land use dynamic (%) in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Land TypesZhenglong VillageZiquejie VillageJizhai Village
2006–20142014–20222006–20222006–20142014–20222006–20222006–20142014–20222006–2022
Farmland−0.51−0.20−0.35−0.70−0.16−0.43−0.51−0.74−0.61
Woodland0.190.060.130.37−0.110.130.10.650.38
Water area−0.14−0.75−0.441.14−0.370.372.40.001.21
Built-up area2.731.142.062.712.422.835.722.024.33
Table 5. Changes in single ESV (10 thousand CNY/a) in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
Table 5. Changes in single ESV (10 thousand CNY/a) in Zhenglong, Ziquejie, and Jizhai Villages, 2006–2022.
SectionESZhenglong VillageZiquejie VillageJizhai Village
200620142022200620142022200620142022
ProvisioningProviding primary product268.34683.57717.40366.91922.18857.17154.08390.97340.23
Surface water for drinking15.1017.5417.4222.5926.2426.0710.0011.6211.54
Regulation & MaintenanceAir purification256.85183.39581.33304.01219.86687.5787.6562.10205.16
Water purification0.100.100.080.040.040.040.040.040.04
Control of erosion rates377.51317.00300.91397.43339.51321.41137.97114.64109.88
Water resources storage34.4530.9026.7112.7212.5911.2312.1213.1212.06
Groundwater recharge1806.501578.901430.212463.032120.081923.861011.63882.41767.08
Flood control364.44317.98286.54473.08406.37368.49203.86179.58155.90
Increase in fauna diversity and micro-organisms1733.621826.873168.172077.542079.393487.99629.55639.501248.59
Reducing pesticides and herbicides15.3918.5717.2921.1925.1523.508.8810.719.54
Maintaining soil nutrients91.0872.3068.92119.2693.6688.2945.0135.1631.96
Gas regulation793.53639.97737.36875.98736.84408.81195.74172.01101.27
Climate regulation1720.241273.772450.031590.771245.582933.82793.92620.541269.34
CulturalDevelopment of tourism0.0020.95283.9443.22150.82304.260.0014.0816.67
Cultural inheritance0.0012.3238.890.000.000.000.000.000.00
Total7477.156994.1310,125.218767.778378.3111,442.503290.443146.484279.27
Per unit area8.267.7211.187.677.3310.018.327.9610.83
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shi, J.; Mo, M.; Xie, Y.; Liao, Q. Impacts of Different Tourism Models on Rural Ecosystem Service Value in Ziquejie Terraces. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124945

AMA Style

Shi J, Mo M, Xie Y, Liao Q. Impacts of Different Tourism Models on Rural Ecosystem Service Value in Ziquejie Terraces. Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):4945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124945

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shi, Juan, Ming Mo, Yimin Xie, and Qianying Liao. 2024. "Impacts of Different Tourism Models on Rural Ecosystem Service Value in Ziquejie Terraces" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 4945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124945

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