Public Aesthetic and Recreational Preferences for Historical Irrigation Canals in Rural Areas: A Case Study in Li Canal-Gaoyou Irrigation District
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Public perceptions of the aesthetic values of HICs in rural areas, as well as preferences for different types of recreational activities.
- (2)
- The relationship between landscape characteristics and aesthetic preferences for HICs in rural areas.
- (3)
- The relationship between landscape characteristics and recreational preferences for HICs in rural areas.
- (4)
- The relationship between social background and the public’s aesthetic and recreational preferences for HICs in rural areas.
- (5)
- The relationship between cost of various intervention strategies and the public’s aesthetic and recreational preferences for HICs in rural areas.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Framework
2.2. Sample Sites
2.3. Photograph Collection, Selection, and Preprocessing
2.4. Questionnaire Survey
2.5. Measurement of Landscape Characteristics
2.6. Investigation of Intervention Strategies with Varying Costs
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis of Aesthetic and Recreational Preferences
3.2. Relationship between Landscape Characteristics and Both Aesthetic and Recreational Preference
3.3. Social Background and Public Preference
3.4. Relationship between Cost and Both Aesthetic and Recreational Preference
4. Discussion
4.1. Aesthetic Preference and Recreational Preference
4.2. Landscape Characteristics and Aesthetic Preference
4.3. Landscape Characteristics and Recreational Preference
4.4. Social Background and Both Aesthetic and Recreational Preference
4.5. Cost and Both Aesthetic and Recreational Preference
4.6. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Geria, I.M.; Nastiti, T.S.; Handini, R.; Sujarwo, W.; Dwijendra, A.; Fauzi, M.R.; Juliawati, N.P.E. Built environment from the ancient Bali: The Balinese heritage for sustainable water management. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Attarian, K.; Safar Ali Najar, B. Heritage documentation and structural analysis of historic water-supply canals. Environ. Earth Sci. 2022, 81, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vileniske, I.G. Influence of built heritage on sustainable development of landscape. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheol, J.M.; Kwan, K.B.; Kim, M.H. Characteristics of Traditional Irrigation Facilities and Value as Cultural Heritage-Focusing on the Designated Sites of Agricultural Heritage. Korean J. Intang. Herit. 2022, 12, 215–242. [Google Scholar]
- Leibundgut, C.; Kohn, I. European Traditional Irrigation in Transition Part I: Irrigation in Times Past—A Historic Land Use Practice Across Europe. Irrig. Drain. 2014, 63, 273–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, A.; de Bustamante, I.; Pascual-Aguilar, J.A. Using old cartography for the inventory of a forgotten heritage: The hydraulic heritage of the Community of Madrid. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 665, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Tan, X.; Zhou, B. Philosophy and value in irrigation heritage in China*. Irrig. Drain. 2020, 69, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage. World Heritage Irrigation Structures. Available online: https://icid-ciid.org/award/his/44 (accessed on 11 April 2024).
- General Office of the CPC Central Committee. Opinions on Strengthening the Protection and Inheritance of Historical and Cultural Heritage in Urban and Rural Construction. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2021/content_5637945.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
- Chen, F.; Wang, S.; Li, Y. Research on the Current Status and Strategies of Conservation and Utilization of World Heritage Irrigation Structures: A Case Study of Zhejiang Province. In Proceedings of the 2023 China Hydraulic Engineering Academic Conference, Zhengzhou, China, 10–13 August 2023; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.-H. The necessity of taking a community approach in a historical cultural landscape conservation: A case of the Jianan Irrigation System in Taiwan. GeoJournal 2020, 85, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricart, S.; Ribas, A.; Pavón, D.; Gabarda-Mallorquí, A.; Roset, D. Promoting historical irrigation canals as natural and cultural heritage in mass-tourism destinations. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 520–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jomehpour, M. Qanat irrigation systems as important and ingenious agricultural heritage: Case study of the qanats of Kashan, Iran. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2009, 66, 297–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuraku, Y.; Koyamada, K.; Sumi, T.; Takei, Y. Sustainable development of irrigation system with Sayama-ike reservoir. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2019, 26, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chantal, A.; André, G.; Marie, J. The role of traditional irrigation canals in a long term environmental perspective—A case study in Southern France: The Durance basin. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. A 2014, 4, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Leibundgut, C.; Kohn, I. European Traditional Irrigation in Transition Part Ii: Traditional Irrigation in Our Time—Decline, Rediscovery and Restoration Perspectives. Irrig. Drain. 2014, 63, 294–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Pomares, A.; López-Iborra, G.M.; Martín-Cantarino, C. Irrigation canals in a semi-arid agricultural landscape surrounded by wetlands: Their role as a habitat for birds during the breeding season. J. Arid. Environ. 2015, 118, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, E.A.; Cooper, D.J.; Merritt, D.M.; Kondratieff, B.C.; Waskom, R.M. Irrigation canals are newly created streams of semi-arid agricultural regions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 646, 770–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Llausàs, A.; Ribas Palom, A.; Ricart, S.; Roset, D. What future for decommissioned historic irrigation canals? Crafting new identities in the Lower Ter (Spain). Landsc. Res. 2020, 45, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.Y.; Liu, X.N.; Er, H.A. Dujiangyan Irrigation System—A world cultural heritage corresponding to concepts of modern hydraulic science. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2010, 4, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aspe, C.; Jacqué, M. Agricultural Irrigation Canals in Southern France and New Urban Territorial Uses. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 4, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paniagua, A. Old, Lost, and Forgotten Rural Materialities: Old Local Irrigation Channels and Lost Local Walking Trails. Land 2022, 11, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Meter, M.V. Home on the Range: Heritage-Based Economic Development in a Natural Resource-Based Economy. Master’s Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Panzera, E. From Cultural Heritage to Economic Development through Tourism. In Cultural Heritage and Territorial Identity: Synergies and Development Impact on European Regions; Panzera, E., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 65–85. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, M.L.; Fan, D.X.F.; Wang, R.; Ou, Y.H.; Ma, X.L. Does rural tourism revitalize the countryside? An exploration of the spatial reconstruction through the lens of cultural connotations of rurality. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2023, 29, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardaro, R.; La Sala, P.; De Pascale, G.; Faccilongo, N. The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayo, B.; Neumeier, F. Public Preferences for Government Spending Priorities: Survey Evidence from Germany. Ger. Econ. Rev. 2019, 20, E1–E37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amit Cohen, I.; Sofer, M. Integrated rural heritage landscapes: The case of agricultural cooperative settlements and open space in Israel. J. Rural. Stud. 2017, 54, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikemoto, F.; Sakura, K.; Torres Astaburuaga, A. The Influence of Historical Irrigation Canals on Urban Morphology in Valencia, Spain. Land 2021, 10, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, N.; Li, X.; Luo, L.; Zhang, L. Ancient Irrigation Canals Mapped from Corona Imageries and Their Implications in Juyan Oasis along the Silk Road-All Databases. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leite, S.K.; Vendruscolo, G.S.; Renk, A.A.; Kissmann, C. Perception of farmers on landscape change in southern Brazil: Divergences and convergences related to gender and age. J. Rural. Stud. 2019, 69, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santé, I.; Tubío, J.M.; Miranda, D. Public participation in defining landscape planning scenarios and landscape quality objectives (LQO): Landscape Guidelines for Galicia (NW Spain) case study. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Xiong, X.; Chi, M.; Yang, S.; Liu, L. Research on visual quality assessment and landscape elements influence mechanism of rural greenways. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 160, 111844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Yu, K.; Dou, Y.; Fu, H.; Liang, X. The influence of urbanization on local perception of the effect of traditional landscapes on human wellbeing: A case study of a pondscape in Chongqing, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2023, 60, 101521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, L.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, X.; He, J.; Wang, H. Identification of important terraced visual landscapes based on a sensitivity-subjectivity preference matrix for agricultural cultural heritage in the southwestern china. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junge, X.; Schüpbach, B.; Walter, T.; Schmid, B.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benjamin, K.; Bouchard, A.; Domon, G. Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: An analysis of perceptions and representations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 228–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharafatmandrad, M.; Khosravi Mashizi, A. Visual value of rangeland landscapes: A study based on structural equation modeling. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 146, 105742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gullino, P.; Battisti, L.; Novelli, S.; Frontuto, V.; Corsi, A.; Devecchi, M.; Larcher, F. The landscape impact of agricultural sheds in rural UNESCO site: Public preferences and mitigation solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 140, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisiak-Zielińska, M.; Jałoszyńska, S.; Borowiak, K.; Budka, A.; Dach, J. Perception of biogas plants: A public awareness and preference—A case study for the agricultural landscape. Renew. Energy 2023, 217, 119212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlier, J.; Moran, J. Landscape typology and ecological connectivity assessment to inform Greenway design. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 3241–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Hu, X.; Song, Z.; Yuan, X. Identifying the integrated visual characteristics of greenway landscape: A focus on human perception. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 99, 104937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wang, X.; Jiang, X.; Han, J.; Wang, Z.; Wu, D.; Lin, Q.; Li, L.; Zhang, S.; Dong, Y. Prediction of riverside greenway landscape aesthetic quality of urban canalized rivers using environmental modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 367, 133066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Lay, Y.-F.; Piégay, H.; Rivière-Honegger, A. Perception of braided river landscapes: Implications for public participation and sustainable management. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 119, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, S.; Yue, H.; Zhou, Z. Preferences for urban stream landscapes: Opportunities to promote unmanaged riparian vegetation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 38, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junker, B.; Buchecker, M. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 85, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Zanten, B.T.; Zasada, I.; Koetse, M.J.; Ungaro, F.; Häfner, K.; Verburg, P.H. A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Jiang, W.; Lu, T. Landscape characteristics of university campus in relation to aesthetic quality and recreational preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Meitner, M.J. Urban woodland understory characteristics in relation to aesthetic and recreational preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 24, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardela, Ł.; Lis, A.; Iwankowski, P.; Wilkaniec, A.; Theile, M. The importance of seeking a win-win solution in shaping the vegetation of military heritage landscapes: The role of legibility, naturalness and user preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 221, 104377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinda, S.; Ghosh, S. Perceived benefits, aesthetic preferences and willingness to pay for visiting urban parks: A case study in Kolkata, India. Int. J. Geoheritage Park. 2021, 9, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D. Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage. Li Canal-Gaoyou Irrigation District. Available online: https://icid-ciid.org/award/his_details/141 (accessed on 16 March 2024).
- Pflüger, Y.; Rackham, A.; Larned, S. The aesthetic value of river flows: An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalivoda, O.; Vojar, J.; Skřivanová, Z.; Zahradník, D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Liu, Z. Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zeng, L.; Tang, X. Aesthetic heterogeneity on rural landscape: Pathway discrepancy between perception and cognition. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 92, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnberger, A.; Eder, R. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: An image-based latent class approach. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Yan, S.; Strijker, D.; Wu, Q.; Chen, W.; Ma, Z. The influence of place identity on perceptions of landscape change: Exploring evidence from rural land consolidation projects in Eastern China. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheeler, R. Mining memories in a rural community: Landscape, temporality and place identity. J. Rural. Stud. 2014, 36, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanein, A. Incorporating Social Spatial Data in Sustainable Management: Mapping Tourism-Recreational Activities of Locals and Tourists in Hood Canal, Washington Using ArcGIS. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Li, H.; Jian, Y.; Fu, H.; Wang, Z.; Xu, M. Vernacular or modern: Transitional preferences of residents living in varied stages of urbanisation regarding rural landscape features. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 95, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paletto, A.; Becagli, C.; De Meo, I. Aesthetic preferences for deadwood in forest landscape: A case study in Italy. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 311, 114829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cottet, M.; Vaudor, L.; Tronchère, H.; Roux-Michollet, D.; Augendre, M.; Brault, V. Using gaze behavior to gain insights into the impacts of naturalness on city dwellers’ perceptions and valuation of a landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 60, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holušová, A.; Poledniková, Z.; Vaverka, L.; Galia, T. Spatiotemporal dynamics and present perception of gravel bars in natural and regulated environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 892, 164711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cong, L.; Zhang, Y.; Su, C.-H.; Chen, M.-H.; Wang, J. Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaaristo, M.; Medway, D.; Burton, J.; Rhoden, S.; Bruce, H.L. Governing mobilities on the UK canal network. Mobilities 2020, 15, 844–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwiatkowski, M.A.; Karbowiński, Ł. Why the riverside is an attractive urban corridor for bicycle transport and recreation. Cities 2023, 143, 104611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, D.; Jiang, B.; Yuan, L. Analyzing the effects of nature exposure on perceived satisfaction with running routes: An activity path-based measure approach. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 68, 127480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnberger, A.; Schaper, S.; Eder, R.; White, M.P. Visitor mood, restorativeness and connectedness to nature across four unmanaged urban outdoor swimming sites of varying naturalness. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 95, 128312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDougall, C.W.; Foley, R.; Hanley, N.; Quilliam, R.S.; Oliver, D.M. Freshwater Wild Swimming, Health and Well-Being: Understanding the Importance of Place and Risk. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oreszczyn, S.; Lane, A. The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: Different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 60, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, B.; Larsen, L.; Deal, B.; Sullivan, W.C. A dose–response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 139, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenwick, R.A.; Shammin, M.R.; Sullivan, W.C. Preferences for riparian buffers. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloke, P.; Pawson, E. Memorial trees and treescape memories. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2008, 26, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Qian, J. Towards a material approach in rural geography: Architectural experiments in China’s rural renaissance and reconstruction movements. Geoforum 2020, 116, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Zhu, M.; Wang, H.; Ji, Y.; Li, T. Comparing the farmland preservation goals of the government and the public from insights of ecosystem services trade-offs: Evidence from Hubei, China. Habitat Int. 2024, 145, 103014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, Y.; Xu, G.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X.; Li, T. Natural attributes or aesthetic attributes: Which is more valuable in recreational ecosystem services of nature-based parks considering tourists’ environmental knowledge and attitude impacts? J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2023, 44, 100699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, M.A.L.; Foale, S.; Bellwood, D.R. Why do fishers fish? A cross-cultural examination of the motivations for fishing. Mar. Policy 2016, 66, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimension | Factors | Survey Questions |
---|---|---|
aesthetic preference | aesthetic quality | Do you think this scene is beautiful or not? Very unbeautiful = 1; Unbeautiful = 2; Average = 3; Beautiful = 4; Very beautiful = 5 |
historicity | Do you think this scene evokes a sense of history and heritage? Not at all = 1; Barely = 2; Average = 3; Somewhat = 4; Strongly = 5 | |
locality | Does this scene appear unique to you, reflecting distinct local characteristics? Not at all = 1; Barely = 2; Average = 3; Somewhat = 4; Strongly = 5 | |
recreational preference | walking | Which of the following recreational activities do you think are suitable to be carried out or developed in this scene? (Multiple choices allowed) walking, jogging, biking, swimming, boating, fishing, no suitable activities |
jogging | ||
biking | ||
swimming | ||
boating | ||
fishing |
Type | Factors | Measurement Methodology |
---|---|---|
natural elements | percentage of water | calculated by proportion |
percentage of vegetation | ||
percentage of trees | ||
percentage of farmland | ||
percentage of bare land | ||
built elements | percentage of hardscape | |
percentage of canal | ||
percentage of hydraulic facilities * | ||
percentage of road | ||
percentage of buildings | ||
percentage of other facilities * | ||
naturalness | naturalness of bank | entirely artificial revetment with no greenery = 0 partially greened artificial revetment = 1 fully greened revetment = 2 fully greened and naturally shaped revetment = 3 |
naturalness of vegetation | artificial vegetation = 1 semi-artificial and semi-natural vegetation = 2 entirely natural vegetation = 3 |
Aesthetic Preference | Aesthetic Quality | Historicity | Locality | Recreational Preference | Walking | Jogging | Biking | Swimming | Fishing | Boating | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
percentage of water | 0.399 | 0.152 | 0.544 * | 0.438 | 0.626 ** | −0.24 | 0.11 | 0.076 | 0.890 ** | 0.913 ** | 0.902 ** |
percentage of vegetation | −0.517 * | −0.387 | −0.467 | −0.513 * | −0.439 | −0.186 | −0.399 | −0.353 | −0.433 | −0.307 | −0.407 |
percentage of trees | −0.034 | −0.205 | 0.096 | 0.001 | 0.174 | −0.015 | 0.013 | −0.039 | 0.169 | 0.255 | 0.178 |
percentage of farmland | −0.316 | −0.07 | −0.392 | −0.352 | −0.566 * | 0.142 | −0.235 | −0.177 | −0.632 ** | −0.693 ** | −0.657 ** |
percentage of bare land | −0.535 * | −0.729 ** | −0.475 * | −0.508 * | −0.37 | −0.118 | −0.368 | −0.385 | −0.21 | −0.15 | −0.226 |
percentage of hardscape | 0.470 * | 0.348 | 0.414 | 0.485 * | 0.451 | 0.560 * | 0.637 ** | 0.674 ** | −0.072 | −0.071 | −0.024 |
percentage of canal | 0.434 | 0.214 | 0.529 * | 0.469 * | 0.569 * | −0.056 | 0.168 | 0.103 | 0.685 ** | 0.703 ** | 0.722 ** |
percentage of hydraulic facilities | 0.255 | 0.212 | 0.317 | 0.304 | 0.342 | 0.108 | 0.218 | 0.172 | 0.34 | 0.278 | 0.349 |
percentage of road | 0.252 | 0.059 | 0.126 | 0.246 | 0.454 | 0.729 ** | 0.761 ** | 0.799 ** | −0.309 | −0.271 | −0.292 |
percentage of buildings | 0.344 | 0.22 | 0.375 | 0.389 | 0.333 | 0.177 | 0.321 | 0.347 | 0.124 | 0.193 | 0.23 |
percentage of other facilities | 0.201 | 0.216 | 0.29 | 0.231 | 0.117 | 0.239 | 0.232 | 0.275 | −0.082 | −0.082 | 0.026 |
naturalness of bank | −0.479 * | −0.693 ** | −0.339 | −0.451 | −0.203 | −0.383 | −0.296 | −0.319 | 0.03 | 0.149 | 0.086 |
naturalness of vegetation | −0.538 * | −0.668 ** | −0.399 | −0.501 * | −0.074 | −0.306 | −0.241 | −0.186 | −0.023 | 0.185 | 0.065 |
Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | p | Collinearity Statistics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | VIF | Tolerance | ||||
aesthetic preference (R2 = 0.769, Adj R2 = 0.72) | Constant | 3.71 | 0.089 | - | 41.728 | 0.000 ** | - | - |
percentage of water | 1.455 | 0.31 | 0.614 | 4.699 | 0.000 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.095 | 0.032 | −0.463 | −2.95 | 0.011 * | 1.494 | 0.669 | |
naturalness of vegetation | −0.133 | 0.056 | −0.37 | −2.392 | 0.031 * | 1.455 | 0.687 | |
aesthetic quality (R2 = 0.753, Adj R2 = 0.7) | Constant | 4.056 | 0.116 | - | 34.84 | 0.000 ** | - | - |
percentage of water | 1.295 | 0.406 | 0.432 | 3.193 | 0.007 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.132 | 0.042 | −0.506 | −3.119 | 0.008 ** | 1.494 | 0.669 | |
naturalness of vegetation | −0.195 | 0.073 | −0.43 | −2.686 | 0.018 * | 1.455 | 0.687 | |
historicity (R2 = 0.722, Adj R2 = 0.685) | Constant | 3.333 | 0.062 | - | 54.048 | 0.000 ** | - | - |
percentage of water | 1.732 | 0.31 | 0.775 | 5.593 | 0.000 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.102 | 0.027 | −0.524 | −3.778 | 0.002 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
locality (R2 = 0.797, Adj R2 = 0.753) | Constant | 3.421 | 0.059 | - | 57.707 | 0.000 ** | - | - |
percentage of water | 1.257 | 0.259 | 0.599 | 4.844 | 0.000 ** | 1.053 | 0.95 | |
percentage of hardscape | 1.359 | 0.469 | 0.355 | 2.897 | 0.012 * | 1.03 | 0.97 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.109 | 0.023 | −0.595 | −4.798 | 0.000 ** | 1.058 | 0.945 | |
recreational preference (R2 = 0.861, Adj R2 = 0.819) | Constant | 0.194 | 0.035 | - | 5.61 | 0.000 ** | - | - |
percentage of water | 0.571 | 0.184 | 0.566 | 3.102 | 0.008 ** | 3.116 | 0.321 | |
percentage of canal | 0.415 | 0.167 | 0.466 | 2.491 | 0.027 * | 3.277 | 0.305 | |
percentage of road | 2.034 | 0.619 | 0.364 | 3.283 | 0.006 ** | 1.149 | 0.87 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.037 | 0.01 | −0.425 | −3.791 | 0.002 ** | 1.174 | 0.852 | |
walking (R2 = 0.554, Adj R2 = 0.429) | Constant | 0.735 | 0.027 | - | 27.241 | 0.000 ** | - | - |
percentage of road | 2.046 | 0.825 | 0.461 | 2.479 | 0.026 * | 1.03 | 0.971 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.032 | 0.013 | −0.459 | −2.47 | 0.026 * | 1.03 | 0.971 | |
jogging (R2 = 0.778, Adj R2 = 0.73) | Constant | 0.224 | 0.052 | - | 4.327 | 0.001 ** | - | - |
percentage of canal | 0.794 | 0.154 | 0.716 | 5.148 | 0.000 ** | 1.216 | 0.822 | |
percentage of road | 5.047 | 0.924 | 0.724 | 5.461 | 0.000 ** | 1.108 | 0.903 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.042 | 0.015 | −0.383 | −2.849 | 0.013 * | 1.138 | 0.879 | |
biking (R2 = 0.782, Adj R2 = 0.735) | Constant | 0.157 | 0.06 | - | 2.64 | 0.019 * | - | - |
percentage of canal | 0.819 | 0.178 | 0.635 | 4.611 | 0.000 ** | 1.216 | 0.822 | |
percentage of road | 6.159 | 1.064 | 0.76 | 5.788 | 0.000 ** | 1.108 | 0.903 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.051 | 0.017 | −0.403 | −3.029 | 0.009 ** | 1.138 | 0.879 | |
swimming (R2 = 0.905, Adj R2 = 0.892) | Constant | 0.014 | 0.017 | - | 0.848 | 0.41 | - | - |
percentage of water | 0.986 | 0.083 | 0.96 | 11.839 | 0.000 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.028 | 0.007 | −0.312 | −3.844 | 0.002 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
fishing (R2 = 0.878, Adj R2 = 0.87) | Constant | 0.112 | 0.03 | - | 3.795 | 0.002 ** | - | - |
percentage of water | 1.717 | 0.16 | 0.937 | 10.707 | 0.000 ** | 1 | 1 | |
boating (R2 = 0.92, Adj R2 = 0.909) | Constant | −0.014 | 0.025 | - | −0.534 | 0.601 | - | - |
percentage of water | 1.66 | 0.127 | 0.97 | 13.056 | 0.000 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 | |
naturalness of bank | −0.043 | 0.011 | −0.291 | −3.921 | 0.001 ** | 1.037 | 0.964 |
N | Aesthetic Preference | Aesthetic Quality | Historicity | Locality | Recreational Preference | Walking | Swimming | Fishing | Boating | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | 254 | 3.58 ± 0.76 | 3.77 ± 0.70 | 3.44 ± 0.86 | 3.52 ± 0.81 | 0.39 ± 0.17 | 0.72 ± 0.25 | 0.48 ± 0.28 | 0.43 ± 0.27 | 0.12 ± 0.17 |
Male | 211 | 3.63 ± 0.80 | 3.79 ± 0.75 | 3.50 ± 0.90 | 3.61 ± 0.86 | 0.38 ± 0.18 | 0.73 ± 0.25 | 0.47 ± 0.30 | 0.42 ± 0.28 | 0.14 ± 0.18 |
<20 | 24 | 3.35 ± 0.71 b | 3.63 ± 0.62 | 3.14 ± 0.76 B | 3.28 ± 0.80 b | 0.39 ± 0.16 | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 0.53 ± 0.27 | 0.43 ± 0.25 | 0.08 ± 0.11 |
20~29 | 102 | 3.47 ± 0.78 b | 3.69 ± 0.72 | 3.30 ± 0.87 B | 3.44 ± 0.87 b | 0.38 ± 0.15 | 0.70 ± 0.25 | 0.46 ± 0.28 | 0.40 ± 0.25 | 0.11 ± 0.15 |
30~39 | 162 | 3.55 ± 0.69 b | 3.74 ± 0.66 | 3.37 ± 0.83 B | 3.53 ± 0.72 b | 0.39 ± 0.16 | 0.73 ± 0.23 | 0.46 ± 0.27 | 0.43 ± 0.26 | 0.13 ± 0.18 |
40~49 | 86 | 3.72 ± 0.85 ab | 3.90 ± 0.76 | 3.65 ± 0.93 AB | 3.62 ± 0.92 ab | 0.39 ± 0.18 | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 0.51 ± 0.30 | 0.43 ± 0.28 | 0.14 ± 0.18 |
50~59 | 67 | 3.83 ± 0.80 a | 3.92 ± 0.80 | 3.75 ± 0.86 A | 3.80 ± 0.82 a | 0.39 ± 0.19 | 0.77 ± 0.26 | 0.49 ± 0.33 | 0.42 ± 0.35 | 0.16 ± 0.20 |
>60 | 24 | 3.74 ± 0.91 ab | 3.82 ± 0.82 | 3.71 ± 0.95 AB | 3.70 ± 1.00 ab | 0.36 ± 0.25 | 0.62 ± 0.35 | 0.44 ± 0.33 | 0.44 ± 0.32 | 0.14 ± 0.19 |
Junior high school and below | 37 | 4.07 ± 0.88 A | 4.20 ± 0.82 A | 3.99 ± 0.94 A | 4.01 ± 0.91 A | 0.30 ± 0.21 C | 0.62 ± 0.35 B | 0.41 ± 0.33 | 0.35 ± 0.31 | 0.11 ± 0.18 bc |
High school/Technical secondary school | 39 | 3.86 ± 0.89 A | 4.02 ± 0.81 A | 3.79 ± 0.93 A | 3.76 ± 0.98 AB | 0.33 ± 0.17 BC | 0.73 ± 0.30 AB | 0.45 ± 0.32 | 0.40 ± 0.35 | 0.06 ± 0.09 c |
Junior college | 59 | 3.83 ± 0.79 A | 3.90 ± 0.75 AB | 3.76 ± 0.87 A | 3.84 ± 0.83 A | 0.43 ± 0.18 A | 0.79 ± 0.24 A | 0.51 ± 0.29 | 0.46 ± 0.30 | 0.18 ± 0.19 a |
Bachelor’s degree | 293 | 3.48 ± 0.72 B | 3.69 ± 0.68 B | 3.32 ± 0.84 B | 3.44 ± 0.79 B | 0.40 ± 0.16 AB | 0.74 ± 0.23 A | 0.49 ± 0.28 | 0.43 ± 0.26 | 0.13 ± 0.17 b |
Master’s degree or above | 37 | 3.47 ± 0.64 B | 3.67 ± 0.64 B | 3.30 ± 0.75 B | 3.42 ± 0.66 B | 0.36 ± 0.20 ABC | 0.62 ± 0.27 B | 0.40 ± 0.29 | 0.39 ± 0.25 | 0.14 ± 0.23 ab |
<5000 RMB | 128 | 3.81 ± 0.85 A | 4.00 ± 0.75 A | 3.69 ± 0.96 A | 3.75 ± 0.93 a | 0.38 ± 0.18 | 0.74 ± 0.28 | 0.50 ± 0.30 | 0.41 ± 0.30 | 0.12 ± 0.16 |
5000–10,000 RMB | 228 | 3.56 ± 0.75 B | 3.75 ± 0.71 B | 3.43 ± 0.86 B | 3.51 ± 0.81 b | 0.39 ± 0.17 | 0.74 ± 0.24 | 0.48 ± 0.30 | 0.44 ± 0.28 | 0.14 ± 0.18 |
10,000–30,000 RMB | 100 | 3.47 ± 0.68 B | 3.60 ± 0.65 B | 3.32 ± 0.77 B | 3.47 ± 0.73 b | 0.38 ± 0.16 | 0.69 ± 0.22 | 0.45 ± 0.27 | 0.42 ± 0.26 | 0.13 ± 0.18 |
>30,000 RMB | 9 | 3.22 ± 0.76 B | 3.46 ± 0.72 B | 2.99 ± 0.85 B | 3.20 ± 0.85 b | 0.29 ± 0.12 | 0.56 ± 0.31 | 0.31 ± 0.23 | 0.31 ± 0.15 | 0.04 ± 0.05 |
No, I have always lived in the city | 75 | 3.43 ± 0.80 a | 3.62 ± 0.74 a | 3.28 ± 0.91 a | 3.40 ± 0.87 a | 0.35 ± 0.17 | 0.69 ± 0.26 | 0.43 ± 0.30 | 0.41 ± 0.29 | 0.09 ± 0.15 |
Yes, but for less than 2 years | 80 | 3.47 ± 0.74 b | 3.68 ± 0.68 ab | 3.28 ± 0.87 b | 3.44 ± 0.79 ab | 0.37 ± 0.16 | 0.68 ± 0.26 | 0.44 ± 0.27 | 0.40 ± 0.25 | 0.13 ± 0.17 |
Yes, for more than 2 years | 310 | 3.68 ± 0.77 b | 3.85 ± 0.72 b | 3.56 ± 0.86 b | 3.64 ± 0.83 b | 0.40 ± 0.17 | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 0.50 ± 0.29 | 0.43 ± 0.28 | 0.14 ± 0.18 |
Completely unheard of | 55 | 3.38 ± 0.83 B | 3.61 ± 0.81 B | 3.24 ± 0.93 B | 3.28 ± 0.87 C | 0.36 ± 0.18 | 0.72 ± 0.28 | 0.43 ± 0.31 | 0.41 ± 0.31 | 0.09 ± 0.15 |
Heard of but not aware | 221 | 3.55 ± 0.78 B | 3.75 ± 0.72 B | 3.39 ± 0.88 B | 3.51 ± 0.83 BC | 0.38 ± 0.17 | 0.73 ± 0.24 | 0.47 ± 0.29 | 0.41 ± 0.28 | 0.13 ± 0.17 |
Somewhat aware | 157 | 3.66 ± 0.71 B | 3.80 ± 0.66 B | 3.54 ± 0.80 B | 3.63 ± 0.78 B | 0.39 ± 0.17 | 0.71 ± 0.26 | 0.49 ± 0.28 | 0.44 ± 0.27 | 0.13 ± 0.18 |
Very aware | 32 | 4.10 ± 0.81 A | 4.18 ± 0.78 A | 4.05 ± 0.89 A | 4.08 ± 0.85 A | 0.43 ± 0.17 | 0.76 ± 0.25 | 0.55 ± 0.32 | 0.47 ± 0.30 | 0.18 ± 0.16 |
Not local | 373 | 3.52 ± 0.77 B | 3.71 ± 0.71 B | 3.38 ± 0.88 B | 3.49 ± 0.83 B | 0.37 ± 0.16 B | 0.71 ± 0.26 b | 0.46 ± 0.28 B | 0.41 ± 0.27 B | 0.12 ± 0.16 B |
Local | 92 | 3.93 ± 0.73 A | 4.08 ± 0.70 A | 3.84 ± 0.80 A | 3.86 ± 0.78 A | 0.45 ± 0.18 A | 0.78 ± 0.22 a | 0.55 ± 0.30 A | 0.49 ± 0.29 A | 0.18 ± 0.22 A |
Aesthetic Preference | Recreational Preference | |
---|---|---|
Naturalness of vegetation (0 natural −1 regular) | 0.151 | 0.072 |
Naturalness of bank (0 natural −1 hardened) | 0.482 * | 0.12 |
Percentage of road (0 absent −1 present) | 0.199 | 0.746 ** |
Cost | 0.541 ** | 0.523 ** |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhong, Y.; Zhang, M.; Xia, Y.; Hao, R.; Tan, L. Public Aesthetic and Recreational Preferences for Historical Irrigation Canals in Rural Areas: A Case Study in Li Canal-Gaoyou Irrigation District. Buildings 2024, 14, 1955. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071955
Zhong Y, Zhang M, Xia Y, Hao R, Tan L. Public Aesthetic and Recreational Preferences for Historical Irrigation Canals in Rural Areas: A Case Study in Li Canal-Gaoyou Irrigation District. Buildings. 2024; 14(7):1955. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071955
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhong, Yujia, Menghan Zhang, Yiwen Xia, Rong Hao, and Li Tan. 2024. "Public Aesthetic and Recreational Preferences for Historical Irrigation Canals in Rural Areas: A Case Study in Li Canal-Gaoyou Irrigation District" Buildings 14, no. 7: 1955. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071955