Public perception of cultural ecosystem services in Dalian Xijiao Forest Park: A biomechanical perspective
Abstract
Forest parks constitute one of the crucial types of urban green spaces. Studying cultural ecosystem services (CESs) in forest parks is critical for ecological conservation and human well-being. Taking Xijiao Forest Park (XFP) in Dalian, Liaoning Province, as the study area, the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model was applied to extract latent topic classifications from web text data. An evaluation system was established by integrating the public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) and the social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) model, which is a spatially explicit tool that quantifies perceived social values through participatory mapping and environmental variable integration. This approach was used to analyze the spatial distribution of the value of its CESs and to identify the environmental factors influencing these values. The results indicate the following: (1) Public perception encompasses 28 topic levels, which incorporate seven value dimensions: Aesthetics, recreation and ecotourism, social relationships, wellness, education, cultural heritage, and inspiration. (2) The values of diverse CESs within the park (XFP) exhibit considerable spatial heterogeneity, depicting a pattern where high values occur in the north and south and low values occur in the east and west. The aesthetic, recreation and ecotourism, social relationship, and wellness values are relatively highly favored by the public. (3) The three environmental factors, namely, scenic spots, water bodies, and roads, have a more pronounced effect on the CES value. This study uses the novel approach of constructing models for web text data to evaluate the CES value.
References
1. Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, et al. Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press; 2005.
2. Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances. 2019; 5(7). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903
3. De Valck J, Broekx S, Liekens I, et al. Contrasting collective preferences for outdoor recreation and substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016; 151: 64-78. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.008
4. Kim J, Son Y. Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services of an urban forest based on narratives from blog posts. Ecological Indicators. 2021; 129: 107983. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107983
5. Alikhani S, Nummi P, Ojala A. Urban Wetlands: A Review on Ecological and Cultural Values. Water. 2021; 13(22): 3301. doi: 10.3390/w13223301
6. Krajter Ostoić S, Marin AM, Kičić M, et al. Qualitative Exploration of Perception and Use of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Tree-Based Urban Green Space in the City of Zagreb (Croatia). Forests. 2020; 11(8): 876. doi: 10.3390/f11080876
7. Liu Z, Huang Q, Yang H. Supply-demand spatial patterns of park cultural services in megalopolis area of Shenzhen, China. Ecological Indicators. 2021; 121: 107066. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107066
8. Sen S, Guchhait SK. Urban green space in India: Perception of cultural ecosystem services and psychology of situatedness and connectedness. Ecological Indicators. 2021; 123: 107338. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107338
9. Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, et al. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: An exploration of the tour experience. Science of The Total Environment. 2022; 821: 153388. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153388
10. Solikin A, Abdul Rahman R, Saefrudin E, et al. Forest Valuation Using Travel Cost Method (Tcm): Cases of Pahang National Park and Srengseng Jakarta Urban Forest. Planning Malaysia Journal. 2019; 17(9). doi: 10.21837/pmjournal.v17.i9.612
11. Zhang X, Ni Z, Wang Y, et al. Public perception and preferences of small urban green infrastructures: A case study in Guangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020; 53: 126700. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126700
12. Xu F, Wang Y, Xiang N, et al. Uncovering the willingness-to-pay for urban green space conservation: A survey of the capital area in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2020; 162: 105053. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105053
13. Kalfas DG, Zagkas DT, Dragozi EI, et al. Estimating value of the ecosystem services in the urban and peri-urban green of a town Florina-Greece, using the CVM. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2020; 27(4): 310-321. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2020.1714786
14. Tian Y, Wu H, Zhang G, et al. Perceptions of ecosystem services, disservices and willingness-to-pay for urban green space conservation. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020; 260: 110140. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110140
15. Kosanic A, Petzold J. A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Ecosystem Services. 2020; 45: 101168. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101168
16. Cabana D, Ryfield F, Crowe TP, et al. Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2020; 42: 101085. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101085
17. Zhang H, Huang R, Zhang Y, et al. Cultural ecosystem services evaluation using geolocated social media data: a review. Tourism Geographies. 2020; 24(4-5): 646-668. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1801828
18. Liu YY. Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of cultural ecosystem services in Haizhu Wetland based on social media photos. Guangzhou University; 2020.
19. Owuor I, Hochmair HH, Paulus G. Use of social media data, online reviews and wikipedia page views to measure visitation patterns of outdoor attractions. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2023; 44: 100681. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2023.100681
20. Xin C, Sylvie VD, Luyuan L, et al. Taking “social relations” as a cultural ecosystem service: A triangulation approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020; 55: 126790. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126790
21. Tyne WP, Fletcher D, Paine NJ, et al. Employees’ experiences of outdoor adventure training on psychological capital and wellbeing: A mixed methods case study. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2024; 46: 100761. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2024.100761
22. Nowak-Olejnik A, Schirpke U, Tappeiner U. A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2022; 57: 101467. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101467
23. Khosravi Mashizi A, Sharafatmandrad M. Investigating tradeoffs between supply, use and demand of ecosystem services and their effective drivers for sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management. 2021; 289: 112534. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112534
24. LI GZ, CAI J. Analysis Framework of Landscape Architecture Space and Human Well-being Based on Ecosystem Services. Chinese Landscape Architecture. 2020; 36(06): 66-71.
25. Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Indicators. 2014; 36: 68-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.008
26. Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Ancona ZH. Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): Open-source spatial modeling of cultural services. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2022; 148: 105259. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105259
27. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography. 2011; 31(2): 748-760. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002
28. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research. 2003; 3(Jan): 993-1022.
29. Brown G, Fagerholm N. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services. 2015; 13: 119-133. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
30. Pan J, Ma Y, Cai S, et al. Distribution patterns of lake-wetland cultural ecosystem services in highland. Environmental Development. 2022; 44: 100754. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100754
31. Dagan DT, Wilkins EJ. What is “big data” and how should we use it? The role of large datasets, secondary data, and associated analysis techniques in outdoor recreation research. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2023; 44: 100668. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2023.100668
32. Qianzi J, Guangxing W, Xueyuan L, et al. Research on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks via Analyses of Online Comment Data. Landscape Architecture Frontiers. 2022; 10(5): 32. doi: 10.15302/j-laf-1-020072
33. Yu D, Xiang B. Discovering topics and trends in the field of Artificial Intelligence: Using LDA topic modeling. Expert Systems with Applications. 2023; 225: 120114. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120114
34. Maier D, Waldherr A, Miltner P, et al. Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. In Computational methods for communication science. Routledge; 2021.
35. Li W, Ma K, Qiu Q, et al. Chinese Word Segmentation Based on Self‐Learning Model and Geological Knowledge for the Geoscience Domain. Earth and Space Science. 2021; 8(6). doi: 10.1029/2021ea001673
36. MEa MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: wetlands and water synthesis. 2005.
37. Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators. 2013; 29: 434-444. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
38. Grima N, Jutras-Perreault MC, Gobakken T, et al. Systematic review for a set of indicators supporting the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. Ecological Indicators. 2023; 147: 109978. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109978
39. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics. 2007; 63(2-3): 616-626. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
40. Wallace KJ. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation. 2007; 139(3-4): 235-246. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015
41. Sagie H, Morris A, Rofè Y, et al. Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: A social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli–Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. Journal of Arid Environments. 2013; 97: 38-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.05.007
42. Luo Y, He J, Long Y, et al. The Relationship between the Color Landscape Characteristics of Autumn Plant Communities and Public Aesthetics in Urban Parks in Changsha, China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4): 3119. doi: 10.3390/su15043119
43. Mundher R, Abu Bakar S, Maulan S, et al. Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review. Forests. 2022; 13(7): 991. doi: 10.3390/f13070991
44. Gai S, Fu J, Rong X, et al. Importance–performance analysis and improvement of an urban park’s cultural ecosystem services based on users’ perspectives: A Beijing case study. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 2022; 22(2): 726-739. doi: 10.1080/13467581.2022.2049800
45. Kong L, Liu Z, Pan X, et al. How do different types and landscape attributes of urban parks affect visitors’ positive emotions? Landscape and Urban Planning. 2022; 226: 104482. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104482
46. Ha J, Kim HJ, With KA. Urban green space alone is not enough: A landscape analysis linking the spatial distribution of urban green space to mental health in the city of Chicago. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2022; 218: 104309. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104309
47. Mohammadzadeh N, Karimi A, Brown RD. The influence of outdoor thermal comfort on acoustic comfort of urban parks based on plant communities. Building and Environment. 2023; 228: 109884. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109884
48. Yang M, Wu R, Bao Z, et al. Effects of Urban Park Environmental Factors on Landscape Preference Based on Spatiotemporal Distribution Characteristics of Visitors. Forests. 2023; 14(8): 1559. doi: 10.3390/f14081559
49. Xu H, Lin X, Liu F, et al. Experiential Value, Place Attachment, and Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Forest Health Tourism—A Case of China. Forests. 2022; 13(11): 1855. doi: 10.3390/f13111855
50. Morgan EA, Osborne N, Mackey B. Evaluating planning without plans: Principles, criteria and indicators for effective forest landscape approaches. Land Use Policy. 2022; 115: 106031. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106031
51. Zhou Q, Chen J, van den Bosch CCK, et al. Constructing an Aims-Indicators-Methods framework for Green Space System Planning in China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2022; 67: 127437. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127437
52. Mohammadzadeh N, Karimi A, Brown RD. The influence of outdoor thermal comfort on acoustic comfort of urban parks based on plant communities. Building and Environment. 2023; 228: 109884. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109884
Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright on all articles published in this journal is retained by the author(s), while the author(s) grant the publisher as the original publisher to publish the article.
Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which means they can be shared, adapted and distributed provided that the original published version is cited.
Submit a Paper
