Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders' Preferences and Trade-Offs-Taking the Xin'an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Oct 27;19(21):13968. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192113968.

Abstract

Improving the accuracy of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) value assessment and paying more attention to the preferences and trade-offs of stakeholders in the administration of CESs are of vital importance for achieving resilient ecosystem management. Combining methodologies from sociology (Q method) and economics (choice experiment), an assessment framework of CESs is introduced to examine stakeholders' preferences and willingness to pay to participate in CESs in protected areas so as to explore how the value of CESs in protected areas can be optimized. The results show that the selection of CESs by stakeholders reflects certain synergies and trade-offs. Visitors can be classified as preferring humanistic-natural recreation, aesthetic-sense of place, or environmental education according to the factor ranking of the Q method. Visitors have a higher willingness to pay for humanistic heritage and a lower willingness to pay for sense of place experience, which can be measured at $6.55 per visit and $0.96 per visit, respectively. This indicates that the local customs and characteristics should be further explored and promoted through traditional festival celebrations and farming activities in further development of protected areas, apart from protecting local cultural heritages such as Huizhou ancient villages and halls. Furthermore, it is also necessary to actively explore the synergistic development of CESs, promote social participation, raise stakeholders' awareness of available services, manage visitors and stakeholders from a demand perspective, and promote the realization of the value of ecological products in protected areas.

Keywords: Q methodology; choice experiment method; cultural ecosystem services; preference; sustainable management; trade-off.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Agriculture
  • Conservation of Natural Resources / methods
  • Ecosystem*
  • Rivers*

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 71873003, 42201281, and 32201346), the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province, China (grant no. 2208085QD102), and a consulting research project of the Chinese Academy of Engineering: Xin’anjiang Ecological Compensation Assessment Index and Standard System.