Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality

Yuehan Dou, Lin Zhen*, Dolf de Groot, Bingzhen Du, Xiubo Yu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The world is rapidly urbanising, with both positive and negative consequences. One major challenge is how to secure the long-term quality of life for urban residents. Many studies on quality of life are based on ‘material’ ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning and regulating services), with less attention paid to the non-material benefits gained from nature (e.g., green and blue spaces), which have been called cultural ecosystem services (CES). However, these non-material services are often most important to urban residents. Understanding perceptions and awareness of CES provided by urban blue space (i.e., water and wetlands) and green space (i.e., urban forest and grassland) are therefore important to support planning, creation, and protection of these spaces. To tackle these problems, we assessed and quantified the CES provided by urban green and blue space in six metropolitan areas of Beijing. By combining ecosystem services valuation with surveys (466 questionnaires and 16 expert interviews), we gained insights into residents’ perceptions of CES. Surprisingly, blue areas in metropolitan Beijing were valued at least 4.3 times higher than the value of green areas. More than 80% of the residents were willing to pay for maintenance of urban blue and green areas (an average of almost 64 RMB/year). The contributions of cultural services are likely to increase if stakeholders value natural ecosystems more in urban areas than in rural or mountainous areas because of the additional value of these rare resources in densely populated areas.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)79-90
JournalEcosystem Services
Volume24
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

ecosystem service
ecosystem services
urban areas
Ecosystem
municipality
urban area
China
quality of life
resident
Quality of Life
questionnaire survey
Wetlands
valuation
stakeholders
metropolitan area
Beijing
Values
interviews
rural area
stakeholder

Keywords

  • Cultural services
  • Ecosystem services valuation
  • Perceptions
  • Willingness-to-pay

Cite this

@article{4756c86e78e846118a34f35e12ff2d60,
title = "Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality",
abstract = "The world is rapidly urbanising, with both positive and negative consequences. One major challenge is how to secure the long-term quality of life for urban residents. Many studies on quality of life are based on ‘material’ ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning and regulating services), with less attention paid to the non-material benefits gained from nature (e.g., green and blue spaces), which have been called cultural ecosystem services (CES). However, these non-material services are often most important to urban residents. Understanding perceptions and awareness of CES provided by urban blue space (i.e., water and wetlands) and green space (i.e., urban forest and grassland) are therefore important to support planning, creation, and protection of these spaces. To tackle these problems, we assessed and quantified the CES provided by urban green and blue space in six metropolitan areas of Beijing. By combining ecosystem services valuation with surveys (466 questionnaires and 16 expert interviews), we gained insights into residents’ perceptions of CES. Surprisingly, blue areas in metropolitan Beijing were valued at least 4.3 times higher than the value of green areas. More than 80{\%} of the residents were willing to pay for maintenance of urban blue and green areas (an average of almost 64 RMB/year). The contributions of cultural services are likely to increase if stakeholders value natural ecosystems more in urban areas than in rural or mountainous areas because of the additional value of these rare resources in densely populated areas.",
keywords = "Cultural services, Ecosystem services valuation, Perceptions, Willingness-to-pay",
author = "Yuehan Dou and Lin Zhen and {de Groot}, Dolf and Bingzhen Du and Xiubo Yu",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "79--90",
journal = "Ecosystem Services",
issn = "2212-0416",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality. / Dou, Yuehan; Zhen, Lin; de Groot, Dolf; Du, Bingzhen; Yu, Xiubo.

In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 24, 2017, p. 79-90.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality

AU - Dou, Yuehan

AU - Zhen, Lin

AU - de Groot, Dolf

AU - Du, Bingzhen

AU - Yu, Xiubo

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - The world is rapidly urbanising, with both positive and negative consequences. One major challenge is how to secure the long-term quality of life for urban residents. Many studies on quality of life are based on ‘material’ ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning and regulating services), with less attention paid to the non-material benefits gained from nature (e.g., green and blue spaces), which have been called cultural ecosystem services (CES). However, these non-material services are often most important to urban residents. Understanding perceptions and awareness of CES provided by urban blue space (i.e., water and wetlands) and green space (i.e., urban forest and grassland) are therefore important to support planning, creation, and protection of these spaces. To tackle these problems, we assessed and quantified the CES provided by urban green and blue space in six metropolitan areas of Beijing. By combining ecosystem services valuation with surveys (466 questionnaires and 16 expert interviews), we gained insights into residents’ perceptions of CES. Surprisingly, blue areas in metropolitan Beijing were valued at least 4.3 times higher than the value of green areas. More than 80% of the residents were willing to pay for maintenance of urban blue and green areas (an average of almost 64 RMB/year). The contributions of cultural services are likely to increase if stakeholders value natural ecosystems more in urban areas than in rural or mountainous areas because of the additional value of these rare resources in densely populated areas.

AB - The world is rapidly urbanising, with both positive and negative consequences. One major challenge is how to secure the long-term quality of life for urban residents. Many studies on quality of life are based on ‘material’ ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning and regulating services), with less attention paid to the non-material benefits gained from nature (e.g., green and blue spaces), which have been called cultural ecosystem services (CES). However, these non-material services are often most important to urban residents. Understanding perceptions and awareness of CES provided by urban blue space (i.e., water and wetlands) and green space (i.e., urban forest and grassland) are therefore important to support planning, creation, and protection of these spaces. To tackle these problems, we assessed and quantified the CES provided by urban green and blue space in six metropolitan areas of Beijing. By combining ecosystem services valuation with surveys (466 questionnaires and 16 expert interviews), we gained insights into residents’ perceptions of CES. Surprisingly, blue areas in metropolitan Beijing were valued at least 4.3 times higher than the value of green areas. More than 80% of the residents were willing to pay for maintenance of urban blue and green areas (an average of almost 64 RMB/year). The contributions of cultural services are likely to increase if stakeholders value natural ecosystems more in urban areas than in rural or mountainous areas because of the additional value of these rare resources in densely populated areas.

KW - Cultural services

KW - Ecosystem services valuation

KW - Perceptions

KW - Willingness-to-pay

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 79

EP - 90

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

ER -