| Literature DB >> 35682244 |
Qinqin Shi1,2, Hai Chen3, Di Liu4, Tianwei Geng3, Hang Zhang5.
Abstract
Cultural ecosystem services (CESs) are an important part of ecosystem services (ESs). Correctly understanding the supply and demand relationship of CES is the premise of ES sustainable management and helps to improve human well-being. However, the evaluation and mapping of CES supply and demand represents a significant gap in ES research. Using the Shigou Township of Mizhi County in China as an example, in this study, we evaluated CES supply and demand at the village scale. We first considered three aspects of supply potential, accessibility and quality to construct an indicator system of six types of CES supply, including aesthetic (Aest), sense of place (SP), social relations (SR), cultural heritage (Cult), education (Edu) and recreation (Recr) and obtained demand data through a questionnaire. Then, we identified the imbalance in the supply and demand of CES by Z-score standardization based on the quantification of the CES supply and demand. Secondly, bivariate spatial autocorrelation analysis was used to identify tradeoffs/synergies on the CES supply side, and chi-square tests were used to identify CES demand differences between stakeholder groups. The results indicated that the supply-demand patterns of CES presented evident spatial differences. The low-supply-high-demand patterns of Aest, SR and Recr accounted for the largest proportions, with values of 33.33%, 33.33% and 30.95%, respectively. The low-supply-low-demand patterns of SP and Cult accounted for the largest proportions, with values of 30.95% and 38.10%, respectively. The low-supply-low-demand pattern of Edu accounted for the smallest proportion (21.43%) and was mainly located in the south of Shigou Township. The southwest, northeast and central areas of Shigou Township were the key regions of tradeoffs/synergies of CES supply. There were significant differences in CES demand for SR, Cult and Edu among stakeholder groups. The results could contribute to optimizing regional ecosystem management and provide effective information for improving the imbalance between the supply and demand of CES.Entities:
Keywords: cultural ecosystem services; demand; spatial imbalance; supply; tradeoffs/synergies
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682244 PMCID: PMC9180195 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Map of the study area: (a) location of Shaanxi Province, China; (b) 42 villages of Shigou Township; (c) the digital elevation model (DEM) of Shigou Township; (d) spatial distribution of land use in Shigou Township.
Indicator system of cultural ecosystem services in Shigou Township.
| CES | Indicator | Data Processing (Units) | Indicator Type | Anticipated Impact | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic | NDVI | ArcGIS 10.4 zonal statistics | Quality | + | 0.500 |
| SHDI | Fragstats 4.2 (−) | Quality | + | 0.500 | |
| Sense of place | Per capita cropland area | Ratio of cropland area to total population (m2/person) | Supply | + | 0.499 |
| Per household cave dwelling area | Ratio of cave dwelling area to total number of households (m2/household) | Supply | + | 0.501 | |
| Social relations | Residential separation | Fragstats 4.2 (−) | Quality | − | 0.345 |
| Distance to the nearest township | ArcGIS 10.4 proximity analysis (m) | Accessibility | − | 0.312 | |
| Distance to county | ArcGIS 10.4 point distance (m) | Accessibility | − | 0.343 | |
| Cultural heritage | Cultural activity center area | Field interviews (m2) | Supply | + | 0.520 |
| Temple area | Field interviews (m2) | Supply | + | 0.480 | |
| Education | Percentage of “three types of land” area | Ratio of “three types of land” area to total cropland area (%) | Supply | + | 0.500 |
| Percentage of “Grain for Green” area | Ratio of “Grain for Green” area to total cropland area (%) | Supply | + | 0.500 | |
| Recreation | Percentage of scenic spots area | ArcGIS 10.4 statistical analysis (%) | Supply | + | 0.131 |
| Shortest distance to woodlands | ArcGIS 10.4 proximity analysis (m) | Accessibility | − | 0.218 | |
| Shortest distance to grasslands | ArcGIS 10.4 proximity analysis (m) | Accessibility | − | 0.218 | |
| Shortest distance to water bodies | ArcGIS 10.4 proximity analysis (m) | Accessibility | − | 0.216 | |
| Average distance to cultural activity center | ArcGIS 10.4 point distance (m) | Accessibility | − | 0.217 |
Anticipated Impact: “+” indicates that the indicator is positively correlated with the CES supply; “−“ indicates that the indicator is negatively correlated with the CES supply.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of supply, demand and supply–demand patterns of cultural ecosystem services in Shigou Township. HH: high supply–high demand; HL: high supply–low demand; LH: low supply–high demand; LL: low supply–low demand.
Cultural ecosystem services demand scale in Shigou Township and the references sources.
| CES | Reference Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic | The beauty I can get from the landscapes in my village, such as beautiful scenery, rich colors, etc. | [ |
| Sense of place | My village is special to me; it makes me feel safe, comfortable and attached. | [ |
| Social relations | My village has had an important impact on a variety of specific social relations. | [ |
| Cultural heritage | I think landscapes with historical and cultural value are important to the inheritance of traditional culture. | [ |
| Education | The land use and ecological protection measures in my village provide me with a source of informal education. | [ |
| Recreation | I like leisure activities, such as chatting, walking, dog walking, playing with children, exercising, etc. | [ |
Bivariate local Moran’s I among six cultural ecosystem service supplies in Shigou Township.
| CES | Aesthetic | Sense of Place | Social Relations | Cultural Heritage | Education |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic | 1.000 | |||||
| Sense of place | −0.270 | 1.000 | ||||
| Social relations | 0.101 | −0.273 | 1.000 | |||
| Cultural heritage | 0.032 | −0.025 | −0.052 | 1.000 | ||
| Educational | 0.178 | −0.200 | −0.051 | 0.056 | 1.000 | |
| Recreation | 0.149 | −0.203 | 0.126 | 0.067 | 0.129 | 1.000 |
Figure 3Spatial agglomeration of tradeoffs/synergies between six types of cultural ecosystem services on the supply side. (a): Aest-SP; (b): Aest-SR; (c): Aest-Cult; (d): Aest-Edu; (e): Aest-Recr; (f): SP-SR; (g): SP-Cult; (h): SP-Edu; (i): SP-Recr; (j): SR-Cult; (k): SP-Edu; (l): SP-Recr; (m): Cult-Edu; (n): Cult-Recr; (o): Recr-Edu. Aest: aesthetic; SP: sense of place; SR: social relations; Cult: cultural heritage; Edu: education; Recr: recreation. H-H clustering: high–high clustering; L-L clustering: low–low clustering; L-H clustering: low–high clustering; H-L clustering: high–low clustering.
Cultural ecosystem service demand among five different stakeholder groups in Shigou Township.
| CES | χ2 ( | Farmer ( | Migrant Worker ( | Multiple Occupations | Elderly People ( | Government Staff ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic | 19.350 (0.251) | 39.1 | 33.3 | 50.7 | 37.6 | 34.5 | 40.2 |
| Sense of place | 21.265 (0.169) | 43.5 | 33.3 | 58.9 | 56.5 | 48.3 | 48.8 |
| Social relations | 23.735 (0.095) | 28.0 | 30.3 | 41.1 | 34.1 | 44.8 | 33.3 |
| Cultural heritage | 30.248 (0.017) | 16.1 | 6.1 | 28.8 | 18.8 | 31.0 | 19.4 |
| Education | 24.882 (0.072) | 19.9 | 15.2 | 20.5 | 16.5 | 3.4 | 17.6 |
| Recreation | 10.639 (0.831) | 16.1 | 9.1 | 16.4 | 14.1 | 17.2 | 15.2 |