[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Uncertainty Modelling of Groundwater-Dependent Vegetation
Previous Article in Journal
Towards Biocultural Conservation of Chilean Palm Landscapes: Expanding Perspectives from Historical Ecology
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/land13122207
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Study on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from Different Stakeholder Perspectives

by
Jiaxin Li
,
Kankan Li
*,
Yanbo Wang
and
Rui Jiao
College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(12), 2207; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122207
Submission received: 26 November 2024 / Revised: 13 December 2024 / Accepted: 14 December 2024 / Published: 17 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Human–Environmental Relations: Ecotourism and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Map and attractions in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Statistical results of the distribution of CES value points in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park participatory mapping.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Spatial analysis of the kernel density of the cultural service value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Spatial analysis of the kernel density of the cultural service value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Framework for the relationship between perceived CES differences and the structures of various stakeholders.</p> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The core of the cultural services of ecosystems (CESs) is the spiritual connection between humans and nature, and participatory mapping from the stakeholder perspective is an effective method for perceiving and protecting hotspot CES areas. This study used participatory mapping combined with 184 interviews and questionnaires, completed on 10 December 2023, to investigate the perceptions of CESs in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park by different stakeholder groups; spatial and correlation analyses were used to comparatively analyze the characteristics of the differences in the perceptions of CESs among different stakeholders, the influencing factors, and their spatial distribution patterns. The results show that (1) there is a positive correlation between the literacy level of external stakeholders and the perception of CESs, and there is no significant difference between the differences in the other demographic characteristics of stakeholders (gender, age, occupation, and literacy level) in the perception of CESs. (2) Different stakeholders have convergent perceptions of spiritual and religious values, cultural heritage values, educational values, and inspirational values, whereas there are greater differences in the perceptions of aesthetic values, ecological and recreational values, and local identity values. (3) Different stakeholders of the same CES are strongly correlated, and there is no correlation between spiritual and religious values and other values and no correlation between recreational and ecotourism values and educational and cultural heritage values; however, there is a correlation between all other subcultural services. It is important to fully identify and consider the characteristics of the differences in the perceptions of different stakeholders in CESs to enhance the regional planning and scenic area service function in the study area.

1. Introduction

As the standard of living increases, people’s needs gradually transform from material to spiritual. Owing to the development process of social urbanization and the technological advancements of television, video games, and the internet as the main leisure activities, people’s experience of nature perception is gradually dying out [1], and economic growth has made human beings more dependent on ecosystem services and biodiversity than ever before [2]. The pursuit of nature proximity and emotional fulfillment have become hardwired needs, and the need for ecosystem services has emerged to help people access nature and maintain the immaterial connection between nature and individuals [3,4].
Ecosystems continue to provide goods and services to humans through ecological functions to meet human socio-emotional needs [5], and ecosystem services (ESs) are a bridge between natural systems and human well-being [6]. In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) summarized ES for the first time using four categories: provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural services, of which cultural ecosystem services are defined as “intangible benefits that people derive from ecosystems through spiritual fulfillment, cognitive development, contemplation, recreation, and aesthetic experience” [7]. Compared with other ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem services are more easily perceived and play a significant role in human well-being [8].
In recent years, CES assessment has focused mainly on small-scale and medium-scale areas, involving ecological subsystems such as forests [9], farmlands [10], wetlands [11], oceans [12], coastal zones [13,14], grasslands [15], deserts, etc., and has been dominated by urban greenlands [16,17], city parks [18], and national parks [19,20], where the perception of CESs in national parks is more important, with protected natural landscapes standing out in providing cultural services [21]. On the one hand, the ecosystem value of national parks is very prominent; on the other hand, an in-depth understanding of CESs in national parks plays a very significant role in their environmental protection and management [22].
CES research focuses mainly on the field of nonmonetary value assessment. The assessment is human-centered and includes structured interviews [23], the questionnaire survey method [24,25], participatory mapping (PM) [26,27], the SolVES model [28], POI point-of-interest (POI) data analysis [15], the web-based big data survey method [29,30,31], and monetary value assessment [32]. Structured interviews and questionnaires provide in-depth and precise data, yet they sometimes fall short in terms of systematic coverage and can be influenced by personal biases. Participatory mapping, the SolVES model, and POI data analysis make up for the shortcomings in spatial mapping, making the data more conducive to systematic analysis. The big data survey method uses social platform images and keywords to search; the advantage is that the amount of data is large and comprehensive, and the disadvantage is that due to the unclear purpose of perception, it is easy to misinterpret the evaluation of the experience of the perceived crowd because of the unclear directionality of the words and phrases [29,31]. For the Taibai Mountain region, as part of the Qinling Mountain region, the use of a big data survey database is not an effective method for gathering timely and comprehensive data. Thus, this study selected the questionnaire method to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results. Additionally, participatory mapping was utilized to facilitate a clear understanding of the perceptions and experiences related to the subject matter.
The classification of the perceived populations has been addressed in previous studies, with tourists [33] and residents [34] as the main categories. In addition, previous research includes comparisons of residents in different regions and the classification of government departments, communities, and tourists. Introducing a stakeholder perspective increases the richness of the perceived population [35], and the inclusion of interest groups such as government agencies, local merchants, and scenic tour operators is more valuable for local ecological development and tourist attraction development [36]. The introduction of multi-stakeholder perspectives helps to quantify CES indicators [37] for different uses to identify trade-offs and synergies in decision-making processes for land use or conservation initiatives [38].
In 1963, scholars from the Stanford Research Institute in the United States first proposed the term “stakeholder”; in 1984, Freeman (Freeman, R. Edward) published a seminal work on the theory, entitled “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach”; and in the mid to late 1980s, the theory of stakeholders was introduced in the field of tourism. With respect to the classification of stakeholders, Sirgy divided stakeholders into internal, external, and remote categories on the basis of the closeness of their interests [39]. Ferderick divided stakeholders into direct and indirect stakeholders, where direct stakeholders are those who are directly related to the project or organization, and indirect stakeholders are those who are affected by the project or organization but are less related to it than direct stakeholders. Different stakeholders have different perspectives and different types of perceptual thinking. It is essential to implement more equitable and effective conservation prioritization strategies in order to enhance the efficiency of resource expenditure. Furthermore, it is vital to integrate the knowledge and perspectives of local stakeholders into conservation decision making on a larger scale [39].
Introducing the concept of stakeholders increases the richness of the perceived population and adds interest groups such as governmental organizations, local merchants, and scenic area operators, which is more valuable for the local ecological development and development of tourist attractions [40]. The introduction of multiple stakeholder group perspectives has helped quantify cultural and ecosystem service indicators for different uses to identify trade-offs and synergies in the decision-making process of land use or conservation initiatives. Previous studies of the Qinling region have predominantly concentrated on the willingness to pay for ecosystem services (ESs) [41] and visitor perceptions of CES [42], with a notable absence of content that addresses the perspectives of different stakeholders. Therefore, on the basis of the above studies, we choose to review and compare CESs from different stakeholder perspectives.
In light of the aforementioned findings, this study aims to further investigate the following hypotheses:
  • Different stakeholders will have different perceptions of ecosystem cultural services in the Taibai Mountain region.
  • If there are differences, the perceived differences in CES generated by different stakeholders mainly focus on place identity value, inspiration value, and aesthetic value; there is not a great difference in recreation and eco-tourism values.
  • The reasons for the differences in the perceptions of different stakeholders are more comprehensive and may be related to personal experience, education, and other factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Taibai Mountain National Forest Park is located on the northern slope of Taibai Mountain, the main peak of the Qinling Mountains, which is the first peak in the eastern part of the Chinese mainland, with an elevation of 620–3511 m. Its main peak, Immortals Suffering, has an elevation of 3767.2 m and is the highest peak of the Qinling Mountains [43]. As a consequence of the distinctive ecological milieu of the Qinling Mountains and the significant national ecological status, Taibai Mountain now offers only one operational route, which is connected to the location of the attractions illustrated in Figure 1. The route is equipped with more comprehensive facilities and intact roads. The Lotus Peak Waterfall is over 80 m high, and the combination of the nine peaks with the view from the air resembles a blossoming lotus flower, which is the origin of the waterfall’s name. The Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail is a historical relic of the well-known Chinese story of 1700 years ago. The Heavenly Circle is located at an altitude of 3511 m above sea level on China’s north–south demarcation ridge, from where an overall view of the Qinling Mountains can be obtained. The remains of the Quaternary glacier in the Taibai Mountain area are the most complete Quaternary glacier remains distributed in the high mountainous area above 3300 m above sea level in China.
The ecotourism status of the study area in China is superior: its natural resources are unique, it is rich in natural landscape resources and has a deep history and culture, its recreational resources are diverse, and its nature and culture are blended with beauty and provide an internationally renowned representation [44]. The study area in the park planning scope is the original area, outside the planning scope of the altitude 3511 m above the nature reserve for the size of the Great Wengong temple. The fourth quarter of the glacier ruins, the Great Master Sea, the Second Master Sea, the Third Master Sea, the Immortals Suffering, and more than 10 attractions are also included in the study area; the specific scope of the study area is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Data Sources

2.2.1. Respondent Definition

As an important part of Qinling National Park, Taibai Mountain Forest Park is composed of mountains showing its geographically beautiful landscape, with rich mountain scenery, diverse levels, and large differences between high-altitude and low-altitude areas, which are strongly perceived by direct perception stakeholders, thus excluding interest groups at a more distant level. Based on the classification of stakeholders in the above analysis and the characteristics of the Taibai Mountain region, we selected direct stakeholders for analyzing the perceived stakeholders of ecosystem cultural services in the Taibai Mountain region of the Qinling Mountains and classified them into two categories: internal stakeholders and external stakeholders. The internal stakeholders include the personnel of tourism enterprises and related enterprises as well as local residents, whereas the external stakeholders are tourists.

2.2.2. Questionnaire Setting

This questionnaire was designed to ascertain the perceptions of different stakeholder groups regarding the cultural services of the Taibai Mountain ecosystem. It was divided into three sections (Table 1). The first section collected the respondents’ demographic characteristics. The second section collected information on the frequency and duration of visits, as well as the respondents’ level of knowledge regarding ecosystem cultural services. The third section collected data on the spatial characteristics of the respondents’ perceptions of ecosystem cultural services. We organized and located the cultural service value points of each attraction and performed a weighted kernel density analysis of different cultural service value points according to the sorting order. Before the questionnaire was carried out, a brief introduction of the content of the CES was given to the respondents to ensure that they understood the content of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was supplemented by pictures of scenic spots in Taibai Mountain to ensure that the respondents to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire results.

2.2.3. Classification of CES Types on Taibai Mountain

On the basis of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s classification of CESs and with reference to the related literature on CESs (Table 2) and field research in the Taibai Mountain area of the Qinling Mountains in China, the Qinling ecosystem’s cultural services are categorized into the following seven types (Table 3): aesthetic value, inspirational value, value of local identity, spiritual and religious value, educational value, value of cultural heritage, and recreation and ecotourism value.

2.3. Data Collection and Processing

2.3.1. Data Collection

The questionnaire was distributed on 10 December 2023 by means of online research through online social media platforms to different stakeholders in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park. To ensure the scientific nature of the questionnaire, before the different stakeholders filled out the questionnaire, the survey members explained the purpose of the survey and introduced the CES value types to them to ensure that the choices given by the respondents were scientific and valid. After determining that the respondents fully understood the 7 CES value types, formal research was started.
n 0 = z 2 p ( 1 − p ) E 2
where z is the confidence level, which takes a value of 95%, p is the proportion of attributes expected to be present in the aggregate, and E is the margin of error, which is the minimum sample for the confidence interval. Internal stakeholder p takes a value of 5%, external stakeholder p takes a value of 95%, and E is the margin of error and takes a value of 5%. The sample size was calculated to be 73 each, for a total of 146. Finally, the survey used online collection questionnaires to distribute 104 and 113 questionnaires and chart them to internal stakeholders and external stakeholders, respectively, excluding problematic questionnaires (e.g., inconsistencies, incomplete completion), obtaining 93 and 91 valid questionnaires and charting with questionnaire validity rates of 89.4% and 80.5%, respectively.

2.3.2. Data Processing

To understand whether the demographic characteristics of the respondents have an impact on the CES function of Taibai Mountain Forest Park, the binary logistic regression model in SPSS was used to analyze the degree of influence of different socioeconomic factors (gender, age, occupation, cultural level, and monthly income) on the perception of the cultural service function. Based on the content of the 2nd part of the questionnaire, in order to ensure safety, the development of scenic spots is based on a fixed route. The evaluation routes of different groups of people are the same, but the attractions are set up with different perceptual needs, on the basis of the individual differences in the perception of the population and the climate, for their route perception is not necessarily complete, to help perceive the results of the impartiality of the CES perception of attractions in order to determine the overall quota and show the scenic area as a whole. CES perception points are determined; then, the weighted results of the different CES perceptions of the regional sorting cartography are established, according to the location of the attractions of the respondents, using GIS version 10.8 software to build shp files with the geographic coordinates of the cultural service value points selected by different stakeholders and superimpose them on the location range delineation map of Taibai Mountain Forest Park. We used the spatial analysis tool in the kernel density analysis (kernel density) to make maps and generated density maps to be used to analyze the distribution of tourists’ and residents’ CES perceptions of the Taibai Mountain Forest Park; we added the Taibai Mountain Forest Park boundary shp file, opening the attribute table to add internal stakeholders and external stakeholders fields. The internal stakeholders and external stakeholders labeled points, in accordance with the sorting of weighted data for statistical input were used to calculate the distribution of different stakeholders in different attraction areas of cultural service value. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were analyzed using the statistical software package SPSS version 26. The reliability of Parts I and II was evaluated using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient formula, resulting in a reliability coefficient of 0.792. The validity of Parts 1 and 2 was assessed using the KMO test, which produced a KMO value of 0.873. This value indicates that the questionnaire is adequately designed and suitable for correlation analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Basic Characteristics of the Respondents and Their Cultural Perceptions

3.1.1. Basic Characteristics of the Respondents

The demographic characteristics of the interviewees are shown in Table 4; the survey sample contains internal stakeholders and external stakeholders of different cultural levels and different groups, with a high degree of randomness. In general, more respondents are female, and the respondents are mainly Han Chinese, with fewer ethnic minorities. The literacy level of internal stakeholders is high, with 81.5% having a college or bachelor’s degree and 13.6% having a master’s degree or higher; the literacy level of external stakeholders is moderate, with 63.3% having junior high school and high school literacy and 34.2% having a college or bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree or higher. Among them, 92.4% of the internal stakeholders believed that Taibai Mountain could reflect the ecological resources of Shaanxi Province and the local customs of the neighborhood. With respect to the support of ecological environmental quality and recreational tourism in future development, tourists and residents generally agree that ecological environmental quality and recreational tourism should be developed in a coordinated manner and that the development of the tourism industry should focus on the protection of environmental quality, which is in line with the concept of sustainable development and ecological civilization under ecological environmental quality.

3.1.2. Basic Relationships Between CES Perceptions and Demographic Characteristics

In order to ascertain whether there was a correlation between the demographic characteristics of the respondents and CES, and to test the hypothesis that educational attainment is related to CES perceptions, the study employed binary logistic regression analyses(Table 5). The results demonstrated no statistically significant correlation (p < 0.05) between other demographic characteristics and CES perceptions in the study area, with the exception of external stakeholders’ literacy, which exhibited a significantly positive correlation with CES perceptions (p = 0.006) (Table 5). The results showed that for each stage of educational attainment among external stakeholders, there was an increase of 0.389-fold in perceived CES identification.

3.2. Distribution Patterns of Different Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Cultural Services

3.2.1. Analysis of Perception Points of Participatory Mapping of Cultural Services

A total of 735 cultural service value point distribution statistics were obtained from participatory mapping(Figure 2), of which the overall distribution is as follows: the Lotus Peak Waterfall accounts for the highest percentage at 54.64%, the Fourth-Century Glacier accounts for 45.36%, the Grand Master Sea accounts for 40.44%, and the Heavenly Circle accounts for 36.6%. Among them, internal stakeholders totaled 394 cultural service value points, and external stakeholders 341 cultural service value points. The top four perceptions of internal stakeholders for Mt. Tabai were the Lotus Peak Waterfall (52.69%), the Great Master Sea (49.46%), the Heavenly Circle (46.24%), and the Fourth-Century Glacier Ruins (38.71%), and the top four perceptions of external stakeholders for Mt. Tabai were the Lotus Peak Waterfall (54.64%), the Fourth-Century Glacier Ruins (45.36%), the Great Master Sea (40.44%), and the Heavenly Circle (36.61%). When comparing the two, apart from the difference in overall ranking, the Lotus Peak Waterfall is located at a low altitude, whereas the other three are at a high altitude, with little difference overall.

3.2.2. Analysis of the Spatial Distribution of Perceptions of Different Cultural Services

The results of the kernel density analysis of the seven types of CES value perception points are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Different stakeholders’ experiences of different CES value perceptions are closely related to regional characteristics and personal experiences, and their perceptions of the same type of CES vary; however, there are obvious geospatial differences in the overall distributions of the seven types of CES perceptions. The perceptions of seven types of CESs in the Lotus Mountain Waterfall, the World’s Paradise, and nearby cultural services are relatively strong. Taibai Mountain, owing to weather and seasonal reasons, is relatively strong. The open nature of the indeterminate area, the lower altitude areas being open for a longer time, and the high degree of accessibility and established stops in the process of traveling up Taibai Mountain are more likely to be perceived by the interviewees. The high-altitude areas are covered by snow and prone to hypoxia and other unfavorable factors and are less likely to be perceived by the respondents.
The figure above shows a comparison of the more pronounced differences in perceptions (Figure 4), with larger differences in perceptions of aesthetic value, local identity value, and educational value, in line with the hypothesized content of the two articles. In terms of aesthetic value, there are slight differences in the perceptions of different stakeholders in the locations of the Fourth-Century Glacier ruins and the Great Master Sea, with external stakeholders having a deeper perception of the vicinity of the Fourth-Century Glacier ruins and internal stakeholders having a stronger perception of the vicinity of the Immortals Platform. The Fourth-Century glacier ruins, unique natural geographic sites widely known on Taibai Mountain, are highly ornamental. The number of tourists arriving at the same time is less than that of the Heavenly Circle, and the low population density greatly enhances the comfort of respondents in experiencing the natural beauty of the area. In contrast, the hypoxia brought about by the high altitude makes external stakeholders perceive the aesthetic value of the vicinity of the area more strongly. The Immortals Platform, as the highest peak in the Taibai Mountains, was found to be the core of the Taibai Mountain Nature Reserve, with a unique sense of aesthetics, as well as to evoke the desire to experience a unique piece of sky in the middle of the mountains, which made it more representative of the aesthetic value of the area than the perception of the external stakeholders.
The value of place identity is perceived slightly differently by internal and external stakeholders, with the agreement that both groups believe that the Heavenly Circle, the remains of the Fourth-Century Glacier, the World’s Paradise, and the Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail can embody the value of Taibai Mountain’s sense of local identity. External stakeholders believe that Substation 330 and the Upper and Lower Temple can be mentioned as well, as opposed to internal stakeholders, who have been in the local area for a longer time and are more aware of which locations in Taibai Mountain give them a sense of local pride. External stakeholders have more diverse reasons for local identity in Taibai Mountain; therefore, the results are more dispersed.
In terms of educational value, the perceptions are basically the same, mainly focusing on the attractions of Substation 330, the Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail, and the Medicine King Trail, which can embody the character of hard work and endurance; external stakeholders believe that the Heavenly Circle is a better indicator of educational value. The reason for this difference is mainly the internal and external stakeholders’ judgment of the accessible areas of the high mountainous regions. Owing to the difference in the degree of accessibility, external stakeholders are more willing to make extensive but shallow trips, and because walking, except for that associated with cable cars, is too tiring and has safety risks for external stakeholders, internal stakeholders are more willing to make in-depth trips to more unique alpine landscapes, which results in differences in perceptions of educational value.
The chart above compares the perceived values where the differences are not significant. In terms of recreation and ecotourism value, internal and external stakeholders perceptions are more consistent, choosing locations that are easy to reach by transportation and focusing on the Lotus Peak Waterfall, the World’s Paradise, the Heavenly Circle, and Hong Hua Ping, of which the Lotus Peak Waterfall, the World’s Paradise, and Hong Hua Ping are located in the low-altitude area of Taibai Mountain Forest Park and are the scenic area minibus pause points, and the Heavenly Circle can be reached by cable cars. In terms of recreation and ecotourism value, stakeholders cited accessibility as the first reason for consideration. Higher altitude areas are not the best option for personal relaxation for respondents who need to prepare in advance for the negative effects of oxygen deprivation, low temperatures, and prolonged walking. Moreover, for family travelers, minors and elderly travelers need to consider their physical strength and special circumstances, so the recreational and ecotourism value of a location is better represented by its accessibility.
In terms of inspiration value, internal and external stakeholders perceive the areas as similar and agree that the Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail, Lotus Peak Waterfall, Heavenly Circle, and the neighborhood of the Immortals Platform are more representative of the inspiration value of Taibai Mountain. The Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail and Lotus Peak Waterfall, as low-altitude areas, are in line with respondents’ first impressions of Taibai Mountain as a mountain range in the Qinling Mountains and can satisfy respondents’ expectations of a national forest park, whereas the Heavenly Circle is the highest non-walkable location for external stakeholders, which makes it prone to being retained as a positive memory. The Heavenly Circle is the most non-walkable location of the Taibai Mountain tourist attractions; it easier for external stakeholders to generate deep memories, and the first impression of the respondents’ first perception of Taibai Mountain’s high-altitude areas often inspires them. The Immortals Platform is the highest peak, and climbing up to the Immortals Platform prompted interviewees to cite the experience of “a glimpse of the smallest mountains”, and at the same time, they can also feel the contrast between the greatness of nature and the smallness of the individual in the high mountains, with the awe of nature being the root of their inspiration value. In addition, the act of climbing to the highest peak has certain social and personal display functions, and the empowerment of myths and stories makes it more inspirational.
In terms of spiritual and religious values, stakeholders mainly perceive buildings and historical monuments with Taoist cultural backgrounds more strongly, among which the Guanyin Cave, Upper Temple, Immortals Platform, and Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail are more prominent; a difference exists between the Great Wen Gong Temple and Immortals Platform, where external stakeholders perceive the Great Wen Gong Temple more deeply and internal stakeholders recognize the Immortals Platform, which, as the highest peak of the main peak of the Qinling Mountain, has unique significance for internal stakeholders.
In terms of cultural heritage value, stakeholders’ perceptions are dominated by architectural entities with historical backgrounds and unique natural landscapes, including the Ancient Trail of the Three Kingdoms, the Medicine King Trail, the remains of the Fourth-Century Glacier, and the Heavenly Circle, and the overall perceptions are consistent. The Three Kingdoms Ancient Trail and the Medicine King Trail as historical sites have a rich cultural background. The local culture and philosophical humanistic stories behind them prove that they contain rich cultural heritage value, and it is easier for internal stakeholders to perceive this under the inculcation of the local culture. External stakeholders can also perceive the value of the cultural heritage under the introduction of the appropriate cultural background and the guidance of historical stories in the scenic area, enough to prove that the practical layout and visual layout of the scenic area and the unique natural landscape are the main architectural entities along with the Fourth-Century glacier ruins. This finding suggests that a reasonable layout and visual guidance for scenic spots can enhance the perception of cultural heritage value in a region. In addition, internal stakeholders believe that the Immortals Platform and the Great Master Sea also provide cultural heritage value. The Immortals Platform and the Great Master Sea, with natural resources as the main perceived value, also have cultural value, and respondents believe that the unique human stories behind the Immortals Platform and the reasons for its naming can be verified as having cultural heritage value. In the opinion of the interviewees, the more special the natural environment is, the more unique stories it can produce, and in regions with a long history, nature and culture are inseparable.

3.3. Trade-Offs and Synergies Between the Seven Cultural Services

The results of the two-by-two correlation analysis of CESs for internal and external stakeholders (Table 6) indicate that, in general, different stakeholders of the same CES are more strongly correlated, except for spiritual and religious values, which do not correlate with other values, and recreational and ecotourism values, which have no correlation with educational and cultural heritage values. There are correlations between the other subcultural services, among which the aesthetic value and the value of local identity are significantly correlated (correlation coefficient of 0.899) for internal stakeholders, indicating that internal stakeholders recognize the unique landscape of Taibai Mountain and have a deep local identity. External stakeholders perceived that aesthetic value was significantly correlated with recreation and ecotourism value (correlation coefficient of 0.829), indicating that external stakeholders could be inspired to create while enjoying the beauty of the landscape. The internal and external stakeholders agreed that the value of inspiration is significantly correlated with the value of cultural heritage (correlation coefficients of 0.871 and 0.800) and that the value of education is significantly correlated with the value of cultural heritage (correlation coefficients of 0.898 and 0.904).

4. Discussion

4.1. Linkages Between Different Stakeholder Characteristics and CES Perceptions

Some related studies have shown that subjective factors such as personal experience, cultural background, religious beliefs, and the thinking points of different stakeholders have direct and indirect impacts on the perceived value of CESs. An analysis of the perceptions of local tourists and residents in Qufu Mingcheng revealed that [51] respondents with different educational backgrounds and occupations have different perspectives when perceiving the value of traveling landscapes, and there is a significant correlation between educational backgrounds and occupational differences and the evaluation of perceptions; an analysis of the perceptions of residents and tourists in Wuyishan city revealed that the monthly income of the residents was negatively correlated with the perceptions of cultural services [47].
In this study, only the literacy level of external stakeholders was significantly positively correlated with CES perceptions, which may be attributed to the fact that Taibai Mountain, as the main peak of the Qinling Mountains, the “Ancestral Vein of China”, has a very deep historical heritage and unique natural geographic resources and is well known and widely influential. When asked the question, “Do you think that Mount Taibai reflects the local customs of the neighborhood and is a reflection of the ecological resources and cultural heritage of Shaanxi Province?”, a convergent affirmative cognition was posited, and different stakeholders agreed that the ecological environment and cultural services of Taibai Mountain Forest Park are very valuable in terms of perceived value. In addition, scenic observation decks and information prompts are important for stakeholders to understand the value of cultural heritage, spiritual and religious values, and place identity value and can help external stakeholders to quickly understand the local history, with historical stories resonating with them and inspiring them personally.
In this study, the questionnaire method and participatory mapping were employed to compare the perceptions of CES for Taibai Mountain. While this approach allows for more accurate perceptions within a limited scope, the number of respondents remains relatively modest. In subsequent studies, the semantic crawling method using public network platforms (such as microblogging, Weibo, WeChat, popular reviews and tourism websites, etc.) can be utilized to explore the perceived value of cultural services by different groups on a broader scale. In order to obtain a wider range of more reliable research conclusions, it is necessary to consider the perceived value.

4.2. CES Value Perceptions Concerning Landscapes and Stakeholders

The distribution of different CES value types is related to the natural environment, local customs and personal perceptions; for example, educational value is mostly concentrated in locations that carry deep historical cultural and ideological heritage, and spiritual and religious value is distributed in places that can bring people spiritual purification. Different landscape features affect people’s perceptions of CESs to a certain extent. In general, the perceived intensity of cultural service value and the distribution of attractions on Taibai Mountain show the same spatial distribution pattern. Most of the respondents, according to the Taibai Mountain Forest Park tourist attractions cited, plan travel arrangements, but there may also be tourists using other sites to enter the area. To improve the study of Qinling’s perception of the CES, future studies can expand to Taibai Forest Park in the Taibai Mountain area, which is covered under the Taibai Mountain Protected Areas. In terms of the CES perceptions of Mt. Taibai, the respondents agreed that landscapes with a deep cultural heritage, reflecting the ancient people’s good character of hard work and endurance, were more educationally valuable, whereas for spiritual and religious values, they agreed that buildings and historical monuments with ancient cultural backgrounds were more reflective of their value.
The same landscape can provide a variety of CES values [52], but different stakeholders have different levels of knowledge of the landscape and perceive different aspects and levels of CES values, and the distribution of their CES value classifications converges with the depth of their knowledge of the landscape. Internal stakeholders have a deeper understanding of the study area and are more consistent in their perceptions of aesthetic value and local identity value. The interviewed internal stakeholders on Taibai Mountain have a deeper perception of the aesthetic value of the Fourth-Century Glacier ruins, Baxiantai, and the vicinity of the Great Master Sea and believe that the Heavenly Circle and Earthly places, the remains of the Fourth-Century Glacier, the world of Peaches, and the three kingdoms ancient trestle trail can embody the value of the sense of identity of the local area of Taibai Mountain. The external stakeholders are affected by personal factors and have more perception points, more dispersed perception surfaces, different understandings of each CES, and greater perception differences.
In this study, the CES perception group is divided into internal stakeholders and external stakeholders, and the questionnaire is designed to distinguish between different groups, which shows that there is a large difference in the perception of the CES value of different interest subjects that is closely related to their personal characteristics and thinking entry points. Soy et al. [13] reported that the reason for the difference between tourists’ and residents’ perceptions of ES is the respondents’ view of the landscape and demographic and social factors (level of residence and education) and that different beneficiary groups view the landscape from their own perspectives (cultural values, interests, and personal experiences), establish different degrees of perceptual connectivity with the scenic area, and are expected to prioritize different CES features. Identifying the differences in the CES perceptions of different interest groups is not only conducive to scientifically reflecting the magnitude of their values but also helps to scientifically assess and protect the natural assets and tourism resources of the Taibai Mountains and the Qinling region. Participatory mapping combines the value of cultural services and the perceptions of different groups, which is conducive to understanding public demand and improving the feasibility and democracy of decision making and planning. The lack of perceived evaluation of the value of CESs by different interest groups may lead to bias in the management and actual planning of scenic spots, impact local budgets, affect the quality of tourists’ travel, and cause unsustainable damage to natural resources, which is not conducive to the sustainable development of scenic spots; however, scenic spots are unable to satisfy the needs of aboriginal people’s participation in tourism management, and the living conditions of aboriginal people cannot be improved, which weakens the ability of CESs to function as a link between human beings and the natural world.

4.3. Application of CES Perceived Difference Feature Recognition in Planning

Nature provides a variety of ES functions, and CESs link the direct experience and perceptions of different groups of people to each other. The enhanced perception of CESs by different stakeholders is conducive to improving the sense of local identity and trust. The influence of values on CESs is involved in the establishment of scenic spots, the setting of goals, and the determination of standards. Understanding the spatial distribution of cultural value points and the perception differences of different interest groups in scenic spot planning is conducive to the establishment of hotspots for cultural services, the dissemination of regional culture in accordance with local conditions, and the enhancement of regional popularity and the national sense of cultural pride.
The positive correlation between the education attainment of external stakeholders and CES perceptions observed in the study indicates that there are differences between high- and low-literacy tourists’ perceptions of traveling in the Taibai Mountain area. This indicates that for external stakeholders, more comprehensive information on the perception of ecosystems and cultural services can be provided to the highly literate group, allowing for the enhancement of ecosystem services in accordance with the objectives of the trip to meet their needs. Additionally, fundamental explanations of CES can be furnished to those with a lower level of literacy, assisting them in comprehension.
The correlation between the seven CES values in this study is strong, indicating that different stakeholders perceive cultural services strongly, but there are differences in the degree of perception (the difference in correlation coefficients between multiple groups of values is more than 0.1), which points out to a certain extent that there are different perspectives of the stakeholders of Taibai Mountain tourism in terms of their respective roles and the relationships among them and that there are inconsistent demands for the regional cultural service functions. Scenic spot management roles need to be fully understood in terms of the management roles of the scenic area, which need to be based on a full understanding of the supply and demand relationship of the CES and the diversified interests of different stakeholders on the basis of the diverse interests in the CES in order to ensure good regional planning and landscape management and achieve quality ecotourism enhancement.
Taking the example of the significant correlation between the educational value of external stakeholders and the value of cultural heritage, we set up experiential display modules related to cultural education and ecological education in the cultural heritage locations of Taibai Mountain, i.e., the Ancient Palisades of the Three Kingdoms, the Palisades of the King of Medicinal Medicine, and the remains of the Fourth-Century Glacier, the Heavenly Circle and Earth, etc. We designed activities with educational attributes based on the contents of the relevant cultural heritage to refine the target group of external stakeholders in the various attractions and to strengthen the target group of external stakeholders of each attraction, which were refined, with their perception of the CES of the region enhanced. The perceptions and preferences of different interest groups with regard to the natural environment, culture, and society play important roles in the formation and support of CES values, and correctly enhancing the value perceptions of scenic spots by giving full play to the subjective initiative of different interest groups is beneficial.

4.4. Implications of Differences in Perceived CESs for Business Implementation and Industry Development

CES is not only a unidirectional process of human solicitation from natural ecosystems but also a bidirectional process of the cultural intake of natural resources through human sustainability activities. The purpose of the stakeholder concept is to explore the role of different perspectives in ecotourism in a more detailed way, as the different stakeholder roles, through the CES perception of the interactions of the structure of the framework diagram (e.g., Figure 5), can provide a more intuitive understanding of their interactions with internal stakeholders such as the government scenic area and tourism operators in the development of scenic areas to fulfil their functions and management roles, improve decision-making efficiency, improve management and service levels, actively assume social responsibility management and service levels, and actively undertake social responsibility. From the perspective of internal stakeholders, we can consider how to improve the vitality of scenic spots and reduce the negative impacts on the natural environment, which is conducive to the development of tourism resources and the improvement of the employment of local residents to realize sustainable development.
This study revealed that there are significant geospatial differences in the distributions of the aesthetic, inspirational, recreational, and ecotourism values perceived by different stakeholders. On the basis of these differences, the development of leading industries and business types that match different stakeholders’ perspectives should be customized to create tourism products and consumption patterns with higher compounding rates and greater convenience.
This study identifies significant geospatial differences in the distribution of aesthetic, inspirational, recreational, and ecotourism values as perceived by different stakeholders. In light of these discrepancies, the advancement of principal industries and industry categories that align with the disparate perspectives of various stakeholders should be tailored to cultivate tourism products and tourism consumption patterns with augmented compounding rates and enhanced convenience. Areas where more people gather should be led by external stakeholder perception and enhance internal stakeholder participation. For example, taking into full consideration the characteristics of external stakeholders who have the strongest perception of aesthetic, recreation, and eco-tourism value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park, we can make full use of the scenic area’s high-quality natural ecological resources, integrate eco-tourism with modern technology (AI technology and IoT) [53], and create intelligent tourism, unique study, forest recreation tourism, and other multi-dimensional experiential projects based on ornamental and popular science and recreation to deeply explore the cultural service value of Mount Taibai, enrich the tourism content, enhance the visitor experience, and promote the full transformation of CES value.
At the same time, aesthetic value and cultural heritage value, as very important CES perception attributes of national parks, need to play a role in helping external stakeholders to deeply understand the local folklore and customs, as well as quickly perceive the landscape attractions, so that the perception of external stakeholders and internal stakeholders form a convergence of perception in order to generate cultural coordinates of ecological travel, create an inheritance of ecological and cultural genes, use the need to enhance the scenic area as a guide to improve the perception of the visual system of forest parks as a point of entry, and have a long-lasting impact on people to achieve the ultimate pursuit of human well-being.
Moreover, it focuses on exploring matching channels and modes of participation in franchising by internal stakeholders. In residential areas or areas with few historical and cultural relics, the needs of residents should be fully met, aiming at ecological livability and retaining their daily residence, production, and living services. The implementation of historical and cultural experience-type businesses, such as those centering traditional culture, folk crafts, and folklore resources in the Taibai Mountain region, should be strengthened, and geographic indications of branded products with local characteristics should be introduced to allow tourists to experience the terroir experience that belongs uniquely to the Qinling Mountain region, effectively promoting the cognition of CESs by different stakeholders.

5. Conclusions

Through a combination of participatory mapping and questionnaires, we explored the differences in the perceptions of CESs and their spatial distributions among different stakeholders in some areas of the Taibai Mountains, and the main conclusions are as follows: (1) There is a positive correlation between the literacy level of external stakeholders and the perception of CESs, and there is no significant difference between other demographic characteristics of the stakeholders (gender, age, occupation, and literacy level) in terms of the perception of CESs. (2) Different stakeholders have convergent perceptions of spiritual and religious values, cultural heritage values, educational values, and inspirational values, whereas there are greater differences in the perceptions of aesthetic values, ecological and recreational values, and local identity values. (3) The correlation between different stakeholders’ perceptions of the same CES is relatively strong, with no correlation between spiritual and religious values and other values and no correlation between recreational and ecotourism values and educational and cultural values; however, there is a correlation between all other subcultural services.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L. and K.L.; methodology, J.L. and R.J.; software, J.L.; validation, K.L. and Y.W.; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation, K.L. and J.L.; resources, Y.W. and J.L.; data curation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L. and K.L.; writing—review and editing, K.L. and R.J.; visualization, Y.W.; supervision, K.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education: Construction of Cultural Heritage Corridor and Adaptive Utilization of Qinling Ancient Road, Project No. 24YJC76006; Key R&D Program Project of Shaanxi Provincial Science and Technology Department: Demonstration of Key Technologies and Applications of Leisure and Recreation Agriculture in Southern Shaanxi under the Perspective of Healthy China, Project No. 2020NY-105; and Doctoral Research Initiation Funding Project of Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University: Study on the Influence of Longcaoping Forest Open Space on Visitors’ Physical and Mental Health Effects in Hanzhong City, Project No. 2452024010.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Kankan Li ([email protected])

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ricci, K.; Lu, K.; Shidemantle, G.; Hua, J. Engaging Youth in Biodiversity Education through Visual Narrative. Conserv. Biol. 2024, 38, e14386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gan, Q.; Liao, L.; Kang, X.; Xu, Z.; Fu, T.; Cao, Y.; Feng, Y.; Dong, J.; Lan, S. Cultural Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Protected Areas: Hotspots and Influencing Factors Based on Tourists’ Digital Footprints. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 70, 101680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Başkent, E.Z.; Balci, H. A Priory Allocation of Ecosystem Services to Forest Stands in a Forest Management Context Considering Scientific Suitability, Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Concept with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Technique: A Case Study in Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 369, 122230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Scholte, S.S.K.; van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Integrating Socio-Cultural Perspectives into Ecosystem Service Valuation: A Review of Concepts and Methods. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Poelina, A. First Law a Gift to Healing and Transforming Climate and Just Us! J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 14, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carpenter, S.R.; DeFries, R.; Dietz, T.; Mooney, H.A.; Polasky, S.; Reid, W.V.; Scholes, R.J. ECOLOGY: Enhanced: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science 2006, 314, 257–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. García-Llorente, M.; Castro, A.A.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; González, J.A.; García-del-Amo, D.; Hernández-Arroyo, M.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Palomo, I.; et al. Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services across Multiple Ecosystem Types in Spain. Land 2020, 9, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ros-Candeira, A.; Moreno-Llorca, R.; Alcaraz-Segura, D.; Bonet-García, F.J.; Vaz, A.S. Social Media Photo Content for Sierra Nevada: A Dataset to Support the Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas. Nat. Conserv. 2020, 38, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Madiwalar, A.; Parthiban, K. Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services of Pulpwood Multifunctional Agroforestry: A Case Study from the Foothills of the Nilgiris, Western Ghats, India. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2023, 21, 2611–2624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shi, X.; Zhao, X.; Pu, J.; Gu, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Feng, Y.; Zhou, S. Creating a Monetization-SolVES Model to Visualize the Cultural Ecosystem Services for Promoting Landscape Conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 77, 126521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fletcher, R.; Baulcomb, C.; Hall, C.; Hussain, S. Revealing Marine Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Black Sea. Mar. Policy 2014, 50, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Soy-Massoni, E.; Langemeyer, J.; Varga, D.; Sáez, M.; Pintó, J. The Importance of Ecosystem Services in Coastal Agricultural Landscapes: Case Study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, W.; Wu, C.; Fang, Q.; Harrison, O.I. Cultural Ecosystem Services Evaluation in a Coastal City of China Using Social Media Data. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 242, 106693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, L.; Huang, L.; Cao, W.; Zhai, J.; Fan, J. Assessing Grassland Cultural Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand for Promoting the Sustainable Realization of Grassland Cultural Values. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dade, M.C.; Mitchell, M.G.E.; Brown, G.; Rhodes, J.R. The Effects of Urban Greenspace Characteristics and Socio-Demographics Vary among Cultural Ecosystem Services. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grzyb, T. Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services of the Urban Riverscapes: The Case of the Vistula River in Warsaw, Poland. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 65, 101584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Velandia, G.; Maritza, J.; Romero-Duque, L.P.; Quijas, S. Understanding the Sociocultural Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks: A Colombian Study Case. Urban Ecosyst. 2023, 27, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ament, J.M.; Moore, C.A.; Herbst, M.; Cumming, G.S. Cultural Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Understanding Bundles, Trade-Offs, and Synergies. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 10, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Su, Y.; Zhu, C.; Lin, L.; Wang, C.; Jin, C.; Cao, J.; Li, T.; Su, C. 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, 19, 13968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kaymaz, I.; Arslan, E.S.; Örücü, Ö.K.; Hoşgör, E. Exploring the Relation between Urban Landscape Service Values and Different Infrastructures through Crowdsourced Data. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2024, 31, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gajardo, L.J.; Sumeldan, J.; Sajorne, R.; Madarcos, J.R.; Goh, H.C.; Culhane, F.; Langmead, O.; Creencia, L. Cultural Values of Ecosystem Services from Coastal Marine Areas: Case of Taytay Bay, Palawan, Philippines. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 142, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, Z.; Xu, M.; Lin, H.; Qureshi, S.; Cao, A.; Ma, Y. Understanding the Dynamics and Factors Affecting Cultural Ecosystem Services during Urbanization through Spatial Pattern Analysis and a Mixed-Methods Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ahrabous, M.; Allali, K.; Fadlaoui, A.; Arib, F.; Dolores de-Miguel, M.; Alcon, F. Economic Valuation of Cultural Services at the Todgha Oasis, Morocco. J. Nat. Conserv. 2023, 73, 126371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tugjamba, N.; Walkerden, G.; Miller, F. Under the Guidance of the Eternal Blue Sky: Cultural Ecosystem Services That Support Well-Being in Mongolian Pastureland. Landsc. Res. 2021, 46, 713–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. García-Díez, V.; García-Llorente, M.; González, J.A. Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning. Land 2020, 9, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karimi, A.; Raymond, C.M. Assessing the Diversity and Evenness of Ecosystem Services as Perceived by Residents Using Participatory Mapping. Appl. Geogr. 2022, 138, 102624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tian, T.; Sun, L.; Peng, S.; Sun, F.; Che, Y. Understanding the Process from Perception to Cultural Ecosystem Services Assessment by Comparing Valuation Methods. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 57, 126945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cheng, X. A Review of Empirical Studies of Cultural Ecosystem Services in National Parks: Current Status and Future Research. Land 2023, 12, 1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tan, Q.; Siru, A.; Lang, W. Assessing Local People’s Perceptions of Ecosystem Services to Support Land Management Plans in Arid Desert Regions, Northwest China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zoderer, B.M.; Tasser, E.; Erb, K.-H.; Lupo Stanghellini, P.S.; Tappeiner, U. Identifying and Mapping the Tourists Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from an Alpine Region. Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, W.; He, S.; Chen, E.; Xia, T.; Jin, Y.; Tang, B.; Chen, S. Indices and Methods for Evaluating Gross Ecosystem Product in Sea Areas: A Case Study in Changdao County, China. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1356149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, Y.; Hong, C.; Yang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, T.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, F. Mining Social Media Data to Capture Urban Park Visitors’ Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Factors. Forests 2024, 15, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, J.; Park, H.; Kim, I.; Kwon, H. Analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services Using Text Mining of Residents’ Opinions. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115, 106368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Song, L.; Wu, M.; Wu, Y.; Xu, X.; Xie, C. Research on the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Zhengzhou Urban Parks Based on Public Perceptions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chaudhary, S.; McGregor, A.; Houston, D.; Chettri, N. Spiritual Enrichment or Ecological Protection?: A Multi-Scale Analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services at the Mai Pokhari, a Ramsar Site of Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 39, 100972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P.A.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Socio-Cultural Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Uncovering the Links between Values, Drivers of Change, and Human Well-Being. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Solomonsz, J.; Melbourne-Thomas, J.; Constable, A.; Trebilco, R.; van Putten, I.; Goldsworthy, L. Stakeholder Engagement in Decision Making and Pathways of Influence for Southern Ocean Ecosystem Services. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 623733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Drew, J.; Sakai, S.; Caginitoba, A.; Warr, L.C.; Espinosa, J.I.; Dunning, K.H. Stakeholder Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services across Scales of Conservation Focus. Conserv. Biol. 2024, 38, e14405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Garrido, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P. Stakeholders’ Perceptions on Ecosystem Services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) Threatened Oak Wood-Pasture Landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. An, R.; Wang, F.; Sakurai, J.; Kitagawa, H. Willing or Not? Rural Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Conservation in Economically Underdeveloped Regions: A Case Study in China’s Qinling National Park. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, L. Study on Forest Ecosystem Cultural Service Value Perception Based on Social Media Data—A Case Study of Mount Taibai National Forest Pa. Master’s Thesis, Nothwest Normal University, Lanzhou, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shaanxi Province Forestry Department. Proceedings of the Comprehensive Examination of Taibai Mountain Nature Reserve; Shaanxi Normal University Press: Xi’an, China, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lourdes, K.T.; Gibbins, C.; Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J.; Hamel, P.; Sanusi, R.; Azhar, B.; Diffendorfer, J.E.; Lechner, A.M. Mapping Development Preferences on the Perceived Value of Ecosystem Services and Land Use Conflict and Compatibility in Greater Kuala Lumpur. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 92, 128183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sherrouse, B.C.; Clement, J.M.; Semmens, D.J. A GIS Application for Assessing, Mapping, and Quantifying the Social Values of Ecosystem Services. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 748–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, Y.; You, W.; Lin, X.; He, D.; Wen, H. Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Wuyishan City from the Perspective of Tourists and Residents. J. Ecol. 2022, 42, 4011–4022. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhao, Q.; Li, J.; Liu, J.; Qin, K.; Tian, T. Assessment and analysis of social values of cultural ecosystem services based on the SolVES model in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region. J. Ecol. 2018, 38, 3673–3681. [Google Scholar]
  48. Huo, S.; Huang, L.; Yan, L. Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Services Based on SolVES:a Case Study of the South Ecological Park in Wuyi County, Zhejiang Province. J. Ecol. 2018, 38, 3682–3691. [Google Scholar]
  49. Koh, Y.F.; Loc, H.H.; Park, E. Towardds a “City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Clemente, P.; Calvache, M.; Antunes, P.; Santos, R.; Cerdeira, J.O.; Martins, M.J. Combining Social Media Photographs and Species Distribution Models to Map Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Case of a Natural Park in Portugal. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, F. A Study of Perceived Differences in the Tourist Landscape of the Ming Imperial City of Qufu—Residents’ and Tourists’ Perspectives. Master’s Thesis, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hirahara, S. Evaluation of a Structure Providing Cultural Ecosystem Services in Forest Recreation: Quantitative Text Analysis of Essays by Participants. Forests 2021, 12, 1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tang, X. Research on the Coupled Coordination and Power Mechanism of Tourism Intellectualisation and High Quality Development in Yunnan Province. Undergraduate Dissertation, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
Land 13 02207 g001
Figure 1. Map and attractions in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Figure 1. Map and attractions in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Land 13 02207 g001
Land 13 02207 g002
Figure 2. Statistical results of the distribution of CES value points in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park participatory mapping.
Figure 2. Statistical results of the distribution of CES value points in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park participatory mapping.
Land 13 02207 g002
Land 13 02207 g003
Figure 3. Spatial analysis of the kernel density of the cultural service value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Figure 3. Spatial analysis of the kernel density of the cultural service value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Land 13 02207 g003
Land 13 02207 g004
Figure 4. Spatial analysis of the kernel density of the cultural service value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Figure 4. Spatial analysis of the kernel density of the cultural service value of Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Land 13 02207 g004
Land 13 02207 g005
Figure 5. Framework for the relationship between perceived CES differences and the structures of various stakeholders.
Figure 5. Framework for the relationship between perceived CES differences and the structures of various stakeholders.
Land 13 02207 g005
Table 1. The content of the questionnaire.
Table 1. The content of the questionnaire.
Questionnaire Content
Part 1Basic Characteristics of Survey Respondent StakeholdersGender
Age
Profession
Education
Monthly income
Part 2We designed the questionnaire to collect information on cultural services with regard to the characteristics of different stakeholdersSurvey of the number of times and seasons that tourists come to Taibai Mountain
Opinions on the ecological environment and cultural services of Taibai Mountain
Investigation of the impact of tourism activities on the production and livelihoods of tourism operators, related businesses, and local residents
The roles assumed by tourism operators, related businesses, and individual local residents in the provision of cultural services
Part 3Drawing on Sherrouse et al.’s [45] research methodology, we investigated the preferences of different stakeholders for the protection of the CES function in the Taibai Mountain Forest ParkProvision of a map of tourist attractions at Taibai Mountain and a questionnaire based on the distribution of scenic spots, asking the interviewed stakeholders to select places on the map that can represent the value of different cultural services
From the results of participatory mapping, the location of cultural service perception points in scenic areas was determined
Selection of 1–4 points in each cultural service value type and ranking of these according to personal preference
Table 2. The classification of cultural ecosystem services.
Table 2. The classification of cultural ecosystem services.
Literature SourcesResearch AreaType of CES Classification
MA Recreation and ecotourism; Social relations; knowledge systems; Cultural pluralism; Aesthetics; Inspiration; Place Identity; Spirituality and Religion; Education; Cultural Heritage
Zhao, Y. et al. [46]Wuyishan, ChinaAesthetics; Inspiration; Place Identity; Spiritual and Religious; Educational; Cultural Heritage; Recreation and Ecotourism
Zhao, Q. et al. [47]Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic ZoneAesthetics; Cultural; Historical; Recreation; Spiritual
Huo, S. et al. [48]Southern Ecological Park, Wuyi County, Zhejiang ProvinceAesthetics; Educational; Historical; Recreation; Leisure; Religious and Spiritual
Koh, Y.F. et al. [49]Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park, SingaporeAesthetics; Recreation; Educational; Social; Leisure; Biodiversity
Clemente, P. et al. [50]Natural Park of Sudoeste Alentejano and Costa Vicentina, Portugal (PNSACV)Recreation; Aesthetics; Science and Education; Cultural Heritage Characterization; Spiritual and Religious; Inspiration
Table 3. The classification of the cultural ecosystem in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Table 3. The classification of the cultural ecosystem in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Value TypeDescription
Aesthetic ValueFinding beauty or aesthetic value in different aspects of the area.
Inspiration ValueThe area can provide a rich source of inspiration for artistic creations, folklore, architecture, etc.
Place Identity ValueSpecial emotions about a place and the sense of attachment and belonging that it creates in people.
Spiritual and Religious ValueReligious and spiritual significance is placed in certain landscapes, or a sense of reverence for nature can be felt.
Educational ValueProvides a base for formal and nonformal education, transferring wisdom and knowledge.
Cultural Heritage ValueImportant historical landscapes (natural, human) or objects of cultural significance in the area.
Recreation and Ecotourism ValuePlaces people choose to go in their leisure time, characterized by natural or man-made landscapes.
Table 4. Basic information of survey respondents.
Table 4. Basic information of survey respondents.
Demographic CharacteristicsClustersPercentage of Internal StakeholdersPercentage of External Stakeholders
GenderMale40.70%36.40%
Female59.30%63.60%
Educational attainmentPrimary School00
Junior High School01.09%
High school or junior college4.30%2.20%
College or Bachelor’s Degree81.72%65.93%
Master’s degree or higher13.98%30.77%
Salary<200019.35%45.05%
2000–500053.76%26.37%
5000–800016.13%1.09%
8000–12,0006.45%6.59%
12,000–17,0003.23%2.20%
17,000–30,0001.08%3.30%
30k and higher00
Attitude to CESNot interested5.38%6.59%
A little interested10.75%16.48%
Interested54.84%62.64%
Very interested29.03%14.29%
AgeUnder 1800
18–2439.78%74.73%
25–3438.71%19.78%
35–4417.20%2.20%
45–543.23%1.09%
55–641.08%1.09%
65 and above01.09%
CareerBusinesspeople, service providers45.16%8.79%
Peasants2.15%0
Civil service15.05%8.79%
Technical staff8.60%10.99%
Students24.73%65.93%
Other4.30%5.49%
Table 5. Demographic factors affecting the cognition of cultural services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Table 5. Demographic factors affecting the cognition of cultural services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
ParticipatesFeaturesStandardized FactorStandard ErrorSig.Exp (B)
Percentage of internal stakeholdersGender−0.010.1690.921−0.017
Age0.1390.0920.1830.123
Career−0.0880.0450.401−0.038
Educational attainment−0.1880.1930.071−0.352
Salary−0.0360.0810.73−0.028
Percentage of external stakeholdersGender0.1560.1710.1410.254
Age−0.1540.0940.136−0.141
Career−0.2040.0610.054−0.119
Educational attainment0.2890.1370.0060.389
Salary−0.2040.0610.054−0.119
In the red background are demographic characteristics and data that are significantly and positively correlated with CES perceptions.
Table 6. Relevance analysis of seven cultural services for different stakeholders in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Table 6. Relevance analysis of seven cultural services for different stakeholders in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park.
Value TypeClassificationABCDEFG
AInternal
External0.917 **
BInternal0.767 **
External0.734 **0.924 **
CInternal0.899 **0.782 **
External0.620 **0.618 **0.815 **
DInternal0.3250.4020.338
External−0.1100.2000.2080.761 ** Strong Correlation
EInternal0.731 **0.670 **0.586 **0.226
External0.829 **0.685 **0.637 **−0.0880.962 **
FInternal0.496 *0.719 **0.557 **0.1600.434 *
External0.3470.661 **0.677 **0.2270.3080.914 **
GInternal0.654 **0.871 **0.698 **0.3230.468 *0.898 ** Weak Correlation
External0.504 *0.800 **0.562 **0.2720.4120.904 **0.941 **
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; A: Aesthetic Value; B: Inspiration Value; C: Place Identity Value; D: Spiritual and Religious Value; E: Education Value; F: Cultural Heritage Value; G: Recreation and Ecotourism Value.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, J.; Li, K.; Wang, Y.; Jiao, R. Comparative Study on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from Different Stakeholder Perspectives. Land 2024, 13, 2207. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122207

AMA Style

Li J, Li K, Wang Y, Jiao R. Comparative Study on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from Different Stakeholder Perspectives. Land. 2024; 13(12):2207. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122207

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Jiaxin, Kankan Li, Yanbo Wang, and Rui Jiao. 2024. "Comparative Study on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from Different Stakeholder Perspectives" Land 13, no. 12: 2207. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122207

APA Style

Li, J., Li, K., Wang, Y., & Jiao, R. (2024). Comparative Study on the Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Taibai Mountain National Forest Park from Different Stakeholder Perspectives. Land, 13(12), 2207. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122207

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop