Residents’ Perception of the Recreational Value of Forest Parks: A Case Study in Shanghai, China

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2020.04.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Forest parks provide important recreational and tourism bene?ts to residents, so it is essential to know what residents’ perceptions are regarding the recreational value of forest parks for participatory forest planning and management. This study investigated forest park recreational value in the physical, psychological, and social dimensions in Shanghai according to questionnaires completed by 658 respondents, and examined the relationships between recreational value and residents’ social variables by multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). The results show the following: 1) The recreational value of forest parks is perceived as most important in the psychological dimension, while in the social dimension it is appreciated the least. 2) In terms of the differences in forest park recreational value in suburbs and rural areas, the social value in rural areas had significantly higher scores than in the suburbs, and the psychological value in suburbs is much higher than that in the rural areas. 3) Regarding the social variables which characterize residents in suburbs and rural areas, females and younger groups tended to assign higher scores to recreational value than males and older groups. Moreover, citizens with low education or low income also assigned higher scores to recreational value compared to more educated or higher-income residents. The results of this study reveal the recreational value characteristics of Shanghai forest parks in the three dimensions, which can provide a scientific basis for the sustainable development of urban forest resources and contribute to reasonable planning and management.

Key words: forest park, multiple correspondence analysis, recreational value, social perception

ZHANG Kaixuan, WANG Xiaoling, SHI Jiaying, ZHANG Xijin, ZHU Qichong. Residents’ Perception of the Recreational Value of Forest Parks: A Case Study in Shanghai, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(4): 425-434.

Figures/Tables 6

References 42

1	Arnberger A . 2006. Recreation use of urban forests: An inter-area comparison. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3-4):135-144.
2	Bateman I J, Jones A P . 2003. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics, 79(2):235-258.
3	Bell S, Simpson M, Tyrväinen L , et al. 2009. European forest recreation and tourism: A handbook. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 13-63.
4	Bratman G N, Anderson C B, Berman M G , et al. 2019. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7): eaax0903. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903. DOI URL PMID
5	Carson R T, DeShazo J R, Schwabe K A , et al. 2015. Incorporating local visitor valuation information into the design of new recreation sites in tropical forests. Ecological Economics, 120:338-349.
6	Chen B, Nakama Y . 2013. Thirty years of forest tourism in China. Journal of Forest Research, 18(4):285-292.
7	Chen B, Qi X, Qiu Z . 2018. Recreational use of urban forest parks: A case study in Fuzhou National Forest Park, China. Journal of Forest Research, 23(3):183-189.
8	Cohen-Hattab K, Gelbman A, Shoval N . 2018. From ideological space to recreational tourism: The Israeli forest. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 16(5):501-520.
9	Daniel T C, Muhar A, Arnberger A , et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109(23):8812-8819. DOI URL PMID
10	De Meo I, Paletto A, Cantiani M G . 2015. The attractiveness of forests: Preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Annals of Forest Research, 58(1):145-156.
11	Dhami I, Deng J Y, Burns R C , et al. 2014. Identifying and mapping forest-based ecotourism areas in West Virginia — Incorporating visitors’ preferences. Tourism management, 42:165-176.
12	Gong L, Mao B, Qi Y , et al. 2015. A satisfaction analysis of the infrastructure of country parks in Beijing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3):480-489.
13	Gouveia V V, Milfont T L, Guerra V M . 2014. Functional theory of human values: Testing its content and structure hypotheses. Personality and Individual Differences, 60:41-47.
14	Gu X K, Tao S Y, Dai B . 2017. Spatial accessibility of country parks in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27:373-382.
15	Hu Y, Ritchie J R B . 1993. Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2):25-34.
16	Huang S C L . 2014. Park user preferences for establishing a sustainable forest park in Taipei, Taiwan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4):839-845.
17	Jay M, Schraml U . 2013. Managing city forests for or in spite of recreation? Perspectives of forest managers. European Journal of Forest Research, 132(1):93-105.
18	Kabisch N, Haase D . 2013. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landscape and Urban Planning, 110:113-122.
19	Lee C F, Huang H I, Yeh H R . 2010. Developing an evaluation model for destination attractiveness: Sustainable forest recreation tourism in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6):811-828.
20	Liu W Y, Chen P Z, Hsieh C M . 2019. Assessing the recreational value of a national forest park from ecotourists’ perspective in Taiwan. Sustainability, 11(15):4084. DOI: 10.3390/su11154084.
21	Luo F, Moyle B D, Bao J G , et al. 2016. The role of institutions in the production of space for tourism: National Forest Parks in China. Forest Policy and Economics, 70:47-55.
22	Lupp G, Förster B, Kantelberg V , et al. 2016. Assessing the recreation value of urban woodland using the ecosystem service approach in two forests in the Munich metropolitan region. Sustainability, 8(11):1156. DOI: 10.3390/su8111156.
23	Matsiori S, Anagnos N, Aggelopoulos S , et al. 2012. Economic valuation of forest recreation: The case of the University Forest of Pertouli in Greece. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 10(2):866-870.
24	MEA ( Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press, 50-60.
25	Nenadić O, Greenacre M . 2007. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The CA package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(3):1-13.
26	Nielsen A B, Olsen S B, Lundhede T . 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2):63-71.
27	Ohe Y, Ikei H, Song C , et al. 2017. Evaluating the relaxation effects of emerging forest-therapy tourism: A multidisciplinary approach. Tourism Management, 62:322-334.
28	Paletto A, Maino F, De Meo I , et al. 2013. Perception of forest values in the alpine community of Trentino region (Italy). Environmental Management, 51:414-422. DOI URL PMID
29	Paracchini M L, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L , et al. 2014. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45:371-385.
30	Pirikiya M, Amirnejad H, Oladi J , et al. 2016. Determining the recreational value of forest park by travel cost method and defining its effective factors. Journal of Forest Science, 62(9):399-406.
31	Rantala O . 2010. Tourist practices in the forest. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1):249-264.
32	SMSB (Shanghai Municipal Statistics Bureau). 2018. Shanghai statistical yearbook 2018. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 1-44. (in Chinese)
33	Taye F A, Abildtrup J, Mayer M , et al. 2019. Childhood experience in forest recreation practices: Evidence from nine European countries. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 46:126471. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug. 2019.126471.
34	UN(Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division of United Nations). 2018. The world’s cities in 2018—Data booklet (ST/ESA/SER.A/417):3.
35	Van den Berg A E, Koole S L . 2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4):362-372.
36	Yu B Q, Che S Q, Xie C K , et al. 2018. Understanding Shanghai residents’ perception of leisure impact and experience satisfaction of urban community parks: An integrated and IPA method. Sustainability, 10(4):1067. DOI: 10.3390/su10041067.
37	Zandersen M, Termansen M, Jensen F S . 2007. Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. Journal of Forest Economics, 13(2-3):103-128.
38	Zandersen M, Tol R S J . 2009. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics, 15(1):109-130.
39	Zhai Y J, Baran P K, Wu C Z . 2018. Spatial distributions and use patterns of user groups in urban forest parks: An examination utilizing GPS tracker. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35:32-44.
40	Zhang H, Bao Z, Sun Z , et al. 2013. Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1):44-52.
41	Zhang K X, Fan W, Shi J Y . 2019. Recreation suitability evaluation of countryside forests in Shanghai and corresponding developing guidance. Journal of Natural Resources, 34(11):2270-2280. (in Chinese)
42	Zhang W J, Yang J, Ma L Y , et al. 2015. Factors affecting the use of urban green spaces for physical activities: Views of young urban residents in Beijing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4):851-857.

Location type	Forest park	Park area (ha)	Year opened	Questionnaire number	Number of valid respondents
Suburban	Gongqing National Forest Park	131	2005	100	87
Suburban	Gucun Country Forest Park	350	2011	100	95
Suburban	Pujiang Country Forest Park	582	2017	190	174
Rural	Sheshan National Forest Park	401	1993	120	95
Rural	Haiwan National Forest Park	433	2004	140	113
Rural	Dongping National Forest Park	355	1993	100	94

Location type	Forest park	Park area (ha)	Year opened	Questionnaire number	Number of valid respondents
Suburban	Gongqing National Forest Park	131	2005	100	87
Suburban	Gucun Country Forest Park	350	2011	100	95
Suburban	Pujiang Country Forest Park	582	2017	190	174
Rural	Sheshan National Forest Park	401	1993	120	95
Rural	Haiwan National Forest Park	433	2004	140	113
Rural	Dongping National Forest Park	355	1993	100	94

Category	Classification	Description
Psychological	Enjoying nature	A place where residents can be close to nature and perceive the scenery
Psychological	Artistic creation	A site to create artistic works, such as photographs or paintings
Psychological	Acquiring knowledge	A place for residents to acquire scientific knowledge
Physical	Physical exercise	A field in which to conduct physical exercise
Physical	Exploration activity	A place where residents can engage in exploratory activities
Social	Social interaction	An occasion for social interaction
Social	Family interaction	A site to hold a family gathering

Category	Classification	Description
Psychological	Enjoying nature	A place where residents can be close to nature and perceive the scenery
Psychological	Artistic creation	A site to create artistic works, such as photographs or paintings
Psychological	Acquiring knowledge	A place for residents to acquire scientific knowledge
Physical	Physical exercise	A field in which to conduct physical exercise
Physical	Exploration activity	A place where residents can engage in exploratory activities
Social	Social interaction	An occasion for social interaction
Social	Family interaction	A site to hold a family gathering

Social variables	Category	Suburbs	Rural areas	Total number
Gender	male	155	154	309
Gender	female	201	148	349
Age	<18	29	9	38
	18-44	208	242	450
	45-59	69	39	108
	60-74	42	11	53
	>75	8	1	9
Education	Primary or below	4	5	9
	Middle school	44	19	63
	High school or vocational school	97	86	183
	Junior college or college	195	172	367
	Postgraduate	16	20	36
Income	<1500 yuan month^-1	52	21	73
	1500-3000 yuan month^-1	48	44	92
	3000-5000 yuan month^-1	114	111	225
	5000-10000 yuan month^-1	98	87	185
	>10000 yuan month^-1	44	39	83