Haojie Chen , Tong Zhang , Robert Costanza , Ida Kubiszewski , Matthew R. Sloggy , Luhua Wu , Haohan Luo
{"title":"Assessing individual and social values of cultural services of a protected area through online deliberation","authors":"Haojie Chen , Tong Zhang , Robert Costanza , Ida Kubiszewski , Matthew R. Sloggy , Luhua Wu , Haohan Luo","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The non-material benefits obtained through interaction with nature are known as cultural services. We employed an online survey to value cultural services provided by the Fanjing Mountain National Nature Reserve, China. The valuation combined a stated-preference approach with online deliberation, where participants considered and discussed the services through typing in chat groups. The services perceived by most participants, in descending order, were spiritual experiences, recreation, aesthetic appreciation, education, and scientific value. In two hypothetical scenarios, where participants were assumed to be potential visitors and local staff (tour guides), respectively, they expressed both individual and social preferences for cultural services. Individual preferences primarily represented their own interests without necessarily or explicitly considering social benefits, whereas social preferences explicitly considered what was right or desirable for society. Overall, the social preferences were lower, more converged, and less affected by demographic variables (e.g., income) than the individual preferences in both scenarios. However, such differences between individual and social preferences were not always statistically significant. Moreover, participants valued cultural services significantly higher as potential tour guides than as visitors, as their psychological states, substitutes for cultural services, prior rights to the services, and certainty in interacting with nature varied with their stakeholder roles.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":"235 ","pages":"Article 108632"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001156","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The non-material benefits obtained through interaction with nature are known as cultural services. We employed an online survey to value cultural services provided by the Fanjing Mountain National Nature Reserve, China. The valuation combined a stated-preference approach with online deliberation, where participants considered and discussed the services through typing in chat groups. The services perceived by most participants, in descending order, were spiritual experiences, recreation, aesthetic appreciation, education, and scientific value. In two hypothetical scenarios, where participants were assumed to be potential visitors and local staff (tour guides), respectively, they expressed both individual and social preferences for cultural services. Individual preferences primarily represented their own interests without necessarily or explicitly considering social benefits, whereas social preferences explicitly considered what was right or desirable for society. Overall, the social preferences were lower, more converged, and less affected by demographic variables (e.g., income) than the individual preferences in both scenarios. However, such differences between individual and social preferences were not always statistically significant. Moreover, participants valued cultural services significantly higher as potential tour guides than as visitors, as their psychological states, substitutes for cultural services, prior rights to the services, and certainty in interacting with nature varied with their stakeholder roles.
期刊介绍:
Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership.
Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.