4.7 Article

Contrasting collective preferences for outdoor recreation and substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 64-78

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.008

关键词

Cultural ecosystem services; Hot spot analysis; Nature valuation; Outdoor recreation; Public participation GIS; Substitute

资金

  1. Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO)
  2. Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates one specific cultural ecosystem service: outdoor recreation. We present a method to map the collective preferences for outdoor recreation and to identify the substitutability among nature sites in the context of the province of Antwerp, Belgium. We propose an indicator of substitutability among nature areas, contrasting unique but poorly substitutable sites (hot spots) with highly substitutable sites (cold spots). Using a combination of survey information, public participation GIS (PPGIS) and kernel density mapping, we produce density surfaces representing the distribution of the collective preferences for outdoor recreation and identify the spatial characteristics of the market (e.g. extent, discontinuities) for outdoor recreation. We also compute Getis-Ord G(i)* spatial statistics to identify local outdoor recreation clusters. In addition, we explore how recreational behaviour affects substitutability. Our results suggest a duality between the social value of outdoor recreation and the level of substitutability among nature sites. Highly substitutable sites tend to be found near areas of higher population density, which are as well highly visited sites. The type of recreational activity - hiking, cycling, dog walking or jogging - appears to substantially modify substitutability patterns among nature sites. We conclude by discussing the methodological implications of this research in the context of stated preference ecosystem service valuation and stress several policy -related implications. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据