Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Micro-agents’ perception of landscape services and their multi-level driving influences in the headwater area of the Qiantang River, China

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract    

Landscape services are an important basis for maintaining regional ecological security patterns, environmental health, and sustainable socio-economic development. As an important link between regional ecosystems and socio-economic development, micro-agents’ production and life as well as their cognition and perception of landscape services notably impact the maintenance of multi-functional landscape development. This paper examines 9 rural communities in different areas and different development types in the headwater area of the Qiantang River in China, China’s national key ecological functional area, in a typical case study. Based on farmer interviews and household surveys, this paper explores the changes of micro-agents’ diversification perception of landscape services from 2010 to 2020. A multiple linear regression method is used to construct an index model of agents’ perception of diversification of landscape services and to analyze the driving factors influencing changes. The results showed that (1) from 2010 to 2020, the micro-agent perception index of the diversity of farmland, forest, garden, and grassland landscape services increased by 0.46, 0.43, 0.67, and 0.51, respectively. Among them, the micro-agents’ diversified perception of forest, farmland, garden, and grassland landscape services decreased in sequence. (2) From 2010 to 2020, in regard to the importance and vulnerability of landscape services, the difference between the perception levels of farmland landscape support services and grassland landscape regulation services in the agricultural production core area was the largest. In management and rationality perception of landscape services, the difference in the perception between grassland landscape service ecological and economic development areas was the largest. (3) Individual and family characteristics are important factors affecting the diversification perception of landscape services, while the natural environment and resource endowment impose negligible influences. Environmental policies only affect the diversification of grassland perception. The research results can provide a reference for maintaining regional landscape services, improving the well-being of micro-agents, and promoting the enhancement in ecological services and regional collaborative development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References    

  • Aguado M, González JA, Bellott K, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2018) Exploring subjective well-being and ecosystem services perception along a rural–urban gradient in the high Andes of Ecuador. Ecosyst Serv 34:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angarita-Baéz JA, Pérez-Miñana E, Vargas JEB, Agudelo CAR, Ortiz AP, Palacios E, Willcock S (2014) Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services at community level in the Colombian Amazon. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 13(1):280–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attardi R, Cerreta M, Franciosa A et al（2014）Valuing cultural landscape services: A multidimensional and multi-group SDSS for scenario simulations [C]//International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Springer, Guimaraes, pp 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09150-1_29

  • Benjamin EO, Sauer J (2018) The cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services—smallholders and agroforestry in Africa. Land Use Policy 71:293–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciftcioglu GC (2017) Assessment of the relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the social-ecological landscapes of Lefke Region in North Cyprus. Landscape Ecol 32(4):897–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Agar PM, Ortega M, de Pablo CL (2016) A procedure of landscape services assessment based on mosaics of patches and boundaries. J Environ Manage 180:214–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte GT, Santos PM, Cornelissen TG, Ribeiro MC, Paglia AP (2018) The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landscape Ecol 33(8):1247–1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments–mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic 18:421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenland-Smith S, Brazner J, Sherren K (2016) Farmer perceptions of wetlands and waterbodies: using social metrics as an alternative to ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Econ 126:58–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulickx MMC, Verburg PH, Stoorvogel JJ, Kok K, Veldkamp A (2013) Mapping landscape services: a case study in a multifunctional rural landscape in The Netherlands. Ecol Indic 24:273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo X, Zhou L, Chen Y, Menghe GU, Zhao M (2018) Analysis on the adaptability of farmers to ecological and environmental changes and the driving factors in the inner mongolia autonomous region. Acta Ecol Sin 38(21):7629–7637 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann A, Kuttner M, Hainz-Renetzeder C, Konkoly-Gyuró É, Tirászi Á, Brandenburg C, Wrbka T (2014) Assessment framework for landscape services in European cultural landscapes: an Austrian Hungarian case study. Ecol Indic 37:229–240

  • Kibria AS, Costanza R, Groves C, Behie AM (2018) The interactions between livelihood capitals and access of local communities to the forest provisioning services of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest. Bangladesh Ecosyst Serv 32:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Wang J, Zhu W, Zhang J, Liu Y, Gao Y, Wang Y, Li Y (2014) Research framework of ecosystem services geography from spatial and regional perspectives. Acta Geogr Sin 69(11):1628–1639 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele R, Poli G (2015) The evaluation of landscape services: a new paradigm for sustainable development and city planning[C]. International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Springer, Cham, pp 64–76

  • Meyer-Grandbastien A, Burel F, Hellier E, Bergerot B (2020) A step towards understanding the relationship between species diversity and psychological restoration of visitors in urban green spaces using landscape heterogeneity. Landsc Urban Plan 195:103728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Luque S, Nassauer J, Verburg PH, Wu J (2018) How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science ? Landscape Ecol 33(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang Z, Wang RS, Zhao JZ (1999) Ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Chin J Appl Ecol 10(5):635–640 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Xiao Y, Polasky S, Liu J, Xu W, Daily GC (2016) Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 352(6292):1455–1459

  • Pfeifer C, Sonneveld MP, Stoorvogel JJ (2012) Farmers’ contribution to landscape services in the Netherlands under different rural development scenarios. J Environ Manage 111:96–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppenborg P, Koellner T (2013) Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural land use practices? An analysis of farmers’ decision-making in a South Korean watershed. Land Use Policy 31:422–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quyen NTK, Berg H, Gallardo W, Da CT (2017) Stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services and Pangasius catfish farming development along the Hau River in the Mekong Delta. Vietnam Ecosyst Serv 25:2–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos A, Jujnovsky J, Almeida L (2018) The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City. Ecosyst Serv 34:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi Q, Chen H, Liang X, Zhang H, Liu D (2020a) Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: a case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province. China Ecosyst Serv 41:101052

  • Shi Q, Chen H, Liu D, Zhang H, Geng T, Zhang H (2020b) Exploring the linkage between the supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services in Loess Plateau, China: a case study from Shigou Township. Environ Sci Pollut R 27(11):12514–12526

  • Sun X, Zhang Y, Shen Y, Randhir TO, Cao M (2019) Exploring ecosystem services and scenario simulation in the headwaters of Qiantang River watershed of China. Environ Sci Pollut R 26(34):34905–34923

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24(8):1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Wang KL, Zhang MY (2015) Tempo-spatial variations of net primary productivity in hilly terain of Southern China. Acta Ecol Sin 35(11):3722–3732

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang WR, Tian L, Tang Q, Deng XY (2018) Game between ecosystem disservices and resident survival under ecological restoration: a case of the retreat of farmers led by the invasion of wild boars. Geograph Res 37(4):772–782 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang XQ, Zhao XY, Wang R, Liu JH, Lan HX, Xue B (2020) Farmers’ perception of ecosystem services in the key ecological functional areas: a case of the Gannan Plateau. Acta Ecol Sin 40(9):2838–2850

  • Wang FC, Zheng H, Zhang W, Wang H, Peng WJ (2021) Regional differences and the driving mechanism of relationships between rural household livelihood and ecosystem services: a case study in upstream watershed of Miyun Reservoir. China Chinese J Appl Ecol 32(11):3872–3882 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerink J, Opdam P, Van Rooij S, Steingröver E (2017) Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape. Land Use Policy 60:408–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm JA, Smith RG, Jolejole-Foreman MC, Hurley S (2020) Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire. Ecosyst Serv 45:101153

  • Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69(11):2244–2254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong Y, Xiao R, Zhang K, Wei X, Sun B, Chen L (2022) Farmers’ perception on ecosystem services and the influencing factors in key ecological function areas of hilly and mountainous areas in Southern China: a case study of Cili county. Hunan Province J Natural Res 37(7):1766–1781 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu JY, Wang Q, Wei JY (2018) Assessment of the contribution to human well-being by ecosystem services in Wolong Natural Reserve from the perspective of local communities. Acta Ecol Sin 38(20):7348–7358 (in Chinese)

  • Ye YM, Lin YB, Liu SC, Luo M (2019) Social-ecological system (SES) analysis framework for application in ecological restoration engineering of mountains-rivers-forests-farmlands-lakes-grasslands: utilizing the source area of Qiantang River in Zhejiang Province as an example. Acta Ecol Sin 39(23):8846–8856 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Wu S, Dang Y, Liu D, Qiu L (2022) Multi-functional identification of social-ecological landscape in ecologically fragile areas under the background of regional transformation development. Environ Sci Pollut R 60:408–418

  • Zhao WW, Fang XN (2014) Landscape sustainability and landscape sustainability science. Acta Ecolo Sin 34(10):2453–2459 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoderer BM, Lupo Stanghellini PS, Tasser E, Walde J, Wieser H, Tappeiner U (2016) Exploring socio-cultural values of ecosystem service categories in the Central Alps: the influence of socio-demographic factors and landscape type. Reg Environ Change 16(7):2033–2044

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42271310) and the Hangzhou Philosophy and Social Sciences Foundation (Z22JC097).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Land and Urban-Rural Development, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, 310018, China

    Hang Zhang, Lefeng Qiu & Shaohua Wu

  2. College of Tourism, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, 453007, China

    Di Liu

  3. Institute of Geographical Science, Taiyuan Normal University, Jinzhong, 030619, Shanxi, China

    Tianwei Geng

Authors
  1. Hang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Di Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tianwei Geng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lefeng Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shaohua Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z. H. and W. S. conceived and designed this manuscript. Z. H. wrote the paper. Q. L. and L. D. collected and processed the paper data. L. D. and G. T. modified the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaohua Wu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, China. We were permitted by the local government (Chunan County People’s Government, Huangshi Municipal People’s Government, Kaihua County People’s Government and Zhejiang Provincial Department of Natural Resources) before the data collection in the study area.

Consent to participate

All study participants provided informed consent, and all respondents voluntarily participated in the questionnaire and interview.

Consent for publication

The participants were willing and agreed to participate in the study and to have their data published in the journal.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Baojing Gu

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, H., Liu, D., Geng, T. et al. Micro-agents’ perception of landscape services and their multi-level driving influences in the headwater area of the Qiantang River, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 88757–88774 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27999-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27999-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation