Preferences for ecosystem services provided by urban forests in South Korea

Abstract

The existence of tradeoffs and synergies between ecosystem services emphasize the need to understand the preferences of ecosystem service beneficiaries. In this paper, the preferences of ecosystem services provided by different types of urban forests in South Korea are analyzed to provide insights on the improved distribution and supply of ecosystem services. The Delphi technique was utilized to elicit expert opinions on the categorization of ecosystem services provided by urban forests. A choice experiment on 500 Seoul citizens was then conducted to analyze the preferences for 7 types of ecosystem servicesfood provision, water flow regulation, noise reduction, microclimate regulation & air quality improvement, moderation & prevention of landslides, biodiversity enhancement, recreation, and health services. An AHP analysis was carried out to investigate experts' ranking of the relative importance of these ecosystem services. The results showed that except for microclimate regulation & air quality improvement, Seoul citizens' preferences for different types of urban forests did not differ according to the attribute level of each ecosystem service. There were also no significant differences between the preferences for urban natural parks and urban neighborhood parks, possibly indicating that Seoul citizens perceive them to be similar. Secondly, the results indicate a higher preference for urban forests with certain features, such as a higher proportion of fruit trees and deciduous trees, higher leaf area, denser tree canopy cover, wider distances between trees, and higher levels of species richness. The enhancement of biodiversity was considered the most influential service for Seoul citizens in their choice of urban forests. Seoul citizens were willing to pay 12,176 KRW/year and 21,036 KRW/year to enhance the level of biodiversity from "poor" to "average" and from "average" to "rich," respectively. Finally, preferences and relative importance for almost all ecosystem services were different for citizens and experts. As it is impossible to maximize the provision of all ecosystem services concurrently, policymakers and urban forest managers need to consider citizens' preferences and opinions when designing and managing urban forests in order to increase user satisfaction and welfare.

Ranking ecosystem services delivered by trees in urban and rural areas

“…There are many ES delivered by trees (Kronenberg 2012 ) as providing wood and fruits or regulating environmental processes (e.g., purifying the air and offering shade). Trees also provide habitat for plants, animals, and humans, as well as cultural benefits, such as increasing the esthetic value of landscapes and delivering recreation ecosystem services (RES), which is the most common type of CES (i.e., Ali et al 2020 ; Jang-Hwan et al 2020 ). Trees provide multiple ES simultaneously, but not always to the same extent.…”

“…Due to the variety of measurement methods and ways of expressing the benefits of different ES, comparisons of ES are optimally done by ranking the importance of the benefits that trees provide. The most significant constraint of previous research on ranking ES, no matter the method applied (Wagner et al 2019 ; Ali et al 2020 ; Jang-Hwan et al 2020 ) is caused by limitations in the number of ES analyzed. In addition, the choice of ES evaluated was often dictated by data availability and not necessarily by the importance of ES in specific locations.…”

Beijing Resident’s Preferences of Ecosystem Services of Urban Forests

“…In many countries, developing urban forest is a significant strategy for a city's sustainable development [67]. Urban forest management has become an important issue in urban management policy [2].…”

“…Clean water and recreation opportunities are perceived as important ESs for urban residents in Oregon State [91]. Biodiversity is the most significant service for Seoul residents [2,42], aesthetic ES is considered important in Guangzhou [92,93], and recreational ES is perceived as most important in Berlin, Stockholm, Rotterdam, and Salzburg [93]. People in three Alpine regions in Austria and Italy place higher priorities in ESs for meeting basic human needs (e.g., "fresh water", "habitat", "energy", and "food"), followed by regulating and supporting ESs (e.g., "natural hazard regulation", "air quality regulation", "water cycle", and "nutrient cycle") [94].…”

“…Natural urban ecosystems contribute to public health and improve the quality of life of urban residents [1,2]. The world's urban population has undergone significant growth.…”