journal article·2025-04-03Open access

Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Urban Parks of Macau from a Cultural Heritage Perspective

Kehui Liu, Pohsun Wang, Jing Liu

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 7

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) provided by 12 major urban parks on the Macau Peninsula were quantitatively evaluated using social media data. Furthermore, the potential implications of these findings for cultural heritage preservation and landscape design optimization were investigated. A CES evaluation framework consisting of six dimensions was established. User-generated content (UGC) was then collected using web-crawling techniques. A sentiment analysis based on natural language processing (NLP) and a spatial clustering analysis were subsequently performed on the collected data. Significant differences between CES dimensions were identified across Macau’s urban parks (F = 19.45, p < 0.01). Among the CES dimensions, esthetic appreciation (M = 76.04) and landscape experience (M = 72.47) received the highest scores. Moreover, landscape experience was found to have the strongest influence on visitors’ emotional evaluations (β = 0.95, p < 0.01). The spatial autocorrelation analysis indicated that the CES distribution did not exhibit significant clustering patterns (Z = 0.59). Based on these findings, it is recommended that educational functions be enhanced, public facilities upgraded, and local cultural heritage integrated into landscape and spatial planning. This research provides a novel CES quantification method based on social media data. It also offers theoretical and practical frameworks for urban planning and cultural heritage conservation in Macau.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation · Land Use and Ecosystem Services

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Literature and Art, Jinshan College of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China

Faculty of Innovation and Design, City University of Macau, Macau 999078, China

References (27)

Show source-provided references
1. Assessment, M.E. (2001). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
2. Van der Ploeg, S., De Groot, R.S., and Wang, Y. (2010). The TEEB Valuation Database: Overview of Structure, Data and Results, Foundation for Sustainable Development.
3. Cultural ecosystem services in an urban park: Understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies10.1007/s10980-022-01434-8 ↗
4. Interracial interaction, park ownership, belonging, community asset, and perceived provision of cultural ecosystem services10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128551 ↗
5. How do urban park features affect cultural ecosystem services: Quantified evidence for design practices10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127713 ↗
6. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028 ↗
7. Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.017 ↗
8. Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., and Uyttenhove, P. (2022). Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services. Land, 11.10.3390/land11050610 ↗
9. Shi, W., Mahdzar, S.S.S., and Li, W. (2023). Park inclusive design index as a systematic evaluation framework to improve inclusive urban park uses: The case of Hangzhou urban parks. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app132312954 ↗
10. Yang, L., and Cao, K. (2022). Cultural ecosystem services research progress and future prospects: A review. Sustainability, 14.10.3390/su141911845 ↗
11. Zabelskyte, G., Kabisch, N., and Stasiskiene, Z. (2022). Patterns of Urban Green Space Use Applying Social Media Data: A Systematic Literature Review. Land, 11.10.3390/land11020238 ↗
12. Cultural ecosystem services evaluation using geolocated social media data: A review10.1080/14616688.2020.1801828 ↗
13. How do urban green space attributes affect visitation and satisfaction? An empirical study based on multisource data10.1016/j.cities.2024.105543 ↗
14. Explicit quantification of coastal cultural ecosystem services: A novel approach based on the content and sentimental analysis of social media10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108756 ↗
15. Temporal and spatial assessment of urban park visits from multiple social media data sets: A case study of Shanghai, China10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126682 ↗
16. Twitter sentiment in New York City parks as measure of well-being10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.024 ↗
17. Song, X.P., Richards, D.R., and Tan, P.Y. (2020). Using social media user attributes to understand human–environment interactions at urban parks. Sci. Rep., 10.10.1038/s41598-020-57864-4 ↗
18. User-generated content affects urban park use: Analysis of direct and moderating effects10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128158 ↗
19. Emerging social media data on measuring urban park use10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.005 ↗
20. Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): A policy brief10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108 ↗
21. Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101091 ↗
22. Taking “social relations” as a cultural ecosystem service: A triangulation approach10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126790 ↗
23. The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation10.1017/S0376892915000314 ↗
24. Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? A cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and Natural Language Processing methods10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104307 ↗
25. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.034 ↗
26. Insights into citizens’ experiences of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces based on social media analytics10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104999 ↗
27. Mapping cultural ecosystem services 2.0–Potential and shortcomings from unlabeled crowd sourced images10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.035 ↗