Ecosystem services are investigated from many perspectives, but there are very few studies comparing the perception of forest and demand for forest ecosystem services (FES) in a cross-cultural analysis. This study aims to map the demand for FES and find out the forest perception of forest visitors in both Czech and Chinese societies. Data were collected by structured questionnaire among three different groups of respondents (n = 847) in six forest areas. The questions were focused on the demand for FES, expectations from the forest, preference for the visual form of the forest, and the willingness of forest visitors. Analysis demonstrates that the demand for some FES is related to geographical and cultural conditions. The results indicated that provisioning and regulation services are perceived as more important than cultural services. The differences by country were obvious in the cultural and provisioning services: Chinese demand more relaxing and meditation activities, whereas Czech demand mushroom picking. A significant outcome is a high demand of Chinese respondents for recreational facilities. Tree planting was rated as one of the most popular voluntary activity across the whole sample. Meanwhile, some findings point to an increasing pressure on forest ecosystems and their protection, which emerge due to the strong demand for recreational facilities. According to the findings, active involvement of forest visitors in various activities is recommended so that their appreciation of FES will constantly increase and to take into account the profile of visitors and incorporate them in forest management and planning in order to meet societal demand.

College of Horticulture and Forestry Science Huazhong Agricultural University Wuhan 4300070 Hubei People's Republic of China

Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Kamýcká 129 6 Suchdol 16500 Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Acquah H, Onumah EE. Farmers perception and adaptation to climate change: an estimation of willingness to pay. AGRIS -Line Pap Econ Inform. 2011;3:31–39.

Ala-Hulkko T, Kotavaara O, Alahuhta J, Hjort J. Mapping supply and demand of a provisioning ecosystem service across Europe. Ecol Indic. 2019;103:520–529. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.049. DOI

Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R, Dixelius M, Törnblom J. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable landscapes: seven steps using social-ecological systems as laboratories. Ambio. 2013;42:116–128. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0367-1. PubMed DOI PMC

Ansong M, Røskaft E. Local communities’ willingness to pay for sustainable forest management in Ghana. J Energy Nat Resour Manag. 2014 doi: 10.26796/jenrm.v1i2.47. DOI

Arnberger A, Aikoh T, Eder R, Shoji Y, Mieno T. How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments. Urban For. Urban Green - URBAN URBAN GREEN. 2010;9:215–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.002. DOI

Arnberger A, Eder R, Allex B, Preisel H, Ebenberger M, Husslein M. Trade-offs between wind energy, recreational, and bark-beetle impacts on visual preferences of national park visitors. Land Use Policy. 2018;76:166–177. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.007. DOI

Ash, N., Blanco H., Garcia, K., Tomich, T., Vira, B., Brown, C., Zurek, M., (2010) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners.

Bagstad, KJ., Villa, F., Batker, D., Harrison-Cox, J., Voigt, B., Johnson, GW., (2014) From theoretical to actual ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 19

Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science. 2002;297:950. doi: 10.1126/science.1073947. PubMed DOI

Bauhus J, Baber K, Müller J. Dead wood in forest. Ecosystems. 2018 doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199830060-0196. DOI

Braat LC, de Groot R. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst Serv. 2012;1:4–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011. DOI

Brancalion P, Holl K. Guidance for successful tree planting initiatives. J Appl Ecol. 2020 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13725. DOI

Buchel S, Frantzeskaki N. Citizens’ voice: a case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;12:169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014. DOI

Burkhard B, Fath BD, Müller F. Adapting the adaptive cycle: hypotheses on the development of ecosystem properties and services. Non-Equilib Thermodyn Ecol. 2011;222:2878–2890. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.05.016. DOI

Burkhard B, Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 2012;21:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.008. DOI

Burkhard, B., Maes, J., (2017) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Adv. Books 1, Advanced Books. 10.3897/ab.e12837

Caroline O, Mulwa R, Robert K, Owuor M, Zaehringer J, Oguge N. Community perceptions of ecosystem services and the management of Mt marsabit forest in Northern Kenya. Environments. 2018;5(11):121. doi: 10.3390/environments5110121. DOI

Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manage. 2013;129:33–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059. PubMed DOI

Chen B, Nakama Y. Thirty years of forest tourism in China. J for Res. 2013;18:285–292. doi: 10.1007/s10310-012-0365-y. DOI

Cheng S, Yu Y, Ruan B. Species and Distribution of Airborne Pollen Plants in Major Cities of China. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;9:136–141.

Collins CMT, Cook-Monie I, Raum S. What do people know? Ecosystem services, public perception and sustainable management of urban park trees in London U.K. Urban for. Urban Green. 2019;43:126362. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.06.005. DOI

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997;387:253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0. DOI

Cox DTC, Gaston KJ. Human–nature interactions and the consequences and drivers of provisioning wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;373(1745):20170092. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0092. PubMed DOI PMC

Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martín-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB, Maes J. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Spec Issue Mapp Model Ecosyst Serv. 2013;4:4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001. DOI

Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, 2022. Czech Hydrometeorological Institute [WWW Document]. Hist. Data - Meteorol. Climatol. URL https://www.chmi.cz/historicka-data/pocasi

D’Amato G, Cecchi L, Bonini S, Nunes C, Annesi-Maesano I, Behrendt H, Liccardi G, Popov T, Van Cauwenberge P. Allergenic pollen and pollen allergy in Europe. Allergy. 2007;62:976–990. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01393.x. PubMed DOI

De Meo I, Paletto A, Cantiani M. The attractiveness of forests: Preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann for Res. 2015;58(1):145–156. doi: 10.15287/afr.2015.308. DOI

Derks J, Giessen L, Winkel G. COVID-19-induced visitor boom reveals the importance of forests as critical infrastructure. For Policy Econ. 2020;118:102253. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102253. PubMed DOI PMC

Dou Y, Yu X, Bakker M, De Groot R, Carsjens GJ, Duan H, Huang C. Analysis of the relationship between cross-cultural perceptions of landscapes and cultural ecosystem services in Genheyuan region. Northeast China Ecosyst Serv. 2020;43:101112. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101112. DOI

Drábková A, Šišák L. Forest visitors’ opinion of recreational facilities and trails in forests in the Blaník Protected landscape area - a case study. J for Sci. 2013;59:185–190. doi: 10.17221/77/2012-JFS. DOI

Edwards DM, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagne C, Peace A, Weiss G. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc. 2012 doi: 10.5751/ES-04520-170127. DOI

Filius AM. Factors changing farmers’ willingness to grow trees in Gunung Kidul (Java, Indonesia) Neth J Agric Sci. 1997;45:329–345. doi: 10.18174/njas.v45i2.521. DOI

Filkova V, Kolar T, Rybnicek M, Gryc V, Vavrcik H, Jurcik J. Historical utilization of wood in southeastern Moravia (Czech Republic) Iforest - Biogeosciences for. 2014;8:101–107. doi: 10.3832/ifor1091-007. DOI

Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK. Global consequences of land use. Science. 2005;309:570. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772. PubMed DOI

Franco S, Cappa F. Citizen science: involving citizens in research projects and urban planning. TeMA - J Land Use Mobil Environ. 2021;14(1):114–118. doi: 10.6092/1970-9870/7892. DOI

Frélichová J, Vačkář D, Pártl A, Loučková B, Harmáčková ZV, Lorencová E. Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Serv. 2014;8:110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.001. DOI

García-Nieto AP, García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Martín-López B. Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Spec Issue Mapp Model Ecosyst Serv. 2013;4:126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003. DOI

Gerstenberg T, Hofmann M. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban for Urban Green. 2016;15:103–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.004. DOI

Giergiczny M, Czajkowski M, Żylicz T, Angelstam P. Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol Econ. 2015;119:8–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.032. DOI

Gouwakinnou GN, Biaou S, Vodouhe FG, Tovihessi MS, Awessou BK, Biaou HSS. Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. J Ethnobiol Ethnomedicine. 2019;15:61. doi: 10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y. PubMed DOI PMC

Grilli G, Jonkisz J, Ciolli M, Lesinski J. Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders’ perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians. For Policy Econ. 2016;66:11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.02.003. DOI

Gundersen VS, Frivold LH. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban for Urban Green. 2008;7:241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001. DOI

Guo Y, Qiu P, Liu T. Tai Ji Quan: An overview of its history, health benefits, and cultural value. Spec. Issue Tai Ji Quan Tradit. Appl Contemp Pract. 2014;3:3–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2013.10.004. DOI

Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Maes J, Wittmer H, Jax K. ``Maps have an air of authority'': potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Spec Issue Mapp Model Ecosyst Serv. 2013;4:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.11.003. DOI

Hlásny, T., Krokene, P., Liebhold, A., Montagné-Huck, C., Müller, J., Qin, H., Raffa, K., Schelhaas, M., Seidl, R., Svoboda, M., Viiri, H., (2019) Living with bark beetles - impacts, outlook and management options, From Science to Policy 8.

Hong NT, Saizen I. Forest ecosystem services and local communities: towards a possible solution to reduce forest dependence in bach ma national park. Vietnam Hum Ecol. 2019;47:465–476. doi: 10.1007/s10745-019-00083-x. DOI

Hu H, Zhang J, Chu G, Yang J, Yu P. Factors influencing tourists’ litter management behavior in mountainous tourism areas in China. Waste Manag. 2018;79:273–286. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.047. PubMed DOI

Huang X, Teng M, Zhou Z, Wang P, Dian Y, Wu C. Linking naturalness and quality improvement of monoculture plantations in urban area: A case study in Wuhan city. China Urban for Urban Green. 2021;59:126911. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126911. DOI

Hynek, V., (1997) Social Broadleaves in the Czech Republic, in: First EUFORGEN Meeting on Social Broadleaves. In: International Plant Genetic-Resources Institute, Bordeaux, France, pp. 34–40.

Jang-Hwan J, So-Hee P, JaChoon K, Taewoo R, Lim EM, Yeo-Chang Y. Preferences for ecosystem services provided by urban forests in South Korea. For Sci Technol. 2020;16:86–103. doi: 10.1080/21580103.2020.1762761. DOI

Jarský V, Palátová P, Riedl M, Zahradník D, Rinn R, Hochmalová M. Forest attendance in the times of COVID-19—a case study on the example of the Czech Republic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052529. PubMed DOI PMC

Jiang Y, Zou J. Analysis of the TCM theory of traditional Chinese health exercise. J Sport Health Sci. 2013;2:204–208. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2013.03.008. DOI

Chen Jianwei, (2015) Chinese forests are beautiful and diverse.

Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Spec Issue Mapp Model Ecosyst Serv. 2013;4:47–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.001. DOI

Kay CAM, Rohnke AT, Sander HA, Stankowich T, Fidino M, Murray MH, Lewis JS, Taves I, Lehrer EW, Zellmer AJ, Schell CJ, Magle SB. Barriers to building wildlife-inclusive cities: insights from the deliberations of urban ecologists, urban planners and landscape designers. People Nat. 2022;4:62–70. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10283. DOI

Kemp, S., (2021) DIGITAL, China.

Khosravi Mashizi A, Sharafatmandrad M. Investigating tradeoffs between supply, use and demand of ecosystem services and their effective drivers for sustainable environmental management. J Environ Manage. 2021;289:112534. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112534. PubMed DOI

Khuc QV, Pham L, Tran M, Nguyen T, Tran BQ, Hoang T, Ngo T, Tran T-D. Understanding vietnamese farmers’ perception toward forest importance and perceived willingness-to-participate in redd+ program: a case study in nghe an province. Forests. 2021;12:521. doi: 10.3390/f12050521. DOI

Lee JC-K, Tilbury D. Changing environments: the challenge for environmental education in China. Geography. 1998;83:227–236.

Lee KA, Lee JR, Bell P. A review of citizen science within the earth sciences: potential benefits and obstacles. Proc Geol Assoc. 2020;131:605–617. doi: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2020.07.010. DOI

Li Y. Study of the effect of environmental education on environmental awareness and environmental attitude based on environmental protection law of the People’s Republic of China. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2018;14:2277–2285. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/86214. DOI

Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;22(140):55–55.

Limesurvey project Team, (2019) LimeSurvey: An open Source survey tool. LimeSurvey Project, Hamburg, Germany.

Lindemann-Matthies P, Keller D, Li X, Schmid B. Attitudes toward forest diversity and forest ecosystem services—a cross-cultural comparison between China and Switzerland. J Plant Ecol. 2013;7:1–9. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtt015. DOI

Liu W-Y, Yu H-W, Hsieh C-M. Evaluating forest visitors’ place attachment, recreational activities, and travel intentions under different climate scenarios. Forests. 2021 doi: 10.3390/f12020171. DOI

Loomes, R., O’Neill, K., 2000 Nature’s services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. 10.1071/PC000274

Malik A, Zubair M, Manzoor SA. Valuing the invaluable: park visitors’ perceived importance and willingness to pay for urban park trees in Pakistan. Ecosphere. 2021;12:e03348. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3348. DOI

Martínez de Aragón J, Riera P, Giergiczny M, Colinas C. Value of wild mushroom picking as an environmental service. For Policy Econ. 2011;13:419–424. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.003. DOI

Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e38970–e38970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970. PubMed DOI PMC

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (MoA) (2019) Information on Forests and Forestry in The Czech Republic by 2018. https://eagri.cz/public/web/file/640937/Zprava_o_stavu_lesa_2018.pdf

Moutouama FT, Biaou SSH, Kyereh B, Asante WA, Natta AK. Factors shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. J Ethnobiol Ethnomedicine. 2019;15:38. doi: 10.1186/s13002-019-0317-0. PubMed DOI PMC

Muhamad D, Okubo S, Harashina K, Parikesit G, B., Takeuchi, K., Living close to forests enhances people’s perception of ecosystem services in a forest-agricultural landscape of West Java. Indonesia Ecosyst Serv. 2014;8:197–206. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.003. DOI

Müller F, Groot R, Willemen L, De R, Online L. Ecosystem services at the landscape scale: the need for integrative approaches. Landsc Online. 2010;23:31–41. doi: 10.3097/LO.201023. DOI

Nastran M, Pintar M, Železnikar Š, Cvejić R. Stakeholders’ perceptions on the role of urban green infrastructure in providing ecosystem services for human well-being. Land. 2022 doi: 10.3390/land11020299. DOI

National Bureau of Statistics of China, (2019) China statistical yearbook 2019, Populationand Its Composition. 2–1

Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Dr, Chan KM, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw Mr. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7:4–11. doi: 10.1890/080023. DOI

Oku H, Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006;75:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.008. DOI

Tourism Publicity and Promotion Management Office (2021) Zhangjiajie National Forest Park. Hunan Zhangjiajie – hnzjj. http://www.hnzjj.com/index.php/Product/list/7.html

Pastorella F, Avdagić A, Čabaravdić A, Mraković A, Osmanović M, Paletto A. Tourists’ perception of deadwood in mountain forests. Ann for Res. 2016;59(2):311–326. doi: 10.15287/afr.2016.482. DOI

Pawlowski A. Perception of environmental problems by young people in Poland. Environ Educ Res. 1996;2:279–285. doi: 10.1080/1350462960020302. DOI

Price C. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban for Urban Green. 2003;1:123–133. doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00013. DOI

Purwestri RC, Hájek M, Šodková M, Jarský V. How are wood and non-wood forest products utilized in the Czech Republic? a preliminary assessment of a nationwide survey on the bioeconomy. Sustainability. 2020 doi: 10.3390/su12020566. DOI

Questionnaire Star Project Team, (2019) Questionnaire star software. Rangxing information technology company, Changsha, China.

Rathmann J, Sacher P, Volkmann N, Mayer M. Using the visitor-employed photography method to analyse deadwood perceptions of forest visitors: a case study from Bavarian Forest National Park. Germany Eur J for Res. 2020;139:431–442. doi: 10.1007/s10342-020-01260-0. DOI

Reichhart T, Arnberger A. Exploring the influence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer animated choice experiment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;96:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.01.005. DOI

Riedl M, Jarský V, Zahradník D, Palátová P, Dudík R, Meňházová J, Šišák L. Analysis of significant factors influencing the amount of collected forest berries in the Czech Republic. Forests. 2020 doi: 10.3390/f11101114. DOI

Seeland K, Staniszewski P. Indicators for a European Cross-country state-of-the-art assessment of non-timber forest products and services. Small-Scale for. 2007;6:411–422. doi: 10.1007/s11842-007-9029-8. DOI

Seidl R, Schelhaas M-J, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Change. 2014;4:806–810. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2318. PubMed DOI PMC

Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48:630–636. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x. DOI

LI Shi-dong, CHEN Xin-feng, (2007) Study on the Developing Track of China’s Forest Parks and Forest Tourism.

Šišák L. Forest visitors’ opinions on the importance of forest operations, forest functions and sources of their financing. J for Sci. 2011;57:266–270. doi: 10.17221/135/2010-JFS. DOI

Šišák L, Riedl M, Dudik R. Non-market non-timber forest products in the Czech Republic-Their socio-economic effects and trends in forest land use. Land Use Policy. 2016;50:390–398. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.006. DOI

Šišák, L., Pulkrab, K., (2009) Social importance of the production and collection of non-commercial forest fruits in the Czech Republic: 15 years of systematic monitoring.

Šodková M, Purwestri R, Riedl M, Jarský V, Hájek M. Drivers and frequency of forest visits: results of a national survey in the Czech Republic. Forests. 2020;11:414. doi: 10.3390/f11040414. DOI

Sukhdev, P., Wittme, H., Schröter-Schlaack, Ch., Nesshöver, C., Bishop, J., Brink, P., Gundimeda, H., Kumar, P., Simmons, B., (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.

Swapan MSH, Iftekhar MS, Li X. Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: a comparative study of China and Australia. Cities. 2017;61:17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003. DOI

Syrbe R-U, Grunewald K. Ecosystem service supply and demand – the challenge to balance spatial mismatches. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 2017;13:148–161. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1407362. DOI

Terkenli TS, Bell S, Tošković O, Dubljević-Tomićević J, Panagopoulos T, Straupe I, Kristianova K, Straigyte L, O’Brien L, Živojinović I. Tourist perceptions and uses of urban green infrastructure: An exploratory cross-cultural investigation. Urban for Urban Green. 2020;49:126624. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126624. DOI

Tilman D, Lehman C. Human-caused environmental change: Impacts on plant diversity and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98:5433–5440. doi: 10.1073/pnas.091093198. PubMed DOI PMC

Tomášková I. Evaluation of changes in the tree species composition of Czech forests. J for Sci. 2004;50(1):31–37. doi: 10.17221/4598-JFS. DOI

Torkar G, Krašovec U. Students’ attitudes toward forest ecosystem services, knowledge about ecology, and direct experience with forests. Ecosyst Serv. 2019;37:100916. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100916. DOI

Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Nousiainen I, Tahvanainen L. Rural tourismin finland: Tourists’ Expectation of Landscape and Environment. Scand J Hosp Tour - SCAND J HOSP TOUR. 2001;1:133–149. doi: 10.1080/150222501317244047. DOI

Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban for Urban Green. 2003;1:135–149. doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00014. DOI

Unesco, 2022. Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area [WWW Document]. Unesco World Herit. URL https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/640/

Venter ZS, Barton DN, Gundersen V, Figari H, Nowell M. Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo. Norway Environ Res Lett. 2020;15:104075. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abb396. DOI

Villamayor-Tomas S, Sagebiel J, Olschewski R. Bringing the neighbors a choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe. Land Use Policy. 2019;84:200–215. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006. DOI

Vitousek PM. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology. 1994;75:1861–1876. doi: 10.2307/1941591. DOI

Wang G, Innes JL, Wu SW, Krzyzanowski J, Yin Y, Dai S, Zhang X, Liu S. National park development in China: conservation or commercialization? Ambio. 2012;41:247–261. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0194-9. PubMed DOI PMC

Wang P, Zhou B, Han L, Mei R. The motivation and factors influencing visits to small urban parks in Shanghai China. Urban for Urban Green. 2021;60:127086. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127086. DOI

Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;125:234–244. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. DOI

Wolfslehner, B., Prokofieva, I., Mavsar, R., (2019) Non-wood forest products in Europe: Seeing the forest around the trees.

Wuhan Bureau of Statistics, (2020) Statistical report of National Economic and Social Development of Wuhan in 2019.

Xie Y, Wu B, Wang Y (2005) 张家界市城市行道树种选择探讨. J Zhejiang for Coll 2006:188–192

Xin-fa Q, Yan Z, Qi-long M. Sand-dust storms in China: temporal-spatial distribution and tracks of source lands. J Geogr Sci. 2001;11:253–260. doi: 10.1007/BF02892308. DOI

Xing J, Ye K, Zuo J, Jiang W. Control dust pollution on construction sites: what governments do in China? Sustainability. 2018 doi: 10.3390/su10082945. DOI

Xiong H, Fu D, Duan C, Liu C, Yang X, Wang R. Current status of green curriculum in higher education of Mainland China. Spec. Vol. Green Univ. Environ. High Educ Sustain Dev China Emerg Ctries. 2013;61:100–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.033. DOI

Yanhua Z. Chongqing cities and surrounding suburbs citizens’ environmental awareness/attitude situation analysis. Chongqing Environ Sci. 2002;1:15.

Yu P, Zhang J, Wang Y, Wang C, Zhang H. Can tourism development enhance livelihood capitals of rural households? Evidence from Huangshan National Park adjacent communities. China Sci Total Environ. 2020;748:141099. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141099. PubMed DOI

Zhu C, Przybysz A, Chen Y, Guo H, Chen Y, Zeng Y. Effect of spatial heterogeneity of plant communities on air PM10 and PM2.5 in an urban forest park in Wuhan China. Urban for Urban Green. 2019;46:126487. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126487. DOI

From recreational to income-generating opportunities: assessment of public preferences for non-wood forest products in the Czech Republic