Cultural Ecosystem Service Value of Khyargas Lake
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5564/mjgg.v62i46.4251Keywords:
Cultural ecosystem services, Lake Khyargas, Intangible benefitsAbstract
The aim of this study is to identify the cultural ecosystem service values of the Khyargas Lake ecosystem, evaluate its potential for providing cultural services, and develop a spatial distribution map of these services. Cultural ecosystem services refer to the non-material benefits that humans derive from ecosystems through experiences that enhance mental and physical well-being and satisfaction. The study employed a combination of methods, including rapid field assessment surveys of water and wetland ecosystem services, matrix analysis, photo interpretation, and kernel density estimation. The survey results revealed that seven out of the ten cultural ecosystem service types were identified within the study area. When ranked by importance, recreation and tourism, landscape aesthetics, and cultural heritage services were among the top three. Based on the matrix analysis used to assess the natural capacity to provide cultural ecosystem services, 41.0% of the study area was classified as having high capacity, 24.2% as moderate, 23.7% as low, and 11.1% as very low capacity. Kernel density analysis indicated that areas with high demand for cultural ecosystem services are primarily concentrated along the northern, southeastern, and western shores of Khyargas Lake. These areas contribute significantly to the overall value of cultural ecosystem services by supporting activities such as fishing, swimming, boating, lakeside walking, sunbathing, spa treatments, and therapeutic mud applications. The results of this study provide a scientific basis for improving land-use planning and promoting the sustainable development of tourism, as well as for ensuring the efficient and balanced utilization of natural resources.
Хяргас нуурын экосистемийн соёлын үйлчилгээний үнэ цэнэ
ХУРААНГУЙ: Энэхүү судалгаа нь Хяргас нуурын экосистемийн соёлын үйлчилгээний үнэт зүйлийг тодорхойлж, соёлын үйлчилгээний чадавхыг үнэлэх, орон зайн тархалтын зураглал боловсруулах зорилготой. Экосистемийн соёлын үйлчилгээ нь хүн төрөлхтөн оюун санааны болон бие махбодын тайвшрал, сэтгэл ханамжийг мэдрэх замаар экосистемээс хүртэх материаллаг бус үр өгөөжийг илэрхийлдэг. Тус судалгаанд ус, намгархаг газрын экосистемийн үйлчилгээний түргэвчилсэн үнэлгээний асуулгын арга, матрицын шинжилгээний арга, фото зураглалын дүн шинжилгээний арга, кернелийн нягтшил тооцоолох аргуудыг хослуулан ашигласан. Асуулга судалгааны үр дүнгээр соёлын үйлчилгээний 10 хэлбэрээс 7 хэлбэр нь тус судалгааны талбайд тодорхойлогдсон бөгөөд эдгээрийг ач холбогдлоор нь эрэмбэлэхэд амралт-аялал жуулчлал, ландшафтын гоо зүй, соёлын өвийн үйлчилгээнүүд нь эхний гуравт багтаж байна. Экосистемийн соёлын үйлчилгээ үзүүлэх байгалийн чадавхыг илрүүлэх матрицын шинжилгээгээр нийт судалгааны талбайн 41.0% нь өндөр, 24.2% нь дунд, 23.7% нь сул, 11.1% нь маш сул чадавхтай гэж үнэлэгдсэн. Кернелийн нягтшилын шинжилгээгээр экосистемийн соёлын үйлчилгээний эрэлт өндөртэй байршил нь Хяргас нуурын хойд, зүүн урд болон баруун эргийн дагуу төвлөрч байв. Эдгээр газрууд нь загасчлал, усан сэлэлт, завиар аялах, нуурын эргийн дагуу алхах, наран шарлаг, рашаан сувилал, шавар эмчилгээ зэрэг үйлчилгээ үзүүлэх замаар соёлын экосистемийн үйлчилгээний үнэ цэнийг нэмэгдүүлэхэд хувь нэмрээ оруулж байна. Тус судалгааны үр дүн нь байгалийн нөөцийн зохистой ашиглалт, тогтвортой аялал жуулчлалд чиглэсэн төлөвлөлтийг боловсронгуй болгоход суурь материал болж ашиглагдах боломжтой юм.
Түлхүүр үг: Экосистемийн соёлын үйлчилгээ, Хяргас нуур, Материаллаг бус үр өгөөж
Downloads
65
References
S. Zheng et al., “Linking cultural ecosystem service and urban ecological-space planning for a sustainable city: case study of the core areas of Beijing under the context of urban relieving and renewal,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 89, 104292, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104292.
[2] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (M.E.A), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press, 2005.
[3] G. R. Romanazzi, R. Koto, A. De Boni, G. O. Palmisano, M. Cioffi, and R. Roma, “Cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods and tools for economic evaluation,” Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 100304, 2023.
[4] Р. Самъяа, А. Бакей, Ж. Жаргал, Ю. Алтанбагана, Экосистемийн үндсэн шинж, үйлчилгээ, үр өгөөж, үнэ цэн. Улаанбаатар, 2023, ISBN: 976-9919-9938-8-7.
[5] M. Ebner, U. Schirpke, and U. Tappeiner, “Combining multiple socio-cultural approaches – deeper insights into cultural ecosystem services of mountain lakes?” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 228, 104549, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104549.
[6] Y. Wang, J. Niemelä, and D. J. Kotze, “The delivery of cultural ecosystem services in urban forests of different landscape features and land use contexts,” People and Nature, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1369–1386, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10394.
[7] X. Nie et al., “Effectively enhancing perceptions of cultural ecosystem services: a case study of a karst cultural ecosystem,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 315, 115189, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115189.
[8] Q. Shi, H. Chen, T. Geng, and H. Zhang, “Identifying the spatial imbalance in the supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, 6661, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116661.
[9] X. Cheng, S. Van Damme, L. Li, and P. Uyttenhove, “Cultural ecosystem services in an urban park: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies,” Landscape Ecology, vol. 37, pp. 1693–1705, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01434-8.
[10] S. Gai, J. Fu, X. Rong, and L. Dai, “Users’ views on cultural ecosystem services of urban parks: An importance–performance analysis of a case in Beijing, China,” Anthropocene, vol. 37, 100323, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100323.
[11] K. Katsuda, I. Saeki, K. Shoyama, and T. Kamijo, “Local perception of ecosystem services provided by symbolic wild cherry blossoms,” Ecosystems and People, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 275–288, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2065359.
[12] U. Schirpke, R. Scolozzi, and U. Tappeiner, “Not too small to benefit society: insights into perceived cultural ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps,” Ecology and Society, vol. 27, no. 1, 6, 2022, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12987-270106.
[13] R. Sultana, S. A. Selim, and M. S. Alam, “Diverse perceptions of supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services offered by urban green spaces in Dhaka, Bangladesh,” Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 8, no. 1, juac003, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juac003.
[14] C. A. M. S. Djagoun et al., “Perceptions of ecosystem services: a comparison between sacred and non-sacred forests in central Benin,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 503, 119791, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119791.
[15] N. N. Kaiser et al., “Societal benefits of river restoration – implications from social media analysis,” Ecosystem Services, vol. 50, 101317, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101317.
[16] B. Kovács et al., “Analysis of cultural ecosystem services of rock climbing settings in Mexico City: the case of Los Dinamos Recreational Park,” Ecosystems and People, pp. 370–382, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1946594.
[17] N. S. Richardson, “Characterizing the cultural ecosystem services of coastal sand dunes,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 546–551, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2021.01.008.
[18] L. Marcinkevičiūtė and R. Pranskūnienė, “Cultural ecosystem services: the case of coastal-rural area (Nemunas delta and Curonian lagoon, Lithuania),” Sustainability, vol. 13, 123, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010123.
[19] Z. Xia et al., “Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: a case study in peri-urban Shanghai, China,” Ecosystem Services, vol. 60, 101522, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101522.
[20] L. Zhou et al., “Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 114, 106286, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106286.
[21] R. Z. Guo et al., “Spatio-temporal characteristics of cultural ecosystem services and their relations to landscape factors in Hangzhou Xixi National Wetland Park, China,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 154, 110910, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110910.
[22] RRC-EA, Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Practitioner’s Guide. Suncheon, Republic of Korea, 2023.
[23] B. Burkhard and J. Maes, Mapping Ecosystem Services, 2017.
[24] F. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Chen, Y. F. Li, and H. Z. Huang, “Fault diagnosis of rotating machinery based on kernel density estimation and Kullback–Leibler divergence,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 28, pp. 4441–4454, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-014-1012-7.
[25] H.-A. Ch, B. S., and D. H., “Rapid ecosystem services assessment of Mundok Ramsar wetland in DPRK and opportunities to improve well-being,” Journal of Ecology and Environment, 2023, https://doi.org/10.5141/jee.23.010.
[26] R. J. McInnes and M. Everard, “Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka,” Ecosystem Services, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.024.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Davaagatan Tuyagerel, Munkhdulam Otgonbayar, Renchinmyadag Tovuudorj
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any research article in the Mongolian Journal of Geography and Geoecology is retained by the author(s).
The authors grant the Mongolian Journal of Geography and Geoecology a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
Articles in the Mongolian Journal of Geography and Geoecology are Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY.
This license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
