Value of biodiversity in Chinese urban parks from a social perspective

Abstract

While ornamental and recreational functions were traditionally the focus of urban parks in China, biodiversity conservation/enhancement has been increasingly seen as a prioritised goal. This promotes the use of the biodiversity-friendly approach in park design and the rise of a novel park style with a wild, less manicured appearance in Chinese cities. Such a park style contrasts with the traditional park style that has ornamental, manicured characteristics. Professionals state the benefits of the biodiversity-friendly approach, but the Chinese public’s response to this new approach remains unclear.

This research links the social and biodiversity values of Chinese urban parks by investigating how the public responds to the biodiversity-friendly approach to park design. More specifically, this research aims to 1) understand public reaction to biodiversity in urban parks, 2) investigate public perceptions of and preferences for the wild park style in contrast with the traditional style, and 3) examine preferences for park biodiversity and for the wild park style among the public’s different sociocultural groups and between the public and ecology/landscape professionals. A mixed-method approach, comprising focus groups, conjoint analysis and semi-structured interviews, was applied to address the three objectives. The study was conducted in Hangzhou and Shanghai, two Chinese cities that have strong contextual and temporal legitimacy of the biodiversity-friendly park approach but where local residents’ perceptions have been almost ignored.

The key findings revealed that in general, the public in both Hangzhou and Shanghai demanded higher levels of biodiversity in parks. Residents of Hangzhou prioritised both biodiversity and facilities as the most important attraction factors of parks, whereas residents of Shanghai valued facilities the most and considered this factor more important than biodiversity. Residents of both cities generally showed a greater preference for the traditional park style over the wild style, yet preferences for the wild park style were enhanced when it demonstrated higher maintenance levels and contained more good facilities and semi-open vegetated areas. The study found the importance of ecology/landscape professional involvement and education for the appreciation of biodiversity in parks in Shanghai. Moreover, professionals preferred the wild park style and had a significantly higher preference for this style than the public in both cities.

This research found that there was public demand for integrating higher biodiversity levels into park design but that this demand existed within a framework of good amenities and the traditional park style. This study’s findings partially support existing policies and practices for the biodiversity-friendly development of urban parks in China. Public engagement and differences in residents’ preferences compared with professionals should be incorporated into China’s biodiversity-related landscape development. This study provides a reference for Chinese urban parks in search of win-wins of biodiversity improvement and social expectation.