隨著都市化加速與氣候變遷持續影響，都市公園作為提供生態系統服務（Ecosystem Services, ES）的主要空間載體，其在促進城市永續與居民福祉上的角色愈發重要。都市綠地能改善空氣品質、緩解熱島效應，並兼具休憩與心理健康等多元社會效益。然而，現行都市綠地規劃多著重於空間面積或設施配置，較少從民眾偏好與生態價值認知的角度探討公園功能之優化方向。本研究以臺南市東區與北區面積介於2–20公頃之社區性小型公園為對象，採用選擇實驗法（Choice Experiment, CE）蒐集337份有效樣本，分析民眾對「改善空氣品質」、「緩解熱島效應」、「休憩功能」、「心理健康需求」與「提升生物多樣性」五項生態系統服務屬性之願付價格，並結合條件羅吉特模型、隨機參數羅吉特模型與潛在類別模型，探討偏好結構與異質性，並透過空間分析呈現不同公園之願付價格分布特徵。結果顯示，受訪者對改善空氣品質與緩解熱島效應具最顯著且穩定之偏好，顯示調節服務為都市公園之核心價值；心理健康與休憩功能亦獲支持。相較之下，生物多樣性之支付意願較低，潛在類別模型顯示居民偏好具有顯著異質性。整體而言，本研究透過量化居民偏好與結合空間分析，揭示都市公園多項生態系統服務之相對價值結構，補充現行以面積與設施為主之規劃依據之不足，提出一套可量化民眾偏好的生態系統服務評估架構，研究成果可作為都市規劃與綠地政策的重要依據。

With accelerating urbanization and climate change, urban parks play an increasingly important role in providing ecosystem services and supporting urban sustainability and residents’ well-being. However, current green space planning often emphasizes park area and facilities, with limited consideration of public preferences and perceived ecological values. This study quantifies residents’ preferences for multiple ecosystem service functions of urban parks and identifies their relative value structures for planning applications.Using a Choice Experiment with 337 valid samples from community-scale small urban parks (2–20 ha) in the East and North Districts of Tainan City, residents’ willingness to pay was estimated for five ecosystem service attributes. Conditional logit, random parameter logit, and latent class models were applied, and spatial analysis was used to examine the distribution of values across parks.The results show that improving air quality and mitigating the urban heat island effect exhibit the most stable and significant preferences, indicating that regulating services represent the core values of urban parks. Mental health and recreational functions are also strongly supported, while willingness to pay for biodiversity enhancement is relatively lower. Significant preference heterogeneity is observed among resident groups.Overall, this study provides a preference-based and spatially explicit ecosystem services assessment framework that complements area- and facility-oriented planning and supports evidence-based urban green space policy.

1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American journal of agricultural economics, 80(1), 64-75.
2. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, M. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of environmental economics and management, 26(3), 271-292.
3. Ahern, J. (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape ecology, 28(6), 1203-1212.
4. Amigues, J. P., Boulatoff, C., Desaigues, B., Gauthier, C., & Keith, J. E. (2002). The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological economics, 43(1), 17-31.
5. Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., & Gren, Å. (2014). Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio, 43(4), 445-453.
6. Andersson, Erik, et al. "Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service providing units." Ecosystem Services 12 (2015): 157-164.
7. Aram, F., García, E. H., Solgi, E., & Mansournia, S. (2019). Urban green space cooling effect in cities. Heliyon, 5(4).
8. Assessment, M. E. (2001). Millennium ecosystem assessment (Vol. 2). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
9. Bacon, D. R. (2003). A comparison of approaches to importance-performance analysis. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 1-15.
10. Bateman, I., & Department of Transport Großbritannien. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual (Vol. 50, p. 480). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
11. Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable resources journal, 20(3), 12-17.
12. Bhat, M. Y., & Sinha, A. (2016). Willingness to pay for preserving national park biodiversity: a case study. Economy, 3(2), 102-107.
13. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006). Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological economics, 60(1), 145-156.
14. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological economics, 29(2), 293-301.
15. Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Hattam, C., Piwowarczyk, J., Schasfoort, F., & Austen, M. C. (2018). The role of interdisciplinary collaboration for stated preference methods to value marine environmental goods and ecosystem services. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 201, 140-151.
16. Braat, L. C., & De Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem services, 1(1), 4-15.
17. Brander, L. M., & Koetse, M. J. (2011). The value of urban open space: Meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. Journal of environmental management, 92(10), 2763-2773.
18. Bratman, Gregory N., et al. "Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective." Science advances 5.7 (2019): eaax0903.
19. Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E., & Bateman, I. (2013). A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. VU University Amsterdam.
20. Buchel, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens’ voice: a case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 169–177.
21. Cameron, R. W., Blanuša, T., Taylor, J. E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A. J., Henricot, B., & Thompson, K. (2012). The domestic garden–Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban forestry & urban greening, 11(2), 129-137.
22. Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren't available. Journal of economic perspectives, 26(4), 27-42.
23. Carson, R. T., & Czajkowski, M. (2014). The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation. In Handbook of choice modelling (pp. 202-235). Edward Elgar Publishing.
24. Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and resource economics, 19(2), 173-210.
25. Chaisson, E. J., & Chaisson, E. (2002). Cosmic evolution: The rise of complexity in nature. Harvard University Press.
26. Chan, K. M., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., ... & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744-756.
27. Chan, Kai MA, Terre Satterfield, and Joshua Goldstein. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values." Ecological economics 74 (2012): 8-18.
28. Choumert, J., & Salanié, J. (2008). Provision of urban green spaces: Some insights from economics. Landscape Research, 33(3), 331-345.
29. Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological economics, 83, 67-78.
30. Costanza, R., & Kubiszewski, I. (2012). The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 16-25.
31. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, 387(6630), 253-260.
32. Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., ... & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global environmental change, 26, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
33. Czembrowski, P., & Kronenberg, J. (2016). Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 146, 11-19.
34. Dai, X., Wang, L., Tao, M., Huang, C., Sun, J., & Wang, S. (2021). Assessing the ecological balance between supply and demand of blue-green infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Management, 288, 112454.
35. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M., ... & Von Der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812-8819.
36. Daniels, M. L., & Marion, J. L. (2006). Visitor evaluations of management actions at a highly impacted Appalachian Trail camping area. Environmental Management, 38(6), 1006-1019.
37. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
38. De Groot, Rudolf, et al. "Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation." The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations. Routledge, 2012. 9-40.
39. Duan, B. L., Huang, L., Ban, J., & Bi, J. (2010). Evaluating the non-use value of biodiversity of the Hongze Lake Watershed. China Environmental Science, 30(8), 1135-1141.
40. Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S. N., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J. N., ... & de Groot, R. (2015). Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 14, 101-108.
41. Escobedo, F. J., Giannico, V., Jim, C. Y., Sanesi, G., & Lafortezza, R. (2019). Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors?. Urban forestry & urban greening, 37, 3-12.
42. Freeman Iii, A. M., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2014). The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Routledge.
43. Gao, Y., Pan, H., & Tian, L. (2023). Analysis of the spillover characteristics of cooling effect in an urban park: a case study in Zhengzhou city. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1133901.
44. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., ... & Elmqvist, T. (2014). A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio, 43(4), 413-433.
45. Haase, Dagmar, et al. "A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation." Ambio 43.4 (2014): 413-433.
46. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 1, 110-139.
47. Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of economic perspectives, 8(4), 19-43.
48. Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R. E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D., & Crabtree, B. (1998). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of agricultural economics, 49(1), 1-15.
49. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Adamowicz, V. (1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and resource economics, 11(3), 413-428.
50. Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2014). From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio, 43(4), 516-529.
51. Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. Journal of economic perspectives, 26(4), 43-56.
52. He, J., Moffette, F., Fournier, R., Revéret, J. P., Théau, J., Dupras, J., ... & Varin, M. (2015). Meta-analysis for the transfer of economic benefits of ecosystem services provided by wetlands within two watersheds in Quebec, Canada. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23, 707-725.
53. He, M., & Yang, C. (2024). Analyzing Cooling Island Effect of Urban Parks in Zhengzhou City: A Study on Spatial Maximum and Spatial Accumulation Perspectives. Sustainability, 16(13), 5421.
54. Holt, A. R., Mears, M., Maltby, L., & Warren, P. (2015). Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem services, 16, 33-46.
55. Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological economics, 69(8), 1595-1603.
56. Japelj, A., Mavsar, R., Hodges, D., Kovač, M., & Juvančič, L. (2016). Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Forest policy and economics, 71, 71-79.
57. Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., ... & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319-405.
58. Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., & Haase, D. (2015). Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact assessment review, 50, 25-34.
59. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of political economy, 74(2), 132-157.
60. Li, P., Chen, Y., Niu, H., Zhang, L., Tang, Y., Zhu, G., ... & Wu, W. (2024). How to evaluate the reduction effect of the park on PM2. 5? Exploratory application of the maximum and cumulative perspective. Sustainable Cities and Society, 116, 105909.
61. Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2010). Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 113-120.
62. Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of marketing research, 20(4), 350-367.
63. Louviere, J., & Timmermans, H. (1990). Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review. Leisure Sciences, 12(1), 9-32.
64. Luederitz, C., Brink, E., Gralla, F., Hermelingmeier, V., Meyer, M., Niven, L., ... & von Wehrden, H. (2015). A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosystem services, 14, 98-112.
65. Macháč, J., Brabec, J., & Arnberger, A. (2022). Exploring public preferences and preference heterogeneity for green and blue infrastructure in urban green spaces. Urban forestry & urban greening, 75, 127695.
66. Manski, C. F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and decision, 8(3), 229.
67. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
68. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014). Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological indicators, 37, 220-228.
69. McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443(7107), 27-28.
70. McFadden, D. (1972). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior.
71. Mell, I. C. (2008, June). Green infrastructure: concepts and planning. In FORUM ejournal (Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 69-80). Newcastle, UK: Newcastle University.
72. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (2013). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Rff press.
73. Monteiro, R., Ferreira, J. C., & Antunes, P. (2020). Green infrastructure planning principles: An integrated literature review. Land, 9(12), 525.
74. Mooney, H. A., Ehrlich, P. R., & Daily, G. E. (1997). Ecosystem services: a fragmentary history. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 1, 11-19.
75. Obeng, E. A., & Aguilar, F. X. (2018). Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services: Perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness-to-pay for ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 458-471.
76. Ojeda, M. I., Mayer, A. S., & Solomon, B. D. (2008). Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecological economics, 65(1), 155-166.
77. Qiu, T., Zhou, D., & Li, W. (2022). Fitness culture and green space equity: accessibility evaluation of shanghai communities. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 958649.
78. Sikorska, D., Łaszkiewicz, E., Krauze, K., & Sikorski, P. (2020). The role of informal green spaces in reducing inequalities in urban green space availability to children and seniors. Environmental science & policy, 108, 144-154.
79. Spash, C. L. (2008). The contingent valuation method: retrospect and prospect.
80. Strohbach, M. W., Lerman, S. B., & Warren, P. S. (2013). Are small greening areas enhancing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greening projects in Boston. Landscape and Urban Planning, 114, 69-79.
81. Sun, R., Li, F., & Chen, L. (2019). A demand index for recreational ecosystem services associated with urban parks in Beijing, China. Journal of environmental management, 251, 109612.
82. Syrbe, R. U., Neumann, I., Grunewald, K., Brzoska, P., Louda, J., Kochan, B., ... & Bastian, O. (2021). The value of urban nature in terms of providing ecosystem services related to health and well-being: An empirical comparative pilot study of cities in Germany and the Czech Republic. Land, 10(4), 341.
83. Tallis, H., & Polasky, S. (2009). Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural‐resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162(1), 265-283.
84. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and urban planning, 81(3), 167-178.
85. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. science, 224(4647), 420-421.
86. Van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological indicators, 37, 163-174.
87. Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vermeire, B., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Gellynck, X. (2011). The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landscape and urban planning, 103(2), 198-206.
88. Verma, R., Zawadzka, J. E., Garg, P. K., & Corstanje, R. (2024). The relationship between spatial configuration of urban parks and neighbourhood cooling in a humid subtropical city. Landscape Ecology, 39(2), 34.
89. WHO, 1948. In: Paper Presented at the Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as Adopted by the International Health Conference. New York.
90. Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun, Z., & Bao, Z. (2013). Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 44-52.
91. Zhang, X., Ni, Z., Wang, Y., Chen, S., & Xia, B. (2020). Public perception and preferences of small urban green infrastructures: A case study in Guangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 53, 126700.
92. 內政部營建署(1999)。「公園綠地管理及設施維護手冊」。臺北：內政部營建署。
93. 沈芝貝等人（2022）。利用選擇實驗法評估不同土地利用轉換為林地之生態系統服務給付。調查研究—方法與應用，第48期，頁93-148。
94. 王秀娟、王希智（2000）。都市地區公園綠地基礎調查與系統建立之研究——以臺北士林區為例。環境與藝術學刊，第一期，頁51-70。
95. 吳盈禎（2022）。民眾對於綠色基盤提升氣候變遷城市韌性效益認知之研究-以台北市為例。國立臺北大學。