Functioning of cultural attractors in Beijing as elements of urban green infrastructure

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2025-3-31-306-324

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Olga A. Illarionova

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: heatherpaw95@gmail.com

Alexandra I. Bancheva

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: ban-sai@mail.ru

Ekaterina A. Fortygina

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Graduate School of Innovative Business,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: katia55@yandex.ru

Abstract

The study assesses the functionality of green infrastructure (GI) at cultural attractions through the example of five historical parks in Beijing: The Temple of Heaven, the Forbidden City, the Summer Palace, Beihai Park, and the Old Summer Palace. The relevance of the work lies in the need to balance cultural heritage preservation and ecological functions of such sites amid urbanization. The selected parks are unique case studies, combining UNESCO World Heritage status (or the highest national tourism category, AAAA) with their role as major GI elements, reflecting centuries-old traditions of Chinese garden art rooted in the harmony of nature and architecture. Their development dynamics capture both historical challenges (destruction during wars and revolutions) and modern trends (urban greening, green corridor projects), making them representative models for studying GI multifunctionality. The methodology includes three stages: GIS analysis (MSPA, visual and automated interpretation of high- and ultra-high-resolution satellite imagery from Sentinel-2 and Google Planet) to evaluate GI spatial structure, connectivity, and composition; field observations of green zone functions (recreation, sports, cultural-historical value); modeling the impact of cultural status on GI condition through a system of compensatory properties. Central parks provide up to 43 % of the GI in Beijing’s historic core, but their isolation limits citywide connectivity. Peripheral parks are integrated into the city’s green belt, balancing ecological and recreational roles. Cultural significance drives the adoption of eco-oriented solutions (green drainage, waste segregation) and high-quality maintenance, mitigating negative impacts of high visitor traffic. The study demonstrates that cultural attractions can act as drivers of GI development under adaptive management, offering a model for harmonizing ecological, recreational, and historical priorities. The scientific contribution includes a novel GI assessment algorithm integrating landscape metrics and social functions, as well as the concept of an “eco-cultural balance”, where historical value enhances ecological resilience.

Keywords

green infrastructure, cultural attractors, tourist attractors, conflict of social and ecological functions, historical parks

References

  1. Anees M.M., Banzhaf E., Wang J., Joshi P.K. Quality Index Approach for Analysis of Urban Green Infrastructure in Himalayan Cities. Land, 2023. V. 12. P. 279. DOI: 10.3390/land12020279.
  2. Bartesaghi K.C., Osmond P., Peters A. Towards a Comprehensive Green Infrastructure Typology: A Systematic Review of Approaches, Methods and Typologies. Urban Ecosystems, 2017. V. 20. P. 15–35. DOI: 10.1007/s11252-016-0578-5.
  3. Chang M.E., Zhao Z.Q., Chang H.T., Shu B. Urban Green Infrastructure Health Assessment, Based on Landsat-8 Remote Sensing and Entropy Landscape Metrics. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 2021. V. 54. P. 417–430. DOI: 10.1080/22797254.2021.1948357.
  4. De Manuel B.F., Méndez-Fernández L., Peña L., Ametzaga-Arregi I. A New Indicator of the Effectiveness of Urban Green Infrastructure Based on Ecosystem Services Assessment. Basic and Applied Ecology, 201. V. 53. P. 12–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2021.02.012.
  5. Fesikova O.V., Nikishina Yu.D. Philosophical Basis of Chinese Gardens. World Scientific Research of Our Time: Opportunities and Prospects for Development. Proceedings of the XVI International Scientific and Practical Conference, 2022. P. 329–332 (in Russian).
  6. Forman R.T.T. Values of Large-Versus-Small Urban Greenspaces and their Arrangement. New York: Routledge Ltd, 2022. 488 p.
  7. Hanna E., Bruno D., Comín F.A. Evaluating Naturalness and Functioning of Urban Green Infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2023. V. 80. P. 127825. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127825.
  8. Hansen R., Frantzeskaki N., McPhearson T., Rall E., Kabisch N., Kaczorowska A. The Uptake of the Ecosystem Services Concept in Planning Discourses of European and American Cities. Ecosystem Services, 2015. V. 12. P. 228–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013.
  9. Ignatieva M. Evolution of the Approaches to Planting Design of Parks and Gardens as Main Greenspaces of Green Infrastructure. Urban Services to Ecosystems: Green Infrastructure Benefits from the Landscape to the Urban Scale, 2021. P. 435–452. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-75929-2_23.
  10. Illarionova O.A., Klimanova O.A. Assessment of Environmental Justice of Green Infrastructure of the City of Vladikavkaz. InterCarto. InterGIS. Proceedings of the International Conference, 2024. V. 30. Part 2. P. 528–542 (in Russian). DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2024-2-30-528-542.
  11. Klimanova O.A., Kolbovsky E.Yu., Illarionova O.A. Green Infrastructure of the City: State Assessment and Development Design. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd, 2020. 324 p. (in Russian).
  12. Kümmerling M., Müller N. The Relationship Between Landscape Design Style and the Conservation Value of Parks: A Case Study of a Historical Park in Weimar, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021. V. 107. P. 111–117. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.006.
  13. Leung Y.F., Spenceley A., Hvenegaard G., Buckley R., Groves C. Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability. Gland: IuCN, 2018. V. 27. 129 p.
  14. Mileusnić Škrtić M., Tišma S., Grgurević D. Conservation Under Siege: The Intersection of Tourism and Environmental Threats in Croatian Protected Areas. Land, 2024. V. 13. P. 2114. DOI: 10.3390/land13122114.
  15. Morpurgo J., Remme R.P., Van Bodegom P.M. CUGIC: The Consolidated Urban Green Infrastructure Classification for Assessing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2023. V. 234. P. 104726. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104726.
  16. Petrov L.A., Kolbovsky E.Yu. Modern Methods of Spatial Analysis of Green Infrastructure of Urbanized Territories (On the Example of the City of Grozny). Grozny Natural Science Bulletin, 2020. V. 5. No. 3 (21). P. 39–51 (in Russian). DOI: 10.25744/genb.2020.20.3.004.
  17. Wu J., Xiao Y., Zhu L., Cheng S. The Identification of Historic Plant Landscape Characteristics and Conservation Strategies for Longevity Hill Based on the WSL Monoplotting Tool. Land, 2024. V. 13. P. 1255. DOI: 10.3390/land13081255.
  18. Yang J., Jinxing Z. The Failure and Success of Greenbelt Program in Beijing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2007. V. 6. P. 287–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.02.001.
  19. Zhang M., Chen K., Liu H., Yi Y. Analysing Carbon Density in Urban Parks by Considering the Management of Different Functional Parks: A Case Study in Beijing. Ecological Indicators, 2024. V. 166. P. 112411. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112411.

For citation: Illarionova O.A., Bancheva A.I., Fortygina E.A. Functioning of cultural attractors in Beijing as elements of urban green infrastructure. InterCarto. InterGIS. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2025. V. 31. Part 3. P. 306–324. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2025-3-31-306-324 (in Russian)