The logic of recreation space governance in forest parks based on the theory of space production

Abstract

Forest parks are among the most important reserves. Forest recreation reflects the time requirements for resource usage and economic coordination for sustainable development. Human activities in forest parks are a major force for continuing space production. However, with the rapid development of forest recreation, expanded spaces and excessive expectations make sustainable development a great challenge. Analyzing the spaces of forest recreation; making conclusions about the spatial features; and analyzing requests regarding multiple characters, multi-functions, and land usage are all done through the process of space production, which based on the “Three Dimensions.” According to the problems of space alienation occurring in forest recreation, this paper proposes that the logic of space governance should return to the nature of the Three Dimensions itself. “Space justice production” and “reconstruction of we” should also offer countermeasures and advice for building a classification mechanism for the rights, responsibilities, and interests of recreation spaces; establishing recreation space control zones and strategies; and promoting space expansion simulations and facility scale measurement. The construction of spatial relationships and forms of social, ecological, and natural justice is necessary to offer a new method of space production and consumption balance for natural reserves.

Keywords:

• space production
• forest park
• recreation activity
• space demands
• space governance

1. Introduction

In 1974, the French Marxist philosopher Lefebvre first proposed the concept of the theory of space production, the core of which is that “space is produced and is the product of social practice,” emphasizing that the analysis of production should shift from “the production of things in space” to “the production of space itself” (Lefebvre, 1992). The theoretical framework of the “spatial triad” was created by Lefebvre; it divides space into three important dimensions: spatial practice, representation of the space, and representational space corresponding to three different types of space—”perceived space,” “conceived space,” and “lived space” (Lefebvre, 1992; Zhuang, 2004). The production of space is the process by which people create products that meet their survival and development needs. Its essence is to realize the resetting or reconstruction of materials in space through human practice activities, thereby creating a space suitable for human needs (Zhuang, 2012). During space production, space is reshaped by various factors, including economy, politics, and culture. It is a mixed production of material space, social space, and social relationships. In the context of the “social turn” of human geography (Pan, 2009) and the “spatial turn” of sociology (Ai & Miao, 2010), the theory of space production provides a new research perspective on space governance (Zhao, 2019). Since the 1960s and 1970s, space and spatiality have been important elements of social life, along with the continuous emergence of spatial problems, especially in the process of modern tourism and natural and cultural resource utilization. Spatial justice, excessive commercialization, spatial deprivation, and other spatial problems have followed one after another. The governance of tourism spaces urgently requires a theoretical review and logical reflection (Liu, 2015; Wu et al., 2019; J. X. Sun & Su, 2014; Zhao, 2019).

The interaction between human activities and the resource environment always takes a territorial space as the main resource carrier, and with the development of productivity, the impact of human activities on a territorial space becomes more extensive and complex (Cao, 2019). Forest parks are the main carrier of forest recreation, and this vivid practice uses the slogan “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” (Zhang, 2012; Zhao et al., 2016). China began to establish forest parks in the early 1980s, and has now formed a pattern of joint development of forest parks at the national, provincial, and municipal (county) levels. By the end of 2017, 3,505 forest parks were approved nationwide, including 881 at the national level (with a total area of 127,861.91 km²; National Forestry and Grassland Administration National Park Administration Modern Forestry Industry network, 2018). In 2018, the number of forest tourists nationwide exceeded 1.6 billion, accounting for nearly 30% of domestic tourism and creating a comprehensive social output value of nearly 1.5 trillion yuan (Economic Daily, 2018). Governments at all levels and in all societies have affirmed forest parks in strengthening forest resource protection, popularizing natural science knowledge, and promoting forestry economic development (Huang et al., 2018; Lan et al., 2014). However, recreational activities are becoming more abundant and new business formats are frequently emerging. The recreational function space, as a carrier of recreational activities, is expanding and becoming more complex and complicated (Zhang, 2016). Unreasonable resource utilization and its spatial configuration, planning, and construction will seriously impact forest ecosystems (Arni & Khairil, 2013; Jabil & Mazdi et al., 2015; Zhao & Chen, 2019), and the problems of recreational space production and space governance in forest parks have become an unavoidable reality. The complex and multifaceted functions of spatial use make the process of the “humanization” of forest park recreation difficult in many ways, such as conflicting spatial use. The government, industry associations, and forest parks have proposed some countermeasures to address these issues; for example, many Chinese scholars have limited the total amount and intensity of forest park development by measuring resource carrying capacity and recreation carrying capacity (J. H. Zhang & Zhang, 2004; Wang et al., 2018), as well as applying techniques such as a geographic information system (GIS) to forest park master planning. Although these studies have addressed capacity issues to some extent, they have neglected issues such as recreation space allocation, patterns, and efficiency, and lacked the technical pathways to measure the interaction between people, spaces, and forest systems, with weak support for sustainable management (Qiu et al., 2021). Management authorities have issued forest park design specifications, engineering technical specifications, and master planning specifications, stipulating resource protection and the proportion of service building land area. However, these responses do not fundamentally address the dilemma of the impact of forest recreation. Forest Park recreational space production and spatial governance issues are unavoidable. Lefebvre’s theory of production space is a theoretical approach that can provide an in-depth consideration and exploration of the spatial governance of forest park recreation.

At present, China has moved from fragmented and single-factor governance to systematic and comprehensive governance of territorial spaces, which is a systematic coordination process for the use, benefit, and distribution of various resources and elements in urban and rural spaces (Guo & Cheng, 2010). This transition was based on the interests of multiple governments, markets, and social authority and responsibility subjects, considering public, departmental, and private interests and integrating political, economic, social, ecological, and technological relationships (J. X. Zhang & Chen, 2014). Based on the spatial triad, which is the core of the theoretical framework of space production by Lefebvre—namely, spatial practice, representations of space, and spaces of representation (Lefebvre, 1992)—the process of spatial production of forest recreation is deconstructed, and the spatial demands of recreation are analyzed, and proposes a logical model for recreation space governance. The paper is a theoretical study, not an empirical study that relies on empirical data. It develops a model that can be used to effectively analyze the spatial governance of forests, with the aim of providing new perspectives and ideas for the spatial governance of forest park recreation activities from a logical starting point.

2. The theory of space production

2.1. Theoretical introduction

Since Lefebvre proposed the theory of space production, the assertion that “space is society” has become a consensus. Therefore, the theory of space production has unified the “material, spiritual and social fields” (Wang, 2011), and inspired a series of popular research directions, including the “spatial turn of culture” and the “social turn of space” (Xie, 2010). When space is regarded as a social product, spatiality is both a tool for individual value selection and a result of group value identification (Soja, 2007). In order to conceptualize the many dimensions of social space (material, spiritual, and, above all, the cultural aspects of social spatialization) using a unified “theory of social space,” Lefebvre proposed a triple dialectic of spatial practices, spatial representations, and representational space. Among them, space practice means that “space” is dialectically produced as “human space.” It is a physical space form based on the planning of our historical heritage and fragments of our territory. Today, spatial practice is broken down into architecture and urban planning, making it appear to be merely a configuration between objects. This common sense of space, Lefebvre complained, thus limits our “perceptual space” and makes us neglect the practice of spatialization in general, as well as the imagination and meaning of places and regions (Lefebvre, 1992). Therefore, spatial practices should be integrated into the overall living space, which is also called the perception of space by Lefebvre. The representation of the space is conceptualized; that is, the spaces of scientists, urbanists, planners, technocratic “parcel dividers,” and social engineers (Liu, 2016). The representation of the space is abstract depictions of spatial logics, forms of knowledge, theories, ideologies of codes related to relations of production, i.e., expertise fragmented into fragments, such as “planning science,” geography, cartography, and GIS (Lu, 2021). Lefebvre was highly critical of this abstract space that abstracted, simplified, and logically transformed the experience of life into a set of quantitative relations of movement and change. He saw this space, which became an order of relations of production, as the space that reigns in any society (or mode of production) and as a space of conception. Representational space is a complex reconfiguration of existing space and a critique of the dominant social order of capitalism. It is a reflexive concept, a central category of living space that offers a set of alternative options for reconfiguring spatial regimes and establishing new modes of spatial inhabitation, which Lefebvre called spaces for direct living (vecu/directly lived), or spaces of experience, socialized imaginary spaces. The above three aspects are interconnected, interpenetrate each other, and are involved in the formation of space at all times. According to Lefebvre, triadic space corresponds to three domains: first, the physical domain of nature and materiality, depicted in a practical and sensory way. Second, the mental realm of logical and formal abstractions, specified by way of mathematics and philosophy, and the social realm, the realm of planning, design, and foresight, where the practice of space produces perceptible aspects of space, and the production of knowledge comes from the representation of the space. Third, the production of meaning is closely linked to representational space and produces a certain kind of experiential space. In a broad sense, social spaces include perceptual, conceptual, and experiential spaces. In a narrower sense, it refers to the space of spirit, which is critically understood in mechanical opposition to the space of natural matter (Lefebvre, 1992; Lu, 2021).

Recreation is one of the most important spiritual needs of people. Compared to the term “tourism,” which is restricted in forest parks due to the ecological environment, many Chinese tourism scholars recognize that “recreation” refers to leisure or rejuvenating activities, and is more aptly used in relation to national parks, forest parks, and nature reserves. Recreation is more appropriate and reflects the public interest objectives of forest parks more than the term “tourism” (B. H. Wu, 2001; He et al., 2019; Su & Su, 2018; C. Z. Wu, 1997; Zhang et al., 2019). Forest recreation activities can satisfy human recreational needs and bring comprehensive social, economic, and ecological benefits (Liao, 2006). With the complexity of human activities, the conflict between the function of human production and the protection of natural ecosystems on the surface of the land has become increasingly prominent in limited territorial spaces (Fan et al., 2019). The disorderly expansion of forest recreational spaces is bound to affect national ecological security and is also a frontier scientific issue in the spatial planning of territorial land and the space governance of nature reserves. As an important theory of transforming “personal space” into “general space,” introducing the theory of space production can provide a new perspective on the logic of space governance of forest park recreation activities from the “starting point.”

2.2. Proof of applicability

The origin of recreational space production in forest parks lies in the coupling of the materiality of the “forest system” and the social value of “recreational behavior.” Modern recreational activities have made the production process of forest recreational spaces more complex and multi-dimensional, involving multiple participants, multi-functional composites, and multiple land uses. Driven by social needs and interests, recreational spaces in forest parks have become increasingly commercialized and have continued to expand, resulting in inefficient and unecological resource utilization. For example, Zhangjiajie National Forest Park, Guangdong Guanyin Mountain National Forest Park, Jilin Zhuque Mountain National Forest Park, Qilian Mountain Tianzhu Shimen Forest Park, and Ningxiang Xiangshan National Forest Park have all caused resource and ecological environmental damage for various reasons, including the disorderly construction of project facilities, chaotic space usage, and insufficient service spaces (China Business Daily Tourism Guide, 2018; China Jilin, 2008; Wuwei Daily, 2017; Changsha Evening Newspaper, 2018). This triggered the author to think about and explore the space governance of forest parks.

In 2019, the state successively issued documents on establishing nature reserve systems, natural forest protection, and restoration systems, and stimulating tourism consumption potential. New requirements have been proposed for forest tourism, such as not destroying surface vegetation, not affecting biodiversity conservation, focusing on the development of forest sports projects, and building a high-quality and diversified ecological tourism product system. In this context, the positive and negative effects of the production of forest park recreational spaces should be reflected more in the theory and practice of space governance. On the one hand, the production of recreational spaces in forest parks reflects the requirements of the times for the coordinated and sustainable development of resource utilization and economy (C. C. Wu, 2000). On the other hand, the production of forest park recreation spaces faces the problems of excessive commercialization and the fragility of natural spaces, which is a re-examination of power, capital, and social relations in the process of producing spaces for human sociality in the context of forest recreation.

3. A three-dimensional spatial analysis of forest parks

Lefebvre pointed out that space production is the whole process of developing, designing, using, and transforming space, which is, in essence, the process of the “humanization” of nature (Marek, 2014). The production of recreational spaces in forest parks transforms the natural spaces of forest resources into social and cultural spaces for recreational activities. As the degree of “humanization” deepens, recreational products, business formats, and project innovation create new demands for natural spaces. As a result, the production of forest recreational spaces is realized through the spatial reset of materials. Forest resources are transformed from natural and production spaces into consumption and service spaces, and material spaces are continuously transformed into social spaces through construction, transformation, expansion, facility renewal, product innovation, and other means.

3.1. Spatial practice

According to the “spatial triad” theoretical framework by Lefebvre, the space practice of forest parks focuses on the material space production of recreational experience; that is, the material space of forest recreational activities, which is closely related to recreational activities. Recreational activities act on recreational facilities. The area that carries the recreational facilities is the recreational space (Kurek et al., 2008), which is the area of recreation products services, distribution, and consumption, and recreational spaces with the same function may be discontinuous but connected by another functional space (Marek, 2014). Generally, there are two necessary conditions for the definition of recreational space: the existence of recreational activities and the existence of recreational facilities and their scale and functions. The types of recreational activity in forest parks can be divided into soft and hard adventure tourism (Table 1). Hard adventure tourism activities require a certain range of activities, whereas soft adventure tourism activities are fixed in a small range (Tu, 2017), which are relative concepts and can be transformed into each other at any time. The physical space occupied by recreational facilities is the carrying entity of recreational activities (Cazelais & Nadeau et al., 2000), and the spatial sequence is guided by the demand for excursions (Urry, 1990). The spatial configuration is driven by different needs such as sightseeing, leisure, and cognition (Meyer, 2008).

Table 1. Forest recreation types

Recreational activity type	Major category	Sub-category	example	State transition
Hard adventure tourism activities	Forest sports	Forest adventure	Caving, etc.	Hard adventure Soft adventure
		Mountain sports	Rock climbing, hiking, skiing, etc
		Watersports	Drifting etc.
	Forest leisure	Forest taste shopping	Taste game, buy forest specialty, etc
		Forest leisure picking	Forest fruit, flowers, etc
		Forest folk leisure	Visit villages and folk activities
	Forest view	Forest natural landscape sightseeing	View flowers, view rocks, view forests, etc
Soft adventure tourism activities		Forest cultural landscape sightseeing	Temple pilgrimage, stele, etc
		Forest flora and fauna landscape sightseeing	Watch birds, animals, plants, etc
	Forest education	Forest science popularization	Popularization of animal and plant science, etc
		Forest scientific research	Geomorphology, vegetation, etc
		Forest art	Sketching, photography, etc
	Forest resort	Forest health vacation	Environmental convalescence, Buddhist health, etc
		Forest camping vacation	Camping, picnics, etc
		Forest spa vacation	Hot spring bath, cold spring bath, etc

Source:Ning Z Z, Wang L, Hu X J, et al. Research on the development of natural resource-based tourist attractions[M]. China Travel &Tourism Press, 2020.

3.2. The representation of the space

The representation of space focuses on the spiritual space that symbolizes imagination (Ming & Duan, 2014). It focuses on the space conceived by planners, engineers, and local governments, which belongs to the dimension in which social space is conceived, and presents the actual and tangible landscape, heritage, and recreational space of the forest park in the form of government documents, written laws and regulations, plans, marketing advertisements, and other language symbol systems. The representation of the forest park recreation space dominates the production of space through numerous things, including mapping, language, and logos. Therefore, the essence of the space is a symbolic system composed of knowledge, symbols, and codes, and the representation of the forest park recreation space is related to various phenomena, such as the geological landscape, science popularization, culture and art, national folklore, and ritual beliefs. The representation of space is a description of the nature of the space itself and the functions assigned outside the space. Therefore, this is the basis for classifying spatial functions. For example, Yellowstone National Park in the United States divides recreational spaces into facility spaces, such as trails, external roads, service centers, and camping areas (Cheng et al., 2013; Yan & Shen, 2015). At the same time, the Canadian National Park splits recreational spaces into four types: recreation, appreciation, science education, and park service support (Yu et al., 2017). The National Forest Park Master Plan of China (LY/T2005–2012) divides forest park spaces into four categories: ecological conservation, management operations, core landscapes, and general recreation. There is no unified division of general recreation spaces. According to the types of recreational facility, Ge et al. (2009) divided the recreational function spaces of forest parks into seven types: accommodation, recreational, guidance, environmental, recreational, municipal, and comprehensive disaster prevention and mitigation.

3.3. Representational space

The representational space focuses on the unity of perception and imagination, which is the process by which recreationists participate in the production of forest park recreational spaces. The integration of materiality and sociality constitutes the experiential space of recreation spaces in forest parks. The representational space contains both spatial practice and the representation of space, but is different from these two types of space. It exists in the main body, which is reflected in the three characteristics of the “point-line,” “gathering,” and “interaction” of recreation activities in the forest park. First, the soft and hard adventure tourism of forest recreational activities determine that recreational activities have the characteristics of soft adventure fixed points and strong flow lines. Second, due to the fixation of recreational attractions, the behavior of recreational activities also has the characteristic of gathering. Finally, because forest recreation activities are based on forest resources and the soft-hard adventure tourism state transformation of recreational activities, the behavior of recreation activities has the characteristics of human-human and human-object interaction. The production process of forest park recreation spaces goes from physical-geographical space to political-economic space to cultural-psychological space, constituting an interactive process of spatial socialization (natural humanization) and social spatialization (humanization of nature; Yu, 2022). This reflects the unification of the natural, historical, and social attributes of forest park recreational spaces and production.

4. The space requirements for recreational activities in forest parks

The more human beings develop, the more the “humanized” space expands. The more the space product increases, the more specific the forms of space products are away from the original state of the personal space (Zhuang, 2012). The production of recreational activity spaces in forest parks transforms natural capital into economic capital based on the spatial demands of recreational activities.

4.1. Spatial claims of multiple subjects

Currently, most national forest parks operate under the promotion of the government. Using the government-led market-oriented operation mode, the government plays the role of manager and developer. In the specific process of space production, the management of forest parks can be subdivided into various organizations, including the government, relevant departments, and forest park management agencies. The landscape and recreational spaces of the forest park were used as the means of production to obtain output. This process extends to providers and consumers of recreation products, namely, recreation product operators and recreationists. In addition, the practice of forest park recreation spaces will impact the daily production, life, and living conditions of community residents in and around the forest park, as they are the stakeholders for the production of forest park recreational spaces. The five main stakeholders are government departments, management agencies, recreation product operators, recreationists, and community residents. Each has their own demands on the representation of space and representational space. In addition, each of them has expectations regarding their rights. These demands and rights are interrelated, and the spatial demands mainly focus on ecological protection, sustainable use of resources and the environment, spatial use control, spatial flexibility, spatial justice, spatial profitability, reducing interference, static and dynamic separation, convenience and accessibility, and meeting the supporting aspects (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Multi-subject demands of recreation space in forest park.

4.2. Multi-functional space claims

In the process of development from ecological production forests to consumption and service forests, the first goal of recreationists is to integrate nature and experience nature to obtain physical and mental relaxation. As a result, natural resources have become the primary producers of recreational forest spaces. To gain popularity and become a lasting attraction in tourism development, natural resources are designed, developed, and transformed to become natural capital while gradually deriving different spatial utilization methods. The partitioning of the representation of the spaces of forest parks and their loaded resources; the determination of functions, themes, construction planning, and implementation plans (Ning et al., 2020); and the division of functional types have led to the enhancement of spatial and social production benefits and further transformation to economic capital.

The main functions of forest parks are divided into five major functions: forest protection, management services, commercial services, transportation tours, and infrastructure. The forest protection function is mainly ecological protection, conservation, and restoration, and this function space is not developed and constructed and is not open to tourists. The management service function mostly refers to the control of forest park development, daily maintenance of forest park operations, and handling of forest park emergencies. This function generally requires a certain amount of space for personnel offices, equipment storage, and personnel accommodation. Commercial service functions mainly refer to the food, lodging, and retail services provided to tourists in a forest park, and this function requires a certain scale of space for the construction of hotels, restaurants, kiosks, and other facilities. Transportation functions refer to the various transportation services and general recreation services provided to tourists in the forest park to realize the spatial displacement of tourists from one point in space to another, which demands a large amount of linear space and point-shaped space, such as viewing platforms, plazas, and cruise terminals. The infrastructure function provides a basic guarantee for the normal development of various reception and operational activities in the forest park, mainly referring to water supply and drainage, power supply, communication, firefighting, and sanitation facilities. This function requires a large number of point-shaped facility spaces (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Multi-functional demands of recreation space in forest park.

4.3. Spatial claims of land use

The recreational space of a forest park carries different natural bases, landscapes, activities, and scenes, as well as natural resource capital and cultural capital that represent specific geological features, cultural accumulations, historical relics, ethnic folklore, and ritual beliefs. They enhance the productivity of the recreational space of forest parks. When the means of production are transformed into recreational products and projects, the forest park recreation space gains output. Therefore, land is the basic material condition for the forest recreation space to obtain output. Land use in forest parks can be broadly divided into two types: non-construction and construction. Non-construction land is mainly occupied by the forest protection function space and the forest and water landscapes as the core attraction space in the forest park. It has high ecological sensitivity, but visiting without entering the space does not affect the ecological environment of the space. The construction land is mainly occupied by four types of functional spaces in the forest park: management services, commercial services, transportation, and infrastructure. The space has the characteristics of a small scale, scattered distribution, various types, low construction intensity, and high land combination (Ning et al., 2020). The construction land space is usually arranged in a dispersed pattern in forest parks. Because of the large scale of the ecological unit of the forest system, the tour distance is long and construction projects are scattered along the tour route. Management, recreational, and sanitation facilities are distributed according to the needs of tourists within a certain service radius. Because of ecological environment limitations, resource landscape demands, landscape sightline constraints, and architectural function requirements, construction projects within forest parks are mostly buildings and structures with one or two stories, and the construction intensity is low. Owing to the multi-functional combination and weak segmentation demand for the construction of recreational facilities and projects, this type of space is closely connected and has a certain functional adhesion.

5. The logic of recreation space governance in forest parks

The recreational space of a forest park is the carrier of recreational activities, featuring the gradual entry of the government and private capital to earn profits by occupying, expanding, and transforming the space. The recreational space of the forest park is alienated as a commodity. Its production appears to focus on the tendency of space exchange value rather than the utilization value of the general public. Blind capital-led production of forest park recreation spaces causes harm to human beings and the ecological environment. Excessive intrusion into wildlife habitats makes it possible for wildlife to carry viruses that infect humans (Cui et al., 2019; D. L. Wang & Xing, 2016). In addition, unreasonable resource use and spatial configuration construction seriously impact the entire forest ecosystem (Arni & Khairil, 2013; Jabil & Mazdi et al., 2015). Forest Park recreational development is the process of forest park recreational space production and reconstruction. Recreational activities, driven by benefits, order, and emotional acquisition, have produced many spatial alienation problems. In this context, there is an urgent need to rationalize the process of forest park space production, reflect on and critique spatial problems, and reconstruct the logic of forest park space governance (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Reconstruction of the governance logic of recreation space in forest park.

5.1. Alienation and critique of space production

In the context of mass tourism, a large amount of capital has been invested in the environmental production of forest park recreational spaces. Under the incentives of local competition and performance assessment, the development behavior of forest parks led by individual local governments has an obvious tendency toward “corporatization.” The involvement of power and capital has also given birth to a large number of spatial violations and irregularities, which to a certain extent reflect the domination of power and capital expansion drive combined with the production of forest park recreation spaces. Article 11 of the “Administrative Measures for National Forest Parks” stipulates that the overall planning of national forest parks shall be reviewed by experts organized by the forestry authorities of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities and then submitted to the State Forestry Administration for approval. The approved national forest park master plan should not be amended within five years. If it is necessary to change the construction due to key projects at the national or provincial level, it shall be reported to the State Forestry Administration for approval. After establishing a national forest park and before approval of the overall plan, no artificial facilities such as permanent buildings or structures are allowed in forest parks. However, there are still many forest parks with illegal construction. Guangdong Guanyin Mountain National Forest Park has as many as 20 villas of various types and more than 100 illegal buildings, which have brought many obstacles to the overall planning of the park and its development (Sina News, 2018). Nevertheless, to date, the problem of illegal construction that has long plagued the Guanyin Mountain Forest Park has not been solved. A large number of illegal buildings such as villas, enterprise plants, and farms have existed in the park for a long time, and there are many low-lying areas and bare plots along the roads. Sand and dust are severe (China Architecture news, 2019), which has seriously damaged the ecological environment of the tourist spots. At the beginning of the approval process of the Laiwu Qishan National Forest Park in 2015, neighboring villager-built restaurants were temporarily put in the name of caretaker houses (Qilu Evening News, 2019). The later development of the famous cuisine brought popularity, but fumes and kitchen waste generated by illegal restaurants also caused damage to the ecological environment. The alienation of spaces into commodities has further triggered production speculation, spatial disorder, and element allocation imbalances of various types of capital in forest park recreational spaces, leading to many problems, such as vegetation destruction, damage to resource utilization, environmental pollution, biodiversity impacts, and wasted land resources, which has increased the difficulty of national space governance.

5.2. Logistic regression of space governance

By analyzing the space requirements of recreational activities in forest parks, portraying the production process of recreational spaces in forest parks, and reflecting on the problem of spatial alienation, the author was able to think deeply about the logic of recreational activities in forest parks and return to the essence of three-dimensional space. The recreational activities in forest parks have realized spatial practices; that is, to produce material space. Its spatial value is its acquisition of benefits. In addition, the alienation of space from commodities due to the drive of benefits leads to problems such as spatial speculation and overproduction. The governance logic of forest park spatial practices should return to the key point of the distribution of multiple interests and needs. The representation of space is a conceptual space, the process of giving connotation to space, and constructing a spatial order. Furthermore, unclear functional boundaries can lead to spatial disorders. According to the name, accumulation, theme, and image of the same qualitative spaces, the spaces and their loaded resources will be deployed spatially in different planning periods in the future (D. L. Wang & Xing, 2016), and governance logic will return to the key point of the functional nature and role of space. Representational space is an experiential space for recreational activities that focuses on using resources in the recreational process and the emotions they elicit. Due to the escalation of the demand for natural “experiences,” recreational activities are becoming more diversified, and resource utilization is getting more complicated. When facing the unbalanced allocation of resources and elements, the governance logic should return to the key point of “human-nature-material interaction.” Therefore, the governance logic of recreational spaces in forest parks should be “spatial justice” development-oriented production and reconstruction of recreation spaces, and then constructing a spatial relationship and form in line with social, ecological, and natural justice, and gradually establishing a set of space production and consumption balance of the space governance paradigm.

5.3. Suggestions on space governance

The development of forest recreation is the result of the production of forest recreation spaces, which involves the distribution and reproduction of forest resources, social relationships, and capital assets. In this process, space is intertwined with resources, residents, power, and capital. The value orientation of space production is undoubtedly a core issue that cannot be avoided in space production (F. L. Wang & Liu, 2013). The proposal of spatial justice clarifies the basic value orientation of space production, which focuses on the equality and openness of spatial resources, advocates the advantages of spatial development to benefit all interests, and criticizes the phenomena of deprivation, disorder, and imbalance in space production (D. L. Wang & Xing, 2016).

This paper takes “spatial justice” as a guide and proposes the following measures for the governance of recreational spaces in forest parks (Figure 4):

Figure 4. Forest park spatial governance strategy framework.

1. Construct a mechanism for distributing power, responsibility, and interests in recreation spaces to achieve social justice. Clarify the stakeholders and their functions in the recreational spaces of forest parks and establish a fair distribution mechanism for power, responsibilities, and benefits. It is necessary to reposition the role of each subject, enhance the governance ability of government departments to deal with contradictions and conflicts in forest park recreational spaces (C. Zhang, 2020) and strengthen the power of planning approval and the control of spatial use to prevent over-exploitation and ensure the systemic integrity of the forest system. Strengthen the guarantee function of the full-time management organization of forest parks; clarify the management, operation, and profitability powers; and guarantee the planning, construction, completion, operation, and daily inspection supervision and maintenance of recreational functions in the forest parks. Clarify the production and profit-making power of recreational operators, who are mainly responsible for the production and investment of forest park recreational resources and service facilities, and specify the distribution of benefits, environmental protection, and maintenance responsibilities. Shed light on the supervision of community residents, ecological compensation power, clear supervision of recreationists, and tour profit power. Both recreational operators and community residents are responsible for supervising resources and the environment.

2. Develop recreational space control zoning and strategies to realize ecological justice. Based on remote sensing data of forest parks; topographic maps; and thematic map information on geology, geomorphology, vegetation, and soil, a database of basic geographic information of forest parks was constructed to analyze the characteristics of background resources and existing problems. An ecological network can be constructed using the morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA) method to identify ecological sensitivity factors (Soille & Vogt, 2009; J. Sun & Southworth, 2013; Sura et al., 2011; Vogt et al., 2009; Wickham et al., 2010), and the ArcGIS spatial analysis method can be used to analyze and comprehensively evaluate the ecological sensitivity of single factors. It is possible to construct a location condition factor system, analyze traffic accessibility, and evaluate the spatial potential of the site. The constraint-potential model is used to evaluate the suitability of land for construction, obtain spatial control zones, identify strategic growth spaces (Yin et al., 2015), and formulate control strategies such as spatial development intensity and boundary control, comprehensive land use scale management, and land-use zoning that combines “rigid” and “flexible” land use.

3. Promote spatial expansion simulation and facility-scale measurement to achieve natural justice. First, data such as remote sensing images, digital elevation models, and planning information of forest parks are used to carry out data processing, database construction, and model data layer creation based on the RS and GIS software platforms. Combining the actual situation and future development policies of the area where the forest park is located, the prediction scenarios containing different facility scales and carrying capacity scales are set by modifying layers and adjusting model parameters, and the spatial expansion of forest park construction land under different scenarios is simulated by the model. Subsequently, the spatial policy systems of the ecological spatial framework, ecological protection zone, spatial expansion intensity, spatial expansion direction, scale of recreation facilities, and type and scale of recreational land are proposed.

6. Conclusion and discussion

As one of the most important types of nature reserve, forest parks have different creation subjects, social processes, and operational mechanisms from cities and villages, creating unique spatial relationships and forms (Meng & Zhang, 2018) and forming unique spiritual and social attributes. Based on the perspective of space production, this study provided an in-depth analysis of the space production process of forest park recreation and the spatial demands of recreational activities. It also constructed a logical framework for space governance of forest parks and proposed space governance countermeasures. The main conclusions are as follows.

1. Recreational activities in forest parks have become an important force in the production of recreational spaces. Recreational activities have three requirements for the production of recreational spaces: multi-subjects, multi-functions, and land-use methods.

2. Based on the spatial demands of recreational activities, analyses of governance problems such as the alienation of recreational spaces and the space governance logic of forest parks should return to the “three-dimensional” spatial essence; that is, the production and reconstruction of recreational spaces with the development orientation of “spatial justice” as the starting point.

Unlike previous studies on forest park recreation spaces that focused on physical form, resource carrying capacity, and tourism capacity measurement to limit the total amount and intensity of forest park development (J. H. Zhang & Zhang, 2004; Wang et al., 2018), this study portrayed the process of the production of recreational spaces in forest parks from the perspective of the demand and drive of space production. It deeply considered the actual problems of recreation space alienation. The logic of the governance of recreational spaces in forest parks was reconstructed, and it was proposed that space governance should return to the logical origin of three-dimensional space exchange value and practical value. It also proposed space governance countermeasures to provide a new perspective for studying space governance in the spatial alienation brought about by forest recreation. This has theoretical significance for the study of spatial problems arising from forest park recreational space production. However, the territory of China is huge, and the layout, reception scale, self-accommodation, and self-balancing capacity of forest parks in different climatic zones are very dissimilar. Therefore, this paper was only a theoretical discussion, and specific responses to the spatial governance of different types of forest park in different regions need to be followed up with more in-depth and targeted case studies.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. We do not analyse or generate any datasets, because our work proceeds within a theoretical approach.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Beijing Municipality Social Science Foundation under Grant [number 21GLC038].

Notes on contributors

Jiawen He

Jiawen He was an undergraduate student at Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture. Now she is a Master of Urban Planning at the University of Melbourne.

Ting Wang

Ting Wang is an Assistant Professor at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture. She was awarded her Ph.D at Tianjin University. She was also a post-doctoral in Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests include urban planning, planning and governance of urban and rural tourism space, tourism ecological planning and design.

He Zhu

He Zhu is an Assistant Professor at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture. He was awarded his Ph.D at Tsinghua University. He was also a visiting researcher in University College London, and TA in Tsinghua-MIT joint urban design program. His research interests include urban regeneration, urban governance, urban design.