IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i22p8632-d448413.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Zuzheng Li

    (School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Xiaoqin Cheng

    (School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Hairong Han

    (School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

It is generally believed that land-use changes can affect a variety of ecosystem services (ES), but the relationships involved remain unclear due to a lack of systematic knowledge and gaps in data. In order to make rational decisions for land-use planning that is grounded in a systematic understanding of trade-offs between different land-use strategies, it is very important to understand the response mechanisms of various ecosystem services to changes in land-use. Therefore, the objective of our study is to assess the effects of land-use change on six ecosystem services and their trade-offs among the ecosystem services in the ecological conservation area (ECA) in Beijing, China. To do this, we projected future land-use in 2030 under three different scenarios: Business as Usual (BAU), Ecological Protection (ELP), and Rapid Urban Development (RUD), using GeoSOS-FLUS model. Then, we quantified six ecosystem services (carbon storage, soil conservation, water purification, habitat quality, flood regulation, and food production) in response to land-use changes from 2015 to 2030, using a spatially explicit InVEST model. Finally, we illustrated the trade-offs and/or synergistic relationships between each ecosystem service quantified under each of the different scenarios in 2030. Results showed that built-up land is projected to increase by 281.18 km 2 at the cost of water bodies and cultivated land from 2015 to 2030 under the RUD scenario, while forest land is projected to increase by 152.38 km 2 under the ELP scenario. The carbon storage, soil conservation, habitat quality, and the sum of ecosystem services (SES) would enrich the highest level under the ELP scenario. Land-use strategies that follow the ELP scenario can better maintain the ecosystem services and sustainable development of natural and social economic systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Zuzheng Li & Xiaoqin Cheng & Hairong Han, 2020. "Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8632-:d:448413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8632/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8632/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005.
    2. Pan, Ying & Xu, Zengrang & Wu, Junxi, 2013. "Spatial differences of the supply of multiple ecosystem services and the environmental and land use factors affecting them," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 4-10.
    3. Xia Li & Guangzhao Chen & Xiaoping Liu & Xun Liang & Shaojian Wang & Yimin Chen & Fengsong Pei & Xiaocong Xu, 2017. "A New Global Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Product at a 1-km Resolution for 2010 to 2100 Based on Human–Environment Interactions," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(5), pages 1040-1059, September.
    4. Robert Pontius & Wideke Boersma & Jean-Christophe Castella & Keith Clarke & Ton Nijs & Charles Dietzel & Zengqiang Duan & Eric Fotsing & Noah Goldstein & Kasper Kok & Eric Koomen & Christopher Lippitt, 2008. "Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(1), pages 11-37, March.
    5. Rimal, Bhagawat & Sharma, Roshan & Kunwar, Ripu & Keshtkar, Hamidreza & Stork, Nigel E. & Rijal, Sushila & Rahman, Syed Ajijur & Baral, Himlal, 2019. "Effects of land use and land cover change on ecosystem services in the Koshi River Basin, Eastern Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Chunliu Gao & Li Cheng & Javed Iqbal & Deqiang Cheng, 2019. "An Integrated Rural Development Mode Based on a Tourism-Oriented Approach: Exploring the Beautiful Village Project in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    8. Yang Bai & Christina P. Wong & Bo Jiang & Alice C. Hughes & Min Wang & Qing Wang, 2018. "Developing China’s Ecological Redline Policy using ecosystem services assessments for land use planning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Schirpke, Uta & Kohler, Marina & Leitinger, Georg & Fontana, Veronika & Tasser, Erich & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2017. "Future impacts of changing land-use and climate on ecosystem services of mountain grassland and their resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 79-94.
    10. Guangzhao Chen & Xia Li & Xiaoping Liu & Yimin Chen & Xun Liang & Jiye Leng & Xiaocong Xu & Weilin Liao & Yue’an Qiu & Qianlian Wu & Kangning Huang, 2020. "Global projections of future urban land expansion under shared socioeconomic pathways," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Wu, Ye & Tao, Yu & Yang, Guishan & Ou, Weixin & Pueppke, Steven & Sun, Xiao & Chen, Gongtai & Tao, Qin, 2019. "Impact of land use change on multiple ecosystem services in the rapidly urbanizing Kunshan City of China: Past trajectories and future projections," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 419-427.
    12. Lyu, Rongfang & Zhang, Jianming & Xu, Mengqun & Li, Jijun, 2018. "Impacts of urbanization on ecosystem services and their temporal relations: A case study in Northern Ningxia, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 163-173.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abera, Wuletawu & Tamene, Lulseged & Kassawmar, Tibebu & Mulatu, Kalkidan & Kassa, Habtemariam & Verchot, Louis & Quintero, Marcela, 2021. "Impacts of land use and land cover dynamics on ecosystem services in the Yayo coffee forest biosphere reserve, southwestern Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Zutao Ouyang & Pietro Sciusco & Tong Jiao & Sarah Feron & Cheyenne Lei & Fei Li & Ranjeet John & Peilei Fan & Xia Li & Christopher A. Williams & Guangzhao Chen & Chenghao Wang & Jiquan Chen, 2022. "Albedo changes caused by future urbanization contribute to global warming," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Youjung Kim & Galen Newman & Burak Güneralp, 2020. "A Review of Driving Factors, Scenarios, and Topics in Urban Land Change Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Zhang, Pengyan & Yang, Dan & Qin, Mingzhou & Jing, Wenlong, 2020. "Spatial heterogeneity analysis and driving forces exploring of built-up land development intensity in Chinese prefecture-level cities and implications for future Urban Land intensive use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Srijana Shrestha & Khem Narayan Poudyal & Nawraj Bhattarai & Mohan B. Dangi & John J. Boland, 2022. "An Assessment of the Impact of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Degradation of Ecosystem Service Values in Kathmandu Valley Using Remote Sensing and GIS," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Shuting Bai & Jiuchun Yang & Yubo Zhang & Fengqin Yan & Lingxue Yu & Shuwen Zhang, 2022. "Evaluating Ecosystem Services and Trade-Offs Based on Land-Use Simulation: A Case Study in the Farming–Pastoral Ecotone of Northern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    8. Hengyu Pan & Yong Geng & Ji Han & Cheng Huang & Wenyi Han & Zhuang Miao, 2020. "Emergy Based Decoupling Analysis of Ecosystem Services on Urbanization: A Case of Shanghai, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    9. Zhang, Yan & Wu, Tong & Song, Changsu & Hein, Lars & Shi, Faqi & Han, Mingchen & Ouyang, Zhiyun, 2022. "Influences of climate change and land use change on the interactions of ecosystem services in China’s Xijiang River Basin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. Ma, Shan & Duggan, Jennifer M. & Eichelberger, Bradley A. & McNally, Brynn W. & Foster, Jeffrey R. & Pepi, Eda & Conte, Marc N. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Ziv, Guy, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 6-18.
    11. Kikuko Shoyama, 2021. "Assessment of Land-Use Scenarios at a National Scale Using Intensity Analysis and Figure of Merit Components," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Milne, Russell & Anand, Madhur & Bauch, Chris T., 2023. "Preparing for and managing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks on reefs under threat from interacting anthropogenic stressors," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    13. Wang, Jinsong & Gao, Dongdong & Shi, Wei & Du, Jiayan & Huang, Zhuo & Liu, Buyuan, 2023. "Spatio-temporal changes in ecosystem service value: Evidence from the economic development of urbanised regions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Binglu Wu & Wenzhuo Liang & Jiening Wang & Dongxu Cui, 2022. "Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    15. Yang Gao & Zhen Shen & Yuexin Liu & Chaoyue Yu & Lihan Cui & Cuiling Song, 2023. "Optimization of differentiated regional land development patterns based on urban expansion simulation—A case in China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 45-73, March.
    16. Yu Chen & Yilian Liu & Shengfu Yang & Chengwu Liu, 2023. "Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services in the Wuling Mountains from a Transport Development Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Mahdis Sadat & Mahmood Zoghi & Bahram Malekmohammadi, 2020. "Spatiotemporal modeling of urban land cover changes and carbon storage ecosystem services: case study in Qaem Shahr County, Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 8135-8158, December.
    18. Lyu, Rongfang & Clarke, Keith C. & Zhang, Jianming & Feng, Junli & Jia, Xuehui & Li, Jijun, 2021. "Dynamics of spatial relationships among ecosystem services and their determinants: Implications for land use system reform in Northwestern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Penny, Jessica & Ordens, Carlos M. & Barnett, Steve & Djordjević, Slobodan & Chen, Albert S., 2023. "Vineyards, vegetables or business-as-usual? Stakeholder-informed land use change modelling to predict the future of a groundwater-dependent prime-wine region under climate change," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    20. Jian Zhou & Shan Jiang & Sanjit Kumar Mondal & Jinlong Huang & Buda Su & Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz & Ziyan Chen & Runhong Xu & Tong Jiang, 2022. "China’s Socioeconomic and CO 2 Status Concerning Future Land-Use Change under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8632-:d:448413. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.