IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8774-d866184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Expansion Characteristics of Aquaculture Ponds and Variations in Ecosystem Service Value from the Perspective of Protecting Cultivated Lands: A Case Study of Liyang City, China

Author

Listed:
  • Bochuan Zhao

    (Shanghai Academy of Fine Arts, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Yongfu Li

    (Shanghai Academy of Fine Arts, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Yazhu Wang

    (Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210000, China)

  • Guoqing Zhi

    (College of Applied Arts and Sciences, Beijing Union University, No. 197 Beitucheng West Road, Beijing 100191, China)

Abstract

In the context of global food insecurity, a large amount of cultivated land in China has been occupied by aquaculture ponds, leading to a series of variations in the ecological environment. The Chinese government pays close attention to the problem. In order to achieve sustainable development and ensure the safety of China’s cultivated land, the paper uses Liyang City as an example to discuss the spatial characteristics of the expansion of aquaculture ponds through occupying cultivated lands and analyzes the variations in ecosystem service value and cultivated land function. The conclusions are as follows: (1) 2073.24 hectares of cultivated lands were occupied for expanding aquaculture ponds in Liyang from 2009 to 2019, and there was a small number of new aquaculture ponds in the ecological protection area, which shows that the aquaculture ponds in Liyang City are at the stage of disorderly expansion; (2) the total value of ecosystem services increased by 1.43%; supply and support services values decreased, but the increase in regulation and cultural services values was sufficient to more than compensate for the mentioned losses; and (3) the expansion of aquaculture ponds leads to a decrease in the carbon storage of cultivated land, which in turn has negative impacts such as an increase in atmospheric carbon concentration.

Suggested Citation

  • Bochuan Zhao & Yongfu Li & Yazhu Wang & Guoqing Zhi, 2022. "Research on Expansion Characteristics of Aquaculture Ponds and Variations in Ecosystem Service Value from the Perspective of Protecting Cultivated Lands: A Case Study of Liyang City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8774-:d:866184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8774/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8774/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Su, Yue & Qian, Kui & Lin, Lin & Wang, Ke & Guan, Tao & Gan, Muye, 2020. "Identifying the driving forces of non-grain production expansion in rural China and its implications for policies on cultivated land protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    4. Zhiyin Wang & Jiansheng Cao & Chunyu Zhu & Hui Yang, 2020. "The Impact of Land Use Change on Ecosystem Service Value in the Upstream of Xiong’an New Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Cheng, Long & Brown, Gregory & Liu, Yan & Searle, Glen, 2020. "An evaluation of contemporary China’s land use policy – The Link Policy: A case study from Ezhou, Hubei Province," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Schröter, Matthias & Koellner, Thomas & Alkemade, Rob & Arnhold, Sebastian & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Erb, Karl-Heinz & Frank, Karin & Kastner, Thomas & Kissinger, Meidad & Liu, Jianguo & López-Hoffman, , 2018. "Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PB), pages 231-241.
    7. Flaherty, Mark & Vandergeest, Peter & Miller, Paul, 1999. "Rice Paddy or Shrimp Pond: Tough Decisions in Rural Thailand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 2045-2060, December.
    8. Morshed, Md. Manjur & Islam, Md. Sariful & Lohano, Heman Das & Shyamsundar, Priya, 2020. "Production externalities of shrimp aquaculture on paddy farming in coastal Bangladesh," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nie, Xin & Li, Xiaojuan & Lyu, Chengyu & Su, Yanglan & Wang, Han, 2024. "Can ecological compensation based on the transfer of development rights (TDR) improve ecosystem service value? A multi-scenario simulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    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. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    2. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    3. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    4. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Min Liu & Jianpeng Fan & Yating Wang & Chanjuan Hu, 2021. "Study on Ecosystem Service Value (ESV) Spatial Transfer in the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration in the Yellow River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-27, September.
    7. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    8. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    9. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Villegas-Palacio, Clara & Berrouet, Lina & López, Connie & Ruiz, Aura & Upegui, Alba, 2016. "Lessons from the integrated valuation of ecosystem services in a developing country: Three case studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 297-308.
    11. Polishchuk, Yuliana & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2012. "Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 103-111.
    12. Uta Schirpke & Lukas Egarter Vigl & Erich Tasser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2019. "Analyzing Spatial Congruencies and Mismatches between Supply, Demand and Flow of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    13. García-Amado, Luis Rico & Pérez, Manuel Ruiz & Escutia, Felipe Reyes & García, Sara Barrasa & Mejía, Elsa Contreras, 2011. "Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2361-2368.
    14. Maurizio Sajeva & Marjo Maidell & Jonne Kotta & Anneliis Peterson, 2020. "An Eco-GAME Meta-Evaluation of Existing Methods for the Appreciation of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-47, September.
    15. Pirgmaier, Elke, 2021. "The value of value theory for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    16. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    17. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François & V, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    19. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    20. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.

    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:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8774-:d:866184. 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.