IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i19p11958-d921537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Topography Affect the Value of Ecosystem Services? An Empirical Study from the Qihe Watershed

Author

Listed:
  • Li Li

    (School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
    Co-first author: These authors, Li Li and Yonghui Li, contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yonghui Li

    (Henan Provincial General Institute of Urban and Rural Planning and Design, Zhengzhou 450044, China
    Co-first author: These authors, Li Li and Yonghui Li, contributed equally to this work.)

  • Lan Yang

    (School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Ying Liang

    (School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Wenliang Zhao

    (School of Surveying and Planning, Shangqiu Normal University, Shangqiu 476000, China)

  • Guanyu Chen

    (School of Surveying and Planning, Shangqiu Normal University, Shangqiu 476000, China)

Abstract

Topographic position indices (TPIs) measure essential impacts on ecosystem service supply capacity. The identification of changes in ecosystem services and value metrics under varying TPIs has become a topical subject of global change research. Multidimensional changes in spatiotemporal and geographical aspects of ecosystem service values (ESVs) are assessed in this article using land cover/use data from 2000–2015. Effects of land-use/cover changes and topographic indices on ESVs are explored using the Chinese terrestrial unit area ecosystem service value equivalence table combined with topographic factors. A sensitivity index is introduced to quantify the robustness of total ESV to land-use/cover and topographic indices. The results show that: (1) The total ESV in the Qihe watershed declined with a change in land-use/cover during the period 2000–2015. The maximum ESV was CNY 1.984 billion in 2005 and the minimum was CNY 1.940 billion in 2010; (2) The response of ESV to land/use cover varied greatly across TPIs, with the most significant change in ESV occurring in the 0.6–0.8 TPI range and the greatest change in a single ecosystem service occurred in water areas; (3) The sensitivity indices of ESVs are all less than 1. The sensitivity indices of unused land and water tended to zero. Woodland sensitivity indices were the highest at 0.53, followed by those of arable land and grassland, owing to the large proportion of arable land and grassland areas in the overall area of land-use categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Li & Yonghui Li & Lan Yang & Ying Liang & Wenliang Zhao & Guanyu Chen, 2022. "How Does Topography Affect the Value of Ecosystem Services? An Empirical Study from the Qihe Watershed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:11958-:d:921537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/11958/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/11958/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joost Rietveld & Melissa A. Schilling & Cristiano Bellavitis, 2019. "Platform Strategy: Managing Ecosystem Value Through Selective Promotion of Complements," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1232-1251, November.
    2. Shiliang Liu & Yongxiu Sun & Xue Wu & Weiqiang Li & Yixuan Liu & Lam-Son Phan Tran, 2021. "Driving Factor Analysis of Ecosystem Service Balance for Watershed Management in the Lancang River Valley, Southwest China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Mueller, Hannah & Hamilton, David P. & Doole, Graeme J., 2016. "Evaluating services and damage costs of degradation of a major lake ecosystem," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 370-380.
    4. Mary Power, 1997. "The planetary piggy bank," Nature, Nature, vol. 388(6642), pages 529-530, August.
    5. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    6. Sutton, Paul C. & Costanza, Robert, 2002. "Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 509-527, June.
    7. Wan-Jiun Chen & Jihn-Fa Jan & Chih-Hsin Chung & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2022. "Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services in Hillside Forests," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    9. 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.
    10. Chengjin He & Huaiyong Shao & Wei Xian, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Forces Analysis of Eco-System Service Values: A Case Study of Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-22, July.
    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. Wan-Jiun Chen & Jihn-Fa Jan & Chih-Hsin Chung & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2023. "Agriculture Risks and Opportunities in a Climate-Vulnerable Watershed in Northeastern Taiwan—The Opinions of Leisure Agriculture Operators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Wan-Jiun Chen & Jihn-Fa Jan & Chih-Hsin Chung & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2023. "Do Eco-Based Adaptation Measures Enhance Ecosystem Adaptation Services? Economic Evidence from a Study of Hillside Forests in a Fragile Watershed in Northeastern Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Fengjie Gao & Jinfang Cui & Si Zhang & Xiaohui Xin & Shaoliang Zhang & Jun Zhou & Ying Zhang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Service Value in a Fragile Hilly Area of North China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Yan Li & Bin Ren & Feixue Li & Xinjie Shi & Penghui Jiang & Manchun Li, 2023. "Integrated Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystem Services Valuation and Result Variation Trends: A Case Study of Jiangsu Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-30, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Chen, Nengwang & Li, Huancheng & Wang, Lihong, 2009. "A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2768-2776, September.
    4. Xu, Xibao & Jiang, Bo & Tan, Yan & Costanza, Robert & Yang, Guishan, 2018. "Lake-wetland ecosystem services modeling and valuation: Progress, gaps and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 19-28.
    5. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Shuyao Wu & Jiao Huang & Shuangcheng Li, 2020. "Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China," Papers 2001.01605, arXiv.org.
    11. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Shuming Ma & Jie Huang & Yingying Chai, 2021. "Proposing a GEE-Based Spatiotemporally Adjusted Value Transfer Method to Assess Land-Use Changes and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Service Values in the Shenyang Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    14. Niccolucci, Valentina & Coscieme, Luca & Marchettini, Nadia, 2021. "Benefit transfer and the economic value of Biocapacity: Introducing the ecosystem service Yield factor," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    15. Jonathan Boston & Frieder Lempp, 2011. "Climate change," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(8), pages 1000-1021, October.
    16. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    17. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    18. Brown, Greg, 2013. "The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 58-68.
    19. Elliot, Thomas & Bertrand, Alexandre & Babí Almenar, Javier & Petucco, Claudio & Proença, Vânia & Rugani, Benedetto, 2019. "Spatial optimisation of urban ecosystem services through integrated participatory and multi-objective integer linear programming," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 409(C), pages 1-1.
    20. 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).

    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:19:p:11958-:d:921537. 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.