IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i4p337-d524325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Services Provisioning, Urban Growth and the Rural–Urban Interface: A Case Study from China

Author

Listed:
  • Haiying Feng

    (Qinzhou Development Research Institute, BeiBu Gulf University, Qinzhou 535011, China)

  • Victor R. Squires

    (School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5000, Australia
    The author is retired.)

  • Jingji Wu

    (School of Economics and Management, Beibu Gulf University, Qinzhou 535011, China)

Abstract

The rural-urban (peri-urban) interface zones are important places that generate demands for ecosystem goods and services (EG & S). Urban regions face transitions in land use that affect ecosystem services (EG & S) and thus human wellbeing. Especially in urban areas with high population densities (as in most of China) and high demand for EG & S, the future availability of such services must be considered in order to promote effective and sustainable decision making and prevent further ecosystem degradation. The challenge for local government planners and land managers is to find tools that allow relevant data to be collected and analyzed. Ideally, such tools should be able to give a rapid assessment, and not involve large teams of highly trained personnel or incur high costs. The paper reports on the development and trial of such a tool. The paper has three main parts. First, we present a brief overview of the current and developing situation in China, in relation to urbanization, population shifts and the creation of peri-urban areas (PUAs). Next, we build on insights from the literature and from discussions with village heads and county- and prefecture-level officials to develop an understanding of their needs for tools to help planning and land management within the constraints of the national policy. Lastly, a “template” was derived from our multi-method approach that provided a new technical tool for the rapid assessment of the value of EG & S in each of five land use categories. The tool embodies a way to address trade-offs between environmental, social and economic values in the transition zone between rural and urban areas. The tool was trialed in QinBei District in Guangxi Autonomous Region in south China and judged to be useful and adaptable to other rural–urban regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Haiying Feng & Victor R. Squires & Jingji Wu, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Provisioning, Urban Growth and the Rural–Urban Interface: A Case Study from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:4:p:337-:d:524325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/4/337/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/4/337/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    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. Daniel Cronan & E. Jamie Trammell & Andrew Kliskey, 2023. "From Uncertainties to Solutions: A Scenario-Based Framework for an Agriculture Protection Zone in Magic Valley Idaho," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, April.

    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. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    2. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    3. Wang, Xuan & Chen, Weiqi & Zhang, Luoping & Jin, Di & Lu, Changyi, 2010. "Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2549-2556, October.
    4. Noelia S. Bedoya-Perales & Guilherme Pumi & Angel Mujica & Edson Talamini & Antonio Domingos Padula, 2018. "Quinoa Expansion in Peru and Its Implications for Land Use Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    6. Petrosillo, Irene & Semeraro, Teodoro & Zurlini, Giovanni, 2010. "Detecting the 'conservation effect' on the maintenance of natural capital flow in different natural parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1115-1123, March.
    7. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    8. Brausmann, Alexandra & Bretschger, Lucas, 2018. "Economic development on a finite planet with stochastic soil degradation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-19.
    9. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    10. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    11. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    12. Breffle, William S. & Muralidharan, Daya & Donovan, Richard P. & Liu, Fangming & Mukherjee, Amlan & Jin, Yongliang, 2013. "Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: A Lake Michigan case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 152-161.
    13. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Samira F. Oliveira & Rachel B. Prado & Elaine C. C. Fidalgo & Ana P. D. Turetta & Joyce M. G. Monteiro & Bernadete da C. C. G. Pedreira & Gerson J. Y. Antonio & Renato L. de Assis & Sandro R. A. Oitav, 2024. "Climate Change and Ecosystem Services: A Participatory Approach in a Brazilian Mountainous Region," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 17(5), pages 1-1, September.
    15. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    16. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    17. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    19. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    20. 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.

    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:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:4:p:337-:d:524325. 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.