IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1378-d895511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Service Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis of a Typical Mine–Agriculture–Urban Compound Area in North Shanxi, China

Author

Listed:
  • Shufei Wang

    (School of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yining Zhuang

    (General Contracting Engineering Limited Company, China Construction Communications Construction Group, Beijing 100142, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yingui Cao

    (School of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
    Key Laboratory of Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation, Ministry of Natural Resources, Beijing 100035, China)

  • Kai Yang

    (School of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

The production–life–ecology balance in mine–agriculture–urban compound areas is receiving increasing attention in the context of urbanization and industrialization. This study aims to explore the coordinated development modes of ecosystem services and resident well-being in the Pingshuo open-pit mining area and the surrounding mine–agriculture–urban compound area in Pinglu District, Shuozhou City. Relevant models were used to evaluate the ecosystem service value of water and soil conservation, as well as ecological sensitivity. Additionally, using the hierarchical multiple regression method, we analyzed the responses of soil and water conservation services and ecological sensitivity to different land use patterns. The results showed the following. (1) The water conservation function (WCF) and soil conservation function (SCF) were greatly affected by land use and supplied mostly by the natural habitat, followed by the open-pit coal mining area. (2) Ecological sensitivity was greatly affected by land use patterns, with obvious differences in the same land use types in different spatial locations. (3) In order to enhance the WCF and SCF of the study area and reduce ecological sensitivity, the area and diversity of forest and grassland should be increased, and the area of open-pit mining, cultivated land, and urban land, as well as the land use compound degree, should be reasonably controlled. This study will help guide the regional land use layout and provide countermeasures and suggestions for the management of ecosystems in the mine–agriculture–urban compound area.

Suggested Citation

  • Shufei Wang & Yining Zhuang & Yingui Cao & Kai Yang, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis of a Typical Mine–Agriculture–Urban Compound Area in North Shanxi, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1378-:d:895511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1378/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1378/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Demirbugan, Alper, 2019. "Changes in ecosystem service benefit in Soma lignite region of Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Ze Han & Wei Song & Xiangzheng Deng, 2016. "Responses of Ecosystem Service to Land Use Change in Qinghai Province," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Changchang Liu & Chuxiong Deng & Zhongwu Li & Yaojun Liu & Shuyuan Wang, 2022. "Optimization of Spatial Pattern of Land Use: Progress, Frontiers, and Prospects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Honglei Cui & Mei Liu & Chen Chen, 2022. "Ecological Restoration Strategies for the Topography of Loess Plateau Based on Adaptive Ecological Sensitivity Evaluation: A Case Study in Lanzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.
    7. Qiuqin Zhang & Tianzhu Zhang, 2018. "Land Consolidation Design Based on an Evaluation of Ecological Sensitivity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    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. Dongwoo Lee & Kyushik Oh & Jungeun Suh, 2022. "Diagnosis and Prioritization of Vulnerable Areas of Urban Ecosystem Regulation Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Zhengke Du & Chengcheng Zhu & Yuxin Zhou, 2022. "Increasing Quantity or Improving Quality: Can Soil Pollution Control Promote Green Innovation in China’s Industrial and Mining Enterprises?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Daolong Xu & Xiufen Li & Jian Chen & Jianghua Li, 2023. "Research Progress of Soil and Vegetation Restoration Technology in Open-Pit Coal Mine: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Ze Han & Wei Song & Xiangzheng Deng, 2016. "Responses of Ecosystem Service to Land Use Change in Qinghai Province," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    6. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    7. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    8. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    9. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    10. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
    11. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    12. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    13. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    14. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    15. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    16. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    18. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.

    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:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1378-:d:895511. 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.