IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i1p236-d1032819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Spatial Pattern Optimisation under Different Land Use Scenarios: A Case Study in Guanzhong Region, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yijie Sun

    (School of Modern Post, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Xi’an 710061, China)

  • Jing Li

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Zhiyuan Ren

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Feipeng Yang

    (Xi’an Institute of Water Resources Building and Survey, Xi’an 710054, China)

Abstract

Understanding the complex interactions (i.e., trade-offs and synergies) among ecosystem services (ESs) and exploring land use optimisation are important to realize regional ecological governance and sustainable development. This study examined Guanzhong Region, Shaanxi Province, as the research object. We established 12 future land use scenarios and projected the future land use patterns under the future climate change scenarios and local development policies. Next, we assessed the four main ecosystem services—carbon sequestration (CS), habitat quality (HQ), soil conservation (SC), and food supply (FS) by using related formulas and the InVEST model. Furthermore, the production possibility frontier (PPF) was used to measure trade-offs and synergistic relationships among ESs, and extract the optimal ES group under the different target needs. The results are as follows: (1) In the future 12 land use scenarios of 2050 in Guanzhong Region, forested land increased evidently in the RCP2.6 ecological protection scenario (18,483.64 km). In the RCP6.0 rapid urban development scenario, construction land showed evident expansion in the central and northeastern areas (4764.52 km 2 ). (2) Compared with the ESs under the future multiple scenarios, CS and HQ achieved the maximum value in the RCP8.5 ecological protection scenario. In the RCP2.6 ecological protection scenario, the amount of SC was the largest (3.81 × 10 6 t). FS in the RCP2.6 business as usual scenario got the maximum value (18.53 × 10 6 t). (3) By drawing the optimal PPF curve of multiple scenarios in 2050, trade-off relationships were found between FS and CS, HQ, and SC, and synergistic relationships were found between CS, HQ, and SC. Next, the optimal ES groups under the fitted curve were selected by comparing with the ESs of 2018, and adjusting the land use areas and spatial pattern to finally optimise the relationships between ES and achieve the best land use spatial pattern.

Suggested Citation

  • Yijie Sun & Jing Li & Zhiyuan Ren & Feipeng Yang, 2023. "Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Spatial Pattern Optimisation under Different Land Use Scenarios: A Case Study in Guanzhong Region, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:236-:d:1032819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/236/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/236/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Zhang, Daojun & Yang, Wanjing & Kang, Dingrong & Zhang, Han, 2023. "Spatial-temporal characteristics and policy implication for non-grain production of cultivated land in Guanzhong Region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. Alison Fairbrass & Georgina Mace & Paul Ekins & Ben Milligan, 2020. "The Natural Capital Indicator Framework (NCIF): A framework of indicators for national natural capital reporting," Papers 2005.08568, arXiv.org.
    4. Bryan, Brett A. & Ye, Yanqiong & Zhang, Jia'en & Connor, Jeffery D., 2018. "Land-use change impacts on ecosystem services value: Incorporating the scarcity effects of supply and demand dynamics," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 144-157.
    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. Zhouling Shao & Chunyan Chen & Yuanli Liu & Jie Cao & Guitang Liao & Zhengyu Lin, 2023. "Impact of Land Use Change on Carbon Storage Based on FLUS-InVEST Model: A Case Study of Chengdu–Chongqing Urban Agglomeration, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.

    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. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Luo, Xiangyu & Jiang, Peng & Yang, Jingyi & Jin, Jing & Yang, Jun, 2021. "Simulating PM2.5 removal in an urban ecosystem based on the social-ecological model framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    4. Tao, Yu & Tao, Qin & Sun, Xiao & Qiu, Jiangxiao & Pueppke, Steven G. & Ou, Weixin & Guo, Jie & Qi, Jiaguo, 2022. "Mapping ecosystem service supply and demand dynamics under rapid urban expansion: A case study in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    5. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Raviv, Orna & Shiri, Zemah-Shamir & Ido, Izhaki & Alon, Lotan, 2021. "The effect of wildfire and land-cover changes on the economic value of ecosystem services in Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Xiaoyan Zhang & Jian Ji, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Differentiation of Ecosystem Service Value and Its Drivers in the Jiangsu Coastal Zone, Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Wang, Xiaoyu & Peng, Jian & Luo, Yuhang & Qiu, Sijing & Dong, Jianquan & Zhang, Zimo & Vercruysse, Kim & Grabowski, Robert C. & Meersmans, Jeroen, 2022. "Exploring social-ecological impacts on trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    9. Peng Tian & Jialin Li & Luodan Cao & Ruiliang Pu & Hongbo Gong & Haitao Zhang & Huilin Chen & Xiaodong Yang, 2021. "Assessing Matching Characteristics and Spatial Differences between Supply and Demand of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Kwadwo Kyenkyehene Kusi & Abdellatif Khattabi & Nadia Mhammdi, 2023. "Analyzing the impact of land use change on ecosystem service value in the main watersheds of Morocco," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 2688-2715, March.
    11. Tianhai Zhang & Yaqin Qu & Yang Liu & Guanfeng Yan & Greg Foliente, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Response of Ecosystem Service Values to Land Use Change in Xiamen, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Fangjie Pan & Nannan Shu & Qing Wan & Qi Huang, 2023. "Land Use Function Transition and Associated Ecosystem Service Value Effects Based on Production–Living–Ecological Space: A Case Study in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, January.
    13. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    14. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    15. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    16. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    17. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    18. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    19. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    20. O'Sullivan, Jane N., 2020. "The social and environmental influences of population growth rate and demographic pressure deserve greater attention in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:236-:d:1032819. 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.