IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i10p1593-d1489587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Use Optimization from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholder Groups: A Case Study in Yongsheng County, Yunnan Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Haobo Feng

    (College of Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    Forestry Ecological Engineering Center, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Jian Hou

    (College of Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    Forestry Ecological Engineering Center, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Jiahui Jiang

    (College of Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    Forestry Ecological Engineering Center, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Linfang Shi

    (College of Soil and Water Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    Forestry Ecological Engineering Center, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

With China’s rapid economic development in recent years, enhancing the sense of well-being among citizens has become a critical objective. However, the interests of various stakeholder groups are often overlooked in decision-making surrounding land use. In this study, Yongsheng County, Yunnan Province serves as a case study for land use scenario simulations. The equivalent factor method is combined with Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) to investigate the relationship between ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF) and the equity index of multiple stakeholder groups in various land use scenarios. We also explore whether an optimal combination of land use types exists. The results indicate that (1) The current ecosystem service value in Yongsheng County is primarily driven by climate regulation and biodiversity conservation, with a relatively high functional value index but a comparatively low equity index; (2) Different stakeholder groups mainly prioritize food production and ecosystem services impacting food production, such as water resource provision and climate regulation; (3) A land use allocation pattern of 20% farmland, 4% water bodies, 21% mixed forest, 20% coniferous forest, and 35% grassland appears to provide the optimal EMF index while simultaneously achieving the optimal equity index across stakeholder groups. This research may offer valuable insights for optimizing land use planning while taking into account the well-being of diverse stakeholder groups. It also may have practical implications for the formulation of innovative land use management strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Haobo Feng & Jian Hou & Jiahui Jiang & Linfang Shi, 2024. "Land Use Optimization from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholder Groups: A Case Study in Yongsheng County, Yunnan Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1593-:d:1489587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1593/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1593/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margot Neyret & Sophie Peter & Gaëtane Provost & Steffen Boch & Andrea Larissa Boesing & James M. Bullock & Norbert Hölzel & Valentin H. Klaus & Till Kleinebecker & Jochen Krauss & Jörg Müller & Sandr, 2023. "Landscape management strategies for multifunctionality and social equity," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 391-403, April.
    2. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    3. Gerd Lupp & Bernhard Förster & Valerie Kantelberg & Tim Markmann & Johannes Naumann & Carolina Honert & Marc Koch & Stephan Pauleit, 2016. "Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    6. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    7. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Tobias D. Ketterer, 2012. "Do Local Amenities Affect The Appeal Of Regions In Europe For Migrants?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 535-561, October.
    9. Lamprinakis, L. & Rodriguez, D. G. P. & Prestvik, A. S. & Veidal, A. & Klimek, B., 2017. "31 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1705 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON FOOD SYSTEM DYNAMICS A Mixed Methods Approach Towards Mapping and Economic Valuation of the Divici-Pojejena Wetland Ecosystem," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276889, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    15. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    16. Ruiqi Zhang & Chunguang Hu & Yucheng Sun, 2024. "Decoding the Characteristics of Ecosystem Services and the Scale Effect in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomeration: Insights for Planning and Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-26, September.
    17. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    18. Min Fan & Li Chen & Qing Wang, 2019. "Assessing the high impacts of land use change: spatial characteristics of land uses and ecological compensation based on payment for ecosystem services model in a mountainous area, China," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 1431-1460, December.
    19. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    20. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.

    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:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1593-:d:1489587. 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.