IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p623-d1389191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Driving Mechanisms of Spatial Differentiation in Ecosystem Service Value in Opencast Coal Mines in Arid Areas: A Case Study in the Zhundong Economic and Technological Development Zone

Author

Listed:
  • Adila Akbar

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China)

  • Abudukeyimu Abulizi

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    MNR Technology Innovation Center for Central Asia Geo-Information Exploitation and Utilization, Urumqi 830046, China)

  • Reyilan Erken

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China)

  • Tingting Yu

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China)

Abstract

The valuation of ecosystem services (ESs) is crucial for preserving ecosystems, assessing natural resources, and making decisions regarding compensation. In this study, we employed the InVEST model’s habitat quality (HQ) module to calculate the HQ and degradation levels in the study area using land use/land cover (LULC) data from 2000 to 2020. Our analysis utilized quantitative methods, including spatial correlation, hotspot analysis, and geo-probing, to determine the value of ESs and identify trends. Furthermore, we examined the spatial and temporal variation in the significance of ESs and their driving factors. The results show the following. (1) The primary LULC types in the Zhundong coalfield from 2000 to 2020 are grassland and barren areas. (2) The average value of the HQ index in the study area exhibited a generally decreasing trend. Between 2000 and 2010, HQ significantly declined, particularly in the region’s large barren industrial and mining zones. However, over time, the proportion of sites with minimal degradation improved steadily, resulting in better overall HQ in the study area by 2020. This pertains to the measures put in place by the local government to safeguard and rehabilitate the ecosystem. (3) The spatial distribution of the ecosystem service value (ESV) aligns with changes in HQ and LULC, with significant hotspots primarily observed in forest and grassland areas, nature reserves, and areas around water sources. (4) LULC, temperature, annual precipitation, and elevation are the main drivers of spatial variation in the ESV in the Zhundong area; the spatial variation in the ESV in the Zhundong coalfield is primarily influenced by the interaction between human factors and natural factors, in which LULC plays a dominant role. This study’s findings can guide the development of rational ecological planning, integrating resource conservation mining with effective zoning management.

Suggested Citation

  • Adila Akbar & Abudukeyimu Abulizi & Reyilan Erken & Tingting Yu, 2024. "Driving Mechanisms of Spatial Differentiation in Ecosystem Service Value in Opencast Coal Mines in Arid Areas: A Case Study in the Zhundong Economic and Technological Development Zone," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:623-:d:1389191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/623/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/623/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    2. Marcell K. Peters & Andreas Hemp & Tim Appelhans & Joscha N. Becker & Christina Behler & Alice Classen & Florian Detsch & Andreas Ensslin & Stefan W. Ferger & Sara B. Frederiksen & Friederike Gebert &, 2019. "Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions," Nature, Nature, vol. 568(7750), pages 88-92, April.
    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. Robert Costanza & Shuang Liu, 2014. "Ecosystem Services and Environmental Governance: Comparing China and the U.S," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 160-170, January.
    2. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Malerba, Daniele, 2020. "Poverty alleviation and local environmental degradation: An empirical analysis in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    5. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. 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.
    7. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    8. Garrett, R.D. & Grabs, J. & Cammelli, F. & Gollnow, F. & Levy, S.A., 2022. "Should payments for environmental services be used to implement zero-deforestation supply chain policies? The case of soy in the Brazilian Cerrado," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    9. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.
    10. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Wunder, Sven, 2019. "Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-119.
    11. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    12. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    13. Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    14. Moses Fayiah & ShiKui Dong & Sphiwe Wezzie Khomera & Syed Aziz Ur Rehman & Mingyue Yang & Jiannan Xiao, 2020. "Status and Challenges of Qinghai–Tibet Plateau’s Grasslands: An Analysis of Causes, Mitigation Measures, and Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Mark E. Eiswerth & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2017. "Maximizing Returns from Payments for Ecosystem Services: Incorporating Externality Effects of Land Management," Working Papers 2017-06, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    17. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    18. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    19. Hualin Xie & Lingjuan Cheng & Tiangui Lv, 2017. "Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Fallow Winter Wheat and Ecological Compensation Standards in a Groundwater Funnel Area in Hengshui, Hebei Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    20. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(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:13:y:2024:i:5:p:623-:d:1389191. 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.