IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p4079-d531112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Use-Driven Changes in Ecosystem Service Values and Simulation of Future Scenarios: A Case Study of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

Author

Listed:
  • Yongkang Zhou

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Xiaoyao Zhang

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu 241000, China)

  • Hu Yu

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Qingqing Liu

    (College of Tourism and Exhibition, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Linlin Xu

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

Global climate change and land use change arising from human activities affect the ecosystem service values (ESVs). Such impacts have increasingly become significant, especially in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP). Major factors impeding the construction of China’s “ecological security barrier” are shifts in land-use patterns under rapid urbanization, irrational crop and animal husbandry activities, and tourism. In the present study, land use changes in the QTP in recent years were analyzed to determine their impacts on ESVs, followed by simulations of the interactive and evolutionary relationships between land use and ESVs under two scenarios: natural development scenarios and ecological protection scenarios. According to the results, the QTP land-use structure has a small change, and the main land use type is alpine grassland, followed by bare land and woodland. The stability of the major land use types is the key factor responsible for the overall increasing ESV trend. Different regions on the QTP had substantially varied ESVs. The northwest and southeast regions are mostly bare land, which is a concentrated area of low value of ecosystem services. A variety of land use types including grassland and woodland have been found in the humid and semi-humid areas of the central region, so the high value of ecosystem services is concentrated in this area to form a hot spot, with a Z value of 0.63–2.84. Simulations under the natural development and ecological protection scenarios revealed that land use changes guided by ecological policies were more balanced and the associated ESVs were relatively higher than those under the natural development scenario. Under a global climate change context, human activities on the QTP should be better managed. Sustainable development in the region could be facilitated by ensuring synchronization between resource availability and adopted socioeconomic activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongkang Zhou & Xiaoyao Zhang & Hu Yu & Qingqing Liu & Linlin Xu, 2021. "Land Use-Driven Changes in Ecosystem Service Values and Simulation of Future Scenarios: A Case Study of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:4079-:d:531112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/4079/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/4079/
    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. Onggarbek Alipbeki & Chaimgul Alipbekova & Arnold Sterenharz & Zhanat Toleubekova & Meirzhan Aliyev & Nursultan Mineyev & Kaiyrbek Amangaliyev, 2020. "A Spatiotemporal Assessment of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Peri-Urban Areas: A Case Study of Arshaly District, Kazakhstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Li, Shicheng & Zhang, Yili & Wang, Zhaofeng & Li, Lanhui, 2018. "Mapping human influence intensity in the Tibetan Plateau for conservation of ecological service functions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 276-286.
    4. Hinterberger, Friedrich & Luks, Fred & Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich, 1997. "Material flows vs. 'natural capital': What makes an economy sustainable?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, 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. Nansha Sun & Qiong Chen & Fenggui Liu & Qiang Zhou & Wenxin He & Yuanyuan Guo, 2023. "Land Use Simulation and Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Yuanyuan Lou & Dan Yang & Pengyan Zhang & Ying Zhang & Meiling Song & Yicheng Huang & Wenlong Jing, 2022. "Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Changes with Ecosystem Service Value in the Yellow River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Zhaonan Guo & Junju Zhou & Yu Qiu & Haitao Tang & Chuyu Luo & Xue Wang & Dongfeng Ma & Jiao Dou & Wei Shi & Dongxia Zhang & Chunfang Liu & Wei Wei & Guofeng Zhu, 2022. "Analyzing the Process of Land-Use Transfer Flow in the Suhai Lake Basin in China, 1980–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Ting Ma & Brent Swallow & J. Marc Foggin & Linsheng Zhong & Weiguo Sang, 2023. "Co-management for sustainable development and conservation in Sanjiangyuan National Park and the surrounding Tibetan nomadic pastoralist areas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Hejie Wei & Jiaxin Zheng & Dong Xue & Xiaobin Dong & Mengxue Liu & Yali Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Relationship between Livelihoods and Land Ecosystem Services Using a Coupled Model: A Case Study in the “One River and Two Tributaries” Region of Tibet," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka & Wang Ke & Mohammad Sohail Nazar & Ghali Abdullahi Abubakar & AmirReza Shahtahamssebi, 2022. "Impact of Hydrological Infrastructure Projects on Land Use/Cover and Socioeconomic Development in Arid Regions—Evidence from the Upper Atbara and Setit Dam Complex, Kassala, Eastern Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Chunsheng Wu, 2022. "Study on the Spatial Differences in Land-Use Change and Driving Factors in Tibet," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Dingwei Niu & Lucang Wang & Fuwei Qiao & Wei Li, 2022. "Analysis of Landscape Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Residential Areas on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: A Case Study of Tibet, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-20, November.

    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. Ang, Frederic & Van Passel, Steven & Mathijs, Erik, 2011. "An aggregate resource efficiency perspective on sustainability: A Sustainable Value application to the EU-15 countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 99-110.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    13. 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.
    14. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    15. Juliana Hurtado Rassi, 2020. "Gestión conjunta de ecosistemas transfronterizos: la importancia del trabajo articulado entre los Estados para la conservación de los recursos naturales. Análisis del caso particular de la “Reserva de," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1241, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    18. 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.
    19. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    20. Benjamin Leard, 2011. "Joan Martinez-Alier and Ingo Ropke (eds.): Recent developments in ecological economics (2 vols.)," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 161-178, July.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:4079-:d:531112. 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.