IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i14p6237-d1439859.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value Based on the Markov–FLUS Model in Ezhou City, China

Author

Listed:
  • Maomao Zhang

    (College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Enqing Chen

    (School of Education and Foreign Languages, Wuhan Donghu University, Wuhan 430212, China)

  • Cheng Zhang

    (School of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430079, China)

  • Chen Liu

    (College of Art, Hebei GEO University, Shijiazhuang 050031, China)

  • Jianxing Li

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430079, China)

Abstract

Changes in land use patterns, types, and intensities significantly impact ecosystem services. This study follows the time series logic from history to the expected future to investigate the spatial and temporal characteristics of land use changes in Ezhou and their potential impacts on the ecosystem services value (ESV). The results show that the Markov–FLUS model has strong applicability in predicting the spatial pattern of land use, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.9433 and a FoM value of 0.1080. Between 2000 and 2020, construction land expanded continuously, while water area remained relatively stable, and other land types experienced varying degrees of contraction. Notably, the area of construction land expanded significantly compared to 2000, and it expanded by 70.99% in 2020. Moreover, the watershed area expanded by 9.30% from 2000 to 2010, but there was very little change in the following 10 years. Under the three scenarios, significant differences in land use changes were observed in Ezhou City, driven by human activities, particularly the strong expansion of construction land. In the inertial development scenario, construction land expanded to 313.39 km 2 by 2030, representing a 38.30% increase from 2020. Conversely, under the farmland protection scenario, construction land increased to 237.66 km 2 , a 4.89% rise from 2020. However, in the ecological priority development scenario, the construction land area expanded to 253.59 km 2 , a 10.13% increase from 2020. Compared to 2020, the ESV losses in the inertia development and farmland protection scenarios were USD 4497.71 and USD 1072.23, respectively, by 2030. Conversely, the ESV under the ecological protection scenario increased by USD 2749.09, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing ecological protection in Ezhou City’s development. This study may provide new clues for the formulation of regional strategies for sustainable land use and ecosystem restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • Maomao Zhang & Enqing Chen & Cheng Zhang & Chen Liu & Jianxing Li, 2024. "Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value Based on the Markov–FLUS Model in Ezhou City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:14:p:6237-:d:1439859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/14/6237/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/14/6237/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jing Shi & Peiji Shi & Ziyang Wang & Lirong Wang & Yali Li, 2023. "Multi-Scenario Simulation and Driving Force Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value in Arid Areas Based on PLUS Model: A Case Study of Jiuquan City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Yusuyunjiang Mamitimin & Zibibula Simayi & Ayinuer Mamat & Bumairiyemu Maimaiti & Yunfei Ma, 2023. "FLUS Based Modeling of the Urban LULC in Arid and Semi-Arid Region of Northwest China: A Case Study of Urumqi City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Rosario Gómez & Julio Aguirre & Luis Oliveros & Renzo Paladines & Néstor Ortiz & Diana Encalada & Dolors Armenteras, 2023. "A Participatory Approach to Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Andean Amazonia: Three Country Case Studies for Policy Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Sirakaya, Aysegül & Cliquet, An & Harris, Jim, 2018. "Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 205-212.
    5. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    6. Zhiyuan Zhu & Zhikun Mei & Xiyang Xu & Yongzhong Feng & Guangxin Ren, 2022. "Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment Based on Land Use Change in the Yellow River Basin of Shaanxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Qingzhi Huan & Yiwen Chen & Xincong Huan, 2022. "A Frugal Eco-Innovation Policy? Ecological Poverty Alleviation in Contemporary China from a Perspective of Eco-Civilization Progress," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    8. Xuexian Xu & Yuling Peng, 2023. "Ecological Compensation in Zhijiang City Based on Ecosystem Service Value and Ecological Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    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. Arts, Bas, 2014. "Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: Government, governance, governmentality⁎⁎This article belongs to the Special Issue: Assessing Forest Governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-22.
    2. Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez & Jorge H. Maldonado & Camilo Andrés Gutiérrez & Melissa Rubio, 2013. "Valoración de Áreas Marinas Protegidas desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de recursos: conciliando enfoques cuantitativos individuales con enfoques cualitativos colectivos," Documentos CEDE 11936, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    3. 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.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    5. Giulio Zangari & Flavia Bartoli & Fernando Lucchese & Giulia Caneva, 2023. "Plant Diversity in Archaeological Sites and Its Bioindication Values for Nature Conservation: Assessments in the UNESCO Site Etruscan Necropolis of Tarquinia (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    7. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    8. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    9. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    10. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    11. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    12. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Daniel Muller, 2018. "Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps," Papers 1811.06606, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    15. 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.
    16. Hua Liu & Dan-Yang Li & Rong Ma & Ming Ma, 2022. "Assessing the Ecological Risks Based on the Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Gansu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Chen, G.Q. & Chen, B., 2007. "Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980-2002 based on energy--Part 5: Resource structure and intensity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2087-2095, April.
    18. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2009. "Governing of agro-ecosystem services - modes, efficiency, perspectives," MPRA Paper 99870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    20. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.

    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:16:y:2024:i:14:p:6237-:d:1439859. 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.