water Water Water Water 2073-4441 MDPI 10.3390/w9030197 water-09-00197 Article Establishment and Application of Wetlands Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Ecological Evaluation Indicators Chen Han-Shen 1 2 Goethals Peter L. M. Academic Editor School of Health Diet and Industry Management, Chung Shan Medical University, No. 110, Sec. 1, Jianguo N. Rd., Taichung City 40201, Taiwan; allen9750@yahoo.com.tw; Tel.: +886-4-2473-0022 Department of Medical Management, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, No. 110, Sec. 1, Jianguo N. Rd., Taichung City 40201, Taiwan 08 03 2017 03 2017 9 3 197 08 11 2016 07 03 2017 © 2017 by the author. 2017

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Gaomei wetlands are national Taiwanese coastal wetlands. Over the past few years, they have grown into an important water bird habitat and popular bird-watching location. However, the rapid growth in tourism has begun to affect the environmental quality in the Gaomei wetlands. This study combined ecosystem services (ES) and ecological footprint (EF) assessments to evaluate the sustainability status according to the features of each ecosystem service for the different Gaomei wetlands land uses. The results found that (a) the total Gaomei wetlands ecosystem service value increased from 59.24 million TWD in 2008 to 98.10 million TWD in 2015, and the ecosystem service function was continuously improving; (b) the EF increased by 56.12% over 8 years; and (c) there was a negative growth rate of 106.54% in the ecological deficit (ED) in the sustainable ecological evaluation indicators (SEEI). The ecological footprint index (EFI) in 2015 was at Level 4 at 1.02, and the environmental sustainability index (ESI) was at Level 3 at 0.49. Results show that Gaomei wetlands have a low sustainability; therefore, the local, regional, and national governments need to implement regulations to strictly control the Gaomei wetlands land use. This study demonstrated that ES and EF theory application can give an objective guidance to decision-makers to ensure that wetlands eco-security can be maintained at safe levels.

 wetlands ecological footprint ecosystem services ecological security sustainable ecological evaluation indicators (SEEI) 1. Introduction

As outlined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of the United Nations, wetlands are one of the most threatened ecosystem in the world, with biodiversity loss being the major concern. With the continued loss and degradation of wetlands, ecological services are declining, negatively impacting human life. Factors such as climate change, rural poverty, and increased human population size have resulted in a wetlands loss of ~30%–50% in the last decade [1,2,3]. As well as providing ecosystem services such as flood control, coastline protection, nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, and ecotourism, wetlands support many specialized plants and animal species [4,5,6,7,8].

This study was conducted in the Gaomei wetlands, located in Shimizu, Taichung, Taiwan, and designated national Taiwanese wetlands in 2007 (Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior, 2007). Recently, the Gaomei wetlands have become a major bird destination as a critical winter habitat. However, human activities such as highway construction have led to significant reductions in the sandbars and mangroves with a concurrent loss of biodiversity. Sustainable economic and societal development and reductions in the impact of tourism must be addressed when developing natural resources. This study sought to balance resource and biodiversity conservation with sustainable management and resource development. Because the Gaomei wetlands have similar topography and ecosystems to other Taiwanese wetlands systems, the evaluation model developed in this paper could be used for similar wetlands systems.

Chapin et al. (2000) suggested that ecosystem processes and biological diversity are crucial intermediaries in the overall economic and human systems’ global environment [9]. Costanza et al. (1997) defined ecosystem services (ES) as ecosystems that “provide, directly or indirectly, the material and services to promote human welfare” [10]. The UN published the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) in 2005, in which ecosystem services are divided into supply services, regulating services, cultural services, and support services [11]. Ecosystem service (ES) assessments have traditionally focused on identifying the individual monetary values for each ecosystem service [12,13]. However, the lack of theoretical frameworks has led to subjective judgments and criticisms [14,15,16]. The integration of deliberate and non-monetary valuation approaches to ES valuations has increasingly been advocated as a way of revealing the wider value concepts. Such methods, however, have had limited application in practice and have been mostly focused on localized case studies [17,18,19]. Barbier et al. (2011) evaluated the ecosystem service values in wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds, and sandy beaches [20]. Bateman et al. (2011) explored the contribution of land use changes on ecosystem services and ecosystems [21]. Su et al. (2012) focused on four ecological zones in Hangzhou, China, to investigate the effect of landscape patterns and ecosystem service changes on urbanization [7]. To examine ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe, Maes et al. (2012) used four supply function indicators, five adjustment function indicators, and a cultural function indicator to calculate ecosystem service values, and used average species richness and species diversity to measure biodiversity [22].

As previous research on land use and its impact on the environment has tended to focus more on exploring the single highest impact level, there has been less focus on the analysis and evaluation of the impact land-use development and the changes it has had on the natural environment. An econometric model [23,24], a statistical model [25,26,27,28,29,30] as well as a cellular automata model [31] have to date been the most commonly used evaluation models. Burkhard et al. (2013) believed that, for a more realistic ecosystem service status assessment, ecosystem services at different ecosystems, and the benefits that different ecosystems and land cover types provide, should also be considered [32]. Therefore, some studies have integrated the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and other assessment indicators into comprehensive evaluation indices [33,34,35]. Nelson et al. (2009) combined land use change ecosystem services with the integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs (InVEST) mode to explore the relationship between biodiversity competition with other ecosystem services [36]. Polasky et al. (2011) also used the InVEST mode to quantify changes in ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land use in Minnesota from 1992 to 2001, and to assess the impact of different land use change scenarios on ecosystem services and biodiversity. Using the historical development (1964–2004) in Leipzig, Germany [37], Lautenbach et al. (2011) developed regional scale indicators for different land use structure ecosystem services, such as water purification, pollination, food production, and outdoor recreation, and calculated the systemic functions and analyzed sensitivity tests under different land use types [34]. Geneletti (2012) simulated the impact generated by different land management policies on ecosystem services in the future based on historical land use [38]. In summary, using analysis and prediction modes for land use change along with mode simulations, decomposition, the analysis and synthesis of the complex socio-economic factors, and the interaction processes in natural ecosystems for given land uses to determine land-use change and spatial pattern trends [39,40,41,42] have become the focus of current research trends.

Sharp variabilities in the global climate have resulted in desertification, reduced ecosystem resilience, and loss of biodiversity. The 1972 United Nations Declaration on the Human Environment and Eco-Security raised concerns related to the preservation of food and ecosystems and outlined principles for sustainable human development projects, providing a new perspective on environmental resources, human survival and sustainable development reviews. With the development of ecological security theory and as ecological problems became increasingly prominent, researchers began using different indicators and measurement system models or methods to evaluate the ecological security of different regional scales, thus providing early warning models that could serve as vital references [43].

As using quantitative indicators to analyze complex information increases objectivity [44,45], a three-dimensional (economy, ecology, and society) indicator system was developed to study ecological security in Western Nepal [46]. Ecological security has also been measured using the Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) and environmental carrying capacity (ECC) [47].

The Ecological Footprint (EF) Model was proposed by Rees (1992) [48], with the primary feature being its ability to compare human demands on the environment with the biosphere’s ability to regenerate resources and provide services. Wackernagel and Rees (2000) proposed that the EF magnitude was directly proportional to the environmental impact (the greater the EF, the greater the environmental impact), and was inversely proportional to the per-capita usable area of biologically productive land (the greater the EF, the smaller the per-capita usable area of biologically productive land) [49]. It is now a widely used measure in the field of ecological economics as it is a quantitative indicator that is easy to understand and calculate. Therefore, this paper uses sustainable ecological evaluation indicators (SEEIs) to measure regional ecological security on a per-unit ecological footprint basis.

In summary, this paper first combines the ecosystem services and ecological footprint models to evaluate the sustainability status based on each of the ecosystem service features for the different Gaomei wetlands land use covers, after which the ecosystem service values are calculated. Subsequently, the SEEI—the ecological remainder (ER), the ecological deficit (ED), the EFI and ESI—is used to analyze the resource utilization efficiency and ecological security in the Gaomei wetlands. The problems identified by the different indicator values are evaluated to develop a systematic measurement apparatus to encourage sustainable development and to review the evolution in sustainable development trends.

 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area

The Gaomei wetlands (24°18′35.07′′ N, 120°33′08.21′′ E) are located in Shimizu, Taichung, Taiwan. The Gaomei wetlands support diverse bird species and special habitats such as lagoons and sandbars, providing many possible tourist opportunities. As the Gaomei wetlands have been evolving in the past few years from a primarily agriculturally based economy to a primarily tourism based economy, there have been several recent studies focused on tourist behavior and local tourism support initiatives [50,51,52].

 2.2. Methods

This study combines ecosystem services and the EF model to reclassify the EF ecosystem according to the various land-use features for each ecosystem service system at the Gaomei wetlands. The ecological footprint (EF) (demand) and ecological capacity (supply) at the Gaomei wetlands were first evaluated over various periods using an EF model developed from ecosystem services theory, after which an eco-security indicator system was established to estimate the Gaomei wetlands’ eco-security, the steps for which were as follows:

2.2.1. Ecosystem Services Value Model

The methods used to estimate the ecosystem service value in the research area were based on the value assessment method models outlined in [10,53,54]. An equivalence factor for the ecosystem service value for the different land uses and land cover at the Gaomei wetlands was calculated using the assessment model, which took the ecosystem service value for the different land use and land covers as the basis for determining the ecosystem service value, as shown in Equation (1): E S V k = ∑ i m ∑ j n A i × f i j × E a × S k × T k where ESV is the total ecosystem service value; A i is the distribution area for the ith type of land use and land cover (gha); f i j is the equivalence factor for the jth ecosystem goods and services item provided by the ith ecosystem; E a is the production per unit area or the ecosystem service value coefficient; S k is a K coefficient for regional differences; T k is a K regional service support coefficient; i is the land use and land covers in the different ecosystems; j is the ecosystem service category.

 2.2.2. Accommodation Ecological Footprint

The EF concept [55,56] was used to evaluate the changes in the Gaomei wetlands from 2008 to 2015. To examine the influence of the EF on the environment, the transportation ecological footprint (TREF), the activities ecological footprint (ACTEF), and the food and fiber consumption ecological footprint (FEF) were employed as the evaluation measures. The general formulas for calculating the EF and ECC are shown in Equations (2) and (3): EF = N × ef = N × ∑ i = 1 n ( a × a i ) = N × ∑ j = 1 6 ( r j ∑ i = 1 n c i p i )   ( i = 1 , 2 , 3 , … n ;   j = 1 , 2 , 3 , … , 6 ) ECC = N × ∑ j = 1 6 e c j = N × ∑ j = 1 6 ( A j × r j × y j ) ,   ( j = 1 , 2 , 3 , … , 6 ) in which EF is the total EF (gha); N is the total population; ef is the EF per capita (gha); a a i is the biologically productive area per capita (gha), converted to the ith traded commodity type; c i is the consumption per capita (kg) of the ith commodity type; p i is the average global productive capacity (kg/(t/gha)) of the ith consumer goods type; r j and y j are the equivalence factor and yield factor (YF) for the jth land type; j is the corresponding land use or land cover type; ECC denotes the total ecological carrying capacity; e c j is the ECC per capita; and A j is the area per capita of the jth land type in the region.

 2.2.3. Ecological Footprint Model

The traditional ecological footprint model converts the EF and ECC of the land ecosystems into biological resource consumption (agricultural land, forest land, grassland, and fisheries) and energy consumption (carbon footprint, completion land) and six other ecological system units. However, as this model includes systems and services ecological functions in the ECC calculation, it assumes that the ecosystem services of the various land ecosystem supply units can be used as fossil fuels. Therefore, the ECC evaluation of the ecosystem service value for the land ecosystems is reclassified in this paper to (1) agricultural ecosystem; (2) forest ecosystem; (3) grassland ecosystem; (4) ecosystem completions; (5) fisheries ecosystems (including lakes, rivers and wetlands); (6) unutilized land; and six other ecosystem units.

Traditional ecological footprint calculations consider only the production of food and raw materials to provide the two ecological functions. However, in the integrated EF model, an appropriate equivalence factor and a yield factor (YF) are used to determine the ecological functions for the biological land productivity and food production raw materials rather than the ecological functions and the ecosystem service value. YF is used mainly to reflect the differences in the different regions per unit area ecosystem services in the Gaomei wetlands, which is calculated as follows: YF j = v j / v j − in which YFj is the yield factor for the jth type of ecosystem unit, j = 1, 2, …, 6, are the 6 ecosystem units; v j is the per unit area value of the ecosystem service function for the jth type of ecosystem in a region; and v j − is the per unit area ecosystem service function value for the jth type of ecosystem in Taiwan.

Using Equation (4), the Gaomei wetlands yield factor was calculated from 2008 to 2015, as shown in Table 1.

 2.2.4. Sustainable Ecological Evaluation Indicators (SEEI)

Multiple quantitative indicators (e.g., ED, ER, EFI and ESI) were employed to develop an indicator set to evaluate the Gaomei wetlands ecological sustainability and to establish the standards so as to be able to properly assess the ecological security. The evaluation indicators utilized in this research are outlined in the following subsections.

(a) ED or ER

When the EF is lower than the ECC of a region, there is an ecological remainder (ER), indicating that the corresponding development model is sustainable. When the EF is higher than the ECC of a region, there is an ecological deficit (ED), indicating that the corresponding development model is not sustainable. As the ecological deficit results from excessive human resource demands [57], demand must be reduced to achieve sustainable ecological development. The formulas for ED and ER are shown as Equations (5) and (6). ER = ECC − EF ED = EF − ECC in which ER is the ecological remainder, ED is the ecological deficit, ECC is the ecological carrying capacity, and EF is the ecological footprint.

 (b) EFI

The EFI compares the resources and energy expenditures to the region’s ECC to assess resource utilization and determine development sustainability. The EFI formula is as in Equation (7), and the EFI levels are as shown in Table 2 EFI = EF/ECC in which EFI is the ecological footprint index, EF is the ecological footprint, and ECC is the ecological carrying capacity.

 (c) ESI

The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), which was developed by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP), and the World Economic Forum, assesses sustainability by measuring the degree to which the ecological systems in a region meet the human ecological demands. The ESI formula is shown in Equation (8) and the ESI levels are given in Table 3 ESI = ECC/(ECC + EF) in which ESI is the environmental sustainability index, EF is the ecological footprint; and ECC is the ecological carrying capacity.

 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Ecosystem Services Value Computation and Analysis Results

Equation (2) was used to calculate the ecological service value of each ecosystem type in the Gaomei wetlands from 2008 to 2015, as shown in Table 4. The total value of the ecosystem services in the Gaomei wetlands increased from 59.24 million TWD to 98.10 million TWD over the 8 years. From 2008 to 2013, the total Gaomei wetlands ecosystem service value increased by 42.27 million TWD due to the increased fisheries (including lakes, rivers, and wetlands) and agricultural land areas, both of which had large ecological service value coefficients. The total Gaomei wetlands ecosystem service value increased from 2013 to 2015; however, during the same period, the Gaomei wetlands total ecosystem service value decreased by 3.41 million TWD because the fisheries area, which had a large ecological service value coefficient decreased rapidly and the increased agricultural land area was not sufficient to compensate for the fisheries reduced ecological service value. Since 2013, therefore, the Gaomei wetlands total ecosystem service value has been decreasing.

From 2008 to 2015, the relative value of each Gaomei wetlands ecosystem type (Table 4) changed variably. The fisheries ecosystem services function value increased then decreased, the forest ecosystem services function value increased, decreased, and then increased, and the grassland ecosystem services function value had an M-shaped pattern: increase–decrease–increase–decrease; the agricultural ecosystem services function value decreased and then increased, with the overall ecosystem services function value increasing. Taken together, the total ecosystem service value in increased by a net of 65.60%, with the fisheries ecosystem service value increasing the most (81.09%), and that of the forest ecosystems decreasing the most (−84.38%) followed by the grassland ecosystems (−33.39%). The fisheries accounted for 39% of the total utilized land area in the study area; however, the fisheries ecological service value accounted for 75.56% of the total ecosystem service value. Because the fisheries in this area have a high ecosystem service value coefficient, this land use type has a higher total ecosystem service value, highlighting the importance of the fisheries in the Gaomei wetlands ecosystem.

 3.2. EF Computation and Analysis Results

Table 5 details the three Gaomei wetlands activity types and the EF computations. The EF gradually increased from 244.03 global hectares (gha) in 2008 to 380.98 gha in 2015. Of the three EF activity types, the TREF had the largest proportion at an average of 70.18%, followed by the ACTEF at an average of 24.97% and the FEF at an average of 4.85%. Based on these empirical results, the TREF grew from 140.47 gha in 2008 to 267.36 gha in 2015 due to a significant growth in tourist numbers, which caused an increased demand for vehicles, further inflating liquefied fuel demands.

As the Gaomei wetlands gross area did not change substantially between 2008 and 2015, the ACTEF was steady at 95.14 gha; however, the FEF increased from 8.42 gha in 2008 to 18.48 gha in 2015. The FEF indicates the tourist dietary demands inside the Gaomei wetlands and includes grains, coarse cereals, vegetables, fruit, meat, and fish; therefore, the substantial growth in the FEF was linked to the growing tourist numbers. This analysis found that the main tourism ecological resource consumption came from the fossil energy used by the vehicles traveling between residences and destinations and the increase in the land accessible to tourists for leisure activities.

 3.3. SEEI Computation and Analysis Results

The SEEI indicated that the ED grew by about 106.54% from 2008 to 2015. In 2015, the EFI was rated Level 4 at 1.02, and the ESI was rated Level 3 at 0.49, indicating that the Gaomei wetlands were at an unsafe ecological security level within that time span.

(a) ER/ED

Table 6 gives the computation results for the ER/ED. The ER had a declining trend from 128.54 gha in 2008 to 41.52 gha in 2013. The Gaomei wetlands ecological deficit (ED) decreased from −9.57 gha in 2014 to −8.41 gha in 2015, primarily due to the increased tourist numbers.

 (b) EFI

This study utilized the EFI to evaluate the Gaomei wetlands ecological security, the outcomes of which are shown in Table 6. The EFI increased from 0.65 in 2008 to 1.02 in 2015, indicating an unsafe ecological security level, which is predicted to further increase because of the rising tourist demand for resources and services (e.g., bus services, road construction, and waste production).

 (c) ESI

Table 6 shows the computational results for the ESI. Between 2008 and 2013, the ESI remained at Level 2, signifying low sustainability. Yet from 2014 onward, the ESI has fallen to Level 3, signifying unsustainability. If this situation is not controlled and improved, the attainment of sustainable ecological development will be impossible.

 4. Conclusions

This study employed the ecosystem service value, ecological capacity, EF, and sustainable ecological evaluation indicators (SEEIs) to assess the ecological security and the efficient use of resources in the Gaomei wetlands. We came to the following conclusions:

The total value of the ecosystem services in the Gaomei wetlands increased from 59.24 million TWD in 2008 to 98.10 million TWD in 2015. The EF gradually increased from 244.03 gha in 2008 to 380.98 gha in 2015. Of the three activity EFs, TREF had the biggest proportion (70.18%), with ACTEF (24.97%) and FEF (4.85%) following thereafter. The SEEI indicated that the ED grew by about 106.54% from 2008 to 2015. In 2015, the EFI was rated Level 4 at 1.02, and the ESI was rated Level 3 at 0.49. Therefore, as the Gaomei wetlands are predicted to become ecologically unsustainable over time, local, regional, and national governments need to implement regulations to strictly control the Gaomei wetlands land use.

According to the empirical analysis results, the primary factors influencing various types of activity EFs are presented below.

(a) Tourists had a negative effect on the overall EF from all activities. Therefore, when tourist numbers increased, the EF increased and there was a greater environmental impact. Attempts should be made to increase the environmentally friendly behavior of tourists to decrease the impact of increasing tourist numbers.

(b) The fossil fuels used for transportation had the greatest influence on the TREF. Therefore, strategies aimed at reducing energy use and the commensurate carbon footprints should be developed. Using public transportation and using environmentally friendly vehicles and services such as electric cars and motorcycles and bicycle rental services should be encouraged. Global positioning systems could be used in rental cars to monitor tourist activity, which can then be used to develop effective transportation systems aimed at decreasing overall fossil fuel use and minimizing the associated carbon footprints.

 Acknowledgments

I am thankful to the Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China, Taiwan) for financially supporting this research project (grant number MOST 102-2410-H-040-010).

 Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 References Rahman M.M. Islam M.A. Better Options for IFM: Uptake Promotion NRSP Project R8306 Final Technical Report: Annex A Center for Natural Resource Studies (CNRS) Dhaka, Bangladesh 2005 Valiela I. Fox S.E. Managing coastal wetlands Science 2008 319 321 323 10.1126/science.1153477 18202280 Miththapala S. Mangroves. Coastal Ecosystems Series (Volume 2) Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia, International Union for Conservation of Nature Colombo, Sri Lanka 2008 Fletcher S. Kawabe M. Rewhorn S. Wetland conservation and sustainable coastal governance in Japan and England Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011 62 956 962 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.02.048 21429531 Feng M. Liu S. Euliss N.H. Jr. Young C. Mushet D.M. Prototyping an online wetland ecosystem services model using open model sharing standards Environ. Model. Softw. 2011 26 458 468 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.10.008 Hopkinson C. Cai W. Hu X. Carbon sequestration in wetland dominated coastal systems: A global sink of rapidly diminishing magnitude Sustainability 2012 4 186 194 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.03.005 Su S. Xiao R. Jiang Z. Zhang Y. Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale Appl. Geogr. 2012 34 295 305 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.001 Ward R.D. Burnside N.G. Joyce C.B. Sepp K. Teasdale P.A. Improved modelling of the impacts of sea level rise on coastal wetland plant communities Hydrobiologia 2016 774 203 216 10.1007/s10750-015-2374-2 Chapin F.S. Zavaleta E.S. Eviner V.T. Naylor R.L. Vitousek P.M. Reynolds H.L. Hooper D.U. Lavorel S.O. Sala E. Hobbie S.E. Consequences of changing biodiversity Nature 2000 405 234 242 10.1038/35012241 10821284 Costanza R. d’Arge R. de Groot R. Farber S. Grasso M. Hannon B. Limburg K. Naeem S. O’Neill R.V. Paruelo J. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital Nature 1997 387 253 260 10.1038/387253a0 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis World Resources Institute Washington, DC, USA 2005 The Ecological and Economic Foundations The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations Earthscan London, UK 2010 UK National Ecosystem Assessment UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On Phase: Synthesis Report UNEP-WCMC Cambridge, UK 2014 Kenter J.O. O’Brien L. Hockley N. Ravenscroft N. Fazey I. Irvine K.N. Reed M.S. Christie M. Brady E. Bryce R. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 2015 111 86 99 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006 Scholte S.S.K. van Teeffelen A.J.A. Verburg P.H. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods Ecol. Econ. 2015 114 67 78 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007 Fish R. Church A. Winter M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement Ecosyst. Serv. 2016 21 208 217 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002 Bunse L. Rendon O. Luque S. What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review Ecosyst. Serv. 2015 14 88 97 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.004 Hattam C. Böhnke-Henrichs A. Börger T. Burdon D. Hadjimichael M. Delaney A. Atkins J.P. Garrard S. Austen M.C. Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages? Ecol. Econ. 2015 120 126 138 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.011 Kenter J.O. Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services Ecosyst. Serv. 2016 21 291 307 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010 Barbier E.B. Hacker S.D. Kennedy C. Koch E.W. Stier A.C. Silliman B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services Ecol. Monogr. 2011 81 169 193 10.1890/10-1510.1 Bateman I.J. Mace G.M. Fezzi C. Atkinson G. Turner R.K. Economic Analysis for Ecosystems Assessments Environ. Res. Econ. 2011 48 177 218 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x Maes J. Paracchini M.L. Zulian G. Dunbar M.B. Alkemade R. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe Biol. Conserv. 2012 155 1 12 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016 Liu Y. Huang X. Yang H. Zhong T. Environmental effects of land-use/cover change caused by urbanization and policies in Southwest China Karst area—A case study of Guiyang Habitat Int. 2014 44 339 348 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.07.009 Su S. Zhou X. Wan C. Li Y. Kong W. Land use changes to cash crop plantations: Crop types, multilevel determinants and policy implications Land Use Policy 2016 50 379 389 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.003 Tomaz C. Alegria C. Monteiro J.M. Teixira M.C. Land cover change and afforestation of marginal and abandoned agricultural land: A 10 year analysis in a Mediterranean region For. Ecol. Manag. 2013 308 40 49 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.044 Trincsi K. Pham T.H. Turner S. Mapping mountain diversity: Ethnic minorities and land use land cover change in Vietnam’s borderlands Land Use Policy 2014 41 484 497 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.022 Du S. Wang Q. Guo L. Spatially varying relationships between land-cover change and driving factors at multiple sampling scales J. Environ. Manag. 2014 137 101 110 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.037 24603033 Xiong X. Grunwald S. Myers D.B. Ross C.W. Harris W.G. Comerford N.B. Interaction effects of climate and land use/land cover change on soil organic carbon sequestration Sci. Total Environ. 2014 493 974 982 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.088 25010945 Deng Y. Srinivasanb S. Urban land use change and regional access: A case study in Beijing, China Habitat Int. 2016 51 103 113 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.09.007 Beyene F. Land use change and determinants of land management: Experience of pastoral and agro-pastoral herders in eastern Ethiopia J. Arid Environ. 2016 125 56 63 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.10.001 Halmy M.W.A. Gessler P.E. Hicke J.A. Salem B.B. Land use/land cover change detection and prediction in the north-western coastal desert of Egypt using Markov-CA Appl. Geogr. 2015 63 101 112 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.015 Burkhard B. Crossman N. Nedkov S. Petz K. Alkemade R. Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice Ecosyst. Serv. 2013 4 1 3 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.005 Posthumus H. Rouquette J.R. Morris J. Gowing D.J.G. Hess T.M. A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England Ecol. Econ. 2010 69 1510 1523 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.011 Lautenbach S. Kugel C. Lausch A. Seppelt R. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data Ecol. Indic. 2011 11 676 687 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007 Haines-Young R. Potschin M. Kienast F. Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: Mapping marginal changes and trade-offs Ecol. Indic. 2012 21 39 53 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.004 Nelson E. Mendoza G. Regetz J. Polasky S. Tallis H. Cameron D.R. Chan K.M. Daily G.C. Goldstein J. Kareiva P.M. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009 7 4 11 10.1890/080023 Polasky S. Calderone G. Duarte K.E. Goldstein J. Hannahs N. Ricketts T.H. Tallis H. Putting ecosystem services to work: Conservation, management, and trade-offs Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2011 249 263 Geneletti D. Integrating Ecosystem Services in Land Use Planning: Concepts and Applications CID Research Fellow and Graduate Student Working Paper No. 54 Center for International Development, Harvard University Cambridge, MA, USA 2012 Petus C. Lewis M. White D. Monitoring temporal dynamics of Great Artesian Basin wetland vegetation, Australia, using MODIS NDVI Ecol. Indic. 2013 34 41 52 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.009 Julian J.P. Wilgruber N.A. Beurs K.M.D. Mayer P.M. Jawarnehd R.N. Long-term impacts of land cover changes on stream channel loss Sci. Total Environ. 2015 537 399 410 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.147 26282774 Abrantes P. Fontes I. Gomes E. Rocha J. Compliance of land cover changes with municipal land use planning: Evidence from the Lisbon metropolitan region (1990–2007) Land Use Policy 2016 51 120 134 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.023 Chen N. Ma T. Zhang X. Responses of soil erosion processes to land cover changes in the Loess Plateau of China: A case study on the Beiluo River basin Catena 2016 136 118 127 10.1016/j.catena.2015.02.022 Chen H.S. Chen C.Y. Chang C.T. Hsieh T. The Construction and Application of a Carrying Capacity Evaluation Model in a National Park Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2014 28 1333 1341 10.1007/s00477-013-0844-5 Warhurst A. Mining, mineral processing, and extractive metallurgy: An overview of the technologies and their impact on the physical environment Environmental Policy in Mining: Corporate Strategy and Planning for Closure Warhurst A. Raton L.N.B. CRC Press LLC Boca Raton, FL, USA 2000 Singh R.K. Murty H.R. Gupta S.K. Dikshit A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies Ecol. Indic. 2012 15 281 299 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007 Bhandari B.S. Grant M. Analysis of livelihood security: A case study in the Kali-Khola watershed of Nepal J. Environ. Manag. 2007 85 17 26 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.07.010 17030404 Liu R.Z. Borthwick A.G.L. Measurement and assessment of carrying capacity of the environment in Ningbo, China J. Environ. Manag. 2011 92 2047 2053 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.033 21507560 Rees W.E. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out Environ. Urban. 1992 4 121 130 10.1177/095624789200400212 Wackernagel M. Rees W. Our Ecological Footprint-Reducing Human Impact on the Earth New Society Publishers Gabriola Island, BC, Canada 2000 Chen H.S. Establishment and Applied Research on a Wetland Ecosystem Evaluation Model in Taiwan Sustainability 2015 7 15785 15793 10.3390/su71215785 Chen T.S. Lin H.J. Huang S.Y. A framework on habitat connectivity among Taiwan’s wetlands for overwintering Black-faced Spoonbill Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015 116 78 88 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.002 Fang G. Huang C. Chang C. Han J. Kuan H. Jie L. Fu Z. Chen X. Yang K. Tsai H.H. Atmospheric total arsenic (As), (As3+) and (As5+) pollutants study in central Taiwan Environ. Earth Sci. 2016 75 124 10.1007/s12665-015-5072-5 Mamattuesun E. Hamid Y. Anwar M. Oasis land-use change and its effects on the oasis eco-environment in Keriya Oasia China 2010 7 244 252 Sawut M. Eziz M. Tiyip T. The effects of land-use change on ecosystem service value of desert oasis: A case study in Ugan-Kuqa River Delta Oasis, China Can. J. Soil Sci. 2013 93 99 108 10.4141/cjss2012-010 Gössling S. Hansson C.B. Hörstmeier O. Saggel S. Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability Ecol. Econ. 2002 43 199 211 Martin-Cejas R.R. Sanchez P.P.R. Ecological footprint analysis of road transport related to tourism activity: The case for Lanzarote Island Tour. Manag. 2010 31 98 103 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.007 Rees W.E. Getting serious about urban sustainability, eco–footprints and the vulnerability of twenty–first–century cities Canadian Cities in Transition, New Directions in the Twenty-First Century Oxford University Press Toronto, ON, Canada 2011 70 86 World Economic Forum, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University, and Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005 Available online: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/ (accessed on 16 June 2016) Tables water-09-00197-t001_Table 1

Yield factor (YF) for different land use and land cover ecosystems in the Gaomei wetlands from 2008 to 2015.

Year Agricultural Ecosystem Forest Ecosystem Grassland Ecology System Fisheries Ecosystems Ecosystem Completions Unutilized Land and Six Other Ecosystem Units
2008 1.51 0.92 1.15 1.88 0.62 1.92
2009 1.49 0.91 1.13 1.81 0.58 2.01
2010 1.48 0.88 1.12 1.80 0.54 2.15
2011 1.31 0.77 1.14 1.60 0.40 1.98
2012 1.06 0.60 0.87 1.28 0.15 1.62
2013 1.14 0.63 0.94 1.33 0.15 1.77
2014 1.07 0.57 0.88 1.21 0.11 1.64
2015 1.00 0.52 0.77 1.11 0.08 1.56
water-09-00197-t002_Table 2

Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) levels and conditions.

Level EFI EFI Conditions
1 <0.5 Safe
2 0.5~0.8 Moderately safe
3 0.8~1.0 Threshold
4 >1.0 Unsafe

Resource: [49].

 water-09-00197-t003_Table 3

Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) levels.

Level ESI Regional Ecological Sustainability Extent
1 >0.7 High sustainability
2 0.50~0.70 Low sustainability
3 0.30~0.50 Low unsustainability
4 <0.30 High unsustainability

Resource: [58].

 water-09-00197-t004_Table 4

Ecosystem service values from 2008 to 2015 for each Gaomei wetlands ecosystem type.

Year Fisheries Ecosystems Grassland Ecology System Forest Ecosystem Agricultural Ecosystem The Completion of Ecosystems Unutilized land and Six Other Ecosystem Units Total
Ecosystem Services Values (106 TWD) 2008 40.93 6.17 0.32 10.68 0.01 1.13 59.24
2009 48.85 6.28 0.34 10.74 0.01 1.27 67.49
2010 53.12 6.35 0.34 10.82 0.01 1.35 71.99
2011 60.89 6.39 0.36 10.10 0.01 1.44 79.19
2012 65.11 6.62 0.55 12.08 0.01 1.39 85.76
2013 83.79 3.34 0.04 12.76 0.01 1.57 101.51
2014 78.18 4.37 0.05 14.56 0.01 1.44 98.61
2015 74.12 4.11 0.05 18.49 0.02 1.31 98.10
water-09-00197-t005_Table 5

Ecological Footprint (EF) for the three activities types and total Ecological Footprint (EF) (unit: gha).

Year TREF ACTEF FEF EF
2008 140.47 95.14 8.42 244.03
2009 183.70 95.14 13.52 292.36
2010 204.87 95.14 13.37 313.38
2011 184.57 95.14 13.77 293.48
2012 182.99 95.14 12.30 290.43
2013 220.37 95.14 15.54 331.05
2014 267.04 95.14 19.96 382.14
2015 267.36 95.14 18.48 380.98
Average proportion 70.18% 24.97% 4.85% 100.000%

Notes: TREF: transport ecological footprint; ACTEF: activities footprint; FEF: food & fiber consumption ecological footprint; EF: total ecological footprint.

 water-09-00197-t006_Table 6

Ecological Footprint (EF), ecological carrying capacity (ECC), ecological remainder (ER)/ecological deficit (ED), ecological footprint index (EFI), and environmental sustainability index (ESI) (unit: gha).

Year ECC EF ES/ED EFI ESI
Index Level Representation Condition Index Level Representational State
2008 372.57 244.03 128.54 0.65 2 Moderately safe 0.60 2 Low sustainability
2009 372.57 292.36 80.18 0.78 2 Moderately safe 0.56 2 Low sustainability
2010 372.57 313.38 59.19 0.84 3 Threshold 0.54 2 Low sustainability
2011 372.57 293.48 79.09 0.79 2 Moderately safe 0.56 2 Low sustainability
2012 372.57 290.43 82.14 0.78 2 Moderately safe 0.56 2 Low sustainability
2013 372.57 331.05 41.52 0.89 3 Threshold 0.53 2 Low sustainability
2014 372.57 382.14 −9.57 1.03 4 Unsafe 0.49 3 Low unsustainability
2015 372.57 380.98 −8.41 1.02 4 Unsafe 0.49 3 Low unsustainability