Next Article in Journal
Teacher Training Can Make a Difference: Tools to Overcome the Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Schools. An Experimental Study
Previous Article in Journal
A Blended Cognitive–Behavioral Intervention for the Treatment of Postpartum Depression: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China

School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(22), 8632; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228632
Submission received: 28 October 2020 / Revised: 17 November 2020 / Accepted: 18 November 2020 / Published: 20 November 2020

Abstract

It is generally believed that land-use changes can affect a variety of ecosystem services (ES), but the relationships involved remain unclear due to a lack of systematic knowledge and gaps in data. In order to make rational decisions for land-use planning that is grounded in a systematic understanding of trade-offs between different land-use strategies, it is very important to understand the response mechanisms of various ecosystem services to changes in land-use. Therefore, the objective of our study is to assess the effects of land-use change on six ecosystem services and their trade-offs among the ecosystem services in the ecological conservation area (ECA) in Beijing, China. To do this, we projected future land-use in 2030 under three different scenarios: Business as Usual (BAU), Ecological Protection (ELP), and Rapid Urban Development (RUD), using GeoSOS-FLUS model. Then, we quantified six ecosystem services (carbon storage, soil conservation, water purification, habitat quality, flood regulation, and food production) in response to land-use changes from 2015 to 2030, using a spatially explicit InVEST model. Finally, we illustrated the trade-offs and/or synergistic relationships between each ecosystem service quantified under each of the different scenarios in 2030. Results showed that built-up land is projected to increase by 281.18 km2 at the cost of water bodies and cultivated land from 2015 to 2030 under the RUD scenario, while forest land is projected to increase by 152.38 km2 under the ELP scenario. The carbon storage, soil conservation, habitat quality, and the sum of ecosystem services (SES) would enrich the highest level under the ELP scenario. Land-use strategies that follow the ELP scenario can better maintain the ecosystem services and sustainable development of natural and social economic systems.
Keywords: ecosystem services; land-use changes; GeoSOS-FLUS; InVEST ecosystem services; land-use changes; GeoSOS-FLUS; InVEST

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z.; Cheng, X.; Han, H. Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228632

AMA Style

Li Z, Cheng X, Han H. Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(22):8632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228632

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zuzheng, Xiaoqin Cheng, and Hairong Han. 2020. "Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22: 8632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228632

APA Style

Li, Z., Cheng, X., & Han, H. (2020). Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228632

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop