Next Article in Journal
Optimizing the Benefits of Invasive Alien Plants Biomass in South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Socioeconomic Importance of the Small-Scale Mud Crab Fishing (Scylla Serrata, Forskall 1775) in the Bons Sinais Estuary—Mozambique
Previous Article in Special Issue
Farmland Transfer Mode and Livelihood Capital Endowment Impacts on Income Inequality: Rural Survey Data of Hubei Province, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/su16051875
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Sustainability through Ecosystem Services Evaluation: A Case Study of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village

by
Shuyang Tang
,
Ziwei Liu
,
Yumei Li
and
Mingqin Zhou
*
Collage of Horticultural and Gardening, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 1875; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051875
Submission received: 4 January 2024 / Revised: 16 February 2024 / Accepted: 21 February 2024 / Published: 24 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Services in China)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, as a paradigm of traditional Chinese agricultural recycling models, represents a distinct ecosystem. This study focuses on the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village, Huzhou, as a typical case. The village serves as a core conservation base for the Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, hosting the Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Development Center’s Academician and Expert Workstation and the world’s only Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System Visitor Center. These facilities provide strategic guidance for the conservation, development, planning, and inheritance of the Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Considering the unique environment and limitations in data acquisition, this study employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) to develop an ecosystem service assessment framework encompassing eight aspects and 29 factors assessing the provisioning, regulating, and cultural services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. The results indicate that the ecosystem services of the Digang Village Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System perform at a high level, with cultural services playing a significant role in the overall ecosystem services. The regulating services are relatively weak, highlighting deficiencies in mulberry land management, while the capacity of provisioning services is strong. These findings are crucial for understanding the value of ecosystem services in Digang Village’s Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, identifying management shortcomings, and providing direction for future assessments and management. This study also offers a practical and effective assessment method for ecosystem service evaluation at smaller scales, where the targeted approach and the presence of significant ambiguity and uncertainty in data are prominent.

1. Introduction

The Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System represents a distinctive agroecosystem in China renowned globally for its pond mud fertilizing mulberry, mulberry leaves nurturing silkworms, silkworm sand feeding fish, and fish manure fertilizing mud—the essence of a highly productive agricultural model [1]. With the advancement of technology, agricultural mechanization and facility-based practices have become the dominant trend in the majority of current agricultural models [2,3]. This trend has led to highly efficient agricultural production and larger-scale farming operations, making significant contributions to grain production and the development of global supply chains [4]. However, while modern agricultural models emphasize economic efficiency, they often involve the large-scale consumption of energy and resources, posing potential threats to the environment. Therefore, modern agricultural models face severe challenges in terms of sustainable development [5,6]. In contrast, traditional circular agriculture not only prioritizes economic gains but also considers ecological preservation and local cultural heritage [7]. The sustainability and ecological principles inherent in this traditional model offer valuable insights for steering the modern agricultural model toward sustainable development.
Ecosystem Services (ES) refer to the advantages that humans obtain from ecosystems, ultimately striving for sustainable human well-being [8,9]. As outlined by the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), these services are classified into Provisioning Ecosystem Services (PESs), Regulating Ecosystem Services (RESs), Cultural Services (CESs), and Supporting Ecosystem Services (SESs) [10]. The Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, as a representative of Chinese agricultural culture, holds significant value across diverse domains, including agricultural production, environment regulation, and cultural heritage preservation. Evaluating the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System provides insights into their comprehensive benefits, encompassing food production, ecosystem regulation, and cultural heritage contributions. This assessment aids management and decision-makers in formulating more scientific and rational agricultural strategies, fostering economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable agricultural development.
Currently, methods for assessing ecosystem services are broadly categorized into two types: valuation-based and material-based assessments [11,12,13]. Valuation-based assessments primarily focus on providing decision-makers with management strategies and grounds for evaluating the market values of services, whereas material-based assessments concentrate on investigating the mechanisms behind the formation of ecosystem services. In existing research on the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, scholars have employed these two assessment methods. For instance, using the contingent valuation method, a study assessed the value of nine ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, revealing that its overall service value exceeds that of separate mulberry gardens and fish ponds combined [14]. Additionally, the emergy (embodied energy) method was used to compare different agricultural ecological engineering models of the system [15], production models from various periods [16], and the differences between the dyke-pond system and traditional agriculture [17], thus evaluating the sustainability of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System model. In research specifically focusing on the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, most of the literature comes from contributions by Chinese scholars, including investigations into the historical eco-economic context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System [18,19], studies on ecological restoration strategies [20,21], analyses of landscape patterns [22,23], material cycling models [24], and evaluations of sustainability capabilities [25]. However, these studies have not yet comprehensively considered the combined benefits of the services provided by the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, especially in terms of the spiritual well-being obtained by humans, thus necessitating further in-depth research to unveil their comprehensive performance in these areas.
This study focuses on Digang Village within the core conservation area of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Huzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. The village, characterized by the typical features of the Jiangnan water town plains, is surrounded by water on all sides and has developed over thousands of years relying on the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. This study adopted a combined approach of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE). AHP provides a clear path for breaking down an abstract problem into concrete analytical units, while FCE allows for the establishment of a series of grading standards upon this foundation, facilitating the collection of data from diverse sources. This approach enables the quantitative integration and analysis of information from different dimensions [26,27]. The innovation of this article lies in applying these well-developed methods in combination to assess ecosystem services, offering a flexible strategy to tackle the challenges we face. This method was applied in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System to address the research challenges of the ambiguity of data sources and high uncertainty. Regarding another aspect, MA and other research treat supporting services as ecological functions or ecological processes, such as biomass production, oxygen production, and the water cycle [28,29,30,31,32]. Incorporating supporting services into calculations may lead to redundancy in the assessments. This perspective resonates with some scholars’ skepticism about Costanza’s calculation of intermediate and final services leading to redundant estimations [33]. Therefore, we chose provisioning, regulating, and cultural services as the framework of our assessment research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Currently, China has 19 Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHSs). The Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Huzhou, Zhejiang (located at 37°12′18″ N, 120°17′40″ E), is situated on the plains south of Lake Taihu, within a subtropical climate zone. The annual average temperature ranges from 17.8 °C to 18.2 °C, with annual precipitation between 1348 mm and 1723 mm. In 2017, it was recognized as a GIAHS [34]. Digang Village, located in the Nanxun town of Huzhou, serves as an important monitoring site for the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond Heritage System. It is home to the world’s only Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond Visitor Center and the Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Development Center’s Academician and Expert Workstation, which focuses on the conservation and planning of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. The total area of the village is about 643 hectares, consisting of arable land, gardens, forests, grasslands, water bodies, water conservancy facilities, construction land, and other types of land. The Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System itself covers approximately 220 hm2, with the central village area covering about 130 hm2. The main agricultural activities include freshwater fish farming and sericulture. The most important agricultural species within the system include 2 types of silkworms, 4 types of mulberry trees, 7 types of fish, and 3 types of fruits and vegetables. The village has a registered population of about 1141 households, of which approximately 280 provide heritage tourism services, and the per capita income of farmers operating agricultural heritage is CNY 6500. The village houses the core conservation area of the Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, covering about 66 hm2, including approximately 23–25 hm2 of mulberry gardens and 33–35 hm2 of fish ponds. This study focuses on the central village of Digang and the core conservation area within the village (Figure 1).

2.2. Methodology and Data

2.2.1. Modeling the Valuation of ES

A scientific evaluation index system serves as the prerequisite and foundation for the effective evaluation of ecosystem services in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System [35]. In the classification of ES by the MA [10], Provisioning Ecosystem Services (PESs) encompass services produced or provided by ecosystems, such as food, fiber, genetic resources, etc. RESs are benefits derived from the regulating function of ecosystem processes, including the regulation of atmospheric quality, climate, and the environment, etc. CESs refer to non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems. Additionally, supporting services represent a function of ecosystems necessary for the provision of other services. In the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, PESs, RESs, and CESs were specifically selected to construct a comprehensive ecosystem service evaluation system.
Building upon the existing literature [36,37,38,39,40,41,42], the results of discussions with 4 experts in ecology, and an assessment of the operational status of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, the evaluation index system was designed. Given the significance of mulberry harvesting and fish farming densities in these fishponds [43,44,45], the production of mulberries and fish was chosen to characterize the PESs. Differences in temperature and humidity between the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System and downtown Huzhou City as well as the air quality index of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System were used to characterize the climate regulation value of the RESs, and its basal environmental regulation capacity was flanked by pesticide and fertilizer use in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, thus characterizing the basal environmental regulation value of the RESs [46,47,48,49]. CESs were characterized by 4 aspects: aesthetics, education, leisure and entertainment, and cultural heritage [50,51]. The finalized evaluation index system comprised 1 objective, 3 guidelines, 8 indicators, and 29 factors. The specific framework of the index system is detailed in Table 1 below.

2.2.2. AHP-FCE-Based Ecosystem Service Evaluation Model for the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System

The evaluation model consisted of two main parts. First, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was employed to establish the weights for the indicators within the ecosystem service evaluation system for the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Then, the multilevel Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method was applied to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. The integrated AHP-FCE evaluation model was outlined as follows:
(1)
Establishment of evaluation factor domain and evaluation criteria
Establishment of the evaluation factor domain V for ecosystem services in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond Systems, divided into 5 levels (Table 2).
Establishing Evaluation Criteria for Quantitative Factors (Table 3). The data related to mulberry leaf production (D1), mulberry fruit production (D2), conventional fish farming production (D3), and ecological fish farming production (D4) were sourced from the Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Development Center’s Academician and Expert Workstation. Surveys revealed that the annual production of mulberry leaves in the mulberry gardens was approximately 18.75 t/hm2, with pest and disease damage causing a reduction of about 30% to 50%; the annual production of mulberry fruits ranged from 15.00 to 18.75 t/hm2, with a 30% to 50% decrease due to pests and diseases; the annual production of conventionally farmed fish was about 22.50 t/hm2, while that of ecologically farmed fish was about 11.25 t/hm2. In aquaculture, reductions due to climate and fish diseases account for about 20% to 30% and, in the worst-case scenario, all fish may die. The evaluation criteria were established based on the survey results. Indicators D5 to D8 were developed with reference to the relevant literature [52,53,54,55]. The Air Quality Index (D9) was based on the “Environmental Air Quality Standards” GB3095-2012 of China [56].
Qualitative data were characterized by five levels of satisfaction (very familiar, quite familiar, moderately familiar, slightly familiar, unfamiliar) (very satisfied, fairly satisfied, generally satisfied, not very satisfied, not satisfied) to represent the membership degree of evaluation indicators to the evaluation factor domain V (Table 4).
(2)
Determination of weight values
We applied the AHP method to determine the weights of each index. Pairwise comparisons were made among indicators at the same level to construct a judgment matrix. The normalization of weight values and weight vectors was then accomplished through relevant calculation formulas. The weight vector set was obtained through the verification steps [57,58].
(3)
Constructing the affiliation matrix
We determined the membership degree of the evaluated object to the evaluation factor domain and obtained the fuzzy relationship matrix. In this study, the membership degree of quantitative data to the evaluation factor domain was determined through a trapezoidal function, and the membership degree of qualitative data to the evaluation factor domain was obtained through statistical analysis [59].
(4)
Obtaining a composite score for the overall goal
Building on the aforementioned analysis, the overall goal composite score (F) was calculated using the weighted average method, expressed as F = W·R, where W represents the weight vector set and R represents the membership matrix.

2.2.3. Data

Data related to the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System for the year 2022 were collected through interviews, questionnaires, field surveys, and applications. The study conducted an assessment of the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System for the year 2022. The quantitative indicators were primarily sourced from the Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Development Center’s Academician and Expert Workstation, as shown in Table 5. This data encompassed mulberry and fish production as well as the quantities of fertilizers and pesticides used. Air quality index data were obtained from the weather network (http://www.weather.com.cn/ (accessed on 23 February 2023)). Qualitative indicators were gathered through a one-to-one questionnaire survey conducted with tourists and villagers engaged in activities at Digang Village Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. A total of 109 questionnaires were initially collected, with 100 valid questionnaires selected after screening to exclude those completed in less than 2 min.

3. Results

3.1. AHP Weight for Each Indicator

Five experts and scholars specializing in ecosystem services research and the planning and design of Digang Village were invited to provide judgments and weights. All tables passed the consistency test (see Appendix A) and the results are presented in Table 6.
At the guideline level (Table 6), it is evident that CESs (B3) play a crucial role in influencing the overall ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, commanding a weight share of 0.51. Within CESs (B3), the value of aesthetics, education, leisure and entertainment, and cultural heritage across four aspects contributed to this weight. Notably, the value of cultural heritage (C8) emerged as a significant influencing factor for CESs (B3).
In the index layer (Table 6), the cultural heritage value (C8) held the highest weight at 0.17, underscoring its significance as the primary manifestation of the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Notably, cultural heritage value (C8) was most profoundly influenced by factors such as food culture characteristics (D28) and fish and mulberry cultural characteristics (D29). Following closely, the fishpond production value (C1) was of considerable importance, with a weight share of 0.17. Its significance was primarily influenced by ecological fish farming production (D4). Additionally, climate regulation value (C4), leisure and entertainment value (C7), and educational value (C6) exhibited comparable importance, with weight shares of 0.15, 0.13, and 0.12, respectively. Conversely, the remaining indicators—basal environmental regulation value (C3), mulberry land production value (C1), and aesthetic value (C5)—had weight shares of less than 0.0900. This suggests that the value contributed by the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System predominantly revolves around five aspects: cultural heritage, fishpond production, climate regulation, leisure and entertainment, and education. These indicators exert the most significant influence on the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, thus warranting particular attention.
In the factor layer (Table 6), eight indicators—ecological fish farming production (D4), air quality index (D9), mulberry fruit production (D2), fish and mulberry culture education (D15), food culture characteristics (D28), conventional fish farming production (D3), fish and mulberry culture characteristics (D29), and fertilizer application intensity (D5)—collectively accounted for a weight share of 0.51. Among these, ecological fish farming production (D4) carried the highest weight at 0.1155, underscoring its paramount importance. This implies that these eight indicators were pivotal factors influencing the evaluation, and the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System emphasize production capacity and content related to fish and mulberry culture.

3.2. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation and Results

After obtaining the weights of the indicators in the evaluation system of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond ecosystem services, the membership degree matrix is constructed based on the established evaluation factor domain, evaluation criteria, quantitative and qualitative data, and the results are normalized as shown in Table 7 and Table 8. Refer to Appendix B for the calculation process. According to the principle of the maximum affiliation function of the FCE method, the affiliation degrees of the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System were as follows: high level: 0.44, relatively high level: 0.32, general level: 0.10, relatively low level: 0.03, and low level: 0.11. The weighted average result was calculated as [0.44, 0.32, 0.10, 0.03, 0.11] × [5, 4, 3, 2, 1] = 3.97, indicating that the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System belong to the relatively high level. We multiplied the membership degrees of each criterion, index, and factor by the normalized weights of each layer, as shown in Figure 2.
The evaluation results of the indicators at the normative level are presented in Figure 2a. Both PESs (B1) and CESs (B3) exhibited high performance, predominantly at the high and relatively high levels. In contrast, RESs (B2) demonstrated a comparatively lower performance, mainly at the relatively low and low levels.
The evaluation results at the indicator and factor levels are depicted in Figure 2b,c. Notably, the four indicators related to the production value of mulberry land (C1) and fishponds (C2) excelled, predominantly at the high level. This suggests that the production capacity of mulberry leaves, mulberry fruits, black carp, and eco-fish in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System is robust. On the other hand, the basal environmental regulation value (C3) and climate regulation value (C4) exhibited lower performance, largely at the relatively low and low levels. This was primarily influenced by factors such as the intensity of pesticide application (D6), relative humidity regulation (D7), and average temperature regulation (D8). These results indicate deficiencies in pesticide use and the regulation of humidity and temperature in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. In contrast, the evaluation results for the four values of aesthetic value (C5), educational value (C6), leisure and entertainment value (C7), and cultural heritage value (C8) demonstrated a high degree of affiliation to high and relatively high levels, signifying high performance in these aspects. Among the five main values of ecosystem services in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, the climate regulation value (C4) was at the low level, indicating an important aspect that requires improvement. However, the top eight indicators in the factor hierarchy largely performed at the high or relatively high levels, suggesting a positive role in promoting the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System.

4. Discussion

4.1. An Optimized Management Strategy for the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System Based on the AHP-FCE Approach

In our assessment of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System’s ecosystem services, we discovered that the RESs (B2) did not achieve high or moderately high levels. Furthermore, the distribution of membership degrees for these services revealed a pronounced bipolar trend, seemingly linked to the interplay among indicators D5 to D9. Specifically, indicators D5 and D6 reflected the growth conditions of mulberry trees to a certain extent, while the area and condition of the mulberry land directly influenced indicators D7, D8, and D9. Consequently, the outcomes for D5, D7, and D8 suggested deficiencies in the management of mulberry lands, underlining the necessity for enhanced professional support in this domain. Reduced and judicious use of pesticides could significantly bolster the regulating service capability of the system, thereby elevating the air quality index. On another front, CESs (B3) emerged as a significant determinant of the system’s ecosystem services. This underscores a growing public demand for recreational and cultural facets of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Notably, correlations between C5 and C7, as well as C6 and C8, were observed. Thus, reinforcing the key influencers in these aspects is expected to amplify the system’s cultural service capacity. Strategic measures include diversifying plant arrangements, augmenting the overall cohesion of the system, enhancing tourism infrastructure, fortifying comprehensive environmental management, and intensively exploring the cultural and historical essence of fish and mulberry practices, along with promoting their unique gastronomical and cultural attributes. Moreover, the factor layer for B3 was predominantly concentrated at a higher level, with a minority at high and average levels, potentially reflecting the evaluators’ ambiguity and unclear understanding of related issues. Therefore, contrasting high- and average-level numerical differences could be more indicative, possibly unveiling divergences in opinions about indicator quality. Hence, indicators such as D13, D18, D19, D21, D22, and D23 merit close attention.
When exploring ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes such as Sankey’s fishponds, we must consider the multifunctionality between services and their trade-offs. According to the existing literature [60,61,62], ecosystem services are not always mutually reinforcing but may be mutually constraining in some cases. Therefore, when planning, constructing, and managing the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, we should not simply seek to maximize a single service but need to consider the balance among services in an integrated manner. The current assessment suggests that there may be some trade-offs between regulating services and provisioning and cultural services. In particular, it is foreseen that the continued enhancement of cultural services will contribute to the diversification of the landscape of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, the enrichment of recreational facilities, and the improvement of public spaces. However, such changes may also lead to over-intervention in the environment of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System and, consequently, management neglect in the maintenance of vegetation and water bodies, thus affecting the effectiveness of regulating services. In the future management of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, we need to weigh the relationship between its ecological benefits and management costs among services.

4.2. The Effectiveness of the AHP-FCE Method for Ecosystem Service Assessment in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System

Relative to existing modeling approaches like InVEST and IMAGE renowned for their efficacy in large-scale ecosystem service evaluations, these technologies adopt a modular design and scenario-based data input. They are adept at simulating and forecasting various future possibilities, furnishing quantitative outcomes for stakeholders balancing multiple ecosystem services [63,64]. Nonetheless, these models demand high data quality and volume, making them less suitable for addressing uncertainties, fuzziness, and data gaps in small-scale ecosystem service studies. Contrarily, the AHP-FCE method emerges as a more apt solution for such challenges, producing results that are more comprehensible and interpretable, thereby fostering societal engagement and the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives [65]. This is particularly evident in evaluations of ecosystems where cultural services are prominent as the AHP-FCE method effectively mirrors public sentiments on the value of cultural services. Our findings underscore the pivotal role of cultural services within the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, concurrently highlighting managerial issues, resonating with prior research [14,66,67]. The increasing importance of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System’s conservation and management is underscored by climate changes and land use transformations in Nanxun town [66]. The AHP-FCE method facilitates the provision of a holistic evaluation indicator system and diagnostic techniques for the future progression of the system’s ecosystem services. Moreover, this approach presents a viable resolution to the ambiguities encountered in ecosystem service assessments.

4.3. Future Improvement Directions of the AHP-FCE Method for Ecosystem Service Valuations of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System

This evaluation system still offers opportunities for refinement, and future improvements are suggested for enhancing the assessment of ecosystem services in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Proposed directions for future enhancement include adjusting indicators based on local planning and development reports and scientific research findings and selectively adding or reducing specific indicators to enhance the scientific rigor of the evaluation system. The monitoring system can be upgraded by accounting for the ratio of base ponds, tallying base crops, and subcategorizing aquatic crops cultivated in the fish ponds. Additionally, the inclusion of quantitative indicators, such as monitoring soil and water quality, can enhance the overall robustness of the evaluation system. It is recommended that the temporal scope of data collection be extended beyond the year 2022 to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the development status of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Long-term research efforts will be crucial for gaining insights into the dynamic changes and trends within these ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

This study undertook a thorough evaluation of the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village, Huzhou, utilizing the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE). Our findings illuminate the paramount role of cultural services within the ecosystem services of the system, particularly emphasizing the substantial impact of cultural heritage values. In contrast, the underperformance of regulating services unveils gaps in mulberry land management and upkeep. These outcomes underscore the necessity to prioritize cultural heritage conservation and enhance regulating services in future management strategies.
This study not only proposes a scientifically robust method for assessing the ecosystem services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System but also lays a solid foundation for decision-makers to devise more informed and rational management strategies. Additionally, by revealing the significance of cultural services and identifying the areas needing improvement in regulating services, this research charts new pathways for the sustainable development and ecological protection of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. These findings hold substantial relevance for fostering the sustainable evolution of agricultural ecosystems in economic, social, and environmental dimensions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T.; Methodology, Y.L.; Software, M.Z.; Validation, Z.L. and M.Z.; Investigation, S.T.; Resources, M.Z.; Writing—original draft, S.T.; Writing—review & editing, S.T.; Visualization, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. A-B judgment matrix and weights.
Table A1. A-B judgment matrix and weights.
Ecosystem Service
Assessment of
the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System		Provisioning
Ecosystem Services B1		Regulating Ecosystem Services B2Culture Ecosystem Services B3Normalized Weights
Provisioning Ecosystem Services B1111/20.2247
Regulating Ecosystem Services B2111/50.1655
Culture Ecosystem Services B32510.6098
λ m a x = 3.0940 C I = 0.0470 R I = 0.5200 ∑ = 1
C R = 0.9040 Satisfying the consistency test
Table A2. Weight table of index layer in Provisioning Ecosystem Services B1.
Table A2. Weight table of index layer in Provisioning Ecosystem Services B1.
Provisioning
Ecosystem Services B1		Mulberry Land
Production Value C1		Fishpond Production Value C2Normalized Weights
Mulberry land production value C1110.5000
Fishpond production value C2110.5000
λ m a x = 2.0000 C I = 0.0000 R I = 0.0000 ∑ = 1
C R = 0.0000 Satisfying the consistency test
Table A3. Factor layer weights in Provisioning Ecosystem Services B1.
Table A3. Factor layer weights in Provisioning Ecosystem Services B1.
Criterion LayerIndex LayerFactor LayerFactor Layer Weight Coefficient
Provisioning ecosystem services B1Mulberry land production value C1Mulberry leaf production D10.5000
Mulberry fruit production D20.5000
Fishpond production value C2Conventional fish farming production D30.5000
Ecological fish farming production D40.5000

Appendix B

C 1 M u l b e r r y   l a n d   p r o d u c t i o n   v a l u e = w i · R M u l b e r r y   l a n d   p r o d u c t i o n   v a l u e = ( 0.2869 , 0.7131 ) 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 = ( 1.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 )
C 2 F i s h p o n d   p r o d u c t i o n   v a l u e = w i · R F i s h p o n d   p r o d u c t i o n   v a l u e = ( 0.3033 , 0.6967 ) 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 = ( 1.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 )
C 3 B a s a l   e n v i r o n m e n t   r e g u l a t i o n   v a l u e = w i · R B a s a l   e n v i r o n m e n t   r e g u l a t i o n   v a l u e = ( 0.5000 , 0.5000 ) 0.6970 0.3030 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 = ( 0.3485 , 0.1515 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.5000 )
C 4 C l i m a t e   r e g u l a t i o n   v a l u e = w i · R C l i m a t e   r e g u l a t i o n   v a l u e = ( 0.2574 , 0.2568 , 0.4859 ) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000     0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.4200 0.5800 0.0000 0.7000     0.3000 0.0000 0.0000 = ( 0.0000 , 0.3411 , 0.1448 , 0.1078 , 0.4063 )
C 5 A e s t h e t i c s   v a l u e = w i · R A e s t h e t i c s   v a l u e = 0.2478 0.1330 0.2309 0.1664 0.2221 T 0.3600 0.5900 0.3200 0.5900     0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0800 0.0000 0.0100 0.3100 0.5700 0.1000 0.1100 0.5000 0.2900 0.2800 0.5100 0.1800     0.0200 0.0000 0.0900 0.0100 0.0300 0.0000 = ( 0.2838 , 0.5526 , 0.1343 , 0.0262 , 0.0030 )
C 6 E d u c a t i o n   v a l u e = w i · R E d u c a t i o n   v a l u e = 0.4771 0.2952 0.1512 0.7656 T 0.3200 0.4700 0.3500 0.5000     0.1600 0.0400 0.0100 0.1100 0.0400 0.0000 0.3000 0.4400 0.1200 0.2500     0.2200 0.0400 0.0000 0.2500 0.3100 0.0700 = ( 0.3105 , 0.4575 , 0.1612 , 0.0607 , 0.0101 )
C 7 L e i s u r e   a n d   e n t e r t a i n m e n t   v a l u e = w i · R L e i s u r e   a n d   e n t e r t a i n m e n t   v a l u e = 0.1606 0.1753 0.1979 0.1314 0.1679 0.1668 T 0.2800 0.4700 0.2200 0.3300 0.4900 0.1500 0.2500 0.4900 0.2400     0.0300 0.0000 0.0200 0.0100 0.0200 0.0000 0.2100 0.6100 0.1800 0.1800 0.5900 0.2000 0.3500 0.5300 0.1900     0.0000 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 = ( 0.2685 , 0.5260 , 0.1814 , 0.0223 , 0.0018 )
C 8 C u l t u r a l   h e r i t a g e   v a l u e = w i · R C u l t u r a l   h e r i t a g e   v a l u e = 0.1500 0.1402 0.1155 0.3146 0.2798 T 0.3700 0.4600 0.1600 0.3500 0.4900 0.1500 0.4200 0.4500 0.1200     0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.3000 0.5100 0.1700 0.3000 0.5500 0.1400     0.0200 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 = ( 0.3314 , 0.5040 , 0.1515 , 0.0131 , 0.0000 )
B 1 P r o v i s i o n i n g   e c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e s = w i · R P r o v i s i o n i n g   e c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e s = ( 0.3556 , 0.6444 ) 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 = ( 1.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 )
B 2 R e g u l a t i n g   e c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e s = w i · R R e g u l a t i n g   e c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e s = ( 0.3786 , 0.6214 ) 0.3485 0.1515 0.0000 0.3411 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.1448 0.1078 0.4063 = ( 0.1319 , 0.2693 , 0.0900 , 0.0670 , 0.4418 )
B 3 C u l t u r e   e c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e s = w i · R C u l t u r e   e c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e s = 0.1616 0.2335 0.2549 0.3500 T 0.2838 0.5526 0.3105 0.4575     0.1343 0.0262 0.0030 0.1612 0.0607 0.0101 0.2685 0.5260 0.3314 0.5040     0.1814 0.0223 0.0018 0.1515 0.0131 0.0000 = ( 0.3028 , 0.5066 , 0.1586 , 0.0287 , 0.0033 )
A E c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   m u l b e r r y − b a s e d   f i s h p o n d s = w i · R E c o s y s t e m   s e r v i c e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   m u l b e r r y − b a s e   f i s h p o n d s = ( 0.5091 , 0.2338 , 0.2572 ) 0.3028 0.5066 0.1319 0.2693     0.1586 0.0287 0.0033 0.0900 0.0670 0.4418 1.0000 0.0000     0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 = ( 0.4422 , 0.3209 , 0.1018 , 0.0303 , 0.1050 )

Appendix C

Survey Questionnaire
This questionnaire is anonymous, and all information will only be used for this research and not for other purposes. Completing this questionnaire will take approximately 10–15 min. Thank you for your time and effort in supporting scientific research!
[Part One] Basic Information
We would like to know a bit about you. All information is anonymously filled in, and no one will know which answers belong to you.
1. What is your gender? (single choice question) [mandatory question]
Male
Female
2. What is your age? (single choice question) [mandatory question]
Under 18
18–25 years old
26–30 years old
31–40 years old
41–50 years old
51–60 years old
Over 60 years old
3. At the moment of filling out this questionnaire, what is your status? [single choice question] [mandatory question]
Local resident
Tourist
Government
Investor/Entrepreneur (investor, local entrepreneur, local worker)
Expert/Scholar (including university experts, planners, designers, public organization personnel)
[Part Two] Survey on the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village
In this section, 5 points represent being very familiar or very satisfied, 4 points indicate quite familiar or fairly satisfied, 3 points mean moderately familiar or generally satisfied, 2 points denote slightly familiar or not very satisfied, and 1 point signifies being unfamiliar or not satisfied.
(1) Aesthetic Value
1. How do you rate the richness of the plant landscape of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Hierarchical sense of trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation; diversity of species.
2. How do you evaluate the seasonal changes in the landscape of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Seasonal changes in trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation, including both woody and herbaceous plants.
3. How do you evaluate the overall harmony of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The overall sense of harmony within the village, formed by the cultural landscapes, streets, alleys, architecture, and vegetation within the village.
4. How do you evaluate the clarity of the water bodies in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The condition of water bodies in the environment.
5. How do you evaluate the road surface evenness and hardening in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Whether the road conditions are in accordance with the environment, including within the village and inside the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, with visual comfort as the criterion.
(2) Educational Value
6. How do you evaluate the educational value of the fish and mulberry culture in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The educational significance or value brought by fish-mulberry culture and the research-oriented activities centered around it.
7. How do you evaluate the traditional human culture in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The existing stories of prominent individuals, their spirit, and character within the village that possess propagational and educational significance.
8. How do you evaluate the cultural promotion and performances related to the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The educational significance or value brought by the promotion and display of folk culture.
9. How do you evaluate the religious culture in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The spiritual connotations brought by the religious culture atmosphere, as well as the level of understanding and acceptance of it.
(3) Recreational Value
10. How do you evaluate the location conditions of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The accessibility of the village’s geographical location, transportation convenience, and natural environment.
11. How do you evaluate the hygiene conditions of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Environmental hygiene conditions.
12. How do you evaluate the infrastructure of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Basic infrastructure including toilets, signage, parking spaces, medical service facilities, etc.
13. How do you evaluate the diversity of agricultural products in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Diverse experiences provided by agricultural products such as freshwater fish, mulberry leaf tea, fruits, rice, sesame oil, etc., based on the raw materials produced in Digang Village, which are either processed or directly sold.
14. How do you evaluate the diversity of tourism service products in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Satisfy diversified tourism needs by visiting Digang Village.
15. How do you evaluate your visual and psychological experiences in the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Diggang Village?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Experiences of visual and psychological sensations brought about by exploring Digang Village.
(4) Cultural Heritage Value
16. How do you evaluate the village architectural style in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Whether the architectural style within the village conforms to the characteristics of the Jiangnan water town and rural farming.
17. How do you evaluate the village traditional folk customs in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: Whether traditional folk customs within the village are fully preserved, whether the atmosphere of folk customs is good, and whether they have distinctive features.
18. How do you evaluate the cultural features of ancient buildings (ancient bridges, historical buildings) in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The distinctiveness of cultural landscapes such as ancient bridges, celebrity memorial halls, and the scenic beauty of Nantiao.
19. How do you evaluate the food culture in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The distinctiveness of Di Gang cuisine, exemplified by the Chen family’s dishes and local snacks.
20. How do you evaluate the unique cultural characteristics of the fish and mulberry culture in the context of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System?
5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Note: The distinctive features of the fish-mulberry culture.

References

  1. Li, B.; Yuan, X.; Xiao, H.; Chen, Z. Design of the dike-pond system in the littoral zone of a tributary in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 1718–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; Shu, L.; Hancke, G.P.; Abu-Mahfouz, A.M. From Industry 4.0 to Agriculture 4.0: Current Status, Enabling Technologies, and Research Challenges. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 4322–4334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garrett, R.D.; Cammelli, F.; Ferreira, J.; Levy, S.A.; Valentim, J.; Vieira, I. Forests and Sustainable Development in the Brazilian Amazon: History, Trends, and Future Prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2021, 46, 625–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Sargani, G.R.; Ihtisham, M.; Khayyam, M.; Ismail, S. Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nie, J.; Kiminami, A.; Yagi, H. Exploring the Sustainability of Urban Leisure Agriculture in Shanghai. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chabert, A.; Sarthou, J.-P. Conservation agriculture as a promising trade-off between conventional and organic agriculture in bundling ecosystem services. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 292, 106815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xia, X.; Ruan, J. Analyzing Barriers for Developing a Sustainable Circular Economy in Agriculture in China Using Grey-DEMATEL Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Costanza, R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mao, D.; He, X.; Wang, Z.; Tian, Y.; Xiang, H.; Yu, H.; Man, W.; Jia, M.; Ren, C.; Zheng, H. Diverse policies leading to contrasting impacts on land cover and ecosystem services in Northeast China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 117961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being-Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kuhn, T.K.; Oinonen, S.; Trentlage, J.; Riikonen, S.; Vikström, S.; Burkhard, B. Participatory systematic mapping as a tool to identify gaps in ecosystem services research: Insights from a Baltic Sea case study. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 48, 101237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, D.; Tang, R.; Xie, J.; Tian, J.; Shi, R.; Zhang, K. Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 41, 101054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jin, G.; Chen, K.; Liao, T.; Zhang, L.; Najmuddin, O. Measuring ecosystem services based on government intentions for future land use in Hubei Province: Implications for sustainable landscape management. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 36, 2025–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Meng, L.; Yang, L.; He, Y.; Huang, L. Evaluation on Service alue of Mulberry-base Fishpond Ecosystem in Huzhou. Sci. Seric. 2018, 44, 0615–0623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lu, H.; Peng, S.; Lan, F.; Chen, P. Energy value evaluation of dike-pond agro-ecological engineering modes. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 14, 1622–1626. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gu, X.; Wang, Y.; Shi, K.; Ke, F.; Ying, S.; Lai, Q. Emergy-Based Sustainability Evaluation of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System on the South Bank of Taihu Lake, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yue, J.; Yuan, X.; Li, B.; Ren, H.; Wang, X. Emergy and exergy evaluation of a dike-pond project in the drawdown zone (DDZ) of the Three Gorges Reservoir (TGR). Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, Q. During the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China era, the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in the Pearl River Delta was closely linked with the ecological and economic environment. J. South China Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2013, 12, 142–150. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wu, J. The agricultural practices around basic ponds in Shunde during the Ming, Qing, and Republic of China periods and the economic transformation. Anc. Mod. Agric. 2011, 96–104. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nie, C.; Luo, S.; Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Zhao, Y. The dike-pond system in the Pearl River Delta: Degradation following recent land use alterations and measures for their ecological restoration. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2003, 23, 1851–1860. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen, C.; Ye, Y.; Huang, G.; Gong, Q.; Liu, X. Scale effect of the dike pond’s multifunctionality and ecological restoration strategy in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 3394–3405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, X.; Xia, L.; Deng, S. Spatial-temporal Changes in Dike—Pond Land in Nanhai District based on RS and GIS. Resour. Ind. 2011, 13, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, C.; Huang, S.; Miao, J.; Wang, X. Characteristics and Driving Factors of Landscape Pattern Evolution of Dike-Ponds in the Pearl River Delta: A Case Study of Shunde District, Foshan. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 38, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, Y.; Chen, J.; Xie, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, K.; Dai, J.; Zhang, C. Research Progress of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Characteristics, Migration and Transformation in Mulberry-fish Pond Subsystem. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2021, 48, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Astudillo, M.F.; Thalwitz, G.; Vollrath, F. Modern analysis of an ancient integrated farming arrangement: Life cycle assessment of a mulberry dyke and pond system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Villacreses, G.; Jijón, D.; Nicolalde, J.F.; Martínez-Gómez, J.; Betancourt, F. Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Suitable Location for Wind and Photovoltaic Power Plants on the Galápagos Islands. Energies 2022, 16, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nicolalde, J.F.; Yaselga, J.; Martínez-Gómez, J. Selection of a Sustainable Structural Beam Material for Rural Housing in Latin América by Multicriteria Decision Methods Means. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vermaat, J.E.; Palt, M.; Piffady, J.; Putnins, A.; Kail, J. The effect of riparian woodland cover on ecosystem service delivery by river floodplains: A scenario assessment. Ecosphere 2021, 12, e03716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Assessment, M.E. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science (II): Core questions and key approaches. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 2453–2485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mononen, L.; Auvinen, A.P.; Ahokumpu, A.L.; Rönkä, M.; Aarras, N.; Tolvanen, H.; Kamppinen, M.; Viirret, E.; Kumpula, T.; Vihervaara, P. National ecosystem service indicators: Measures of social–ecological sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhou, R.; Huang, L.; Wang, K.; Hu, W. From Productive Landscape to Agritouristic Landscape? The Evidence of an Agricultural Heritage System—Zhejiang Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Land 2023, 12, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Spencer, C.; Robertson, A.; Curtis, A.J.J.o.E.M. Development and testing of a rapid appraisal wetland condition index in south-eastern Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 1998, 54, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gu, X.; Wu, H.; Shen, X.; Wu, Y.; Lou, J.; Lai, Q. Intertemporal Analysis on Input-Output Efficiency of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond by the South Bank of Taihu Lake. Sci. Seric. 2020, 46, 0221–0232. [Google Scholar]
  37. Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 2010, 11, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dongmei, H.Y.Z.T.X. Evaluation on Cultural Value of Traditional Villages and Differential Revitalization: A Case Study of Jiaozuo City, Henan Province. Econ. Geogr. 2020, 40, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, X.; Pan, Y.; Shi, C.; Guo, Y. Research on Protection and Construction of Historical Village Landscape Based On AHP-FCE Model Evaluation. J. Northwest For. Univ. 2022, 37, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Min, J.; Pan, T.; Kumar, V. Landscape Evaluation of Forest Park Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, H.; Ye, M.; Lou, J.; Wang, L.; Yin, Y.; Zhang, Z. Status and Planning for Ecosystem Conservation of Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Huzhou, China. Bull. Seric. 2017, 48, 40–42+47. [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu, J.; Shen, S. Globally Important Agricultural Cultural Heritage Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Huzhou Research on Systematic Protection and Tourism Development. Mod. Agric. 2020, 2020, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chen, C.; Huang, G.; Ye, Y.; Zhao, L.; Jin, L.; Liu, X. Change and ecological restoration of the dike-pond system in the Pearl River DeltaA case study of four villages in Foshan City. Resour. Sci. 2021, 43, 328–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Roy, J.; Terrier, F.; Marchand, M.; Herman, A.; Heraud, C.; Surget, A.; Lanuque, A.; Sandres, F.; Marandel, L. Effects of Low Stocking Densities on Zootechnical Parameters and Physiological Responses of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Juveniles. Biology 2021, 10, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Peng, Y.; Wu, H.; Lou, J.; Wang, L. Mulberry Cultivation and Management Technology of Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Huzhou, Zhejiang, China. Bull. Seric. 2021, 52, 37–38. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tong, L.; Mao, X.; Song, X.; Wei, X.; Tang, W.; Deng, Y.; Yu, H.; Deng, Z.; Xiao, F.; Zhou, H.; et al. PSR-BP Neural Network-Based Health Assessment of the Huangshui Plateau Urban Wetlands in China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 866597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fang, X.-S.; Liu, S.; Chen, W.-Z.; Wu, R.-Z. An Effective Method for Wetland Park Health Assessment: A Case Study of the Guangdong Xinhui National Wetland Park in the Pearl River Delta, China. Wetlands 2021, 41, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Das, S.; Pradhan, B.; Shit, P.K.; Alamri, A.M. Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Health Using the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) Model: A Case Study of Mursidabad District of West Bengal (India). Sustainability 2020, 12, 5932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hamback, P.A.; Dawson, L.; Geranmayeh, P.; Jarsjo, J.; Kacergyte, I.; Peacock, M.; Collentine, D.; Destouni, G.; Futter, M.; Hugelius, G.; et al. Tradeoffs and synergies in wetland multifunctionality: A scaling issue. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 862, 160746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; Groot, R.d.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nat. Int. Wkly. J. Sci. 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fish, R.; Church, A.; Winter, M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xu, H.; Zhou, L.; Cheng, Q. Stdy on ecosvstem healh evaluation and risk assessment for linghekou wetlands based on a PSR model. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 8264–8274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, J.; Li, W.; Xia, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, X.; Liang, F. Studies on the ecological characteristics of different varieties of mulberry trees. Sci. Seric. 2003, 29, 120–124. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhu, C. Effects of urban lake wetland on temperature and humidity: A case study of Wuhan City. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 5518–5527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Feng, Q.; Liu, J.; Han, L.; Wen, C.; Hu, F. Study on Wetland Ecosystem Health Evaluation of Poyang Lake National Wetland Park. J. Hydroecology 2016, 37, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. GB3095-2012; Ambient Air Quality Standards. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
  57. Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 175. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saaty, T.L. Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46, 860–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wu, X.; Hu, F. Analysis of ecological carrying capacity using a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mouchet, M.A.; Paracchini, M.L.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Stürck, J.; Verkerk, P.J.; Verburg, P.H.; Lavorel, S. Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hölting, L.; Jacobs, S.; Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Maes, J.; Norström, A.V.; Plieninger, T.; Cord, A.F. Measuring ecosystem multifunctionality across scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 124083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Manning, P.; van der Plas, F.; Soliveres, S.; Allan, E.; Maestre, F.T.; Mace, G.; Whittingham, M.J.; Fischer, M. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Caro, C.; Marques, J.C.; Cunha, P.P.; Teixeira, Z. Ecosystem services as a resilience descriptor in habitat risk assessment using the InVEST model. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115, 106426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wu, J. Grassland ecosystem services: A systematic review of research advances and future directions. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 793–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, G.; Xiao, C.; Qi, Z.; Meng, F.; Liang, X. Development tendency analysis for the water resource carrying capacity based on system dynamics model and the improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method in the Changchun city, China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 122, 107232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Santoro, A.; Yu, Q.; Piras, F.; Fiore, B.; Bazzurro, A.; Agnoletti, M. From Flood Control System to Agroforestry Heritage System: Past, Present and Future of the Mulberry-Dykes and Fishponds System of Huzhou City, China. Land 2022, 11, 1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pang, Y.; Wang, L.; Wu, H.; Lou, J.; Zhu, Y. Effect and Thinking of Protection Work of Mulberry Fish PondSvstem in Huzhou, Zhejiang. Bull. Seric. 2022, 53, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 01875 g001
Figure 1. Location of the core conservation area of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village, Huzhou, China.
Figure 1. Location of the core conservation area of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village, Huzhou, China.
Sustainability 16 01875 g001
Sustainability 16 01875 g002
Figure 2. Assessment results for each layer. The values shown in the figure are the affiliation functions for each criterion, indicator, and factor layer. (a) Affiliation functions for each criterion layer; (b) Affiliation functions for each indicator layer; (c) Affiliation functions for each factor layer.
Figure 2. Assessment results for each layer. The values shown in the figure are the affiliation functions for each criterion, indicator, and factor layer. (a) Affiliation functions for each criterion layer; (b) Affiliation functions for each indicator layer; (c) Affiliation functions for each factor layer.
Sustainability 16 01875 g002
Table 1. Ecosystem Service Assessment of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System.
Table 1. Ecosystem Service Assessment of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System.
Target LayerCriterion LayerIndex LayerFactor Layer
A
Ecosystem service assessment of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System		B1
Provisioning ecosystem services		C1
Mulberry land production value 		D1 Mulberry leaf production
D2 Mulberry fruit production
C2
Fishpond production value		D3 Conventional fish farming production
D4 Ecological fish farming production
B2
Regulating ecosystem services		C3
Basal environment regulation value		D5 Fertilizer application intensity
D6 Pesticide application intensity
C4
Climate regulation value		D7 Relative humidity adjustment range
D8 Average temperature regulation
D9 Air quality index
B3
Culture ecosystem services		C5
Aesthetics value		D10 Plant landscape richness
D11 Seasonal changes in the landscape
D12 Overall harmony
D13 Water clarity
D14 Leveling and hardening of road surface
C6
Education value		D15 Fish and mulberry culture education
D16 Humanistic tradition
D17 Cultural propaganda and exhibition
D18 Religious culture
C7
Leisure and entertainment value 		D19 Location conditions
D20 Sanitary conditions
D21 Tourism infrastructure
D22 Agricultural diversity experience
D23 Experience of the diversity of tourism products
D24 Visual and psychological perception
C8
Cultural heritage value		D25 Village architectural style
D26 Village traditional customs
D27 Ancient bridges and other historical and cultural features
D28 Food culture characteristics
D29 Fish and mulberry culture characteristics
Table 2. The evaluation criteria for the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System ecosystem services.
Table 2. The evaluation criteria for the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System ecosystem services.
LevelScore RangeDefinition
I4~5High ecosystem services
II3~4Relatively high ecosystem services
III2~3General ecosystem services
IV1~2Relatively low ecosystem services
V0~1Low ecosystem services
Table 3. Quantitative factor assessment criteria.
Table 3. Quantitative factor assessment criteria.
Criterion LayerIndex LayerFactor LayerLevel
54321
B1
Provisioning ecosystem services		C1
Mulberry land production value		D1 (t/hm2)
Mulberry leaf production		≥18.7513.13~18.7511.25~13.139.38~11.25≤9.38
D2 (t/hm2)
Mulberry fruit production		≥18.7515.00~18.7510.50~15.009.00~10.50≤9.00
C2
Fishpond production value		D3 (t/hm2)
Conventional fish farming production		≥22.5016.88~22.5011.25~16.885.63~11.25≤5.63
D4 (t/hm2)
Ecological fish farming production		≥11.258.44~11.255.63~8.442.81~5.63≤2.81
B2
Regulating ecosystem services		C3
Basal environment regulation value		D5 (kg/hm2)
Fertilizer application intensity		<200.00200.00~250.00250.00~350.00350.00~450.00>450.00
D6 (kg/hm2)
Pesticide application intensity		<2.502.50~3.003.00~4.004.00~4.50>4.50
C4
Climate regulation value		D7 (%)
Relative humidity adjustment range		>4.003.00~4.002.00~3.001.00~2.00<1.00
D8 (°C)
Average temperature regulation		>4.003.00~4.002.00~3.001.00~2.00<1.00
D9
Air quality index		<50.0050.00~100.00100.00~150.00150.00~200.00>200.00
Table 4. Qualitative factor definitions.
Table 4. Qualitative factor definitions.
Criterion LayerIndex LayerFactor LayerDefinition
B3
Culture ecosystem services		C5
Aesthetics value		D10 Plant landscape richnessHierarchical sense of trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation; the diversity of species.
D11 Seasonal changes in the landscapeSeasonal changes in trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation, including both woody and herbaceous plants.
D12 Overall harmonyThe overall sense of harmony within the village formed by the cultural landscapes, streets, alleys, architecture, and vegetation within the village.
D13 Water clarityThe condition of water bodies in the environment.
D14 Leveling and hardening of road surfaceWhether the road conditions are in accordance with the environment, including within the village and inside the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, with visual comfort as the criterion.
C6
Education value		D15 Fish and mulberry culture educationThe educational significance or value brought by fish–mulberry culture and the research-oriented activities centered around it.
D16 Humanistic traditionThe existing stories of prominent individuals and their spirit and character within the village that possess propagational and educational significance.
D17 Cultural propaganda and exhibitionThe educational significance or value brought by the promotion and display of folk culture.
D18 Religious culture propagandaThe spiritual connotations brought by the religious culture atmosphere, as well as the level of understanding and acceptance of it.
C7
Leisure and entertainment value 		D19 Location conditionsThe accessibility of the village’s geographical location, transportation convenience, and the natural environment.
D20 Sanitary conditionsEnvironmental hygiene conditions.
D21 Tourism infrastructureBasic infrastructure including toilets, signage, parking spaces, medical service facilities, etc.
D22 Agricultural diversity experienceDiverse experiences provided by agricultural products such as freshwater fish, mulberry leaf tea, fruits, rice, sesame oil, etc., based on the raw materials produced in Digang Village, which are either processed or directly sold.
D23 Experience of the diversity of tourism productsThe satisfaction of diversified tourism needs by visiting Digang Village.
D24 Visual and psychological perceptionExperiences of visual and psychological sensations brought about by exploring Digang Village.
C8
Cultural heritage value		D25 Village architectural styleWhether the architectural style within the village conforms to the characteristics of the Jiangnan water town and rural farming.
D26 Village traditional customsWhether traditional folk customs within the village are fully preserved, whether the atmosphere of folk customs is good, and whether they have distinctive features.
D27 Ancient bridges and other historical and cultural featuresThe distinctiveness of cultural landscapes such as ancient bridges, celebrity memorial halls, and the scenic beauty of Nantiao.
D28 Food culture characteristicsThe distinctiveness of Di Gang cuisine, exemplified by the Chen family’s dishes and local snacks.
D29 Fish and mulberry culture characteristicsThe distinctive features of the fish–mulberry culture.
Table 5. Quantitative data acquisition.
Table 5. Quantitative data acquisition.
NameUnitDataData Sources
Mulberry land productiont/hm275.00Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Development Center’s Academician and Expert Workstation
Mulberry fruit productiont/hm275.00
Conventional fish farming productiont/hm290.00
Ecological fish farming productiont/hm245.00
Fertilizer consumptiont4.00
Pesticide consumptionCNY34,500.00
Change in relative humidity (July–September 2022)%−1.42Internal level meteorological information of Huzhou Municipal Meteorological Bureau
Change in average temperature (July–September 2022)°C−0.42
AQI/64.90http://www.weather.com.cn/
Table 6. Ecosystem service weight table.
Table 6. Ecosystem service weight table.
Criterion LayerNormalized WeightsIndicator LayerC-Layer WeightNormalized WeightsFactor LayerD-Layer WeightNormalized WeightsRank
B10.2572C10.35560.0878D10.28690.026214
D20.71310.06523
C20.64440.1693D30.30330.05036
D40.69670.11551
B20.2338C30.37860.0884D50.50000.04429
D60.50000.04428
C40.62140.1454D70.25740.037410
D80.25680.037311
D90.48590.07062
B30.5091C50.16160.0838D100.24780.020422
D110.13300.010928
D120.23090.019023
D130.16620.013726
D140.22210.018324
C60.23350.1226D150.47710.05674
D160.29520.035112
D170.15120.018025
D180.07660.009129
C70.25490.1320D190.16060.020820
D200.17530.022817
D210.19790.025715
D220.13140.017126
D230.16790.021818
D240.16680.021719
C80.35000.1706D250.15000.026713
D260.14020.025016
D270.11550.020621
D280.31460.05615
D290.27980.04987
Table 7. Matrix of quantitative factor memberships.
Table 7. Matrix of quantitative factor memberships.
Factor LayerMembership Matrix
54321
D1 Mulberry leaf production1.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
D2 Mulberry fruit production1.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
D3 Conventional fish farming production1.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
D4 Ecological fish farming production1.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
D5 Fertilizer application intensity0.69700.30300.00000.00000.0000
D6 Pesticide application intensity0.00000.00000.00000.00001.0000
D7 Relative humidity adjustment range0.00000.00000.00000.00001.0000
D8 Average temperature regulation0.00000.00000.00000.42000.5800
D9 Air quality index0.00000.70200.29800.00000.0000
Table 8. Matrix of qualitative factor memberships.
Table 8. Matrix of qualitative factor memberships.
Factor LayerMembership Matrix
54321
D10 Plant landscape richness0.36000.59000.05000.00000.0000
D11 Seasonal changes in the landscape0.32000.59000.08000.00000.0100
D12 Overall harmony0.31000.57000.10000.02000.0000
D13 Water clarity0.11000.50000.29000.09000.0100
D14 Leveling and hardening of road surface0.28000.51000.18000.03000.0000
D15 Fish and mulberry culture education0.32000.47000.16000.04000.0100
D16 Humanistic tradition0.35000.50000.11000.04000.0000
D17 Cultural propaganda and exhibition0.30000.44000.22000.04000.0000
D18 Religious culture propaganda0.12000.25000.25000.31000.0700
D19 Location conditions0.28000.47000.22000.03000.0000
D20 Sanitary conditions0.33000.49000.15000.02000.0100
D21 Tourism infrastructure0.25000.49000.24000.02000.0000
D22 Agricultural diversity experience0.21000.61000.18000.00000.0000
D23 Experience of the diversity of tourism products0.18000.59000.20000.03000.0000
D24 Visual and psychological perception0.35000.53000.09000.03000.0000
D25 Village architectural style0.37000.46000.16000.01000.0000
D26 Village traditional customs0.35000.49000.15000.01000.0000
D27 Ancient bridges and other historical and cultural features0.42000.45000.12000.01000.0000
D28 Food culture characteristics0.30000.51000.17000.02000.0000
D29 Fish and mulberry culture characteristics0.30000.55000.14000.01000.0000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tang, S.; Liu, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhou, M. Enhancing Sustainability through Ecosystem Services Evaluation: A Case Study of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051875

AMA Style

Tang S, Liu Z, Li Y, Zhou M. Enhancing Sustainability through Ecosystem Services Evaluation: A Case Study of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051875

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tang, Shuyang, Ziwei Liu, Yumei Li, and Mingqin Zhou. 2024. "Enhancing Sustainability through Ecosystem Services Evaluation: A Case Study of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051875

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