Next Article in Journal
Demand Information Sharing in Building Material Supply Chain Considering Competing Manufacturers’ Greening Efforts
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Treatment of Crude Oil-in-Saline Water Emulsion with Licuri (Syagrus coronata) Leaf Fiber
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Improving Ecosystem Services Production Efficiency by Optimizing Resource Allocation in 130 Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

by
Wenyue Hou
1,
Xiangyu Zheng
2,
Tao Liang
1,
Xincong Liu
3 and
Hengyu Pan
2,*
1
Institute of Modern Agricultural Equipment, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China
2
College of Environmental Sciences, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
3
School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chengdu University, Chengdu 610106, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7189; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167189
Submission received: 7 July 2025 / Revised: 1 August 2025 / Accepted: 5 August 2025 / Published: 8 August 2025

Abstract

China has adopted extensive restoration practices to improve ecosystem function. The efficiency of these restoration efforts remains unclear, which may hinder the supply of ecosystem services (ESs). In this context, this study first employed InVEST models to clarify spatio-temporal changes in five key ESs. The static and dynamic efficiencies of ecosystem service production in 130 cities from 2015 to 2021 in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) were then measured using the Super-SBM-Malmquist model, with ESs considered as outputs. The results indicated that water conservation (WC), water purification (WP), and soil retention (SR) exhibited overall declining trends, decreasing by 28.32%, 3.22%, and 10.00%, respectively, while carbon storage (CS) and habitat quality (HQ) remained steady. More than 70% of studied cities exhibited static efficiency levels below 50%, which were attributed to inefficient utilization of labor, capital, and technology. Significant spatial heterogeneity was observed, with high-efficiency cities mainly located in mountainous areas and low-efficiency cities concentrated in flat regions. The downward trend in dynamic efficiency has been reversed from a 39.02% decline in 2015–2018 to a 38.31% increase in 2018–2021, despite being adversely affected by technological regression. Finally, several policy implications are proposed, including optimizing resource allocation, introducing advanced technology and setting the intercity cooperation and complementarity mechanisms.
Keywords: efficiency evaluation; ecosystem services; the Super Slack-Based Measure model; malmquist index; Yangtze River Economic Belt efficiency evaluation; ecosystem services; the Super Slack-Based Measure model; malmquist index; Yangtze River Economic Belt

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hou, W.; Zheng, X.; Liang, T.; Liu, X.; Pan, H. Improving Ecosystem Services Production Efficiency by Optimizing Resource Allocation in 130 Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167189

AMA Style

Hou W, Zheng X, Liang T, Liu X, Pan H. Improving Ecosystem Services Production Efficiency by Optimizing Resource Allocation in 130 Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167189

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hou, Wenyue, Xiangyu Zheng, Tao Liang, Xincong Liu, and Hengyu Pan. 2025. "Improving Ecosystem Services Production Efficiency by Optimizing Resource Allocation in 130 Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167189

APA Style

Hou, W., Zheng, X., Liang, T., Liu, X., & Pan, H. (2025). Improving Ecosystem Services Production Efficiency by Optimizing Resource Allocation in 130 Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Sustainability, 17(16), 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167189

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