Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Value and Its Coordinated Development with Economy: A Case Study in Hainan Province, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- To explore the temporal and spatial variation characteristics of ecosystems in Hainan Province from 2000 to 2020;
- (2)
- To explore the spatial–temporal variation characteristics of the ESV in Hainan Province from 2000 to 2020;
- (3)
- To analyze the temporal and spatial characteristics of coordinated economic and environmental development in Hainan Province from 2000 to 2020;
- (4)
- To analyze the driving factors of the ESV and economic environment coordination degree (EEC) in Hainan Province;
- (5)
- To put forward policy suggestions for coordinated economic and environmental growth.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources and Preprocessing
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Ecosystem Category Analysis Method
2.3.2. Dynamic ESV Evaluation Method
2.3.3. Calculation Method of EEC
- (a)
- Data Standardization
- (b)
- Coordination index
2.3.4. Driving Force Analysis Method
3. Results
3.1. Ecosystem Category Changes
3.2. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of ESV
3.3. Changes in the EEC
3.4. Analysis of the Driving Force of the Coordination between ESV and EEC
4. Discussion
4.1. Improvement of Dynamic ESV Assessment Method
4.2. Ecosystem Changes
4.3. ESV Status and Changes
4.4. EEC Status and Changes
4.5. Drivers of ESV and EEC
4.6. Policy Suggestion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Assessment, M.E. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5, p. 563. [Google Scholar]
- Kubiszewski, I.; Costanza, R.; Anderson, S.; Sutton, P. The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. In Environmental Assessments; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.; Lu, C.-X.; Cheng, S. Progress in evaluating the global ecosystem services. Resour. Sci. 2001, 23, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, L.; Chen, W.; Li, S. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1243. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.; Zhen, L.; Lu, C.-X.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, C. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 23, 911–919. [Google Scholar]
- Pickard, B.R.; Van Berkel, D.; Petrasova, A.; Meentemeyer, R.K. Forecasts of urbanization scenarios reveal trade-offs between landscape change and ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 617–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Wu, J.; Gong, Y. Valuing wetland ecosystem services based on benefit transfer: A meta-analysis of China wetland studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 122988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, W.; Deng, X. Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 705–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhongyuan, Y.; Hua, B. The key problems and future direction of ecosystem services research. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jian, S. Research advances and trends in ecosystem services and evaluation in China. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 1791–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chen, Y. On the spatial relationship between ecosystem services and urbanization: A case study in Wuhan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637, 780–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ouyang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Xiao, Y.; Polasky, S.; Liu, J.; Xu, W.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, Y.; Rao, E. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 2016, 352, 1455–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Capriolo, A.; Boschetto, R.; Mascolo, R.; Balbi, S.; Villa, F. Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 46, 101207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reining, C.E.; Lemieux, C.J.; Doherty, S.T. Linking restorative human health outcomes to protected area ecosystem diversity and integrity. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 2300–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Wu, S.; You, X.; Wu, J.; Cui, P.; Ding, H. Effects of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services Value of Xunwu County. Acta Ecol. 2019, 39, 3089–3099. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, F.; Zhang, S.; Su, F. Variations in ecosystem services in response to paddy expansion in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2019, 17, 158–171. [Google Scholar]
- Fei, L.; Shuwen, Z.; Jiuchun, Y.; Kun, B.; Qing, W.; Junmei, T.; Liping, C. The effects of population density changes on ecosystem services value: A case study in Western Jilin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, S.; Shi, W.; Zhu, X. Impact of land use land cover changes on ecosystem service value—A case study of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao in South China. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Lu, C.; Ren, C. Impact of land use/land cover changes on ecosystem services in the Nenjiang River Basin, Northeast China. Ecol. Processes 2015, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shifaw, E.; Sha, J.; Li, X.; Bao, Z.; Zhou, Z. An insight into land-cover changes and their impacts on ecosystem services before and after the implementation of a comprehensive experimental zone plan in Pingtan island, China. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 631–642. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, J.; Chen, Z.; Wu, T.; Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Chen, X. Spatial autocorrelation pattern analysis of land use and the value of ecosystem services in northeast Hainan island. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 2366–2377. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, X.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, A.; Li, A. Regional energy efficiency, carbon emission performance and technology gaps in China: A meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy 2015, 84, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Zhou, S.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Chi, D.; Xu, K. The influence of climate change and human activities on ecosystem service value. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 87, 224–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Shaw, M.R.; Cameron, D.R.; Underwood, E.C.; Daily, G.C. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodríguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D., Jr.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rozelle, S.; Huang, J.; Zhang, L. Poverty, population and environmental degradation in China. Food Policy 1997, 22, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.; Yao, S. The coordinated development of environment and economy based on the change of ecosystem service value in Shaanxi province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 3331–3342. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, W.; Zeng, J.; Zhong, M.; Pan, S. Coupling Analysis of Ecosystem Services Value and Economic Development in the Yangtze River Economic Belt: A Case Study in Hunan Province, China. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Yang, R.; Zhuang, D.; Lu, Z. Spatial gradient differences of ecosystem services supply and demand in the Pearl River Delta region. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braat, L.C.; De Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, G.; Fang, C. Global mapping and estimation of ecosystem services values and gross domestic product: A spatially explicit integration of national ‘green GDP’accounting. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 293–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.-M.; Wen, Z.-G. Review and challenges of policies of environmental protection and sustainable development in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1249–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wei, W.; Shi, P.; Wei, X.; Zhou, J.; Xie, B. Evaluation of the coordinated development of economy and eco-environmental systems and spatial evolution in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2018, 38, 2636–2648. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, L.; Jin, F.; Song, Z.; Liu, Y. Spatial coupling analysis of regional economic development and environmental pollution in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2013, 23, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, K.; Liu, J.; Chen, X.; Peng, X. Dynamic Analysis of Ecological Carrying Capacity of a Mining City. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 23, 841–848. [Google Scholar]
- Su, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J. Energy analysis on sustainable development of ecological economic system in Shanxi Province. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 32, 1187–1193. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Fang, C.; Wang, J. Evaluation on the coordination of ecological and economic systems and associated spatial evolution patterns in the rapid urbanized Yangtze Delta Region since 1991. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2011, 66, 1657–1668. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, C.; Antunes, C.H. A multi-objective multi-sectoral economy–energy–environment model: Application to Portugal. Energy 2011, 36, 2856–2866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, D.I.; Common, M.S.; Barbier, E.B. Economic growth and environmental degradation: The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev. 1996, 24, 1151–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, L.; Jinghu, P.; Yanxing, H. The spatio-temporal variation of ecological property value and eco-economic harmony in Gansu Province. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 32, 64–75. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, R.; Wu, Z.; Chen, B.; Yang, C.; Qi, D.; Lan, G.; Fraedrich, K. Effects of land-use change on eco-environmental quality in Hainan Island, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 109, 105777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, L.; Gao, S.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Han, Z.; Li, G.; Jia, P.; Yin, Y. Typhoon events recorded in coastal lagoon deposits, southeastern Hainan Island. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2017, 36, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Xia, F.; Yang, D.; Huo, J.; Wang, G.; Chen, H. Spatiotemporal characteristics in ecosystem service value and its interaction with human activities in Xinjiang, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 110, 105826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redo, D.J.; Aide, T.M.; Clark, M.L.; Andrade-Núñez, M.J. Impacts of internal and external policies on land change in Uruguay, 2001–2009. Environ. Conserv. 2012, 39, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, X.; Johnson, B.A.; Luo, P.; Yang, K.; Dong, L.; Wang, Q.; Liu, C.; Li, N.; Lu, H.; Ma, L. Estimation of Urban Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study of Chengdu, Southwestern China. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Xu, X.; Tang, Q. Human activity intensity of land surface: Concept, methods and application in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 1349–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.; Zhang, C.; Zhen, L.; Zhang, L. Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, M.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Jiao, M.; Li, M.; Xia, B. Spatio-temporal changes in ecosystem service value in response to land-use/cover changes in the Pearl River Delta. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, L.; Xue, M.; Wang, X. Spatial correction of ecosystem service value and the evaluation of eco-efficiency: A case for China’s provincial level. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 95, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Y.; Bryan, B.A.; Connor, J.D.; Chen, L.; Qin, Z.; He, M. Changes in land-use and ecosystem services in the Guangzhou-Foshan Metropolitan Area, China from 1990 to 2010: Implications for sustainability under rapid urbanization. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 930–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, H.; Güneralp, B.; Filippi, A.M.; Kreuter, U.P.; Güneralp, İ. Impacts of land change on ecosystem services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 135, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.; Chen, Y.; Yang, J.; Pei, T. Ecosystem service value of cultivated land and its spatial relationship with regional economic development in Gansu Province based on improved equivalent. Arid. Land Geogr. 2018, 4, 851–858. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.F.; Li, X.H.; Christakos, G.; Liao, Y.L.; Zhang, T.; Gu, X.; Zheng, X.Y. Geographical detectors-based health risk assessment and its application in the neural tube defects study of the Heshun Region, China. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 24, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Yan, F.; Zeng, Y.; Chen, M.; Su, F.; Cui, Y. Changes in Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area since the Reform and Opening Up in China. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Q.; Wen, Z.; Chen, S.; Ding, S.; Zhang, M. Quantifying land use/land cover and landscape pattern changes and impacts on ecosystem services. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Su, K.; Wei, D.-Z.; Lin, W.-X. Evaluation of ecosystem services value and its implications for policy making in China–A case study of Fujian province. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 108, 105752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M.A.; Howarth, R.B. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Li, L.; Wu, Y. Research on the coupling coordination of a sea–land system based on an integrated approach and new evaluation index system: A case study in Hainan Province, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ren, H.; Li, L.; Liu, Q.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Hui, D.; Jian, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, H.; Lu, H. Spatial and temporal patterns of carbon storage in forest ecosystems on Hainan Island, southern China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108163. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, Z.-F.; Cannon, C.H.; Chen, J.; Ye, C.-X.; Swetnam, R.D. Developing indicators of economic value and biodiversity loss for rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, southwest China: A case study from Menglun township. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 788–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, J.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Y. Landscape pattern changesand driving factors analysis of wetland in Hainan island during 1990–2018. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2020, 29, 63–74. [Google Scholar]
- Ren, C.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Chen, L.; Xi, Y.; Xiao, X.; Doughty, R.B.; Liu, M.; Jia, M. Rapid expansion of coastal aquaculture ponds in China from Landsat observations during 1984–2016. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 82, 101902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.; Du, X.; Castillo, C.S.Z. How does urbanization affect farmland protection? Evidence from China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, Y.; Qiu, R.; Yao, J.; Hu, X.; Lin, J. The effects of urbanization on China’s forest loss from 2000 to 2012: Evidence from a panel analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Yan, F.; Su, F. Impacts of urbanization on the ecosystem services in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao greater bay area, China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting-yu, Z. An Empirical Analysis on Influencing Factors of Grain Output of Hainan Province. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2013, 2013, 17. [Google Scholar]
- Sui, L.; Zhao, Z.; Jin, Y.; Guan, X.; Xiao, M. Dynamic Evaluation of Natural Ecosystem Service in Hainan Island. Resour. Sci. 2012, 34, 572–580. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, X.; Huang, Z. Research on Forest Resources Health Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process in Hainan. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 6, 201–204. [Google Scholar]
- Hou, S.; Xu, B.; Lin, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, X.; Liu, J.; Pan, K. Research on Construction of Standard System for Development of Green Economy in Hainan Province. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2020 6th International Conference on Energy Materials and Environment Engineering, Tianjin, China, 24–26 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, F.; Zhang, S. Ecosystem service decline in response to wetland loss in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 130, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, Y.; Zhang, F.; Gong, C.; Luo, P. Spatial-temporal evolvement of ecosystem service value in Hunan Province based on LUCC. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2018, 27, 1397–1408. [Google Scholar]
- Qing, H.; Zhiming, F.; Yanzhao, Y.; Zhen, Y.; Ping, C.; Ling, D. Study of the population carrying capacity of water and land in Hainan Province. J. Resour. Ecol. 2019, 10, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, G. Comparative Advantages of National Ecological Civilization Pilot Zone (Hainan) and Proposals. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 36, 216–220. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, X.; Zhou, H. Draw a new picture of ecological civilization and promote the steady and long-term development of the free trade port. Environ. Econ. 2021, 6, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, J.; Chen, Z.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, T. Spatio-temporal changes of land use and ecosystem services value in HainanIsland from 1980 to 2018. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 4760–4773. [Google Scholar]
- Kuo, L.; Chang, B.-G. The affecting factors of circular economy information and its impact on corporate economic sustainability-Evidence from China. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 986–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lian, X. Review on advanced practice of provincial spatial planning: Case of a western, less developed province. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 6, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ecosystems Classes | LUCC Classes | |
---|---|---|
Primary Classes | Subclasses | Codes |
Forest | Forestland | 21 |
Sparse woods | 22 | |
Other forestland | 24 | |
Shrubs | Shrubs | 23 |
Farmland | Paddy field | 11 |
Dry farmland | 12 | |
Grassland | High-covered grassland | 31 |
Medium-covered grassland | 32 | |
Low-covered grassland | 33 | |
River | Rivers and canals | 41 |
Wetlands | Lakes | 42 |
Reservoir pond | 43 | |
Tidal flat | 45 | |
Beach | 46 | |
Marshland | 64 | |
Construction land | Urban residential area | 51 |
Rural residential area | 52 | |
Other construction land | 53 | |
Bare land | Desert sand | 61 |
Saline-alkali land | 63 | |
Bare land | 65 | |
Bare rock | 66 |
Land Use Type | Equivalent Conversion |
---|---|
Farmland | 0.200 |
Forest | 0.067 |
Shrubs | 0.060 |
Grassland | 0.100 |
Wetlands | 0.200 |
Construction land | 1.000 |
Bare land | 0.001 |
River | 0.002 |
Categories | Sub-Categories | Farmland | Forest | Shrubs | Grassland | Wetlands | Bare Land | River | Construction Land | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supplying services | Food production | 1.105 | 0.29 | 0.19 | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0 | 0.8 | 0.01 | 3.285 |
Raw material production | 0.245 | 0.66 | 0.43 | 0.56 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.23 | 0 | 2.625 | |
Water supply | −1.305 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 2.59 | 0 | 8.29 | −7.51 | 2.935 | |
Regulating services | Gas regulation | 0.89 | 2.17 | 1.41 | 1.97 | 1.9 | 0.02 | 0.77 | −2.42 | 6.71 |
Climate regulation | 0.465 | 6.5 | 4.23 | 5.21 | 3.6 | 0 | 2.29 | 0 | 22.295 | |
Environment purification | 0.135 | 1.93 | 1.28 | 1.72 | 3.6 | 0.1 | 5.55 | −2.46 | 11.855 | |
Hydrological regulation | 1.495 | 4.74 | 3.35 | 3.82 | 24.23 | 0.03 | 102.24 | 0 | 139.905 | |
Supporting services | Soil conservation | 0.52 | 2.65 | 1.72 | 2.4 | 2.31 | 0.02 | 0.93 | 0.02 | 10.57 |
Maintenance of nutrient circulation | 0.155 | 0.2 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0 | 0.07 | 0 | 0.915 | |
Biodiversity | 0.17 | 2.41 | 1.57 | 2.18 | 7.87 | 0.02 | 2.55 | 0.34 | 17.11 | |
Cultural services | Recreation and culture | 0.075 | 1.06 | 0.69 | 0.96 | 4.73 | 0.01 | 1.89 | 0.01 | 9.425 |
Total | 3.95 | 22.95 | 15.22 | 19.69 | 52.02 | 0.2 | 125.61 | −12.01 | 227.63 |
Categories | Sub-Categories | Farmland | Forest | Shrubs | Grassland | Wetlands | Bare Land | River | Construction Land | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supplying services | Food production | 1579.53 | 414.54 | 271.59 | 543.19 | 729.01 | 0.00 | 1143.55 | 14.29 | 7232.97 |
Raw material production | 350.21 | 943.43 | 614.66 | 800.49 | 714.72 | 0.00 | 328.77 | 0.00 | 4774.33 | |
Water supply | −1865.42 | 486.01 | 314.48 | 443.13 | 3702.25 | 0.00 | 11,850.06 | −10,735.09 | 1829.68 | |
Regulating services | Gas regulation | 1272.20 | 3101.88 | 2015.51 | 2816.00 | 2715.94 | 28.59 | 1100.67 | −3459.24 | 13,022.20 |
Climate regulation | 664.69 | 9291.36 | 6046.53 | 7447.38 | 5145.98 | 0.00 | 3273.42 | 0.00 | 37,494.21 | |
Environment purification | 192.97 | 2758.82 | 1829.68 | 2458.64 | 5145.98 | 142.94 | 7933.39 | −3516.42 | 18,611.31 | |
Hydrological regulation | 2137.01 | 6775.55 | 4788.62 | 5460.46 | 34,635.33 | 42.88 | 146,145.95 | 0.00 | 206,411.14 | |
Supporting services | Soil conservation | 743.31 | 3788.02 | 2458.64 | 3430.66 | 3302.01 | 28.59 | 1329.38 | 28.59 | 18,196.77 |
Maintenance of nutrient circulation | 221.56 | 285.89 | 185.83 | 257.30 | 257.30 | 0.00 | 100.06 | 0.00 | 1772.51 | |
Biodiversity | 243.00 | 3444.95 | 2244.22 | 3116.18 | 11,249.69 | 28.59 | 3645.07 | 486.01 | 26,544.70 | |
Cultural services | Recreation and culture | 107.21 | 1515.21 | 986.31 | 1372.26 | 6761.25 | 14.29 | 2701.64 | 14.29 | 14,394.46 |
Total | 5646.29 | 32,805.65 | 21,756.08 | 28,145.67 | 74,359.47 | 285.89 | 179,551.96 | −17,167.57 | 325,383.43 |
Level | High Maladjustment | Mid Maladjustment | Basic Coordination | Mid Coordination | High Coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D | (0,0.2] | (0.2,0.4] | (0.4,0.6] | (0.6,0.8] | (0.8,1] |
Ecosystem Class | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area (hm2) | Percentage (%) | Area (hm2) | Percentage (%) | Area (hm2) | Percentage (%) | Area (hm2) | Percentage (%) | Area (hm2) | Percentage (%) | |
Forest | 1,929,453 | 56.38 | 1,933,173 | 56.41 | 1,926,740 | 56.32 | 1,910,746 | 55.86 | 1,904,057 | 55.63 |
Farmland | 900,232 | 26.30 | 894,627 | 26.11 | 888,736 | 25.98 | 871,892 | 25.48 | 869,676 | 25.41 |
Construction land | 74,821 | 2.19 | 81,821 | 2.39 | 90,870 | 2.66 | 127,502 | 3.73 | 140,128 | 4.09 |
Shrubs | 252,229 | 7.37 | 249,423 | 7.28 | 247,214 | 7.23 | 244,369 | 7.14 | 242,293 | 7.08 |
Grassland | 123,404 | 3.61 | 117,008 | 3.41 | 113,545 | 3.32 | 115,130 | 3.37 | 115,464 | 3.37 |
Wetlands | 113,959 | 3.33 | 124,929 | 3.65 | 127,032 | 3.71 | 120,021 | 3.51 | 119,323 | 3.49 |
River | 15,593 | 0.46 | 16,383 | 0.48 | 18,521 | 0.54 | 24,105 | 0.70 | 23,880 | 0.70 |
Bare land | 12,788 | 0.37 | 9624 | 0.28 | 8578 | 0.25 | 7569 | 0.22 | 7654 | 0.22 |
Year | Factor | Forest | Shrubs | Wetlands | Grassland | Farmland | River | Bare Land | Construction Land | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | ESV | 1625.58 | 124.74 | 94.22 | 79.59 | 122.87 | 38.31 | 0.43 | −17.32 | 2068.42 |
Percentage | 78.59% | 6.03% | 4.56% | 3.85% | 5.94% | 1.85% | 0.02% | −0.84% | 100.00% | |
2005 | ESV | 1381.84 | 101.81 | 87.55 | 65.41 | 101.32 | 34.16 | 0.37 | −16.30 | 1756.16 |
Percentage | 78.69% | 5.80% | 4.99% | 3.72% | 5.77% | 1.94% | 0.02% | −0.93% | 100.00% | |
2010 | ESV | 1378.82 | 104.17 | 93.88 | 65.67 | 105.68 | 42.34 | 0.40 | −18.09 | 1772.87 |
Percentage | 77.77% | 5.88% | 5.30% | 3.70% | 5.96% | 2.39% | 0.02% | −1.02% | 100.00% | |
2015 | ESV | 1433.40 | 107.46 | 101.35 | 70.95 | 109.88 | 48.64 | 0.38 | −28.06 | 1843.99 |
Percentage | 77.73% | 5.83% | 5.50% | 3.85% | 5.96% | 2.64% | 0.02% | −1.52% | 100.00% | |
2020 | ESV | 1348.13 | 100.60 | 98.28 | 67.29 | 103.81 | 46.12 | 0.36 | −29.22 | 1735.38 |
Percentage | 77.69% | 5.80% | 5.66% | 3.88% | 5.98% | 2.66% | 0.02% | −1.68% | 100.00% |
Year | Factor | Forest | Shrubs | Wetlands | Grassland | Farmland | River | Bare Land | Construction Land | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000–2005 | Change rate | −14.99% | −18.38% | −7.08% | −17.82% | −17.54% | −10.85% | −14.93% | −5.90% | −15.10% |
2005–2010 | −0.22% | 2.31% | 7.23% | 0.40% | 4.30% | 23.97% | 9.05% | 11.01% | 0.95% | |
2010–2015 | 3.96% | 3.16% | 7.95% | 8.05% | 3.97% | 14.87% | −5.64% | 55.10% | 4.01% | |
2015–2020 | −5.95% | −6.38% | −3.03% | −5.16% | −5.52% | −5.18% | −3.49% | 4.14% | −5.89% | |
2000–2020 | −17.07% | −19.35% | 4.31% | −15.45% | −15.51% | 20.38% | −15.52% | 68.72% | −16.10% |
Year | Categories | Supplying Services | Regulating Services | Supporting Services | Cultural Services | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sub-Categories | Raw Material Production | Food Production | Water Supply | Climate Regulation | Hydrological Regulation | Gas Regulation | Environment Purification | Soil Conservation | Biodiversity | Maintenance of Nutrient Circulation | Recreation and Culture | |
2000 | ESV | 60.32 | 53.81 | −12.61 | 539.82 | 508.87 | 198.93 | 165.73 | 232.38 | 217.76 | 20.54 | 82.86 |
Percentage | 2.92% | 2.60% | −0.61% | 26.10% | 24.60% | 9.62% | 8.01% | 11.23% | 10.53% | 0.99% | 4.01% | |
2005 | ESV | 51.10 | 44.87 | −10.33 | 453.85 | 436.17 | 168.19 | 141.00 | 197.36 | 186.22 | 17.35 | 70.37 |
Percentage | 2.91% | 2.55% | −0.59% | 25.84% | 24.84% | 9.58% | 8.03% | 11.24% | 10.60% | 0.99% | 4.01% | |
2010 | ESV | 51.41 | 45.91 | −11.47 | 456.56 | 447.17 | 168.65 | 141.34 | 198.12 | 187.33 | 17.49 | 70.33 |
Percentage | 2.90% | 2.59% | −0.65% | 25.75% | 25.22% | 9.51% | 7.97% | 11.18% | 10.57% | 0.99% | 3.97% | |
2015 | ESV | 53.70 | 47.89 | −17.87 | 473.72 | 471.64 | 173.96 | 145.81 | 206.99 | 196.52 | 18.25 | 73.39 |
Percentage | 2.91% | 2.60% | −0.97% | 25.69% | 25.58% | 9.43% | 7.91% | 11.22% | 10.66% | 0.99% | 3.98% | |
2020 | ESV | 50.57 | 45.36 | −18.98 | 446.69 | 445.58 | 163.19 | 136.65 | 194.82 | 185.33 | 17.21 | 68.96 |
Percentage | 2.91% | 2.61% | −1.09% | 25.74% | 25.68% | 9.40% | 7.87% | 11.23% | 10.68% | 0.99% | 3.97% |
Year | Categories | Supplying Services | Regulating Services | Supporting Services | Cultural Services | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sub-Categories | Raw Material Production | Food Production | Water Supply | Climate Regulation | Hydrological Regulation | Gas Regulation | Environment Purification | Soil Conservation | Biodiversity | Maintenance of Nutrient Circulation | Recreation and Culture | |
2000–2005 | Change rate | −15.27% | −16.62% | −18.1% | −15.93% | −14.29% | −15.45% | −14.92% | −15.07% | −14.49% | −15.57% | −15.08% |
2005–2010 | 0.61% | 2.33% | 11.04% | 0.60% | 2.52% | 0.28% | 0.24% | 0.38% | 0.60% | 0.85% | −0.05% | |
2010–2015 | 4.44% | 4.31% | 55.83% | 3.76% | 5.47% | 3.15% | 3.16% | 4.48% | 4.90% | 4.35% | 4.35% | |
2015–2020 | −5.82% | −5.29% | 6.19% | −5.71% | −5.53% | −6.19% | −6.28% | −5.88% | −5.69% | −5.72% | −6.04% | |
2000–2020 | −16.16% | −15.70% | 50.53% | −17.25% | −12.44% | −17.97% | −17.55% | −16.17% | −14.89% | −16.24% | −16.78% |
Year | Coordination Level | High Maladjustment | Mid Maladjustment | Basic Coordination | Mid Coordination | High Coordination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | Area | 1175.43 | 11,619.16 | 20,967.4 | 89.23 | 1.09 |
Percentage | 3.472% | 34.323% | 61.938% | 0.264% | 0.003% | |
2005 | Area | 5414.21 | 16,236.91 | 12,139.39 | 60.28 | 1.52 |
Percentage | 15.994% | 47.964% | 35.860% | 0.178% | 0.004% | |
2010 | Area | 5866.15 | 13,038.4 | 14,863.18 | 83.14 | 1.45 |
Percentage | 17.329% | 38.516% | 43.906% | 0.246% | 0.004% | |
2015 | Area | 1188.39 | 13,357.01 | 18,591.9 | 712.46 | 2.41 |
Percentage | 3.511% | 39.457% | 54.921% | 2.105% | 0.007% | |
2020 | Area | 3895.89 | 14,133.5 | 15,181.4 | 640.2 | 1.32 |
Percentage | 11.508% | 41.750% | 44.846% | 1.891% | 0.004% |
Coordination Index | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hainan Province | 0.42 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.36 |
Ledong | 0.38 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.11 |
Wuzhishan | 0.47 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 0.14 |
Qiongzhong | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.23 |
Baisha | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.24 |
Tunchang | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.24 |
Dingan | 0.11 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.30 |
Baoting | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.32 |
Wanning | 0.44 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.37 |
Dongfang | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.39 |
Lingao | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.42 | 0.39 |
Wenchang | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.40 |
Changjiang | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.45 |
Qionghai | 0.57 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.46 |
Lingshui | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.47 |
Danzhou | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.48 |
Chengmai | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 0.53 | 0.51 |
Haikou | 0.54 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.53 |
Sanya | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
Index | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | Correlation | −0.300 | −0.253 | −0.203 | −0.278 | −0.095 | −0.821 | 0.610 | −0.010 | 0.032 |
p value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Y2 | Correlation | 0.499 | 0.666 | 0.726 | 0.579 | 0.581 | 0.150 | −0.452 | −0.079 | 0.030 |
p value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Index | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | q statistic | 0.137 | 0.159 | 0.087 | 0.231 | 0.093 | 0.712 | 0.411 | 0.057 | 0.056 |
p value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Y2 | q statistic | 0.573 | 0.635 | 0.679 | 0.561 | 0.555 | 0.057 | 0.328 | 0.194 | 0.074 |
p value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, P.; Zhang, L.; Tian, Y.; Li, X. Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Value and Its Coordinated Development with Economy: A Case Study in Hainan Province, China. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040970
Fu J, Zhang Q, Wang P, Zhang L, Tian Y, Li X. Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Value and Its Coordinated Development with Economy: A Case Study in Hainan Province, China. Remote Sensing. 2022; 14(4):970. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040970
Chicago/Turabian StyleFu, Jie, Qing Zhang, Ping Wang, Li Zhang, Yanqin Tian, and Xingrong Li. 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Value and Its Coordinated Development with Economy: A Case Study in Hainan Province, China" Remote Sensing 14, no. 4: 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040970
APA StyleFu, J., Zhang, Q., Wang, P., Zhang, L., Tian, Y., & Li, X. (2022). Spatio-Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Service Value and Its Coordinated Development with Economy: A Case Study in Hainan Province, China. Remote Sensing, 14(4), 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14040970