Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province, Southern China, from 1990 to 2018
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection and Land-Use Classification
2.3. Research Methods
2.3.1. Single Dynamic Index of Land-Use
2.3.2. Calculation of Ecosystem Service Value
2.3.3. Assignment of Ecosystem Service Value
2.3.4. Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs Degree
3. Results
3.1. Changes of Land-Use
3.2. Changes in Land-Use Dynamic Degree
3.3. Changes in Ecosystem Service Value
3.3.1. Ecosystem Service Value of Different Land-Use Types
3.3.2. Value of Individual Ecosystem Service
3.4. Ecosystem Service Trade-Off Degree
3.5. Relationships of Ecosystem Service Value and Economic Development
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Reasons of Decreasing Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province
4.2. Strong Impact on Ecosystem Services of Land-Use Changes
4.3. Suitable Methods for Ecosystem Service Valuation
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; 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. Nature 1997, 387, 256–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daily, G.C.; Matson, P. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9455–9456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.M.; Xin, H.L.; Shi, J.Y.; Lv, T.G.; Zhou, C.H.; Liu, W.D. Assessing changes in ecosystem service values in response to land cover dynamics in Jiangxi Province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, Y.Q.; Bryan, B.A.; Zhang, J.E.; Connor, J.D.; Cheng, L.L.; Qin, Z.; He, M.Q. Changes of land-use and ecosystem services in the Guangzhou-Foshan Metropolitan Area in southern China between 1990 and 2010: Implications for sustainability under rapid urbanization. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 930–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaglio, M.; Aschonitis, V.G.; Mancuso, M.M. Changes in land use and ecosystem services in tropical forest areas: A case study in the Andes mountains of Ecuador. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 264–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawler, J.; Lewis, D.J.; Nelson, E.; Plantinga, A.J.; Polasky, S.; Withey, J.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Martinuzzi, S.; Pennington, D.; Radeloff, V.C. Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 7492–7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.Y.; Bao, W.K.; Li, Y.H.; Wang, Y.S.; Chen, Z.F. Land use transition and its eco-environmental effects in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration: A production—living—ecological perspective. Land 2020, 9, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.J.; Wu, T.; Li, Y.Z.; Xie, S.L.; Han, B.L.; Zheng, H.; Ouyang, Z.Y. Urbanization Impacts on Natural Habitat and Ecosystem Services in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao “Megacity”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6675. [Google Scholar]
- Bryan, B.A.; Ye, Y.Q.; Zhang, J.E.; Connor, J.D. Land-use change impacts on ecosystem services value: Incorporating thescarcity effects of supply and demand dynamics. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 32, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Zhan, J.Y.; Zhao, F.; Yan, H.M.; Zhang, F.; Wei, X.Q. Impacts of urbanization-induced land-use changes on ecosystem services: A case study of the Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region, China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, W. Ecosystem services research in China: A critical review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.M.; Estoque, R.C.; Xie, H.L.; Murayama, Y.; Ranagalage, M.; Bianchi, C.N. Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.T.; Wang, S.; Fu, B.J.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, Y. Land use optimization based on ecosystem service assessment, a case study in the Yanhe watershed. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, L.; Shangguan, Z.P.; Li, R. Effects of the Grain-for-Green program on soil erosion in China. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2012, 27, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.; Jiang, B.; Wang, M.; Li, H.; Alatalo, J.M.; Huang, S.F. New ecological redline policy (ERP) to secure ecosystem services in China. Land Use Policy 2016, 55, 348–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ouyang, Z.Y.; Zheng, H.; Xiao, Y.; Polasky, S.; Liu, J.G.; Xu, W.H.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, Y.; Rao, E.; et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 2016, 352, 1455–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, B.A.; Gao, L.; Ye, Y.Q.; Sun, X.F.; Connor, J.D.; Crossman, N.C.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Wu, J.G.; He, C.Y.; Yu, D.Y.; et al. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature 2018, 559, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Xiao, Y.; Lu, C.X. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1740–1746. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, F.Y.; Li, L.; Niu, J.Q.; Lin, A.W.; Chen, S.Y.; Hao, L. Evaluating ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics and ecological zoning management in Wuhan, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Quantifying landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes in four rapidly urbanizing hill stations of Southeast Asia. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 1481–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viglizzo, E.F.; Frank, F.C. Land-use options for Del Plata Basin in South America: Tradeoffs analysis based on ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, W.M.; Li, Z.S.; Wang, S.; Wu, X.; Fu, B.J. Exploring the effects of the “Grain for Green” program on the differences in soil water in the semi-arid Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 107, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.D.; 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. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, L.M. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1243–1254. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, K.Y.; Ye, X.Y.; Qi, Z.F.; Zhang, H. Impacts of land use/land cover change and socioeconomic development on regional ecosystem services: The case of fast-growing Hangzhou metropolitan area, China. Cities 2013, 31, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, S.; Li, D.; Hu, Y.N.; Xiao, R.; Zhang, Y. Spatially non-stationary response of ecosystem service value changes to urbanization in Shanghai, China. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 45, 332–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.; Li, H.B.; Zhang, A.L. Ecological risk assessment based on terrestrial ecosystem services in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2019, 74, 432–445. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Amo, D.G.D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.G.; Oteros-Rozas, E.G.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar]
- Lamsal, P.; Pant, K.P.; Kumar, L.; Atreya, K. Sustainable livelihoods through conservation of wetland resource: A case of economic benefits from Ghodaghodi Lake, western Nepal. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, H.; Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.Y.; Wang, W. Trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem services for the Yinchuan Basin in China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 84, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.Q.; Zhao, W.W.; Liu, Y.X.; Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Zhai, R.J. Influence of land use change on the ecosystem service trade-offs in the ecological restoration area: Dynamics and scenarios in the Yanhe watershed, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.H.; Huang, L.; Xu, X.L.; Xu, S.W. Spatial and temporal evolution of ecosystem services and its trade-offs and synergies in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 8403–8416. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Li, H.Y.; Zhang, L. Ecosystem service trade-offs in the Guanzhong—Tianshui Economic region of China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 3, 3053–3062. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Raudsepp-Heame, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bai, Y.; Zhuang, C.; Ouyang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Jiang, B. Spatial characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a human-dominated watershed. Ecol. Complex. 2011, 8, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ailery, M.; Shoemaker, R.; Caswell, M. Agriculture and ecosystem restoration in South Florida: Assessing trade-offs from water-retention development in the Everglades agricultural area. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 83, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egoh, B.N.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Bode, M.; Richardson, D.M. Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chisholm, R.A. Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1973–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, E.F.; Wang, X.L.; Zhu, J.J.; Gao, J.B. Progress and Perspective on Ecosystem Services Trade-offs. Adv. Earth Sci. 2015, 30, 1250–1259. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.C.; Zhang, C.Y.; Liu, J.L.; Zhu, W.B.; Ma, C.; Wang, Y. The trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services: Research progress, development trend, and themes of geography. Geogr. Res. 2013, 32, 1379–1390. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Shui, W.; Du, Y.; Wang, Y.N.; Yang, H.F.; Fu, Y.; Fan, B.X.; Huang, M.Y. Spatio-temporal dynamics and scenarios simulation of trade-offs between ecosystem services in Min Delta urban Agglomeration. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 5188–5197. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Asadolahi, Z.; Salmanmahiny, A.; Sakieh, Y.; Mirkarimi, S.H.; Baral, H.; Azimi, M. Dynamic trade-off analysis of multiple ecosystem services under land use change scenarios: Towards putting ecosystem services into planning in Iran. Ecol. Complex. 2018, 36, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordingley, J.E.; Newton, A.C.; Rose, R.J.; Clarke, R.T.; Bullock, J.M. Can landscape-scale approaches to conservation management resolve biodiversity-ecosystem service trade-off? J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nelson, E.; Mendoza, G.; Regetz, J.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Cameron, D.R.; Chan, K.M.A.; Daily, G.C.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and trade-offs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, Z.C.; Jia, L.; Cheng, Y. The ecosystem services evaluation and trade-off in Min River Basin. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 3909–3920. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Mcnally, C.G.; Uchida, E.; Gold, A.J. The effect of a protected area on the tradeoffs between short-run and long-run benefits from mangrove ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 13945–13950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Z.J.; Liu, L.; Sun, W.; Zhao, X.J.; Hu, Y.M. Analysis of Temporal and Spatial Patterns and Driving Forces of Land Use Change in Guangdong Province. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2018, 46, 253–260. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, C.; Gong, J.Z.; Chen, X.Y.; Sun, J.R. Discussion on the characteristics of land use stage and dynamic research framework in Guangdong Province. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2019, 46, 146–157. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liang, Y.Z.; Zhang, S.Y. Research on Land Use Efficiency and its Spatial Consistency with Economic Development in Guangdong Province. Mod. Urban Res. 2019, 6, 31–38. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Statistics Bureau of Guangdong Province. Guangdong Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 1991–2019. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lv, S.G.; Jiang, X.D.; Xia, F. Guangdong’s Total Economic Output Ranks First in China for 30 Consecutive Years (In Chinese). 2019. Available online: http://news.china.com/domesticgd/10000159/20190128/35101735_all.html (accessed on 15 August 2020).
- 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]
- Ye, Y.Q.; Zhang, J.E.; Bryan, B.A.; Gao, L.; Qin, Z.; Chen, L.L.; Yang, J.Y. Impacts of rapid urbanization on ecosystem services along urban-rural gradients: A case study of the Guangzhou-Foshan Metropolitan Area, South China. Écoscience 2018, 25, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.D.; Lu, C.X.; Leng, Y.F.; Zheng, D.; Li, S.C. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. J. Nat. Resour. 2003, 18, 189–196. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gao, X.; Shen, J.Q.; He, W.J.; Sun, F.H.; Zhang, Z.F.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C.C.; Kong, Y.; An, M.; Yuan, L.; et al. Changes in ecosystem services value and establishment of watershed ecological compensation standards. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gong, J.; Liu, D.Q.; Zhang, J.X.; Xie, Y.C.; Cao, E.; Li, H.Y. Tradeoffs/synergies of multiple ecosystem services based on land use simulation in a mountain-basin area, western China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 99, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essington, T.E.; Munch, S.B. Trade-offs between supportive and provisioning ecosystem services of for age species in marine food webs. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 1543–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arowolo, A.O.; Deng, X.; Olatunji, O.A.; Obayelu, A.E. Assessing changes in the value of ecosystem services in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Nigeria. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shrestha, B.; Ye, Q.H.; Khadka, N. Assessment of Ecosystem Services Value Based on Land Use and Land Cover Changes in the Transboundary Karnali River Basin, Central Himalayas. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tolessa, T.; Senbeta, F.; Kidane, M. The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting. 2021. Available online: https://seea.un.org/introduction-to-ecosystem-accounting (accessed on 25 March 2021).
- Msofe, N.K.; Sheng, L.X.; Li, Z.X.; Lyimo, J. Impact of Land Use/Cover Change on Ecosystem Service Values in the Kilombero Valley Floodplain, Southeastern Tanzania. Forests 2020, 11, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, H.J.; Li, Z.H.; Li, Z.H.; Yu, J.; Liu, B. Evaluation of ecosystem services: A case study in the middle reach of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China. Phys. Chem. Earth 2015, 89–90, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Tang, G.A.; Li, B.C.; Han, R.M. Spatial and temporal variations of ecosystem service values in relation to land use pattern in the loess plateau of china at town scale. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, T.H.; Ding, Y. Spatial disparity dynamics of ecosystem service values and GDP in Shaanxi Province, China in the last 30 years. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, G.S.; Zheng, D.; Xie, L.; Zhang, X.; Wu, H.J.; Li, S. Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China. Ecosys. Serv. 2021, 48, 101252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, J.Y.; Chu, X.; Li, Z.H.; Jia, S.Q.; Wang, G.F. Incorporating ecosystem services into agricultural management based on land use/cover change in Northeastern China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrier, S.; Ninan, K.N.; Leadley, P.; Alkemade, R.; Acosta, L.A.; Akcakaya, H.; Brotons, R.L.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Christensen, V.; Harhash, K.A.; et al. IPBES: The Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bonn, Germany, 2016; Available online: http://zenodo.org/record/3235429 (accessed on 3 February 2021).
- Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Winthrop, R. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villa, F.; Bagstad, K.J.; Voigt, B.; Johnson, G.W.; Portela, R.; Honz′ak, M.; Batker, D. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, B.; Pagella, T.; Sinclair, F.; Orellana, B.; Henshaw, A.; Reynolds, B.; McIntyre, N.; Wheater, H.; Eycott, A. Polyscape: A GIS mapping framework providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 112, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharp, R.; Douglass, J.; Wolny, S.; Arkema, K.; Bernhardt, J.; Bierbower, W.; Chaumont, N.; Denu, D.; Fisher, D.; Glowinski, K.; et al. InVEST 3.8.7 User’s Guide. 2020. Available online: http://releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest?userguide/latest/index.html (accessed on 15 February 2021).
- Hu, H.T.; Fu, B.J.; Lü, Y.H.; Zheng, Z.M. SAORES: A spatially explicit assessment and optimization tool for regional ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dang, A.N.; Jackson, B.M.; Benavidez, R.; Tomscha, A.S. Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia. Ecosys. Serv. 2021, 49, 101266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.J.; Li, C.; Cao, S.H. Change in ecosystem service value arising from land consolidation planning in Anhui province. Asian Agric. Res. 2013, 5, 13–16. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F.; Zhang, S.W.; Yang, J.C.; Chang, L.P.; Yang, H.J.; Bu, K. Effects of land use change on ecosystem services value in West Jilin since the reform and opening of China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 12–20. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, B.J.; Su, C.H.; Wei, Y.P.; Willett, I.R.; Lu, Y.H.; Liu, G.H. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: Causes and countermeasures. Ecol. Res. 2011, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, E.W.; Barbier, E.B.; Silliman, B.R.; Reed, D.J.; Perillo, G.M.E.; Hacker, S.D.; Granek, E.F.; Primavera, J.H.; Muthiga, N.; Polasky, S.; et al. Non-linearity in ecosystem services: Temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamat, A.; Halik, Ü.; Rouzi, A. Variations of ecosystem service value in response to land-use change in the Kashgar Region, Northwest China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jing, Y.X. China to Improve National Territory Spatial Planning System: Official. 2019. Available online: http://www.ecns.cn/news/society/2019-05-28/detail-ifziqifn8554562.shtml (accessed on 15 October 2020).
- Zheng, X.H.; Lin, X.H.; Shen, J. The National Territory Spatial Planning System Based on “Three in One”: A Case Study on Nanjing’s Spatial Planning from Zoning to Managing. Urban. Rural Plann. 2019, 3, 17–24. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Schaefer, M.; Goldman, E.; Bartuska, A.M.; Sutton-Grier, A.; Lubchenco, J. Nature as capital: Advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7383–7389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.L. Launching of China’s first gross ecosystem product (GEP) assessment project. For. Hum. 2013, 3, 7. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, D.C. The First Ecosystem Service Assessment Platform in China was Launched in Shenzhen City. 2020. Available online: http://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/202008/08/c3872737.html?group_id=1 (accessed on 20 December 2020). (In Chinese).
Types | Definition |
---|---|
Cropland | Mainly rice paddies as well as dry land and irrigated crops including vegetables, soybean, sugarcane, peanuts, cassavas, and melon-fruits |
Forestland | Evergreen broad-leaf forest including land under natural reserve and forest park protection, forest along roads and railways |
Water Body | Rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and fish ponds culturing fish, shrimps, prawns, crabs, and shell-fish |
Grassland | Natural grass land and constructed grass land and meadow |
Built-Up Area | Land used for industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation purposes |
Unused Land | Lands unused or difficult to use, mainly include the intertidal zone between flood and the normal water level of rivers and lakes |
Ecosystem Service Type | Cropland | Forestland | Water Body | Grassland | Unused Land | Built-Up Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food production | 1.40 | 0.33 | 0.53 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Raw material | 0.55 | 3.02 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.04 | 0 |
Gas regulation | 1.01 | 4.38 | 0.51 | 1.5 | 0.06 | −2.42 |
Climate regulation | 1.36 | 4.13 | 2.06 | 1.56 | 0.13 | 0 |
Water supply | 1.08 | 4.15 | 18.77 | 1.52 | 0.07 | −7.51 |
Waste treatment | 1.95 | 1.75 | 14.85 | 1.32 | 0.26 | −2.46 |
Soil formation and retention | 2.06 | 4.08 | 0.41 | 2.24 | 0.17 | 0.02 |
Biodiversity protection | 1.43 | 4.58 | 3.43 | 1.87 | 0.4 | 0.34 |
Recreation and culture | 0.24 | 2.11 | 4.44 | 0.87 | 0.24 | 0.01 |
Ecosystem Service Type | Cropland | Forestland | Water Body | Grassland | Unused Land | Built-Up Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food production | 428.72 | 101.06 | 162.30 | 131.68 | 6.12 | 3.06 |
Raw material | 168.43 | 924.81 | 107.18 | 110.24 | 12.25 | 0.00 |
Gas regulation | 309.29 | 1341.29 | 156.18 | 459.35 | 18.37 | −741.08 |
Climate regulation | 416.48 | 1264.73 | 630.83 | 477.72 | 39.81 | 0.00 |
Water supply | 330.73 | 1270.86 | 5747.94 | 465.47 | 21.44 | −2299.79 |
Waste treatment | 597.15 | 535.90 | 4547.52 | 404.22 | 79.62 | −753.33 |
Soil formation and retention | 630.83 | 1249.42 | 125.55 | 685.95 | 52.06 | 6.12 |
Biodiversity protection | 437.91 | 1402.53 | 1050.37 | 572.65 | 122.49 | 104.19 |
Recreation and culture | 73.50 | 646.15 | 1359.66 | 266.42 | 73.50 | 3.06 |
Total | 3393.03 | 8736.74 | 13887.53 | 3573.70 | 425.66 | −3677.82 |
Year | Cropland | Forestland | Water Body | Grassland | Unused Land | Built-Up Area | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990 | 26.55 | 60.76 | 4.28 | 4.52 | 0.09 | 3.81 | 100 |
2000 | 25.50 | 60.74 | 4.61 | 4.40 | 0.09 | 4.66 | 100 |
2010 | 24.21 | 60.69 | 4.37 | 4.17 | 0.07 | 6.48 | 100 |
2018 | 23.89 | 60.15 | 4.19 | 4.34 | 0.07 | 7.37 | 100 |
Year | Cropland | Forestland | Water Body | Grassland | Unused Land | Built-Up Area | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990 | Pearl River Delta | 158.71 | 303.21 | 41.02 | 11.18 | 0.24 | 29.59 | 543.95 |
2000 | 143.97 | 300.39 | 46.28 | 10.66 | 0.23 | 42.41 | ||
2010 | 126.36 | 295.13 | 40.59 | 9.6 | 0.11 | 72.16 | ||
2018 | 124.02 | 291.44 | 37.73 | 10.95 | 0.08 | 79.74 | ||
1990 | Eastern Region | 51.61 | 64.75 | 8.85 | 17.79 | 0.39 | 10.27 | 153.66 |
2000 | 51.37 | 64.79 | 9.03 | 17.57 | 0.39 | 10.5 | ||
2010 | 49.7 | 65.77 | 10.1 | 16.71 | 0.38 | 10.99 | ||
2018 | 49.11 | 65.05 | 10.08 | 16.75 | 0.37 | 12.29 | ||
1990 | Western Region | 122.03 | 154.6 | 12.9 | 7.68 | 0.92 | 17.42 | 315.54 |
2000 | 118.44 | 156.87 | 13.38 | 6.76 | 0.96 | 19.13 | ||
2010 | 116.82 | 158.58 | 14.22 | 6.58 | 0.77 | 18.59 | ||
2018 | 115.92 | 157.49 | 14.11 | 6.74 | 0.71 | 20.58 | ||
1990 | Northern Mountainous Region | 140.99 | 560.51 | 13.49 | 43.89 | 0.02 | 10.55 | 769.45 |
2000 | 140.82 | 560.65 | 13.56 | 43.42 | 0.02 | 10.98 | ||
2010 | 138.66 | 561.66 | 13.04 | 41.53 | 0.02 | 14.54 | ||
2018 | 136.78 | 558.22 | 13.11 | 42.91 | 0.01 | 18.43 |
1990–2000 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regions | C→F | C→W | C→B | F→C | F→G | F→B | G→F | G→B | W→C | W→B |
ER | 0.0 | 18.3 | 12.7 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 10.4 | 6.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
WR | 207.3 | 28.5 | 147.1 | 20.6 | 23.7 | 17.8 | 104.2 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.8 |
NR | 3.2 | 12.9 | 17.5 | 5.9 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 28.6 | 2.8 | 6.3 | 0.0 |
PR | 37.9 | 725.6 | 845.3 | 44.8 | 8.5 | 300.4 | 22.4 | 35.6 | 107.4 | 130.1 |
Total | 248.4 | 785.3 | 1022.6 | 75.3 | 40.2 | 326.2 | 165.6 | 45 | 115.7 | 135.9 |
2000–2010 | ||||||||||
Regions | C→F | C→W | C→B | F→G | F→W | F→B | W→C | W→B | U→F | U→W |
ER | 3.1 | 19.3 | 138.2 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 13.4 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 00 | 6.8 |
WR | 105.1 | 16.3 | 45.5 | 3.1 | 8.2 | 23.8 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 18.8 | 9.1 |
NR | 0.0 | 11.1 | 150.2 | 2.1 | 14.8 | 113.7 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
PR | 10.2 | 233.4 | 1760.2 | 2.1 | 18.1 | 565.7 | 16.1 | 413.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Total | 118.4 | 280.1 | 2094.1 | 7.3 | 42.4 | 716.6 | 16.1 | 421.3 | 18.8 | 15.9 |
2010–2018 | ||||||||||
Regions | C→W | C→B | F→C | F→G | F→W | F→B | G→F | G→B | W→G | W→B |
ER | 3.1 | 29.9 | 2.2 | 29.8 | 0.0 | 27.9 | 17.0 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 |
WR | 1.0 | 58.4 | 3.0 | 21.9 | 0.0 | 44.7 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 11.9 |
NR | 1.0 | 125.1 | 25.4 | 199.7 | 1.0 | 129.2 | 120.7 | 26.9 | 0.0 | 4.0 |
PR | 3.2 | 250.4 | 4.9 | 142.8 | 4.1 | 158.9 | 24.9 | 11.5 | 4.1 | 98.9 |
Total | 8.3 | 463.8 | 35.5 | 394.2 | 5.1 | 360.7 | 163.6 | 54.4 | 7.2 | 119.1 |
Cropland | Forestland | Water Body | Grassland | Unused Land | Built-Up Area | Total | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES value | Proportion(%) | ES value | Proportion(%) | ES value | Proportion(%) | ES value | Proportion(%) | ES value | Proportion(%) | ES value | Proportion(%) | ||
1990 | 16,060.6 | 13.20 | 94,625.2 | 77.77 | 10,590.0 | 8.70 | 2878.2 | 2.37 | 6.7 | 0.01 | −2494.7 | −2.05 | 121,666.0 |
2000 | 15,424.8 | 12.73 | 94,592.7 | 78.05 | 11,422.9 | 9.41 | 2800.1 | 2.31 | 6.8 | 0.01 | −3056.5 | −2.52 | 121,190.8 |
2010 | 14,642.3 | 12.37 | 94,523.6 | 79.83 | 10,824.6 | 9.14 | 2659.4 | 2.25 | 5.5 | 0.01 | −4248.3 | −3.59 | 118,407.1 |
2018 | 14,448.7 | 12.41 | 93,674.9 | 80.46 | 10,364.1 | 8.90 | 2763.9 | 2.37 | 5.0 | 0.01 | −4833.4 | −4.15 | 116,423.2 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Ye, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, T.; Bai, H.; Wang, X.; Zhao, W. Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province, Southern China, from 1990 to 2018. Land 2021, 10, 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10040426
Ye Y, Zhang J, Wang T, Bai H, Wang X, Zhao W. Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province, Southern China, from 1990 to 2018. Land. 2021; 10(4):426. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10040426
Chicago/Turabian StyleYe, Yanqiong, Jiaen Zhang, Ting Wang, Hui Bai, Xuan Wang, and Wei Zhao. 2021. "Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province, Southern China, from 1990 to 2018" Land 10, no. 4: 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10040426
APA StyleYe, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, T., Bai, H., Wang, X., & Zhao, W. (2021). Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Service Value in Guangdong Province, Southern China, from 1990 to 2018. Land, 10(4), 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10040426