| Literature DB >> 29136016 |
Claudia Montoya-Tangarife1, Francisco de la Barrera2,3, Alejandro Salazar1,2, Luis Inostroza4,5.
Abstract
Mankind's quest for well-being results in continuous pressure to transform landscapes, with said transformation driven by land use changes, urbanization, production activity, and protective measures in addition to climate variability and other environmental drivers. The relationship between anthropogenic landscape changes and the provision of ecosystem services (ES) is a topic of increasing interest in Latin America. In Chile, land cover changes due to increased urbanization and forestry, and expansion of agricultural land, in addition to conservation initiatives as a part of land planning, have been intensive in the last few decades. In this study, the effects of anthropogenic landscape changes on the supply of ES were analyzed for the urban region of Santiago-Valparaiso (Chile) using a method based on expert consultation and land cover change assessment. A pool of experts scored the potential of specific land covers to provide certain ES. The results enabled calculation and mapping of changes in the potential of the landscape to supply ES. The aforementioned changes over a period of 15 years were evaluated. The results indicate a tenuous balance between positive and negative changes to the supply of ES derived from land cover changes. Understanding and reporting how these processes occur in urban regions contributes to the conservation of valuable landscapes through spatial planning tools, especially in areas close to housing developments and sensitive ecosystems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29136016 PMCID: PMC5685572 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area: Urban region of Santiago and Valparaíso, Chile (67 municipalities).
Land cover types grouped into structural land covers.
| Structural land cover | Groups of land cover types |
|---|---|
| Forests |
Mature forests (native species and mixed) Dense sclerophyllous shrublands Dense deciduous shrublands |
| Shrublands | Sclerophyllous shrubs (medium to low densities) Succulent species (large patches) Xerophyte shrubs |
| Agricultural lands | Permanent agricultural activities Vineyards Fruit farms |
| Forest plantations | Pine monocultures Eucalyptus monocultures |
| Urban | Residential Commercial Industrial Airports Others |
| Inland water bodies | Rivers Lakes Ponds |
| Bare soils | Degraded soils Freshly harvested croplands Beach rocks Dunes |
| Grasslands | Steppes Annual grasslands Meadows Riverbank herbaceous vegetation |
| Wetlands | All naturally flooded lands |
*All types of forest.
**Allocated to forest production.
***Large sites with artificially sealed surface.
Fig 2Land cover of the urban region in 1996 and 2011 post analysis of the official datasets [50, 51].
Ecosystem services used in this study and those used in the reviewed literature [22, 53, 55, 56].
| Ecosystem services groups | This research | Burkhard et al., 2014 | Kopperoinen et al., 2014 | Koschke et al., 2012 | Vihervaara et al., 2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global climate regulation | Global climate regulation | Local and regional climate regulation | Climate regulation (global) | Local and regional climate | |
| Local climate regulation | Local climate regulation | - | Climate regulation (local) | - | |
| Hydrological regulation | Water flow regulation | Water flow regulation | Water (balance) regulation | Flood prevention | |
| Control of pests and diseases | Pest and disease control | - | - | - | |
| Regulation of air quality | Air quality regulation | Air flow regulation | Clean air provision | - | |
| Regulation of soil erosion | Erosion regulation | - | Soil erosion protection | Erosion prevention | |
| Regulation of nutrient and soil formation | Nutrient regulation | - | - | Nutrient cycling, soil formation | |
| Surface water purification | Water purification | Water quality regulation | - | - | |
| Pollination and seed dispersal | Pollination | Pollination | Pollination | ||
| Crops | Crops | - | - | - | |
| Livestock and poultry production | Livestock (domestic) | Produced terrestrial plants and animals for food | - | - | |
| Fisheries and aquaculture | Fish, seafood and edible algae, Aquaculture | Aquaculture products | - | Fish | |
| Wood, fuelwood, and fibers | Fiber, timber, wood fuel | - | Food and fiber, wood/timber | Wood | |
| Fresh water | Freshwater | Water for human consumption and agricultural use | Clean water provision | Water | |
| Medicinal plants | Biochemicals and medicine | Biotic materials | - | Medicines | |
| Recreation, tourism, and sport in natural settings | Recreation and tourism | Landscape character for recreational opportunities | Recreation and ecotourism | Recreation and silence | |
| Aesthetics | Landscape aesthetics and inspiration | Aesthetics and heritage | Aesthetic | Esthetic landscape | |
| Existence | Religious and spiritual experience | - | - | - | |
| Research and education | Knowledge systems | Scientific and educational information and knowledge | - | - |
Fig 3Structural land cover changes between 1996 and 2011.
Fig 4Matrix assessment of the regional ecosystem services indicating the potential of each land cover class for the provision of ecosystem services selected for the study.
Score ranges considered for evaluation are an adaptation of Burkhard [53,54]. *Scores that had high variability in the assessment given by the experts.
Correlations between results obtained for ecosystem services valuation for each combination of ecosystem services and land cover according to the expert consultants and reviewed literature [22, 53, 55, 56].
Wetlands and forest plantations were not correlated because of the lack of data from the analyzed studies. Scores vary from 0 to 5, where 0 means no potential and 5 means maximum potential.
| Unit of analysis | Correlation between values given by the experts and the literature reviewed (r Pearson) | Scores of ecosystem services provision given by the experts (average) | Scores of ecosystem services provision from similar studies (average) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban region | |||
| Forests | 0.84 | 3.7 | 3.5 |
| Shrublands | 0.77 | 3.2 | 1.8 |
| Agriculture lands | 0.57 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
| Urban | 0.51 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
| Inland water bodies | 0.81 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
| Grasslands | 0.64 | 2.6 | 2.4 |
| Bare soils | 0.68 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| Regulating services | 0.66 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
| Provisioning services | 0.63 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
| Cultural services | 0.43 | 3.2 | 2.9 |
Fig 5Maps of the supply of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services in the urban region in 1996 (A) and 2011 (B).
Fig 6Maps of changes in the supply of ecosystem services in the urban region between 1996 and 2011.
Potential supply of ecosystem services in the urban region.
0 means no potential and 5 means maximum potential of supply of ecosystem services.
| Ecosystem services group | Potential supply in 1996 | Potential supply in 2011 | Qualitative scale of supply |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulating services | 2.64 | 2.83 | Medium-high potential |
| Provisioning services | 1.79 | 1.84 | Medium-low potential |
| Cultural services | 3.44 | 3.57 | Medium-high to high potential |
| Total | 2.62 | 2.75 | Medium-high potential |
Fig 7Synergies and trade-offs of ES score changes and land cover changes.
Equivalence between structural land cover types used in this study and those in similar studies [22, 53, 55, 55].
| This research | Burkhard et al., 2014 | Kopperoinen et al.,2014 | Koschke et al., 2012 | Vihervaara et al.,2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forests | Broad-leaved forest Mixed forest Coniferous forest | Conservation areas Important forest habitats Important bird areas (IBA) Old forests (age C120 years) | Broad-leaved forest Mixed forest Coniferous forest | Broad-leaved forest Mixed forest Coniferous forest |
| Shrublands | Transitional woodland shrub Sclerophyllous vegetation | Transitional woodland-shrub | ||
| Agriculture lands | Annual and permanent crops Permanently irrigated land Fruit trees and berries Complex cultivation patterns Vineyards Olive groves Non-irrigated arable land | Traditional agricultural biotopes | Land principally occupied by agriculture Fruit trees and berry plantations Complex cultivation patterns Non-irrigated arable land | Agricultural areas |
| Urban | Continuous urban fabric Discontinuous urban fabric | Sealed surfaces Discontinuous urban fabric | Continuous urban fabric Discontinuous urban fabric | Artificial surfaces |
| Inland water bodies | Water bodies, watercourses | Surface waters of high or good ecological status | Watercourses, water bodies | Running water Stillwater |
| Grasslands | Natural grassland | High nature value farmlands | Natural grasslands | Grasslands and moors |
| Wetlands | Marshes, bogs | |||
| Forest plantations | Forestry area | |||
| Bare soils | Beaches, dunes, and sand plains Bare rock Mineral extraction sites | Mineral extraction sites | Sand, bare rocks, etc. |
Experts consulted, land covers, and ecosystem services used in this and other similar studies [22, 53, 55, 56].
| Author | Spatial scale | Number of experts | Number of land covers | Number of ecosystem services | Land covers | Ecosystem services | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shared land covers | Land covers included by some authors, but not in this research | Shared ecosystem services | Ecosystem services included by some authors, but not in this research | |||||
| Burkhard et al., 2014 | Regional | NA | 44 | 31 | 21 | 23 | 22 | 9 |
| Kopperoinen et al., 2014 | Regional | 13 | 23 | 21 | 9 | 14 | 12 | 9 |
| Koschke et al., 2012 | Regional | 12 | 19 | 13 | 13 | 6 | 10 | 3 |
| Vihervaara et al., 2010 | Local | 20 | 13 | 23 | 11 | 2 | 12 | 11 |
| This research | Regional | 15 | 9 | 19 | - | - | - | - |
Fig 8Supply of ES in the urban region if the Andes had not changed (1996–2011).