| Literature DB >> 30925834 |
Shaofeng Yuan1, Congmou Zhu2, Lixia Yang3, Fenghua Xie4.
Abstract
Ecologically sensitive suburban areas provide important ecosystem services and protect urban ecological security because of their multiple functions in natural and human systems. The research on the ecological environment effects of land use activities in ecologically sensitive suburban areas is important in guiding the healthy and sustainable development of cities. Taking the west suburbs of Hangzhou in China as a case study, we quantified land use changes from Landsat satellite imagery and calculated the value of ecosystem services using the well-established equivalent factor table for land use/cover change (LUCC) and ecosystem services value (ESV). The impacts of LUCC on the ecological environment were analyzed using the transfer matrix of land use and coefficient of elasticity. Results revealed the following. (1) The total ESV in the western suburban area of Hangzhou decreased from $109.95 million in 2000 to $87.09 million in 2016. Moreover, the ESV of gas regulation, climate regulation, soil formation and protection, as well as biodiversity conservation presented a large decrease of more than 25%, especially between 2010 and 2016. (2) The spatial distribution of ESV was high in the west and low in the east. The regions with a significant reduction in ESV were mainly distributed in the eastern town of Wuchang and in Jincheng Town located in the midwest valley. (3) Industrial agglomeration activities in the ecologically sensitive suburban area emerged as the primary factor influencing ESV for various land uses. The elasticity indicator for assessing the responses to ESV changes relative to LUCC showed that 1% of the land conversion in this area resulted in average changes in ESV of 4.1% after the establishment of the industrial agglomeration area. (4) The increase in construction land was associated with a significant decrease in forest area because of the policy of cultivated land requisition⁻compensation balance and development strategies for low-slope hilly lands. Consequently, the ESV in the ecologically sensitive suburban areas rapidly declined.Entities:
Keywords: Hangzhou; ecologically sensitive suburban area; ecosystem services value; land use; temporal–spatial change
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30925834 PMCID: PMC6480383 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16071124
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location and administrative division of the ecologically sensitive suburban areas in Hangzhou.
Equivalent coefficients of ecosystem services value (ESV) units for different land use types in the western suburban area of Hangzhou.
| Functions | Land Use Types | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grassland | Cultivated Land | Forest | Water Area | Construction Land | |
| Gas regulation | 0.80 | 0.50 | 3.50 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| Climate regulation | 0.90 | 0.89 | 2.70 | 0.46 | 0.08 |
| Water conservation | 0.80 | 0.60 | 3.20 | 20.38 | 0.08 |
| Soil formation and protection | 1.95 | 1.46 | 3.90 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
| Waste treatment | 1.31 | 1.64 | 1.31 | 18.18 | 0.04 |
| Biodiversity conservation | 1.09 | 0.71 | 3.26 | 2.49 | 0.09 |
| Food production | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.01 |
| Raw material | 0.05 | 0.10 | 2.60 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Entertainment and leisure | 0.04 | 0.01 | 1.28 | 4.34 | 0.11 |
| Total | 7.24 | 6.91 | 21.85 | 46.01 | 0.64 |
Annual ESV of each land use type per hectare in Hangzhou (US$·hm−1 a−1).
| Ecosystem Function | Land Use Type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grassland | Cultivated Land | Forest | Water Area | Construction Land | |
| Gas regulation | 227.99 | 142.49 | 997.45 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Climate regulation | 256.49 | 253.64 | 769.46 | 131.09 | 0.00 |
| Water conservation | 227.99 | 170.99 | 911.96 | 5808.03 | 8.55 |
| Soil formation and protection | 555.72 | 416.08 | 1111.45 | 2.85 | 5.70 |
| Waste treatment | 373.33 | 467.38 | 373.33 | 5181.06 | 2.85 |
| Biodiversity conservation | 310.64 | 202.34 | 929.06 | 709.62 | 96.90 |
| Food production | 85.50 | 284.99 | 28.50 | 28.50 | 2.85 |
| Raw material | 14.25 | 28.50 | 740.97 | 2.85 | 0.00 |
| Entertainment and leisure | 11.40 | 2.85 | 364.78 | 1236.84 | 2.85 |
| Total | 2063.31 | 1969.26 | 6226.97 | 13,112.25 | 119.69 |
Areas of different land use types in ecologically sensitive area of Hangzhou.
| Land Use Type | Land Area in Different Years (km2) | Change Range (km2) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | % | 2005 | % | 2010 | % | 2016 | % | 2000–2010 | 2011–2016 | |
| Grassland | 0.95 | 0.31 | 0.82 | 0.27 | 1.03 | 0.34 | 0.49 | 0.16 | 0.08 | −0.54 |
| Urban land | 7.67 | 2.51 | 17.18 | 5.62 | 22.02 | 7.21 | 65.35 | 21.39 | 14.35 | 43.33 |
| Cultivated land | 182.41 | 59.71 | 172.42 | 56.44 | 160.4 | 52.51 | 153.48 | 50.24 | −22.01 | −6.92 |
| Forest | 90.24 | 29.54 | 92.01 | 30.12 | 85.53 | 28.00 | 59.43 | 19.46 | −4.71 | −26.1 |
| Rural settlements | 10.58 | 3.46 | 8.68 | 2.84 | 19.19 | 6.28 | 12.24 | 4.01 | 8.61 | −6.95 |
| Water area | 13.28 | 4.35% | 14.15 | 4.63% | 17.15 | 5.61% | 14.36 | 4.70 | 3.87 | −2.79 |
| Unused land | 0.35 | 0.11% | 0.22 | 0.07% | 0.17 | 0.06% | 0.12 | 0.04 | −0.18 | −0.05 |
Figure 2Land use pattern of ecologically sensitive area of Hangzhou in 2000–2016.
Figure 3ESV in western suburban area of Hangzhou from 2000 to 2016.
Figure 4Change rate of ESV in ecologically sensitive area of Hangzhou from 2000 to 2016.
Total ESV based on land use in ecologically sensitive area of Hangzhou.
| Ecosystem Function | Unit Value (US$·hm−2 a−1) | Total ESV (million $) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESV2000 | ESV2005 | ESV2010 | ESV2016 | ||
| Grassland | 2063.31 | 0.20 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.10 |
| Cultivated land | 1969.26 | 35.92 | 33.95 | 31.59 | 30.22 |
| Forest | 6226.97 | 56.19 | 57.29 | 53.26 | 37.01 |
| Water area | 13,112.25 | 17.41 | 18.55 | 22.49 | 18.83 |
| Unused land | 119.69 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Rural settlements | 119.69 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.15 |
| Urban land | 119.69 | 0.09 | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.78 |
| Total | 23,730.86 | 109.95 | 110.28 | 108.04 | 87.09 |
Figure 5(a) Distribution of ESV in 2000; (b) Distribution of ESV in 2016; (c) ESV dynamic degree of ESV between 2000 and 2016.
Total ESV in different towns in ecologically sensitive area of Hangzhou.
| Average ESV | Total ESV (US$ million) | Change Rate | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Order | 2005 | Order | 2010 | Order | 2016 | Order | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2016 | ||
| Banqiao Town | 0.42 | 4 | 0.44 | 4 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.39 | 2 | 2.14 | 2.22 | 2.26 | 1.99 | −7.00% |
| Cangqian Town | 0.12 | 10 | 0.11 | 10 | 0.11 | 10 | 0.09 | 10 | 10.23 | 9.89 | 9.49 | 7.69 | −24.87% |
| Hengfan Town | 0.46 | 3 | 0.47 | 3 | 0.44 | 4 | 0.31 | 4 | 8.52 | 8.76 | 8.27 | 5.83 | −31.49% |
| Jincheng Town | 0.46 | 2 | 0.48 | 2 | 0.49 | 2 | 0.38 | 3 | 16.19 | 16.98 | 17.11 | 13.46 | −16.86% |
| Liangzhu Town | 0.18 | 9 | 0.19 | 9 | 0.17 | 9 | 0.17 | 7 | 1.23 | 1.26 | 1.17 | 1.16 | −5.35% |
| Qingshanhu Town | 0.52 | 1 | 0.54 | 1 | 0.54 | 1 | 0.44 | 1 | 29.95 | 30.99 | 31.11 | 25.05 | −16.38% |
| Wuchang Town | 0.33 | 5 | 0.27 | 7 | 0.24 | 7 | 0.11 | 9 | 6.26 | 5.21 | 4.57 | 2.02 | −67.71% |
| Xianlin Town | 0.25 | 8 | 0.25 | 8 | 0.22 | 8 | 0.15 | 8 | 4.47 | 4.34 | 3.93 | 2.58 | −42.17% |
| Yuhang Town | 0.32 | 6 | 0.32 | 5 | 0.31 | 5 | 0.29 | 5 | 27.98 | 27.76 | 27.3 | 25.46 | −9.00% |
| Zhongtai Town | 0.29 | 7 | 0.28 | 6 | 0.27 | 6 | 0.18 | 6 | 2.98 | 2.87 | 2.81 | 1.85 | −37.98% |
| Total | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.25 | 109.95 | 110.28 | 108.04 | 87.09 | −20.79% | ||||
Transition matrix of land use and ESV between 2000 and 2016 in the western suburban area of Hangzhou.
| Final State (2016) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial State (2000) | Grassland | Urban Land | Cultivated Land | Forest | Rural Settlements | Water arEa | Unused Land | Total (2000) |
| Land Use Transfer (km2) | ||||||||
| Grassland | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.44 | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.95 |
| Urban land | 0.00 | 4.60 | 2.35 | 0.13 | 0.47 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 7.67 |
| Cultivated land | 0.05 | 46.12 | 112.42 | 9.03 | 8.68 | 6.11 | 0.00 | 182.41 |
| Forest | 0.17 | 8.87 | 30.28 | 48.90 | 1.37 | 0.61 | 0.05 | 90.24 |
| Rural settlements | 0.02 | 3.57 | 5.11 | 0.49 | 1.30 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 10.58 |
| Water area | 0.01 | 2.12 | 2.79 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 7.44 | 0.00 | 13.28 |
| Unused land | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.35 |
| Total 2016 | 0.49 | 65.35 | 153.49 | 59.43 | 12.24 | 14.36 | 0.12 | 305.48 |
| ESV transfer (US$ million) | ||||||||
| Grassland | 0.00 | −0.0136 | −0.0041 | 0.1083 | −0.0078 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.0827 |
| Urban land | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.4346 | 0.0794 | 0.00 | 0.1326 | 0.00 | 0.6466 |
| Cultivated land | 0.0005 | −8.5302 | 0.00 | 3.8447 | −1.6054 | 6.8084 | 0.0000 | 0.5179 |
| Forest | −0.0708 | −5.4172 | −12.8923 | 0.00 | −0.8367 | 0.4200 | −0.0305 | −18.8275 |
| Rural settlements | 0.0039 | 0.00 | 0.9451 | 0.2993 | 0.00 | 0.1169 | 0.00 | 1.3652 |
| Water area | −0.0110 | −2.7544 | −3.1089 | −0.3856 | −0.4807 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −6.7407 |
| Unused land | 0.0233 | 0.00 | 0.0185 | 0.0366 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.0785 |
| Total | −0.0541 | −16.7154 | −14.6071 | 3.9827 | −2.9306 | 7.4779 | −0.0305 | −22.8773 |
Elasticity of ESV with respect to land use/cover change (LUCC) in ecologically sensitive area of Hangzhou.
| Town Name | Elasticity of ESV in Relation to LUCC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000–2005 | 2006–2010 | 2011–2016 | |
| Banqiao Town | 1.79 | 0.42 | 3.95 |
| Cangqian Town | 2.88 | 1.30 | 3.78 |
| Hengfan Town | 1.87 | 2.27 | 3.94 |
| Jincheng Town | 2.16 | 0.34 | 3.32 |
| Liangzhu Town | 2.71 | 2.19 | 0.81 |
| Qingshanhu Town | 1.41 | 0.13 | 3.08 |
| Wuchang Town | 2.23 | 3.41 | 2.90 |
| Xianlin Town | 0.48 | 4.40 | 3.50 |
| Yuhang Town | 0.92 | 1.03 | 3.41 |
| Zhongtai Town | 1.09 | 0.48 | 8.63 |
| Total | 0.19 | 0.84 | 4.08 |