| Literature DB >> 31261854 |
Qianru Yu1, Chen-Chieh Feng2, NuanYin Xu3, Luo Guo4, Dan Wang5.
Abstract
Evaluating the impact of an ecological restoration program on ecosystem services is crucial, given the role of such a program in boosting sustainable ecosystem management. This study examines the impact of one of the large-scale ecological restoration programs in China, the Grain for Green Program (GGP), on ecosystem service management in the Exibei region of China. This region is studied, as it is a key source water area with rich biodiversity and has been experiencing GGP for 20 years. To achieve the stated goal the changes of land use and ecosystem services value (ESV) and the ecosystem services scarcity value (ESSV) in the Exibei region were quantified and assessed based on remote sensing images from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and field survey data. The results indicated that the expansion of construction land and the increase of water body were the dominant land use changes throughout the study period. Farmland, forestland and grassland decreased by 2.61%, 0.47% and 1.41% after the GGP, respectively. The ESV of the entire Exibei region increased slightly in response to land use change during 1990-2015, with an annual loss of 0.08% before the implementation of GGP and an annual growth of 0.03% after the implementation of GGP. Moreover, forestland was the dominant contributor to ESSV after the implementation of the GGP. Its annual growth rate was four times higher than before the commencement of GGP. The results of this study contribute to the protection of the Exibei region ecosystem, and more importantly, the future management of the ecosystem service in the hilly regions of southern China.Entities:
Keywords: ecosystem services; exibei region; grain for green program; land use change; scarcity analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31261854 PMCID: PMC6651296 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16132311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location of study area.
Price elasticities of supply and demand for private-good and public-good ecosystem services resulting in relative changes in scarcity value in the three scenarios analyzed in this study, and relative equations.
| Scenarios | Elasticities | Price | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private-Good | Private-Good | Public-Good | Public-Good | Private-Good | Public-Good | |
| Supply | Demand | Supply | Demand | |||
| Lowest | H:5.0 | L:0.8 | L:0.7 | H:2.1 |
|
|
| Medium | M:3.5 | M:0.5 | M:0.4 | M:1.6 | ||
| Highest | L:2.0 | H:0.2 | H:0.1 | L:1.1 | ||
Figure 2Land use types of the Exibei Region in 1990–2015.
Figure 3Change ratio of Tupu units of land use change during 1990–2015 in the Exibei region. (a): farmland; (b): forestland; (c): grassland; (d): water land; (e): construction land; (f): unused land. Tupu code was the transition type of land use changes, e.g., Tupu code AB, which meant that the land use type from type A at the former period to type B at the latter period.
Figure 4Pattern Tupu of land use change during 1990–2015 in the Exibei region. Anaphase transition type: land use type only changes in 2010–2015.; middle transition type: land use type only changes in 1995–2010.; repeated transition type: more than two kinds of land types changed in 1995–2010, and land use type remained the same in 1990 and 2015; continuous transition type: there were at least three land use types in 1990–2015, and land use type was different in 1990 and 2015.; prophase transition type: land use type only changes in 1990–2000.
Ecosystem service values in 1990–2015 (billion yuan).
| Ecosystem Service Type | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Level | Second Level | ||||||
| Provisioning service | Food production | 15.12 | 15.11 | 15.10 | 15.09 | 15.06 | 14.91 |
| Raw material | 15.11 | 15.11 | 15.12 | 15.10 | 15.10 | 15.02 | |
| Water supply | 2.74 | 2.96 | 2.44 | 3.01 | 3.15 | 3.42 | |
| Regulating service | Gas regulation | 49.34 | 49.31 | 49.35 | 49.28 | 49.27 | 48.99 |
| Climate regulation | 129.04 | 129.03 | 128.98 | 128.96 | 128.98 | 128.53 | |
| Purify environment | 41.71 | 41.81 | 41.56 | 41.82 | 41.90 | 41.89 | |
| Hydrological regulation | 162.40 | 164.52 | 158.38 | 164.87 | 166.10 | 167.80 | |
| Supporting service | Soil retention | 56.81 | 56.80 | 56.82 | 56.77 | 56.78 | 56.55 |
| Nutrient cycling | 5.14 | 5.14 | 5.15 | 5.14 | 5.13 | 5.10 | |
| Biodiversity services | 50.01 | 50.01 | 50.14 | 50.04 | 50.13 | 50.10 | |
| Cultural service | Recreation and culture | 22.59 | 22.61 | 22.66 | 22.63 | 22.69 | 22.71 |
Figure 5Ecosystem service scarcity values considering the simultaneous influence of supply and demand during 1990–2015 in the Exibei region. 1: farmland; 2: forestland; 3: grassland; 4: water body; 5: construction land; 6: unused land; FD: food production; RM: raw material; WS: water supply; GR: gas regulation; CR: climate regulation; PE: purify environment; HR: hydrological regulation; SR: soil retention; NC: nutrient cycling; BS: biodiversity services; RC: recreation and culture; ↑: rising trend of ecosystem services scarcity value.
Coefficient of sensitivity and variation for ecosystem service values.
| Land Use Types | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmland | 0.0606 | 0.0602 | 0.0611 | 0.0600 | 0.0596 | 0.0585 |
| Forestland | 0.7427 | 0.7394 | 0.7481 | 0.7385 | 0.7362 | 0.7327 |
| Grassland | 0.0539 | 0.0536 | 0.0543 | 0.0535 | 0.0534 | 0.0527 |
| Water body | 0.1429 | 0.1470 | 0.1366 | 0.1483 | 0.1512 | 0.1566 |
| Unused land | 0.0002 | 0.0002 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
| Construction land | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.0006 |
| Variation coefficient | 1.7223 | 1.7141 | 1.7357 | 1.7122 | 1.7066 | 1.6990 |
Perceived decreases or increases in ecosystem services for each village.
| Ecosystem Service Types | Shi Hua | Zi Jin | Wen Fen | Majia Du |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food production | ↓ | - | - | ↑ |
| Raw material | - | ↑ | ↑ | - |
| Water supply | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | - |
| Gas regulation | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
| Climate regulation | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
| Purify environment | ↓ | - | ↓ | ↓ |
| Hydrological regulation | - | ↓ | ↓ | - |
| Soil retention | ↑ | - | ↑ | ↑ |
| Nutrient cycling | - | - | - | ↑ |
| Biodiversity services | - | ↑ | - | - |
| Recreation and culture | - | ↑ | - | ↑ |
↑: rising trend of ecosystem services value; ↓: declining trend of ecosystem services value; -: no significant change in ecosystem services value.