| Literature DB >> 36078675 |
Hui Yang1, Liang Zheng2,3, Ying Wang1, Jiangfeng Li1, Bowen Zhang1, Yuzhe Bi1.
Abstract
An increased land use intensity due to rapid urbanization and socio-economic development would alter the structure and function of regional ecosystems and cause prominent environmental problems. Revealing the impact of land use intensity on ecosystem services (ES) would provide guidance for more informed decision making to promote the sustainable development of human and natural systems. In this study, we selected the Hanjiang River Basin (HRB) in Hubei Province (China) as our study area, explored the correlation between land use intensity and ecosystem Services' Value (ESV), and investigated impacts of natural and socio-economic factors on ESV variations based on the Geographical Detector Model (GDM) and Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). The results show that (1) from 2000 to 2020, land use intensity in HRB generally showed an upward trend, with a high spatial agglomeration in the southeast and low in the northwest; (2) the total ESV increased from 295.56 billion CNY in 2000 to 296.93 billion CNY in 2010, and then decreased to 295.63 CNY in 2020, exhibiting an inverted U-shaped trend, with regulation services contributing the most to ESV; (3) land use intensity and ESV had a strong negative spatial correlation, with LH (low land use intensity vs. high ESV) aggregations mainly distributed in the northwest, whereas HL (high land use intensity vs. low ESV) aggregations were located in the southeast; (4) natural factors, including annual mean temperature, the percentage of forest land, and slope were positively associated with ESV, while socio-economic factors, including GDP and population density, were negatively associated with ESV. To achieve the coordinated development of the socio-economy and the environment, ES should be incorporated into spatial planning and socio-economic development policies.Entities:
Keywords: Hanjiang River Basin (HRB); driving factors; ecosystem services’ value (ESV); land use intensity; spatial correlations; spatiotemporal characteristics
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078675 PMCID: PMC9517847 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location of the study area.
Graded assignments of land use intensity.
| Types and Grades | Unused Land | Forest, Grassland, and Water Land | Agricultural Land | Urban Settlement Land |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land use types | Unused land | Forest land, Grassland, Water area | Cultivated land, Garden | Towns, residential areas, industrial and mining, transportation land |
| Grade factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Equivalent value per-unit area of ES by land use type in the HRB of Hubei Province (Unit: CNY/hm2).
| Categories of ES | Subtypes | Cultivated Land | Forest Land | Grassland | Water Area | Unused Land | Built-Up Land |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply services | Food production | 1881.45 | 620.88 | 809.02 | 997.17 | 37.63 | 0.00 |
| Raw material production | 733.77 | 5606.72 | 677.32 | 658.51 | 75.26 | 0.00 | |
| Regulation services | Gas regulation | 1354.64 | 8127.87 | 2822.18 | 959.54 | 112.89 | 0.00 |
| Climate regulation | 1825.01 | 7657.51 | 2935.06 | 3875.79 | 244.59 | 0.00 | |
| Hydrological regulation | 1448.72 | 7695.14 | 2859.81 | 35314.84 | 131.70 | 0.00 | |
| Waste disposal | 2615.22 | 3236.10 | 2483.52 | 27,939.55 | 489.18 | 0.00 | |
| Support services | Soil conservation | 2765.73 | 7563.43 | 4214.45 | 771.39 | 319.85 | 0.00 |
| Biodiversity | 1919.08 | 8485.34 | 3518.31 | 6453.38 | 752.58 | 0.00 | |
| Cultural services | Aesthetic landscape | 319.85 | 3913.42 | 1636.86 | 8353.64 | 451.55 | 0.00 |
Details of the driving factors.
| Factors Type | Indicator | Description | Calculation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural | Temperature (X1) | Annual mean temperature (°C) | ArcGIS raster statistics | [ |
| Precipitation (X2) | Annual mean precipitation (mm) | ArcGIS raster statistics | ||
| Slope (X3) | Slope (°) | ArcGIS raster statistics | ||
| Percentage of forest land (X4) | The percentage of forest land (%) | Forest land area/total land area | ||
| Distance to water system (X5) | Distance to the water system (m) | ArcGIS raster statistics and Euclidean Distance | [ | |
| Socio-economic | GDP (X6) | GDP per unit area (104 CNY/km2) | ArcGIS raster statistics | [ |
| Population density (X7) | Number of people per square kilometer (person/km2) | ArcGIS raster statistics | ||
| Distance to the county center (X8) | Distance to the county center (m) | ArcGIS raster statistics and Euclidean Distance | [ | |
| Distance to road (X9) | Distance to road (m) | ArcGIS raster statistics and Euclidean Distance | ||
| Percentage of built-up land (X10) | The percentage of built-up land (%) | Built-up land area/total land area | [ |
Figure 2The framework of this study.
Figure 3The spatial pattern of land use intensity in the HRB of Hubei Province for (a) 2000; (b) 2010; (c) 2020.
ESV of different land use types in the HRB of Hubei Province from 2000 to 2020.
| Land Use Types | Cultivated Land | Forest Land | Grassland | Water Area | Unused Land | Built-Up Land | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Areas (km2) | 32,289.44 | 39,609.20 | 2364.14 | 3843.85 | 87.14 | 2336.39 | 80,530.16 |
| ESV (108 CNY) | 479.93 | 2095.58 | 51.91 | 327.97 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 2955.62 | |
| 2010 | Areas (km2) | 31,786.21 | 39,546.33 | 2357.83 | 4132.90 | 86.27 | 2620.62 | 80,530.16 |
| ESV (108 CNY) | 472.45 | 2092.25 | 51.77 | 352.63 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 2969.34 | |
| 2020 | Areas (km2) | 31,170.40 | 39,363.37 | 2334.04 | 4207.03 | 84.04 | 3371.28 | 80,530.16 |
| ESV (108 CNY) | 463.30 | 2082.57 | 51.25 | 358.96 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 2956.30 | |
| 2000–2010 | Areas (km2) | −503.23 | −62.87 | −6.31 | 289.05 | −0.87 | 284.23 | 0.00 |
| ESV (108 CNY) | −7.48 | −3.33 | −0.14 | 24.66 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 13.72 | |
| 2010–2020 | Areas (km2) | −615.81 | −182.96 | −23.79 | 74.13 | −2.23 | 750.66 | 0.00 |
| ESV (108 CNY) | −9.15 | −9.68 | −0.52 | 6.33 | −0.01 | 0.00 | −13.04 | |
| 2000–2020 | Areas (km2) | −1119.04 | −245.83 | −30.10 | 363.18 | −3.10 | 1034.89 | 0.00 |
| ESV (108 CNY) | −16.63 | −13.01 | −0.66 | 30.99 | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.68 | |
Figure 4ESV of different ecosystem service types from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 5Spatial distribution of ESV (a–c) and the change rates (d) in the HRB of Hubei Province for 2000, 2010, and 2020.
Figure 6Spatial agglomeration characteristics of ESV in the HRB of Hubei Province for (a) 2000, (b) 2010, and (c) 2020.
Figure 7Moran scatter plots of land use intensity with ESV in the HRB of Hubei Province for (a) 2000, (b) 2010, and (c) 2020.
Figure 8LISA cluster maps between land use intensity and ESV in the HRB of Hubei Province for (a) 2000, (b) 2010, and (c) 2020.
Factor detection results of driving factors of ESV.
| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| q statistic | 0.75 | 0.19 | 0.81 | 0.87 | 0.27 | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.74 |
| 0.00 *** | 0.37 | 0.00 *** | 0.00 *** | 0.13 | 0.00 *** | 0.00 *** | 0.03 ** | 0.00 *** | 0.00 *** | |
| rank | 3 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 4 |
Note: *** and ** represent that p is significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels, respectively.
Interaction detection results of driving factors of ESV.
| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 0.75 | |||||||||
| X2 | 0.84 | 0.19 | ||||||||
| X3 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.81 | |||||||
| X4 | 0.83 | 0.60 | 0.89 | 0.87 | ||||||
| X5 | 0.87 | 0.75 # | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.27 | |||||
| X6 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.81 | 0.65 | ||||
| X7 | 0.88 | 0.69 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.61 | 0.82 | 0.55 | |||
| X8 | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.65 | 0.83 | 0.66 | 0.41 | ||
| X9 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.50 | |
| X10 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.74 |
Note: # denotes nonlinear enhancement of any two factor; without # denotes enhancement of any two factor.
Statistic coefficients for GWR and OLS.
| R2 | Adjusted R2 | AICc | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GWR | 0.93 | 0.90 | 49.52 |
| OLS | 0.88 | 0.84 | 248.48 |
Figure 9Spatial distribution of regression coefficients in GWR.