Advertisement

Integrated assessment of land-use/coverage changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in Gansu Province, northwest China: implications for sustainable development goals

  • Lijun Liu
  • Youjia LiangEmail author
  • Shizuka Hashimoto
Original Article
  • 71 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Natural Resource Management

Abstract

A sustainable supply of ecosystem services (ESs) is key to achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). The ESs concept is based on socio-ecological complexity integrated with local decision demands. It helps prevent both regional ecological degradation and conflicts associated with large-scale land-use/coverage-change (LUCC). In this study, an integrated assessment method was developed to analyze spatiotemporal changes in the supply capacities of ESs and assess their implications on the SDGs. Therefore, land-system dynamics in Gansu Province, northwest China were elucidated based on LUCC maps (1992–2015) using several assessment tools. The LUCC analysis indicated rapid expansion of grassland and cultivated land in Gannan and Qingyang cities, respectively, which was attributed to conversion of forests and bare land. The supply capacity of ESs indicated a monotonous increasing trend (cultural service > supporting service > provisioning service > regulating service) which was associated with positive changes in multiple ESs. However, the decrease in specific services likely caused unexpected losses which potentially offset profits from the current management of the socio-ecological system. Frequency of linkages with the SDGs indicated the following order: regulating service > provisioning service > cultural service > supporting service. Further, flood prevention, carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention were the most frequent ESs. Additionally, the top 25% frequency of occurrence of ESs that occurred in SDGs comprised SDG15 (40), SDG11 (18), and SDG2 (17), indicating that key policy implications in Gansu province should emphasize sustainable management of forest ecosystems, cities, and cropping systems under limited water resources. Therefore, this study provides an integrated assessment of the effects of changing land-system dynamics on the potential provision of ESs and their subsequent impacts on the SDGs in typical semi-arid and arid regions.

Keywords

Ecosystem services mapping Land-use change Impact assessment Hotspot analysis Social-ecological systems Sustainable development goals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41601184), the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund [S-15 Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (PANCES)] of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17KT0076, and the ‘Research and Social Implementation of Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction as Climate Change Adaptation in Shrinking Societies’ of the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Japan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11625_2019_758_MOESM1_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOC 43 kb)

References

  1. Amatya LK, Cuccillato E, Haack B, Shadie P, Sattar N, Bajracharya B, Shrestha B, Caroli P, Panzeri D, Basani M, Schommer B, Flury B, Manfredi EC, Salerno F (2010) Improving communication for management of social-ecological systems in high mountain areas. Mount Res Dev 30(2):69–79.  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-00084.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Winthrop R (2013) Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosyst Serv 5:40–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baral H, Keenan RJ, Stork NE, Kasel S (2014) Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective. J Environ Planning Manage 57(7):961–983.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.824872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnaud C, Corbera E, Muradian R et al (2018) Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual framework. Ecol Soc 23:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09848-230115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R (2010) Ecosystem services-bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol Complex 7:257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza R, Groot RD, Sutton P et al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26:152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanza R, Fioramonti L, Kubiszewski I (2016) The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front Ecol Environ 14(2):59.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S et al (2013) A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:4–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DasGupta R, Hashimoto S, Gundimeda H (2018) Biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific: typology, archetypes and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustain Sci 14:241–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0647-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WW et al (2015) Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414900112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eichler Inwood SE, López-Ridaura S, Kline KL et al (2018) Assessing sustainability in agricultural landscapes: a review of approaches 1, 2. Env Rev 26:299–315.  https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESA (2017) Land cover CCI product user guide version 2.0. https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org/?q=webfm_send/84
  15. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geijzendorffer IR, Cohen-Shacham E, Cord AF et al (2017) Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environ Sci Policy 74:40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24(3):189–206.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01976-0_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs HK, Ruesch AS, Achard F et al (1990s) Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 107:16732–16737.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gong J, Liu D, Zhang J et al (2019) Tradeoffs/synergies of multiple ecosystem services based on land-use simulation in a mountain-basin area, western China. Ecol Ind 99:283–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Govind NR, Ramesh H (2019) The impact of spatiotemporal patterns of land use land cover and land surface temperature on an urban cool island: a case study of Bengaluru. Environ Monit Assess 191(5):283.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7440-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grekousis G, Mountrakis G, Kavouras M (2015) An overview of 21 global and 43 regional land-cover mapping products. Int J Remote Sens 36:1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2015.1093195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O et al (2013) Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495(7441):305–307.  https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hák T, Janoušková S, Moldan B (2016) Sustainable development goals: a need for relevant indicators. Ecol Indic 60:565–573.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hartley AJ, MacBean N, Georgievski G et al (2017) Uncertainty in plant functional type distributions and its impact on land surface models. Remote Sens Environ 203:71–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hashimoto S, DasGupta R, Kabaya K et al (2019) Scenario analysis of land-use and ecosystem services of social-ecological landscapes: implications of alternative development pathways under declining population in the Noto Peninsula Japan. Sustain Sci 14(1):53–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0626-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. He S, Wang D, Li Y, Zhao P (2018) Land use changes and their driving forces in a debris flow active area of Gansu Province, China. Sustainability 10(8):2759.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hou Y, Zhou S, Burkhard B, Muller F (2014) Socioeconomic influences on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being: a quantitative application of the DPSIR model in Jiangsu, China. Sci Total Environ 490:1012–1028.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inkoom JN, Frank S, Greve K et al (2018) A framework to assess landscape structural capacity to provide regulating ecosystem services in West Africa. J Environ Manage 209:393–408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Daele TV et al (2015) ‘The Matrix Reloaded’: a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol Model 295:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jiang P, Cheng L, Li M et al (2015) Impacts of LUCC on soil properties in the riparian zones of desert oasis with remote sensing data: a case study of the middle Heihe River basin, China. Sci Total Environ 506:259–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Júnior JLS, Tomasella J, Rodriguez DA (2015) Impacts of future climatic and land cover changes on the hydrological regime of the Madeira River basin. Clim Change 129(1–2):117–129.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1338-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol Ind 28:54–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kindu M, Schneider T, Teketay D et al (2016) Changes of ecosystem service values in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Munessa–Shashemene landscape of the Ethiopian highlands. Sci Total Environ 547:137–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuemmerle T, Levers C, Erb K et al (2016) Hotspots of land-use change in Europe. Environ Res Lett 11(6):064020.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land-use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. PNAS 108:3465–3472.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lauer A, Eyring V, Righi M et al (2017) Benchmarking CMIP5 models with a subset of ESA CCI Phase 2 data using the ESMValTool. Remote Sens Environ 203:9–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Law M, Collins A (2015) Getting to know ArcGIS. ESRI Press, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawler JJ, Lewis DJ, Nelson E et al (2014) Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. PNAS 111(20):7492–7497.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405557111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehnert LW, Wesche K, Trachte K, Reudenbach C, Bendix J (2016) Climate variability rather than overstocking causes recent large scale cover changes of Tibetan pastures. Sci Rep 6:24367.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li Z, Wu W, Liu X et al (2017) Land-use/cover change and regional climate change in an arid grassland ecosystem of Inner Mongolia, China. Ecol Model 353:86–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.07.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li W, MacBean N, Ciais P et al (2018a) Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015). Earth Syst Sci Data 10(1):219–234.  https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-219-2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Li S, Zhang Y, Wang Z et al (2018b) Mapping human influence intensity in the Tibetan Plateau for conservation of ecological service functions. Ecosyst Serv 30:276–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liang Y, Liu L (2017) An integrated ecosystem service assessment in an artificial desert oasis of northwestern China. J Land Use Sci 12:14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2017.1308024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liang Y, Zhongmin XU, Zhong F (2013) An spatial ecosystem services approach based on LUCC: a case study of Ganzhou district of Zhangye City. Acta Ecol Sin 33:4758–4766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liang Y, Liu L, Huang J (2017) Integrating the SD-CLUE-S and InVEST models into assessment of oasis carbon storage in northwestern China. PLoS ONE 12:e0172494.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu M, Tian H (2010) China's land cover and land use change from 1700 to 2005: estimations from high-resolution satellite data and historical archives. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 24(3):GB3003.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu J, Li S, Ouyang Z et al (2008) Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services. PNAS 105:9477–9482.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706436105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu C, Dong X, Liu Y (2015) Changes of NPP and their relationship to climate factors based on the transformation of different scales in Gansu, China. CATENA 125:190–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu J, Hull V, Godfray HCJ et al (2018) Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat Sustain 1(9):466.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lorencová E, Frélichová J, Nelson E et al (2013) Past and future impacts of land use and climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 33:183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  53. Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Aguayo M et al (2014) Land use change and ecosystem services provision: a case study of recreation and ecotourism opportunities in southern Chile. Landsc Ecol 29(2):329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9958-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R et al (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. PNAS 105(28):9495–9500.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707823105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nolan S, Unkovich M, Yuying S et al (2008) Farming systems of the Loess Plateau, Gansu Province, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124(1–2):13–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ord JK, Getis A (1995) Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: distributional issues and an application. Geogr Anal 27(4):286–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ornetsmüller C, Verburg PH, Heinimann A (2016) Scenarios of land system change in the Lao PDR: transitions in response to alternative demands on goods and services provided by the land. Appl Geogr 75:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Xiao Y et al (2016) Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 352:1455–1459.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pei F, Li X, Liu X, Lao C, Xia G (2015) Exploring the response of net primary productivity variations to urban expansion and climate change: a scenario analysis for Guangdong Province in China. J Environ Manage 150:92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prestele R, Alexander P, Rounsevell MDA et al (2016) Hotspots of uncertainty in land-use and land-cover change projections: a global-scale model comparison. Glob Change Biol 22(12):3967–3983.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K et al (2015) Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44(1):89–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M et al (2010) Untangling the environmentalist's paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 60(8):576–589.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. United Nations (2015) Report of the inter-agency and expert group on sustainable development goal indicators, decision document E/CN.3/2016/2Google Scholar
  65. Saito O, Kamiyama C, Hashimoto S et al (2019) Co-design of national-scale future scenarios in Japan to predict and assess natural capital and ecosystem services. Sustain Sci 14(1):5–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0587-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schild JEM, Vermaat JE, Groot RSD et al (2018) A global meta-analysis on the monetary valuation of dryland ecosystem services: the role of socio-economic, environmental and methodological indicators. Ecosyst Serv 32:78–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. GLP (2005) Global land project. Science plan and implementation strategy. IGBP report no. 53/IHDP Report no. 19. IGBP Secretariat, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  68. Song W, Deng X (2017) Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision in China. Sci Total Environ 576:705–719.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sun F, Lyu Y, Fu B et al (2016) Hydrological services by mountain ecosystems in Qilian Mountain of China: a review. Chin Geogr Sci 26:174–187.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-015-0791-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Turner MG, Donato DC, Romme WH (2013) Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research. Landsc Ecol 28:1081–1097.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9741-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Tanskanen A et al (2010) Ecosystem services–a tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecol Complex 7:410–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vihervaara P, Franzese PP, Buonocore E (2019) Information, energy, and eco-exergy as indicators of ecosystem complexity. Ecol Model 395:23–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang S, Meng X, Guan C et al (2017) Effects of vegetation on debris flow mitigation: a case study from Gansu province, China. Geomorphology 282:64–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.12.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wen X, Wu X, Meng G (2017) Spatiotemporal variability of temperature and precipitation in Gansu Province (Northwest China) during 1951–2015. Atmos Res 197:132–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wood SLR, Jones SK, Johnson JA et al (2018) Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable development goals. Ecosyst Serv 29:70–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yi H, Güneralp B, Kreuter UP et al (2018) Spatial and temporal changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Sci Total Environ 619:1259–1271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intelligent Transportation Systems Research CenterWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of NavigationWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  3. 3.National Engineering Research Center for Water Transport SafetyWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  4. 4.School of Resources and Environmental EngineeringWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  5. 5.Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  6. 6.Institute for Global Environmental StrategiesHayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations