IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i8p1168-d873248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Relationship between Land Use Patterns and Ecosystem Services Value—Case Study of Nanjing

Author

Listed:
  • Ming Lu

    (School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China
    Key Laboratory of National Territory Spatial Planning and Ecological Restoration in Cold Regions, Ministry of Natural Resources, Harbin 150006, China)

  • Yan Zhang

    (School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China
    Key Laboratory of National Territory Spatial Planning and Ecological Restoration in Cold Regions, Ministry of Natural Resources, Harbin 150006, China
    College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117575, Singapore)

  • Fan Liang

    (School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China
    Key Laboratory of National Territory Spatial Planning and Ecological Restoration in Cold Regions, Ministry of Natural Resources, Harbin 150006, China)

  • Yuanxiang Wu

    (School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China
    Key Laboratory of National Territory Spatial Planning and Ecological Restoration in Cold Regions, Ministry of Natural Resources, Harbin 150006, China)

Abstract

The degree of land use reflects the progress of social and economic development; however, it also has a direct impact on land resources. Maximizing the ecosystem services of land resources in a limited space is a key issue in China’s rapid urbanization. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the spatial relationship between land use patterns and ecosystem services to enhance the benefits of urban ecology. First, we used the landscape pattern index to represent land use patterns and the equivalence factor method to quantify the ecosystem services value (ESV); second, spatial autocorrelation and spatial autoregression were used to explore the spatial relationship between the landscape pattern index and ESV. Our main conclusions were that (1) the landscape pattern index and ESV both showed obvious spatial aggregation, but that of ESV was more significant; (2) the largest patch index and contagion index had a greater degree of influence on ESV than other variables, with the largest patch index having a positive effect and the contagion index having a negative effect; (3) it was necessary to cultivate the landscape dominance of land patches in ecological spatial regulation and to form large-scale ecological agglomeration in key ecological source areas and nodes. The research results can ensure that land resources exert a higher level of ecological value by adjusting the spatial form of the landscape patch.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming Lu & Yan Zhang & Fan Liang & Yuanxiang Wu, 2022. "Spatial Relationship between Land Use Patterns and Ecosystem Services Value—Case Study of Nanjing," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1168-:d:873248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1168/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1168/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wainger, Lisa A. & King, Dennis M. & Mack, Richard N. & Price, Elizabeth W. & Maslin, Thomas, 2010. "Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 978-987, March.
    2. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    3. Ouyang, Xiao & Tang, Lisha & Wei, Xiao & Li, Yonghui, 2021. "Spatial interaction between urbanization and ecosystem services in Chinese urban agglomerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    5. Hualou Long & Xiangbin Kong & Shougeng Hu & Yurui Li, 2021. "Land Use Transitions under Rapid Urbanization: A Perspective from Developing China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-9, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xuan Guo & Qingwen Min, 2023. "Analysis of Landscape Patterns Changes and Driving Factors of the Guangdong Chaoan Fenghuangdancong Tea Cultural System in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Yonghua Zhao & Lei Zhang & Xia Jia & Qi Mu & Lei Han & Zhao Liu & Peng Zhang & Ming Zhao, 2023. "Pattern and Trend of Ecosystem Service Value in the Loess Plateau of Northern Shaanxi," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Guo Cai & Yuying Lin & Fazi Zhang & Shihe Zhang & Linsheng Wen & Baoyin Li, 2022. "Response of Ecosystem Service Value to Landscape Pattern Changes under Low-Carbon Scenario: A Case Study of Fujian Coastal Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Vos, A. & Cumming, G.S. & Roux, D.J., 2017. "The relevance of cross-scale connections and spatial interactions for ecosystem service delivery by protected areas: Insights from southern Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 133-139.
    2. Yun Jiang & Guoming Du & Hao Teng & Jun Wang & Haolin Li, 2023. "Multi-Scenario Land Use Change Simulation and Spatial Response of Ecosystem Service Value in Black Soil Region of Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Chaolei Yang & Jingyuan Li & Shuwen Jiang & Yufeng Tian & Canfeng Li & Wantao Yang & Haichuan Duan & Zong Wei & Yong Huang, 2024. "The Impacts of Land-Use Changes on Ecosystem Service Value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Xie, Gaodi & Zhang, Caixia & Zhen, Lin & Zhang, Leiming, 2017. "Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 146-154.
    5. Yanjun Tong & Jun Lei & Shubao Zhang & Xiaolei Zhang & Tianyu Rong & Liqin Fan & Zuliang Duan, 2023. "Analysis of the Spatial and Temporal Variability and Factors Influencing the Ecological Resilience in the Urban Agglomeration on the Northern Slope of Tianshan Mountain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Sonja S. Teelucksingh & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2010. "Biodiversity Valuation in Developing Countries: A Focus on Small Island Developing States (SIDS)," Working Papers 2010.111, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Yinglong Hu & Xinxiang Chen & Guoliang Zhao & Xuejun Liu & Jian Yu & Min Li & Yang Liu & Xiaotong Hu & Rui Zhong & Yingbiao Chen, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Responses to Land Use Change in Southern Guangzhou—The Practice of Applying Natural Resources Integrated Database for Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-27, July.
    8. Hongjie Peng & Lei Hua & Xuesong Zhang & Xuying Yuan & Jianhao Li, 2021. "Evaluation of ESV Change under Urban Expansion Based on Ecological Sensitivity: A Case Study of Three Gorges Reservoir Area in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    10. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Miroshnyk, N.V. & Likhanov, A.F. & Grabovska, T.O. & Teslenko, I.K. & Roubík, H., 2022. "Green infrastructure and relationship with urbanization – Importance and necessity of integrated governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    13. Hui Wen & Jiquan Chen & Zhifang Wang, 2020. "Disproportioned Performances of Protected Areas in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    15. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    16. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    17. Xiaozhen Zhou & Qianfeng Wang & Rongrong Zhang & Binyu Ren & Xiaoping Wu & Yue Wu & Jiakui Tang, 2022. "A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Hainan Island’s 2010–2020 Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    19. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    20. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1168-:d:873248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.