IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i19p10649-d642881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China

Author

Listed:
  • Jian Zhang

    (Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1, Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan)

  • Hengxing Xiang

    (Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Shizuka Hashimoto

    (Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1, Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan)

  • Toshiya Okuro

    (Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1, Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan)

Abstract

Understanding how observational scale affects the interactions and spatial distributions of ecosystem services is important for effective ecosystem assessment and management. We conducted a case study in the Ussuri watershed, Northeast China, to explore how observational scale (1 km to 15 km grid resolution) influences the correlations and spatial distributions of ecosystem services. Four ecosystem services of particular importance for the sustainable development of the study area were examined: carbon sequestration, habitat provision, soil retention, and water retention. Across the observational scales examined, trade-offs and synergies of extensively distributed ecosystem services were more likely to be robust compared with those of sparsely distributed ecosystem services, and hot/cold-spots of ecosystem services were more likely to persist when associated with large rather than small land-cover patches. Our analysis suggests that a dual-purpose strategy is the most appropriate for the management of carbon sequestration and habitat provision, and cross-scale management strategies are the most appropriate for the management of soil retention and water retention in the study area. Further studies to deepen our understanding of local landscape patterns will help determine the most appropriate observational scale for analyzing the spatial distributions of these ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10649-:d:642881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10649/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10649/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    3. Lant, Christopher L. & Kraft, Steven E. & Beaulieu, Jeffrey & Bennett, David & Loftus, Timothy & Nicklow, John, 2005. "Using GIS-based ecological-economic modeling to evaluate policies affecting agricultural watersheds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 467-484, December.
    4. Malinga, Rebecka & Gordon, Line J. & Jewitt, Graham & Lindborg, Regina, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 57-63.
    5. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    6. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    7. Yi Yang & David Tilman & George Furey & Clarence Lehman, 2019. "Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-7, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    3. Feurer, Melanie & Rueff, Henri & Celio, Enrico & Heinimann, Andreas & Blaser, Juergen & Htun, Aung Myin & Zaehringer, Julie Gwendolin, 2021. "Regional scale mapping of ecosystem services supply, demand, flow and mismatches in Southern Myanmar," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Ando Fahda Aulia & Harpinder Sandhu & Andrew C. Millington, 2020. "Quantifying the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes in Riau Province in Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    7. de Oliveira, Luiz Eduardo Chimello & Berkes, Fikret, 2014. "What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 114-121.
    8. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. Ndayizeye, Gaëlle & Imani, Gerard & Nkengurutse, Jacques & Irampagarikiye, Rosette & Ndihokubwayo, Noël & Niyongabo, Ferdinand & Cuni-Sanchez, Aida, 2020. "Ecosystem services from mountain forests: Local communities’ views in Kibira National Park, Burundi," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    10. Nelson, H.P. & Devenish-Nelson, E.S. & Rusk, B.L. & Geary, M. & Lawrence, A.J., 2020. "A review of tropical dry forest ecosystem service research in the Caribbean – gaps and policy-implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Marc D. Davidson, 2017. "Equity and the Conservation of Global Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Hao Hong Do & Oliver Frör, 2022. "River Ecosystem Resilience: Applying the Contingent Valuation Method in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    15. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    18. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    19. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    20. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10649-:d:642881. 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.