IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3822-d527247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value and Its Differences in the Yellow River Basin and Yangtze River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Chunsheng Wu

    (Lhasa Plateau Ecosystem Research Station, Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Guoxia Ma

    (Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Weishan Yang

    (Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Ying Zhou

    (Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Fei Peng

    (Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Jinnan Wang

    (Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

  • Fang Yu

    (Center for Eco-Environmental Accounting, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China)

Abstract

The Yellow River Basin and the Yangtze River Basin are the two most important watersheds in China, which consist of several key ecological function areas and are crucial in terms of economic contributions. The evaluation of the ecosystem service value and the quantitative acquisition of the regional ecological quality status are necessary for supporting the ecological protection and high-quality development of the two basins. By considering basic data and adopting different ecological function models, this study was carried out to evaluate the value of ecosystem services in the Yellow River Basin and the Yangtze River Basin from 2015 to 2018 in terms of provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services. Additionally, analysis was conducted in combination with economic indicators. The results showed that there were great differences in the ecosystem patterns between the Yellow River Basin, where grassland accounted for 45% of land use, and the Yangtze River Basin, where forest accounted for 39% of land use. The values of the ecosystem services of the two basins had similar spatial distributions, with higher values upstream (west) followed by downstream (east) and lower values in the middle (central China). The total annual ecosystem value of the Yangtze River Basin was more than three times that of the Yellow River Basin. In addition, the ecosystem services value of most counties in both basins was higher than their GDP, and there was a positive trend of transforming ecological benefits into economic benefits in the Yangtze River Basin. This research provides a methodology for evaluating ecosystem valuation. The results are helpful for formulating and implementing eco-compensation and payments for ecosystem service policies among different regions in the basins, and the results lay a foundation for the spatial planning and high-quality development paths of key basin areas in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunsheng Wu & Guoxia Ma & Weishan Yang & Ying Zhou & Fei Peng & Jinnan Wang & Fang Yu, 2021. "Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value and Its Differences in the Yellow River Basin and Yangtze River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3822-:d:527247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3822/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3822/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem Services: New Findings for Landscape Architects, Urban Planners, and Policymakers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    2. Qijiao Xie & Yang Yue & Qi Sun & Si Chen & Soo-Beom Lee & Seong Wook Kim, 2019. "Assessment of Ecosystem Service Values of Urban Parks in Improving Air Quality: A Case Study of Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Xiyi Wang & Shuzhen Peng & Hongbo Ling & Hailiang Xu & Tingting Ma, 2019. "Do Ecosystem Service Value Increase and Environmental Quality Improve due to Large–Scale Ecological Water Conveyance in an Arid Region of China?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Costanza, Robert, 2020. "Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    6. Xiaodi Zhao & Youjun He & Chao Yu & Danyun Xu & Wentao Zou, 2019. "Assessment of Ecosystem Services Value in a National Park Pilot," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    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. Haipeng Niu & Mengmeng Liu & Dongyang Xiao & Xiaoming Zhao & Ran An & Liangxin Fan, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Trade-Offs and Synergies in Ecosystem Services at Watershed and Landscape Scales: A Case Analysis of the Yellow River Basin (Henan Section)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-24, November.
    2. Yuanyuan Lou & Dan Yang & Pengyan Zhang & Ying Zhang & Meiling Song & Yicheng Huang & Wenlong Jing, 2022. "Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Changes with Ecosystem Service Value in the Yellow River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Lingge Zhang & Ningke Hu, 2021. "Spatial Variation and Terrain Gradient Effect of Ecosystem Services in Heihe River Basin over the Past 20 Years," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Lu Jiao & Rui Yang & Yinling Zhang & Jian Yin & Jiayu Huang, 2022. "The Evolution and Determinants of Ecosystem Services in Guizhou—A Typical Karst Mountainous Area in Southwest China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-23, July.
    5. Ze Zhou & Bin Quan & Zhiwei Deng, 2023. "Effects of Land Use Changes on Ecosystem Service Value in Xiangjiang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Fuli Wang & Wei Fu & Jiancheng Chen, 2022. "Spatial–Temporal Evolution of Ecosystem Service Value in Yunnan Based on Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Zhiyuan Zhu & Zhikun Mei & Xiyang Xu & Yongzhong Feng & Guangxin Ren, 2022. "Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment Based on Land Use Change in the Yellow River Basin of Shaanxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-18, August.
    8. Luying Wang & Kai Su & Xuebing Jiang & Xiangbei Zhou & Zhu Yu & Zhongchao Chen & Changwen Wei & Yiming Zhang & Zhihong Liao, 2022. "Measuring Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) in Guangxi, China, from 2005 to 2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Li, Feng & Liu, Hao & Ma, Yinhan & Xie, Xiaohua & Wang, Yunshu & Yang, Yejun, 2022. "Low-carbon spatial differences of renewable energy technologies: Empirical evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    10. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka & Wang Ke & Mohammad Sohail Nazar & Ghali Abdullahi Abubakar & AmirReza Shahtahamssebi, 2022. "Impact of Hydrological Infrastructure Projects on Land Use/Cover and Socioeconomic Development in Arid Regions—Evidence from the Upper Atbara and Setit Dam Complex, Kassala, Eastern Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.

    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. Lisha Tang & Hualou Long & Daniel P. Aldrich, 2023. "Putting a Price on Nature: Ecosystem Service Value and Ecological Risk in the Dongting Lake Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. 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.
    5. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    7. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    8. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    9. Letizia Cremonini & Marianna Nardino & Teodoro Georgiadis, 2022. "The Utilization of the WMO-1234 Guidance to Improve Citizen’s Wellness and Health: An Italian Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Hendriksen, Astrid & Jouanneau, Charlène & Koss, Rebecca & Raakjaer, Jesper, 2014. "Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 353-363.
    11. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    12. Larson, Silva & Stoeckl, Natalie & Neil, Barbara & Welters, Riccardo, 2013. "Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 9-18.
    13. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    14. Ioannis Souliotis & Nikolaos Voulvoulis, 2021. "Natural Capital Accounting Informing Water Management Policies in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    16. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Alexey Dushin, 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Maria Cerreta & Simona Panaro & Giuliano Poli, 2021. "A Spatial Decision Support System for Multifunctional Landscape Assessment: A Transformative Resilience Perspective for Vulnerable Inland Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    18. Weesie, Peter & Andel, J. van, 2003. "On biodiversity and its valuation," CDS Research Reports 200218, University of Groningen, Centre for Development Studies (CDS).
    19. Natacha LASKOWSKI, 2013. "Optimal allocation of wetlands: Study on conflict between agriculture and fishery," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2013-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    20. Wei Shi & Fuwei Qiao & Liang Zhou, 2021. "Identification of Ecological Risk Zoning on Qinghai-Tibet Plateau from the Perspective of Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    21. Xichen Ge & Liang Sun & Jiongzhen Chen & Shuangrong Cai, 2022. "Land Utilization, Landscape Pattern, and Ecological Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis of Discrimination and Overlap from Suining, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.

    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:7:p:3822-:d:527247. 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.