IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i8p3241-d1374905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Ruoergai National Park, China

Author

Listed:
  • Hongfu Li

    (College of Geography and Planning, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Yuelin Wang

    (College of Geography and Planning, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Wende Chen

    (College of Geography and Planning, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Hongyu Li

    (College of Geography and Planning, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Yue Tian

    (College of Geography and Planning, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Ruojing Chen

    (College of Geography and Planning, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

Abstract

This study utilizes ArcGIS10.8 and ENVI5.3 software and the InVEST model to analyze and operate field survey data and remote sensing image data from Ruoergai National Park. The work simulates the soil retention, carbon storage, water supply, and habitat quality of the park to evaluate and analyze its four major ecosystem services. Subsequently, important areas of ecosystem services are zoned based on the results, aiming to provide decision-makers with a theoretical and scientific basis for formulating ecological environment restoration, protection, and management measures in Ruoergai National Park. The results showed the following: (1) In the study area, the land use types, ranked from largest to smallest, are grassland, unused land, forest, water area, and construction land. (2) Soil retention and water supply show an increasing trend, while carbon storage shows a decreasing trend. Habitat quality remains relatively stable, with most areas maintaining a high level of quality. (3) The importance zoning of ecosystem services in the study area exhibited a trend of “four increases and one decrease”. Specifically, the areas classified as moderately important, highly important, and extremely important all increased, while the area designated as generally important decreased. The findings indicate that climate change, land use type changes, and human activities are the primary factors influencing changes in ESs. It is crucial to prioritize highly important and extremely important areas for protection and utilization within Ruoergai National Park. Moving forward, it will be essential to minimize human activities that disrupt the ecosystem, while also focusing on the conservation and sustainable use of forest and grassland.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongfu Li & Yuelin Wang & Wende Chen & Hongyu Li & Yue Tian & Ruojing Chen, 2024. "Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Ruoergai National Park, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:8:p:3241-:d:1374905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3241/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3241/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    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.
    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. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    2. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2020. "The montane multifunctional landscape: How stakeholders in a biosphere reserve derive benefits and address trade-offs in ecosystem service supply," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Young, Dylan M. & Glenk, Klaus & Baird, Andy J. & Jones, Laurence & Rowe, Edwin C. & Evans, Chris D. & Dallimer, Martin & Reed, Mark S., 2021. "Linking ecosystem changes to their social outcomes: Lost in translation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. 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).
    9. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Spatial dynamics of biophysical trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in the Himalayas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Gutiérrez-Arellano, Claudia & Mulligan, Mark, 2020. "Small-sized protected areas contribute more per unit area to tropical crop pollination than large protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    11. 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).
    12. Brück, Maria & Abson, David J. & Fischer, Joern & Schultner, Jannik, 2022. "Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: Disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    13. Wenying Peng & Xiaojuan Yuchi & Yue Sun & Ziyi Shan, 2023. "The Spatial Protection and Governance of Territories Based on the Ecological Product Supply: A Case Study in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    15. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina Marí, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    16. Thomas Elliot & Javier Babí Almenar & Samuel Niza & Vânia Proença & Benedetto Rugani, 2019. "Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    18. Jie Guo & Tianqi Zhu & Minghao Ou & Fengsong Pei & Xiaoyu Gan & Weixin Ou & Yu Tao, 2018. "A Framework of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Protect Cropland: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    20. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    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:16:y:2024:i:8:p:3241-:d:1374905. 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.