IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i11p6610-d826830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Planning and Management of Land Use in River Source Region: A Case Study of Songhua River Basin, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yucong Duan

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Jie Tang

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Zhaoyang Li

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Yao Yang

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Ce Dai

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Yunke Qu

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Hang Lv

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Water Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

Abstract

Adjusting land use is a practical way to protect the ecosystem, but protecting water resources by optimizing land use is indirect and complex. The vegetation, soil, and rock affected by land use are important components of forming the water cycle and obtaining clean water sources. The focus of this study is to discuss how to optimize the demands and spatial patterns of different land use types to strengthen ecological and water resources protection more effectively. This study can also provide feasible watershed planning and policy suggestions for managers, which is conducive to the integrity of the river ecosystem and the sustainability of water resources. A watershed-scale land use planning framework integrating a hydrological model and a land use model is established. After quantifying the water retention value of land use types through a hydrological model, a multi-objective land use demands optimization model under various development scenarios is constructed. Moreover, a regional study was completed in the source area of the Songhua River in Northeast China to verify the feasibility of the framework. The results show that the method can be used to optimize land use requirements and obtain future land use maps. The water retention capacity of forestland is strong, about 2500–3000 m 3 /ha, and there are differences among different forest types. Planning with a single objective of economic development will expand the area of cities and cultivated land, and occupy forests, while multi-objective planning considering ecological and water source protection tends to occupy cultivated land. In the management of river headwaters, it is necessary to establish important forest reserves and strengthen the maintenance of restoration forests. Blindly expanding forest area is not an effective way to protect river headwaters. In conclusion, multi-objective land use planning can effectively balance economic development and water resources protection, and find the limits of urban expansion and key areas of ecological barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Yucong Duan & Jie Tang & Zhaoyang Li & Yao Yang & Ce Dai & Yunke Qu & Hang Lv, 2022. "Optimal Planning and Management of Land Use in River Source Region: A Case Study of Songhua River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6610-:d:826830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6610/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6610/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cho, J. & Barone, V.A. & Mostaghimi, S., 2009. "Simulation of land use impacts on groundwater levels and streamflow in a Virginia watershed," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Huan Wang & Chao Zhang & Li Li & Wenju Yun & Jiani Ma & Lulu Gao, 2021. "Delimitating the Ecological Spaces for Water Conservation Services in Jilin Province of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Sha Pei & Gaodi Xie & Chunlan Liu & Changshun Zhang & Shimei Li & Long Chen, 2015. "Dynamic Changes of Water Conservation Service of Typical Ecosystems in China within a Year Based on Data from CERN," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Anh Nguyet Dang & Akiyuki Kawasaki, 2016. "A Review of Methodological Integration in Land-Use Change Models," International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), IGI Global, vol. 7(2), pages 1-25, April.
    5. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    6. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    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. Guoqiang Ma & Qiujie Li & Jinxiu Zhang & Lixun Zhang & Hua Cheng & Zhengping Ju & Guojun Sun, 2022. "Simulation and Analysis of Land-Use Change Based on the PLUS Model in the Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, China)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Wenqiang Zhou & Jinlong Wang & Yu Han & Ling Yang & Huafei Que & Rong Wang, 2023. "Scenario Simulation of the Relationship between Land-Use Changes and Ecosystem Carbon Storage: A Case Study in Dongting Lake Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Jingheng Wang & Yecui Hu & Rong Song & Wei Wang, 2022. "Research on the Optimal Allocation of Ecological Land from the Perspective of Human Needs—Taking Hechi City, Guangxi as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-22, September.

    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. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Narducci, Jenna & Quintas-Soriano, Cristina & Castro, Antonio & Som-Castellano, Rebecca & Brandt, Jodi S., 2019. "Implications of urban growth and farmland loss for ecosystem services in the western United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    4. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    6. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Meredith, Elizabeth & Blais, Nicole, 2019. "Quantifying irrigation recharge sources using groundwater modeling," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 9-16.
    8. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    9. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    10. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    11. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    12. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    13. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    16. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    17. Zhiyuan Ma & Xuejun Duan & Lei Wang & Yazhu Wang & Jiayu Kang & Ruxian Yun, 2023. "A Scenario Simulation Study on the Impact of Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Carbon Storage in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    19. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    20. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.

    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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6610-:d:826830. 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.