IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2021i1p22-d710028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Trade-Offs between Supply and Demand Dynamics of Ecosystem Services in the Bay Areas of Metropolitan Regions: A Case Study in Quanzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Shui

    (College of Environment and Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
    Fujian Spatial Information Research Center, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
    Key Lab of Spatial Data Mining and Information Sharing, Ministry of Education of China, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Kexin Wu

    (College of Environment and Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Yong Du

    (College of Environment and Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
    Fujian Spatial Information Research Center, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Haifeng Yang

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China)

Abstract

Bay areas are endowed with unique sea and land resources, location advantages, and high environmental carrying capacities. The rapid urbanization process has intensified the demand for limited natural resources, leading to a series of problems in coastal zones such as land use conflicts and the degradation of ecosystem services. Taking Quanzhou, a bay city in a metropolitan region, as an example, this paper established an accounting model of ecosystem services supply and consumption demand based on multisource data (meteorological site data, land use data and statistical data). We estimated the supply capacity and consumption demand of provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services in Quanzhou from 2005 to 2015. In addition, the supply and demand of ecosystem services were simulated for 2030 under different scenarios. The results showed that the supply capacity of ecosystem services in Quanzhou was greater than the demand in general, but the supply-demand difference showed a gradual decrease. The high-value areas of supply capacity were concentrated in the upstream basin in the non-bay area, while the high-value areas of consumption demand were located downstream of the river basin in the bay area. The supply-demand difference in the bay area was negative, indicating that it was in a state of supply-demand imbalance and that the ecological security was under threat. Among the three simulated scenarios in 2030, the balance between supply and demand declined compared with the results of 2015, with the most serious decline in the natural scenario. The method to quantify the evolution of spatial and temporal patterns in supply and demand of ecosystem services could provide a decision-making reference for natural resource management in Quanzhou. This is conducive to the improvement and establishment of urban ecological security research systems, especially in bay areas that are lacking research.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Shui & Kexin Wu & Yong Du & Haifeng Yang, 2021. "The Trade-Offs between Supply and Demand Dynamics of Ecosystem Services in the Bay Areas of Metropolitan Regions: A Case Study in Quanzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2021:i:1:p:22-:d:710028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/1/22/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/1/22/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zander, Kerstin K. & Straton, Anna, 2010. "An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2417-2426, October.
    2. Zhang, Zimo & Peng, Jian & Xu, Zihan & Wang, Xiaoyu & Meersmans, Jeroen, 2021. "Ecosystem services supply and demand response to urbanization: A case study of the Pearl River Delta, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    4. Bo Niu & Dazhuan Ge & Rui Yan & Yingyi Ma & Dongqi Sun & Mengqiu Lu & Yuqi Lu, 2021. "The Evolution of the Interactive Relationship between Urbanization and Land-Use Transition: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, July.
    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. Xiao Zhang & Jun Wang & Mingyue Zhao & Yan Gao & Yanxu Liu, 2023. "Variations of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand on the Southeast Hilly Area of China: Implications for Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, 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. 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).
    2. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    3. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    4. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    5. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    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. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.
    8. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    9. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Diane P. Dupont, 2019. "Editorial: Special Issue in Honour of Dr. Steven Renzetti," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 1-10, April.
    13. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    16. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    17. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    18. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    19. Xinxin Fu & Xiaofeng Wang & Jitao Zhou & Jiahao Ma, 2021. "Optimizing the Production-Living-Ecological Space for Reducing the Ecosystem Services Deficit," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    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:2021:i:1:p:22-:d:710028. 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.