IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i1p201-d1028602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatio-Temporal Variation of the Ecosystem Service Value in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) Based on Land Use

Author

Listed:
  • Lili Pu

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Chengpeng Lu

    (Institute of County Economic Development & Rural Revitalization Strategy, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xuedi Yang

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xingpeng Chen

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Institute of County Economic Development & Rural Revitalization Strategy, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

The value of ecosystem services and service capabilities continue to improve, and the way to form a path of resource industrialization development has become one of the important directions of sustainable development. This paper mainly takes the construction of national parks as a major opportunity and explores the temporal and spatial changes in the value of ecosystem services in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu area) and the construction path of the industrial system of national park construction. The total value of ecosystem services was calculated using a comprehensive index of the degree of land use, land contribution rate, ecological service value, equivalent factor of economic value, and the improved value coefficient of farmland ecological services, and then the Sensitivity index was used to reveal the dependence of the value of ecosystem services on the value index over time. The results showed the following: (1) Human disturbance factors in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu area) are weak, and the land use of Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) was mainly grassland, followed by unused land, forest land, and glacial snow, with the change in glacial snow cover being the largest. (2) The ecosystem of Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu area) is strong, and the contribution rate of forest land, construction land, unused land, and glacial snow cover in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) was positive, while cultivated land, grassland, and water area were negative. Among them, glacial snow cover contributed the most at 10.4723 the ecological barrier function plays a stable role. (3) The ecosystem service value (ESV) in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) showed a fluctuating growth trend on the whole, showing the characteristics of high northwest and low southeast, among which the total value of grassland was the largest, the value of unused land was the smallest with the largest increase range, and the increase in water area was the smallest. (4) Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) is mainly based on regulated services, followed by support services, supply services, and cultural services, all showing a clear growth trend, increasing by 181.77%, 183.90%, 196.19%, and 170.38%, respectively. With the development of low-carbon economy and circular economy as the main idea, we aim to build a national park industrialization development path of direct product supply, indirect product supply, and basic guarantee.

Suggested Citation

  • Lili Pu & Chengpeng Lu & Xuedi Yang & Xingpeng Chen, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Variation of the Ecosystem Service Value in Qilian Mountain National Park (Gansu Area) Based on Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:201-:d:1028602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/201/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/201/
    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. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    3. Paul C. Sutton & Sophia L. Duncan & Sharolyn J. Anderson, 2019. "Valuing Our National Parks: An Ecological Economics Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Sutton, Paul C. & Costanza, Robert, 2002. "Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 509-527, June.
    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. Huixin Wang & Yilan Xie & Duy Thong Ta & Jing Zhang & Katsunori Furuya, 2025. "Assessing Ecosystem Service Value Dynamics in Japan’s National Park Based on Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes from a Tourism Promotion Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Hongyu Luo & Guangning Sun & Weilong Zhou & Jihe Lian & Yanfei Sun & Yingen Hu, 2025. "Promoting Rural Revitalization via Natural Resource Value Realization in National Parks: A Case Study of Baishanzu National Park," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Xuebin Zhang & Hucheng Du & Haoyuan Feng & Jun Luo & Yanni Liu & Jiale Yu & Xuehong Li, 2024. "Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Coupled Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being in Gansu Province Counties and the Factors Affecting Them," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Qinqin Du & Qingyu Guan & Yunfan Sun & Qingzheng Wang, 2024. "Assessment of Ecotourism Environmental Carrying Capacity in the Qilian Mountains, Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Shaohan Wang & Shuang Song & Mengxi Shi & Shanshan Hu & Shuhan Xing & He Bai & Dawei Xu, 2023. "China’s National Park Construction Contributes to Carbon Peaking and Neutrality Goals," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, July.
    6. Wenhui Guo & Ranghui Wang, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecological Environment Quality and Driving Factors in Jiaodong Peninsula, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Anastasia Mirli & Dionissis Latinopoulos & Georgia Galidaki & Konstantinos Bakeas & Ifigenia Kagalou, 2024. "Assessing Historical LULC Changes’ Effect on Ecosystem Services Provisioning and Their Values in a Mediterranean Coastal Lagoon Complex," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, August.

    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. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    2. Klasen, Stephan & Meyer, Katrin M. & Dislich, Claudia & Euler, Michael & Faust, Heiko & Gatto, Marcel & Hettig, Elisabeth & Melati, Dian N. & Jaya, I. Nengah Surati & Otten, Fenna & Pérez-Cruzado, Cés, 2016. "Economic and ecological trade-offs of agricultural specialization at different spatial scales," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 111-120.
    3. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    4. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    5. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    6. Ramos, Alya & Jujnovsky, Julieta & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía, 2018. "The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 85-95.
    7. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    8. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    9. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    10. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    11. Fletcher, Ruth & Baulcomb, Corinne & Hall, Clare & Hussain, Salman, 2014. "Revealing marine cultural ecosystem services in the Black Sea," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 151-161.
    12. Junga Lee & Byoung-Suk Kweon & Christopher D. Ellis & Sang-Woo Lee, 2020. "Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    13. 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).
    14. Sigwela, Ayanda & Elbakidze, Marine & Powell, Mike & Angelstam, Per, 2017. "Defining core areas of ecological infrastructure to secure rural livelihoods in South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 272-280.
    15. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    16. Andersson, Erik & Tengö, Maria & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 165-168.
    17. Pröpper, Michael & Haupts, Felix, 2014. "The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-35.
    18. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    19. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Constantina Alina Hossu & Simona Raluca Grădinaru & Andreea Nita & Mihai-Sorin Stupariu & Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu & Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis, 2020. "A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Jung A Lee & Jinhyung Chon & Changwoo Ahn, 2014. "Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-22, 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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:201-:d:1028602. 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.