IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p597-d1385865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Scenario Prediction of Land-Use Changes and Ecosystem Service Values in the Lhasa River Basin Based on the FLUS-Markov Model

Author

Listed:
  • Bing Qi

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Miao Yu

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yunyuan Li

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

The quantitative evaluation and prediction of ecosystem service value (ESV) in the Lhasa River Basin can provide a basis for ecological environment assessment and land-use optimization and adjustment in the future. Previous studies on the ESV in the Lhasa River Basin have focused mainly on static assessment and evolution analysis based on historical data, and have not considered future development trends. Moreover, most of the current driving factors selected in land use and ESV prediction studies are homogeneous, and do not reflect the geographical and cultural characteristics of the study area well. With the Lhasa River Basin as the research focus, 20 driving factors were selected according to the characteristics of the plateau alpine area, and the land-use changes under three developmental orientations, namely, natural evolution, ecological protection, and agricultural development, were predicted for the year 2030 with the FLUS-Markov model. Based on these predictions, the values of ecosystem services were calculated, and their spatiotemporal dynamic characteristics were analyzed. The results show that the model has high accuracy in simulating land-use change in the Lhasa River Basin, with a kappa coefficient of 0.989 and an overall accuracy of 99.33%, indicating a high applicability. The types of land use in the Lhasa River basin are dominated by the existence of grassland, unused land, and forest, with a combined proportion of 94.3%. The change trends of each land-use type in the basin under the three scenarios differ significantly, with grassland, cropland, and building land showing the most significant changes. The area of cropland increased only in the agricultural development scenario; the areas of forest and grassland increased only in the ecological protection scenario; and the expansion of building land was most effectively controlled in the ecological protection scenario. The ESV increased in all three scenarios, and the spatial distribution of the ESV per unit area in the middle and lower reaches was greater than that in the upper reaches. The ESV was the greatest in the ecological protection scenario, with grasslands, forests, and water bodies contributing more to the ESV of the basin. This study provides decision-making references for the effective utilization of land resources, ecological environmental protection planning, and urban construction in the Lhasa River Basin in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Bing Qi & Miao Yu & Yunyuan Li, 2024. "Multi-Scenario Prediction of Land-Use Changes and Ecosystem Service Values in the Lhasa River Basin Based on the FLUS-Markov Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:597-:d:1385865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/597/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/597/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tandong Yao & Lonnie Thompson & Wei Yang & Wusheng Yu & Yang Gao & Xuejun Guo & Xiaoxin Yang & Keqin Duan & Huabiao Zhao & Baiqing Xu & Jiancheng Pu & Anxin Lu & Yang Xiang & Dambaru B. Kattel & Danie, 2012. "Different glacier status with atmospheric circulations in Tibetan Plateau and surroundings," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 663-667, September.
    2. Nansha Sun & Qiong Chen & Fenggui Liu & Qiang Zhou & Wenxin He & Yuanyuan Guo, 2023. "Land Use Simulation and Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Campbell, Elliott T., 2018. "Revealed social preference for ecosystem services using the eco-price," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 267-275.
    4. Kai Zhu & Yufeng Cheng & Weiye Zang & Quan Zhou & Youssef El Archi & Hossein Mousazadeh & Moaaz Kabil & Katalin Csobán & Lóránt Dénes Dávid, 2023. "Multiscenario Simulation of Land-Use Change in Hubei Province, China Based on the Markov-FLUS Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Walter Immerzeel & L. Beek & M. Konz & A. Shrestha & M. Bierkens, 2012. "Hydrological response to climate change in a glacierized catchment in the Himalayas," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 721-736, February.
    6. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    7. Lei Zhao & Zhengtao Shi & Guangxiong He & Li He & Wenfei Xi & Qin Jiang, 2023. "Land Use Change and Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment Based on Terrain Gradients in Yuanmou Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    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. Lamprinakis, L. & Rodriguez, D. G. P. & Prestvik, A. & Veidal, A. & Klimek, B., 2017. "31 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1705 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON FOOD SYSTEM DYNAMICS A Mixed Methods Approach Towards Mapping and Economic Valuation of the Divici-Pojejena Wetland Ecosystem," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Choosing a Functional Form for an International Benefit Transfer: Evidence from a Nine-country Valuation Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 104-113.
    3. Ana Carolina V. Nadalini & Ricardo de Araujo Kalid & Ednildo Andrade Torres, 2021. "Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza & María F. Schmitz & Miren Onaindia & Alejandro J. Rescia, 2019. "Linking Biophysical and Economic Assessments of Ecosystem Services for a Social–Ecological Approach to Conservation Planning: Application in a Biosphere Reserve (Biscay, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Lamprinakis, L. & Rodriguez, D. G. P. & Prestvik, A. S. & Veidal, A. & Klimek, B., 2017. "31 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1705 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON FOOD SYSTEM DYNAMICS A Mixed Methods Approach Towards Mapping and Economic Valuation of the Divici-Pojejena Wetland Ecosystem," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276889, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    6. Shuyao Wu & Jiao Huang & Shuangcheng Li, 2020. "Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China," Papers 2001.01605, arXiv.org.
    7. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & VaÄ kářová, Davina, 2021. "The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.
    9. Jiang, Wei & Lü, Yihe & Liu, Yuanxin & Gao, Wenwen, 2020. "Ecosystem service value of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau significantly increased during 25 years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    11. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    12. Junhua Yang & Shichang Kang & Deliang Chen & Lin Zhao & Zhenming Ji & Keqin Duan & Haijun Deng & Lekhendra Tripathee & Wentao Du & Mukesh Rai & Fangping Yan & Yuan Li & Robert R. Gillies, 2022. "South Asian black carbon is threatening the water sustainability of the Asian Water Tower," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Jinlong Li & Genxu Wang & Chunlin Song & Shouqin Sun & Jiapei Ma & Ying Wang & Linmao Guo & Dongfeng Li, 2024. "Recent intensified erosion and massive sediment deposition in Tibetan Plateau rivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Manish Mehta & Vinit Kumar & Pankaj Kunmar & Kalachand Sain, 2023. "Response of the Thick and Thin Debris-Covered Glaciers between 1971 and 2019 in Ladakh Himalaya, India—A Case Study from Pensilungpa and Durung-Drung Glaciers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    17. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    18. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    19. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "The limitations of applying benefit transfer to assess the value of ecosystem services in a “generic” peri-urban, coastal town in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152183, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

    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:13:y:2024:i:5:p:597-:d:1385865. 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.