IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i5p1038-d1652681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological Monitoring and Service Value Assessment of River–Lake Shores: A Case Study of the Huanggang and Taihu Segments of the Yangtze River

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyuan Zhang

    (Business School, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China
    Institute for Cultural and Tourism Development, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China)

  • Kai Liu

    (State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100194, China)

  • Shudong Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100194, China)

  • Xueke Li

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

Abstract

Riverine and lacustrine shorelines are crucial for human survival and development, but their natural and ecological environments are highly fragile and sensitive. Intensified human activities have placed unprecedented pressure on the shoreline ecosystem of the Yangtze River Basin. This study investigates the degradation of river and lake shorelines and its cascading effects on ecological service functions. Using Sentinel-2 as the primary data source, we analyzed land use/cover changes and ecosystem service values (ESV) in the Huanggang and Taihu sections of the Yangtze River from 2018 to 2022. The supervised classification results using the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm exceeded 95% accuracy. In the Huanggang section, vegetation was significantly converted into cultivated land and built-up areas (−6.17 km 2 ), while in the Taihu section, water bodies were largely transformed into agricultural land (−3.77 km 2 ). In this study, we quantified changes in ESV using the unit area equivalent factor method, adjusted based on net primary productivity, precipitation, and the soil conservation coefficient. The results indicate that the ESV ranking in both sections follows the order: water conservation > environmental purification > biodiversity > soil conservation. From 2018 to 2022, the ESV in the Huanggang section declined due to forest and grassland loss and an increase in bare land. In contrast, ecological restoration and habitat protection policies contributed to an improvement in ecosystem service functions in the Taihu section, with various ESV components increasing as follows: soil conservation (8.79%) > biodiversity (6.67%) > environmental purification (5.98%) > water conservation (5.52%). These findings provide valuable insights for decision-making in the protection and management of the Yangtze River Basin ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyuan Zhang & Kai Liu & Shudong Wang & Xueke Li, 2025. "Ecological Monitoring and Service Value Assessment of River–Lake Shores: A Case Study of the Huanggang and Taihu Segments of the Yangtze River," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:5:p:1038-:d:1652681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1038/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1038/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khangwelo Desmond Musetsho & Munyaradzi Chitakira & Abel Ramoelo, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for a Critical Biodiversity Area: Case of the Mphaphuli Community, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Yaqin Ren & Hui Feng & Tianzhi Gao, 2023. "The Effect of Empowerment on the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Technology in the Loess Plateau of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Yedid Guadalupe Zambrano-Medina & Wenseslao Plata-Rocha & Sergio Alberto Monjardin-Armenta & Cuauhtémoc Franco-Ochoa, 2023. "Assessment and Forecast of Shoreline Change Using Geo-Spatial Techniques in the Gulf of California," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Yan-Cheng Tan & Lia Duarte & Ana Cláudia Teodoro, 2024. "Comparative Study of Random Forest and Support Vector Machine for Land Cover Classification and Post-Wildfire Change Detection," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, November.
    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.
    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. 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, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    2. 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.
    3. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. M Yamin & Eka Mulyana & Dini Damayanthy & Amin Rejo & Shendy Y. Heartiana, 0000. "Adoption Level Of Rice Farming Technology On Swamp Land In Indonesia," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 14416219, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    5. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    8. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    10. Prellezo, Raúl & Corrales, Xavier & Andonegi, Eider & Bald, Carlos & Fernandes-Salvador, Jose A. & Iñarra, Bruno & Irigoien, Xabier & Martin, Adrian & Murillas-Maza, Arantza & Tasdemir, Deniz, 2024. "Economic trade-offs of harvesting the ocean twilight zone: An ecosystem services approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    11. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Xiaodong Chen & Chengzhao Wu, 2025. "Mapping and Assessing the Supply and Demand of Rural Recreation Services in National Parks: A Case Study of Qianjiangyuan, Zhejiang, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    15. Jiang, Wei, 2017. "Ecosystem services research in China: A critical review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 10-16.
    16. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local perception and attitude toward community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Jinkwan Son & Taegeun Kwon, 2022. "Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    19. Alexander Brumm & Kensuke Fukushi, 2024. "Introducing the Food Value Framework (FVF) to empower transdisciplinary research and unite stakeholders in their efforts of building a sustainable global food system," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 25921-25943, October.
    20. Florian Reinwald & Christiane Brandenburg & Anna Gabor & Peter Hinterkörner & Astrid Kainz & Florian Kraus & Zita Ring & Bernhard Scharf & Tanja Tötzer & Doris Damyanovic, 2021. "Multi-Level Toolset for Steering Urban Green Infrastructure to Support the Development of Climate-Proofed Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.

    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:14:y:2025:i:5:p:1038-:d:1652681. 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.