IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2699-d161322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Framework for Regional Ecological Risk Warning Based on Ecosystem Service Approach: A Case Study in Ganzi, China

Author

Listed:
  • Tian Dong

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Weihua Xu

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Hua Zheng

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Yang Xiao

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Lingqiao Kong

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Zhiyun Ouyang

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

Abstract

Worldwide, most ecosystem services have declined. However, the theoretical and analytical frameworks for the ecological risk assessment of ecosystem services are still lacking. Here a framework for the risk assessment of ecosystem services was developed based on the formation, changes, risk, and management of ecosystem services. The framework was tested in Ganzi, the upstream area of the Yangtze River Basin, for the regional ecological warning of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services in the form of soil retention and sandstorm prevention and ecological risks including soil and wind erosion were modelled. The results showed that with the increase in area and quality of natural vegetation (forest and grassland), the soil retention service and sandstorm prevention service increased by 66.92% and 8.59% between 2000 and 2015, respectively. Correspondingly, the ecological risk of soil erosion decreased by 8.8%, and wind erosion remained stable. Despite the negative impacts from agricultural development on sandstorm prevention, the increase in vegetation and improvement in ecological quality led to a decrease in the ecological risks of soil erosion and sandstorm erosion by improvement of ecosystem services. This research provides a new perspective for ecological risk assessment, as well as direct management information on ecological risks, by incorporating ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Tian Dong & Weihua Xu & Hua Zheng & Yang Xiao & Lingqiao Kong & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2018. "A Framework for Regional Ecological Risk Warning Based on Ecosystem Service Approach: A Case Study in Ganzi, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2699-:d:161322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2699/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2699/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    2. Dawson, Neil & Martin, Adrian, 2015. "Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in western Rwanda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 62-72.
    3. Tao, Yu & Wang, Hongning & Ou, Weixin & Guo, Jie, 2018. "A land-cover-based approach to assessing ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics in the rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 250-258.
    4. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J. & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2016. "The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 182-192.
    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. Zichun Yan & Ninglong You & Lu Wang & Chengwei Lan, 2023. "Assessing the Impact of Road Network on Urban Landscape Ecological Risk Based on Corridor Cutting Degree Model in Fuzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Tianlin Zhai & Jing Wang & Ying Fang & Jingjing Liu & Longyang Huang & Kun Chen & Chenchen Zhao, 2021. "Identification and Prediction of Wetland Ecological Risk in Key Cities of the Yangtze River Economic Belt: From the Perspective of Land Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Lisha Tang & Hualou Long & Daniel P. Aldrich, 2023. "Putting a Price on Nature: Ecosystem Service Value and Ecological Risk in the Dongting Lake Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Xueqing Wang & Zhongyi Ding & Shaoliang Zhang & Huping Hou & Zanxu Chen & Qinyu Wu, 2022. "Spatial–Temporal Multivariate Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Services and Ecological Risk in Areas of Overlapped Cropland and Coal Resources in the Eastern Plains, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Lingfan Ju & Yan Liu & Jin Yang & Mingshun Xiang & Qing Xiang & Wenkai Hu & Zhengyi Ding, 2023. "Construction of Nature Reserves’ Ecological Security Pattern Based on Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Yanyan Jia & Xiaolan Tang & Wei Liu, 2020. "Spatial–Temporal Evolution and Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value and Landscape Ecological Risk in Wuhu City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.
    8. María Julieta Arias & Pablo Andrés Vaschetto & Mercedes Marchese & Luciana Regaldo & Ana María Gagneten, 2022. "Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Zooplankton Communities as Ecological Indicators in Urban Wetlands of Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Hongjuan Zhang & Juan Feng & Zhicheng Zhang & Kang Liu & Xin Gao & Zidong Wang, 2020. "Regional Spatial Management Based on Supply–Demand Risk of Ecosystem Services—A Case Study of the Fenghe River Watershed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-25, June.

    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. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.
    2. Christianson, Anne B. & Montgomery, Rebecca & Fleischman, Forrest & Nelson, Kristen C., 2022. "Exploring wildlife disservices and conservation in the context of ecosystem-based adaptation: A case study in the Mt. Elgon region, Uganda," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Xiaoping Zhou & Lan Yang & Xiaokun Gu & Lufa Zhang & Li Li, 2022. "Scarcity Value Assessment of Ecosystem Services Based on Changes in Supply and Demand: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta City Cluster, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Loomis, John J. & Knaus, Michael & Dziedzic, Maurício, 2019. "Integrated quantification of forest total economic value," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 335-346.
    7. Brück, Maria & Abson, David J. & Fischer, Joern & Schultner, Jannik, 2022. "Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: Disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    8. Fenta, Ayele Almaw & Tsunekawa, Atsushi & Haregeweyn, Nigussie & Tsubo, Mitsuru & Yasuda, Hiroshi & Shimizu, Katsuyuki & Kawai, Takayuki & Ebabu, Kindiye & Berihun, Mulatu Liyew & Sultan, Dagnenet & B, 2020. "Cropland expansion outweighs the monetary effect of declining natural vegetation on ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. Jie Guo & Tianqi Zhu & Minghao Ou & Fengsong Pei & Xiaoyu Gan & Weixin Ou & Yu Tao, 2018. "A Framework of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Protect Cropland: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Zhonglin Tang & Geng Sun & Nannan Zhang & Jing He & Ning Wu, 2018. "Impacts of Land-Use and Climate Change on Ecosystem Service in Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    12. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    13. 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.
    14. Nibedita Mukherjee & Jean Huge & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam, 2014. "Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/217963, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Tan Li & Qingguo Zhang & Ying Zhang, 2018. "Modelling a Compensation Standard for a Regional Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study in Yanqing District, Beijing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Swetnam, R.D. & Harrison-Curran, S.K. & Smith, G.R., 2017. "Quantifying visual landscape quality in rural Wales: A GIS-enabled method for extensive monitoring of a valued cultural ecosystem service," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 451-464.
    17. Dean C. Stronge & Bryan A. Stevenson & Garth R. Harmsworth & Robyn L. Kannemeyer, 2020. "A Well-Being Approach to Soil Health—Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-12, September.
    18. Lingge Zhang & Ningke Hu, 2021. "Spatial Variation and Terrain Gradient Effect of Ecosystem Services in Heihe River Basin over the Past 20 Years," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-26, October.
    19. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2699-:d:161322. 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.