IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14314-d1249608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment and Enhancement of Ecosystem Service Supply Efficiency Based on Production Possibility Frontier: A Case Study of the Loess Plateau in Northern Shaanxi

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenjun Yan

    (School of Geography, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China)

  • Yirong Wang

    (School of Science and Engineering, Xi’an Siyuan University, Xi’an 710038, China)

  • Xu Hu

    (School of Geography, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China)

  • Wen Luo

    (School of Geography, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
    Key Laboratory of Virtual Geographic Environment, Ministry of Education, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China)

Abstract

Enhancing the supply efficiency of ecosystem services plays a central role in improving both natural ecosystems and human well-being. Taking the Loess Plateau of Northern Shaanxi as an example, this study utilizes InVEST to assess the ecosystem services of water yield and habitat quality. The optimal solutions for the combination of these two services are calculated on the basis of the Pareto principle. The production possibility frontier curves for the two services are fitted, and the services’ supply efficiency is measured. Furthermore, this study employs ordinary least squares and geographically weighted regression to analyze the dominant factors affecting supply efficiency. The results comprise the following findings: (1) There are eighteen solutions representing the optimal combinations between the two services. (2) The supply efficiency of the two services increases from northwest to southeast in spatial distribution. (3) The dominant factors vary among different zones of supply efficiency. Population, hydrology, and gross domestic product (GDP) are the dominant factors in the general-efficiency, sub-low-efficiency, and low-efficiency supply zones, respectively. Hydrology, NDVI, and GDP are the dominant factors in the sub-high-efficiency supply zone, while GDP, terrain, and population are the dominant factors in the high-efficiency supply zone. In conclusion, this paper proposes recommendations for reducing trade-offs and enhancing supply efficiency between ecosystem services. These include dynamic supervising for the high-efficiency supply zone, moderate greening in the sub-high-efficiency supply zone, stabilizing the population in the general-efficiency supply zone, and reducing development intensity in low- and sub-low-efficiency zones. The study reveals the potential and approaches for improving the supply of ecosystem services and offers guidance for formulating ecological protection plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenjun Yan & Yirong Wang & Xu Hu & Wen Luo, 2023. "Assessment and Enhancement of Ecosystem Service Supply Efficiency Based on Production Possibility Frontier: A Case Study of the Loess Plateau in Northern Shaanxi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14314-:d:1249608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14314/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14314/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    2. 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).
    3. Jing Zhou & Bo Zhang & Yaowen Zhang & Yuhan Su & Jie Chen & Xiaofang Zhang, 2023. "Research on the Trade-Offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services and Their Impact Factors in the Taohe River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Katherine Murkin & Narushige Shiode & Shino Shiode & David Kidd, 2023. "Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Green Infrastructure in England," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Jinjin Wu & Xueru Jin & Zhe Feng & Tianqian Chen & Chenxu Wang & Dingrao Feng & Jiaqi Lv, 2021. "Relationship of Ecosystem Services in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region Based on the Production Possibility Frontier," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Graeme S. Cumming & Andreas Buerkert & Ellen M. Hoffmann & Eva Schlecht & Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel & Teja Tscharntke, 2014. "Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 50-57, November.
    7. Hejie Wei & Weiguo Fan & Zhenyu Ding & Boqi Weng & Kaixiong Xing & Xuechao Wang & Nachuan Lu & Sergio Ulgiati & Xiaobin Dong, 2017. "Ecosystem Services and Ecological Restoration in the Northern Shaanxi Loess Plateau, China, in Relation to Climate Fluctuation and Investments in Natural Capital," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Hao Wang & Yunfeng Hu, 2021. "Simulation of Biocapacity and Spatial-Temporal Evolution Analysis of Loess Plateau in Northern Shaanxi Based on the CA–Markov Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Wei, Hejie & Liu, Huiming & Xu, Zihan & Ren, Jiahui & Lu, Nachuan & Fan, Weiguo & Zhang, Peng & Dong, Xiaobin, 2018. "Linking ecosystem services supply, social demand and human well-being in a typical mountain–oasis–desert area, Xinjiang, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 44-57.
    11. Song, Cholho & Lee, Woo-Kyun & Choi, Hyun-Ah & Kim, Jaeuk & Jeon, Seong Woo & Kim, Joon Soon, 2016. "Spatial assessment of ecosystem functions and services for air purification of forests in South Korea," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 27-34.
    12. Lester, Sarah E. & Costello, Christopher & Halpern, Benjamin S. & Gaines, Steven D. & White, Crow & Barth, John A., 2013. "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 80-89.
    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. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Wei Guo & Yongjia Teng & Yueguan Yan & Chuanwu Zhao & Wanqiu Zhang & Xianglin Ji, 2022. "Simulation of Land Use and Carbon Storage Evolution in Multi-Scenario: A Case Study in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Stefano Salata & Gabriele Garnero & Carlo Alberto Barbieri & Carolina Giaimo, 2017. "The Integration of Ecosystem Services in Planning: An Evaluation of the Nutrient Retention Model Using InVEST Software," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Rémi Jaligot & Jérôme Chenal, 2019. "Integration of Ecosystem Services in Regional Spatial Plans in Western Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Huang, Qingxu & Yin, Dan & He, Chunyang & Yan, Jubo & Liu, Ziwen & Meng, Shiting & Ren, Qiang & Zhao, Rui & Inostroza, Luis, 2020. "Linking ecosystem services and subjective well-being in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: Insights from a multilevel linear model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    9. Wei Jiang & Bojie Fu & Yihe Lü, 2020. "Assessing Impacts of Land Use/Land Cover Conversion on Changes in Ecosystem Services Value on the Loess Plateau, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-26, September.
    10. Hejie Wei & Weiguo Fan & Nachuan Lu & Zihan Xu & Huiming Liu & Weiqiang Chen & Sergio Ulgiati & Xuechao Wang & Xiaobin Dong, 2019. "Integrating Biophysical and Sociocultural Methods for Identifying the Relationships between Ecosystem Services and Land Use Change: Insights from an Oasis Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-27, May.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Barbara Langlois & Vincent Martinet, 2023. "Defining cost-effective ways to improve ecosystem services provision in agroecosystems," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 123-165, June.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Min Liu & Jianpeng Fan & Yuanzheng Li & Qizheng Mao, 2023. "Ecosystem Service Optimisation in the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration Based on Land Use Structure Adjustment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.
    17. 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.
    18. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    19. Duy X. Tran & Diane Pearson & Alan Palmer & David Gray, 2020. "Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-29, June.
    20. 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.

    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:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14314-:d:1249608. 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.