IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p1875-d1345392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing Sustainability through Ecosystem Services Evaluation: A Case Study of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village

Author

Listed:
  • Shuyang Tang

    (Collage of Horticultural and Gardening, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China)

  • Ziwei Liu

    (Collage of Horticultural and Gardening, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China)

  • Yumei Li

    (Collage of Horticultural and Gardening, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China)

  • Mingqin Zhou

    (Collage of Horticultural and Gardening, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China)

Abstract

The Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, as a paradigm of traditional Chinese agricultural recycling models, represents a distinct ecosystem. This study focuses on the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village, Huzhou, as a typical case. The village serves as a core conservation base for the Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, hosting the Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Development Center’s Academician and Expert Workstation and the world’s only Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System Visitor Center. These facilities provide strategic guidance for the conservation, development, planning, and inheritance of the Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. Considering the unique environment and limitations in data acquisition, this study employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) to develop an ecosystem service assessment framework encompassing eight aspects and 29 factors assessing the provisioning, regulating, and cultural services of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System. The results indicate that the ecosystem services of the Digang Village Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System perform at a high level, with cultural services playing a significant role in the overall ecosystem services. The regulating services are relatively weak, highlighting deficiencies in mulberry land management, while the capacity of provisioning services is strong. These findings are crucial for understanding the value of ecosystem services in Digang Village’s Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System, identifying management shortcomings, and providing direction for future assessments and management. This study also offers a practical and effective assessment method for ecosystem service evaluation at smaller scales, where the targeted approach and the presence of significant ambiguity and uncertainty in data are prominent.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuyang Tang & Ziwei Liu & Yumei Li & Mingqin Zhou, 2024. "Enhancing Sustainability through Ecosystem Services Evaluation: A Case Study of the Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System in Digang Village," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1875-:d:1345392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1875/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1875/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ran Zhou & Lu Huang & Ke Wang & Wenhao Hu, 2023. "From Productive Landscape to Agritouristic Landscape? The Evidence of an Agricultural Heritage System—Zhejiang Huzhou Mulberry-Dyke and Fish-Pond System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. Jiang Min & Tianyang Pan & Vijay Kumar, 2022. "Landscape Evaluation of Forest Park Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2022, pages 1-9, May.
    4. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, December.
    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. Martina Artmann, 2013. "Response-Efficiency-Assessment: A Conceptual Framework For Rating Policy'S Efficiency To Meet Sustainable Development On The Example Of Soil Sealing Management," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 1-33.
    2. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    6. Gözaçan Nazlıcan & Lafci Çisem, 2020. "Evaluation of Key Performance Indicators of Logistics Firms," Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 24-32, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    13. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    14. Malte Grossmann & Ottfried Dietrich, 2012. "Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Assessment of Water Management Options for Regulated Wetlands Under Conditions of Climate Change: A Case Study from the Spreewald (Germany)," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(7), pages 2081-2108, May.
    15. Sean Burkholder, 2012. "The New Ecology of Vacancy: Rethinking Land Use in Shrinking Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-19, June.
    16. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    17. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    18. Rao, Nalini S. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Portela, Rosimeiry & Wang, Xuanwen, 2015. "Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 95-105.
    19. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Xianmei Wang & Hanhui Hu, 2017. "Sustainability in Chinese Higher Educational Institutions’ Social Science Research: A Performance Interface toward Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, 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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1875-:d:1345392. 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.