IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p2176-d1351976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Exploration of Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships in Arid Areas: A Case Study of the Kriya River Basin in Xinjiang, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Liu

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China)

  • Sihai Liu

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China)

  • Kun Xing

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing Sciences, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
    Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China)

Abstract

This research focuses on the Kriya River Basin and analyzes the spatiotemporal variability of ecosystem services (ESs) and their trade-offs and synergies, which are vital for regional ecosystem conservation and socio-economic sustainability. Utilizing land use data from 1990 to 2020 and predictive models for 2030 (PLUS for land use and InVEST for ESs), the study assesses four key ESs: water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), habitat quality (HQ), and carbon storage (CS). The findings indicate that land use changes from 1990 to 2020 have significantly impacted these services. WY showed a negative trend because of a reduction in precipitation, while increased grasslands enhanced SC, HQ, and CS. Projections for 2030 suggest increases in WY and SC, with increases of 10.27 × 10 8 m 3 in WY and 0.216 × 10 8 t in SC, but slight decreases in HQ and CS due to urban land expansion. Therefore, land types that provide important ESs should be protected in future planning, and the expansion of construction land should be controlled in order to realize the goal of ecological conservation. Our study also reveals that while WY and CS share a subtle trade-off, they both synergize with SC and HQ. Strong synergies exist between SC and HQ as well as between SC and CS, indicating lesser concerns for trade-offs in future planning. This research provides valuable data support and scientific insight for sustainable development and ecological governance policies in the watershed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Liu & Sihai Liu & Kun Xing, 2024. "Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Exploration of Trade-Offs and Synergistic Relationships in Arid Areas: A Case Study of the Kriya River Basin in Xinjiang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2176-:d:1351976
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2176/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2176/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu-Pin Lin & Chi-Ju Chen & Wan-Yu Lien & Wen-Hao Chang & Joy R. Petway & Li-Chi Chiang, 2019. "Landscape Conservation Planning to Sustain Ecosystem Services under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Yifeng Hou & Yaning Chen & Zhi Li & Yang Wang, 2023. "Changes in Land Use Pattern and Structure under the Rapid Urbanization of the Tarim River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Shixian Xu & Xinjun Wang & Xiaofei Ma & Shenghan Gao, 2023. "Risk Assessment and Prediction of Soil Water Erosion on the Middle Northern Slope of Tianshan Mountain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 762-771, September.
    5. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    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. Qu, Yang & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Huang, Junling & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2023. "Development of a computable general equilibrium model based on integrated macroeconomic framework for ocean multi-use between offshore wind farms and fishing activities in Scotland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    2. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    3. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Merrie, Andrew & Olsson, Per, 2014. "An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of Marine Spatial Planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 366-374.
    5. Emilio Salas-Leiton & Ana Costa & Vanessa Neves & Joana Soares & Adriano Bordalo & Sérgia Costa-Dias, 2022. "Sustainability of the Portuguese North-Western Fishing Activity in the Face of the Recently Implemented Maritime Spatial Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Lauer, Peter & López, Lambertus & Sloan, Emmanuelle & Sloan, Sean & Doroudi, Mehdi, 2015. "Learning from the systematic approach to aquaculture zoning in South Australia: A case study of aquaculture (Zones – Lower Eyre Peninsula) Policy 2013," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 77-84.
    8. 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).
    9. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    10. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2015. "Spatial issues arising from a value transfer exercise for environmental quality of marine waters," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212663, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    12. 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.
    13. J. Carl Ureta & Lucas Clay & Marzieh Motallebi & Joan Ureta, 2020. "Quantifying the Landscape’s Ecological Benefits—An Analysis of the Effect of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    15. Sicong Wang & Changhai Qin & Yong Zhao & Jing Zhao & Yuping Han, 2023. "The Evolutionary Path of the Center of Gravity for Water Use, the Population, and the Economy, and Their Decomposed Contributions in China from 1965 to 2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Slater, Anne-Michelle & Irvine, Katherine N & Byg, Anja A. & Davies, Ian M. & Gubbins, Matt & Kafas, Andronikos & Kenter, Jasper & MacDonald, Alison & O'Hara Murray, Rory & Potts, Tavis & Tweddle, Jac, 2020. "Integrating stakeholder knowledge through modular cooperative participatory processes for marine spatial planning outcomes (CORPORATES)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    17. Liu, Peng & Jiang, Shiwei & Zhao, Lianjun & Li, Yunxi & Zhang, Pingping & Zhang, Li, 2017. "What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 70-78.
    18. Larson, Silva & Stoeckl, Natalie & Neil, Barbara & Welters, Riccardo, 2013. "Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 9-18.
    19. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    20. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.

    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:2176-:d:1351976. 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.