IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i9p1577-d111125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainties of Two Methods in Selecting Priority Areas for Protecting Soil Conservation Service at Regional Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Liwei Zhang

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, Shaanxi, China)

  • Yihe Lü

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

  • Bojie Fu

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

  • Yuan Zeng

    (Key Laboratory of Digital Earth Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 1000101, China)

Abstract

Soil conservation (SC) is an important ecosystem regulating service. At present, methods for SC mapping to identify priority areas are primarily based on empirical soil erosion models, such as the RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) based model. However, the parameters of the empirical soil conservation model are based on long-term observations of field experiments at small spatial scales, which are very difficult to obtain and must be simplified when implementing these models at large spatial scales. Such simplification of model parameters may lead to uncertainty in quantifying SC at regional scale. In this study, we have analyzed a new method to map SC in Jiangxi Province of China based on the multiplication of multiple biophysical data. After comparing the spatial-temporal changes of SC from the RUSLE based model and those from the surrogate indicator based method in the study area, the similarities and differences of these methods for identifying SC priority areas were revealed. The result showed that the two methods similarly represented the effects of vegetation coverage and land use types on SC, however, they were significantly different in representing the spatial pattern of SC priority areas and its temporal change. Based on the comparisons, the advantages and drawbacks for both methods were made clear and suggestions were made for the suitable use of the two methods, which may benefit for the research and application of concerning the planning and assessment with SC as key criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Liwei Zhang & Yihe Lü & Bojie Fu & Yuan Zeng, 2017. "Uncertainties of Two Methods in Selecting Priority Areas for Protecting Soil Conservation Service at Regional Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1577-:d:111125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1577/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1577/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Costanza, Robert & Fisher, Brendan & Mulder, Kenneth & Liu, Shuang & Christopher, Treg, 2007. "Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 478-491, March.
    3. Kerrie A Wilson, 2007. "Conserving Biodiversity Efficiently: What to Do, Where, and When," Working Papers id:1202, eSocialSciences.
    4. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    5. Stephen Polasky & Kris Johnson & Bonnie Keeler & Kent Kovacs & Erik Nelson & Derric Pennington & Andrew J. Plantinga & John Withey, 2012. "Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 139-163, Spring.
    6. Haiming Yan & Jinyan Zhan & Bing Liu & Yongwei Yuan, 2014. "Model Estimation of Water Use Efficiency for Soil Conservation in the Lower Heihe River Basin, Northwest China during 2000–2008," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Krishna Bhandari & Jagannath Aryal & Rotchanatch Darnsawasdi, 2015. "A geospatial approach to assessing soil erosion in a watershed by integrating socio-economic determinants and the RUSLE model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 75(1), pages 321-342, January.
    8. Kerrie A Wilson & Emma C Underwood & Scott A Morrison & Kirk R Klausmeyer & William W Murdoch & Belinda Reyers & Grant Wardell-Johnson & Pablo A Marquet & Phil W Rundel & Marissa F McBride & Robert L , 2007. "Conserving Biodiversity Efficiently: What to Do, Where, and When," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-12, August.
    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. Yongge Li & Wei Liu & Qi Feng & Meng Zhu & Jutao Zhang & Linshan Yang & Xinwei Yin, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services Value in the Hexi Regions, Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, October.

    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. Petrosillo, Irene & Semeraro, Teodoro & Zurlini, Giovanni, 2010. "Detecting the 'conservation effect' on the maintenance of natural capital flow in different natural parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1115-1123, March.
    2. Salgado-Rojas, José & Álvarez-Miranda, Eduardo & Hermoso, Virgilio & Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi & Weintraub, Andrés, 2020. "A mixed integer programming approach for multi-action planning for threat management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 418(C).
    3. Alper Ozpinar, 2023. "A Hyper-Integrated Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to Gamification and Carbon Market Enterprise Architecture Framework for Sustainable Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, March.
    4. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Drechsler, Martin & Hartig, Florian, 2011. "Conserving biodiversity with tradable permits under changing conservation costs and habitat restoration time lags," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 533-541, January.
    6. Brad H McRae & Sonia A Hall & Paul Beier & David M Theobald, 2012. "Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    8. 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.
    9. Pacini, Gaio Cesare & Bruschi, Piero & Ferretti, Lorenzo & Santoni, Margherita & Serafini, Francesco & Gaifami, Tommaso, 2023. "FunBies, a model for integrated assessment of functional biodiversity of weed communities in agro-ecosystem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
    10. 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).
    11. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    12. Carissa J Klein & Natalie C Ban & Benjamin S Halpern & Maria Beger & Edward T Game & Hedley S Grantham & Alison Green & Travis J Klein & Stuart Kininmonth & Eric Treml & Kerrie Wilson & Hugh P Possing, 2010. "Prioritizing Land and Sea Conservation Investments to Protect Coral Reefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-8, August.
    13. Fred A. Johnson & Mitchell J. Eaton & James H. Williams & Gitte H. Jensen & Jesper Madsen, 2015. "Training Conservation Practitioners to be Better Decision Makers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, June.
    14. James Brazill-Boast & Moira Williams & Beth Rickwood & Thalie Partridge & Grant Bywater & Bronwyn Cumbo & Ian Shannon & William J M Probert & Julie Ravallion & Hugh Possingham & Richard F Maloney, 2018. "A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Xuefeng Zhang & Jianming Niu & Alexander Buyantuev & Qing Zhang & Jianjun Dong & Sarula Kang & Jing Zhang, 2016. "Understanding Grassland Degradation and Restoration from the Perspective of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Xilin River Basin in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, June.
    16. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling & Randal Greene & Frank W. Davis, 2023. "Meeting Human and Biodiversity Needs for 30 × 30 and beyond with an Iterative Land Allocation Framework and Tool," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
    17. Divinski, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2018. "Opportunity costs of alternative management options in a protected nature park: The case of Ramat Hanadiv, Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 494-504.
    18. Stephen T Garnett & Liana N Joseph & James E M Watson & Kerstin K Zander, 2011. "Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption Outweigh Purchasing Power?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    19. Boyd, James & Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca & Siikamaki, Juha, 2012. "Conservation Return on Investment Analysis: A Review of Results, Methods, and New Directions," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-01, Resources for the Future.
    20. 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.

    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:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1577-:d:111125. 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.