IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i5d10.1007_s10668-020-00908-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model

Author

Listed:
  • Shujun Liu

    (Guizhou University
    Guizhou University)

  • Xinzhuan Yao

    (Guizhou University
    Guizhou University)

  • Degang Zhao

    (Guizhou University
    Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences)

  • Litang Lu

    (Guizhou University
    Guizhou University)

Abstract

Tea gardens can not only improve the local ecological environment but also increase farmers’ incomes, thereby alleviating poverty, and thus achieve a win–win situation between economic and ecological benefits. In this research, the quality and value of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, were evaluated from there aspects—soil conservation, water conservation, and carbon storage—using data from the 2015 Meitan Country Forestry Resources Second Class Survey, thematic data, socioeconomic data, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs model, and relevant methods of value evaluation. The results showed that: (1) the water conservation of tea garden in Meitan County was 0.61 million m3/a, the carbon storage capacity was 187.65 × 104 t/a, and the soil consolidation was 3.78 × 104 t/a; (2) the ecological benefit value of tea garden in Meitan County was 3.173 billion yuan/a, and the ecological benefit value per unit area was 241,700 yuan/a; (3) among the ecosystem service function values, the value of carbon storage (2.403 billion yuan/a) was greater than that of water conservation (708 million yuan/a) and soil conservation (62 million yuan/a); and (4) of the studied townships, the largest ecological benefits of tea gardens were mainly observed in Yongxing Town, Xinglong Town, Fuxing Town, and Meijiang Town, with the ecological benefits per unit area being largest in Xihe Town and smallest in Xinglong Town. The purpose of this study is to highlight the important value of tea garden ecosystems in Meitan Country, which is not only conducive to the protection of the ecological environment but can also assist government departments to carry out industrial planning and policy-making to promote the harmonious development of the economy and environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00908-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00908-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-020-00908-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-020-00908-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    3. Stephen Polasky & Erik Nelson & Derric Pennington & Kris Johnson, 2011. "The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 219-242, February.
    4. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    5. Boumans, Roelof & Costanza, Robert & Farley, Joshua & Wilson, Matthew A. & Portela, Rosimeiry & Rotmans, Jan & Villa, Ferdinando & Grasso, Monica, 2002. "Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 529-560, June.
    6. Zhijie Wang & Yuan Su, 2020. "Assessment of Soil Erosion in the Qinba Mountains of the Southern Shaanxi Province in China Using the RUSLE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, February.
    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. 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).
    2. Shishay Kiros Weldegebriel & Kumelachew Yeshitela, 2021. "Measuring the Semi-Century Ecosystem-Service Value Variation in Mekelle City Region, Northern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-28, September.
    3. David Doran & Tim O’Higgins, 2020. "Applications of a Novel Method of Ecosystem Services Assessment into Local Policy Making in the River Blackwater Estuary, Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    6. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    7. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Yang Yi & Chen Zhang & Jinqi Zhu & Yugang Zhang & Hao Sun & Hongzhang Kang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution, Prediction and Optimization of LUCC Based on CA-Markov and InVEST Models: A Case Study of Mentougou District, Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    11. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    15. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    17. Annaêl Barnes & Alexandre Ickowicz & Jean-Daniel Cesaro & Paulo Salgado & Véronique Rayot & Sholpan Koldasbekova & Simon Taugourdeau, 2023. "Improving Biodiversity Offset Schemes through the Identification of Ecosystem Services at a Landscape Level," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    19. Tao, Yu & Tao, Qin & Sun, Xiao & Qiu, Jiangxiao & Pueppke, Steven G. & Ou, Weixin & Guo, Jie & Qi, Jiaguo, 2022. "Mapping ecosystem service supply and demand dynamics under rapid urban expansion: A case study in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    20. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00908-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.