Multi-Scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the City Level from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces: A Case Study of Haikou, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
2.3. Markov–PLUS Simulations
2.3.1. Quantity Prediction
2.3.2. Conversion Matrix Settings
2.3.3. Neighborhood Factor Settings
2.3.4. Scenario Settings
- (1)
- Bussiness as usual scenario (BAU)
- (2)
- Ecological Conservation Scenario (EC)
- (3)
- Economic Development Scenario (ED)
2.3.5. Model Validation
2.4. Evaluation Method of ESV
2.5. Coefficient of Improved Cross-Sensitivity
3. Results
3.1. Pattern Evolution and Simulation of PLES in Haikou
3.1.1. Spatial-Temporal Characteristics of PLES
3.1.2. Multi-Scenario Simulation of PLES
- (1)
- Living space. The future growth of living space was still significant, and the growth under the ED scenario was much higher than that of the other two scenarios. The over size of living space under the BAU and EC scenarios were relatively close. Under the three scenarios, the growth of living space mainly came from urban living space, while the contribution of rural living space was small. This widening gap between urban and rural development is most acute in the ED scenario, where the development of rural living space remained nearly stagnant.
- (2)
- Ecological space. Ecological space maintained its downward trend under all three scenarios. The reduction of ecological space escalated in the BAU and ED scenarios, with the loss rate increasing by a third compared to 2010–2020. In contrast, ecological space was effectively protected under the EC scenario. The loss of ecological space under this scenario was in great control and the blue space grew positively, with an increase of 4.6% compared to 2020.
- (3)
- Production space. The variations in production space were different between the three scenarios. Production space began to grow positively under the BAU scenario, rising by 1.13%. Both the ED and EC scenarios showed a downward trend in production space, and the EC scenario had the highest loss of it. The rapidly rising losses on production space under the EC scenario are mainly because current ecological restoration measures are mainly based on returning farmland to forests and lakes, with a higher reliance on farmland. Nevertheless, the area of agricultural production space under this scenario still exceeded the restrictive standard of 62,802 ha proposed for arable land in the 14th Five-Year Plan of Haikou and the deceleration rate of production space was slower than that of 2010–2020.
3.1.3. Analysis of the PLES Transformation
3.2. Analysis of ESV Changes in Haikou
3.3. Quantitative Analysis of Cross Sensitivity of ESV
- (1)
- Cross-sensitivity between ecological space and living space
- (2)
- Cross-sensitivity between ecological space and production space
- (3)
- Cross-sensitivity between production space to living space
4. Discussion
4.1. Spatial-Temporal Changes of PLES
4.2. Response of ESV to Changes in PLES Transformation
4.3. Implications and Suggestions
- (1)
- Coastal zones of coastal cities are usually the areas with the most frequent changes in LULC and suffer from the most severe declines in ecosystem services [76,77], which is consistent with this research. Water supply and hydrological condition services are typically most severely damaged during shoreline development [78,79]. Therefore, it is necessary for coastal cities not only to strengthen the management and protection of the coastal zone and its buffer zone but also to classify and grade the development activities according to their dependence on water resources in the process of laying out regional functions and industries [80], so as to avoid further deterioration of the water resources environment caused by unreasonable planning.
- (2)
- Early layout planning of urban groups and establishment of a long-term mechanism to balance ESV. At the city scale, the functional zoning of PLES is more clearly defined [81] and beneficial for cities of small and medium size, which is not only convenient for production and living, but also contains the impact on the environment within a relatively reasonable range [82,83]. However, studies have shown that when cities exceed medium or above scale, the concentrated distribution of large urban spatial functions will bring problems such as single ecosystem structure [84], PLES disproportion [85], and more serious urban disease phenomena [82]. According to the city size classification criteria introduced by the Chinese State Council in 2014, cities with a resident population of more than one million are considered large cities, and those with more than five million are mega-cities. Up to 2020, Haikou had been ranked as a large city with a 2.9 million population and is expected to approach the level of a mega-city in 2035. In the face of the rapidly expanding urban scale in the future, cities need to lay out urban clusters earlier to shift some industries and populations, so as to relieve the functions of major cities and reduce ecological pressure. This multi-group model can not only reduce the city scale and balance the demand for ecological quality and regional economic growth, but also provide space for the surrounding small cities or towns to thrive and narrow the development gap [82,86].
- (3)
- Further strengthen the efforts of ecological restoration and protection. In this research, the comparison of scenarios revealed that limiting city size at the expense of economic development alone cannot fundamentally alleviate the huge loss of ESV brought about by urbanization. It is necessary to consolidate ecological restoration projects in order to achieve the overall stability of regional ecological quality. The government should pay attention to the protection and recovery of ecological high-pressure areas such as wetlands, rivers, and forests, and carry out the redevelopment and reuse of inefficient or unused land according to the conditions of local land resources. At the same time, the urban ecological problems caused by a monolithic living space need to be alleviated and the quality of ecological services in built-up areas needs to be upgraded by means of optimizing the layout of green spaces and bringing up the total amount and quality of green spaces in built-up areas.
4.4. Applicability and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Deng, X.; Li, Z.; Gibson, J. A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldberg, W.; Vogt, M. Acetylcholine synthesis in different regions of the central nervous system. J. Physiol. 1948, 107, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mea, M.E.A. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: The Assessment Series; (Four Volumes And Summary); Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starrett, D.; Tilman, D.; Walker, B. Ecology: The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 2000, 289, 395–396. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, C.S.; Xiao, Y.; Lu, C.X. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1740–1746. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, L.M.; Chen, W.H.; Li, S.M. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem services value based on per unit area. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1243–1254. [Google Scholar]
- Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Gao, J.; Fan, X.; Lan, Y.; Zhao, M. Response of ecosystem services to socioeconomic development in the Yangtze river basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, Z.; Asghar, M.M.; Malik, M.N.; Nawaz, K. Moving towards a sustainable environment: The dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resour. Policy 2020, 67, 101677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kindu, M.; Schneider, T.; Teketay, D.; Knoke, T. Changes of ecosystem service values in response to land use/land cover dynamics in Munessa–Shashemene landscape of the ethiopian highlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, A.; Loganm, K.E.; Kucharikm, C.J. Impacts of urbanization on ecosystem goods and services in the US corn belt. Ecosystems 2012, 15, 519–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Mou, Z.; Yao, X.; Ou, C. Assessment of the urban expansion and its impact on the eco-environment—A case study of Hefei municipal area. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.Q.; Xu, E.Q.; Zhu, H.Y. An ecological-living-industrial land classification system and its spatial distribution in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1332–1338. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, Q.C.; Hao, J.M.; Shi, X.J.; Gao, Y.; Wang, H.L.; Li, M. Study on the Changes of Ecological Land and Ecosystem Service Value in China. J. Nat. Resour. 2018, 33, 195–207. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, W.Y.; Jiang, F.Q.; Huang, W.L.; Liao, L.H.; Jiang, K. Study on transition of land use function and ecosystem service value based on the conception of production, living and ecological space: A case study of the Fuzhou New Area. J. Nat. Resour. 2018, 33, 2098–2109. [Google Scholar]
- Gou, M.M.; Liu, C.F.; Li, L.; Xiao, W.F.; Wang, N.; Hu, J.W. Ecosystem service value effects of three gorges reservoir area land use transformation under the perspective of “production–living–ecological” spaces. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 32, 3933–3941. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Deng, C.; Li, Z.; Li, Y. Response characteristics of Soil Erosion to Spatial Conflict in the Production-Living-Ecological Space and Their Drivingmechanism: A Case Study of Dongting Lake Basin in China. Land 2022, 11, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Hu, B.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, G. Research on the spatiotemporal evolution and mechanism of ecosystem service value in the mountain-river-sea transition zone based on “production-living-ecological space”—Taking the Karst-Beibu gulf in southwest Guangxi, China as an example. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 148, 109889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.C.; Lin, H.X.; Qi, X.X. A literature review on optimization of spatial development pattern based on ecological-production-living space. Prog. Geogr. 2017, 36, 378–391. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, J.; Zhang, Z.; Da, X.; Zhang, W.; Feng, X. Eco-Environmental effects of land use transformation and its driving forces from the perspective of “production-living-ecological” spaces: A case study of Gansu province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 5919–5928. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, F.; An, Y.; Zhao, H. Research on characteristics of ecological environment effect on a “semi-Karst” region based on land use transition: A case in central Guizhou province, China. Earth Env. 2016, 44, 447–454. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, W.; Wang, L.; Shu, M. Reflections on delimiting the three basic spaces in the compilation of urban and rural plans. City Plan. Rev. 2016, 40, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Chen, X.; Qiao, F.; Che, L.; Pu, L. Layout optimization and multi-scenarios for land use: An empirical study of production-living-ecological space in the Lanzhou-Xining city cluster, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 145, 109577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, M.; Wu, H.; Fan, X.; Jia, H.; Dong, T.; He, P.; Baqa, M.F.; Jiang, P. Trade-Offs and synergies of multiple ecosystem services for different land use scenarios in the Yili river valley, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.Z.; Shen, H.J. Studies on ecological compensation standard based on ecosystem service in Lishui river basin. Ecol. Sci. 2021, 40, 147–154. [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, B.; Cao, X.Y.; Sun, W.J.; Gao, Y.Y.; Chen, Q.; Yu, H.Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, N.A.; Cheng, H.Y.; Wang, Y.P.; et al. Ecological zoning identification and optimization strategies based on ecosystem service value and landscape ecological risk: Taking Qinghai area of Qilian mountain national park as an example. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 986–1004. [Google Scholar]
- Mai, R.R.G.; Gao, M.H.; Ma, L.G. Dynamic changes of land use and ecosystem service value of production-living-ecological space in desert-Oasis area. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2023, 51, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, B. Ecological security pattern: A new idea for balancing regional development and ecological protection. A case study of the Jiaodong peninsula, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 26, E01472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Bao, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z. Land use transition and its eco-environmental effects in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei urban agglomeration: A production–living–ecological perspective. Land 2020, 9, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, A.; Liao, X.; Tong, Z.; Du, W.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Liu, M. Spatial-Temporal dynamic evaluation of the ecosystem service value from the perspective of “production-living-ecological” spaces: A case study in Dongliao river basin, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 333, 130218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, L.; Xue, Z.J.; Yin, J.; Yin, J.; Zhu, S.L. Eco-Environmental effects of land use transition in Karst area based on the view of “ecological-production-living spaces”: Taking Guizhou province as an example. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 36, 206–212. [Google Scholar]
- Han, M.; Kong, X.; Li, Y.; Wei, F.; Kong, F.B.; Huang, S.P. Eco-Environmental effects and its spatial heterogeneity of ‘ecological-production-living’land use transformation in the yellow river delta. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2021, 41, 1009–1018. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.C.; Yin, D.; Huang, Q.X.; Zhang, L.; Bai, Y.S. Spatial optimization based on ecosystem services and the participatory mapping: A case study in Baiyangdian watershed. J. Nat. Resour. 2022, 37, 1988–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, G.; Yang, X.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Lu, L. Evolution characteristics and possible impact factors for the Changing pattern and function of production-living-ecological space in Wuyuan county. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 1252–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, X.; Chen, C. Study on the spatial-temporal evolution of ecosystem service value in Chongqing section of the Yangtze river basin based on ecological-production-living spaces. J. Chongqing Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2022, 39, 128–140. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, X.; Wang, X.; Zhou, J.; Ma, J. Optimizing the production-living-ecological space for reducing the ecosystem services deficit. Land 2021, 10, 1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.P.; Wang, J.B.; Liu, L.; Du, Y.D.; Deng, X.Z.; Chen, J.C. Prediction and trade-off analysis of ecosystem service value in Heihe river basin—A case study in Zhangye city. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, P.; Zhang, L.; Tian, Y.; Li, X. Spatio-Temporal changes in ecosystem service value and its coordinated development with economy: A case study in Hainan province, China. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Z.Y. Anecological-Living-Industrial Land classification system and its spatial distribution in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1332–1338. [Google Scholar]
- Ouyang, X.; He, Q.; Xiang, Z. Simulation of impacts of urban agglomeration land use change on ecosystem services value under multi-scenarios: Case study in Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan urban agglomeration. Econ. Geogr. 2020, 40, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, D.H.; Lu, L.; Yu, H. Multi-Scenario simulation of the impact of urban land use change on ecosystem service value in Shenzhen. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 42, 2086–2097. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.; Nie, T.; Gao, Y.; Sun, S.M.; Gao, J. Study on temporal and spatial characteristics of coupling coordination correlation between ecosystem services and economic—Social development in the Yangtze river economic belt. Resour Env. Yangtze Basin 2022, 31, 1086–1100. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, X.; Johnson, B.A.; Luo, P.; Yang, K.; Dong, L.; Wang, Q.; Liu, C.; Li, N.; Lu, H.; Ma, L.; et al. Estimation of urban ecosystem services value: A case study of Chengdu, southwestern China. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Y.; Bryan, B.A.; Connor, J.D.; Chen, L.; Qin, Z.; He, M. Changes in land-use and ecosystem services in the Guangzhou-Foshan metropolitan area, China from 1990 to 2010: Implications for sustainability under rapid urbanization. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 930–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, Y.J.; Lei, D.M.; Liu, L.; Gao, L.P. Impact of land use change on ecosystem service value in urban agglomeration of central Yunnan province during 2000–2020. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 41, 310–322. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, C.; Zhang, Y.H.; Zeng, R.; Qiu, X.H.; Dong, G.L. Land space dynamic changes and cross-sensitivity of ecological service function in the lower yellow river reaches. J. Agric. Resour. Environ. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, W.; Wang, Y.; Qian, D.; Lyu, X. Process and eco-environment impact of land use function transition under the perspective of “production-living-ecological” spaces—Case of Haikou city, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Zhang, L.; Bi, S.; Han, R.D. Remote sensing monitoring and simulation of city development for Hainan province. J. Appl. Sci. 2018, 36, 798–807. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Zheng, D.; Huang, S. The influence factors of urban land expansion and calculation of its utmost scale —A case study of Haikou city. J. Shanxi Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2018, 17, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
- Nor, A.N.M.; Corstanje, R.; Harris, J.A.; Brewer, T. Impact of rapid urban expansion on green space structure. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, Q.; Guo, G.; Li, S.; Liang, X. Decoupling of urban economic growth and water consumption in Chongqing and Chengdu from the “production-living-ecological” perspective. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Zhang, D.; Wang, H.; Li, X. What is the future for production-living-ecological spaces in the greater bay area? A multi-scenario perspective based on DEE. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Wei, S.C. Characteristics and influencing factors of land use transition in Haikou city during 2009–2018. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2022, 42, 344–352. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, D.; Chen, M. Several viewpoints on the background of compiling the “national new urbanization planning (2014–2020)”. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2015, 70, 179–185. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Z.; Deng, W.; Zhang, S. Spatial pattern and spatio-temporal change of territory space in Hengduan mountains region in recent 25 years. Geogr. Res. 2018, 37, 607–621. [Google Scholar]
- Du, W.X.; Hu, P.P. Analysis of the interaction mechanism between the urban-rural coordinated development and the urban-rural income gap. J. Northwest AF Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2010, 10, 42–60. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, B.W. Adhere to the integrated development of urban and rural areas, and continue to narrow the gap between urban and rural areas, and promoting common prosperity: Studying and explaining the spirit of the 20th CPC congress of the communist party of China. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 39, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, M.; Zhang, W.X.; Jiang, H.M.; Lu, C.; Ge, Y.; Dong, G. Cross-Sensitivity evaluation of ecosystem services based on land use changes in Shandong province. J. China Agric. Univ. 2022, 27, 192–203. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, C.; Teng, M.; Zeng, L. Long-Term changes of land use/cover in the Three Gorges reservoir area of the Yangtze river, China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 29, 1585–2596. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, Z.; Qiu, H.; Yang, X. Analysis of wetland changes and driving forces in Haikou in the last 30 years. J. Hainan Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2021, 34, 215–226. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, J.; Chen, Z.; Wu, T.; Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Chen, X. Spatial autocorrelation pattern analysis of land use and the value of ecosystem service in northeast Hainan island. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 2366–2377. [Google Scholar]
- Abulizi, A.; Yang, Y.; Mamat, Z.; Luo, J.; Abdulslam, D.; Xu, Z.; Zayiti, A.; Ahat, A.; Halik, W. Land-Use change and its effects in Charchan oasis, Xinjiang, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, N.; Guan, Q.; Wang, Q.; Sun, Y.; Li, H.; Ma, Y. Spatial differentiation and driving mechanisms in ecosystem service value of arid region: A case study in the middle and lower reaches of Shule river basin, NW China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.T.; Li, H.X. Study on the characteristics and evolution trends of the distribution pattern of service industry. Ind. Econ. Res. 2014, 05, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, Z.; Liu, C.; Xu, Y.; Huang, A.; Lu, L.; Duan, Y. Identification and optimal regulation of the production-living-ecological space based on quantitative land use functions. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2020, 36, 222–231. [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho-Santos, C.; Monteiro, A.T.; Arenas-Castro, S.; Greifeneder, F.; Marcos, B.; Portela, A.P.; Honrado, J.P. Ecosystem services in a protected mountain range of Portugal: Satellite-based products for state and trend analysis. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Sun, Z.; Tan, M.; Guo, L.; Zhang, X. Changing patterns in farming–pastoral ecotones in China between 1990 and 2010. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, J.A.; Killilea, M.E.; Ciprut, S. Coastal urbanization and environmental change: Opportunities for collaborative education across a global network university. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2019, 26, 100501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.; Jiang, W.; Huang, Q.; Wang, Y. Ecosystem services response to rural-urban transitions in coastal and island cities: A comparison between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Xie, Z.; Wang, J. How human activities influence the island ecosystem through damaging the natural ecosystem and supporting the social ecosystem? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Fang, S.; Geng, X.; Yuan, Y.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, D.; Li, R.; Sun, W.; Wang, X. Coastal ecosystem service in response to past and future land use and land cover change dynamics in the Yangtze river estuary. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 385, 135601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aktürk, E.; Güneroğlu, N. Degradation of coastal ecosystem services in southern Black Sea: A case study of Trabzon city. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2021, 213, 105837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.; Xue, X.; Shi, L.; Gao, L. Urban spatial expansion and its impacts on island ecosystem services and landscape pattern: A case study of the island city of Xiamen, southeast China. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2013, 81, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’higgins, T.G.; O’dwyer, B. A vulnerability framework to protect coastal social ecological systems. Anthr. Coasts 2019, 2, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Politi, E.; Paterson, S.K.; Scarrott, R.; Tuohy, E.; O’Mahony, C.; Cámaro-García, W.C. Earth observation applications for coastal sustainability: Potential and challenges for implementation. Anthr. Coasts 2019, 2, 306–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Maitre, D.C.; Kotzee, I.M.; O’farrell, P.J. Impacts of land-cover change on the water flow regulation ecosystem service: Invasive alien plants, fire and their policy implications. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigerstol, K.L.; Aukema, J.E. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 2403–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, W.X.; Yang, X.Y.; Liu, D.H. Study on the definition and management of the spatial use of coastal zones based on the degree of water dependence: Experiences from the United States. Urban Plan. Int. 2021, 36, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Liu, X.L.; Wei, X.H.; Yu, H.W. Preliminary study on the method and practice of regional spatial planning—From “Sansheng space” to “three districts and three lines”. Urban Plan. Forum 2018, 04, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, J.C. “Multi-Center Group” Model To Deal With “Urban Diseases“. China Soc. Sci. J. 2012, 07, 11–0274. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.L. The Study on Urban Problems and Its Control in China under the Background of Urban-Rural Integration; Wuhan University: Wuhan, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Z.Y.; Shan, J.J. Research On the evolution patterns and optimization countermeasures of urban production-ecological-living space in China. City 2019, 10, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, D.F.; Jiang, M.Q. Characteristics, logical relations and optimization strategies of urban Sansheng space. Hebei Acad. J. 2019, 39, 149–159. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, N.J.; Duan, P.J. Prescription for urban diseases treatment from the strategic philosophy. Think Tank Theory Pract. 2021, 6, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, N.; Hou, L.; Huang, J.; Liu, H. Ecosystem services valuation in China: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 809, 151122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.; Zhang, C.; Zhen, L.; Zhang, L. Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seppelt, R.; Dormann, C.F.; Eppink, F.V.; Lautenbach, S.; Schmidt, S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 630–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, D.; Xu, J.; Lin, Z. Conflict or coordination? assessing land use multi-functionalization using production-living-ecology analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 577, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, Y.; Wang, H.; Huang, A.; Xu, Y.; Lu, L.; Ji, Z. Identification and spatial-temporal evolution of rural “production-living-ecological” space from the perspective of villagers’ behavior–a case study of Ertai town, Zhangjiakou city. Land Use Policy 2021, 106, 105457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Primary Classification | Secondary Classification | Including Land Types | Production Function | Ecological Function | Living Function |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Production space | Agricultural production space | dry farmland | 5 | 3 | 0 |
paddy farmland | 5 | 3 | 0 | ||
Ecological space | Green space | forest | 0 | 5 | 1 |
shrubs | 0 | 5 | 1 | ||
grassland | 3 | 5 | 0 | ||
bare land | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||
Blue space | river | 1 | 5 | 0 | |
wetland | 1 | 5 | 0 | ||
Living space | Urban living space | urban residential area | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Rural living space | rural residential area | 0 | 0 | 5 |
LULC | Paddy Field | Dry Farmland | Forest | Shrubs | Grassland | River | Wetland | Urban Residential Area | Rural Residential Area | Bare Land |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Paddy field | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Dry farmland | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Forest | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Shrubs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Grassland | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
River | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Wetland | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Urban Residential area | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Rural Residential area | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Bare land | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Paddy Field | Dry Farmland | Forest | Shrubs | Grassland | River | Wetland | Urban Residential Area | Rural Residential Area | Bare Land |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.08 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 1.00 | 0.27 | 0.00 |
ES Type | Dry Farmland | Paddy Field | Forest | Shrubs | Grassland | Wetland | River | Urban Residential Area | Rural Residential Area | Bare Land |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FP | 1005.64 | 1609.03 | 343.1 | 224.79 | 449.58 | 603.39 | 946.49 | 11.83 | 11.83 | 0 |
RMP | 473.24 | 106.48 | 780.85 | 508.74 | 662.54 | 591.56 | 272.12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
WS | 23.66 | −3111.58 | 402.26 | 260.28 | 366.76 | 3064.26 | 9807.99 | −8885.16 | −8885.16 | 0 |
GR | 792.68 | 1313.25 | 2567.35 | 1668.19 | 2330.73 | 2247.91 | 911 | −2863.13 | −2863.13 | 23.66 |
CR | 425.92 | 674.37 | 7690.22 | 5004.56 | 6164.01 | 4259.2 | 2709.32 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
EP | 118.31 | 201.13 | 2283.4 | 1514.38 | 2034.95 | 4259.2 | 6566.27 | −2910.45 | −2910.45 | 118.31 |
HR | 319.44 | 3218.06 | 5607.95 | 3963.42 | 4519.48 | 28666.78 | 120961.27 | 0 | 0 | 35.49 |
SC | 1218.6 | 11.83 | 3135.24 | 2034.95 | 2839.47 | 2732.99 | 1100.29 | 23.66 | 23.66 | 23.66 |
NCM | 141.97 | 224.79 | 236.62 | 153.8 | 212.96 | 212.96 | 82.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BM | 153.8 | 248.45 | 2851.3 | 1857.48 | 2579.18 | 9311.08 | 3016.93 | 402.26 | 402.26 | 23.66 |
RC | 70.99 | 106.48 | 1254.1 | 816.35 | 1135.79 | 5596.12 | 2236.08 | 11.83 | 11.83 | 11.83 |
Primary Classification | Second Land | Area (ha) | Single Dynamic Index (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2010–2015 | 2015–2020 | ||
Production space | Agricultural production space | 73,521.81 | 70,579.26 | 68,300.73 | −0.80% | −0.65% |
Ecological space | Green space | 119,784.15 | 117,015.21 | 114,804 | −0.46% | −0.44% |
Blue space | 15,923.43 | 15,543 | 14,822.64 | |||
Living space | Urban living space | 13,588.83 | 15,510.24 | 21,841.81 | 6.47% | 4.18% |
Rural living space | 5250.69 | 9421.2 | 8299.73 |
Primary Classification | Second Land | Area (ha) | Single Dynamic Index(%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAU | EC | ED | 2020-BAU | 2020-EC | 2020-ED | ||
Production space | Agricultural production space | 69,089.13 | 63,862.83 | 67,120.74 | 0.08% | −0.43% | −0.21% |
Ecological space | Green space | 104,762.88 | 109,062 | 103,824.9 | −0.61% | −0.26% | −0.68% |
Blue space | 12,941.1 | 15,454.62 | 12,528.63 | ||||
Living space | Urban living space | 31,467.06 | 29,696.79 | 35,912.48 | 2.42% | 2.07% | 3.16% |
Rural living space | 9627.57 | 9811.49 | 8501 |
Categories | Sub-Categories | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | BAU | ED | EC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supply service | Food Production | 152.30 | 146.96 | 142.61 | 139.74 | 136.32 | 135.00 |
Raw Material Production | 107.39 | 104.78 | 102.68 | 95.28 | 94.23 | 98.70 | |
Water Supply | −125.00 | −177.69 | −226.32 | −350.22 | −379.60 | −293.46 | |
Regulating service | Gas Regulation | 321.20 | 293.87 | 271.04 | 217.45 | 203.54 | 228.01 |
Climate Regulation | 913.62 | 892.41 | 874.31 | 804.57 | 797.17 | 839.69 | |
Environment Purification | 301.65 | 275.28 | 250.90 | 187.40 | 173.17 | 216.79 | |
Hydrological Regulation | 2433.15 | 2362.79 | 2261.07 | 1994.15 | 1936.80 | 2299.70 | |
Support service | Soil Conservation | 394.53 | 385.67 | 378.70 | 349.07 | 345.86 | 364.92 |
Maintenance of Nutrient Circulation | 411.95 | 40.01 | 39.06 | 37.13 | 36.54 | 37.13 | |
Biodiversity | 394.72 | 388.75 | 382.96 | 357.28 | 354.95 | 375.00 | |
Culture service | Recreation and Culture | 186.58 | 182.63 | 178.56 | 163.71 | 161.76 | 174.10 |
Total | 5492.07 | 4895.47 | 4655.57 | 3995.56 | 3860.74 | 4475.59 |
Categories | 2010–2015 | 2015–2020 | 2010–2020 | 2020–BAU | 2020–ED | 2020–EC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supply service | −9.00% | −14.88% | −8.59% | −47.14% | −59.04% | −27.66% |
Regulating service | −0.73% | −0.87% | −0.79% | −0.83% | −1.00% | −0.13% |
Support service | −0.39% | −0.34% | −0.36% | −0.48% | −0.53% | −0.20% |
Culture service | −0.42% | −0.45% | −0.43% | −0.55% | −0.63% | −0.17% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, J.; Fu, H.; Chen, S. Multi-Scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the City Level from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces: A Case Study of Haikou, China. Land 2023, 12, 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051021
Chen J, Fu H, Chen S. Multi-Scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the City Level from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces: A Case Study of Haikou, China. Land. 2023; 12(5):1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051021
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Jie, Hui Fu, and Shengtian Chen. 2023. "Multi-Scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the City Level from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces: A Case Study of Haikou, China" Land 12, no. 5: 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051021
APA StyleChen, J., Fu, H., & Chen, S. (2023). Multi-Scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the City Level from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces: A Case Study of Haikou, China. Land, 12(5), 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051021