Author(s)

HeSheng Zhang, MengHao Li, ZiYao Xing, YuLing Zhang^*, Xin Zan, XiaoYu Jia

Affiliation(s)

Hebei Key Laboratory of New Energy Environmental Safety and Resource Utilization, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, Hebei, China.

Corresponding Author

YuLing Zhang

ABSTRACT

In 2015, Zhangjiakou City was selected as the co-host city for the 2022 Winter Olympics. In order to improve ecosystem service functions, land use types in the region were changed greatly within the short term. Therefore, existing evaluation methods of the ecosystem service value (ESV) are not applicable to such an underdeveloped region. With the year of 2015 as the key time node, a dynamic process evaluation method of ESV was established for Zhangjiakou City based on classic equivalent factors in this study. The five economic coefficients of net primary productivity (NPP) coefficient, precipitation adjustment coefficient, soil conservation adjustment coefficient, habitat adjustment coefficient and accessibility adjustment coefficient were introduced into the classic method to correct the commonly Chinese equivalent factors to obtain the actual ESV. Firstly, the results obtained from the dynamic process evaluation method could clearly distinguish the changing trend of ecosystem service value (ESV) after the change of land use type. Secondly, the ESV increment calculated with the dynamic process evaluation method was more sensitive to land use change. The change in the forest area proportion was the most significant and reached 6.8%, and corresponding ESV increment was 14.89%. Thirdly, from the perspectives of 11 sub-categories of ecosystem services, the ESV of hydrological regulation was the largest and reached 30%. The ESVs of food production, raw material production, maintenance of nutrient cycle, water supply and aesthetic value supply were relatively small. From the sub-categories of enhancing ecosystem services, the ESV of each sub-category increased after changing land use type. Fourthly, after the introduction of five economic adjustment coefficients, the ESVs of the other four categories of ecosystem services, except the ESV of biodiversity, increased significantly after the change in the land use types. The results indicated that the dynamic evaluation method could better identify the sensitive factors affecting the value of regional ecosystem services.

KEYWORDS

Dynamic process evaluation; Rapid change in land use types; Ecosystem service value; Zhangjiakou City

CITE THIS PAPER

HeSheng Zhang, MengHao Li, ZiYao Xing, YuLing Zhang, Xin Zan, XiaoYu Jia. An ecosystem-service evaluation method of a river basin with rapid changes in land use within a short term. Frontiers in Environmental Research. 2025, 3(2): 21-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/fer3026.

REFERENCES

[1] Costanza R, D'Arge R, De Groot R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997, 387, 253-260.

[2] Wu J. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2013, 28, 999-1023. 

[3] Lei J C, Wang S, Wang J M, et a;. Effects of land use change on ecosystem services value of Xunwu County. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2019, 39, 3089-3099.

[4] Costanza R, De Groot R, Sutton P, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change. 2014, 26, 152-158. 

[5] Xie G D, Lu C X, Leng Y F, et al. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources, 2003, 18, 189-196.

[6] Xie G D, Zhang C X, Zhang L M, et al. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. Journal of Natural Resources. 2015, 30, 1243-1254.

[7] Yu Z Y, Bi H. Status quo of research on ecosystem services value in China and suggestions to future research. Energy Procedia. 2011, 5, 1044-1048. 

[8] Mendoza-González G, Martínez M L, Lithgow D, et al. Land use change and its effects on the value of ecosystem services along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Ecological Economics. 2012, 82, 23-32.

[9] Kreuter U P, Harris H G, Matlock M D, et al. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 333-346. 

[10] Yi H, Güneralp B, Anthony M F, et al. Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecological Economics. 2017, 135, 125-135. 

[11] Richardson L, Loomis J, Kroeger T, et al. The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics. 2015, 115, 51-58. 

[12] Xue M G, Xing L, Wang X Y. Spatial Correction and Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in China. China Land Science. 2018, 32, 81-88.

[13] Silvestri S, Zaibet L, Said M Y, et al. Valuing ecosystem services for conservation and development purposes: a case study from Kenya. Environmental Science Policy. 2013, 31, 23-33. 

[14] Gren I M, Groth K H, Sylvén M. Economic values of Danube floodplains. Environ. Manage. 1995, 45, 333-345. 

[15] Rao N S, Ghermandi A, Portela R, et al. Global values of coastal ecosystem services: a spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values. Ecosystem Services. 2015, 11, 95-105. 

[16] Sharma, B., Rasul, G., Chettri, N. The economic value of wetland ecosystem services: evidence from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Ecosystem Service. 2015, 12, 84-93. 

[17] Hejazi R, Shamsudin M N, Rahim K A, et al. Measuring the economic values of natural resources along a freeway: a contingent valuation method. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2012, 57, 629-641.

[18] Wang W, Guo H, Chuai X, et al. The impact of land use change on the temporospatial variations of ecosystems services value in China and an optimized land use solution. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2014, 44, 62-72.

[19] Zhao Y H, Zhang L L, Wang X F, et al. Assessment and spatiotemporal difference of ecosystem services value in Shaanxi Province. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 22, 2662-2672. 

[20] He J, Yan Z, Wan Y. Trade-offs in ecosystem services based on a comprehensive regionalization method: a case study from an urbanization area in China. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2018, 77, 179.

[21] Sun X Crittenden J C, Li F, et al. Urban expansion simulation and the spatio-temporal changes of ecosystem services, a case study in Atlanta Metropolitan area, USA. Science of the Total Environment. 2018, 622, 974-987. 

[22] Paracchini M L, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L, et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators. 2014, 45, 371-385. 

[23] Adriaensen F, Chardon J P, De Blust G, et al. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and urban planning. 2003, 64, 233-247.

[24] Li B, Chen D, Wu S, et al. Spatiotemporal assessment of urbanization impacts on ecosystem services: Case study of Nanjing City, China. Ecological Indicators. 2016, 71, 416-427.