Identifying eco-functional zones on the Chinese Loess Plateau using ecosystem service bundles

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2023.11.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Optimizing the function of ecosystem services (ESs) is vital for implementing regional ecological management strategies. In this study, we used multi-source data and integrated modelling methods to assess the spatiotemporal variations in eight typical ESs on the Chinese Loess Plateau from 2000 to 2015, including grain production, raw material provision, water conservation, carbon storage service, soil conservation, oxygen production, recreation, and net primary productivity (NPP) services. Then, we divided the ecosystem service bundles (ESBs) according to relationships among the eight ESs, obtaining four types of eco-functional areas at the county (city or banner or district) level based on the spatial clustering of similarities in different ES types. We also identified and assessed the contributions of influencing factors to these eco-functional areas using principal component analysis (PCA) across spatiotemporal scales. We found that the spatiotemporal variations in different ESs were noticeable, with an overall increase in grain production and soil conservation services, no significant change in carbon storage service, and overall decreases in raw material provision, water conservation, oxygen production, recreation, and NPP services. From 2000 to 2015, the number of significant synergistic ES pairs decreased, while that of significant trade-off pairs increased. To the changes of ESBs in the eco-functional areas, the results indicated that the indirect loss of these ESs from forest and grassland due to urban expansion should be reduced in ecological development area (ESB 2) and multi ecological functional area (ESB 3). Meanwhile, crop planting structures and planting densities should be adjusted to reduce ES trade-offs associated with water conservation service in grain-producing area (ESB 4). Lastly, ESB-based eco-functional zoning can be used to improve ecological restoration management strategies and optimize ecological compensation schemes in ecologically fragile area (ESB 1).

Key words: Ecosystem services, Trade-offs, Synergy, Land use/land cover, Climate change, Principal component analysis (PCA)

Fan WU, Youjia LIANG, Lijun LIU, Zhangcai YIN, Jiejun HUANG. Identifying eco-functional zones on the Chinese Loess Plateau using ecosystem service bundles[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2023, 4(4): 425-440.

Figures/Tables 17

Fig. 1.

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13.

Table 3

Table 4

References 58

[1]	Agricultural Survey Division, National Bureau of Statistics, 2000-2015. China County Statistical Yearbook 2000-2015. Beijing: China Statistics Press. (in Chinese)
[2]	Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12(12), 1394-1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x pmid: 19845725
[3]	Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., et al., 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 76-85. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
[4]	Cai, C.F., Ding, S.W., Shi, Z.H., et al., 2000. Study of applying USLE and geographical information system IDRISI to predict soil erosion in small watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 14(2), 19-24. (in Chinese)
[5]	Chen, T.Q., Feng, Z., Zhao, H.F., et al., 2020. Identification of ecosystem service bundles and driving factors in Beijing and its surrounding areas. Sci. Total Environ. 711, 134687, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134687.
[6]	Choi, C.S., Berry, P., Smith, A., 2021. The climate benefits, co-benefits, and trade-offs of green infrastructure: A systematic literature review. J. Environ. Manage. 291, 112583, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112583.
[7]	Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., et al., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28(Part A), 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
[8]	Guevara-Ochoa, C., Medina-Sierra, A., Vives, L., 2020. Spatio-temporal effect of climate change on water balance and interactions between groundwater and surface water in plains. Sci. Total Environ. 722, 137886, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137886.
[9]	Jafarzadeh, A.A., Mahdavi, A., Shamsi, S.R.F., et al., 2021. Assessing synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest landscape management. Land Use Pol. 111, 105741, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105741.
[10]	Jiang, B., Bai, Y., Wong, C.P., et al., 2019. China’s ecological civilization program-Implementing ecological redline policy. Land Use Pol. 81, 111-114. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.031
[11]	Jiang, S., Cheng, X., Yu, S., et al., 2022. Elevation dependency of ecosystem services supply efficiency in great lake watershed. J. Environ. Manage. 318, 115476, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115476.
[12]	Kou, P.L., Xu, Q., Jin, Z., et al., 2021. Complex anthropogenic interaction on vegetation greening in the Chinese Loess Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 778, 146065, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146065.
[13]	Li, J.J., Peng, S.Z., Li, Z., 2017. Detecting and attributing vegetation changes on China’s Loess Plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 247, 260-270. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.08.005
[14]	Li, K., Hou, Y., Andersen, P.S., et al., 2022. An ecological perspective for understanding regional integration based on ecosystem service budgets, bundles, and flows: A case study of the Jinan metropolitan area in China. J. Environ. Manage. 305, 114371, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114371.
[15]	Li, T., Lü, Y.H., Fu, B.J., et al., 2019. Bundling ecosystem services for detecting their interactions driven by large-scale vegetation restoration: Enhanced services while depressed synergies. Ecol. Indic. 99, 332-342. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.041
[16]	Li, Z.H., Xia, J., Deng, X.Z., et al., 2021. Multilevel modelling of impacts of human and natural factors on ecosystem services change in an oasis, Northwest China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 169, 105474, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105474.
[17]	Liang, Y.J., Hashimoto, S., Liu, L.J., 2021. Integrated assessment of land-use/land-cover dynamics on carbon storage services in the Loess Plateau of China from 1995 to 2050. Ecol. Indic. 120, 106939, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106939.
[18]	Lin, S.W., Wu, R.D., Yang, F.L., et al., 2018. Spatial trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services within a global biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Indic. 84, 371-381. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.007
[19]	Liu, B.Y., Nearing, M.A., Shi, P.J., et al., 2000. Slope length effects on soil loss for steep slopes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64(5), 1759-1763. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2000.6451759x
[20]	Liu, H.J., Yan, F.Y., Tian, H., 2022a. Towards low-carbon cities: Patch-based multi-objective optimization of land use allocation using an improved non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II. Ecol. Indic. 134, 108455, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108455.
[21]	Liu, Y.X., Li, T., Zhao, W.W., et al., 2019. Landscape functional zoning at a county level based on ecosystem services bundle: Methods comparison and management indication. J. Environ. Manage. 249, 109315, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109315.
[22]	Liu, Z.H., Huang, Q.D., Zhou, Y., et al., 2022b. Spatial identification of restored priority areas based on ecosystem service bundles and urbanization effects in a megalopolis area. J. Environ. Manage. 308, 114627, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114627.
[23]	Ma, S., Li, Y., Zhang, Y.H., et al., 2022. Distinguishing the relative contributions of climate and land use/cover changes to ecosystem services from a geospatial perspective. Ecol. Indic. 136, 108645, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108645.
[24]	Mashizi, A.K., Sharafatmandrad, M., 2021. Investigating tradeoffs between supply, use and demand of ecosystem services and their effective drivers for sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manage. 289, 112534, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112534.
[25]	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report. [2023-02-16]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108645.10.1119/1.2344558.
[26]	Mouchet, M.A., Paracchini, M.L., Schulp, C.J.E., et al., 2017. Bundles of ecosystem (dis) services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 73, 23-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.026
[27]	Peng, J., Hu, X.X., Wang, X.Y., et al., 2019. Simulating the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern Yunnan, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100998, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100998.
[28]	Qiu, L.J., Wu, Y.P., Shi, Z.Y., et al., 2021. Quantifying spatiotemporal variations in soil moisture driven by vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China. J. Hydrol. 600, 126580, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126580.
[29]	Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107(11), 5242-5247.
[30]	Saidi, N., Spray, C., 2018. Ecosystem services bundles: challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environ. Res. Lett. 13(11), 113001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aae5e0.
[31]	Shen, J.S., Li, S.C., Liang, Z., et al., 2020. Exploring the heterogeneity and nonlinearity of trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services bundles in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101103, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101103.
[32]	Song, W., Deng, X.Z., Yuan, Y.W., et al., 2015. Impacts of land-use change on valued ecosystem service in rapidly urbanized North China Plain. Ecol. Model. 318, 245-253. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.01.029
[33]	Sun, D.Z., Liang, Y.J., Peng, S.Z., 2022. Scenario simulation of water retention services under land use/cover and climate changes: a case study of the Loess Plateau, China. J. Arid Land. 14(4), 390-410. doi: 10.1007/s40333-022-0054-4
[34]	Sun, W.Y., Shao, Q.Q., Liu, J.Y., 2014. Assessment of soil conservation function of the ecosystem services on the Loess Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources. 29(3), 365-376. (in Chinese)
[35]	Sun, Y., Hao, R.F., Qiao, J.M., et al., 2020. Function zoning and spatial management of small watersheds based on ecosystem disservice bundles. J. Clean Prod. 255, 120285, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120285.
[36]	Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Levrel, H., et al., 2018. Relationships between ecosystem services: comparing methods for assessing tradeoffs and synergies. Ecol. Econ. 150, 96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.002
[37]	Wang, B., Liang, Y.J., Peng, S.Z., 2022a. Harnessing the indirect effect of urban expansion for mitigating agriculture-environment trade-offs in the Loess Plateau. Land Use Pol. 122, 106395, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106395.
[38]	Wang, C.D., Li, X., Yu, H.J., et al., 2019. Tracing the spatial variation and value change of ecosystem services in Yellow River Delta, China. Ecol. Indic. 96, 270-277. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.015
[39]	Wang, D., Liang, Y.J., Peng, S.Z., et al., 2022b. Integrated assessment of the supply-demand relationship of ecosystem services in the Loess Plateau during 1992-2015. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 8(1), 2130093, doi: 10.1080/20964129.2022.2130093.
[40]	Wang, H., Huang, J.J., Zhou, H., et al., 2020. Analysis of sustainable utilization of water resources based on the improved water resources ecological footprint model: A case study of Hubei Province, China. J. Environ. Manage. 262, 110331, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110331.
[41]	Wang, J.T., Peng, J., Zhao, M.Y., et al., 2017. Significant trade-off for the impact of Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services in North-western Yunnan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 57-64. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.026
[42]	Wang, W.L., Jiao, L.M., Jia, Q.Q., et al., 2021. Land use optimization modelling with ecological priority perspective for large-scale spatial planning. Sust. Cities Soc. 65, 102575, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102575.
[43]	Wang, X.Z., Wu, J.Z., Liu, Y.L., et al., 2022c. Driving factors of ecosystem services and their spatiotemporal change assessment based on land use types in the Loess Plateau. J. Environ. Manage. 311, 114835, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114835.
[44]	Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., Dyke, P.T., 1984. A modeling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Trans. ASAE. 27(1), 129-144. doi: 10.13031/2013.32748
[45]	Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses - A Guide to Conservation Planning. Hyattsville: United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, 62.
[46]	Wu, F., Liang, Y.J., Peng, S.Z., et al., 2022. Challenges in trade-off governance of ecosystem services: Evidence from the Loess Plateau in China. Ecol. Indic. 145, 109686, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109686.
[47]	Wu, X.T., Wang, S., Fu, B.J., et al., 2018. Land use optimization based on ecosystem service assessment: A case study in the Yanhe watershed. Land Use Pol. 72, 303-312. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.003
[48]	Xie, G.D., Zhang, C.X., Zhen, L., et al., 2017. Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 26(Part A), 146-154. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.010
[49]	Xu, H.J., Zhao, C.Y., Chen, S.Y., et al., 2022. Spatial relationships among regulating ecosystem services in mountainous regions: Nonlinear and elevation-dependent. J. Clean Prod. 380, 135050, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135050.
[50]	Xu, X.B., Yang, G.S., Tan, Y., et al., 2018. Ecosystem services trade-offs and determinants in China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2000 to 2015. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 1601-1614. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.046
[51]	Yang, S.Q., Zhao, W.W., Liu, Y.X., et al., 2020. Prioritizing sustainable development goals and linking them to ecosystem services: A global expert’s knowledge evaluation. Geogr. Sustain. 1(4), 321-330.
[52]	Yang, Y.Y., Zheng, H., Kong, L.Q., et al., 2019. Mapping ecosystem services bundles to detect high- and low-value ecosystem services areas for land use management. J. Clean Prod. 225, 11-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.242
[53]	Yin, S.Q., Xue, X.C., Yue, T.Y., et al., 2019. Spatiotemporal distribution and return period of rainfall erosivity in China. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 35(9), 105-113. (in Chinese)
[54]	Zhang, Y., Zhao, X.L., Zuo, L.J., et al., 2018. Dynamic evaluation and analysis on ecosystem service value in the Loess Plateau. Research of Soil and Water Conservation. 25(3), 170-176. (in Chinese)
[55]	Zhang, Z.Y., Liu, Y.F., Wang, Y.H., et al., 2020. What factors affect the synergy and tradeoff between ecosystem services, and how, from a geospatial perspective? J. Clean Prod. 257, 120454, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120454.
[56]	Zhao, L., Yuan, G.L., Zhang, Y., et al., 2007. The amount of soil erosion in Baoxiang Watershed of Dianchi Lake based on GIS and USLE. Bulletin Soil and Water Conservation. 27(3), 42-46. (in Chinese)
[57]	Zhu, W.Q., Pan, Y.Z., He, H., et al., 2006. Simulation of maximum light use efficiency for some typical vegetation types in China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 51(4), 457-463. doi: 10.1007/s11434-006-0457-1
[58]	Zhu, W.Q., Pan, Y.Z., Zhang, J.S., 2007. Estimation of net primary productivity of Chinese terrestrial vegetation based on remote sensing. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology. 31(3), 413-424. (in Chinese) doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2007.0050

Data	Resolution	Year	Source
Temperature, sunshine duration, and precipitation	Daily	2000-2015	National Meteorological Information Centre (http://data.cma.cn)
Digital elevation model (DEM)	90 m×90 m		Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn/)
Potential evapotranspiration (PET)	1 km×1 km, yearly	2000-2015	Harvard Dataverse V1 (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/0WZCNO)
Annual grain yield	1 km×1 km, yearly	2000-2015	Agricultural Survey Division, National Bureau of Statistics (2000-2015)
Gross domestic product (GDP)	1 km×1 km, yearly	2000-2015	Resources and Environmental Sciences and Data Centre (https://www.resdc.cn/DOI/DOI.aspx?DOIID=33)
Land use/land cover (LULC)	300 m×300 m, yearly	2000-2015	European Space Agency (ESA) Climate Change Initiative (CCI) (https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org)
Leaf area index (LAI)	30″×30″	2000-2015	Land-Atmosphere Interaction Research Group, Sun Yat-sen University (http://globalchange.bnu.edu.cn/)
Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)	1 km×1 km, monthly	2000-2015	Resources and Environmental Sciences and Data Centre (https://www.resdc.cn/data.aspx?DATAID=257)
Population map	1 km×1 km, yearly	2000-2015	Resources and Environmental Sciences and Data Centre (https://www.resdc.cn/DOI/DOI.aspx?DOIID=32)
Soil data	1 km×1 km		Harmonized World Soil Database V1.2 (https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/)

ES function	ES indicator	Parameters used in the calculation of ES value
Provisioning services	Grain production	County grain yield and NDVI
Provisioning services	Raw material provision	Net primary productivity (NPP) and standard coal price
Regulating services	Water conservation	Flow velocity coefficient, topographic index, soil saturated hydraulic conductivity, and LULC
	Carbon storage	Carbon density and LULC
	Soil conservation	Rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, length-slope factor, vegetation cover, and retention factors
	Oxygen production	NPP
Cultural service	Recreation	Grain production, vegetation coverage, and NPP
Supporting service	NPP	Photosynthetically available radiation and light energy utilization rate

Factor	Factor loading
Factor	Principal component 1 (PC1)	Principal component 2 (PC2)	Principal component 3 (PC3)
DEM	0.895	0.095	-0.164
Temperature	-0.893	0.128	0.204
Proportion of cropland	-0.717	0.299	0.038
Proportion of ecological land	0.690	-0.602	-0.047
Slope	0.596	0.686	-0.075
Sunshine duration	0.529	-0.754	-0.140
Precipitation	-0.295	0.838	0.100
Population	-0.256	0.142	0.912
GDP	-0.132	0.032	0.961
Potential evapotranspiration	0.032	0.941	-0.008
Proportion of urban land	-0.002	-0.037	0.958

Factor category	Factor	Eigenvalue			Linear combination coefficient	Weight (%)
Factor category	Factor	PC1	PC2	PC3	Linear combination coefficient	Weight (%)
Topography	DEM	0.417	0.059	0.115	0.249	9.9
Topography	Slope	0.278	0.423	0.053	0.270	10.7
Climate	Sunshine duration	0.247	0.464	0.099	0.277	11.0
	Temperature	0.416	0.079	0.144	0.261	10.3
	Potential evapotranspiration	0.015	0.580	0.006	0.174	6.9
	Precipitation	0.138	0.516	0.070	0.231	9.2
Land use	Proportion of cropland	0.334	0.184	0.027	0.224	8.9
	Proportion of ecological land	0.322	0.371	0.033	0.273	10.8
	Proportion of urban land	0.001	0.023	0.675	0.154	6.1
Socioeconomic factor	GDP	0.062	0.020	0.677	0.183	7.3
Socioeconomic factor	Population	0.119	0.087	0.642	0.224	8.9