Assessment and analysis of ecosystem services value along the Yangtze River under the background of the Yangtze River protection strategy

doi:10.1007/s11442-020-1742-7

Abstract

Abstract:

The Yangtze River is the third largest river in the world and the longest and largest river in China. China has adopted a national strategy to protect the Yangtze River. A better understanding of the ecosystem services value along the Yangtze River would provide support for the Yangtze River protection strategy. Using Costanza’s method to estimate the ecosystem services value, the value of 10 ecosystem services was estimated within 1 km and 2 km from the Yangtze River in 2017. These 10 services were derived from the four established groupings of provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. This study compared and analyzed the changes in the ecosystem services value in the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the river, and in provinces, cities, and villages along the Yangtze River. The total ecosystem services value within 1 km and 2 km from the river was 37.208 and 43.769 billion yuan, respectively. Within 1 km, the ecosystem services value in the middle reaches was 12.93 billion yuan, while the next highest value was in the upper reaches at 12.45 billion yuan, and the downstream area had the smallest value of 11.855 billion yuan. Within 2 km, the value of upstream ecosystem services was the highest at 16.31 billion yuan, while the second highest value was in the middle reaches at 14.376 billion yuan, and the smallest value was in the downstream area at 13.083 billion yuan. In the Yangtze River Basin, regulating services played a leading role, accounting for 81.6% and 78.9% of the ecosystem services value within 1 km and 2 km from the river, respectively. Among the 10 ecosystem services, hydrological regulation was the most important, while the value of raw material production made the smallest contribution. Among the provinces and cities along the Yangtze River, the highest ecosystem services value was in Hubei Province, while the lowest values were in Shanghai and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. If villages within 1 km and 2 km from the river were to be relocated, the total regional ecological value would increase by 527 and 975 million yuan, respectively.

Key words: Yangtze River Basin, 1 km along the Yangtze River, 2 km along the Yangtze River, value assessment method, ecosystem services

ZHENG Liang, LIU Hai, HUANG Yuefei, YIN Shoujing, JIN Gui. Assessment and analysis of ecosystem services value along the Yangtze River under the background of the Yangtze River protection strategy[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(4): 553-568.

Figures/Tables 11

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figure 2

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

References 35

[1]	Anselin L , 1995. Local indicators of spatial association: LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2):93-115.
[2]	Berta M L, Erik G B, Marina G L et al., 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37(A):220-228.
[3]	Bolliger J, Bttig M, Gallati J et al., 2011. Landscape multifunctionality: A powerful concept to identify effects of environmental change. Regional Environment Change, 11:203-206.
[4]	Chen W, Li J, Zhu L , 2019. Spatial heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis of ecosystem services value in the Middle Yangtze River region. Journal of Natural Resources, 34(2):325-337. (in Chinese)
[5]	Cheng J, Cheng J, Wu J et al., 2017. Changes of land use and ecosystem service functions in Yangtze River Basin from 2000-2010. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 26(6):894-901. (in Chinese)
[6]	Costanza R, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf G et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. World Environment, 387(1):3-15.
[7]	Daily G C, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 7(1):21-28.
[8]	Fisher B, Turner R K , 2008. Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141(5):1167-1169.
[9]	Fu B , 2010. Trends and priority areas in ecosystem research of China. Geographical Research, 29(3):383-396. (in Chinese)
[10]	Fu B, Yu D, Lv N , 2017. Indicator systems and methods for evaluating biodiversity and ecosystem services. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(2):341-348. (in Chinese)
[11]	Huang C, Yang J, Zhang W , 2013. Development of ecosystem services evaluation models: Research progress. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 32(12):3360-3367. (in Chinese)
[12]	Xu H, Newton A, Wolanski E et al., 2015. The fate of phosphorus in the Yangtze (Changjiang) Estuary, China, under multi-stressors: Hindsight and forecast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 20(9):1-6.
[13]	Jin G, Chen K, Wang P et al., 2019. Trade-offs in land-use competition and sustainable land development in the North China Plain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141:36-46.
[14]	Jin G, Deng X Z, Zhao X D et al., 2018. Spatiotemporal patterns in urbanization efficiency within the Yangtze River Economic Belt between 2005 and 2014. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 28(8):1113-1126.
[15]	Jin G, Li Z H, Deng X Z et al., 2019. An analysis of spatiotemporal patterns in Chinese agricultural productivity between 2004 and 2014. Ecological Indicators, 105:591-600.
[16]	Kreuter U, Hrris H, Malock M et al., 2001. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics, 39(3):333-346.
[17]	Li S C, Bing Z L, Jin G , 2019. Spatially explicit mapping of soil conservation service in monetary units due to land use/cover change for the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Remote Sensing, 11(4):468.
[18]	Liu H, Wu J, Chen X , 2018. Study on spatial-temporal change and trade-off/synergy relationships of ecosystem services in the Danjiangkou water area. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(13):4609-4624. (in Chinese)
[19]	Liu Y, Long H , 2017. Study on the spatiotemporal patterns of land use transition and its impact on ecological service function of the middle of Yangtze River Economic Belt. Economic Geography, 37(11):161-170. (in Chinese)
[20]	Meijer K , 2008. Ecosystems and human well-being: Our human planet: Summary for decision makers (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series). Journal of Chromatography A, 1180(1/2):66-72.
[21]	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
[22]	National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China, 2010. Chinese Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
[23]	National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China, 2017. China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
[24]	Nieto-Romero M, Oteros-Rozas E, González, José A et al., 2014. Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Insights for future research. Environmental Science & Policy, 37(3):121-133.
[25]	Ouyang Z, Wang X, Miao H , 1999. A primary study on Chinese terrestrial ecosystem services and their ecological-economic values. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 19(5):607-613. (in Chinese)
[26]	Priess J, Minler M, Klein A , 2007. Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic return in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecological Applications, 17:407-417.
[27]	Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G D, Mooney B H A , 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(11):5242-5247.
[28]	The Price Department of the State Development and Reform Commission of China, 2011. National Agricultural Products Cost Return Assembly. Beijing: China Statistics Press.
[29]	Wang L, He Q , 2015. A review of the ecosystem value based on emergy theory. Ecological Economy, 31(4):133-136. (in Chinese)
[30]	Wiens J , 2009. Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landscape Ecology, 24:105-1065.
[31]	Wilson C L, Matthews W H , 1970. Mans impact on the global environment: Assessment and recommendations for action. Report of the Study of Critical Environment Problems (SCEP) 1970. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 319.
[32]	Xie G, Zhang C, Zhang L et al., 2015. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. Journal of Natural Resources, 30(8):1243-1254. (in Chinese)
[33]	Xie G, Zhen L, Lu C et al., 2008. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 23(5):911-919. (in Chinese)
[34]	Yang R J, Wang L J, Liu W L et al., 2019. Design and progress of joint research on ecological environment protection and restoration of the Yangtze River. Environment and Sustainable Development, 44(5):37-42. (in Chinese)
[35]	Yang S, Hu S, Qu S , 2018. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service value in middle Yangtze River Economic Region from 1990 to 2014. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 25(3):164-169. (in Chinese)

Ecosystem service equivalent value per unit area
Ecosystem classification		Provisioning services			Regulating services				Supporting services		Cultural services
Primary classification	Secondary classification	FP	RP	WS	GR	CR	EP	HR	SR	SD	AL
Farmland	Dry land	0.85	0.4	0.02	0.67	0.36	0.1	0.27	1.03	0.13	0.06
Farmland	Paddy field	1.36	0.09	-2.63	1.11	0.57	0.17	2.72	0.01	0.21	0.09
Forest	Coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest	0.31	0.71	0.37	2.35	7.03	1.99	3.51	2.86	2.6	1.14
Grassland	Shrub	0.19	0.43	0.22	1.41	4.23	1.28	3.35	1.72	1.57	0.69
Grassland	Shrubs	0.38	0.56	0.31	1.97	5.21	1.72	3.82	2.4	2.18	0.96
Wetlands	Wetlands	0.51	0.5	2.59	1.9	3.6	3.6	24.23	2.31	7.87	4.73
Desert	Desert	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.11	0.1	0.31	0.21	0.13	0.12	0.05
Desert	Bare land	0	0	0	0.02	0	0.1	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01
Waters	River system	0.8	0.23	8.29	0.77	2.29	5.55	102.24	0.93	2.55	1.89

Equivalent factor	China	Qinghai	Tibet	Sichuan	Yunnan	Chong-qing	Hubei	Hunan	Jiangxi	Anhui	Jiangsu
2010	481.19	359.49	518.53	487	346.53	498.41	550.65	572.8	519.6	450.43	592.64
2017	532.66	349.69	540.32	525.41	419.84	504.3	562.41	593.69	561.09	506.25	633.41

	Region	Upper reaches		Middle reaches		Lower reaches
	Region	1 km	2 km	1 km	2 km	1 km	2 km
Provisioning services	FP	1.83	3.05	1.76	2.69	1.35	2.00
	RP	1.35	2.41	0.53	0.76	0.38	0.51
	WS	4.92	4.42	6.25	5.26	6.43	5.97
Regulating services	GR	4.94	8.87	2.29	3.53	1.62	2.35
	CR	12.84	22.85	4.90	6.93	3.49	4.46
	EP	7.17	10.29	6.12	7.03	5.52	6.19
	HR	76.70	86.75	99.26	107.53	92.84	101.17
Supporting services	SR	5.36	9.49	1.92	2.65	1.43	1.78
Supporting services	SD	6.15	10.02	3.65	4.57	3.29	3.87
Cultural services	AL	3.23	4.96	2.36	2.82	2.21	2.54

Province	Provisioning services			Regulating services				Supporting services		Cultural services
Province	FP	RP	WS	GR	CR	EP	HR	SR	SD	AL
Qinghai	0.0888	0.0865	0.5345	0.2902	0.8274	0.5401	6.5251	0.3537	0.4219	0.2317
Tibet	0.0497	0.0696	0.0951	0.2322	0.6378	0.2315	1.1288	0.2845	0.2641	0.1217
Sichuan	0.5278	0.4126	1.2240	1.4929	3.8585	1.9934	19.4919	1.6417	1.8025	0.9243
Yunnan	0.4623	0.4130	0.7399	1.4977	3.9535	1.7036	13.3708	1.6477	1.7023	0.8297
Chongqing	0.7058	0.3711	2.3247	1.4290	3.5615	2.6985	36.1861	1.4362	1.9590	1.1249
Hubei	1.2793	0.4184	5.0206	1.7553	3.9179	4.7731	76.7507	1.5561	2.8869	1.8580
Hunan	0.1489	0.0312	0.3402	0.1603	0.2808	0.3909	6.5989	0.1029	0.2228	0.1475
Jiangxi	0.3294	0.0763	0.8858	0.3731	0.6996	0.9517	15.9076	0.2617	0.5429	0.3579
Anhui	0.6930	0.1949	2.6488	0.8452	1.7636	2.4713	41.0256	0.7056	1.4649	0.9679
Jiangsu	0.5792	0.1668	3.6851	0.6678	1.5509	2.8647	49.5145	0.6443	1.6248	1.1231
Shanghai	0.0743	0.0214	0.0947	0.1034	0.1728	0.1803	2.3006	0.0784	0.1977	0.1202
Total	4.9383	2.2616	17.5933	8.8472	21.2243	18.7990	268.8007	8.7127	13.0897	7.8070

Province	Provisioning services			Regulating services				Supporting services		Cultural services
Province	FP	RP	WS	GR	CR	EP	HR	SR	SD	AL
Qinghai	0.1360	0.1658	0.6309	0.5587	1.5916	0.8025	7.6446	0.6807	0.7299	0.3721
Tibet	0.0921	0.1356	0.1295	0.4485	1.2359	0.4127	1.4988	0.5502	0.4970	0.2242
Sichuan	0.9252	0.7399	1.0231	2.7135	6.9125	2.9420	22.3420	2.9174	2.9888	1.4504
Yunnan	0.7629	0.7825	0.7285	2.8046	7.5283	2.7674	15.9221	3.1201	3.0620	1.4293
Chongqing	1.1381	0.5844	1.9039	2.3408	5.5787	3.3670	39.3446	2.2183	2.7440	1.4803
Hubei	2.0489	0.6096	4.1675	2.7886	5.5997	5.5100	83.2283	2.1601	3.6448	2.2321
Hunan	0.2524	0.0452	0.2274	0.2627	0.3933	0.4650	7.6276	0.1352	0.2814	0.1797
Jiangxi	0.3853	0.1015	0.8639	0.4829	0.9351	1.0541	16.6703	0.3547	0.6477	0.4092
Anhui	1.0070	0.2531	2.3904	1.1915	2.2195	2.7624	44.6651	0.8684	1.7111	1.1021
Jiangsu	0.8026	0.2086	3.5493	0.9202	1.8903	3.1166	52.6429	0.7676	1.8346	1.2410
Shanghai	0.1869	0.0442	0.0316	0.2337	0.3500	0.3094	3.8588	0.1471	0.3275	0.1942
Total	7.7373	3.6705	15.6460	14.746	34.2348	23.5090	295.4449	13.9198	18.4686	10.3145