Back

Response of land use change and ecosystem services based on different functional scenarios: Case study of Nanjing

Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Sun, D.; Zhou, Z.

2020-09-07 ecology
10.1101/2020.09.07.285726 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Land Use/Land Cover Change (LUCC) is one of the important reasons for the change of ecosystem services (ESs). Due to the uncertainty of future development policies and the complexity of LUCC, assessing the impact of future urban sprawl on ecosystem services remains challenging. We simulated the effect of urban land-use change on ESs on the basis of different functional scenarios, which is of important value to urban land-use planning and ESs protection. In our study, we designed three scenarios: Production function priority scenario (PFP scenario) Living function priority scenario (LFP scenario) Ecological function priority scenario (EFP Scenario). And we used the GeoSOS-FLUS software to realize visualization. Based on invest model, we evaluated five types of ESs: carbon storage, warter yield, habitat quality, water purification and soil conservation. Research showed that from 2000 to 2015, carbon storage, habitat quality and water production in Nanjing decreased significantly, soil conservation increased slightly, and the performance of the two indicators for water purification was not consistent. From different scenarios, carbon storage and habitat quality were the highest in EFP scenario, water yield was the highest in PFP scenario and soil conservation was the highest in LFP scenario. We analyzed the trade-offs among various ESs, found that the change of land-use types in cities does not fundamentally change the trade-offs among various ESs. We believed that the determination of the main function of LUCC was the first condition to judge the applicability of scenario, and the scenario simulation which integrated the main function of the city could provide more references for the related research.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.