Spatiotemporal pattern of the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services after Grain for Green Program: a case study of the Loess Plateau, China

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (24) ◽  
pp. 30020-30033
Author(s):  
Juan He ◽  
Xueyi Shi ◽  
Yangjun Fu ◽  
Ye Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Loess Plateau ◽  
Spatiotemporal Pattern ◽  
The Loess Plateau ◽  
Grain For Green ◽  
Grain For Green Program ◽  
Trade Offs

Trade-offs between local farmers' demand for ecosystem services and ecological restoration of the Loess Plateau, China

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 101295
Author(s):  
Xiaobin Dong ◽  
Xiaowan Wang ◽  
Hejie Wei ◽  
Bojie Fu ◽  
Jijun Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecological Restoration ◽  
Loess Plateau ◽  
The Loess Plateau ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Local Farmers

Trade-offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services in Karst Area of China Driven by Grain-for-Green Program

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaofeng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Net Primary Production ◽  
Karst Area ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Water Yield ◽  
Natural Ecosystem ◽  
Grain For Green ◽  
Grain For Green Program ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Impact

<p>As an important means regulating the relationship between human and natural ecosystem, ecological restoration program plays a key role in restoring ecosystem functions. The Grain-for-Green Program (GFGP, One of the world’s most ambitious ecosystem conservation set-aside programs aims to transfer farmland on steep slopes to forestland or grassland to increase vegetation coverage) has been widely implemented from 1999 to 2015 and exerted significant influence on land use and ecosystem services (ESs). In this study, three ecological models (InVEST, RUSLE, and CASA) were used to accurately calculate the three key types of ESs, water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), and net primary production (NPP) in Karst area of southwestern China from 1982 to 2015. The impact of GFGP on ESs and trade-offs was analyzed. It provides practical guidance in carrying out ecological regulation in Karst area of China under global climate change. Results showed that ESs and trade-offs had changed dramatically driven by GFGP . In detail, temporally, SC and NPP exhibited an increasing trend, while WY exhibited a decreasing trend. Spatially, SC basically decreased from west to east; NPP basically increased from north to south; WY basically increased from west to east; NPP and SC, SC and WY developed in the direction of trade-offs driven by the GFGP, while NPP and WY developed in the direction of synergy. Therefore, future ecosystem management and restoration policy-making should consider trade-offs of ESs so as to achieve sustainable provision of ESs.</p>

scholarly journals The Grain for Green Program Intensifies Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services in Midwestern Shanxi, China

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (19) ◽  
pp. 3966
Author(s):  
Baoan Hu ◽  
Zhijie Zhang ◽  
Hairong Han ◽  
Zuzheng Li ◽  
Xiaoqin Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Ecological Engineering ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Grain For Green ◽  
Grain For Green Program ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Impact

Ecological engineering is a widely used strategy to address environmental degradation and enhance human well-being. A quantitative assessment of the impacts of ecological engineering on ecosystem services (ESs) is a prerequisite for designing inclusive and sustainable engineering programs. In order to strengthen national ecological security, the Chinese government has implemented the world’s largest ecological project since 1999, the Grain for Green Program (GFGP). We used a professional model to evaluate the key ESs in Lvliang City. Scenario analysis was used to quantify the contribution of the GFGP to changes in ESs and the impacts of trade-offs/synergy. We used spatial regression to identify the main drivers of ES trade-offs. We found that: (1) From 2000 to 2018, the contribution rates of the GFGP to changes in carbon storage (CS), habitat quality (HQ), water yield (WY), and soil conservation (SC) were 140.92%, 155.59%, −454.48%, and 92.96%, respectively. GFGP compensated for the negative impacts of external environmental pressure on CS and HQ, and significantly improved CS, HQ, and SC, but at the expense of WY. (2) The GFGP promotes the synergistic development of CS, HQ, and SC, and also intensifies the trade-off relationships between WY and CS, WY and HQ, and WY and SC. (3) Land use change and urbanization are significantly positively correlated with the WY–CS, WY–HQ, and WY–SC trade-offs, while increases in NDVI helped alleviate these trade-offs. (4) Geographically weighted regression explained 90.8%, 94.2%, and 88.2% of the WY–CS, WY–HQ, and WY–SC trade-offs, respectively. We suggest that the ESs’ benefits from the GFGP can be maximized by controlling the intensity of land use change, optimizing the development of urbanization, and improving the effectiveness of afforestation. This general method of quantifying the impact of ecological engineering on ESs can act as a reference for future ecological restoration plans and decision-making in China and across the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document