The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in Golestan province

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

2 Department of Water Engineering , Faculty of Water and Soil Engineering, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction:
Ecosystems provide a wide range of services that vary in quantity and quality depending on the type of ecosystems and their status. Estimating the ecosystem services value (ESV) is very important to support land use planning processes. Ecosystem services are under great pressure due to urban growth and its effects. The human activities that reduce ecosystem services include land use/land cover (LU/LC) change driven by agricultural activities and urban growth. In this paper, we assessed LU/LC dynamics in Golestan Province using change detection and Markov chain as inputs for ESV of different land use types to estimate the amount of services. We also used sensitivity analysis to explore the robustness of results by 50% adjustment of value coefficients.
Material and methods:
Golestan Province is one of the 31 provinces of Iran, located in the south of the Caspian Sea. In this study, multi-temporal data of LU/LC were produced from multispectral Landsat imagery acquired on two separate years (1984 and 2015). We also analyzed ecosystem service values for 2035. Markov chain was used for quantity forecasting. Markov Chain Analysis is a convenient tool for modeling land use change, when changes and processes in the landscape are difficult to describe. LU/LC data were analyzed using Ecosystem Services Value (ESV) for different biomes.
Results and discussion:  
Land cover classification indicated that settlements were the most increased land cover over the study period. From 1984 to 2014, ecosystem service values of forests decreased from 1722 to 952 million dollars. Annual value of 22 ecosystem services was estimated. In terms of the estimated ESV, food production, raw materials, climate regulation, nutrient cycling, biological control, genetic diversity and recreation were reduced while the rest of ESVs were increased/decreased. The effect of using different coefficients to evaluate the total ESV in Golestan Province was evaluated. The coefficient of sensitivity (CS) of these analyses was less than one in all cases. Our results of analyses indicated that the total ecosystem values estimated for Golestan Province were relatively inelastic, which also suggests that our ecosystem value evaluation is reasonable. According to the LU/LC within the landscape, our results indicate that rangelands and forests provide a higher level of ecosystem service than others due to the relatively larger area coverage and higher value coefficients and hence a reduction in this particular component of the ecosystem hampers a balanced flow of services from the landscape.
Conclusion:
Ecosystem service value estimation based on LU/LC analysis is very important to indicate the changes in the amount of services through urban growth on spatial and temporal scales. Such estimations in local, regional and global scales are important in influencing land use planning processes through modifying national accounting systems to reflect the true values of ecosystem services so that it will be ultimately used as a basis for sustainable development. Another benefit could be related to land use optimization projects to increase ecosystem services.

Keywords

References

  1. Alarcon, G.G., de Freitas, L.A.d.S., da Fountoura, G.O., de Macedo, C.X. and Ribeiro, D.C., 2016. The challenges of implementing a legal framework for Payment for Ecosystem Services in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Natureza and Conservacao. 2(14), 132-136.
  2. Ango, T.G., Börjeson, L., Senbeta, F. and Hylander, K., 2014. Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers’ use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecology and Society. 19(1), 30-46.
  3. Bryan, B.A., (2013). Incentives, land use and ecosystem services: synthesizing complex linkages. Environmental Science and Policy. 27, 124-134.
  4. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I. and Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change. 26, 152-158.
  5. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Suttonkk, P. and Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387, 253–260.
  6. de Bello, F., Lavorel, S., Diaz, S., Harrington, R., Cornelissen, J.H., Bardgett, R.D. and Hering, D., 2010. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19(10), 2873-2893.
  7. De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L. and Hein, L., 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem services. 1(1), 50-61.
  8. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity. 7(3), 260-272.
  9. De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity. 7(3), 260-272.
  10. De Marco, P. and Coelho, F.M., 2004. Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural cultures' pollination and production. Biodiversity & Conservation. 13(7), 1245-1255.
  11. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. and Kienast, F., 2012. Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecological Indicators. 21, 39-53.
  12. Hu, H., Liu, W. and Cao, M., 2008. Impact of land use and land cover changes on ecosystem services in Menglun, Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 146(1-3), 147-156.
  13. Hu, H., Liu, W. and Cao, M., 2008. Impact of land use and land cover changes on ecosystem services in Menglun, Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 146(1-3), 147-156.
  14. Kindu, M., Schneider, T., Teketay, D. and Knoke, T., 2016. Changes of ecosystem service values in response to land use/land cover dynamics in Munessa–Shashemene landscape of the Ethiopian highlands. Science of The Total Environment. 547, 137-147.
  15. Leh, M.D., Matlock, M.D., Cummings, E.C. and Nalley, L.L., 2013. Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 165, 6-18.
  16. Li, R.Q., Dong, M., Cui, J.Y., Zhang, L.L., Cui, Q.G. and He, W.M., 2007. Quantification of the impact of land-use changes on ecosystem services: a case study in Pingbian County, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 128(1-3), 503-510.
  17. Lira, P.K., Tambosi, L.R., Ewers, R.M. and Metzger, J.P., 2012. Land-use and land-cover change in Atlantic Forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management. 278, 80-89.
  18. Lopes, L.F.G., dos Santos Bento, J.M.R., Cristovão, A.F.A.C. and Baptista, F.O., 2015. Exploring the effect of land use on ecosystem services: The distributive issues. Land Use Policy. 45, 141-149.
  19. Markov, A.A., 1971. Extension of the Limit Theorems of Probability Theory to a Sum of Variables Connected in a chain. Reprinted in Appendix B of: R. Howard. Dynamic Probabilistic Systems, Volume 1: Markov Chains. John Wiley and Sons.
  20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework For Assessment. Island Press, Washington.
  21. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., and Kareiva, P.M., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7(1), 4-11.
  22. Oestreicher, J. S., Farella, N., Paquet, S., Davidson, R., Lucotte, M., Mertens, F. and Saint-Charles, J., 2014. Livelihood activities and land-use at a riparian frontier of the Brazilian Amazon: quantitative characterization and qualitative insights into the influence of knowledge, values, and beliefs. Human Ecology. 42(4), 521-540.
  23. Pereira, H.M., Leadley, P.W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R., Scharlemann, J.P., Fernandez-Manjarres, J.F. and Cheung, W.W., 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 330(6010), 1496-1501.
  24. Salman Mahiny, A. and Kamyab, H., 2012. Applied remote sensing and GIS with idrisi. Mehr mahdis Pub.
  25. Salman Mahiny, A., 2015. Golestan Land use planning Report.
  26. Satz, D., Gould, R.K., Chan, K.M., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T. and Hannahs, N., 2013. The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio. 42(6), 675-684.
  27. Summers, J., Smith, L., Case, J. and Linthurst, R., 2012. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio. 41(4), 327-340.
  28. Tadesse, G., Zavaleta, E., Shennan, C. and FitzSimmons, M., 2014. Local ecosystem service use and assessment vary with socio-ecological conditions: A case of native coffee-forests in southwestern Ethiopia. Human Ecology. 42(6), 873-883.
  29. Tolessa, T., Senbeta, F. and Kidane, M., 2017. The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosystem services. 23, 47-54.
Environmental Sciences
Volume 17, Issue 2
July 2019
Pages 43-56

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics