Evidence Platform
Changes in ecosystem service of soil conservation between 2000 and 2010 and its driving factors in southwestern China
Rao, E. X. et al., 2016. Chinese Geographical Science
Original research (primary data)View External Publication Link
Abstract
Human activities significantly alter ecosystems and their services; however, quantifying the impact of human activities on ecosystems has been a great challenge in ecosystem management. We used the Universal Soil Loss Equation and county-level socioeconomic data to assess the changes in the ecosystem service of soil conservation between 2000 and 2010, and to analyze its spatial characteristics and driving factors in the southwestern China. The results showed that cropland in the southwestern China decreased by 3.74%, while urban land, forest, and grassland areas increased by 46.78%, 0.86%, and 1.12%, respectively. The soil conservation increased by 1.88 × 1011 kg, with deterioration only in some local areas. The improved and the degraded areas accounted for 6.41% and 2.44% of the total land area, respectively. Implementation of the Sloping Land Conversion Program and urbanization explained 57.80% and 23.90% of the variation in the soil conservation change, respectively, and were found to be the main factors enhancing soil conservation. The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake was one of the factors that led to the degradation of soil conservation. Furthermore, industrial adjustment, by increasing shares of Industry and Service and reducing those of Agriculture, has also promoted soil conservation. Our results quantitatively showed and emphasized the contributions to soil conservation improvement made by implementing ecological restoration programs and promoting urbanization. Consequently, these results provide basic information to improve our understanding of the effects of ecological restoration programs, and help guide future sustainable urban development and regional industrial restructuring.
Case studies
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-208-2
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP), also known as the ′Grain for Green Project′, is one of the largest ecological rehabilitation efforts as its vast area (1897 counties within 25 provinces) and consi- derable financial investment (~2.2 × 1011 yuan (RMB) at the end of 2010) (Xu et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2008). It primarily aims to control the serious levels of soil ero- sion and desertification in China, especially in the west- ern China, by converting sloping cropland and degraded rangeland back to forest and grassland ...also look urbanization policy: At the same time, large-scale and rapid urban development was promoted under the ′Go West′ policy,
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Soil erosion Positive Soil conservation capacity ((t/(ha·yr))) determined by the following equation: SC = R x K x LS x (1-C) where SC represents the soil conservation capacity (t/(ha·yr)); R is the rainfall erosivity factor (MJ·mm/ (ha·h·yr)); K is the soil erodibility factor (t·ha·h/ (ha·MJ·mm)); LS is the topographic factor; and C is the vegetation cover factor. - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The study area is located in the southwestern hinterland of China (Fig. 1), including the Sichuan Basin, the Yun- nan-Guizhou Plateau, and the southeastern Tibetan Pla- teau. It covers four provinces (municipalities): Chong- qing, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan, and contains 436 counties
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Created grassland |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: To determine intervention effectiveness, perform RDA analysis to test contribution of different factors to the change in soil conservation over time including area of SLCP (change in area of cropland converted to grass and forest). Based on this "Implementation of the SLCP and urbanization are the major driving forces that promote soil conservation in southwestern China, and explained 57.80% and 23.90%, of the variation in soil conservation change, respec- tively." although they state there is some local degradation, interested in results over the whole landscape therefore effectiveness coded as positive
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: No
- Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
- Study is systematic:
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-208-1
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP), also known as the ′Grain for Green Project′, is one of the largest ecological rehabilitation efforts as its vast area (1897 counties within 25 provinces) and consi- derable financial investment (~2.2 × 1011 yuan (RMB) at the end of 2010) (Xu et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2008). It primarily aims to control the serious levels of soil ero- sion and desertification in China, especially in the west- ern China, by converting sloping cropland and degraded rangeland back to forest and grassland ...also look urbanization policy: At the same time, large-scale and rapid urban development was promoted under the ′Go West′ policy,
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Soil erosion Positive Soil conservation capacity ((t/(ha·yr))) determined by the following equation: SC = R x K x LS x (1-C) where SC represents the soil conservation capacity (t/(ha·yr)); R is the rainfall erosivity factor (MJ·mm/ (ha·h·yr)); K is the soil erodibility factor (t·ha·h/ (ha·MJ·mm)); LS is the topographic factor; and C is the vegetation cover factor. - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The study area is located in the southwestern hinterland of China (Fig. 1), including the Sichuan Basin, the Yun- nan-Guizhou Plateau, and the southeastern Tibetan Pla- teau. It covers four provinces (municipalities): Chong- qing, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan, and contains 436 counties
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: To determine intervention effectiveness, perform RDA analysis to test contribution of different factors to the change in soil conservation over time including area of SLCP (change in area of cropland converted to grass and forest). Based on this "Implementation of the SLCP and urbanization are the major driving forces that promote soil conservation in southwestern China, and explained 57.80% and 23.90%, of the variation in soil conservation change, respec- tively." although they state there is some local degradation, interested in results over the whole landscape therefore effectiveness coded as positive
- Is the assessment original?: Yes
- Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
- Compare effectivness?: No
- Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
- Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
- Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
- Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
- Ecosystem measures:
- Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
- Impacts for people: Not reported
- People measures:
- Considers economic costs: No
- Economic appraisal conducted: No
- Economic appraisal described:
- Economic costs of alternative considered: No
- Compared to an alternative: Not reported
Evaluation methodology
- Type of data: Quantitative
- Is it experimental: No
- Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
- Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
- Study is systematic: