Nature-based Solutions
Evidence Platform
Evidence Platform
Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital
Abstract
In response to ecosystem degradation fromrapid economic development, China began investing heavily in protecting and restoring natural capital starting in 2000.We report on China’s first national ecosystem assessment (2000-2010), designed to quantify and help manage change in ecosystem services, including food production, carbon sequestration, soil retention, sandstorm prevention, water retention, flood mitigation, and provision of habitat for biodiversity. Overall, ecosystem services improved from 2000 to 2010, apart from habitat provision. China’s national conservation policies contributed significantly to the increases in those ecosystem services.
Case studies
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-228-3
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) (no more description given)
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Other climate impact Positive Other = Sandstorms Measure = Sandstorm prevention - sand / soil loss at a specific point (SL; kg m-2 ) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
China-wide
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Created grassland |
- Issue specific term: Payment for Ecosystem Services
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: Mapped changes in ES over time (2000-2010) and then through modeling, deduced the contribution the interventions had on driving these changes (to separate out other causes of change such as natural biophysical and socio-economic changes)
- 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:
Warning: Attempt to read property "description" on array in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 180
- 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:
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 208
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 208
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-228-2
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) (no more description given)
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Other climate impact No effect Other = Sandstorms Measure = Sandstorm prevention - sand / soil loss at a specific point (SL; kg m-2 ) Soil erosion Positive soil retention capacity (t ha−1 a −1 ) Reduced water availability No effect Water supply - Water retention refers to the water retained in ecosystems within a certain period (one year for this study) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
China-wide
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
- Issue specific term: Payment for Ecosystem Services
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: Mapped changes in ES over time (2000-2010) and then through modeling, deduced the contribution the interventions had on driving these changes (to separate out other causes of change such as natural biophysical and socio-economic changes)
- 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?: Yes
- Impacts on GHG: Positive
- 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:
Warning: Attempt to read property "description" on array in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 180
- 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:
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 208
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 208
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-228-1
- Intervention type: Protection
- Intervention description:
the Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP) (no more description given)
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Soil erosion Positive soil retention capacity (t ha−1 a −1 ) Reduced water availability Positive Water supply - Water retention refers to the water retained in ecosystems within a certain period (one year for this study) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
China-wide
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests | Tropical and subtropical forests |
- Issue specific term: Payment for Ecosystem Services
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: Mapped changes in ES over time (2000-2010) and then through modeling, deduced the contribution the interventions had on driving these changes (to separate out other causes of change such as natural biophysical and socio-economic changes)
- 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?: Yes
- Impacts on GHG: Positive
- 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:
Warning: Attempt to read property "description" on array in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 180
- 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:
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 208
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /homepages/8/d732582146/htdocs/clickandbuilds/evidencetool/wp-content/themes/evidence_tool_r2/single-article.php on line 208