Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Services Based on GIS

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Analysis of Urban Structure and Its Environment Implication

Part of the book series: Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements ((ACHS))

Abstract

With the acceleration of urbanization, the increase of urban population has led to earth-shaking changes in urban structure. The structure and function of urban ecosystem have changed, which has affected the service function of urban ecosystem. Urban ecosystem services are closely related to human well-being. Therefore, quantifying urban ecosystem services can better guide urban planning and optimize urban structure. In this chapter, we take China as case study to assess the urban ecosystem services from multiple scales, take Chongqing of China as case study to assess ecosystem service flow, and analyze the entropy value and entropy flow of ecosystem. Firstly, the ecosystem service cluster model was constructed to analyze the changes of ecosystem services in different provinces of China. Secondly, a cluster analysis model was established to group different provinces based on the national scale. Finally, an integrated analysis with the assessment matrix and entropy flow method was used to spatially identify and effectively quantify the ecosystem services flow of Chongqing, China. Our methods and findings can provide theoretical guidance for urban landscape planning, management, and policymaking by considering the ecosystem services and ecosystem health of urban scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Costanza R, Groot RD, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Costanza R, D’Arge R, Groot RD et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, pp 77–101

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hao R, Yu D, Wu J (2017) Relationship between paired ecosystem services in the grassland and agro-pastoral transitional zone of China using the constraint line method. Agric Ecosyst Environ 240:171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang G, Ge Y, Xue H et al (2015) Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban–rural complexes. Landsc Urban Plan 136:110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deng X, Li Z, Gibson J (2016) A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management. J Geogr Sci 26:953–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-016-1309-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yang W, Jin Y, Sun T et al (2018) Trade-offs among ecosystem ser vices in coastal wetlands under the effects of reclamation activities. Ecol Indic 92:354–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baro F, Gomez-Baggethun E, Haase D (2017) Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosyst Serv 24:147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xu Z, Wei H, Fan W et al (2019) Relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being changes based on carbon flow—a case study of the Manas River Basin, Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst Serv 37:100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Vreese R, Van Herzele A, Dendoncker N et al (2019) Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept? Ecosyst Serv 37:100911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lester SE, Costello C, Halpern BS et al (2013) Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 38:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Juntti M, Costa H, Nascimento N (2019) Urban environmental quality and wellbeing in the context of incomplete urbanisation in Brazil: integrating directly experienced ecosystem services into planning. Prog Plan. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2019.04.003

  15. Dittrich A, Seppelt R, Václavík T et al (2017) Integrating ecosystem service bundles and socio-environmental conditions—a national scale analysis from Germany. Ecosyst Serv 28:273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Asadolahi Z, Salmanmahiny A, Sakieh Y et al (2018) Dynamic trade-off analysis of multiple ecosystem services under land use change scenarios: towards putting ecosystem services into planning in Iran. Ecol Complex 36:250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Xie G, Zhang C, Zhen L et al (2017) Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 26:146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Teoh SHS, Symes WS, Sun H et al (2019) A global meta-analysis of the economic values of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 649:1293–1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Odum HT, Odum EP (2000) The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3:21–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100210000005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang Q, Liu GY, Casazza M et al (2018) Campbell, E.T.; Giannetti, B.F.; Brown, M.T. Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on ecosystem services valuation. Ecosyst Serv 34:37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Xiao Y et al (2016) Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 352:1455–1459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Li T, Lü Y, Fu B et al (2019) Bundling ecosystem services for detecting their interactions driven by large-scale vegetation restoration: enhanced services while depressed synergies. Ecol Indic 99:332–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sun F, Xiang J, Tao Y et al (2019) Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES. Urban For Urban Green 38:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Willcock S, Martínez-López J, Hooftman DAP et al (2018) Machine learning for eco system services. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.004

  25. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B et al (2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv 4:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K et al (2015) Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44(Suppl 1):S89–S101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhao M, Peng J, Liu Y et al (2018) (2018) Mapping Watershed-Level Ecosystem Service Bundles in the Pearl River Delta, China. Ecol Econ 152:106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang Y, Zheng H, Kong L et al (2019) Mapping ecosystem services bundles to detect high- and low-value ecosystem services areas for land use management. J Clean Prod 225:11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM (2015) Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(43):13411–13416. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502565112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Xie G, Lu C, Leng Y et al (2003) Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. J Nat Resour 18:189–196. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-3037.2003.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Adolfsson A, Ackerman M, Brownstein NC (2019) To cluster, or not to cluster: an analysis of clusterability methods. Pattern Recogn 88:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2018.10.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Oka C, Aiba M, Nakashizuka T (2019) Phylogenetic clustering in beneficial attributes of tree species directly linked to provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 96:477–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Murtagh F, Legendre P (2014) Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement ward’s criterion? J Classif 31:274–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-014-9161-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lefever DW (1926) Measuring geographic concentration by means of the standard deviational ellipse. Am J Sociol 32:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/214027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yuill RS (1971) The standard deviational ellipse; an updated tool for spatial de scription. Geogr Annaler Ser B Human Geogr 53:28–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/490885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gong J (2002) Clarifying the standard deviational ellipse. Geogr Anal 34:155–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.2002.tb01082.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. He Y, Chen Y, Tang H et al (2011) Exploring spatial change and gravity center movement for ecosystem services value using a spatially explicit ecosystem services value index and gravity model. Environ Monit Assess 175:563–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1551-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Du Q, Zhou J, Pan T et al (2019) Relationship of carbon emissions and economic growth in China’s construction industry. J Clean Prod 220:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yao J, He X, Chen W (2018) The latest progress in ecosystem service flow research methods. Chin J Appl Ecol 29:335–342. https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201801.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Li J, Yang L, Yang L et al (2018) Quantitative assessment of urban ecosystem services flow based on entropy theory: a case study of Beijing, China. Chin J Appl Ecol 29:987–996. https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201803.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Johnson GW, Bagstad KJ, Snapp RR et al (2018) Service path attribution networks (SPANs): spatially quantifying the flow of ecosystem services from landscapes to people. International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12156-2_18

  42. Guo Z, Xiao X, Li D (2000) An assessment of ecosystem services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. Ecol Appl 10:925–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Serna Chavez HM, Schulp C, Van Bodegom P et al (2014) A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 39:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S et al (2012) Mapping supply, demand and budgets of ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:17–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Xu G, Ren W, Guo S et al (2017) Analyses on the development of lake complex eco system health based on entropy theory. China Environ Sci 37:795–800

    Google Scholar 

  46. Greenhalgh S, Samarasinghe O, Curran-Cournane F (2017) Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: is it a way to protect finite soil resources. Ecosyst Serv 27:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Smart City, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China

    Dongjie Guan

  2. School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China

    Lilei Zhou

Authors
  1. Dongjie Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lilei Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, The University of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu, Japan

    Weijun Gao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Guan, D., Zhou, L. (2023). Qualitative Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Services Based on GIS. In: Gao, W. (eds) Digital Analysis of Urban Structure and Its Environment Implication. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6641-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation