Journal of Geographical Sciences

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 323–333 | Cite as

The impact of global cropland changes on terrestrial ecosystem services value, 1992–2015

  • Yuanyuan Li
  • Minghong TanEmail author
  • Haiguang Hao


From 1992 to 2015, ecological environment has been threatened by the changes of cropland around the world. In order to evaluate the impact of cropland changes on ecosystem, we calculated the response of terrestrial ecosystem service values (TESVs) variation to cropland conversion based on land-use data from European Space Agency (ESA). The results showed that cropland changes were responsible for an absolute loss of $166.82 billion, equivalent to 1.17% of global TESVs in 1992. Among the different regions, the impact of cropland changes on TESVs was significant in South America and Africa but not obvious in Oceania, Asia and Europe. Cropland expansion from tropical forest was the main reason for decreases in TESVs globally, especially in South America, Africa and Asia. The effect of wetland converted to cropland was notable in North America and Europe while grassland converted to cropland played an important role in Oceania, Africa and Asia. In Europe, the force of urban expansion cannot be ignored as well. The conversion of cropland to tropical or temperate forest partly compensated for the loss of TESVs globally, especially in Asia.


terrestrial ecosystem services values (TESVs) cropland conversion global 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antonelli M, Siciliano G, Turvani M E et al., 2015. Global investments in agricultural land and the role of the EU: Drivers, scope and potential impacts. Land Use Policy, 47(52): 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bren d’Amour C, Reitsma F, Baiocchi G et al., 2017. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(34): 8939–8944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown D S, Brown, J C, Brown C, 2016. Land occupations and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 54: 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai W B, Gibbs D, Zhang L et al., 2017. Identifying hotspots and management of critical ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta Region, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 191: 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conigliani C, Cuffaro N, D’Agostino G, 2018. Large-scale land investments and forests in Africa. Land Use Policy. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17300.91528.Google Scholar
  6. Costanza R, Arge R D, de Groot R et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(1): 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P et al., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26(1): 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahl T E, 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. Research.Google Scholar
  9. Damien A, Isabelle T, Christovam B et al., 2017. Land use sustainability on the South-Eastern Amazon agricultural frontier: Recent progress and the challenges ahead. Applied Geography, 80: 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S et al., 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1): 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Defries R S, Houghton R A, Hansen M C et al., 2002. Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(22): 14256–14261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dupras J, Alam M, 2014. Urban sprawl and ecosystem services: A half century perspective in the Montreal area (Quebec, Canada). Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(2): 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Space Agency (ESA), 2017. Land cover CCI product user guide version 2.0. /CCI/viewer/, accessed on 10.05.2017.Google Scholar
  14. FAOSTAT, Statistics Division (ESS), Environment Statistics Team, FAO, 2017. data/LC.Google Scholar
  15. Fu B L, Li Y, Wang Y Q et al., 2016. Evaluation of ecosystem service value of riparian zone using land use data from 1986 to 2012. Ecological Indicators, 69: 873–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbs H, Ruesch A, Achard F et al., 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38): 16732–16737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iizumi T, Ramankutty N, 2015. How do weather and climate influence cropping area and intensity? Global Food Security, 4: 46–50.Google Scholar
  18. Johansson E L, Fader M, Seaquist J W et al., 2016. Green and blue water demand from large-scale land acquisitions in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(41): 11471–11476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston R J, Rosenberger R S, 2010. Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(3): 479–510.Google Scholar
  20. Kubiszewski I., Costanza R, Anderson S et al., 2017. The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services, 26: 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambin E F, Meyfroidt P, 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9): 3465–3472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laurance W F, Sayer J, Cassman K G, 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(2): 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li G D, Fang C L, 2014. Global mapping and estimation of ecosystem services values and gross domestic product: A spatially explicit integration of national ‘green GDP’ accounting. Ecological Indicators, 46: 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu X, Shi Y Y, Chen C L et al., 2017. Monitoring cropland transition and its impact on ecosystem services value in developed regions of China: A case study of Jiangsu Province. Land Use Policy, 69: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mann M L, Kaufmann R K, Bauer D M et al., 2012. Ecosystem service value and agricultural conversion in the Amazon: Implications for policy intervention. Environmental and Resource Economics, 53(2): 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niquisse S, Cabral P, 2017. Assessment of changes in ecosystem service monetary values in Mozambique. Environmental Development. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2017.09.003.Google Scholar
  27. Piao S L, Ciais P, Huang Y et al., 2010. The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature, 467(7311): 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinke Z, Kiss M, Lövei G L, 2018. Developing an integrated land use planning system on reclaimed wetlands of the Hungarian Plain using economic valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 30: 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quintas-Soriano C, Martín-López B, Santos-Martín F et al., 2016. Ecosystem services values in Spain: A meta- analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 55(2): 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schoneveld G C, 2014. The geographic and sectoral patterns of large-scale farmland investments in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 48(1): 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoneveld G C, 2017. Host country governance and the African land rush: 7 reasons why large-scale farmland investments fail to contribute to sustainable development. Geoforum, 83: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sheng W P, Zhen L, Xie G D et al., 2017. Determining eco-compensation standards based on the ecosystem services value of the mountain ecological forests in Beijing, China. Ecosystem Services, 26: 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shi X L, Wang W, Shi W J, 2016. Progress on quantitative assessment of the impacts of climate change and human activities on cropland change. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(3): 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smaliychuk A, Müller D, Prishchepov A V et al., 2016. Recultivation of abandoned agricultural lands in Ukraine: Patterns and drivers. Global Environmental Change, 38: 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Song W, Deng X Z, 2017. Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision in China. Science of the Total Environment, 576: 705–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Song W, Pijanowski B C, Tayyebi A, 2015. Urban expansion and its consumption of high-quality farmland in Beijing, China. Ecological Indicators, 54: 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Song X P, 2018. Global estimates of ecosystem service value and change: Taking into account uncertainties in satellite-based land cover data. Ecological Economics, 143: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swinnen J, Burkitbayeva S, Schierhorn F et al., 2017. Production potential in the “bread baskets” of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Global Food Security, 14: 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tan M H, Li X B, Xie H et al., 2005. Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China: A case study of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Land Use Policy, 22(3): 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tilman D, Cassman K G, Matson P A et al., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger T C et al., 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1): 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2017. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2017 Revision, DVD Edition. Scholar
  43. Varis O, Kummu M, 2012. The major Central Asian river basins: An assessment of vulnerability. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3): 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vliet J V, Eitelberg D A, Verburg P H, 2017. A global analysis of land take in cropland areas and production displacement from urbanization. Global Environmental Change, 43: 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinzettel J, Hertwich E G, Peters G P et al., 2013. Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(2): 433–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xie G D, Lu C X, Leng Y F et al., 2003. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources, 18: 189–196. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  47. Xie G D, Zhang C X, Zhen L et al., 2017. Dynamic changes in the value of China’s ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 26: 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang W L, Xu A G, Ji H J et al., 2004. Estimation of agricultural non-point source pollution in China and the alleviating strategies III. A review of policies and practices for agricultural non-point source pollution control in China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 43(9): 1965–1970. (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science in China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and SimulationInstitute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CASBeijingChina
  2. 2.International CollegeUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk AssessmentChinese Research Academy of Environmental SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations