Research on the Patterns and Evolution of Ecosystem Service Consumption in the “Belt and Road”

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.06.007

Abstract

Abstract:

With great significance in ecosystem protection and sustainable development, the study of ecosystem service consumption (ESC) has become a hot topic in ecological research. Based on FAOSTAT data, in this study the patterns, composition and evolution of ESC and ecosystem service consumption patterns (ESCP) in the “Belt and Road” were revealed on the total and regional scales, taking consumed-biomass as a main indicator. Three main conclusions were reached. 1) The total ESC was mainly contributed from farmland ecosystems along the “Belt and Road” , followed by grassland ecosystems. The ESC indicators on the whole system scale fluctuated, but increased from year 2000 to year 2016. The total ESC increased from 12911.89 Tg yr ^-1 to 16810.00 Tg yr ^-1, and the annual per capita consumption of ecosystem services increased from 3.3228 million g p ^-1 yr ^-1 to 3.6392 million g p ^-1 yr ^-1. 2) The ESC, composition and evolution varied significantly among countries, zones and ecosystems. The annual per capita ESC was highest in Mongolia on the national scale, and highest in Central and Eastern Europe and lowest in Southeast Asia on zone scale, which represented the results from the joint effects of regional resource endowments, consumption habits, levels of productive forces, and other factors. 3) Higher farmland ESC was the dominant ESCP, which accounted for about 76.7% of the total area along the “Belt and Road”, followed by higher farmland + higher grassland ESC, which accounted for about 19.0% of the total area. The other consumption patterns (i.e., those of higher grassland ESC, higher forestland ESC or higher farmland + higher forest + higher grassland ESC) were found in only a few countries. The ESCP may be related to higher regional population density or the higher proportions of developing countries. Therefore, to realize sustainable social, economic and ecological development, and to improve people's well-being, countries along the “Belt and Road” should take advantage of their own resources in developing industries, actively expand trade, achieve mutual benefits and win-win situations, and adjust and optimize consumption patterns of ecosystem services. This study can provide data support for further research on the mechanism of ESCP formation this area.

Key words: ecosystem services, ecosystem service consumption, farmland ecosystem service consumption, grassland ecosystem service consumption, forest ecosystem service consumption, ecosystem service consumption pattern

ZHANG Changshun, ZHEN Lin, LIU Chunlan, LIANG Yihang. Research on the Patterns and Evolution of Ecosystem Service Consumption in the “Belt and Road”[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(6): 621-631.

Figures/Tables 10

References 23

1	Chen A, Li R, Wang H , et al. 2015. Quantitative assessment of human appropriation of aboveground net primary production in China. Ecological Modelling, 312(24):54-60. DOI URL
2	Du W . 2018. Study on Ecological Carrying Capacity based on Ecological Supply and Consumption—Taking Hainan for Example. MSc diss., Chang' an University. (in Chinese).
3	Fetzel T, Niedertscheider M, Haberl H , et al. 2016. Patterns and changes of land use and land-use efficiency in Africa 1980-2005: An analysis based on the human appropriation of net primary production framework. Regional Environmental Change, 16(5):1507-1520. DOI URL
4	WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2004. Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland: Avenue du Mont-Blanc. DOI URL PMID
5	Guo H, Cai J, Yang Z . 2013. Modeling for measuring city food footprint with applied empirical analysis. Journal of Natural Resources, 28(3):417-425. (in Chinese) DOI URL
6	Haberl H . 1997. Human appropriation of net primary production as an environmental indicator: implications for sustainable development. Ambio, 26(3):143-146.
7	Helmut H, K Heinz E, K Fridolin , et al. 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(31):12942-12947. DOI URL PMID
8	Imhoff M L, Bounoua L, Ricketts T , et al. 2004. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature, 429(6994):870-873. DOI URL PMID
9	Kastner T . 2009. Trajectories in human domination of ecosystems: Human appropriation of net primary production in the Philippines during the 20th century. Ecological Economics, 69(2):260-269. DOI URL
10	Kastner T, Erb K, Haberl H . 2015. Global Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production for Biomass Consumption in the European Union, 1986- 2007. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5):825-836. DOI URL PMID
11	Lindeman R L . 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23(4):399-418. DOI URL
12	Liu J Y. 2005. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of Western China. Beijing: China Meteorological Press.
13	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington D C: Island Press.
14	Norbaard R B . 2009. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69(6):1219-1227. DOI URL
15	Pan L, Yan H, Huang H , et al. 2012. Multi-agent modeling method of reasonable consumption of ecosystem service:A case of the Farming Pastoral Zone in Inner Mongolia. Resources Science, 34(6):1007-1016. (in Chinese)
16	Plutzar C, Kroisleitner C, Haberl H , et al. 2015. Changes in the spatial patterns of human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in Europe 1990-2006. Regional Environmental Change, 41(7):1-14.
17	Tian M, Shi Y, Huang Y , et al. 2016. An empirical analysis of effects of economic development and forest product trade on wood consumption in china. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 52(9):113-123. (in Chinese) DOI URL
18	Vitousek P M, Mooney H A, Lubchenco J , et al. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277(5325):494-499. DOI URL
19	Wu S . 2017. Economic development of countries along the Belt and Road. Review of Economic Research, 15:16-45. (in Chinese) DOI URL PMID
20	Xiao J . 2009. The dependence of traditional brewing industry and grain production in the republic of China (1912-1949). Social Science Journal, ( 2):139-145. (in Chinese)
21	Yan H, Zhen L, Li F , et al. 2012. Measurement method of reasonable consumption for ecosystem productivity supply service: A case study of Inner Mongolia grassland transect. Resources Science, 34(6):998-1006. (in Chinese)
22	Zhen L, Liu X, Wei Y . 2008. Consumption of ecosystem services: models,measurement and management framework. Resources Science, 30(1):100-106. (in Chinese)
23	Zhen L, H Yan, Y Hu , et al. 2012. Consumption of ecosystem goods and services and its impact assessment. Resources Science, 34(6):989-997. (in Chinese)

Crop type	Harvest index	Moisture content	Crop type	Harvest index	Moisture content
Rice	0.50	0.13	Rapeseed	0.26	0.09
Maize	0.49	0.13	Sesame	0.34	0.09
Wheat	0.46	0.13	Sunflower	0.32	0.09
Grain	0.31	0.13	Other oilseeds	0.36	0.09
Other Cereals	0.38	0.13	Sugar beets	0.71	0.133
Sorghum	0.31	0.13	Sugarcane	0.7	0.133
Barley	0.49	0.13	Fiber Crops	0.38	0.133
Beans	0.42	0.13	Tobacco	0.61	0.082
Potato	0.59	0.133	Vegetables	0.49	0.82
Other roots	0.67	0.133	Fruits	0.49	0.82
Cotton	0.16	0.083	Tea	0.71	0.08
Peanut	0.50	0.09	-	-	-

Crop type	Harvest index	Moisture content	Crop type	Harvest index	Moisture content
Rice	0.50	0.13	Rapeseed	0.26	0.09
Maize	0.49	0.13	Sesame	0.34	0.09
Wheat	0.46	0.13	Sunflower	0.32	0.09
Grain	0.31	0.13	Other oilseeds	0.36	0.09
Other Cereals	0.38	0.13	Sugar beets	0.71	0.133
Sorghum	0.31	0.13	Sugarcane	0.7	0.133
Barley	0.49	0.13	Fiber Crops	0.38	0.133
Beans	0.42	0.13	Tobacco	0.61	0.082
Potato	0.59	0.133	Vegetables	0.49	0.82
Other roots	0.67	0.133	Fruits	0.49	0.82
Cotton	0.16	0.083	Tea	0.71	0.08
Peanut	0.50	0.09	-	-	-

Livestock	Conversion coefficient	Livestock	Conversion coefficient
Sheep	1.0	Mule	5.0
Goat	0.8	Camel	8.5
Cattle	6.5	Rabbit	0.125
Buffalo	7.0	Pig	1.5
Yak	4.5	Goose	0.2
Horse	5.5	Chicken	0.05
Ass	3.0	Pigeon	0.02

Livestock	Conversion coefficient	Livestock	Conversion coefficient
Sheep	1.0	Mule	5.0
Goat	0.8	Camel	8.5
Cattle	6.5	Rabbit	0.125
Buffalo	7.0	Pig	1.5
Yak	4.5	Goose	0.2
Horse	5.5	Chicken	0.05
Ass	3.0	Pigeon	0.02

Consumption patterns	Average ratios of grassland/farmland/ forestland (%)	2000		2005		2010		2016
Consumption patterns	Average ratios of grassland/farmland/ forestland (%)	Number of counries	Area (10⁴ km²)	Number of countries	Area (10⁴ km²)	Number of countries	Area (10⁴ km²)	Number of countries	Area (10⁴ km²)
Higher farmland (I)	20.54/63.34/16.11	37	3641.92	45	4068.22	44	3888.74	42	3919.80
Higher forestland (II)	14.63/21.07/64.29	3	14.75	1	3.76	3	14.75	5	18.20
Higher grassland (III)	93.68/3.85/2.47	1	156.58	1	156.58	1	156.58	1	156.58
Higher farmland + higher grassland (IV)	48.72/44.30/6.98	20	1131.26	16	818.05	16	964.58	16	930.07
Higher farmland + higher forest + higher grassland (V)	21.52/44.69/33.79	4	113.09	2	11.00	1	32.95	1	32.95