Eco. Compensation

Areas Benefiting from Water Conservation in Key Ecological Function Areas in China

  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
    2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Received date: 2015-10-21

  Online published: 2015-11-25


Ecosystem services are transferred from the service-providing area to the service-benefiting area to satisfy human needs through some substance, energy or information. Most studies focus on the provision of ecosystem services and few focus on the demands on ecosystem services and their spatial distribution. Here, on the basis of the flow of water conservation services from the providing area to the benefiting area, the benefits produced by water conservation service are investigated and the benefiting areas are identified. The results indicate that in 2010 the water conservation service of key ecological function areas provided irrigation water for 1.67×105 km2 of paddy fields and 1.01×105 km2 irrigated fields, domestic water to urban residents and industrial water to factories, mines and enterprises of 2.64×104 km2 urban construction land and domestic water to rural residents across 3.73×104 km2 of rural settlements and formed 6.64×104 km2 of inland water which can be used for freshwater aquaculture, downstream regions comprise 1.31×104 km of navigable river, which can be used for inland shipping. The benefit areas of the key function areas located in the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River are greater and more influential benefit areas. To protect these key function areas, more attention should be paid to the maintenance and improvement of water conservation. Some benefit areas have access to the benefits produced by water conservation of nine key ecological function areas and cover 17% of the overall benefit area and the length of their channels benefited accounts for 7%. Multiple key ecological function areas should be taken into account equally in the formulation of ecological compensation policies. These research findings can serve as a scientific basis for the compensated use of and ecological compensation for ecosystem services provided by key ecological function areas.

Cite this article

XIAO Yu, ZHANG Changshun, XU Jie . Areas Benefiting from Water Conservation in Key Ecological Function Areas in China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2015 , 6(6) : 375 -385 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2015.06.005


[1] Anton C, J Young, P Harrison, et al. 2010. Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(10): 2979-2994.
[2] Bagstad K J, D Semmens, R Winthrop, et al. 2012. Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey.
[3] Bagstad K J, D J Semmens and R Winthrop. 2013. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosystem Services, 5: 40-50.
[4] Brauman K A, GC Daily, T K Duarte and H A Mooney. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32: 67-98.
[5] Burkhard B, F Kroll, S Nedkov and F Müller. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21: 17-29.
[6] Costanza R, R dArge, R deGroot, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630): 253-260.
[7] de Groot R S, R Alkemade, L Braat, et al. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3): 260-272.
[8] Fisher B, R K Turner and P Morling. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3): 643-653.
[9] Hein L, K van Koppen, R S de Groot and E C van Ierland. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2): 209-228.
[10] Kontogianni A, G W Luck and M Skourtos. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecological Economics, 69(7): 1479-1487.
[11] Kroll F, F Müller, D Haase and N Fohrer. 2012. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy, 29(3): 521-535.
[12] MA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC.: Island Press.
[13] Maass J M, P Balvanera, A Castillo, et al. 2005. Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: Insights from long-term ecological and social research on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Ecology and Society, 10(1): 17.
[14] Palomo I, B Martín-López, M Potschin, et al. 2013. National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services, 4: 104-116.
[15] Sherrouse B C, J M Clement and D J Semmens. 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 31(2): 748-760.
[16] Wendland K J, M Honzák, R Portela, et al. 2010. Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 2093-2107.
[17] Zander K K and A Straton. 2010. An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Ecological Economics, 69(12): 2417-2426.
[18] Zhang Z X, Wang X, Wang C Y, et al. 2009. National land cover mapping by remote sensing under the control of interperted data. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 11(2): 216-224. (in Chinese)