Full text
1. Introduction
Ecosystem services (ES) are goods and services that are directly or indirectly related to human well-being and sustainability, and the supply of ecosystem services is subject to specific land-use structures and patterns [1]. However, emerging evidence shows that land-use changes can make fundamental impacts on ecosystem services provisioning [2]. It has been estimated that the global loss of ES value (ESV) can reach 4.3–20.2 trillion USD/year due to the land-use change [3]. A significant decline in global loss of ES value is also reported in China, which is 4.18–91.09 billion USD from 1988 to 2008 [4]. Moreover, in a small region of Nigeria, land-use changes led to a 4.83% decline in total ESV during 2000–2010 [5]. Facing this increasingly worsening situation, it has great significance to enhance the sustainable development through considering the ESV losses.
In principle, expansion of built-up land would change local land-use structures and patterns, thus directly affecting the supply of ES. For example, the heavy use of cultivated land will exert direct impacts on food production [6,7]. On the other hand, the land-use changes can strongly affect local climatic conditions [8], resulting in indirect responses of ESV to land-use changes, such as biodiversity loss [9]. Therefore, the trade-off between economic benefits and ESV losses needs to be addressed in the process of rapid urbanization. The dissection of the trade-off can provide important clues for sustainable development [10,11]. Currently, scholars have conducted a lot of meaningful work to ease this trade-off. For example, payments for ecosystem services (PES) is recommended as an efficient economic tool that can internalize the ecological cost into specific policy making [12]. In addition, economists are trying to construct a framework of the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA), which can provide valuable information for sustainable policy-making [13].
In the process of urbanization in China, there are many issues associated with land-use, such as disordered exploitation, leave unused, low land-use efficiency, and so on [14,15]. Intensive land-use has been considered as an effective way to improve land-use efficiency. In general, high land-use efficiency means more economic benefits with less inputs per unit area [16]. The economic output per unit area has been used to represent land-use efficiency [17]. More generally, the non-parametric model, slacks-based model...
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer




