Telecoupling between urban expansion and forest ecosystem service loss through cultivated land displacement: A case study of Zhejiang Province, China

Urbanization can either directly occupy forests or indirectly lead to forest loss elsewhere through cultivated land displacement, resulting in further forest fragmentation and ecosystem service (ES) loss. However, the effects of urban expansion on forest area and ESs are unknown, and this is especia...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of environmental management 2024-04, Vol.357, p.120695-120695, Article 120695
Hauptverfasser: Ma, Shuai, Deng, Guangyi, Wang, Liang-Jie, Hu, Haibo, Fang, Xianghua, Jiang, Jiang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Urbanization can either directly occupy forests or indirectly lead to forest loss elsewhere through cultivated land displacement, resulting in further forest fragmentation and ecosystem service (ES) loss. However, the effects of urban expansion on forest area and ESs are unknown, and this is especially true for indirect effects. Taking Zhejiang Province, China, a typical deforested province, as an example, this study quantified the direct and indirect effects of urban expansion on forest area and five ESs (timber yield, water yield, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, and biodiversity) from 2000 to 2020, explored the relationship between forest structure (forest proportion, mean patch area, edge density, and mean euclidean nearest neighbor distance) change and ESs, and revealed the telecoupling of urban expansion and forest loss and cascade effects among urbanization, deforestation, forest structure, and ESs. The results indicated that the indirect forest loss (4.30%–6.15%) caused by cultivated land displacement due to urban expansion was larger than the direct forest loss (2.42%). Urban expansion has a greater negative impact on carbon sequestration (6.40%–8.20%), water yield (6.08%–7.78%), and biodiversity (5.79%–7.44%) than on timber yield (4.77%–6.17%) and soil conservation (4.43%–5.77%). The indirect forest ES loss was approximately 2.83–4.34 times greater than the direct forest ES loss. Most forest ESs showed a nonlinear significant positive correlation with changes in forest proportion and mean patch area and a significant nonlinear negative correlation with changes in edge density and mean Euclidean nearest neighbor distance (p 
ISSN:0301-4797
1095-8630
DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120695